The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-26 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

The Duke of ARGYLL presented a potition from
certain inhabitants of Glasgow against the Inhabited
House Duty Bill; also several petitions in favour of the
maintenance of the Crystal Palace.

The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented several peti-
tions from Westminster and other places, praying, for
the preservation of the Crystal Palace.
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE, this Bill

wa3 passed through Committee.
TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE, this Bil

was passed through Committee.
PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)

BILL.

• On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE this Bill
was passed through Committee.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the
House should go into Committee on this Bill.
Lord MON !'EAGLE would now put the questions of
which he had given notice :—First, if a Roman Catholic
diocese bears the same title and is conterminous and
identical with a diocese in the Established Church, is such
Roman Catholic diocese "a pretended diocese" under
sections 1 of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill?
Is the Papal instrument appointing to such diocese illegal
and void under such Bill; and is the jurisdiction authority,
pre-eminence, or title conferred or proposed to be conferred
by such appointment, unlawful and void under such
Bill? Secondly, if a Roman Catholic diocese bears the
same title with a diocese in the Established Church, but
is not conterminous or identical therewith, is such
Roman Catholic diocese "a pretended diocese" under
section 1 of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill ?
Is the Papal instrument appointing, or purporting to ap-
point to such diocese unlawful and void under such
Bill ; and is the jurisdiction, authority, pre-emi-
nence, or title, unlawful and void under such
Bill ? Thirdly, if a Roman Catholic diocese
neither bears the same title nor is conterminous with
any diocese of the Established Church, is
this "a pretended diocese" under section 1 of the
Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill? Is the
Papal jurisdiction appointing or purporting to appoint
to such ' diocese unlawful and void under such
Bill; and is the jurisdiction, authority, pre-emi-
nence, or title unlawful and void likewise
under the said Bill ? Fourthly, is the ap-
pointment of a vicar apostolic in England or
Ireland, under the authority of any Papal rescript, letters
apostolic, or other instrument from the Roman See,
rendered illegal and void under the 16th
Richard 11., coupled with the declaratory and
enacting provisions of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assump-
tion /Sill; or is the person acting or claiming to act
under such instrument or appointment subject to any
penalty oil prohibition under the Ecclesiastical Titles
Assumption Bill?
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply to the first
question, said that inasmuch as the Bill enacted that cer-
tain briefs and rescripts erecting certain pretended
dioceses were unlawful, it followed as a matter of course
that everything done under those briefs was unlawful;
also, in reply to the second, he would remind the
Noble Loid that it was already unlawful to usurp
the titles of dioceses of the Established
Church, and that the bishops appointed to such
dioceses were, therefore, unlawful and void, and
all that was done under them was consequently
void also. In reply to the third question, he said
that the law never interfered with the free exer-
cise of the Roman Catholic religion, and always
allowed that which was necessary to carry it out. In
reply to the fourth question, of which he had only had
notice a short time, he would state that the Bill made
no alteration in the law, but merely declared
that to be unlawful and void which was before unlawful
and void. The appointment of vicars apostolic had not
been heretofore considered unlawful, and the present
Bill did not in the least, in that respect, alter the exist-
ing law., A
Lord MONTEAGLE complained that the answers of
his Noble and Learned Friend were most unsatisfactory,
and should therefore move that it be an instruction to
the Committee to introduce a clause exempting Ireland
from the operation of that Bill. It was quite clear, he
contended, that these signatures of the Irish bishops of
the Catholic Church under the titles they were now

called upon to consider, were given under the cognizance
of the Irish Government itself. This letter had been
traced most clearly to the full knowledge of the Duke of
Portland, and having been fairly acknowledged from the
line of the accession of the Duke of Bedford down to the
present day, on what ground of reason or of justice
could they vindicate these acts of oppression, in punish-
ing these prelates for the appointment of Cardinal Wise-
man us Archbishop of Westminster? He cautioned
their Lordships that they were on the verge of a preci-
pice—that difficulties were approaching them of the na-
ture of which they were not aware, and the magnitude
of which they could not appreciate. On what possible
ground were they justified in aiming a blow at the Ca-
tholic bishops and clergy of Ireland, who had taken no
active part in what they were pleased to call Papal ag-
gression? What reason had they for destroying the
episcopal character of these bishops, and for taking
away from them the power of exercising episcopal
functions, as far as an Act of Parliament could
do it? There was, no doubt, an end put to the or-
dination of priests, the collation to benefices, the con-
secration of places of worship, and the confirmation of
the young. On what grounds wore such acts to be
justified? If it were true, as the newspapers stated, that
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was in this country, why
had not his opinion on the subject been given, either in
the ancient and constitutional manner, by means of dis-
patches, or else by a speech from his place in Parliament?
The want of attention on both those points was a signal
instance of indifference to the interests of Ireland. Since
the penal code of William and Mary, there had not been
such an aggression on the religious institutions of any
country as they were now directing against those of the
Catholic community of Ireland. It was inconsistent,
glaringly inconsistent with the religious liberties of her
Majesty's subjects, that this Bill should be extended to
Ireland, and inconsistent, also, with the language which
her Majesty adopted in her speech from the Throne, in
in allusion to the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR hero expressed his de-
cided opinion that any purely spiritual act exercised by
Catholic bishops or clergyment would not be illegal.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought that upon this ground
they endangered the Act. It was also most dangerous
to the Established Church in Ireland. He had now ex-
hausted his own strength in endeavouring to make out
the truth of his assertion that they were doing wrong to
Ireland, which was utterly uncalled for, and, therefore,
he called upon their Lordships to concur in his amend-
ment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was a great
difference between the order of .a bishop and the juris-
diction of a bishop.—(Hear.) A bishop was made so by
the imposition of hands, which gave him a holy calling,
which could not be touched by this Act. He utterly de-
nied that marriages and other similar spiritual acts would
be void. His holy character could not be reached by an
Act of Parliament. An eminent Roman Catholic, whose
work he held in his baud, had laid down distinctly the
difference between the exercise of epiritual function,
and the exercise of such a jurisdiction as this
Bill referred to. There was a great distinction be-
tween the order of bishops and the jurisdic-
tion of bishops—a distinction which was recog-
nised in all the authoritative books on the subject.
This Bill related only to documents from the Pope, ap-
pointing archbishops, bishops, and deans. The order and
appointments in the Roman Church hitherto observed
would not be illegal. Any act interfering with the pre-
rogative and jurisiction of the Crown, and inconsistent
with the common law, that was to say, giving the au-
thority to hold courts and set up a law contrary to the laws
of the realm, was clearly illegal. Any party convicted of
such an act would be indictable. He would not trouble
their Lordships with regard to the general question
touched upon by the Noble Lord. It deserved grave
consideration when it was entered upon, and it
was not a subject to be entered upon by a aide wind.
When he alluded to the Cardinal's cap he used the ex-
pression in reference to its being used in derogation of
the rights of the Crown, and with no intention of disre •
spect to Catholic clergymen, or any other clergymen. He
was sorry that he had used the expression, as it had been
misunderstood. He knew their Lordships were lovers of
religious liberty, and therefore trusted that their Lord-
ships would give fall toleration and perfect freedom to
the Roman Catholics, but at the same time take care that
they did not trench upon and invade their own rights.
Lord CA.MOYS would support the motion of his
Noble Friend (Lord Monteagle). The Bill before their
Lordships wits a gross invasion of religious liberty, and
he entered his solemn protest against this Bill being ap-
plied to Ireland. He thought the alterations this Bill
had undergone showed the necessity for inquiry. This
Bill was both prospective and retrospective. It was to
the latter he wished to direct their Lordships' authority.
It commenced by reciting the act of the Pope that had
been done, and declaring it void. It was a declaration
against the ordination of priests in Ireland, and against
marriage ceremony. They must deny. the validity of
the latter the moment they denied the jurisdiction and
authority of those who were to perform them. They
therefore told the people of Ireland that their clergy
were laymen, and their marriages void. There was one
way of getting out of this difficulty, and that was, by
making, it prospective, and not retrospective. The Irish
people would then know beforehand the consequences of