On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    . branding with the name of mummeries and superstition the rites and observances of a large portion of His fellow countrymen . Sir Raxph Lopes gave his ssent to the bill in the hope that some salutary measure would be introduced hereafter . Mr . Walter contended that the Pope had violated the provisions of the very act of Parliament from which Roman Catholics derived their right to sit in that House , and -who had contravened the law of nations . The act of 1829 according to the plain construction of the clause , was not limited to existing sees . Sir James Gbaham had su ^ ested the difficulty of distinguishing between a " district , " the term used in the Charitable and diocesebut he had himself

    Bequests Act , a ; furnished a distinction in his speech upon that act . If the measure of the Pope were allowed to take effect in this realm , this would be the only country in which the development of the Roman Catholic hierarchy , was permitted without the control of the State . Though this country might be in no danger of receiving detriment at the hands of the Pope , we were , nevertheless , bound to resist the pretensions of an adversary who wanted the power , but not the will , to enforce them . It would be dangerous to allow the Church of Rome to decide the limits of spiritual jurisdiction , and stiU more so to permit her to determine questions of a mixed

    character . The State owed to its subjects of every religion a protection against abuses of spiritual authotity by their superiors . In almost all continental countries the State exercised a control over even the spiritual acts of the Church ; and if this was so in Roman Catholic countries , why was this control to be denied to the State ? He did not regret the agitation to which Lord J . Russell ' s letter had given rise , since it would have the effect of opening the eyes of Roman Catholics—amongst whom there prevailed a mistaken idea as to the state of religion in this country—to the deep-rooted Protestantism

    of the people ; and it would teach them to be cautious how they attempted to put in practice here an organized system of proselytism . Let the House , he said , be assured that if the people were once possessed with the idea that there existed any danger of Roman Catholic unmarried priests setting themselves up side by side with the Protestant clergy ; of dying bequests being intercepted ; of the confessional being introduced as a general rule ; of young women being seduced into convents ; and if they felt that the law would not proteot them , they would be very much disposed to take the law into their own hands . As regarded Ireland , he could

    only say that , although it was not his intention to oppose the extension of this measure to Ireland , he should have been equally willing to leave it out of the question . That unhappy country had enjoyed for so many years a prescriptive right to every species of abuse and misrule , that he should be sorry to deprive it , in this instance , of a privilege it . had so long possessed . Mr . Anstey advised Lord John to drop this bill and introduce one dealing , not with names , but realities . Lord Ashley insisted that the main question was—shall Parliament come to the succour of the Queen , to maintain the rig hts of the people , and to assert the civil and religious liberties of half mankind . Mr . Palmer had maintained the broad proposition that everything done by the Pope was justifiable because founded upon the concession

    of liberty of conscience , and because it was necessary for spiritual development . It this proposition were admitted , all that was left to us was submission ; but Mr . Palmer ' s definition of " liberty of conscience " ignored at once the prerogative of the Crown and the rights und liberties of the whole mass of our Protestant fellow-subjects . This bill was called persecution . How could it be persecution merely to forbid a foreign potentate to confer territorial titles ? It was a new plea , not thought of in 1829 , that such titles were necessary for the development of spiritual functions . If there was any persecution in this matter , it was upon the Roman Catholic laity , forcing them to choose between ultramontane allegiance and British loyalty . Lord Ashley took a

    rapid view of the vicissitudes , the onward action , the untiring energy , and the oppressive domination of the Romish see , and urged the danger of affording to its spirit of encroachment the facilities of an organized hierarchy and nynodicul action , which gave to the canon law its force nnd also its peril—a law that would alter many obligations , public and p rivate , in Bociety , law , and politics . The . measure before the House might not be strong enoug h , to grapple with so wily und Protean an adversary ; but they did not confide in legislation only—they trusted to the convictions and attitude of the people . " Happe what may , we stand upon the foundations of that immortal faith which wo have neither the right nor tho deposition to surrender . " Mr . Sidnhy Hkkhkut could see no connection between the threatened dangers

    and the bill that was to defend us from them . " Call Dr . M'Hule Archbishop of Timbuctoo , instead of Tuiim , would he be the Icbb able to withhold the Sacraments from laymen ? ( Hear , hear . ) Would all the Irish ambarraHHrnontH be got rid of , nnd the spiritual power of the Roman Catholic Church be HupproHscd ? ( floor . ) AVhy , there was no logical cimiii ction between the two things ; and it wuu pitiitble to hear men get up oho after the other , and night after night , declaiming uguiimt the

    Roman Catholic religion , and then say , because this is so—because it is so hostile to civil and religious liberty in Italy , Spain , &c . ; therefore all this must be got rid of , and an Intolerant Church made meek and humble by calling Dr . Wiseman Archbishop of Melipotamus instead of Westminster . ( Hear . ) The measure was a mere sham , which would not bear a moment ' s examination ( hear , hear ) , and he regretted to hear men , able and acute , committing themselves to an argument which had not a rag of reason or logic to rest upon . ( Hear , hear . )"

    If the object was to deal with the Pope , to restrain his action in Ireland , and the circulation of his Bulls —which would not be prevented by this bill—why not legislate directly against that foreign potentate , and not against the Roman Catholics only ? Although the Roman Catholic religion had made considerable progress in England , there was , he believed , no time since the Reformation when England had shown a greater determination to adhere to Protestantism ; and his conviction was that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were foreign to the genius of the English people . Lord Palmerston had hoped that , when the principle , not of toleration , but of religious

    freedom , had been established , these odious controversies would never be heard within the walls of Parliament . But whose fault was it that it was not so ? That of a foreign potentate , who had committed an aggression upon the sovereignty of this country . He would never consent to be a party to anything like penal enactments , and he denied that the bill deserved to be so characterized . It was merely the complement of the measure of emancipation ; in principle it was precisely the same ; whilst it applied directly to the evil for which a remedy was required , without imposing any restriction upon the Roman Catholic hierarchy incompatible with their sacred duties .

    The Sunday Trading Prevention Bill was read a second time , and referred to a select committee , on Wednesday , after a short discussion . Mr . W . Williams , who said he had taken charge of the bill at the request of a large number of his constituents who were Sunday traders , urged the necessity for such a measure on the ground of humanity . He did not take it up as a relig ious question , but simply on the ground that Sunday ought to be a day of rest : — " Amongst the evidence before the Lords' committee , a journeyman , in a large clothing establishment , stated that his employers opened on Sunday morning at seven o ' clock with a display of all kinds of articles , and kept open whilst persons were going to church . A

    journeyman butcher stated that they commenced business at four o ' clock on Saturday morning , and kept open ^ until half-past twelve at night , and then again at seven o ' clock on Sunday morning until one . A journeyman grocer stated that his employer commenced business at four o ' clock on Saturday morning , and kept open until halfpast eleven at night , and began again at seven on Sunday morning for several hours , and that was the general practice in the trade amongst the shops that opened on Sunday . Here were men compelled to work for twenty hours in one day , and he would ask what condition of slavery was more worthy their pity than that of men forced to such incessant toil by the hard necessity of the custom of the trade ?"

    Mr . B . Wall opposed the bill , which lie characterized as one of the most mischievous , irritating , anomalous , and uncalled for measures ever brought before the House . Mr . Lknnahd took the same view . The measure would operate in a most ruinous and oppressive manner against the working classes , and was supported by none except those who strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel . An amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months was withdrawn , on the understanding that the select committee shall hciir evidence .

    The dulness which had characterized the debate up to Thursday evening was suddenly transformed into violent excitement by Mr . Drummond . The adjourned discussion had been opened by Mr . Nkwdkgatb , who introduced Miss Talbot and her fortune of £ 80 , 000 . Ho asked " what the Lord Chancellor was about ? lie , the keeper of the Queen ' s eonscience , the highest functionary of the land , her ( Miss Talbot ' s ) legal father , sat impotently by and saw every insidious art made use of to wring from that unhappy girl the menus of aggrandizing the order to which she belonged . It wus absurd to talk of religious liberty while such things existed . " IL < : was followed by two lvinli members , Mr . Knox , who condonmed the measure as not going fur enough , and

    Dr . Powkh , who opposed nil legislation on the subject . About a dozen members then rose all at once , but the Speaker called upon Mr . Duummond , who began by saying that the real quention . they had to dincuss was whether tho Roman Catholics should remain a tolerated sect under tho spiritual dominion of the Queen , or whether the Queen should be a licensed heretic under the spiritual , dominion of tho Pope . The question would not be wettled by tho bill before the House , nor by a hundriid such bills . Tho Pope had raised a storm in this country which would not bo quiot again in tho lifetime of any one present . He proceeded to make tho most outrageous charges against Roman Cutholics . Ho alluded to Miss Tulbot : —

    " The poor girl , locked up in that prison till she was ntaiv « 'd or Hogged to dentil , till ( lie pnoalH should get her money , did f . ho want protection ? ( Crita of ' Oh , oh ! ' )

    Why raise the cry of ' Oh ? ' He spoke from , what he had seen with his own eyes . Nunneries were either prisons or brothels ; honourable members might take their choice of the expression . ( Cries of Oh , oh ) ! ' " The Earl of Arundel and Surrey and several Irish Members rose to ask the Speaker to call Mr . Drummond to order ; but the latter , who had not been out of order , according to the Speaker , went on in the same style . He quoted the Exercises of Loyola , to show that Roman Catholics are taught to hold white to be black if the Church orders them , to do so .

    " If there is one thing on which the people are at the present moment more unanimous than another , it is in an honest John Bull hatred of imposture . ( Cheers . ) Everything like imposture they detest ; and , above all , they scorn those who are importing cargoes of blinking statues , bleeding pictures , liquifying blood , and drops of the Virgin Mary ' s milk . ( Groans , cockcrowing : exclamations of Oh , oh , ' and all sorts of inexplicable noises . ) Why do you call ' Oh , oh ? ' " Another scene of confusion ensued . Mr . John O'Conneli , moved the adjournment of the House , which was seconded by Mr . Philip Howard , but the Speaker declined to put the motion . Those who

    interrupted Mr . Drummond were out of order . Mr . Drummond finished his speech amidst the most extraordinary confusion , cock-crowing , and all manner of disorderly Parliamentary noises . At the close of his speech , the House presented a scene of great excitement , honourable members assembling together in groups and engaging in earnest conversation , Mr . Grattan crossed the House , and addressed a few words to Mr . Drummond , accompanied by very animated gesticulations . Mr . Feargus O'Connor interposed his person between the honourable gentlemen . Mr . Grattan returned to his seat . Mr . Drummond followed Mr . Grattan , addressed some

    observation to him , and left the House . Several honourable members ( the majority of whom were Irish ) crowded round Mr . Grattan , and entered into eager discussion , and Mr . Feargus O'Connor repaired to the Treasury Bench and made some communication to Sir George Grey . Sir James Graham , who next spoke , treated the question entirely on political grounds . He hardly knew , however , whether to argue upon the bill in its original or its present state , for while Lord John Russell had declared that the second and third clauses would operate in a way he did not desire , it was the opinion of the best lawyers that the first d

    clause would do the work of the secon and third . If that were so , Government ought to vote against its own bill . And if the character cf this bill were such as had been described by the Solicitor-General , this was a heavier blow at the religious liberties of the Irish Catholics than had ever been struck by the old penal laws . He concluded by declaring that this was a measure not demanded by England , hateful to Ireland , and he trusted that the wisdom of Parliament would prevent it from passing into a law . Lord John Russell contended that the bill could not be considered as one of persecution , seeing that the Catholics of Ireland had

    been , uncomplainingly , under a similar law for oneand-twenty years ; he believed that the Catholic pre lates would bow to the decision of Parliament . But if further aggressions took place , if Ireland wire to be deprived of mixed education , or the servants of the Crown were sought to be deterred from their duty by spiritual menaces , other legislation , might be necessary , even for the benefit of the Catholics themselves . This was not mainly a question between Catholic and Protestant , but between British Catholics and Rome—a fact which had been a good deal lost sight of in the debate . He trusted to see the Catholic laity revolt against the aggression , and declared that as regarded that body he hud always done his utmost to cany out tho principle of the act of 1829 . In answer

    to Sir James Graham , ho said that his apprehensions of Papal supremacy were not feelingsof which he ought to be ashamed , seeing thut he held them in common with Milton , Locke , llampden , l ' yrn , Lord JSomers , and other illustrious persons , and he refused , while remaining what he had ever been , a friend to religions liberty , to confound that cause with the Pupal encroachment , lie decared himself ready to abide by all tho sentiments in the Durham letter , but eaid that it had been much misrepresented , and entered into some explanation respecting ita meaning , describing it as Dimply an appeal U > the popular feeling in favour of civil and religious liberty , denying that the measure introduced into the Hou . se fell short of any reasonable expectations founded on the letter to-the bishop . Tho debate was then adjourned till last evening .

    Rhcjihthation ok Ahhiikan <; i : n . —Lord Campbell , in . Moving the Hccond reading of the K

    Untitled Article

    March 22 , 1851 . ] ® t > e &t 8 L * tV . 263

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), March 22, 1851, page 263, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1875/page/3/