The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-24 00:00:00

authority of tie Kin:;, his crown, regality, such
parties should be Hello tJ the pains and
penalties of prwaiunire, and by the 13th Etiz , c. 2, it
eves provide t, that if any parson or pr: sons issued or
printed or published any such writing or instrument,
they should be considered guilt; of high treason. Nov the
9 andlo of Vie., passed in 1846, repealed so much of the
13th of Elizabeth, as imposed the penalties and punish-
ments therein mentioned; hut then it said that, in all
other respects, as to the issuing of bulls, the punish-
ment should remain the same. But then there was still
the statute of Richard the Second remaining. It was
introduced into Ireland in the reign of Henry the S'l•
ventb, and bad in certain cases been put in force there,
and there could be no doubt that that Act was sufficient
still to prevent any such bull or rescript beiug issued
in this country. It might then be asked, if there was
such a law in existence, what necessity was there for a
new one. On that question being put in that House, he
considered the Noble Lord gave a most satisfactory an-
swer. He said that, upon consulting the law officers of
the Crown, they at once admitted that the law had been
infringed by the recent rescript of the Pope, but in con-
sequence of the law so infringed having slumbered in
the statute-book for so long a period without being
Used, it might be considered to put it into action now as
a case of hardship, and that feeling might have caused
any prosecution under the statute of Richard the
Second to have failed. He at once admitted
that a failure in that respect would have been
most prejudicial, and therefore it was essential in some
way or other to revive this old statute, and to show by
expression of Parliament that it was not a dead letter.
When the measure was first introduced there was no
clause in the Bill whatever which negatived this point,
and it was consequently suggested to the Noble Lord
he was leaving the law in the most unsatisfactory state.
After considering the matter, he yielded so far to the
Suggestions of his Hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst
and adopted a portion of his amendments, which now
Constituted the first clause of the Bill. Having, however,
Only adopted of portion of these amendments, he consi-
dered the Noble Lord had placed himself in a position of
some inconsistency, and had made his law imperfect and
incomplete. That was at once seen by the acute mind
of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who had said that there
was another rescript of the Pope previously issued,
prohibiting the Bishop of Cloyne from exercising autho-
rity in the diocese of Ross, and creating a new bishopric
of Ross. What were they to do with that rescript? To
that the Solicitor-General replied that there could be no
doubt, were a case arising on any other rescript than
the one mentioned in this measure brought into a court
of law, no one could imagine that, with this
Act before him, a judge would decide that it was
as illegal as the one declared in the Act. But supposing
that were so, supposing any proceedings were taking
place as to the issuing of the rescript respecting the cre-
ation of the diocese of Ross, it would not be on this sta-
tute, but upon the statute of Richard the Second that
they would have to prosecute, and certainly, if there
would have been a difficulty before the passing of this
statute, if it did pass, in bringing that Act of Richard
the Second into operation, this restrictive statute of the
Noble Lord would form a still greater barrier to their
doing so.—(Hear.) And though it might possibly be
true that the judges would ultimately come to a right
decision upon the law as declared by the statute of Ri-
chard the Second, yet they would be grievously embar-
rassed in the course of the argument by the limited cha-
raster of this particular enactment being directed against
this particular rescript. It appeared to him, therefore,
that though his Lion. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-
General was right in his answers to the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, in
saying that the judges would declare the law, and would
find'no difficulty in declaring it, yet he was not right in
Saying that by this declaratory enactment they
would be guided to a right and undoubted
decision. Now the Solicitor-General had expressed
the intentions of the Government on the sub-
ject. It was their intention that this declaratory enact-
ment, as it now stood, should have no operation as re-
garded any proceedings that might be called for in Ire-
land, with reference to the rescript under which the
Bishop of Ross was appointed. It was the intention of
Government, however, to denounce the establishment of
this bishopric of Ross, and that being so, his answer was,
if such were its intention why not express it on the face
of the Bill, fairly, openly, and directly? Why leave
that intention in doubt? He had no doubt that the
Noble Lord had come to a right decision on the subject;
but if he limited the law in such a manner as to make it
applicable only to England, he met4t necessarily deliver
over the other part of the kingdom to the uncontrolled
jurisdiction of the Pope. Therefore he felt satisfied that
the Noble Lord had not expressed what he meant.—
(Hear.) It was matter of notoriety that after this re-
script had been issued, and when an opportunity had
been afforded to Rome of witnessing the excitement and
indignation which it caused throughout the country, in
defiance of that feeling, a new rescript was issued by the
Pope, under which the Bishop of Ross was appointed.
The view of the whole question which was taken by a
French newspaper, called L' Univers, which was under-
stood to be the organ of the Jesuits at Paris, completely
proved the arrogance of the spirit under
which these steps had been taken, and openly
warned the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
of the difficulties he would have to encoonter
if ho attempted to make the sees of these bishops sub-
missive to the British sceptre. Now, was not this throw-
ing down the gauntlet of defiance to the Noble Lord?—
(Hear, hear.) It was suggested that the Noble Lord's
difficulties would be increased by this new aggression,
bat he believed the Noble Lord had a spirit that would
overeome them and was sincere in his intention to re-
Pei, not only this, but any future aggression. Believing
that, and understanding his opinions on the subject,
from having heard them so clearly expressed in the dis-
cussion before the Committee on Monday, he had no
hesitation in saying that the Noble Lord would find it
necessary to introduce into the clause those additions
and alterations taken from the Hon. Member for Mid-
burst's clause, which he proposed, and which additions
and alterations would carry out the express views of
the Noble Lord, and would make this Bill what they
desired it should be—consistent, complete, and efficacious.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he thought his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Abingdon
had not properly conceived the effect and scope of this
clause. He was right in saying that in consequence
of the Act of Richard the Second being obsolete, it
was considered inexpedient to revive it; bat that was
not the only reason. It was also because the penalties
imposed by the statute were of a character which
it was not thought advisable to revive at the present
day. Nothing could be more unwise than to go before
a jury with a statute which counsel for the defendants
represented as obsolete and tyrannical. The intention
was to make a public national declaration with respect
to an act of violence and aggression on the part of a fo-
reign potentate, under colour of which certain subjects of
her Majesty had assumed ecclesiastical titles. His Hon.
and Learned Friend forgot that Government wished to
deal with the subject only by recital of the law upon it.
The recital in this Bill, as originally proposed, was
"That any attempt to establish, under a colour of
authority from the See of Rome or otherwise, such
pretended sees as dioceses was illegal and void." It
was thought unadvisable, however, to have any enact-
ment whatever, but the Hononrable Member for
Midhurst said that there was something much more
solemn and authoritative in a public declaration, which
he therefore preferred to a mere recital He (the
Solicitor-General) stated that in his mind the recital
would have all the effect of a declaration, and that the
fileclaratory clause would go no further than the recital.
Not only the Hon. Member for Midhurst, however, but
other parties took the same view, and thought the ag-
gression ought to be met by a declaratory enactment.
*That being the case, he thought they had strictly carried
'out the object which they ought to have in view iu auk-
dug a declaration. He had already said, on previous dis-
cussions, that he conceived it would bo a more dignified
ecursce rather than hunting down every bull and every
rescript that the Pope might think fit to issue at any
;time, if they were to deal with the principal rescript, un-
der which the sees of the Anglican Church were to be
superseded. The Bill was now on a different footing.
The bishopric of Ross fell within the Act of 1829, as
there was now existing a see of that name in the Unitt.d
Church of England and Ireland. So far from strength-
ening their position, it seemed to him that the psoposi-
lion of the Hon. and Leurned Gentleman opposite would
weaken it much, by plunging the principal rescript
amongst a mass of minor ones, where it would be lost
sight of. An outrage of the grossest description had
been committed upon them, and with that they had to
deal. They had made their declaration respecting that
aggression. His Hon. and Learned Friend said he
wished to test the sincerity of the Government; but the
prohibition would not take effect under the first clause.
Under the second, however, they would touch every per-
son presuming to derive titles from such sources. To
follow the course of his Hon. and Learned Friend oppo-
site would only weaken the effect of the Bill, and for
abet reason he should oppose it.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY referred to
the legislation of recent years with regard to bulls, to
ahaßr'that the qttestioneife their legality in this country
was placed is a differentlposition now from that which
iCelcl under the old Acts of Richard and Elizabeth.
Altr. DISRAELI said that the difficulty in which the
Committee were now placed appeared to him to have
arisen in consequence of the Government taking the first
clause of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for
"Midhurst, and not adopting the preamble which he pro-
posed; because if the preamble were adoptedte amendment he did not
think there would be any necessity for the
now proposed by his Hon. and Learnedi }D'riisernadelit)hediMd
of
t-
thet for Abingdon. But, as he r.
despair of the Committee adopting on the
iidropLereaorcicleaci
alien the preamble proposed by his Hon. a.
Friend the Member for Midhurst, he trusted his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Abingdon would pause
before he divided the Committee upon an amendment which
would consequently be unnecessary.—(Hear.) He con-
fessed he preferred the first clause as it now stood, be-
cause what he desired principally to see was that the
,Bill should be made a retaliatory measure, and, if so, it
ought to bear upon its face that it had been occasioned
0p a certain specified act which bad been done by a fo-
r,,ign potentate, and, in his opinion, this effect would be
materially diminished by the amendment now proposed.
Thea, again, the objection that the case of Ireland was
not ivcluded in the first clause as it now stood would bo
met by the adoption of the amendment of which his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Member for Midhurst had given
notice, to insert the words " United Kingdom" in the
second clause. He was rather disposed, therefore, not to
disturb the first clause, in the hope that the amendments
to which he had referred, and which would make it per-
fectly
apposite, would subsequently be adopted. With
eference to the case of the Bishop of Ross, he was cer-
tainly under the impression that it was sufficiently met
by the Emancipation Act, as stated by the Solicitor-
General. He only wished to know why, in that case,
the Bishop of Ross had not been proceeded against by
her Majesty's Government.—(gear.)