"The Romish Intrusion."

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 517, 29 March 1851, Page 3

" The Romish Intrusion."

Notwithstanding the space which we have already given to extracts directly bearing upon this subject, and the numerous indirect references to it which a coincidence and concurrence of chcumstanc.es (as we have observed in a preceding article,) mix up with various other topics of the day, it would not be possible to keep our readers in any considerable degree abreast of the news -regarded as most interest" ing at home, without laying before them additional quotations, some of which we now proceed to present. The following letter was addressed by Mr. Disraeli, M. P., to the Lord Lieutenant of the countyof Buckingham :•— "My Lotd,T— I have received nunoerout appeals from my constituents requesting that I would cooperate with them in addreiiing your Lordship to Gill a meeting of the county, iv order that we may expres» our reprobation of the recent assault of the Couit of Rome on the perogatives of our Sovereign and the liberties of her subjects. •' I think it very desirable that a meeting of thecounty should be called for that purpose, but as far as I can gather from what reaches me, great rnisapprehcntnon is nfloat respecting the circumstances which now so violently, but no justly, excite the indignation of the country. " Men are called upon to combine to prevent foreign interference with the perogatives of the Queen, and to tesisc jurisdiction by the Pope in her Majesty's dominions. " But I have always understood that, when the present Lord»L'e«tenant aniv. t d at bis Vicetoyalty,,

he KHtheieil together the Komish Bishops of Ireland, addressed ibein us nobler, souuht their counsel, and conned their favour. On Hie vuit of her Majesty to that kingdom, the Bame Pielates were pieseiited to the Queen as if they were nobles, and precedence was given th?m over the nobility and dignitaries of the National Church ; and it was only the other day, as I lielieve, that th« Government offered tho o'lice of Visitor to the Queen's Colleges to Dr. Cullen, the Pope's delegate, and psetufa Archbishop of Armagh, and to Dr. ftl'Hale, the j>seudo Archbishop of Tuain. What wonder, then, that his Holiness should deem himself nt liberty to apportion England into Dioceses, to be luU'd over by his lii»hops ! And why, instead of supposing he was taken a step ' insolent and invidious,' should he not have assiuned he was acting in strict conformity with the wishes of her Majesty* Gotern« ment ?. " The fact is, that the whole question has been surrendeied, and decided in favour of the Pope, by the present Government : and the Ministers who recognised the pseuUo Archbishop oJ Tuatn us a Peer and a Prelate, cannot object to the appointment of a pseudo Archbishop of "Westminster, e?en though he be a Cardinal. On 1 lie contrary, the loftier dignity s>hould, according to their table of precedence, rather , invest his Eminence wilh a sti'l higher patent of' nobility, and permit him to take the wall of his Grace of Canterbury and the highest nobles ot the land. "'lhe policy of the piesent Government ii, that there shall be no disiincton between England nnd Ireland. I am therefore , rather surprised that the Cabinet ore bo « indignant,' as a certain lftter with which we have juit been favoured informs us they aie. »♦ I have made these observations in order that, if the county meets, the people of Buckinghamshire may understand that the question on which they will have to decide is of a graver, deeper, and more comprehen* sive character than, in the lu«ut ot their laudable emotion, they may perhaps suppose. " I have the honour to be, nay Lord, 41 Your faithful «ervant, "Hughenden Manor, Nov. 8." "B. Disraeli."

In consequence of the publication of Mr. Disraeli's letter, Mr. C. C. Grevillf. clerk to the Privy Council, addressed a communication to the Times, and from •which we extract the following passages :—: — " Whether the recognition of the status and precedence of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates was right or wrong, wise or unwise, it was an accomplished fact before the present Government oame into office, and therefore hefoie Lord Clarendon went to Ireland. He found the thin" done, and had only to conform himself to it. It was done (no doubt after mature deliberation) by the Governn ent of vSir Robert Peel, (before the schism,) and the recognition came fortk in the shape of a formal instrument of the highest authority, beaiing date the 13ih of January, 1845. A warrant or l\oya\ Commission approved by Her^ajesty in Council oh that day (to carry out the Charitable Beqursts Act) runs as follows : — * Know ye that we, reposing especial truit and confidence in your knowledge, dii. cretion, aud ability, do hereby, &c, by, and with the Hdvice of our Privy Council, appoint you, the said John George, Archbishop of Armagh ; Richard. Aich bishop of Dublin ; Archbishop William Crolly, Archbi»hop David Murray, John Hely, Earl of Donoughmore, Bishop Cornelius Denver, Henry Pakenham, &c ,to be Commissioners, &c.' This was (and was so deemed) a Royal recognition of the spiritual rank of the Irish prelates, and a concession of precedence corresponding with that of the prelates of the same degrees of the Established Church. Such rank and jnecedenee it was not in the power of the Lord.Lientenant either to confer or to withhold — whether he were a Whig or an Orangeman it was his duty to treat them ai cording to the dignity which il had pleased the Sovereign to recognize in their person*. And this it what Lord Clarendon did. He did tiof ' recognise them a* peers,' he neither ' sought their counsel,' nor • courted their lavour,' but he received them all wiih becoming courtesy and jespect, and those prelates who were distinguished by their loyalty to tbe Crown, their attachment to the Union, and their personal virtues, he treated wiih peculiar murks of regard and confidence. As I happen to have been officialy cognizant of the acts and instiuments to which I have referred, nnd I think that truth aud justice alike demand (but the piaiae or the blame (whichever they may deserve) should be appropiiated to those who were and «ti 1 ought to be held, responsible for what was done, I have taken upon me to correct a misrepresentation oltcn repeated, and which derives some importance from the peculiar circumstances of the present time. " I am Sir, yoar obedient servant, ,' Bruton-street, Nov. 10. C. C. Grevim-e." As Ireland has a special concern in this correspondence, we have looked for Irish opinions respecting it. We find that Mr. Grevilles defence of his friends meets with no very favourable reception on either side. The (Roman Catholic) Freeman's Journal, says, "It was quite unnecessary for Mr. Greville to state what was already thoroughly well known— that Ihe liish Prelates were not indebted to the Whig Cabinet for the recognition of their status and precedenc*. So long as it served a purpose in Cork-Hill, and could be referred to as a net-off against the exclusion of Catholics as jurors and assistant-barristers, not a word of disclaimer wns heard even fiom the ready and wellinformed pen of C C. Greville." On the other hand, the (Protestant) Even- ' ing Mail, sees in the whole conduct of Government nothing that is not I " quite agreeable to our experience of the Whig nature, for that is of Indian rubber, and yields to pressure from without. The pressure then having been applied with astounding and unexpected force, there was a choice of two things — cither to go out with the Pope, or to come out against him." The Mail proceeds to support Mr. D'lsraeu's charge against Lord Clarendon, by the quotation of passages from his Excellency's reply to " The Memorial of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland," in which he addressed the Bishops as a "hierarchy" and declared that "as representing the Government " he would always be ready to " consult their lordships." The following sentences from an article in the Tablet will show how the question is dealt with by that journal — " Those Catholics who have sold themselves—whether fur gold, for partisanship, for Wig favour, or for the n»me of social and political respectability — to tbe present Government, have now their just reward in the contempt of the puppet they have now so iguominously worshipped. In return for their base cringing he buffets them on the mouth ', voids his rneumupen their garments ; spurns them with bis foot ; make* proclamation ot the ju&t contempt he entertains of their senility j and shows bis belief that neither insult

nor injury can alienate from him their corrupt and ill-pluced affections. Your political ancestors coldly conspired vmh Titus Gates the murder of the innocent Lord Stafford, as a move ou the chessboard which was to give them some chance of success. You strike up an ostentatious alliance with the blasphemers of Exeter hull and its dependencies on the same astute calculation. But, my lord, be comforted. With the great and firm body of the English and liUh Catholic* the flourishes of your crabstick will only provoke a smile. They umlei stand your power and its limits, your disposition and i's malignity. They understand their nwo strength and the everlasting foundation on which it rests ; and, understanding the>e things, they are not much moved by either your person or your abjurations, but very heartily despise both." Archbishop Murray had convened a meeting of his Clergy to present a congratulatory Address to Cardinal Wiseman, and to " express their gratitude to our most holy father the Pope for his timely restoration of the ancient hierarchy of the English Catholic Church-." — and the Roman Catholics of Drogheda were about to hold a meeting to call upon Sir W. Somerville, chief Secretary for Ireland, to relinquish his seat for Drogheda, "in consequence of the steps threatened to be taken by Lord John Russell against the Catholic Church." Returning to England, we observe that Mr. B. Hawfs, M.P., had been unexpectedly brought personally into the conflict on rather curious grounds, which will be sufficiently understood by the following letter from himself to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle ; Sir,— ln your paper of to.day you insert a letter, signed ••A. 8.C.," in which the following passage occurs;— 11 Can Lord John Russell be sincere in hii new-born zeal against the ' mummeries of superstition," when he allows one of hii subordinates, Mr. Benjamin Hawes, M.P., to attend a • superstitious' meeting of ' Catholics of the London district,' at the Thatched Home Tavern, for the purpose of supporting the following resolution, as advertised in the public papers of the l7th August last : — ' That it U the duty of Catholics, agreeably to the practice of Catholic countries in like caiei, to meet the expenditure attendant on the promotion of the Risht Rev. Dr. Wiseman to the rank of a Prince of the Church'?" And the writer conclude! :— S " Let me ask his Lordship, if it ii true that hit Under Secretary lor the Colonies, betides publicly speaUing at the above-mentioned meeting in support of the resolution I have quoted, has actually subscribed £10 towards procuring one ot those said ' mummeries,' a Cardinal* hat, for Dr. Wiseman ?" I am notsorry that your correspondent gires me the oppoitunity of stating publicly my reasons fur attending a meeting of the "■ Catholics of the London District," and tor taking any part whatever in its proceedings, and stating also wnat I did say up>n that occasion. I have long enjoyed the friendship of Cardinal Wue. man, and I hope long to enjoy it. Upon his being created a Cardinal, and leaving England, under the ex* pectation of residing abroad for many years (which, to my knowledge, was Dr. Wiseman's expectation), a common friend of his and mine called upon me, and informed me that Dr. Wiseman's friends intended to offer him tome mark of their regard and reipect. My reply was, that, upon personal consideration, I should be happy to join, if my doing to at a Protestant, and upon private and personal grounds only, would be acceptable to Roman Catholics. I was subsequently invited to the meeting, and I attended it. But, finding that the address to Dr. Wiseman wai such as I could not, as a Protettaut, sign, and lhat the resolutions were also such ns none but Roman Catholics could support, I was obliged to state the grounds alone upon which I attended the meeting, and to say, that, if 1 could be permitted to show the respect I entertuined, as a Protestant, for Dr. Wiseman, as a most excellent, charitable, and learned prelate ot the Roman Catholic Church, I was ready to do so, but that it was impossible for me to concur in the addrets, or the resolutions, for very obviom reasons. The meeting unanimonsly acquiesced in my view, and I contributed my mite of respect to even the prelate of a rival church, whose worth and excellence I knew and admired, and whose friendship I think it an honour to possess. I, however, joined in no address, nor did I second or support any resolution ; nor was I aware, till very recently, that it had been publicly asserted that I had done so. For the part I took on that occasion, and for the motives which actuated me, I shall not even condescend to a vindication. Nor shall I, from any fear of being misunderstood, abate my admiration of good men, nor my desire to share in the promotion <>f good works, whether Roman Catholic or Proteitant. Charity is still, 1 hope, a virtue prized by both. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, B. Hawes. 9, Queen Square, Westminster, Nov. 12.

To this communication the editor of the Chronicle append! the following :—: — ' We inserted our correspondent's letter after verifying his statement by referring to our own advertising columns, and also to those of tome of our contemporaries, of the day in question— the 17th ot August last. We there found it slated that the resolution quoted by 1 A. B. C • was moved by H. R. Bugshawe, Esq., ami seconded by Thomas Jackson, Esq., and supported by Beuj. Hawes, Esq., M. P., and carried unanimously.' It was not, however, our intention to blame Mr. Hawes for the >tcp which he had taken, but, on the contrary, to contrast his liberality and tolerance with the iliiberality and intolerance displayed by Lord John Russell. For, surely, if Lord John was justified in denouncing the religious worship of any members, either of his own or of the Roman Catholic Church, as the 'mummeries of superstition,' it wai not an unreasonable inquiry how he could allow one of hit subordinates to attend a ' superstitious' meeting for the ' superstitious* purpose of procuring a ' mummery' (to wit, & cardinal's hat) for the gentleman who has now become •Archbishop of "Westminster-— and who has thereby afforded hu LortJthip an opportunity, either of manifesting his persecuting spirit, or of making political capital for the next session." The question had been much agitated whether the Government had not been cognizant for some time of the Pope's intention, and had not at least tacitly acquiesced in it. The following official letter was received by a gentleman in Exeter in reply to inquiries which he had made on the point :— ' Downing-stTeet, Oct. 28, 1850. — Sir, — I am directed by Lord John Russell to inform you, in answer to your question whether a IWt of Rom»n Catholic Prelates contained in a newspaper is correct, that he has no other means of {judging tliah you have yourself,

namely, by reading the Bull of the Pope in the news- [ papers. To the second question, ' whether the cieation of the above popish bishoprics, or the appointments thereto, have received the sanction and approbation of her Majesty's ministers,' 1 am directed to answer that they have not received such sanction and approbation. I am directed further to state, that Lord Mintd, when at Rome, was not consulted on this measure, and never gave any countenance to it.— l havp the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,— R. W. Grey. The " Bishop of Northampton " had, like his right leverend brother of Beverley, (whose " Pastoral" appeared in our last) addressed the clergy and laity of his diocese on the subject. He prefixes a quotation from the second Psalm — " Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things 1 The Kings of the earth have stood up, and the Princes have met together against the Lord, and against his anointed." lie characterises the opposition to the new arrangements as " a something little short of insanity," and asks, " Do not our calumniators themselves well know that during the darksome days of persecution, the rack and gibbet were tried npon our forefathers in vain to compel them to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Sovereign ! and that, should thoie darksome days return, we must, like them, consent to be hung, drawn, and quartered, rather than acknowledge that Su_ premacy ? The reports of Meetings and declarations of various kinds against the Bull, fill, however, by far the largest portion of the papers. We add to the extracts already transferred to our columns, one from a speech by Dr. Croly, at Sion College, which is represented as having produced an electric effect : — " As to the Papal Bull," said the Ret. Doctor, " I nm rejoiced that is has been issued. It will bring the Popish controversy into open court, and woe to Popery when it exposes itself to the judgment of the people. It will ripen the ulcer which has so long been eating away Piotestantism, and show us whereto strike in the knife, and eradicate the disease; it will relieve us at once from thai whole system of pious perfidy, of miserable palliatives, and of corrup'ing falsehoods, which have alike disguised the apostate, and disgusted the Christian. We shall dear our cliurches at ouce of the mummeries and the mummers of Popery. " Its effects will also be to show to England what Popery is, and the display will be fatal. The lurking incendiary will be convicted by the torch in his hand. Jesuitism once venturing on straiuhtforwardness is suicidal—once abandoning artifice, it throws away the only weapon it can ever use— once daring to be candid it sprinps out of its element, and dies by nature. * * " War is now declared, and I rejoice at it. No mor«t truces now. The sword is drawn, and never shall that sword be treacherously wrested from our hand, or ignominiously returned to the sheath. Rome is upon us, and God defend the right 1 . * * * * " But, the effrontery of the whole transaction is the most provoking part of all. By whom is this opera* tion, which the world in arms could not effect, to be effected ? Jsy the poorest and most powerless being that sits on any throne of Europe ! Here we have a j man who cannot step over the kennel of Roman riot, attempting to ride and rule the ocean of British opinion—a fugitive from his own people — a refugee among ! strangers— a mendicant living on foreign charity— a • king of shreds and patches,' issuing his mandate to an Empire on which the sun never goes down — a man who dares not look out of tt.e windows of the Quirinal without a French sentinel at its door, casting his glance i ou the possession of the mightiest kingdom of the globe— a inau driven out by his own people, and brought bark only by strangers— brought back, too, over the corpses of his subjects, and now sitting in a Palace, which in the next twelve hours may be a dun. geon, throning the fetters of his worn-out superstitiou over the great country of the Gospel — a man forced to have ten thousand French ba\onets to protect him from his own citizens—a kiDg of Lilliput in a palace of pigmies And is this the man who is to distribute Popish titles and offices in the freest, the most prosperous, and the most highly-spirited of nitinus. The very idea would be inconceivable, if the fact, in all iti burlesque, were not before our eyes. " This, in all its shapes, we must resist. Indigna« tion is too high for the attempt, but its impotence must increase our scorn. When our glorious Elizabeth heard of the coming of the Arnuda, she received the tidings, not as a matter of alarm, but a« a matter of affront — not as an invasion, but as an insult. ' I think it a foul shame, 1 exclaimed that magnanimous woman, ' that Parma or Spain dare to invade the borders of my realms.' The woids found an echo in every bosom of her people, and the God who gave the Gospel aveuged the cause of (he Gospel."