The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-15 00:00:00

EVENIINTG,

SAtTLTRDA

Cardinal 'Wiseman that did not suit Dr. Cumming, not the
temporal aggression which the Bill professed to deal with.
Again, he (Mr. M. Gibson) would take the letter of the
Noble Lord himself, dated Downing-street, November, 1850,
and printed for distribution at ss. per 1,000 on unstamped
paper—(Laughter)—contrary to the Act of Parliament in
that case made and provided—(Laughter)—whereby every
one selling or buying a copy was subjected to a penalty of
201. The Noble Lord said that the aggression of the Pope
was on the Protestantism of England—on an ism, on an
opinion, it would be remarked, not on the temporal power or
authority of the Queen. That warranted him (Mr. M.
Gibson) in
.coMing to the conclusion that the -real
desire of the promoters of the measure was to keep the Ro-
man Catholic religion from spreading in the country by
means of penal laws. Another authority he should quote
was the Rev. Dr. APNeile's speech at a meeting in St. Mar-
tin's Hall, the Duke of Manchester in the chair— an autho-
rity which the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford
would-admit to be unimpeachable on his side of the question.
That Reverend Gentleman "had- 'denounced domestic inter-
course as between British Christians and Roman Catholics,
and said that if their sons and daughters should touch the
unclean thing - (Laughter)—their parents would be alone to
blame. They should deny, therefore, all domestic inter-
course between them, otherwise they would go on with the
unclean thing ( Laughter) - and take it to their breasts,
until at length it turned round and stung them.— (Loud
laughter.) That was, however, a speech against Papal ag
gression. The Noble Lord did not in the slightest degree
meet the objections of the Reverend Gentleman, who was a
member of that State Church whose rights were to be vin-
dicated, and a sort of attachment to it got up by villitying
the Roman Catholic religion—a mode of proceeding which
tallied exactly .with the recommendation of a late Noble
Viscount; at the head of a certain party, to his friends,
"Don't praise us, but abuse our enemies—that's the wet, to
create an attachment to us."ss (Laughter.) In the letter of
the Noble Lord, which began the movement, a movement
however which had not reached the- working classes, that
Noble Lord had himself committed an aggression on the
Protestantism of the country, by propounding a code of
Downing-street divinity.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
Noble Lord, while contending fur the invaluable privilege of
private judgment in matters of conscience, took upon-him-
self to point out what was superstition and what was not, in
the practice of the Established Church of the country, al-
though the competent. tribunal only the other day had de-
clined deciding the question of infant baptism and prevenient
grace., But supposing the Noble Lord had a right to lay
down that doctrine, the policy of doing so could not be a ques-
tion. For it might so happen that a Roman Catholic Prime
Minister might do the same; and that a Unitarian Premier
would, with equal right, condemn the Trinity. Still, as-
suming it to be not alone right, but expedient, 'for the Noble
Lord to settle the difference", that existed among many.
conscientious members of. the Church in this, mat-
ter, was the existence of those. differences any
reason why he should bring in a Bill to impose
pains and penalties upon the Roman Catholics, who
had nothing whatever to do with them ?—(Hear.) Indeed,
he (Mr. Gibson) could not for the life of him conceive why
what was called.Puseyism was pressed into the question of
Papal aggression at all. The House was called on, however,
to pass a law against Roman Catholics because the Pope ap-
pointed these bishops • but the Noble Lord had made an un-
worthy use of the word " govern,"" to be found in the pas-
toral of one of these bishops, seeing that it could obviously
mean nothing except the spiritual government of the Roman
Catholics. It was agreed on all .hands that the intercourse
of the Roman Catholics with Rome should be unrestricted,
and that. the Pope had a right to appoint their bishops. The
Government, however, was going now to narrow and lessen
the relgious.liberty conceded by the Emancipation Act. It
was urged that the proceeding of the Pope was an act of
aggression on the rights of this country and the supremacy
of the Queen; but in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion such an ars
gument was mere clap-trap. He regretted that the speech
of the Noble Lord was calculated to prejudice the House as
against the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and he maintained that
in respect. -to secular education no such tolerance was to be
found among the bishops of the Church of England as had been
manifested-at the Synod' of 'nudes, when 13 bishops of the
Roman Catholic Church voted against it, and 12 for it. The
Noble Lord had quoted M. Dupin as against the Church of
Rome. He (Mr. G.) would in return quote M. Guisot,
a great Protestant authority, on the Church of England.
That writer said " the English Church is 'as corrupt as
ever was the Church Cf Rome, and far More selfish."—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then proceeded to argue
that.the,Church of England had committed aggression in
other countries of a far more serious character than that
imputed to the Church of Rome in this •, and he instanced
the case of some missionaries at Fow Choo Fow in China,
who, according to the Overland Mail of the 28th November,
1850, had forcibly taken possession of a temple, and held
it us against the townsfolk. He also instanced the case of
the Rev. Dr. Brittelheim, a
,Hungarian Jew by birth, but
a converted Christian, and a naturalised or adopted En-
glishman, in the island of Loo Choo, who had had a
steam-slqop dispatched specially to ascertain hew he was
getting, on; and on whose account the Government at
Hong-Kong remonstrated with the local authorities when
he was assaulted by the police, in the same manner as
another European state demanded this country should in-
terfere in a recent riot in the vicinity of the river. Now
that was a description of oppression which the British Go-
vernment ought not to authorise ; and he for one should be
prepared to advocate resistance to it, it it were attempted
-in this co .ntry. He complimented the Noble Lord on his
statement that he did not like the interference' of ectle-
siast
notwithstandingcsinsechl
arandte
thatmpora nt
I isntaattetemrse. that.Butb theer egretted
to find,i Noble
Lord, in the course of the speech with which
he had favoured the House 'had quoted but two au-
thorities that bore on the matter in hand, and those
two were ecclesiastics. The Noble Lord had told
them that the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of
Canterbury had expressed to .bini their belief that there
ought not to be any persecution in that case, but 'that
legislative measures ought to 'be passed for preventing
the assumption of titles by Roman Catholic bishops. Now
he (Mr. AI. Gibson) did nut think that those two prelates
were the proper persons to consult in such a matter as that.
lie certainly should not expect much impartiality from. Dr.
Blomfield while surrounded by the pomps and vanities of
the world, and not altogether exempt from the infirmities of
our nature—he should not expect much impartiality from
him, anxious, as he must naturally be, to " stand alone in
his glory " upon a point relating to the claims and met,- n-
sions of. a rival churchman. He did not think that Dr.
Blomneld, or even Dr. Sumner, was the most fitting guide
on such a subject. For his part; he would deal with that
matter, not on the advice of ecclesiastics of the Established
Church, but he would deal with it as a national question,
and he would base his legislation on- purely secular considera-
tions, looking only to-its fitness for promoting the peace,
happiness, and harmony of all classes of her Majesty's sub-
jects.--(Hear, hear.) 'lt he understood rightly the tendency
of the measure as explained by theHonSand'Lcarned Gen-
tleman the Attorney-General, he hoped there would yet be
inserted in the Bill a clause to the following effect: - " And
be it enacted, that this Act may be broken with impunity
during the present session and all future sessions of Parlia-
ment."—(Hear, hear, and laughtero He was persuaded that
the measure then before the House would be entirely mtge..
tory for any good purpose, and would' only produce great ir-
ritation, for, as had been well obserued by the Hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire,-it was but a piece of petty persecution.
To such a measure he, for one, should not give his support,
but would, on the contrary, use his utmost efforts to ensure
it rejection. s- (Cheers.)
Mr. C. BRUCE said that, however opposed he might be
to the' general polioy of her Majesty's Government, he
should never have thought of offering any opposition to the
introduction of such a measure as that then under their.
consideration; and neither should he have attempted for a
moment to have delayed the decision of the House upon the
subject. had' it not been that he felt most anxious to notice
a statement which had fallen from his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswald) on Wednesday last, to the
effect that the opinion of the people of Scotland was op-
posed to any interference with the recent'acts of the Papal
aggression. He (Mr. C. Nlco) believed that his Hon.
Friend, in making that statement, had completely misrepre-
sented the feeling of the people of Scotland upon that
question ; and he felt it his duty to protest against any
allegation so monstrous as that the people of that country—
the people perhaps the most opposed in all Christen-
dom to the errors of the Church of Rome should
be indifferent to the attempt of their brethren in this
country to resist the assumptions of Romanism. But
it was said that the people of Scotland had taken no
active steps in that matter. The fact was that the people of
that country were not Very apt to volunteer their services
when they knew that those services were not wanted. -They
had such reliance on the firmness, energy, love of truth, and
attachment to the principles of civil and religious liberty
principles to which the Church of Rome had ever been
opposed—they had such reliance on those qualities of Eng-
lish character, that they felt assured the people of England
would be able, without an extrinsic aid, successfully to resist
that aggression. He would venture to say, on behalf 'of
the great majority of the people of Scotland, that if their
brethren at this side-of the Tweed required their assistance
-to prevent that unjust, ill-timed,- and most unwarrantable
aggression, such assistance would at once be forthcoming,—
(Hear.) His Hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire had
said that the Government had not interfered with the Free
Church Establishment jet Scotland But there was the
greatest difference between that establishment and the new
Roman
Hon. me
proved,Another
relay. In the one case they had the
actof CatholicaProtest hierarchy,
ttoalerant Church for spiritual objects, while
in the other they had the act of a Church which, as the ex-
perience up temporal
had statedralwithits
that the
of a
spiritual pretensions.
prelates ages
esof the Episcopal Church of Scotland had
aasumed the titles of ancient sees .without any objection on
the part of the Government But between that case also
and the' one then under the consideration of the House
there was no real analogy. The Scottish Prelates assumed
the titles of sees for which there were no other claimants,
and there was nothing in the proceeding that could be con-
sidered of an aggressive character, With respect to the
speech by which the Noble Lord had introduced that mea-
sure, be should observe that the people of Scotland would in
his belief consider that speech as worthy of the Protestant
Minister of a Protestant Sovereign—(Hear)—addressing a
Parliament which the'. liberal spirit of Protestantism had
thrown open to Christians of all denominations. But with
respect to thelßill itself, he confessed that he could not
thielt it went far enbugh.—(Hear.) He believed that the
Noble Lord must not content himself with prohibiting titles;
he believed that the Noble Lord must render penal the in-
troduction ot,bulls and rescrivess--(Hear.) He believed that
he must put down by law all monkeries--grey, white, or any
other colour. He believed that unless the Noble Lord went
the justice of the case. But
---namons would then be want-
ing in its duty. if it refused to sanction the introduction of a
measure having for its object 'to give effect te the declared
wishes of the Protestant people of this country.—(Divide.)
htheattlioleungghtth, thathe would
sets
lo notuse satisfy r.,,isfy
Mr. F. MAULE said he was glad to perceive on the part
of
theyus to disposition
a to
division, brin a
( Heat', bean) But he wished to address a few words to them
before
should first draw
their' 'attention to the.speech of , his Hon. Friend who had
be
just sat down ; and wished contrast with that speech
t o
proceeded
He debate to a close
the speeches of those Hon. Members who had advocated a
decidedly opposite view of the question. Ile believed that
those conflicting speeches would serve to show, at least,
that her Majesty's Government bad steered a middle course
in that matter• between two violent extremes. His Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Alancheater (Mr. M. Gibson)
had said that they ought to legislate upon a national view
of that question; and he (Mr. F. Manic) said so too. But
his Right Hon. Friend Would not allow Parliament to in-
terfere in such a matter as the appointment of
bishops. But it
• appeared to him (Mr. F. Maule)
that that House ought not to confine i's labours to matters
connected with taxation and the material wants of the
people, but that it .was their duty to maintain the Protestant
constitution of this country—(Hear, hear)—as established by
the unwritten law and the customs handed down to them by
their forefathers, and entrusted to them as a sacred deposit,
which they were
to deliver unimpaired to those. who•were to
follow them.—(Hear, hears) It had been alleged by his
Right Hon. Friend that his Noble Friend had acted in that
matter upon the advice of the Bishop of London and of the
But his N ble Friend bad done
Archbishop of Canterbury. c,
no such thing. Ho had entertained the opinions of those
prelates, but had acted on his own views of' public policy.
Masters had pi6posed this measure on their own respon-