The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

course to proceed in the usual maltn-r; namely, to post-
pone the preamble until they 1-1,,d di,eu,secl the clausPs
of the Bill. He had, upon the suggestion of an Hon.
Member, consented once to discuss the preamble first;
but, from the difficulties that subs, que,,tty arose in con-
sequence he was warned against agreeing to such a course
again.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—But what about the rescript?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was qui7e clear that even
if he consented to discuss the preamble it would lead to
nothing practical, for then the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury would ask for the rescript. If, then, they laid the
rescript upon the table the Hon. Member would ask for
the authority to prove it to be the one upon which they
were legislating. Wny, when they were discussing the
Bill of 1829 he might as well have asked for the proof
of the fact of certain Roman Catholic bishops assuming
episcopal titles in England and Ireland. Why as to the
rescript the matter was notorious, and required not any
proof.--(Uear.)
After a few words from Mr. T. DUNC 0 VIBE, in reply,
Mr. MOORE reminded the Noble Lord that when

the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford ventured to express an opinion upon the
first clause, the Noble Lord said he ceulu not have read
the preamble of the Bill, and unless he read the pre-
, amble it was impossible he could understand the first
clause. That was then an argument in favour of
their discussing the preamble of the Bill More the
clauses.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the Noble Lord him-
self was to blame for so much time being occupied in
this way. He did not think the statement of the Noble
Lord at all satisfactory. No doubt it was the general
custom to postpone the preamble; but this was a mea-
sure which did not fall within the general rules. It was
not in principle or form an ordinary Bill. He con-
cluded by saying, that if Hon. Members wished the
preamble to be discussed, he certainly would support that
proposition.
Mr. KEOGH said he gave notice of a motion that the
preamble should not be postponed, but should be dis•
. cussed first. There was a complaint that they made no
progress. He could tell the Noble Lord why they had
made no progress that night, or since the Bill had been
introduced. He wished to take the Noble Lord out of
his difficulty. The reason was, that he had not defined
what he wanted to effect. He stated that he did net
desire to go beyond the necessity of the case. Why
then did he not state what it was that was necessary,
. and what the necessity required. Be did not d., that.
He was constantly chopping and changing. He first
gives up a clause at the instance of the Irish Members,
and then, under pressure, takes a clause from the Hon.
Member for Midhurst. Ye takes from the same party a
piece of the preamble, and then, on the other side, gives
up a bit of the preamble. He did not know his own
mind. Then he struck out four lines from the ori-
ginal Bill after he (vlr. Keogh) had challenged the
law officers of the Crown to state that the allega-
tions contained in them were true in law and in fact.
The Noble Lord framed his Bill by balancing between
opposite parties. Nut fixing upon anything definite was
the reason they made no progress with the Bill. The
Noble Lord gave facilities to other gentlemen which
- they did not possess, on finding that the Honourable
Member for Midhurst gave notice of an amendment
which originally stood in the first clause, and now stood
in the second. This arose from the accidental meeting
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-
General, by which his amendment would apply to the
present form of the Bill, but they had not the good for-
tune to meet an Attorney-General in search of a pre-
amble, or a Minister in search of a clause.—(Laughter.)
The consequence was that an amendment of his would
not fit the Bill. He asked was that fair? The Noble
Lord said it was the universal practice to postpone the
preamble, but that was because the Bills introduced were
based upon some principle clearly defined. Was that
the case in this instance? At one time the Noble Lord
said it was to repel Papal aggression—at another to pre-
vent synodical action—and then it was to meet a wide-
spread conspiracy formed against civil and religious
liberty. The Attorney-General said it would prevent
synodical action. Was that the object of the Bill, or
had the Noble Lord retired from it? He was an•
xious to take the preamble first, because he felt
he would be able to show that it was not true, and if they
overthrew the very basis of this measure, the super-
structure must necessarily fall to the ground. He bad
a petition to present the other evening against the Ec-
clesiastical Titles Bill, signed by a perish priest in the
diocese of Raphoe. Knowing that the Hon. Baronet
the Member for Oxford took exception to similar signa-
tures, he asked if he would take an objection to this pe-
tition, when the Hon. Baronet answered " diminionis."
He would not notice it. The preamble referred to a re-
script giving titles. Now the only rescript of the Pope
which they knew of was that of dividing England into
dioceses, but in that rescript there was no mention
made of Cardinal Wiseman's name. Then the Attor-
ney-General, when he explained the object of the Bill,
gave a different version from that urged by the Solici•
tor-General. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
contended that the section of the Bill which made it
il-
legal for archbishops and bishops to take titles, would
repeal the Charitable Bequests Act. The 15th section
of that Act enabled parties to bequeath money to the
Commissioners of Charitable Bequests, for the use and
benefit of archbishops and bishops of the Roman
Catholic Church in Ireland. If a bequest was
made to, for instance, the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Cork, he would not be able to receive this bequest, be-
cause it would be illegal for him, under this Bill, to take
• upon himself the title. Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and
Mr. Baddeley held that such would be the effect of the
clause in the Bill before the House. No answer had
been given to this. It was, therefore, the blunders of
the Government, and not the hostility to the measure,
• that caused the Bill to be delayed in its progress.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it would have been
as well if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should
have stuck to the precise question before the Committee
—namely, whether or net the preamble was to be post-
poned. Instead of doing this, the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman raised up a host of objections to every
portion of the Bill, and treated the House to ingenious
arguments as regarded the affect which this Bill would
have upon the Charitable Bequests Act. He reserved
to himself the power of replying to this objection when
the proper time arrived.—(Oh!) Surely no argument
bad been urged to show that the preamble should not
be postponed until the clauses were agreed to. Such
was the constant practice of Parliament. He denied
that the Bill was at all changed.—(Laughter, and cries
of " Oh, oh,") The obj. ct of the Bill was to pre-
vent the assumption of titles, but it was shown that
certain clauses in the Bill would have interfered with
the functions of Roman Catholic bishops, and these
clauses were struck out, and all the alterations that had
been made in the Bill bad been with the view of carry-
ing out the original intention of the measure, without in-
terfering with the functions of the bishops. He denied
that any communication had taken place between the
law officers of the Crown and the Hon. and Learned
Member for Midhurst since Friday night last. He per-
fectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir G.
Grey) that there was every propriety in inserting the
Hon. Member's preamble as a declaratory clause in the
Bill. Again, the Hon. and Learned Member for Ath-
lone (Mr. Keogh) raises a very strong objection against
the insertion of the word " dean" after the word
" bishop," but, for his part, he could not account for
such opposition on such trivial grounds.—(ob, oh.) He
was also astonished that the Right Pon. Gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) should hazard his opinion by stating
that there were new features in the present Bill, for he
assured the Committee that there was nothing new what-
ever in it.—(Laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none
took place.
On our return wo found Mr. REYNOLDS addressing
the Committee amid general expressions of impatience.
He complained that the Attorney and Solicitor-General
had thrown no light upon the matter, and he called upon
the latter Hon. and Learned Gentleman to answer this
question:—Did he mean by the preamble of the Bill and
the few clauses that were included in it to interfere with
the free action of the Catholic bishops and clergy of the
• United Kingdom in the discharge of their clerical duty?
Did he mean to repeal the provisions of the Bequests
Act, or to direct attention merely to that rescript of
which the Hon. Member for Finsbury said they ought to
have a copy upon the table? At present they were dis-
cussing the matter in the dark, and he thought he was
warranted in moving that the Chairman should report
progress and ask leave to sit again.—(" Oh, ob.")
Mr. ROEBUCK, who was scarcely audible, said no-
body could be more oppolsed to this Bill than himself,
but, if they were to govern the country by means of a
deliberative assembly, certain forms of order were abso-
lately necessary.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure he was
addressing gentlemen who would believe that he had the
same object as they as far as regarded their opposition to
this measure, and that he would do all he could by fair
argument and by an open and honest opposition to put
an end to the Bill; but he entreated Hon. Gentlemen
from Ireland, as they had a regard for their own coulee
pLe ceite a t hourm°gPoPosition.—
try, not to condescend to s
to a divi-
(Loud cries of e Hear, hear.)
divi-
sion. Let them be beaten. They would not be con-
quered be cause they were beaten.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed that the sooner the Biil should be brought into
action as a law the better, because so soon as it became
a law its impotency would be discovered, and the imbe-
cility of the Government that framed it would be made
notorious to the world. Let the Government have their
Bill; that was the way to do them the surest mischief;
but he entreated Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to adopt
a fair, honest, open opposition.—(Cheers.) Let them not
trifle 'with the forms of the House, which a long experi-
ence had enabled Englishmen to use with advantage.
Don't let it be said that it was reserved for gentlemen
from Ireland to prove that the House of Commons could
not govern itself.—(Hear hear.)
Mr. MOORE fully appreciated the advice which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had just tendered them,
but how stood the case? Her Majesty's Government
had that day introduced a Bill into the House which
every lion. Gentlemen, with the exception of the mem •
hers of the Government, had stated that he did not un-
derstand, and even the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
himself, who had as acute a mind as any one in the
House, had said that he could not understand it. It was
unreasonable to call upon them to proceed with the Bill
under these circumstances.
Mr. ROEBUCK quite agreed with the Hon. Gentle.
man that the postponement might be asked for the pur-
pose of letting the subject be understood.
Mr. MOORE—That is my object.
Mr. ROEBUCK—But a proceeding having that object
did not begin with a discussion as to postponing the pre-
amble, and then accumulate opposition by a motion to
report progress. They ought not to take any course
which might expose them to the imputation that they
were not fighting fairly.—(Hear, hear.) It they said
openly that they were not in a position to fight the Bill
because they did not understand it. they ought to say at
once, " Give us till to-morrow." But they had been dis-
cussing the preamble, and now came to a second propo-
lid= that the Chairman ekould report Progreso.
v 1 IL-