or a gunboat, he could put in operation half the force of the kingdoms of Christendom? When he was in his lowest condition, was he not able to rouse the armies of France, of Austria, of Naples, and of Spain for his defence? But in speaking of the movement now made, and on which the bill was founded, as a movement dictated by fear-it was not that England entertained the slightest fear for all the political, physical, or spiritual force that could be leagued against her, that she had moved in the matter; but because it was a great and intolerable insult, and must be redressed. If it had been contained in a mere writing, an empty manifesto, it might have passed without notice; but it was an insult reduced to practice, and embodied in the presence and existence of twelve bishops, who, by their personal appearance in this country, day after day, kept the Queen constantly informed that she was not the fountain of honour in this realm, and who, by the distribution of her kingdom into districts and provinces, gave her to understand she was not supreme governor in her own dominions. The next argument used against the bill was that a man might assume any name he pleased. He should like to hear the opinion of the Attorney-General on that point. He did not believe a man might assume what name he pleased, and make regulations in that name to bind others. The main argument, however, was, that the bill was a restriction on religious liberty, and that it was a limitation on that liberty which had been carried by the act of 1829. Now, he was prepared to say for himself, and he was sure he might say the same for a vast body outside the House-of course he could not answer for any within-that he had no desire whatever to intrench in the least on the privileges which had been granted by the act of 1829. The question was not whether we should take from the Roman Catholics, but whether we should allow them to take anything from us. The question was whether the late Papal movement was inconsistent with the rights of the Crown, and the civil and religious liberties of all subjects of this realm? We were not the aggressors. We did not begin the movement, A foreign potentate and priest, by a certain document-whether legal or illegal he would not then pause to inquire-had, without permission of our Sovereign, without any communication whatever with the Government of this country, divided the realm into provinces and dioceses, appointed to them his own nominees, and invested them with territorial titles. The advocates of this proceeding said that it was altogether in keeping with the spirit of the act passed in 1829, and that it was necessary for the free development of the Roman Catholic religion. Surely upon this statement there arose two questions: first, was this proceeding necessary to the development of the Roman Catholic religion; and, secondly, was it consistent with the rights of the Crown, and the civil and religious liberties of all the people of this country? He would not pause to discuss the tone and temper of the apostolic brief-for brief it was, if the Attorney-General, who called it a bull, would allow himself to be corrected on that point. With respect to the first proposition, that the recent act of the Pope was necessary for the development of the Roman Catholic religion, he must observe that, looking to the act of 1829, it was perfectly clear that the Roman Catholics had full right and privilege to develope their religion, to diffuse, extend, and promote it by all legitimate means in their power. He would even go further, and say, that although their Church had been governed in these realms for nearly 300 years by vicars-apostolic, yet, episcopal functions being necessary to the government of the Roman Catholic Church, he believed-as at present advised that they had full power to convert their vicars- apostolic into bishops. He knew perfectly well the detriment we should receive from the constitution of such a hierarchy; but, nevertheless, it appeared to be in conformity with the concessions made in 1829. But no one had proved, or attempted to prove, and it was his firm belief that no one was able to prove, that territorial titles were in any degree necessary to the exercise of episcopal functions. A territorial title was a worldly and material affair. The office of bishop was a spiritual concern altogether. Would any one venture to assert that Archbishop Wiseman could not exercise, within the jurisdiction assigned to him, archiepiscopal functions, unless he were called Archbishop of Westminster? It was, he knew, said that bishops of the Roman Catholic Church must have a local habitation and a name. Granted. Then, why did not Dr. Wiseman call himself Archbishop of the Roman Catholics in Westminster? (Some laughter.) Let not hon. members who laughed be in such a hurry. If they would be patient and give him their attention, he would show them-he would not promise to their satisfaction, but to that of a good many that the difference adverted to, however minute in appearance, was mighty in operation. Why did not Dr. Wiseman call himself Archbishop of the Roman Catholics in Westminster a title which would leave him at liberty to discharge his archiepiscopal functions, and yet assign his true distinction and impose on him a just limitation? Many persons said, Why be so particular about names-why fight with a mere shadow? What can it signify whether a man be called archbishop in or of a particular place? Is a monosyllable to throw the whole empire into confusion? Yes, it was, and it ought. In the first place, the title of Archbishop of Westminster claimed universal jurisdiction, whilst the title of Archbishop of the Roman Catholics in Westminster showed clearly that it was a restricted office. Let him, in the first place, bring forward, by way of testimony and illustration, what we did in our own case when we thought it desirable to send a Protestant bishop of the English Church to the holy city of Jerusalem. We did not, as Dr. Wiseman stated in his pamphlet, erect a bishopric there; we merely sent a bishop from this country to be resident in Jerusalem for Protestant purposes; but, so careful were we to observe the rule laid down, that persons should not assume territorial titles and jurisdiction where they had no right to do so, that, in the first place, her Majesty's Government obtained from the Sovereign of the country a firman allowing the bishop to reside there; and, in the second place, we took care, in the deed of consecration, to

give him the title of " Alexander Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, resident in Jerusalem." Such was the caution observed by us when we sent a bishop to Jerusalem. But as to the value of names and titles we had the testimony of whole nations, and that was a matter not to be lightly thrown aside. It would be in the recollection of the House that when, in 1830, a revolution took place in the affairs of France, Louis Philippe was raised to the throne; but he was raised to it on this condition-imposed by the whole French people-that he should not be called King of France, but simply King of the French. We had then the testimony of the whole French nation that a great distinction may be involved in what might at first sight appear to be a simple difference in the form of expression. A similar course was pursued when Prince Leopold was raised to the throne of Belgium. The same condition was imposed in that case, and he was called the King of the Belgians, not the King of the Belgian territory. But the strongest argument of all was to be found in the estimate which the Roman Catholics themselves put on the title. Do you suppose that if, in their apprehension, there was nothing real and solid in the difference between the title of Archbishop of Westminster and Archbishop of the Roman Catholics in Westminster, they would have exposed themselves to the indignation and resentment of a whole country, and to the introduction of legislative measures to prevent the assumption of the chosen title? It was because they knew the name was of value that they insisted on the title with unprecedented pertinacity. Here was the reason Cardinal Wiseman-for a cardinal he certainly was, it being a foreign title-in his famous "Appeal," when defending himself against the charge of ambition for having assumed a territorial title, assigned the true reason, and so important was the reason he assigned, that one was almost inclined to believe he had heard our prayer, "Oh that my enemy would write a book!" Cardinal Wiseman stated, then, that the Roman Catholic bishops did not take restrictive titles because the Church of Rome did not, and never would, allow any limitation to her jurisdiction. And why not? For this reason:-It was a well-known tenet of the Church of Rome, as nobody would deny, that every baptised soul, whether baptised by a layman or an ecclesiastic; whether in the Roman Catholic Church or out of it, in whatever way baptised, was subject to the authority of the Pope of Rome. To state, therefore, that Dr. Wiseman was Archbishop only of the Roman Catholics in Westminster would be to restrict his name and jurisdiction, while to call him the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster preserved to him the full demand of his Church to inalienable sovereignty. But that very demand was one to which Protestants should offer an uncompromising and undying resistance. It was in accordance with the well-known policy of the Church of Rome that everything which was not resisted she converted into a right, and made it the starting point for fresh aggrandizement, and a fresh exercise of her unwarrantable ambition. Then, with respect to the second question-namely, was the Pope's proceeding consistent with the rights of the Crown and the civil and religious liberties of the people of England, Dr. Wiseman again should answer, and by his own showing it would appear that it was not compatible with the liberties of this realm. Dr. Wiseman said that the introduction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy was not simply for diocesan purposes, but with the view of obtaining synodical action. He (Lord Ashley) would not pause to show what might be the effect of synodical action. That had been sketched in a graphic manner by the noble lord at the head of the Government, when he described the serious consequences which had resulted from the Synod of Thurles. What had been done at Thurles would be repeated in Westminster, and we should have an ecclesiastical empire sitting here and issuing decrees in the very heart of the metropolis of the British dominions. That was not all. The institution of the hierarchy was required for synodical action, but synodical action was required for the introduction of the canon law. Those were the words of Dr. Wiseman himself. the House considered the nature and character of the canon law? Had they reflected on what they had heard on this subject from the lips of members of the Roman Catholic body, namely, that it laid burdens on them which were not easy to bear? The House had heard what had fallen from one of its Roman Catholic members. They knew the Duke of Norfolk had declared that the ultramontane system sought to be established in England was inconsistent with the constitution, and that Lord Beaumont had stated that,―

Had

"The Pope, by his ill-advised measures, has placed the Roman Catholics in this country in a position where they must either break with Rome, or violate their allegiance to the constitution of these realms."

That was the condition in which many Roman Catholics, and in which all the country would be placed, by the introduction of the territorial hierarchy. With respect to synodical action, it should be borne in mind that we did not allow it in our own Church, and, that being the case, were we to be called upon to allow it to a rival and hostile Church? But to revert to the canon law. He would not have called the attention of the House to the provisions of the canon law had it not been avowed that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was established for the purpose of introducing that code which would be binding on the consciences of a large portion of the community. Again, he asked, had the House considered whether the canon law was compatible with the civil law of this country-whether it would not be necessary for those who obeyed it to place themselves frequently in opposition to the civil law of the realm?

For continuation of Debate see next Number, Series XXI., now ready.

LONDON : PUBLISHED BY JAMES GILBERT, 49, PATERNOSTER-ROW.

ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.-HOUSE OF COMMONS,
FEB. 10, 1851.

(Continuation of Debate from the Twentieth Series.)

Lord ASHLEY continued-To show the character of the canon law, he could not do better than quote a great and impartial authority-one of the first historians of modern times-Mr. Hallam. In the "Middle Ages" of that writer the following passage was to be found :-" The superiority of the ecclesiastical over the temporal power may be considered as a sort of keynote which regulates every passage in the canon law. It is expressly declared that subjects owe no allegiance to an excommunicated Sovereign." He would not stop to point out the terrible expressions which were to be found in the canon law with reference to spiritual matters, because with them the House had nothing to do; but perhaps he might be permitted to read two or three citations from that law, which Mr. Hallam had appended to the chapter of his book. "The laws of kings have not pre-eminence over ecclesiastical laws, but are subordinate to them. To the succeeding passage he requested the attention of the AttorneyGeneral :-"The statute-law of laymen does not extend to churches, or to ecclesiastical persons, or to their goods, to their prejudice." That this was no idle declaration was proved by the present conflict between Sardinia and the Pope. What had caused the dissension but the determination of the Sardinian Government to set aside the canon law, and make all ecclesiastical persons subject to the civil law of the realm? Because the Sardinian Minister Santa Rosa wished merely to put the law of his country on the same footing as that of France and Austria he was deprived by the priests of the last sacrament, and, had it not been for the indignation of the people, he would have been altogether deprived of Christian burial. To proceed with Mr. Hallam's citations from the canon law :-" Whatever decrees of princes are found injurious to the interests of the Church are declared to be of no authority whatever." "While a Sovereign remains excommunicated his subjects owe him no allegiance; and, if he do not submit himself to the Church, his subjects are absolved from all fealty to him." Then came a part of the canon law which applied to all matters between man and man of which a court of justice could take cognisance. The decretal of Gregory states, "Oaths that are disadvantageous to the interests of the Church are not to be considered as oaths, but rather as perjuries." Let him not be misunderstood; he quoted these things, not as against the Roman Catholic body, and he would not have quoted them at all had he not been told that the canon law was about to be introduced for the first time into England. Under these circumstances it behoved us to know what that code was, and to ascertain, and speedily determine, whether it was compatible with our civil and religious liberties. Let him not be answered by phrases about "the nineteenth century," and the "march of intellect." Was it not remarkable that in this nineteenth century, during the march of intellect, and in the course of the last few years, when the greatest stimulus had been given to the human mind, a larger number of persons had gone over to the Church of Rome than during the preceding 300 years? So little had the march of intellect availed to stem the advance of Popery. Let us reverse the picture, and make the case our own. Suppose her Majesty, in compliance with the wishes of her Protestant subjects residing in the Italian States, had appointed bishops of Civita Vecchia and Ancona, or, to make the case more in point, had divided Rome into districts, and appointed a bishop of Trastevera. In such a case it was easy to imagine how the noble lord at the head of Foreign Affairs would have been besieged by protocols and conferences by the Ministers of France, Austria, and Spain. And yet, if her Majesty had done that, she would have done no more than had been done in this country by the intolerable ambition of the Pope of Rome. The hon. member for Sheffield had referred to America, and said, that there the Pope's proceedings would have been viewed with indifference. The cases of the two countries were not analogous. America was a confederation of States. In America Romanism had never been established-it had no Established Church-no antecedents of history on which to rely-nor was it possible to establish the Romish system there. The Romanists in America set to work very differently. They did not put themselves forward prominently in New York and Philadelphia, but were engaged very actively in founding colonies in the far west, and converting new settlers as they arrived. This was not said in disparagement of the Roman Church; on the contrary, he thought its zeal worthy of commendation; and if the Protestant Churches of Christendom would exhibit the same amount of zeal the Protestant faith would soon spread over the whole earth. The hon. gentleman had quoted the instance of the Wesleyans. But did the Wesleyans owe a divided allegiance? Had they joined any foreign connexion? Did they issue Twenty-first Series.-Price Threehalfpence.] [James Gilbert, 49, Paternoster-row. Of whom may be had "The Roman Catholic Question," Nos. I, to XX.

spiritual censures? It was perfectly true that they divided and subdivided the country into districts for their own purposes and convenience; but if the President of the Conference, having sub-divided the country for the convenience of the Wesleyan ministers, were to make known what he had done in a "pastoral" such as hon. members had lately read, and were to say that he "governed" the counties of Lancaster, York, and Cumberland, and would continue to "govern" them as President of the Conference, he (Lord Ashley) really thought that the next thing they would hear of him would be that he had been under the hands of a medical man, and had been declared a person of unsound mind under the terms of the Lunatic Act, and was a fit and proper subject for confinement. There was another aspect in which this question might be viewed; but, although it was a very painful one, it was one of such vital importance that he could not in his conscience discuss a measure for the purpose of resisting the Papal aggression without bringing his views upon it before the House, because he knew they were not only his, but the views of a very large mass of the laity of these realms. Was there nothing that had invited aggression in the state of our own unhappy divisions? Was there nothing within ourselves that had invited the attack from without? And when we were proceeding to diseuss measures that should repel external aggression, ought we not to examine carefully, and see whether or not there existed among ourselves something that had invited the aggression and would continue to invite similar aggressions in an increased and an increasing degree? He begged to read to the House an extract which he was quite sure they would find worthy of their utmost attention. It contained the words of a person of great authority upon this question—the words not of some Low Churchman attacking the Tractarians-the words not of some man attached to the Genevan platform who was writing in bitterness against the episcopate-but the words of a person of great authority who, with his eagle eyes, had, from the mountain top, examined what was going forward, and had come down to tell us what he had seen. Speaking of the Church of England,

he said:

"It may seem necessary to state my reason for imagining that I see an approximation, not merely towards individual Catholic practices or doctrines, but towards Catholic union. It seems to me impossible to read the works of the Oxford divines, and especially to follow them chronologically, without discovering a daily approach towards our holy Church, both in doctrine and affectionate feeling. Our saints, our popes, have become dear to them by little and little; our rites and ceremonies, our offices, nay, our very rubrics, are precious in their eyes; far, alas beyond what many of us consider them; our monastic institutions, our charitable and educational provisions, have become more and more objects with them of earnest study. . . . Their admiration of our institutions and practices, and their regret at having lost them, manifestly spring from the value which they set on everything Catholic."

A little further on he said

"That the feelings which have been expressed in favour of a return to unity by the Anglican Church are every day widely spreading, and deeply sinking, no one can doubt. Those sentiments have a silent echo in hundreds of sympathising bosoms. . . There are many evidences (which it would be hardly proper to detail) that Catholic feelings have penetrated deeper into scciety than at first one would suspect. Whole parishes have received the leaven, and it is fermenting; and places where it might least be expected seem to have received it in more secret and mysterious ways."

Was there no temptation here? The writer might have been misinformed; but he stated that such was his belief, and certainly external appearances fully warranted it. [An observation, which we did not catch, was here made by an hon, member under the opposite galleryMr. Philip Howard, we believe.] If the hon. gentleman would be good enough to attend to the words of the extract, he (Lord Ashley) thought he would bow his head in reverence when he knew who wrote them. The writer concluded thus:

"By two ways the population of this country would be worked upon (through its Established Church) for its moral improvement-the rural districts through parochial influence; the denser population of towns or manufacturing districts through monastic institutions. Experience has now shown that the country population are ready to receive without murmuring, indeed, with pleasure, the Catholic views propounded from Oxford; and, indeed, even more, when taught through regular parochial instruction."

This was written in 1841, and was signed, "Nicholas Wiseman, Bishop of Melipotamus." Was there nothing here to invite aggression? Was there nothing here to invite the hope that, if the Romish Church would only put on a bold front, and make a vigorous effort, a large proportion of the people of these realms were ready to embrace the Roman communion? But there was another point to which he wished to allude. He wished to speak with all respect of the clerical gentlemen who had signed the important document to which he was about to refer; but he would ask whether such an act as that was not enough to lead the Romish Court to the belief that a very large proportion of the clergy of the English Church was well affected to the Romish communion? Last year, 1,800 clergymen of the Church of England, most of them holding benefices, signed a declaration against the Royal supremacy. He doubted not that they acted in full accordance with their conscientious opinions; but, nevertheless, although they put the document forth without explanation, the leading fact was that the Royal supremacy,

which had been recognised for 300 years, was at last called in question by 1,800 clergymen having congregations upon whom they could inculcate their opinions. Now this, he thought, was an act sufficient to induce the Court of Rome to believe there was the greatest sympathy in the Church of England with the doctrines, discipline, and tenets of the Church of Rome. When he added to this the very practices which had been introduced by many of the clergy, the processions, the auricular confessions, and ten thousand other things that approximated so closely to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome; when he added also the fact, that the Bishop of London thought it his duty to condemn "the histrionic" ceremonies which were practised in his diocese-ceremonies which, while they indicated a panting after those of Rome, were, after all, but a miserable imitation of them-he could not avoid the conclusion that there was something within our own borders which had invited, and would continue to invite, the aggressions of the Roman Pontiff. He might be allowed to say that, if these things were allowed to continue, there would arise, and at no distant time, a collision between the ecclesiastics and the laity, the issue of which could not be doubtful to any reflecting mind. asserted, nevertheless, that the laity loved their Church, its doctrines, its discipline, its parochial system; that they desired to maintain its orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, in all their efficiency and all their dignity; but they would maintain it in purity, and not in corruption. To obtain this end, they would, under God's blessing, incur every hazard, try every alternative, and shrink from no consequences whatever, in their endeavours to bring back the Church that they loved still nearer and nearer to the standard of the glorious Reformation.

He

Mr. GRATTAN wished to know whether the Government intended to establish an army of spies in the country, who, for the sake of the 100l. penalties, would turn informers against the Catholic hierarchy? He begged to tell them that this was a land of liberty; and that it was impossible that an act like this should pass. Why, too, he would like to know, did they seek to punish Ireland for an offence committed in England? The Pope had committed no aggression in Ireland. He begged also to tell them that the 28th of Henry VIII., the 13th of Elizabeth, c. 1 and 2, and the other penal acts against Catholics, which had been referred to in the course of this discussion, never had been law in Ireland. The recent act of the Pope was called an aggression; but it was no more an aggression than the appointments of vicarsapostolic in 1841 was. It was said to be an insult to her Majesty. Did her Majesty not previously know that a great portion of her subjects were Roman Catholics, and did she not also know that they were governed by the Pope, and not by her, as far as their spiritual affairs were concerned? But it was said that the Pope had changed the names of the bishops and given them territorial titles. It was absurd to quarrel about titles, and the noble lord opposite (Lord Ashley) had talked about nothing else till he came to the Puseyites. Besides, it was too late in the day to complain of the titles of the Catholic bishops; for they had already been recognised both by Parliament and the Government, in the Charitable Bequests Act, in the Dublin Cemeteries Act, in Lord Grey's letter, in Lord Clarendon's letter, and in the orders of the Lord Chamberlain. He should direct the attention of the House (and he proposed to do so very briefly) to the speech of the hon. member for Surrey. As a freeholder of that county he was entitled to call that hon. gentleman his representative; and he therefore thought himself more particularly entitled to allude to the observations which he made in that House. Now, he was quite astonished at the speech which his hon. representative had made in the course of the present debate. The House would recollect that he came down with a ponderous budget of documents attacking the past and the present. It might be, perhaps, too much for one who was not a lawyer to say that the words of that speech might subject him to an action at law, but he really believed they went far enough for that purpose. He called Archbishop. Cullen a spy, and another bishop he called a scoundrel. That was very extraordinary language for any one to hold in Parliament. It might do very well in the county of Surrey, but not in the House of Commons. He (Mr. Grattan) was enabled to speak in the highest terms of the character of the Most Rev. Dr. Cullen, who was a native of the county with which he was immediately connected. He had met Dr. Cullen both at home and abroad, and he had ever found him in every point worthy of the highest respect, so that he trusted the House would pay very little attention to that part of the speech of the hon. member for Surrey which was founded on the accusations that he brought against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh. In an equal degree did he think they ought to disregard the distinction which the hon. member sought to establish between the Court of Rome and the Church of Rome. He repeated that he well knew Dr. Cullen, that he had met him not only in his own county of Meath but at Rome, when he (Mr. Grattan) had an opportunity of knowing the sentiments of the late Pope Gregory XVI., and the only fault he had to find with that pontiff was that, for one placed in his position, he showed too great a leaning towards the English Government. If he had been one of the advisers of Pope Gregory he should have recommended him not to believe one-half of what was told him by the English Government. There was no part of the conduct of that Pope, or of Dr. Cullen, which would not bear the strictest scrutiny. The hon. member for Surrey was deceived in the whole of this matter; but he knew how he was deceived-not wilfully, but he was deceived by one who came to the county of Surrey meeting from the retirement of his study, and he there said much that was not consistent with what he had said and written on previous occasions. That eminent and learned person, in the year 1844, being then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, directed an in.