The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-26 00:00:00

their acts. It was often said that this 13111 would be a

dead letter. Well, that migh; be so. But it might also
not be so, as any successful informer would be looked
upon as most ppular. fie th )ught the Irish ought to
agitate until they obtained a repeal of this most utijust
Act. He had a strong conviction of the impolicy of this
Biil as i: related to Ireland.

Viscount CANNING thought that the objections
of the Noble Lard who ()paced the debate had not been

fully answered by the Noble and Learned Lord on the
woolsack. This Bill committed the inconsistency of im-
posing a severer penalty on a minor offence, than upon
the greater offence. The one great objection to the adop-
tion of the amendment of the Noble Lord was this—

that the late act of the Pope, as it was considered,
affected the supremacy of the Crown. Whether that
conclusion was right or wrong, it was not necessary he
should inquire; but Parliament had accepted it, and it
was certainly the strongest point made by the advocates
of the Bill. A territorial title could only emanate from

the Queen; the title was otherwise no title, in the sense
in which the law could recognise it.—(Hear.) The
basis laid down by Sir William Blackstone was this—
that all titles and honours should emanate from the
Crown. He believed that her Majesty's Government
would not, and if they desired to do it, they could not,
apply this law to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) It had :been
howevi.x, said by a Noble and Leavned Lord in that de-
bate on the scond reading, that if this Act w:is found
to be ineflieient, the law must be made more stringent.
—(Hear, Lear.) Tli-s Noble Lord then refsrred to an
Act passed is the Irish Parliament, in 1782, tasking
it penal for the R ,man Catholic bishops to assume
the titles of their saes ; but that Act he said was

not rigidly enforced He then called the attention
of the House to a remarkable circumstance which oc-
curred in 1793, when a relaxation took place in the ope-
ration of the penal laws. In that year a petition was sent
to the Irish House of Commons, then exclusively Pro-
...

testant, and that petition was signed by the Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, subscribing himself as such, and
by several other Catholic bishops, each taking the titles
of their sees.—(Hear, hear.) Sir Henry Caveudieh called
the attention of the House to the circumstance, but no
notice was taken of it, and the subject therefore dropped.
—(Hear, hear.) That circumstance showed what was
the feeling of au exclusively Protestant Parliament on the
subject of these titles.—(Rear, hear.) The Noble Lord
concluded by saying triat he had no fear that Govern-
ment would enforce the Bill with any stringency in
Ireland; and entertaining that view, he would oppose the
amendment of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hoar.)
Lord CRAN WOR I'll said, the foundation of the
Noble Lord's proposition in moving his amendment was,
that the Bill would inflict grievances of a most serious
character upon Ireland. He seemed to think that it
would render insecure marriages and other acts per-
formed by the Catholic Church in Ireland. If he
(Lord Cranworth) thought there would be any
such result from this measure, he would say they
must either drop the Bill altogether, or exclude Ireland
from its operation.—(Hear, hear.) But, in fact, all that
the Bill enacted was that the briefs or rescripta were
illegal and void. His belief was that no one could be
prosecuted except under the second section, which pro-
vided that a penalty should be inflicted upon any one
taking the title of any pretended sees; and he did not
see, upon consideration of the measure, that there
was any reason why they should exclude Ireland from
the operation of the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Bishop of OSSORY was opposed to the amend-
ment proposed by the Noble Lord, and said he consi-
dered it would be very inconsistent to repel the autho-
rity of the Pope in this country, in which he was very
weak, at the same time that they permitted him to ex-
ercise it in a country in which he was strong, as was the
case in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate
then referred to a remark which bad been made by a
Noble Lord in the course of the debate, that tee Catholic
Church was the ancient Church of Ireland; and that
Noble Lord further seemed to conceive that the Re-
ftrmed Church of Ireland received its temporalities from
the Catholic Church in Ireland. But such a transfer
could only be made by Act of Parliament. In point of
fact, there was no new church. It was simply a reform
of the corrupt church, and the Established Church was
the true and only successor of the ancient Church of
Ireland.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS, who arose amidst several
cries of " Divide," said that this was much too important
a question to be put down by clamour. He did not
doubt that the Right Rev. Prelate might be right in his
argument, but he rose to draw attention to a more
practical point—the question of the indictment. Lord
Hale laid it down in his " Pleas of the Crown," that
where a statute prohibited any particular act, and where
by a eubsequant chaise it provided a proceeding by action
of debt, without snaking an indictment, then the party
might be indicted under the prohibitory clause, but could
not be sued for the penalty. He wanted to know, there-
fore, whether, after all, the Attorney-General would
have control over these prosecutions. And if ho had,
was it reasonable that ho should bo constantly loft to
the bigoted importunities of religious zealots, who
would find no difficulty, in Ireland especially, of
supplying him with plenty of work? And if, under
the Bequests Act, or any other, a Roman Catholic
bishop endeavoured to establish a claim to property,
would they allow him to place an instrument which
was by this Act declared to be illegal? Lord John
Russell said, in the House of Commons, that his law ad-
visers had recommended him not to found his proceed-
ings upon the statute of Richard the Second, but he (the
Earl of St. Germans) had the authority of several emi-
nent lawyers, Sir Frederick Thesiger amongst the rest,
for saying that by reciting the language of a portion of
this statute, they gave vigour and life to it. He would
ask their Lordships to consider seriously what might be
the effect of putting such a man as Archbishop Murray
upon his trial—a man who had uniformly discounte-
nanced agitation, and supported a submission to the
law, and who h .d fully earned the esteem of every one.
His appeal to his flock, dated in February last, was at
once tonching and impressive, and ought to operate as a
caution. The Catholic bar of Ireland had made a mo-
derate declaration as to the inepoliey of this course, es-
pecially
so long recognised. Believing this Bill to be pregnant
with evil consequences to Ireland, he had come to the
conclusion that it was his duty to give his vote in support
of the proposition of his Noble Friend.
The Duke of ARGYLL said he much regretted the
course which the Noble Lord who had just sat down had
taken with regard to Ireland. Connected as he was
with Ireland, that resolution was much to be regretted,
and he really thought that his Noble Friend was not
bound in strictness to come to the conclusions he had.
lie (the Duke of Argyll) denied the inference that ordi-
nations would be affected by the validity of the docu-
ment under which the ordaining bishop acted. The
holy orders of the Church of Rome did not depend ex-
clusively on documents from Rome, but depended also
on the canonical consecration of other bishops. He
was quite convinced, too, that when it had been once
ascertained that the priest had been ordained by a pre-
late of the Church of Rome, no further inquiry would
be made as to the authority upon which that prelate
acted in ordinary. Under that belief alone he was will-
ing to concur in the passing of this Bill; for he
should be as unwilling to interfere with the religious
rights of Roman Catholics in England, who were few in
numbers, as he should be with those of Roman Catholics
in Ireland, who were counted by millions. It was a
measure much wanted in Englund, and especially re-
quired for Ireland. It was wanted there, were it only
for the purpose of repressing the spread of opinions and
principles hostile to the constitution. He had recently
seen a pamphlet, said to be published " by authority,"
by which he inferred that the author had the sanction
of Dr. Wisemau for what ho wrote. In that book Dr.
Bowyer alluded to a private Act called the Dublin Sani-
tary Act, in which the Irish Catholic prelates were
mentioned, with the names of their sees, and he founded
upon that fact an argument that those sees were well
known to ,the Government as existing in the Catholic
Church in Iceland. Probably few of their Lordships
had seen that Act, and the inference was not justified.
It showed the insatiable spirit of the Catholic Church,
and how little L't was to be satisfied by concessions. He
gave his entire support to the Bill.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed that the
original document of Dr. Murray, to which his Noble
Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) had referred, had
only met his eyes that day. Whatever passed between
Dr. Murray and thee Court of Rome in private, was a
matter of which neither the Crown, nor the Parliament,
nor the public took notice, and though he might there be
acknowledged and addressed as the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, the recognition was not on the
part of our own Government. In his public documents,
however, Dr. Murray had not assumed that title.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Government
never intended that the Bill should be carried into ett ct
in Ireland, and notwithstanding the alterations in the
clauees, by the pressure from the opponents of the Go•
vernment, they still did not intend to carry it into effsct
in Ireland; and it was impossible that they should, be-
cause of the interference of the Bill with the Roman
Catholic religion; and, therefore, that being so, it was
a protection to the Roman Catholics in England to have
Ireland included in the Bill, became, it not being in-
tended to carry it into offset in that country, it could
not, with any show of reason and justice, be enforced in
this country.—(Divide.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
Their Lordships then divided on the amendment,
when the numbers were-
-17
Contents ..• ••• •
82
Non-contents •••
Majority against the amendment —65
On being re-admited to the gallery we found
The Earl of ABERDEEN addressing their Lord-
ships. He said he did not suppose it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government that the Act should apply
to titles other than those which the Pope conferred. He
did not know in that case why the word " therefore"
was retained in the clause. To do so, he thought was
carrying the spirit of religious intolerance farther than
could have been imagined. The Act was only intended
to apply to the Church of Rouse and to Pepsi aggres-
sion. When Scotland was excluded, the word "other-
wise" ought to have been expunged.
The Marquis of LANSDO WNE said the Act had no
application to bishops who were appointed with the con-
sent of the Crown.—(Hear.)
The Earl of ABERDEEN said the Crown had no
authority to interfere with the appointment of the Scotch
bishops.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNR repeated his former
answer, and after a few words from Lord Redesdale and
Earl Grey their Lordships went into Committee, Lord
Redesdale in the chair.
On the question being put, that claim 1 stand part of
the Bill,
Lord KINNAIRD said the division they had just
come to had reference to Ireland. But it was the opi-
nion of eminent lawyers that the Act not only applied
to archnishops and bishops, but to the inferior clergy
who were appointed by them, and tee feared, therefore,
that he would have to trouble their Lordships with di-
viding on the clause. lie thought he might olcam the