« ForrigeFortsett »
of the Established Church, which tion a power of dealing with reliChurch, and not the Pope, he gious endowments made by parties contended, had been the aggressor who had not intended that they in this case.
This Bill would be should be so administered; and an aggression upon the Roman whilst he was not aware that, in Catholics of the United Kingdom, respect to spiritual matters, Vicars whom it would deprive of the bene- Apostolic, who were Bishops in fit of the legislative compact in partibus, had less authority than 1829; it would, therefore, directly territorial Bishops, it was important violate that compact, and it was to estop persons dependent upon especially unjust in being applied the Pope of Rome from interfering to Ireland, where it would be a with the rights of British subjects. Bill of pains and penalties, creating The Bill, therefore, in the first discord and disunion.
place, extended the provisions of The Attorney-General explained the Roman Catholic Relief Act, the general scope and effect of the which imposed a penalty of 1001. proposed Bill, and the specific upon the assumption of the title of offence which it was intended to any existing see, to that of any meet. The offence consisted in title whatever from any place in the introduction of a bull, by the United Kingdom. But it did which certain persons were autho- not stop there. In order more rized by the Pope to assume the effectually to prevent the assumptitles of Bishops in England, with tion of territorial titles, the Bill jurisdictions defined by territorial would make every act done by limits. It was a sound maxim in persons assuming such titles, by politics that you ought not to in- virtue of them, absolutely void; troduce a larger remedy than suf- and, in addition, in order to hinder ficed to meet the evil complained parties from making gifts to persons of, and he believed the proposed assuming such titles, the Bill would measure would effectually attain declare the endowment of such the object in view. The act of the pretended sees illegal, and the gifts Court of Rome was resented by would be forfeited to the Crown, to the country because, first, it was be disposed of as Her Majesty saw an insult offered to the British fit-a course which was deemed Crown ; secondly, it was an injury better than that of declaring such inflicted upon certain classes of its gifts void, since the Crown could subjects. With respect to the distribute them equitably. By thus insult, he thought it would be suf- preventing persons from assuming ficiently repelled by the opinion territorial titles, and preventing expressed throughout the country the existence of the dioceses or and in that House, and by words sees themselves, the Bill would introduced in the Bill. The injury effectually remedy the mischief --which affected the Roman Catho- complained of; and it was very lic classes of the community-was desirable that it should not be exof a two-fold nature, spiritual and tended to cases which might not temporal. With the spiritual effect arise, or which the existing law was of the bull the House had nothing competent to reach, or which, being to do; but its effect in temporal of a spiritual character, could not matters would be to give to the be effectually dealt with by legislaBishops having territorial jurisdic- tion, and must be left to the good
sense and judgment of the Roman against the further results of their Catholics themselves.
proceedings, amongst which might Lord Ashley said that the ques- be, he feared, a collision betwixt the tion was, whether ecclesiastics of the clergy and the laity, which would Church of Rome were to be allowed go very far to purify the Church. to occupy a position in this realm Mr. Grattan, in a very discursive which they had never occupied in speech, opposed the motion. their most palmy days; and whe- Mr. Page Wood denied that any ther the civil and religious liberties 'feeling of bigotry had been maniof the people of this country were fested in the country upon this to be protected. The question did subject. There had been no desire not affect the Church of England to advocate a return to the penal merely; it affected Dissenters of laws. There had, indeed, been all denominations, and touched the great earnestness, and a sense of civil and religious liberties of Ro- aggression attempted by a power, man Catholics themselves. The lately dormant, which our ancestors measure proposed had been ob- had always resisted. It was said jected to because of the weakness that this was
a dispute about of the Pope ; but his spiritual names; but Mr. Wood showed the power was vast. Then it was said essential difference between a Vicar to be a restriction upon religious Apostolic and a Bishop of a diocese, liberty, and to intrench upon the in respect to ecclesiastical (distinAct of 1829; but this was not a guished from spiritual)jurisdiction. question of taking anything from The erection of sees, he argued, the Roman Catholics, but of allow- was an act of sovereign right. In ing them to take something from England no attempt had ever been us. Lord Ashley then considered made to erect a see except by royal whether a hierarchy was necessary authority, nor had the Pope ever for the development of the Roman been allowed to erect a see in any Catholic religion in this country, continental State. The attempt and whether it was consistent with to erect sees was, he contended, the rights of the Crown and the an offence at common law, and civil and religious liberty of its under the statutes of 16th Richard subjects. On the first head he and 13th Elizabeth ; therefore the showed that territorial titles were bill was no ex post facto law. This unnecessary, and on the second
was not a solitary indication of the head he cited the testimony of Dr. designs entertained by the Pope Wiseman himself, who had declared and his advisers; they had endeathat the object of the hierarchy voured to extend the Papal authowas to obtain synodical action, rity in like manner over the East, which was repugnant to the rights where it had encountered the like of the Crown and to the liberties resistance. The object of Dr. of the people. The Roman Catho- Wiseman was, to introduce into lic laity would be thereby subject England synodical action and the to the canon law (extracts of which canon law, which, declaring that he read) for the first time in Eng- the laws of the State were suborland. Lord Ashley concluded with dinate to those of the Church, an impressive warning to those placed Roman Catholics in the within our own Church who, he dilemma of a double allegiance. believed, had invited this attack, Mr. Wood concluded with an inVol. XCIII.
dignant denunciation of the conduct the call of the country, when proof certain of our clergy, who, whilst voked by those who now complained Romanists in their hearts, conti- of the course which the Government nued to administer the offices and had been driven to. It was clear, receive the emoluments of the too, that the act which had renChurch of England.
dered this measure necessary was Mr. Keogh warmly opposed the an illegal act. It had been likewise measure in question, because he established that that act was not a disputed every one of the grounds spiritual act of a merely spiritual upon which it was based. He de- authority, but was an act of ecclenied that the Queen's prerogative siastical authority by a power had been interfered with, that exercising mixed temporal, ecclethere was an assumption of terri- siastical, and spiritual power, torial power, or that an insult had which not only invaded
the been offered to the Sovereign or Queen's prerogative, but ignored her subjects. There was nothing the very existence of any other in the common or statute law to Church or religious denomination prevent the creation of sees, or in this country, over which it that made the act of the Pope an claimed universal dominion. Sir invasion of the prerogative. That George then replied to the three act was no assumption of territorial charges which had been brought power, at least beyond what was against the Government-namely, sanctioned by precedents, several giving titles of honour and respect, of which he cited; and he com- such as “your Grace," to Roman plained that the Government, for Catholic prelates; addressing these a series of years, had been leading prelates by titles prohibited by the See of Rome to believe that law; and, lastly, that a member the act would be acceptable. With of the Government had a previous regard to the details of the mea- knowledge of the intentions of the sure, he asked the noble Lord Court of Rome. He did not deny whether he had considered ma- the first, and declined offering an turely the effect of the Bill in excuse for it. He did deny the Ireland, the practical working of second charge, and declared that which would be, he believed, to the letter of Mr. Disraeli, in stop the ecclesiastical functions which it was preferred, was full of there. Was he prepared to rouse blunders. He also corrected an the fell spirit of religious hate? error on the part of Lord St. Did he intend to execute the law, Germans with reference to this and to prosecute the Roman Catho- point, which had crept into the lic prelates of that country before work of Dr. Twiss. With regard an Irish jury?
to the last charge—that, prior to Sir G. Grey said, notwithstanding the promulgation of the bull, a the inconvenience of the present direct communication upon the discussion, arising upon a prelimi- subject had been made by the nary question, he did not regret it, Pope to Lord Minto-Sir George since it had cleared the ground for referred to the distinct denial of future debate by establishing cer- his Lordship; and, with respect tain propositions. It was clear to the statement of Abbate Hamilthat the Government were acting ton, quoted by Mr. Roebuck, he on the defensive, in obedience to admitted that the Abbate had written upon the subject to Lord ment of the questions agitated; and Minto, who, in return, had ac- especially he doubted if it would knowledged that he had received not wholly fail as a weapon to prean intimation of an intention to vent or control synodical action : it confer upon Dr. Wiseman archie- would only afford another illustrapiscopal rank, but repeated that tion proving how utterly powerless down to the promulgation of the the heavy arm of temporal power bull he had been in total ignorance is in dealing with the voluntary of any design to establish a hier- submission of the mind — with archy. In conclusion, he vindicated those questions of opinion and the manifestation of public feeling belief as they have been called, from the imputation of bigotry; which reside within the precincts it was a national demonstration of the conscience. against an attempt to force upon The House was addressed by a us a foreign domination, which our great number of members in addiancestors had successfully with- tion to those already named, during stood.
the discussion of this preliminary Mr. P. Howard, Mr. C. Anstey, stage of the measure, which was Mr. Hume, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. protracted throughout four nights A. B. Hope opposed the Bill as by successive adjournments. The involving an infringement of the limits of our space, however, preprinciples of religious liberty. Col. clude more detailed notice of the Thompson and Mr. Spooner gave several speeches. At length, on the it their support. Mr. Napier spoke 14th of February, after more than in favour of the necessity of legis- one ineffectual attempt to close the lation against the eneroachments of debate, the House was brought to Rome, but suspended his judgment a division, when the numbers were as to the provisions of the proposed as follow:Bill. Mr. F. Peel made an im- For the introduction of pressive speech against the mea- the Bill
395 sure. The Bill seemed to him not
63 entitled to the merit of being a permanent and comprehensive settle- Majority for Ministers 332
AGRICULTURE AND PROTECTION – Mr. Disraeli's motion in favour of
Relief for Agricultural Distress-His Speech— The Debate is continued for two nights by adjournment—Answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Špeeches of the Marquis of Granby, Sir James Graham, Mr. Booker, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Cobden, and Lord John Russell - After a Reply from Mr. Disraeli, the Motion is negatived by a majority of 14. PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE, AND DEFEAT OF MINISTERS—Mr. Locke King moves for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Franchise in Counties to 10l. Occupiers-His Motion is supported by Mr. Hume and Mr. Cobden, and opposed by Lord John Russell, but is carried against the Government by 100 votes against 52. THE BUDGET-First Financial Statement of the Year made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 17th of February -His Propositions respecting the Income Tax, and partial Repeal of the Window Tax— The Statement is very unfavourably received by the House-- Adverse Criticisms from various Members. THE MINISTERIAL Crisis-On the 20th of February the Resignation of Lord John Russell's Cabinet is announced in the Newspapers-Reasons generally alleged for this step-On the meeting of the Houses on the 21st, the Ministerial Leaders propose Adjournments till the 24th-On the 24th Explanations are given in both Houses—Statement of the Marquis of Lansdowne in the House of Lords— Remarks of Lord StanleySimilar Statement by Lord John Russell in the House of CommonsRemarks of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Roebuck-Further Adjournments till the 28th are proposed and agreed to-On that day the Marquis of Lansdowne, in the Upper House, enters into a detailed account of the Negotiations carried on for the Reconstruction of the Ministry—He announces that the Queen had had recourse to the Duke of Wellington for advice at this juncture—Speeches of the Earl of Aberdeen and Lord Stanley relative to the parts taken by them in the late transactions
- In the Commons, on the same evening, Lord John Russell enters into a full Statement of what had occurred—Important Speech of Sir James Graham-Remarks of Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Hume, Sir R. Inglis, and other Members—Ultimate adjustment of the Ministerial Crisis, and Reinstalment of the late Cabinet announced on the 3rd of March— Discussions in both Houses on this occasion- Declarations by Irish Members of determined hostility to the Ecclesiastical Titles BillRemarks of Lord John Manners and Mr. Wakley. NE of the most important de- of this session took place on a mo