The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-27 00:00:00

EVENING,

The Marquis of GRANBY said that the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down declared that the Pope and
the Roman Catholics did not seek to encroach upon the
Church of England. Ncthir.g could be further from
his (the Marquis of Granby's) wish or intention than
to interfere with the exercise of their religion by the
Roman Catholic or any other sect. But he would read
a passage from the rescript to show what the intentions
of the fops were And we decree that these our let-
ters apostolical shall never at any time be objected against
or impugned, on pretence either of omission or of addi-
tion, or defect either of our intention, or any other what-
soever; bat shall always be valid and in force, and shall
take etiont in all particulars, and be inviolably observed,
all general or spr,cial enactments notwithstanding,
whether apostolic, or issued in synodal, provincial, and
universal councils; notwithstanding, also, all rights and
privileges of the ancient sees of England, and of the
missions, and of the apostolic vicariates subsequently
there established, and of nil churches whatsoever, and
pious placer, whether established by oath or by apostolic
confirmation, or by any other security whatsoever; not-
withstanding, lastly, all other things to the contrary
whatsoever." He waked lion. Gentlemen what was the
meaning of those w irda if they were not directed against
the Established Church of this country?
Mr. MOORE wished to call th,, attention of the lion.
and Learned Member tor Youghal (Mr. Anstey) to a
passage from a book purporting to have been written by
him. That ITOn. and Lesrned Gentleman's speeches
consisted of a series of virulent attacks upon what he
considered the ultramontane spirit of the Roman Ca-
tholics in this country and of the Court of home. In the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's book, which was dedi-
cated to Charles, Bishop of Pella, and vicar apostolic of
the western district, he found a passage in which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman spoke of ridiculous threats
having been lately made by a small Parliamentary fac-
tion, not without some support from Roman Catholics,
to revive the stupid and unmeaning sayings of other days
against sincere Catholics, whom they termed ultramon-
tame Catholics, but whom his Lordship and his brethren
in the episcopate would estimate at their true and proper
value. _

Mr. ANSTEY said that the book from which the
Hon. Gentleman had just quoted contained the enuncia-
tion of the grounds upon which, from the first, ho and
those who acted with him had opposed themselves to the
attempt to set up in this country a little Popedom. He
had never attacked the Papal rescript on the ground of
its being an ultramontane document. All the mischief
that flowed from the interference with the rights of the
laity, came not from the Pope but from those councillors
about him, who endeavoured to sot up a bastard episco-
pacy in this country. Under this rescript there was no
protection for the laity or inferior clergy, who were
placed at the disposal of Cardinal Wiseman and their
bishops, under whose tyranny they had suffered so much.
Mr. MOORE said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
made his conduct perfectly clear by his explanation.
With respect to the Bill they had been proceeding
hitherto, not without discussion certainly, but without
deliberation; they had not been a deliberative assembly
in any sense, as far as respected the Bill; they were
speaking as from a hustings with reference to their own
election.—(oh, oh, and uproar.) He moved that the
Chairman report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL must say the House had listened
with remarkable attention. Had the discussion been
confined to the merits of the amendment—to the general
merits of the ctiuse, or to the general merits even of
the Bill, nothing could be more remarkable than
the patience exhibited by the House; but, considering
that Hon. Gentlemen talked upon various other ques-
tions besides that they were discussing, the patience of
the House had been extraordinary. He could not re-
gard the motion of the Hon. Gentleman as reasonable,
and he should not therefore agree to tho motion.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought he had a right to complain,
as the question he had asked had not been answered
from the Treasury bench. He had asked it solely for
the purpose of information. He understood it had been
stated by the law officers of the Crown that the par- The see_
titular bull or brief mentioned in the clause was un- For the motto.
lawful, because all bulls were unlawful. His question .Against it... ...
then was this:—They admitted that all bulls were Majority
unlawful, and inasmuch as a bishop ordained a The Committee ad
priest, because he was a bishop, without reference to his clause
title, whether territorial or otherwise, but by virtue of
the bull constituting him a bishop, he wanted to know—
was the ordination a misdemeanor, because it had taken
place in virtue of an unlawful instrument;—and could
any person take proceedings by indictment for that mis-
demeanour against the bishop who ordained the priest in
virtue of his being a bishop?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was
a somewhat complicated one. It proceeded on the as-
sumption that all bulls were unlawful, and it might be that
they were so under the Act of Elizabeth. But the Bill
before the House did not declare all bulls illegal and
void; it was confined to bulls and rescripts creating dio-
ceses with territorial titles. It was not at all necessary
for the purposes of this Bill to consider whether bulls
and rescripts generally were illegal or not; or whether
the use of them under the Act of Elizabeth amounted to
a misdemeanour or not. They were dealing with that
particular Bill, which did not refer to bulls generally.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that the
clause declared all authority conferred under a brief was
illegal; consequently, any act of a bishop appointed
under a brief constituted a misdemeanour, and therefore
the putting of the clause in force was incompatible with
their declaration of not wishing to interfere with the
exercise of the Roman Catholic religion.
The CHAIRMAN inquired if the lion. Member (Mr.
Moore) meant to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. MOORE said he did not intend to withdraw it.
He merely wished, iu deference to public opinion, which
he believed by no means approved of the reckless and
unscrupulous manner in which this Bill had been carried
through the House, to read two or three hues in the
leading article of the Times of that morning, in which
he found these words I; has become more and more
manifest that th lawyers do nut understand the law, and
that there is some danger, amid blunders, concessions,
and all sorts of crooked and tortuous policy, that the
House may succeed in creating a monster whose future
action shall be something quits different from what was
foreseen, intended, or desired." " The point would
have been fairly raised had the proposition to take the
preamble first been acceded to, and as till it be settled
no legislation can be safe, we sincerely trust that it
will be attended to before the first clause be passed
into a law. Till something can be done towards
arriving at an accurate knowledge of the present
state of the law, it is in vain to hope for satisfac-
tory legislation. The Bill was read a second
time without an agreement in principle, it is now
passing through Committee without either agreement or
knowledge of the law, and the success or failure of its
provisions seems entrusted, in the abeyance of diligence
and default of acumen, to blind chance and fortuitous
combinetions." That ho believed to be a true represen-
tation of public opinion, condemning the conduct of that
House in pressing clause after clause, and superseding
amendment after amendment.—(hear.)
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the proviso ... ••• ••• 59
Against it ... ••• ... 344
Majority --285
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said if the Ministry were sin-
cere in their professions of not wishing to interfere with
the purely spiritual acts of the Romen Catholic bishops,
let them introduce some form of words that would dis-
tinctly declare such an intention.
Sir G. GREY said there could be no interference with
purely spiritual functions by the Bill. It would be incon-
sistent, therefore, to introduce any such proviso in the
measure.
The question was then put that the clause stand part
of the Bill.
Me. SADLEIR rote to move a proviso to the end of
the clause. He was still ignorant of the legal effect of
the Bill. The Noble Lord had altogether avoided
touching the legal questions raised by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Athlone. The Noble Lord know
well that it was impossible for the Catholics of Ireland
to have a Church without a hierarchy; and there could
be no hierarchy without a bull or bulls from the Pope.
The Attorney-General said that certain bulls were un-
lawful; which were those that were lawful?—for some
such there should be. He (Hr. Sadleir) participated
with many persons in the most serious apprehensions of
disastrous consequences in Ireland if the Bill was passed.
It was all very well to say that it was declaratory of the
law; but the Attorney-General should state explicitly
which bulls were not illegal. There had been much
quibbling that evening about the Charitable Bequests
Bill; and to test the sincerity of the Government in re-
spect of the position of the Roman Catholic Church in
Ireland—especially of the Roman Catholic clergy of the
second order—he proposed a proviso to the effect that
nothing in the Act should be construed to affect any
archbishop or bishop of the Roman Catholic Church
officiating and exercising the powers and authorities of
such offices, in the same manner and under the same
conditions in regard to discipline, as before the 29th
September, 1850.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not see any advantage in
entering again into the argument. It bad been already
replied to by his Right lion. Friend, and no more could
be said about it.
Mr. OSWALD said it was important to know what
the law was in Scotland previous to the 29th of Septem-
ber, 1850, before the clause was adopted. There was a
statute known in Scotland, as of the year 1567, called
the Act Abolishing Popery.—(Leughter.) n
wre iccit
read the Act.—(Laughter.) It enacted that
. subject
of the King should entertain connexion winoth Rome,
under pain of banishment, confiscation, or death. The
purchasers of rights, finders of finance, &c., should
suffer the same; and no bishop should thereafter derive
title or authority from Rome, or if he did, th at it should
be illegal and invalid. If that was the law of Scotland,
was thre any use in passing this Bill? In 1700 there
was an Act passed ratifying all the
44,
statutes
further
against
Popery; and the Act 33d George llt c•
ratified the penalties imposed by the Act of 1700, though
it did not specifically refer to the statute of 156; ' Under
those circumstances it was very inalerial that the Com -
mittee should .Imow whet had hitherto been the law in
Scutland ofeJn thst subject, and w fair the position of
Romau Catlielico would be affected by cult measure.
The Earl of Ale.o N DEL end SU RREY said he inele r
stood that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the
EhRTI,SEM-EN-T-.1
ll(xLe Department bad stated that that chance wculd not '
f la Cancerouss Wounds, and old
affect spiritual authority or jurisdiction. But he (the Earl
Sores forlziils
tAsae ('urn of S•erothu ,
the son of Mr. James Avery, of
of Arundel and Surrey) very much doubted the noun- Ram-..e was severe,aa3t; - Holloway's Ointment any
racy of that view of the case, and he wished to know ,edsvremediesed woundswere
fir
from
no r
them. t
tried,ree
ewaLyeenOthneanment and
whether the Right Hen. Gentleman still adhered to it? or four cy;
ears, and during that periodhl.ittchyes
rcmrb(a:fniuy,l
but without the leastbenefittewd
Mr. TRI:LA WNY said he wished to ask the Hon. In this deplorable state Jr. Joseph(:plergea;snt,
je.iemist, of
remedy for bad
complaint ineans of
and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether Ramsey, recommended him ted.
under that clause a distfected clergyman of the Roman
proceed against ►his bishop
Catholic Church might not Pills.
effectuallyae d thesecarin invaluable übaobyl eo
of
his
medicines have
efficacious
nagvo
They are an a very
for a misdemeanour, by. producing the very documeats toand rheumatism.—Sold by all
which he owed his ordination ? leg briefs, osipdaccoereosf,
gt iornuct:
Druggist
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he
"d a ! and at Professor Holloway s Establishment, t.:44, Strand
London.
ready answered that question. lie had, then, only to Lad '
repeat, that, under the first clause of the But, Letters from Rouen staciteesteh:lseta,thkanam4 uac urnig
afalirthfertdc.line
no 'wish-- coutinUedesiremely
weatiour could 9.044.ti11it it merely tvalidity ""eres"-- bl • 1-) •
4 the WAS nnttGett 4ve6e

Against it ... 59
Majority against theadjournment... —4O
The House then went into Committee.
The preamble was understood to have been propose].
On the proposition of some of the clauses,
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that the Chairman should
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. ELLICE said it was desirable that they should
proceed then with the measure.
Mr. BANKES said the principle involved in the clause
before them ought at least to receive one fair discussion
in that House, which could not take place at that hour
—half-past one o'clock.—(Hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP announced his intention of per-
severing with his motion.
The Committee; then divided, when there appeared--
For the motion ...
Against it... 50
Majority ... ••• ... —35
The Committee were then proceeding to pass the
clause, when
Mr. BANKES moved the omission of the word
" salaries."
The Committee again divided, when there appeared—
Ayes .. . . ' -
Noes

... 43

Majority against the motion
On the re-admission of strangers,
An HoN. MEMBER moved that th© Chairman should
then report progress.
Ayes ...
Noes ...
Majority against the motion ... —29
Mr. ELLICE deprecated the system of obstruction
adop:ed by a small minority upon a question on which
the House had already decided.
Mr. BANKES denied that a decision had been arrived
at on the subject. He thought the Hon. Member for
Salford (Mr. Brotherton),,who had so often carried a
peremptory adjournment of the House at a late hour,
was not acting in accordance with his principles in not
supporting his present suggestions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro-
tested against the attack made on the Hon. Member
for Salford, who had been always anxious to promote
public business, and not to obstruct it; and his conduct
that night was founded on the same principle.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said English Members had
that night tarnished an example which showed that the
character for a factions obstruction of public business
could not be entirely monopolised by his countrymen.—
(Hear, hear.) To the Noble Lord the Member for
South Lincoln, the Hon. Member for Dorset, and the
Hon. and Gallant Colonel near him, they were indebted
for such an exemplification as their proceedings that
night furnished. Indeed it would be difficult to pro-
nounce which of the two latter Hon. Members had most
distinguished himself on the occasion.
" Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites:
Et vitola to dignw, et hic."—(Laughter.)
Colonel SIBTHOR1) said he did not regret the course
which he had taken on that occasion.
Mr, LABOUCHERE said he would advise his Hon.
Friend, after th© system of divisions that was going on,
to consent to the Chairman reporting progress.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he felt bound to take a division
on the question.
Mr. BROTHERTON having said a few words in de-
fence cf the course he had pursued,
Mr. BANKES reminded the lion. Member that be
had voted with him at the beginning of the session that
no money vote should be taken after twelve o'clock. It
was now two o'clock.
The Committee then divided twice.
For the Chairman leaving the chair:—
Ayes ...
Noes...

... -25

... 15
... 44

..• 42
..• ••• •••
••• ••• -27

Majority ...
For reporting progress:—
Ayes ... •••
Noes •-
Majority ... •••
On the gallery being opened,
Mr. ELLICE said if the Hon. Gentleman would con-
sent to his proposal. he would agreo not to take any
future star of the Bill on any night alter twelve o'clock.
Mr. BANKES having acceded to the suggestion,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, the House re-
sumed, and then
Adjourntzd at a Quarter-past Two.

. . 42

Mr. CHRISTOPHER paired, in favour cf the Eeelesias-
ical Titles Bill, with THE O'GORMAN MAHON against.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the Howe of Commons.)

MONDAY, MAY 26.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Clause 1 :—Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line
24, to leave out the words " unlawful and :"—Question put,
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
Clause." The Committee divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 179.

MINORITY—NOES, 43.
Arundel, Earl of Keating, Robert rower, Drolas
.
Barron, Sir 11. Keogh, William Power'
Nich
Blake, M. J. Lawless, Cecil Reynolds, Jonh
Burke, Sir Thomas Magan, W. M. Roche, E. B.
Castlereagh, Vise. Maher, N. Sadleir. John
Scully,Francis
Clements, C. S. Meagher, Thomas
Somers, J. P.
Colebrooke, Sir T. Molliell, William
Sullivan, Michael
Corbally, M. . L. Moore, G. 11,
Devereux, J. T. Murphy, I. S. Talbot, J. H.
David
Fertescue, Chichester O'Brien, J. Urquhart,
Gladstone, W. E. O'Brien, Sir Thnothy 'Viral], c. B.
Goold, Wyndham O'Connor, Feargus
Grace, 0. D. J. O'F'errall, More
TELLERS.
Graham, Slog. 011.therty, Anthony M'Cullagh, W. T.
Higgins, Geore Oswald, Alexander Grattan, Ileury
Hutchins, E. J. Feel, Frederick
-----1....

Another Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the
Clatsethe following Proviso: —" Provided that nothing in
this Act contained shall be construed to affect any Arch-
bishop or Bishop, or other person in Holy Orders of the
Church of Rome, officiating in any District, or having
pastoral superintendence of any congregation of persons
professin,,,, the Roman Catholic Religion, according to the
usages and discipline of the Church of Rome, in the United
Kingdom, as they existed previous to the 29th day of Sep.
tember. 1850." Question put, " That the Proviso be there
added." The Committee divided :

MINORITY-AYES, 47.
Anstey, T. C. Hope, Alexander O'Flaherty, Anthony
Arundel, Earl of Howard, Sir R. Pinney, William
Blake. Martin J. Keating, Robert Power, Dr.
131cwitt, Reginald Keogh, William rower, Nicholas
Clements, Charles Lawless, Cecil Reynolds, John
Corbally, M. E. M`Cullagh, W. T. Seholefleld, W.
Devereux, J. T. Magan, W. H. Scully, Francis
Fagan, James Maher N. smy-t he, George
Fortescue, Chichester Meagher, Thomas Talbot, J. 11. .
Fox, R. M. liallon,O'Gorman Tenison, Edward K.
Gibson, T. M. Monsen, William Trelawny, J. S.
Goold, Wnydham Moore, G. H. Wegg-Prosser, F.
Grace, O. 1). Murphy, F. S. 'Young, Sir John
Grattan, lie.nry - Nugent, Sir Percy
Greene, John O'Brien, John TELLIES.
Biggins, G. G. O'Brien, Sir T. Roche, E. 13•
Saillelr, John
Flohhouse, T, IL O'Connell, John

MAAORIn-NIOES, 278._