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

which had already been decided? He wanted to know
whether the same effect would be produced by the Bill,
as it stood then, as was intended by the Bill as it origi-
flatly stood. His supposition, of course, was immaterial,
but he certainly supposed that the first clause would
have that effect.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that the
objection which led to the withdrawal of the second
clause was, that it had a retrospective effect of a dan-
gerous character. The Roman Catholic prelates of Ire-
land,
said, that under what they conceived to be the con-
struction of the Act of 1829, they had retained the ec-
clesiastical titles, which ware forbidden by that Act.
They considered that they were quite right in so read-
ing the Act, and therefore requested that they might be
left in the same position as it placed them in. Now he
(the Solicitor-General) entertained great doubt as to
whether they had acted rightly under that Act; but
whether that were so or not, if these prelates were right
under the old Act, they would continue to be so still;
and if they were wrong under the old Act, they would
be equally wrong now. All that had been conceded in
striking out the second clause. If the Pope could pro-
eyed, let them proceed. There was no clause there to
prohibit him, and as it was matter of doubt whether he
co ;ld legally proceed, he was entitled to the benefit of
the doubt.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman had not answered his question as to what would
be the effect of the clause, not with reference to Irish,
but English sees.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied that English
Roman Catholic bishops would stand in precisely the
same way as the Irish Roman Catholic bishops stood.
If Irish bishops were right English bishops would also
be right, but he bad hie doubts.
Mr. M'CULLAGH said the Pope's proceedings in
relation to the bishopric of Rosa was not the first case of
the kind, for iu the diocese of Galway there was a new
bishopric, created under precisely similar circumstances.
Why, then, was that case not taken up if the act was
illegal? He did not think the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tlemen had answered the Right Hon. Gentleman's ques-
tion, whether the subtraction of the second and third
clauses was a real charge, and whether the retention of
the first clause really did not tend to invalidate every
act done by Roman Catholic bishops since their appoint-
ment end the passing of the Act of 1829. There were
very grave doubts on this point raised by the most
learned authorities in the law, and it therefore behoved
the legal advisers of the Crown to grapple with the doubt',
and to decide the question at once—to decide it, in
fact, in that House.—()Near, hear.) The House ought
to know whether it was the Bill of February, of March,
of April, or the fourth Bill, a combination of the other
Bills—the Bill of May—they were discussing. He wished to
deal adds the doubt he had referred to on broad grounds,
and he hoped the House would require its clear solution.
If violations of the Act of 1829 had occurred, why wet•
they suffered to sleep up to this moment? if the present
Bill was cot a persecuting Act, why were the doubts
about the first clause not cleared up? With respect to
the Bequests Act, be contended, though it did not repeal
the Ace of 1829, yet having been recognised by Goverre
meat and by bit Eduard Sugden, such a recognition
amounted to a eirtunl abnegation of the Act of 1829.
Whatever the words of the Bequests Act, they were
really and actually intended to give validity to what had
been done by the Roman Catholic bishops, even though
it was in presumed contravention of the Act of 1829. He
wanted to know what were to become of bequests
granted to bishops in trust, and to their successors? He
believed that question had cot yet been dealt with in its
entirety. The way in which the clause would operate
would not so much punish the usurper of titles, as it pro-
fessed to do—as it would operate against the wishes and
intentions of the pious and humble Roman Catholic.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said this was not
the piece to discuss legal questions—(ol)—but he was
quite ready to state his opinion in explanation of the
question in issue. However *learned and specific the
opihions on the question obtained by the Hon. Member,
he must take leave to doubt that such mischief as had
been stated would flew from the measure. The effect
of the clause, as he had already stated, was to put a
certain class of trustees under the operation of the Act
10th Geo. IV. Now, he would ask whether any fatal
mischief had hitherto resulted from that Act? Practi-
cally it had not, and he should say that the wording of
that Act might fairly be taken as a counterpart of the
resell, and operation of the working of the present mea-
sure. If money were to be left for the purpose of en-
dowing a, bishopric, and prohibited titles were used,
then he agreed that the operation of the mea-
sure would effeet such a bequest—but if the be-
quest was left in different terms, then diffe-
rent consequences would follow. If, in contra-
vention of the law, a bequest was made in terms which
an Act of Parliament declared should make such bequest
illegal and void—then the party so leaving the bequest
must take the consequences of his own act. If the
bequest were left for charitable purposes, even though
left in an illegal form, a wart of equity would only look
to the intentions of the testator. If titles were used in
relation to persons who were to carry out the intentions
of the testator, which were illegal, the Court would still
give effect to the intentions of the testator. The Court
would not let an incorrect designation interfere with
the leaving of money for charitable purposes. So, there-
fore, the present measure would not be attended with
the mischief which had been predicted, and the opinions
of the legal persons to the contrary would not be found
to he correct. The Act of 10 Geo. IV. had been in ope-
ration 22 years; that Act made the assumption of titles
by Roman Catolic bishops illegal, yet bequests had from
that time been made to Roman Catholic bishops for cha-
ritatle purposes; and he would ask, had there been found
any practical difficulty or inconvenience in adminis-
tering those charities? If there had been, let the fact
be brought before the House, and it would be dealt
with at once. But no difficulty or inconvenience as
yet had been felt, end it was therefore not reason .
able to expect that it would be found with regard
to the Bequests Act—that is, provided no violation of
the law gave invalidity to the intentions of the testator.
He a ould remind Hon. Gentlemen how cautiously the
Art had been framed—the words were, " exercising or
officiating within the district." This would apply to
the class of cases under discussion, because it was essen-
tial that the religious intentions of her Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects should be properly carried out. The
Bequests Act was carefully framed, so as to leave the
Roman Catholic bishops untouched so long as no in-
fraction of the law was committed, by giving to them
titles by law prohibited. This, however, was not the
place to enter upon an elaborate legal argument; he,
however, thought it advisable to state his candid opinion
on the question.
Mr. NAPIER said that when the proper time arrived
he should be fully prepared to answer many of the argu-
ments which bad been offered in opposition to this Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that us a great deal of doubt
seemed to be entertained as to the operation of this Bill,
it behoved them at present to introduce such provisions
into the Bill as would obviate any future misinterpreta-
tion. At present a Scotch bishop was exempt from the
consequences which attached to the same offence in
England and in Ireland, though for what principle he
could not tell. Oa the 26th of October, 1851, the
clauses submitted to the Roman Catholic School Com-
mittee by her Majesty's Committee of Privy Council on
Education recognised in terms the Roman Catholic
bishop of ecclesiastical distracts which iwas a subject
that demanded explanation. The priest so ordained is
to manage the religious instructions of those schools,
and no priest is to interfere who is not authorised by
the Roman Catholic bishop of the district. Then, he
said. that if the Privy Council actually agreed to that
in November last, after the Papal brief had been pub-
lished, does it not seem monstrous that now they should
be legislating to fine a man a hundred pounds if he
called himself a Roman Catholic bishop of a district
(Hear, hear;) An Act more complex and difficult
than this to understand be hak never heard.
Sir FREDERICK TIIESIGER begged to recal the
House to .the question before it, which was, whether the
preamble should be postponed for further consideration?
He had never considered this as a new Bill. The object
of this motion was to enable them to have a fuller dis-
cussion on this Bill, or rather this portion of the Bill.
He would suggest that they should be allowed to pro-
ceed to the discussion of the preamble.
Mr. ROCHE said that the Attorney-General was of
woulda s
extend powerfulto
t
opinion that this Bill had no greater scope than the
former Bill, but up jumped the Learned Solicitor-
General and said thatthe old
this new clause w
Bill,
and it
Now, what would be its effect on the diocese
of Roselthrealnand. anything in
That diocese had been for ages united to the
diocese of Cloyne. He ought to know something about
that diocese, as it was in his district. The practical
wadsocabyrrietdaiosußtimilre Theyec iently
result of uniting Ross and Cloyne was, that the spiritual
thethtweyo diocesespropose
to
cure
vi of
did
What
t
pro-
posed to render the union of these two
eloceses illegal.
How could the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Attorney-General, get up in his place and say that the
Emancipation Act bad been the law of the land in Ire-
land for two and twenty years. Practically, it had never
been carried into effect in Ireland. The more they
meddled with this Bill
the deeper they would get into
the mire.
Mr. PHILLIP HOWARD said the suggestion of the
Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson) was
a very valuable one, that they should now explain how,
when the Privy Council lately recognised Roman Ca-
tholic bishops of districts, they now proposed to fine any
man who called himself Roman Catholic bishop of a
diocese a hundred pounds.
Lord BERNARD said, the mere question at issue
was, what was the attack of the Bishop of Rome on this
COUntrt ? It was a direct attack on the sovereignty, og
our Queen. Had not he termed the glorious reformation
the Anglican schism? In the early Church the appoint-
ment of bishops remained with the people at large. Af-
terwards it fell into the hands of the clergy, and now,
in this country, it had practically fallen into the hands
of the Crown. What he wished to dwell upon was this
—that the family of Stuart being extinct, whose title to
nominate these bishops was not denied, the present ap.
pointment by the Pope, without consulting the Sove-
reign, was a virtual denial of the rights of our present
Gracious Sovereign. There was one word more which
he had to say upon the subject. It was said the feelings
of the people were indifferent on this subject. Such was
not the case in Ireland; but they thought it was a wiser
policy to leave the subject to be decided by the Imperial
Parliament, but they felt the greatest indignation against
the atrocious attempt of the Court of Rome, and he
would give his support to any efficient measure to re-
strain the insidious attempts dthe ma e against Pro-
testant religion.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government to inform than what his wishes
were upon the actual question before them. What did
the Nob;!: Lord mean by sayirg in his Bill that " the
said resenPt was illegal awl void!" Where was the re-
.9-”riPt? to 41'r.3 ti.h:e of ihe
House. llow could they clic:011u it unless it was hid
before Om?

Lord J.I.IISSELL thought it was much the better