The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-19 00:00:00

THE SUN,

admirable conduct since his accession to his paternal
inheritance argues quite the other way, and gives us
strong hopes that the question of tenant right will
have no more honest or zealous advocate in the House
of Commons. ,

Mr. GOOLD bad hereditary and family claims of no
ordinary kind upon the constituency of Limerick. In
the days of Ireland's evil destiny, as well as at that epoch
to which Irishmen look back with pride, amid the
bright galaxy of her genius there was none more
able, more eloquent, or more patriotic than the late
Master GOOLD, the father of the present Member for
the county of Limerick. He is connected with Lord
DIINRAVEN, an excellent resident landlord, as well as
with Mr. MONSELL, now his colleague, one of the
most active, useful, and intelligent Members sent to
the British Parliament by the people of Ireland.
But beyond all these Mr. GOOLD, though young,
has strong personal claims to the support and respect
of the men of Limerick. There could not be found
a more generous or kind-hearted landlord, or
one more anxious for the improvement of
his tenantry. In private life be is much
respected, and during his novitiate at the
bar, and particularly on his own immediate
circuit, he won the golden opinions of bis brother
barristers—no insignificant test of his worth, com-
prised as that circuit is of gentlemen of the very
highest honour and intellect. Fur ourselves, we con-
gratulate the people of Limerick on their choice; and
we feel a strong confidence neither they nor we shall
be disappointed in the high hopes we entertain of Mr.
GOOLD'S Parliamentary career, which we trust will
be alike honourable to himself and serviceable to his
country.

It was most imprudent and injudicious in the Tenant
League to make their first essay against a candidate
possessing such claims as these. It was not only
imprudent, but we would be disposed to say improper,
under the circumstances, as their unwise contest
nearly threw the representation of the county into
the hands of the enemies of human progress and
human liberty ; and we trust that upon future occa-
sions they will exercise a sounder discretion, and will
pursue a course less calculated to endanger the public
peace or their own good cause.
_

It is refreshing to reflect on the issue of this elec-
tion—it conveys to our mind the agreeable notion
that the social elements are not unhealthy, and that
even in the county of the violated treaty the ties be-
tween landlords and tenants are still respected. This
is as it should be—the interests of both are
identical. We hope to see these feelings grow and
strengthen, until every landlord in Ireland shall un-
derstand that the best and truest security for his per-
son and property is in the improvement and pros-
perity of his tenantry. The cultivation of the
kindly relations and friendly feelings which should
subsist between the owners and cultivators of the
soil will tend more to the regeneration of Ireland
than can possibly be achieved by any Act of the
Legislature. The social system must remain inse-
cure, permanent tranquillity can never be established
till the legitimate rights of the tenant be fully recog-
nized, and the landlords of Ireland become ac-
quainted; with their duties, and have the honesty,
like Mr. GOOLD, to perform them.

We are at length in possession of a legal opinion
as to the recent Papal aggression in these realms,
an opinion formed after much careful considera-
tion by perhaps the most accomplished lawyer
of his day, who has ever since 1829
had his attention almost unremittingly di-
rected to the state of the law as affecting
Roman Catholics, who was the legal adviser of the
late Sir ROBERT PEEL, both in power and out of
power, and who, more epecially during the whole of
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S last Ministry, aided and advised, as
Chancellor of Ireland, in all the alterations which were
made from 1642 to 1846 in the laws relating to the Ro-
man Catholics,—we are in possession of the deliberately
formed, and as deliberately pronounced, opinion of Sir
EDWARD SUGDEN, that Cardinal WISEMAN and his
companions in usurpation have violated the law, that
they have been guilty of a misdemeanour, for which
they may be indicted, and if convicted punished-
This opinion was distinctly enunciated by Sir ED •
WARD SUDDEN at the Surrey County Meeting, held
at lipsom on Tuesday last, and the matter is one of
such vast and paramount importance that we feel it is
our duty to give the opinion of Sir EDWARD SUGDEN
in his own words. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thus ex-
plains the present state of the law on this subject:—
" The first Parliament of Elisabeth passed a law to
declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or
potentate bath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction,
power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesi-
astical or spiritual, within this realm. That was the
law then, and that is the law now. But the other
day, in the 9th and 10th of our present Queen—not
following the example of the Relief Act—an Act
of Parliament was passed which repealed certain pro-
vi.ions of this statute. By one part of the
Act of Elisabeth it was provided that whoever
affirmed or acted upon the notion that any foreign
prince, prelate, or potentate had any power, ecclesi-
astical or spiritual, within the realm, was subject to the
most heavy punishments. The third of these was ac-
tually high treason, with the penalty of death and the
loss and forfeiture cf lands :mil goods. Now, no man
could wish that to remain; it was a punishment that no
man would inflict at this time of day, and it was there-
fore repelled by the 9th and 10th of Victoria; but the
Act which repealed this declares that, though the pe-
nalties and punishments are repealed, it shall still not
be lawful for any person to affirm or maintain that any
foreign person, prince, prelate, or potentate hatb, or
ought to have, jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical,
within the realm. Then, I assert here, and I am pre-
pared to do so everywhere, that by the law as it stands,
the Bishop of Rome and his Archbishops and Cardinals
have no right to assert for maintain that they have any
spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this realm.—
(Cheers) There was another Act passed in the 13th
year of Elisabeth to prevent bulls, letters, or instru-
ments to be received from Rome for any cause whatever;
no man was to put in use any bull, letters, or instrument
from the Bishop of Rome in any case whatever—
(Hear, hear)—and if he did, not only he, but
those who abetted him, were to be held guilty
of high treason and suffer death. Now every-
body knows that such a punishment could not be inflicted
in these days, and therefore the penalty was swept
away, but the Act that swept away the penalty declared,
that the repeal should not go beyond the penalties and
punishments, and that it was still unlawful for any man
in this land to put in use any bull, writing, or instru-
ment of the Bishop of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) lam
aware a quibble might be raised on the construction
of these Acts, as to whether such persons could bepti-
nished or not; but Ido not care much about that. The
law is clear that no one is permitted to do such things.
It is equally clear that, by the repeal of the Act so far,
it was intended to enable the Roman Catholic to put him•
self in communication, as he was already in communion
with the see of Rome, for it was ►aid there was no use in

granting to the Roman Catholics the free exercise of their
religion if they could not communicate with the head
of their church. Nothing could be more reasonable,
and, therefore, nothing that was necessary to enable
them to communicate with the head of their religion
could be objected to; that being the object of the repeal.
But that repeal does at the same time enact that nothing
iu the Act shall suthoriae any one to introduce or pub-
lish any instrument from the Bishop of Rowe. That,
therefore, is the law now.—(Cheers.) Now I say that
law has been infringed; and though those pains and
those punishments are no longer operative that were in-
flicted by the statutes of Elisabeth, yet there are punish-
ments that the law will inflict on those who disregard the
injunctions of the Legislature.—(Cheers.)"

Such is the opinion of confessedly the most accom-
plished lawyer of the day ; so that here is an end of
Cardinal WtsEarares boast, that he has done nothing
contrary to law. Indeed it would appear as if the
Cardinal and his advisers had of late themselves sus-
pected that they had been carrying matters rather
too far, for we have had recently put forth by the great
Catholic bookseller, DOLMAN, divers pamphlets, some
argumentative, some vituperative, some mere appeals
ad misericordiam, but all founded upon what M.
LEOPOLD DURAS has so justly denominated the
Catholic sophism. " This sophism," says M. DUBAS,
in the Paris Natiootal of Tuesday, " consists
essentially in demanding for Catholics, in the name of
equality, the liberty of preventing everybody else
from being free. This is monstrous ; but it is not the
first absurdity that has made the glory of a man or
the fortune of a party." This is precisely the sophism
that runs through the arguments alike of the mani-
festo of Cardinal WISEMAN and of the speeches and
writings of his supporters. Having given us tolera-
tion, you are bound, say these gentlemen, not to pre-
vent our doing anything and everything that may tend
to the complete development of our religion, on pain
,of infringing on the principles of religious liberty.
Not so ; the State is bound to secure to every religious
body perfect freedom of action, so far as that
freedom of action does not infringe upon the freedom
of action of any other person or body ; if it does so
infringe, then the State in defence of equal religious
liberty is bound to interfere to prevent such develop-
ment. To take an exemple.l It will be admitted that to I
in
_its utmost development
study Roman Catholicism