Ittin fu (Mtn

LORD ON RUSSELL'S BILL.

16th February 1851.

Sm—In common, as I suppose, with the rest of the world, I have been

anxiously looking out for the practical form to be assumed by the great Pro- testant demonstration of the Premier, on which you kindly allowed me to comment in your pages three months back. This expectation has at last been gratified ; the Anglo-Protestant lion has put forth his voice : CULVEV 5pOS • Zan d' icpoPLI-ro • .rd ;TEKEV Was For my own part, I had looked for something of greater dimensions to be produced from the conjoint operation of "indignation " and "alarm" : I had expected that if our Premier was not exactly calculated to swell to the .proportions of a Henry or a Frederick, we were at least to be regaled with a "baiting of the Pope's bull," which would have gladdened the heart of Master William Prynne. Comparisons indeed fail for the whole proceeding : the butterfly broken on the wheel, the King of Israel gone forth after a flea, may afford some feeble notion of the agitation of county meetings and diocesan synods; but for the leader of the storm I can. find no type so fitting as that which you yourself provided a week ago—theHurham ox has indeed shrunk into the Downing Street frog ; the sword of the modem Barbarossa his degenerated into a bulrush ; for the thunders of the lay. Luther we hear only the EpEKEICEICE of King Physignathus.

Since I wrote my former letter, I have, as could not indeed well have been avoided, heard and read a good deal upon the subject both in public and private ; but I have. as yet come across little or nothing which has at all shaken me in my general view of the subject. One point I have indeed seen somewhat more fully drawn out,—namely, the difference between the position of Roman Catholics and the other religious bodies which are in other respects analogous, derived from the circumstance of their admitting a foreign juris- diction. I think others have made too much of this; but I may have possibly made too little. My own view still is that it is in point of fact immaterial; that if it ever leads to seditious practices, the law is sufficient to stop them; that, as long as a large proportion of our fellow citizens hold the spiritual supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as an article of faith, it is sheer persecu- tion to hinder their necessary communications with their spiritual head ; that prohibition or interference with such communication can never really stop it, though it may divert into underhand and dishonourable channels ; but that • if it is really thought, which I do not think, that these proceedings of a vo- • luntary communion ought to be looked upon in a different light from those of other voluntary communions, the difficulty should be fairly grappled with and met by a concordat. Nothing would probably be more odious to Pro- testant zealots; but I see no other way of bringing the Roman Catholic com- munion under state control, without a clear violation of religious liberty. Leaving its internal arrangements on the same ground as those of other sects, its external relations with its foreign chief might be put under such restraints as the contracting powers might agree upon.

Now, be it observed, Lord John Russell's measure does nothing of the i

kind; it in no way meets the difficulty of this external jurisdiction ; it is directed solely at titles borne by British subjects, and meddles not at all with .their relation to a foreign chief. The introduction of Papal bulls remains whatever confused legislation had previously made it; whether high treason, misdemeanour, or perfect innocence, I leave to the lawyers to settle. The Pope may send legates, vicars, whom he pleases, with what jurisdiction he pleases, so as they do not actually assume territorial titles. Nothing can show more distinctly that the whole agitation has been directed at a name and not a thing. The Pope and the Cardinal have been foolish enough to value a mere title ; Lord John and the English people have been foolish enough to be frightened at it. The fact is, that, as far as I can understand, no additional aggression has been committed : whatever aggression there is was as much embodied in the Vicar-Apostolic of the London district as it now is in the Cardinal-Arch- bishop of Westminster. As an English Churchman, I of course regard the latter as a schismatical intruder ; but I do not see that his schism is in- creased by his new title. Viewing the matter politically, I cannot believe that " aggression " is something bound up in the words " diocese " and " bishop ' ; I must confess that I see no great difference between dividing England into dioceses and dividing it into districts. If the fOrmer is an in- trusive proceeding on the part of a foreign power, surely the latter was also : surely, if anything is to be withstood, it is the presence of emissaries of the

i Pope in any form, not the mere title with which they may be clothed ; that is, the present measure can serve no object at all, except to gratify a popu- lar clamour • logically carried out, it would lead to an extent of persecution from which I trust nearly every one would shrink.

I am especially sorry, after having followed your remarks with nearly entire agreement through every stage of the proceeding, to have to differ widely from much that is contained in your last leading article on the sub- ject. You argue that the Pope's act is an aggression, because it would not be tolerated in Roman Catholic countries ; that " what the Pope has no right to do in relation to states which recognize his spiritual authority, he can have still less right to do in relation to states which repudiate that author- ity." With all deference, I should myself draw the:exactly contrary in- ference. We cannot too constantly remember the distinction between an established and an unestablished communion. The view practically recog- nized among politicians, which, though I believe it to be historically errone- ous, we must accept for all practical purposes, is that an established church barters a portion of its natural independence for endowments and honours derived from the state. I have enlarged upon this question in a former let- ter, and therefore will not enter more deeply into it now. But the fact is, that an established church in connexion with the state is not, and in- deed cannot be, so independent as one left to its own resources. The internal action of the Church was freer under Diocletian than under Theodosius; the Primus of Scotland is a more independent agent than the Archbishop of Canterbury. The supreme power of a voluntary body must be freer than that of an established one. Hence, if the Pope be al- lowed to exercise any power at all, (which cannot be hindered,) his power over a voluntary Roman Catholic communion must be necessarily greater than over an established one. The Pope cannot remodel the dioceses of France or Austria at present ; he could not have remodelled those of Eng- .land four centuries back. Our ancestors resisted real Papal aggressions, provisions, and so forth, because temporal rights were involved : kings, bishops, private patrons, did not choose to be deprived by a foreign jurisdic- tion of powers which the law of the land gave them ; landed property, feu- dal privileges, Parliamentary peerages, were not to be disposed of at the nod of an Italian priest. But Pius IX. disposes of nothing of the kind : he sim- ply says, "This or that man, Cardinal Wiseman, or Bishop Illlathorne, is my representative, and consequently the one true pastor of souls, within a cer- tain district." Well, those who believe him act accordingly ; those who think otherwise act accordingly also. It is a purely voluntary affair, and no mini's property or civil right is touched in the least. Consequently, "by

merely subjecting the Church of Rome in this country to restraints already imposed on the favoured and established churches " a "slur is cast upon it." They get, or sic supposed to get., something in exchange for their restraints; a slur is cast upon the one voluntary body, singled out among so many to receive restraints without anything m exchange. If this is thought neces- sary, then let us employ the honourable and legitimate mode of a concordat.

What will the present measure effect? As I believe, nothing, but, as you have so often said, hinder the public employment of these titles by the Pre- bites themselves personally. Cardinal Wiseman will still "continue to govern" the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, &e. ; and all who recognize him as Archbishop of Westminster will call him so—except himself. Nor can I see how his powers as a trustee in any case will be lessened by being simply described in a deed as Nicholas Wiseman. And how synodical action can be hindered, I cannot in the least understand : surely the Roman Catholic Pre- lates, if they wish it, and the Pope approve it, can meet whenever they please, under one title as well us another, or under no title at all. Surely also, those who make it a matter of conscience to submit to their decrees, will submit just as much, neither more nor less, whether they are signed "N. Wiseman," "N. Melipotamus," or "N. Westminster." i In a word, the Papal bull is no injury, and Lord John's bill would be no remedy, if it were. Cardinal Wiseman " governs " certain counties,—so by his own showing he did before, and no one objected ; ho claims spiritual jurisdiction over all baptized persons within certain limits,—that is, he thinks those who do not admit it in the wrong, as they think him. All this he did before, and no one objected. He has no fresh claim, still less any fresh power of enforcing such claim ; submission was voluntary before, it is:volun-

ta hirmy now. He is neither better nor worse for his new title ; why grudge it

But if not an injury it is an insult. Perhaps it is ; but one of so exceed- ingly petty a nature that it is unworthy of a great nation to disturb itself about rt. And it is an insult, if insult it be, which we have brought upon ourselves : we tolerate and recognize the Roman Catholic religion, knowing the Pope's supremacy to be its distinguishing tenet ; when we might limit that supremacy by concordat we refuse to do so—we ignore its existence ; that is, practically we allow its exercise wholly unrestrained except by the general law of the land. Who, then, have we to blame but ourselves if any particular exercise of that supremacy happen to be distasteful to us ? Or what right have we to accuse on this head Pope, or Cardinal, or any one else, unless their proceedings can be shown to contradict the law ?—a ground which, as no public prosecution has been entered, we may consider as aban- doned.

Small as the minority is, it is pleasant to see honest and independent men of very different views uniting against the shuffling and temporizing Pre- mier—to see Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Hope pulling side by side : yet I am sorry to see Colonel Thompson appear as an advocate of Elizabethan perse- cution; and I cannot but think that the legal learning of Mr. Page Wood has somewhat darkened his usual legislative acuteness.

[The scope of our paper on the present position of the Anti-Papal Legisla- tion was limited chiefly to a summary of the case maintained by lit in isters and their followers, taken in connexion with the actual state of public opi- nion and feeling. For in a controversy of this kind some allowance must be made for popular prejudice and habits, which no Government can disre- gard, though it is not the part of a Minister to stimulate and excite, as Lord John Russell did.

Agreeing with the greater part of our correspondent's reasoning iu the ab- stract, and not intending to return to the subject, we add a few considerations bearing on the difffirence between an established and an unestablished commu- nion.

A church, whether established or not, is a corporation. The right of the state to legislate with a view to limit the field of action of corporate bodies, lay or clerical, does not rest upon a compact between it and them. The state can- not permit any assumption of powers by private incorporations that encroach upon its legitimate authority, executive, legislative, or judicial. Its right to do so exists before and independently of any compact, and is equally valid with reference to the Mercer's Company and the self-electing corporation of the Romish priesthood. The esprit de corps of self-electing corporations, (especially of one the celibacy of whose members liberates them in a great measure from the counteracting influences of social connexions,) renders it advisable to watch them narrowly. The power of a clerical corporation de- pends less upon its recognition by the state than upon the completeness of its organization and discipline, and its possession of wealth. Perhaps the difference between a bishop according to the views of the Romish hierarchy, and vicars-apostolic or bishops in partibus, has not been sufficiently re- garded in this discussion. The authority attributed to the bishop is two- fold : first, such as appertains to him in virtue of his order simply ; second, such as appertains to him in connexion with his diocese. The bishop us partibus possesses the former, but not the latter. In virtue of his order, the bishop can ordain priests ; consecrate and administer the host : sanc- tion the erection of new churches and consecrate theism; anoint kings ; receive the vows of entrants into the monastic orders ; and confirm those who have received baptism, in addition to the ordinary priestly functions. In all these powers the bishop in partibus participates fully. In virtue of his connexion with a diocese, the bishop is entitled to discharge certain functions executive and judicial. The executive are—the emission of diocesan regula- tions ; the Convocation of diocesan synods ; the superintendence and admf n istra- tion of all church property in the diocese ; the superintendence of all schools, and charitable institutions in the diocese ; the annual visitation of the cergy ; the collection of certain contributions ; dispensations from fasts and prohibited grades of relationship in marriage ; and the appointment to be- nefices. The judicial functions are—to exercise jurisdiction over the laity in respect of spiritual offences, and over the clergy in respect of oil aces against discipline ; to exercise jurisdiction in all questions relating to mar- riage, and in all controversies regarding oaths. The extent to which mat- ters of purely secular concern have been drawn within the circle of ecclesi- astical jurisdiction may be seen by reference to the class of cases which arc referred to Doctors' Commons. It seems to be pretty obvious from this enu- meration, that while all the episcopal functions necessary for the full and free exercise of religion are enjoyed by the bishop in virtue of his order alone, and by bishops in partibus, authority is claimed by diocesan bish- ops in virtue of their territorial relations, that may place at their disposal large amounts of property, a source of political power, and that may inter- fere with the jurisdiction of the established lay tribunals of a country. The opponents of the concession of diocesan bishops to the Roman Catholics argue, that the Romish Church never abandons any claim it has once ad- vanced, and that if diocesan bishops be tolerated an attempt may be made to reestablish special ecclesiastical jurisdictions. They admit that the law of the country will oppose some barriers to such assumptions, but urge that it is prudent to prevent the possibility of the question being raised. And we understand them to maintain, that by making it penal for any one to assume the character of a diocesan bishop in this country, they will render it impossible to hold synods or to exercise any jurisdic- tion ; these being functions of the bishop, not simply in virtue of his ordination, but 9f his investiture in a territorial sec.—ED.]