The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA

Commissioners to prepare a Bill to be laid en the table of Par-
liament. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought that the Right
Rev. Prelate entirely misapprehended the principle of that
Commission, as far as regarded the preparation of a Bill for
the consideration of her Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear, hear. )
The Commissioners prepared a report which was laid upon
their Lordships' table by their direction, and upon that report
the present Bill had been drawn up and submitted to their
Lordships. Her Majesty's Ministers had exercised their judg-
ment and consideration upon it, and they had thought it right
to adopt it in extenso, and to lay it on the table of their Lord-
ships' House. He (the Lord Chancellor) was responsible for
the advice he had given on this subject--be did unhappily say
that as far as related to the particular clauses of this Bill it
was a wise measure, and he thought that it would be sanc-
tioned and adopted by Parliament. That was the course he
had thought proper to pursue with respect to this Bill. But
then his Right Rev. Friend said there was something behind,
and that he had wrapped himself in dignified obscurity. His
Right Rev. Friend had said he had been about to take away
some other of the defences of the British Constitution. Now
he (the Lord Chancellor) had over and over again said that until
this Bill passed he would never touch the subject of oaths.—
(Hear, hear.) He had not wrapped himself in any obscurity
on that subject—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—he had
thought it far better, in the first instance, if pos-
sible, that their Lordships should consider this Bill
upon its merits, in order that it might be passed by the Le-
gislature ; and he could not consider how any alteration in
the Bill with regard to the oaths would at all affect the pass-
ing of this measure, or render it the less advisable that it
should pass their Lordships' House. Bnt what would their
Lordships think of the charge of obscurity made by the Right
Hon. Prelate, when he (the Lord Chancellor himself) had
told him, he believed, no longer back than the last time
they assembled there, that he had no intention to propose any
alteration with regard to oaths? He had told him that he
did not intend to alter the oath of supremacy, nor the oath of
allegiance ; and the only point on which any doubt would re-
main would be the oath of abjuration. That oath would be
perfectly harmless, because of itself it would be altogether
superfluous. Was there any obscurity in that ? ( Hear.)
Could anything be mere distinct than the statement which he
had made to the Right Rev. Prelate on that subject ? And
now having proceeded thus far, he must say that no person
more admired the eloquent and feeling manner in which his
Right Rev. Friend always addressed himself upon subjects of
this nature. He agreed mainly in the opinion which the
Right Rev. Prelate maintained in respect:to Popish usurpa-
tion, and the insolent authority which the Pope had exer-
cised towards other countries.—( Hear.) He had so expressed
himself in very strong terms upon a former night—so strongly
indeed as to call down upon himself the indignation of a Noble
Lord that sat on the opposition side of the House. He thought
that he had not expressed himself in stronger terms than the
occasion warranted, when he subscribed entirely to the opinion
laid down by his Right Rev. Friend. He could not hope or
expect to rival his eloquence, otherwise, had he thought of
doing so, he would have followed in the same train of observa-
tion used by the Right Rev. Prelate. But he considered that
that eloquence had been entirely misapplied considering the
question before the House.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Lord
Chancellor) had acceded to the second reading of this Bill,
which proposed to repeal thirty Acts or parts of Acts ; and
when he took the liberty of proposing the Bill to their Lord-
ships, he stated cases of such a nature that it was impossible
for any man of common understanding, and common feeling,
far a moment to entertain the wish that those Bills, or at least
the greater part of them, should not be repealed. It was un-
necessary for him to call their Lordships' attention again to
those case, but he would take the liberty of again mentioning
two. If any person professing the Roman Catholic religion in
Ireland, maintained the spiritual or the ecclesiastical authority
of the Pope, he was liable to the forfeiture of his property,
and for the third offence was considered guilty of high treason.
Why, their Lordships had already altered the oath for the pur-
pose of giving the Roman Catholics relief on that head. The
Right Rev. Prelate had manifested great ignorance on this
subject, for despite his arguments the Irish Act was still in
force. This Bill on their Lordships table repealed the Irish
Act of Parliament, and it also repealed the refuse of the Eng-
lish laws.—(Hear, hear.) He would only give their Lord-
ship; one instance to show how necessary it was, that after
they had consented to the second reading of this Bill they
should go into Committee, notwithstanding the opposition
made by the eloquent and Right Rev. Prelate. If any person
in Ireland maintained that the head of the see of Rome had
any jurisdiction in this country he was, by the Irish Act, sub-
jected to the pains of a preemunire—as he before said, to im-
prisonment for life, forfeiture of his property, and
put out of the protection of the law.— (Item.. hear.)
He gave those as two samples of the thirty Acts which this
Bill sought to repeal. Having consented to the second reading
of this Bill, whatever opinions their Lordships might hold as
to the clauses with respect to supremacy, or the clauses with
respect to the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, whatever their
opinions might be, and although they might agree in every
ward spoken by the Right Rev. Prelate, was it possible to en•
force the laws at present on the statute-book ?—( Hear, hear.)
And he did not see what need there was for so much eloquence
un the part of the Right Rev. Prelate for the purpose of show-
ing the power of the Pope, or the innocent assumption of au-
thority ors the part of the Pope, for the purpose of inducing
their Lordships to forget the question before them—that nar-
row, contracted, and limited question to which he had called
their attention. He thought he had said enough to induce
their Lordship,—unanintonsly, he believed—( Hear, hear)—for
perhaps the Right Rev. Prelate himself would become a con-
vert—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—to consent to this Bill going
into Committee.—( Cheers. )
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S was anxious to take this op-
portunity of expressing his opinion to their Lordships, because
he did not believe that this measure had been met on the part
of the Right Reverend Prelates in their Lordships' House in
the manner that he as one of them could have desired.—( Hear,
hear.) He must say that he believed an impression had gone
forth to the country that this measure, taken as a whole, had
drawn forth indications of repugnance, aversion, distrust, and
alarm—that nothing, at all events, in the shape, of sympathy
for the measure had been manifested. It was a measure of
suet, a nature, that he thought it ought to be received, more
particularly on the part of their Lordships' House, in a very
different manner. He thought that it was one which ought to
have drawn forth expressions of satisfaction—( Hear, hear),—
and mutual congratulations—( Hear, hear)—and thank•
fulness to the Government who had proposed it.—
( Hear, hear.) And his reason for saying so
was because, although this measure professed to be for the re-
lief of persons labouring under certain penalties in consequence
of the religious opinions he held, it was not more a measure of
relief to them than to the Church of England—( Hear, hear)
—not of relief from unjust and vexatious disabilities, but from
their having proposed those penalties, to their black discredit
and shame. He did in his heart believe that if the Right Rev.
Prelate, who was sitting at the table (the Bishop of Exeter)
had himself come forward to propose such a measure as this,
he (the Bishop of St. David's) was perfectly satisfied that he
would have acted in a manner not at all inconsistent wi'h his
station as a Prelate of the English Church.—( Hear, hear. )
Its, he said, looking at the enactments which this measure
was intended to repeal ; and although such express approba-
tion as he would have wished had not been called forth by the
proposal of this measure, yet he believed that no one
would venture to say that the repeal of those enactments
was not in some degree desirable. Now he (the Bishop of
St. David's) was quite willing to admit that there was a
very great differerence between the general mass of those
enactments which were proposed to be repealed by this Bill,
asd those two particular enactments in reference to which
the Right Rev. Prelate had proposed a question to the Judges.
The difference he took to be this ; as to the great mass of
those enactments, he was prepared to say that they were
positively unjust and iniquitous in their own nature--( Hear,
hear)—and that they never ought to have been a part of the
law of the land—(Hear, hear)—that there never could have
been any circumstances that could justify such enactments—
( Hear, hear)—that they were cruel and wanton violations of
the liberty of the subject and the rights of conscience.—( Hear,
hear.) He did not say that there might not have been un-
happy circumstances in the times in which those enactments
were passed that might have afforded some legitimate grounds
of excuse ; but he contended that they ought never to have
been tolerated in any days, however disturbed they might have
been ; but with regard to those two particular enactments that
had been referred to, he contended that they stood
on a very different ground. He admitted that there might
have been reasons to justify severe measures against
the introduction of Papal bulls. He believed that if the
Government of that day, when this Act was passed, felt that
such measures were necessary for its security and safety, it
had a right to pass such measures—( Hear, hear)—and he was
prepared to make a much larger concession, and to say that
there would be nothing inconsistent with the principles of the
constitution, if the Government of this day thought proper to
exercise a similar control over the importation of those Papal
bulls, they might pass a similar measure against them.—( Hear,
hear.) But when he had made that concession he had gone
as far as he could ; he could not sympathise or agree in the
s
slightest measure with the views that had been taken by
Right Rev. Friend at the table (the Bishop Exeter) on
this important subject. He (the Bishop
) looked
of E
David's) looked upon them in no such
(at ttghht
eht
.oßs s
oee
very
h ther at the time that
pnalocflasuts.esas the bulwarks of
the constitution. He
as useful, and as
much questioned w e ,
supposed them to have
He believed that if they had never been enacted, we
wereße v . a I
Friendn e e es
sary,
been.
tolixepyodwieenret eansachtiesd,Rtihgehyt
should still at this hour have been enjoying all our liberties ex-
actly to the same extent as we did at the present moment ; but
however that might be, those circumstances had passed away,
and the necessity for those enactments existed no longer—
(Hear, hear)—and he said so on these grounds. Might
he be permitted to ask of what effect or force a Papal bull
was in this country ?—( Hear, hear.) It was merely a piece
of lead attached to the document on which it was written ;
and of what import was it to them whether the lead was at-

tached to the document by a silken or a hempen string? Or,
to drop all those idle suppositions, what difference did it make
to their Lordships, or to the people of this country, as to what
even the mind or he intention of the Pope was, who published
those documents. Now, then, he was coming to a point on
which he supposed he had the misfortune of disagreeing with
powerrt bats
abuytitlhorei
toyp.inieNnos
his Right Rev. Friend, for he (the Bishop of Exeter) seemed
to think, and indeed it had been assumed in argument, not only
contended that there couldwthnoahttetbhe(etahPemo
by him, but by many others, and it was a very prevalent idea,
that we were to estimate the injury to be sustained from these
itnhasnnpthpaotr—t
o(fHheiasr proeri entertainedof
td. aDsksaiess
riotdiw,os
nn)
examples which the Right'poi:air to inducpeowt
eerlraLairdships to believe
andevit appeared to him that all tlse
Prelate. bad brought forward
it eallrblesriend stoomehimof
Ye—ntably fallen short of
that the Pope possessed as much
thatthe daalrlktehs
those
saeg ages
examples
ples ecclesiasticalh ad
m o roost
i sltaomr
lionswt the
which
aoaf
therkm. 0
Rightd He r He had
hßishistory,
beenovr.
y, Prelate
withsurprised a
had
view
madebyt os op some of
et oohf i
some
nh
me
mereferencesotrr eproposition.n thangac_
owHnaeeset.boe
some
i(Hemveeerdet
re
ato
nhl
lgaeatecttehi
doenshat
one,hd a rtaentfode
or
khr es
pd
hi
aetcloei e such cases
of the reign avtedththeaetotmhamterneefeermeenneet
ainegdittiomsr
dynasty.
of Napoleon, and the authority which Pope Pius
VII. exercised to change the whole constitution of the Gallican
fCrohmurcthhe, transfer the allegiance of the French people
such a fact as that ithoui heHreeewaallsedqutiote
their
rnished Lordships'
such purpose,ml for he declared to their Lord-
,lowosttertn historical fact to prove more
ythtahtanif
athneortehewratshaenv
memory for any
.degradation to which t'he
Hear, hear)—he
Papal:htriipcsti power had fallen in modern of
ftimes—(
Why,. was there any-
might
tnostortous than the ex-
he horror, with
thingshoul di
n referhihistory
roythmo soereppaarltpi particular
otri rmnes.
more
he waoyuld speak with the
greatest veneration, Pope Pius VII
nous demands of Napoleon, to go to, consented to t
'
France to performhe
w Impe-
ceremony desired?—or was there any Roman Catholic the
not conceive that the authority of the Pope had never
been
more degraded than when he was forced to quit his oW7rcalta
and go to Paris to attend at that ceremony, and place , he
e,itl
own
upon Charlemagne? And with regard to the •
upon thein_stance that the Right Rev. Prelate had adduced that night, as to
the allocation of the Pope with reference to Spanish affairs. He
(the Bishop of St. David's) should like to know what effect
that allocation had produced upon Spain ; or, to take another
instance that could be stated to show the effect of the most ex-
traordinary assertions of the Papal authority. He wished to
know in what case those assertions had produced any effect in
the country to which they had related, or where they had turned
aside the purposes of the people. He would ask their Lord-
ships pardon if he should duress a little from the point for the
purpose of asking in what the force or efficacy of these Papal
bulls consisted? It did not consist in the parchment, or lead,
or silk, or hemp, nor did it, in his opinion, at all consist in the I

mind, intention, or views of the Pops whe passed
them.--(Hear, hear.) But he (the Bishop of St. David's)
perfectly concurred that the efficacy consisted in the
the mind or intention of those to whom they were addressed.—
( Hear, hear;—and therefore it was, that he said so long as the
Roman Catholic population of this country preserved that cha-
racter which had maintained now for centuries, in spite of the
hardest trials to which any class of men had ever been sub-
jected, he, for one, should feel no alarm (though the severest
penalties were enacted against the importation of " bulls") if
ono of those formidable (liniments should, by any sleight of
hand, be smuggled into this Country, and be found, some un*
lucky morning, affixed to the gates of Lambeth or Buckingham
Palace ; for he thought that, in any such case, no greater
danger need be apprehended, than if it had been allowed to
moulder away in the Vatican in which it was framed.
It was quite clear that their safety could never rest in the mind
of the Pope, but in the intelligence and loyalty of the Roman
Catholic people—( Hear, hear)—and the more confidence they
reposed in them the better grounds they would have to expect
it in return from them ; and the more evidence they showed
them of suspicion and distrust the less right they could have to
hope from that loyalty. He said it imported very much to
their dignity that persons should not be subjected to such trials.
But there was another point in which he had to differ from the
Right Rev. Prelate, who, though he considered it was a flagrant
injustice that it ought not to be repealed, he himself could see
no ground of public security which would require such restric-
tions to be imposed, and he also believed it to be entirely use-
less. Was it possible, if these opinions were held and main-
tained in foreign countries, that they would not find their way
into this country and beheld in argument. He observed an ex-
tract from a French paper, which was in allusion to something
that had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, who had com-
plained of the impertinence of the French in praying for the
conversion of the English. The extract was to the effect, that
this was an unreasonable ground of complaint, for as the French
prayed for us, we could offer up prayers for them, and
so there would be an equality.—( Laughter. ) What
could be the security of the country, if it would
be snpposed for a moment that its existence depended upon a
miserable statute, and that if the Pope's bulls should come into
the country, there was an end to her power? But if the
Pope's supremacy should assume a treasonable form then it
did expose its author to extreme punishment ; and, therefore,
with regard to this point, upon which his Right Hon. Friend
had laid so much stress, he was entirely mistaken. There was
just one remark which he would wish to be permitted to make,
he most heartily approved of every clause of that Bill, but he
could not say that he believed it to be a perfect one. He did
not think it went far enough; it was his belief that more might
be done on the principle of this Bill to give relief to classes of
persons who whero now labouring under severe penalties. He
was not called upon to enter at present on that subject, but the
time would come he felt persuaded, and that before long, when
this subject would be brought under their Lordships con-
sideration, and he only now expressed the hope that their
Lordship? decision would be grounded on a calm
consideration of the whole, and that they would not be
influenced either by personal feelings or rhetorical declama-
tion. And they should seethen if in passing an Act to legitia
mise these bulls there would be any danger to the safety of
this country. Those who were opposed to this measure were
in general opposed to no legitimate authority—persons who had
proved themselves guilty of the basest conduct—literary dema-
gogues, who had pandered to the worst passions of the multi-
tude, and sacrificed their station as teachers to the vilest ends,
and, having degraded the most sacred names, they then put
themselves forward in the foremost ranks in opposition to the
principles of liberty and freedom.
The Bishop of OX FORD would not trespass long upon the
attention of the House, nor would he have risen except for the
latter observations of his Right Rev. Friend. There was one
thing of which he had to complain, and that was, that the prin-
ciple of this Bill had been received coldly and unworthily by his
Right Rev. Brethren. He must beg, on his own behalf and on
theirs—he must beg entirely to reject that imputation. He could
not suffer such and attack ; for his part he received heartily,
and gladly, all that part of the measure which tended to do
away with injustice, and his Right Rev. Brethren claimed for
themselves just as much liberality as the Right Rev. Prelate.
But let him be permitted to say that there might be other
parts of that measure which his arguments had not reached,
and he was prepared to argue those points. He confessed he
was astonished when the details of that measure were presented
to him. There were two or three special points of difficulty,
which he hoped the great legal knowledge and skill of the
Noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) might be enabled to explain
to him, and the second part of the observations of the Right
Rev. Prelate would lead him at once to the explanation. He
said there was a special duty which was incumbent on them to
do away with these enactments from the statute-book. He
said they were the work of the Church of England, hut he
denied it to be true, and he would go back to historical facts to
prove his assertion. It was a civil measure, and so it appeared
from the preamble of the Bill which had been enacted in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth. It arose from the circumstance of
a Papal bull being imprudently attached to the gates of the
palace deposing the Queen ; and there was not energy enough
in the common law to punish these offenders, for their ancestors
were not such persons to enact laws, if laws were not required,
for they would thus expose the weakness of the law. These
clauses were not religious, but civil and national announcements
of the opinion of the people, and they (the Bishops) had no
more to do with the matter than any of their Lordships present.
—( Hear, hear.) It was a national pretest against the principle
that any ecclesiastical potentate had any right or authority
within the realm and if they withdrew that national and civil
protest, they would be weakening the barriers of their power,
and they would be acknowledging that the Pope had power
spiritual and ecclesiastical within the realm ; and let them re-
member how that would concord with the oa'h which they
were bound to take when they declared in their Maker's name
that the Pope had not, nor ought to have, any civil or ecclesias-
tical power within tnis realm. If they passed this measure, it
was a positive injustice to relax one-half of the lacy without re-
laxing the other, for otherwise they would be requiring them
to declare a manifest untruth. For, alter all, in what sense was
that oath taken? It meant merely that by the law and the
constitution of the realm this power ought not to be possessed,
and in such a sense was taken by conscientious men. But
what would be the case if they repealed this measure? How
could such an oath be taken when the individual taking it felt
that the law did authorise such power, and that it did net
exist covertly, but openly and legally ; and when they would
repeal the oath, then, and not till then, would they look the
question fairly in the face, He did hope the talents of the
Noble Lord would avoid the difficulty, and preserve the good,
and that they would not sacrifice the national protest—a sacrifice
to which he was sure their Lordships would never agree.
Lord BROUGHAM said, his Noble Friend had explained
the matter so fully, that he felt there was little for him to say,
and that it would be useless waste of time should he enter
into the question. There had been a most material
change in the law since the last fifty years. The oath of
supremacy had been repealed or altered in 1828, to the manner
in which it now stands. The oath which had been mentioned
was not made for, or at least it did not apply to Roman Catholics,
but was made for those who were not Roman Catholics, and
for whom there could be no such necessity. The great diffi-
culty irs the case, as stated by the Right Rev. Prelate, who
last addressed their Lordships, was not so great as he ima-
gined; but be (Lord Brougham) felt that they were dealing
with a difficulty of another character, when they were allowing
an Act of Parliament to apply to those for whom such an Act
had never been intended, and upon whom it could have no
possibl„ffect. They were now, however, only dealing with
the repeal of a statute. The last two Rev. Prelates who ad-
dressed their Lordships had stated that, by the repeal of this
statute, they were about to repeal a protest against the supre-
macy of the Pope. Now, if this Act was repealed to-morrow,
or even if it had never existed, would they not have on record
a protest of the Queen, Lords, and Commons? It was not
an enactment to be sure, but it was quite as good—quite as
binding and effectual.
A Rev. PRELATY—The words were restored and established.
Lord BROUGHAM—Yes, that was a restoration, but it
was not established—being restored was to re-establish. The
words had been restored and re-established, because it had been
established by the law of the land long before. So the House
would see that that did not stand on record upon the statute so
as to affect the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as it applied to
Roman Catholics. He preferred the protest of the King,
Lords, and Commons that the Pope's supremacy was a fallacy,
a fraud, if they would, and that it was to have its penalties,
although the Bight Rev. Prelate said that there was no fear of
their being put in force, but he (Lord Brougham) knew well
that they could be brought into full force at the w ill of evil dis-
posed persons. Now, as to the oath of supremacy, to which
the Reverend Prelate adverted, he was of opinion that
if the oath regarding the King was not sufficiently
binding, " a-lack-a-day," he (Lord Brougham) did see much
virtue in an oath. Did it not strike the Rev. Prelate, that in
the oath of supremacy taken by the Roman Catholics there
was an omission as to the Pope ? They omitted altogether the
spiritual supremacy of the Pope. That body were allowed to
leave out the words in reference to spiritual supremacy, but it
was retained for the benefit of those who did not believe one
word of the Pope's supremacy--for himself, and his Noble and
Learned Friend behind him (Lord Campbell)—who was, per-
haps, a very good Presbyterian—(Laughter)—and who did
not believe one word—one tittle—of this supremacy of the
Pope—they, and others who believed as they did, were obliged
to take that oath. He could not help thinking that there was
great inconsistency—indeed very great absurdity—in calling
upon them to say they shall riot believe in the spiritual supre-
macy of the Pope. But to ask those who believed in their
consciences that the spiritual supremacy of the Pope was valid,
and who, in taking an oath of the supremacy of their
Sovereign, were allowed to believe and hold good the
spiritual power of the Pope—to ask them to take
an oath by a law which in reality affected them not, but
which still had its penalties, would be the greatest injustice,
for the reason that we recognised the supremacy of the Pope
in spiritual matters, as regarded all Roman Catholics. There
were over 100,000 subjects of the Queen, in England, who
believed in this spiritual supremacy ; but there were over
7,000,000 of people in Ireland who believed in the same way;
and was it that they only believed in it ? They not only be-
lieved it, but they also acted upon his authority in spiritual
matters. Let the Pope narrow his supremacy, and only ex-
tendhe would still halm his spiritual authority. Let him narrow it
it to a very limited portion of the United Kingdom, and
still ,further, and this seven millions of people whom
they allowed to believe in it —whom they allowed to affirm
such belief, would still in their obedience acknowledge and act
under this spiritual authority. They were all bound to be-
lieve in it as they hoped for their salvation—as they hoped for
absolution from sir& ; and absolution of some sins they might hope
to obtain, but for an act denying the truth of the Pope, the head
of the Church of Ri Atte, they could never hope to obtain. He
should like to see th is oath struck off the statute towards all
tpec a 11 of the civil powers. This sanction was ne- o
Others, as they had done towards their Raman Catholic sub-
jects. As to allowing the Pope to send, his bulls into this
country, he would refer to the manner in which
they were
all owed to entee other countries.
Austria, France, S,,,aits, and Portugal, did not
allow the
he
s
ad Lai of the bulls of the Pope, without
cessary ial
b anetie obtai ;tied, before they were allowed to enter. The
Pope applied for I,
nave,se, and it was granted, and', no injurious re-
sult followed, Y et this sanction was required, although they
were Catholic tout itries, acknowledging the spiritual authority
of the head of the Church of Rome. He could not go so far
with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, in saying
that there was nor t tore harm in these bulls, or that they were
of no more impor stance than if they were left to rot on a shelf in
the palace at Rc .me, for he considered there might—it was
possible that th, ly could contain much harm, and have
an important hearing. He could not go with
his Noble an d Learned Friend so far as that.
His Rev. Friend had stated that they prayed once a year for
the conversion o 1 the Roman Catholics. They did so, but
then the prayers of the church were for the conversion of all
heretics. It coo not be said that they prayed so much for
the conversion o
['the Roman Catholics as that body were in the
habit of praying for ,the conversion of the Protestants. There
ee h
was this differen ,
-ee tween the prayers of both parties, that the
Catholics praye for t, he conversion thirteen times a year ; they
were better at
ap-
plication mad e
assure lirt Right their s Laughter. ) lie had framed an
amendment t
it
W(cLl Res ^.7)•
or the P 411 which was, not to allow the Pope's bulls
.heir ill Ayers than those they prayed for, if
civil author the penalties remaining the same.
Lord Cii.f,Yes'
R Vt. L The Right Rev. Prelate, who first
addressed d his vote; but he could
che Ho it, had claimed t°
enter court: try' without taking the opinion of the
which they hand rnd purest motives. The Bill had
be
and he received it as theire
bee influence y the
S' Edward Ryan, the
t prepared by 1). " rned Friend ir
late Chief Just eisr; -a tta, than whom a more enlightened
lawyer, or a mgrs impartial gentleman did not exist.
Decemberin last liberal arse
r'ertp‘i_end that whatever vote he might give,
nissioners framed an Act of Par-
liament, these Co his Noble and Learned Friend,
t• It embraced both parts of