of Rome cannot be received or accepted by English Roman Catholics without a violation of their duties as citizens, I need not add, that I consider the line of conduct now adopted by Lord John Russell, as that of a true friend of the British Constitution.

"Believe me, my dear Lord Zetland, yours very truly,

"To the Right Hon. the Earl of Zetland."

"BEAUMONT.

LETTER FROM HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NORFOLK TO THE LORD BEAUMONT.

"Arundel Castle, Nov. 28, 1850.

My dear Lord, I so entirely coincide with the opinions in your letter to Lord Zetland, that I must write to you to express my agreement with you. I should think that many must feel as we do, that ultramontane opinions are totally incompatible with allegiance to our Sovereign and with our Constitution. "I remain, my dear Lord, faithfully yours,

"To the Lord Beaumont."

"NORFOLK.

APPENDIX (K).

PAPAL USURPATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING HERALD."

Sir,-In my letter, which appears in your paper of Friday, I expressed an intention of writing something further respecting the legislative enactments now in existence on the subject of Romish usurpations.

There is considerable difficulty, I find, experienced on the part of others, as well as myself, in coming to a conclusion upon the matter. It seems, indeed, in some degree to involve the proof of a negative. What once was the law is easily ascertained; but to pronounce with certainty that those usages or enactments constituting that law have not been repealed or rendered comparatively inoperative, requires a far greater amount of legal knowledge and a minuteness of research and labour, which few as yet have, I believe, bestowed upon this particular question.

So many changes have been made in modern times, during the last ten or twenty years in particular, repealing, or what is more perplexing, in part repealing, modifying, or altering various enactments, that few even of those who have investigated the questions so suddenly thrust upon the attention of the public can point out definitely and distinctly what are the Acts and sections of Acts repealed, and what are the Acts or portions of Acts now in operation-perhaps I should rather say, in existence, for they will remain a dead letter, unless Her Majesty's Attorney-General, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the prime moving powers, put, or consent to their being put in operation. Could they who now fill those important offices and hold such dignified positions adopt a course at once more constitutional and more popular than by doing so without delay?

The conclusions, however, at which I have arrived are based upon a very close and minute examination of our Statute Book, of the productions of various legal and constitutional writers, and upon other sources of information; and though the story is related of a learned functionary, once appointed to a judicial office, that he was recommended always to give his judgment, but never to give the reason upon which such judgment was founded, I prefer giving the reasons to withholding them. If wrong in my opinion respecting the law on the question, and I do not believe I can be shown to be wrong, it will be open to others to point out wherein I have erred in coming to my present conclusion.

Let me, then, with regard to the data upon which I have proceeded, state

1. That scarcely a Bill has been brought into the House of Commons upon the subject for the last twenty years which I have not closely watched, and that not one such Bill has passed into a law with the provisions of which I have not been acquainted.

2. Besides this, I have examined carefully the list of repealed or altered statutes given at the end of each session of Parliament.

3. That Mr. Crabbe's valuable, learned, and laborious work, "A Digest and Index, with Chronological Tables, of all the Statutes, from Magna Charta to the end of the Present Session," printed in 1844, in four volumes, has been carefully examined by me.

4. That Mr. Stamp's "Index to the Statute Law of England to the close of the Session 10th and 11th Vict., 1847," has been also examined.

5. That I have conversed with those far better qualified from their Parliamentary and professional experience than myself to give an opinion ex cathedrâ, yet I find nothing adverse to the opinion formed by me and hereinafter expressed.

By these various means, it might be supposed, sufficient caution had been taken to prevent falling into error. But there is one other source-a Roman Catholic one, and one which, therefore, in such questions I highly value-from which information is to be drawn. I must, therefore, mention—

6. A work by Mr. Anstey (published in 1842), a Roman Catholic barrister, M.P., &c.-viz., “A Guide to the Laws of England affecting Roman Catholics."

Before, however, quoting from or referring more minutely to recent enactments, let me observe that various provisions on the subject of Popery have been made from 18 Geo. III. inclusive, to the present time, in the following Acts, viz.:— 18 Geo. III., c. 60; 31 Geo. III., c. 32; 3 Geo. IV., c. 126; 10 Geo. IV., c. 7; 2 and 3 Wm. IV., c. 30: 2 and 3 Wm. IV., c. 115; 4 and 5 Wm. IV., c. 73; 5 and 6 Wm. IV., c. 76; 3 and 4 Vict., c. 52.

Mr. Crabbe, having cited these statutes, adds, "since which have passed the 7 and 8 Vict., c. 102, and 9 and 10 Vict., c. 59."

These two last Acts made alterations in somewhere about

fifty and sixty Acts of Parliament and portions of Acts of Parliament, running over a period of more than 300 years, from the 5th of Edw. VI. to this time. But in the few important Acts upon this subject which have passed since Mr. Anstey's book was written, I find nothing at variance with his opinion, quoted below.

Mr. Anstey, being himself a Roman Catholic, has thus expressed his opinion on the subject, and that, too, before the events which have now given special importance to the question had taken place. Having quoted 27 Edw. III., s. 1, c. 1, 38 Edw. III, s. 2, c. 1, and 16 Rich. II., c. 5, he observes, at page 68:

"This Act (16 Rich. II., c. 5) is the one to which almost all the subsequent statutes refer in enacting against new offences the penalties of Præmunire. From this circumstance rather than from any more reasonable cause it has generally been called the 'Statute of Præmunire.'

"These are the only provisions in the ancient Acts passed in derogation of Papal jurisdiction which seem applicable to Roman Catholics in England at the present day. The law of provisors and purveyors is out of date as far as they are concerned. That law regards the benefices and endowments of the Established Church, and, therefore, any mention of it would be out of place in a book not treating of the laws and immunities of that Establishment.

"But it is clear, upon principle, that the provisions cited are perfectly applicable to English Roman Catholics and their suits at this day (1842).

"Whatever controversies may arise among them as to matters cognisable at law or in equity, cannot be adjudicated at Rome, or by authority derived from Rome, without the peril of Præmunire, and all its liabilities above enumerated."

For such opinion Mr. Anstey gives the following reason:"For the Relief Acts were not intended to alter the laws passed previously to the Reformation against the authority of the Holy See, but only to mitigate some of the severities enacted against Roman Catholics subsequently to the establishment of Protestantism as the religion of the land."

By no Act that I find since passed have the above laws been repealed, and I concur, therefore, in the view taken by Mr.

Anstey, that the Acts referred to by him are applicable to English Roman Catholics in the present day. The statute of 16 Rich. II., c. 5, seems, therefore, to be for all practical purposes still in force, and that Act provides as follows:

"That if any purchase or pursue, or cause to be purchased or pursued, in the Court of Rome, or elsewhere, any such translations, processes, and sentences of excommunications, bulls, instruments, or any other things whatsoever which touch the King, against him, his Crown, and his royalty, or his realm, as is aforesaid; or them receive or make thereof notification, or any other execution whatsoever within the same realm, or without, that they, their notaries, procurators, maintainers, abettors, fautors, and counsellors, shall be put out of the King's protection, and their lands and tenements, goods and chattels, forfeit to our Lord the King: and that they be attached by their bodies, if they may be found, and brought before the King and his Council, there to answer to the cases aforesaid, or that process be made against them by præmunire facias, in manner as it is ordained in other statutes of provisors, and other which do sue in any other court in derogation of the Royalty of our Lord the King."

With regard to the more recent Acts, dating about the period of the Reformation, no one in Parliament seems to have laboured with greater energy, and, in some respects, with more success than Mr. Anstey, in procuring a repeal or modification of the laws affecting Roman Catholics.

Latterly, however, his efforts have not been so successful. By the Bill brought into Parliament on this subject in November, 1847, by Mr. Anstey and Mr. W. S. O'Brien, he was desirous of repealing further portions of the 1st Eliz., c. 1, and the remaining portions of the 13th Eliz., c. 2. What was the fate of this Bill ? On referring to "Hansard's Parliamentary Debates," I find that this Bill, after much discussion, and many divisions, was thrown out July 19, 1848.

But with an energy and a perseverance worthy of a better cause, Mr. Anstey, on February 6, 1849, moved for leave to bring in a similar Bill; but leave was refused. In the course

of the next year, February 7, 1850, he again moved for leave to bring in another Bill to the same effect. Leave was again