Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 68, No 422, December 1850

In the midst of this busy period, a letter appeared from the pen of the Premier. It was received by the multitude with a burst of acclamation; for this there were reasons of very different colours. Some were glad that Ministers could feel anything on a religious subject; some, that Lord John was on the national side; some that, after having so long raised the suspicions of one side, he had at last challenged the hostility of the other.

We must acknowledge that our gratulation was not altogether so ardent, and that we conceived this letter to be very much more the offspring of his Lordship's fears than his feelings. It was obviously unfortunate that his zeal had been kindled so late, there being no imaginable doubt that the Pope had marked out Westminster for the See of his new Archbishop several years ago. And it is clear, that the appointment of one Archbishop would have been as great an encroachment as the fixture of fifty. The principle was there, and it would evidently be prolific. Yet not a syllable of remonstrance had transpired. Wisdom was silent in the streets, and precaution slumbered within the Cabinet curtains. Whitehall was as quiet as Lambeth, and Lambeth of course was Lethe. No Minister hurried to the palace, with pallid lips and faltering nerves, like him who

"Drew Priam's curtain at the dead of night,

To tell him Troy was burned."

But the Dean and Chapter of Westminster had actually attempted to break the slumber, by an address deprecating the appointment, as utterly unconstitutional. This occurred in 1848. It was heard of no more, and silence came again.

As his Lordship's Letter is probably to be regarded as a Cabinet minute, we shall give its chief portions verbatim.

It begins by referring to a letter of the Bishop of Durham, which termed the Bull "insolent and insidious," the latter epithet appearing to us to have no other merit than that of alliteration, the measure not being insidious at all – but, by a remarkable deviation from the customary craft of the Papacy, being one of the most open and audacious insults on record.

The Letter then proceeds to say, that its writer, having "promoted to the utmost of his power the claims of the Roman Catholics to all civil rights" – a fact with which the country was fully acquainted – thought "it right, and even desirable, that the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Catholics should be the means of giving instruction to the numerous Irish immigrants in London and elsewhere, who, without such help, would be left in heathen ignorance."

The latter sentence we do not profess to understand. Does it allude to any arrangement, by which the Papacy was to change the system of simple superintendence, and adopt Dr Wiseman as archbishop, after all? Is this the preliminary to further development, and is the common rumour on the subject the reverse of a mistake? How the kind of religion imported by the legions of Irish beggary into England was to be purified by a new episcopal staff, is wholly beyond our comprehension. Or why the Protestant people of England, after feeding the pauperism of Ireland at home, should be bound to provide for its heresy here – or how, for the further allurement of the superfluous rabble of Ireland, we are to provide, for either their poverty or their pride, the pageant of twelve Popish mitres, we must leave it to his Lordship to explain.

His next sentence is more intelligible.

"There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome – a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic times."

How this discovery should have been delayed till November 1850, in the apprehension of a public personage acquainted with the general facts of history, handling Popish concerns all his life, and an inveterate supporter of the Popish Bill of 1829, is not easily accounted for. But every man of common intelligence in Europe, (his Lordship excepted,) knew that Popery has existed in a perpetual struggle with all governments for temporal supremacy, under the pretence of spiritual; that it has attempted a constant usurpation of royal authority even in the Popish kingdoms; and that its restless appetite for power requires constant coercion, even by those governments, to render it compatible with any government at all. What is to be said, when Pio Nono has excommunicated the Sardinian government before our eyes? The next sentence is significant: "I confess that my alarm is not equal to my indignation."

Does his Lordship mean by this that we have been frightened by a shadow, while he has preserved his fortitude? or that the nation has been somewhat inclined to play the fool in its fright, while he has preserved his serenity through his superior knowledge? But he then proceeds to inform us what should be the true object of national alarm, and that is Tractarianism!

Without implying that his Lordship here employs that well-known species of diplomacy which substitutes conjecture for reality, we shall tell him that Tractarianism, though exciting much regret, and bringing much discredit on the laxity of discipline which has so long suffered its existence, is not the real danger; that, compared with Popery, it is but the "fly on the chariot wheel;" and that its influence is not to be named for a moment beside the systematic art, the vast extent, and the indefatigable ambition of Popery.

We are not much more reassured by his Lordship's hint of the smallness of the Pope's territorial power.

"What is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no great power, compared to the danger within the gates?" &c.

But does his Lordship conceive that we are afraid of the Pope's territorial power? – that we are alarmed at an invasion of his Hundred Swiss? – or that any man ever supposed that a minister in the Pontine Marshes was to shake the Religion and State of England? The Popedom has always been a narrow territory, and yet the Papacy has been the great disturber of Europe for a thousand years. Does his Lordship doubt that its weapon was superstition, and that superstition was once universal? But, while we can feel no terror at the sickly absurdities of a few fanatics, or the low artifices of a few hunters after vulgar popularity, who have never reckoned within their ranks any one man of name, or ability, or learning, or even of station – who owe their sole publicity to what the Bishop of London calls a "poor imitation of Popery," and whose bowings and gesticulations are actually objects of national ridicule – we see a wholly different antagonist in a system, possessed of the power of the multitude, addressing itself to every weakness and pampering every passion of man, offering every prize to avarice, and stimulating every appetite for possession; unceasing in pursuit of all its objects, and making everything an object; desperately inimical to religious liberty, and perpetually labouring to establish over every people an authority fatal to the progress of mankind. We see it now with a hundred and forty millions of souls in Popish Europe, with nearly all the Continental thrones Popish, with hundreds of thousands of monks and friars devoted to all the purposes of its ambition, with its seculars mingled through every population, and with the wealth of the whole Popish community ready to be lavished in a crusade of Monkism. We must confess that we feel as much anxiety in the issue of a contest with such a power as is consistent with a feeling of courage in the performance of our duty.

We have never doubted that England, under the protection of a higher power than man, and awakened to a sense of her peril, will triumph in the most hazardous struggle. But her safety must be grounded on her vigilance. The sleeping giant is as helpless as a child.

So fully are we convinced that Rome is the real danger, that we not merely laugh at Tractarianism, in comparison, but we look with suspicion on every attempt to set it up as the danger. To compare this dwarf with the gigantic bulk of Popery seems absurd; and we must therefore reject it as argument altogether. It is also unfortunate for this bugbear that it has been so slow in its discovery, and that the Ministerial terrors have already slept so long, Tractarianism being now a well-grown peril – its siege of the Church having already lasted some years beyond the renowned siege of Troy!

The Letter, however, closes with the spirit of an enthusiast in the "good cause," – "I will not abate a jot of heart or hope so long as the glorious principles and the immortal martyrs of the Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great mass of a nation which looks with contempt on the mummeries of superstition."

All this is what Dominie Sampson would have pronounced "prodigious!" with his loudest and longest suspiration. And all is eminently curious, in the man whose whole career has been devotion to every Popish demand, and advocacy of every Popish measure; who has risen into office by the influence of Popish voices, and who has been in the intima concilia of the imaginary Archbishop of Westminster!

Must not Protestants ask, By whose advice was Mr Wyse planted in the Greek embassy? – by whom was Mr O'Farril planted in the government of Malta? – by whom was Mr Shiel planted in the embassy to Tuscany – or rather to the whole of western and middle Italy, and in immediate approximation to Rome? Were three Papists selected for those express, and at present most important missions, without a purpose? – were they flung up merely by the diplomatic wheel? – or were those extraordinary appointments of untried men produced by a sudden, and a Papal demand, for the support of a plan?

But this is a time of wonders, and his Lordship's conversion may rank at the summit of them all. However, there is a reason for everything in art and nature; and it is said that a very high personage had a share in this rapid operation on the Ministerial understanding; that the question was asked, – "Pray, who is to be the sovereign?" and that the answer was his Lordship's letter. It concludes by giving the coup-de-grace to the character of Popery, of whose present performances it speaks with scorn, as "laborious endeavours to confine the intellect, and enslave the soul." – (Downing Street, Nov. 4.)

In the meantime "my Lord Cardinal," who had stopped in his posthaste journey, on learning John Bull's theological opinions of his Manifesto, was comforted by an emissary despatched to inform him that the bonfires of the 5th of November had all been suffered to sink into ashes, and that he would escape any severer trial of his fortitude than being burnt in effigy. But the Doctor, now fearless of his auto-da-fé, is also said to have determined on carrying the war into the enemy's quarters, and showing that every step which he has taken has been sanctioned by his denouncers; and that, instead of being the foolish and impudent intruder which the public have believed him to be, he has been actually only the submissive follower and ready agent of councils far enough removed from the Quirinal.

We shall advert to but one matter in addition, yet the most important of all. From the accession of Pio Nono, there has been a decisive change of the old Papal plan. For the last three hundred years, Popery, smitten by the Reformation, had limited its efforts to keeping itself in existence, the stern power of the military thrones having prohibited its excitement of the people. But times changed; the power of the multitude increased, the power of the monarchs diminished, and the appeal was now to be made to the multitude. Europe then saw, with sudden astonishment, a liberal Pope, and heard the sound of popular emancipation from the recesses of the Conclave. If the rash ambition of the King of Sardinia had not thrown Italy into war, and his shallow generalship turned the war into a flight, the plan of popular appeal would probably have made Popery the head of Red Republicanism. But the whole affair was managed as everything beyond the confessional is managed by monkery – and the Pope was glad to escape from the blaze which he had kindled with his own hasty hand.

His restoration by the French sword, drawn for republicanism in France and for despotism in Rome, has set the machinery in movement again; and we now see its first manufacture in the actual claim of supremacy in England. Whether its contemptuous repulse here will check its progress abroad, who shall say? But, that a conspiracy for the extinction of Protestantism exists in Europe; that the ten foreign cardinals were appointed to propagate the plan; and that it is to be defeated only by vigilance and principle, there can be no doubt in the mind of any rational being.

But, since we began this paper, two events have occurred, which, trifling as they may be as to the individuals concerned, give too clear an evidence of the spirit of Popery and public men to be wholly passed by.

That excellent paper, the Standard, thus briefly states the first: "In May 1845 the late Lady Pennant expressed to her parish minister (the Rev. Mr Briscoe) her intention to build a church near her residence, in Wales, for the use of her poor neighbours. This she also stated to her daughter, who promised to fulfil it. This daughter married Lord Fielding, and brought him a fortune, part of which, of course, was apparently pledged to the building of the church. On Lady Pennant's death, writes the Bishop of St Asaph to Lord Fielding – 'You publicly declared that you purposed to bestow a large sum of money in founding a church, and all things belonging to it. You invited me and my clergy to join in laying the foundation. You seemed to understand it so. We certainly understood it so; and we received the Lord's Supper together, with this understanding.

"'Now, I must say, that I regard this as a promise made to me, and my clergy, as solemnly as it could be made on earth.'

"Lord Fielding," says the Standard, "sets about the building, – plain proof that he perfectly understood his duty. Before the completion of the church, however, his Lordship falls into the hands of Tractarians, who, as usual, deliver him over to Romanist priests, who furnish him with the miserable arguments, which, grounded on the two extraordinary notions, that what a man promises as a Protestant he is not bound to perform as a Papist, and that, no distinct fund having been appropriated in Lady Pennant's will, he is not bound to apply any whatever – finishes by saying, 'My duty appears clear to me, to devote that church which is being built at my own cost, and which yet remains mine, to the furtherance of God's truth, as I find he himself delivered it to his Holy Catholic Church.'"

So that the result of Lady Pennant's wish, and her money, left for a Protestant church, is the building of a Popish chapel! and the result of a Protestant bishop's laying the foundation, is the erection of a place for the mass and the worship of the Virgin Mary! We disdain comment on this transaction. But it is eminently Popish.

The other instance is the attendance of Mr Hawes, the Under Secretary of State, at a congratulatory public meeting in honour of Dr Wiseman's appointment as a cardinal, and his actually subscribing money to buy him a Red Hat.

The office of Under Secretary, though not one of much public consideration, and often given to persons of none whatever, is yet regarded as extremely confidential; and, in the instance of Mr Hawes, it has unusual weight, from his being the actual representative of the Colonial Secretary in the House of Commons, Lord Grey being in the House of Lords. But Mr Hawes is also understood to possess a confidence out of his Department, and to be on the most intimate terms with the Premier. Indeed, the admiration of the Under Secretary for the noble Lord, the delicate attention of generally escorting him into the House, and seldom being able to remain in it after it has lost the light of his Lordship's countenance – his ecstasy of admiration at every sentence which slips from the Premier's lips, and the fixedness of his eye on his Lordship's features during the sitting – have often excited the surprise, and occasionally the amusement, of the members of the Legislature. But that Mr Hawes should have attended a public meeting, or done any one act on earth in which he conceived it possible to have produced a frown on the noble Lord's brow – or, indeed, should do anything without a consciousness of the most PERFECT acquiescence in the most important quarter – was among the "grand improbabilities" of the age. But Mr Hawes did go to the meeting, and subscribed for what our ancestors called a "rag of Popery," and what their sons call one of its "mummeries."

On this subject a correspondent of the Morning Chronicle writes the following queries: —

"Can Lord John Russell be sincere in his new-born zeal against what he pronounces the 'mummeries of superstition,' when he allows one of his subordinates, Mr B. Hawes, M.P., to attend a meeting of 'Catholics of the London district,' for the purpose of moving a resolution," &c. He adds: "Let me ask his Lordship, is it true that his Under Secretary for the Colonies, besides speaking at the meeting, has publicly subscribed £10 towards procuring one of those said 'mummeries' – a Cardinal's hat – for Dr Wiseman?" To this, the only answer given by Mr Hawes is, that he declined signing the Popish resolutions, but that he spoke, and offered to give his tribute, &c., from friendship to the Doctor; which this Papist, however, graciously condescended to receive.

Now, if Mr Hawes were attending to his parental trade on this occasion, there would have been nothing to say, but that it showed the smartness of an expert trafficker. But, as a fragment of the Ministry, he had another character to sustain, and he ought to have been aware of the conclusions which would be drawn, by both Papists and Protestants, as to the degree of approval under which he might have acted.

The "Cardinal's hat," too, by no means mends the matter. If his friendship for Dr Wiseman must overflow to the amount of £10, could it have taken no less official shape? Might he not have made it up to the Doctor in teacups or teaspoons, in a dozen of pocket-handkerchiefs, or in an addition to his shoes and stockings? But the hat is a badge: it has the effect of a cockade. What if it is a thing of red stuff? What is a cockade? – a thing of ribbon – which, however, makes the difference between armies!

Without any particular respect for Mr Hawes' shrewdness, we cannot believe that he was unacquainted with the natural conclusions; nor do we believe that it can be passed over, when the day comes for national inquiry into the whole course of Papal politics in England for the last half-dozen years. Meanwhile, the spirit of the people is high, their determination is decided, and the time is at hand for a great restoration to the principles of England.

notes

1

By the pounds Milanese, Giacomo means the Milanese lira.

2

Jeremy Taylor —Of Christian Prudence. Part II.

3

Ib.

4

This was well known in ancient times. "Corruptas," says Quintilian, "aliquando et vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique judiciorum pravitate mirantur, quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sunt; quæ non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed quod pejus est, propter hoc ipsum, quod sunt prava laudantur." – Inst. Orat. ii. 5.

5

Cinna, Act ii. s. 1.

"Quelle prodigieuse supériorité," says Voltaire in his Commentaries on this passage, "de la belle Poésie sur la prose! Tous les écrivains politiques ont délayé ces pensées, aucun n'a approché de la force, de la profondeur, de la netteté, de la précision de ce discours de Cinna. Tous les corps d'état auraient du assister a cette pièce, pour apprendre à penser et à parler." – Voltaire, Commentaires sur Corneille, iii. 308.