The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-28 00:00:00

,ation
been
tamed

vised
ler.")
fond
fame,

ainly
Hon.
they
at he
Gen-

'ear,

!ries
lon .
hich
lon.
1, he
and

)er'a

and

wed
of

hie-
d J.

age
in-
'or
the

aid,
ier
yat
n's
rig

those asturnint.r ecelesiattical titles in the same pesitien
as that of the 224 and 231. of Gorge end, in 1795,
when the college of Maynooth Wai CCd9Wed, so CaN;!0l
was the Legislature tit recognise uo soch thee the
Commissieners nound to curry the meature into efleet
were simply stet down 118 doctors of divinity. So the law
continued down to 1829, when the Relief Act teas
passed, the 24 di section of which imposed penalties !or as•
suming eccl, siasiieel titles. An argurneet was used in
the course of the present debate, that al Litit'S not ex-
pressly prohibited by that section were permitted. Lives
very imporianr, that it should Ott borne in ailed that that
prohibition dil not interfere with the spirituel pdvie
leges it Roman Catholic bishops, and that at that time
the Act of Eliz tbeth, being in existence, the law was
more stringent than it was at the present day. The
Rotrisn Catholic ecelesiestics of thet titne were men
equal in learning and in talent to those now in existence,
and yet not one of them complained ef threeletise, as in-
terferifig with their spirttnitt rights, hut, ott the contrary,
accepted the meatnre eith gratitude. Having then dis-
claimed ell ecclesiastical titles, what reason nose existed
for making soy distinction between Eigleild and Ireland?
The Noble Lord, on the moti ti,of the Hoe. Member for
Rochdale, said that having mole a law in regard to En;-
land, he did not think it would be oonsistent to allow any
person in any pat t of the United Kingdom to assutne
title such as the Bishop of Galway. in conseepience of is
rescript leucite d t tom the Pope. The Honourable Mem-
ber for Someretshire quoted an extract from a Rican
Catholic publication, and he would read one which was
more extraurdit,ary, and more striking, and, he re-
gretted to add, of a more profane description. Ile
found the Tablet newspaper, in speaking of the bull
appointing the Bishop of Killaloe, use the following
words:—" The law is broken, thanks be to God," and
with respect to the rescript, said to be condemnatory of
the Queen's Colleges, it used terms still more objection-
able and more repugnant, " Another rescript (tt said),
another crime, another cause of thankfulness to Al-
mighty God, and ours must be the greater, because the
direct and main object of it is to detest with ignominy
an Act of Parliament." Was the Noble Lord right, or
was he insane, to permit such scandalous attempts to
disobey the law, and the shameful abandonment of the
rights of a great nation?—(Cheers ) And yet under all
these circumstances, and with the law even as it at pre•
sent existed, these repeated defiances were allowed to go
on, and an Act framed, which did not guard every part
of the United Kingdom. The preamble of the Bill was
directed solely and exclusively at the rescript issued last
Lear, appointing a hierarchy for England. If the Noble
ord determined to extend the Bill to Ireland, he would
do for him that which he had not the courage to do for
himself. His object was to convert the declaration,
"certain briefs, rescript, or letter apostolical,"
into certain brief;, rescripts, or letters epos-
tolical ;" and also to cite and include the re-
script, brief, or letter apostolica 1 of 29th Sep-
tember, 1850; and with this object in view ho asked
how the Noble Lord could object to this amend-
ment? The legislation now proposed to meet this ag-
gression only elicited defiance, and was an encourage-
ment to further encroachments. He therefore asked,
did the Netile Lord intend to extend the law to Ireland,
and if eu, why not state it on the face of the Bill? He
Wished the House to have in a concentrated form all the
amendments, forming a series and a system. He would
full attention to another amendment. The Noble Lord
Directed attention to cue rescript, brief, or letter aposto-
lical which the preamble declared to be illegal and void.
If the preamble was carried on these terms, as he pro•
posed, it would pass to all rescripts if his amendments
were carried. The Solicitor-General being pressed by
the Member for the University of Oxford, whether he
was not inconsistent in confining the declaration of the
preamble to a particular rescript, whereas that by which
the diocese of Ross was established was equally illegal,
stated that the declaration would operate in Ireland, lie
stated the judges would apply the declaration in cases
arising in Ireland. This, however, was not a declara-
tion of the law generally, but in reference to a particular
rescript. The judges would decide according to the law
as it stood before this declaration was made.
If this declaration clause had any operation, it
would be an injurious one, and detrimental. His
Honourable and Learned Friend said it would apply
to Ireland. He would then appeal to the
noble Lord in consistency to declare it on the face of the
Bill. He would now proceed to the next amendment.
In 1846 the Noble Lord said that, to prevent parties
from assuming these titles, would be absurd and puerile.
If that was his impression it was their duty not to per--
mit the Noble Lord to give them this minimum of legis-
lation against this aggression. He appealed to the Noble
Lord whether the statute of Richard 11. was available
at the present day or not. He thought they ought to
have an answer on that point. The Noble Lord said it
was obsolete. Well, he agreed it was right that it
would, not be prudent to risk a conviction under that
statute, but at the same time he asked the Noble Lord,
did he mean to carry out the Act of Richard II , and if
so, he would say, let him declare it openly on the face of
the Bill. The value of his amendment was, that they
would bring it down to the present day, and make this
Bill accordant with the declarations of the Noble
Lord, but which he was prevented carrying into effect
by a counteracting force. His object was to protect
them from further aggression. Obsolete laws, as'Lord
Bacon observed, brought a gangrene on wholesome
laws that were to be brought into practice and exe-
cution. The Noble Lord proposed to leave the law as it
was under the 10th of George IV. What was the
effect of that Act ? The law was allowed to sleep, and
the penalties left, like mastered arms, hanging
on the walls, not meant for use. He would
ask, had the Attorney-General dune his duty ? If not,
was it likely that any Government would embarrass
itself with such a prosecution, if they could, avoid it.
He asked, was it not their duty to take care that the
law should be efficient, and not be allowed to sleep, as
it had been under the existing law? It was said he
meant an indignity to the Attorney-General; but was
he on that account to be prevented from providing a
stimulus to the Attorney-General to enforce the law?
Vhe Government was unwilling to prosecute, and he
proposed to give the power to any one to prosecute with
the consent of the Attorney-General. The effect, there-
fore, would be that if any respectable party proposed to
prosecute, if it was a proper occasion, the Attorney-Ge-
neral would consent, and if not, he would withheld his
consult, and, therefore, the matter would be left in the
hands of the Attorney-General as heretofore. He had'
brought these amendments forward in no spirit of hosti-
lity, but to sati •fy the public and to enable the Govern•
ment to act up to their declarations. This was a most
important measure to protect Protestant ascendancy,
which was assailed from within and without, and was
in a condition similar to that of the Primitive Church
when it was said to contend " with outward
fightings and with inward fears."—(Hear, hear.)
He had to contend against a power which assumed a
right to govern all—heretics and apostates, among
which Pro estants wero included. The Hoe. Aftmber
for Kerry said they would wait for an occasion, and not
anticipate it; but that would never come until it was too
late to prevent it. They had to contend with a foe
who would crouch in his lair for the fatal spring, which
would then be irresistible. He thought they ought not
to disregard the warning they had already, and not
wait until it was too late. The time was the present to
respond to the Protevant zeal of the country, and to pro-
tect the interests of t ,ose who were to come after them.
He called upon them rot to repair the breach which had
been read, by the entmy with the rubbish furuisned by
the opposite side, but with sound materials, whittle would
form an impregnable defence. The eyes of the world
were upon them. They were engaged in a contest in
which to fail would be a disgrace—which was described
by an eminent writer, that it they allowed the Pope to
introduce his bulls int) this country the honour of Eng-
land would be trampled in the dust, and be the heaviest
blow for the last three centuries egaiust human liberty
and human progress.
The Hon. Gentleman resumed his scat amidst Iced
and continued cheering.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman who had just resumed his seat had spoken with
much ability in support of the amendment to the mea-
sure he had introduced to the House; and, after very
considerable vituperation against the measure, as it now
stood, had stated that his proposed additions would make
the Bill complete, 'comprehensive, and efficient. He,
however, was surprised at the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman attaching so much consequence to the additions
he had proposed, as he (Lord J. Russell) did not con-
ceive that they were either very valuable or very strin-
gent. In the first place, let them consider what consti-
tuted the offence against which the present measure was
directed. The offence was, in tho first place, an astump-
Lion of titles in this country by a foreign Power, with-
out the knowledge or consent of the Sovereign of this
country, and in defiance, in fact, of the expressed wish of
the Government of this country. Now, to meat th at, they
proposed, in the first place, to insert in the Act that a
certain rescript,•professing to emanate from the Pope of
Rome, purporting to give these titles, had been issued in,
this country, and that such titles, conferred under such re-
script, were void and illegal. Such was the first stop the
Government took in the matter, and that he considered to
be the best mode of meeting the case, because what they
had to deal with was a document which was published
in this country openly and palpably; it was read on plat-
forms, and from idl the pulpits of the Roman Catholic
Church in this country, and therefore it was proper that
Government should take cognizance of it. Some parties
said that the proper way to meet the case would be to
pass a resolution in each House of Parliament, condem-
natory of the Act; but Government considered that the
better mode of meeting the case would be to pass a d
(Aeration in the shape of an Act of Parliament, aimin, g at
the particulat act of encroachment—reciting it, au" d de
daring it void and illegal. That, he considered., would
have been a declaration that all such acts wer , illegal,
and that they could not have effect in this con'etry. But
then the Hon. and Learned Gentleman " Ohl but
while you declare this set of the Pope illeettl, you don't
declare the otter rescripts he has issuea lobe illegal, and
the measure :fell, therefore, far short p ;
nf wilat ought
to." He, howtever, considered that fUy
pre-
sent measure areplicable to all rescrir .
es, the
...ney would very
much weaken its effects in respect to'ibis particular act.
The Honourable a.nd Learned Gear
ieman had censured
the Government for
not ma"' the measure appli-
cable to all similar rescripts; i
was liable to censure in tee
Hon. and
Learned Men iber for rilidhu• .it respect, the
est (Mr. Walpole), who had
proposed the clause, IV" te.
y so, for he had confined
it to this paelicular rftsr,arpt. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman )111- a
slaty d ties% the effect of their not having
extended the melee to all similar rescripts as that
complained of; w' out di have the effect of embarrassing
the judges, shoube, t' tip ever be called upon to put the
clauses of the Act i ato force. Not being a lawyer, he
would not enter it t
r 'a leant argument on that point, but
he thought the - • t'
u expressed by the Lion. and
Learned Gentlema 'pinto
was
21, respecting it, so contrary to
the common-seas
.11 dew of the subject, that they could
not be considere'
sc. now. Instead of the measure as it
now stood, ern'
Jai 'missing a judge, it occurred to him
that thejudge I •
Afore, whom such span would come, would

ray, " I see, by the Acts o fßieherd the Sceond and
Elie tbeth, that such acts oil ttO pint of a foreign pow( r
are the nl, and I sin eterengthe fled in that opinion by
what occurr, d in 185 e, when Parltemeht &aired by
Act of Parliennent a reeteept issued ey the Pope in
S 'W",llbcr of to e pteeriting year to 61 and II-
That was the construction which he thought
any learned judge before whom such a case might
Clint). would put ueou the matter. The Hon. aid
Learned Gentlemen ad that the contrary would be the
effect; that the ju,lge .woeld deektee that mile all such
reecripte were doctored illeg,l by the Acrs of Richard
the S, coui, and Eliz ibeth, the Act of 1851 only ren-
dered one of these re:scripts illegal, aed that a else-
fluently a doubt wits raised as to the legality of all others,
He did net, as he had setd, think that any judge would
come to such a coeclusion, and that beMg the case, he
did not think there was any necessity for adopting the
amendment on that else's', as lie thought they ss ould
lose the effect of the measure tielYse they confined it to
this particular rescripe eV i:h regard to the case of Ire-
land, he had delays coretidered that any Art of mice a
nature as this should refer equally to ad parts of the
United Kiugdotn.—(llear, hear.) Bet then there could
be no doubt that when the pry ,:ent Pope canes' into
power, finding that eel r since about forty years after the
lt,forrnation, archbishops and bishops belonging to the
Roman Catholic Church had been appointed to sees in '
Irelirel, he felt himself justified its continuing these op-
pointen•iits. The ccse, however, seas differeet as re-
garded England, for hare the Pope had divided the
country iteo diocese,, 'and had appointed to them
archbishops and hishiepe wi:hout even askiee
the consent of the Queen or Goveremeet of
this country, and it was that Act with which
the Government aid the Hou:e had now to deal. With
respect to those Irish bishops, it was not to be ex-
pected but that the Pope would fill up the vacancies in
any of the sees when such occurred, land such might net
be considered much aggression; but with respect to the
aggression of 1850, that was one which the Pope might
and ought to have avoided, and at till events asked the
consent of the Sovereign of this country before he had
made it. There was, therefore, in Oita of common
:tense and reason, a considerable difference in that which
had been done in Ireland since, he believed, the y ear
1600 iu respect of the appointment of Roman Catholic
bishops, tend what had been done in England in Sept.,
1850. That appeared to be the opinion of the people of
this country, for he had never heard them object to the
appointment of Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, al-
though they had done so when the same was attempted
in England. With respect to the other ameedment to
the enacting part of the Bill, he did not consider it of
much importance, and would not trouble the House with
referring to it.—(llear, hear.) Then came, however, what
was more important, for the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man proposed next, that any one should not be allowed
of himself to institute proceedings against parties who
might infringe this Act, but that any party might do
so with the consent of the Attorney-General. He
owned that prosecutions of this nature were matters
which so affected the State, that those who repre-
sented the State sought to have the sole power to
institute them. Let the House consider what were the
considerations which those who represented the Go-
vernment ought to have in view previous to instituting
them. Previous to instituting all such prosecutions
there were four consideratiens which Government ought

well to weigh. In the first place, had the offence been
committed? S,Tond, could they adduce legal and suffi-
cient evidence of its having been committed?
Third,
supposing the offence had been committed, andtird
that
there was legal evidence of its being so, were they likely
to obtain a verdict? And in the fourth place, suppos-
ing they were sure to have a verdict, would any public
benefit ensue from such a prosecution being instituted?
All these were mutters for Goverument to consider.
With respect to the two fiist, not a week passed but what
they might institute prosecutions for libel, and prove
them by most satisfactory evidence ; but if these took
place, the jury who tried the case would be told that the
prosecution had been raised to cover the delinquencies of
a corrupt and persecuting Government, so that the
parties prosecuted for libels would be raised in public
consequence, and their libels more extensively read
than ever. It was a serious matter, therefore, for the
consideration of the Government whether such pro-
secutions ought to be instituted or not, and whether
any public advantage would accrue from them. Wise
men who had formerly held high positions in the
Government of this country had seen the propriety of
always observing great forbearance in respect of these.
There was a well-known story told of a circumstance
which took place between Sir Robert Walpole and Sir
William Wyndham in that House. Sir William Wynd-
ham made an attack in that House on the Sovereign, and
used language most disrespectful; upon which Sir
Robert %V alpole said, " I see what he wants; he wants
me to send him to the Tower, but I shall do no such
thing." In his opinion Sir Robert Walpole acted wisely,
for Sir William Wyndham would have been greatly
raised in public notoriety by such imprisonment. He
said then that as all these matters required so much con-
sideration, they ought not to be left to be instituted on
the bidding of every individual, but left to the decision
of the Government. Besides the proposal, he thought,
would defeat itself, for the Attorney- General would of
course refuse his consent in all cases where he thought
prosecutions ought not to be issued, and, therefore, there
would le,t Ltd° effect which could attach to the amend-
ment. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had com-
plained that Attorney- Genet als had not done their duty
in not instituting these prosecutions in casts vi here the
Act of 1829 had been infringed, but that was a com-
plete mistake, for his belief was that Chief Justice
Blackburn and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland
had done their duty in that respect. It they heel
neglected their duty, why did not the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman, when Attorney-General and
Solicitor-General, which be was for a considerable time,
remind the Home Secretary that they were failing to do
so? That he had not done, and, therefore, he could now
have no ground of complaint. Upon the whole he
thought that the effect of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man's amendments would be to weaken, instead of
strengthen, the measure; and he would therefore leave
the House to decide as to whether they ought to be
adopted. The House, in considering the question, could
not forget what had taken plane at toe commencement of
the discussion, when a conside:able number of Members,
who represented counties and towns iu Ireland, had re-

tired from the House. In an ostentatious manner they
had refused to take part in the deliberation of the ques-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) They must, however, be held as
consenting parties; and it' the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
men succeeded, he would consider those parties who
had left responsible E,r such success.—( dear.) He
found nothing in these amendments which would pre-
vent him from going on with the measure, wnicti he
would do his hest to carry through successfully.
Mr. NAPIER supported the amendments, and contended
that while there had nut been any infringements of the Act
of 1829 in Ireland, during the time the Hon. and Learned
Member for Abingdon was Attorney-General, yet there had
very soon after the Noble Lord came into power. He then
found, on Lord Clarendon bein4 sent to Ireland, that De.
711.11a1e, in an address which was p. esented to that Noble
Lord, delsignated himself as Archbishop of Tuam, and was,
in the reply to that address, styled by Lord Clarendon "My
Lord," and recognised as a peer of the realm. That, there-
fore,-was an infringement of the Act of 1829.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not so much
obje:ct to the first two amendments proposed by his Hon. and
Learned Friend, although he considered that the measure
eras much better as it stood. With reference to the introdee,
tion of words respecting rescripts introduced into Eogland
ai id Ir land, there was no necessity for the allusion. The law
the two countries was the same. The sovereignty of the
Crown was the same. Government directed their legislation
against this act of aggression on the part of the Roman Pon-
tiff because it was au invasion of the rights and prerogatives
of the sovereignty of the Crown. He undertook to say that
no judge who was called upon to enforce the law in Ireland
would have any difficulty in administering the law for Ire-
land, as it was intended it should affect rescripts in England.
The Biel, in Ls present state, was equally applicable to all
rescripts received in Ireland as to the special rescript consti-
tuting bishoprics in England, but he did not regard it as a
matter of any great importance which way they decided, one
way or the other. With respect to the amendment which
proposed to make parties receiving and acting on rescripts
liable to the penalties of the Bill, he objected to it because
of its tendency to make the penalties cumulative. Be-
yond this, he did not see any great harm in the
amendment. If the House chose to inflict a double
penalty for taking titles, and procuring, publishing, and
putting in use, within any part of the United Kingdon, any
Papal briefs or rescripts, that was a subject for the House to
consider and determine on. They should bear in mind.
however, that the object of the amendment was to inflict
two penalties for what was substantially the same offence.
The third anaendment, giving power to the common informer
to institute actions, with the consent of the Attorney-
General in -England and Ireland, or her Majesty's Advocate
in Scotla'ad, was the most objectionable. That was a
matter of serious importance, and should be well weighed
by the House. The cases contemplated by the Bill were not
those in which the common informer should be allowed
to act. Such prosecutions should be left to the public pro-
secutor, sicting under the responsibility of the Government.
It was r;osurd to urge that they could not depend upon a
public officer, such as her Majesty's Attorney-General and
Judge. Advocate, discharging his public duties. such a
state Anise was paying a poor compliment to public officers.
Let, him not be told that in the present state of public'
opinion in England the Bill, when it became law, would
rot be enforced. If prosecutions were not instituted in
-Ireland by the law officers of the Crown against parties
offlr.nding. it was because public opinion in Ireland did not
desire or demand an enforcement of the law; but the case
'Brats different in England. The public mind was in a state of
exciter.aent in consequence of an attempt on the part of the
Uor.uan Pontiff to infringe on the rights and prerogatives of
the Crown. No law officer of the Crown under such circum-
stances. would sleep at his post, and no Government with
which he was connected would permit him to do so. By intro-
ducing the common informer, and allowing him to prosecute,
it was clear they would lower the character of the offence to
the character of those other offences where common in-
formers were permitted .to prosecute. They would lower
the character of the prosecutions and of the public prose-
cutor. For these reasons he would oppose the alterations
proposed to be made by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Abingdon.
The House then divided on the, question of substituting in
the preamble the words " briefs and rescripts" for " brief and
rescri pt." There appeared—
For th amendment ... ••• 135
Against
Majority for Sir F. Thesiger's amendment
and against Government ... —35
The announcement of this Ministerial defeat was followed
by tremendous cheering from the Opposition benches.
It was then proposed to insert in the preamble the words
"and particularly by a certain brief, rescript, or letters epos-
tolical. '
Lord J. RUSSELL, considered the words unnecessary, but
he would not divide against their insertion.
The preamble, as amended, was then ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
On the question that Sir Frederick Thesiger's third amend-
ment—namely, that in the first clause the words " all such
briefs and rescripts" should be inserted, for " the said brief
and rescript,"
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that, before the House
proceeded to deal wits the next part of the Bill, he desired
to ask the House if they were not, to a certain extent, prac-
tising &delusion on the public, by holding out.that the sug-
gegio, or addition/4 or arheatlmente of the Hon. and Lamed