The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-31 00:00:00

_EVEN ENG

gentleman of great ability, whom he now saw present, to
whose opinions he (Sir James Graham) attached much
importance, on account of his ability; and he also greatly
admired the frankness and manliness with which ho at
all times stated his opinions—ho alluded to the Solici-
ter-Generel.—(l-lesr, hear.) Now he understood that
Hoe. and Learned Gentleman to say, that by the law, as
it now stood, all such rescripts as that of the 20th of
September were, in his opinion, illegal; that this clause
was a declaratory clause, and did not alter the law, but
rue: sly affirmed the law as it now is; and he went on to
say that the effect of this declaration would be to bind
the courts of law in every part of the United Kingdom
to declare the law to be the same in pari materiel. Well,
if that were so, was it not c!car that the operation of the
clause extended far beyond the limits of England, for
beyond the narrow ground of the rescript of the 28th of
Septemblar ; that it laid down a general principle appli-
cable
to all parts of the United Kingdom, and which
would have to be observed by every court of judicature
throughout the realm? Now, if that was so, it
became the House to consider whet was likely to be
the operation of this clause throughout the United
Kingdom. And for his own part he must say that with
respect to its operation in Ireland be apprehended the
most injurious and fatal rcsults.—(Hear, hear.) He
begged the House to bear in mind that the Roman Ca-
tholic religion was an episcopal religion, that the Roman
Catholic bishops throughout the United Kingdom were
appointed by rescript from the Pope; that if they de-
clared his rescripts to be illegal, everything that flowed
from these rescripts would be illegal likewise; that if
they vitiated the appointment of the bishops, the ordina-
tions of the priesthood by those bishops, the solemniza-
tion of marriage by the priests, and the like would be-
come vitiated also. All that was stated by the Govern-
ment against the second and third clauses of the_ pre-
vious Bill applied a fortiori' to the declaratory clause in
the present Bill. But diddle ease atop here? He was
almost afraid to embarkupen questions of nice legal.im-
port, pregnant with immense consequences, but he had
always under:doted that it was' a principle of law, that
if they declared any particular act to be illegal,
even although they assigned . so penalty to it,
that act, and the various things that were done
under its authority, became a misdemeanour, and in-
dictable. The Government bad shown a praiseworthy
desire to restrict the power of prosecuting under this
Biil to the responsible officers of the Crown—that was,
as regarded its civil censeqUences. But, if the principle
of law to which he had jut adverted was correct, the
Government would lose contrabver,the prosecutions
it would ho open to anybody to raise the question before
a grand jury.— (Hear, hear.) Take the case of the
"Italian monk," as the Attorney. General had called him.
The rescript under which be was appointed "Primate of
all Ireland" being illegal, every act done by him in that
capacity would be illegal, and it would be open to any
Protestant in Ulster, who might be actuated by angry
feeling., to prefer a bill of indictment against Dr. Cullen •
for a naisdemeanour.—(Hear, hear.) Now, this was a
state of things pregnant With serious dangers to Ireland,
and would render the government of that country ut-
terly impossible.—(Hear, bear.) If they were to legis-
late in this manner, let them legislate distinctly, plainly
end intelligibly—(Elear)—lut don't let them do it by
doubtful inuendo, and leave their intentions to be
sought for throughout a labyrinth of a long preamble
—(Hear, hear.) But let' them apply the dictum o f
the Solicitor-General to another case. The warden-
ship of Galway was abolished by a rescript of the Pope .
in 1831. For twenty years the acts done by the Bishop
of Galway had remained unc'eallsnged by various Go-
vernments. If this declaratory clause became law, and
if, according to the doctrine of the Solicitor•Generala
every rescript of the Pope, in pari materiel, would be-
come null and void and illegal, the Bishop of Galway, - -
who had been acting all this time under the rescript of
•-'
the Pope in his spiritual capacity,• would be open to an ' .""
indictment for a misdemeanour.—(Hear, hear.) And 7
what would bees= of bin ahts during. the last twenty
years? If these acts were in-their origin null and voic,
of course their consequences would be null and void
also.—(Hear, hear.) Scenes of acgry litigation and
coeflict, and confusion of social rights would thus ensue,
which it was melancholy to contemplate.—(Hear, hear.)
But was the recognition of the Papal authority in api-
ritual matters entirely new, in this country ? On the
contrary, it had been frequently recognized, and in
most marked cases.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had dwelt with commendation on a former
evening on the sixth clause of the Bequests
Act, and in passing he would say a word about that
measure. Tkere could be no question that that Act
was studiously framed to avoid any direct contravention
of the Act of 1829, and with respect to the recognition,
of the titles already possessed by the prelates of the Es-
tablished Church of Ireland. At the same time, there
was in that Act a direct recognition of the titles of arch-
bishops- and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church,
and, more than that, there . was in the sixth clause a '
direct recognition of their spiritual authority, and
almost their jurisdiction. For in cases of doubt with
respect to whose benefit say particular trust deed had
been executed, be it bishop or be it pastor, the Roman
Catholic members of the board being dignitaries of the ,
Church were empowered to declare who were the persona
so designed, no appeal being allowed from their decision.
Here there was a distinct recognition of their authority
in spirituelities, sad indirectly a recognition of the.
canon law of the Church.—(Hear.) Was there no other '
case which presented itself—a case which actually touched
the succession of the 'throne itself? He meant the case
of Augustus Frederick D'Este, the claimant of the •
Pukedom Ef Sussex.—(frear.) A question arose in that •
cane at the bar of the House of Lords in a. Committee
of Privileges 'as to the legal 'effect of marriages in fo-
reign countries, and, by an odd coincidence, Sir
Thomas Wilde (now Lord Truro) was the person who
conducted the case for the claimant. And whom did be
call as a witness on. this point? The first witness he
called was Dr. Wiseman. He would read to the House
a few,of the questions which Sir Thomas Wilde put to
Dr. Wiseman at the bar Of the House of Lords.
" Are you a Catholic bishop?—l am.
"In the event of any questions arising in England
relating to the validity of Catholic marriages, have you
any jurisdiction or judicial authority upon those ques-
tions from the See of Rome?--sThe vicars-apostolic in
England have the same jurisdiction in respect of matfi-
menial cases which any bishop would have upon the con-
tinent.

" Are you appointed an ecclesiastical judge by the
Court of Rome in this country?—ln matters relating to
ecclesiastical jurisdiction.' • •
" Is there any ecclesiastical authority in this country-
to decide upon the subject of 'marriages except the Ca-
tholic bishops?—No.
" The, persons holding that office are the authorities
which have jurisdiction throughout Catholic countries
to decide upon questions of marriage?—Generally; that
is, matrimonial cases, as far as the canon law and eccle-
siastical law affects them, belong to the jurisdiction of
the bishops.
" And you are one of thole bishops?—l am in that
capacity.

" What are the authorities in this country from the
See of Rome that have power to decide upon questions
arising between Catholics respecting marriage?—The
vicars•apostolic of England.
"Does their authority extend to all questions relating
to marriage, as well its validity as its regularity, or is it
limited?—lt is limited with respect to the power of dis-
pensing in certain cases invrhie.h they are obliged to have
recourse to the supremo authority at Rome. With the
exception of those cases, the powers are the same as
would be exercised in Rome itself."
Then be was cross-examined by the Attorney-General,
and these questions were put to him:—
" You say that you have The power ofdeciding whether
a marriage is valid or invalid. Suppose you decide it to
be invalid, what is the consequence of that decision?—
That the parties would be olehged to separate, unless I
granted a dispensation, or, if it was not within my faculty,
procured it for them; but, until such dispensation Was
granted, they would have to separate.
"You say they would be ():)lig,pd to separate; but sup-
pose they did not separate, wiiatpathretinci?p—atTiohneni,no
tf
he course,rites
tohtety outiewChludrenhot be
eo
athderasiattcerdsent(, ants of the Church.
"Therefore your jurisdhstien is entirely confined to
spiritual censures, and to consequences of an ecclesias-
tical kind ?—Certainly ; entirely.
You would have no poever to affect the property or
the civil rights of the parties?—Not in this country,
except in fore conscientice
Ho begged the Rouse to observeh
powers
closelytouc
touched
de
uopoonn-
fines of the spiritual suet civil
each other. It ,was quite true that in fore conscien tier
the power of
ctdepriving the people
would
the Church
the
h ourbriest
ehe
rs hveao dtf h
tahte
only
Chute
had been ; and it distinctly3h. recognised
a
Hon. Memberst
theytheb
exercised,ar ei' the
no utsheciorfi
[IL;
indiction
ise
ttihoent
overt eauthority
them
s aer a e whichsacraments
of the Romish Church, which affected the consciences of
8,000,000 of her Majesty's ,;objects, wen derived directly
from Rome; and it was this authority and jurisdiction,
so derived, that the House eras now asked to declare
illegal, and null and void.--(liear, hear.) He would re-..
fer again for one moment to the Bequests Act. The •
Bequests Act was passed at a time when there was upon
the statute. book an Act declaring all rescripts and bulls
from Rome to be illegal. One of the last seta of Sir
H. Peel's Government, however, was the introduction
by Lord Lyndhurst of a Bill which went the full length
of repealing the 13th of Elizabeth, which declared all
rescripts and bulls from Rome to be illegal. He would
read to the House a short passage from the speech of • -
Lord Lyndhurst in introducing that Bill. Lord Lynd.,
hurst said,— ,
" They tolerated the Cateioltc prelates, and they knew
that those prelates could not carry on their church esta-
blishments blishenents or conduct its discipline without holding com-
munication with the Pope of }owe. No Roman Catholic
bishop could be created authoritywithomuttheteb nc
o servoaf a
observances
from the Pope of Rome; and any of the
their Church required the same sacetion. The moment,
therefore, that they sanctioned the observance of the
Roman Catholic religion in this country they by impli-
cation allowed the communication (with the Pope) pro-
hibited by this statute, and for which it imposed the
penalties of high treason. If the law allowed the doc-
trines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it
should be permitted to be carried on perfectly and pro-
perly; and that could not be without such communica-
tion. On these grounds he proposed to repeal the Act."
He begged the House to observe that Lord Lyndhurst
spoke the sense of the whole Peel Cabinet. It was quite
true that the 13111 neetinied another form in its progress
through that House, inasmuch es it repealed only the
penalties, and nut the Act itself; hut the intention of Sir
H. Peel's Government was that the Act itself should
be repealed.—(hear, hear,) Lord Lyndhurst went on
further to :43 ---
"But he ?topnifd the repeal of this statute_ for other
and [still stronger reasons. No such statute exited in
sewislEd, and, what was still More remarkable, such a
statute liinadtinla country
never been passed by the Irish Parliament,
three-fourths of the inintbitapla
professed the Roman Catholic religion. Ifeeknevv•that
many of his Noble Fricuds had been, on the first iisprei-