re
general. The police protected him, as they would have protected a Roman
Catholic clergyman had he been assailed by intolerant Protestants. The
police were nearly overwhelmed by the onslaught of a multitude of Irish
Canadian Romanists, anxious to imbrue their hands in the blood of a man
who had, as a clergyman, left their church and made a public protest
against it. Fire-arms were used on both sides, to the disadvantage of
the rioters, some of whom were killed. The military arrived in time to
protect the place of worship, in which the Italian doctor lectured, from
being demolished. The Romanists collected in greater strength, and
fired upon the soldiery, who returned the fire, killing seven, mortally
wounding six, otherwise wounding many more, and finally driving the
aggressive bigots from the streets. The authorities did not follow up
with justice or spirit this disgraceful affair; a fear of the Roman
Catholic influence in the English parliament deterring them. When
tidings of these events arrived in the United Kingdom, the Roman
Catholics in parliament, at public meetings, and by the press, expressed
sympathy with the violators of law, and the riotous mobs which
had attempted to tread down civil and religious freedom; while
denunciations, false, vehement, and intolerant, were directed upon
the Reverend Doctor Gavazzi. The principles upon which this course was
based, were those so commonly assumed by the party in Ireland, when
it was needful to justify violence and bigotry there; namely, that the
Roman Catholic Church, being the true church, should have immunity from
polemic charges against its doctrines and worship; and that, as all
attacks upon it are sure, amidst a Roman Catholic population, to lead
to a breach of the peace, Gavazzi ought to have been punished by the
authorities, and the authorities who neglected to do that should be
regarded as accessories to the riot, and guilty of the murder of the
rioters who fell. The leaders of the opposite sections of Whigs and
Tories in the English parliament treated such arguments very blandly,
and instead of denouncing any party or sect which impeded religious
liberty, no matter what its theological opinions, the tone adopted was
more in sympathy with the Roman Catholic party in parliament, to gain
whose votes each party was after its own mode bidding, each alike
willing to sacrifice the liberty of public controversy for the political
aid thus sought to be procured.
|