The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-08 00:00:00

THE SUN,

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTIONi
BILL.
_ _ .

The order of the day for the second reading of thi
Bill having been read,
Sir G. GREY then rose and said,--Before I proceed,
in pursuance of the intimation enade the other night by
my Noble Friend, to state the modifications and altera-
tions which, if the House shall consent to the second
reading of this Bill, the Government, after a full and
careful consideration of the objections which have been
urged against it, mean to propose that the House should
adopt, I am anxious to make- a few -observations with
reference to some suggestions which have been strongly
pressed upon the Government as to the course which it
might be expedient to adopt with regard to this Bill,
On Monday night last it was strongly urged upon the
Government, chiefly by the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), with the
view, a 3 he stated, to the dispatch of public business,
and to prevent the interruption to important business
which would ensue by the interposition of protracted
discussions with regard to this Bill—and I think his
opinion was concurred in by several other Hon. Mem-
bers—that the Government should adopt the course
which, as stated by them, was indicated by Lord
Stanley in another place as that which he would
have thought it is duty to propose if he had
been at the head of the Government. But I must
say that I think the Right Hon. Gentlemen and those
who join with him in urging that course upon the Go-
vernmcnt have not rightly apprehended the suggestion
which Lord Stanley made.—(Hear.) They seem to as-
sume that, if the Government adopted the course sug-
gested by Lord Stanley,', all that they would have
to do would be to propose to each House of Parliament
the appointment of a Committee, to whom a variety of
subjects connected with the relations which the Roman
Catholic subjects of England sustain to the State on the
one hand, and to the head of their Church on the other,
should be referred. They seem to assume also that these
Committees would be appointed without debate and die-
cufsion, and that after the subject had been referred to
them its further consideration would be indefinitely post-
poned, and that the House would be enabled to proceed
at once to the consideration of those other questions of
undoubted importance which are intended to occupy the
time of Parliament during the present session. But
they seem to me to have overlooked one important part
of tho scheme indicated by Lord Stanley, which was—
not that the subject should be passed over with indiffer-
ence by either House of Parliament—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear") —but what he proposed was, if I under-
stand it rightly, that there should be a resolution simul-
taneously passed by both Houses of Parliament,
a resolution expressing the opinion of each House
separately, that the course recently taken by the
Court of Rome is considered as offensive to this country,
as derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and as trench-
ing upon the independence of this country by the great
body of the inhabitants of Great Britain; and that, after
adopting a resolution of this kind, they should each ap-
point Committees of the nature before referred to.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, I do not wish on this occasion to
touch upon any subject likely to give rise to discussion;
but I am anxious to state shortly why the Government
consider that such a course as that suggested by Lord
Stanley would not be consistent with the duty which
they owe to the State.—(Hear.) Ia the first place, I
beg to say that the course of proceeding by resolution
would not effect the object which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and those who think with him, profess to have
in view. It would not give the go-by to the subject and
enable the Government to proceed forthwith to the con-
sideration of the other matters requiring attention ; be-
cause Parliament would be involved in discussions pro-
bably as long, as discursive, and occupying as much
time with reference to the resolution, as they would be
with regard to the Bill which is now before the House.
—(Hear, hear.) And with what result ? I confess
that in all my Parliamentary experience I do not re-
member a resolution passed simultaneously by both
Houses of Parliament, except with the view of
immediately adopting a Bill founded upon it.—(Hear,
hear.) A 3 every one knows, a resolution of either House
of Parliament does not possess the force of law.—(Hear,
hear.) What then would be the effect of a resolution
declaring that the rights and dignities agsumed by the
Roman Catholic Prelates under the authority of the
Pope were null and void ? As I have said, no resolu-
tion of either House of Parliament, at least in matters
not affecting their privileges, can have the force and
effect of law. A resolution of this kind, then, having
passed, after the protracted discussion with which it
would be certain to be accompanied, would be a piece of
mere waste paper, as far as concerned any declaration of
what the existing law was, or as far as concerned the
amendment or alteration of the existing law.—(Hear,
hear.) The titles derived from the Court of Rome would
be borne as openly and ostentatiously as before, and if
any question were to arise in a court of law with
respect to the right of the Roman Catholic prelates
to those titles, and if a resolution of Parliament were
to be pled as a bar to their assumption, the Court
would be at fall liberty to pay no respect to such
a resolution.—(Hear, hear.) That is one reason
why the Government think the course of proceeding
by resolution not only inexpedient, but inconsistent
with their duty.—(Hear, hear.) And if, in addition to
passing the resolution, ommittees were to be appointed,
does the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Man-
chester imagine that no discussion would arise upon the
question of whether the Committees should be appointed
at all in the first place; that no discussion—and discus-
sions too I must say of a delicate nature, which it is de-
sirable as far as possible to avoid—would take place with
rogeril to the selection of the topics which should be re-
ferred to the Committees; and, again, with regard to the
nomination of the committees?—(Hear.) Assuming,
therefore, that such would be the fact, I do not think
that by adopting such a course we could get through
with it at au earlier period than we arc likely to get
through the different stages of the present Bill.—Olean)
And would there not, moreover, be some danger that,
instead of allaying animosities which it is most desirable
to allay, it would tend rather to keep those ani-
mosities alive, if we were to have Committees
of both Houses of Parliament, receiving state-
ments from one quarter impugning the different
practices which are adopted in the exercise of
the R,;rnati Catholic religion on the one hand,
and hearing counter-statements on the other—statements
which would of course be presented to the public from
time to time through the ordinary channels of informa-
tion, and thus a kind of indefinite expectation would be
kept up of future legislation on a large and comprehen-
sive scale, which would at once satisfy the Protestant
feeling of the country, and preserve inviolate those prin-
ciples of civil and religious liberty which we aro anxious
to maintain, not only for ourselves, but for our Roman
Catholic brethren!'—(Hear.) I will only add that, as I
stated on a former occasion in answer to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire, I am nct prepared to say that
the law with respect to the relations 61 the Roman Ca-
tholic subjects of England to the State on the one band,
and to the head of their Church on the other, are in a
satisfactory state—that while I think it would be inex-
pesient to throw the question open before a Parliamen-
tary Committee for an indefinite time, I am not pre-
pared to retract what I thee said, but, on the con-
trary, would now distinctly repeat, that I think
the subject is worthy the consideration of any Go-
vernment, and that I think it desirable that those
relations should be pieced on a better and more
satisfactory footing.—(Hear, hear.) The next sugges-
tion which ha; been pressed. upon Government is, that
Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Bill
now before the House.—(Elear, hear.) There are many
Hon. Gentlemen who feel strongly with regard to the
necessity of adopting some legislative measure in order
to check encroachments on the part of Rome, bet who,
actuated by kindly feelings towards their Roman Ca-
tholic fellow-subjects in Ireland—feelings in which I am
not ashamed to say I find it difficult not to participate—
(Hear, hear)—and who, looking to the distinction be-
tween the two cases of England and Ireland, are anxious
to do nothing that would seem to impose any new dis-
ability upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or that
would give them any reasonable grottiest of complaint;
and they have consequently pressed upon the Govern-
ment to consider whether Ireland should not be
altogether omitted from the Bill. This subject was
fully considered by Government long before the meet-
ing of Parliament. We have since reconsidered it;
but that reconsideration has only confirmed the convic-
tion at which we had previously arrived, that to adopt
that course at all events would be wholly in-
consistent with our duty.—(Hear, hear.) We felt
strongly that, if the Bill was to be founded, as it is
founded, upon an alleged invasion of the Queen's pre-
rogative, as Sovereign of England—that if the internal
concerns of our country are matters with which no
foreign power can be permitted to interfere—that if we
proceeded upon a principle of this kind, at the same
time proposed to limit the Bill to one part of the United
Kingdom only, we should be chargeable with tacitly ad-
mitting that the authority of 'the Queen was• less para-
mount and supreme in one portion of the kingdom than
it was in another.—(Cheers.) Wo felt that if we were
to adopt this course in order to obtain support to the
Bill, or with a view to its being passed with less opposi-
tion than it is now threatened with—we felt that if we
were to purchase this advantage in the way proposed,
we should be doing that, as Ministers of the Crown,
which would be tantamount to a betrayal of our trust.
—(Renewed cheers.) But, while I say this, I admit
that there is a wide practical difference between the
circumstances of Ireland and the circumstances of
England and Scotland.--(Hear, hear.) It is im-
possible to overlook the fact which. I have had fre-
quent cause to advert to when addressing the House on
former occasions, that the great majority of the popula-
lation of Ireland are Roman Catholics with a Church not
endowed by the State, which has existed since the time
of the Reformation to the present day in unbroken suc-
cession—a Church which was at one time prohibited,
at another time tolerated, and another time protected—
a Church with bishops side by side with the bishops of
the Established Church, and that usages and practices
have grown up, and have been sanctioned there, which
have never been known and sanctioned in England, be-
cause there was not the same necessity for them, the
circumstances of the two countries being wholly and
essentiallydifferent.—(Hear, hear.) And this, in fact,
s—
the re isn o, usesn and
n oanmc eas lui
rneg
allth e
whomf act hhaovw
have felte felt it a along
myselfaddress
it—it is this which constitutes the
main difficulty
in dealing
towhicha
sfii eciently as we could wish
to do with the caseeln ths
now
ask the assent of
Parliament.—(Clear, hear.)
--man Catho • country, however,
the biehop3 of the Roman Catholic havetil l
laexteils;e—d
for two centuries as vicars-
I do tiot kuow what WII3 the case at a
n earlier period—
but I believe up till lately, her vicars-apostolic were
clothed with the episcopal character, and
were enabled
perform every episcopal function;
to i the Roman Catholic
religion was exercised to the fullest extent, without let
or hindrance, end without any necessity for the state of
tea w1ai4;4134140d g3'lre4"4' 191 W PrePue4 to cam.

tend, there'
of t‘h:e h Bill,
that in 'en' country there is no portion
. e that can inflict the slightest hardship.—
(Ilaar, hear.) In Ireland, however, I am not prepared
to deny that, looking to some of the objectiots that have
been made to the Bill, there does seam some ground for
believing that it might interfere to a certain degree
with practices and usages with which it was not the in-
tention or desire of Government to interfere—usages and
practices which have been sanctioned for a length of time
in Ireland, and to interfere with which now would be,
to a certain extent, a hardship and injustice.—
(Hear, hear.) I will explain this more fully shortly.
Bat I am not prepared to admit, on the contrary,
I deny, that many of the objections which have
been urged against the Bill are founded in fact
or in law. Objections have been directed against the
second and third clauses chiefly. With respect to the
second clause, it has been stated that it would interfere
with all the spiritual acts of the Roman Catholic bishops,
and render those acts null and void. Now lam pre-
pared to contend that there is nothing in this clause of a
nature to render there spiritual acts void in law, unless
they are acts which can be enforced by a court of law,
according to the ordinary laws of the country, and which
are recognised by law as capable of being enforced. All
those spiritual acts which are capable of being performed
by bishops, whether in England or Ireland, are acts to
which a willing and free obedience is rendered by the
members of the Roman Catholic Church except in so
far as their conscience may limit their obedience.
I mean that they are not constrained to obedience by
the law; that their obedience cannot be enforced by
law. I say, therefore, that it was not contemplated
by Government, and I deny that the effect of the
clause, if passed in its preent shape, would be, to set
aside and render void spiritual acts, such as are neces-
sary to be performed by the bishops of an episcopal
communion.—(Hear, hear.) Then again, with regard to
the third clause, it has been stated over and over again
that it would directly interfere with the provisions of
the Bequests Acts in facilitating the endowment of the
Roman Catholic bishops and clergy in Ireland. I deny
that it has necessarily at all events such an effect as that
which has been attributed to it. It is only necessary to
compare the language of this clause with the language
of the 15th section of the Bequests Act, which contains
the provisions authorising the granting of endowments
to the bishops and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church
in Ireland, in cr3er to see that not one of tke provisions
of the Bequests Act is touched by the clause even as it
now stands. The terms of the 9th and Bth of Victoria, c.
97, s. 15 (the Bequests Act), authorises grants by deed
or will to the commission in trust, &c., " For any
archbishop or bishop or other person in holy orders
of the Church of Rome, officiating in any district,
or having pastoral superintendence of any con-
gregation of persons professing the Roman Ca-
tholic religion, and for those who shall from
time to time so officiate or shall succeed to the same
pastoral superintendence." Now I should have judged,
by looking at the terms of this Act,that it had been care-
fully worded so as to avoid the necessity of the bequests
sanctioned, authorised, and invited under this Act vio-
lating in any degree the section of the Act of 1829
which prohibits the assumption and use by Roman Ca-
tholic bishops in Ireland of the titles of existing sees.
If the terms of the third clause of the Bill now before
the House are compared with the terms of the Bequests
Act, it will be seen that bequests to persons " officiating
in any district or having pastoral superintendence of any
congregation of persons" would clearly not be prevented
by the third clause—that, in fact, that clause would only
prevent endowments by deed or will from being left to
persons using the titles or assuming the designations
which are prohibited in the first clause.—(Hear, hear.)
I said just now, and upon consideration I am not pre-
pared to deny, that the operation of the clause as it now
stands might prejudice some rights of long usage and in-
terfere with practices sanctioned by time, and, I believe,
also by courts of law and equity. Ido not think that
directly it is calculated to produce any such effect; but
it is probable it may do so indirectly. I admit that
such was not the original intention of Government, and
we are anxious not to go beyond the views which we
entertained when we originally introduced the Bill.
On a former occasion allusion was made to the ordina-
tion of priests, and to what is called the "collation of
priests" in Ireland; and it was objected that the affect of
this Bill would be to render such spiritual acts invalid;
because it is alleged—and I believe with truth—that
under the terms of the Bequests Act it may sometimes
he necessary to give evidence of ordination and colla-
tion, with the view of establishing the right of parties
to bequests that may have been made to them; and
that the practice is to give in evidence the certificate of
ordination, and the instrument of collation. This instru-
ment we are also told invariably and of necessity con-
tains the name of the bishop or archbishop who or-
dained or collated the priest, and that ,such bishop or
archbishop is generally described by the title of the see
which he holds. I have seen one of these instruments;
it is in Latin, I don't remember the date, but it is of no
consequence, for the practice, I am told, is invariably
the same; and in that instrument the archbishop is de-
scribed as Archbishop of Dublin. Although it may be
alleged that the production of such evidence renders the
party assuming such a title liable to be proceeded
against by the Attorney-General, it appears that the
courts of law have never regarded such an instrument
as void. It is alleged that a case may occur,
as cases have occurred, under the Bequests Act,
where a bequest is left to an ecclesiastic of the Church
of Rome, having pastoral superintendence in that Church;
where the deed or will granting the bequest contains the
name of a Roman Catholic priest of a particular place
or congregation; that a question may arise in a court of
law as to the right of the priest so named to the bequest
as against a third party who also claims it; and that in
order to the settlement of the question he is required to
show that he is an ordained priest of the Church of
Rome, and that he was collated to the charge of that
particular parish. This Bill, it is alleged, under the
operation of the second clause—and I mast admit I think
the allegation has some weight in it—would throw an
obstacle in the way of the proof by prohibiting the re-
ception of the ordinary evidence, and drive the parties to
secondary proof, or deprive them of that which it was
the intention of Parliament that they should have.
So again, with respect to the Bequests Act—the bequests
would not, under the operation of this Bill, according to
my construction of the words, be rendered invalid and
enure to the use of the Crown, to be disposed of ac-
cording to the necessity of the case, not necessarily
according to the terms of the instrument; but the
feeling is—l am dealing with the practice which prevails
in Ireland, and has prevailed there for several years—
that it would be difficult to persuade people, not perhaps
having legal advice at their elbow, to depart from the
existing practice, and make grants or bequests for the
endowment of ministers of their Church, without using
terms which this Bill would prohibit. Further, it is said,
and I believe there is no doubt, that courts of equity in
Ireland, since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief
Act, have executed trusts expressly in favour of Roman
Catholic archbishops and bishops, not regarding the pro-
hibition in the Act of 1829 as affecting the terms of the
grant or bequest. I have been told of a case—l have not,
of course, been able to examine the record, and I can-
not vouch for the accuracy of the account, except in so
far as saying that it comes to me from a quarter upon
which I place full reliance—a case in which a decree was
made on the 3d of July, 1844, in reference to a sum of
13,0001,, which was directed to be invested in the crea-
tion and endowment of a convent of the Presentation
order or the Sisters of Mercy, in the archdiocese of
Tuam; and I have been furnished with this account of
Sir E. Sugden's decree:—" The sums left to Roman
Catholic charities in this case exceed 30,0001. The be-
quest in the will of the testator was to the Most Rev.
Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,
and the Most Rev. Dr. Kelly, Roman Catholic Arch-
bishop of Tuam, and their successors in the said respec-
tive sees for the time being. The bill was filled rafter
the death of Dr. Kelly, and Dr. M'Hale was made a co-
plaintiff with 1)r. Murray, as the successor of Dr. Kelly
in the see of Tuam; and the fund was administered in
that state of the record." The will was made in 1834,
subsequently, therefore, to the clause in the Act of 1829
to which I have referred.--shear, hear.) lam told that
that is not a sslitary case, and that there are other cares
in which, in accordance with the general practice in Ire-
land, these have been considered good trusts. There was
a case before Lord Manners, but that was before the Act
of 1829, and therefore no objection was made to the de-
signation of the parties as bishops of sees in Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, certainly the Bill in its present
form, if passed, would have an operation which was not
in the contemplation, not in the intention of the Govern-
ment, because, while they have been anxious to maintain
the dignity of the Crown, to assert its supremacy within
these realms, and to uphold the independence of the
country—(Hear, hear)—they had no desire to deprive
any part of their fellow-subjects of any civil or religious
rights of which they are in possession.—(Hear, hear.)
Atter the best consideration which we can give to this
case, wo have thought it our duty, as I have already
stated, to persevere with this Bill, holding it essential
that there should be a deelaration by Parliament of the
will of the nation, if I may so express myself, with
regard to the recent act of the Court of Rome, which has
excited so much indignation—l will not now say whether
justly or unjustly, I have already stated my opinion upon
that—and that Parliament should not pass it by with
indifference, and by so doing encourage a repetition of
acts which would be fatal, I think, to the independence of
this country—(Hear, hear)—but at the same time we
have anxiously considered, especially with regard to our
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland—it is, I
think, exclusively with regard to them that these objec-
tions apply, the practice being as I have stated there—
we have anxiously considered how we may effect the
object in view without giving even the slightest ground
of complaint to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in
Ireland that their rights are unnecessarily abridged,
and that practices long sanctioned by usage, at least
in that country, are about to be interfered with, and—l
will not say their property confiscated, because I
think that is an unfounded and exaggerated state-
ment—but that new impediments not before known to
the lay/ are to be in practice placed in the way of their
applying their property to the use of that Church which
is not endowed by the State, but supported by their vo-
luntary contributions.—(Hear, hear.) We might, no
doubt, have omitted certain words, and inserted others,
to meet the particular cases to which I have referred;
but after giving the subject all possible consideration,
we have come to the conclusion that by attempting
amendments of that kind we might only be raising new
points of discussion, and giving cceseion for new ob-
jections not yeltikarted, and might after all not com-
pletely effect file objects we sincerely and honestly bay°
211 view. Under these circumstances we have come to
the conclusion, that if the House, after hearing my
statement, shall agree to the second reading of the Bill,
we shall, when the House shall go into Committee upon
it, propose to omit altogether the second and third
clauses.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) ,With regard
to the fourth clause, that is wholly ancillary, and a
corollary to the second and third clauses; and, there-
fore —aThe remainder of the sentence was drowned in
the hiughter which erase ih the Ileum.] I haw