MR. GRANT DUFF, in asking for any additional information which it may be convenient for Her Majesty's Government to give with regard to the case of the Spanish exiles, said: I wish to make a few remarks, chiefly for the purpose of bringing on, if possible, a conversation which may show to the Spanish authorities, that while we wish them to go further than they have done, we are by no means insensible to the concession which has been recently made to the public opinion of Europe; and that we are desirous to speak on this painful subject in a way which cannot possibly offend the susceptibilities of a proud and high-spirited people. The facts of the case of Matamoros and his companions in misfortune are, no doubt, within the recollection of most hon. Members. They were brought before the House in 1861 and 1862. Within the last few weeks a further step has been taken by those who sympathized with these much injured men, and the severe sentences which were passed upon them have been commuted into sentences of banishment, in partial compliance with the representations of a number of philanthropic persons, who were charged to speak the sentiments of large bodies, as well of Catholics as of Protestants, in various parts of Christendom. It has been said that some of the Granada and Malaga Protestants were concerned in a political conspiracy; but no evidence has been brought in support of this assertion, while their humble circumstances and want of influence make it extremely improbable. There was a time, not so very long ago, when the whole soil of Spain seemed to heave with volcanic forces; but the throne of the present dynasty is now firmly established, and the res dura et regni novitas cannot now be adduced to justify suspicion and severity. Again, it has been frequently repeated by, as it seems to me, somewhat injudicious friends of Spain, that Matamoros and the rest were punished, not as Protestant converts, but as Protestant propagandists. Well, supposing we admit 1000 the fact. Is that an argument which will suffice to absolve Spain in the judgment of English, or Irish, or Dutch Catholics? Why, if Catholic propagandism were forbidden in England, Ireland, or Holland, what a pleasant life the Catholics would lead of it in these three countries! In each of them there are Protestant bigots who would fain treat Catholics as Protestants are treated in Spain; but we, the same who now ask Spain to be just to our co-religionists, are strong enough, thank God, to keep a good tight grasp on the throats of our own bigots, who would oppress, if they could, the co-religionists of Spain in this country. A certain amount of mist has been raised about the facts of the case, by a few bigoted Catholic writers; but I have never seen the facts admitted and defended except once, and that was in a French pamphlet, the writer of which had the hardihood to assert that our modern civilization is far too uniform; that different countries have different missions; and that as it is the mission of England to be constitutional, and of France to be military, so it is the mission of Spain to reconcile Catholicity and monarchy, and to drive Protestantism far away from the holy soil of Castile. That argument I think I may safely leave to be treated with the scorn it merits by the Catholic Members of this House. If the Spaniards are thoroughly convinced of the soundness of their own opinions, I cannot understand their objecting to have them freely discussed: but even if they are not thoroughly convinced of their soundness, it does indeed surprise me that they should exhibit such signs of alarm at a movement which, so far as I am able to judge, has, if I except the courage of the sufferers, not one of those signs or notes which one looks out for as heralding the commencement of religious change. No Catholic Gentleman in this House will be surprised to hear me say, as a conscientious Protestant, that I believe the day will come when the Cathedrals of Burgos and of Seville will no longer belong to the adherents of the creed of Pope Pius, although he will naturally smile at the idea, but I am content to leave to the Spaniards the "infinitely delicate task" of reconciling their old religion with the new facts which time must inevitably force upon them, and to abstain from any rash and blundering interference. But that does not make it wrong for me to implore the Spaniards, if they have among them persons who de- 1001 rive, or think they derive, any advantage from the perusal or distribution of such tracts as Andrew Dunn, which figures in the history of Matamoros, or as tracts which within the knowledge of an hon. Member whom I see opposite were actually floated on to the Spanish coast in bottles as part of a missionary enterprise, at least to leave them alone, and let them enjoy in peace such harmless means of edification. If I were a Spanish politician, determined to keep up Catholicism as an engine of State, although disbelieving in her principles, I should be very unwilling to allow really important attacks upon her to be circulated. I should vehemently object, for instance, to have Professor Hase's recent Manual of Protestant Polemics in the hands of the students of Spanish Universities. I should be rather shy of having the Bible circulated without note or comment amongst the people; but the more that Protestantism brought itself into disgrace, by distributing such trash as is now, it would seem, too often prepared for export to Spain, the better I should be pleased. I should leave with great confidence the breviary and the missal, studded as they are with many of the most remarkable devotional compositions of the human intellect, to fight their own battles against such tracts as Andrew Dunn, and the others to which I have alluded. I believe, Sir, if the whole truth were known, it would be found that the conduct of Spain in this matter has been influenced as much by the state of her foreign relations as by either religious bigotry or domestic policy. The Spaniards assert that Gibraltar is the centre of a Protestant and English Propaganda. Now, just imagine what would be the feelings of Englishmen if Spain held the Isle of Portland, and used it as an advanced post from which to disseminate the doctrines of Rome. We should, I think, find it very hard to hear even now; but the comparison is not exact, for in all that relates to religious toleration Spain is not more advanced than we were a hundred years ago, and the little heretical books which are sent from the foreign fortress raise transports of rage which a rosary or a copy of the Garden of the Soul would hardly now excite even in Exeter Hall itself. Well, Gibraltar is a word which raises a large question, into which he is a bold man who enters; but I may surely say, that if I could see Spain what I wish to see her—Spain the hearty enemy of 1002 the slave trade, Spain the friend of toleration, Spain as unblemished in her pecuniary integrity as in her Castilian honour, Spain the convert to free trade—I would be well content to see her flag floating over the Rock, even if I thought only of the merest selfish interests of England. Spain has, of late years, exhibited a revival of material prosperity which must he gratifying to every one who is not an enemy of the human race. She has lessened the distance between herself and her European rivals very perceptibly indeed; but she has done so only by following the same precepts which have made her rivals prosperous. Without perfect intellectual freedom, her revival cannot go beyond a certain point, and that point she is rapidly approaching. When she reaches it, she will reach the parting of the ways, and must choose whether she will follow the path of liberty of thought which leads to all earthly prosperity, or the path of intellectual bondage, which leads all who tread it steadily, whether they call themselves Catholics or Protestants, to one and the same point, and that, Sir, is the Valley of the Shadow of Death.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not blame the hon. Gentleman for what he had said, as he fully concurred in some of the sentiments he had expressed. At the same time, he could not agree with him that the reading of the Bible could be any injury to Catholicity. He believed, on the contrary, that the more people read the Bible, the more they would see the truth of the Catholic religion. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church objected to the reading of the Bible. Many Popes had strongly inculcated the necessity of reading the Bible. The only question between Catholics and Protestants was what was the rule of faith to be applied to the Bible, the Protestants claiming the exercise of private judgment, the Catholics yielding obedience to the authority of the Church. But, without dwelling further on that point, he would proceed to state the facts of this case. If he believed that Matamoros and his friends represented some party in Spain who were teaching in an unobtrusive manner, and without violating the laws of their country, what they believed to be true, he should say that there was something in the arguments which had so frequently been addressed to the House; but the real truth was far otherwise. Matamoros in 1845, having engaged in some political conspiracy, was obliged to 1003 fly from his country. Afterwards an amnesty was published, and he was enabled to return. He then became a soldier, and subsequently was appointed a lay agent of an English committee at Gibraltar, consisting of Presbyterians, Methodists, and one not very distinguished member of the Church of England, whose object was the propagation of what they considered to be true religion in Spain. He received forty-five dollars a month for his services, but so litle sincere was he that he declared to one of his associates that he did not believe in any religion at all, and had engaged in the undertaking simply as a speculation. The English committee did not make much progress, because they did not represent one Spanish idea. Spain repudiated Protestantism. A Spaniard might be made almost anything; he could be made an infidel, but it was quite impossible to convert him into a Protestant. Matamoros became the agent of that Propagandist Society in Spain, and he and others were also supposed to be agents for the propagation of revolutionary and socialistic opinions, and their proceedings soon attracted the notice of the Government. If these persons had been sincere religionists, the Government might have acted differently; but knowing that they were only the paid agents of an English society, and that they did not represent any Spanish idea, the Government put the laws of Spain in force, which declared the Catholic faith to be the religion of the State, and did not permit any person in a public and ostentatious way to propagate a different religion among the people. The Spaniards were perfectly satisfied with those laws. They were the constitutional laws of the kingdom, and what right had Englishmen to criticise the laws of another country? He believed that the Spaniards repudiated any attempt on the part of any foreign society, by means of paid agents, to introduce religious discord into the country, which, as regarded religious questions, was in a state of profound peace. He was informed that Escalante, one of the associates of Matamoros, had since returned to the Catholic Church, had expiated his apostasy by penance, and was now a faithful son of the Church. He had seen that what was done by his associates was done by them out of mercenary motives. He (Sir George Bowyer) then denied that that was a proper matter for discussion in the House of Commons. There was but one religion in Spain. In England there were many sects 1004 and denominations, and every latitude was given to the propagation of religious opinions. In Spain, however, it was still possible to enforce the national faith. A Spanish Protestant was a contradiction in terms, and Protestant propagandism in Spain was sure to fail. Such a society might stir up religious strife, but it would never protestantize Spain. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not do so unwise a thing as to interfere in the matter. They had much better leave the Spaniards to manage their own affairs.
Having brought those remarks to a close, he had to ask the indulgence of the House in a matter affecting the public and private character of persons who had no opportunity of appearing and defending themselves in that House. The noble Lord at the head of the Government was aware that some time ago a statement was made by him to which his attention had been since directed by the notice that appeared in his (Sir George Bowyer's) name. His statement was that in a public church at Rome a celebrated ecclesiastic, named Father Curci, had addressed reproaches of the strongest nature to the King of Naples, Francis II., in the presence of the congregation there assembled, and of a large body of the nobility forming the Neapolitan emigration in Rome. The preacher was represented as having accused that unfortunate and illustrious Prince of a very great offence—namely, of having wantonly and without any hope of advantage—indeed, no advantage, political or otherwise, could have excused such a step—sent bands of robbers and murderers—persons of the most atrocious character—to commit the most atrocious crimes in his dominions, which were usurped by his neighbour and relation the King of Sardinia. It was sought to be deduced from that statement that the King had been guilty of these offences. That statement on the part of the noble Lord attracted attention, and created great pain and dismay, not only on the part of the Sovereign, but of the nobility and others attached to his cause. He had received a letter from Father Curci, in which he denied the use of the words attributed to him, and stated that he never in the course of his sermon made the slightest allusion to any political matter whatever. He had also received a letter signed by persons of the highest rank in the south of Italy—namely, the Prince of Bisegnano, the Duke of Regina, Cavaliere Natali di Al- 1005 tavilla, Joseph Ricciardi Count of Camaldoli, Baron Camillo Nolli, the Duke John Riario Sforza, the Prince of Chiaramonte, the Prince of Aquaviva, the Duke of Mad-daloni, Count Enrico Statella, Count Anthony Bianculli, the Duke of Terra Can-zano, and the Duke of St. Valentino. These gentlemen thanked him for the course which he had felt it his duty to take, protested against the cruelties practised towards their countrymen by the Piedmontese, and emphatically denied the statement which was intended to criminate the King. They asserted that no such charge had been brought against him. He had also a solemn legal instrument executed before a notary public, who, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, was in Rome a public magistrate of great weight, and which ran as follows:—
Before me, Domenico Monti, notary public, &c., appeared the witnesses hereinafter named,—that is to say, his Most Rev. Excellency Monsignor Acceorde, Bishop of Anglona and Tarsi, his Most Rev. Excellency Don Michael Alisia, Bishop of Patti, &c. (here follow the names of twenty-two persons of the highest distinction—prelates, princes, dukes, and other noblemen), who spontaneously make and have made the following deposition, declaring that having heard on the 3rd of the present month the sermon of the Rev. Father Curci, in the venerable church of the Spirito Santo dei Napolitani, the said Father Curci said not a word nor did he make any allusion, direct or indirect, even in the most remote manner, to or regarding the King or the reaction, or the improperly called brigandage. We also declare that the said Rev. Father Curci preached about the vice of idleness, and not about the so-called brigandage; and we further declare that the said Father Curci never preached any other sermon before His Sacred Majesty the King our Lord, nor before the Neapolitan emigration residing at Rome. This we declare to be the simple truth, which we are ready to affirm on oath before any competent tribunal.No doubt if it had been true that before the altar of God a preacher had charged the King with sending persons not to support his authority, but to commit crimes in his dominions, that would have been a charge of a serious character, but he thought he had shown that the statement which had been quoted against the King was utterly groundless, and he had no doubt that the noble Lord would have the generosity to state at once that he had been entirely misinformed, and would express his regret that he had made a statement so derogatory to the character of an illustrious Prince, and one who was in misfortune. He would therefore say no more, but would leave the matter in the hands of the noble Lord.
§ MR. MONSELLtrusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would pardon him if he intervened for a few moments between him and the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk had been unable to avoid, from the rules of the House, which prevented him from speaking a second time, mixing up two questions. It was with the first question alone, that raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin burgh, that he proposed to offer a few observations. That question was the one of religious toleration. There were only five countries in which religious toleration did not exist—one Greek, Russia; one Catholic, Spain; and three Protestant, Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Sweden. There was no religious consideration, therefore, brought under their notice. It was simply a political and social one. Were the five countries he had mentioned right in their views, and were the rest of the civilized nations of the world wrong? He should express his views in the language of one who not only was one of the greatest thinkers and orators of this generation, but who also could not be accused of indifferentism, as he were the habit of St. Dominic. That great man had used the words he was about to quote. Father Lacordaire said—
The public conscience will always repel the man who asks for exclusive liberty, or forgets the rights of others; for exclusive liberty is but privilege, and liberty, forgetful of the rights of others, is nothing but treason. And there is in the heart of the honest man who speaks for all, and who, in speaking for all, sometimes seems to be speaking against himself—there is in that man a power, a logical and moral superiority which almost invariably begets reciprocity. So, Catholics, know this well, if you want liberty for yourselves, ask it for all men under heaven. If you ask it for yourselves only, it will never be granted. Give it when you are masters, in order that it may be given to you when you are slaves.He would not discuss with his hon. Friend their position at Gibraltar, neither would he speculate upon the future destination of the cathedrals of Toledo or Seville. His hon. Friend anticipated the time when they would be occupied by Protestants. He had, however, omitted to inform the House to which of the forms of Protestantism he intended to hand them over. He had no fault to find with his hon. Friend's tone. Generally, those who advocated toleration in the House took that opportunity of manifesting their own intolerance. He had no such complaint to make of his hon. Friend—he agreed with him that the question was one of extreme delicacy. They had to deal, 1007 not with the Spanish Government, but with the deep rooted and hereditary prejudices of the Spanish people. He could not believe, for instance, that Marshal O'Donnell, whose own ancestors were driven from their country by religious persecution, could be an advocate for the proceedings that were complained of. It was notorious that he was not so; their own experience, unfortunately, could make them understand the difficulties of the Spanish Government in a matter of this sort. Take the question of Catholic Emancipation. For how long a time after it was advocated by almost every statesman did popular prejudice prevent it from being carried? They had lately discussed the present ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. It was notorious from their own expressed opinions, that the leading men in this country—including the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire—believed that that settlement was founded on injustice, and ought to be reversed. Popular opinion prevented them from carrying out their convictions into action. The portals of the House were opened as wide for the Catholic as for the Protestant, and yet popular bigotry in England, Scotland, and Wales excluded every Catholic from the House except his noble Friend the Member for Arundel. Throughout the counties of England many of the noblest and greatest families were Catholic, and no constituency would return one of them. They could, therefore, well appreciate the difficulties of the Government of Spain. Religious toleration could not be introduced there until the public opinion, which was so little accustomed to draw a line between the spiritual and the temporal, the domain of law and the domain of conscience was changed. He sincerely trusted that that change would soon come. He wished that the words of Lacordaire which he had quoted were written up on every church in Christendom, and had interpenetrated every Christian heart. He wished that those persons in Spain who held an opposite opinion would come over to Ireland and see there the working of totally different principles. He desired that they should see the strength and vigorous life of the Catholic church in Ireland. She had many difficulties and disadvantages and some disabilities; she had power and wealth working not for her, but against her. But although she had no privileges, she had liberty. There was the source of her vigour, and of that zeal and energy which made her victorious over all her assailants. The surest means for the 1008 triumph everywhere of the Catholic church was to trust as little as possible to privilege, which often palsied the institution it was intended to support, and in maintaining her own liberty to ask for liberty for all. He hoped that Spain would soon cease to be the one exception to ail the other Catholic countries in Europe, and, he believed, of the world, in maintaining laws which were directly opposed to the first principles of religious liberty.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, I am very glad that I gave way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, because I think it must be most gratifying to the House, and I am sure it will be exceedingly useful to the world at large, that he should have had an opportunity of enunciating such enlightened and liberal principles as those to which he has just given expression. I am certain that those principles are the principles which would make any religion thrive whose disciples professed and acted upon them, because the exclusive and persecuting spirit which is too apt to prevail in different countries, founded on religious opinions, so far from propagating the creeds in defence of which it is exercised, only sets the minds of men against them. It is quite true, as he states, that there is naturally in the minds of men who are deeply impressed with the truth of the religion they profess, a tendency to compel other people to adopt their particular creed. We have seen it in all countries, in all religions; and that feeling is only dispelled by the progress of civilization, of enlightenment, and of intercommunication between the people of different countries and different creeds. We must make great allowances for the Spaniards. Their geographical position cuts them off in a great degree from intercommunication with the other countries of Europe. They are surrounded by the sea on three sides, and have a range of mountains on the fourth, and there is consequently less intercourse between Spaniards and the rest of Europe than between any other nation and the rest of Europe. In old times, the Spaniards, strongly attached to their religion, thought the best mode of maintaining it was by a severity of which history records many instances. With that view they established the Inquisition. But I cannot help believing that civilization and enlightenment are making progress in Spain, and that the Catholics of that country are coming round more and more to those sensible and liberal views which 1009 my right hon. Friend has uttered this evening. At the same time, their laws remain; and although the Spanish Government are, I am persuaded, anxious upon all occasions that those laws should be administered with all the lenity and in diligence of which the prerogative of the Crown will admit, yet, in Spain, as in other countries, public opinion has its force, and the Government cannot rum exactly counter to it. But in the present case, the Queen of Spain, in consequence of the representations made to her, not simply by the Governments, but by private and respectable individuals from almost every part of Europe, has exercised her prerogative of pardon, and remitted the sentence of those persons on condition only that they should remove to some other country, which I have no doubt they will be only too happy to do. Now, this Spanish law does not simply apply to those Spaniards who profess a different religion from the religion of the State, but is at variance with the treaties made by the Spanish Crown. By the treaties of the Spanish Crown, British subjects are entitled to the free exercise of their religion in private houses; but the law says they shall not exercise it. There are instances in which that law has been lately invoked by persons of more zeal than discretion, and the practice of Protestant worship by British subjects in private houses has been interfered with in some cases, in spite of the representations of Her Majesty's Government. Now, we contend, and I think rightly contend, that treaties cannot be overset and controlled by the laws of the country which has entered into them. The Crown of Spain is bound by its treaties, and the Legislature of that country must adapt its laws to those treaties; otherwise there is no international faith between country and country. Well, these questions are still pending. But the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir George Bowyer) says it is the great merit of Spain that by her laws there can be only one religion. Does the hon. and learned Member think that any law can control and direct the opinions of men? You may pass a law that any man shall be punished who shall give outward signs that he entertains a religious creed different from that of the State, but you cannot by your law coerce his mind. Therefore, do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine, that because there is a law in Spain which makes it penal for any man to be 1010 otherwise than Catholic, therefore every man in Spain is really Catholic in heart and feeling. But I will say nothing more on that point. My hon. Friend (Mr. Grant Duff) has brought forward this question in a fair spirit; and I can assure him, that as far as Her Majesty's Government can properly suggest to the Government of Spain the more lenient treatment of cases of this kind, that shall be done with all due respect to the rights and the independence of Spain. But the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, in his zeal for their cause, seemed to me to cut from under the Spanish Government almost the only ground on which they can rest their conduct. If these persons had been an increasing and powerful sect, who threatened by their action to make a dangerous inroad upon the established religion of the country, there might have been in a Catholic view, in a Spanish Catholic view, some excuse for the severe treatment of them. But the hon. and learned Member says they have no effect—they have no influence upon anybody—they are perfectly harmless; and yet they are to be punished for holding religious opinions which they have no power whatever of communicating to other people.
I now come to Father Curci. I am very sorry for him indeed. When I beard that the hon. and learned Gentleman had something to say about him, I imagined that he had some letter of denial from Father Curci. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have.] Simply denying the fact, I said to myself, "Poor Father Curci! He is one of those who 'do good by stealth and blush to find it fame.'" However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought forward a great deal of other testimony. Well, it is testimony against testimony. The hon. and leerned Member asks me whence I derived my information. I told him at the time that I bad read a letter in a newspaper, professing to give that account. I told him that I could not answer for it; but I said that if he had any doubts about it, he might have an opportunity of ascertaining from Father Curci himself whether any such transaction had taken place. Why, Sir, I have a letter too. It is dated from Italy, and gives an account of this transaction. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: From Turin?] I am not at liberty to give the name, but I will state the substance. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Is it from Turin?] The letter says—
The Cardinal Riario Sforza ordered that on the first Sunday of every month there should be 1011 an administration of the sacrament in the Church of Santo Spirito dei Napolitani. At the first exposition, or sermon, on the 3rd of this month, were present Francis II. and the Neapolitan emigration. The Father Curci, the Jesuit, made on that occasion a preaching in which, dividing the emigration into true and false, he fulminated the second and charged the first with pride and little faith in God, from whom alone can come the restoration of the Bourbonic Dynasty. The impetuosity and the little reverence of the preacher made a very bad impression upon those present, by whom the said preaching came like a public accusation of spavelda impotenza (which may be rendered braggart impotence). The emigration was greatly moved, and indignant against the Jesuits, by whom it held itself greatly offended.Now, I am free to confess that this letter does not actually state that Father Curci reproached the emigration with sending brigands into Neapolitan territory; but I think it is quite clear that the statement is correct, that the sermon had a very strong political hearing, and reproached the emigration with the course it was then pursuing. With respect to whether the Neapolitan ex-King has really been sending brigands into the Neapolitan territory, that such is the fact nobody can doubt who has any knowledge of the subject. We know very well that there is a rendezvous at Rome where brigands are enlisted, and where they are sometimes passed in review. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Not brigands] Well, people will differ as to names. Suppose we call them loyal subjects. But, by whatever name you designate them, certain it is that they go into Neapolitan territory, and there perform operations which make their fellow-subjects very little pleased with their presence. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No, no!] They take every possible liberty with everybody. They put people to death. They burn houses, and do all sorts of things. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No, no!] I believe that the French garrison are now taking steps to put a stop to these proceedings as far as they can. They have arrested several of the principal leaders of these "loyal subjects;" and I trust that the rendezvous which we understand was established at Marseilles for the purpose of collecting people for such errands will also be put an end to. Whether Father Curci reproaches the King of Naples or not, and whether the King of Naples is or is not moved by the advice given him, I am quite satisfied that the military power exercised at Rome by the French garrison will put a stop to these incursions from the Roman into the Neapolitan territories. I do not mean to say that there is not still in the mountainous and forest districts in 1012 Naples a population with those lawless habits of brigandage which were grafted into them by the Government of the Bourbons. No doubt "the evils that men do live after them," and those habits which were allowed to take root in former times cannot be at once eradicated. I believe, however, that they are now becoming controlled, and I trust in due time to see the territory of Naples restored to that state of order and tranquillity which I am sure everybody must desire should prevail.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERCan the noble Lord tell us who is the writer of the letter which he read?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe hon. and learned Gentleman may take it for what it is worth. I stated that it was a genuine letter.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERYes, we may take it for what an anonymous letter is worth.