The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-07 00:00:00

that he would have no sees created by the au-
thority of the Pope, but they were created
by the authority of the King. I fled that in the time
of Edward I. a person was excommunicated by another
person, who prosecuted the person who exccmmunicated
him in the King's courts. He was found guilty
of high treason, and it was only on the supplication
of his counsellors thet the King did not carry the sen-
tence into effect. In the time of Edward 111., petitions
were presented to prevent bulls, writings, &c., being
allowed in this country. It had been found necessary
by our Catholic ancestors to resort to means against
the power of the Pope, and the statute of prce-
munire had therefore been passed, the 16th of
Richard the Second. I will now proceed to state the
course which the Government, on being made aware of
the publication of this Bull, had taken, and the
course they now propose to take. The first proceeding
which the Government took was to ask the law officers
of the Crown whether the persons who had assumed
these titles came under any known law, and what
would be the effect of a prosecution, the opinion
given was, that with regard to the assump-
tion of the titles with reference to the existing
stetutee and the state of the common law it was
illegal, but it could not be prosecuted with effect.
(Hear, hear.) Furthermore, they said that the
introduction of letters apostolic into this country was
illegal, and was an offence for which a prosecution might
be commenced, and the judge would declare that the
parties had rendered themselves liable to a penalty ;
but they said that the statute which prevented the in-
troduction of any bull or writing of the Pope
into this country, had not been for so long a
time put in force, that if they were used for the
purpose of a prosecution fur assuming these titles, on
the ground that it was by the authority of a bull or
writing from Rome, would most likely fail, as the
statutes had been so long in disuse. The House will be of
opinion whether, with this opinion before them, the Go-
vernment would have done right to institute a prosecution.
Nor do I think that such a prosecution would lead to any
useful result. It would have been with great repugnance
that, on the first occasion when we thought we had reason
to complain of the introduction of such bull, that I should
have ordered a prosecution without first having noticed a
practice which had so long been carried on, and
which had been left unnoticed and apparently tacitly
consent to. There is a further difficulty, and I wish to state
to the House the whole difficulty upon that subject. No
doubt according to the statute of Richard 11. in certain cases
the introduction of bulls containing assumption
of power would be a grave offence, and subject
the offender to the loss of his property. This had been
decided in the case of Lawler, in the reign of James I.
There was likewise a statutous prohibition in the I 3th Eliza-
F beth, vv;th respect to the introduction of writings from Route.
In 184 S, that part of the statute of Elizabeth which
fixed the punishment of treason on any such offences of
that nature was taken away. and it was declared that
the repeal merely extended to the penalties, and there was
nothing in that repeal to render it lawful to introduce any
such bulls or writings. Accordingly, we might have pro-
ceeded on such grounds, and with such an issue and such
probable result, under the statutes to which I have re-
ferred. But then a further question arises, whether, if
these statutes have fallen into disuse, would it not be more
advisable to make a new enactment with respect to the in-
troduction of these writings or bulls from Rome.
This was an important part of the great sub-
ject, and it appears to me that you may
legislate in one of two ways. One is to
enact a general prohibition against the introduction of any
bulls from Rome which may affect the peace of her Ma-
jesty's dominions. That is one course; but then that will
leave the law excedingly vague, and it will be found
difficult to define in that enactment what shall be deemed
as disturbing the peace of her Majesty's dominions.
Then there was another course to prohibit the introduction
of any bulls, except until they have undergone the supervi-
sion of some officer or board. This is a course which is
taken in several of the continental nations of
Europe. But the course would be also attended with
this difficulty, that it might be occasionally conceived that
teh Catholics had been treated with harshness, or on the
other side that bulls dangerous to the state had been al-
lowed to enter the kingdom which slimed have been ex-
cluded. In a free country, and with a free Parliament like
ours, this would give rise to considerable discus-
sion, and I should be sorry to introduce that clement
ieto Parliamentary discussion. In legislating for this diffi-
culty we have not thought right to repeal the ancient
stasutes, nor to enect new prohibitous statutes. This
decision we have come to after a very anxious discussion.
Such a provision as this he intended to introduce into the
Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Such provisions as this were introduced
into the Boman Catholic Relief Bill. He had understood
that a pastoral address had been issued the year after
the enactment of that relief by the hierarchy of the
Roman Catholic Church of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) That
address was received in the best of all possible spirits by the
country at large, and the most loyal attachment was mani-
fested by the Roman Catholic subjects of that country atter
the passing of that Act. Ido regret, then, that Archbishop
Cullen has stated his feelings upon this matter at the present
time in language which is anything but respectful to the
British Legislature. I have now before me the address
issued by the Roman Catholic Prelates upon, or rather
shortly after passing the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. The
Noble Lord then read a long extract from the address to
which he had alluded, and then proceeded to say—l do
think that it would be well that Archbishops Cullen
and Mackay should have considered the sentiments which
had been expressed by their predecessors upon the Act of
1829, and I do believe that if they had done so they would
have either entertained thoughts more consonant with at-
tachment to the Throne and respect to the Legislature, and
that they would have thought the conduct of those who went
before them well worthy of imitation. But they seemed
to entertain no gratitude for the passing of the Bill to which
I have alluded ; and I therefore conceive that the attempts
to subvert the objects of that Bill by the establishing of a
Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country may well be, and
ought to be met by provisions in this Bill, if rue House will
allow me to introduce it.—(Loud and continued cheering.)
It does not seem to me that there can be any objection to
this course. It makes little difference' in my opinion, whether
the assumption of a title to the Archbishopric of Canter-
bury, with ecclesiastical power over the diocese, or whether
a title of Archbishop of Westminster be taken with a
diocese carved out over which there is already an ecclesiasti-
cal authority. I do think that the change from the title
of vicars apostolic under which the Roman Catholics have
been governed for nearly 200 years by an assumption of
titles drawn from dioceses in this country, and
under British towns, is a direct violation of the
supremacy of the British authorities.— (Hear, hear.)
The way in which I propose to meet this evil, if the Houss
will grant the power, is, in the first place, to cause all gifts
made to Roman prelates absolutely null and void, and to in-
troduce clauses by which the objects of those gifts shall
de facto be vested in the Crown, to be applied to such
uses as the donors shall direct, or to be appropriated
as the officers of the Crown may think fit. —(Hear, hear.)
I am aware that in several cases there has been a transfer of
property from those who have hitherto held it to other per-
sons, who have been named by the authority of the See of
Rome or by persons assuming to act as bishops upon the
authority of the see of Rome. I was told of an instance of
this nature the other day. I will not name the place, but it
was near the sea coast, where a priest was deprived of
the income which he had hitherto held being
informed that by ecclesiastical authority it was
found that such property and such interest could be more
usefully employed in other places- Now, Sir, we purpose
to take power to defend the Homan Catholic laity against
such attacks as these. It is desirable that we should
do so, and the clause I propose to introduce
into the Bill, will in a great degree do so.
Hit should be necessary to introduce other measures for this
purposes in the Bill of my Hon. and Learned Friend the
Attorney-General which he will introduce with regard to
charitable trusts, further securities will be taken to guard
the Roman Catholic laity against the transfer of
their property into hands for which it was not
originally intended. Sir, there is a more difficult question
which the Hon. Member for Youghall may raise with regard
to the means that have been employed to obtain a transfer of
some of this property, a means which is found

in the spiritual sensate directed against the pro-
fessors of the Roman Catholic religion.—( Hear, hear )
That, Sir, is a far more difficult question, and it can hardly
be leached unless we adopt the spirit of the ancient law to
which I have referred, and import it into the present Bill,
which at present Ido not propose to do. I have stated that,
in the first place, this Bill is to prevent the assumption of
any title taken not only from any diocese now existing, but
from any territory or any place which is subject to the
authority or belongs to the United Kingdom.—(Hear, hear.)
That provision is in conformity with the proposal which 1
saw was made the other day by the Bishop of London
He said that he thought that not only ought we to prohibit
the assumption of tines of existing sees, but we ought to
prohibit the assumption of titles derived from the
name of any place in the United Kingdom. What
I propose, therefore, by the clauses of this Bill agrees
with that suggestion ; and, perhaps, I may mention
that when I informed the Archbishop of Canterbury that it
was not intended by the Government to institute a prosecu-
tion, he said, ‘. I did not expect the Government would do
so, but what I do expect is that some legislation should take
place upon the subject." Sir, I think, therefore, that in deal-
ing this way with respect to what I consider an insult to the
Crown of this country, an interference with the rights of the
Established Church of this country, and an attack upon the
independence of the state, we are pursuing a right and
proper course.—(Hear, hear.) By another clause, to
which I have alluded, I think we shall have an
security that persons will not obtain possession, under the,e
titles, of property which has been given to other objects.—
(Hear, hear.) I have now stated the effect of the Bill which
Ipropose
withto intrordeugcaer;dt the House will Irlo proceedings betweene it
is en-
tirely different form the proposal of the new
system
the See of Rome and this country.—(Hear, hear.) I think,
whatever may be our ultimate legislation upon this great
subject, we are not in a condition at present to frame any
measure carrying out that system.—(Hear, hear.) I think
that much will have to depend upon the spirit in which
legislation is received, by the obedience which is
paid to it by the directions which may be given by him who
has taken upon himself—no doubt taken upon him-
self quite naturally and fairly the responsibility of
representing at Rome the opinions of the Roman Catholic
clergy in this country, and of inducing the Pope to under-
take a review of his recent measures, a review of
their power and condition.— (Hear, hear.) That individual
has it in his own power to remove a great part of the ob-
jection that has been felt to this assumption. If he will
only confine himself to the title which the Pope originally
gave him, and which exclusively belongs to or is recognized
by the Court of Rome.—(Cheers.) I should take it, if he
has a regard for the welfare of this country, if he has a regard
for the peace and stability of the Catholic communion, the
best cuurse he can take is to retrace his steps, and to renounce
the title which he has assumed in this country, and rather
carried out that which I believe was his original intention—
at least at one time he assured me it was—namely, the in-
tention of residing at Rome, and taking upon himself
only a Romish title.— (Cheers and laughter.) But, sir,
if other council should prevail, and he should be
able to instil the notion into the see of Rome

When a proposal was made in the course of last year to give
to the Bishops of the English Church a power which I thought
would give them control over the temporal well-being, and
the property of the clergy, that proposal was rejected as
being dangerous in principle, and successfully rejected by
my colleagues in the place in which it was pro-
posed. But, Sir, if that was the case with regard to
Protestants, we have expressed the utmost attach-
ment to freedom; if that is the case with regard to the
Church of England, which is, I believe, of all Established
Churches, the most tolerant, and the most consonant with
the freedom of our institutions; if that be the case, shall it
not tell more strongly as au objection to the effort of the
Church of Rome to introduce the Pope's temporal supre-
macy in this country:—(Cheers.) I cannot, Sir, forget that
not alonc in ancient times, but also in the most recent times,