PROTESTS AGAINST THE ECCLESLASTICAL TITLES BILL. (From the "Spectator")

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 600, 14 January 1852, Page 3

PROTESTS AGAINST THE ECCLESLASTICAL TITLES BILL. (From the " Spectator ")

Drssr\Tir.\T. — 1. Becsuisc, while ready to uphold and to defend the rights and pierou itive of our Most Gracious >So\eiei'jn and the honour and the independence of our country against all aggression, we do not fed ourselves justified in supporting a bill which trenches on that religious freedom which her Majesty lias been pleased to assure us u it i> her desire and firm determination, under (-oil's blov>inj>, to maintain unimpaired"— which it ha-j 'neon the object of the Legislature during the last sixty yo.iis to extend and to secure, and now happily forms a funclamantal part of our constitution, and is inseparably bound up Vith our civil libo-tii's. 2. Because it is irreconcilable with the fpirit nnd with the lei lev of the lloman Catholic Relief Act i<) impose new nnd to incicase existing penalties, ftillhio e\clusi\ely on the members of one religious communion ; and our objection to | this fatal course is augmented when it is announced that this bill may lead to other measures of a similar character, in case the stringency of its pro\ isions is not found sufficient to answer the purposes of its framers. 3. Because we view with alarm the declaratory enactmenls of this bill, undefined as they are in their legal consequences-, rendering solemn antece- ' dent acts and public instruments unlawful and void, and rendering unlawful and void likewise all t he "jurisdiction, authority, pre-eminence, or ! title," dei-ned from such acts and instruments. 4. Because these alarms are increased from the ' Avant of any clear definition in this bill fixing the incidence and the limits of its penalties, thus creating all the dangers which must ever attend va^ue and uncertain la->\s, exposing the Roman Catholic laity to wrong and privatirn, intei'fering with the jurisdiction and ecclesiastical functions of the Roman Catholic clergy, and leading it a matter of grave doubt whether both parties may not be exposed to criminal piosccution as well as to enil penally. 5. Because it is irreconcilable Avith the aviso policy of late years, shown in the repeal of barbarous penalties contained in ancient and intolerant laws, to revive and give robustness and energy to a severe penal statute, passed nearly five hundred years back, enforced only once since its enactment, and that in the year 1607, in a case which we are informed is of doubtful authority. 6. Because we cannot reconcile the Charitable Bequests Act, Avhich recognizes the status and existence of Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops and their successors, officiating and exercising episcopal functions in Ireland, with this bill, Avhich interferes directly with the appointment of such Archbishops and Bishops, and declares the official instruments and official acts rcquiied for such appointments, as avcll as "all jurisdiction, authority, pre-eminence, or title," derived therefrom, to be unlawful and void. Nor is this difficulty removed by the saving clause, which leaves it doubtful Avhether the 4th section may not defeat other portions of the bill, or Avhetbcr the general import of the bill may not deprive that saving clause of its efficacy. 7. Because it seems illogical, inexpedient, and unjust, Avhen the rescript, or letters apostolical of the Pope, of the 29th of September, 1850, are relied on as the cause and justification of this bill, that we should extend its restraints to a part of her Majesty's dominions to which, that rescript Jias not anj r possible application. 8. Because it has been admitted in debate, on high legal authority, that the penalties of this bill are limited to Avhat are described as being "pretended sees," while other sees or districts are subjected only to the less se\ere provisions of the lOtli George IV. chup. 7. It therefore follows, that a. different state of law will exist in England and in Ireland, as Avell as in different parts of Ireland, producing anoimlie^ nnd contra'Hotiors incompatible with sound legislation ; the severity of the law and its penalties not varying according to the nature of the imputed offence, but according to the geographical limits within which such imputed offence may have been committed. 9. Because, if it should be true, a. has been stated in debate by the supporters of this bill, that if it becomes a laAv it cannot be carried into effect, but must remain "a dead lettci," Aye consider that it is still more inconsistent Avitli sound legislation to pass a bill Avhich, Avithout gi\ing any security Avhatevei*, tampers with all the principles of religious freedom, creates discontent and alarm, and by bringing the Lt,av into contempt lessens its force and lightful authority. 10. Because a determined resistance has been offered to all suggestions made during the progress of the bill for the correction even of obvious and verbal errors, as Avell as for the amendment of certain provisions of Avhicli no justification has been attempted ; and because the reason assigned for taking this course, arising from the possible inconvenience and delay apprehended if this bill Avere returned to the House of Commons, is inconsistent with the free deliberations of this House, and derogatory to its just rights and authority as a branch of the Legislature. 11. Because, upon these grounds, Aye cannot but consider the passing of this bill to be most inexpedient and most unjust. We consider it ill- ad ipted to protect either the prerogative of the Crown or the independence of our country while calculated to revive civil strife and sectarian dissensions : we protest against it, likewise, as a departure from those high principles of religious liberty to which our greatest statesmen have devoted their intellect, their genius, and their noblest exertions. MoMTEAGir of Brandon. Rossm (Kinnaird) Vavx of llarrowdeD. Fingall. Lovat. Chahlcmont. Camoys. Leiiiiiji. Mont EAGLr. (M. of Sligo). Pltre. Disslntient. — 1. Because no such measure as the present is consistent either with justice or expediency. 2. Because the bill appears to have been mainly dictated by the excitement Avhich has recently prevailed ; an excitement which it Avas the duty of the Government and the Legislature rather to allay than to encourage. Any attempt to interfere with doctrines by act of Parliament is not only likely to fail, but may even promote what it is intended to repress. 3. Because it is most unreasonable and inconsistent to profess to grant full toleration to the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time to prohibit that species of communication Avith the Sec of Rome which is indispensable for its perfect discipline and government. 4. Because the undue assumption of power involved in the terms of the Papal rescript, of the 29th of September 1850, and of other documents connected therewith, hoAvevcr justly open to exception, can supply no reason for depriving her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of a regular and ordinary part of their ecclesiastical organization. 5. Because the appointment of ecclesiastical officers is essentially a matter of religious concern ; and although it may be expedient in particular cases that such appointment should be under the control or influence of the ehil power, and although it is the undoubted duty of the Legislature to provide that no temporal powers jne exercised, and no temporal rights ■< impaired, under the pretest of ecclesiastical _ regulation-, yet to restrain a religious community no) | established by law in the management of it* rt1 ligioivs concerns, otherwise than by confining them within the- sphere of religion, is inconsistent with the sphit of all our recent legislation. Such rcsi traint invoh e.s the piinciplo, and may lead to the practice of religioao per >oeution. (> Because ihe act of thp 10th of Geo IV. c. 7, { Mhich, for the fir?t time since the lielbrmalion,

porural (o the Romrn Catholic nibjccts of tlie Cio;\n an equality of politic.i' r'lj Is constituted a solemn e\pressii>n oi Ire inteniion of (he Legislature, and a pledge to Ihe Roman Catholic community that they should thenceforward enjoy a full religious toleiation. 7. Because the 24th section of the 10(h of Goo. IV., which prohibits all persons other than tho=e Ihereunto authorised by law from assuming the titles of Arehbi hop 1 ?, I'.Hiops and Deans of the National Church, affords no precedent for this bill, inasmuch as the forntcr pimply defends from invasion certain known le<>;d titles already appropriated, and impoi ting lii»h dignities and Valuable right-, whereas the iattei amounts to the total prohibition of o diocesan epi .eopato. 8. Because (he penal pio-w<-<ions of this bill not only diilcr in (he above-named reaped from chose of the 10th Geo. IV., lmt they di!lei further to the prejudice of our I'onnn Catholic fellowpnbjeets inasmuch as they are preceded by recitals and declarations of law, concerning -which, the 10th George IV. was silenl, whereby a new and extended construction may be ghen both to the penal provisions of this measure, and likewise, l'eti'oactively, to those of the 10th George IV. 9. Because the ancient statutes against the exercise of a foi eign jurisdiction, or restrictive of the importation of bulls, briefs, and rescripts, which are cited in justification of the present, bill, are unavailable for such a purpose. Those statutes have long been suffered to remain in desuetude. If now revived they may be found to assert powers for the Crown -which would be destructive of the religious liberties secured to Protestant Dissenters as well as to Roman Catholics. They have no special reference to the establishment of provinces or sees, or to the assumption of titles, but are equally and indifferently directed against all exercise of jurisdiction, whether by diocesan bishops, or by vicars-apostolic, and are therefore incompatible with our recognized principles of toleration and religious freedom 10. Because there is a peculiarly harsh and ungracious character in the present prohibition of diocesan government to the Roman Catholic community, as it is not disputed that, at various periods, from the Reformation down to a recent date, the secular clergy, and more especially the Roman Catholic laity, have sought for the introduction among themselves of a diocesan episcopacy with the approval and encouragement of the British Government. 11. Because there are presumptive grounds for believing that the late measures of the Pope have been adopted under the persuasion that, if he should do what, in his judgment, was requisite for the spiritual wants and interests of his own communion, the advisers of the Crown not only would have no desire, but had in fact publicly disclaimed all intention and all title to interfere. 12. Because this bill, uhile it professes to refer to Roman Catholic titles, enacts a further and wholly gratuitoiTS intcrfenjnee with religious freedom, by forbidding the assumption of episcopal titles on the part of any other persons than the prelates of the Established Church, and the prelates of the Scottish Episcopal communion. By the exception from its provisions of the lastnamed prelates, -who ai'o appointed independently of the Royal authority, the bill plainly admits that the appointment of Bishops is in its essence a spiritual matter, and thereby condemns its own principal provisions. 13. Because it is inexpedient to protect the rights of the Episcopate established by Ltw by needless and unjust restraints upon the religious freedom of others. Such protection is likely to weaken, rather than to strengthen, the National Church in its proper oifice of maintaining and enlarging its influence over the people by moral and spiritual means. 14. Because the bill, "besides being unjust in principle, creatlv en dancers the peace and harmony of the various classes of her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom and. especially in Ireland. Should the measure be carried into actual operation, it may engender the most serious political and social evils ; while* if it should not be put in force against the use of titles openlyassumed, its introduction into the statute-book will have tended to disparage the dignity of Parliament and the authority of the law. Goi>don t (Aberdeen). WiiAnvcurrE. Nlwcmstle. latiti/iov. Canning. Moxieagle of Brandon. Sr. Glrji >ns.