The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

TI 1E StIN,,

7,51

right to hear the opinions of the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the first law officer for Ireland, sitting below
him.—(Much laughter, arising from the circumstance that
the Hon. Member th-s alluded to was Mr. Bernal, and not
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who we believe was
not in the House.) He thought the House had also a right
to know the opinions of the Secretary for Ireland.—(Cheers
from the Irish Members.) For himself, regarding the mea•
sure as one of persecution, he should oppose the Bill.
Sir F. TIIESIGER believed it to be the general wish—he
wished he could say it was the general expectation of the

House, that the House should come to a division to•night.—

(Hear, hear.) He felt that he was about to speak upon an
exhausted subject, and to a wearied audience; but he most
earnestly desired to explain his views, in order that the
course he was about to pursue might not be mistaken. It
was almost impossible to express an opinion upon this subject
without giving offence to the religious feelings of a portion
of the community. Protestants believed that an unjust
aggression had been committed. Roman Catholics, on the
other hand, thought that the course that had been adopted
of repressing that aggression involved an invasion of civil
and religious liberty. Now, he was anxious to hear how
the Bill proposed to carry out the proposed object of the
Noble Lord.— ( Hear, hear.) He had not heard any
satisfactory explanation of the mode in wa ch the mea-
sure before the House would repress the present aggression,
or raise any barrier to prevent similar acts in future.—
( Hear, hear.) If a person's object were to prevent the
assault of an adversary he thought he would not
be content with warding off the blow aimed at him, but that
sound policy required that he should disable his opponent
from further mischief—(Hear.) Now, what had led to this
aggression? He did not believe that any Roman Catholic
Member of that House had explained that any religious ne-
cessity had existed for the important change made by the
Papal brief. (Hear, hear.) It might be supposed that a full
explanation upon this point would be g !reia in the not very
reasonable, calm, or temperate appeal of the new cardinal to
the reason and good feeling of the English pe pie. There, if
anywhere, would surely be found an explanation of the reli-
gious wants of the Roman Catholic people, and so able a
reasoner would certainly not lose sight of the importance of
such an argument in favour of the Pope. Cardinal Wise-
man alleged that the object was to introduce ' the real and
complete code of the Church;" that for this purpose the Ro-
man Catholics must have a hierarchy. He said that the
canon law was inapplicable under vicars apostolic, that be-
sides, there were many points that required to be synodically
adjusted, and that, without a metropolitan and suffragans,
a provincial syno 1 was out of the question. There
might have been other motives. Was there n thing in the
circumstances cf the present time which made the Pope be-
lieve that he might succeed in advancing his power and
authority in this country ? There bad been many deployable
defections from the Established Church •- many had embraced
some of the most characteristic doctrines of the Church of
Rome, and some conscientious but ill-judging men, were de-
sirous of reviving forms and ceremonies which had beconie
obsolete in the Protestant Church because they di f not tend
to edification. ' Others wished to restore the g neous cere-
monies of the Roman Catholic religion. The language used
by some et our statesmen, too, might have conveyed to the
"cope the impression that any interference on his part in
creating a new order of bishops would not be resented.—
(Hear, hear.) Above all, he believed a misapprehension had
been entertained with regard to the depth of the Protestant
feeling which ran with so strong a current through the life
blood of the country. He was entitled to assume that it was
not from any ieligious necessity this step had been taken,
and, therefore, so far as England was concerned, we were
called on to resist the aggression, and by means of legii-
lation to prevent the intrusion of any foreign autho-
rity upon us in the manner proposed. But Ireland had, for
a long series of years, possessed her Roman Catholic bishops
with the titles of Irish sees. The use of these titles had.heen
permitted and sanctioned, and therefore the Government,
after having by their connivance justified the course pursued
by the Irish bishops, had no right now to extend their legis-
lation to the sister island.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hoe.
Friend (Sir J. Graham) in the course of his remarkable
speech said that in 1792 an Irish Act had passed for banish-
ing all the archbishops and bishops from Ireland, but that,
so strong was the feeling in favour of complete religious
toleration, that next year, in 1793, that Act was repealed.
He was astonished to hear that statement, and thought it
right to apply to his Right Hon. Friend to know on what
authority he made it. His Right Hon. Friend said that the
Duke of Wellington, in the debate of 1829, made this asser.
tion in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, and
Lord Tenterden, and that he (Sir J. Graham) thought him-
self entitled in consequence to consider it correct. Now he
(Sir F. Thesiger) had since satisfied himself that no such Act
was passed in 1792 -- (Cheers)—and he need not say that no
Act was passed in 1793,,t0 repeal that Act.—(Hear, hear.)
By the Act of 1782. Roman Catholic ecclesiastics were per-
mitted to remain in Ireland upon registering themselves.
But there was a most extraordinary exception in the eighth
section, —that no person was entitled to the benefit of that
Act who assumed or took any ecclesiastical rank or title
whatever.—( Hear, hear.) In the Act of 1795, on which the
college of Maynooth was founded and endowed, the Roman
Catholic prelates were named after all the laity, and they
were named, not by their titles as bishops, but as doctors of
divinity.—(Hear. hear.) The practice, therefore, of assum-
ing ecclesiastical titles was entirely contrary to law In-
deed, the Acts against the assumption of ecclesiastical rank
and title in Ireland by Roman Catholics were stronger than
any passed in England. It was said that, because by the
Act of 1829 a penalty was attached to the assumption of
titles of particular sees, that Act was a virtual repeal, as to
all other titles, of all the Acts passed up to that time. But
every lawyer knew that one affirmative Act did not repeal
another, unless one was irreconcilable with the other.
(Hear, hear.) The Roman Ca,holic B ,quests Act of 1844
recognized the status of the Roman Catholic bishops ; and in
1847 Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, wrote the following
circular to the governors of colonies:
" But, as Parliament has by a recent Act (that relating to
Charitable Bequests in Ireland) formally recognised the rank
of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates by giving them pre-
cedence immediately after the prelates of the Established
Church of the same degree, . . . it has appeared to her
Majesty's Government that it is their duty to conform to the
rule thus laid down by the Legislature."
No doubt the House was perfectly familiar with the Chari-
table Bequests Act. Now, the Legislature laid down in that
Act no regulations with respect to Roman Catholic prelates
--(Hear) —and therefore the Noble Lord was acting under a
complete mistake in exercising authority of a very important
description by giving that rank to Roman Catholic bishops
in the col vies—a rank which, he thought, corresponded
wi h that which the Legislature prescribed.—(Hear, hear.)
True, there was a Commission issued under that Act by the
Queen in Council, giving to the Roman Catholic prelates
certain rank, corresponding to their style and title; but it
was quite unnecessary to say, that although the Queen could
give any rank or precedence to any one of her subjects as she
pleased, yet the rank given to the Roman Catholic prelates
under that Commission applied only to that Commission,
and did not extend beyond it.—(Cries of " Hea-' hear.")
It, therefore, seemed to him, that the Bishop of Sydney
was justified in the opinion he expressed, as stated in the
papers recently laid before the House, that the mere fiat of
the Colonial Secretary, without the sanction of the Sove-
reign, was not sufficient to confer that rank on the colonial
bishops. (Hear.) So stood the question as to the assump-
tion of titles in Ireland, and he apprehended there was
nothing in these historical details that could justify any
one in saying that the situation of Ire‘and was so pe-
culiar and so distinct from that of England that the
blow which had been aimed at the Queen's sovereigty in
England, and which was a warning to us to defend that
sovereignty against a similar blow in any part of her do-
minions, was to prevent us from taking that warning and
from extending our legislation so far as we thought ne•
cessary for protecting that sovereignty in every part of the
Queen's dominions.—(Hear, hear.) And was there nothing
in what had occurred which rendered the legislation im-
perative ? The Pope knew perfectly well that the
difficulty of the Noble Lord —as it had been the dif-
ficulty of every Government—was the kingdom of
Ireland.—(llear, hear.) He knew perfectly well there might
be danger to the Noble Lord if ho extended his legislation to
the sister kingdom. What did he do? In the very midst of
the popular ferment he created a Bishop of Ross.— (Hear,
hear.) He threw down the gauntlet of defiance—(Hear)
and he compelled the Noble Lord either to abandon that
which was his duty—(Hear, hear)—or to involve himself
in all the difficulties which had occurred to him by affirming
boldly, and as he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought justly, that the
measure should extend to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) And,
n, how was the law with respect to the introduction of
bullsei up to the year 1829, and after that period? We had
in their perfect integrity certain Acts of Parliament to pre-
vent the introduction of bulls into, this co9ntry—one being
th
as early as the reign of Richardcalled thehaSdtahteieten of
Prcemunire, and the statute of which so
frequently referred to. The
and sufficientlyedEmnancip protectedationAct waspasstehdia,
but those statutes remained,
kingdom from the intrusion
of a similar character, and ren g
odfearniny Puanpnaelebesuslalsr3o.randyocoufmtheonstes
b wereut,
after
f notter tandea
yearpted
rtoeytahlePsi
iateueatstiaonndoefx
aegruaroti:er
ss
tiav
nhtickhi, perhaps,
ngdom; f
l
one of inconsiderate kin mesa a
1829, we began a 'system whichndbiendwualgseanome.o—st(affreaaidr,thoeacra.l)l
against Papal encroachment.
securities that had existed _
We one by one removed from our statute-book the different
(d
te en
ern. )t
I e dWoeu r i brokecitadel, de
ywtoe
dvantaee of our disabled con-
ditionwanndthwee
abffaottrldeeindeant;reoefoopul?rorftourtnsi—t
any person disposed to take a
to march in and take possession.—(Hear.) The
Noble Lord, even under the disabled circumstances in which
he was placed, never apprehended soy such encroachment
as this that had taken place, and the words of the Noble L )rd
were rather remarkable. In August, 1846, he said :
this' Let us
similar to
Srsupposethat
thosethere
is
we
have heardsomebulli ofntro in formerducedinto
days. Let us suppose, though it is almost extravagant to
suppose it, that there was any attempt of the Pope to assert
any sovereign authority in these realms, or to interfere with
would b
the Queen's auth( rity, my belief is that no such bull wou e
observed by any Roman Catholic, but that it would be a dead
letter; and thus much I am sure of, that if any person actedbul
contrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a 1,
_,
he would be punishable according to the laws of this country.
—(Hear.) Now, a brief, which was equivalent to a bull,
bad been introduced. The Noble Lord himself bed characte-
rised that document, and it might be as well to put the
t Noble Lord's celebrated letter in juxtaposition with that cele-
brated passage from his speech in the year 1846, to see how
completely he was deceived and misled by a blind confidence
in the forbearing intention of the Papal See—(Hear, hear),
; —and how little the Noble Lord was prepared for this attempt.
' The Noble Lord said in his letter

"There is an assumption of power in all the documents
which have come from Rome—a pretension to supremacy
over the realm of England, and a claim to solo and undivided
sway which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with
the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual
independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catho-
lic times."
Well, this brief unexpectedly, and to the astonishment of the
Noble Lord, made its appearance on our shores. There was
a strong popular ferment throughout the country. The
Noble Lord saw the rising storm; he watched its progress,
and at last, after some little deliberation, he turned his
face in the direction to which the popular gale was blow-
ing, and issued the letter from which he had just read the
passage. Now, the Noble Lord in that letter stated that the
law would be very carefully examined, in order that it
might be brought intooperation against any person who had
offended it. The people exulted in such a champion of their
rights and their dearest interests—in such a defender of their
faith as the Noble Lord, and they reposed in perfect security
on the promises of the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The law, it
was admitted, was sufficient for the purpose of punishing this
aggression—that had been admitted in this debate by the
Noble Lord and other Hon. Members. Why, then, was ILA
the law carried into effect?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
said it was considered not to be expedient to carry out
the law, because it had in a degree become obsolete, and
might be regarded as rather a harsh proceeding if old Acts
of Parliament, that had been buried a long time, and were
almost dead letters in our statute book, were to be revived
for the purpose of carrying them into operation in conse-
quence of what had occurred. He should have thought,
then, that inasmuch as those Acts of Parliament, particu-
larly the Act of Elizabeth, had been under consideration in
1844 Sand 180, they would have given theta a modern dress,

LONDON,

and made them speak modern language—(dear)—and
that the Noble Lord would have considered those laws were
na
go
gt precisely
Butobl
,eht stit bnadd mightte hohal
ev
ob
re
Lei n
done?applied oe thhaids i.
left the law in precise'y the same unsettled and unsatisfac-
, tory state.—(Hear.) Were those Acts to be applicable to
any future aggression, or were they to be considered obsolete ?
The Noble Lord had really' done more injury to the law as It
existed in the statute-book, and also to the common law, by
the mode in which he had dealt with this subject, than by
any other course that could possibly be conceived.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord then considered it was not proper to
carry out those laws against this aggression. Now, let the
House see what was the nature of that aggression, and hav-
ing ascertained that, let them see what was the measures of
the Noble Lord to protect us from that aggression, and to
satisfy the wishes and desires of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
Every one who had spoken on the Protestant side of the
the
eesptiaopal nhhandll.adrtithtaedd
beenthehapurgovhetdy,ahnedthimoopgehrito,us
mostton tone of
sa-
tisfactorily, that the Papal power being a compound of tem-
poral and spiritual authority, so closely connected and inti-
ameaptaerlayteb ltehned eodn, that almostother—whether
t herimpossible
thisto detach t and o
he
regarded as a spiritual or a temporal act, or an ecclesiastical
e from it
w theas
act, which was an act of a mixed nature, there could be
no doubt that the tone indicated at least the intention to
extend sovereign power and authority over the kingdom of
England ; and that very expression, " kingdom of England,"
appeared to him to be very significant as regarded this Papal
aggression. An observation was made, ho believed by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury, that throughout
this brief the Pope condescended only to speak of the
kingdom of England, and when he spoke of the t hurch in
England he spoke of the Church of England. Now as to
the title of" the kingdom of England," was it used by mis-
take or design ? They could hardly think it was by mistake,
because the Pope and his advisers could not be ignorant
that in the year 1706 the kingdom of England ceased to
exist as a separate kingdom—that it was united with Scot-
land, and became the kingdom of Great Britain. Then was
it by design? He could not help thinking so, inasmuch as
in one of the shameful periods of oar history the kingdom of
England became a feudal dependency of the Pope, and he be-
lieved it was an inflexible rule of the Papal see, that what-
ever was once annexed to the patrimony of St. Peter could
never be separated from it.—( Hear, hear.) He was dis-
posed, therefore, to think that the Pope had used that style
and title to designate the kingdom to which his Papal bull
applied, and it was, in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind signifi-
cant of the purpose. But then it was said by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Plymouth in his admirable speech, that
this proceeding on the part of the Pope was only
the natural ecclesiastical development of the Roman Catholic
Church, and his Hon. and Learned Friend said, that inas-
much as we had once tolerated that Church, we should be
inconsistent with ourselves unless we allowed'that Church to
expand, and grow, and develop itself to its fullest complete-
ness and extent. Now, what was the natural development
of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing short of universal
dominion.—(Hear, hear:) And, lest it should be supposed
that Protestants were excluded from that universal rule
which the Roman Catholic Church arrogated for itself, he had
found very recently a passage he would read to the House
from a book which vas a divinity class book at the College
of Maynooth in the present day, and in which that princi-
ple was stated in the fullest manner:—
" Ecelesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes apostatos,
hereticos, et schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam
pertineant."
That was merely as to schismatics, heretics, and apostates.
But there was another passage :
" Societas Protestantium sese a schismatis reatu excusare
non potest."
It was perfectly evident, therefore, from comparing the two
passages, that universal rule being claimed over all schis-
matics, and Protestants being included in that category, the
rule applied to them. See, then, the condition in which we
should be if the argument of his Honourable and Learned
Friend were correct.—(Hear, hear.) We could not ad-
mit the principle of toleration in the smallest degree with-
out admitting the right of the Roman Catholic Church
to expand itself to the fullest extent of that claimed
authority; and unless we could say to the Roman Catho-
lics, " We will admit toleration to a certain extent; we
will grant all that is necessary for the exercise of your reli-
gion ; so far shalt thou go and no further, and here shall thy
proud waves be stayed"—unless we could say that, we must
be open to all the terrible consequences that might ensue.—
(Hear, hear.) Well, then, what was the result he should
draw from his Honourableand Learned Friend's argument?
He was afraid it was one which he hoped they never would
come to, that the toleration of the Roman Catholic religion
was entirely out of the question.—(Hear, hear.) Then it
was said, why was there all this fuss ?—it was the most
harmless change that could possibly be imagined—it
was a mere change of vicars-apostolic to a hierarchy of
bishops. If the change was so harmless what meant the
note of triumph raised by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral ?
What meant the fervid glow of figurative language with
which he described that change? He said
" Your beloved country has received a place among the
fair Churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid
aggregate of the Catholic communion. Catholic England
has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament,
from which its light had long vanished, and begins now
anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the
centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of
vigour."
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, he would rather take the
view of the Cardinal upon this point, and, to his mind,
those
.were words of ominous import. (Hear, hear.) Then,
it was said they ought not to be dismayed on this occasion,
because the Pope had given up a portion of the authority he
previously possessed; that vicars-apostolic were creatures of
his will, and that, when he had established his hierarchy,
they would be entirely independent of him. If the Pope
had given up any portion of his power, it was a little con-
trary to the usual action of the Papal see— (Hear, hear)—
and he should rather think it right on that principle to use
the phrase of our neighbours—" reculer pour mieux sauter."
But this hierarchy was to be the means of introducing, not
the canon law as it had been recognised by our common law
for a long series of years, but the canon law of the Church
—the vital principle of which was, as he believed, an
ultimate appeal to the Pope.—(Cries of " Hesr, hear.")
Again, they would have bishops dependent on the
Propaganda at Rome. He could not help thinking, there-
fore, that there was a mere semblance of resignation of any
portion of the Papal power by the Pope, and that after this
hierarchy should be established, as he trusted it never would
be—(Hear, heat) the Pope would be more powerful than
ever. (Hear, hear.) But suppose the Pope should have
given up a portion of his power, what consolation was that
to us? We were just in the same situation, and had still to
guard against encroachment, whether it was the encroach-
ment of the Pope, or of the Church of which he was the
head. - (Hear, hear.) That being the condition in which we
stood, what was it that the Noble Lord proposed
as an important measure to avert all those con-
sequences? The Noble Lord, as it appeared to
him, had given the character of h's own Bill. The
Noble Lord slid, in the year 1846, that "as to pr.venting
persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more ab-
surd and puerile than to keep up such distinctions." Well,
he turned to the Noble Lord's Bill, and he found that it
proposed to prevent the assumption of particular ecclesias-
tical titles, so that, to adopt the Noble Lord's
own expression, he had given to the desires of the
public, a Bill which was absurd and puerile."—(Hear.)
Now. he begged the House to consider that if, as the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had.told them, the
Duke of Wellington in 1829 considered the 24th section of
the 10th of George IV. as no security whatever—if this was
the case at a time when all the Acts of Parliament for the
protection of Protestantism were in full vigour, and were
armed with all the penalties, how could we expect, now that
all those Acts were ceprived of their force, that any such
Act as the present could be of the smallest use? The Noble
Lord must be perfectly aware that it would be perfectly fu-
tile for preventing the Acts which it proposed to provide
against. He had heard that the late Mr. O'Connell was in
the habit of saying that he could drive a coach and six
through most modern Acts of Parliament. He (Sir F.
Thesiger) was perfectly satisfied that a cardinal's state car-
riage, he was going to say, could be driven through this
Bill, but the fact was, it was too small to render that pos-
sible, though he was quite sure it could easily be driven
over it. ( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Because, what
did the Noble Lord propose? He proposed to prevent
the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now he would just
f
e Ws
saenedsdt Westminster," iurn.pscpt eoural ,el'
e'
npb
aurst.
av
tookvni
sdecnicaal
alr enedt
robe it mu signrn"
eh:
nds
ei
answer,
fna
sl
w,Aperare,ohl ba incs
dhulo
put this case. Suppose Dr. Cullen addressed Dr. Wiseman
p
ednod,
"Archbishop of Armagh," but took care to sign himself
" Nicholas se isernan," tnis would be no infringement of the
law, because, in this transaction, there would be no assump-
tion of titles on the part of either party. The Bill of the
Noble Lord was, therefore, so weak and so flimsy that it re •
quired only the feeblest casuistry to break through it.—
(Cheers.) His Hon. and Learned Friends the Attorney and
Solicitor General had both stated that the Bill would prevent
synodical action, and, of course, they would not have
brought in a Bill to do so if they had not had that intention.
Now he had some doubt whether the first clause would
have that effect. He would bring the Government, there-
fore, to this test:—To prevent any doubt en the point
would the Government introduce a clause specifically pre-
venting synodical action ?—(Cheers.) And here he came
again to the extraordinary course which was pursued by the
Goverdment with respect to this Bill. The House must as-
sume that it was only after the most careful and guarded de-
liberation that the clauses were framed which were intended
to have so extensive an operation; and yet the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department
had been compelled to say that not only did the Bill not ex-
press in terms what the Government meant, but that it
actually expressed what they had never meant—(Bear,
hear) - for the Right Hon. Gentleman said they had disco-
vered that if the second section of the Bill was allowed to
continue they would operate to prevent measures of ordina-
tion and other documents of that description from having
legal validity, the consequences of which would be very
serious ; and also, that if the third section was retained
it would prevent bequests and endowments being left
to Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops. Now, he
(Sir Frederick Thesiger) was disposed to think that
the legal opinion which had been read to the House by the
Hon. Member for Dundalk, to the effect that
the opera-
tion of the second clause was involved •in the first —because,
inasmuch as the first clause prohibited the assumption of
titles, and made the assumption of them subject to a penalty
—that, as a penalty always implied a prohibition, and a pro-
hibited act was always void in law, therefore any act done
by Roman Catholic bishops under a prohibited title would
be an act utterly and entirely void.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to the third section, he was disposed to think that
under the Bequests Act there might be this distinction—that
'supposing a bequest made to trustees and their successors in
such terms that there would be a sufficient designation of
persons independently of the prohibited titles, the bequest
would be considered good in spite of the prohibited titles.--
(Ha.. hear.) But, however this might be, he felt certain
that die Noble Lord, with respect to the effect of the second
clause being involved in the first, was placed in this extraor-
dinary dilemma, that he must ei' her vote against the third
reading of his own Bill, or allow the Bill to be passed which
contained provisions which he did not intend. Now he did
not see how it was possible for the Noble Lord to escape from
this dilemma. Yes, there was one way. The Noble Lord
might intro duce into the first clause an exception with re-
spect to the assumption of titles in all cases in which there
was the legal exercise of any authority, the c n
sequence of
which would be, that the exception would be so enormously
large as to swallow up the entire Bill, because the clause
the innocent assumption of titles
would then only apply to
by Roman Catholic • s when they went into society and were
announced by their titles.—(hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Seeing then, that he considered the Bill utterly futile, what I
was th'e course he intended topursue ? Ho anticipated that
his statement would be received with a laugh of ridicule
when he said that he meant to vote for the second reading.....
(Laughter.) And why? Because he thought that legisla-
tion was absolutely necessary, and because, bad as it was,
he preferred the minimum of legislation proposed by the
Noble Lord to having no legislation at all.—(Hear, hear.)
But he meant to vote for the second reading for a still
more important object--because it afforded an opportunity
to these who thought, like him, that the Bill was not
what it ought to be, to endeavour to emend it in Committee.
—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Mem-
ber for liidhurst (Mr. Walpole-) had slightly sketched out
hid 31"i9nof what the Dill ought to have been; and be