Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 26th July 1851, Edition Town of 2, Page 696

Page 696
Page 4
4 of 24

On this page

  • Text (2)

      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

      Untitled Article

    • Untitled Article

      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

      jurisdiction over a district , wa& 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 Borne 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 Borne , 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 . ( Hear . )

      The bill was supported by the Duke of Wellington , the Earl of Malmesbury , and the Duke of Argyll . Lord Berneks 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 Winchelsea , 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 Lyndhurst , 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 Belief 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 him had in view , was the extension of toleration to the Roman Catholics . Did he say toleration i 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 stepping-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 ? He had Htrong and decisive authority . In a letter from the late Pope to the bishops of Belgium lie Haid , * They talk of establishing liberty of conscience . It is an

      absurd and erroneous maxim- —it is a wild notion . 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 , hoar . ) Ho was willing and anxious that toleration and liberty of conscience should be granted to the fullest extent . But toleration wus widely different from domination . There , then , he took his stand—( hear , hear ) ; and because he conceived that this was the first atop towards establishing that principle , he voted in support of this bill . ( Hear , hear . )

      Ho charged it against the Irish Itomim Catholics , that , after having accepted the Relief Act , they had broken faith , and violated ita provisions in many instances . . Finally , they had culled together n Synod and condemned the Colleges , and the Pope hud rutiiied the condemnation , lie would resist , a . s fur un he could , every encroachment ; he would roHcind nothing of what had been done . lie approved of it . If it cumo over again , he should follow the name course . But there he took his stand . Not one step towurd theuttainment of power , or tho attainment of uacendaiicy of domination , would ho proceed . Such wub hia explanation of Iwh personal relation to the bill . Tho main point of hia speech , however , consisted of a detailed exposition of tho proywiona 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 m

      Koman Catholic countries . « The enacting portion of the bill was to this effect —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 gomg 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 6 ide 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 , ( Cheers )" 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 yonr lordships will not adopt a measure which will again rivet on the Roman Catholics those fetters which the continued efforts of the Rreatest statesmen thin country ever produced , have but lately Hucceeded in striking off . ( Cheers . )" Lord Lankdowni ; replied , commenting in general terms on the principal points of the debute ; the House divided , and the numbers were—Contents for second reading , present MG , proxies 119—2 ( 55 ; non-contents , for amendment , present 20 , proxies 12—38 . Majority in favour of second reading , " 227 .

      Their lordships adjourned at live minutes to four o'clock . Krnkht Jonhk . — Lord Dijdi . kv Stuaiit brought the case of Kmeat Charles Jones before the House on Tueaday . He gave a very fair account of the indignities and persecutions inflicted on Mr . Jones by the Governor of Tothill-lields prison , and he moved " for conies of all ruled and regulations which at any lime , from the year 1 K 40 to the present time , had been in force within

      the Moveral prisons iu Midland and Wales , ho far as they affected prisoners convicted of political offences . " The motion wan supported by Mr . W . Williams , Mr W J . Fox , Sir II . Willounhby JSir Do Lucy Kv ' uuh Mr ' George Thompson , and Colonel Thompson ; that iu to aay , these gentlemen all agned that Mr . Jones hud been very cruelly treated . Mr . Henley qualified his opinion . Ho said it would bo difficult to uuy that Mr . Jom ;» had not been harshly dealt with . Ah there is no distinction

      betwen political and other offenders , the papers couW 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 .

      Untitled Article

      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 opportunies 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 Musweli-hill ; William Coningham , Brighton ; G . Crawshay , Newcastle - upon - Tyne ; George Dawson , M . A ., Birmingham ; T . S . Duncombe , M . P ., Finsbury ; G . J . Holyoake , London ; Thornton Hunt , Hammersmith ; Douglas Jerrold , London ; Walter SavageLandor , Bath ; Reverend E . R . Larken , Lincoln ; T . Latimer , Exeter ; G . H . Lewis , Kensington ; Dr . M'Knight , Belfast ; W . C . Macready , Sherbourne ; Edward Miall , London ; F . Mo watt , M . P ., Pentyn ; Professor Newman , 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 Commons , through Mr . Thomas Duncombe : — To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Iielandin 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 Marquia of Normanby ) , still maintained that such re-iustatemeut 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 tho ostensible 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 , aud the whole series of the old and often condemned abuses , have been re-introduced , and are still kept \ ip by force , ia the midst of a people whose wishes for a free Government , and for the separation of the spiritual from the temporal authority of the Pope , have been amply and unmistakeably declared .

      That , after two years of fruitless and unjust occupation , the French troops still seem bent upon perpetuating their sojourn in Rome , to au indefinite period , and that they arc increasing the number of their men there , and fortifying various places of importance within the city . That , being now equally obnoxious to the People and to the Pope , they lead by their obstinacy to tlie idea that a permanent military conquest is intended . That such iv military conquest could not be tolerated without a flagrant violation of every international law , as well as of tho high principles of Juatice and Liberty—tho admission of which violation would inflict irreparable disgrace on the character of tUe English nation .

      That the prolonged aojourn of which the petitioners complain , is engendering mutual reaction and hatred between the occupiers and occupied , leading to instanc ( « of revenge , and producing auinchy and other deplorable results . . That the Roman States have been simultaneously invaded by Austrian troopa , which are still there , and for the withdrawal of which there ia no chance , bo long aa tho French troopa ke « p their position in the name ataies . That Nationality is a altered thing , which ciumot be violated without tin * estobluihmeiit thereby ol a precedent dangerous to every fxeo u&tiou , without exception .

      Untitled Article

      696 iHiyt ^ Lea ^ eV . [ Saturday , . . . . - . - . I - I - ¦¦ - ¦ " ¦ ¦ ' . '" | - ¦^ " ¦^¦^ i ^^ BMl " ^ " ^^ ^

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), July 26, 1851, page 696, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1893/page/4/