The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-03 00:00:00

furred to -the preamble, so that the preamble was so
framed as to lay a proper foundation for it. When they
• eame to the preamble he should press on Government
the propriety of considerably uttering the preamble
Which was introduced, not with reference to the de-
claratory clause, but to provisioes Kith which that
clause had no connexion. Two thiegs were essential;
filet, that the measure be framed in scion a manner as to
prevent fature legislation. Tney hat declared. the Papal
brief of 1850 Hiegel and void; the necessary consequence
of that was, that the Howie ought aleolo prohibit by the
Bill any brief for the same purpose coning into theconn-
try,,which Would occasion a similar am unt of excite-
ment : He might say in the second clause of the Bill it
teigb Ibe necessary to introduce a special proviso sub-
jectit ig persons bringing Papal briefs into this ceuetry to
petialty. He would state before he came to the end of
his observations the exact words he proposed to intro-
s duce in the second clause. The third point which he
thought essential to the proper working of the Bill was,
that if they passed a law of this kind care should be
' taken that it be enforced, and should nut be allowed to
Blum ber on the statute-book.—(EDar, bear.) He would
rather have no Bill at all than a law which it was nut
intend ed to etiforce. Either thiameasure was just or
unjus te If unjust, it ought not to be passed into ala ;
but if' just, then iebehoved them - to take care that it
should not be passed with the intention of not being en-
fore( id.--(Hear.) That raised the question as to how
the liaw was to be enforced. The Government proposed
that to the Attorney-General alone should be left the
The ter to prosecute for the pen dry. He had suggested
that any indivi ,uai should be at liberty to do so. He
' tht enght both courses open to o's.j. csien. The Govern-
-nu Mt plan was clearly open to ebj .ction, because by it
• the country' would have no guerante, that this measure
Would be enforced any more than the act of 1829. Oe
'the other hand, he could not but feel that leasing to soy -
ibot ly the right of prosecution might make the measure
• an instrument of oppression and persecution. They all
knew that there were persons who were warm partisans
—enthusiastic individuals with more zeal than 'discre-
tion who might be induced to prosecute under the Biel
if they had the power to do so, but who would bring to
that prosecution their own imperfect intelligence and in-
' sufficient grounds, and thus defeat the object of the mem-
- sure. that were so, two great difficulties had to be
dE 'alt with. In the first place, they were all agreed that
tb a principle upon which to proceed- was that the law
chi mid be enforced, but that in enforcing it it should
note be made either vexatious- or oppressive. He thought
the, suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Member for
• Abijegdon would meet this objection. The Hon. and
Lea owed Gentleman proposed that the Crown as well as
the subject should be able to prosecute for the penalty.
Tht :`effect of that would be that the Crown as well as
the subjeet will both of them have the power as well as
the iinterest to see that the law was properly enforced.
If the Attorneys General should slumber at his post—
, he. did' not think his Honourable and Learned Friend
ivo aid be liable to that imptvation—by giving to the
sat ject the right to prosecute, and by imposing on
the Attorneys General the necessity of putting a veto
on the proceedings in case he did not think the
' pros ecution advisable—the Attorney-General would be
pred ented becoming ' remiss -or negligent when the
.Birt became law. So, on the other hand, by giving
-to I be Crown the right of vetoing a prosecution by an
ind ividual, care was taken as far as possible by legisla-
to provide against the possibility of any oppressive
or vexatious enforcement of the law.—(Hear.) He be-
. .11.31 •ed he- had explained the greater portion of the
amt mclments he had given notice of, with the exception
of-eune to which- the Noble Lord opposite alluded at the
- eon elusion of the debate on Friday. The Noble Lord
had then asked him what he meant to do with regard
to' cumulative penalties. He did not think there were
e-an.y cumulative penalties in the amendments. A power
was proposed to be given to the Crown of deporting a
e 'peel ion fur the second offence. Now there were great
diffi eulties—he might say there was great imprudence—
e ,ny individual proposing such en emendment as that,
if t he Government—with whom rested the responsibility
of s teeing that the laws were properly observed and en-
. fon red—should think such an amendment not necessary
for the enforcing of a law like this. Considering, there-
,' 'forte, that the responsibility was with the Government—
cot taidering it -was better to prevent, if possible, the re-
:pet ition of similarencroaohments by mild rather than by
see .ere and oppressive punishments—and considering also
the ,t some credit ought to be given to Roman Catholics,
the at if the Bill passed they did not intend to disobey it,
he had, speaking for himself alone, come to the
cot solusion that he ought not to press the deportation
cis 'use. Of the three points, therefore, of which he had
gieren notice, only one was now before them. The
'HI mse having declared the brief illegal, ought to pro-
'hit sit the introduction of like briefs under penalties simi-
le,: to those that were imposed for the assumption of
ee cleeiastical titles. He, therefore, proposed to insert,
el !ter the words "any person," the folio eing words:
" who shall hereafter obtain or cause to be procured
•se from the See of the Bishop of R ,me, or shall publish or
!put in issue, any brief, rescript, letters apostolical, or
• . 'other instrument or wiling, for the purpose of cunetitut-
- . lug within the kingdom of England a nierarchy of bishops
named from sees, and with titles- derived from places, be-
. ilotegieg to the Crown of England."—(Hear.) Then fol-
• loived words which would subject him to the same penal-
lie s as if he had swum, d ecclesiastical titles.
The question having been put,
.. Mr. ROCHE thought the amendment so important
tl oat it ought to be printed before being discussed
Mr.. WALPOLE said it was nearly the same as the
a mendment on the votes. The only difference was that
tl se words " United Kingdom" were omitted with refe-
rt mace to publication; and instead of "for the purposes
aeloresaid," he had made a recital of them, in order to
r, take the clause intelligible.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave the Hon. and
- Learned Member for Midhurat credit for wishing •to
niiake the Bill as perfect as possible; but, nevertheless,
• thought the clause he bad just proposed open to very
great objection. In fact, it would have the effect of mak-
e. brig the penalties cumulative. (The Hoe. and Learned
Gientleman here proceeded to read the amendments as
tl my stood on the paper, when Mr. Walpole intimated
that he gave up toe third amendment.) He (the Attor-
siey-General) should confine his remarks to the second,
which the Committee, he thought, would see involved
Ctemulative penalties. It
,provided that if any person
hould publish, or put in use, &c., any brief such as that
• referred to in the preamble and in the first clause, he
• -should be liable in a penalty of 100/. But, let it be ob-
served, that if a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic should have
- received from Rome a brief or .rescript appointing him
bishop of Some diocese, with territorial title, 'he
!would be liable to a twofold penalty under this
provision in the second clause, because he would be
litable if he accepted the brief, and he would be liable
,he assumed the title. The title could not be
assumed except by virtue of a rescript of the Pope, and
the real. offence, and that against which the Bill was di-
- need, was the assumption of the title. By the amend-
• meat, therefore, it was proposed to split one transaction
into.two, and to inflict for that which was but one of-
fence two penalties. It was, therefore, cumulative in its
character. If the person who procured the brief was a
. different person. from the person who assumed the title,
then it might be said that there was a different offence.
It the diocese was once constituted the rescript might be
- -supposed to have been issued by the Pope for tee pur-
pose of appointing a bishop, and the parties would be
liable under the provieien in the second clause. The
:- Attorney-General in framing an information under this
Bill against the assumption of title under rescript from
• Rome, would state both points, and all the parties would
be liable to the penalty. He apprehended that that was
not what the Committee desired. Let the law be well
known; and he thought it would prevent a repetition of
the aggression. . -
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that knowing the overwhelm-
.
ingepinion of the House in favour of legislation on this
- subject, he had thought that he would best befriend the
measure by leavi, git in their hands. It was because
be wished to e the Bill efficient that he should support
'the amendment of the Hon. Member for Midhurat. He
did not think —.see was any gr, sad for the objection of
the Attorn.s General. Indeed, he thought as far as he
had heard the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that he had
Shown, act that the penalty was cumulative, but that
' there might be two offences wi-h the penalty attaching
to each. The wowing a rescript and the assumption of
_ titles. were:different offences. So if a person having as-
sumed a title should follow it up by issuing et pastoral
• - letter, that would be a separate offence.
- Mr..ROCHE thought the disagreement of opinion
- among those learned in the law showed the necessity of
. basing the amenchnene printed and considered before
being called on to agree to it. He gave the Hon. and
Learned Amber for Midhuret credit for wishing to make
,* bad Bill worse. He had no wish to throw obstacles in
the way of the Bill, but felt it his duty to move that the
amendment be postponed:
The CHAIR MAN said it was not.competent for the
Hon.:and Learned Member to make such a motion.
• - Mr, IdIJME had always understood that the consider-
' -Mimi of any ameedment might be postponed.
The-CHAIRMAN said if ehe Member who_ proposed
„1 so amondment thought proper toot(rzendut h
t;
ed;-r
• . nonetn ent• of it, then it might be pos
knew an amendment postponed merely on the motion of
another-Hon. Member.
• Mr. MOORE urged postponement. The lawyers
were in doubt, and at variance in their opinions. The
fiest.clause was surrounded with difficulties, and the
a House had passed it without knowing what it meant.
s He begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
• Sir R. INGLIS thought the discussion which had
• -arisen on the amendment bad proceeded entirely on a
misconception. It had been assumed that the Honour-
able and Learned Member for telidburst had added
ded
.- something to the amendment of which he had
• _ notice, while the only alteration he bad made was the
omission of a portion of it. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman did not propose to take the sense of the Com-
mitteeen anything which they had not bad deliberately
before them.
•e Sir F. THESIGER trusted the Hon. Member for
Mayo would not press his amendment forreporting pro-
great', because it appeared to him that the Irish Members
—if he might be pardoned the expression—ought to be
the last persons to resist the alteration proposed, for the
amendment pointed merely to the kingdom of England.
• From the first the Government bad declared their inten-
tion to extend the Bill to Ireland, and to. have the law
uniform. He had ventured to propose an amendment,
extending the Bill to all rescripte, similar to that of the
29th September; but had gives way, in the belief that
the suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Midhuret would effect the object he had in view. He
had, however, reserved to himself the right of pro-
s-
posing the amendments in the report in case the
Hon. and Learned. Member for Midhurat should not
be successful. , The Hon. and . Learned Gentleman,
by restricting his amendment to E had se ehangel
the character of it, that though he approved of it as tar
as it went, he must fall back on his right to propose his
cwn amendment on the bringing up of the report.
• Mr. MOORE said the Irish Members had no wish to
-obatruct.. the. They 74114 W .UndeTstaixt that