The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-04 00:00:00

LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND THE PAPAL
MOVEMENT

TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL.

My Leal,—Were Parliament Fitting thepresent letter
would nut be written, as I should then be able in your
Lordship's presence to speak that which I now feel com-
pelled to write. The extraordinary circr:mstances of the
pl'esent time induce me not to wait until the meeting of
Parliament, bnt at once to give expression to my opinions
concerning the mischiefs which now threaten the peace
of this empire; and I address myself to your Lordship
because I believe that great principles are in danger, and
that to you is attributable the imminent risk to which
they aro exposed.

The great principles that are thus inatiprilled are those
which your party and the great leadors of your party
have for above half a century resolutoly supported, and
to which the chiefs of every party have, during the pre-
sent century, rendered singular and h onourable homage
—which Mr. Pitt recognised and acted upon, when he
resigned and broke up his Government in 1801 ;
which Lord Grenville and the Whigs of his
Cabinet obeyed when, in 1807, they left (like, rather
than yiild to the unconstitutional demand of the
King, that they should pledge themselves never ags2n,
as a Ministry, to agitate the clues zion of the (3:titian
claims; which governed the conduct, of Lord Wellesley,
Mr. Canning, Mr. Grattan, Lord Grey, and a host be-
side, during the long and wearisome contest that fol-
lowed upon the great question of justice to be done to
the Roman Catholic tubjects of the Crown; and which,
at length, my Lord, induced the chiefs of your party, iu
1829, and yourself, as ono of their followers, to forego
all considerations of personal ambition and party aggran-
dizement, and give a hearty assistance to the Duke of
Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, when they, under com-
pulsion, consummated, as we believed, the victory of
common sense and justice, and, as we hoped, for ever laid
the foul demon of religious intolerance by passing the
celebrated measure for the relief of our Catholic fellow-
subjects from all civil disabilities. These, my Lord, are
the great principles which I believe now to be in danger,
and which you, in my opinion, have pat in peril.
But still you may ask—" What are these principles?"
And you may say, " Though you approve the acts you
mention, it by no means follows that you understand the
motives which led to them, or the principles which go-
verned the conduct you praise."

. -
I will answer the question which I suppose thus put.
I believe, then, that the great men whose names I
have cited, and whose deeds en the occasions referred to
I have presumed to praise, thought that, in an empire
like ours, in which are united under one Government
people professing every description of religions belief,
and who by law are permitted to exercise the right of
private judgment, and to support by argument, both in
writing and in spoken discourse, the truth and wisdom
of their own opinions, any attempt to degrade by law,
and by the imposition of civil disabilities, any one class
of believers, was not merely unjust, but in the highest
degree impolitic also, and that while any deprivation of
civil rights for such a cause was a gross injustice and
cruel injury—the affixing on them badges of social in-
feriority, because of the peculiarity of their faith,
would be an insult more galling still than injury—
and therefore it was that they said, make all men,
whether Catholics or Dissenters, equal before the law ;
and let us, under the inspiration of a generous philoso-
phy, and in accordance with the teaching of
experience, be wise in time ; and, forgetting those
mournful days when the friends of freedom thought
themselves compelled, for safety's sake, to be intolerant,
erase from our laws those cruel and impolitic enactments
which have made religion a curse instead of a blessing—
a cause of hate, and strife, and weakness, in place of being
a bond of peace, of unity, and strength.
In accordance with this dictate of justice and policy
Was the conduct of the Whig party when they, with
great honour to themselves, aided their opponents in
passing the Emancipation Act in 1829. They then
gloriously belied the oft-repeated imputation upon one
who was once a great Whig, and they did not
" Give up to party what was meant for mankind."
The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, I ac-
knowledge, acted on this occasion upon considerations
much narrower than those which were supposed to have
moved the Whigs. He and his Right Hon. Friend
thought peace and the continuance of Roman Catholic
disabilities impossible, and, simply because Ireland was
turbulent, the Duke of Wellington was content to be
just. He was just, however, only by accident. What
he thought expedient happened to coincide with what
justice demanded. Had his views of policy been differ-
ent—had his iron will still resisted, he would have
risked the chance of civil war, and scouted the Catholics
and their claims.

But to you, my Lord, I address myself as one of those
who laid their superstructure of policy upon the broad
foundations of a wise and generous morality. I may be
wrong; but I will suppose you clearly to have under-
stood the principles which you and your party enun-
ciated. I will even believe that you really foresaw, and
with a calm mind contemplated, the legitimate conse-
quences of the act which you advised and supported.
Remember, that your party drove the Duke of Welling-
hßey yielded;you r
supportstal l
mtunorienutonwcei
concession,
—Silair°lstteuhnerwtilPlienegll.y
the Catholics of Ireland were made to gather courage
and organize a resistance which at length rendered civil
war inevitable, if their claims had been any longer
denied. During the long discussions which preceded
the passing of the Emancipation Act every possible con-
sequence of the measure was deAnibed and threatened.
In spite, nevertheless, of every suggestion of danger,
the Whigs insisted upon concession, and cannot
now assert that they were not told and could
not foresee what tea since occurred. Neither
party rage, nor love of office, nor of praise, could so
have blinded you as to make the events of the last few
weeks a surprise. If, indeed, they were not foreseen,
then must you confess yourself a short-sighted politi-
cian. If, however, you did believe that such things
might happen, your present indignation must be feigned,
and put on to serve a purpose, or your past confidence
was falsely assumed and equally intended to deceive.
I will not quote Mansard against you. I leave to
others a task which, though to me ungrateful, will be
pleasant to themselves and most amusing to their
hearers. And by this time doubtless many a Parlia-
mentary orator could take a degree on account of his
knowledge of your Lordship's speeches. But, as I have
no desire to convict you of mere inconsistency—and as I
believe that even a most minute investigation of all that
you have ever uttered in Parliament would not greatly
conduce to my edification—l would rather address you
as the Prime Minister of England than deal with your
sayings as recorded in Hansard.
And now, my Lord, I will tell you why I believe these
great doctrines of civil and religious liberty to be at the
present time in danger. I will endeavour to give a
reason for the fear that is in me.
I find the public mind of England stirred from one end
of the kingdom to the other. I hear fierce denunciations
hurled against one large class of our Christian brethren,
and I see politicians nearly of all classes bending be-
neath the storm, and joining in the cry against Papists
' and the Pope, and I most sincerely assert that I am ut-
terly at a loss to understand how a really tolerant people
could bo thus carried away by an intolerant feeling.
Does any danger really exist? Seeing what the public
feeling is—knowing, as I have for many years known,
the strong anti-Catholic prejudice of my countrymen—l
am not surprised at this outbreak. Simple, downright
intolerance, is at the bottom of it. No real danger
exists. It is not fear, but blind intolerant hate, that has
aroused the land; the same sort of feeling as that which,
in 1780, roused the mobs of London against Sir George
Saville, and made that madman Lord George Gordon
a hero—the idol and leader of the people—is now
exercising a fatal influence upon the good sense of
the English people. This feeling you have most un-
fortunately countenanced; you have given dignity and
importance to an antipathy which you ought carefully
to have allayed; and by your ill-timed support, have
done your utmost to keep alive for years a detestable
thoroughly ashamed.
intolerance, of which in your heart I believe you to be

Where, again, I
ask, and what, is the danger? lam
not frightened by
words, but I wish to know what is
meant by " Papal aggression?" Can the Pope acquire
power over any man in England merely by nicknaming a
man'Archbishop of Westminster,or by giving him a large
bat and a pair of red stockings, and dubbing him a Cur-
dinal ? Has the Pope acquired any actual territorial
right or influence by what is called parcelling out the
kingdom of England? We are all equal before the laws.
He cannot invoke the power of the law, then, to perse-
cute us into acquiescence in his doctrine. Upon what,
then, is he to rely in order to gain influence over us? Per-
suasion. He and his emissaries must influence us through
our reason
; and we who pretend to rely upon
the farce of truth and the great safeguard of free dis-
cussion—we cower and tremble, and, like all cowards,
bluster, because a foolish old man, at the instigation of a
crowd of intriguing priests, and a set of weak-minded,
silly converts from our own to the Catholic Church, has
thought fit to give a certain number of bishops English
names—and, spite of our pretended confidence in the
truth of our own opinions, and our braggart boasting of
the efficacy of reason and of argument, we are all at once
horribly alarmed, and fancy that we shall awake some
morning and find ourselves irretrievably Catholic. This
very statement shows bow thoroughly ridiculous is the
whole affair when viewed in this light; but far different
is it when wo reflect upon the feeling which really has
ereated all this confusion. When we rememberthat hate
—religious bigotry—is at the bottom of it all,—when we
antipathy remember, thatbeen everyrhuse
di Protestantnt
o ae ti
e priest
action,—when
bheans ,
web also beary religious
in mind that every Catholic priest in England and Ire-
land has now been challenged to the combat—is it cot
clear, my Lord, that your most unwise and unstatesman-
like letter has served as a trumpet to call into action
the worst and fiercest, and most dangerous passions that
darken human reason, and harden the human heart?
The work of years has io a moment been destroyed, an
all the weary labour of eradicating those now vigorous
weeds in our fair garden—religioua hate and ecclesias-
tical intolerance, has again to be encountered. When
you were a labourer at this work you had to aid you
many Protestant sects then suffering under legal dis-
abilities. These you helped to remove, and now that as-
sistance will no longer be afforded to the friends of re-
rgious freedom, for every Protestant sect will band to-
gether on the one hand, and range themselves in fierce
hostility to all the Catholics on the other. And now,
my Lord, I put to you the ;question which you, as a
statesman, ought long since to have asked youself, How
is Catholic Ireland to be governed ? The immense
majority of the people of Ireland are Catholic; will they
not now be excited to the same frantic pitch in support
of their religion as that which now agitat3s England
against it, and upon the same principles upon which
Protestants in Eagland determine to keep down the
Catholics?catholics in Ireland assert their
oeqwunalPityre,,eamtilneeanstc,7ininbteli,abtaricerunl trri7g, and insist upon
ht of Persecution?
And here,. possibly, lt Bh4ll have the Pope brought for-
ward, and ,041 4134,4091.,134' 44g, as ed-if I balm

fj fit

Arro'l Pi ,Sligitt9 Phi

p

the people of Ireland bear allegiance to Queen Victoria?
Let me answer this question by another. It; in fact,
Catholics bear a divided allegiance—if by their religion,
us we hear, they really give one-half of their obedience
to the Pope—if this be a tenet of their faith, how, I ask,
is their allegiance affected or diminished by the nominal
distribution of England into Catholic sees? Let us,
if we will, fulminate an Act of Parliament against the
Catholics—does any one suppose that their faith will
be in the slightest affected thereby? We can-
not make people loyal by Act of Parliament; we
cannot, by excluding certain names, koep out
the doctrines of the Catholic religion. But what we
can do is to keep up religious dissension; we may make
the empire a divided empire; we may band Protestant
against Catholic, England against Ireland, and to you,
my Lord, posterity will refer as the man who, just when
the real difficulties were conquered—when, by the united,
and continuous labours of our grea'est statesmen, the
law had become just, and peace and good will were
about to be established, took advantage of your great
position to rouse up the spirit of strife and hate among
us, to quicken into active life the demon of persecution,
and to rend asunder a great empire, which, but for your
fatal interference, woutd soon have become firmly united,
pacetul, and prosperous. A melancholy distinction
this, my Lord, for ono who all his life has styled him-
self the friend of religious as well as civil freedom!
Your common sense must long sine') lievo been shocked
at the wretched fanaticism you have evuiced, and which,
unfortunately, you will find a spirit he; and your power
to lay.

I ronnin, my Lord, your obedipnt nervaat,
Milton, Dec. 2. J. A. ROEBUCK.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
TlMES.—Unable any longer to keep silence, and im-
patient of the period which must intervene before the
meeting of Parliament shall deliver the Premier into
his hand, Mr. Roebuck has addressed to Lord John
Russell a letter on the part he has taken with reference
to the questions now in debate between this country and
the See of Rome. Every one must naturally be anxious
to see what such a •man has to say on such a subject.
Mr. Disraeli has been beforehand with Mr. Roebuck in
seeking to give a political turn to the present discussion;
but Mr. Disraeli's letter took no hold on the public
mind, and is as completely a thing of the past as his
own Radical speeches. The object of Mr. Roebuck's
letter is to accuse Lord John Russell of in-
consistency and impolicy, of deserting the principles
of Catholic emancipation, and fomenting those
religious differences in 1850 which he has been
striving to allay ever since 1829. The prin-
ciple which Lord John Russell is supposed to have be-
trayed is in. substance, that in an empire like ours any
attempt to degrade by law and by the imposition of civil
disabilities any one class of believes is not merely un-
just, but in the highest degree impblitic also, and that
the fixing on them badges of social inferiority because
of their faith would be an insult more galling still than
injury. We cordially assent to this proposition; so we
are sure does Lord John Russell; for he says in the
second paragraph of his letter that he not only promoted
emancipation, but he thought it right, nay, even de-
sirable, that the instruction of Roman Catholics should
be carried on through their own ecclesiastical system.
Thus does the very letter which is the object of Mr.
Roebuck's attack clearly lay Own the very principle
which he contends is violated, and extends that principle
not only to the toleration of individuals but to a modi.
fled permission to develope their ecclesiastical polity.
Mr. Roebuck treats the present Papal aggression
as the necessary consequence of the Emancipation Act,
and taunts as shortsighted politicians those who did not
foresee it at the time. Of this startling proposition he
offers no proof at all. Whether it ought to have been
foreseen or no is now very bootless to inquire. That as
a matter of fact it was not foreseen is perfectly clear,
from the consideration that the people of England were
much more unfavourably disposed towards the Roman
Catholic religion in 1829 than they are now, inasmuch as
in 1829 there was a large party which opposed the ad-
mission of Roman Catholics to civil rights, while now
every one, with exceptions only numerous enough to
prove the rule, approves their exemption from civil dis-
abilities; that the people of England are now strongly
opposed to the establishment of a Roman Catholic
hierarchy; and that therefore, if they believed in 1829
that the establishment of the hierarchy was the necessary
consequence of the Emancipation Act, they would
never have allowed it to be passed is equally evident.
We have shown in former articles that, regarding the
Emancipation Act not merely as a law, but as a'solemn
compact between the Roman Catholic minority and the
Protestant majority, the recent proceedings are in
violation of the letter and spirit of that compact, and
owe their impunity, not to the intention, but the over-
sight of the Legislature. We have looked in vain
through Mr. Roebuck's letter for any proof that the pre-
sent movement in this country tends in any way to the
infliction of degradation or the affixing badges of in-
feriority upon our Roman Catholic subjects. It is easy
for Mr. Roebuck, in the plenitude of his infallibility, to
apply to the immense majority of the citizens of the most
liberal country in the world, and of the party in Parlia-
ment with whom he generally acts, such epithets as
" blind, intolerant hate," " detestable intolerance," and so
forth; but it would have been more difficult, and also
more convincing, to have shown by argument how
the general desire to curb the claims of the Ro-
man Catholic Church, to prevent its organizing
an inyerium in imperio, and arrogating to itself powers
only conceded to her Majesty, reserving at the same
time to individual Roman Catholics pm feet civil rights,
is any violation of the principle of toleration with which
he sets out. Mr. Roebuck condescends to adopt the ar-
gument of Dr, Wiseman, that, as the Pope cannot give
himself territorial jurisdiction, there is no danger from
his assuming it. This conclusion, also, he has not con-
descended to prove. With seven millions of Roman Ca-
tholics in Ireland, headed by a hierarchy which sits in
judgment upon the statutes of the Imperial Parliament,
and repeals them at its pleasure under the direction of
the Pope—with a form of belief in Scotland which holds
prelacy in little less aversion than Popery—with a
written declaration of 1,800 of the clergy of the Esta-
blished Church against the supremacy of the Queen in
spiritual matters—and with a number of eloquent and
influential geutlemen. who, like Mr. Roebuck, are un-
able or unwilling to distinguish between the most
reasonable resistance against rampant aggression and
the most virulent persecution of uneffending opinion—it
is impossible to say that any decided movement of the
Church of Rome against the Church of England is with-
out danger. That danger is, without doubt, diminished
by the very movement Mr. Roebuck deprecates; but till
that demonstration was made it was impossible to know
how far the laity had been infected by the taint which
prevails so widely among the clergy. The remainder of
Mr. Roebuck's letter is taken up with a glowing enume-
ration of the evils which the present agitation tends to
produce, the difficulties which will arise in Ireland, the
destruction of the charities of life, and the introduction of
a spirit of sectarian animosity. It is assumed, but not
provedathat these evils are traceable, so far as they exist,
to Lord John Russell's letter, and he receives castigation
accordingly, But it was not till the voice of the coun-
try had been distinctly heard that Lord John Russell's
letter appeared; and there have not been wanting those
wh6, instead of accusing him, like Mr. Roebuck, of rashly
inflaming public opinion, have censured him for lagging
behind it, and servilely following what he was unable to
lead. It appears to us that, so far from inflaming the
spirit against the Raman Catholics at whom the letter
was obviously, not principally, levelled, the assurance of
the sympathy of the Prime Minister, and the conse-
quent expectation of speedy redress for the insult, tended
to produce that moderate tone and tolerant spirit which,
in contradiction to Mr. Roebuck, wo assert to have
pervaded the immense majority of the resolutions and
addresses. But if evil must come from this movement,
why is it to be laid to the charge of those who have
openly and manfully resisted aggression rather
than of the aggressor himself? Are we to submit
to aggression in order to avoid the scandals which
may result from resistance? Is intolerance to have
her hands free, and toleration only to be tongue-tied?
Does the liberty to worship imply the liberty to conspire
against the worship of others? We know that Mr.
Roebuck advocates the propagation of liberal principles,
supported, if necessary, by force of arms—will ho grant
the same right to religious conviction? and if so, where
will he draw the line between propagation and invasion?
Mr. Roebuck's letter appears to us to amount to this—
that since the Emancipation Act, all sects have been
placed on a perfect equality ; that therefore the Church
of England and the Queen her head have no right to
complain of any invasion, however barefaced and unpro-
voked, of their spiritual right and jurisdiction; that so
to complain would be likely to make the Roman Catho-
lics very angry and the Protestants not a little warm,
and is therefore hateful and detestable; and that though
it be quite right to send 16 sail of the line to avenge the
wrongs of Don Pacificb, it is unstatesmanlike and un-
christian to utter a single word of protest against any
outrage, however gross, to our Crown and Constitution.
DAILY NEWS.—The trap which Dr. Pusey ima-
gined and gave his name to, and which was framed and
baited by his disciples, is now so very well known for
what it is, that as a trap at least it can no longer serve.
The veriest rat of the Establishment must be perfectly
aware what he is about in venturing in. And we doubt
that any more, save those who are already irrevocably
within the bars, will put themselves in the power of the
Romanising rat-catchers. The delight of these eccle-
siastical sportsmen at present is to hold up their cage to
the world, and show the great people they have caught.
Although they are not able to boast complete and bodily
capture of such portentous animals, for example, as the
Premier and the Bishop of London, they can at least
show how one left the fur of his coating, whilst the
other left his very tail in the closing trap, so narrow was
his escape. As to Lord John, he evidently did but
smell the bait, and thought it savouring with de-
vout unction; but scenting the Pope, his Lordship
made off in good time. His denunciation of the roguery
of the bait has much angered that ingenious rat-catcher,
Mr. Bennet. The Bishop of London, however, walked
all fours into the trap, and not only smelled the bait
but swallowed it; nay, recommended it strongly to all
his tribe,; until the great discovery was made, and the
inmates of the cage threatened to be let loose amongst
the people, who are very terriers on such an occasion.
His Grace made off more in fear than dignity, leasing,
as we stated, his consistency behind. And now the Rev.
Mr. Bennet has come forward and published at length
the history and success of his decoy of St. Barnabas.
And we must say that, on a careful perusal, we see no
difference worth mentioning between the Church of Mr.
Bennet and the Church of Father Newman. Both, in
the first place, are infallible. The Church of England,
according to Mr. Bennet, is fallible, because it is a
national Church. But his own Church, being not
national, but universal, is infallible. On this infalli-
bility. is founded, 'according to Mr. Bennet, the certainty.
of the Holy Scriptures. Our deductions from records,
fromowhnisatourthhentthiceitiy, ntert:eal,
ifortoboifbnsgeaineytelhdvoetßhceiabnlcohoii4nly tsreelhfbte.
ofo
its
• H be-
lieve in the Bible became we
• ';,,, .