stood in the way of the spreading of the Catholic faith are daily being removed," saw fit to establish “the ordinary form of episcopal rule in that kingdom;" and accordingly divided the country into one metropolitan, and twelve episcopal sees. And to his archbishop and bishops he gave "all the rights and privileges which the Catholic archbishops and bishops, in other states, have and use, according to the common ordinances of the sacred canons and apostolic constitutions." Nor did the brief omit to state that the object of this change was "the wellbeing and advancement of Catholicity throughout England." 1 Cardinal Wiseman's pastoral. This was followed by a pastoral of Cardinal Wiseman, on his appointment as Archbishop of Westminster, exulting in the supposed triumph of his church. "Your beloved country," said he, "has received a place among the fair churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of Catholic communion: Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigor." 2 The enthronization of the new bishops was celebrated with great pomp; and exultant sermons were preached on the revival of the Catholic church. In one of these, Dr. Newman, himself a recent declared that "the people of England, who for so many years have been separated from the see of Rome, are about, of their own will, to be added to the holy church." No acts or language could have wounded more deeply the traditional susceptibilities of the English people. indignation. For three hundred years, the papal supremacy had been renounced, and the Romish faith held in abhorEven diplomatic relations with the sovereign of the had until lately Catholic bishops enthroned. convert, Popular rence. Roman States, as a temporal prince, 1 Papal Brief, Sept. 30th, 1850; Ann. Reg., 1850, App. 405. been forbidden.1 And now the Pope had assumed to parcel out the realm into Romish bishoprics, and to embrace the whole community in his jurisdiction. Never, since the Popish plot, had the nation been so stirred with wrath and indignation. Early in November, Lord John Russell, the Premier, increased the public excitement by a letter to the Bishop of Durham, denouncing "the aggression of the Pope as insolent and insidious," and associating it with the practices of the tractarian clergy of the Church of England.2 Clergy and laity, churchmen and dissenters, vied with one another in resentful demonstrations; and in the bonfires of the 5th of November, hitherto the sport of children, — the obnoxious effigies of the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman were immolated, amidst the execrations of the multitude. No one could doubt the Protestantism of England. Calm observers saw in these demonstrations ample proof that the papal pretensions, however insolent, were wholly innocuous; and Cardinal Wiseman, perceiving that in his over-confidence he had mistaken the temper of the people, sought to moderate their anger by a conciliatory address. The ambitious episcopate now assumed the modest proportions of an arrangement for the spiritual care of a small body of Roman Catholics. of the case. Meanwhile, the government and a vast majority of the people were determined that the papal aggression Difficulties shall be repelled; but how? If general scorn and indignation could repel an insult, it had already been amply repelled; but action was expected on the part of the state; and how was it to be taken? Had the laws of England been violated? The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 forbade the assumption of any titles belonging to the bishops of the Church of England and Ireland; but the titles of these new bishops being taken from places not appropriated 3 1 In 1848 an Act was passed, with some difficulty, to allow diplomatic relations with the sovereign of the Roman States. - 11 & 12 Vict. c. 108; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xcvi. 169; ci. 227, 234. 2 Nov. 4th, 1850; Ann. Reg., 1850, p. 198. 8 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, s. 24. 1 by existing sees, their assumption was not illegal. Statutes, indeed, were still in force prohibiting the introduction of papal bulls or letters into this country. But they had long since fallen into disuse; and such communications had been suffered to circulate, without molestation, as natural incidents to the internal discipline of the church of Rome. To prosecute Cardinal Wiseman for such an offence would have been an act of impotent vengeance. Safe from punishment, he would have courted martyrdom. The Queen's supremacy in all matters, ecclesiastical and temporal, was undoubted; but had it been invaded? When England professed the Catholic faith, the jurisdiction of the Pope had often conflicted with that of the crown. Both were concerned in the government of the same church; but now the spiritual supremacy of the crown was exercised over the church of England only. Roman Catholics, - in common with all other subjects not in communion with the church, enjoyed full toleration in their religious worship; and it was an essential part of their faith and polity to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Pope. Could legal restraints, then, be imposed upon the internal government of the church of Rome, without an infraction of religious toleration? True, the papal brief, in form and language, assumed a jurisdiction over the whole realm; and Cardinal Wiseman had said of himself, "We govern, and shall continue to govern, the counties of Middlesex, Hertford, and Essex." But was this more than an application of the immutable forms of the church of Rome to altered circumstances? In governing Roman Catholics, did the Pope wrest from the Queen any part of her ecclesiastical supremacy? Such were the difficulties of the case; and ministers endeavored to solve them by legislation. Drawing a broad distinction between the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope over the members of his church Ecclesiastical 1 In 1846, that part of the 13th Eliz. which attached the penalties of treason to this offence had been repealed, but the law continued in force. and an assumption of sovereignty over the realm, they proposed to interdict all ecclesiastical titles derived from places in the United Kingdom. Let the Catholics, they argued, be governed by their own bishops: let the Pope freely appoint them leave entire liberty to Catholic worship and polity: but reserve to the civil government of this country alone the right to create territorial titles. Upon this principle a bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Lord John Russell. The titles assumed by the Catholic bishops were prohibited the brief or rescript creating them was declared unlawful: the acts of persons bearing them were void; and gifts or religious endowments acquired by them, forfeited to the crown.1 These latter provisions were subsequently omitted by ministers; 2 and the measure was confined to the prohibition of territorial titles. It was shown that in no country in Europe, whether Catholic or Protestant, would the Pope be suffered to exercise such an authority, without the consent of the state; and it was not fit that England alone should submit to his encroachments upon the civil power. But as the bill proceeded, the difficulties of legislation accumulated. The bill embraced Ireland, where such titles had been permitted, without objection, since the Relief Act of 1829. It would, therefore, withdraw a privilege already conceded to Roman Catholics, and disturb that. great settlement. Yet, as the measure was founded upon the necessity of protecting the sovereignty of the crown, no part of the realm could be excepted from its operation. And thus, for the sake of repelling an aggression upon Protestant England, Catholic Ireland was visited with this new prohibition. The bill encountered objections, the most opposite and contradictory. On one side, it was condemned as Objections to a violation of religious liberty. The Catholics, it the bill. was said, were everywhere governed by bishops, to whom districts were assigned, universally known as dioceses, and 1 Feb. 7th, 1851. Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxiv. 187. 2 March 7th; Ibid., 1123. distinguished by some local designation. To interfere with the internal polity of the church of Rome was to reverse the policy of toleration, and might eventually lead to the revival of penal laws. If there was insolence in the traditional language of the Court of Rome, let it be repelled by a royal proclamation, or by addresses from both Houses, maintaining Her Majesty's undoubted prerogatives; but let not Parliament renew its warfare with religious liberty. On the other hand, it was urged that the encroachments of the church of Rome upon the temporal power demanded a more stringent measure than that proposed, severer penalties, and securities more effectual. These opposite views increased the embarrassments of the government, and imperilled the success of the measure. For a time, ministers received the support of large majorities who, differing upon some points, were yet agreed upon the necessity of a legislative condemnation of the recent measures of the church of Rome. But on the report of the bill, amendments were proposed by Sir F. Thesiger, to increase the stringency of its provisions. They declared illegal, not only the particular brief, but all similar briefs; extended to every person the power of prosecuting for offences, with the consent of the attorney-general; and made the introduction of bulls or rescripts a penal offence. Such stringency went far beyond the purpose of ministers, and they resisted the amendments; but a considerable number of members, chiefly Roman Catholics, hoping that ministers, if overborne by the opposition, would abandon the bill, retired from the House and left ministers in a minority. The amendments, however, were accepted, and the bill was ultimately passed.1 It was a protest against an act of the Pope which had outraged the feelings of the people of England: but as a legislative measure, it was a dead letter. The Results of the bill. 1 14 & 15 Vict. c. 60; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxiv. cxv. cxvi., passim Ann. Reg., 1851, ch. ii. iii. |