THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES’ ACT

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 668, 27 December 1851, Page 4

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 argoed against this embarrassing compromise between the necessities of sell defence and the maxims of religious liberty is concisely put in the protests of the dissentient peers ; what was felt on the other side is more el oquently shown in the enormous majorities by which 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 feared 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 natural inference from such admissions—that nothing 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 there was confessedly no better bill forthcoming, and yet a bill of some sort or other was imperatively called for. 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 proposition those who thought nothing too strong for the insolence of the Pope, and those who thought nothing too favourable for the liberties of the Papists. They were asked on the one band, to legislate for Great Britain and Ireland in the same provisions, and on the other to recognise the difference between a nation essentially Protestant and a country tenaciously Roman 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 was 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 overwhelming majorities against every amendment conclusively prove that the great body of the nation is reasonably content with the compromise. It would have been easy enough to frame an enactment which would have created 200 fanatical supporters and 200 desperate antagonists, but was it not more statesmanlike to propose a measure which should unite the 400 votes in a sober assent, although at the sacrifice of some partial acclamations ? Great fear was expressed lest the law should remain a “ dead letter." For ourselves, we sincerely trust it may do so, not from the supineness of the administration, but the prudence of the parties against whom it is directed. If they are wise cuuugti to accept a warning, the severity of which is certainly not disproportioned Jo the occasion, they may soon consign the work of the session to practical oblivion. The repeated complaints of the nugatory character of the bill, and the obvious anxiety of the ministry to retain as much discretion as possible in the hands of the Crown, should be evidence sufficient in the eyes of Roman ecclesiastics to show that nothing is intended against the free and even decorous exercise of their religion. In point of fact, the case was one which, if our institutions permitted such an expedient, would have been better left to the absolute discretion of a single authority. It is well nigh impracticable to define in statutory language the limits between 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 Monteagle perversely pressed the point that vicars-apostolic would be no less unlawful 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 ism,* however it might have transgressed the strict letter of the law. Although, therefore, it is easy for the dissentient lords to indicate points where a rigorous 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. the part of those intrusted with power® But the leaders of the Roman Catho’ics must remember, that as they have noneiiut themselves to thank for the liabilities they now encounter, so upon themselves will it depend what 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 worship by the provisions of the bill. Nothing can be more certain than that the Romish Church could fulfill every one of its purposes in this country, 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 ibis subject. In its aims and its hopes the Cnurch of the Vatican is doutless unchangeable enough, but in its forms and its proceedings it is more ingenious, pliable and obsequious, than any society of which records exist. Historians tell even of the monstrous ingredient of Buddhism, which was readily accepted by Jesuitical missionaries in exchange for a footing in China ; and, n we discredit this tale, we certainly cannot

forget the various guises as^ZT^ 5 ' »«on by this indefatigable'pd'eX ? imagine that a Church whose P subd.,° d ’ To yond all parallel, whose resourced know bounds, and which is providS cedents and dispensations for eV p r W,,bpre * vaole contingency, should be at i n 7 Con ' e >* on its administration without the t 0 Ca,r J of territorial titles, is a delusion of ” B “™P> magnitude. Having claimed these ? having by a singular act of inadvertent ,lsd mitted itself thus far, h is, o f c ’ 68 Co| »- cerned to declare that they &re . n Con * aoribol. of .ho epioeop.t,, „ d lh " “««»1 designations thus derived its office* , 01 impracticable. What the Church be desires it asserts for the moment toW-?' pensabls, but when resistance is offerei \ necessity vanishps altogether, ’ l “ e vocates now innocently ask what is fT ** * d * of their institutions if an instrument -° e . COn,e valid in a court of justice! The.n B " be briefly given. When once been so declared, no such designation will be employed, and no such instrument S ever be put in. Much more plausibly m2 it have been pretended that the public p to £ non of the Pope’s mandate was indispensible to the consecration of Popish bishops, and this ceremony was last week performed wi t L prudent omission of a form which mieht late 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 see Dr. Wiseman descend to the level oi i “churchrate martyr.” None know better than the cardinal and his colleagues how to keep within the provisions 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 turmoil, there is certainly little to regret; and this, perhaps, is the more creditable reflection of the two. Amid great temptations and extreordiosrv agitation of feeling, the English people were not carried beyond the bounds of reasonifile displeasure, nor did any considerations induce them to trespass on the great principles of religious freedom. We might have been more triumphant had we been less scrupulous, We have done little, and that little may perhaps become less ; but the national resolution has been placed indisnutably on record, and the very scantiness of our legislation is the best proof of its equitable intent.