HL Deb 14 February 1881 vol 258 cc748-53
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

rose to call the attention of the House to the concluding paragraph of the pastoral letter of Dr. Gillooly, the Bishop of Elphin, to his clergy, communicating to them the recent letter of the Pope to the Archbishop of Dublin— Whilst we express this confidence in the religious and peaceful dispositions of our people, we feel it a duty to declare that should the Government and Legislature fail to satisfy in the present Session of Parliament the just demands of the cultivators of the soil, they shall at once forfeit all further claim on restraining influences, which the hope of remedial legislation has hitherto induced a large section of the clergy to exercise in their favour; and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has brought, or intends to bring, this language under the notice of the Holy See? The noble Lord said: I should commence by reminding your Lordships that the recent letter from the Pope to the Archbishop of Dublin contained an injunction to Irishmen to maintain their hereditary probity. It was impossible for a document of the nature of a Papal letter to be more outspoken or more plainly opposed to the teaching of the Land League, which enjoined the withholding of rent, advice which has been followed all over Ireland, as much in unscheduled as in scheduled districts. The importance of the Papal letter, and its value on the side of order, will be still more apparent when it is remembered that a short time before the Archbishop of Cashel had written a letter in favour of the Land League doctrine of holding the harvest, in which he used the words—"The husbandman that laboureth must be the first partaker of the earth's fruits," to support their teaching. Great efforts were also made to lead the Irish people to believe that the Catholic Church had given its sanction to the Land League; and, indeed, the tone of some of the Catholic newspapers in Germany and France at one time might countenance such an opinion. The Pope's letter was published in the newspapers, and ordered to be read out in the Dublin churches; but it was not generally published throughout Ireland, and, according to the public prints, the Pope was dis- pleased at this, and again gave instructions for the publication of his letter, After this the Bishop of Elphin communicated the Pope's letter to his clergy, with a pastoral letter. In this he entirely omits all notice of what, under the circumstances, was the principal point of the Pope's letter—namely, adherence to honesty; and he concludes his letter with a threat to the Government and Legislature that unless they pas a Bill in this Session, which shall satisfy what the cultivators of the soil are pleased to think just demands, the clergy of his diocese shall not be expected any longer to exercise their influence in restraining their flocks from outrage. I shall refrain from expresing any opinion of my own as to this language; but will leave it to your Lordships to consider whether it is right for a Christian Bishop to make a matter of bargain and sale of the obligations of his clergy to oppose outrage and wrong on all occasions, even though some popularity might be temporarily lost by so doing. With such an example of the state of mind of an Irish Bishop, it cannot be a matter of surprise that the language and conduct of a large part of the clergy should have been what it has been. A large number of priests have presided at Land League meetings, and have used language there altogether unsuitable to their sacred calling; in still more numerous cases they have allowed language inciting to outrage and assassination to be used in their presence, and under their presidency, or have feebly protested when they ought to have closed the meeting or retired from it. Having complained of the conduct of a portion of the Irish priests I feel bound also to state what there is to be said in excuse for them. In the first place, some of them honestly believe that they have had a moderating influence upon the Laud Leaguers, who, but for their presence, would have gone to greater lengths. Then it must be remembered that the Irish priests are taken from the sons of the smaller farmers, and that they are the brothers and cousins of the persons whose interests they have been pleading for. I was told by a Catholic gentleman, not a landlord, that the Galway priests were the worst. I asked why, and he said because they were the sons of occupiers smaller than in other districts. Formerly many of the Irish clergy were educated at St. Omer and Salamanca, where they were able to acquire more extended ideas and get rid of Irish prejudices. The greatest difficulty, perhaps, that impairs the position of the Irish priests is their dependence on their parishioners, and the necessity they are under of resorting alternately to cajolery or threats to obtain the moans of subsistence. Many of those who in 1869 took an opposite view, and who prevented the vote of your Lordships in favour of bestowing glebes and manses on the Irish priests from being carried out, must now regret that so good an opportunity was lost and thrown away of taking a stop half-way towards securing the independence of the priests, and of putting them less in the way of temptation to take up the part of political agitators. The Irish Bishops are much in the same case as their clergy as regards position. It was remarked at the Council of the Vatican, in 1869, that if a prize were given to non-Catholic Governments for their Bishops the Ottoman Government would have been first, for the Turkish Bishops all had the appearance of persons well to do in the world and accustomed to hold their own, whilst the English Government would have been last on account of the appearance of the Irish Bishops. If your Lordships admit that the conduct of a considerable portion of the priests has been bad, and if you admit the validity of the excuses for this conduct, it would follow that there must be blame for the present status and condition of the Irish priests, and that blame must be divided between the Government of this country and the Papal Court for not having approached one another, and concerted together in order to secure a better state of things. At the end of last year there was a great outcry from the North of Ireland against the language of the priests and the apparent indifference of their ecclesiastical superiors; but now even the Orangemen, who would refuse to the Pope the title of Vicar of Christ, must admit that he has acted in that spirit, and endeavoured to check agitation and to restore peace to Ireland. I now come to the Question to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, of which I have given Notice, with regard to the language of the Bishop of Elphin. I have no fear that it will be said that this or the language of the priests is a matter of indifference; but the answer necessarily will be that my noble Friend has no means of communication with the Holy See. Why is this the case? Lord Odo Russell long tilled the post of unofficial agent at Rome with great credit to himself and utility both to his own and the Papal Government. Mr. Jervoise succeeded him, and I believe was equally successful in giving satisfaction. He was, however, recalled in the October of 1874. It is not generally known why this was done. It is to the credit of this country that I never heard it attributed to Protestant bigotry; it has generally been supposed that his recall was dictated by economy. I was informed at the beginning of last year at Paris that the reason for it was in order to please the Italian Government, in consequence of the bad relations then existing between that Government and the late Pope Pius IX. This reason, however, no longer exists, for the relations between the present Pope and the Italian Government are on an amicable footing. I will, therefore, venture to hope that the Secretary of State will be able and willing to inform your Lordships that he will take into his consideration the re-appointment of an agent like Mr. Jervoise at the Holy See. Unless this is done it will be impossible to do that which there is the greatest necessity for doing—namely, to improve the position and condition of the Irish clergy, in order that they may be better able to moralize the Irish people, and to eradicate the unfortunate tendency to resort to outrage and assassination. At the present day, and when the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is invited to take part in every public movement, it seems unnecessary to offer any arguments against unreasonable fears of Papal interference in this country. At the same time, I may state my belief that there is very much too little instead of too much attention given at Rome to Irish affairs. A conversation with the late Cardinal Antonelli gave mo the impression that he did not know much of Irish affairs, and that he was nearly as much tired of them as Her Majesty's Ministers may now well be. At that time also an almost incredible mistake in The Civilta Cattolica showed how little attention was being paid to Irish affairs, for that monthly official organ stated long after the Irish Church Act had passed that the property of the Disestablished Church had been restored to the Roman Catholics; the mistake was probably owing to some telegram announcing the vote of your Lordships' House for bestowing glebes and manses on the Irish clergy, which was so unfortunately frustrated. I believe that the present agitation in Ireland will shortly subside; but if, unfortunately, that should not be the case, Her Majesty's Government have already been warned and threatened that they would have to lock up every priest in Tipperary and the Archbishop of Cashel, who would put themselves at the head of the Land League and carry out its operations. If such an event were to happen, and the priests so far forgot their sacred calling, it would be far better in the interests of religion and order that Her Majesty's Government should be in a position to obtain the deprivation or suspension of such priests from Rome than that they should be driven to proceed against such misguided priests in the manner contemplated by the agitator.

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, I have not the honour of knowing Dr. Gillooly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Elphin; but in consequence of the noble Lord's speech the other day, and of the Notice of the Question which he has just put, the right rev. Prelate has addressed to me a letter, dated the 8th of this month. It would have been a more convenient course if this letter had been addressed to some Irish Peer, who could have freely discussed with the noble Lord the bearing of Dr. Gillooly's Pastoral Letter on the previous letter addressed by the Pope to the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland. As it is, though the letter is rather long, I may as well read it without comment to your Lordships. It is in these terms— Sligo, Feb. 8, 1881. The Right Rev. Dr. Gillooly presents his compliments to the Right Hon. Earl Granville, and takes the liberty of enclosing to his Lordship a copy of the Pastoral Letter to which reference was made, a few days ago, in the House of Lords, by Lord Stanley of Alderley, and to which the same noble Lord proposes to call the attention of the House on the 14th instant. This letter, when read in its entirety and in connection with the letter of His Holiness the Pope, will, it is hoped, supply abundant evidence that the writer condemned in the future, as in the past, all violent and unlawful means of effecting the reform of the Land Laws of Ireland; that he approved only such as were peaceful and Constitutional; and that 'the restraining influence of the clergy,' to which he says the Government and Legislature may forfeit their claim, must refer, not to any lawless acts of the people, hut only to the Constitutional agitation which the refusal of remedial measures may still necessitate. This meaning and purport of the Bishop's observation will he made still more evident and unquestionable by the fact that up to the present time, and chiefly in expectation of the promised Government Land Act, the Bishop of Elphin and his clergy have refused to take part in the Land League organization or Land League meetings, although sympathizing most cordially with the people in the main objects of the League. The Bishop wished to intimate that their abstention from active co-operation with the people, and the restraining influence which such abstention had to a large extent undoubtedly exercised on their flocks, should not be reckoned on for a day in the event of adequate remedial measures being refused by Parliament. And he considered it his duty to hold out to his flock this hope of active guidance and co-operation, being convinced that the refusal of the expected Land Reform Bill would necessarily lead to a well-sustained Constitutional agitation, as being not only the safest and speediest means of bringing the Legislature to grant that reform, but as the only means of saving this country, if saved it can be, from the terrorism and crimes of secret associations. The Right Rev. Dr. Gillooly begs to apologize for troubling Earl Granville with this communication; he docs so in the hope that it will enable his Lordship to satisfy the House as to the true meaning and purport of the misinterpreted letter, and in the hope, too, that the feeling expressed in that letter, and which he knows to he the common feeling of the body he has the privilege to belong to, may be taken into account by those who, under God, hold in their hands the destinies of the Empire. I have to add that I have not brought, nor is it my intention to bring, the language of the Pastoral Letter of Dr. Gillooly under the notice of the Holy See.