The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-24 00:00:00

I wholly superseded by the second clause, and that in effect
it went a great deal further than it was intended to go,
The reply of the Solicitor-General to the suggestion of the
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Abingdon,
was that it was unnecessary, because the bill did deal with
all descriptions of rescripts, briefs, &c. Now be (Mr.
Roebuck) would go back to the preamble. The preamble
Anittocerndies;ioneetnioenrazhtteh
pre-
sent recited not against the assumption of titles, but against a
certain power to be exercised within any province of the
nrose
rmTehraat hon. and learned gentle-
Unction ought to be drawn be-
n
with a title not takett from that diocese, exercising
trail ebrewes etni ttnll point
hada MasterKb stateds° dhooopfoum assumingttthh.beaytilaerlel hells.
title .if a diocese and a bishop
jurisdiction within a diocese. Ise the preamble
of the bill the words were used, " Whereas divers
of her Majesty's Roman catholic subjects have as-
, awned to themselves the titles of archbishop and bishops
of a pretended province, and of pretended sees and
within the United Kingdom," dtc. Now if this bill passed,
any person appointed by the Pope, calling himself Bishop
of Heliopolis, but exercising jurisdiction in Er.gland, would
be liable to a prosecution, and would be exposed to the pe-
nalties proposed to be created by this measure. That was
to say, every act performed in the course of lies spiritual
functions by the prelate so pmseeuteri would he void.
The ATI ORNEY-GENERAL replied with reluctance
to the hon. and learned gentleman, because when the law
of the hon. and learned gentleman was called in question he
invariably lost his temper. (Laughter.) But he (this
Attorney-General) would at all events not get into a pas-
sion, and would endeavour to sati:fy his hon. and learned
friend on this point. The preamble, and the first clause,
and the second clause of this hill were directed against the
assumption of titles under a certain authority taken front
provinces and sees of the United Kingdom. The hon. and
learned gentleman put the case of a Bishop of Heliopolis
exercising spiritual jurisdiction within any diocese of the
United Kingdom. Ile could assure the hon. and learned
gentleman that this would not come within the scope of the bill.
This clause did not carry the provisions of the bill further
than the recitals in the original bill. The clause teok
nothing from its efficiency; it merely declared the illegality
of the proceeding by a more solemn and emphatic declara-
tion of the sense of the nation. The clause would satisfy
the feelings of many persons; and it would remove all.
doubt and ambiguity that might attach to these proceed-
ings. It openly declared what the law was, and If it did
no good, ou the other hand it certainly did no manner of'
harm. lie would not then enter into the proposition ..f his
lion. and learned friend the member for Abingdon, for in-
troducing the plural number instead of the singular, as St
had born already fully discussed. He believed that if his
hon. and learned friend would give further consideration to
the act of parliament, he would see that the cue he pro-
pounded was not within the hill.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Then it was to he understood that, in
the opinion of the law officers of the crown, the Pope
might issue rescripts to-morrow if he iikeil, and divide the
kingdom into dioceses, giving only fictitious names to the
bishops, as the Bishop of Lima, and that in reality it was
not meant to prevent him. The goventment had given the
bishops all the synodical action, and therefore their bill did
not touch thst matter. lie was glad to bring the law officers
of the crown to that pass.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his hon. and
learned friend had made another mistake, for he had
assumed as a fact that the bishops were capable of synodical
action.
lir. MONSELL wished to know how all this was to be
reconciled with the statement of the government that they
would make no change of the law with respect to Ireland,
but leave it in the same state as it was at present. One or the
other of the hon. and learnedgetttlentan's statements must be
wrong. Let them bring as much special pleading to bear on
the question as they liked, they could nut make out that an
of the
interference with the spiritual goverinns,nilitri.‘;:,..tip:
tone-
catholics was not an act of gross persecution against them.
.)
iritual
eman to
IllErniww,:uohluadltdthwtel;:ylni likekee ,: theran
Itegert for
nfur the N'rdeyan conference wltioa all
tel hhtouil ab.dbountib and coulderules of
it be maintained for a moment ?

Lord .1. RUSSELL could only say to the honourable
gentleman that although the Wesleyan Confenmee might
pretend to govern by direct authority the member: of the
Wesleyan body, he had never heard of any declaration
trom that conference that they governed all the members of
the Christian bod)• throughout the world.
Mr. MONSELL thought he had a right to an answer
front the hon. and learned gentleman himself.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the third reading of the
bill would be the better opportunity.
Mr. MONSELL said he had put the question very clearly
to the hon. and learned gentleman.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL apprehended that this
bill would indirectly have the effect alluded to, and would
have that operation in Ireland.
Mr. MONSELL said that what ho wished was, that the
hon. and learned gentleman should reconcile the two •tate-
tncuts, that this bill would have the effect of preventing
synodical action in England, and at the same time make no
alteration in the law of Ireland.

The AT f iiS.ll7.\L replied that the Emanci-
pation Act did that already, and all he could say wa4 that
this bill carried the law nu further than it stood hetbre the
assumption of the titles; and that synodical action was
Mr. M'CULLAGII said that as he understood the propo-
sitions of the bun. and learned Attorney-General, they were
destructive Mead' other ; because on the one hand he denied
that the bill gave power to prevent synod action; and he
was nut about to tell the house that the government, which
wax at that time advised by his hut. and learned friend, the
Master of the 'tolls, and their law officer had so far ne-
glected their duty as nut to prevent the violation of the law.
if it was a violation of the law, it ought to have
been stopped ; for it was admitted tohare been done within
the provisions of the uet of 1.829; and the hon. and learned
gentleman admitted that that act had not been broken, and
that there had been no attempt to evade the law. They
were now told that this synod of Thurlea was held without
a violation of the law. The hon. member for Buckingham-
shire said that he approved of this short clause proposed by
the hon, and learned member for Midhurst because it was
retaliatory. Was that the principle to act upon iu this year
make the laws in a retaliatory spirit? The bill was
retaliatory upon the Queen's subjects for an insult; they
thought had been offered to their own religion, and was pro-
posed for no other motive whatever. As regarded the effact of
this clause, he would ask the Solicitor-General what that
effect would be if, as he had stated at the beginning of the
creating, no civil consequences would ensue from it. Did
he mean to say that a prosecution would not lie for misde-
meanour for an infraction of this law as well as the other ?
(Hear, hear.)
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY recommended the hon.
and learned member tor Abingdon not to press his amend-
ment at present, as it seemed to lie a question whether
or not the particular brief ought to be described in the
clause.

Mr. NAPIEIt argued that if the government preamble
stood so it was, this difficulty would foliose—Ross was not
a pretended see or bishopric, and therefore the goveni-
ment preamble was nut applicable to it. But the preamble
proposed by the hon. and learned member fur Midburst
would cover the case of !LOS% which the government pre-
, amble would not, Here the hon. and learued gentleman
quoted a passage from a newspaper, to the effect that the
sees ofCloyne aad Ross had been just separated by the
authority of the Pope, who had thus midis' another
bishopric to the Burnish church in Ireland. lle would ac-
cept the clause of the lion. and learned member for Mid-
hurst, provided his preamble also was to stand, but if not
he would rather have the amendment of the hon. and
learned member for Abingdon. lu Lalor'a case War had
been convicted under the act of Elizabeth, then recently
passed, and the Attorney General, to avoid being charged
with putting in form a protestant law made for religious
purposes, went back to the old statute, 300 years old,
foe a law made in catholic times for the safety of a catholic
country; for Lelia was convicted under the protestant law
of Elizabeth for exercising episcopal functions by authority
from the see of Rome. It had been said that there was nu
law in Ireland to prevent such a synod as that of Thurles ;
but there was the direct authority of air E. Sugden to the
contrary. Dr. O'Connor, a learned catholic, who had been
excommunicated fur holding liberal opinions, said that iu
his judgment Labor had been justly prosecuted. An at-
tempt had been made to draw a distinction between tern-
rral and spiritual functions ; and there was a letter written
); Thomas Moore, the poet, touching upon that very point.
't he hon. and learned gentleman here read an extract from
the letter, which was to the effect that the distinction sought
to be drawn between spiritual and temporal functions was
an endeavour to reconcile submission to the Pope with the
discharge of our other duties, but that the spiritual autho-
rity of the Pope would still combine with itself many gross
particles of temporal power which it behoved a wise go-
vernment to resist, At the time the act of 1829 was
passed it covered the case of every bishop in Ireland, and
ho was contented to abide by it. If that act had been
administered on both sides effectually and wisely, without
connivances at breaches of that act, all parties would have
been in a better position than they were at present. The hon.
and learned member then recommended the government
and the legislature calmly and deliberately to consider the
subject, and to decide what by the existing constitution of
the country Roman eatholics were really entitled to. He
fur one was not desirous to take from them what they had,
or to infringe the liberty they possessed, but ho was deter-
mined to resist every attempt emanating from foreign
authority which he considered inconsistent with the rights,
liberties, and religion of the people of this country.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the hon. and learn2d mem-
ber had set the house a difficult task—that of a court of
judicature. But they were legislators, and not a court,
and they had to decide not what the rights of Roman
catholics were but what they ought to be. It rested with
the government to put that in motion, and it rested with
the government by constitutional means to define their
rights. Ile spoke not as a lawyer but as a statesman, and
he appealed to the noble lord whether he and his irovern-
meat had not done all in their power to make these people
believe that they had the power of synodical action. Did
not the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland know of the synod ?
Were not the legal authorities of the Irish government em-
ployed not only to protect the bishops but to impart
dignity to them in their assembly. It would not
I do to come down now and ask the house to go calmly into
the question whether synodical action was legal or not. Ho
said that the fault lay at the door of the noble lord—at the
door of the British government ; that he had fostered this
spirit, and had told the catholics that they should have this
power • and now at last the noble lord had turned round
, upon them most unfairly as re arded the Roman catholics,
and most is judiciosaly as msgardsd the policy of this oewita7.