The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-07 00:00:00

a refesal on the part of the Committee to
adopt the very moderate proposal then under their
con.ederation would indicate a determination en their
parts not to listen to reason or argument upon that sub-
ject; and he could not help feeling that the result of
such a course would be to alienate the affections of ono-
third of her Majesty's subjects, while the Legislature
would ultimately be compelled ignominiously to retrace
its steps in the matter.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL denied the right of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) to
express an opinion on the condition of the Roman
Catholic Church in Rome, because the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman in the bock ho had published had put forward
no other views upon that subject than those which were
already to be found in works written by persons noto-
riously hostile to the Roman Catholic religion. He
(Mr. J. O'Connell) contended that the tendency of the
acts which had been quoted in the course of that discus•
sion had not been directed against the exercise of
spiritual jurisdiction, but had been meant solely to pre•
vent encroachments on the temporal power of the State.
He believed that if the words which it was proposed
should be omitted in that case were retained, the Catholic
Bequests Act would become a total nullity. England
had just summoned the nations of the earth to admire
her progress in the arts of civilization, and the many
blessings which Providence had showered down upon
kee; and she ought not at such a moment to afford those
nations the miserable spectacle of a return to the most
objectionable practices of what the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Solicitor-General had characterised as
the worst times of barbarism and intolerance.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 38
Against it ... ... 107
Majority against the amendment ...-69
Mr. S. CRAWFORD, who had notice of an ameed-
ment on the paper to exclude Ireland from the operation
of the Bill, intimated that, instead of moving it on this
clause, he should bring it forward as a separate clause
when this was disposed of.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY then moved, as an amend-
ment on the second clause, the insertion of words making
it illegal for any person hereafter to obtain or cause to
be procured from the Bishop or See of Rome, or publish
or put in 1130 within any part of the United Kingdom,
• any bull, brief; rescript, letters apostolical, or any other
instrument or writing for the purpose of creating an
hierarchy of bishops, named from any province or see,
and with titles derived from places belonging to the
Crown of the United Kingdom.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the original amendment
of Mr. Walpole was framed similarly to this, and he
should oppose it, as going beyond the intention of the
10th Geo. IV.—the Catholic Relief Act. It created an
additional offence, and that an offence which would be
• exceedingly difficult of prosecution.
Sir F. THESIGER supported the amendment. The
Noble Lord had stated in his famous letter that " there
, is an assumption of power in all the documents which
have come from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over
the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided
sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy,
with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the
spiritual independendence of the nation, as asserted even
in Roman Catholic times." That was the course of le-
gislation which the Noble Lcrd bad originally pointed
out; but certainly nothing could exceed the disappoint-
ment of those whose expectations were raised by that
letter when they saw the Noble Lord's Bill.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) True, the Bill had, to a certain
degree, been amended and strengthened by adopting
the suggestion of Mr. Walpole; but by adopting these
suggestions and leaving the Bill in its present
state, it was in the most inconsistent condition
that could possibly be imagined, because the Noble
Lord having all along declared that his intention
was that his legislation should be uniform for every part
of the kingdom, and that he meant to apply the same
law to Ireland that ho applied to other parts of the
United Kingdom, the shape in which the Bill now stood
was this. The preamble referred only to a particular
rescript, which was applicable to England, and the de-
claratory enactment referred to the same part of the
United Kingdom, and to the rescript which had been
introduced here; yet the Noble Lord opposed the amend-
ment of Sir H. Willoughby, the effect of which was to
declare illegal, and to subject to a penalty, any similar
bulls, rescripts, or letters apostolical which should
hereafter be introduced into any part of the United
Kingdom. It had been repeatedly stated that the only
reason why the law had not been put in force against
the aggression of the Papacy, and why the parties who
bad been instrumental in forwarding it had not been pue
niched, was, that the law was in an obsolete state, and it
' would not do to awaken it from its slumbers in the sta-
tute-book, and to bring it into operation suddenly against
the parties who had broken it. But what did the
Noble Lord do if he left his Bill in its present condition?
The statutes of Richard 11. and Elizabeth, they
were told, were existing laws, and now in operation, but
laws not to be brought in force as applicable to this par-
' ticular subject, in consequence of some supposed hard-
ship that would arise from reviving these dormant sta-
tutes, and bringing them into use in the present day.
Well, but were they to be brought into use at any future
day? What was the intention? Were they to remain,
as before, dead letters upon the statute-book, or were
they to be applicable to any encroachment of a similar
character which might hereafter be attempted against
this country?--(Hear, hear.) Surely the better plan
would be, if it were the intention of the Noble Lord and
his Government that any similar rescripts introduced
into this country should be subjected to the penal provi-
sions of the Bill, not to do it indirectly, but upon the
face of the Bill itself to declare that intention, and ex-
pressly to provide against any possibility of supposing
that there was no law which could b© applied to this
particular encroachment, and by adopting the amend-
ment to declare that any similar rescripts introduced
into the United Kingdom should be subjected to the
penalty provided by the Bill.—(Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said ho saw no sub-
stantial difference between the present amendment and
that of the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst
(Mr. Walpole). The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then repeated the arguments against the amendment,
which he had urged against the proposal of Mr. Wal-
pole, and contended that the Bill would be a consistent
and uniform Bill without it. The object and scope of
the Bill was to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles, and the clause as it stood struck at that assump-
tion; but the promoters of the amendment said it was
necessary to go further, to do something more—in fact,
to go beyond the object of the Bill, and prevent the in-
troduction of bulls for the creation of ecclesiastical
titles. But it was useless to declare offences and enact
penalties unless they could carry their law into effect.
Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman believe they could
ever convict anybody of obtaining, or causing to be pro-
cured, a bull, brief, or rescript? What possible proof
could they have of it? Did he suppose that the com-
munications which took place between the Sovereign
Pontiff and his agents in this country would be so open
and avowed that he would be able to carry out that part
of the clause if it were adopted and made law? Besides,
if the amendment were agreed to, they would be split-
ting up one transaction into two, and be visiting it with
a two-fold penalty, and thus, in fact, would go beyond
the intention of the Act of 10th George IV.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said there might be two offences
committed—the one being the assumption of the title,
the other the procuring a bull, which might or might
not be put in force by the same individual. These Acts
would, therefore, be properly punished as two offences.
It might happen that a person negotiated to obtain a
bull and bring it to this country, and yet did not succeed
in putting it in force. But his doing so ought to be
punished nevertheless. In his opinion they were two
distinct offences, and should be so punished.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, and con-
tended that the Attorney-General was not warranted in
saying that it was the same as that of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurst. It was essentially dif-
ferent—it made the Bill prospective; whilst, if they left
it to stand in its present shape, no man could say that it
might not he retrospective in its effects.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the two
things against which the Bill was aimed was the assump-
tion of territorial titles, and the offensive character of
the rescript of the Pope, claiming over this country a
jurisdiction which had not been attempted to be enforced
by. the Pope for the last 300 years, The Bill dealt with
these by the first clause, which declared the assumption
of those titles illegal; and by the second clause, which
imposed a penalty. The amendment would introduce a
new penalty,—viz., that for procuring the introduction of
bulls into this country. It would thus go beyond tho
Aet of 1829, which he thought not to be advisable.
Mr. J. STUART said the difference between the
clause and the amendment was that the former only
punished those who assumed an episcopal title, whereas
the amendment applied to those who might procure
authority to use those titles. He should vote for the
amendment.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the introduction of
bulls was still an offence against law, and punishable as
such, the Legislature in 1846 having only repealed the
penalties. Instead of thus running counter to so recent
a decision of Parliament by the introduction of certain
words in a clause, let the Hon. Member, if he wished to
deal with the matter, take up the whole subject of those
ancient Acts and their penalties.
Sir R. INGLIS said the Bill was merely retrospec-
tive, as applying only to the rescript of September last.
The amendment was prospective, making the penalty co-
extensive with every aggression which might hereafter
be made.
Sir G. GREY denied that it was only retrospective; it
would apply to every territorial title that might hereafter
be derived from Rome.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 129
Against it ... ... 133
Majority --4
Colonel SIBTHORP moved an amendment in line
37, after the words " pay the sum of " instead of 100/.
to insert 5001. Unsaid he had a better opinion of the
Pope than of the Noble Lord.—(Laughter and cheers.)
If he had been the Popo he would have done the same
thing—(Laughter)—for the Noble Lord had invited the
Popo to come here; but if the Pope did come, he hoped
lie would not visit the Noble Lord in Downing-street.
thought the conduct of the Noble Lord had been in-
sulting to Ireland.—(Cheers from Irish Members.)
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For ••• ••• ••• ... 63
Against ••• ••• 199
Majority ... —136
Mr. O'FLAHERTY asked.the Chairman whether, on
voting on the question of 5001., there would be a second
voting on that of 1001.? He complained that he had
been interfered with by a Noble Lord on asking the
question.
Lord M. HILL said he had heard the Chairman clear
the House, and he asked a group of gentlemen to go
into the lobby. One of them said he interfered with
his asking a question of the Chairman, and he said he
had nothing more to say on the subject.
After 4 low words from Ur. DitSIiAUJI,