local Sees, other than those of the Established Church, was enjoyed by her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Yet, unless that should have been the case, the presumption would be, not in favour of the liberty of the subject, but of the prerogative of the Crown, and the legal axiom of "the exclusion of one class implying the admission of all others," does not apply.

It has been observed, that the Emancipation Act treats the assumption of such titles as an offence, although there is no clause of the statute which forbids it. Accordingly, if the penalty were even to be repealed, the offence at Common Law would still remain, and it would still continue to be not lawful to take the name, style, or title of Archbishop of any Province, Bishop of any Bishopric in England or Ireland.

There are, therefore, great difficulties in the way of accepting Mr. Bowyer's and Dr. Wiseman's interpretation of the statute as being clear in the subjectmatter of its restriction, more particularly when we look to the practice since the statute. And here it may be allowable to bring into the field, out of the opposite camp, a well-known axiom of law, as well as of common sense, to wit, "Optimus interpres legum usus." The practice which has grown up within the United Kingdom, to which the operation of the statute is confined, must throw no inconsiderable light on the meaning of the penal clause, if it be obscure. Now the practice is clear: there have been no Roman Catholic Bishops who have held themselves forth to be Bishops of Sees situated in England, until the issuing of the Papal Brief. But in Ireland the case is otherwise; yet on no occasion has the assumption and use of the name, style, or title of Archbishop of any Province or Bishop of any Bishopric by the Ro

man Catholic Prelates in Ireland been recognised directly or indirectly, as lawful. Their episcopal orders have, indeed, been recognised in a recent act of the legislature, and Social rank has been conceded to them by the Government in 1844, in carrying out its provisions, by giving them precedence immediately after the prelates of the Established Church of the same degree, in the Commission under the Charitable Bequests Act (13th January, 1845).*

66

Now the Act itself (7 & 8 Vict. c. 97.), intituled "An Act for the more effectual application of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland," speaks of any Archbishop or Bishop, or other person in holy orders of the Church of Rome officiating in any district," thereby recognising the episcopal office with a gradation of rank in it; and accordingly the executive Government has followed out this principle in the Commission just alluded to, in which the Roman Catholic Prelates are designated as the Most Reverend Archbishop William Crolly, the Most Reverend Archbishop Daniel Murray, the Right Reverend Bishop Cornelius Denvir.

But Mr. Bowyer states further that, in the instrument appointing the visitors of the new colleges, Dr. Cullen and Dr. Murray are described as the Most Reverend the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, and the Most Reverend the Roman Catholic Arch

bishop of Dublin. But, if it be assumed for the moment, on Mr. Bowyer's authority, that such is the fact, these designations are not, as he supposes, terri

* It appears from certain "Reasons for not signing an Address to her Majesty," published by the Earl of St. German's, that the order in which the names of the Commissioners were arranged, was simply intended to denote the order, in which they were entitled to take the chair at the meetings of the Board.

torial titles, such as are borne and enjoyed by Prelates of the Established Church, but mere descriptions severally of Dr. Cullen and Dr. Murray with reference to their archiepiscopal offices. The Queen of England, for instance, to take an illustrious example, is the territorial title of her Majesty Queen Victoria; the reigning Queen of England is a description of her Most Gracious Majesty with reference to her office of supreme governor. So the Archbishop of Dublin is a territorial title borne by the Most Reverend Dr. Whately; the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin would be a description of his Grace with reference to his archiepiscopal office.

Mr. Bowyer has thus unintentionally confused two very different ideas; but further than this, he is unfortunately in error as to the matter of fact, which is the more to be regretted, as her Majesty's Government is sought to be placed by him in the wrong. For example, in the warrant appointing the visitors of Queen's College, Belfast, the Roman Catholic Prelates are designated as the Most Reverend Archbishop Paul Cullen, the Right Reverend Bishop Cornelius Denvir; and in the warrant for Queen's College, Cork, they are described as the Most Reverend Archbishop Michael Slattery, the Right Reverend Bishop William Delany; and in the warrant for Queen's College, Galway, they are named as the Most Reverend Archbishop John M'Hale, the Right Reverend Bishop Lawrence O'Donnell. There is therefore no precedent in this measure for Mr. Bowyer to rely upon, in respect of what are, in his estimation, territorial titles.

He has not been more happy in speaking of the style of the "Irish Catholic Prelates" having been recognised by the Government on the ground that

they are styled as "Archbishops." The term style, in 10 Geo. 4. c. 7., has a well-known legal meaning*, being, for instance, the style in which all archiepiscopal or episcopal acts run; e. g. "We, John Bird, by Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of Canter bury," &c., or, "We, Charles James, by Divine Permission, Lord Bishop of London," &c. There is also, to speak somewhat loosely, the ordinary style of designation of the spiritual peers, such as "His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury," "His Lordship the Bishop of London," and the concise style of signature, as "J. B. Cantuar." or "C. J. London." both of which may reasonably come within the purview of the statute, as well as the full legal style; but it is verging on an absurdity to say, that the style of the Irish Catholic Prelates has been recognised by the executive Government, because they are described by their office of Archbishops.

Again, a local Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 361. s. 28., known as the Dublin Cemeteries Act†, speaks of "His Grace Daniel Murray, Archbishop, and his successors exercising the same spiritual jurisdiction as he now exercises in the Diocese of Dublin, as an Archbishop." It then proceeds to give him power to appoint, from time to time, a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church as chaplain, and enacts that such chaplain shall be licensed by, and subject to the juris

* Gray's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 338.

† It is specially enacted that this Act shall be deemed and taken to be a public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as such. This provision, however, does not constitute it a public Act to which every body is considered as assenting (per Lord Hardwick, 1 Term Reports, 93.), but merely enables a copy, printed by the king's printer, to be made evidence in a court of law; otherwise it would be necessary to produce an examined copy, which had been compared with the original roll at Westminster.

diction of the said Archbishop, who shall have power to revoke his licence, and to remove him for any cause which the Archbishop may deem to be canonical. This statute, having thus acknowledged Dr. Murray as exercising a spiritual jurisdiction as Archbishop, virtute ordinis, proceeds to give him an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the appointment and removal of a chaplain, allowing him to regulate his judgment in this matter by the Canon Law. It does not, however, allow the chaplain to have an appeal to Rome, nor does it recognise in any way the supremacy of the See of Rome, but makes the Archbishop the absolute judge as to the propriety of his removal. Whatever powers, therefore, Dr. Murray may choose to exercise over a Roman Catholic clergyman, in licensing him to such chaplaincy of the cemetery, in accordance with the provisions of this statute, or in removing him therefrom, he will exercise it by virtue of an Act of the United Parliament, not by virtue of his appointment from the Pope; so that, practically, this statute does not carry the question any further in its declaratory part with respect to the territorial title, although it admits, for the first time in such matters, the arbitrary application of a foreign law (lex). It is an instance of a statute most incautiously worded in this respect, as well as in regard to the Diocese of Dublin, which is an expression open to ambiguity, there being one Diocese according to the law of the land, and another Diocese according to the foreign law.

It is to be regretted, that greater care has not been taken with the phraseology of several documents of a public nature in which spiritual jurisdiction is spoken of, where spiritual authority would have been the more appropriate and less ambiguous phrase, as juris