“I wish to point out that, according to the opinion of all the judges who were called in to advise the House of Lords in the case of _Miller_ v. _Knox_,(117) refusal, unjustified by the occasion, as, in my opinion, the refusal in the present case was, to protect the sheriff in the execution of his duty, when protection is sought by him, in the honest exercise of his discretion, to enable him to discharge his duty in the execution of civil process, is punishable, by indictment, by criminal information, and, as was established in _Miller_ v. _Knox_ by the summary process of this court. The official, be he Under Secretary or Chief Secretary (I do not, of course, refer to his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant), who directed Mr. Waters not to comply with the sheriff’s demand for protection, has rendered himself amenable to the criminal law, is liable to be tried by indictment, to have a criminal information exhibited in this court against him, or to be attached by the summary process of this court.” There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Irish Executive will be bound to give assistance and protection to sheriffs or other lawful officers executing any legal process of a competent Court, and if such assistance is not given the Courts will be able to assert their supremacy in the various ways pointed out by the Lord Chief Justice. A great deal of capital has recently been made in the Unionist Press on account of the promulgation of the _Motu Proprio_ “_Quantavis Diligentia_.” It has been asserted that this decree applies to Ireland and will necessarily embarrass catholic officials in the discharge of their public duty. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has, however, fully explained the meaning of the decree, and has shown that it does not apply to any country where there has prevailed against it, as there has long prevailed against it in Ireland, a custom invested with the conditions required by the Canon Law.(118) He further says (p. 36): “The excommunication of the clause _Cogentes_, is not decreed against all who oblige lay judges to compel the attendance of ecclesiastics in their courts. It is decreed against those who do this in violation of the Canon Law. There must first, then, be a canonical offence. It is to that offence that the clause _Cogentes_ attaches the penalty of excommunication. But, there being no canonical offence in the discharge of their duty by our Catholic Judges, and Catholic Law Officers of the Crown, our Catholic Police Magistrates and Catholic Policemen, and our laity in general—who were so ludicrously paraded before the public a few weeks ago as the unhappy victims of the _Motu Proprio_—there is in their case no offence to which an ecclesiastical penalty can be attached, and so, no ecclesiastical penalty is incurred.”