« AnteriorContinuar »
a really excellent parochial clergy is and remains the essential condition for the true prosperity of the Church.'
Let the reader compare this thoughtful and elaborate essay ---the production of an irreproachable priest and a churchman imbued with a lively attachment to his Church-first with the ecclesiastical memorials prepared against the intended Diocesan Synod of Mayence, and then with the points of ecclesiastical organisation dwelt on by authoritative Old-Catholics, and be cannot fail to acknowledge a marked continuity of intention and of character between all these manifestations, nor fail to recognise that they are all three spontaneous growths of the same seed, with only such differences as are due to the varieties of soil through which they have sprung forth. There are differences in the sound of the voice, but the speech is substantially the same. There are differences in the tone of utterance, but they are clearly such as are due to altered conditions of time and occasion. Between the three manifestations there exists a typical similarity in the firm determination to keep within the landmarks of positive Catholic teaching, to avoid the unenclosed fields of undogmatic thought, and in the significant fact that each movement sprang up in a corporate shape, and cannot be identified with any particular and determining personal influence. It is no more possible to identify the reforming tendencies embodied in the memorials for the Mayence Diocesan Synod, or the spirit of the · Tübingen Quarterly' with the inspiration of any one individual, than it would be to attribute to Dr. Dollinger's individual action, notwithstanding his high position, the tendencies and the spirit represented by those who came together in the Cologne Congress. In the nature of these movements, in the manner in which they have sprung up successively as occasion favoured them, lies, if anywhere, the indication that there is at work some process at once spontaneous and organic.
Unduly long as we have been, this point is so important that in conclusion we must refer to a most interesting kindred movement, which was precisely marked with this peculiar absence of striking individual agencies. Silesia was the first province with a Catholic population acquired by the Prussian Crown. The Jesuits had long prevailed here and reduced the Protestants to a miserable plight; nevertheless there lurked a sentiment of higher religious zeal, and under the administration of the Prince-Bishop Hohenlohe in the first twenty years of this century, a healthy activity began to manifest itself amongst the clergy. His successor, Schimonsky, was however of a reactionary type, who did not
look favourably on the efforts his predecessor had encouraged for making the Church more efficient in the rural districts. In November 1826 a memorial signed by eleven parish priests was presented to the Prince-Bishop. It respectfully represented the unsatisfactory condition of the Church in Silesia; and pointed out certain reforms which it would be essential to introduce, particularly praying for some modifications in the ritual, and above all for the performance of services in the tongue of the country. A few weeks after this memorial had gone in—but before any reply was given—there appeared in Hanover a book entitled • The Catholic Church, especially * in Silesia, represented in its failings by a Catholic Priest.' Though published anonymously it has long been no secret that the author was Father Theiner, the same who subsequently went to Rome, prostrated himself before the Pope, became Archivist of the Vatican, and still lives within the precincts of the Pontifical residence, though he has been deprived of his post through the influence of Jesuit ascendancy. The book was written with incisive vigour; it laid bare the many shortcomings of clerical organisation in schools and cures of souls, and it even ventured to criticise disciplinary injunctions, and especially compulsory celibacy. The Archbishop now sought in a Pastoral to identify the memorialists with the author of this book. He denounced them as wanting in religion-seducers of men from the true faith. Thereupon a body of Silesian Catholic gentlemen presented a humble appeal to the Sovereign praying that he would exert his authority for removal of the abuses indicated and introduction of the demanded reform in ritual — especially the use of the vernacular tongue. But those were times when the current of Conservative reaction was strong against all signs of innovation. The Bishop represented these memorialists as men affected with a spirit of insubordination--of demagogism. The King of Prussia, notwithstanding his Protestant feelings, was perplexed what to do. The Civil Governor of the Province, President Merkel, was accordingly instructed to report on the situation, which he did in a document that for statesmanlike grasp of thought and masterly insight into great problems must rankamongst the very best state papers ever written.* It was this able public servant's decided opinion, which he supported by arguments as ample as they were lucid, that there was no shred of truth in the imputation of irreligious and anarchical tendencies in the incriminated individuals; that
• It was published last year in the May number of the Zeitschrift für Preussische Geschichte und Landeskunde.' VOL. CXXXVII. NO. CCLXXX.
on the contrary they constituted the germ of a body capable of holding in check the spread of the Ultramontane element which it could not be in the interest of the Prussian Crown to foster, and that therefore they should be taken into protection against the Bishop. Of the same opinion was Bunsen, to whom all the papers were referred for additional consideration. But the step was too decisive a one for so vacillating a cabinet as that of Prussia then was. The memorialists were informed that it was outside the attributes of the Crown to interfere in questions of ecclesiastical ritual ; and so, left to themselves, they tacitly bowed to the absolute ascendancy of the Romanising bishop. But although the movement thus lost itself imperceptibly, it should be observed that traces of a non-Ultramontane spirit have come to light subsequently in some notable phenomena. The
very next successor to Schimonsky, named unanimously by the Chapter, was a member of an old Silesian noble family-Count Sedlnitzky-who notoriously had sympathised with the memorialists. When some years later the great controversy about mixed marriages arose, Bishop Sedlnitzky, on the strength of custom sanctioned expressly for Silesia by Pontifical rescripts, continued to permit such marriages to be solemnised, and on being censured by the Pope he resigned his See rather than conform to injunctions which he considered hurtful to the peace of his flock. The so-called GermanCatholic movement, the immediate origin of which was the exhibition of the Trèves relics, strayed too rapidly into an utterly undogmatic phase to call for our attention. But it is nevertheless a noteworthy fact as regards the character of Silesian Catholicism, that it was in this province the movement took its rise—that Ronge himself was a Silesian priest, and that the adhesions amongst Silesian Catholics to his preaching were at first very considerable. Also it is symptomatic, that although he has now acquiesced in it, the Prince-Bishop Förster in Rome for a long while strenuously opposed the dogma of Infallibility, and that from Breslau comes one of the foremost champions of Old-Catholicism, Professor Reinkens. Nor is it without significance that whereas Ultramontanism has notoriously affected all classes in the Rhenish provinces, and even been suspected to have tainted in some degree their loyalty, no province in the Prussian dominions has on critical occasions evinced a more intense Prussian sentiment than Catholic Silesia.
At the beginning of this article we defined our object to be to inquire whether there were grounds for assuming the existence in Germany, amongst the Catholic population, of indi
genous elements not indisposed to concur in action for the restraint of the ecclesiastical system strenuously promoted from Rome. Also we sought to ascertain for what reason such elements, if in existence, have happened not to assert themselves before now. We think that it is not possible to dispute the existence of such elements, and we believe that their failure to assert themselves on previous occasions is clearly traceable to the absence of that concurrent combination of secular and of religious forces without which an effective breach of the Papal system can hardly be achieved. Such a combination does seem to be now abroad. As to how long it may last, and how far men may have the energy to turn to account such a favourable conjuncture—these are points on which we decline to hazard predictions.
Art. IX.-Speech on Moving for leave to bring in a Bill relat
ing to University Education in Ireland. By the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P., First Lord of the Treasury.
London : 1873. THE The speech which we have placed at the head of this article
was one of the finest oratorical efforts of its illustrious author. He himself regarded it, we have heard, as one of his most perfect and satisfactory performances. Without stooping to cull a single flower of rhetoric, or pausing to break the flow of his discourse by a single episode, Mr. Gladstone delivered a perfectly lucid exposition of a complicated and ingenious proposal. It was no mean triumph of his eloquence that the faith with which he spoke of his scheme of University Education for Ireland, seemed, for a time, to permeate every section of his varied auditory, and that the first impression produced by his speech appeared to be one of universal approbation. Never was the promise of the dawn more deceitful. No sooner had the Bill been laid upon the table, than exposed as it was to the blasts and counter-blasts of every wind of factionthe ingratitude and unblushing hostility of those it was designed to conciliate--the repugnance of those who were called upon to make sacrifices for so thankless a return-the contempt of the learned and the fears of the fanatical—it became apparent that this measure had no friends in the House of Commons. The habitual English and Scotch supporters of the Government, indeed, remained faithful to their colours, with the exception of only nine votes. Several members who strongly condemned the principles of the Bill, and had spoken against
it, refused, nevertheless, to record their votes against the Government on the second reading. A few more Liberal members withdrew, without voting or pairing, from the House, but, as the number of these malingerers was at last equalled by those who withdrew on the other side, the result was unimportant to the division. Few English and Scottish members of Parliament were disposed to break their party ties, and cause embarrassment to the Minister, by opposing what he had described as a measure' vital to the honour and existence of the Government, and, what is of more importance, vital to the prosperity and welfare of Ireland. For the sake of supporting a policy vital to the prosperity of Ireland,' Englishmen and Scotchmen have more than once sacrificed convictions, if not principles, dear to themselves; they have more than once legislated on what were called “Irish ideas '—that is, on ideas differing widely from their own; and they have done this on the very sound and rational principle that, after all, the Irish ought best to know what they want; just as the Scotch members might pass unchallenged a law of hypothec, or a law for the regulation of patronage in the Kirk of Scotland.
We, therefore, take but small account of the British opposition to Mr. Gladstone's University Bill: his chief misfortune was that the death-blow was dealt to it by the Irish themselves. For once, in that divided island, everybody was of one mind. The Protestants of Trinity College, the Secularists of Belfast, the Roman Catholic Prelates, all denounced and attacked it with equal vigour. Out of the whole of the representatives of Ireland in the House of Commons, more than two-thirds voted against the second reading. Of the members of the Irish Liberal party about forty-five changed sides, avowedly at the dictation of their clergy. Some of these unfortunate gentlemen came up in tears to the table, feeling the whole ignominy of a position they had not the courage to face. Probably, if the decision had rested with the Catholic laity of Ireland, the result might have been different. But we have no right to make that distinction. The very essence of the question is, as we shall presently see, that the Roman Catholic party hold this question of University Education to be purely one of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and, therefore, they absolutely and implicitly obeyed their ecclesiastical superiors upon it.
Whatever may be the merits of the Bill brought forward by Mr. Gladstone with so much ability (and we are inclined to think that they have in some respects been underrated), it appears to us that from the moment a large majority of the representatives of Ireland rejected it, there was an end of