Skip to main content

Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill

Volume 117: debated on Monday 23 June 1851

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.


said, that as it was an unusual course to move alterations in the preamble of Bills, and as he had alterations to propose in the preamble of the present Bill, he must crave the indulgence of the Committee while he stated the reasons which had induced him to suggest the present Amendments. Ordinarily preambles to Bills might pass unnoticed; but there were occasions when they were all-important. The present, in his opinion, was one of those occasions. He had two reasons for saying so. In the first place, the Committee would bear in mind, that throughout the debates on this measure it had been stated by many Members of that House, that considerable ambiguity existed in the declaratory clause as it stands in the Bill now. Without agreeing in that opinion, he must say he thought it essential that all ambiguity, if any really existed, should be cleared up, and it could only be cleared up in that part of the Bill which was the key to the clauses, namely, the preamble. He thought this as essential—perhaps in some respects it was even more so—in declaring an old law, as in intro- ducing anew one; for in the latter case the authority of Parliament was in itself a sufficient guarantee for the propriety of the law which it was intended to pass; whereas, with respect to the declaration of an old law, they were hound to go back to precedents, and to see that they declared with accuracy and precision the law of the land as it stood on the Statute-book; in order that their exposition of it might be as clear and correct as the principle on which they proceeded was sound and just. This, however, was not his only, nor his principal, reason for proposing these alterations. His chief reason was this—that in his opinion they ought to make the Bill effective as a national protest, since they had not made it effective as a remedial measure. The Bill, as originally introduced, was directed to one purpose only—the condemnation of the assumption and use of titles not allowed by law; but the Bill as it now stood was diverted to another purpose in addition—viz., the condemnation of the Brief of the Pope, introduced into this country in the course of the autumn, upon the ground that it was an illegal instrument, since titles derived from places under the sway of the Crown of England could not be conferred or used or assumed by any party without denying the Crown authority. Now, in his opinion the Bill was defective in both these particulars, for with regard to the first, although it condemned this particular brief, it did not anticipate nor in any way prevent the renewal and repetition of similar acts; and, with regard to the second, although the Bill had made it penal to assume or use these territorial titles, they had, by the rejection of the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, no guarantee that the law would be observed and enforced throughout the country. Seeing, then, that the Bill was defective as a remedial measure, it behoved the House to make it operative as a national protest, or, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire expressed it, as a measure of retaliation. He therefore wished the subject to be dealt with as their ancestors would have dealt with it. The two statutes which had been so often quoted in the course of these debates—namely, the statute of Richard II. and that of Elizabeth—were couched in a similar way to that which he proposed in the present instance. He begged the Committee to bear in mind that, both before and subsequent to the Reformation, the Parliaments of those days were not satisfied with simply repelling an aggression by a foreign potentate on the prerogatives of the Crown and on the independence of this country by substantive enactments, but that on both the occasions to which he referred preambles were agreed to, which set forth clearly the constitutional principles on which they proceeded, asserting in clear and unmistakeable terms the entire freedom and independence of this country, pointing out the way in which that freedom and independence had been assailed, and declaring that such assaults could not be submitted to by the Crown or the people. The preamble proposed for the present Bill was not of this character. It was simply a preamble, adverting to the operative portion of the Bill, without adverting at all to the declaratory clause. In his opinion, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that some alteration should be made in the preamble, and he now proposed such Amendments as were necessary, the object of which would be to set up the rightful authority of the Crown over the usurping authority of the Pope—to state plainly and emphatically the entire freedom and independence of this kingdom—and to declare again, since such a declaration had again become necessary, that no foreign Power either had, or ought to have, any jurisdiction or authority within this realm. He also wished to point out distinctly, instead of evading the question, as the Government preamble did, that the Pope had pretended, by his recent Brief, to constitute a hierarchy derived from places belonging to the Crown of England. He would then take up the Government preamble, so far as it related to the illegal assumption and use of such titles; and here he would refer, as the Government also did, to the Act of George IV., since that Act was the compact made when the Roman Catholics obtained their rights, the condition being that they should not interfere with the Established Church, or attempt to weaken the Protestant constitution of this country. In conclusion, he would embody the whole offence in one recital, to the effect that the introduction of the Brief in question into the kingdom, the claim to such power on the part of the Pope, and the constitution and assumption of such territorial titles, were in fact, as they were in law, usurpations and encroachments, in manifest derogation of the Queen's authority, opposed to the spirit and intent, if not to the letter, of the statute of George IV., and plainly contrary to the laws of the realm, and therefore they ought not to be allowed, by our acquiescence, to ripen into usage, or to receive the sanction of time and custom. He had now stated what he meant by these Amendments. If they were adopted, it would tend much to allay the disappointment which prevailed in many quarters as to the inefficiency of the measure. If they were not adopted, he felt convinced that the different constituencies of the country would tell their representatives that the legislation on this subject was inadequate, and unsuitable to the purpose which it was intended to effect; that in fact their legislation had been thrown away; and that it had been of a character which could not redound to their own credit, nor prove satisfactory in guarding the country against similar assaults in future. Under these circumstances he begged to propose, after the word "whereas," to introduce the first paragraph of his proposed alterations, in order that we might state at the very commencement the constitutional principle on which our legislation on this subject was meant to be based.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 1, after the word 'Whereas,' to insert the words, 'this Kingdom is and has been at all times so free and independent that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction or authority within the same or any part thereof; whereas the Bishop of Rome, by a certain Brief, Rescript, or Letters Apostolical, purporting to have been given at Rome on the 29th day ef September, 1850, hath recently pretended to constitute within this Realm, according to the common rules of the Church of Rome, a Hierarchy of Bishops named from Sees, and with titles derived from places, belonging to the Crown of England; and whereas—"

called the attention of the Committee to the form of oath administered to Members of Parliament before and after the passing of the Act of 1829. The oath taken by Members of the House before the passing of the Act of 1829 was to the effect that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate was entitled to pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. By the Act of 1829 it was provided that Members of that House, being Roman Catholics, should be only required to declare that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath or ought to have any "temporal or civil jurisdiction" in this realm. It was therefore very clear that by the Act of 1829 the spiritual pre-eminence of a foreign potentate had been left a moot point, and those who believed in the spiritual supremacy of the Pope were not required to take an oath against it. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Walpole) admitted the fact, that the Act of 1829 was a compromise and a compact; but he said that that compact had been broken, and, inasmuch as it had been broken, he now proposed to repeal the Act altogether. If hon. Gentlemen were disposed to repeal the Act of 1829, let it be done fairly and without subterfuge, and not in the specious manner now attempted.

observed that the present Bill, as reprinted, had been brought forward with its existing preamble and clauses. With respect to the latter, no alteration had been made in them since the reprint, and he apprehended that the Committee would find that the preamble most carefully pointed to the clauses which the Committee had already passed. The first clause of the Bill was a declaration that the Rescript of the Pope, which had been so often referred to, and all authority pretended to be conferred by it, were illegal and void; and there was a recital in the preamble to the effect that certain persons under colour of that Rescript, which by this Bill was declared to be unlawful, had assumed to themselves certain titles. It, therefore, appeared to him that the recital met the clause which the Committee had passed. The second clause was an obvious one, and framed in the spirit of the Act of 1829, and in the preamble was found a recital of that Act, together with a declaration that there might be a question whether the Act of 1829, according to its mere wording, included sees not at present occupied by prelates of the Established Church; the second clause then declared the assumption of such titles illegal and void. Thus the preamble and the clause hung together; and he did not see what advantage the hon. and learned Member proposed to gain by introducing a new preamble. He understood the hon. and learned Member to argue that there was not sufficient precision in the Bill with respect to the declaration against the usurpation on the part of the Pope, and he proposed to introduce into the preamble a recital that no foreign Power had or ought to have jurisdiction within this kingdom. There could be no question that that was the law, and that the only effect of the Act of 1829 was to free the Roman Catholics from scruples of conscience in respect to the oath they were called on to take, but in no way whatever to modify the law or change the question of the sole jurisdiction of the Crown in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil. If such a course had been thought wise and prudent then, would it be now prudent or conciliatory needlessly, and without enacting anything—for the preamble could not add to the law—to call upon their Roman Catholic Members to concur in a declaration from swearing which at their table they had already been excused? With regard to the phrase in the proposed Amendment, "according to the common rules of the Church of Rome," he did not see the wisdom of that House taking on itself to make that statement; in whatever way the act of the Pope was done, it was equally offensive and equally against the law. He also thought there was an inaccuracy, since Ireland was now united with England, in the phrase in the Amendment, "titles derived from places belonging to the Crown of England." He thought there was no adequate reason for the introduction of the words of the Amendment. The Government preamble was directed against such of Her Majesty's subjects as assumed these illegal titles; whereas the proposed preamble of the hon. and learned Member began by stating that the Pope had issued this Bull; and, afterwards, that under it some of Her Majesty's subjects had taken on themselves to assume these titles. But the legislation of the Parliament was not to be directed against the Pope or a foreign prince; for, if this country had to quarrel with him, it should not proceed by recitals in Acts of Parliament, but in the usual way in which one Government acted in the case of a quarrel with another. With regard to the latter part of the preamble, he considered that the proposal of the Government had the advantage of saying the same thing in fewer words; for, whereas the hon. and learned Member proposed to say in another Amendment that the usurpations referred to ought not to ripen into usage, the Government preamble denounced them as illegal and void. He did not think that the addition to the preamble which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to make, would injure or vary the effect of the Bill; but, at present, every word in the preamble as it stood had a clause attached to it. The preamble was long enough already, and it was not desirable to add half a dozen lines to it which had no enacting effect whatever. He trusted that the Committee would allow the preamble to remain in its present shape.

thought the hon. Member for Mayo had given a good reason for adopting some declaration like that proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Midhurst, for he had asserted that the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope had been left a moot question; it was therefore very essential that the Parliament and the country should come to some decision on the point. It was fair as well to Roman Catholics as to Protestants that a decision should be had by Parliament. The hon. and learned Solicitor General asserted that nobody doubted that no foreign Prince hath or ought to have any jurisdiction or authority in these realms; but the hon. Member for Mayo disputed the law on that point: it was therefore right that there should be an explicit declaration by Parliament. The House would not be doing the duty expected of them if they passed a measure less efficacious than those statutes which it bad been said had fallen into desuetude. There were still some notices of Amendments on the paper, and if those were carried the preamble would have to be altered to correspond with them; the argument of the Solicitor General against altering the preamble because the clauses had been agreed to, was, therefore, of no force. If these future Amendments, which wore contemplated to be proposed, were carried, they would really impart effective powers to the Bill. He (Mr. Bankes) was not without hope that the Bill would yet be made not unworthy of a more stringent preamble, and that it would be rendered more satisfactory to the people of this country, than it was in its present shape. Why not revive that portion of the statute of Elizabeth which was generally admitted to be valuable, and which was now a dead letter? He confessed he had heard with surprise for the first time that evening, in that House, that the power of the Pope in this country was a matter open to discussion; that it had been revived by the Act of 1829. Such had been asserted by the hon. Member for Mayo, and such might be the opinion of other Roman Catholic Members, although he believed the noble Lord opposite (Lord Arundel and Surrey) had declined to enter upon any such discussion. However, that impression being entertained by some hon. Members of that persuasion, made it more necessary to insert the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst in the preamble of the Bill, as a declaration of the real state of the law in the case.

thought the Committee would hardly agree with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that it would be desirable to introduce these words into the preamble in the expectation that upon the report other clauses of a more stringent kind would be agreed to, and that it would be desirable to be ready beforehand with a preamble suited to the clauses which the House might hereafter adopt. What the Committee had to do was to consider whether the present preamble were suited to the present Bill; or whether the words now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst ought to be introduced. He thought the Committee would gain nothing by the introduction of these words, and that, on the contrary, they might give rise to an inconvenience of no slight nature. He repeated, that they would gain nothing by the insertion of these words, because he differed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) in thinking that the Act of 1829 diminished the effect of the law that "no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction or authority within this kingdom, or any part thereof," whether that authority were spiritual or temporal. The Committee must recollect what was done by the Act of 1829. He believed that all Roman Catholics would admit that the Act of 1829 did not alter the meaning of the words in question in the sense in which they were used by Protestants—namely, that no foreign Prince, &c., had any jurisdiction or authority within this realm which could be enforced by law, whether that were spiritual or temporal. But the Roman Catholics did object to using these words in the oath of supremacy; and Mr. O'Connell, who was heard at the bar, objected to use those words of the oath. By the Act of 1829 Parliament admitted the Roman Catholics to seats upon the denial by them that "any foreign prince, prelate, person, State, or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, &c., within this realm." That omission of the words "ecclesiastical or spiritual" was made in order to meet the scruples of the Roman Catholics. With regard to persons not Roman Catholics, the Act of 1829 did not alter the law; but with reference to the Roman Catholics it did alter the law so far as their right to take their seats in that House was concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Midhurst proposed to introduce words, in terms of which he (Lord John Russell) did not deny the force, that "no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction or authority within the kingdom." But the question was obvious; did the hon. and learned Member mean, or did he not mean, to make any alteration in the Act of 1829? If he did not—and he (Lord J. Russell) certainly intended to make no alteration in that Act—he submitted that no object would be gained by the insertion of these words, and that the hon. and learned Member would receive no satisfaction by the introduction of words by which the Roman Catholic Members would not be bound. But he was afraid that the insertion of these words would give rise to a suspicion that the House was not satisfied with the words of the Act of 1829, and that there was some covert intention of altering it. He supposed that there could be no such intention on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst; but if there were no such intention on his part, and if the House had no such intention, it would be far better not to throw any doubt on the subject by the insertion of these words. He objected to the assertion in the proposed Amendment that the Pope had pretended to constitute a hierarchy "according to the common rules of the Church of Rome." He thought that whether the Pope had gone beyond, or whether he had proceeded according to the common rules of the Church of Rome, in constituting this pretended hierarchy, the act would be equally objectionable to the House, and he saw some possible inconvenience in agreeing to such a statement. Thinking the words of the preamble, as they were proposed by the Government, quite sufficient, he could not agree to the Amendment.

said, the oath in the Act of 1829 had been originally taken from the 13th and 14th of Geo. III. in Ireland. The distinction between the oaths taken by Protestants and Roman Catholics had been made in order to relieve the conscientious scruples of the latter; but the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Midhurst touched no oaths or declaration which any Roman Catholic Member would have to take, and therefore was not calculated to create any embarrassment; while, if the constitutional state of England had been altered by the Act of 1829, as the hon. Member for Mayo had stated, and if this Amendment would have the effect of settling the doubts which existed since that period, he thought that circumstance in itself furnished a reason for its adoption. Now, although a good deal of time might be said to have been consumed in those discussions, he could not think it ought to be considered wasted if they could at last come to a clear understanding on that Bill. The opinion of Sir Edward Sugden relative to those oaths, expressed at a public meeting in Surrey, he conceived was sufficiently explanatory, and coming from such an authority, that opinion could not be controverted. Sir Edward Sugden stated that the omission of the words from the Act of 1829, by which Roman Catholics were relieved from the necessity of swearing that the Pope had no ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction in these realms, was dictated solely with the view of relieving their consciences, and no change was introduced by that Act into the constitutional principles of this country. In the Act regulating the diplomatic relations with Rome, the Duke of Wellington had been careful to introduce a proviso preserving all the original Acts in their integrity, by which the powers of the sovereignty of this country were secured. With respect to the title of Head of the Church, that had been objected to by Elizabeth. The special statute of Henry VIII. had never been in force in Ireland, although the common law still preserved the right to the Sovereign. There ought to be no confusion about the meaning of the present Act—no misunderstanding whatsoever relative to it. He thought there was no substantial difference between the words and the principle involved in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, and the preamble of the Government; but the hon. Member's Amendment had this advantage, that it was not framed for another Act. The hon. Member's Amendment also pointed to a particular offence which was set out distinctly. There was, however, no principle in the preamble or other parts of the Bill of the Government which was not contained in the womb of the ancient constitution of this country.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin seemed to have based his argument upon the assumption that the Act of 1829 had introduced some doubts as to the constitutional doc- trine that no foreign prince or potentate has any authority in the realm of England. Now, he (the Attorney General) could not admit that there existed any doubt on the subject, though the hon. Member for Mayo had made some observations to that effect. He could not concede that ground at all, and he did not think it worth the while of the Committee, or of his hon. and learned Friend, to discuss the opinion which the indiscretion of the hon. Member for Mayo had induced him to utter. He could not, therefore, agree to the introduction of anything into the preamble which they should not have introduced if those doubts had not existed, or anything that could be supposed to justify such doubts. But if, as his hon. and learned Friend appeared to admit, there was no substantial difference between the two preambles, why introduce into the preamble something which would be unnecessarily painful and offensive to the Roman Catholic Members of that House? for it should be recollected that the present measure was to be the united act of the whole Legislature, and therefore he could not help thinking that the introduction of such a clause as that proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst could not be justified unless the negation of the authority of any foreign prince or potentate were essential as a ground of legislation.

begged leave to state, in explanation, that what he had said was, that whereas before the Act of 1829 the rejection of the spiritual authority of the Pope was imperative, by the Act of 1829 the belief in that authority became a reserved point, which any Member of that House might assent to or not, as he pleased. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin appeared to think that the Roman Catholics only were affected by that Bill. If he merely meant to claim for himself the right to hold a different opinion respecting the authority of the Pope, he (Mr. Moore) would agree with him; but what he said was, that by the Act of 1829 Roman Catholics were empowered, without any impeachment of their duty or loyalty to the Crown, to believe in the spiritual authority of the Pope in this country.

thought, that although it had suited the purpose of illiberal and bigoted men to deny that the Pope had spiritual authority in this realm, that authority had been practically recognised even before the passing of the Act of 1829. That measure was only a legal and technical acknowledgment of what was practically admitted in all ages. Long before the passing of the Act of 1829, Dr. Troy was styled "Archbishop of Dublin;" and a petition signed by him in that style and designation was presented to the King upon his throne. Who had made him an Archbishop? Who but the Pope? The present Bill involved an absurdity in every clause, and would have no other operation but that detestable one of sowing the seeds of disunion between Catholics and Protestants, who were now united in the bonds of peace and harmony. All the difficulties of this question arose from a Protestant people attempting to legislate for a Catholic people; and they might rely upon it, that if they legislated for a Catholic people, they must do so upon Catholic principles. He could only say that the effect of their present legislation would be to make it entirely impossible to live in Ireland; and he regretted that Ministers seemed ignorant of the real difficulties of that country, which were to be found in the present condition of its landed property. If hon. Members went on legislating in this way for Ireland, it would soon cease to be worth keeping as one of the dependencies of the British Crown.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 140: Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.Coles, H. B.
Archdall, Capt. M.Colvile, C. R.
Arkwright, G.Cowan, C.
Bailey, J.Damer, hon. Col.
Baillie, H. J.Davies, D. A. S.
Baldock, E. H.Denison, E.
Baldwin, C. B.Disraeli, B.
Baring, T.Dod, J. W.
Bateson, T.Dodd, G.
Beckett, W.East, Sir J. B.
Benbow, J.Fellowes, E.
Bernard, Visct.Fitzroy, hon. H.
Blandford, Marq. ofFloyer, J.
Bowles, Adm.Forbes, W.
Boyd, J.Forester, hon. G. C. W.
Bremridge, R.Fox, S. W. L.
Brisco, M.Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Broadley, H.Galway, Visct.
Buller, Sir J. Y.Gilpin, Col.
Bunbury, W. M.Glyn, G. C.
Campbell, Sir A. I.Goddard, A. L.
Chichester, Lord J. L.Gordon, Adm.
Child, S.Granby, Marq. of
Christopher, R. A.Greenall, G.
Clive, H. B.Gwyn, H.
Cobbold, J. C.Halford, Sir H.
Codrington, Sir W.Hall, Sir B.

Hallewell, E. G.Noel, hon. G. J.
Hamilton, G. A.Packe, C. W.
Hamilton, Lord C.Pakington, Sir J.
Harris, hon. Capt.Palmer, R.
Hastie, A.Pennant, hon. Col.
Heald, J.Plowden, W. H. C.
Henley, J. W.Plumptre, J. P.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.Powell, Col.
Hervey, Lord A.Powlett, Lord W.
Hill, Lord E.Pugh, D.
Hodgson, W. N.Reid, Col.
Hope, Sir J.Richards, R.
Hornby, J.Rushout, Capt.
Hotham, LordSandars, G.
Hudson, G.Seaham, Visct.
Hughes, W. B.Sibthorp, Col.
Inglis, Sir R. H.Smyth, J. G.
Johnstone, J.Somerset, Capt.
Jones, Capt.Spooner, R.
Knightley, Sir C.Stafford, A.
Lacy, H. C.Stanley, E.
Langton, W. H. P. G.Stanley, hon. E. H.
Legh, G. C.Stauuton, Sir G. T.
Lindsay, hon. Col.Stuart, H.
Lockhart, W.Stuart, J.
Long, W.Thornhill, G.
Lygon, hon. Gen.Trollope, Sir J.
Mackenzie, W. F.Tyler, Sir G.
Macnaghten, Sir E.Verner, Sir W.
Manners, Lord C. S.Vesey, hon. T.
Maunsell, T. P.Vivian, J. E.
Miles, P. W. S.Waddington, H. S.
Miles, W.Walsh, Sir J. B.
Milner, W. M. E.Wellesley, Lord C.
Mitchell, T. A.Wigram, L. T.
Morgan, O.Willoughby, Sir H.
Morris, D.Wynn, H. W. W.
Napier, J.


Neeld, J.Walpole, S. H.
Newdegate, C. N.Bankes, J.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.Divett, E.
Adair, R. A. S.Duncan, G.
Aglionby, H. A.Dundas, Adm.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl ofDundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Ebrington, Visct.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.Ellice, E.
Barron, Sir H. W.Ellis, J.
Bell, J.Estcourt, J. B. B.
Berkeley, Adm.Evans, J.
Bethell, R.Evans, W.
Birch, Sir T. B.Ewart, W.
Blake, M. J.Fergus, J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.Ferguson, Col.
Boyle, hon. Col.Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Brockman, E. D.Fitz Patrick, rt. hon. J.
Brotherton, J.Foley, J. H. H.
Brown, W.Freestun, Col.
Cayley, E. S.French, F.
Clay, J.Grace, O. D. J.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Corbally, M. E.Granger, T.C.
Cowper, hon. W. F.Grattan, H.
Craig, Sir W. G.Grenfell, C. P.
Crawford, R. W.Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Crowder, R. B.Grey, R. W.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.Guest, Sir J.
Dawes, E.Harris, R.
Dawson, hon. T. V.Hastie, A.
Denison, J. E.Hatchell, rt. hon. J.
Devereux, J. T.Hawes, B.

Heywood, J.Pusey, P.
Higgins, G. G. O.Rawdon, Col.
Hindley, C.Reynolds, J.
Hodges, T. L.Ricardo, O.
Howard, P. H.Rich, H.
Hume, J.Roche, E. B.
Jackson, W.Rumbold, C. E.
Jermyn, EarlRussell, Lord J.
Keating, R.Seymour, Lord
Keogh, W.Shafto, R. D.
Kershaw, J.Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.Smith, J. A.
Langston, J. H.Smith, M. T.
Lawless, hon. C.Somers, J. P.
Lewis, G. C.Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Mackie, J.Stansfield, W. R. C.
M'Cullagh, W. T.Stanton, W. H.
Meagher, T.Strickland, Sir G.
Mahon, The O'GormanSutton, J. H. M.
Mangles, R. D.Tennent, R. J.
Martin, C. W.Thicknesse, R. A.
Matheson, Col.Thompson, Col.
Monsell, W.Thornely, T.
Moore, G. H.Towneley, J.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.Traill, G.
Murphy, F. S.Trelawny, J. S.
Norreys, LordTufnell, rt. hon. H.
Norreys, Sir D. J.Vane, Lord H.
O'Brien, Sir T.Villiers, hon. C.
O'Connell, J.Walmsley, Sir J.
O'Connell, M. J.Wawn, J. T.
O'Connor, F.Westhead, J. P. B.
O'Flaherty, A.Willyams, H.
Ogle, S. C. H.Williamson, Sir H.
Ord, W.Wilson, J.
Osborne, R.Wilson, M.
Oswald, A.Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Parker, J.Wood, Sir W. P.
Pechell, Sir G. B.


Pinney, W.Hayter, W. G.
Power, Dr.Hill, Lord M.

said, he was convinced that unless the preamble were made to contain a distinct and peremptory affirmation of the constitutional doctrine of England with respect to the Pope's pretended authority, there would be no foundation on which to base the Bill. He hoped the Government would consent to introduce such an affirmation as he referred to.

, having read the preamble, submitted that it was worded in such a manner as to preclude the necessity of any such declaration as the hon. and learned Member wished to insert. He believed that the preamble proposed by the Government was well adapted to the purposes of the Bill, and that it had this additional advantage over the preamble suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was better English.

was still of opinion that a peremptory affirmation of the state of the law in this respect was absolutely essential in a Bill of this description. He begged leave, therefore, to move that after the words, "under colour of the said brief, rescript, or letters apostolical," there be inserted the following words:—"And constituted within this realm, contrary to the laws and customs thereof, a hierarchy of bishops named from sees and with titles derived from places in this realm."

Amendment proposed—

"In line 8, after the words 'one thousand eight hundred and fifty,' to insert the words 'and purporting to constitute within this Realm, contrary to the laws and customs thereof, a Hierarchy of Bishops named from Sees, and with titles derived from places within this Realm.'"

thought these words unnecessary. Their purport was already implied in the Bill.

did not think that the meaning of this Act ought to be interpreted by implication. He believed that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst would be a valuable improvement, and he should vote for it accordingly.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 141: Majority 24.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Preamble stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 39: Majority 161.

House resumed. Bill reported as amended.