The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-08 00:00:00

has been done in former times in this country, in Roman,es
Catholic times, with regard to the power of "__
Pope. I find our Cat hobo ancestors were
the
join eis as we could be of the encroachments of tne_
Pope. I find in the time of William the Cencluer°r
that he would have no sees created by the so;
th ority of the Pope, but they were creetfu
by the authority of the King. I find that in the thee_
of Edward I. a person was excommunicated by gnarl
person, who prosecuted the person who excommunicated
him in the King's courts. He was found gn;i7l
of high treason, and it was only on the stlPPlh''atiee.
of hie counsellors that the King did not carry the ft s
tepee into effect. In the time of Edward Pettete
were prevented to prevent bulls, writings, See.,
allowed in this country. It had been found necessa
rys
by our Catholic ancestors to resort to weans egat
the power of the Pope, and the statute of pr,.‘,
munire had therefore been paseed, the 16thihve•
Richard the Second. I will now proceed to state de
course which the Government took, on being
Elbe
aware of the publication of this bull, and
course course they now propose to take. The first procee"hr;
which the Government took was to ask the lave 016eved
of the Crown whether the persons who bad aestlat
these titles came under any known law, end .W„ion
would be the effect of a prosecution; the 0131"ine
given was, that with regard to the e°ll`.
existing
Sion of the titles with reference to the „te•
was
statutes and the state of the common law 11 ,
illegal, but it could not be prosecuted with effecte tee
(Hear, hear.) Furthermore, they said tilt° wis
introduction of letters apostolic into this country , bs
illegal, and was an offence for which a prosecution Intfbe
be commenced, and the j t
udge would declare thet'y
parties had rendered themselves liable to a Pet he
but they said that the statutes which prevented 1-pope
troduction of any bull or writing of the
into this country, had not been for so lengbe
time put in force, that if they were used for 'OO
purpose of a prosecution for assuming these titlell et
the ground that it was by the authority of 11bu moss
writing from Rome, such prosecution wont" jog
likely fail, as the statutes had been le
witk
in disuse. The House will be of opinion thal, 'aeulti
this opinion before them, the Government Nor
not have done right to institute a prosecution. ;ay
do I think that such a prosecution would lead tenoiee
useful result. It would have been with great felltsset
that, on the first occasion when we thought we llsfu'obottla
to complain of the introduction of such bull, `nticeril
haVe ordered a prosecution without first having ee" sad
practice which had so long been carried ("..,eitil
which had been left unnoticed and apparently
to Sete
consented to. There is a further difficulty, andl wish t°lts
to the House the whole difficulty upon that subject. wee
doubt according to the statute of Richard 11. in certetptioe
' the introduction of bulls containing °Vl:object
of power would be a grave offence, eti",,,a bee?
the offender to the loss of his property. This 'le k
decided in the case of Lawler, in the reign of T
There wiis likewise a statutory prohibition in the 10"feeelee
beth, with respect to the introduction of writings frog, owe
In 184 e, that part of the statute of Elizabeth es of
fixed the punishment of treason on any such effort the
that nature was taken away, and it was declared tb;eiss
repeal merely extended to the penalties, and that thee, Jul
such bulls or writings. Accordingly, nothing in that repeal to render it lawful to introduce pro-
needed on such grounds, and with such an issue rye. reed
probable result, under the statutes to which I feather de'
ferred. But then a further question arises, wu'e niteP"
we might 11°1 suell
these statutes have fallen into disuse, it would not le tee
advisable to make a new enactment with respect to too&
troduction of these writings or bulls froth k
oohs
This is an important part of the gre„a" On/
ject, and it appears to me that 9°' is
legislate in one of two ways. Otte of say
enact a general prohibition against the introduct'"-eee
bulls from Rome which may affect the peace of est pill
jesty's dominions. That is one course , but their th old
leave the law exceedingly vague, and it will deemed
difficult to define in that enactment what shall benihnoes.
as disturbing the peace of her Majesty's tauctnt°,ll,
Then there is another course to prohibit the r°'-oper"
of any bulls until they have undergone the ahieb
sion of some officer or board. This is a coursetie s °
taken in several of the continental na
Europe. But the course would be also atteoed Atilt
ed tb
this difficulty, that it might be occasionally concetcoo the
the Catholics had been treated with harshness. or el, sl'
other side that bulls dangerous to the state bed reet.t.:
lowed to enter the kingdom which should have e et lie"
eluded. In a free country, and with a free parlionedieco,
ours, this would give rise to considerable
eaeleee
sion, and I should be sorry to introduce that e"
into debates.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, after ran's with
beration on this subject, after very anxious discusst°cooJd bet
a view to come to the best possible decision that,. senile,'
formed on the subject, we have thought it bestee floc
to propose to repeal the statutes I have mentiene;eicbee
propose such alteration or substitutes as those to
_it', to
have alluded. In the present state of affairs,
.57 tee 0;
great uncertainty that still prevails as to vellatevieiher tee
tention of the measure which has been taken, vine it set
to be the prelude to future measures, or whether.ch •
merely a blunder committed on a sudden, and vr:hel I bt_t.i.h
be retracted or amended, in such a state of affettliecla'ns
any power which we possess by law, and
thought it far better, on the one side, not to realer 003
on the °coa
to propose any substitute which might in itself be oesteoe ofo
permanent evil. I come now to the immediate rlu;vhile
the assumption of titles, and I think it is useful, woe icot•
this subject, to refer to that which was given as the,e peel /tit.
the prohibitory clauses in the Roman Catholic Jeer" 0,0°4
Sir Robert Peel, in introducing that great rasageetii
to the following effect respecting the clauses oiotieee
ecclesiastical titles :—" A practice has of late ocotoa
prevailed in Ireland which is calculated to give ire ea:
I may add just offence to Protestants. I allude to 76,00-4
tine, on the part of the Roman Catholic Prelates, °'tirch
ing the names and titles of the Bishops of the e: to t"
England. I propose that the titles which belong „ed
bishcps of the Church of England shall not be assee-1 ce,
the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Bisborordir:
them, tor bishops they are, having had their right °f taste
tion acknowledged as valid by our own Church, bat 1e ot/e"
tain that it is neither seemly nor decorous to Insee9tt-e:
and titles which properly belong to the prelates of l'etherP,e;e
lished Church, and such assumptions shall be elt°g°, Deo/trio
vented in future."—(A laugh.) AccordinglY tett a to,
was inserted in the Catholic Relief Act, tend 7.1 saur.„4
yomaanthCatatchoomlimc
uanrcich,nb,ishanopds
the following year there was published a Pastee-ii Irene
addreasisture b
tfrom
h thee la iRt
very warm terms of the kindness which the Lei think ltne
shown in passing the Emancipation Act. the hinetwee
worth while also at the present time, whet/ the
worth while also at the present time, W not (rite ls
which had been used by Archbishop Cullen itte 'Aril
cou t
respectful to the Crown and Legislature of this 000 30,
recal a little to mind what was the universal hops 019 th
twenty-six Roman Catholic archbishops and billet 'Ogee
After congratulating themselves that the Wan bad
shed lie
subsided, arid that peace and justice were about tewecieLt, to
blessings on the country, they said that the King% ftedu-hr
were bound in loyalty to honour, was entitleuttheleigto
rahni
sd bishop.,
spesoo
all the honour and gratitude they can bestow; thsee frellt°o4
lature by its labours had raised them (the people
rights
To,
from a prostrate condition, giving them en.°ll it el° eotr
privileges with their fellow-subjects, and tbsiewsed °
entitled to their gratitude and love. They exPly be ilt,e
fident hope that the feelings of the people woo ` reoce nt to
son with their own, and that respect and adbewhoiereteer
constitution and laws of the country, and ot'eious
the person and government of their most grille. '-weo
reign, would be manifested by the entire Pe°Poindbae
evts
that so far as these sentiments are concerned it tO
if Bishops Cullen and Miele would refer to thet 1041'00
thus expressed by their predecessors, to see welsistereteeo
the Crown and what attachment to the Let.b.GeodOcthoee
felt in 18e0, and to consider whether sue pot potbitorl
not well worthy of limitation.- (Hear, hear., rolo.ee i°
bishops did not pass without noticing thiire 5' rejel.oo
clause. They mention it in this way tojttiotlf,
the result, regardless of those provisions vereteeee rare bet
affect ourselves, and not only us but Silos 'floret'
orders which the Catholic Church has n°°ll,lolosoll
bosom since the time of the apostles. These
„ee or sots,
we believe, sacrifices not required by rese even clog
poliey, but by prejudices holding ,captiv, rejoi ,i/
minds of honest men, and they do not precen'coOleot°
at the good which has been effected for the refer-n-001
(Hear, hear.) They did not, therefore, Whteetblog veld
those provisions ask for their repeal, or do ahileisee see'dis
than express a passing regret that such —that leitli°e'
have been introduced. It seems to me, thetas prLeoe-e
were the provisions of the Relief Act, and if at'Teate 11,-0 e°,l
were passed without objection from the ibe„l,oiieel;
body, but on the contrary were received with of
obedience by the Roman Catholic higher; 1° reeiei°"4oo
we should be perfectly justified in proposing Pa.-00;1%e a'
similar nature with regard to the recent 41.hee 00!:
titles in this country. For I consider that 'talon 'o•
ev'el
sumption had been that of the title of Aren't-oat-clove
terbury, with jurisdiction as ordinary over that eett "011;
or, as in the present case, Westminster With 2leestieS;eig°)
carved out, the difference is immaterial to the d soereeheer%,
being equally an assumption of supremacy tool rionitie
which ought not to be permitted by laW.-"•k, 05 it ,
But there are other questions which are davit:os. re s.
diately connected with the assumption of the3e,bat orto tb°
believed, and I think not without foundatioe,d'er yell3'sietl;
son for this change from vicars apostolic, 0.0 of the iB
Roman Catholics have enjoyed the free ezerce ioto teted
ligion, and been satisfied with for 200 Year* 0101101' tver
dioceses, is not only to make an assumPtionihut 104 torie
some degree to lower the state in England, vet coati!' died,
purpose of exercising by such means a gre'ade or a Ply
the large endowments which are in the b&jes oftbet
Roman Catholic trusts in this countrye-( ettie oft;
of
hear.") Now Ido not think it would be **A el
should allow that control to be exereie°o-s to %roger
the holders of those titles which we areah° ee t° to Pct
and therefore I shall, if the House give me le:„ „ease 4
a Bill, introduce in it clauses providing that het dif tto.e
sons under these titles shall be null and veto.
done by the holders of such, titles shall 810_44 ()tea•
se,
void ; and that, further, that property benzene theL':pt!'„,
to such persons and for their purposes, shall P.7th, 0.6:7,
the Crown, either to create trusts in harmorlY 0 toPieeetl7,4
tion of the donor, or to be otherwise disposed ohlos e% .:re
best to the crown. Ido not think that poWers • Fad plea
than these would satisfy the justice of the cahlosfer oshrs.
aware that in several cases there has been 11,0" other'io WO(
perty from those who have hitherto held it th, eertetoce,
either directly from Rome, or persons assurn,'"Jso bet'sf
as bishops of the Roman Church I was told °f pio
this nature the other day. I will not name lfse der bee
was near the sea coast, where a priest " hela,t erit'S
the income which lie had hithert° lee or4l
author' tel
informed that by ecclesiastical
crest cc4l e err°
found that such property and such int sir, ee 010_30
usefully employed for other purposes. IC,woiie 013040
to take power to defend the Homan Cat" that er,oroehte
such attacks as these. It is -desirath desirable to Ido :0
do so, and the clause I prePsedegree for Tee
into the Bill, will in a
othergreut eaeasticrieedrd
If it should be necessary to Introduce ned rep
purpose in the Bill of my Him. and
,ece with to golf
Attorney-General which he will intrpw-I,_e 001
..sfer sot
v re'
charitable trusts, further securities w the t was ;:op
• Dst •
the Roman Catholic laity agai it glees aril
r whieudlficolt 4 fee
their property into hands fo more 1 with for 0
criginally intended. Sir, there is a
_, raw asee ee
which the Hon. Member for Youghal av rue, she a 9 foete,
oe" • e P'
to 'he means that have been employed
wine the 'a.)
some of this property, a means aigainst
_la, he?
in the spiritual censure threcte•• her to
lessors of the Roman Catholic religtutted it c!t
That, Sir, is a far more difficult questiotaLe saaieeeseo
bit'
be teachee unless we adopt the spirit ot tu
to the Protect
which I have referred, and import it In T 5.,0ti0?
which at present Ido not propose to de. 'the o.q.s".silog,
in the first piece, this Bill is to prevente eow o.'t to 11.,)
any title t only horn any diont,`..3 objecear,.bes
from any territory or any place whicueeta),o eitel;
authority or belongs to the United King"'
eropowe f4OllO
That provision is in conformity with then': hop 01 -
saw was made the other day by the