Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Pope inferred from certain indications in our Church, that the period had arrived when he might intrude his authority. He had come to the conclusion that there was no religious necessity for the change, and that Parliament was called upon to resist this aggression by legislation. Sir Frederick, remarking that there was a great misapprehension respecting the law as to ecclesiastical titles in Ireland, investigated this point, and then examined the law in regard to the introduction of bulls. He next criticised the course taken in this matter by Lord J. Russell, who by this Bill had, he argued, left the law in its former unsatisfactory state. The Papal power being compounded of temporal and spiritual authority intimately blended, the object of the bull, he was convinced, was to extend a sovereign power over the kingdom of England, for the complete development of the Roman Catholic Church was nothing short of universal dominion. This being the case, what did the Bill propose to do? To prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. But Sir Frederick showed how easily the penalty might be evaded; he doubted whether it would prevent synodical action, and he showed the confusion in which the alterations to be made in the Bill would involve the whole measure. He should nevertheless vote for the second reading, because he thought legislation absolutely necessary; because, bad as it was, he would rather have the minimum of legislation than none at all, and because he would endeavour in committee to amend it.

Mr. Gladstone said the views of Sir F. Thesiger were formidable indeed, and it was desirable, before

the House entered upon a new path, that it should at least understand the direction in which it tended. He had talked of benefits abused and of defences surrendered, and it was too plain that, in his judgment, his judgment, those defences should be repaired by restrictions upon religious freedom. His (Mr. Gladstone's) vote would be governed by a regard to principles of imperial policy, and to the welfare of the entire community, with reference to the interests of the Church of England. He believed that our Constitution was strong enough to resist any aggression whatever by any power in the world. The Church of England was not in such a position, but the power of the Church could not be defended by temporal legislation, which had been tried before, and had utterly failed. If it could be shown that the Papal authorities had interfered with our temporal affairs, which was not permitted by any other religious body, legislation was not only just, but called for. Until, however, that line was passed, we had no right to interfere. He admitted that the language of the Papal documents was not only unfortunate, but of a vaunting and boastful character, of which complaint might justly be made; but was it just to pass a proscribing Act affecting our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects on account of language for which they were not responsible? We must look to the substance of the act, and by that stand or fall. If the law of nations had been broken, nothing was more disparaging to the country than to proceed only by Act of Parliament imposing a penalty. There was nothing to prevent our representing the wrong to the party who had done it, and

demanding redress. The Bill, however, was before the House, and the question was what to do with a measure which no one had said was adequate for the purpose. Mr. Gladstone then pointed out various deficiencies and anomalies in the Bill, which, he said, did not defend the territorial rights of the Crown; and with respect to Romish aggression, there was a preliminary question-whether the rescript of the Pope had a temporal character. That the Roman Catholics recognised the Pope as their spiritual head, did not justify the withholding one jot of religious freedom. It was not enough that bishops were appointed by a foreign authority; it must be shown that they were not spiritual officers, but appointed for temporal purposes. If the appointment of bishops per se was a spiritual not a temporal act, why interfere with the Roman Catholic bishops? If it was per se a temporal act, why exempt the Scotch bishops? There was no proof, as to any of the details of ecclesiastical machinery, that there was any temporal character in the rescript distinct from that incidental to the disciplinary arrangements of every religious body, and without such proof there was not a shadow of ground for the Bill. In the forgotten corners of the law might be found doctrines of Royal supremacy which might make this act of the Pope an aggression; but if we fell back upon these doctrines, he protested against their application to one religious body alone. There was a part of this question which, Mr. Gladstone remarked, had not been adverted to in this discussion, namely, the effect which this measure would exert upon the two parties into which the Romish

community was divided. For 300 years the Roman Catholic laity and secular clergy-the moderate party-had been struggling, with the sanction of the British Government, for this very measure, the appointment of diocesan bishops, which the extreme party-the regulars and cardinals at the Court of Rome-had been all along struggling to resist. The present legislation would drive the Roman Catholics back upon the Pope, and, teazing them with a miniature penal law, would alienate and estrange them. Religious freedom was a principle which had not been adopted in haste, and had not triumphed until after half a century of agonizing struggles; and he trusted we were not now going to repeat Penelope's process without her purpose, and undo a great work which had been accomplished with so much difficulty.

Mr. Disraeli rose to express his sentiments and those of his party upon the general question and the particular measure. They had been informed by the Minister that there had been an aggression against the supremacy of the Sovereign and the honour of the nation, by a Prince of no great power. But whatever opinion might be entertained of the aggression, it was not wise to despise the foe that committed it. He denied that he was of no great power; he was of very great, if not the greatest power, his army consisting of a million of priests. And was such a power to be treated as a Wesleyan Conference, or associated with the last invention of Scotch Dissenters? If the interpretation of religious liberty given by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. R. Palmer was correct, on what plea could the same principle be refused to the

Church of England? Why should she not have synodical action? Why should she acknowledge the supremacy of the Queen? The inference from their doctrine was, that they were opposed to the alliance between the Church and State. With respect to the Bill, which in six weeks had undergone countless transformations, he objected to it, first, because it declared by implication the conduct of the Cardinal not to be illegal. If legal, it was no offence; if illegal, why was it not dealt with by law, which, though ancient, was not obsolete? He objected to the Bill, secondly, because it was an attempt to legislate against titles only. Believing it would be utterly inefficient, he should nevertheless vote for the second reading, solely for the reasons assigned by Sir F. Thesiger. Mr. Disraeli concluded with a severe and pointed criticism upon the course which had been pursued on various public questions by Sir J. Graham.

Sir G. Grey agreed with Mr. Gladstone, that this measure should be defended upon the ground of imperial policy, and that no attempt should be made to fetter or restrain religious freedom. As an Imperial question, there were two points for consideration: first, had there been such an aggression upon the sovereignty of the Queen and the independency of the nation as called upon Parliament to interfere? and next, was this a measure which Parliament should adopt? Upon the first point, he replied to the objections of Mr. Palmer, Mr. Herbert, and other opponents of the Bill, and insisted upon the fallacy of assimilating the case of the Roman Catholics with that of the Wesleyans, between which there was this essential dis

tinction, that the former was an organized body under a foreign Prince, who exercised a mixed spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, who claimed universal dominion, and who had appointed these bishops without sanction by or communication with the British Government-a condition in all the proposals for substituting vi cars-apostolic for bishops in ordinary, referred to by Mr. Gladstone. The Bill was no departure from the Act of 1829; on the contrary, it was in harmony with its spirit. He defied the opponents of the Bill to show that it was hostile to the principles of religious freedom, or that it in the slightest degree interfered with the exercise of their religion by the Roman Catholics. In reply to an insinuation that the agitation had been got up by clergymen, Sir George referred to the different classes of religionists from whom petitions had been received, who had felt, he said, as Englishmen that their independence had been assailed. ritorial titles alleged to be only empty names, were the badges and symbols of a jurisdiction claimed to be exercised by the sole and undivided authority of the Court of Rome, and the House was asked only to place the brand of illegality upon them.

The ter

Mr. P. Howard indignantly protested against a supposed imputation upon the Roman Catholic body by Sir G. Grey, who obviated the misapprehension, and the House having divided the numbers were— For the second reading. 438 Against it.

Majority

95

[ocr errors][merged small]

We must pass over very briefly the discussions which took place during the progress of the Ecclesiastical

[ocr errors]

Titles Bill through Committee, in which the principle of the measure was again and again brought into question, though the subject had long ceased to admit of any novelty in the arguments. The motion to go into Committee was, in the first place, strongly opposed, and even this preliminary proposition was not decided without an adjourned debate and several divisions, the majority for the Government being, however, in each case very large. The House having gone into Committee, several amendments were proposed, but without success; Lord Arundel endeavoured to insert in the first clause a saving of so much of the jurisdiction declared by the Bill to be illegal, as might be necessary "for temporal purposes." This amendment was rejected by 316 to 61. Another amendment, proposed by Mr. Keogh, having for its object to exclude the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland from the operation of the Bill, was defeated by 344 to 59. The question that the first clause stand part of the Bill, on which Sir James Graham again renewed his objections with much earnestness, and expressed his serious apprehensions as to the working of the measure, was carried by 244 to 62. On the second clause being proposed, Mr. M'Cullagh moved the insertion of words intended to give legal recognition to the acknowledgments made from time to time by the Irish Courts, of the titular dignity of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates. The amendment was negatived by 291 to 45; and another proposed by Mr. Moore, making the operation of the Bill contingent on the Protestant Church continuing to be the United Church of England and Ireland, was negatived by

an almost equal majority. On a subsequent discussion of the same clause, four more amendments were disposed of in the negative; one of these, however, emanated from a different quarter from that which supplied the main opposition to the Bill, and was defeated by a much smaller majority. It was moved by Sir F. Thesiger, and related to the mode of enforcing the penalties under the Bill. He proposed to give to any person the right of suing, instead of confining it to the law officers of the Crown; but to restrain mere sordid motives, or those of religious intolerance, he would make the fiat of the Attorney-General necessary to the informer's suit. The amendment was opposed by the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bethell, and Lord John Russell, and supported by Mr. Walpole, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord John Manners. It was negatived by a majority of 33, the division being 166 to 130. Mr. Sharman Crawford attempted again to except Ireland from the operation of the Bill, by inserting a specific clause of exemption, but the House declined the proposal by a majority of 195. A clause of considerable length, prefaced by a long recital touching the Queen's supremacy and the prerogatives of the Established Church, which was moved by Sir Robert Inglis, shared the same fate, being negatived by 166 to 121. length, the session being far advanced, this much-disputed Bill reached the last stage of its progress through Committee. This was on the 23rd of June, when Mr. Walpole moved the extensive and important alterations of which he had previously given notice. The first change proposed was in

At

Church of England? Why should she not have synodical action? Why should she acknowledge the supremacy of the Queen? The inference from their doctrine was, that they were opposed to the alliance between the Church and State. With respect to the Bill, which in six weeks had undergone countless transformations, he objected to it, first, because it declared by implication the conduct of the Cardinal not to be illegal. If legal, it was no offence; if illegal, why was it not dealt with by law, which, though ancient, was not obsolete? He objected to the Bill, secondly, because it was an attempt to legislate against titles only. Believing it would be utterly inefficient, he should nevertheless vote for the second reading, solely for the reasons assigned by Sir F. Thesiger. Mr. Disraeli concluded with a severe and pointed criticism upon the course which had been pursued on various public questions by Sir J. Graham.

Sir G. Grey agreed with Mr. Gladstone, that this measure should be defended upon the ground of imperial policy, and that no attempt should be made to fetter or restrain religious freedom. As an Imperial question, there were two points for consideration: first, had there been such an aggression upon the sovereignty of the Queen and the independency of the nation as called upon Parliament to interfere? and next, was this a mea

which Parliament should adopt? Upon the first point, he replied to the objections of Mr. Palmer, Mr. Herbert, and other opponents of the Bill, and insisted upon the fallacy of assimilating the case of the Roman Catholics with that of the Wesleyans, between which there was this essential dis

tinction, that the former was an organized body under a foreign Prince, who exercised a mixed spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, who claimed universal dominion, and who had appointed these bishops without sanction by or communication with the British Government-a condition in all the proposals for substituting vicars-apostolic for bishops in ordinary, referred to by Mr. Gladstone. The Bill was no departure from the Act of 1829; on the contrary, it was in harmony with its spirit. He defied the opponents of the Bill to show that it was hostile to the principles of religious freedom, or that it in the slightest degree interfered with the exercise of their religion by the Roman Catholics. In reply to an insinuation that the agitation had been got up by clergymen, Sir George referred to the different classes of religionists from whom petitions had been received, who had felt, he said, as Englishmen that their independ ence had been assailed. The territorial titles alleged to be only empty names, were the badges and symbols of a jurisdiction claimed to be exercised by the sole and undivided authority of the Court of Rome, and the House was asked only to place the brand of illegality upon them.

Mr. P. Howard indignantly protested against a supposed imputation upon the Roman Catholic body by Sir G. Grey, who obviated the misapprehension, and the House having divided the numbers were→→→ For the second reading. 438 Against it..

Majority...

95

. 343

We must pass over very briefly the discussions which took place dur ing the progress of the Ecclesiastical

« EdellinenJatka »