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

L'ONDON,

court, to "John, Roman Cathelie Archbishop of Them,
awl his Grace the Priinete elf Ireland;" awl the paper
bore the-signatre or the judgeef the court,•Dr."Keat-
inge. toe preteat Master of the Roby, in finally adju-
dicating the ca•c, riTeire'd- is his- order to an affilavit
made by the " imaft Catholic Archbishop of Nene"
These were the words. The next case he would refer
to was one in which a bequest was made to Dr. John
Cantwer, Bishop of Mean; and Master Litton, in his
report, found that the possessiWn of the property vested
in " the Most ft tiv. Dr. Cantwell, Roman- Catholic
Bishop of ,eleeth;" (Mr. M.C4lragh) was entitled,
then, to say that the superior courts of law in Ireland
had recognised the existence of those titles.
• Mr. NAPIER said that on every point of the ques-
tion, especially as far as it related to Ireland, it was
important they should nee their way clearly, because an
attempt had been made to contuse the state of the law as
reearded Ireland, and induce the belief that there was a
diff-rence bet eeen the law of the two countries, and
also to induce •the people of Ireland to believe that what
the House was now engaged in was a species of crusade
against them and their religion, whereas they were only
employed in declaring what was the law and the con-
stitution of the country in the [natter. And when he
heard the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) the
other night telling them that they were declaring war
against 8,000,000 of her Majesty's subjects, at a time
when they were only explaining the law of the land, he
listened with pain and indignation to the Right
Honourable Baronet. What he challenged Honourable
Gentlemen to show was, what difference there was be-
tween the law of the two countries. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, in his amendment, spoke of the
Roman Catholic archbishops, bishops, or deacons who
shall have been recognised as such by the superior courts
of law and equity. With regard to the courts of law,
he had heard no instance mentioned of their having re-
cognised them. But there were some cases which had
occurred previous to the Act of '29 to. which he was
surprised that reference had not been made. The only
case in Ireland which would be affected by this new
legislation was that of the Bishop of Galway; and even
with regard to that it did not make the assumption of
the title a new offence, the annexation of a penalty to
what was prohibited by .the Act of '29 being in fact but
a new punishment. With respect •to what had been said
about letters of ordination, marriage certificates, and
the like, and their being put in evidence in certain cases,
in all his experience he had never known an instance
but .me of the kind, and that was the case of a marriage
certificate. But with reference to the cases he had re-
ferred to as occurring in the law courts, one was an ap-
plication to the Queen's Bench by a priest, who had be- r
come a Protestant, for a mandamus to compel Dr. Murray
to give him letters of ordination, in order that he might
pr eve his title, and obtain preferment in the Established
Church. Chief Just ce Bushe, a man of the most marked
courtesy, delivered a written judgment. and throughout
he called the Roman- Catholic bishop Dr. Murray.
Again, in the case of a property demised to a Roman
Catholic bishop and his successors, a question arose on
'he-death of the bishop between the heir-at-law and the
successor of the bishop, the former claiming by descent,
the bishop claiming as devisee; and the heir-at-law suc-
ceeded, the Court not recognising the official character
of the title. But what was the opinion of Dr. M. Halo
himself on the question of titles? In the year 1830,
writing to the Bistiop of Exeter, Dr. M'Hale said, "
then, your titles and your palaces. As for your titler,
leaving the vein ambition of such baubles to your Lord-
ship and the Gentiles, we shall be content with the me,' e
Christian office of administering to the spiritual wants
of those over whom we are appointed." In the case re-
ferred to by the Hon. and Larned Gentleman the tes-
tator bequeathed 37,0001. for charitable purouses to Dr.
Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, and Dr. Kelly, Arch-
hishop of Tusm, and their successors. On the death of

Dr. Kelly, Dr. Murray and his co trustees executed a
deed of appointment nominating Dr. M.liale the succes-
sor of Dr. Kelly, but Dr. M'Hale did not as a matter of
course, as being the successor of Dr. Kelly in the see of
Tuam, become a trustee witbt,ut that deed of appoint-
ment. Again, in the case of the letters of adcoinistra-

cion referred to by the Hon. Gentleman as having been
taken out by Dr. *Hale in the Prerogative Court, bow
did he sign the administration bond? Why, with the
words "J. Al• Hale." As to the case of Sir E. Sugden,
it was to be observed that Sir E. Sugden never biniW it.
The Master certainly did see it, and did, as he would
have done himself in similar circumstances, permitted it

to pass where there was no question about it. Such
then were the cases on which they were called upon to
make a provision. But then they were told of the
13, vests Act. Why, the book he held in his hand,
written by a Roman Catholic barrister, referred
to the Bequests Act, and declared that the
rights which the Roman Catholic bishops ex-
eroi,ed could be so exercised without acknow-

!edging them to be bishops of any particular diocese;
and also that the Bequests Act made no alteration in
their status.—(Hear.) And yet it was said that it
amounted to a declaration of war against her Majesty's
Roman Catholic subj,cts w hen they were called upon to
pass a defensive Act—(Hear)—and in so doing, he said
k hat they could make no distinction between England
and Ireland. He denied that the Roman Catholics
in England were entitled to less liberty than the Roman
Catholics in Ireland, or that the Protestants of Ireland
were entitled to less protection than the Protestants of
England.—(Cheers.) It they made any such distinction
he asked what kind of a United Kingdom they were to
have ?

Mr. REYNOLDS was not, he said, disposed to fol-
low into the maze of law into which the Hon. and
Learned Gentlemen would lead them, and who on this
occasion was to be regarded as counsel for the Irish
branch of the Protestant Established Church of England
and Irelarid.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
Man bad referred, he said with pain and indignation"
to the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur
Ripon. These were strong words to be used by one of
the meek and religious character of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman.—(Hear.) Now, he repeated the
words of the Right Hon. Baronet, and he said that the
Roman Catholic people of Ireland would consider this
Bill a declaration of war against their religion.—(Hear.
hear.) He went further, and said that it was his belief
that, if this Bill became law. the Roman Catholic re-
ligion could not be carried on in Ireland but by the
permission of the Attorney-General for the time
being.—(Hear.) Although be intended to vote for
the proviso, he set little value on ir, as it would not refer
to more than a few bishops, and even if it were carried
he would set little value on it.—(Hear, hear.) Neither
would he have voted for the amendment of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurst, which exempted Ireland,
because in doing so it would have imposed penalties on
the Roman Catholic Church in England. He believed
that the first clause being adopted without any explana-
tory proviso, the otherclauses were of little consequence,
ir in the first clause might be said to be the Bill, the
whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." The Bill itself
was a declaration of religious war; it was an attempt
to prop up the religion of the minority in Ir'eland, and
us tnrow obstacles in the way of the Catholic Church in
Ireland —established therein by no human law, but pro-
vided, maintained, and preserved therein by the law of
God; and he now told the Goyernment.that the Roman
Catholics would sooner sacrifice their lives than submit
to any law which interfered with their religion.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL remarked that at the time of
~passing the Emancipation Bill it had been officially in-
timated to the Roman- Catholic prelates that this clause
iu that Bill affecting their titles would not be acted upon.
Bearing that in mind, they used eXpressions on which
an argument was now sought to be founded by the Hon.
and Learned Member for the University of Dublin, who,
in the same breath, argue d that no attention was to be
Paid to words deliberately inserted in legal deeds. He
regretted that the Hon. and Learned Member had not
imitated the example of his co-religionists in Ireland,
and not joined- in that common clamour against the
Roman Catholics which was so disgraceful to this
country.
Sir W. VERNER remarked that the Hon. Meniber
for Dublin told the Noble Lord at the bead of the Go-
vernment that if this Bill passed it would be opposed by
the Roman Catholics of Ireland.. He, on the contrary,
said, tithe Bill became law it would be supported by the
Protestants of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) How could they
be called loyal subjects who dared the head of her Ma-
jesty's Government to enforce the law? If the Roman
Catholics opposed the law of the land, then they would
be rebels.—(Hear, hear.) And yet this was said by a
couple dozen of Roman Catholic M4mbere who were not
allowed to have an opinion of their own, but were fOrced
to obey the wishes of their clergy.—(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and cheers.) He (Sir W. Verner) hoped the English
Members would put a stop to this proceeding, they had
the means in their own hands.
Mr, M. J. O'CONNELL hoped the Government was
awake to the topics of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman.
The opposition of the Hon. Member for Dublin was le.s
feral than the support of the Hon. and Gallant Member.
Thee upporters promised by him were those men whom
Sir R. Abercrombie once said were dangerous to every
one but the enemy. Remembering past times, the de-
claration of the Hon. and Gallant Officer gave cause to
suspect danger. He flung back upon the Hon. Baronet
the imputation that CatholieW had no will of their own
with calm but perfect scorn. They were, moreover,
members of no secret societies.
Mr. SCULLY said the loyalty of the men adverted to
by the Gallant Colonel was, not long since.designated "a
sixpenny loyalty," and there was no reason to suppose it
had changed its character -since 1849. He deprecated
such imputations as were cast upon the Catholics of Ire-
land by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, and denied his
statement as to the number of Protestants in that coun-
try. In conclusion he called upon the Government not
to
place any dependence on the quasi Orangemeq of Ire-
land, but to depend upon the love tied loyalty of the Ca
tholics.

Sir W. VERNER explained. The Hon. Member bad
dared the Prim,- Minister to pass the Bill on pun of the
opposition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He (Sir
W. Verner) believed that the Hon. Member did not re-
present the opinions of that body; but if he did, then he
(Sir W. Verner) had nothing t) withdraw from his atate-
Mt !It

Mr. REYNOLDS explained. He had never dared the
Prime Mit.istar to pass the Bill; but he told him his
threats had no weight with him (Mr. Reynolds); and
thtit if be passed any penal law, the Catholics of this day
would act as their ancestors had done—stiff ,r even death

for their religion, if nec,ssary. He (Mr. Reynolds)
denounced the conduct of the Hon. and Gallant Member,
for urging on the Government to cut down his Catholic
f•ilow-countryrnen. He could tell him that the Catho-
lics despised his threats, and defied his power, and that
such braggadocia was laughed to scorn by the people of
Ireland. The Honourable and Gallant Gentleman
talked of 2 006,000 of Protestants ; but in 1835 there
were only 750 000 Episcopalians, and 750,000 of all
Wale
o, her &non:lnert, The Honourable Gentleman, with
Diamond" courage. said the Protestants
of IN-laud were three mi.lione.—(No.) If these state-
re( nts were not controverted, Honourable Gentleman
would go on
Poetising until they believed their own
gulruth.—(ol3, oh 1) So (Mr. Reynolds) hoped there

~c~. ~~