§ Sir R. Ingliswished to put a question to the noble Lord connected with a subject which he (Sir R. Inglis) considered of some importance. The House was aware that a certain address had been presented to the high sheriff of the county of Mayo, the first name to which was that of the Lord-lieutenant of the county. The next, as reported in the Freeman's Journal, was "John Archbishop of Tuam." He would take no notice of the third signature, and would give no opinion upon it; but he wished to ask whether the noble Lord had instructed the Attorney-general for Ireland to take any proceedings in consequence of the assumption of that title, in reference to the clause in the Roman Catholic Act which prohibited Roman Catholic prelates from assuming the titles of Protestant dignitaries?
§ Lord John Russellhad not seen the requisition to which the hon. Baronet had alluded; but in answer to the question put to him, he would state, that the Government had not given any directions to the Attorney-general, nor had they communicated with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland on the subject, and unless there was an absolute necessity for so doing, he should not think it proper to take any steps in reference to it. On one occasion, when an application was sent to him by a person acting on behalf of Dr. M'Hale, asking that certain petitions should be laid before his late Majesty, that individual had taken the title of Archbishop of Tuam, and he had immediately written to him, stating that he could not present the petition to his Majesty, as he had assumed a name to which by law he was not entitled. Therefore, whenever it came before him officially, he should entirely deny that Dr. M'Hale had any right to assume that title; but he could not agree in the propriety or expediency of instituting prosecutions on such a subject.
Mr. O'Connelldid not know whether the noble Lord was aware that there was no such clause in the Roman Catholic Belief Act as that stated by the hon. 10 Baronet. The clause prohibited others from giving any Roman Catholic that dignity, but it did not prevent him taking it himself.
§ Lord John Russellreplied, that in the case to which he had alluded, the title was not given by another to Dr. M'Hale. Whether or not there was that default in the Act mentioned by the hon. and learned Member, he did not know.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that there was no such Protestant dignitary as the "Archbishop of Tuam," at the present time. There was a Bishop of Tuam, but no archbishop.
§ Sir R. Inglissaid, in consequence of the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he had obtained a copy of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, and after perusing it, was convinced that he (Sir R. Inglis) was right, and the hon. and learned Member wrong. The hon. Baronet then read the 24th section of the Act, from which it appeared—
That if any person, after the commencement of this Act, other than the person thereunto authorized by law, shall assume the name, style, or title of archbishop of any province, bishop of any bishoprick, or dean of any deanery, in England or Ireland, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred pounds.
Mr. O'Connell,after reading the Act, admitted that the hon. Baronet was right, and that he (Mr. O'Connell) was wrong. Any person in or out of that House might call another the bishop or archbishop of any place, but the individual was not at liberty to assume the title himself.