Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 8.djvu/131

1850.] I am firmly persuaded that we have already, in our own public feeling, our own polity, our own public discussion, and in the existing law and authority of Parliament, sufficient to protect the integrity of that civil and religious freedom that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects are so earnest to maintain, against all aggressions of this kind that may be attempted upon them. After all that has arisen to call forth the expression of that feeling, it is upon that feeling I rely with the greatest confidence. It is on the attachment of the people to those institutions, on their deep and earnest feeling for all that regards their welfare and integrity, that I look for the surest protection of this kingdom against the machinations and aggressions of the Court of Rome, or of any other foreign power, spiritual or temporal, whatever."

On the 7th of February the Prime Minister introduced his Papal Aggression Bill. He referred, in connection with the subject, to recent occurrences in Ireland. Dr. Cullen, who had spent most of his life at Rome, had been appointed Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, though his name had not been returned by the parish priests of the diocese, who were accustomed to elect three of their number to be submitted to the Pope as dignus, dignior, dignissimus. He was afterwards transferred to Dublin as the more influential post, with the powers of legate, which placed him at the head of the hierarchy. Then there was the synod of Thurles, which condemned the Queen's colleges, and interfered with the land question and other temporal matters. He argued from the terms of the Pope's Bull that there was an assumption of territorial power of which our Roman Catholic ancestors were always jealous. He thought the best course which Cardinal Wiseman could pursue was to renounce his title and reside at Rome; "but if other counsels should prevail, and he should instil motives of ambition and revenge into the Court of Rome, they must prepare for a long and arduous struggle, in which the part he should take would be guided by the principles which had always governed his conduct on those questions." The bill was vehemently opposed by the Irish Roman Catholic members, Mr. J. O'Connell, Mr. Roche, Mr. Moore, Mr. M. J. O'Connell, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Keogh. Mr. Bright and Mr. Disraeli also opposed the measure, which was supported by the Attorney-General, Lord Ashley, Mr. Page Wood, and Sir G. Grey. Several other members having spoken for and against the bill, its introduction was carried by the overwhelming majority of 395 to 63.

Various alterations were subsequently made in the bill, to prevent its interfering unnecessarily with the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. The second reading was moved on tho 14th of March; a lengthened debate ensued, in the course of which Sir Robert Peel delivered his maiden speech. The right honourable baronet supported the bill with powerful arguments drawn from his diplomatic experience in Switzerland, where he said he had remained a passive observer, witnessing, not without emotion and sympathy, "the mighty struggle of liberty against despotism and intolorance." This first oratorical effort of the son and successor of the illustrious statesman who so long occupied the most prominent place in the House of Commons, was hailed with general and cordial applause. Mr. Cardwell refused his assent to the second reading. He deprecated a little civil war about religious matters, believing that, by supporting the measure, he would affront Protestant England, and do much to render Ireland ungovernable. Lord Palmerston supported the bill, because churches were like corporate bodies, encroaching; because it would supply an omission in the Act of 1829; and as the Church of Rome obeyed that Act, she would also obey this. Sir James Graham, on the contrary, expressed his conviction that the passing of this bill would be a repeal of the Emancipation Act, and then the Dissenters must look about them. Synods were to be proscribed; but if laymen and Dissenting ministers could meet, why should Roman Catholic bishops be interdicted? Step by step we should be led by this measure to the destruction, he feared, not only of religious, but of civil liberty. "We were in this dilemma—that if the measure were cut down, it would be contemptible; if made effectual, we must embark in a course of legislation which would conduct us to a penal code with all its horrors; impotence would be disgraceful; and vigour would be pregnant with danger—a danger, as regarded Ireland, of civil war." Lord John Russell, in replying to the attacks upon the measure, admitted that the bill did not meet every danger we might have to encounter. But he said, "If the spirit lately shown be not checked, if further aggression should take place, if it should be attempted to deprive the people of Ireland of the benefits of mixed education, or if those who serve the Crown are to be menaced with the withdrawal of religious consolations, then other measures might be necessary. He could never consent to identify religious liberty with Papal aggression." Mr. Roebuck ridiculed the alarm about the Pope as a "foreign prince." As a prince, he said, he was nothing; he was without power or an acre of land he could call his own. His power was mere spiritual influence, which no Act of Parliament could restrain. The Attorney-General argued that the effect of the establishment of the Roman canon law in this country would be, that the Court of Chancery would have to enforce the jurisdiction of the bishops. Sir John Young, as an Irish Protestant member, condemned the bill, which would lead to a religious war in Ireland, engendering bitter and lasting animosity, without adding strength to the cause of Protestantism. Mr. H. Grattan denounced the bill as "the reactionary policy of a transition ministry." Mr. A. Beresford Hope considered it "disgraceful to the magnanimity of this country, and discreditable to the civilisation of the Anglo-Saxon race." Mr. Hume regarded it as one of the most unfortunate circumstances of his long parliamentary life. Sir F. Thesiger would veto for the second reading of the bill, because some legislation on the subject was absolutely necessary, though he foresaw how easily the law could be evaded. Mr. Gladstone ably