The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-03 00:00:00

. _
tarred to the preamble, so that the preamble was so
1r sated as to ley a Ft...per fouteia.ion tor it. Vti lieu they
name to the pr,ambic he should press on Government
the propriety of considerably altering the preamb e
which was introduced, not with reference to the de-
claratory clause, but to previsions with which that
clause had no connexion. Two thiegs were essential;
first, that the measure he framed in such a manner as to
prevent future legislation. Toey haf declared the Papal
brief of 1850 illegal a-nd void; the necessary consequence
of that was, that the House ought ulso to prohibit oy the.
Bill any brief fur the same purpose coming into the conn-
try, which would occasion a similar amount of excite-
ment. He might 'say in the second clause of the Bill it
might be necessary to introduce a special proviso sub-
jecting persons bringing Papal briefs into this country to
a penalty. He would state before he came to the end of
his observations the exact words he proposed to intro-
duce in the' second clause. The third point which he
thought essential to the proper-working of the Bill was,
that if they passed a law of this kind care should be
taken that it be enforced,- and should not be allowed to
slumber on the statute-book.—(Hear, hear.) He would
rather have no Bill at all than a law which it was not
intended to enforce. Either the measure was just or
unjust. If unjust, it ought not to be passed into a law;
but if just, then it behoved them to take care that it
should not be passed with the intention of not being en-
forced.—(Hear.) That raised the question as to how
the law was to be enforced. The Government proposed
that to the Attorney-General alone should be left the
power to prosecute for the penalty. He had suggested
that any indivi rust should be at liberty to do so. He
thought both courses open to objection. The Govern-
ment plan was clearly open to objection, because by it
the country would have nu guarantee that this measure
would be enforced any more than the Act of 1829. Oa
the other hand, he could not but feel that leaving to any-
body the right of prosecution might make the measure
an instrument of oppression and persecution. They all
knew that there were persons who were warm partisans
—enthusiastic individuals with more zeal than discre-
tion, who might be induced to prosecute under the Bill
if they had the power to do so, but who would bring to
that prosecution their own imperfect intelligent- and in-
sufficient grounds, and thus defeat the object of the mea-
sure. If that were so, two great difficulties bad to be
dealt with. In the first place, they were all agreed that
the principle upon which to proceed was that the law
should be- enforced. but that in enforcing it it should
not be made either vexatious or oppressive. He thought
the suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Abingdon would meet this objection. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman proposed that the Crown as well as
the subject should be able to prosecute for the penalty.
The effect of that would be that the Crown as well as
the subjeet will both of them have the power as well as
the interest to see that the law was properly enforced.
If the Attorney-General should slumber at his post—
he did not think his Honourable and Learned Friend
would be liable to that imputation—by giving to the
subject the right to prosecute, and by imposing on
the Attorney-General the necessity of putting a veto
on the proceedings in case he did not think the
prosecution advisable—the Attorney- General would be
prevented becoming remiss or negligent when the
Bill became law. 5,), on the other hand, by giving
to the Crown the right of vetoing a prosecution by an
individual, care was taken as far as possible by lrgisla-
tion to provide against the possibility of any oppressive
or vexatious enforcement of the law.—(Hear.) He be-
lieved he had explained the greater portion of the
amendments he had given notice of, with the exception
Of one to which the Noble Lord opposite alluded at the
conclusion of the debate on Friday. The Noble Lord
bad then asked him what he meant to do with regard,
to cumulative penalties. He did not think there were
any cumulative penalties in the amendments. A power
was proposed to be given to the Crown of deporting a
person fur the second offence. Now there were great
difficulties—he might say there was great imprudence—
in any individual proposing such an amendment as that,
if the Government—with whom rested the responsibility
of seeing that the laws were properly observed and en-
forced—should think such an amendment not necessary
for the enforcing of a law like this. Considering, there-
, fore, that the responsibility was with the Government—
considering it was better to prevent, if possible, the re-
petition of similar encroachments by mild rather than by
severe and oppressive punishments—and considering also
that some credit ought to be given to Roman Catholics,
that if the Bill passed they did not intend to disobey it,
he had, speaking for himself alone, come to the
conclusion that he ought not to press the deportation
clause. Of the three points, therefore, of which he had
given notice, only one was now before them. The
• House having declared the brief illegal, ought to pro-
hibit the introduction of like briefs under penalties simi-
lar to those that were imposed fur the assumption of
ecclesiastical titles. He, therefore, proposed to insert.
after the words "any person," the following words:
" who shall hereafter obtain or cause to be procured
from the See of the Bishop of Rome, or shall publish or
put in issue, any brief, rescript, letters apostolical, or
other instrument or writing, for the purpose of constitut-
ing within the kingdom of Evgland a hierarchy of bishops
named from sees, and with titles derived from places, be-
longing to the Crown of England."—(Hear.) Then fol-
lowed words which would subject him to the same penal-
ties as if he had assumed ecclesiastical titles.
The question having been put,
Mr. ROCHE thought the amendment so important
that it aught to be printed before being discussed
Mr. WALPOLE said it was nearly the same as the
• amendment on the votes. The only cllff-rence was that
the words "United Kingdom" were omitted with refe-
rence to .publication ; and instead of "for the purposes
aforesaid," he had made a recital of them, in order to
make the clause intelligible.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave the Hon. and
Learned Member fur Mtdhurst credit for wishing to
make the Bill as perfect as possible; bur, nevertheless,
thought the clause he had just proposed open to very
great objection. In fact, it would have the effect of mak-
ing the penalties cumulative. Cribs Hoe. end Learned
Gentleman here proceeded to read the amendaients as
they stood on the paper, when Mr. Walpole intimated
that he gave up the third amendment.) He (the Attor-
ney-General) should confine his remarks to the second,
which the Committee, he thought, would see involved
cumulative, penalties. I: provided that if any person
should publish, or put its use, &c., any brief such as that
referred to in the preamble and iu the first clause, he
should be liable in a penalty of 1001. But, let it be ob-
served, that if a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic should have
received from Rome a brief or rescript appointing him
bishop of some diocese, with territorial title, be
would be Hanle to a twofold penalty under this
provision in the second clause, because be would be
liable if he accepted the brief, and he would be liable
if he assumed the title. The title could not be
assumed except by virtue of a rescript of the Pope, and
the real offince, and that against which the Bill was di-
rected, was the assumption of the title. By the amend-
ment, therefore, it was proposed to split one transaction
into two, and to inflict for that which was but one of-
fence, two penalties. It was, theretore, cumulative in its
character. If the person who procured the brief was a
different person from the person who assumed the title,
then it might be said that there was a different offence.
If the diocese was once constituted the rescript might be
supposed to have been issued by the Pope for the pur-
pose of appointing a bishop, and the parties would be
liable under the provision in the second clause. The
Attorney-General in framing an information under this
Bill against the assumption of title under rescript from
Rome, would state both points, and all the parties would
be liable to the penalty. He apprehended that that was
not what the Committee desired. Let the law be well
known, and he thought it would prevent a repetition of
the aggression.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that knowing the overwhelm-
ing opinion of the House in favour of legislation on this
subject, he bad thought ti at he would best befriend the
measure by leavi' git in their hands. It was because
be wished to e the Bin Efficient that he should support
the amendment of the Hon. Member fir Midhurst. He
did not think was any gr aad for the objection of
the Attorney General. Indeed, he thought as far as he
had heard the Hon. and Leaned Gentleman, that he had
shown, net that the penalty was cumulative, but that
there might be two offences with the penalty attaching
to eaoh. The procuring a rescript and the assumption of
titles were different offences. So if a person having as-
sumed a title should follow it up by issuing a pastoral

letter, that would be a separate offence. -
.Mr. ROCHE thought the disagreement of opinion
among those learned in the law showed the necessity of
having the amendment printed and considered before
being called on to agree to it. He gave the Hon. and
Learned 3.letsber for Midhurst credit for wishing to make
a bed Bill worse. He had no wish to throw obstacles in
the way of the Bill, but felt it his duty to move that the
amendment he postponed.
The CHAIRMAN said it was not competent for the
epood
Hon. and Learned Member to make such a motion.
BE IM bad always understood that
dt.he consider
ation of any .'
amendment might
be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN said if the Member who proposed
an amendment thought proper to consent to the post-
ponement of it, then it might be postponed; but be never
knew an amendment postponed merely on the motion of
another Hon. Member.
Mr. MOORE urged postponement. The lawyers
were in doubt, and at variance in their opinions. 'e
.he
first clause was surrounded with difficulties, and the
House bad passed it without knowing what it meant.
He begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
Sir R. INGLIS thought the discusston which had
arisen on the amendment bad proceeded entirely on a
misconception. It had been assume f that the Ho our-
able and . Learned Member for Midhurst had added
something to the amendment of which be had given
notice, while the only alteration he had made was the
omission of a portion of it. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman did not propose to take the sense of the Com-
mittee on anything which they had nut had deliberately
before them.
Sir F. THESIGER trusted the Hon. Member for
Mayo would not press his amendment for reporting pro-
gress, because it appeared to him that the Irish Members.
—if he might be pardoned the expression .ought to be
the last persona to resist the alteration proposed, for the
amendment pointed merely to the kingdom of England:
From the first the Government bad declared their inten-
tion to extend the Bill to Ireland, and to have the law
uniform. He had ventured to propose an amendment,
extending the Bill to all rescripta, similar to that of the
29th September; but had given way, in the belief that
the suggestion of. the Hon. and Learned Member fir
Midhurst would effect the object be bead in view. He
had, however, reserved to himself the right of pro-
posing the amendments in the report in case the
Hon. and Learned Member for Miohurst should not
be successful. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
by restricting his amendment to E (gland, bad so oh tnge I
l the character of it, that though appioved of it as ar
as it went, he must f.ll hack on his right to pop /se his
own amendment on the bringing up of the report.
Mr. MOORE said the Irish Members had no wish to
obstruct the Bill. They wished to understand that

.:: J J