The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-08 00:00:00

THE SUN,

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION
BILL.

The order of
.the day for the second reading of this
Bill having been read,
Sir G. GREY then rose and said,—Before I proceed,
in pursuance of the intimation mane the other night by
my Noble Friend, to state the modifications and altera-
tions which, if the House shall consent to the second
reading of this Bill, the Government, after a full and
careful consideration of the objections which have been
urged against it, mean to propose that the House should
adopt, I am anxious to make a few observations with
reference to some suggestions which have been strongly
pressed upon the Government as to the course which it
might be expedient to adopt with regard to this Bill.
On Monday night last it was strongly urged upon the
Government, chiefly by the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), with the
view, as he stated, to the dispatch of public business,
and to prevent the interruption to important business
which would ensue by the interposition of protracted
discussions with regard to this Bill—and I think his
opinion was concurred in by several other Hon. Mem-
bers—that the Government should adopt the course
which, as :netted by them, was indicated by Lord
Stanley in another place as that which he would
have thought it is duty to propose if he had
been at the head of the Government. But I must
say that I think the Right Hon. Gentlemen and those
who join with him in urging that course upon the Go-
vernment have not rightly apprehended the suggestion
which Lord Stanley made.—(Hear.) They seem to as-
sume that, if the Government adopted the course sug-
gested by Lord Stanley,: all that they would have
to do would be to propose to each House of Parliament
the appointment of a Committee, to whom a variety of
subjects connected with the relations which the Roman
' Catholic subjects of England sustain to the State on the
one hand, and to the head of their Church on the other,
should be referred. They seem to assume also that these
Committees would be appointed without debate and dis-
cussion, and that after the subject had been referred to
them its further consideration would be indefinitely post-
poned, and that the House would be enabled to proceed
at once to the consideration of those other questions of
undoubted importance which are intended to occupy the
time of Parliament during the present session. But
they seem to me to have overlooked one important part
of the scheme indicated by Lord Stanley, which was—
not that the subject should be passed over with indiffer-
ence by either House of Parliament—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—but what he proposed was, if I under-
stand it rightly, that there should be a resolution simul-
taneously passed by both Houses of Parliament,
a resolution expressing the opinion of each House
separately, that the course recently taken by the
Court of Rome is considered as offensive to this country,
as derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and as trench-
ing upon the independence of this country by the great
body of the inhabitants of Great Britain; and that, after
adopting a resolution of this kind, they should each ap-
point Committees of the nature before referred to.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, I do not wish on this occasion to
touch upon any subject likely to give rise to discussion;
but I am anxious to state shortly why the Government
consider that such a course as that suggested by Lord
Stanley would not be consistent with the duty which
they owe to the State.—(Hear.) In the first place, I
beg to say that the course of proceeding by resolution
would not effect the object which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and those who think with him, profess to have
in view. It would not give the go-by to the subject and
enable the Government to proceed forthwith to the con-
sideration of the other matters requiring attention ; be-
cause Parliament would be involved in discussions pro-
bably as long, as discursive, and occupying as much
time with reference to the resolution, as they would be
with regard to the Bill which is now before the House.
—(Hear, hear.) And with what result ? I confess
that in all my Parliamentary experience I do not re-
member a resolution passed simultaneously by both
Houses of Parliament, except with the view of
immediately adopting a Bill founded upon it.—(Hear,
hear.) A 3 every one knows, a resolution of either House
of Parliament does not possess the force of law.—(Hear,
hear.) What then would be the effect of a resolution
declaring that the rights and dignities assumed by the
Roman Catholic Prelates under the authority of the
Pope were null and void ? As I have said, no resolu-
tion of either House of Parliament, at leaat in matters
of affecting their privil ges, can have the force and
ffect of law. A resolution of this kind, then, having
passed, after the protracted •discussion with which it
would be certain to be accompanied, would be a piece of
mere waste paper, as far as concerned any declaration of
what the existing law was, or as far as concerned the
amendment or alteration of tho existing law.—(Heir,
hear.) The titles derived from the Court of Rome would
be borne as openly tied ostentatiously as before, and if
any question were to arise in a court of law with
respect to the right of the Roman Catholic prelates
to those titles, and if a resolution of Parliament were
to be pled as a bar to their assumption, the Court
would be at full liberty to pay no respect to such
a resolution.—(Hear, hear.) That is one reason
why the Government think the course of proceeding
by resolution not only inexpedient, but inconsistent
with their duty.—(Hear, hear.) And if, in addition to
• assing the resolution, Committees were to be appointed,
does the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Man-
cheater imagine that no discussion would e.ri:e upon the
ousation of whether the Committees should be appointed
et all in the first place; that no discussion—and discus-
stens too I must say of a delicate nature, which it is de-
sirable as istr asposaible to avoid—would take place with
regard to the selection of the topics which should be re-
ferred to the Committees; and, again, with regard to the
nomination of the committees?—(Hear.) Assuming,
therefore, that such would be the fact, I do not think
that by adopting such a course we could get through
with it at an earlier period than we are likely to get
through the different stages of the present Bill.—(Hear.)
And would there not, moreover, be some danger that,
instead of allaying animosities which it is most desirable
to allay, it would tend rather to keep those ani-
mosities alive, if we were to have Committees
of both Houses of Parliament, receiving state-
ments from one quarter impugning the different
practices which are adopted in the exercise of
the Roman Catholic religion on the one band,
and hearing counter-statements on the other—statements
which would of course be presented to the public from
time to time through the ordinary channels of informa-
tion, and thus a kind of indefinite expectation would be
kept up of future legislation on a large and comprehen-
sive scale, which would at once satisfy the Protestant
feeling of the country, and preserve inviolate those prin-
ciples of civil and religious liberty which we are anxious
to maintain, not only for ourselves, but for our Roman
Catholic brethren ?—(Hear.) I will only add that, as I
stated on a former occasion in answer to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire, I am not prepared to say that
the law with respect to the relations of the Roman Ca-
tholic subjects of England to the State on the one hand,
and to the head of their Church on the other, are in a
satisfactory state—that while I think it would be inex-
iient to throw the question open before a Parliamen-
tary Committee for an indefinite time, I am not pre-
pared to retract what I then said, but, on the con-
trary, would now distinctly repeat, that I think
the subject is worthy the consideration of any Go-
vernment, and that I think it desirable that those
relations should be placed on a better and more
satisfactory footing.—(Hear, hear.) The next sugges-
tion which has been prt ssed upon Government is, that
Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Bill
now before the House —(Hear, bear.) There are many
Hon. Gentlemen who feel strongly with regard to the
necessity of adopting some legislative measure in order
to check encroachments on the part of Rome, but who,
actuated by kindly feelings towards their Roman Ca-
tholic fellow-subjects in Ireland—feelings in which I am
not ashamed to say I find it difficult not to participate—
(Hear, hear)—and who, looking to the distinction be-
t weeu the two cases of England and Ireland, are anxious
to do nothing that would seem to impose any new dis-
ability upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or that
would give them any reasonable ground of complaint;
and they have consequently pressed upon the Govern-
ment to consider whether Ireland should not be
al:ogether omitted from the Bill. This subject was
fully considered by Government long before the meet-
ing of Parliament. We have since reconsidered it;
but that reconsideration has only confirmed tho convic-
tion at which we had previously arrived, that to adopt
that course at all events would be wholly in-
consistent with our duty.—(Hear, hear.) We felt
strongly that, if the Bill was to be founded, as it is
founded, upon an alleged invasion of the gieen's pre-
rogative, as Sovereign of England—that if the internal
concerns of our country are matters with which no

foreign power can be permitted to interfAT—tha.. if we
receeded upon a principle of this kind, at the same
time proposed to limit the Bill to one part of the United
only, we should be chargeable with tacitly ad-
mitting that the authority of the Queen was less para-
mount and supreme in one portion of the kingdom than
it was in another.—(Cheers.) We felt that if we were
to adopt this course in order to obtain support to the
Bill, or with a view to its being passed with less opposi-
tion than it is now threatened with—we felt that if we
were to purchase this advantage in the way proposed,
we should be doing that, as Ministers of the Crown,
which would be tantamount to a betrayal of our trust.
—(Renewed cheers.) But, while I say this, I admit
that there is a wide practical difference between the
circumstances of Ireland and the circumstances of
England and Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) It is im-
possible to overlook the fact which I have had fre-
quent cause to advert to when addressing the House on
former occasions, that the great majority of the popula-
lation of Ireland are Roman Catholics with a Church not
endowed by the State, which has existed since the time
of the Reformation to the present day in unbroken suc-
cession—a Church which was at one time prohibited,
at another time tolerated, and another time protected—
a Church with bishops side by side with the bishops of
the Established Church, and that usages and practices
have grown up, snd have been sanctioned ibre, which
have never been known and sanctioned in England, be-
cause there was not the same necessity for them, the
circumstances of the two countries being wholly and
essentially different.—(Hear,constitutesthi re is no usein cboenacre g
bear.) And this, in fact,
the fact—l have
telt it all along myselfitand I am sure ail whom I now
address have felt it—
it which constitutes the
main difficulty in dealing
haischefficiently as we could wish
to do with the case to w
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Iwnethnis
Church " ask the assent of
country,
rhyi:v eh existed
the bishops of the Roman Catholic C
for two centuries as vicars-apostolic; np till t!lyd—
osieic
I do not know what was the case at an earlier
toprio
but I believe up till lately, her VicarS•ap
werebled
clothed with the episcopal character, and were enabled
to perform every episcopal function; the Roman Catholic
religion was exercised to the fullest extent, without let
or hindrance, and without any necessity for the state of
things which existed in Ireland. lam prepared to con-

tend, therefore, that in this c,nno.ry there 'lO pre,+;res
of the Bill that can Mee, the .liguLe.t
hotel hip.—
(llear, hear.) In Ireland, however, I am not prepared
to deny that, looking to some of the objections that have
been made to the Bill, there does seem some ground for
believing that it might interfere to a certain degree
with practices and usages with which it was not the in-
tention or desire of Government to interfere—usages and
practices which have been sanctioned for a length of time
in Ireland, and to interfere with which now would be,
to a certain extent, a hardship and injunice.—
(Hear, hear.) I will explain this more fully shortly.
But I am not prepared to admit, on the contrary,
I deny, that many of the objections which have
been urged against the Bill are founded in fact
or in law. Objections have been directed against the
second and third clauses chiefly. With respect to the
second clause, it has been stated that it would interfere
with all the spiritual acts of the Roman Catholic bishops,
and render those acts null and void. Now lam pre-
pared to contend that there is nothing in this clause of a
nature to render those spiritual acts void in law, unless
they are acts which can be enforced by a court of law,
according to the ordinary laws of the country, and which
are recognised by law as capable of being enforc-d. All
those spiritual acts which are capable of being performed
by bishops. whether is Euglend or Ireland, are acs to
which a willing and free obedience is rendered by the
teembers of the Roman Catholic Church except in so
for as their conscience may limit their obedience.
I mean that they are not constrained to obedience by
the law; that their obedience cannot be enforced by
law. I say, therefore, that it was not contemplated
by Government, and I deny that the effect of the
' clause, if passed in its presnt shape, would be, to set
aside and render void spiritual acts, such as are neces-
sary to be performed by the bishops of an episcopal
communion.—(f-fear, hear.) Then again, with regard to
the third clause, it has been stated over anti over again
that it would directly interfere with the provisions of
the Bequests Acts in facilitating the endowment of the
Roman Catholic bishops and clergy in Ireland. I deny
that it has necessarily at all events such an effect as that
which has been attributed to it. It is only necessary to
compare the language of this clause with the language
of the 15th Eeation of the Bequests Act, which contains
the provisions authorising the granting of endowments
to the bishops and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church
in Ireland, in order to see that not one of the provisions
of the Bequests Act is touched by the clause even as it
now stands. The terms of the 7th and Bth of Victoria, c.
97, s. 15 (the Bequests Act), authorises grants by deed
or will to the commission in trust, &c., " For any
archbishop or bishop or other person in holy orders
of the Church of Rome, officiating in any district,
or having pastoral superintendence of any con-
gregation of persons professing the Roman Ca-
tholic religion, and for those who shall from
time to time so officiate or shall succeed to the same
pastoral superintendence." Now I should have judged,
by looking at the terms of this Act,that it had been care-
fully worded so as to avoid the necessity of the 'bequests
sanctioned, authorised, and invited under this Act vio-
lating in any degree the section of the Act of 1829
which prohibits the assumption and use by Roman Ca-
tholic bishops in Iceland of the titles of existing sees.
If the terms of the third clause of the Bill now before
the House are compared with the terms of the Bequests
Act, it will be seen that bequests to persons " officiating
in any district or having pastoral superintendence of any
congregation of persons" would clearly not be prevented
by the third clause—that, in fact, that clause would only
prevent endowments by deed or will from being left to
persons using the titles or assuming the designations
which are prohibited in the first clause.—(Hear, hear.)
I said just now, and upon consideration I am not pre-
pared to deny, that the operation of the clause as it now
stands might prejudice some rights of long usage and in-
terfere with practices sanctioned by time, and, I believe,
also by courts of law and equity. Ido not think that
directly it is calculated to preduce any such effect; but
it is probable it may do so indirectly. I admit that
such was not the original intention cf Government, and
we are anxious not to ge beyond the views which we
entertained when we originally introduced the Bill.
On a former occasion allusion was made to the ordina
Lion of priests, and to what is called the "collation of
priests" in Ireland; and it was objncted that the effect of
his Biil would be to render such spiritual acts invalid;
because it is alleged—and I believe with truth—that
under the terms of the Bsquests Act it may sometimes
bo necessary to give evidence of ordination and colla-
tion, wiih the view of esteblisbing the right of parties
to bequests thet may have been made to them; and
e`rat the practice is to give in evidence the certificate of
ordination, and the instrument of collation. This instru-
ment we are also told invariably and of necessity con-
tains, the name of the bishop or archbishop who or-
dained or collated the priest, and that such bishop or
archbishop is generally described by the title of the see
which ho holds. I have seen one of these instruments;
it is in Latin, I don't remember the date, but it is of no
consequence, for the practice, I am told, is invariably
the same; and in that instrument the archbishop is de-
scribed as Archbishop of Dublin. Although it may be
alleged that the production of such evidence renders the
party assuming such a title liable to be proceeded
agaiest by the Attorney-General, it appears that the
courts of law have never regarded such an instrument
as void. It is alleged that a case may °emir,
as Cases have occurred, under the Bequests Act,
where a bequest is left to an ecclesiastic of the Church
of Bume,having pastoralsuperintendencein that Church;
where the deed or will granting the bequest contains the
name; of a Roman Catholic priest of a particular place
or congregat ion; that a question may arise in a court of
law as to the right of the priest so named to the bequest
ae against a third party who also claims it; and that in
order to the settlement of the question he is required to
show that ho is an ordained priest of the Church of
Rome, and that he was collated to the charge of that
particular parish. This Bill, it if alleged, under the
operation of the second clause—and I must admit I think
the allegation has some weight in it—would throw an
obstacle in the way of the proof by prohibiting the re-
ception of the ordinary evidence, and drive the parties to
secondary proof, or deprive them of that which it was
the intention of Parliament that they should have.
So again, with respect to the Bequests Act—the bequests
would nor, under the operation of this Bill, according to
my construction of the words, be rendered invalid and
enure to the use of the Crown, to be disposed of ac-
cording to the necessity of the case, not necessarily
according to the terms of the instrument; but the
feeling is—l am dealing with the practice which prevails
in Ireland, and has prevailed there for several years—
that it would be difficult to persuade people, not perhaps
having legal advice at their elbow, to depart from the
existing practice, and make grants or bequests for the
endowment of ministers of their Church, without using
terms which this Bill would prohibit. Further, it is said,
and I believe there is no doubt, that courts of equity in
Ireland, since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief
Act, have executed trusts expressly in favour of Roman
Catholic archbishops and bishops, not regarding the pro-
hibition in the Act of 1829 as affecting the terms of the
grant or bequest. I have been told of a case—l have not,
of course, been able to examine the record, and I can-
not vouch for the accuracy of the account, except in so
far as saying that it comes to me from a quarter upon
which I place full reliance—a case in which a decree was
made on the 3d of July, 1844, in reference to a sum of
13,0001, which was directed to be invested in the crea-
tion and endowment of a convent of the Presentation
order or the Sisters of Mercy, in the archdiocese of
Tuam; and I have been furnished with this account of
Sir B. Sngden's decree:—" The sums left to Roman
Catholic charities in this case exceed 30,0001. The he
quest in the will of the tettator was to the Most Rev,
Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,
and the At at Rev. Dr. Kelly. Roman Catholic Arch-
bishop of MAID, and their successors in the slid respec-
tive sees f_g the time being. The bill was filled after
the death of Dr. and Dr. M'Hale was made a co
plaintiff with Dr. Murray, as the successor of Dr. Kelly
in the see of Tuam; and the fund was administered in
rhst state of the record." The will aas made is 1834,
subsequently, therefore, to the clause in the Act of 1829
to which I have referred.—(Neer, hear.) lam told that
hat is rot a solitary case, and that there are other cares
in which, in accordance with the general practice in Ire-
lend, those have been considered good trusts. There was
e case before Lord Manners, but that was before the Act
f 1829, and therefore no objection was made to the de-
tignation of the parties as bishops of sees in Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, certainly the Bill in its present
form, if passed, would have an operation which was not
is the contemplation, not in the intention of the Govern-
ment, because, while they have been anxious to maintain
the dignity of the Crown, to assert its supremacy within
these realest, and to uphold the independence of the
country—(Rear, bear)—they had no desire to deprive
any part of their fellow-subjects of any civil or religious
rights of which they are in possession.—(Hear, hear.)
aettr the best consideration which we can give to this
case, we have thought it our duty, as I have already
sated, to persevere with this Bill, holding it essential
that there should be a declaration by Parliament of the
will of the nation, if I may so express myself, with
regard to the recent act of the Court of Rome, which has
excited so much indignation—l will not now say whether
justly or unjustly, I have already stated my opinion upon
that—and that Parliament should not pass it by with
indifference, and by so doing encourage a repetition of
acts which would be fatal, I think, to the independence of
this country—(Hear, hear)—but at the same time we
have anxiously considered, especially with regard to our
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland—it is, I
think, exclusively with regard to them that these objec-
tions apply, the practice being as I have stated there—
we have anxiously considered how we may effect the
object in view without giving even the slightest ground
of complaint to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in
Ireland that their rights are unnecessarily abridged,
and that practices long sanctioned by usage, at least
in that country, are about to be interfered with, and—l
will not say their property confiscated, because I
think that is an unfounded and exaggerated state-
ment—but that new impediments not before known to
the law are to be in practice placed in the way of their
applying their property to the use of that Church which
is not endowed by the State, but supported by their vo-
luntary contributions.—(Hear, hear.) We might, no
doubt, have omitted certain words, and inserted others,
to Int et the particular cases to which I have referred;
hot after giving the subject all possible 'consideration,
wo have cane to the conclusion that by attempticg
ainendments of that kind we might only be raiting new
points of discussion, end giving occasion for new ob.
js:ctions not yotntarted, and might after all not com-
pletely effect rte objects we sincerely and honestly have
in view. Under these circumstances we have come to
the conclusion, that if the House, after hearing my
statement, shall agree to the sec nd reading of the Bill,
we shall, when the House shall go into Committee upon
it, propose to omit altogether the second and third
clauses.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) ,With regard
to the fourth clause, that is wholly ancillary, and a
corollary to the second and third clauses; and, there-
fore—igfhe remainder of the sentence was drowned in
the laughter which arose in the House.] I have

r......s.vnt.r,rnßnt

Ftitpa ;11-71,
to advise wig COUrbe, and gt. di no .4, ouy it ,V tV,a(l6 Ail
reference to an objection which I see I may anticipate,
and which it is impossible not to anticipate—namely,
that the Bill, reduced as it will then be, to the prohibition
contained in the first clause, will not be worthy of the
occasion, and not justify the expectation of the country.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") To this extent it
ought to justify that expectation, that it will be a Par•
liamentary declaration that the titles assumed, as they
are ostentatiously under the authority of the Pope, ere
not, to be borne by persons claiming authority in this
country.—(Hear, hear.) It will be a national protest
against that ast—a national declaration that the autho-
rity assumed is one which Parliament will not allow
to be exercised.—(Hear, hear.) When it is state d that
this is so inefficient and limited an Act, I must say
that I do not concur in that statement, judging by
past experience ; and I am not one of those who say
that the clause in the Act of 1829 prohibiting
titles is a dead letter, or that it has not
answered to the full the object with which it was
framed and the expectation with which it was passed by
Parliament. I have said that it has been the practice for
the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland to use those titles
in letters of ordination, and it is alleged that it is neces-
sary fur them to do so, because in those documents the
authority must be shown under which the acts are per-
forinej; but ostensibly, in their communications with the
Governmeeo in approaching the Toroue or the Legisla-
ture, there Las been a respect and an obedience to the
law—(Hear, hear)—and that law has not Leen a dead
letter to this extent, that in all those documents and
upon all official occasions it has been observed, and the
bishops have abstained from using those titles.—(Hear.)
I believe the same result will take place iu England it
this Bill be passed, because I believe the Roman Catholic
subjects of her Majesty will defer to this law.—t Hear.)
°My a few days since I had the honour of presenting to
her Majesty an address from the Roman Catholic Arch-
bishops and bishops in Ireland, in which, describing
themselves as such, they did not assume either in the
body of the address or in their signatures any title prohi-
bited to them.—(Hear, hear.) Cesrtsinly, if they had, I
should have felt it my duty to abstain from presenting
it to her Majesty.—(Hear, hear.) So also with regard
to the petition to this House the other night; that peti-
tion was signed by every Roman Catholic archbishop
and bishop in Ireland, using hie Christian name and
surname, without assuming the title of his diocese.—
(Hear, hear.) I have now stated what clauses we propose
to omit—that we propose to avoid all interference with
long-established usage, and with rights conceded to, and
long exercised by our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.
I avow my own opinion, that although it is necessary
that .such a Bill as this should pass, and that no en-
couragement be given to teats of aggression like this,
and although I think such a prohibition, proceeding
from the Legislature, receiving the sanction of both
Houses of Parliament and of the Crown, will
have the effect of a national protest and de.
claration against that act of the Pope which has been so
much, aneproperly, objected against; yet it is not to
any Act of Parliament that I look for the maintenance
of the Protestant religion in these realms—(Hear)—but
to that deep feeling 01 attachment to the Protestant faith
which the members of every Protestant denomination
possess—(Cheers)—and to which they have given utters
anee in language clear, unambiguous, and unmis-
takeable.—(Renewed cheers.) It is to their just appre-
ciation of the blessings connected with the maintenance
of the Protestant faith in this country, that I look for
the maintenance of that faith—(Hear, hear)—coupled.
as it no doubt will be, with the iuoreased diligence and
activity of Protestant ministers in their respective
spheres—(Bear, hear)—armed, as I believe, with the
armour of truth, to resist that spiritual aggression with
which they have been threatened.— (Cheers.) But, le• -
foie I sit dawn, I will advert to a question put by the
Hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswalt)), with regard
to the operation of this Bill upon the bishops in Scot-
land, whose petition has been presented to-night. Cer-
tainly their case was not at all in the contemplation of
the Government when they thought it their duty to
propose a Bill of this kind.—(Hear, hear.) There is
noshing in the conduct of those bishops, in the course
they have pursued, which would render it in the least
necessary or expedient that a Bill should be passed
placing them under any disability to which they are not
now subject.—(Hear, hear.) But I feel it right to state
:bat I believe those bishops, designated as they are in an
Act of Parliament—the first Act of Parliament recog-
Dieing them in their episcopalcharaver, the Act in 1840
--'• Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Communion of
Scotland," have no shadow of right whatever to assume
or use titles drawn from Scotch dioceses.—(l-lear, hear.)
There are those who think it is against positive law—
the Act of Union embodying the Act of Settlement;
that may involve a nice question, but at all events they
are without law, I believe, in this. The usage has
grown up only within the last 20 years, and it is not
now universal among them; and in introducing words
exempting bishops of the Protestant Episcopal COMMU•
nibn in Scotland from any penalties to which they might
be subject under the Bill, I should feel it my duty to
provido that the exemption shall not be held to give
them any right to the use or assumption of titles to which
they are not already by law entitled.—(Herr, hear.)
There was an observation made by the Honourable and
Learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), who charged
me with presenting to her Majesty an address from Pro-
testant bishops in Scotland, signing as bishops of dioceses
over which they. presided. I contradicted him at the
time, but I had no opportunity then of giving an expla-
nation. The only address I have seen which contains
any of their signatures, with the exception of
one from Edinburgh to which no objection
could be taken, was from the members of the
society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which was
brriught t) me signed by 3,000 or 4.000 of the members
of that society, in their individual capacity; it was an
address remarkable, for its temper and moderation, ex-
pressing firmly an opinion with respect to the recent
act of the Pope and the establishment of a Roman Catho-
lic hirearchy in this country, but in language to which
no possible exception could be taken. Atter the secre-
tary had left the address with me, I observed among the
signatures those of four bishops of the Protestant Epis-
copal Communion in Scotland, who had signed their
names and added to their names a description of them
as bishops of certain places. If that address had been
from the bishops themselves exclusively, I ahetild have
respectfully returned it to them, pointed out what I con-
ceived to be the impropriety of so addressing the Throne
and requested them to return the address signed as the
Act of Parliament appears to prescribe. But as the ad-
dress came from a very large number of members
of this society, and the signatures were not, I
was told, contrary to any rule of law, I felt it my
they to lay the address before her Majesty; but in sig-
nifying to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the President,
whose name stood first, I thought it necessary to write
awofficial letter to him, wishing it to be expressly un-
derstood that in laying that address before her Majesty
no sanction was given to the form of signature adopted
by these bishops in Scotland, and no recognition intended
of titles which by law they had no right to assume.—
(Hear, hear.) I thought, under the circumstances, that
was the best course I could adopt—(Hear, hear)—and I
hope the Hon Member (Mr. Keogh) will see that he
has not correctly. represented the course I pursued.—
(Hear, hear.) I have now stated what the Government
propose to do. I have endeavoured to abstain from
matter which might lead to debate at present, because if
we are to postpone the second reading of this Bill fur a
week, it is desirable that we should not now be involved
in .a long and protracted discussion, which must again
take place on the second reading.—(Hear, hear.) I
have onlyf therefore, to move that the order of the day
for the second reading of this Bill be postponed till Fri-
day next.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STUART thought that the Bill which the Go-
verament proposed to make out of that which
had been read a first time, was certainly not calcu-
leted to allay the apprehensions of those who
had so far supported then in the former measure. He
did not think that in this case of aggression and instil'
to-the Crown the Executive Government had shown
themselves at all active to repel that insult in the proper
manner. By the Constitution there were several modes
of repelling it, and one would have been by a proclama-
tion from the Privy Council; but in place of that they only
bad a private letter from the Prima Minister to a pre.
vate individual, a course which he would say was en-
tirely unworthy of a Prime Minister and derogatory
to the dignity of the Crown. But the Execu-
tiye had in truth never shown the slightest
intention to fellow any of the precedents which existed in
such cases, which if they had been followed would
have readily afforded a constitutional manner of dis-
posing of the difficulties. But if the Executive had
failed in their duty, the task of rupdling
e
teals insult had f:llen en the Legislature, and he cooselyed that the present measure, which was proposed fur
the purpose, was v, ry far from 'thing sufficient to uphold
the dignity of the Crown. The Right Hon. Baronet
would have to explain to the House how it
would be possible to secure the
prohibit, under penalties, the assumption of titles by
persons to whom, under those very titles, bequests
countryi from
nga Bill to
further assaults of this nature by passing
might legally be made for the purpose of maintaining
those titles. He threw out this suggestion for the con-
sideration of Government before the Bill came again
under discussion.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to set himself right
in-regard to certain allusions which bad been made to
hiin by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, who had said that he
(Mr. M. Gibson) was desirous of referring the matter to
a Committee. Now, he himself having no wish to legis-
late in the matter, therefore he could not have any
desire to inquire. But this ho would say, that if they
were to legislate, they had better legislate with infor-
mation than witbout it. He was -glad to see that
there was a near approximation to the proper stage of
doing nothing.
Sir R. H. INGLIS concurred with the Right Hon.
Gentleman that they were doing nothing. The Bitl as it was
proposed to be altered would give satisfaction to no one,
and indeed how could it be otherwise? It was a repeti-
tion of the farce which represented Hamlet with the part
of Hamlet left out.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Noble
Lord wrote a splendid letter to his country, but he bad
weefally failed iu carrying out the spirit which it
breathed; and though he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had been
ready when the Bill was first introduced to accept
nirepence in the shilling, he was not now prepared to
take less than the whole shillieg.—(llear, hear, and
laughter.) Tho Bill was shamefully mutilated, so
shamefully that it was nothing less than
an insult to the country, and he had no doubt whatever
that if Government persevered in it, they would be again
driven from office.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES was afraid that the Hon. Baronet
would not get even his 9d. in the pound out of the Bill.
He wanted to know in what respect the Bill was more
stringent or effective than the present state of the law?
The speech of the Right Hon. Baronet was directed in
favour of the two or three clauses which he proposed to
abandon, and he could assure him that unless the feel-

Mr. BANKES—There had been no assumption 01
new titles in Ire land. It had been in this country.
Lord 'I. RUSSELL—The questions referred to new
titles generally. Tae Hon. and Learned Gentleman says
the Government knew these persons had committed an
offence at common law, which the Government migha
but had not proceeded to prosecute. My answer is tnis,
that the law officers said they did not think that ths as-
sumption of titles was contrary either to the common or
the statute law; tend consequently the preamble of this
Bill status that the pretence to establish sees or dioceses
and titles is illegal and void; but it does not say that the
assumption or tales is illegal. but inconsistent with the
rights which we intended to be protected by the enact-
ment of 1829. It is evident that, after obtaining t at
op alien, it would be futile in us to order the law officers
of the Crown to prosecute for what they declared we e
not offences. Their opinion went on to say that un-
doubtedly if it could be proved that bulls had been in-
troduced into this country, or, rather, rescripts and
writings from Rome, for the parpose of establi-hing
these sees, that appeared to be an offence, I think, at
con.mon law, but at all events against curtain
statutes which were then operative. But that
would have been a prosecution on the intro-
duction of a bull, that bull being upon a particular sub-
ject, but only liable to prosecution inasmuch as any
other bull r rescript might be, any bull, for example,
allowing persons to marry, or any other bull necessary
for the due carrying on of the rites of the Roman Catho-
lic Church. He thought it would be an exercise of op.
pressiou to say that while we prosecuted them in fact
for the assumption of titles we prosecuted in the form
of law for the introduction of a bull; and to say that
any Government should have entire discretion with re-
spect to certain bulls which they thought objectianable,
and which they considered it right to prosecute, that
would be a dangerous discretion for any Government to
exercise.—(Hear, hear.) Whether titans that subject
further legislation may take place I am not prepared to
say. The enactments upon this subject are very unsa-
tisfactory. The introduction of bulls is forbidden, but
whether under the penalties of misdemeanour, or of high
treason, is very doubtful ; and at the same time the pro-
hibition is general. It is not such a one as existed in
the time of our earlier kings, against the introduction of
bulls inconsistent with the king's prerogative, er injuri-
ous to the welfare of the State; but against the intro
duction generally of any writings from Rome. Having
said thus much, I will now say that in the speech which
I made to the House in introducing the Bill now before
us, I expressed at its commencement that we did not in-
tend to legislate upon the whole subject and relations
of this country with the court of Rame, a vast extensive
subject upon which we were not prepared to take mea-
sures of legislation. I said we intended to confine our-
selves to that one particular act, the assumption of the
pretence to sway over the realm of England, and of
titles inconsistent with the Queen's sovereignty, with
the rights of the bishops and clergy of this realm,and with
the spiritual independence of the nation. In fact, the
essence of the offence which is committed consists in the
insult that is offered. The other questions upon which
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman has touched
are totally diffareut. It appears to me that, in order to
meet that insult, the direct way is to introduce a Bill
which shall forbid, and, if poss.ible, prevent the assump-
tien of such titles. The Noble Lord who spoke last
certainly requires some further study of this subject, be-
cause he seems totally to have misapprehended it. The
question of the law being inoperative, because there are
certain things done in Ireland, and given in proof in a
court of law, and the question of the assumption of titles,
are two totally different questions. The assumption of the titles of the bishop of certain sees in Ireland is forbidden
by the law. The law is so tar obeyed that the persons
thus prohibited to take titles do nut take them
in any public document, and when they address the
Crown, or servants of the Clown, they but use their own
names. Now, if persons come into a court of law to
maintain a right which is founded upon the assumption
of those titles, I cone, ive it would be a question with a
court of law whether any such measure was not invalid
by reason of the assumption of these titles. But it is a
different thing where a person claims a right in which
incidentally it has been shown that this title has been
used. And it might happen that the tight might be per-
fectly good, although the mode of proving it might re-
fer to acme instrument by which the person signing that
instrument would be shown to have committed an offence
against the law. As the law formerly stood, there were
certain marriages in which the performance of the mar-
riage ceremony was an offence, but notwithstanding that
the marriage was not void, and held good. The diffi-
culty has been to form a clause which would prevent the
'synodical meetings of the bishops, and prevent the use of
the titles. But it was f mod that we could not use words
which would prevent that without at the same time pre-
venting the proper exercise of the spiritual goverii;
ment of the Raman Catholic Church. In a foroli..e..
debate I stated that if there was any part of this
which interfered with the religious liberty of the Romilattni
Catholics, I should be ready to expunge it. The Noble
and Learned Gentleman mentioned the Synod of
Thurles; and I agree with him that the op
acts constitute the principal dangers which
for the insultch
operations
have to
tions and
fear. But while we propose to provide
which bus been offered to us, there
some difficulty in
The
meeting this question of the synods.
Attorney-
General thought that by the use
operation of the synod might be suspended,
appliedf tae
to any act
e we rd
but"haec ta"f ttehre
-
wards considered that that might
of otdirttion, and other acts
an which come within the
spiritual jurisdiction of the I
only wish gentlemen to coneirm Catholic Church. I
der the imperfection of
language upon this subject. After much consideration,
and after various attempts, we have found it impossibla
that whQi exactly
ct
we
to use language of such a nature a
what we wished to prohibit, and decreesto
prohibit
may
be more
wished to permit. Other gentlemen
fortunate and may be able to point out to the Crown
what should be done. It is evident that Lord Stanl©
has not been thus fortunate, because be has proposed
to have a year or two for the preparation of a measure
the subject. I will not say that by this, or by any
have now to propose, we are free from the
üßpileln which
dangers to which the Noble and Learned Gentleman has
alluded, that we are free from the interference of the