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

would not, end if they desired to do it, they could not,
apply this 1 tVe to Irelend.—(Hear, hear.) It had been
however, said by a Noble and Learned Lord in that de-
bate on the second reading, that if this Act was found
to be inefficient, the law must be made more stringent.
—(Bear, hear.) The Noble Lord then referred to an
Act passed in the Irish Parliament, in 1782, making
it penal for the Roman Catholic bishops to assume
the titles of their sees ; but that Act he said was
not rigidly enforced. He then called the attention
of the House to a remarkable circumstance which oc-
curred in 1793, when a relaxation took place in the ope-
ration of the penal laws. In that year a petition was sent
to the Irish House of Commons, then exclusively Pro.
teetant, and that petition was signed by the Cad-dic
Archbishop of Dublin, subscribing hinaseef as such, and
by several other Catholic bishops, each taking the titles
of their sees.—(Hear, hear.) Sir Henry Cavendish called
the attention of the House to the circumstance, but no
notice was taken of it, and the subject therefore dropped.
—(Hear, hear.) That circumstance showed what was
the feeling of an exclusively Protestant Parliament on the
subject of these titles.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
concluded by saying that he had no fear that Govern-
ment would enforce the Bill with any stringency in
Ireland; and entertaining that view, he vr.eild oppose the
amendment of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CR AN WORTH said, the foundation of the
Noble Lord's proposition in moving his amendment was,
that the Bill would inflict grievances of a most serious
character upon Ireland. He seemed to think that it
would render insecure marriages and other acts per-
formed by the Catholic Church in Ireland. If he
(Lord Cranworth) thought there would be any
such result from this measure, ho would say they
must either drop the Bill altogether, or exclude Ireland
from its operation.—(Hear, hear.) But, in fact, all that
the Bill enacted was that the briefs or rescripta were
illegal and void. His belief was that no one could be
prosecuted except under the second section, which pro-
vided that a penalty should be inflicted upon any one
taking the title of any pretended sees; and he did not
see, upon consideration of the measure, that there
was any reason why they should exclude Ireland from
the operation of the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Bishop of OSSORY was opposed to the amend-
ment proposed by the Noble Lord, and said he consi-
dered it would be very inconsistent to repel the autho-
rity of the Pope in this country, in which he was very
weak, at the same time that they permitted him to ex-
ercise it in a country in which he was strong, as was the
case in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate
then referred to a remark which had been made by a
Noble Lord in the course of the debate, that the Catholic
Church was the ancient Church of Ireland; and that
Noble Lord further seemed to conceive that the Re-
formed Church of Ireland received its temporalities from
the Catholic Church ha Ireland. But such a transfer
could only be made by Act of Parliament. In point of
fact, there was no new church. It was simply a reform
of the corrupt church, and the Established Church was
the true and only successor of the ancient Church of
Ireland.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS, who arose amidst several
cries of " Divide," said that this was much too important
a question to be put down by clamour. He did not
doubt that the Right Rev. Prelate might be right in his
argument, but he rose to draw attention to a more
practical point—the question of the indictment. Lord
Hale laid it down in his " Pleas of the Crown," that
where a statute prohibited any particular act, and where
by a subsequent clause it provided a proceeding by action
of debt, without making an indictment, then the party
might be indicted under the prohibitory clause, but could
not be sued for the penalty. He wanted to know, there-
fore, whether, after all, the Attorney-General would
have control over these prosecutions. And if he had,
was it reasonable that he should be constantly left to
the bigoted importunities of religious zealots, who
would find no difficulty, in Ireland especially, of
supplying him with plenty of work? And if, under
the Bequests Act, or any other, a Roman Catholic
bishop endeavoured to establish a claim to property,
would they allow him to place an instrument which
was by this Act declared to he illegal? Lord John
Russell said, the House of Commons, that his law ad-
visers had recommended him not to found his proceed-
ings upon the statute of Ricuard the Second, but he (the
Earl of St. Germans) had the authority of several emi-
nent lawyers, Sir Frederick Thesiger amongst the rest,
for saying that by reciting the language of a portion of
this statute, they gave vigour and life to it. Ho would
ask their Lordships to consider seriously what might be
the effect of putting such a man as Archbishop Murray
upon his trial—a man who had uniformly discounte-
nanced agitation. and supported a submission to the
law, and who had fully earned the esteem of every one.
His appeal to his flock, dated in February last, was at
once touching and impressive, and ought to operate as a
caution. The Catholic bar of Ireland had made a mo-
derate declaration as to the impoliey of this course, es-
pecially after the Romish hierarchy in Ireland had been
so long recognised. Believing this Bill to be pregnant
with evil consequences to Ireland, he had come to the
conelueion that it was his duty to give his vote in support
of the proposition of his Noble Friend.
The Duke of ARGYLL said he much regretted the
course which the Noble Lord who had just sat down had
taken with regard to Ireland. Connected as he was
with Ireland, that resolution was much' to be regretted,
and he really thought that his Noble Friend was not
bound in strictness to come to the conclusions he had.
Fie (the Duke of Argyll) denied the inference that ordi-
nations would be affected by the validity of the docu-
ment under which the ordaining bishop acted. The
holy orders of the Church of Rome did not depend ex-
clusively on documents from Rome, but depended also
on the canonical consecration of other bishops. He
was quite convinced, too, that when it had been once
ascertained that the priest had been ordained by a pre-
late of the Church of Rome, no further inquiry would
be made as to the authority upon which that prelate
acted in ordinary. Under that belief alone he was will-
ing to concur in the passing of this Bill; for he
should be as unwilling to interfere with the religious
rights of Roman Catholics in England, who were few in
numbers, as he should be with those of Roman Catholics
in Ireland, who were counted by millions. It was a
measure much wanted in England, and especially re-
quired for Ireland. It was wanted there, were it only
for the purpose of repressing the spread of opinions and
principles hostile to the constitution. He had recently
seen a pamphlet, said to be published " by authority,"
by which he inferred that the author had the sanction
of Dr. Wiseman for what he wrote. In that book Dr.
Bowyer alluded to a private Act called the Dublin Sani-
tary Act, in which the Irish Catholic prelates were,
mentioned, with the names of their sees, and he founded
upon that fact an argument that those sees were well
known to the Government as existing in the Catholic
Church in Ireland. Probably few of their Lordships
had seen that Act, and the inference was not justified.
It showed the insatiable spirit of the Catholic Church,
and how little it was to be satisfied by concessions. He
gave his entire support to the Bill.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed that the
original document of Dr. Murray, to which his Noble
Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) had referred, had
only met his eyes that day. Whatever passed between
Dr. Murray and the Court of Rome in private, was a
matter of e hich neither the Crown, nor the Parliament,
nor the public took notice, and though he might there be
acknowledged and addressed as the Homan Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, the recognition was not on the
part of our own Government. In his public documents,
however, Dr. Murray had not assumed that title.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Government
never intended that the Bill should be carried into elf. et
in Ireland, and notwithstanding the alterations in the
clauses, by the pressure from the opponents of the Go.
vernment, they still did not intend to carry it into effect
in Ireland; and it was impossible that they should, be-
cause of the interference of the Bill with the Roman
Catholic religion; and, therefore, that being so, it was
a protection to the Roman Catholics in England to have
Ireland included in the Bill, because, it not being in-
tended to carry it into effect in that country, it could
not, with any show of reason and justice, be enforced in
this country.—(Divide.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
Their Lordships then divided on the amendment,
when the numbers were—
Contents ... ••• ... 17
Non-contents ... 82
Majority against the amendment —65
On being re-admited to the gallery we found
The Earl of ABERDEEN addressing their Lord-
ships. He said he did not suppose it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government that the Act should apply
to titles other than those which the Pope conferred. He
dial not know in that case why the word " therefore"
was retained in the clause. To do so, he thought was
carrying the spirit of religious intolerance farther than
could have been imagined. The Act was only intended
to apply to the Church of Rome and to Papal aggres-
sion. When Scotland was excluded, the word "other-
wise" ought to have been expunged.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the Act had no
application to bishops who were appointed with the con-
sent of the Crown.—(Hear,)
The Earl of ABERDEEN said the Crown had no
authority to interfere with the appointment of the Scotch
bishops.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE repeated his former
answer, and after a few words from Lord Redesdale and
Earl Grey their Lordships went into Committee, Lord
Redesdale in the chair.
On the question being put, that clause 1 stand part of
the Bill,
Lord KINNAIRD said the division they had just
come to had reference to Ireland. But it was the opi-
nion of eminent lawyers that the Act not only applied
to archbishops and bishops, but to the inferior clergy
who were appointed by them, and he feared, therefore,
that he would have to trouble their Lordship with di-
viding on the clause. He thought he might claim the
vote of Ministers in support of his motion, as the clause
had been forced upon them.—(Hear, hear.) He should,
therefore, move the omission of the clause.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he particularly de-
sired to have some explanation of the operation of this
clause with regard to the Charitable Bequests Act,
the operation of which, us was provided in a special
proviso, was not to be affected by this Bill.
If the Charitable Bequests Act was to stand,
and this Bill to go, then how much of this Bill was to be
annihilated by the operation of the first? He thought
that in Ireland, which case they were now chiefly con-
sidering. the effect of the proviso would be to render the
whole Bill a nullity. It would be an absurdity, under
the circumstances, to say that they had the same law in
England as in Ireland. He should be glad to have some
explanation on that subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if a parish
priest was found acting as a priest the law did not per-
mit any inquiry. It parties were married by a priest,
unless evidence could be given that that priest was not
properly appointed, and that the parties were aware of
it at the time they submitted to his officiatien, the law
permitted no inquiry. That was one of the many
cases in law where they were bound to submit to persons