ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.-HOUSE OF COMMONS,
FEB. 7, 1851.

Lord J. RUSSELL rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to prevent the assumption of certain ecclesiastical titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom." The noble lord spoke as follows:-The House, I am sure, will readily believe the anxiety with which I approach the important subject which I promised to bring under their notice, the deep interest which is felt in this country by all classes of persons, the numerous petitions that have been presented to this House, praying the House to resist encroachment on the part of a foreign Sovereign, the addresses presented to the Crown, all making it a matter of deep responsibility to undertake the task of bringing such a question before the House. That anxiety is not diminished, but increased, by the indications that were given the other evening of the disposition of a great portion of the House. One hon. gentleman, the member for Sheffield, who spoke on that occasion, warned me not to take a retrograde step. Another hon. gentleman, the member for Buckinghamshire, warned me, on the other side, not to introduce anything less than a complete code regulating all the relations which might occur between the Court of Rome and her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom. With respect to the first of those observations-that I should not take a retrograde step-the language I should hold would be, that the only retrograde step I propose to take is that natural action of a man who finds that a blow is aimed at his head, and who steps backward to raise his arm, and put himself in a posture of defence. With respect to the other observation, I shall not now enter into a consideration of the reason why I differ from the hon. member who made it ; but in the course of the statement I have to make I shall address those remarks to the House which appear to me to belong to the subject, and state those motives which have induced the Government not to pursue the course which is the one he has suggested as the most proper. In bringing this subject before the House, I beg the House to recollect some circumstances that occurred at a very recent period. In the course of last year the nomination of an archbishop in Ireland by the Roman see was made in an unusual manner. It was generally understood, and has never been contradicted, that those who usually elect to the office of archbishop on the part of the Roman Catholics in Ireland had sent three names to Rome, but that instead of any one of those learned ecclesiastics being chosen who had been proposed for that office, a clergyman who had been long resident at Rome, who was more conversant with the habits and opinions of Rome than with the state and circumstances of Ireland, was named by the Pope to assume the office of archbishop in Ireland. No sooner did that ecclesiastic arrive than he showed very clearly that it was not his intention to follow the usual practice that had been observed by Archbishop Murray and others, of putting themselves into communication, in relation to any matters necessary to be transacted between them, with the Irish Government. Presently we found that a Synod had been called at Thurles, which assembled. It was stated that at that Synod a question was raised whether or not an address should be issued to the people of Ireland, and that that motion was carried by a majority of 13 to 12, being a majority consisting of that very person who had been sent over from Rome, whose views were foreign to the state of Ireland, and who prompted that determination. An address was accordingly issued. Well, if that address had been confined to matters of the internal discipline of the Roman Catholic religion-if it had been shown that, with respect to matters of internal discipline, there was a variety of practice in different parts of Ireland, and that the Synod had met for the purpose of regulating those matters-however unusual and entirely without precedent, for no such meeting had taken place since the time of the Revolution, the assembling of a Synod might be, I could have understood its object. But a great portion of that address was taken up with two subjects. The one was the danger of the system of education in the colleges established by the Queen in conformity with an Act of Parliament. It stated that, however good the intentions of the Legislature might be, those colleges were established in ignorance of the inflexible nature of the Roman Catholic Church; and it pointed out that they could not but be attended with danger to the faith and morals of those who were of that Church. Another part of that address was taken up with descriptions of the state of that part of the poorer portion of the Irish peasanty who had been evicted. And I must say that no language was omitted which could excite the feelings of that peasant class against those who were owners of land, and who had enforced the process of the law against their tenants. I am not going at the present time to enter into any defence of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland; nor am I about to discuss the question whether the Irish landlords have acted with discretion and humanity in the use of their legal rights; but I point this out to the House as a most important circumstance, that on the question of education, that on questions of the occupancy of land, the Synod, which consisted entirely of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, from which all laymen were excluded, thought it proper, on this their first meeting, to hold forth to Nineteenth Series.-Price Threehalfpence.]. [James Gilbert, 49, Paternoster-row. Of whom may be had “The Roman Catholic Question," Nos. I. to XVIII,

the Irish people, and tell them what should be their duty and conduct on those two subjects. I must ask the hon. member for Sheffield whether this is a matter of entirely spiritual concern? Whether this House and the Government of the country can be entirely indifferent, when they see that an archbishop has been thus named, purposely of course instructed, and aware of the intentions at Rome, and that the first proceeding he carries into effect is to hold forth to odium an Act of Parliament passed by this country for the purpose of educating the people of Ireland, of giving better instruction to the higher and middle classes; while likewise exciting to hatred of the owners of land a great portion of the population of that kingdom? This, I think, is an instance, at all events, that we have not to deal with purely spiritual concerns; that that interference, which is so well known in all modern history of clerical bodies, with the temporal and civil concerns of the State, has been attempted, not as a system, but as a beginning as a beginning, no doubt, to be matured into other measures, and to be exerted on some future occasion with more potent results. If there is one part of this transaction which merits remark, as it may have excited attention-and I own it excited mine-it is the signature to the published address of the Synod of Thurles. In a copy I received of that address it was stated to be published by authority," and purported to be signed at the end, "Paul, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of Ireland." I received from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland a communication stating that his attention had likewise been drawn to that circumstance; that he had consulted those who were best qualified to assist him in the construction of the law; and that they had informed him that, although if the Roman Catholic Archbishop had assumed the title of Archbishop of Armagh in any document of which they were in possession, they could then apply the law to the case, yet the appearance in print of that name would not be evidence in a court of law, and that they were not likely to obtain from the printer any evidence-even should such be the fact that Dr. Cullen had signed that document. They thought it probable that he had not signed it, but that his name had been affixed to it. Now, having stated that occurrence, I shall refer to some other occurrences which took place about the same time, not in this country, but on the continent of Europe. One was a circumstance which took place in the kingdom of Sardinia. Until very lately a law had been in force in Piedmont which had not been for many years the usual law of most of the States of Europe. It was, that ecclesiastics should only be amenable to the ecclesiastical tribunals, and that certain places should possess what was called the right of asylum. It appears that the Sardinian Government and the Sardinian Parliament assembled at Turin, changed the law in these respects and made it similar to that which prevailed in other parts of Europe. They declared that, with regard to all temporal matters, clergymen should be tried before the temporal and civil tribunals of the land, and that the right of asylum should be taken away. One of the Ministers, who was a party to making that law, was soon afterwards taken dangerously ill, and when he required the sacrament, and made his confession, he was asked whether he would repent of the consent which he had given to the new law which had been passed? Instead of doing so he made a counterdeclaration, which was not satisfactory to the Archbishop of Turin, and the consequence was that he died without receiving the sacraments of the Church, as a person who was without the pale of the Church. That was an instance of the interference of spiritual power and spiritual censure, for the purpose of controlling, of directing, and of terrifying a Minister of the Crown and a Member of Parliament, on account of his (conduct as a Minister and a member of the Parliament to which he belonged. Now, I beg the House to observe these things, because they are not altogether foreign to us. They may not be intended here this year or next year; but we are told in the writing to which I have alluded that the doctrines of the Court of Rome are inflexible-that their maxims are unchangeable. They may not think it expedient to introduce such a practice into this country now, but they retain in their hands the power of applying those maxims, of applying those censures, of applying those most formidable and awful spiritual powers which they possess. About the same time, or it may be a little after, there appeared a rescript from Rome in Belgium with respect to the conduct of the Government of that country. Now, the Government of Belgium, from the commencement of its independence, had taken a course more favourable to the independence of the Roman Catholic Church than any other country in Europe had done, because it had allowed the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical body to enjoy all their endowments, while at the same time the civil Government was entirely without any power of interference with the nomination or conduct of clergymen. But it was found, with regard to the civil education which the State had provided, that that education had dropped very much indeed into the hands of the bishops of the Church of Rome, and the Belgian Chambers, consisting in great part of Roman Catholics, anxious for the interests of the State, took means to provide for the security of education in Belgium. The step they took was impugned by the head of the Church of Rome. A document disapproving it was published, and it was generally believed that that document was circulated at the time it was that it might exert an influence over the elections, and thereby induce the Belgian Chambers to alter their decision. However, it was not much regarded, and when the Minister was questioned on the subject he produced a despatch in which he had desired the Belgian Minister to inform the Secretary of State at Rome that the Pope had been entirely misinformed-that the facts were not as had been represented to him, and that no course had been taken by the Government which was opposed to the interests of the Church of Rome. The subject provoked a good deal of discussion, but a great majority approved of the conduct of the Belgian Government in the matter. Then came the proceedings more immediately connected with this country. At the end of September letters apostolic were issued declaring that Rome had altered the

ecclesiastical arrangement that had prevailed in this country, altering it from the arrangement of vicars-apostolic and proposing to establish an archbishop and bishops, among whom the country was to be divided. I shall hereafter state the view which I take of that document. What I wish to say now is, that that change was made entirely without the consent-I may say entirely without the knowledge--of the Government of this country. Sir, the hon. member for Sheffield referred the other day to a remark that, in 1848, in the course of discussion, I made in answer to some observation or question of my hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, viz., that I did not know that the Pope intended to create an archbishop or bishops in this country, that I had not given my consent to such an arrangement, and that, on the contrary, I should not give my consent to the appointment of any such archbishop or bishops in England. I had, indeed, been told some time before by a private individual of the Roman Catholic persuasion, that he believed there was such a project, and he asked me if I should approve of it. I said in reply that I should not approve of it., I said nothing more. certainly concluded, weakly it may be, that the Government of Rome being a friendly Government, not being in hostility to this country, would never think it possible to create archbishops and bishops in this country, and to divide it into dioceses, without communicating at least the project to the Government of England. I did not believe that it could be intended so to insult the Queen. I may have been like the foolish Italian shepherd, who said

I

I may have thought most trustingly and imprudently that the Court of Rome would observe such relations, such discretion, such courtesy in her conduct with the State of England, as all other States that are friendly observe towards each other, and as she herself has observed towards every other State in Europe. I know that in some letters of Dr. Wiseman it has, in some way, if not directly stated, been insinuated that Lord Minto, when at Rome, gave some kind of sanction or consent to the project of Rome. Lord Minto has himself given a positive denial to that statement. We have heard the story, to be sure, that at the interview with which he was honoured at the Court of Rome, the Pope, pointing to a table in the room, observed, "There is something there that regards you;" but Lord Minto did not look at the paper, or make any observation whatever on the subject. He says he does not recollect the circumstance, and it is one which he may well have forgotten, supposing it had even taken place. But, even if the story be true, it is surely a most astonishing inference to draw from the circumstance that there happened to be a paper lying on a table, which paper was never read by the Minister of England, that he had given his consent to the aggression which had been made upon this country. Be it observed, that supposing the story had been told with complete accuracy, it is not alleged that the Secretary of State, or the Pope, or any other person, said, "Here is a paper that we would wish you to take and peruse, and submit to your Government." If anything was said at all, it was only "That is a project that concerns you." Now, having stated this with regard to the measure that has been introduced to this country, I think it is expedient before I proceed further to state what has been the conduct of the different powers of Europe, and what has been the conduct of our own country, with respect to measures of this kind which have been attempted to be imposed upon them by the Pope of Rome. And let me first say, that I conceive it is of the nature of all ecclesiastical bodies to attempt to trench on temporal matters. I have myself resented with regard to Protestants in this country, and with regard to the Church of England herself, measures and proposals which I thought tended to give undue power to ecclesiastics with respect to the temporal affairs of the State. But, if this is true of any ecclesiastical body, it is more especially true of the Church of Rome. I conceive it to be true for two principal reasons, among others--the one, that the allowed infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to matters of spiritual doctrine gives her an influence and a power over the minds of those who belong to that communion greater than that possessed by any other Churches. But, in the next place, Rome has a traditionary influence and power, a power asserted by her in the middle ages, when she often was manifesting it, perhaps in favour of civilisation or learning, or perhaps again when she was aiming by her ambition to obtain that power over kings and over States which made them entirely subject to her will. Sir, this power was asserted in the most arrogant manner by Boniface VIII., when he told Philip the Fair, of France, "It is fit you should know that you are subject to us in temporal as well as in spiritual things." Now, the country that has had most to contest this power of the Roman Catholic Church, the country which, I should say, had most successfully contested it, but at the same time amid repeated dangers, is that very country of France. I had lately occasion to read that most able treatise upon the subject of what is called the liberties of the Gallican Church, or more properly, as the author most justly states, the liberties of the Gallican State in respect of the Church, written by M. Dupin, the President of the Legislative Assembly of France. Long before he held that post, or any public post whatever, he was distinguished for his great logical power and his great legal learning, and was regarded as an authority in all matters to which his attention had been given or his studies directed. At the beginning of his work upon the liberties of the Gallican Church he makes an observation to the effect, that though Rome has for the present relaxed many of her pretensions, she never entirely loses sight of them; that she is a power which has forgotten nothing, and learned much-that she is a power which is neither in infancy nor widowhood; hence she can struggle with temporal States at all times with means of which those temporal States often are not possessed; that therefore it requires the utmost vigilance and

the utmost attention to watch against the aggressions of the Church of Rome and to preservo

the temporal liberties of any country with which she is connected. He makes another observation, which I think may be of some use to the hon. member for Sheffield. He says that philosophy (which in this instance he thinks too presumptuous) is of opinion that there is no need of particular laws or of a study of jurisprudence on this subject-that her arm is quite sufficient to encounter any dangers to which a country may be exposed from Rome; but he goes on to say that it is quite evident that philosophers deceive themselves in this, that, though their arguments are irresistible with philosophers, yet that the great mass of men, whether from religious sanctions, whether from habit, or whether from regard to appearances in the world, are governed by religious belief, and do not attend to the opinions and arguments of philosophers. After this introduction, Dupin states, in a very small book containing an immense quantity of learning on the subject, what the assertion of the liberties of France has been in its contest with Rome. Now the cases which in connexion with France I shall mention, as well as those relating to other States, have reference entirely to the appointment to bishoprics, or other ecclesiastical offices, which were endowed, or which received salaries or emoluments from the State. I may observe, on this subject, that Mr. Bowyer dismisses all these points, and all those which refer to the time before the Reformation, as not applicable to the present state of matters. But, even supposing that they do not refer to the present state of things, there are still maxims established in law by the dicta of the great judges of France well worthy of attention. One of these is, that no document of the Pope can be received in France without the placet, that is, the consent or direction, of the Sovereign. This applies not only to questions relative to appointment to ecclesiastical benefices and bishoprics, but it applies generally to anything that may be ordered by the See of Rome. There is another maxim, likewise of great importance. In order to preserve the entire temporal independence of the Kings of France, it was laid down that if any person should introduce any bull or instrument inflicting spiritual excommunication or censure upon any person in the service of the Kings of France, for things done in the service of the Kings of France, all his goods and property should be forfeited to the Crown. This was a very important and striking power, but it was one rendered necessary by the assumptions of Rome in France; for it is argued justly by Dupin that if the King had all his Ministers and officers struck by excommunication he would have been made powerless, and his orders would have had no effect whatever. It was likewise held that in respect of many spiritual matters the decrees of the Pope should not be received unless confirmed by a general council. Such were the maxims and such the laws of France under the monarchy; and the powers that were exercised by the Kings of France under the monarchy were exercised by Louis IX., a saint in the Roman Catholic Church, by Henry IV., and by Louis XIV., as fully as in the other reigns and in subsequent times. But there is a circumstance which I think is worthy of mention, because it answers the argument that with respect to what is once done there can be no change or alteration made by Rome. According to the concordat made by Napoleon at the commencement of the century, appointment to a diocese was ordered by the civil Government in conjunction with the Pope; and those who, under former settlements, were legally and lawfully, according to Rome, archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in France, were entirely deprived of the rights which they possessed. Another circumstance of importance occurred to his mind on this point. In 1817 the King of France thought he would not have his country bound by the concordat made by what he considered an usurped power-the person who held the Consulate of the French Republic-and he proposed to make another concordat, to which he obtained the consent of the Pope; but when that concordat came to be considered in France, it was found that the Assembly was so averse to it, that the King asked the Pope that it should pass as not having taken place. The consequence was, that the new concordat remained a dead letter, and the former concordat was still the law, and acted upon in France. Now, do not tell me after this that the Papal power cannot retrace its steps; that what is done by Rome must for ever remain unaltered. I go next to what was, I am sorry to say, the law of Austria-that great Roman Catholic power. The laws which were made by the Emperor Joseph were of the most stringent description with respect to the introduction of Papal bulls and Papal appointments and censures. He declared that the civil power was supreme and sovereign-that nothing ecclesiastical could be attempted without the placet of the Emperor, and that no appointment could be made that had not his confirmation-that no intercourse could take place between the bishops of Austria and the Pope without the knowledge and sanction of the ruling powers; and that all Papal docu. ments should be submitted to a mixed body of clergy and laity, and should not be valid without their concurrence. This shows, then, with regard to another great Roman Catholic power, what has been the jealousy, what has been the result of experience, with regard to the encroachments of the Church of Rome. Having stated the course pursued by these two great Roman Catholic powers, I will not go into any of the others, but state generally that there is no Roman Catholic power, so far as we have been able to ascertain, who would permit any bull to be brought into the country without the previous sanction of the civil authority. I am bound to state, however, with respect to Austria, that the Emperor has, during the year 1850, made a new constitution in respect of the clergy, and has permitted them to hold intercourse with each other and their superiors in ecclesiastical matters. As regards Portugal, I may state that our Minister there was informed by the Portuguese Minister that they would permit no aull to be sent into that country which had not previously been submitted to the Government, bnd thoroughly considered. We have inquired also with respect to the Protestant countries of Europe what their policy is in this matter; and we have been informed that in Prussia-—the greatest of these powers-though, with reference to her Catholic population, she acts by agree

ment with the Pope in the appointment of bishops and clergy-yet, when it was proposed at Rome that a Bishop of Magdeburg should be created in Prussia, that country immediately referred to the articles of the Treaty of Westphalia, and refused her consent to the introduction of such a bishopric. There was an agreement made twenty years ago between the King of the Netherlands with respect to the appointment of bishops in some cases in Holland by means of a concordat, but the measure excited so much indignation in Holland that it has never been carried into effect. From what I have said, the inference may be drawn that there is no country in Europe, however great or however small, no country which values its own independence, upon which the Pope would have attempted to pass this insult which he has offered to the kingdom of England. In some instances the matter is regulated by treaty between the two powers; in other instances it has been proposed to introduce bishops into Protestant countries, and, when it has been refused, the Court of Rome has at once desisted from its intention. I come now to consider what is the character of the insult that has been offered to this country. The document by which the recent change was proposed to be effected was purposely issued without the smallest reference to the United Kingdom being an independent State. It is not made a question, from the beginning to the end, whether there can be any power existing in this country, the consent of which ought to be asked, or whose lawful power ought to be respected. An archbishop is pretended to be appointed to this metropolitan city, where the Queen holds her Court, and where she meets her Parliament. Then other sees are pretended to be created in various parts of the country which are now under the established bishops of the Church of England. The document issued with reference to the appointment of Dr. Wiseman declares at once—“We govern, and shall continue to govern, the counties of Middlesex, Hertford, and Essex." And in the case of five other counties the same pretensions were set forth. Now, sir, I cannot see in these words anything but an assumption of territorial sovereignty. It is not a direction that certain persons should govern those who belong to the Roman Catholic communion situated within a certain district, and that over them alone they were to exercise their spiritual functions. Those English counties are territories subject to the Queen's dominion, and the only excuse that is offered for the assumption of Rome is that there are certain forms belonging to all documents, and that it is according to the forms of the Church of Rome that the assumption of dominion over Middlesex, Hertford, and Essex, belongs to the agent who has been sent there. That may be; I do not deny their knowledge of their own forms, but there is another form with which I have been acquainted. It is, Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen." That form appears to me totally inconsistent with the other. Take which of them you like. Say that the Pope is to be Sovereign in this country, and that any person he chooses to send is to govern the English counties, and that Royalty is bound to pay obedience to the orders of the Court of Rome. That is one course. But I cannot conceive that any person who is bound in loyalty to Queen Victoria can admit that any authority but her own can govern those counties. Well, then, I know not well what these gentlemen mean; but if they mean to say that this is an authority merely assumed, and that it cannot be enforced, I certainly know that perfectly well. I owe very little gratitude or thanks to those who do not attempt to enforce that authority, because I know it is impossible. It is enough for me that here is the assumption of a power. If a person had come during the time that the Pretender resided at Rome, and said, "I have been named Lord-Lieutenant of Middlesex by James Stuart, and claim to govern the county of Middlesex by virtue of that authority," I know perfectly well that the King of England's Lord-Lieutenant would have held his authority unscathed, and that he would have been obeyed: still I should have said that that was an unwarrantable assumption, and one that justly subjected the person so assuming it to any penalty which he might thereby have incurred. I must now refer for a few minutes to that which has been done in former times in this very country-and that in Roman Catholic times-with respect to the power of the Pope of Rome. I find that in those times our Catholic ancestors were as jealous as we can be in these days of the encroaching power of the Pope. I find even in the days of William the Conqueror that the Sovereign would not allow any sentence of excommunication to be proceeded with in this country without his authority. I find that in the time of Edward I. a person who had procured an excommunication against another person was proceeded against in the King's courts, that the judges declared that his procuring that excommunication without the assent of the King was no less than high-treason, and that it was only on the supplication of his councillors that the King refrained from having that very sentence executed. Now, those persons who were thus concerned in carrying on that trial, and in condemning that person, were no Protestants, or men distrustful of the Roman Catholic faith, or in any way opposed to the Roman Catholic tenets. On the contrary, they were all strict adherents of the Roman Catholic faith; but, nevertheless, they would not allow any usurped power to come into England. So likewise in the time of Edward III. a petition was presented to the Crown to prevent any letters, bulls, process, reservations, instruments, or any other things whatsoever, being received in this country from Rome, to the prejudice of the King and of his people. Now, be it observed, this is not, as Mr. Bowyer says, entirely confined to endowments which were then protected by the State, but this refers to all those relations between man and man with which the spiritual power of Rome was in the habit of interfering, and of controlling; and it was for this purpose, therefore, that our Catholic ancestors thought it necessary to take measures to guard against the power of Rome. The statutes upon that subject are well known, and have been frequently quoted, more especially the statute of "provisos" and the statute of præmunire, which was passed in the reign of Richard II. I shall not trouble the House by stating the