We shall see this by considering its foundation. Who, then, first founded
the Propaganda? The man who gave the ground upon which it stands, and
the palace in which its work is carried on, was not an Italian. His
money did not come from Italy. He was a Spaniard, and the representative
at Rome of the Sovereign of the Netherlands. He formed the foundation
of the whole institution, and all subsequent lands and moneys given
to it were to carry out his intentions. His money was taken, and his
intentions were solemnly guaranteed by the legitimate Sovereign of Rome
at the period. They have been respected for two hundred and sixty years.
I ask, can it be right now for the Italian Government to take his money,
to sell his lands and houses, to put the proceeds of his funds into its
own vinculated, uncertain bonds, and in the process steal the half of
the proceeds. This seems to me such a gross perversion of international
right, that I believe if Spain was not dominated over by the same sect of
Freemasons as rule Italy, she would force the Italian Ministry and King
Humbert to disgorge the property left by Monsignor John Baptist Vives for
the Propagation of the Catholic Faith.
The injustice of the forced sale of the houses, lands, and rents left by
a Spaniard for the extension of the Gospel, in trust to Italy, is only
equalled by a like act of injustice done in the case of an Irishman,
and a Priest of the City of Dublin, Father Michael Doyle, of the Church
of SS. Michael and John, Arran Quay. Believing that his poor country
would be benefited by having a certain number of its priests trained in
the Urban College, he made an agreement with the authorities in Rome to
give them a sum of money amounting to no less than £5,000 sterling, for
the perpetual education of Irish-born missionary priests for Ireland.
This was in the year 1825. His money was taken, and well invested by
the Cardinals of the Propaganda; and since, several most useful and
distinguished Irish priests have been educated on the proceeds. Here is
surely, if ever there was, an international arrangement lawfully and
equitably concluded. But what do the Italians do? They take this dead
British subject’s money and the increase which belongs to it. They sell
out the property bought for it. They put half the proceeds in their
pocket, and the rest they leave in “vinculated” Italian bonds, to be
disowned whenever the time comes to reduce or do away with income from
that source in Italy.
I am certain that Mr. Gladstone, whose just and generous mind recoils
from deceit of any kind, especially in purely commercial matters, would
never have said that the Propaganda was an internal institution of Italy
subject to Italian laws, if he duly considered the nature of these two
cases of John Baptist Vives of Spain, and Father Michael Doyle, of Arran
Quay, in the good City of Dublin. I believe he has not heard of them,
for I remember Mr. Gladstone to have made a remark in reply, I think, to
Mr. O’Donnell, that the general Italian character of the Propaganda, as
he called it, could not be effected by a charitable “subscription.” Now,
surely no man calls an ordinary commercial agreement a “subscription.”
Father Doyle goes to the Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda and makes
a bargain with him for the perpetual education of a certain number of
his countrymen—by the way he stipulated that some of them should be
his relatives,—and the Cardinal Prefect takes his money. The Sovereign
of Rome fiats the contract. That honest Sovereign carries it out to
the letter. But the Italians come in who are not honest; they steal
one-half of Father Doyle’s money; they put the other half in Italian
“vinculations.” The result is that Father Doyle’s countrymen and
relations cannot be educated. They—British subjects as they are—are
simply robbed. And can it be believed by the generation that thinks
nothing of many millions for the relief of a British subject in Khartoum,
that when our Government is asked to make a gentle remonstrance to the
Freemasons who have stolen Father Doyle’s hard earnings it answers:—“We
really cannot interfere. The Italians are our very good friends. And as
to the money of Father Doyle, why that was only a ‘subscription!’”
The case of Father Doyle is far from being the only case. To my
knowledge, another ecclesiastic, now living, gave £1,000 for the
education of a student in the Urban College. He meant most assuredly that
his money should be spent for the one purpose he intended. When it comes
out that £450 of his thousand has gone into the pocket of King Humbert
and Co., and that £550 has been “vinculated” prior to being swallowed in
the same way, will his Government in England turn round and tell him,
“Oh, you only gave a subscription!” If Mr. Gladstone put his fortune
into United States Bonds for the benefit of his family, and that the
Government of the United States put half that fortune in its pocket and
the rest into “vinculated” bonds of the same value as the vinculated
Church bonds of Italy, how would our admirable Premier be pleased if
told that his contract was only a “subscription?” It is exactly such
“subscriptions” that the Freemasons of Italy have stolen by manipulating
the moneys of British subjects. Is England afraid or powerless to demand
redress? If so, _Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis_ indeed!
And then, not only such money as that of Vives and Father Doyle, but all
the money the Propaganda ever got was given for the benefit of countries
which were outside Italy. The magnificent gifts of Cardinal Barberini,
whose revenues, by the way, came from Church sources outside, as well as
inside of Italy, were given for the benefit of the Eastern nations, whose
various rites I have already referred to. Have these poor people not a
right to the benefit of his legacy now, as well as at any past period?
Does their weakness make the right anything the less? Twenty-three
priests are educated for them at the present moment. When the estates
which does this blessed work are sold for a song by Italian Freemasons
to other Italian Freemasons—Freemasons alone are likely to buy them—and
when half the proceeds are pocketted by the men in power, and the other
half goes into “vinculated” Italian bonds, how will it fare with the poor
Churches of the Orientals, dependent for educated Priests upon the grand
charity of the Propaganda? Surely the ruthless horde of barbarians who
have laid violent hands upon the States of the Church must be devoid of
all shame, of all honour, of all manhood, when they descend to such mean
sacrilege. I think a man would prefer, if he were a man, to command a
troop of banditti than a Ministry and a Parliament capable of staining
themselves with such mean, such cowardly, such heartless theft.
Now, if Melchites and Circassians, Copts and Maronites, are thus pillaged
by the spoliation of the Propaganda, so to a far larger extent are the
subjects of Her Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria. And how? The
funds of the Propaganda were given principally for the benefit of her
Catholic subjects in Ireland, in Great Britain, in Canada, in Australia,
in the vast extent of India, in the West Indian Islands, in the Army, in
the Navy, in the great military stations, and wherever, in fact, she has
subjects.
In all this vast expanse of territory, the government and care of the
Catholic Church is carried on by the Propaganda. Not only are many of the
clergy educated for these countries in its Urban and other subservient
Colleges, but the whole education of the Clergy is looked after, the
Bishops and Archbishops are selected, the Dioceses are regulated,
Orphanages, Convents, Hospitals, Schools, and Institutions of beneficence
are created and superintended by it. The whole work of the Catholic
Church, in one word, is done through its instrumentality alone, in all
the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty.
Now, if the existing funds of this institution are taken, the Catholic
subjects of Her Majesty must supply others, and the action of the Italian
Government in taking these funds, consequently, puts a heavy burden on
the subjects of Her Majesty, which they ought not to be asked to bear, in
order simply to put money into the Italian Treasury.
They ought not be asked to bear such a burden, because they have a strict
right in justice to the funds of the Propaganda, which, even when they
were not given by British subjects or by other than Italian subjects
or Princes, were always absolutely given for the intention that the
Propaganda may be able to do the work, of which the administration of the
Catholic Church in the dominions of Her Majesty forms an integral portion.
It is evident, then, that no matter who gave the funds of the
Propaganda, they were given lawfully and justly and according to the
existing laws of Italy at the period, for our benefit. We received that
benefit uninterruptedly for over two hundred years, and it is monstrous
that we should be now deprived of a long existing, acknowledged right,
by the violation of a clear international obligation on the part of the
Italian Government.
Now to show that what I here state is perfectly just, a striking
exemplification was given by one matter connected intimately with the
spoliation I speak of. After the final sentence was pronounced by an
Italian Masonic Court, the Italian Government proceeded, as a first
step, to sell a College dependent upon the Propaganda. It happened,
however, that this College did not belong to Copts or Maronites who had
no Government to assert their rights, or to Catholic subjects of Her
Majesty who might be told about “subscriptions.” It belonged to a people
who, when abroad, know that they have a country ready to defend them
against whoever may choose to rob them, insult them, or injure them. This
College was possessed by the Catholics of a country called the United
States of America—a country which happens to be pretty well known to the
Italian Government. It is a Republic, supposed to be very Protestant, for
it sends missionaries, largely supplied with Bibles and coppers for the
“conversion” of poor people in the slums of some large towns in Italy.
The Italian Masonic Government, who laugh at the anti-Catholic fanaticism
of the English and American nations, thought, therefore, that it could
deal with the Catholic subjects of the United States just as it might
with the Catholic subjects of England. It considered that the bigotry of
the zealous Methodism of New York and Massachusetts would be only too
glad to hear that the resources of “Babylon” were being swallowed up by
the Freemasons of Italy. Accordingly the walls of Rome were plastered
with large placards announcing the sale of the North American College.
Now, if the Italians had ever a right to sell any property belonging
to the Propaganda, it was this College. It was a free gift on the part
of Pius IX., for which no consideration whatever had been asked from
the American Catholic people or Bishops. It was given only a few years
previously, and had been before a Convent for religious. Moreover,
the Pope never gave the fee-simple of the premises to the American
Catholics. That remained vested absolutely in the Propaganda. The house
was therefore as much the property of the Sacred Congregation as that
which it received by legal transfer from Monsignor John Baptist Vives.
In attempting its sale, the Italian Government thought rightly that no
more favourable point could be seized upon by which to manifest their
“right to do wrong” to the property of the Propaganda. The Catholics of
America had given “no consideration.” There was no deed of transfer to
them. That had been asked and refused by the Pope. The buildings were
only a few years previously the property of the Papal Government, which
the Freemasons supplanted. It was a test case, indeed. Let us see how it
ended?
The moment the Cardinal Archbishop of New York heard that the College of
his Catholic fellow-countrymen was about being touched by the Italians,
he despatched his zealous and able Coadjutor at once to Washington with a
letter to the Government of his country. That Government, Protestant as
it was, at once recognised that a right lawfully acquired—though without
consideration or subscription, or deed of transfer—of American Catholic
citizens was about being violated. Did they talk about “Italian laws” or
“subscriptions,” or “Italian internal affairs not concerning outsiders?”
Did they seek, subterfuge, evasion, or delay for the purpose of making
necessary inquiries? Far from it. Instantly there flashed across the
Atlantic to the United States Embassy at the Quirinal, instructions to
tell the Italian Government that it would touch the interests which
American citizens had acquired in Rome at its peril, and demanding
instant cessation of the sale of the North American College. There was no
further parley about the matter. The Ministry of King Humbert knew that
Uncle Sam had ironclads, and could make his arm felt upon Italian ports
and in Italian waters. And what was the consequence? Well! Such American
citizens as were then in Rome had the satisfaction of knowing that they
had a country. They had the satisfaction of seeing, one hour after the
ultimatum of the United States Government was received, a number of
employes of the Italian Government running about the streets with ladders
and water buckets and carefully rubbing away from the walls every vestige
of the placards which announced the sale of the Catholic North American
College of the Propaganda. The College remains, and will continue to
remain unmolested, for the Americans have a Government not afraid of
Italy.
In the face of this fact I assure you that we British subjects then in
Rome felt and looked very small indeed. The Propaganda, we knew, belonged
to us by rights as sacred certainly, as the portion of it exclusively
appertaining to North America belonged to the United States. It was
handed over for our benefit by legal deeds of transfer. It was ours. It
had absolutely nothing to do with Italy. It had everything to do with
us. It was always so considered by the Popes. Outside its own limits
it has positively no jurisdiction in Rome or in any part of Italy.
Its funds were contributed for us and to us, and to that portion of
the world—always outside Italy—committed to its care. Its spoliation
was clearly, even if none of our money was in it, a violation of our
most justly acquired legitimate rights, unquestioned and in action for
generations.
We expected some effort would be made by our rulers for us. We expected
some representations, more gentle, perhaps, than those made by the
President of the proud Union, but, as we thought, with some reason,
not less efficacious, would be made by our Government. We confidently
predicted that such would be the case. But we were bitterly disappointed.
Our bishops in a body made representations far more energetic and
explicit than Cardinal M’Closky or his Coadjutor made to Washington;
but nothing came of them. The Catholics of the United States had a
country. We felt that we had a country but in name, which for one reason
or another treated us as stepchildren or outcasts, or worse and more
humiliating still, was impotent to help us in our need.
Yet I believe that this policy of the Ministry would not, if the case
were fully understood, be endorsed by our non-Catholic fellow-citizens. I
am sure a very large proportion of them would deem the complete inaction
of the Government, not wise, or sound policy—certainly not the policy
of the British Lion that used to be, in cases of the violation of the
rights of British citizens, so potent once. I am sure they will feel
for and with us when they come to understand that it is a question of
unjustifiable interference with rights lawfully acquired by British
subjects in a foreign nation which are interfered with by that nation.
I am sure of this from the feeling which would, I know, possess myself,
if, for instance, the Government of France, or any other Government,
induced any body of my Protestant fellow-countrymen to acquire in
France legitimate interests for their religious necessities, and that
upon the coming into power in that same country of another form of
Government, monarchical or republican, such incoming government should
have confiscated the rights so acquired by my fellow-countrymen. If,
for instance, the Wesleyans of England established a training-school
for health or other reasons, say in the south of France. If they were
permitted to do so by the lawful government of that country. If the
funds of that institution were recruited from Wesleyans in England,
in the United States and all the world over. If the Wesleyans had the
free use of that sanatorium for a number of years, and depended upon it
for the training of their choice ministers, and for the management of
their affairs. If their Moderator happened to be a Frenchman, and needed
such an institution for the government of their body. If they could not
dispense with it without serious loss and money outlay; and all this
because the new Government of France had decided that such establishment
should perish. If in pursuance of this law such Government proceeded,
as France did actually at the Revolution, to confiscate all religious
rights, and amongst the rest the legitimately acquired rights of English
Wesleyans, I know that I would expect that the most strenuous efforts of
the rulers of England should never cease until France was taught that
while she might plunder the interests of Frenchmen as long as Frenchmen
let her, she should desist from such a course when the question came
of plundering the rights of English citizens lawfully and peacefully
acquired. I am certain there is not a Catholic in the land who would
not feel aggrieved at the injury thus inflicted on his unoffending
fellow-citizens, and who would not move with them until the wrong
insolently inflicted in defiance of international rights was redressed.