ART. VI.-THE PROTESTATION OF 1789, AND THE IRISH CATHOLIC OATH.

Vaticanism: An Answer to Replies and Reproofs. By the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. London: Murray,

A

WRITER, signing himself "An Irish Catholic," soon after the publication of "Vaticanism," wrote a letter to the Spectator, in which he contested, in the first instance, Mr. Gladstone's statements concerning the connection between the Protestation signed by certain English Catholics in 1789, and the Act for the Relief of the Catholics of England passed by the Parliament of 1790-1. He undertook to show that Mr. Gladstone had misrepresented not only the doctrine held by the Catholics of England, but the spirit in which Parliament legislated for their relief, and the principles of policy upon which the Ministers of the Crown acted in their regard. The proofs which he gave in support of his case were so considerable that the Spectator did not hesitate to say, in its issue containing the letter, that of March 13:

We call attention to a very interesting letter in another column, by "An Irish Catholic," which certainly seems to show that Mr. Gladstone has been misled in supposing that the relieving Act of 1791 was obtained in any degree by the Roman Catholic repudiation of the Pope's infallibility. Apparently, the whole controversy was quite as well understood then as now, only that our leading statesmen were at that time quite without fear of the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility, while now they look upon it with terror and dismay. It is quite clear that Mr. Gladstone has fallen into serious errors in that part of his historical disquisition. Mr. Gladstone was, however, silent on the subject, and has since remained silent, while a cheap edition of "Vaticanism" has been issued and circulated by tens of thousands, containing, without correction or qualification, all the mis-statements of fact which had been exposed, and all the violent accusations against the See of Rome and the Catholics of England which had been based upon those mis-statements of fact. An animated and prolonged controversy ensued in the columns of the Spectator, several correspondents of that journal disputing minor details of the case advanced by "an Irish Catholic,' but none of them even pretending to deny the larger grounds

The Protestation of 1789, and the Irish Catholic Oath. 413

on which he had challenged Mr. Gladstone's charges. In the course of this controversy, having done such justice as he could to the honourable and candid manner in which the Catholics of England acted towards Parliament in 1791, and to the generous and considerate spirit in which Parliament and Government regarded their claims and their conscience, he felt it to be his duty to treat certain circumstances connected with the history of the oath contained in the Irish Catholic Relief Act of 1793, and certain imputations made by Mr. Gladstone against the Irish Bishops and the See of Rome in connection with that oath. There has been no attempt as yet made to controvert any important part of the long and detailed statement made by him on this part of the case, in publishing which the Spectator recurred to the controversy in the following terms:

We shall probably sum up the view of almost all impartial readers of this discussion, when we say that "An Irish Catholic" seems to us to have reduced the historical justification of Mr. Gladstone's accusation to very insignificant limits indeed. He has, we think, finally disposed of the assertion that, except in one instance, there was at any time any authorized, public, or official renunciation by the Catholics of either kingdom, in exchange for civil or political privileges, of the right to hold the dogma of the Infallibility of the Pope. He has shown that in that one instance, when the English Vicars-Apostolic, whether in haste, or error, or wile, did no doubt commit themselves to what seems to us a deliberate renunciation of the right, they publicly withdrew from that position before the advantage which they had hoped to derive from it had been gained, and that both the Irish and English Catholic authorities repeatedly and publicly avowed doctrines inconsistent with it; and that ever afterwards the English and Irish statesmen took the very sound view that while guarantees for the loyalty of Catholics were very desirable, they cared but little about the actual doctrine officially held by Catholics as to Infallibility, and nothing at all as to the possibility of any future development of that doctrine.

It is desirable, we think, that at least the main outlines of this controversy should be placed upon record in the pages of the DUBLIN REVIEW. Mr. Gladstone has had many and illustrious adversaries in the field of theology; but none, so far as we are aware, except the writer of these letters, on that ground on which it might well be presumed he could hardly fall into any very gross error-that of political history, the course and policy of legislation in the two islands concerning Catholics before and since the Union, and the motives and conditions which had weight with the minds of his predecessors in the office of Prime Minister, Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Wellington,

in both projecting and conducting such legislation. It is not possible that we should reprint the entire series of letters, five in number, in which "An Irish Catholic" stated and maintained his position. We could not fairly do so without reprinting also the letters, seven or eight in number, which appeared on the other side; but we shall give very fully his statement of the case concerning the Protestation of 1789, and concerning the Irish oath of 1793, and a brief summary of the discussion in relation to one or two other important points. The letters have been revised by the writer, curtailed where it was possible, in one particular only expanded. In a letter signed "Fair Play," which appeared in the Spectator of March 20, it was complained that the summary of Mr. Gladstone's statements from "Vaticanism," which "An Irish Catholic" undertook to controvert, had been somewhat inaccurately drawn. The writer has substituted in the version which we publish for the necessarily contracted abstract of the principal points which appeared in his first letter to the Spectator, a full résumé of Mr. Gladstone's statements, as nearly as possible in his own words; and he has added a few sentences to connect these passages with the letter as it originally appeared. The almost inconceivable inaccuracy of Mr. Gladstone's statements is indeed made much more manifest when they are given in all their vehemence of assertion, and apparent amplitude of detail, alongside of the simple and undeniable facts of history. It was not possible to give, in the space of a letter to the Spectator, several documentary proofs, to which the writer referred, which are not very easily accessible, and which he justly regards as evidence of high importance in the case; such as the Encyclical letter of the Vicars-Apostolic in 1791, the terms of the oath which they condemned, and of that which Parliament substituted. These we append to his first letter, which follows:

:

It is time that the history of the "Declaration and Protestation signed by the English Catholic Dissenters in 1789" should be a little cleared up. If you will afford me space for the purpose, I will undertake to show that Mr. Gladstone has been betrayed into making a series of statements relative to that document absolutely unfounded and directly opposed to fact. Let me say at once, that I yield to no one in respect for Mr. Gladstone's sincerity, veracity, and honour; but in this matter I think it is impossible to acquit him of very grave negligence, or, as I prefer to think, somewhat rash credulity. It is hard, of course, to expect from him, or from any person not a Catholic, and not trained in theological studies, consummate accuracy in describing the proceedings of the Council of Constance or the Council of the Vatican; but it might reasonably be supposed that

he could not utter at least half a dozen egregious misstatements in relating the history of an Act of Parliament, from which an hour's study of "Hansard" and the Statute-book would have preserved him.

Mr. Gladstone asserts that "this very important document" (the Protestation of the English Catholic Dissenters) "brought about the passing of the great English Relief Act of 1791;" that "this Protestation was in the strictest sense a representative and binding document; that it was signed by 241 priests, including all the Vicars-Apostolic, by all the clergy and laity in England of any note; and in 1789, at a general meeting of the English Catholics in London, it was subscribed by every person present; " that the subscribers to it declared "they acknowledge no Infallibility in the Pope;" that "thus we have, on the part of the entire body of which Archbishop Manning is now the head, a direct, literal, and unconditional rejection of the cardinal tenet which he tells us has always been believed by his Church, and was an article * of divine faith before as well as after 1870. Nor was it,” Mr. Gladstone continues, "that the Protestation and the relief coincided in time. The protesters explicitly set forth that the penal laws against them were founded on the doctrines imputed to them, and they asked and obtained the relief on the express ground that they renounced and condemned the doctrines." He proceeds to say that "the Act of 1791 for England was followed by that of 1793 for Ireland;" and that "the oath inserted in this Act is founded upon the declaration of 1757, and embodies a large portion of it, including the words, 'It is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible.' In reference to this oath Mr. Gladstone then cites what he calls "a Synodical Declaration of the Irish Bishops, which," he thinks, "constitutes, perhaps, the most salient point of the whole of this singular history." He says:

"On the 26th of February, 1810, those Bishops declared that the said oath, and the promises, declarations, abjurations, and protestations therein contained are, notoriously, to the Roman Catholic Church at large, become a part of the Roman Catholic religion, as taught by us the Bishops, and received and maintained by the Roman Catholic Churches in Ireland; and as such are approved and sanctioned by the other Roman Catholic Churches.'"

Mr. Gladstone interprets this declaration as follows :-" We were told in Ireland that Papal Infallibility was no part of the Catholic Faith, and never could be made a part of it, and that the impossibility of incorpo rating it in their religion was notorious to the Roman Catholic Church at large, and was become part of their religion, and this not only in Ireland,

Here is a very serious misquotation by Mr. Gladstone. Archbishop Manning did not use the word "article"; he used the word doctrine (Vatican Decrees, p. 15). Mr. Gladstone pretends to some theological scholarship, and might be expected to know the difference of meaning of the two words, which is as marked in English (e.g., the Thirty-nine Articles, the Articles of War, &c.) as in Latin. 2 E

VOL. XXIV.NO. XLVIII. [New Series.]

but throughout the world." Previously he says, referring to the Protestation, we were told in England, by the Anglo-Roman bishops, clergy, and laity, that they rejected the tenet of the Pope's Infallibility;" and he concludes

"These are the declarations, which reach in effect from 1661 to 1810; and it is in the light of these declarations that the evidence of Dr. Doyle in 1825, and the declarations of the English and Irish prelates of the Papal communion shortly afterwards, are to be read. Here, then, is an extraordinary fulness and clearness of evidence, reaching over nearly two centuries given by and on behalf of millions of men : given in documents patent to all the world: perfectly well known to the See and Court of Rome, as we know expressly with respect to nearly the most important of all these assurances, namely, the actual and direct repudiation of infal libility in 1788-9. So that either that See and Court had at the last-named date, and at the date of the Synod of 1810, abandoned the dream of enforring infallibility on the Church, or else by wilful silence they were guilty of practising upon the British Crown one of the blackest frauds recorded in history."

It was by means of such declarations principally, Mr. Gladstone avers, that Catholics" obtained the remission of the penal laws, and admission to full civil equality." And here, I assume, he refers to the motives which influenced the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel in proposing the Act of 1829, which conceded full civil equality. But speaking later, more particularly with reference to the Protestation, whose history I am now especially considering, in connection with the Act of 1791, he reverts to it as exhibiting "the belief which in 1788-9 the whole body of the Roman Catholics of England assured Mr. Pitt that they held ;" and, closing this, part of his case, he exclaims, "Let us learn which of the resources of theological skill will avail to bring together these innovations" (the acts of the Vatican Council) "and the semper eadem of which I am, I fear, but writing the lamentable epitaph."

It needs no prophet's gift to say that hand of man has not written and will not write the epitaph of any attribute of the Church of God; nor does it need any even ordinary theological skill to disperse Mr. Gladstone's most confident assertions, and so make a clear, simple, and easy end of this arm of his argument. In order to do so it will suffice to cite little more than the Statute Book, the proceedings of Parliament, the correspondence and the declarations of his predecessors, the great statesmen and ministers of the Crown, who, from time to time, considered the claims of the Roman Catholics of the three kingdoms with a view to the repeal of Statutes which Mr. Pitt, in his place in Parliament, declared to be "disgraceful." Mr. Pitt's own words remain to prove that, so far from regarding the Protestation as "a representative and binding document," he knew perfectly well the majority of the Catholics of England in 1788-9 believed in the Infallibility of the Pope; and that he expressly advised the Crown and Parliament to legislate for the relief of those who did so believe. If Mr. Gladstone will only take the trouble of referring to the debates on