THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES' ACT. [From the "Times."]

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 600, 14 January 1852, Page 3

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES' ACT. [From the "Times."]

The merits and demerits of the measure are fairly illustrated by the results before us. Whatever can be argued against this embarrassing compromise between the necessities of self defence and the maxims of religious liberty is concisely put in the protests of the dissentinent peers; what was felt on the other side is more eloquently shown in the enormous majorities by Avhich the bill was supported, and in the unexampled unanimity by which such legislation was demanded. There is doubtless much to be urged against the new statute, and something perhaps to be feai'ed from its operation, but total inaction would have been more hazardous still, and. no person during a five months controversy has suggested any more acceptable scheme. We willingly take Lord Aberdeen's premises, while we wholly dissent from his conclusion. "Nobody," said the noble lord " was satisfied with it, and yet all were agreed that something ought to be done." But, what then is the natuial inference from such admissions —that nothing should be done, or that something should be done to which as many assents as possible could be obtained ? Had Lord Aberdeen succeeded in carrying the rejection of the bill he would simply have impeded what " everybody," by his own acknowledgment desired, for tbeir was confessedly no better bill forthcoming, and yet a bill of some sort or other was imperatively called fov. Little discredit, however, can attach to the enactment on this score, for as much may be said of every measure or document in which a variety of opinions are expected to concur. Ministers were required to satisfy by one and the same propositions those ■who thought nothing too strong foy the insolence of the Pope, and those who thought nothing too favourable for the liberties of the Papists. They were asked on the one hand, to legislate for Great Britain and Ireland in the same piovisions, and on the other to recognise the difference between a nation essentially Protestant and a country tenaciously lioman Catholic. They had to distinguish between things temporal, and things spiritual amidst the most subtle attempts to confound them, and they had to restrict the aggressions of a church while respecting the freedom of religion. Under these circumstances they did what they could, and at least with such success that no proposal A\as suggested with a better prospect of reception. To say that the bill satisfies no one is merely to say that no opinions have been favoured to the disparagement of others, while the o\on\helmin<; majorities against every amendment conclu&holy prove that the great bodyof the nation is reasonably content with the compromise. It would have boon easy enough to frame an enactment Mhk'li would have created 200 fanatical Fupjnrfevs and 200 desperate antagonists, but avis it not more statesmanlike to propose a measure which should unite the 400 \otes in a m/joi- assort, a1 though at the sacrifice of some partial acclamations? Great fear t> arc cxpies.ed le^t the lnv should remain a "dead leMer." For ourselves, we sincerely trusi, it may do so, not fiom the supineness of thf administiation, but the prudence of Ihe parties against v>hom it is directed. Jf they are vise enough to accept a warning, the

severity of « ! it'll is eorininh not dispioportioned 10 f lic occa-ion, the) nuiv soon cons.«u ihe work of the fission to practical obyvion. The repeated ootpp'niiiis cf the m'<;atory character of the bill, and the odious anxiety of the ministry to retain a, much d'scretion as possible in the hands of the Crown, should be e\idence sufficient in the e)es of Roman, ecclpsiastii 5 to sliow that nothing ib intended against, the iiee and even dpcoious exercise of their religion. In point of fact, the ruse was one which, if our institutions permitted such an expedient, would have been better left to ihe absolute disci etion of a single authority. It 11 well nigh impracticable to define in statutory language the limits betveen propriety and impropriety in transactions like those of the Romish Church in this country. Much that is done by its prelates is illegal without being offensive, and could be easily recognised. Lord Monteaglc perversely pressed the point that vicars-apostolic wnuld be no less un-awful than territorial prelates ; but the simple answer is, that those would never be objected to, while these have been resolutely put down. It is not probable that any Papal act, even in England, if manifestly confined to the reasonable needs of .Roman Catholic congregations would have provoked antigonism, however it might have transgressed the strict letter of the law. Although, therefore, it is viv-y for the dissentient lords to indicate points where a ligorous application of the provisions of the bill might be attended with undesirable results, there is no reason for thinking such a course absolutely imperative, or for anticipating unprecedented severity on the part of those intrusted with power. But the leaders of the Human Catholics must remember, that as they have none but themselves to thank for the liabilities ihcy now encounter, co upon themsehc.i will it depend v.hat reality these perils may assume. There is no desire to persecute, but there is a resolute determination to control. In point of fact, as they well know, they lose no rights of conscience or Avorship by the provisions of. the bill. Nothing can be more certain than that the Romish Church could fulfil every one of its purposes in this counh'y, save that of ■unlawful aggrandizement, without the smallest offence to government or people. It is amusing to observe how the fallacy of Papal ' immutability' has misled the speakers on this subject. In its aims and its hopes the Church of the Vatican is doubtless unchangeable enough, but in its forms and its proceedings it is more ingenious, pliab'e, ond obsequious, than any society of which records exitt. Hkti^'ins tell even of the monstrous ingredient of Buddhism, which was readily accepted by Jesuitical missionaries in exchange for a footing in China; and, if we discredit 1 his tale, we certainly cannot forget the various guises assumed in its mission by this indefatigable priesthood. To imagine that a Church whose subtlety is beyond parallel, whose resources scarcely knowbounds, and which U provided with precedents and dispensations for cvciy conceivable contingency ; should be at a loss to carry on its administration without the assumption of territorial titles, h a delusion of astounding magnitude. Having claimed these titles, and having by a singular act of inadvertence committed itself thus far, it is, of course, concerned to declare that they are an essential attribute of the episcopate, and that without designations thus derived its offices would be impracticable. What the Church of Rome desires it asserts for the moment to be indispensable, but when resistance is offered, the necessity vanishes altogether. The Papal advocates now mi ocently rs'c what is to become of their institutions If an instrument containing a titular designation of a bishop is held invalid in a court of justice? The answer may be briefly given. When once the law has been S3 declared, no such designation will ever be employed, and no such instrument will ever be put in. Much more plausibly might it have been pretended that the public production of the Pope's mandate was indispensable to the consecration of Popish bishop 1 ?, and yet this ceremony was last week performed with a prudent omission of a form -which might violate the law. In congratulating our readers, therefore on the close of this tedious controversy, we trust we are bidding the subject a practical adieu. We have no wish to enrich the Exchequer with the fines of obdurate religionists, or to sec Dr. Wiseman descend to the level of a " churchrate martyr." None know better than the Cardinal and his colleagues how to keep within the previsions of the law, and that wisdom which Popery has never lacked will teach them their true course on the present occasion. They will be indulged in all their rights of worship, and in most of their fancies of ceremonial, but they will not be allowed to assume titles which imply inadmissible power, or to give offence to others by pretensions of no legitimate use to themselves. In conclusion, if there is little to vaunt of at the end of this lur'noil, there is certainly little to regret ; and this, perhaps, is the more creditable reflection of the two. Amid great temptations and extraordinary agitation of feeling, the English people were not carried beyond the bounds cf reasonable displeasure, nor did any considerations induce them to trespass on the great principles of religious freedom. We might have been more triumphant had v/e been less scrupulous. We have done little, and that little may perhaps become less ; but the national resolution has been placed in disputably on record, and the very scantiness of our legislation is the best proof of its equitable intent.