The Sun. — London, England, 1851-03-08 00:00:00

12211 o f ny years been in a bankrnpt state. A great number I ,ldebentures had been issued by the company, and the ect of this Bill would be to render them entirely va lueless, except where the holders of them chose to become proprietors. He, therefore, hoped the House would not give its event to so unjust and monstrous a proposition. The Honourable Member moved that it b 9 read a second time this day six months. Sir DE LACY EVANS supported the second read ing of the Bill. Mr. MUNTZ would be exceedingly sorry if this Bill were passed, and he thought that everybody be longing to the concern would be sorry too that they had ever got it. Mr. BOOKER protested against the principle of this Bill being entertained by the House. Mr. MACGREGOR supported the second reading of the Bill. Mr. BROTHERTON thought that the Bill ought to go into Committee, in order to give opportunities for investigation. Mr. G. C. LEGU opposed the Bill. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading A it it..... gainst it Majority -57 The Bill was then read a second time. PETITIONS. Mr. TANCRED presented a petition from the Catho lics of Banbury against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Mr. L. HODGES presented a petition against the re moval of Smithfield Cattle Market. Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from Westminster praying for the repeal of the window -tax. Mr. S. ADAIR presented a petition praying for a re peal of the taxes on knowledge. Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition against the Papal aggression, and praying for the suppression of Jesuit astablishments. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented two peti tions from Preston against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented four petitions against the Government measure for the removal of Smithfield, and a petition from the butchers of Enfield praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, BOARD OF CUSTOMS. Mr. MITCHELL gave notice that on an early day , be should move for the appointment of a Select Com mittee to inquire into the management of the Board of Customs, with a view to its improvement—(Hear, hear) --and saving expense to the country. Mr. MACGREGOR and several other Hon. Members presented petitions to the House, and postponed motions of which they had given notice. CHANCERY REFORM. Lord JOHN RUSSELL give notice that it was his intention to bring in a till bn an early day for a reform in the practice of tho Court cf Chancery. THE KAFIR WAR. Sir DE LACY EVANS begged to ask the Noble Lord at the_head of the Government a question respecting the intentions of the Ministry in providing for the expenses of the contest. He put this question in the hope that the colonists would have to bear the weight of their own con flicts. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that all he could say at present was, that his Noble Friend at the Dead of the Colonial Department had written to the Governor of the colony, enjoining him in the strongest manner to take care that no expenditure should be incurred, in the event of a Katir war, which would fall on the Government of this country. The co lony must, therefore, be expected to bear its own ex penses. At the present time it was impossible to say more than this—that with the exception of sending out a necessary reinforcement, no expense would be incurred in respect of the war without the sanction of the House. Sir W. MOLES WORTH wished to know whether the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had any official information with retard to the commencement of the war ? Mr. HAWES said, as soon ai any dispatches were received they would be laid on the table of the House; but he might observe that ho believed too much importance had been attached to the information which had been circulated among the public. No dispatch had yet been received from the Governor, and the only disputed which the Government were in possession of was that of the Colonial Secretary, which communicated the nature of the events in the colony up to the 4th of January last. The reason why no dispatch was received from the Governor was that at that time he was surrounded by a large body of Katirs.—(Loud laughter.) Since that date Sir H. Smith, with that cha racteristic gallantry, skill, and courage which belonged to him, had emancipated himself frm all his difficulties, and gallantly cat his way through hordes of barbarians. —(Cheers.) A steamer was expected every hour with fresh advices, bringing accounts up to a period three weeks later than those last received. EXCISE. Colonel SIBTHOBP wished to know whether it was true that the chairman of the Excise, Sir John Wood, had received an increase of 100/. a year, in addition to hie salary of 2,0001.? The CHANCELLOR of thd EXCHEQUER said, if the Gallaut Member would move for the necessary mi nute on the subject, he would be glad to state the rea sons why that increase had been made. CEYLON. In reply to Mr. BAILLIE, Mr. HAWES said he would lay the report of the Royal Commission on Ceylon on the table of the House to-night, and it wculd probably be placed in the hands Of Members to-morrow. EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE TO COUNTIES. M. LOCKE KING brought up his Bill for the exten sion of the county franchise to 10/. householders. The Hon. Member, on appearing at the bar with the Bill, was received with cheers. The Bill was ordered to be read a second time on the 24 of April.—(Cries of "The Ist of April," and laughter.) MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. Oa the motion that the Home on its rising adjourn till Mot day nest, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said,— Sir, in rising to move that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday next, I wiil make the statement which I promised on Monday last. My Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will, on the reading of the order of the day for the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, state the altera tions and modifications which we propose to make in that Bill, and, as they are extensive, I propose after that statement has bean made to postpone the second reading of the Bill until Friday next.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the general business of the session, I should state that a considerable interval having taken place, in which no public business has been transacted, it is most desirable that we should proceed with as little delay as possible, and, therefore, on Monday next I propose that the House shall go into Com mittee on the Navy Estimates. As I have proposed a postponement of the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill until Friday, I trust that there will be no opposition on the part of Hon. Members who aro opposed to the 13111, to go into Committee on an early e;ay af.er reading the Bill a second time, supposing that the House should pass the second reading. It will be necessary to take some votes with regard to the army and ordnance estimates, and espe cially to take a vote for the number of men required in the army, as the House is aware that the Mutiny Bill expires on the 20th of April, and the Easter vacation intervenes before that day. Ido not pro pose to take any vote on account of the Income-lax until Monday, the 24th, and on the Friday preceding, that is on the 21st, my Right Hon. Friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer will state any alterations which he has to propose with regard to the financial measures of the session. The motion for the adjournment was then carried. PETITIONS.—PAPAL AGGRESSION. On the motion for the second reading of the Bill, Mr. STUART . presented a petition against the Bill from the Bishops of the colesiastical Church of Scotland, which he moved should be read by the Clerk at the table. The petition was then read at length by the Clerk at the table. Lord ARUNDEL and SURREY presented a petitio n against the Bill from the Roman Catholics of Wales. Dr. POWER presented a similar petition from Cork. Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition to the same effect signed by 6,000 of the Roman Catholic inhabit luta of St. Mary's, St. Thonms'a„and George's, Dub lin. On the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the petition was read by the Clerk at the table. Sir WILLIAM CLAY presented a petition against the Bill from the Roman Catholics of the Tower Ham lets. Mr. COBDEN presented a similar petition from the Boman Catholics of yorkshire. Mr. M. laces O'CONNELL presented ten si m il ar p e titi ons from pin Ireland, and praying that the revenues of might in future be appropriated th e Protestant Church to the relief of th e poor. Mr. A. GORE p rese nted a Petition to th e same e ff ect from Sligo. Mr. CAYLEY presented two similar petitions from places in the West Riding. s Lord JOHN MANNER S presented a p e ti t i on to the of Colchester. the same effect from the Roman Catholics , Mr:Benet, Petitions were then presented by Mr. Cardwell, from Liverpool; by Mr. Clement, Mr. Lennard and Mr. Roche, from the county of . Cork ; , by other members from the county of Down, 03 , Mr. phi lip Howard, from Exeter, signed by upwards o f 3,000 of the artisans, labourers, and other members of the comm unity of Exeter. (Some amusement was occa si oned in the "' House, and not a little laughter, by the Hon.. Mem ber going to the wrong side of the table to give his pe tition to the Clerk of the House). The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. GRATTAN presented a petition from several thousand people in Ireland to the same effect. Sir IL R. INGLIS presented a petition from 616 per sons of condition and character who desired to re sist the Papal aggression. They expressed a strong hope that the officers of Government would resist this aggressio% f.ei, while expressing this hope, they at the same timeltal_, ► _till'k Pieg744 I ,tb9ught in their minds was to oppo• oaP , P -o tet to the progress of civil and re ~.. iota APV:Tbe / Mr isg4 J RN O'CONNELL presented pc,. ti tionliti t i4 tii 0. Bill from chi Roman Catholics of Li! , totie .aiitsa , iiial - olher plata , : in Ireland. Bir:, - NnlaraGlßSON' z ented a petiti on :o 16/000 100104411649 age the 41. . A, • : - THE SUN, ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTIONi BILL. _ _ . The order of the day for the second reading of thi Bill having been read, Sir G. GREY then rose and said,--Before I proceed, in pursuance of the intimation enade the other night by my Noble Friend, to state the modifications and altera tions which, if the House shall consent to the second reading of this Bill, the Government, after a full and careful consideration of the objections which have been urged against it, mean to propose that the House should adopt, I am anxious to make- a few -observations with reference to some suggestions which have been strongly pressed upon the Government as to the course which it might be expedient to adopt with regard to this Bill, On Monday night last it was strongly urged upon the Government, chiefly by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), with the view, a 3 he stated, to the dispatch of public business, and to prevent the interruption to important business which would ensue by the interposition of protracted discussions with regard to this Bill—and I think his opinion was concurred in by several other Hon. Mem bers—that the Government should adopt the course which, as stated by them, was indicated by Lord Stanley in another place as that which he would have thought it is duty to propose if he had been at the head of the Government. But I must say that I think the Right Hon. Gentlemen and those who join with him in urging that course upon the Go vernmcnt have not rightly apprehended the suggestion which Lord Stanley made.—(Hear.) They seem to as sume that, if the Government adopted the course sug gested by Lord Stanley,', all that they would have to do would be to propose to each House of Parliament the appointment of a Committee, to whom a variety of subjects connected with the relations which the Roman Catholic subjects of England sustain to the State on the one hand, and to the head of their Church on the other, should be referred. They seem to assume also that these Committees would be appointed without debate and die cufsion, and that after the subject had been referred to them its further consideration would be indefinitely post poned, and that the House would be enabled to proceed at once to the consideration of those other questions of undoubted importance which are intended to occupy the time of Parliament during the present session. But they seem to me to have overlooked one important part of tho scheme indicated by Lord Stanley, which was— not that the subject should be passed over with indiffer ence by either House of Parliament—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear") —but what he proposed was, if I under stand it rightly, that there should be a resolution simul taneously passed by both Houses of Parliament, a resolution expressing the opinion of each House separately, that the course recently taken by the Court of Rome is considered as offensive to this country, as derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and as trench ing upon the independence of this country by the great body of the inhabitants of Great Britain; and that, after adopting a resolution of this kind, they should each ap point Committees of the nature before referred to.— (Hear, hear.) Now, I do not wish on this occasion to touch upon any subject likely to give rise to discussion; but I am anxious to state shortly why the Government consider that such a course as that suggested by Lord Stanley would not be consistent with the duty which they owe to the State.—(Hear.) Ia the first place, I beg to say that the course of proceeding by resolution would not effect the object which the Right Hon. Gen tleman, and those who think with him, profess to have in view. It would not give the go-by to the subject and enable the Government to proceed forthwith to the con sideration of the other matters requiring attention ; be cause Parliament would be involved in discussions pro bably as long, as discursive, and occupying as much time with reference to the resolution, as they would be with regard to the Bill which is now before the House. —(Hear, hear.) And with what result ? I confess that in all my Parliamentary experience I do not re member a resolution passed simultaneously by both Houses of Parliament, except with the view of immediately adopting a Bill founded upon it.—(Hear, hear.) A 3 every one knows, a resolution of either House of Parliament does not possess the force of law.—(Hear, hear.) What then would be the effect of a resolution declaring that the rights and dignities agsumed by the Roman Catholic Prelates under the authority of the Pope were null and void ? As I have said, no resolu tion of either House of Parliament, at least in matters not affecting their privileges, can have the force and effect of law. A resolution of this kind, then, having passed, after the protracted discussion with which it would be certain to be accompanied, would be a piece of mere waste paper, as far as concerned any declaration of what the existing law was, or as far as concerned the amendment or alteration of the existing law.—(Hear, hear.) The titles derived from the Court of Rome would be borne as openly and ostentatiously as before, and if any question were to arise in a court of law with respect to the right of the Roman Catholic prelates to those titles, and if a resolution of Parliament were to be pled as a bar to their assumption, the Court would be at fall liberty to pay no respect to such a resolution.—(Hear, hear.) That is one reason why the Government think the course of proceeding by resolution not only inexpedient, but inconsistent with their duty.—(Hear, hear.) And if, i n a ddi t i on to passing the resolution, ommittees were to be appointed, does the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Man chester imagine that no discussion would arise upon the question of whether the Committees should be appointed at all in the first place; that no discussion—and discus sions too I must say of a delicate nature, which it is de sirable as far as possible to avoid—would take place with rogeril to the selection of the topics which should be re ferred to the Committees; and, again, with regard to the nomination of the committees?—(Hear.) Assuming, therefore, that such would be the fact, I do not think that by adopting such a course we could get through with it at au earlier period than we arc likely to get through the different stages of the present Bill.—Olean) And would there not, moreover, be some danger that, instead of allaying animosities which it is most desirable to allay, it would tend rather to keep those ani mosities alive, if we were to have Committees of both Houses of Parliament, receiving state ments from one quarter impugning the different practices which are adopted in the exercise of the R,;rnati Catholic religion on the one hand, and hearing counter-statements on the other—statements which would of course be presented to the public from time to time through the ordinary channels of informa tion, and thus a kind of indefinite expectation would be kept up of future legislation on a large and comprehen sive scale, which would at once satisfy the Protestant feeling of the country, and preserve inviolate those prin ciples of civil and religious liberty which we aro anxious to maintain, not only for ourselves, but for our Roman Catholic brethren!'—(Hear.) I will only add that, as I stated on a former occasion in answer to the Hon. Mem ber for Buckinghamshire, I am nct prepared to say that the law with respect to the relations 61 the Roman Ca tholic subjects of England to the State on the one band, and to the head of their Church on the other, are in a satisfactory state—that while I think it would be inex pesient to throw the question open before a Parliamen tary Committee for an indefinite time, I am not pre pared to retract what I thee said, but, on the con trary, would now distinctly repeat, that I think the subject is worthy the consideration of any Go vernment, and that I think it desirable that those relations should be pieced on a better and more satisfactory footing.—(Hear, hear.) The next sugges tion which ha; been pressed. upon Government is, that Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Bill now before the House.—(Elear, hear.) There are many Hon. Gentlemen who feel strongly with regard to the necessity of adopting some legislative measure in order to check encroachments on the part of Rome, bet who, actuated by kindly feelings towards their Roman Ca tholic fellow-subjects in Ireland—feelings in which I am not ashamed to say I find it difficult not to participate— (Hear, hear)—and who, looking to the distinction be tween the two cases of England and Ireland, are anxious to do nothing that would seem to impose any new dis ability upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or that would give them any reasonable grottiest of complaint; and they have consequently pressed upon the Govern ment to consider whether Ireland should not be altogether omitted from the Bill. This subject was fully considered by Government long before the meet ing of Parliament. We have since reconsidered it; but that reconsideration has only confirmed the convic tion at which we had previously arrived, that to adopt that course at all events would be wholly in consistent with our duty.—(Hear, hear.) We felt strongly that, if the Bill was to be founded, as it is founded, upon an alleged invasion of the Queen's pre rogative, as Sovereign of England—that if the internal concerns of our country are matters with which no foreign power can be permitted to interfere—that if we proceeded upon a principle of this kind, at the same time proposed to limit the Bill to one part of the United Kingdom only, we should be chargeable with tacitly ad mitting that the authority of 'the Queen was• less para mount and supreme in one portion of the kingdom than it was in another.—(Cheers.) Wo felt that if we were to adopt this course in order to obtain support to the Bill, or with a view to its being passed with less opposi tion than it is now threatened with—we felt that if we were to purchase this advantage in the way proposed, we should be doing that, as Ministers of the Crown, which would be tantamount to a betrayal of our trust. —(Renewed cheers.) But, while I say this, I admit that there is a wide practical difference between the circumstances of Ireland and the circumstances of England and Scotland.--(Hear, hear.) It is im possible to overlook the fact which. I have had fre quent cause to advert to when addressing the House on former occasions, that the great majority of the popula lation of Ireland are Roman Catholics with a Church not endowed by the State, which has existed since the time of the Reformation to the present day in unbroken suc cession—a Church which was at one time prohibited, at another time tolerated, and another time protected— a Church with bishops side by side with the bishops of the Established Church, and that usages and practices have grown up, and have been sanctioned there, which have never been known and sanctioned in England, be cause there was not the same necessity for them, the circumstances of the two countries being wholly and essent iallydifferent.—(H ear , h ear. ) And this, i n fact, s— the re isn o , usesn and n o a n m c ea s l u i rneg allth e whom f act h h a o v w have felte felt it a along myselfaddress it—it is this which constitutes the main difficul t y in dealing towhicha sfii eciently as w e cou ld w i s h to do with the case e ln ths now ask the assent of Parliament.—(Cl ear, hear.) --man Catho • country, however, the biehop3 of the Roman Catholic have til l la ex te i l s ; e — d for two centuries as vicars- I do tiot kuow what WII3 the case at a n earlier period— but I believe up till lately, her vicars-apostolic were c l o thed with the episcopal chara c t er, and were enabled perform every episcopal function ; to i the Roman Catholic religion was exercised to the fullest extent, without let or hindrance, end without any necessity for th e s t ate o f tea w1ai4;41 3 4140d g3'lre4"4' 191 W PrePue4 to cam. tend, there' of t‘h:e h Bill, that in 'en' country there is no portion . e that can inflict the slightest hardship.— (Ilaar, hear.) In Ireland, however, I am not prepared to deny that, looking to some of the objectiots that have been made to the Bill, there does seam some ground for believing that it might interfere to a certain degree with practices and usages with which it was not the in tention or desire of Government to interfere—usages and practices which have been sanctioned for a length of time in Ireland, and to interfere with which now would be, to a certain extent, a hardship and injustice.— (Hear, hear.) I will explain this more fully shortly. Bat I am not prepared to admit, on the contrary, I deny, that many of the objections which have been urged against the Bill are founded in fact or in law. Objections have been directed against the second and third clauses chiefly. With respect to the second clause, it has been stated that it would interfere with all the spiritual acts of the Roman Catholic bishops, and render those acts null and void. Now lam pre pared to contend that there is nothing in this clause of a nature to render there spiritual acts void in law, unless they are acts which can be enforced by a court of law, according to the ordinary laws of the country, and which are recognised by law as capable of being enforced. All those spiritual acts which are capable of being performed by bishops, whether in England or Ireland, are acts to which a willing and free obedience is rendered by the members of the Roman Catholic Church except in so far as their conscience may limit their obedience. I mean that they are not constrained to obedience by the law; that their obedience cannot be enforced by law. I say, therefore, that it was not contemplated by Government, and I deny that the effect of the clause, if passed in its preent shape, would be, to set aside and render void spiritual acts, such as are neces sary to be performed by the bishops of an episcopal communion. —(Hear, hear.) Then again, with regard to the third clause, it has been stated over and over again that it would directly interfere with the provisions of the Bequests Acts in facilitating the endowment of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy in Ireland. I deny that it has necessarily at all events such an effect as that which has been attributed to it. It is only necessary to compare the language of this clause with the language of the 15th section of the Bequests Act, which contains the provisions authorising the granting of endowments to the bishops and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, in cr3er to see that not one of tke provisions of the Bequests Act is touched by the clause even as it now stands. The terms of the 9th and Bth of Victoria, c. 97, s. 15 (the Bequests Act), authorises grants by deed or will to the commission in trust, &c., " For any archbishop or bishop or other person in holy orders of the Church of Rome, officiating in any district, or having pastoral superintendence of any con gregation of persons professing the Roman Ca tholic religion, and for those who shall from time to time so officiate or shall succeed to the same pastoral superintendence." Now I should have judged, by looking at the terms of this Act,that it had been care fully worded so as to avoid the necessity of the bequests sanctioned, authorised, and invited under this Act vio lating in any degree the section of the Act of 1829 which prohibits the assumption and use by Roman Ca tholic bishops in Ireland of the titles of existing sees. If the terms of the third clause of the Bill now before the House are compared with the terms of the Bequests Act, it will be seen that bequests to persons " officiating in any district or having pastoral superintendence of any congregation of persons" would clearly not be prevented by the third clause—that, in fact, that clause would only prevent endowments by deed or will from being left to persons using the titles or assuming the designations which are prohibited in the first clause.—(Hear, hear.) I said just now, and upon consideration I am not pre pared to deny, that the operation of the clause as it now stands might prejudice some rights of long usage and in terfere with practices sanctioned by time, and, I believe, also by courts of law and equity. Ido not think that directly it is calculated to produce any such effect; but it is probable it may do so indirectly. I admit that such was not the original intention of Government, and we are anxious not to go beyond the views which we entertained when we originally introduced the Bill. On a former occasion allusion was made to the ordina tion of priests, and to what is called the "collation of priests" in Ireland; and it was objected that the affect of this Bill would be to render such spiritual acts invalid; because it is alleged—and I believe with truth—that under the terms of the Bequests Act it may sometimes he necessary to give evidence of ordination and colla tion, with the view of establishing the right of parties to bequests that may have been made to them; and that the practice is to give in evidence the certificate of ordination, and the instrument of collation. This instru ment we are also told invariably and of necessity con tains the name of the bishop or archbishop who or dained or collated the priest, and that ,such bishop or archbishop is generally described by the title of the see which he holds. I have seen one of these instruments; it is in Latin, I don't remember the date, but it is of no consequence, for the practice, I am told, is invariably the same; and in that instrument the archbishop is de scribed as Archbishop of Dublin. Although it may be alleged that the production of such evidence renders the party assuming such a title liable to be proceeded against by the Attorney-General, it appears that the courts of law have never regarded such an instrument as void. It is alleged that a case may occur, as cases have occurred, under the Bequests Act, where a bequest is left to an ecclesiastic of the Church of Rome, having pastoral superintendence in that Church; where the deed or will granting the bequest contains the name of a Roman Catholic priest of a particular place or congregation; that a question may arise in a court of law as to the right of the priest so named to the bequest as against a third party who also claims it; and that in order to the settlement of the question he is required to show that he is an ordained priest of the Church of Rome, and that he was collated to the charge of that particular parish. This Bill, it is alleged, under the operation of the second clause—and I mast admit I think the allegation has some weight in it—would throw an obstacle in the way of the proof by prohibiting the re ception of the ordinary evidence, and drive the parties to secondary proof, or deprive them of that which it was the intention of Parliament that they should have. So again, with respect to the Bequests Act—the bequests would not, under the operation of this Bill, according to my construction of the words, be rendered invalid and enure to the use of the Crown, to be disposed of ac cording to the necessity of the case, not necessarily according to the terms of the instrument; but the feeling is—l am dealing with the practice which prevails in Ireland, and has prevailed there for several years— that it would be difficult to persuade people, not perhaps having legal advice at their elbow, to depart from the existing practice, and make grants or bequests for the endowment of ministers of their Church, without using terms which this Bill would prohibit. Further, it is said, and I believe there is no doubt, that courts of equity in Ireland, since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, have executed trusts expressly in favour of Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops, not regarding the pro hibition in the Act of 1829 as affecting the terms of the grant or bequest. I have been told of a case—l have not, of course, been able to examine the record, and I can not vouch for the accuracy of the account, except in so far as saying that it comes to me from a quarter upon which I place full reliance—a case in which a decree was made on the 3d of July, 1844, in reference to a sum of 13,0001,, which was directed to be invested in the crea tion and endowment of a convent of the Presentation order or the Sisters of Mercy, in the archdiocese of Tuam; and I have been furnished with this account of Sir E. Sugden's decree:—" The sums left to Roman Catholic charities in this case exceed 30,0001. The be quest in the will of the testator was to the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and the Most Rev. Dr. Kelly, Roman Catholic Arch bishop of Tuam, and their successors in the said respec tive sees for the time being. The bill was filled rafter the death of Dr. Kelly, and Dr. M'Hale was made a co plaintiff with 1)r. Murray, as the successor of Dr. Kelly in the see of Tuam; and the fund was administered in that state of the record." The will was made in 1834, subsequently, therefore, to the clause in the Act of 1829 to which I have referred.--shear, hear.) lam told that that is not a sslitary case, and that there are other cares in which, in accordance with the general practice in Ire land, these have been considered good trusts. There was a case before Lord Manners, but that was before the Act of 1829, and therefore no objection was made to the de signation of the parties as bishops of sees in Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) Now, certainly the Bill in its present form, if passed, would have an operation which was not in the contemplation, not in the intention of the Govern ment, because, while they have been anxious to maintain the dignity of the Crown, to assert its supremacy within these realms, and to uphold the independence of the country—(Hear, hear)—they had no desire to deprive any part of their fellow-subjects of any civil or religious rights of which they are in possession.—(Hear, hear.) Atter the best consideration which we can give to this case, wo have thought it our duty, as I have already stated, to persevere with this Bill, holding it essential that there should be a deelaration by Parliament of the will of the nation, if I may so express myself, with regard to the recent act of the Court of Rome, which has excited so much indignation—l will not now say whether justly or unjustly, I have already stated my opinion upon that—and that Parliament should not pass it by with indifference, and by so doing encourage a repetition of acts which would be fatal, I think, to the independence of this country—(Hear, hear)—but at the same time we have anxiously considered, especially with regard to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland—it is, I think, exclusively with regard to them that these objec tions apply, the practice being as I have stated there— we have anxiously considered how we may effect the object in view without giving even the slightest ground of complaint to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland that their rights are unnecessarily abridged, and that practices long sanctioned by usage, at least in that country, ar e a b out to b e i nter f ered with, and—l will not say their property confiscated, because I think that is an unfounded and exaggerated state ment—but that new impediments not before known to the lay/ are to be in practice placed in the way of their applying their property to the use of that Church which is not endowed by the State, but supported by their vo luntary contributions.—(Hear, hear.) We might, no doubt, have omitted certain words, and inserted others, to meet the particular ca ses t o w hi ch I have referred; but after giving the subject all possible consideration, we have come to the conclusion th a t b y attempting amendments of that kind we might only be raising new points of discussion, and giving cceseion for new ob jections not yeltikarted, and might after a ll not com pletely effect file objects we sincerely and h onest l y b ay° 211 view. Under these circumstances we have come to the conclusion, that if the House, after hearing my statement, shall agree to the second reading of the Bill, we shall, when the House shall go into Committee upon it, propose to omit altogether the second and third clauses.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) ,With regard to the fourth clause, that is wholly ancillary, and a corollary to the second and third clauses; and, there fore —aThe remainder of the sentence was drowned in the hiughter which erase ih the Ileum.] I haw LZ)Vb°4*' SATURDAY EVENING, „tAtoa the eoneiderationt; shield iheillee the Government to otet this soahe, and I will now say a few words i n tel' M erence to an objection which I see I may anticipate, and which it is impossible not to anticipate—namely, that the Bill, reduced as it will then bee, to the prohibition contained in the f!rst Plane*, will not be worthy of the occasion and hot justify the expectation of the country. —cloud cries of ” Hear, hear.") To this extent it ought to justify that expectation, that it will be a Par liamentary declaration that the titles assumed, as they are ostentatiously under the authority of the Pope, are not to be borne by persons claiming authority in this country.—(Hear, hear.) It will be a national protest against that a .3—a national declaration that the autho rity assumed is one whica Parliament will not allow to be exercised.—(flear, hear.) When it is stated that this is so inefficteut and limited an Act, I must say that I do not concur in that statement, judging by past experience ; and I am not one of these who say that the clause in the Act of 1829 prohibiting titles is a dead letter, or that it has not answered to the full the object with which it was framed and the expectation with which it was passed by Parliament. I have said that it has been the practice for the Boman Catholic bishops in Ireland to use those titles in letters of ordination, and it is alleged that it is neces sary for them to do so, because in those documents the authority must be shown under which the acts are per formed; but ostensibly, in their communications with the Government, in approaching the Throne or the Legisla ture, there has been a respect and an obedience to the law—(Hear, hear)—and that law has not been a dead letter to this extent, that in all those documents and upon all official occasions it has been observed, and the bishops have abstained from using those titles.—(Hear.) I believe the same result will take place in England if this Bill be passed, because I believe the Roman Catholic subjects of her Majesty will defer to this law.---(Hear.) Only a few days since I had the honour of presenting to her Majesty an address from the Roman Catholic Arch bishops and bishops in Ireland, in which, describing themselves as such, they did not assume either iu the body of the address or in their signatures any title prohi bited to them.---(Hear, hear.) Cesrteinly, if they had, I should have felt it my duty to abstain from presenting it to her Majesty.—(Hear, hear.) So also with regard to the petition to this House the other night; that peti tion was signed by every Roman Catholic archbishop and bishop in Ireland, using his Christian name and surname, without assuming the title of his diocese.— (Hear, hear.) I have now stated what clauses we propose to omit—that we propose to avoid all interference with long-established usage, and with rights conceded to, and long exercised by our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. I avow my own opinion, that although it is necessary that ,such a Bill as this should pass, and that no en couragement be given to sets of aggression like this, and although I think such a prohibition, proceeding from the Legislature, receiving the sanction of both Houses of Parliament and of the Crown, will have the effect of a national protest and de claration against that act of the Pope which has been so much, and properly, objected against; yet it is not to any Act of Parliament that I look for the maintenance of the Protestant religion in these realms—(Hear)—but to that deep feeling of attachment to the Protestant faith which the members of every Protestant denomination possess—(Cheers)—and to which they have given utter ance in language clear, unambiguous, and unmis takeable.—(Renewed cheers.) It is to their just appre ciation of the blessings connected with the maintenance of the Protestant faith in this country, that I look for the maintenance of that faith—(llster, hear)—cuupled, as it no doubt will be, with the increased diligence and activity of Protestant ministers in their respective spheres—(hear, hear)—armed, as I believe, with the armour of truth, to resist that spiritual aggression with which they have been threatened.—(Cheers.) But, be fore I sit down, I will advert to a question put by the Hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswald), with regard to the operation of this Bill upon the bishops in Scot land, whose petition has been presented to-night. Cer tainly their case was not at all in the contemplation of the Government when they thought it their duty to propose a Bill of this kind.—(Hear, hear.) There is nothing in the conduct of those bishops, in the course they have pursued, which would render it in the least necessary or expedient that a Bill should be passed placing them under any disability to which they are not now subject.—(Hear, hear.) But I feel it right to state that I believe those bishops, designated as they are in an Act of Parliament—the first Act of Parliament recog nising them in their epiecopalcharacter, the Act in 1840 —"Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Communion of Scotland," have no shadow of right whatever to assume or use titles drawn from Scotch dioceses.—(Hear, hear.) There are those who think it is against positive law— the Act of Union embodying the Act of Settlement; that may involve a nice question, but at all events they are without law, I believe, in this. The usage has grown up only within the last 20 years, and it is not now universal among them; and in introducing words exempting bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Commu nion in Scotland from any penalties to which they might be subject under the Bill, I should feel it my duty to provide that the exemption shall not be held to give them any right to the use or assumption of titles to which they are not already by law entitled.—(Hear, hear.) There was an observation made by the Honourable and Learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), who charged me with presenting to her Mejesty an Redress from Pro testant bishops in Scotland, signing as bishops of dioceses over which they presided. I contradicted him at the time, but I had no opportunity then of giving an expla nation. The only address I have aeon which contains any of their signatures, with the exception of one from Edinburgh to which no objection could be taken, was from the members of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which was brought to me signed by 3,000 or 4,000 of the members of that society, in their individual capacity; it was au address remarkable for its temper and moderation, ex pressing firmly an opinion with respect to the recent act of the Pope and the establishment of a Roman Catho lic hirearchy in this country, but in language to which no possible exception could be taken. After the secre tary had left the address with me, I observed among the signatures those of four bishops of the Protestant Epis copal Communion in Scotland, who had signed their names and added to their names a description of them as bishops of certain places. If that address had been from the bishops themselves exclusively, I should have respectfully returned it to them, pointed out what I con ceived to be the impropriety of so addressing the Throne and requested them to return the address signed as the Act of Parliament appears to prescribe. But as the ad dress came from a very large number of members of this society, and the signatures were not, I was told, contrary to any rule of law, I felt it lay duty to lay the address before her Majesty; but in sig nifying to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the President, whose name stood first, I thought it necessary to write an official letter to him, wishing it to be expressly un derstood that in laying that address before her Majesty no sanction was given to the form of signature adopted by these bishops in Scotland, and no recognition intended of titles which by law they had no right to assume. — (Hear, hear.) I thought, under the circumstances, that was the best course I could adopt--(Hear, hear)—and I hope the Hon. Member (slr. Keogh) will see that he has not correctly represented the course I pursued.— (Hear, hear.) I have now stated what the Government propose to do. I have endeavoured to abstain from matter which might feed to debate at present, because if we are to postpone the second reading of this Bill for a week, it is desirable that we should not now he involved in is long and protracted discussion, which must again take place ou the second reading.—(Hear, hear.) I have onlyf therefore, to move that the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill be postponed till Fri day next.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. STUART thought that the Bill which the Go vernment proposed to make out of that which had been read a first time, was certainly not calcu lated to allay the apprehensions of those who had so far supported then in the former measure. He did not think that in this case of aggression and insult to the Crown the Executive Government had shown themselves at all active to repel that insult in the proper manner. By the Constitution there were several modes of repelling it, and one would have been by a proclama tion from the Privy Council; but in place of that they only had a private letter from the Prime Minister to a pri vate individual, a course which he would say was en tirely unworthy of a Prime Minister and derogatory to the dignity of the Crown. But the Execu tive had in truth never shown the slightest intention to fallow any of the precedents which existed in such cases, which if they had been followed would have readily afforded a constitutional manner of dis posing of the difficulties. Bat if the Executive had failed in their duty, the task of repelling this insult had fallen on the Legislature, and he con ceived that the present measure, which was proposed for the purpose, was very tar from being sufficient to uphold how it assaults n of the dignity of th e C rown. Th e Right Hon. Baronet would to nby n p assing a Bill to would be possibl e to secure the country from farther h prohibit, under p ena l t i es, t h e a ssumption of titles by r persons to whom, un d er t h ose very titles, bequests might legally be m a d e f or th e purpose of maintaining those titles. He th rew out t his suggestion for the con i tHou se con sideration of Gov ernment b e fore the Bill came again under discussion. Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to set himself right in regard to certain allusions which had been made to him by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had said that he (Mr. M. Gibson) was desirous of referring the matter to a Committee. Now, ho himself having no wish to legis late in the matter, therefore he could not have any desire to intjuire. But this he would say, that if they were to legislate, they had better legislate with infor mation than without it He was glad to see that there was a near approximation to the proper stage of doing nothing. Sir R. IL INGLIS concurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman that they were doing nothing. The Bill as it was proposed to be altered would give satisfaction to no one, and indeed how could it be otherwise? It was a repeti tion of the farce which represented Hada with the part of Hamlet left out.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord wrote a splendid letter to his country, but he had woefully failed in carrying out the spirit which it breathed; and though he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had been ready when the Bill was first introduced to accept ninepence in the shilling, he was net now prepared to take less than the whole shilling.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Bill was shamefully mutilated, so shamefully that it was nothing loss than an insult to the country, and he had no doubt whatever that if Government persevered in it, they would be again driven from office.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BANKES was afraid that the Hon. Baronet would not get even his 9d. in the pound out of the Bill. He wanted to know in what respect the Bill was more stringent or effective than the present state of the law? The speech of the Right Hon. Baronet was directed in favour of the two or three clauses which ho proposed to 2,battd4xt, sad he tvulci eieurs hica that. silts tho figte4. MARCH 8, 1851. ings of the people were greatly changed (which he did not believe) their disappointmt nt would be very great, for they had placed confidence in the statement of the Noble Lord, and on the & claration made in the Speech from the Throne on the subject, and their impression now would be that their confidence had been betrayed. The general feeling throughout the country was that the resignation of the Noble Lord's Miuistiy had been occasioned by this Bill, and until he heard it denied it was an opinion in which he would share, and therefore, though the modification of the Bill might please some parties, adherents of the Noble Lord, because it placed him in power, the people of the country had a right to expect some better explanation for the disappoint went to which they would be now subjected. —(Hear, hear.) The Severeigu must think that her prerogative had not been protected—that her rights, her supremacy, and her authority had not been well trusted in the hands in which they were now placed, when this altered measure was the only result of the Noble Lord's letter, of the Noble Lord's speech, and of the Speech from the Throne, which her Nlajesty had been advised by the Noble Lord's Government to ad dress to Parliament. He (Mr. Bankee) had on the first introduction of the Bill called the attention of the Noble Lord to the synodal action of the Roman Catholic hier archy, as exemplified in the instance of the Synod of Tburles. That, in his opinion, was the gravest ques tion in connexion with the matter—a body of priests sittiug in judgment upon every subject, from mixed schools to tenant-right. The greatest danger lay in that direction, in his opinion. The Hon. Member then quoted a passage from a speech of Lord Liverpool, de livered May 17, 1825. on the Catholic claims, which was to the effect that the danger of concession was not immediate, but remote; that, however, it was equally certain, and that the object of the Catholic Church ever was, and ever would be, to destroy Protestantism. The noble speaker, in conclusion, considered the hope of union by a common education as visionary. The Ca tholic claims, however, were conceded, and a common education was proposed; but the Synod of Thurles in terfered, and put an end to it, as had been predicted by Lord Liverpool. He (Mr. Bankee) complained that the Bill did not meet this danger; and that it was therefore an illusion and a mockery. Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that the Noble Lord should print the changes he proposed to make in the Bill. He understood that words were to be added to the first clause to distinguish the bishops of the Church in Scot land; and he also presumed that some alteration would be made in the preamble of the Bill, the language of which as it stood now was so wide as to cover everything. He was aware that it was not usual to print alterations; but he hoped the Noble Lord would do so in the present instance. Lord C. HAMILTON asked the House whether it ever conceived it possible that the original Bill could be reduced to such a miserable remnant. The original Bill was framed to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles, and the preamble referred to 10th Geo. IV., in flicting a penalty of 1001. on such assumption, The in tention of the Government, however, it now appeared, was somewhat different. They had, four months after the Bill was framed, discovered doubts and difficulties in respect to 'relate", and the Secretary of State proposed to omit the second and third clauses of the Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman proved that the law had been in operative in Ireland for the last twenty-one years, and that the Crown had not piosecated under the 10th Geo. IV.; but what reason existed why Ireland should be excluded, in the event of the new creations of sees in that country ? It did not seem to him to be worth while to excite the country for such a result as the measure now proposed by the Government. Lord J. RUSSELL—I have no objection to the course proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), and am willing to print in a separate shape any parts of the Bill which would not otherwise be printed until eftsr the second reading. With regard to the clauses which we propose to omit, it will not be necessary to reprint them; but the preamble and first clause, as amended, shall be laid before the House. I wish to correct some misapprehensions of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dorsetahire (Mr. Bankes). The Hon. Member said it is well known that the assumption of episcopal titles by prelates not of the Established Church is against the law as it at present stands, and that the Government failed in their duty in not prosecuting those persons who were guilty of this offence. Now, the statement I made in the letter to which be alludes was that the law officers of the Crown should consider the present state of the law, and if the law were not applicable we would consi der whether any measure could not be introduced enact. ing a new law to meet the case. Questions were so , cordingly put to the law officers of the Crown, which were formally and regularly drawn up. To these questions we received answers, of which I will now state the substance, and to which I adverted on a former occasion. Mr. BANKES—Did they refer to Ireland? Lord J. RUSSELL—To the assumption of these new titles. Mr. BANKES—There had been no assumption of new titles in Ireland. It had been in this country. Lord J. RUSSELL—The questions referred to new titles generally. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says the Government knew these persons had committed an offence at common law, which the Government might, but had not proceeded to prosecute. My answer is this, that the law officers said tlay did not think that the as sumption of titles was contrary either to the common or the statute law; end consequently the preamble of this Bill states that the pretence to establish sees or dioceses and titles is Wegal and void; but it does not say that the assumption of titles is illegal, but inconsistent with the rights which we intended to be protected by the enact ment of 1829, It ie evident that, after oteainieg teat op'nion, it would be futile in us to order the law officers ut the Crown to prosecute fur what they declared wore not offeneee. Their opinion went on to say that un doubtedly if it could be proved that bulls had been in troduced into this country, or, rather, rescripts and writings from Rome, for the purpose of establishing these sees, that appeared to be an effsenee, I thii.k, at co.emon law, but at all events against certain statutes which were then operative. But that would have been a prosecution on the intro duction of a bull, that bull being upon a particular sub ject, but only liable to prosecution inasmuch as an y other bull rr rescript might be, any bull, for example, allowing persons to marry, or any other bull necessary for the duo carrying on of the rites of the Roman Catho lic Church. He thought it would be an exercise of op. pression to say that while we prosecuted them in fact for the assumption of titles we prosecuted in the form of law for the introduction of a bull; and to say that any Government should have entire discretion with re spect to certain bulls which they thought objectionable, and which they considered it right to prosecute, that would be a dangerous discretion for any Government to exercise. —(Hear, hear.) Whether upon that subject further legislation may take place I am not prepared to say. The enactments upon this subject are very unsa tisfactory. The introduction of bulls is forbidden, but whether under the penalties ofruisdemeanour, or of high treason, is very doubtful ; and at the same time the pro hibition is general. It is not such a one as existed in the time of our earlier kings, against the introduction of bulls inconsistent with the king's prerogative, or injuri ous to the welfare of the State; but against the intro duction generally of any writings from Rome. Having said thus much, I will now say that in the speech which I made to the House in introducing the Bill now before us, I expressed at its commencement that we did not in tend to legislate upon the whole subject and relations of this country with the court of Rom., a vast extensive subject upon which we were not prepared to take mea sures of legislation. I said we intended to confine our selves to that one particular act, the assumption of the pretence to sway over the realm of England, and of titles inconsistent wish the Queen's sovereignty, with the rights of the bishops and clergy of this reelm,and with the spiritual independence of the nution. In fact, the essence of the offence which is committed consists in the insult that is offered. The other questions upon which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman has touched are totally different. It appears to me that, in order to meet that insult, the direct way is to introduce a Bill which shall forbid, and, if possible, prevent the assump tion of such titles. The Noble Lord who spoke last certainly requires some further study of this subject, be. cause he seems totally to have misapprehended It. The question of the law being inoperative, because there are certain things done iu Ireland, and given in proof in a court of law, and the question of the assumptian of titles, are two totally different questions. The assumption of the titles of the bishop of certain sees in Ireland is forbidden by the law. The law is so far obeyed that the persons thus prohibited to take titles do not take them in any pnblic document, and when they address the Crown, or servants of the Crown, they but use their own names. Now, if persons come into a court of law to maintain a right which is founded upon the assumption of those titles, I conceive it would be a question with a court of law whether any such measure was not invalid by reason of the assumption of these titles. But it is a different thing where a person claims a right in which incidentally it has been shown that this title has been used. And it might happen that the right might be per fectly good, although the mode of proving it might re fer to some instrument by which the person signing that instrument would be shown to have committed an offence against the law. As the law formerly stood, there were certain marriages in which the performance of the mar riage ceremony was an offence, but notwithstanding that the marriage was not void, and held good. The diffi culty has been to form a clause which would prevent the synodical meetings of the bishops, and prevent the use of the titles. But it wasibund that we could not use words which would prevent that without at the same time pre venting the proper exercise of the spiritual govern ment of the Roman Catholic Church. In a former debate I stated that if there was any part of this Bill which interfered with the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics, I should be ready to expunge it. The Noble and Learned Gentleman mentioned the Synod of Thurles; and I agree with him that the operations and acts constitute the principal dangers which we have to fear. But while wo propose to provide for the insult which has been offered to us, there is some difficulty in meeting this question of the synods. The Attorney- General thought that by the use of the word "act" the operation of the synod might be suspended, but he after wards considered that that might be applied to any act of ordination, and other acts which come within the spiritual jurisdiction of the Romaa Catholic Church. I only wish gentlemen to consider the imperfection of language upon this subject. After much .consideration, and after various attempts, we have found it impossible to use language of such a nature as to prohibit exactly what we wished to prohibit, and decree that which we wished to permit. Other gentlemen may be more fortunate and may be able to point out to the Crown what should be done. It is evident that Lord Stanley has not been thus fortunate, because ho has proposed to have a year or two for the preparation of a measure upon the subject. I will not say that by this, or by any Bill which we have now to propose, we are free from the dangers to which the Noble and Learned Gentleman has awe d, Qum, we are five fr the iuterftreuee of the Roman Catholic bishops and priesthood with the educa tion of the people in Ireland, and with various other matters in Ireland, some of which are partly temporal and partly spiritual, and others of which are of a wholly temporal character. But Ido not think, because we have those dangers to apprehend, that it would be right, even if it were possible, to prevent the meeting of bishops of the Roman Catholic Church for matters of a merely spi ritual nature.—(Hear, bear.) Supposing there is a Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and a numerous Ro man Catholic population, every one must wjeh that she Raman Catholic bishops should have the power o superinteeding the mural conduct of their clergy, and have the meaes (without calling in the assistut ce of the temporal power) or prevent ing any immorality which might occur amongst the clergy. Alter all, looking at this question with refer ence to temporal power, lam without apprehension. I have no apprehensions with respect to this country, be cauee the feeling of this country has b,-ti shown so ge nerally almost unanimously, in favour af our Protestant faith, that I do not think there is any danger in Engl I cannot say it is so in Ireland. I cannot say that the Roman Catholic ,priesthood in Ireland may not inter fere seriously and naischievolkly in temporal matters. The subject requires consideration; and we must see in what manacr the Government ef the Roman Sees and the bishops is Ireland act, before we agree to a measure upon that eubject. lam of opinion that we ought to confine ourselves in this Bill to a legislative measure which should assert absolutely the sovereignty of the Queen. Mr. NEWDEG ATE said he conceived the real offence to be the sending of a cardinal into this country, to con stitute a legislature not only for the spiritual but the temporal affairs of Rome. He believed that the powers and privileges of a cardinal and legate were unknown to most of those who were about to legislate upon this question. According to a book which w , uld be admitted to be an authority, " The Corte di Roma," printed at Marseilles in 1774, all affairs—civil, eccle siastical, and poliicel—were committed to the bishops and archbishops; so that such men as Dr. Cullen would be exercising those powers in Ireland. In another book, " The Notitia Coneregationum," printed in 1693, wider the head g• De Previligtos Cardinaliam," it was said that a man who had been elected a cardinal was by that freed from the power of his country. Then, if so, Car dinal Wiseman was not only an alien but an outlaw. He could not regard without regret the effect of this measure upon the character of this country as a free and consti tutional kingdom among the nations abroad. England, with a Church chiming for its head a Queen who was inferior to none, after having four months agitated upon the question, and when 395 Members of the House of Commons had declared that something should be done, had a Government which, by the paltry measure it now introduced, declared itself to be utterly impotent to ef fect anything.—(Hear, hear.) The Roman Catholics might well laugh at the course proposed by the Govern ment, and Cardinal Antonelli must look on the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir George Grey) as the moat inef ficient state officer that ever held such a position; and on comparing the impotency of this country with the potency of Rome, supported as her authority was by French bay onete, the Cardinal must say " representa tive Governments and constitutional kingdoms are after all a farce." After giving credit to the Noble Lord for his expressed intention of resisting the insult offered to the Crown, and vindicating the independence of the na tion, it would be showing but little deference to the opi nions of his constituents if he did not at once liberate himself from the pledge which he had given, and declare that he no longer cousidered himself bound to support a measure which in his conscience he believed to be to tally inefficient.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. STANFOItD said the Noble Lord must certainly feel disappointed at the reception which this paltry mea sure had 'net; and it was a very bad one when the Hon. Member f ;r Oxford indulged in metaphorical pleasantry on the occasion. If he (Mr. Stanford) were asked to ex press his opinion on the same speech, he should say this, that he had been under the impression that the Noble Lord last week, like another very distinguished per former, was about to take his final leave of the stage; but now, from the announcement made this evening by her Mejesty'e servants, it appeared that the old company was to appear for the second time this season on Friday next, in " Papal Aggression," a serio-comic drama, with the fifth act left out.—(Hear, and laughter.) After wh;ch the House was to be indulged with the popular drama of "The Budget," the unrivalled clown of the establish ment undertaking to jump clean through the windows (Laughter)—and the entertainments were to wind up with the " Cr) etal Palace." This might be a very plea sant programme, but he doubted whethr the Noble Lord and his aompeny would give any great satisfaetion either to the boxe-, pit, or gallery; and he would advise th Noble Lord to take warming by what befel Romeo Coates. The only part of the pertormance of that celebrated man which met with any applause was that in which he gay. up the ghost.—(Laughter.) In enaction that part Ro meo Coates was always called upon to die again, and so might the Noble Lord with regard to this measure.— (Hear, hear.) But to treat the matter seriously. He had paid great attention to the speeches or the most eminent and distinguished statesmen, and it was univer sally admitted that it would be unwise and nexpedient to dissolve Parliament. He believed that all the Mem bers of the Howe would endeavour to support the Go vernment in getting through the bu,iness of the country, and that no intention existed of offering them any fac tious opposition. There was no insurmountable ob stacle, except the financial plans of the Go vernment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would so modify his plan as to do justice to the agricultural class, by placing them in the same position as persons in trade, establishing the prieciple that were there is no profit there shall be no tax; if he could only do common justice to the trailing interests of the country by mekieg a distinction between the sum levied on realie el property and fluctuating mower a and mercan tile profits, he had not the least doubt !hat the Hon. Gentleman's financial and fiscel difficulties woal4 be easily overcome. But one monstrous difficulty remained behind, which, aft r the explanations given this evening, had not been removed—he meant the question of Papal aggression. He should be sorry to say anything to hurt the feelings of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. He wished them to retain perfect freedom of conscience, and those liberties which were so justly prized by all classes. But he did believe that if ever the vox popuii vox Dei had been illustrated it had been so on the present occasion; and he considered the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet would be sufficient to irritate many, whilst It would be useful to none.—(Hear, hear.) It was ad mitted by the Noble Lord that the Bishop of Rome has infringed international law; and this point was clearly raised by Vattel, who proved that the Bishop of Rome invaded the law of nations when he attacked the prerogatives of Sovereigns by appointing persons with ecclesiastical titles, and giving them territorial ju risdiction. If the Government did not think it wise or prudent to punish such an act, surely Parliament ought to express its opinion on the subject. It would be un wise to make this a casus Belli, and attack the Pope, for the policy of the Pope would survive whatever might be done; but it was undobtedly right that Parliament should re-echo the sentiments of the people. Sir Ed ward Segden said the law had been infringed; but the law officers of the Crown had declined to put the law in motion. If they had thought it right to pass an Act to render the law more operative, perhaps they would have satisfied the people better; but he considered the pre sent measure most inadequsta, and believed that it would cause the greatest pesiible dis.atiefaction. fie thought it desirable to follow the precedent set in 1801. when Parliament appointed simultaneous C• 11103111, 0" of both Houses, each having power to communicate with the other for at this ti me i t was most necessar y to tska into consideration the relation of Roman Catholics to the Coostitution and the Sovereign.—(Hesr, hear.) Mr. PLU I , IP CBE agreed Kith the Noble L. oppo site that the proper mode of dealing will this subjeet was by direct I.gislation, f.r the appointment of Cow mattes would lead to a great deal of delay, without being productive of any good cons. quences. The Noble Lord had charanerieed the procee dings of the Pope as an insol e nt so d ins idi ous agg re s sion; and it he itioi.ght it right to meet that aggression b . ? legislation, he ought to have done so in an etfcatual way; but the omission of the second and third clauses of the Bill would neutralise any good effect it might have had ; and if passed into a law in its amended shape, he believed the measure would be of little practical utility.—(Hear, hoar.) The N. ble Lord objected very properly to the synodical action of the Church of Rome, but he did not propose by this Bill to touch that synodical action. He trusted, however, the Noble Lord would devise some way of e we ,i„ g that evil, end lase the evil resulting from the admission of Papal bulls into this couutry.—(Hear, hear.) The present measure would not give salisf. c t ion to t h e people of this couetry.—(Hear, hear.) The Protestant people of this country had no wish to show a per secuting spirit towards their Roman Catholic coun trymen. This was not a pers , culing country. Toleration was carried to its utmost limits. But the Pro testant people of this country were acquainted in some measure with the character Of the Church of Rome, both f r om the past history of the wor ld and its delineation in H e ly Writ. The Protestant people of this country would give the Roman Catholics free toleration for the exercise of their religion, bat they did not wish to be persecuted themselves; they wished to retain the full and free exercise of their religion, and were afraid of the Church of Rome attaining that power at whieh she was a i m i n g,--(flear, hear.) The Protestant people 01 this country were a roligi,,u, people— a Bible-loving pe.ple— who would not abandon their tight of private tudgmet , t; bat they knew that the Church of Rome, wnerever it obtained predominance, interfered with the right of pri vate judgment, and forbade the free use of the Scripture:, for the Protestant people of this country felt great zeal for the honour of their Queen, but above all they were animated by an earnest zeal for the honour of God and the maintenance of the truth. They felt that in this ag gression made by the Church of Rome on this country those things which they most deeply prize aro greatly in danger, and therefore they had been most deeply and justly excited on the subject.—(Rear, hear.) He was afraid the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord would not satisfy the just expectations of the people, or the case which it was intended to meet; but he trusted that it would receive such amendments in Committee as would render it a satisfactory and efficient measure.—(Hear.) Mr. FAGAN contended that no insult bad been offered to the country by the Pope of Rome, for it was quite clear that no insult was intended. The object which the Pope had in view was altogether of a spiritual nature, and the step taken by him was intended for the spiritual government of the Roman Catholics in this country. He was corroborated in his opinion that no insult had been offered to this country by the opinion of an English Protestant bishop (the Bishop of St. David's), who distinctly stated that no insult was intended. — (Hear, hear.) So far as the present measure had a ten dency to infringe the great principles of religious liberty, he should feel it his duty to give it every opposition. Colonel SIBTHORP considered the observations of the Hon. Member for Oxford quite premature, when he pronounced a enlogitua eta the Idoblo Lord tuid thauked him for his letter to the Bishop of Durham. He looked upon it at the time as a Jesuitical, hypocritical produc tion—(Laughter)—intended as a sort of clap-trap to catch both sides of the House, and so it had turned out. The Noble Lord first endeavoured to get the support of his own aide of the House; bat from what had taken place it appeared that the hen the would receive e more opposition than befor e. W Noble L ,rd brought in the Bill, he determined to giv him a fair trial; but having been deceived, he should e now feel it his du: not to support the Noble Lo rd. w. , uld take no part in the matter. and endeavour to re vent himself f3.m being caught in a snar e.—(Laug totba ) And he should adopt a similar course w ith respect Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget; for in its amended sh,pe,tike the Pao! Aggression Bill, it would most likely tom out nothing at all—neither satisfactory to the pub lic generally, nor b.neticial to any portion of them:. Th , only comedy for the present disas trous position et affairs was a dissolution of Parliament, wh ich would gir the people the opportunity of expressing their attaci!- merit to the Throne, and their determination to maintain the constitution of the country in Church a nd State. Be must express his detestation of the political cowardice and hypocrisy of the Government, and would say " b ! a shook' Llrd def,.nd our gracious Sovereign from their dvic. —(Laughter.) if the Whigs continue is office. be for expect to sea the Pope, not in the Crystal Palace, ho was determined not to go there—(Laughter)—bf at, tri . w to DaNning-street, and very likely a great Lo t h ente r ion o secret service money might be appropriatedp to tainmentauhter.) e F s r e i 'e ,u o y nd .—(L ne r x ea g t. ding of the Bill was then adjourned u APPOINI:MENT OF A VIOE-ORANCET4I4°3 BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL m oved the second reading of this Bill. f r am ing Mr. J. STUART suggested the propriety of the Bill so as to repeal the 2lst section of the sth Writ', which prevents the appointment of a successor ito: Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The ground on which )3_B. made the sut:g•Aion was, that if by any unfortunate 6° cideut the public should be deprived of the V ice Cb e i li n p ; cellor appointed und , r this Act, there might be the or suppl) trig the deficiency without cowing tor ato P " Act ot . After P a few arliament words from the ATTORNEY...GE°. the Si i r ne ,G lo E su O r ß e RAL the Bill G was read a second time neu. to at E ce G rta ß in EY lan b d r s o , u i g u ti p t u i r tt an t ll report of the Inelosure Commissioners. e lne The House then adjourned at a Qua rter befor of until Monday next. s a b ub o o i r x i s ak e 11 et SHIP NE WS. GRAVE/WIN MARCH 7.—Wind N.W., LOP 611 e" fro Arrived— Caledonia, from Hamburgh ; 13onsparte, 1,10. kloador ; Ernestine, from Pillau ; Southaroptokrfr°,la„,ol; York; Ottawa, from Callao ; Isabella from ru°7f r l oat Thetis, from Rostock; Seine, from Boulogne; Tegrie"voiat ur Christiania; Talavera, from Calcutta; Star, from 4 400 Ripley, " eux ; Families Haab, from Leghorn; Lisbon. Huntley, Sailed—Palestine, for Jamaica; Paradise, for Caicti o t r t e:l r l Pyrenees, o ea n n st e a r d ,f , o for o for ej r be .r B s2e w 4vy : . n Leghorn;R v e r j j • E i n S 9 l E a L t . 3 s S o r s oAl l if. 50 N , long. Marion shi . p, outward bound, Feb. 24, in lat N. noun* Carl brig, of Hamburgh, from Rotterdam for SC. 4 Feb. 20, in lat. 49 N. long. 6. Feb• 8 avLiaddymEallcizolambe,thitorferi3oAratbo; Charlotte,., x0ng7.111411V.. in the Gut of Gibraltar. of Guernsey, from Cagliari for Rio Janeiro, Parthian, standing for the W.S.W., Feb. 24, in let. 48 SI La Bute, from London, Feb. 20, lat. 44, long. 7 W. long. 11 ' A Mary Somerville, from Liverpool for Calcutta ealn e " l c) Clio, from London, fur Barbadoes ' . Bombay, ' . from Marseilles for Guadeloupe, f eu ' ' Gibraltar.g in lat. Schooner. Edith, from Liverpool, bound out, F eb 'F eb • ' 49 N., long. 7W. , Feb. 9, 2 0, WI C ' Gratitude, from the Clyde, for Moulmein, Dgc• 87 E. ;ji let. 4° Dido, from London for the Swan River, Nov. 19, - In !at:42oli "•00 _ _ S., . long 52 E. Nonpareil, from Liverpool, Feb. 15, 48 Nlt 33 W . in li lt ' 51 Leonidas, from Mery Orleans for Havre, Feb. 2uo N., long. 11 W. Tartar, outward bound. , eSV i • 50 Benjamin Watt, outward bound, Feb. 2 4, i n lat. ,On . Concord, lg. 44 of Brisham, Feb. 24, in lat. 47, t o at ' In Blanche, from Loudon for St. VincVincent's, Feb. : N., 13 Ve . 7 i ii ' Zephyr, for Dominica, Feb. 24, in lat. 48 N., long' i ne• s o so . Druid, of Liverpool, for Africa, Feb. 2, in lat. bl Fingal, from Liverpool for Valparaiso, Ja n ' 22, 011 t 95 4116 M i a7y l ll ' irt ' f l o; Cuba, - March 1, 'n 47 N 8 Vir. : 3, ll : a ss r ti, l a e dl s id K bs. err, from Moulmein, Fe l— b. 20, off the West Yeollia,n, bound d ring west, Feb 14, in lat. 43, ti a i z u - l i l ., e t fr,: s m 1 a w t. e d s' , Shields, f l y Feb. g r . 0 2* 1 ' d l ' es . i Odessa, , lot.on 5 the o 1° 1 '121711. 41°3;2;°br°81.1' Ebenezer,. 3 0, I°"g. 'O. h of r e. Barque 1 r tt .r t. ° 3 7 , bruary, t J ur er t s h ey e , CfoarpePoefrnGamoohdulcio,,poenant;_l_9lfrodcao ply 1 , 0 'bt he 3 nill o a f f l o N r o s v .) eztir .: tihneßsaannlce,idSaytraits. Catherine, '— Thomas 131,.. th, from the Matir.this for Cork, _ cember, in lot. 35, long. 14. the 17-tb °f per Samuel, from Belfast for Australia, on the 2 8 t h °f in lat. 20 bo_ n od. N., long. 20 W. Norah Creina, of Bristol, the 3d instant, out or - ' SEABORNE MAILS. er g rell t4l [N signifies that the mails are sent from the, aell by the night—and Al by the morning—dispatch..l When made up in PLACES. General Post-office Loudon. , i ota * Wb eil due. P°r jclafd• Pa sar cu i f Marl, d MAO; idar c h ' IS, N ot. PAU I4 Feb' g i Feb' Var c- I srhmat.- to I ,rd' , r s Afi Tu.rc4 90 mac h Twice 4 lo Di— . 0 a 20_ b " . 0 g vo o; id , I 1 30 r ,4, 3 5 3Lar- America a a (by y Brit. p p k k t t . 141 ) N 3 1 1 r a a r r c ch h 2114 ..• ••• , 11 .,, 1 : 1 7::::p li t .. . • Liverpoo • America (by US. pkt.) M March 25 • • •• —, - Mouth Alexandria* litt,ca (West coast)•- N 14th of the month 'PC' __ .. Bel g ium "..•• N Daily • "°YeL t Brazil • •h SOUthAMP • • • • •• Al 9th of the 111 20 u7 e „ oi nanipt. Buenos Ayres .. .. M 9th of the mouth ''' in t. Calitornia(vlaChagr \ ea, M 17th of month ,Southa p.. 'Plymouth Cape of Good Hope N 14th of Channel Isles .. .. N Mon., Wed., month n vet* Constantinople* .. • • N 7th 17th 27th of trio .-• 0 pt. —•'• • • • N 19th & 30th of rao. Dove,. Central America .. M 25 & 17th of mon. Southana _ • Chili .. „ .. . M 17th of the month Southall:lP!. France .. .. !Dover . M& N Twice daily • • • • Greece* .. .. .. *, 7thl7th27th °film Dover :. Hamhurgh .. .. N Tuesday & Friday London Rolland .. .. „ N Wednes. & Satur;Londonnip: Honduras .. .. . N 17th of the mouth'Southa _. o v . Ireland .. .. M& N Twice daily .. •• I Holyhea u t. India (via Southamp.) 31'20th of the rrionth'South‘wr.. & Fri.'SouthareP. India (via Marseilles) N 7 th& 24th of month Dover Mediterranean (via 1 Southampton) • • 3.120 th of the month , Mediterranean (via I 1 • • Marseilles) .. .. N,7th& 24th of month over ___,.. Mexico .. .. .. 31 2d of the month..lSouthaTfi. Madeira .. .. .. 31,9 th of the month 'Southituw Malta* .. .. br r 7th,11th,19tb,27th,1 Dover & 30th of month 13 r " Naples* .. .. .. Nlsth 15th 25th °fin° Dove Routh Papal States* .. .. N'oth 15th 25th of mo Dover __.s. Peninsular.. .. .. 31 7th 17th 2 7th of mo Sontbaw,'„ P e ru • • • • •• .. II 17th ut the month ' Southao4. Tuscany* .. .. .. N sth 15th 2 5 th of mo Dover pt . , West Indies .. .. M 17th of the month 'Sou t • West Indies (except 0' Havanna & Nassau) Mi 2 d of the month .. Sou. l,o — e tfv. * The mails to those countries thus marke d () '''' old French packe vf R Marseilles. A sd_,, gi ° l* enc . u. IV The mails for Brazil, Buenoq Ayres, and in 3l efo•— 21 made up on the morning of the 10th of MATCI I I . the 9th falling en a Sunday - s pre' _ 11 0 ore o 11 ard` at " gw-,„ 12 1.1 1 7, 6 1.1 10 , c 4 1 0 P r o 1 9 gar „ So 11 01.. , it ti 10. - bl -----__ .._ ip , k. e r i , itALL WA Y SHARE MAL v— sod BRISTOL, MARCO 7. _. s et/v . l lO l l STOCR EXCHANGE. —Th e mar ket contiol l .- are a 6,.,41 prices t m. except for Great Western, wb ien to ilow: 4 0 01 11 " lower. The transactions to-day were as dis.*"' or tsall 40—Vale o 9 f l Western, N 'A? eat D h, itt: .,:., New 171. • Shares , Eastern and Dover, 27 1 A,—T tff Vale, 1:0--•"-- ilia. to' V t.l V 14'.:1P001., MAROS 7• as gest .7 The STOCK EkCHANGX.—The share market w priae l " Cl l ' 146 rfitto , 4° day, and a good busines has been done at dr° 001too•000 transactions were tv. follow : - Aberdeen, . I,s46 :l;cioals ° ,' LAO' therm ; and West Yorkshire (No. 1), 64 ' 7 1.4 "-P 'F ilt°°' Ditto, Preference, 6 3 / s Eastern CoUntier, itto,4dob. °" ll ire, 1 7 !,,,, —l,olcashir — e d Y is h ire b'L ' t b 5n4 — O r an. or 5 I' os_p 6 1 1 , —Leeds and Thirsk, 17% Liverpoo., Cr , qi , i , ..- , r _ O , port, a , c . chest , r, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 35,1 . . iv „ ' l3 4 s ar itisb , ita p—London and North- W 11 15-6 c.—Midlaud, 6514 —vit to, I ' 37 _ Nortb,N die' esite 7;;t; F r eft d e is- P .-". Ditto, Consul. (Birmingham and 1 -; )° ,, b Y, a i , Western , A go tern 94a ..- North ;! , tatfordshire, OA cli:'. ---- '',' 54 .—oloti r shrea rs " Shrewsbury and birmingham 0,/,', ~,,i, 27ze -- d Lita_ h e • anti Dover, 27%—York and North 411"‘V,i'terford and $O O P h bury, Oawestry, and Cheater, 12 1 4 ---," ° s o rtb ' rick, 15 3 4 Dutch Rhenish, 476 ell s *" Wales, 3 1 4. tas (I°n° .av elt 7 ' busio ( 1.. MANCHESTER, Dl fair , eta 11 ' 4 "° STOCK EaCHANGa.—There has been s etioo s i' bite, Pref .°. to-day, and prices were firm. The teat LanCSl3,OOO d eeds low : - Caledonian .Preference, 6 1 / 4 — ) ; 33 34 ---, I , -Lee' s ence Quarters, 7 11-16 - Ambergate',./..1), U / 9 . 4 ., die' and ' Carlisle, Thirds, 10 p.—Clitheroe 4 t u to 201-, A 0 3 01 1 1 Stock, €or% -. Ditto, Fifths, 63/ 4 dis. -„,P., ilicliog . „ o so ° —Sheffield Stock, 35 13-16 dis.--.3v e'dis..-L00"......pitt0 5 7- . 6 dis.—North Staffordshire , North-Western, 132—Ditto, 'New Quarb.re 171 Ad, '7V I (C), Quarters, 3V s p.—East Lancaso bite, Eastern and Dover, 27%—York and NT r 4" 643 ters , " P. Sou tiY Eastern Counties, 7 1 4 - Caledonian, 134- „ We e'. BIRMINGHAM, lgAlto l s to-dal DittO STOCK EXCIIANGS. —The only transal;. 9 d. dia.' Shrewsbury and Birmingham (AN 41 ' (B), 3 , 3 h dia. ORK, INfascil t day i4 rnisib - ‘zues , ExcuarroK. —The bo ng trSIISac f or f0110w 34 : o — re Lancashire r a n n , and Yorkshire, Fifths , v 74 .1 1 / 4 00 14 ference, 9. 18% —York and North . diii /*do OF A SOIL , o 0 001. _. o Oa the sth ininsst , tat at t Brig he hton Lady Londesv o On the sth ~ Vicarage, Aldeburgh, P' Mrs. Henry T. Dowler. wile OM A DAIIGIIT IM gent, the On the sth inst., at Harrietshara Rectory, ofC lo t d h e e Braddon, Revjti E. s ß c .. Riddell. A, 0 Wi ll° i. f On the 4th inst., at Sutton, Surrey, the 4 - '"v - f '7 10.4.F.8LVD• b chur ch j I. On the 7th inst., by special license, in the paris „, it, . St. Andrew's, in the county of Middlesex, by the : 1 4 0 0 Toogood, Mr. Thomas Ryley, of Mickleover, hi '''' ~g 4 of Derby, to Matilda Wade, of the same place. _, 110. - 0 On the 4th inst., at the Catholic Church, ChelserPeire, te Berkeley, Esq., jun., of Spetchley-park, WorcestP '1 ri ft 00 ' Catherine, youngest dau,_ffhter of the Lion. Colonel I* and niece of the Earl of Ke , imare. the Vd tt. On the 4th inst., at Christ Church, Mary thir d , oi l_ Stewart W. Hamill, to Frances E. C. Blagrave, thqrseroce• ter of the late C. G. Blagrave,Esq.,of the Bengal LW' DI.E.b. On the s th inst., at Ro p e-hill, near Lytnirl gari, gtoO, i bire• DuenbartoP .. D o odt wife of J .M. Garts hore, Es q ., of Gartshore, on the sth inst. , Mr. Thomas' a vi,, of Harleyford 1 Vauxhall. Ey re, E0_..... ,( 1' On thtltl2±lteton-eltufelll...2:_f__"•%- -' - i --. _ - Oa • London: Printed and Published by MURDO YO , 09, No. 112,. Strand, Printer, at The Saps Office , l'' • : i ty 0 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in 11011 t ic 4°- 110110 w, Saturday, ?larch 8, lehl. 4 I ,_ThAt Of I OD WE F rom let t' : TII St ati n o d, tt n • ' etuni