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

garded the proposition just made by the Noble Lord, he
understood the Noble Lord admitted the justice of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone'e) appeal, for
he had said that if they took one step, it was but right
that he himself or the Attorney General should make a
statement. Now the Chairman of Committees had just
informed him that it was necessary to move that the Bill
be read a first and second time, because of the alterations
made in it; but that if it were the same Bill it would not
be necessary. The Noble Lord had adopted a great por-
tion of the Hon. Member for Midhurat's amendment;
let the Attorney-General then make his statement, and
afterwards let them adjourn the question to Friday next,
in order that they might have an opportunity of fully
considering the provisions of the Bill as amended. The
Noble Lord had undertaken to have the Bill reprinted,
but it had not been delivered to Hon. Members until late
that morning. On that ground alone they were entitled
to have it adjourned.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he had given notice of his
amendments on the tooond reading of the Bill; and
they had been put on the paper before the Easter re-
cess, so that it could not be with justice said that the
House was taken by surprise with respect to those
amendments. Atter the Esster recess the Noble Lord
stated that he did not object in principle to the first
clause, which he (Mr. Walpole) proposed, for that it
was in tubstarce already contained in the Bill. He
(Mr. Walpole) met the Attorney-General by accident in
the street, and spoke to him on the subject of his
amendments, wondering that the plan therein suggested
had not been adopted by the Government. Oa the fol-
lowing day he had a conversation with the Attorney-
General on the subject of his amendments, a portion of
which the Government objected to, and another por-
tion they did not object to. But, until he came down
on Friday last, the Government wore under no arrange-
ment with him either to reject or accept them, How
there could be any such compromise, he could not
understand, for he approved of the principle of the Bill,
and he could see nothing,' objectionable in an Hon.
Member who supported a Bill communicating with the
Attorney-General, who had the conduct of the Bill, in
order to see how far any amendments he meant to pro-
pose in the Bill were objectionable or not.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE—lt was the Noble Lord himself
who had stated be bad sent the Attorney-General to the
Hon. Member for Midhurst.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had said very truly that he had met the Attorney-
General by accident, and the latter had most properly
told him (Lord J. Russell) that he had some conversation
with the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst with
respect to his amendments, but he did not wish to com-
municate further with him without his (Lord J. Rassell'a)
authority. He (Lord J. Russell) did not give him any,
explicit directions on the matter, but gave him his autho-
rity to communicate with the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man respecting it.
Mr. HUME said the question was, whether the expla-
nation asked for should ne given on the motion that the
preamble be postponed, or on the first clause. It ap-
peared to him a matter of very little importance on which
it was given.
After a few words from Mr. S. CRAWFORD,
Mr. MOORE reminded the House that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Athlone had a notice on the paper of a motion
with respect to the postponement of the preamble, and it
was quite impossible therefore to accede to the postpone-
ment of the preamble now.
Mr. REYNOLDS would not enter into any explana-
tion respecting Friday night's arrangement, as it had
been already explained by the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Athlone. He was prepared to withdraw his
motion only on the specific understanding that the At-
torney-General should be permitted to explain the Bill
as amended. and after that explanation was made, that
no it:inlet:l- progress should be attempted by the Govern-
ment with the Bill until Friday.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree to the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
The amended Bill was then read a first and second
time.

On the question that the preamble be postpened,
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the Chairman report
progress.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 46
Against it ... ... 262
Majority
The preamble was postponed accordingly.
On the first clause being put from the chair.
The AT TORNEY-GENER AL, understanding it was
the general wish of the House he should make a state-
ment of the legal effect of the provisions of the Bill,
felt it to be his duty to do so on the present occasion.
In the first place, ho totally and entirely disagreed with
those Hon. Members who said that the Bill was a new
Bill. The only cletioe to which he proposed to attach
any obeervat,ons, in the first instance, was the first
clause, as that was the clause alleged to contain certain
matter which made the Bill a new measure. He was,
however, prepared to show that this clause effected no
alteration whatever in reality in the character of the
Bill; but that, on the contrary, it left that measure sub-
stantially the same as before. As the Bill stood before,
the preamble recited " that whereas certain of her Ma-
jesty's subjects, by virtue of a pretended authority of the
See of Rome, had assnmed titles out of provinces, dio-
ceses, and towns in her Majesty's kingdoms." It then
went on to refer to the Act 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, in which
was to be found an enactment providing against the as-
sumption of any such style or title as regarded pro-
vinces and dioceses already occupied by the Church of
England,making it an offence, and affixing thereto a
penalty. After this, it proceeded to recite that the at-
iteropt to establish such sr) le and titles having been made,
t declared it expanient to prohibit such assumption,
and then went on to recite the penalty fixed in the
second clause as applicable to the case. The
second clause made the assumption of titles not included
.in the 10th Geo. IV., c. 7, illegal; in other words, it
placed provinces, cities, and towns not appropriated by
the Established Church on the same footing as those in
that Act, subjecting those who took such titles to the
same penalty as was provided by that statute. The other
clause —that originally sawested by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurst—was the cleu,e which it
was suggested created a new Bill of the measure. But
that clause was purely declaratory. It embodied only,
the recitals in the preamble, which went to say that cer-
tain persons had done a certain thing which ought to be
prevented; and it merely asserted that this recital should
be held legally valid. The first clause, which was sug-
gested by the Hon. and Learned Member, might strike
the House as superfluous but a great desire had been ex-
pressed that it should be adopted to mark the sense of the
country on the subject. Teere was an invasion—and it
was desired that there should be a declaration of Parlia-
ment on the subject to go forth to the world. It ap-
peared to him (the Attorney-General) to add nothing to
the Bill, as far as punishment for the offence was in ques-
tion, or as far as the penalty was concerned, while it
gave a more solemn form to the declaration. As
it was no hardship, and gave some tatis action to a
great number of persons, to vindicate the national
Sovereignty, there could not, in his opinion, be any
possible harm in adopting it. The Bill, however, was
no new Bill. The clause was only what it purported to
be—a recital of the preamble, and giving it more expli-
citly. With regard to the second clause, it had been
already so much discu,sed, that he could not understand
how any person could tail to see its bearings. It
amounted to this—that the Act 10 Geo. IV., which now
applied in terms only to titles already appropriated by
the Established Church, was proposed to be applied to
titles not so appropriated. An attempt was made to
parcel out England into provinces and dioceses by an
authority which had no foundation in the constitution,
and to assume titles and dignities as arising out of these
divisions, at the instance of a foreign power. The clause
proposed these titles should be void; and that the places
from whence they purported to be derived should be put
in the same category as those places referred to in the
10th Geo. IV. It did no more and no less. And when
it was urged that this clause would interfere with the
operation of the Charitable Bequests Act, the simple
answer to that allegation was, that the 10th George IV.
did not interfere with it, and this clause applied only to
titles not included in that Act. He (the Attorney-
General) should be trifling with the time and patience of
the House if he added another word to the legal explana-
tion which he was called on to give, as, after the long
discussion which the Bill had undergone, nothing new
could be said by him on the subject.
Mr. P. HOWARD contended that the Bill was essen-
tially a new Bill. If it were not so, it would not have
been read a first and a second time by the Chairman.
Besides, the date on the amended Bill was altered. Now,
the Bill being a new Bill, he considered that the House
had not been treated with sufficient candour by the Go-
vernment, who submitted it in a printed form that morn-
ing, and forced on a discussion of its provisions almost
immediately afterwards.
Mr. K. SEYMER called the attention of the law
officers of the Crown to the fact, that while the Bill de-
clared illegal the bull or letters apostolic relatigto
England, it omitted all reference to a somewhat similarbull or Papal rescript under which the diocese of Ross
bad recently been constituted in Ireland. .If legisla-
tion in express terms were considered necessary for
upholding the independence of the national sovereignty
in England, he certainly thought it was equally im-
portant it should be adopted fore Queen by persons oflreland, where war
had actually been levied against the
some station, who were now suffering the penalty of their

crimes.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the answer to the
question of the lion. Gentleman was simple. Under
the Statute of PrXrnuDire, acts performed in trecor 6'am..elames I
jI.
with the directions of Pupal rescripts or for gn bulls
were declared to be illegal. In the time of
Lalor was punished for such an offence; and •
sine ethat
period—although two centuries and a half had elapsed
—up to the recent aggression, no subject of the British
Crown had dared to act upon the dictum of a foreign
bull. The Pope's recent rescript, b •
centuries and a half, which has being the first for two
country, it was thought proper topraetical cif-et in this
performed by reason of its di declare it, and all acts
But it did not follow that becauserections, illegal and void.
this pirtieular instune-, it they had done so in
the minor instrumen was necessary to declare all
t 4 Which followed
quarter illegal and vo4 v h from the same
statute. lie considered v en they were so by existing
rake up the met the moat dignified course was to
monstrous instrument
into dwceecs,
n__,
gality, to leave"ua,t. having !•pcclficaily declared its ille-
as illegal. li similar instruments to be dealt with

Mr.GLADSTONE said he could not perceive that
this vias a declaratory clause. Declaratory clauLes in
i
egis.iative enactments malady succeeded u recital that
the state of the law was doubtful; but here nothing of
the sort was done. They declared by their Bill, with-
out reference to any other matter, ihat the act of the
Pope wrts iii gal, and he confessed that this appeared to
him lo rre P
that parties would be at a 1053 to underst”nd whether
this was a declaratory clause or not; but ii it were u de-
claratory clause, what need was there for declaring that