Dr. Wiseman proceeds to grapple with the Municipal Law, by stating, secondly, "that the law did put on a restriction." Now it is assumed, in this proposition, that a Statute is expressly needed to restrict the full ecclesiastical action of the Roman Catholic Church in England, as if there could be no such restriction at Common Law; and an axiom of law is accordingly made to do duty both by Dr. Wiseman and Mr. Bowyer with considerable confidence in its conclusiveness. It is said, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." Under cover of this general proposition, it is maintained by both writers, that the Emancipation Act, by forbidding any one from assuming or using the style or title of any Archbishopric or Bishopric of the Established Church, virtually allows Roman Catholics to assume any others. Now the axiom of law is an approved axiom, but it is on this occasion misapplied. In the first place, the statute does not in words forbid the use of such titles; on the contrary, it is assumed in the statute that it is an offence at Common Law to use them, unless authorized by law. The statute simply enacts that a penalty of one hundred pounds shall attach to the offence. "Be it therefore enacted, that if any person, after the commencement of this Act, other than the person thereto authorized by law, shall assume or use the name, style, or title of Archbishop of any province, Bishop of any diocese, or Dean of any deanery, in England or Ireland, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred pounds." The offence, then, is not created by any enactment of this statute; on the contrary, the assumption and use of the style and title, without lawful authority, is dealt with penally*, as being an offence.

* A penalty alone implies a prohibition, though there are no prohibitory words in the statute, (Bartlett v. Vinor, Carthew's

The only inference which the axiom above cited might warrant, would be, not as Mr. Bowyer asserts, that the assumption and use of new ecclesiastical titles, not belonging to the Established Church, is lawful, but that it does not expose the party so offending to the penalty specified in the statute, it being supposed, for argument's sake, that the operation of the statute is limited to the titles of the Established Church. For instance, if the Bishop of Rome had chosen to consecrate a Bishop in partibus, with the title of Bishop of London or Oxford, without professing to erect a new See of London or Oxford, the titular Bishop would still have exposed himself to the penalty; but if he had ordained him Bishop of Dorchester in partibus, the party assuming and using in England the title of that extinct See would not have come within the provision of the statute. But it may be worthy of notice here, that the Brief of Pope Pius IX. contemplates an illegality, even on Mr. Bowyer's and Dr. Wiseman's interpretation of the statute, for it constitutes, in Wales, according to the version of the Brief published, as far as it can be, by authority, in her Majesty's realm of England, a Bishopric of Menevia, or St. David's, united with Newport, and it speaks in express terms of the Bishop of St. David's.*

Reports, p. 252.); but it does not follow, where an act is otherwise treated as an offence, that the remission of the penalty by a subsequent statute affects the legal character of the act.

"In the district of Wales there will be two Bishoprics, viz. that of Shrewsbury, and that of Menevia, or St. David's, with Newport."

"We assign to the Bishop of St. David's and Newport as his diocese northward, the counties of Brecknock, Glamorgan, Pembroke, Radnor, and the English counties of Monmouth and Here.ford."

It is worthy of remark that there are two English versions of

Now the style and title of Episcopus Menevensis, or Bishop of St. David's, cannot be assumed by the nominee of the Holy See without a direct violation of the statute 10 Geo. 4. c. 7. s. 24., and the consequent forfeiture on each occasion of one hundred. pounds of good and lawful money of the Queen. This may have been an oversight on the part of the Holy See, unless it is to be considered in the light of a further experiment upon the elasticity of the Statute Law of England.

Again, Mr. Bowyer writes: "It is clear that the Act forbids the assumption and use, not of the style and title of Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean of any place whatever in England or Ireland, but only of any Archbishopric, Bishopric, or Deanery belonging to the Established Church." Such, it is possible, might prove to be the decision of her Majesty's Judges, if this question should ever come to be raised in Westminster Hall, but it is by no means clear that the purview of the statute is so limited. On the contrary, it is probable, for it is within the spirit of the

the Brief in circulation, the one dated 24th September, the other 29th September. In the former, which first appeared, the name of St. David's does not occur, but Merioneth is written, as the English equivalent of Menevia, although the county of Merioneth (Merviniensis) is, in the very next sentence, placed in the diocese of Shrewsbury. The latter, which is the more correct version, has been adopted at the "Metropolitan Catholic Printing Office" in London, and from that version the above passages have been extracted: it corresponds with the Latin edition, issued from the press of the Congregation of the Propaganda Fide at Rome, a copy of which will be found in the Appendix. The Tablet newspaper (October 26. and November 2.), which published the Latin edition, and professed to give an English version of it (October 26.), has omitted to translate the word Menevia, and so the Papal appropriation of the title of an existing English See is gracefully veiled in the obscurity of a learned language. A similar reserve has been exercised by the editor of the Roman Catholic Directory for 1851.

statute, that the statutory penalties may be held to extend to the use of such titles as Archbishop of Westminster, Bishop of Northampton, &c., being the titles severally of an Archbishop of a Province, and a Bishop of a Bishopric in England.

The statute, for instance, speaks of the style or title of Archbishop of any Province, Bishop of any Bishopric in England or Ireland, in an indefinite sense, and does not confine itself, by the use of the definite article, to the style or title of the Archbishop of any Province, the Bishop of any Bishopric, i. e. of any existing Province or Bishopric. Yet it seem reasonable to suppose, that if the assumption or use of the styles or titles of the existing Archbishops of Provinces and Bishops of Bishoprics in England and Ireland had been alone in view, the indefinite form of expression would not have been used, when the definite form would have been the proper form. At the same time it must be admitted, in fairness to Dr. Wiseman and Mr. Bowyer, that the statute, being a penal statute, must be construed strictly.

The words of the twenty-fourth clause are, "And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, by the respective Acts of Union of England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Ireland, established permanently and inviolably and whereas the right and title of Archbishops to their respective Provinces, of Bishops to their Sees, and of Deans to their Deaneries, as well in England as in Ireland, have been settled and established by law: Be it therefore enacted, That if any person, after the commencement of this Act, other than the

D

person thereunto authorised by law, shall assume or use the name, style, or title of Archbishop of any Province, Bishop of any Bishopric, 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. Anstey, in commenting upon this clause of the statute, admits, that if Parliament should hereafter create a new See of the Established Church, and give it one of the Papal titles, there is reason to believe that the statutory penalty would at once attach to the continued assumption of the title by the Roman Catholic Prelate. But this admission, if correctly made, is fatal to the strict interpretation of the statute; for if we are to limit the application of the penal enactment by any words in the preamble of the clause, then only those Archbishoprics and Bishoprics would be protected which had been settled and established by law at the passing of the statute, that is, before A. D. 1829.

But to suppose that the clause could be satisfied by such an interpretation, which would allow, in 1850, two Bishops of Ripon, and two Bishops of Manchester, but only permit one Bishop of London or one Bishop of St. David's, is to suppose the law deliberately contemplated a result which would be not merely anomalous, but also at variance with the very principle elicited by Mr. Bowyer and Dr. Wiseman from the preamble, as the basis of their argument.

Again, whenever a statute is enacted for the purpose of restraining a liberty hitherto allowed by law, it may be presumed, that the liberty, which the statute does not expressly take away, still remains. But it would be unreasonable to contend that, prior to the 10 Geo. 4. c. 7. s. 24, the liberty of assuming titles from