The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

religions opinioas, end the free and full performance of their
religous duties. But. I must draw a di ,Linction bet ween
penal laws directed against, religious opinions and Parliamen-
tary legishe ion directed against forei en usurp stion.— tr.
hear.) I know n.,t whether the Pope ::nil hie eelissaries
have violated the law or not, but L ,rd John Russell, e; his
celebrated letter, declared his intention to ascertain from the
law officers of the Crown whether the law had been violated,
and stated that if it had not been violated he would propose
no amendment of the law. I think the act of the Pope, in
itself of minor importance, was renderel infinitely more im-
portant by the insulting tone and offensive manner in which
it was, in the first instance, introduced—announced as the
act of an authority claiming jurisdiction over the realm of
England, and assuming to interfere with the undoubted
rights and prerogatives of the Crown and with the indepen-
dence of Parliament. I think that was a proceeding which
it was impossible, consistently with the dignity of the Crown
and of Parliament, to pass over—( Hear, hear)—but I cannot
say I approve of the mode in which it has been sought to
meet that insult. I cannot but think that the measure
which has been introduced by the Government bears upon
the face of it the marks of passion and of haste rather than
of mature and calm consideration ; and for my own part I con-
fess, if that were to be the extent of the legislation contem-
plated by the advisers of the Crown, I think with my Noble
Friend above me that it would be better not to legislate at
all than to legislate ineffectually. A strong feeling of indig-
nation has been raised on the part of the Protestant portion
of the community, vast indignation has been excited among
the Roman Catholics, and after all a measure is introduced
which will, I fear, be practically altogether inoperative. If
the law had not been violated, I think the offence would have
been more aptly met by a resolution of both Houses of Par-
liament, declaring in the first 'instance the unconstitutional
character of the aggression, not recognizing the validity of
titles which were assumed to be conferred, and declaring that
in virtue of those titles the holders or assumed holders of
them had neither precedence nor authority of any kind
within this realm. My Noble Friend above me may not
feel disposed to go so far as this. I think the Bill of the
Govetnment does not touch the real danger. I think it
touches the insult, and it touches it ineffectually; but the
real danger is this—the gradual growth and encroachment
of the power of the Pope, and of the prelates acting
under his authority, in interfering with matters not purely
and strictly religious—(Hear, hear)—and in assuming
to themselves powers which, if not in violation of the law
of the land, are at variance with that law. While I contend
that religious freedom ought to be strictly guaranteed, I say,
on the other hand, that Papal aggression ought to be as
strenuously resisted now as it was resisted in the days of our
ancestors—( Hear, hear)—but I frankly say that I am not
prepared to legislate upon this subject at the present moment.
I do not think the amount of information before us as to the
facts of the case justifies us in legislating, and this is a
question of all others upon which, if you do legislate, you
must legislate deliberately, upon full information, and in such
a manner as to make your legislation effective. I believe the
law is in a most anomalous state on this subject. The re-
cent amendments of the law have left, in this case, the ab-
surdity that it is declared high treason to introduce a bull or
rescript from Rome, yet, though the offence is declared to
be treason, the penalty is altogether taken away, and the
law is thus rendered wholly inoperative. There are various
assumptions of power in this country on the part of Roman
Catholics with which it is right that Parliament and the
country should be acquainted. For example, what effect
will the fact of the Roman Catholics bishops being enabled
to meet in synod have upon the binding character of their
enactments? Do they, by acting in an organized body, ob-
tain an authority recognised by all Roman Catholics as a
legislative authority, which when they are not so acting
they do not possess? If so, the question becomes of im •
portance, net whether there shall be a Roman Catholic
bishop of Birmingham, but whether there shall be in this
country an imperium in imperio, a body of men acting in
synod, and passing laws which, enforced by the most awful
of all penalties—the spiritual censures of the Church, have
a power over a vast portion of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation superior to that of the law of the land? In 1829
the Roman Catholic Relief Act introduced various restric-
tions which were called at the time securities for Pro-
testants. That measure required that registers should be
kept of the members of all religious communities, and sub-
jected to banishment persons who were not so registered.
Is that a power which it is necessary to possess ? If it is
necessary to possess it, why is it not exercised ? If it
is not intended to be exercised, why does it remain upon
your statute-book? We must, since 1829, have connived at
the gradual encroachments of the Roman Catholic Church.
We have shut our eyes to her encroachments on the law, but
we have shut our e) es intentionally. We should take care
that there shall be no connivance at such encroachments,—
that there shall be no alternative between that which we
prohibit and that which we distinctly allow. I think it un-
just and unwise to prohibit by law that which you mean
to permit in practice. I conceive that there are grade
questions depending upon the position of Roman Catholics
in this country with regard to the rights of their own
Church, to the disposition of property, and the manner in
which trust property is held for Roman Catholic purposes.
I think it is a subject for inquiry how religious houses of va-
rious descriptions are carried on in this country; and it is a
grave question whether all religious houses should not be
subjected to the power of visitation, in order that it may be
ascertained that no persons are retained within them con-
trary to the law of the land. But upon the whole of this
question relative to the position of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation, with regard to this State and to a foreign power, I
believe that Parliament and the country are equally ill-
informed. If it be necessary that Roman Catholics should
have communications upon purely spiritual questions with
Rome, I say, do not shut your eyes to the fact that these
communicat ons take place; permit such communications
as may be necessary for purely religious purposes, but at
the same time effectually prevent any proceedings which
interfere with the civil rights of her Majesty's subjects.
This is a subject which ought to be dealt with upon a great
scale, temperately, deliberately, and upon full information ;
and the loss of one, or even of two years, if it were
necessary. would be an evil of little magnitude
compared with the evil of dealing hastily and ineffectually,
passionately, and in an irritating manner, with this great
and important question, the chief evils and dangers of
which you leave wholly untouched by your legislation.
I have recommended that, in both Houses of Parliament
inquiries should take place as to the actual relation
in which the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen stand
towards foreign powers and their own prelacy. I would
advise that this subject should be fully investigated, the
present anomalies of the law really exposed, and amend-
ments of the law suggested for the consideration of Parlia •
ment ; and, though I know the difficulties of dealing with
such a subject, I believe it would not be impracticable to in-
troduce measures which should secure this country from the
interference and usurpation of a foreign power, and at the
same time should not take from, but add to, the religious
freedom of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and place
the Roman Catholic laity in a condition far more satisfac-
tory to themselves than that in which they are at present—
under the uncontrolled domination of the bishops and '
clergy of their Church. I feel, my Lords, how greatly 1
ought to apologize for having detained you at this length.
I have failed in the task which the favour of my Sovereign
assigned me; but I have been placed in a position of great
difficulty, as, indeed, difficulties exist on all sides, arising out '
of the three or four complicated questions to which I have
alluded, that keep apart men between whom, upon other ques-
tions, there may be comparatively little difference of opinion.
However little authority I may pretend to, I was anxious
that my views should not be misinterpreted, and I trust your
Lordships will not think that I have unduly trespassed upon
your time in making a full and frank declaration of the
course of policy which, if I had been called to office, I
should have ventured to recommend. I trust you will be of
opinion that on the one band I have not been unduly ambi-
tious of power, and that, on the other hand, you will think
that I have neither unduly shrunk from responsibility nor
pertinaciously persevered in attempting to form a Govern-
ment when I saw it was impracticable. And I hope, above
all, that you will not see in any part of the course I have
pursued anything which would be discreditable to my mo-
tives, or derogatory from that fair character which I hold to
be the most inestimable possession of any statesman.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE.--I will not follow the
Noble Lord through the various topics to which he has
alluded in the course of his speech, but I am desirous of cor-
recting some misapprehension with respect to my description
of what passed between the Noble Lord and her Majesty.
What I said was, that the Noble Lord having been sent fbr by
her Majesty, and having been supposed to have been sent for
to undertake the task of forming an Administration, the
Noble Lord had left her Majesty, stating that he was
not then prepared to undertake that task ; and, if I am
not much mistaken, I laid a considerable emphasis on the
word " then," being aware that that did not apply to the
impossibility of undertaking the task under other circum-
stances. That was the state of things—the Noble Lord was
not then prepared ; and, in consequence of his not being
then prepared, my Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) was sent
for, who would not have been sent for if the Noble Lord had
been so prepared ; and,
.my Lords, upon that I thought it
would have been travelling out of my part if I attempted to
do that for the Noble Lord which he would soon after-
wards have the opportunity of doing for himself, namely—
on behalf of the Noble Lord, to develop and explain what
were the particular circumstances which then prevented him
from undertaking the task of forming an Administration. I
am extremely glad he has had the opportunity now. I was
aware that opportunity would soon afterwards present itself;
but I am bound to say the Noble Lord has availed himself
of it in a manner and in a spirit, and with a manliness of
purpose, that does honour to him in the explanation he has
made.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, having set that
matter right, I must refer for one moment to one most
important topic of the speech of the Noble Earl who spoke
immediately after me. In the course of the explanation by
that Noble Earl he has thought it necessary to advert, at
more length than I should have expected he would have
done on this occasion, not only to the circumstance—
which is quite correct—of the difference of opinion on the
subject of the Roman Catholic Bull having been the chief, if
not the only difference, which has occurred between him and
my Noble Friend Lord J. Russell ; but, in stating that
difference, he has proceeded at some length to characterize
the measure proposed by my Noble Friend in the other
House of Parliament. I could not sit still in this place
and hear that measure so characterized without protesting
against the justice of the character he has given to that
measure. lam distinctly anxious to state, that whereas
the Noble Earl has described that measure as one of a penal
character against the Roman Catholic religion,-1 am not
sure be did not introduced the word " persecution," a word
which I hope was uttered in an unguarded moment, but I
have only to state it was as far from the thought of my
Noble Friend,—l am sure it was as far from my thought as
it was from that of the Noble Earl,—to introduce or to carry
any measure the effect of which should be to direct
penal consequences against the exercise of the Roman
Catholic religion. I feel, and those who have thought with
me feel, that such a measure might be necessary under the
circumstances of that insult which has been offered to the
Crown and to the people of this countrv—to pass some
enactment vindicating the honour of the Jrown and the in-
dependence of the country. I nevertheless think we ought
to continue and tolerate the Roman Catholic religion, and
that to interf ore with its exercise by enactment would be a
gross injustice and absurdity, and attended with the worst
of consequences.—(Hear, hear.) I will not now enter into
the provisions of that Bill, but I will say that the ground
upon which it was introduced was simply that of protecting
this country against foreign influence (Hear, hear)—
that foreign influence making use of the Roman Catholic
religion as an instrument (Hear, hear)—and the intention
with which—l an not saying whether properly executed or
not—but the intention with which the measure was intro-
duced was to protect the Protestants and Roman Catholics—
(Hear)—the Protestant laity and Roman Catholic laity.,..
against intervention on the part of the Pope which had been
shown to be mischievous and dangerous before, and might
be mischievous and dangerous again. - (Hear.) That is the
distinction I wish to make ; far from having at any time
wished to debar persons professing the Roman Catholic re-
ligion in England or in Ireland from any of their privileges,
or any of those powers which are necessary to that exercise,
I shall feel it my duty at all times to facilitate that exercise,
and to protect that religion.—(Hear.) But, at the same
time that I do this, I feel it a duty incumbent en the Crown
and Parliament to defend the prerogative of the Crown when
that is openly attacked, and to maintain the independence of
, the country from foreign authority, dominion, or influence
whatever.—(Hear, hear.) Whenever a discussion on that