The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-21 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING,

pied by prelates of the Established Church was proposed by
the Duke of Wellington; and when it was so proposed by
him, he stated expressly that he did not tender it as any st-
curity whatever ter the Established Church. I will real
you his words. He said, "It is certainly no security; but
it will give sa'isfaction to the United Church of England and
Ireland." Now there is a most remarkable circumstance t
which the Hon. Member for Cork referred. In 1792, the

Irish Parliament took a course exactly similar to that which
her Majesty's Government now called upon us to take, ant
passed a law to prohibit the assumption of any such titles ie
Ireland. How lonz did that remain in the statute-book?
Let the House observe the period when it was passed;
it was in 1792, when we were still at peace with France.
—(Hear, hear.) In 1793 circumstances were changed;
Louis XVI. was beheaded, and we were at war with re-
volutionary France. The right of voting was given to
Roman Catholics in Ireland, and the Act of 1792, prohi-
biting the • assumption of those titles, was summarily re-
pealed. - (Hear, hear.) But the Duke goes on, and he says,
" This was one of the incidents which made it so difficult to
legislate on this subject at all." Her Majesty's Ministers
are now well aware, I dare say, how prophetic that warn-
ing was. -(A laugh.) He says, "He was aware this claus s
gave no security to the Established Church. nor benefited it
in any way; but it was inserted to give satisfaction to those
who were disturbed by the assumption of those titles by the
Catholic clergy." The Bishop of Durham, a most distin-
guished prelate of the Established Church and the Divinity
Professor at Oxford, repudiated this clause altogether; he
says lie does not desire it as any security; it is no security
whatever, and he does not ask for it. And Lord"Chief-Jus-
tice Tenterden tells youthe clause would be inblierative, and
he proposed that which would be perfectly operative, namely
that the acceptance of the title by whomsocver given, on
the part of a prelate should be made a misdemeanour. The
Duke said, "'That would be perfectly operative; but I must
resist this clause; it would be a statutable recognition of the
power of appointment by usurpation, and to such an admis-
sion of usurpation I will not be a party. - (Hear, hear.) Now
again, I must take the liberty of repeating what was stated
by the Hon. Member for Cork as a remarkable circumstance.
Lord Malmsbury, who had been the strenuous opponent of
all concession to the Catholics, made a speech 'on that occa-
sion, which is an exact summary of the arguments on this
occasion ; he said, " I think the exclusion of Roman Catho-
lics from Parliament is a bond fide security; but you have
decided against that security ;' and then 'he says, " the
clause about assuming titles is a joke, and worse
than a joke, for it will have the effect of pro-
ducing the very agitation which you are seeking to
allay."—(Hear, hear.) Now it has been a dead letter, or
nearly so, in Ireland. Dr. M'Hale has somewhat ostenta-
tiously, I had nearly said openly, transgressed that law. Lord
Lorton called on Lord Meluourne to institute a prosecution,
but Lord Melbourne, after deliberation, told Lord Lorton
that he was not prepared to incur the responsibility of di-
recting any such prosecution to be instituted.—(Hear, hear.)
The Duke of Wellington was present on that occasion—the
author of the only penalties Naich were needlessly inserted
in the Relief Act; and what did the Duke say? Did he
stimulate Lord Melbourne to proceed? Qaite the contrary.
He joins in giving his entire approval of the prudence which
dictated the refusal of Lord Melbourne. - (Cheers.) Now,
in arguing this matter. it is necessary to observe the distinc-
tion between the theological and legal part of the question.
and the spiritual and temporal. Now there is no doubt—and
we, the Protestant part of this House, are opposed to such
an assumption of power—there is no doubt the Pope of
Rome has claimed spiritual jurisdiction over all baptized
souls within this realm. That is an assumption of the Pope
which bears date long prior to the Reformation, which was
not withdrawn at the Reformation, whic6 has never been
abated, and that power of the Pope has existed undiminished
and unabated from the earliest times down to the present
moment. Now, I conceive that the exercise of this essential
power, whether it has been by vicars apostolic, as in Eng-
land, or by the intervention of a hierarchy, as in Ireland,
where a hierarchy has existed without interruption for cen-
turies - (Hear, hear) is a question of very secondary import-
ance. The question is—are you prepared to deal with the
pretension itself? and I say our forefathers were wiser, and,
until I see you commit the error, I think you will be wiser
too.- (Cheers.) It lies at the very root of the Roman Ca-
tholic religion ; and if you seek to combat that pretension,
you may strive to eradicate the religion, but you never can
succeed ; and if you attempt to eradicatett, away with such
a Bill as this - (Loud cheers)—you will have to recur to the
blood-stained code of Elizabeth.- (Hear, hear.) That code
signally failed, and so signally failed, that even in my time,
by the common consent of the greatest men in this House,
that code has been regarded as nothing else than a disgrace
to our country.—(Cheers.) Now, with regard to the confu-
sion between spiritual and temporal. lam of opinion that
from the earliest times there has been very great care and
very great skill shown in the statute law of this country, in
making a pointed and distinct definitidn between the spiri-
tual and temporal power of the Pope. The s atutes of
prcvisors and praamunire were not framed on a denial of
the spiritual supremacy of the Pope; and what is it
those statutes have done? They have said, you shall
exercise your spiritual power without interruption,
as far as the spiritual power goes, but we will
check you with reference to the temporal, more particu-
larly with reference to the temporalities attached to the
bishoprics, and the civil effect of your hpiritual excommuni-
cation. No attempt was ever made td. deny, as an incident
of spiritual power, the right of the Pope to appoint bishops.
But the statute more particu, arly says, if you shall appoint a
bishop, or translate a bishop without the consent of the
Crown, then the temporalities shall not follow your appoint -
ment. Further, without denying the spiritual effect of your
excommunications, we will tell you our courts of law shall
not be subsidiary to giving any civil effect to your excommu-
nication.—(Hear, hear.)—The appointment of bishops is an
incident of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and the ter-
ritorial division of this country to give eeect to those ap-
pointment of bishops is a necessary and inevitable conse-
quence.—(Hear, hear.) The statute of Richard 11. sought
to confine the spiritual power within narrow limits, but left
the utmost latitude to the Crown and the courts of law with
respect to thekcivil rights. This statute of Richard 11. is a
remarkable statute. It is not a dead letter. It was framed

in Catholic times, when the Catholic religion was in the
plenitude of its p -wer. In the reign of Henry VIII. Cardinal
Wolsey was indicted under that statute, and was convicted
by the Star Chamber. But sines the Reformation has that
statute been a dead letter? In Ireland, in the reign of
James 1., so late as the year 1602, one Lalor, a vicar
apostolic, who exercised legantine power in Ulster, and
exceedtd his authority, and trenched on the temporal
power, was indicted before a jury in Ireland, under the sta-
tute of Richard, and was convicted. Now, the Solicitor-
General put to us pointedly this question. He says,—" I
want an answer to this question—Has the Roman Pontiff in
partitioning the realm of England into provinces and dio-
c ses, and establishing therein archbishops and bishops, and
organizing a hierarchy for the government thereof, invaded
the prerogative of the. Crown, outraged the independence of
the country; had those of her Majesty's subjects who had
lent themselves to the carrying out of this great scheme, and
stood by and abetted him, departed from that undivided al-
legiance they owe to their S tvereign, violated the law of the
land, and infringed the spirit of the Constitution ?" Now,
if they had trenched on the prerogative of the Crown—if
they had violated the law of the land— if they had touched
the regality—if they had entrenched on the realm of Eng-
land, then I say the statute of Richard 11. most unequivo-
cally applies.—(Cheers.) Our Roman Catholic ancestors de-
fended the regality of the Crown—(Hear,
hear)—and de-
fended the rights and liberties of the subject ; and they did
provide remedies in those times Which were found ade-
quate, and which, since the Reformation, in Ireland, by
the verdict of a jury, have been made applicable. But
the language is remarkable in Which the law officers
of the Crown assigned their reasons for preferring the
indictment under the statute of Richard in preference to
having recourse to the penal statutes of Elizabeth. The
preamble of the statute of Richard is in these words :
" They, and all the liege commons of the realm, will stand
with our Lora the King, his said crown and his regality,
in all cases attempted against him, his crown and regality,
in all points to live and to die. Pecernunire for purchasing
or pursuing bulls, &c., from Rome, which touch the Kng,
against him, his crown, his regality, or his realm." Now
is
the subject-matter of inquiry oue that ought to go to
a jury. It is tor a jury to decide whether what has
been done touches the regality, touches
the Crown, or
touches the realm.— (Loud cheers.) sow, what were the
reasons assigned by the law officers of the Crown on the
the statute of Richard instead
trial of Lalor for preferring'
of the statute of Elizabeth? They said—"
I. We made
choice to proceed upon a law made ;more than 200 years
past, when the King, the Lords, and Commons, which made
the laws, and the judges, which did interpret them, did for
the most
taught and held in the art follow the same op
w
inions in religion which
e re taug
Court of Rome. 2.
These laws were made to uphold and maintain
the sovereignty of the King. the liberty of the people, the
common law, and the commonweal,
which otherwise had been
undermined and utterly ruined by the usurpation of the
Bishop of Rome. For the Commons of
England may be an
example unto all other subjects in the world in this, that
they have ever been tender and sensible of the wrongs offered
unto their kings, and have ever contended to uphold and
maintain their honour and sovereihave generally been such, as no gnty,
Their faith and
loyalty no pretence of zeal er
religion could ever withdraw the greater part of the subjects
to submit themselves to a foreign yoke--no, not when Po-
pery was in her height and exultation; whereof this Act
(16th of Richard II.), and divers others of the same kind,
are clear and manifest testimonies." —(Cheers.) Now, Sir,
I contend. to defend the sovereignty of the Crown, no new
laws whatever are necessary. - (Cheers.) If that sove-
reignty has been invaded, you have the ancient laws, the
unexceptionable law, to which you may apply and bring
your case before a jury; bat it you seek to
put down, directly
or indirectly, the spiritual- supremacy of the Court of Rome
over the Roman Catholic population of England, then,_ in-
deed, you must embark in a fearful contest.—(Loud
cheers.) You must embark in that contest which disgraced
England by shedding the precious blood of More, which
has for centuries disturbed England, ruined Ireland, and
inflicted indelible disgrace on this unhapy realm.—(Loud
cheers.) The incident of the spiritual
of appointing bishops to spiritual jurisdiction,
Part of the supremacy
is the right
and the division of this country into districts for the more
perfect axe cise of that spiritual power has also, at least
in Ireland, been co-extensive with the exercise of the
right itself, and both the common law and the canon of Eng-
land have always required that it should be limited by
places. Now, the Bishop of Rome claims as of right, that
he is the Bishop of England, and is this a dormant right?
It is only directly as delegates from the Bishop of Rome,
that vicars apostolic have ever exercised any Power. - ( Hear.)
You are jealous of the direct in .e ference of the spiritual
power of a foreign prince. Your object would naturally be
to remove the subjects of her Majesty from that direct in-
fluence of the .I'ope. Now the vicara apostolic are the
creatures of his will and the subjects of his caprice, and
from the vicars apostolic where is the
appeal now? It
lies only to the Pope of Rome
in person ; and
when you appeal from the vicars apostolic, the Pope is not
bound by the canon law, but may exercise his caprice in any
way whatsoever.—(Hear.) In Ireland the Pope can exercise
no such power; and now, with regard to the bishops,
why the Pope in the very year of the. Revolution (1688) di-
vided England into four districts; and again, in 1840, he
added four other districts.—(Hear, hear.) What took place
in 1812? Did you not desire that the powers of vicars
apostolic should cease, and an organised hierarchy be estab-
lished in England as in Ireland? Why, air, in 1812, Sir John
Cox Hippisley, on the part of the British Government (the
Pope then being under the immediate domination of Napo-
leon, our great enemy) stated that the British Government
desired the people of England should thus be emancipated
in one degree from the direct control of the Pope --(Hear,
hear)—and Sir John Cox Hippisley was employed by the
British Government to propose to the Pope that the vicars
apostolic should no longer exist, but that a regular organised
hierarchy should be established in England.—(Cheers and
loud cries of "Hear, hear.") For reasons which, very
likely, were not at all favourable to England,
the Pope de-
clined the proposition, preferring to keep the power more
completely in his hands through the vicars apostolic—(Hear,
hear)—so he refused to comply with the suggestion of
the British Government, under which a hierarchy might
have been established in England as in Ireland.—(Hear.)
Sir, I would now say a word as to my Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Oxford, of whom, however, I should be sorry to say
anything severe. He asked the other night, "Is it not mon-
strous that a foreign prince, such as the Pope, should exer-
cise a discretionary power as to what shall be the organisa-
tion of a hierarchy in this country?" sir, with all sulnnis-

sion to my Hon. Friend, if the spiritual head of the Roman
Catholic Church were to exercise that power, I know not in
what hands it can be vested.— ( Hear, hear.) It is not denied
that it is, and may be an aggressive religion. My Noble
Friend (Lord Ashley) did not the other night deny that the
Catholic religion, on a fair level, had the right of endeavour-
ing to diffuse its doctrines, which are not only tolerated, but
of which the free exercise is guaranteed by legislation in this
country.—(Hear, hear.) But on the other hand, if it may
be an aggressive religion, surely it is, at all events, entitled
to be a defensive religion; and there may be a disposition to
snake proselytes from it; and is it then extraordinary that
the spiritual heads of the Church, who have a special
care and a special charge as to the providing for the
spiritual welfare of their Church, should be the persons to
exercise this discretionary power?—(Cries of " Hear.")
But then it is said that an incidental effect of establishing
this hierarchy will be to introduce the canon law. My an-
swer is, that in Ireland they have had that canon law for
hundreds of years, and I am not aware that, amidst all the
evils and sorrows of that unhappy country, any particular
importance has been attached to the canon law.—(Hear.)
Then, my Honourable Friend (Mr. P. Wood) put in another
proposition, that more surprised me still, that we, as the
main and Protestant Legislature, should provide for some
supposed and contingent evils which might arise to lay
members of the Catholic Church from the operation of the
canon law, as affecting them; and he gave us the maxim
si cuter a tuo ut non alienum lcedas —but he knows there is
another legal maxim volenti non fit injuria.— (Hear, hear. )
What injury can there arise to laymen from the canon law?
Their obedience to it is voluntary; and the moment they
feel aggrieved by it they have only to withhold their obe-
dience to it. (dear, hear.) This canon law is not recog-
nized by the law of England.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.") In-
cidentally, indeed, in reference to trusts, the courts of equity
come across it ; and I am informed that the principle they
then apply to it is this—Does it trench on our law? does
it violate any statute? is it at variance with the common
law ? or, is it opposed to any rule of equity? If it be,
then away with it ! we have nothing to do with it. Buti fit do
not violate any of these principles, then we apply ourselves
to it in connexion with that which we consider the
will of the testator. This is the system which we have
been following for years in Ireland, and no evil has ever
arisen from it. —(Hear, hear.) And therefore why there
should be all this horror of the canon law in England, I
cannot conceive.— (Hear, bear.) Sir, I would have gladly
hare have dropped all further reference to the speech of the
Honourable Member for Oxford, but there was one observa-

tion of his which grieved me exceedingly, for anything
falling from him injurious to civil and religious liberty must,
considering his known attachment to it, be of great con-
sequence. He will allow mb to say I remember his
venerable father. at whose aide I fought in the great battle
of emancipation, in 1829. And I was therefore the more
astonished and grieved to hear those observations from
his lips. He told us that the Church of Rome was un-
changeable, and that, being unchangeable, her doctrines
were still as likely to be enforced as ever, and that they
might be carried to the extent of even occasionally de-
throning sovereigns, or relieving subjects and soldiers
from their oaths of allegiance! Why, Sir, these are the
battered remnants of the old arguments which I thought
had been cast aside as filthy rags.—(Loud cheers, and
cries of " Hear, hear.) When, in 1829, we consented to
admit Catholics to perfect equality of civil rights and power
we were culpable beyond measure in coming to that conclu-
sion if we believe one word of all this (Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—er thought that their allegiance was tainted,
and of that dangerous description which the Honourable
Member implied.—( Hear, hear.) But now, is ir, as to these
territorial divisions. Have we no authority on the subject?
—authorities why we should consider them more harmless
than they are represented? Let me bring under the notice
of the House what a prelate of the English Church says of
them. Sir, I have seen with regret many of the addresses
of the prelates of the English Church amidst the excitement
of this period.—(Hear, hear.) I hold, however, in my hand
a most honourable exception—an address from the Bishop of
Norwich to his clergy. I quote him with the utmost plea-
sure, because I cordially respect his character, and think
that such sentiments, proceeding from him, are worthy of the
highest commendation.—(Hear, hear.) He says, speaking
of this Papal aggression, " this measure, apart from the man-
ner in which it has been attempted, and the language which
has been held officially and unofficially, and in certain well-
known principles of Romanism which give significancy to
what has been done—the measure itself is nothing of which
we have any right to complain consistently with our tolera-
tion of Romanism. An episcopal Church is not toletated if
we interfere with its liberty to appoint bishops, to determine
their number and rank, and to bestow upon them any titles
provided they do not infringe on any existing rights (the
very expression used in the Act of 1829, of which be calls
for no extension at all). It might naturally have produced
more of amazement than indignation to hear a functionary
of Rome declare that he governs counties of England as
ordinary thereof. Some territorial division, however, is ne-
cessary for every community of Christians in an episcopal
Church, and the term for a bishop's district is diocese."—
(Loud cheers and cries of "Hear, hear.") That is high
clerical authority; the opinion of one of the most eminent
prelates of our Church, and it is against this Bill.— (Hear.)
Have we no high lay authority ? I turn at once to the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.—(Hear. hear.) Has he not
recognised these territorial divisions? Has he not recog-
nised them most remarkably? I blame him not, because I
think the views which led him to write the letter I am
about to read were, quite consistent with his duty, and
in accordance with that policy which was transmitted to
him by his predecessors, and which he has most honour-
ably and faithfully carried out.—(Hear, hear.) But I
think somewhat imprudently he entrusted to Bishop
Nicholson a letter which was to be communicated to the Pope
at Rome ; and in that letter what are the terms in which he
speaks of those territorial ,divisions? He had submitted to
the bishops certain new regulations for the government of
the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and had hoped to have been
able by these regulations to remove the Papal objections to
these colleges. What are the provisions he had made for the
purpose of giving some influence to the hierarchy in Ireland
in the government of the colleges? He says—" The list of
visitors has not yet been settled, but I can haveno hesitation
in saying that it will include the Catholic archbishop of the
province and bishop of the diocese in which the college is
situated. As I entertain a profound veneration for the cha-
racter of the Pope, and implicitly rely on his upright judg-
ment, it gives me great pleasure now to ask your Grace
to submit these statutes to the consideration of his Holiness,
believing, as I do, it may be advantageously compared with
those of any similar institution in Europe." Here is a dis-
tinct recognition of these territorial divisions, " province"
and " diocese."—(Hear.) Thus then I have cited an autho-
rity fom a prelate of the Established Church, and from the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of these territorial di-
visions.. (Hear.) Have I no other authority? What did the
Prime Minister say in 1848? The very question of the letter
to which I have referred was brought under the notice of the
House by Sir Robert Inglis ; and it is right I should remind
the House that at that time a question had also arisen whe-
ther there was not an intention at Rome to appoint Dr. Wise-
man Archbishop of Westminster; and the question was asked
by my Hon. Friend upon that point. The Noble Lord had
denied all knowledge of any such intention, and said if his
consent were asked to that, he was not prepared to give it.
But as to those territorial divisions of England, I really do not
think
read,
ipkany opinions can be stated so clearly on this subject
as in the words of the Noble Lord himself, which I am about
representing as they do my own opinions exactly.
With regard to spiritual au hority, whatever control is to be
obtained over the spiritual authority of the Pope, can only
be obtained by agreement for that end. You must give cer-
tain advantages to the Catholics, and then obtain from the
Pope certain advantages in return. Among which we may
stipulate that the Pope should not create any new dioceses
without the consent of the Queen. But, unless you have
an agreement, you are not in a positioa to have any such
advantage.—(Hear, hear) You may say you will have
nothing to do with any arrangement of that kind, nor give
any authority to the Catholic religion in England. But then
you must leave the spiritual authority of the Pope utterly
unfettered.—(Hear.) You cannot bind the Pope's spiritual
influence unless you have some agreement. Although you
may prevent any spiritual authority from being exercised by
he Pope by law, there is no provision, no law my Hon.
Friend could frame which would deprive the Pope of that in-
ft which is exercised over the minds of the Catholics.
It is obvious that you cannot by any means prevent him
from communicating with the Catholics of this country.
You may try to prevent such communications from being
opened ; but I think it would be very foolish if yo a took any
means of vigour or energy to effect that purpose.—( Hear,
hear.) If such communication be not open, it will be secret ;
and so long as there are Catholics in this country—and so
long as they acknowledge the Pope as the head of their
Church—you cannot prevent his having spiritual influ-
ence over those who belong to his Church.—(Loud cries
f " Hear, hear.") Sir, I could not possibly express my
awn opinions better than in the words of the Noble Lord.
Within five days of the period when the Noble Lord
exptessed these opinions, the Attorney-General had to dis-
cuss the same question on a measure which had come before
the House. The Hon. Member for Lambeth{ Mr. Pearson)
had proposed to limit the proposed diplomatic relations with
Rome, by inserting the words " touching and concerning
international relations." The Solicitor-General opp, sed
the introduction of these words on the ground that " if
those words were inserted in the Bill, in cases where there
was the least ingredient of a spiritual character it would be
injurious. Questions of a mixed character might arise,
though in the result they were of a temporal nature, and
in such no interference could take place.
,Suppese the
Pope introduced any regulation as to the Boman Catholics
ofCanada, this qualification would prevent any interfer-
enc-,." Where, then, is the assault on the regality—where
is the attack on the rights and liberties of the subject—where
the attack on the prerogatives of royalty ?—(Cheers.) "As
the law now stands, the Pope may divide the country
into bi hoprics and archbishoprics—(Laughter)—and if
the amendment were agreed to he might do so still ; but if
we had free diplomatic relations with him, the British Go-
vernment might interfere to prevent such a division."—
(Cheers and laughter.) I have already told you it is doubt-
ful whether, by imputation at least, the first clause does not
carry fully into effect what in terms is enacted by the second
and third clauses. There is high legal authority for saying
that it does.—(Hear, hear.) I have already put it to you
that if that be so the Government must withdraw their Bill.
But take it that it is not so is this a question in relation to
its effect upon the social condition of Ireland that can be left
in doubt ? (Loud cheers from the Irish Members.) I have
permission to read to the House a letter of Archbishop Mur-
ray's, which I will do. See if you should chance to make a
mistake what may be the effect on the whole social frame-
work of Irish society, so far as seven-eighths of the whole
population are concerned? Archbishop Murray says:—
" Dublin, March 3, 1851.—Our Church is essentially
episcopal. Our sacred ministry could not be carried on
without priests, we could have no priests without
bishops, and no bishops but through the authority
of the Pope. It is his business not only to name
our bishops, but to point out the limits within which this
jurisdiction is to be circumscribed. The portion or surface
which contains the Catholic flock within those limits may be
called a district, or a see, or a bishopric, and the individual
appointed to ordain priests, and to earry on the other neces-
sary functions of the ministry therein, may be a vicar-
apostolic or a bishop in ordinary, with this difference, that
the former is removable at pleasure, the latter is permanent,
and therefore one step removed from the immediate action of
Papal influence. Except as Archbishop of Dublin I could
not ordain one of my priests. I could net give a parish, I
could not communicate with the Pope, I could net correspond
with foreign bishops, I could not give letters dimissry, or
ordination letters, or letters testimonial. I have laid my
hand on an old letter of ordination, which was not for-
warded to the individual :for whom it was intended. It
was written in 1828. Were I to issue that letter now I
should be liable to a fine of 100/. Though in wry in-
stances we were obliged to act in disobedience to
un-
just
harshlylaww t ett doo
viewdbeefpoerneodfa
on
the proposed law seems to be very different. From we knew thatos. Government,haspiri wwhiuschnhoFtasdimssuptgag
first
ich he had
courtclausesu e such
amarriage
valid
• and a
it might be inferred h were a pr°l3lsesedest
performed might, on that ground, be declared. ,
al document ehrnytmaLl;enclotsea,t. h:
wmhu.st appear
without the imputation of bigamy. _
discontented husband might take„toThhiismiseh
rfegaanrodthtoerclawoisfee
2, and although it is true that the Government have
con-
sented to withdraw clause 2, and I understand that proposi-
tion is to be resisted; but whether the clause stand or not, if
My view be moot, all the evil consequences pointed out 13.7