On this page
-
Text (2)
-
696 &i)t ILt&lltt* [Saturday,
-
THE FRIENDS OF ITALY. A society has just...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Parliament Of Tills Week. The House Of C...
jurisdiction over a district , was a temporal act which could in no country , not even in Naples , be performed without the consent of the Crown . He described the alternative to which the Catholics were reduced : — " It placed them in this dilemma , that they must either bow down humbly at the feet of the Pope , or break with Home altogether . If they looked at the Pope ' s act with the eye of the Constitution , they must break with the Pope ; if they looked at it with the eye of the Pope , they must break the law . " The Earl of Aberdeen had ridiculed the idea of a Continental conspiracy against liberty . Lord Beaumont replied : —
" It was his ( Lord Beaumont ' s ) opinion that there was at present unfortunately an ultra-montane party predominant , not so much on the other side of the Alps as on this , and the object of the recent act of the Pope was to give to the Roman Catholics of this country an ultramontane character . The step taken was but the first of a series on the part of the Court of Rome , directed against the liberal Catholicism which had grown up in this country . It was intended to bring over to the views of the fanatical converts , whose extravagance and absurd prejudices had brought disgrace on their adopted religion , those honest , liberal , straightforward Catholics who were satisfied with their position , and endeavoured to conform to the spirit of the free and liberal institutions of their country . ( Rear . )
The bill was supported by the Duke of Wellington , the Earl of Malmesbury , and the Duke of Argyll . Lord Berners opposed it . The general drift of the speeches was , in a quieter fashion , much the same as that in the other House . On the motion of the Earl of Winch elsea ., the debate was adjourned . The subject was resumed on Tuesday , and the debate carried on with great vigour . The Earl of Winchilsea said a great many extravagant things , with the rough force of expression which characterizesjthe speeches of that ancient foeman of Catholicism , in support of the bill . But the interest , of the debate was concentrated upon Lord Lyndkurst , who delivered a clear and masterly statement
of the contents of the measure . He also , like the Marquis of Lansdowne , had to set himself right with the House , and show that his present , was not inconsistent with his past , conduct . He had been a party to the Relief Act of 1829 . He was satisfied that that was a measure of justice , and absolutely necessary in the then state of Ireland . Afterwards he again came into power ( 1841 ) . A commission was sitting at that time to inquire into the criminal law , and he directed it to inquire into those acts which , at various times , had been passed for the repression and persecution of Catholicism . They made their report , a measure was introduced and carried ( in 1846 ) , expunging from the statutebook the greater part of those acts , and in others the extreme penalty imposed by them : —
" The object that he and his colleagues who cooperated with nim had in view , was the extension of toleration to the Roman Catholics . Did he say toleration ? He meant a full participation of all the rights and privileges of the rest of her Majesty's subjects . That was the object he had in view , and he thought they had fully attained that object . But toleration would never satisfy the Roman Catholic Church . ( Hear , hear . ) Toleration they wished for , to save themselves from inconvenience , and further , as a Btepping-stone to the attainment of power ; but toleration as a principle was wholly alien to the Roman Catholic Church . ( Hear . ) It was acknowledged that they despised it . Had he good authority for that ? lie had strong and decisive authority . In a letter from the late Pope to the bishops of Belgium he said , * They talk of establishing liberty of conscience . It is an
absurd and erroneous maxim—it is a wild notion . I reject it with disdain . ' ( Hear . ) What was it they desired ? Domination and ascendancy ; and never would they be satisfied until they obtained the object of their ambition . ( Hear . ) Had their designs changed from what they were in former times ? What they were 300 years ago , they were at the present moment—hesitating when politic , blinking when necessary , advancing when it could be done with safety . They told us that their principles were eternal—immutable . ( Hear , hear . ) He was willing and anxioun that toleration and liberty of conscience should be granted to the fullest extent . But toleration was widely different from domination . There , then , he took his utund—(/ tear , / tear ); and because ho conceived that this was the first step towards establishing that principle , he voted in support of this bill . ( Hear , hear . )
Ho charged it against the Irish Roman Catholics , that , nfter having accepted the Relief Act , they had broken faith , and violated its provisions in many instances . . Finally , they had culled together a Synod and condemned the Colleges , mid the Pope hud ratified the condemnation , lie would resist , as fur us he could , every encroachment ; ho would rescind nothing of what had been done . He approved of it . If it camo over again , ho should follow the Hatuo course . Hut thero h « took his stand . Not one step toward the attainment of powor , or the attainment of ascendancy of domination , would he proceed . Such whh his explanation of his personal relation to the bill . The main point of his speech , however , consisted of detailed exposition of the provisions of the bill and
their operation . He divided it into two distinct parts—the one declaratory of the existing law , the other enacting the new law . The law declared was that the attempt of the Pope to establish sees was illegal , and it followed that the jurisdiction alleged to be created by that act of the Pope , was illegal also . He produced many instances from the history of foreign nations , past and contemporary , to how that the Pope never had been allowed to appoint to a see without the consent of the Crown—even in
Roman Catholic countries . The enacting portion of the bill was to this eifeet —Any person assuming the title of any see would be subject to a penalty . Also the bill provided that the penalty might be enforced by any one , with the consent of the Attorney-General . This was preferable to the present law . For thirty years the present law had not been enforced . Better repeal the penalty than leave it so . An Attorney-General might sleep at his post ; this bill recalled him to activity . On these grounds he supported the bill . Among the other speakers who advocated and defended the measure was Lord Clanricarde , who looked upon the bill as necessary to defend the country from , Papal encroachments . He said : —
" It was impossible to overlook what was going on in Europe . Everywhere the Pope was seeking to increase his influence ; witness the treaty recently concluded between Spain and the Court of Rome . The recent act of the Pope was in conformity with the old policy of Rome , which sought to attain its ends by fomenting discord in states which refused to submit to its dominion . " The Lord Chancellor took the Government view of the matter entirely—quietly acquiescing in the Thesiger amendments as unavoidable evils . He made a very unmethodical speech , containing many points treated of without order , but said positively nothing which had not been said on the same side in the other House . Lord Hardwicke supported the bill " with reluctance , " and affirmed that " no party did support it thoroughly . "
The opposition , though few in number , was very spirited . The Duke of Newcastle ran the whole round of the arguments which tended to damage the bill . He censured the manner , while he acknowledged the substantial propriety of the rescript , contending that bishops must have a territorial designation , and that it was better to have bishops in ordinary than vicars apostolic . Lord Monteagle attacked the measure with great spirit , criticising the
conduct of Ministers , in reference to their former conduct a 3 Ministers , when they had distinctly refused to prosecute Irish bishops for the assumption of titles as illegal then as now . He treated the measure with especial reference to Ireland , and showed that the Irish bishops had been constantly recognized by the courts as territorial bishops . Why , then , suddenly turn upon them now and prosecute ? The people of Ireland would not permit them to forget their responsibility .
"He implored their lordships not to pass this bill , which would give rise to an agitation that would be most injurious , because it would be founded on a basis of truth and justice . ( C / ieers )" The Earl of St . Germain ' s energetically opposed the bill . His peroration is remarkable . "I think , " continued the noble earl , " I know something of Ireland . I am sure I take a great interest in all that relates to the people of that country , and I can unfeignedly declare that I never felt so strongly and deeply on any political question affecting them , as I do upon this . I cannot contemplate the adoption of this bill without dismay . You may put down rebellion with the sword , but , my lords , how will you contend with" ' Th' unconquerable will , " ' And study of revenge , immortal hate ,
" ' And courage never to submit or yield' ? These are among the consequences which you have to apprehend , and I earnestly hope your lordships will not adopt a measure which will again rivet on the Roman Catholics those fetters which the continued efforts of the greatest statesmen this country ever produced , have but lately succeeded in striking off . ( Cheers . )" Lord Lankdownis replied , commenting in general terms on the principal points of the debate ; the House divided , and the numbers were—¦ Contents for second reading , present 14 G , proxies 119—2 (' u >; non-contents , for amendment , present 20 , proxies 12—38 . Majority in favour of second reading , 227 .
1 heir lordships adjourned at live minutes to four o ' clock . Khnkkt Joniis . —Lord Diidi . kv Stuart brought the cane of Krnest Charles Jones before the House on Tuesday . He gave a very fair account of the indignities and persecutions inflicted on Mr . Jones by the Governor of Tothill-fields prison , and he moved " for copies of all mien and regulations which at any time , from the year 1840 to the present time , had been in force within
the several prisons in Knglaud and Wales , no far as they affected prisoners convicted of political offences . " The motion was supported by Mr . W . Williams , Mr . W . J . Fox , Sir 11 . Willoughby , tiir l ) e Lacy JOvann , Mr . George Thompson , and Colonel Thompson ; that i « to uay , tlu'HO gentlemen all agreed that Mr . Jones had been very cruelly treated . Mr . Henley qualified hia opinion . He aaid it would bo difficult to « uy that Mr . Jones hud . not been handily dealt with . Aa there in no distinction
betwen political and other offenders , the papers coul d not be produced , and the motion was withdrawn , upon the distinct understanding that the noble lord should obtain , as an unopposed return , the rules and regulations of certain prisons which he would designate , in which political offenders had been imprisoned .
696 &I)T Ilt&Lltt* [Saturday,
696 & i ) t ILt & lltt * [ Saturday ,
The Friends Of Italy. A Society Has Just...
THE FRIENDS OF ITALY . A society has just been formed in London under the name of the Society of the Friends of Italy , having in view the following objects : — " 1 . By public meetings , lectures , and the press , and especially by affording opportunity to the most competent authorities for the publication of works on the history of the Italian National Movement—to promote a correct appreciation of the Italian question in this country . " 2 . To use every available constitutional means of furthering the cause of Italian National Independence in Parliament , " 3 . And generally to aid , in this country , the cause of the independence , and of the political and religious liberty of the Italian People . "
The names of the council are a guarantee that the Society is in its endeavours , to serve the cause of Italy . Amongst them we find the names of W . H . Ashurst , of Muswell-hill ; " William Coningham , Brighton ; G . Crawshay , Newcastle - upon - Tyne ; George Dawson , M . A ., Birmingham ; T . S . Duncombe , M . P ., Finsbury ; Q . J . Holyoake , London ; Thornton Hunt , Hammersmith ; Douglas Jerrold , London ; " Walter SavageLandor , Bath ; Reverend E . R . Larken , Lincoln ; T . Latimer , Exeter ; G . H . Lewie , Kensington ; Dr . M'Knight , Belfast ; W . C . Macready , Sherbourne ; Edward Miall , London ; F . Mowatr , M . P ., Pentyn ; Professor If ewrnan , London ; E . F . S . Pigott , London ; W . Scholefield , M . P ., Birmingham ; T . J . Serle , Hammersmith ; James Stansfield , junior , Brompton ; and Lord Dudley Stuart , M . P ., Marylebone . Mr . David Masson has been appointed secretary of this society .
The first public act of the society has been to present the following petition to the House of Commonsj through Mr . Thomas Duncombe : — To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled , The Humble Petition of the Undersigned , Members of the Council of the Society of the Friends of Italy , for and on behalf of the Council of the said Society , Showeth , —That during these two years , after having , without provocation , attacked and overthrown the Roman Republic , a Republic legally and peacefully organized by the will of the Roman People through Universal Suffrage , and confirmed by a gallant and glorious defence , French troops have been sojourning in Rome as in a conquered territory .
That , as a palliative , or an attenuation of this shameful deed of violent interference in the affairs of a free , peaceful , and friendly People , they uniformly declared in all their proclamations , acts , and assemblies , that they were doing for the purpose of establishing peace and order , and consulting the real wishes of the Roman population —whom they wrongly asserted to be enslaved and misled by a violent faction—as to the political institutions , and guarantees for civil freedom , which should be set up in Rome .
That the English Government , while indirectly , and , as your petitioners believe , unjustly participating in the deed ( since its real sympathy with the re-instatement of the Pope distinctly appears in the correspondence on the affairs of Rome recently presented to your Honourable House , and especially in the extract No . 12 , from the letter of the Marquis of Noimanby ) , still maintained that such re-instatement ought not to be disjoined from sufficient securities to the Roman people for the enjoyment of constitutional liberties .
That the same Government deprecated , at the time , any prolonged sojourn of the French troops in Rome . That the ostemsible aim of the French troops on entering Rome has not been attained , not a semblance of constitutional liberty having been since established , nor the will of the Roman People in any manner consulted ; but that despotism alone , and unlimited authority , and the whole series of the old and often condemned abuses , have been re-introduced , and are still kept up by force , in the midst , of a people whose wishes for a free Government , and for the separation of the spiritual from the temporal authority of the Tope , have been amply and unmtHtakeably declared .
That , after two years of fruitless and unjust occupation , the French troops still seem bent upon perpetuating their sojourn in Rome to an indefinite period , and that they are increasing the number of their men there , and fortifying various pluccs of importance within the city . That , being now equally obnoxious to the People and to the Pope , they lead by their obstinacy to the idea thut a permanent military conquest is intended . That such a military conquest could not be tolerated without a flagrant violation of every international law , well as of th « high principlen of Justice and Liberty—the admission of which violation would inflict irreparable disgrace on the character of the English nation .
That the prolonged sojourn of which the petitioners complain , is engendering mutual reaction ami hatred between the occupiera and occupied , leading to instances of revenge , » nd producing anarchy and other deplorable results . Thut the Roman States have been simultaneously invaded by Austrian troops , which are still there , and for the withdrawal of which there is no chance , ho long as the French troops keep their position in the flame states . That Nationality is a sacred thing , which cannot bo violated without the establishment thereby of it precedent dangerous to every free nation , without exception .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 26, 1851, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_26071851/page/4/
-