not confer any title at all. The titles were | Members were pursuing in passing clause conferred by a separate instrument the after clause-["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] House had not yet seen. The mischiefs He meant to say in rejecting Amendment of the clause were at variance with the as- after Amendment, without knowing the surance of Government, that they would purport of them. He believed that at not interfere with religious liberty. least one-third of the Members then present did not know what the Amendment was on which they were about to vote. However earnest the public might be for legislation, it condemned such conduct as that. He wonld withdraw his Motion for reporting progress.

The CHAIRMAN wished to know if the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) withdrew his Motion for reporting progress?

So.

Question put, there added."

"That the Proviso be

The Committee divided:

Noes 344: Majority 285.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.
Armstrong, Sir A.
Armstrong, R. B.
Arundel and Surrey,

MR. MOORE replied, he not yet done He moved it because the Committee had not allowed him to proceed, though he had not spoken before. He would not now detain them very long, but wished to say a few words with respect to public opinion on this Bill. He wished to read only two or three lines published in the leading article of the paper which the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) had Aglionby, H. A. called the "semi-official organ of Government," the Times of that morning. The Times had been the very earliest in taking up the act of the Pope, and had been the most active in endeavouring to forward the Bill. He believed that journal truly represented public opinion in this country; but what he said was that public opinion did not authorise the House in the reckless way in which they endeavoured to force this Bill on the country. The article to which he referred contained the following passages:

"The 26th of May finds the question very much in the same position as the 1st, except that it has become more and more manifest that the lawyers do not understand the law, and that there is some danger, amid blunders, concessions, and all sorts of crooked and tortuous policy, that the House may succeed in creating a monster whose future action shall be something quite different from what was foreseen, intended, or desired. Whatever, therefore, may be the case in England, it is not true that in Ireland such rescripts are illegal and void. Their validity has been thus upheld in every court of justice in the country. This point would have been fairly raised had the proposition to take the preamble first been acceded to; and as, till it be settled, no legislation can be safe, we sincerely

trust that it will be attended to before the first clause be passed into a law.

Till something can be done towards arriving at an accurate knowledge of the present state of the law, it is vain to hope for satisfactory legislation. The Bill was read a second time without an agreement in principle; it is now passing through Committee without either agreement or knowledge of the law; and the success or failure of its provisions seems entrusted, in the abeyance of diligence and default of acumen, to blind

chance and fortuitous combination."

He believed that to be true. He believed public opinion condemned the course which

Earl of

Barron, Sir H. W.
Blake, M. J.
Blewitt, R. J.
Burke, Sir T. J.
Castlereagh, Visct.
Clements, hon. C. S.
Corbally, M. E.
Devereux, J. T.
Fagan, J.
Fox, R. M.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Goold, W.
Grace, O. D. J.
Grattan, H.
Greene, J.
Herbert, H. A.
Higgins, G. G. O.
Hobhouse, T. B.
Hope, A.
Howard, Sir R.
Hutchins, E. J.
Keating, R.
Lawless, hon. C.
M'Cullagh, W. T.
Magan, W. H.

-Ayes 59;

MR. J. O'CONNELL suggested that, if the Government were sincere in saying that they had no intention of interfering with purely spiritual acts, they should bring forward some form of words that would distinctly declare that intention.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, that there could be no interference by the Bill with purely spiritual functions. The object of the Bill was to declare that the assumption of authority by the Pope of Rome over the territory of England was illegal; but it was impossible that it could interfere with the doctrinces of the Roman Catholic Church. The CHAIRMAN: The question I now

have to propose is, "That the Clause stand | sion had serious doubts, and had expressed part of the Bill." their opinion, that if this clause passed in its present form, it might lead to disastrous consequences in reference to the ordination of priests of the Roman Catholic Church. It was all very well for the Government to tell them that the declaratory Act left the law as it found it, and that it did not profess to change it; but the Government had shrunk from the responsibility of stating clearly and intelligibly to the House what the law really was. He submitted that the hon. and learned Attorney General had altogether omitted to answer the question addressed to him, and had left them in utter ignorance on the subject on which they sought for information. Experience showed how difficult it was to rely upon such assurances as had been given, for, after they had legislated upon the question of mixed marriages, they had an instance in Ireland of a Roman Catholic clergyman being prosecuted for solemnising a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic in that country. What he intended to propose was a proviso at the end of the Clause to remove those doubts which he felt in common with many other persons; and the words he had adopted were taken from a clause in the Charitable Bequests Act. Great practical and political mischief would result from loose legislation on this subject. Our legislation would, in this case, be nothing better than deadletter legislation. It would be despised and contemned by the millions of the people in Ireland, and the most irreparable injury would be inflicted thereby on that country. The influence of moderate men would be weakened, the laity would be deprived of their legitimate weight, and the clergy would have forced upon them an amount of power which was not naturally theirs. On these grounds, he asked the Government to pause before they rejected the Proviso which he was about to move. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to remember that, however few in number the opponents of this Bill were, they were there faithfully representing the views and the interests of several millions of their fellowsubjects, and that fact alone was sufficient to justify the opponents of the measure in using all fair and honourable means of resisting its progress in conformity with the rules of the House. It was sincerely their object to extract the virus of the Bill, and to do what they could to promote the tranquillity of the country. He therefore trusted that they would hear no more

MR. SADLEIR said, he would test the sincerity of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary by the proposal he was about to make. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had altogether avoided touching the question which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Keogh) had raised. They had been told by the hon. and learned Attorney General, in answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester (M. M. Gibson), that there were some Bulls that were illegal, and that there were other Bulls or Rescripts that were lawful. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman follow up that explanation for the benefit of him (Mr. Sadleir) and other Members who were not "learned," by telling them which were the Bulls which were lawful, and which were not lawful? Knowing that the Roman Catholic bishops derived all their authority from these documents from Rome, and knowing, as he did, that there would be every disposition to test the legality of those documents in the courts of common law in that country, he participated with many in very serious apprehensions that most disastrous consequences would flow from legislation on this dangerous subject. The Government shrank from stating clearly and intelligibly what the law was. The hon. and learned Attorney General had entirely omitted to answer the question of the right hon. Member for Manchester in the spirit in which that question had been put. There had been much quibbling with respect to the Charitable Bequests Act; and he had heard an hon. Gentleman, when commenting upon that Act, say that it had been framed with great skill and caution, and probably that the archbishops and bishops might be vicars-apostolic. That was not so. In Ireland there had never been districts: from the first they had been dioceses, and the ancient Roman Catholic hierarchy had never been destroyed. He wished now to test the sincerity of the Government in those professions they had made of their anxiety to leave the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom in the full enjoyment of their religion, and of all the usages and discipline of their Church. He was anxious that there should be no doubt or difficulty upon this point. But serious doubts were entertained. might be that the law officers of the Crown did not feel these doubts and difficulties which other Members had sincerely felt; but eminent members of their own profes

It

Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the Clause, the following Proviso:"Provided, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to affect 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 congregation of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, according to the usages and discipline of the Church of Rome, in the United Kingdom, as they existed previous to the 29th day of Sep

of those wretched taunts in reference to | pened that this Act of 1567 was not one that course of opposition which they had of those Acts so named and recited. It felt it their duty to take. happened that in the fifth Act of the same Parliament of 1567, there was another Act making the celebration of the mass in Scotland penal. In Hume's Treatise on Crime, published in 1829, that Act was stated to be still in force. Therefore by parity of reasoning the other Act of 1507 must also be still in force in Scotland. He had applied to eminent counsel in Edinburgh on this subject, who referred him to the Treatise of Hume on Crime, but would not answer the question whether the Act was in force in Scotland or not. Now the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Sadleir) proposed, by the proviso he wished added to the clause, that the law should be left in the same state as it was previous to the 29th of September, 1850; and as he had some doubts as to what was the law of Scotland on this subject he had come to the highest court in the realm to have his doubts solved.

tember, 1850."

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, the hon. Gentleman was only repeating a question which had already been repeatedly answered. He saw no advantage in entering into this argument. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had already stated that the Bill did not interfere with the functions of Roman Catholic clergymen-they had already debated and divided upon it-and he saw no advantage in doing so again.

MR. OSWALD said, as the question of the existing forms of the Roman Catholic religion had been mooted, he wished to state what he understood to be the law in Scotland, previous to the 29th of September, 1850. There was a statute, the 2nd of the year 1569, which bore the rather formidable title, "An Act anent the Abolition of Popery." It provided

"That nane of our said Soveraines subjects, in ony times heirafter, sute or desire title or richt of the said Bischop of Rome, or his sect, to ony thing within this realme, under the paines of Barratrie, that is to say, proscription, banishment, and never to bruke honour, office, nor dignitie within this Realme. And the contraveners heirof to be called before the justice or his deputes, or before the Lords of the Session, and punisched therefoir, conforme to the Lawes of this Realme. And the furnischers of them with finance of money, and purchassers of their title of right, or maintainers, or defenders of them, sall incurre the samin paines. And that na Bischop nor uther Prelat of this Realme, use ony jurisdiction in time cumming, be the said Bischop of Romes authoritie, under the paine foresaid, And therefoir of new decernis and ordainis, the contraveners of the samin, in ony time heirafter, to be punisched according to the paines in the

foirsaid Act above rehearsed."

In the year 1700 another Act was passed, ratifying and confirming every Act which had been previously passed against the Papists. In the 33rd year of George III., an Act was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, abrogating all the pains and penalties contained in former Acts which by name were recited and confirmed in the Act of 1700. But it hap

The EARL of ARUNDEL AND SURREY was ashamed to recur to the clause which had been so much talked of; but he understood that in his absence the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had stated that this clause did not affect the spiritual jurisdiction or authority of the Roman Catholic prelates. If that were so, and if the clause was not intended to have a deeper meaning,' he could not see what objection they had to the insertion of this proviso.

MR. TRELAWNY held in his hand the legal opinion of an eminent lawyer, which stated that as the assumption of a title confirmed by this Rescript was illegal, it followed that every act performed by a bishop would be illegal, would be held as a misdemeanour, and that any person might prefer an indictment against him for doing so. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General what would be the effect of this clause in a case which he would mention. Suppose a Catholic dignitary under the title of Archbishop of Westminster ordained a priest, and that afterwards the archbishop for some act of impropriety censured this priest, or deposed him from his cure, and he chose then to turn against his bishop, and to produce the letters of ordination in virtue of which he was appointed to his cure of souls, would it be in his power to make use of these letters to proceed against his bishop for a misdemeanour, and to put in evidence that statement, in

The Committee divided:-Ayes 47; Noes 278: Majority 231.

his (the bishop's) own handwriting, by vir- | Attorney General upon this first clause. tue of which alone he was made a priest? The whole of the Attorney General's jurisThe ATTORNEY GENERAL said, diction would be founded on the second that he had answered this question over clause; the first, as he had said over and and over again. He really did not know over again, only invalidated acts done with how to frame answers if hon. Members an illegal assumption of a title. persisted in not understanding them. He Question put, "That the Proviso be had already said again and again that in there added,' his opinion, under this first clause no misdemeanour would arise; that it affected only the validity of acts done under assumed territorial titles. Whatever this Bill contained of penalty, was constituted under the second clause. If the Act to which the hon. Member had referred was done under the authority of an archbishop, and the assumption of the title was, under the particular circumstances of the title, illegal, so as to constitute an offence, it would arise under the second clause, but certainly not under the first- the only clause then under the consideration of the Committee.

MR. TRELAWNY said, that this was much too important a matter to be passed over in this manner. He must quote further from the opinion to which he had already referred:

"It is important to observe that an indictment would lie, though the bishop did not use the title of his diocese or see in performance of the act in question. It would be a question for the jury whether the act was done in pursuance of any authority conferred by the brief. If so, it would

be a misdemeanour."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have already said that I do not think it would be a misdemeanour.

The EARL of ARUNDEL AND SURREY: Then I have to say that several very high legal authorities take a contrary view.

List of the AYES.

Meagher, T.

Surrey, Mahon, The O'Gorman

Anstey, T. C.
Arundel and
Earl of
Blake, M. J.
Blewitt, R. J.
Clements, hon. C. S.
Corbally, M. E.
Devereux, J. T.
Fagan, J.
Fortescue, C
Fox, R. M.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Goold, W.
Grace, O. D. J.
Grattan, H.
Greene, J.
Higgins, G. G. O.
Hobhouse, T. B.
Hope, A.
Howard, Sir R.
Keating, R.
Keogh, W.
Lawless, hon. C.
M'Cullagh, W. T.
Magan, W. H.
Maher. N. V.

Monsell, W.
Moore, G. H.

Murphy, F. S.

Nugent, Sir P.
O'Brien, J.

O'Brien, Sir T.
O'Connell, J.
O'Flaherty, A.
Pinney, W.
Power, Dr.
Power, N.

Reynolds, J.
Scholefield, W.
Scully, F.

Smythe, hon. G.

Talbot, J. H.

Tenison, E. K.
Trelawny, J. S.
Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Young, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Roche, E. B.
Sadleir, J.

MR. KEOGH said, the hon. and learned Attorney General said it was perfectly impossible that any indictment should lie on this clause. Some of the first lawyers in England did not entertain a doubt that an indictment would lie; and as it was necessary to have the point clearly expressed MR. BLEWITT said, that he consider-in the Bill itself, he would move, to add ed the first clause of the Bill, all "moon- the following proviso:shine;" he supposed that in the event of any proceedings under this clause, the hon. and learned Attorney General would have to put in evidence this "certain Brief, Rescript, or Letters Apostolic;" he wished to know from the law officers of the Crown (and he believed this question, at all events, had not been asked before) where he would find them?

"Provided that no criminal proceeding shall be commenced, or indictment preferred against any person, under or by virtue of this clause." This was an important proviso, and perhaps it would be as well that he should not move it now, but that he should give notice of it.

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes

The ATTORNEY GENERAL regret-it at the present moment?

ing.

ted to say that he had already answered MR. KEOGH: If the noble Lord thinks that question, and he thought he must at it desirable to proceed at one in the mornlength lay down this wholesome law to himself that he would not answer any question a second time, unless it was put now? professionally, and with a professional fee. No proceeding could be founded by the now.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you move it

MR. KEOGH: I wish to give notice

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learn- Mr. BANKES would withdraw his obed Gentleman cannot give notice of it now.jections, if the word "salaries' were MR. KEOGH: Then I move it. omitted. MR. REYNOLDS considered that the advanced hour of the morning was his excuse for moving that the Chairman do now report progress.