The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

S

THE

I not been much considered in its details. Adverting to the
situation he formerly had the honour to hold, he might pro-
bahly be allowed to express his opinion as to the operation
and effects of this Bill. It divided itself into two parts. The
first part was declaratory of the existing law; the second, to
a certain extent, enacted a new law. The preamble stated
that divers of her Majesty's subjects had assumed the titles of
pretended sees, under colour of authority from the See of
Rome, viz., by virtue of a certain brief, that of September last.
It went on to state that the attempt to establish such pre-
tended sees by the authority of the Pope of Rome was " ille-
gal and void." It further proceeded to " declare and enact"
the usual words of a declaratory law, but such briefs being
without the authority of the Crown, were illegal and void.
It went on further to provide that all jurisdiction, all autho-
rity, all power attempted to be conferred by such illegal
briefs, was also illegal and void. Now what was the point
to be established? First, this was a declaratory law, and
was the law correctly stated in it? Ho proposed to inquire
into this point, and he was the more anxious to make the
inquiry, because it was not until the Bill had arrived at its
last stage in the House of Commons that these provisions
were introduced, and were, consequently, not much dis-
cussed. He apprehended, too, tl at the bare statement of
the facts would be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships that
the attempt to create those pretended sees by a brief of
the Pope was illegal and void by the law of England.
What were the facts? A foreign prince of spiritual and
temporal authority, issued an ordinance or brief, for the
purpose of creating, or rather of dividing, the territory of
au independent sovereign into various jurisdictions. He
appointed persons possessed of ecclesiastical and spiritual
authority to preside over those ecclesiastical jurisdictions,
and his object was to introduce a code of laws unknown to
this country, which we had indeed sometimes considered in
this country, but uniformly repudiated. Another object
was, that those persons might unite and confederate together
for the purpose of passing any measure suggested or required
for the purpose of their Government. This ordinance, or
edict, was suggested and framed, not merely by the authority
of the Pope himself, but by a council of foreigners—of foreign
ecclesiastics. A person high in rank in that country, raised
to the dignity of cardinal, but an Englishman by birth, came
into this country bearing that title without the assent of our
Sovereign. He took possession of the territory that was as-
signed to him—he was enthroned in it—and he published
this ordinance, or brief, without the least regard either to
the Parliament or to the Sovereign of this country.
He (Lord Lyndhurst) now ass ed their Lordships
whether such conduct as that was not in direct
violation of the independence of the country? But
the case did not rest here. It had been a part of the
common law of England from the earliest time, that no see
could be created without the assent of the Crown. That
point had never been disputed.—(Hear, hear.) It was laid
down as a maxim by all our legal writers. Had there been
any alteration in the law since the period of the Reforma-
tion? None whatever. No authority over any part of the
King's dominion could be exercised without the consent of
the Sovereign of the country, or what was equivalent to it,
the assent of the Parliament. But the case did not even rest
here. What was the public law of Europe on the subject?
The universal law was clear and express There was not
a text-writer on the law of nations of any eminence who
did not state in distinct and broad terms, that in no
country of Europe could a see be created without the
consent of its Government or of its Sovereign. And was the
practice consistent with the law, as he had stated it? Per- '
fectly, clearly so he believed, without a single exception.
Having cited the examples of Leo the Tenth attempting
twice to found a bishopric on the frontier of Savoy, against
which the King of France remonstrated, in consequence of
which the briefs were withdrawn and cancelled; of Prussia,
a Protestant country, where the Pope being desirous of
founding a bishopric at Magdeburg and two other places,
asked the consent of the King, and was refused per-
mission; of Belgium, where the revolution put an end
to the concordat; of England, where the government
of the Catholic Church had hitherto been carried on by
vicars apostolic; and of a Protestant Swiss canton,
where a see was founded with the permission of the
Government—the Noble and Learned Lord said that these
and all other instances of the kind clearly showed that
where a country was in communication with Rome, or
under concordat, or not under concordat, the practice of
all nations was in strict conformity with the law as he
had stated it. Now, he had mentioned these cases in
illustration of the law which he had stated on the autho-
thority of the most eminent text-writers, and he repeated
it again, that all the writers on the law of nations that had
addressed themselves to this subject, uniformly and con-
stantly stated that no see could be established in any coun-
try without the consent of the ruling sovereign. But how
did all this bear on the subject? First, the bare statement
of the facts, as he had before said, might carry conviction to
'the mind of every sensible man, but this act of the Pope
was a violation of the independence of our country, and,
therefore, illegal and void. He hoped their Lordships would
think with him that this declaratory law was sufficiently
established—viz., that these briefs, as referred to in the
preamble of the Bill, were illegal and void. Now, further,
he did not mean to rely on the statute of prmmunire of
Richard the Second. He agreed with his Noble Friend who
spoke last night, that it was unwise and imprudent to drag
from their obscurity obsolete statutes, and particularly
obsolete statutes accompanied with such severe and heavy
penalties. It was not only unwise, it was wholly unne-
cessary. For what was relied on? The general words at
the close of that Act were, or were supposed, to apply in
the present case. But he said, that if any act were done,
coming strictly within the scope of those words, it would
constitute an offence at the common law of England, and
therefore be illegal and void. And though they might take the
Act to enforce the penalty, it was not necessary to refer to it
for the present purpose ; for if, by the law of England, it
were an offence at the common law, it was of necessity
illegal and void. In his opinion it was imprudent, indeed,
and improper in the highest degree, to refer even to what
was commonly called " Lalor's case." The observations he
had hitherto made applied only to the first clause of the
statute, and that was a declaratory law. Now, what were
the ether parts of this Bill? A person who assumed the
title of a pretended see, adopted the act of the person
who conferred, and which being an illegal act by this Bill,
a fortiori, it was illegal to adopt it. As the law stood at
present, the prohibition could only be enforced by the At-
torney-General. That law had been in force for upwards
of twenty years, and a violation of it—he would not say to
what extent, had long been going on in Ireland. What,
therefore, could be more unwise than to institute a prohibi-
tion and suffer it to become dormant from the want of pro-
per machinery to enforce it ?—(Hear, hear.) It was on those
grounds, therefore, that he felt it necessary to adopt the ad-
ditional means provided in the Bill, for enforcing the penalty.
He was a party to the Relief Act of 1829, and was satisfied,
not only that it was a measure of justice, but that, consider-
ing the state of parties in that House, it was absolutely ne-
cessary. They were well aware themselves at the time of the
poobable consequences of the measure ; but the question was
of such a nature, and the sense of duty so strong, that they
yielded to it as a matter of reason and justice—and he should
never regret, for one, the part he had taken in passing it. The
Noble Lord who spoke so well last night from the other side
of the House, directed his attention to various Acts of Par-
liament, which, though necessary, he admitted, at the time
they were introduced, had become, he would not say a shame,
but certainly anything but a credit to the statute-book. At
his request ke had referred the subject to a Commission then
sitting on the state of the criminal law, and instructed the
Commissioners to report to him upon it. with a view to ascertain
how far those Acts might with safety be dispensed with. The
consequence was that he expunged from the statute-book the
greater part of those statutes, and in some cases the extreme
penalties that were attached to the offences they were directed
against. The object he had in view was to grant tolera-
tion to Roman Catholics, and a full participation in the
rights and privileges of their fellow-subjects. This was his
object, and he thought he had accomplished it. He was
disappointed. Toleration had never satisfied the Roman
Catholics; it was a principle, indeed, wholly alien to the
Roman Catholic Church. What was its object but domina-
tion and ascendancy ? Its advocates and agents never
flagged in the race until they had fully attained the object
of their ambition. What they were 300 years ago, they
were now, and would, probably, coatinue se. While he was
favourable to a full concession of their rights, he still remem-
bered that toleration was not domination and upon that
ground he took his stand, and voted in support of this Bill.
The Roman Catholic Relief Act was much discussed at the
time, and its provisions were adopted and approved by those
in whom the Roman Catholics placed confidence. But what
happened? An assumption of titles, and encroachment on
the prerogative of the Crown, certainly not general, but very
extensive, had taken place, and now demanded attention,
The Noble and Learned L( rd then referred to the prohibition
against the introduction of Jesuits, but that prohibition he
said had been set at defiance, and there were in this country
nearly twenty monasteries, established in open violation of
the prohibition he had alluded to. The Roman Catholics
had taken all that was granted to them, and had taken more,
but in return they had not given a single thing they had
promised.—(Hear, hear.) What had been the conduct of
the Catholics in Ireland ? An Act of Parliament was passed
for establishing colleges for the education of the middle
classes of that country. Every care was taken to make these
colleges acceptable, and that they should not raise any idea
of a desire to make proselytes, and they were approved of by
some of the best men among the Roman Catholics, yet what
was the result? On the death of the late Catholic Arch-
bishop of Armagh, the names of three dignitaries of that
Church were sent to the Pope, according to the usual prac-
tice, for the selection of the new archbishop. Yet these three
names were set aside by the Pepe, and a stranger was chosen
monk, he believed—to be Catholic Primate in Ireland.
k When the new primate arrived, he convened a synod,
which spoke by the mouth of the majority, and, as might be
imagined under such circumstances, the decision of the
synod was against the colleges. That decision was con-
firmed by the Pope, and all the beneficial intentions of Par-
liament were set aside. When they were talking of educa-
tion—of Roman Catholic education—he would refer to a
work he had seen nearly 60 years ago, and had not seen
since—he meant the Principia of Newton. Two Jesuits
wrote notes on the Principia—very learned notes—and
they showed that they knew very well the principles of the
P:incipia, and the conclusions at which it arrived. They
said, We have commented on this curious work ;we show
what are the intentions and conolusions of the author, but
it must not be conceived that we assent to those conclusions,
or that we differ onehioeatar.f)romsutchhe doctrinesasthe
reference to education.
Ch h " (Hear urc . conduct
fndtulicet Catholicpursued
havingthat in establishing the
everything was
bltywtashattCo hubrechmatters
n
ind.
new colleges done for
the purpose of preventing them being turned into
purposes of proselytising. Yet, the Catholics endea-
voured borne in
Roman Catholic
youred to appoint professors, and
the object evidently was, to turn them out Roman Catholic
colleges. The Government baying interfered, the priests
took measures in consequence to withdraw the Roman Ca-
tholic children.—(Hear, hear.) As to what had been done
for the relief of the Catholics, he approved of it, and if it
was to be done again he would do it ; but not one step
would he go farther to contribute to that domination which
the Catholics aimed at.—(Hear, hear.) On that principle
he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he
trusted he had acquitted himself in the course he was pur-
suing, and had shown that he was not departing from those
principles which he had before supported.—(The Noble and
Learned Lord then sat down amid loud cries of " Hear,
hear.")
Lord VAUX considered that this Bill was infinitely more
stringent than it was at first intended to be, and he felt sa-
tisfied that a declaration might have been framed with re-
ference to the formation of a Catholic hierarchy, which would
have met the wishes of the people of this country, and have
been satisfactory to the Catholic people.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord was understood to oppose the Bill.

The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the second reading of
the Bill. A Bill had been made, a totally different measure
from that which the Government intended it to be, yet the
Noble Marquis had not called the attention of their Lordships
to that circumstance. It was clear that the clauses which
had been introduced in the other House of Parliament would
render illegal all the acts of the Roman Catholics in the ap-
pointment of their bishops, and, among other things, would
annul their marriages. The evil effect of such a law might
easily be anticipated. The only hope was that it would be
permitted to remain what his Noble Friend (the Earl of
Aberdeen) last night hinted at—a dead letter in the statute
book—as the 24th clause of the Catholic Relief Act had been
allowed to remain since its enactment. The Noble and
Learned Lord who had just addresSed them, said the exist-