Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that "

Now, the second clause of the present Bill, which was preceded and introduced by the preamble I have just read, enacts—

"That if, after the passing of this Act, any person other than a person thereunto authorised by law in respect of an archbishopric, bishopric, or deanery of the United Church of England and Ireland, assume or use the name, style, or title of archbishop, bishop, or dean of any city, town, or place, or of any territory or district (under any designation or description whatsoever) in the United Kingdom, whether such city, town, or place, or such territory or district, be or be not the see or the province, or coextensive with the province of any archbishop, or the see or the diocese, or coextensive with the diocese of any bishop, or the seat or place of the church of any dean, or coextensive with any deanery of the said United Church, the person so offending shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of

1007."

perfluous. If you recite, in the preamble, that it is only under colour of a pretended authority that these titles are assumed-if you recite that the attempt to introduce those titles is illegal and void, and that the illegality is constituted an offence under this Act of Parliament-you have done in effect by the recital what you declare by the clause which immediately follows; and certainly, upon consideration, the first clause strikes you as being superfluous.

Inasmuch as I found that there was a great desire for the insertion of that clause, I took the liberty of suggesting to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that it should be adopted. It is said, "here is an invasion of national independence, of national sovereignty by a foreign Power; it is not enough to recite that it is illegal; let there be a statutory, parliamentary, national declaration that it is illegal and void" and for this purpose, that there may be no mistake about it, but that it In other words, the second clause places may go forth by the authority of Parliathe unauthorised assumption of such terri- ment to the whole world, in the face of torial districts, provinces, cities, and towns, which this invasion has been made, and as have not already suggested archiepis- that no doubt may be left on the mind of copal or episcopal titles of the Established any Roman Catholic subject that this parChurch, shall be guilty of an offence and ticular rescript is illegal and void. This subject to the same penalty as provided by clause proposes to do nothing as to penalthe Act of George IV. That is the origi- ties; it does nothing as to fines or punishnal Bill; it puts those places on the same ment, but it does give a more solemn affirfooting, by constituting it an offence to mation of that which has been already reassume such titles, and subjects the per- cited. There is no hardship, no injustice son assuming them to the same penalty as to anybody. It is merely the same as is the Act of George IV. had fixed for the contained in the preamble. It may do assumption of titles already appropriated some good, it can do no possible harm, by the archbishops and bishops of the Es- It may afford additional satisfaction, by tablished Church. Now, undoubtedly ano- removing every shadow of doubt on any ther clause is introduced-a clause origi- mind, as to the intention of Parliament in nally suggested by the hon. and learned vindicating the national independence, Member for Midhurst (Mr, Walpole). Does Therefore, I say, the first clause contains that make it a new Bill? It does no such neither more nor less than is contained in thing. It is neither more nor less than a the preamble; and is enacted in substance declaratory clause, embodying the results by the second clause, though it may be a which you have recited that certain per- more express and explicit statement than sons have assumed titles by colour of a is contained in that preamble. That is all pretended authority from the See of Rome; I have to say about that clause. With you recite that the attempt to constitute regard to the second clause, it has been so those persons archbishops and bishops is much discussed that I cannot understand illegal and void-you say it ought to be any one feeling any doubt as to the real prevented. What says your first clause? intent and real legal effect of it. It Does it say anything more? Certainly amounts to this: The statute of 10th not. It merely says that that which you George IV. applied in terms only to the have decided in the preamble is illegal and territorial titles previously appropriated by void, shall be declared by Act of Parliament the Established Protestant Church. to be illegal and void. It was stated by recites the attempt to parcel out this the noble Lord at the head of Her Majes- country-England more especially-into ty's Government, that he entertained some provinces and dioceses which have no founobjection to that clause, because it was su-dation whatever in constitutional law. It

It

says the assumption of those titles is illegal, and places territorial districts not appropriated to the Established Church on the same footing as those to which the 10th George IV. applies. That is the whole effect of the clause; and when it is said that this second clause will interfere with the administration of charitable bequests and trusts of members of the Roman Catholic Church, the simple and obvious answer is the 10th George IV. had not that effect; and this has only application to dioceses and sees not already provided for in that Act. That is the whole effect of the Bill; and I cannot understand how any one can entertain any real doubt or difficulty as to its nature and character. I understand that all the Committee requires of me is a legal exposition of the measure; and after the long and elaborate discussion which it has undergone, I believe I should be trifling with your time and patience were I to add one word to the naked statement which I have now made.

in the highest circles of society, and who were now suffering the penalty of their crime. Well, the Pope had recently issued a rescript, doing exactly for a portion of Ireland what he had done for the whole of England. Now, there was no notice taken of this in the Bill, and therefore it seemed to him that it made the distinction which they were all anxious to avoid, namely, that of asserting the national sovereignty in England, and not in Ireland. He observed that the hon. and learned Attorney General was at present absent, but he hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor General would explain whether he (Mr. Seymer) was correct in saying that the Bill, as it now stood, did make the distinction to which he had referred.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL: It did not occur to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to notice the point which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). I know it was his intention to answer the right hon. Gentleman; MR. P. HOWARD wondered why, if and, from conversations with my hon. and the matter was so simple as the hon. and learned Friend on the subject, I am aware learned Gentleman pretended it to be, the of his views, which are, I believe, as fol Bill had been withheld, contrary to the lows. Neither the right hon. Gentleman usual practice, from Members until after or the hon. Member who spoke last, have mid-day that day. He protested altogether sufficiently distinguished between the deagainst taking the discussion of the Bill claratory clause and the common enacting that night, no time having been given for clause. By the declaratory clause, you the consideration of it. In effect it was a have, instead of the judgment of a Court completely new Bill from that last before of law, the judgment of the highest authothe House. It had a new date even-arity of the realm, that such and such a distinct proof that it was an entirely new Bill. The Government were adopting the dishonourable resource of stratagem to carry their measure through; and it was a degrading catering to the taste of a majority in the House to append the proposal of the Member for Midhurst without being convinced of either the propriety or the necessity of the addition.

state of things is the existing law of the country-a judgment which every Court is bound to follow: it admits of no appeal, and can in no way be contravened. With respect to this particular bull, the reason for declaring it to be illegal and void, I apprehend to be this: In the first place, that it is illegal and void, no lawyer can entertain a doubt. That it is illegal and MR. K. SEYMER said, that one very void to accept a title under a bull, was deimportant point had been omitted by the termined in the time of James I., in Lalor's hon. and learned Attorney General. It case in Ireland; and since that time there had been said that the object of the Bill has never been a doubt on the subject. It was to maintain the national sovereignty. was then declared to be illegal under the Now, if there was one portion of the king- statute of præmunire of Richard II. This dom more than another where it was par- Bill purports to do precisely the same as ticularly important to maintain the national in Lalor's case. It is a remarkable cirsovereignty, it was Ireland-for that was cumstance, that from the time of Lalor's the only part of the empire where, in re- case till the present time no subject of cent times, war had actually been openly England has dared to accept such a bull levied against the Sovereign. [Murmurs-no Sovereign Pontiff has been found to of dissent.] Why, there could be no doubt about it. The war had been levied by persons, some of whom were moving The Attorney General

issue such a bull. It is two centuries or nearly two centuries and a half afterwards, that this unprovoked aggression takes place

mit, that this was the same Bill-whether | lating to charitable bequests remained unthe subtraction of these clauses was really repealed; and the hon. and learned Memand substantially a change of the restric- ber for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), had said that tive and persecuting policy now adopted, it repealed in terms the penal part of the or whether the hon. and learned Gentle- Act of 1829. What he (Mr. M'Cullagh) man did not think that every ecclesiastical said was, that the Charitable Bequests Act as well as every temporal Act, was really of 1844, introduced by the late Sir Robert to be declared invalid by those second and Peel, with the approved of the noble Lord third clauses, and whether he did believe and all who acted with him, and with the that if brought before a court of law they adhesion of the present right hon. and would be decided to be illegal. He con- learned Master of the Rolls, a statute acttended that when grave doubts were raised, ing not only upon Roman Catholic archand when men like Sir FitzRoy Kelly and bishops and bishops, but upon the titles of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. the archbishops and bishops-he said, Bethell), and others, all agreeing with the coupling that Act with many other acright hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon knowledgments of ecclesiastical titles which (Sir James Graham), and all agreed upon might be enumerated, that that state of the principle of the construction of these things led to an abnegation of the whole clauses, the question was well worthy the penal character of the Act of 1829. Beserious consideration of the law officers of sides, also, the decision of the courts of the Crown. If those law officers of the law, there was a witness in that House in Crown would really vindicate the Govern- addition to the noble Lord himself, who, if ment, it behoved them to deal as lawyers appealed to, could set the Committee right with those opinions, and not meet them on this question. The noble Lord had with rhetorical flourishes. That would not said, in reply to the hon. and learned Memanswer the question to the country; that ber for Athlonewould not solve the problem if it should come before a court of law. In justice and common sense it ought to be decided there, before the House sent millions of the Queen's subjects to decide this question of so intricate and complex a nature in the courts of law. After introducing a different Bill in the early part of the Session, the Government now sought to force this measure, which was a combination of the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and the first Bill of the Government in March and April. He wished to deal with the matter in a spirit of fairness and candour, and he appealed to every hon. Member of that House whether this was not a question which ought to be put beyond all controversy or doubt. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had laid it down as a principle respecting that Bill, that it was not persecution because it was only a repetition of the Bill of 1829. He must ask the noble Lord, then, this question, as he had been five years in office, how it happened that the violated law had never been attempted to be enforced? How was it that with a law which had been valid for these twenty years, the Government had not ventured to put an ecclesiastic on his trial before twelve jurors? Because they could not find twelve impartial men to agree with them that the law had been violated. It was said that the statute re

"Was it to be conceived that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, the organ of Sir Robert Peel's Government, would have brought in a Bill to nullify and repeal the Act of 1829?" The right hon. Gentleman himself voluntarily told the House this Session-in his first speech of the Session-and reminded the House of the Act of 1844. [The hon. and learned Gentleman here read an extract from a speech of Sir James Graham.]

SIR JAMES GRAHAM was understood to say that those were not his words.

MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH appealed to the candour of the right hon. Gentleman, for he had read the words from Hansard. It was obvious, then, that it was intended to give equal protection to the priest of the parish and to the bishop who had charge of the diocese; and Sir Edward Sugden, acting no doubt by the directions of Sir Robert Peel's Government, lost no time in validifying the intentions of the Legislature, and in the case of the Bishop of Meath adjudged that, as a Roman Catholic bishop of Ireland, he and his successors should be entitled to act as trustees. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had asked a question which had not been answered by the legal officers of the Government, as to what was to become of the Charitable Bequests Act if this Bill passed? Also with respect to the penal clauses if property was left in trust to the bishop and his successors, or