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

MAY 2O, 1851.

Members to have time to see what those amendments really
were? The many-tongued animal the press had lately bee❑
devoting great space to the proceedings of what was
called the Irish brigade, and remarked on the
dearth of talent in the Irish ranks, asking
where were the Currans, the Grattans, the Sheridans,
the Plunkets? He might well retaliate, and pointing
to the Treasury bench, ask where were the Foxes—
(Laughter)—the Burkes, and the Pitts? He was one
who liked precedents, and if they were reproached for
wasting the time of the House, which they had not yet
done, he would refer them to an edition of
Lord Brougham's speeches, edited by himself, for the
course which was taken by the party to which the Noble
Lord now at the head of the Government belonged, in
1816, for the protection of the people of this country.
H-ving read the opinion of Mr. Brougham, when he was
a Member of the House, relative to the propriety of of-
fering every description of opposition to an obnoxious
tax, that example being set by him, and having had his
approval after the lapse of upwards of twenty
years. He should be glad to know whether it
was fair or reasonable of the Noble Lord, and those
who acted with him, to taunt him (Mr. Reynolds) and
those who voted as he voted, with wasting the time
of the House, because he merely did what their bad
policy had given him permission to do. He
trusted the Noble Lord would not object to
the Chairman reporting progress. He wished to
offer no factious opposition to the Bill—A laugh)—
but simply wanted to have time to consider the Bill,
in its altered state. If such a concession were made by
the Government, a great deal of time and trouble would
be saved. He therefore felt justified in moving, as an
amendment, that the Chairman now report progress.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he would leave it to the
consideration of the Committee, whether the course
pursued by the Hon. Gentleman was or was not in ac-
cordance with the understanding which was arrived at
by the House on Friday evening.—(Hear, hear.)
He trusted that the House would not be led into the
discussion of the different topics to which the Hon.
Gentleman had adverted. Whatever might be the ob-
ject of the Hon. Gentleman it could have no other effect
than to prevent the House adopting the arrangement
of Friday night. viz., that they should proceed with the
consideration of the clauses of the Bill.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY seconded the
amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that there were such stringent
regulations in that Bill that if they were to be per-
severed in they would call into question all
the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith.—(Hear, hear.)
and cheers.) This was not the same Bill; it was a new
Bill, and therefore it ought to go through all the pro-
cesses of a new Bill.—(Hear, hear.) It was not
the Bill at all which the Noble Lord had
first introduced. It was altogether a new Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) He confessed that he was not able to understand
it.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had, with all his
constitutional earnestness, pressed the Bill upon the
House, and yet what had been the effect ?
Why, that the Bill had been entirely changed.
Did he then ask for anything that was unrea-
sonable? Nothing of the kind. He only asked for time
for deliberation. The Ministry, with a large ma-
jority at their back, might, it was true, press for a
consummation of their designs; but, to say the least of
it, it was evidently unconstitutional, and he should
therefore vote for the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE regretted equally the motion and
the necessity for its being made, but it was evident that
a great change had been made, not only in the Bill
itself, but in the spirit of the Bill also, causing it
to become altogether a different thing to tha,
which it formerly was. Within the whole
course of his Parliamentary experience, he hap
never met with anything equal to this, and he did there-
fore feel that they had no right whatever to enter upon
legislation on this subject until they had had advice from
the first law officers of the Crown. Any gentleman
might get up and introduce words which would
altogether alter the tenor and the force of the
Bill. How then could they proceed ? This
Bill contained three operative clauses; of these
three two were rendered void. What would they do
if his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for
Midhurst had attacked the Pope's brief itself. He said
that that brief was in itself invalid, and quite illegal,
in this country. This proposition the Ministry had
adopted, and it was therefore plai❑ that nothing could
be done soundly at least without that legal advice of
which they now steed so much in need. Was it not also
known to the House that there was another rescript from
the Papal authority for the division of the Roman Ca.
tholic diocese of Ross, which was now separated from
the diocese of Cloyne. Ace rding to this measure that
rescript would be also void. He, therefore, hoped the,
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) or the Secretary of
State for the Home Department (sir G. Grey) would in-
form the House as to the legal character and bearings of
the present Bill; and he also wished to know whether
the excluded clause would be brought back to the Bill,
and whether, if so, it would have the retrospective fore.
of aneulling the past rescript of the Pope, and also of de-
feating the late episcopal jurisdiction in Ireland, to which
he had already adverted?
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Committee had two ques-
tions to consider which ought to be kept separate. The
first was the question of the Hon. Member for Dublin.
who had moved that the Chairman should report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again; and whatever the Noble
Lord the Member for Arundel might say, he could not
agree to that course, because he had no security, when
they came on Friday next to consider the Bill, that the
Noble Lord might not, without any factious motive, pro-
pose that the Chairman should leave the chair; and thus
they would be in no better position than they were at the
present moment. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) took another course, and said that in going
into a Bill of so much importance as this, especially
when the first clause was not originally in the Bill, but
had been lately introduced, some member of the Govern-
ment ought to explain the general scope of the clauses
and what would be their practical effect; and he (Lord
J. Russell) would not deny, if the other questions wore
disposed of, that it would ba fair, when they came to read
the clause, that the Attorney•-General should explain to
the Committee the view which he took of that clause
and what would be its legal effect.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY understood
that the agreement came to on last Friday night was,
that there should be no division on the motion of the
Speaker leaving the chair, but that there was no farther
pledge given on their part; and he should add that, when
the Noble Lord stated that there was no security for a
legitimate discussion, there existed a right for every Hon.
Gentleman to avail himself of all the forms of the House
against so obnoxious a measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the present was a new
Bill altogether, and that it was nothing but just and fair
that its principles soould be considered.
Sir R. H. INGLIS admitted that the law officers of
the Crown should explain the nature of the new clause,
particularly as that clause was as improvement in the
B="

Mr. P. HOWARD said that, if the Government ac-
ceded to the suggestion of Mr. Gladstone, then Mr.
Reynolds might with great propriety withdraw his mo-
tion. It they obtained from the law officers of the
Crown a full and distinct explanation of all the bearings
of the measure, they could reserve their opposition till
it had reached a future stage.
Mr. HORSMAN said that if the Hon. Member for
Dubliu would withdraw his motion so as to enable the
statement to be made by the Attorney-General, in ac-
cordance with the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentle
man opposite (Mr. Gladstone), to which the Noble Lord
had acceded, the Hon. Member would not be in a worse
position tha❑ he was at present. As some misunder-
standing seemed to exist as to what happened on Friday
last, and as he was present on the occasion he wished to
observe that the statement of his Noble Friend behind
him (Lord Arundel and Surrey) as to the arrangement
entered into on that occasion was correct. The Hon.
Gentlemen who were concerned in the arrangement
stated, on that occasion, that they agreed to the Noble
Lord's suggestion, on condition that on Monday they
would not be bound by it, beyond the question that the
Speaker do leave the chair, and to that condition the
Noble Lord assented.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that what he had stated
was, that when they came to the first clause the At
torney-General wonlil make a statement with respect to
the bearing and legal effects of that clause. That did
not touch the question of the preamble.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that if the motion of
the Hon. Member for Dublin was within the strict let-
ter, it was not within the spirit of the arrangement.
That arrangement was that no opposition should be
made to the Speaker leaving the chair; but having
agreed to the Speaker leaving the chair, what possible
use was there in demanding that ho should be put into it
again immediately, for that was the object of the motion
of the Hon, Member for Dublin? He thought the Hon.
Gentleman ought to allow the first reading of the Bill,
and on the question that it be read a second time the
Attorney-General should make his statement. He
thought the Noble Lord had hardly kept faith with the
House. For having before Easter called on all lion
Gentlemen who had amendments to propose in the Bill
to place them on the paper, and that after the Easter re-
cess he would state which of them he would accept and
which reject, the Noble Lord, on the House assembling
after the recess, stated that he would not accept the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Midhurst. Yet the
Noble Lord had sent the Attorney-General to the Hon.
Member for Midhurst in order to " cook up" a new Bill
with him; but it appeared they could not agree upon it.
However, as the House did not know at the present mo-
ment where in the Bill the Hon. Member for Midhurst
meant to place his amendments, that of itself consti-
tuted a ground for asking a few days' delay. He sug-
gested that the Hon. Member withdraw his motion, and
that they should at once have the statement of the Attor-
ney-General.

-Mr. B. ROCHE took the same view of the arrange-
ment of Friday night as the Noble Lord (Arundel and
Surrey).
Mr. KEOGH said that the arrangement had been
made between him and the Noble Lord, and if he con-
ceived he were violating the spirit of that arrangement
in supporting the motion of the Hon. Member for
Dublin, he would not vote for it. But he was convinced
that that motion violated neither the spirit nor the letter
of that understanding; neither had the Noble Lord ac-
cused them of such a thing, bet the Right Honourable
Gentleman (Sir George Grey) hinted it. What happened
was this. He asked the Noble Lord to consent to the
re-printing of the Bill; the Noble Lord at first refused,
and the House now saw that he (Mr. Keogh) had just
and reasonable grounds for that request. The Noble
Lord afterwards consented, on condition that on Monday
he should be placed in the same position with respect to
the Bill as he was then; ho (Mr. Keogh) agreed, pro-
vided that he and his friends should elso be put in
the same position—namely, that on the Speaker
leaving the chair they should make every species of
opposition to the Bill that they deemed expedient. That
was the arrangement agreed to, and he insisted it had j
them. As re. I
not been violated in spirit or letter by

garded the proposition just made by the Noble Lord, he which had all eady been decided? He wanted to know
underst'od the Noble Lord admitted the justice of the whether the, same effect would he produced by the Bill,.
Right Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) appeal, for as it stood then, as was intended by the Bill as it me
he had said that if they took one step, it was but right , naily stood. His supposition, of course, was immaterial,
that he himself or the Attorney General should make a but he certainly supposed that the first clause would
statement. Now the Chairman of Committees had just have that effect.
informed him that it was necessary to move that the Bill The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that the.
be read a first and second time, because of the alterations objection which led to the withdrawal of the second
made in it; but that if it were the same Bill it would not clause was, that it had a retrospective effect of a den-
be necessary. The Noble Lord had adopted is great por- gerous character. The Roman Catholic prelates of Ire-
tion of the Hon. Member for Midhurst's amendment; land said, that under what they conceived to be the con-
let the Attorney-General then make his statement, aid struction of the Act of 1829, they had retained the ec
afterwards let them adjourn the question to Friday next, cleeiastical titles, which were forbidden by that Act.
in order that they might have an opportunity of fully They considered that they were quite right in so read'e
considering the provisions of the Bill as amended. The ing the Act, and therefore requested that they might bep
Noble Lord had undertaken to have the Bill reprinted, left in the same position as it placed them in. Now
but it had not been delivered to Hon. Members until late (the Solicitor-General) entertained great doubt as.
uto,
that morning. On that ground alone they were entitled whether they had acted rightly under that Act; but to have it adjourned,
whether that were so or not, if these prelates were right;
Iti
Mr. WALPOLE said that he had given notice of his under the old Act, they would eernitme to be so 11 amendments on the second reading of the Bill; and and if they were wrong under the old Act, they would,._ they had been put on the paper before the Easter re- be equally wrong now. All that had been conceded in.
cess, so that it could not be with justice said that the striking out the second clause. If the Pope could pro'
House was taken by surprise with respect to those teed, let them proceed. There was no clause there
he
amendments. Alter the Easter recess the Noble Lord prohibit him, and as it was matter of doubt whether ne,
stated that he did not object in principle to the first could legally proceed, he was entitled to the benefit et
clause, which he (Mr. Walpole) proposed, for that it the doubt.
was in substaece already contained in the Bill. He Mr. GLADSTONE said the Hon. and Learned Ger;
(Mr. Walpole) met the Attorney-General by accident in tleman had not answered his question as to what w 0?,,,
the street, arid spoke to him on the subject of his he the effect of the clause, not with reference to Irish.
amendments, wondering that the plan therein suggested but English sees.
olish
had not been adopted by the Government. On the foie The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied that Eno ~,
lowing day he had a conversation with the Attorney- Rumen Catholic bishops would stand in precisely tud:
General on the subject of his amendments, a portion of same way as the Irish Roman Catholic bishops stoeo which the Government objected to, and another poi.- If Irish bishops were right English bishops
tion they did not object to. But, until he came down be right, hut he had his doubt.,
• s in
on Friday last, the Government were under no arrange- Mr. M'CULLAGII said the Pope's proceeding f
went with him either to reject or accept them. How relation to the bishopric of Ross was not the first case of
there could be any such compromise, he could not the kind, for in the diocese of Galway there was It new.
understand, for he approved of the principle of the Bill, bishopric, created under precisely similar circumstances'
and he could see nothing objectionable in an Hon. Why, then, was that case not taken up if the act 5"
Member who supported a Bill communicating with the illegal? He did not think the Hon. and LearnedGeu:
would al
Attorney-General, who had the conduct of the Bill, in tleinan had answered the Right lion. Gentleman's tlnfsa
order to see how far any amendments he meant to pro- tion, whether the subtraction of the second and third
pose in the Bill were objectionable or not,
clauses was a real charge, and whether the retentionf
o Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—It was the Noble Lord himself the first clause really did not tend to invalidate every
who had stated he bad sent the Attorney-General to the act done by Roman Catholic bishops since their appoint'
Hon. Member for Midhurst.
went and the passing of the Act of 1829. There well Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. and Learned Gentle- very grave doubts on this
point raised by the u:115
Man had said very truly that he had met the Attorney- learned authorities in the law, and it therefore behoved
General by accident, and the latter bad most properly the legal advisers of the Crown to grapple with the doubt!'
told him (Lord J.Russell) that he had some conversation and to decide the question at once—to decide it, all
with the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst with , fact, in that House.—(Hear, hear.) The House ought
respect to his amendments, but he did not wish to corn- to know whether it was the Bill of February, of Maros'k
municate further with him without his (Lord J. Russell's) of April, or the fourth Bill, a combination of the ot'ec,
authority. He (Lord J. Russell) did not give him any Bills—the Bill of May—they were discussing.
explicit directions on the matter, but gave him his autho- deal with the doubt he had referred to on broad grollck, et
city to communicate with the Hon. and Learned Gentle- and h© hoped the House would require its clear solution'
Man respecting it.
If violations of the Act of 1829 had occurred, why were
He wisbeddt ,
Mr. HUME said the question was, whether the ex la- they suffered to sleep up to this moment? If the present.
nation asked for should be given on the motion that the Bill was not a persecuting Act, why were the doubt:
preamble be postponed, or on the first clause. It ap- about the first clause not cleared up? With respect to
peered to him a matter of very little importance on which the Bequests Act, he contended, though it did not repeal
After was given.
After a few words from Mr. S. CRAWFORD the Act of 1829, yet having been recognised by Govern'
Mr. MOORE reminded the House that the Hon Mem- , meat and by Sir Edward Sugden, such a recogaitio
. amounted to a virtual abnegation of the Act of 1829'
ber for Athlone had a notice on the paper of a motion
Whatever the words of the Bequests Act, they mere
with respect to the postponement of the preamble, and it really and actually intended to give validity to what bad
ment
of
',
was quite impreamble nowossible therefore to accede to the postpone- been done by the Roman Catholic bishops, even thong"
it was in presumed contravention of the Act of 1829. Ile!
Mr. REYNOLDS would not enter into any explana- wanted to know what were to become of Noes' tion respecting Friday night's arrangement, as it had granted to bishops in trust, and to their successors? .1:1,e,
been already explained by the Hon. and Learned Mem- believed that question had not yet been dealt with in 11'
ber for Athlone. He was prepared to withdraw his entirety. The way in which the clause would operate
motion only on the specific understanding that the At-
would not so much punish as it.;
corney-General should be permitted to explain the Bill reseed to d—as it would operate against the wishes as amended and after that explanation was made, that u the usurper of titles,shes au1)10 u
intentions of the pious and humble Roman Catholic.
no turther progress should be attempted by the Govern- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was 'e
ment with the Bill until Friday.
the place to discuss legal questions—(oh)—but he wag
Lord J. RUSSELL could nut agree to the proposition quite ready to state his opinion in explanation of the
of the Hon. Gentleman.
The amendment was then negatived without a division, question in issue. However learned and specific In°opinions on the question obtained by the Hon. Member,
The amended Bill was then read a first and second
time. he must take leave to doubt that such mischief as had
On the question that the
been stated would flow from the measure. The effec
P reamble be postponed, of the clause, as he had already stated, was to put 6
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the Chairman report certain class of trtes'ees under the operation of the Act,
progress.
10th Geo. IV. Now, he would ask whether any fatal
The Committee then divided, when there appeared— mischief had hitherto resulted from that Act? Practi-
For the amendment ... ..• ... 46 tally it had not, and he should say that the wording of
Against it ... ". ... ... 262 that Act might fairly be taken as a counterpart of the
Majority ••• .•• .-216 result and operation of the working of the present nsea-
The preamble was postponed accordingly.• sure. If money were to be left for the purpose of en'
On the first clause being put from the chair,
(lowing a bishopric, and prohibited titles were used,
The AT FORNEY-GENERAL, understanding it was then he agreed that the operation of the inea"
the general wish of the House he should make a state- sure would effect such a bequest—but if the be'
went of the legal effect of the provisions of the Bill, quest was left in different terms, then diffe'
felt it to be his duty to do so on the present occasion, rent consequences would follow. If, in contra-
In the first place, he totally and entirely disagreed with vention of the law, a bequest was made in terms which
those Hon. Members who said that the Bill was a new an Act of Parliament declared should make such bequest
Bill. The only clause to which he proposed to attach illegal and void—then the party so leaving the bequest
any observations, in the first instance, was the first must take the consequences of his own act. If the
clause, as that was the clause alleged to contain certain bequest were left for charitable , h
matter which made the Bill a new measure. He was purposes even thong
, left in an illegal form, a court of equity would only look
nowever, prepared to show that this clause effected no to the intentions of the testator. If titles were used in
alteration whatever in reality in the character of the relation to persons who were to carry out the intentions
Bill; but that, on the contrary, it left that measure sub- of the testator, which were illegal, the Court would still
stantially the same as before. As the Bill stood before, give effect to the intentions of the testator. The Court
the preamble recited " tnat whereas certain of her Ma- would not let an incorrect designation interfere with
jesty's subjects, by virtue of a pretended authority of the the leaving of money for charitable purposes. So, there-
See of Rome, had assumed titles out of provinces, diu- fore, the present measure would not be attended with
ceses, and towns in her Majesty's kingdoms." It then the mischief which had been predicted, and the opinions
went on to refer to the Act 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, in which of the legal persons to the contrary would not be found
was to be found an enactment providing against the as- to be correct. The Act of 10 Geo. IV. had been in ope-
sumption of any such style or title as regarded pro• ration 22 years; that Act made the assumption of titles
slices and dioceses already occupied by the Church of by Roman Catholic bishops illegal, yet bequests had from
England, making it an offence, uud affixing thereto a that time been made to Roman Catholic bishops for cha-
penalty. After this, it proceeded to recite that the at- ritable purposes; and he would ask, had there been found'
!tempt to establish such style and titles having been made, any practical difficulty or inconvenience in adminis-
cdeciared it expo heat to prohibit such assuusptioto terieg those charities? If there had been, let the fact
and then went on to recite the penalty fixed in the he brought before the House, and it would be dealt
second clause as applicable to the case. The well at once. Bet no difficulty or inconvenience as
second clause made the assumption of titles not included yet bad been felt, and it was therefore not reason
in the 10th Geo. IV., c. 7, illegal; in other words, it able to expect that it would be found with regard
placed provinces, cities, and towns not appropriated by to the Be quests Act—that i 4, provided no violation of
the hietablished Church on the same footing as those in the law gave invalidity'to the intentions of the testator.
that Act, subjecting those who took such titles to the Ile would remind Hon. Gentlemen how cautiously the
same penalty as was provided by that statute. The other Act had been framed—the words were, " exercising or
clause—that originally suggested by the Hon. and officiating within the district." This would apply to
Learned Member for Midhurst—was the clause which it the class of cases under discussion, because it was e•sen-
was suggested created a new Bill of the measure. But tial that the religious intentions of her Majesty's Roman
that clause was purely declaratory. It embodied only Catholic subjects should be properly carried out. The
the recitals in the preamble, which went to say that cer- Bequests Act was carefully framed, so as to leave the
tain persons had done a certain thing which ought to be Roman Catholic bishops untouched so long as no in-
prevented; and it merely asserted that this recital should fraction of the law was committed, by giving to theta
be held legally valid. The first clause, which was sug- titles by law prohibited. This, however, was not the
gassed by the Hon. and Learned Member, might strike place to enter upon an elaborate legal argument; he,
the House as superfluous, but a great desire had been ex- however, thought it advisable to state his candid opinion
pressed that itshould be adopted to mark the sense of the on the question.
country on the subject. There was an invasion—and it Mr. NAPIER said that when the proper time arrired
was desired that there should be a declaration of Parlia- he should be fully prepared to answer many of the argu-
ment on the subject to go forth to the world. It ap- meats which had been offered in opposition to this Bill.
peered to him (the Attorney-General) to add nothing to Mr. M. GIBSON said that as a great deal of doubt
the Billeas far as punishment for the offence was in quee. seemed to be entertained as to the operation of this Bill,
don, or as far as the penalty was concerned, while it it behoved them at present to introduce such provisions
gave a more solemn form to the declaration. As into the Bill as would obviate any future misinterprete-
d was no hardship, and gave some satin action to a tion. At present a Scotch bishop was exempt from the
great number of persons, to vindicate the national consequences which attached to the same offence in
Sovereignty, there could not, in his opinion, be any England and in Ireland, though for what principle he
possible harm in adopting it. The Bill, however, was could not tell. On the 26th of October, 1851, the
lie) new Bill. The clause was only what it purported to clauses submitted to the Roman Catholic School Com-
be—a recital of the preamble, and giving it more expli- mittce by her Majesty's Committee of Privy Council on
eitly. With regard to the second clause, it had been Education recognised in terms the Roman Catholic
already so much thilellisede that he could not understand t ishop of ecclesiastical districts which was a subject
how any person could fail to see its bearings. It that &w ended explanation. The priest so ordained is
amounted to this—that the Act 10 Geo. IV., which now to menage the religious instructions of those schools,
applied in terms only to titles already appropriated by and no priest is to interfere who is not authorised by
the Established Church, was proposed to be applied to the Rom in Catholic bishop of the district. Then, he
titles not so appropriated. An attempt was made to said, that if the Privy Council actually agreed to that
parcel out England into provinces and dioceses by an in November last, after the Pupal brief had boen pub-
authority which had no foundation in the constitution, lished, does it not seem monstrous that now they should
and to assume titles and dignities as arising out of these be legislating to fine a man a hundred pounds if he
divisions, at the instance of a foreign power. The clause called himself a Roman Catholic bishop of a distriet?--
proposed these titles should be void; and that the places (Hear, hear.) An Act more complex and difficult
from whence they purported to be derived should be put than this to understand
,he, hak never heard.
in the same category as those places referred to in the Sir FREDERICK T SIG ER begged to recal the
before
10th Geo. IV. It did no more and no less. And when House to the question efE.
ore it, which was, whether the
it was urged that this clause would interfere with the preamble should be.dpeorsetsothnradafsear fnuerwthßerilei.onsTidhe;ati
objecto.n?
operation of the Charitable Bequests Act, the simple He had never considered cowalt; to enable' themthi to la,ve a
ffulhleer ch.s-
answer to that allegation was, that the 10th George IV. of this motion
on this Bill, or
did not interfere with it, and this clause applied only to
rathershousldpboertiaolnlo of
Bill.
suggest that they w to pro-
titles not included in that Act. He (the Attorney- He
was of
wouldHcuessi
patience of ceemdrt.o 1
tt
oh ec discussion
ll said
thatof the
thep
General) should be trifling with the time and
the House if he added another word to the legal explana-
inion that this Bill had
tion which he was called on to give, as, after the long op
Bill, but u no greater scope than the
discussion which the Bill had undergone, nothing new
former General and said thatP this jumpedclause
e Learned Solicitor-
could be said by him on the subject.
than anything in the old new was more powerful
Mr. P. HOWARD contended that the Bill was
not have Ireland Now, what ill, and it would extend to
it not so, it would would be its effect on the diocese
h d
tially a new Bill. If were
airman. of os? That diocese
been read a first and a second time by the Ch
dioceses of CI a been for ages united to the
h amended Bill was altered. Now,. oyne. He ought to know something about
Besides, the date on t e
considered that the House that diocese, as it was in his district. The practical
the Bill being a now Bill, he
by the Go- result of uniting ROSS and Cloyne was, that the spiritual
had not been treated with sufficient candour
form that morn- cure of the two
vernment, who submitted it in a printed
almost What did the dioceses Wail carried out more efficiently.
d on a discussion of its provisions ey propose to do by this Bill? They pro-
! ing, and force
posed to renderthe union immediately afterwards. uni of these two oioceses illegal.
Mr. K. SEYMER called the attention of the law How could the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
while the Bill de- Attorne
officers of the Crown to the fact, that Y-General, get up in his place and say that the
relating to E
Glared illegal the bull or letters apostolich si
England, it mita. • • -al all reference to a soul? mar laud for two and twenty years. Practically, it had never
which the diocese of Ross been carried •
bull or Papal rescript under
Ireland. If 1 isi ' into effect in Ireland. The more they
bad recently been constituted in 'T a- meddled with this Bill the deeper they would get into
wore considered necessary for the •
Lion in express terms
mire.
independence of the national sovereignty upholding the
• ly thought it was equally ini.
Gibson) was
in England, he certain
Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner .
adopted for Ireland, where war a very valuable one, that they should now explain how,
portent it should be.
against the Queen
bad actually been levied
some station, who were now suffering the penalty of their tholic bishops of districts, they now proposed to fine any
man who called himself Roman Catholic bishop of a
crimes.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the answer to the diocese a hundred pounds.
• of the Hon. Gentleman Was simple. Under Lord BERNARD said, the mere question at issue
question
the Statute Of Prsemunire, acts performed in accordance was, what was the attack of the Bishop of Rome on this
with tdeheclared directionsto be of
ill Papal rescripts or foreign bulls country? It was a direct attack on the sovereignty of
were egal. In the time of James 11. our Queen. Had not he termed the glorious reformation
Lalor was punished for such an offence; and since that the Anglican schism? In the early Church the appoint
period—although two centuries and a half bad elapsed went of bishops remained with the people at large. A -
f-
gy and now,
country,
—up to the recent aggression, no subject of the British terwards it fell into the hands of the cler,
Crown had dared to act upon the dictum of a foreign in this it had practically fallen into the hands
bull. The Foee'a recent rescript, being the first for two of the Crown. What he wished to dwell upon was this
centuries and a half; which had practical effect in this —that the family of Stuart being extinct, whose title to
country, it was thought proper to declare it, and all acts nominate these bishops was not denied, the present ap-
performed by reason of its directions, illegal and void. pointment by the Pope, without consulting the Sove-
But it did not follow that because they bad done so in reign, was a virtual denial of the rights ot our present
this particular instance, it was necessary to declare all Gracious Sovereign. There was one word more which
the minor instruments which followed from the same he had to say upon the isubjt ct. It was said the feelings
quarter illegal and void, when they were so by existing of the people were indifferent on this subject. Such was
statute, Ile considered the
roost dignified course was to not the casein
the
Ireland; but they thought it was a wiser
take up the monstrous instrument dividing E
ngland policy to leave subject to be decided by the Imperial
but they felt into dioceses, and having specifically declared its ille- Parliament,,.
I gality, to leave all similar instruments to be dealt with the atrocious. attempt of the Court of Rome, and he
would give hie su ort to
as illegal. 1 . .d. pl) any efficient measure to re-
Mr. GLADSTONE said he could not [tercet .
've that strain tle insidious attempts made against the Pro-
'clauses in testant red:site^.
this was a declarator clause. Declaratory
recital that Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Noble Lord at the
legislative enactments usually succeeded a .
e inform them Qt.,-
- • but here nothing of head of the Government to inform them whae,ciS wishes
the state of the law was doubtful,
the sort was done. They declared by their Bill, with- were upon the actual question before them. What did
ofthe the
the act Noble Lord mean by saying in his Bill that " the
out reference to any other matter, that
this to said rescript
that appeared
him Pope was illegal, and he confessed
It seemed to him script? le did • - Ile not see it •it was not on the table of the
to bea very unusual proceeding.
t dwhether 1.1 • How '..3:
loss to understand tithe. Deow could they discuss it unless it wets laid
that parties would be at a .
but if it were a d b fthem?'
` • ' •
e- e ore
this was a declaratory clause or not,
claratory clause, what peed was there for declaring that Lord J. RUSSELL thought it .wavortiaihlarED better
,r,,:lx.:7:l6lwitau eca:rx:
. .. ~

to know
by tho Bill,
us it origi-
immaterial,
!aura would

that the
the second
t of a don-
ates of Ire-
be the con-
ned the
ec-
that Act.
in so read-
y might be
. Now be
oubt as to
; Act; but
were right
,e so still;
hey would
°needed in
could pro-
le there to
vbether be
benefit of

,reed Gen"
hat would
to Irish,

It Engli!h
Wisely too
tops stood.
would also

reason
regard
ition of
estator.
tsly the
sing or
pply to
e-sen-
Roman
. The
aye the
no in-
o them
not the
ot; he,
>pinion

%rrired
) argu-
is Bill.
doubt
is Bill,

visions
•preta-
Dm the
we in
ple he
1, the
Com-
icil on
atject

UCCI is
hools,
ed by
MI, ho
) that
pub-
hould
if he
et?--
fficult