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

o Tny years been in a. bankrnpt state. A great number egdebentnres had been issued by the company, and the ect of this Bill would be to render them entirely va lueless, except where the h o ld ers o f them chose to become proprietors. He, therefore, hoped the House would not give its assent to so unjust and monstrous a proposition. The Honourable Member moved that it be 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 aver 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 Fo into Committee, in order to give opportunities for investigation. Mr. G. C. LEGII opposed the Bill. The House then divided, when there appeared—. For the second reading Against 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 prayieg 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 pet' , 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 he 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 bad given notice. CHANCERY REFORM. Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice that it was his intention to bring in a Bill on an early day for a reform in the practice of the Court of 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 expensesof 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 head 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 Kafir 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 regard to the commencement of the war? Mr. HAWES said, as soon as any dispatches were received they would be laid on the table of the House; but he might observe that he 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 dispatch 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 liaars.—(Loui laughter.) Since that date Sir H. Smith, with that cha racteristie gallantry, skill, and courage which belonged to him, had emancipated himself frm all his difficulties, and gallantly cut 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 chairmsn cf the Excise, Sir John Wood, had received an increase of ‘OOl a year, in addition to his salary of 2,0001? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if the Gallant Member would treive for the necessary mi nute on the subject, he .would be glad to state the rea sons why that increa se tad been made. CEYLON. In reply to Mr. BAILLIE, Mr. HAWES said he would lay the rtpott of tho Royal Commission on Ceylon en the table of the House to-aight, and it wcuid 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 i f Ow county franchise to 101. 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 2d of April.—(Cries of "The let of April," and laughter.) MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. On the motion that the House on its rising adjourn till Monday next, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said,— Sir, in rising to move that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday next, I will make the statement which I promised on Monday last. My Right llon. 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 been 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 L.,) public business has been transacted, it is most desirable that we should proceed with as little delay as possi_lo, 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 opßosed to the Bill, to go into Committee on an early say after reading the Bill a second time, supposing that the House ihould 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 r umber of men required in the srmy, as the House is aware that the Mutiny Bill expirks on till 20th of April, and the Easter vacation intervenes before that day. Ido not pro pose to take any vote on account of the Income-tax until Mondry, the 24th, and on the Friday preceding, that is on the 21st, my Right Hon. Frit nd 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 fn. the second reading of the Bill, Mr. STUART presented a petition against the Bill from the Bishops of the 2 .celesiastical 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 petition against the Bill from the R - )man Catholic 3 of Wales. Dr. POWER presented a similar petition from Cork. ir• REYNOLDS presented a petition to the same effect signet by 6,000 of the Roman Catholic inhabit ants of St. Mary's, St. Thomas'e, and St. George's, Dub lin. On the motion of , :he Hen. 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 Roman Catholics of Yorkshire. mr. o'CONNELL presented ten similar p e ti t i ons from places in Ireland, and praying th a t th e revenues o f to the relief of the p oor. the Protestan t Church might in f uture be appropriated Mr. A. GORE presented a petition to the same effect from Sligo. Mr. CAYLEY pr esented two si m il ar petitions from places in the West Riding. Lord JOHN MANNERS p resente d a petiti on to the the same effect from the Roma n Catholics of Col c h ester. Petitions were then presented by mr. . Cardwell, from Liverpool; by Mr. Clement, Mr. Leonard, Mr. B ennet and Mr. Roche, from the county of Cork; by other members from the county of Down; hy , phili p Howard, fr om Dreier, signed by upwards of. 3,000 of th e artz u t s labourers, and other members cf the community or Exeter. (Some amusement vt , as occasioned in the House, and not a little la'ughter, by the lion. Member going to the wr ong side of the table to give ) is petition to th Clerk of the fleuse). The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. GRATTAN presented a petition from several thousand pe(.p:p in Ir , iand to the same effect. ,Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from Cl 6 per sons of conditi,:n and character who desired to re sist the Papal aggression. They Exprcs4d a strong hope that the officers of Government would resist this agression ; yet, while expressing this hope, they at the same time said that the last thought in their minds was to oppose anything like a barrier to the progress of civil and religious liberty. Mr. MOR.GAN JOHN O'CONNELL presented pe titions against the Bill from the Roman Catholics of Listowell and several other places in Ireland. Mr. MILNER GIBSON presented a petition fro m 13,000 inhabitants of Manchester against the BilL THE SUN, ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL. The order of . the day for the second reading of this Bill having been read, Sir G. GREY then rose and said,—Before I proceed, in pursuance of the intimation mane 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, as 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 :netted 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 vernment 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 dis cussion, 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 the 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.) In 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 assumed 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 leaat in matters of affecting their privil ges, can have the force and ffect 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 tho existing law.—(Heir, hear.) The titles derived from the Court of Rome would be borne as openly tied 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 full 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, in addition to • assing the resolution, Committees were to be appointed, does the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Man cheater imagine that no discussion would e.ri:e upon the ousation of whether the Committees should be appointed et all in the first place; that no discussion—and discus stens too I must say of a delicate nature, which it is de sirable as istr asposaible to avoid—would take place with regard 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 an earlier period than we are likely to get through the different stages of the present Bill.—(Hear.) 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 Roman Catholic religion on the one band, 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 are 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 not prepared to say that the law with respect to the relations of the Roman Ca tholic subjects of England to the State on the one hand, and to the head of their Church on the other, are in a satisfactory state—that while I think it would be inex iient to throw the question open before a Parliamen tary Committee for an indefinite time, I am not pre pared to retract what I then 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 placed on a better and more satisfactory footing.—(Hear, hear.) The next sugges tion which has been prt ssed upon Government is, that Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Bill now before the House —(Hear, bear.) 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, but 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 t weeu 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 ground of complaint; and they have consequently pressed upon the Govern ment to consider whether Ireland should not be al:ogether 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 tho 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 gieen'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 interfAT—tha.. if we receeded upon a principle of this kind, at the same time proposed to limit the Bill to one part of the United 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.) We 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, snd have been sanctioned ibre, 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 essentially different.—(Hear,constitutesthi re i s no usein cboenacre g bear.) And this, in fact, the fact—l have telt it all along myself it and I am sure ai l whom I now address have f e l t it— it whi c h const i tutes the ma in difficulty in dealing h a i s ch efficiently as we cou l d wish to do with the case to w Parliament. — (Hear, hear.) Iwnethnis Church " ask the assent of country, r h y i:v e h existed the bishops of the Roman Cath o li c C for two centuries as vicars -apost o li c; np till t!lyd— osieic I do not know what was the case a t an earlier to prio but I believe up till lately, her VicarS•ap werebled clothed with the episc o pa l character, and were enabled to perform every episcop al fun ction; the Rom an C athol i c religion was exercised to the fullest extent, with ou t l et or hindrance, and without any necessity for the state of things which existed in Ireland. lam prepared to con- tend, therefore, that in this c , nno . ry there ' lO pre , +;r e s of the Bill that can Mee, the .liguLe.t hotel hip.— (llear, hear.) In Ireland, however, I am not prepared to deny that, looking to some of the objections that have been made to the Bill, there does seem 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 injunice.— (Hear, hear.) I will explain this more fully shortly. But 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 those 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 enforc-d. All those spiritual acts which are capable of being performed by bishops. whether is Euglend or Ireland, are acs to which a willing and free obedience is rendered by the teembers of the Roman Catholic Church except in so for 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 pre s nt s h a p e , wou ld b e , to set aside and render void spiritual acts, such as are neces sary to be performed by the bishops of an episcopal communion. —(f-fear, hear.) Then again, with regard to the third clause, it has been stated over anti 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 Eeation 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 order to see that not one of the provisions of the Bequests Act is touched by the clause even as it now stands. The terms of the 7th 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 Iceland 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 preduce any such effect; but it is probable it may do so indirectly. I admit that such was not the original intention cf Government, and we are anxious not to ge beyond the views which we entertained when we originally introduced the Bill. On a former occasion allusion was made to the ordina Lion of priests, and to what is called the "collation of priests" in Ireland; and it was objncted that the effect of his Biil would be to render such spiritual acts invalid; because it is alleged —and I believe with truth—that under the terms of the Bsquests Act it may sometimes bo necessary to give evidence of ordination and colla tion, wiih the view of esteblisbing the right of parties to bequests thet may have been made to them; and e`rat 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 ho 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 agaiest 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 °emir, as Cases have occurred, under the Bequests Act, where a bequest is left to an ecclesiastic of the Church of Bume,having pastoralsuperintendencein that Church; where the deed or will granting the bequest contains the name; of a Roman Catholic priest of a particular place or congregat ion; that a question may arise in a court of law as to the right of the priest so named to the bequest ae against a third party who also claims it; and that in order to the settlement of the question he is required to show that ho is an ordained priest of the Church of Rome, and that he was collated to the charge of that particular parish. This Bill, it if alleged, under the operation of the second clause—and I must 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 nor, 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 B. Sngden's decree:—" The sums left to Roman Catholic charities in this case exceed 30,0001. The he quest in the will of the tettator was to the Most Rev, Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and the At at Rev. Dr. Kelly. Roman Catholic Arch bishop of MAID, and their successors in the slid respec tive sees f_g the time being. The bill was filled after the death of Dr. and Dr. M'Hale was made a co plaintiff with Dr. Murray, as the successor of Dr. Kelly in the see of Tuam; and the fund was administered in rhst state of the record." The will aas made is 1834, subsequently, therefore, to the clause in the Act of 1829 to which I have referred.—(Neer, hear.) lam told that hat is rot a solitary case, and that there are other cares in which, in accordance with the general practice in Ire lend, those have been considered good trusts. There was e case before Lord Manners, but that was before the Act f 1829, and therefore no objection was made to the de tignation 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 is 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 realest, and to uphold the independence of the country—(Rear, bear)—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.) aettr the best consideration which we can give to this case, we have thought it our duty, as I have already sated, to persevere with this Bill, holding it essential that there should be a declaration 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, are about to be interfered 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 law are to be in practice placed in the way of their applying their property t o t h e 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 Int et the particular cases to which I have referred; hot after giving the subject all possible 'consideration, wo have cane to the conclusion that by a t tempt i cg ainendments of that kind we might only be raiting new points of discussion, end giving occasion for new o b. js:ctions not yotntarted, and might after all not com pletely effect rte objects we sincerely and honestly have in view. Under these circumstances we have come to the conclusion, that if the House, after hearing m y statement, shall agree to the sec nd 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, a nd a laugh.) , With regard to the fourth clause, that is wholly ancillary, and a corollary to the second and third clauses; and, there fore—igfhe remainder of the sentence was drowned in the laughter which arose in the House.] I have r......s.vnt.r, r nßnt Ftitpa ; 11 -7 1 , to advise wig COUrbe, and gt. di no .4 , ouy it ,V tV,a(l6 Ail reference 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 be, to the prohibition contained in the first clause, will not be worthy of the occasion, and not justify th e ex p ec t a ti on o f t h e country. —(Loud 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, ere not, to be borne by persons claiming authority in this country.—(Hear, hear.) It will be a national protest against that ast—a national declaration that the autho rity assumed is one which Parliament will not allow to be exercised.—(Hear, hear.) When it is state d that this is so inefficient 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 those 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 Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland to use those titles in letters of ordination, and it is alleged that it is neces sary fur them to do so, because in those documents the authority must be shown under which the acts are per forinej; but ostensibly, in their communications with the Governmeeo in approaching the Toroue or the Legisla ture, there Las been a respect and an obedience to the law—(Hear, hear)—and that law has not Leen 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 iu England it this Bill be passed, because I believe the Roman Catholic subjects of her Majesty will defer to this law.—t Hear.) °My 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 in the body of the address or in their signatures any title prohi bited to them.—(Hear, hear.) Cesrtsinly, 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 hie 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 teats 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, aneproperly, 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 01 attachment to the Protestant faith which the members of every Protestant denomination possess—(Cheers)—and to which they have given utters anee 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—(Hear, hear)—coupled. as it no doubt will be, with the iuoreased diligence and activity of Protestant ministers in their respective spheres—(Bear, hear)—armed, as I believe, with the armour of truth, to resist that spiritual aggression with which they have been threatened.— (Cheers.) But, le• - foie I sit dawn, I will advert to a question put by the Hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswalt)), 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 noshing 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 :bat I believe those bishops, designated as they are in an Act of Parliament—the first Act of Parliament recog- Dieing them in their episcopalcharaver, 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.—(l - lear, 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• nibn in Scotland from any penalties to which they might be subject under the Bill, I should feel it my duty to provido 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.—(Herr, hear.) There was an observation made by the Honourable and Learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), who charged me with presenting to her Majesty an address 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 seen 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 brriught t) me signed by 3,000 or 4.000 of the members of that society, in their individual capacity; it was an 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. Atter 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 ahetild 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 my they 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 awofficial letter to him, wishing it to be expressly un derstood that in laying that a dd ress b e f ore h er 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 (Mr. 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 lead to debate at present, because if we are to postpone the second reading of this Bill fur a week, it is desirable that we should not now be involved in .a long and protracted discussion, which must again take place on 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 verament proposed to make out of that which had been read a first time, was certainly not calcu leted 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 instil' 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 bad a private letter from the Prima Minister to a pre. 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 tiye had in truth never shown the slightest intention to fellow 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. But if the Executive had failed in their duty, the task of rupdling e teals insult h a d f : ll en en the Legislature, an d he coos elyed that the p resent measure, wh i ch was proposed f ur the purpose, was v, ry far from 'thing sufficient to uphold the dignity of the Crown. The Right Hon. Baronet would have to expla i n to the H ouse h ow i t would be possibl e to secure the prohibit, under p ena l t i es, the assum p tio n of titles by persons to whom, un d er those ver y titles, b equests country i from nga Bill to further assaults o f t hi s nature by passing might legally be made for the purpose of maintaining those titles. He threw out this suggestion for the con sideration of Government before the Bill came again under discussion. Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to set himself right in - regard to certain allusions which bad been made to hiin 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, he himself having no wish to legis late in the matter, therefore he could not have any desire to inquire. But this ho would say, that if they were to legislate, they had better legislate with infor mation than witbout it. He was -glad to see that there was a near approximation to the proper stage of doing nothing. Sir R. H. INGLIS concurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman that they were doing nothing. The Bitl 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 Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord wrote a splendid letter to his country, but he bad weefally failed iu 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 nirepence in the shilling, he was not now prepared to take less than the whole shillieg.—(llear, hear, and laughter.) Tho Bill was shamefully mutilated, so shamefully that it was nothing less than an insult to the country, a n d h e h a d n o d ou b t w h atever that if Government p ersevered in it, they would b e 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 he proposed to abandon, and he could assure him that unless the feel- Mr. BANKES—There had been no assumption 01 new titles in Ire land. It had been in this country. Lord 'I. RUSSELL—The questions referred to new titles generally. Tae Hon. and Learned Gentleman says the Government knew these persons had committed an offence at common law, which the Government migha but had not proceeded to prosecute. My answer is tnis, that the law officers said they did not think that ths as sumption of titles was contrary either to the common or the statute law; tend consequently the preamble of this Bill status that the pretence to establish sees or dioceses and titles is illegal and void; but it does not say that the assumption or tales is illegal. but inconsistent with the rights which we intended to be protected by the enact ment of 1829. It is evident that, after obtaining t at op alien, it would be futil e i n us t o or d er the law officers of the Crown to prosecute for what they declared we e not offences. 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 parpose of establi-hing these sees, that appeared to be an offence, I think, at con.mon law, but at all events against curtain 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 any other bull r rescript might be, any bull, for example, allowing persons to marry, or any other bull necessary for the due carrying on of the rites of the Roman Catho lic Church. He thought it would be an exercise of op. pressiou 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 objectianable, and which they considered it right to prosecute, that would be a dangerous discretion for any Government to exercise. —(Hear, hear.) Whether titans 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 of misdemeanour, 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, er 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 Rame, 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 with the Queen's sovereignty, with the rights of the bishops and clergy of this realm,and with the spiritual independence of the nation. 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 diffareut. It appears to me that, in order to meet that insult, the direct way is to introduce a Bill which shall forbid, and, if poss.ible, prevent the assump tien 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 in Ireland, and given in proof in a court of law, and the question of the assumption 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 tar obeyed that the persons thus prohibited to take titles do nut take them in any public document, and when they address the Crown, or servants of the Clown, 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 cone, ive 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 tight might be per fectly good, although the mode of proving it might re fer to acme 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 me e ti ngs o f t h e bi s h ops, an d prevent the use o f the titles. But it was f mod that we could not use words which would prevent that without at the same time pre venting the proper exercise of the spiritual goverii; ment of the Ram a n C a th o li c C hurc h . I n a foroli .. e .. debate I stat e d th a t if t h ere was any part o f this which interfered with th e re li g i ous lib erty of the Romilattni Catholics, I should be r ea d y to expunge it. The Noble and Learned Gentleman mentioned the Synod of Thurles; and I agree with him that the op acts constitute the princip a l d anger s which for the insult ch operations have to tions and fear. But while we p ropose to provide which bus been offer e d t o us , there some difficulty in The meeting this question of the synods. Attorney- General thought that by the use operation of the synod might be suspen d ed, appliedf tae to any a c t e we rd but " h a e c t a " f t t e h r e - wards considered that that might of otdirttion, and other acts an which come within the spiritual j u ri s di c ti o n of the I only wi s h gen tle m en to coneirm Catholic Church. I der the imperfection of language upon this subject. After much consider at i on, and after various attempts, we have found it impos s ibl a that whQi exactly ct we to use language of such a nature a what we w i s hed to prohibit, and decreesto prohibit may be m ore wished t o permit. Other gentlemen fortunate and may be able to point out to th e C rown what should be done. It is evident that Lord Stanl© has not been thus fortunate , because be has prop osed to have a year or two for the preparation of a m easure the subject. I will not say that by thi s , or b y any have now to propose, we are fr ee f rom the ü ß p il e l n which dangers to which the Noble and Learned Gentleman has a ll u d e d, that we are free from the interference of the LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 8, 1851. " ee e net e r—etee te. t/ lee telo ee) tr ; , IL:111 oe yeey gfeat, for they had placed confidence in the statement of the Noble Lord, and on the dcclaraticn 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 tho country was that the resigeation of the Noble Lord's Ministry had been occasioned by this Bill, and until he head it denied it was en opinion in which he would these : and therefore, though the modification of the Bill might please some parties, adherents of the Noble Lore, because it placed him in power, the people of the country had a right to expect some better explanation for the disappoint ment to which they would be now eubjected. —(Hear, hear.) The Sovereign must think that her prerogative had not been protected—that her rights, her eepreinacy, and her authority had not been well trusted in the hands in which they were now placed, when toia altered measure wee the only result ef the Noble Lord's letter, of the Noble Lord's speech, and of the Speech from the Throne, which her Majesty had been advised by the Noble Lord's Government to ad dress to Parliament. He (Mr. Banker) had on the first introduction of the Bill called the attention of the Noble Lord to the synodal action of the Roman Catholic vier archy, as exemplified in the instance of the Synod of Thurles. That, in his opinion, was the gravest ques tion in connexion with the matter—a body of prig ats sitting in judgment upon every subject, from mixed schools to tenant-right. The greate.t danger lay in that direction, in his oandon. • The Hon. Member then quoted a passage fn en a speech of Lord Liverpool, tie 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 Cs thobe claims, nowever, were conceded, and a common education was proposed; but the Synod of Thurles in terfered, and put an eed to it, as had been pro:Hetet' by Lord Liverpool. He (Mr. Bankes) complained tnat 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 alteratiuhs; 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 wss framed, discovered doubts and difficulties in respect to Irelane, 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 prosecuted 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 priuted until aft, r the second reeding. With regard to the clauses which we propose o 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 teisepprehensions of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bathes). The Hon. Member said it is well known that the assumption ef episcopal titles by prelates nu t o f t h e E stablished Church is against th-e law as it at present stands, and that the Govereraent faired in their duty in not prosecuting those persons who were guilty of this offence. Now, the statement I made in the letter to which he alludes was that the law officers of the Crown should consider the [resent 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 ac 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 /übstaece, and to which I adverted on a former cceasion. Mr. BANKES—Did they refer to Ireland? Lord J. RUSSELL—To the assumption of these new rf ' , 1100 p,opie in Ireiunc, attd watt 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 he right, even if it were possible, to prevent the meeting of bishops of the Roman Catholic Church for matters of :a merely spi ritu d wtjure.—(Hear, hear.) Bunposing there is a Roman Carbolic Church in Ir,iarid, arid a numerous Ro man Catholic violation, every one must wish that the Roman C.Ahnlio bishops should have the power of superintending the moral conduct of their clergy, and have the meti,:s (without calling in the assistatic.- of the temporal power) or prevent ing any immorality .htch might occur amongst the clrray. Ameri all, looking at this question with refer ' ence to temporal p-wer, lem without apprehension. I hsve no apprehensions with respect to this country, be cause the feeling of this country has I:Qeu shown so ge nerally altuost unanimousl;., in favour of our Prote,itant, faith, that I do not think there is any danger in Ero.itni. I cannot say it i 80 in Ireland. I cannot say vita :he Homan Cath4c pries::hood in Ireland may not tutier• fere seriously and mischievously in rnporal matters. The subject rt.quirt,s coosideration; ',And eve must see in what thanm , r toe Government ~f the Roman Sees and tho niAops Ireland tiro:, betor, we agre,3 to a measure upon lha.t suji ct. I ate of opinion that we ought to confine our , eiv , s in this Bill to it legislative measure which should assert absolutely the sovereignty of the (ICI. en. Mre NE WDEG ATEs did he conceived the real offence to be the sniffling of it cardinal into thie country, to con stitute a legislature not only for the ,pirituril but the temporal affairs of Rome. He believed that the powers and privileeea , of a eerdinal and legate were unknown ro most of chose who were about to legislate upon this question. According to a book which we uld be ;admitted to be an authority, " 'Phe Cu. to di Roma," printed at Marseilles in 1774, ail effairs—civil, eccle siastical and poli icel—were ceramitted to the bishops and afchbisteips; so that such men as Dr. Cullen would be exercising those powers in Ireland. In another book, " The Notitia Con, iegationum, ", prin ed in 1693, uader the head " De Previligios Cardinalium," 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 natio. s abroad England, !side a Church claiming fur its head a Queen who was interior to none, atter having four mouths 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 of feet 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 most met'. ficient state officer that ever held such a position; and on comparing the impotency ot this country with the poleficy of Rome, supported as her ate.hority was by French bayonets, 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 tittle 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 thet he no longer considered himself bound to support a measure which in his conscience he believed to be to tally inefficient.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. STANFORD said the Noble Lord must certainly feel disappoint, dat the reception which this paltry mea sure had feet; and it was a very had one when the Hon. Member f et 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 be her INl,jesty's; servants, it appeared that the old company was to appear for the second time this season on Friday next, in ‘• Papal Aggrefecion," a serio-comic drama, with the fifth act l- flout.—(Hear, and laughter.) After wh ch the Ilouse was to be iedulged with th, popular drama of " The Budget," the uhrivailed clown of the establish meat undertaking to jump clean through the windows— (Laughter)—and the entertainments were to wind up with toe • Crystal Palace." This might be a very plea sant programme, but he doubted whether the Noble Lord and his company would give any great satiaferetion either. , o the boxe-, pit, or gallery; and he would advise the Noble Lord to take warning Iv what befel Romeo Coates. The only part of the performance of that celebrated man which met with any applause was that in which he gave up the ghost.—(Langhter.) In enacting that part Ro moo Coffees was always celled upon to die again, and so , might the Noble Lord with res,ard to this measure.— (neer, hear.) But to treat the matter seriously. He had paid great attention to the speeches of the most eminent and distinguished statesreen, and it was univer sally admitted that it would be unwise and inexpedient to dissolve Parliament. He believed that all the Mem bers of the House would endeavour to support the Go vernment in getting through the hu,ibess of thecountry. and that no intention existed ot offering them any frac thus opposition. ther. , was no insurmountable ob stacle, except the financial ;dens of the Go vernment. It the Chancellor of the Exchequer would so modify his plin as to do justice to the agricultural class, by placing them in the same poeith n as persons in trade, estebltshing the principle that were there is no profit there shall he no tax; if he couli only du common justice to the trading interests of the country by reeking- a distinction between the sum levied on realiz d property and fluctuating incomes and mercan ode profits, he had not the least doubt that the Hon. ' Gentleman's financial and fiscal difficulties weald 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 th e 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 voz Dei had been illustrated it had been so on the present occasion; and he considered the measure of the Right Hen. 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 ieternational law; and this point was clearly raised by Vattel, who proved that the Bishop et Rome invaded the law ot 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 cases belli, and attack the Pope, for the policy of the Pope would survive whatever might be douse; but it was undobtedly right that Parliament should re-echo the sentiments of the people. Sir Ed ward Sugden 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 inadequate, and believed that it would cause the greatest possible dissatisfaction. fie thought it desirable to follow the precedent set in 1801, when Parli ament appo i nted simultaneous Committees . of both Houses, each having po wer t o communicate t wtt a.t i: the other, f or at t hi s t i me it was most necessa ry to into consideration the relation of Roman Catholics to the Constitution and the Sovereign.—(Hear. hear.) Lord oppo Mr. PLUMP IRE agreed reed with the N site that the proper mode of dealing with this subject was by direct gislation, for the e 0 1:- mittees feeuld lead t o a great dealappooitntdmeelz ofwithout Lord had characterised the proceed i ngs being productive of any good consteluencoofs.thre PopeNobales an a ll ) ? h t e h o o g g h h t t it g insolent ht to in acrd t i t n h s a if t i ious aggression aggressi on ; b y ieg a i n s t l i n i t i f , but the omission of to have done so in an effcatual . t W h a e , 31 13 . a i n l if would p as s ne utralise any the s g e e z d nd eff a e n e d t third i m rd ig c h la t haduhslewseot h e believ.ed the measure would (Hear, hear.) y The Noble blaewofinlititt s l e amendedpracticalwwtsaohhusui shape, e int ,. toyn t.o_t the Church of Rome, but heby this IL d Lord objected very properly to not proposesnrfdical action of to touch that syuodical action. soma trusted,f however, the Noble Lord would devise way meeting that evil, and also the evil reseuolotnintgrgyi.vf—reorsHaettiahsrre2„caltieoii.s)stioonTtnhoeef Papal bulls into p p e re o s p e le nt of uetry.—(Hear, hear.) The Protestant ra Romanp,rse uCtiantgholiceouenoturryi: r had no wish people of this count h to show a pe r . secuting spirit towards measure this T o coun trymen. Toleration was carried to were to its utm ost l imits. But the Pro testant people of this acquaint e d i n some meas ure with the character of th e Ch urch of Rome, both from the past hietory of the world and its delineation in Holy Writ. The Protestant people of this country would give the Roman Catholics free toleration for the exercise of their religion, bet 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 which she was a iming.—(Hear, hear.) 'the Protestant people of this country were a religious people —a Bible-loving people— who would not abandon their tight of private judgment; but they knew that the Church of Rume, wherever it obtained predominance, interfered with the right of pri vate judgment, and forbade the free use of the Scriptures, 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 moat deeply prize are greatly in danger, and therefore they had been most deeply and justly excited on the subject,—(Hear, hear.) He was afraid the Bill proposed by the Noble Lold would not satiefy the just e ti of the people, or the case esesca , . xpec a one "' 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.—(Elear.) Mr, FAGAN contended that no insult had been offered to the country by the Pope of Rome, for it was quite clear that DO 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 CathoLcs in this Country. He was cerroberated in his opinion teat no insult had been offered to this country by the opinion of an English Protestant bishop (th © Bishop of St. David's), who distinctly stated that no insult was intended, — (Hear, hear.) So far cis the present measure had a ten dency to infringe the great principles of religious liberty, he should fee-I it his duty to give it every opposition. Colenel SIB rtioßP considered the observations of the Hon. Member for Oxford quite peemature. when he pronounced a eulogiutu ran the Noble Lord and thanked YORK, MARCH 6. " , TOOR lEXCHA NGE. -Th e transactions tollow :—Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 4' 41/li ` rre f l e 3 r 4 ence , 9. Great Northern, 18%—York 3 A '- a nd North lgidlanut dit2Y'Lla OF A SOW. On the sth inst., at Brighton Lady Londesboroughtooo On the sth inst., at the Vicarage, Aldeburgh, P"'" Mrs. Henry T. Dowler. OF A DAUGHTE R. On the sth inst. at Harrietaham Rectory, Kent, th e Wlta of the Rev. J. C. B. Riddell. On the 4th inst., at Sutton, Surrey, the lady of 1 Clode Braddon, On the 7th inst., by speciaI MARRIED license, in the pari sh churcti. St. Andrew's, in the county of Middlesez , b y the Be* j Toogood, Mr. Thomas Ityley, of Mickle over, in the couri',, of t Drby, to Matila ade, of the same plce. ne the 4th inst., d at W the Catholic Church, a Chelsea. B obe o Berkeley, Esq., jun., of Spetchley-park, Worcestershire, Catherine, youngest (laughter of the Lion. Colonel Bro w t . and niece of the Earl of Ke mare. On the 4th inst., at Christ Church, Marylebone, the ' E I; Stewart W. Elavna, to Frances E. C. Elagrave, third dangicue. ter of the late C. U. 131agrave, Esq.,of the .13w)0 (jivn D; ton, Als.arl2 . On the s th inst. , at Rope-hill, near Lymin wilf he sth inst., Gartshore, Esq., of Gartshore, Dumbartoq._ol.l n t Mr. Thomas Davie, of Har le y ford Vauxhall. Bsq• On the 6th inst., at Bryanston-square , H. S. E y re ' g 01 London: Printed and Published by DIURDO YOtri-w, 119 i No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, o' Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the coPtY Middlesex, Saturday, March 8, 1851. ^a i,' - • !,. r A. The mails to those c French packe v;• Marsei 1..* The mails for An made ap on the morning t h e 9th falling en a Sunda SHIP NEWS. ' GuAVESEND, MARCH 7.—Wind N.W., light, fine. fro Arrived— Caledonia, from Hamburgh ; 13onaPii rte ' SO Mogador ; Ernestine, from Pillau; Southampton, Moulniferiouroi York ; Ottawa, from Callao ; Isabella, from Thetis, from Rostock; Seine, from Boulogne; T e g i noin Christiania; Talavera, from Calcutta; Star, Tram , ,, n . ler f r om Eureux • ' • , Families Haab, from Leghorn; 14 ' Lisbon. ipatts; Sailed—Palestine, for Jamaica; Paradise, for Ca. ores ; Pyrenees, for Swan River; Lady Elizabeth , f"„„„, s hay; Huntley, tor Leghorn • David 111 Malcolm, for Pv— , a Gleaner, for Jersey. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. Cronstadt, Feb. 24, in lat. 50 N., lon 1 1 W. ,:- IV' Marion ship, from .... ship, outward bound, Feb. 24, g in lat 50 .0., long. _.._ Carl brig, of Hamburgh, from Rotterdam for St. Tbeiol" Feb. 20, in lat. 49 N., long. 6. Feb• 8 Charlotte, of Guernsey, from Cagliari for Rio Jalleir ° ' in the Gut of Gibraltar. Parthian, standing for the W.S.W., Feb. 24, 48 54 long. 7 W. Lady Bute, from London, Feb. 20, lat. 44, long. 11. , Mary Somerville, from Liverpool, for Calcutta, same ol i i, Clio, from London, for Barbadoes . lat.'43 ' °llg. if , Feb. 9, inll o Feb.b - ' Bombay, . from Marseilles for Guadaloupe, Gibraltar. ' • lat• Schooner. Editb, from Liverpool, Feb• 26, In bound out, 49 N. long. 7 W. IoDB• Gratitude, from th Cl Dec• 20, e lyde for Moulmein, • 87 E. li t• 4° Dido, from London forte ' S River, Nov. 19, ill li Swan 0 S., long. 52 E. Nonareil, from Liverpool, Feb. 15, 48 N., 38 N V. ' : lat. 51 in lat. Leonidas, from New Orleans for Havre, Feb. 26, ' ll N., long. 11 W. Tartar, outward bound. Blanche, Brnj : ' ' Concord, of B;isham, Feb. 24, in lat. 47, long. g in lit. 44 Loudon< ch m e l , n l M ro a m ttoutward bound, 24, inFlabt. long• 8 lir. for St. Vincent's, e • , N., 13 W. D Ze ro p i li o 7, of fo L r i D ve o r m po in o tca f , or Fe A b iri 2 e 4 a: iFnelha.ti,4B N., 7 isi. lone k • - log' 5 W. daY OO Fingal, from Liverpool for J n• 22, out 3 5 - Valparaiso, a • in 1 S., 25 T. Mary .Harris, for Cuba March 1, in 47 N•, B W' IN' ter° , in ~ .t , he ea Charles Kerr, from Moulmein, Feb. 20, off , Islands. 32. Yeoman, steering west, Feb 14, in lat. 43, long b in ru l a a r t y . , 30 in , 1 1 : 4 . Bristol, bound west, Feb. 20, in Ist. 50, long. 18• .." bruali , Gazelle, from Shields, for Odessa, on the 12th of x a 5 1 , 0 1 . 0ng. 11. Ebenezer, from Jersey 191 1 % 0- for Pernambuco, on rho in lit. 51 .i. , ., f re. , r. nd 09 the Barque Trur ty, for the Cape of Good Hope an. , -- „,1 Air S T a h 3 em o e i m un a in lat. 35, long. 24 io. Sydney, x- th n , i bt.reor,mi thent h eB samei i hi n a c u a Straits.Maur tins f 0 r C C o a r k t 1: e t r h i n e e: . 7 - , i t h o f De Willao e ab l ts. , eforNß f r ',otn Belfast for Australia . the 28th 0- jail in Ist. 20 N , long. 20 f we , Norah Crei . w , on na, of Bristol, the 3d instant, out vlar d bound. SEABORNE MAILS. a r „ t .oses [N signifies that the mails are sent flvni the Goer by the night—and M by the morning—dispatch.] - When made up in From what IWO PLACES. General Post-office port dis- due• London. patched. _...............," ------- --..---- arch America (by Brit. pkt.)N March 14 .• ~(Liverpool. . M .. 1 6 America (by U.S. pkt.) N March 21 .. —Liverpool .. Marc: 6 l A ie le lg s l a u n m dria* .. ............ America (by US. pkt.) M March 25 .. .. iSoutbampt. !dare_ . Atrica (West coast)• • N 14th of the month Plymouth Marc.! is; N N I_ l9 ,i th ily & 3 . 0 . th . o . f mO. 'Dover .... D M 0.0.1 07 , Brazil _ . .. M 9th of the month Southampt. F e q 1 Buenos Ayres .. lit 9th of the month :Southimpt. Feb: 1 California(viaChagres)M 17th of month Southam pt. 11l Ar_!l t 3 Cape of Hood Hope N 14th of month ,Plyinouth• • $1 0 .7 .- 10 Constantinople* .... N 7th 17th 27th of m 0 Dover • • ~31 1 . a Central America .. M2d & 17th of mon. ,Southampt• ....'",00 Channel Isles • • .. N Mon., Wed., & Fri. Southarapt. Ta . ci i 40 Chili .. ..• .. . M 17th of the month !Southamp t. ; o I 'lllo l France .. .. 31 & N Twice daily .. .. 'Dover • ‘ , 1 •":„. r ) 10 Greece* . • • . .. N 7th 17th 27th ef mo Dover • • '' 0.9 x, Hamburgh .. .. N Tuesday & Friday 'London • • ‘ ,-`7, 6 .T hr, Holland .. .. Di Wednes. & Satur. London • • ~,,'":f e h 1' Honduras .. .. . N 17th of the mouth ,SouthaMPt• •°":,icedaw Ireland .. .. M& N Twice daily .. .. Holyhead • • ' .„7,icil gt India (via Soutbamp .) M 20 th of the month SoutharaPt• L' o ch 9 India (via Marseilles) N. 7 th& 24 th of mo nth 'Dover • • •°. Mediterranean (via 1 t P re' 19 Southampton) .. 31,20 th of the month ;SonthaMP • . Mediterranean (via 1 I h O3 garc / Marseilles) ... .. N7th& 24th ofraontk Dover • ' „arch ~4 Mexico .. .. .. 31'2d of the month.. I SouthaMPt• i i — grch '' Madeira • . .. 319th of the month iSouthanaPt• 10 Malta* .. • • N [l 7 & th 3 l o 7 t t h h o' l f 9 m tit 'll 27 th th Marc h • ' i ' } Dover - u IS Naples* . • .. .. N sth 15th 25th ofmo Dover • • ,d y e 1 2 Papal States . * .. .. N sth 15th 25th ofmo Dover • • ifarcp q v o reninsular.. _ .. 31 7th 17th 27th of mo SoutharaPt• "C,rafel l ;'s i) So o n y t e h r aruP . t . • .. c...i src sre: i s a - T P u eni scan . y .. .... .... .... 3 N I 5 1 t 7 h th n o t f h th 25 e t m ho o f n ra th o West Indies .. .. 31 17th of the month iSouthampt. o' M2d of the month IS thafilP- 0b- t_ 3 rch West Hay ann lnd a ie sc s N (e a s ss c a e u p ) t .nee !2d of the month . ountries thus mar. ales, Souther , 'Pt :ed (*) Ar° C be i and Madeir* co o v. :arch, in COrloeo zil, Buenos Ay of the 10th of vTo. RAILWAY SHARE mARK-a , . .0 4 BRISTOL, MARCH 7. a ctiv e , da STOCK EXCHANGE. --The market continues B C a s h e 91 1 A, - Ditto, New 171. - Share 7 s, o 2 prices firm, except for Great Western, which are -- o ' -$ E lo as we te r. rn and Dover, Western, Dtoravners,ac2t7ioiAnsTto-affday.yalwe,erle as folloW.....souar 40—Vale of Ne b st , 2L/v dis. to' LI PE .:P! MARCO 7. s teady to e STOCR R —X CITANGX.—The share market was - 1 ). 'cos. (11. , day, and a good business has been done at firm p! D oi tOO, wg,i transactions were as follow:- Aberdeen, 15 3 /4-- °nw, theroe,l _ and West Yorkshire (No. 1), 64—OM ...ast Loy Ditto, Preference, 6 3 / 4 Eastern Counties, 71a , . x ' tto, Fifilig' " and s° °tl3- eaehir_,e 17 l/2—Lancashir — and Yorkshire 6 ig -6 %—Leeds and Thirak, 17!/4—Lancashire • 1/ % - Liverp , ool' Crosby, a an 131 'A ••''' 00, port, :4- 8 c. p—London and North-Western' preforen Ditto,i _ ay... cliest,r, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire , 35.40; 11 15-16 c.—Midland, 6514 —Ditto Halv 7 es• Dror 3 th ° dits• titte is :Q uerterib Ditto, Consol. (Birmingham and De. ' by),: 3 .„,• -- tern, 11400 93. - North Staffordshire, 6% dis.—North- sv esso-iitkaghl.fiews -Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), 5:14 ,117 1 4 -- s' r— Linie and Dover, 27A—York and North Midlanwrford Ann sout h bury, Oswestry, and Chester, 12 1 4 —W a ll o rth O a 5% Dutch Rhenish, 4% dis. -- . rick, 1 Wales, 3 1 4. ~ dOn. MANCHESTER, Srocx CaccßAvou.—Tbere has been a I °' were ante.' to-day, and prices were firm. The transac tions as bire, P Mmircu r 7 : * r b u siness i . low : Caledonian .Preference, 6% —East Dw__ L a ncash u a ence, Quarters, 7 13-16 Ambergate, 3 % 1 , , 6 1 / 4 —L e c e ns , and Carlisle, Thirds, 10 p.—Clitheroe (N ° ' ' 20t, 16 • 0, Stock, €O 3 / 4 - Ditto, Fifths, 6% dis.—Ditto, ... ... vpio , R i ain6. A po —Sheffield Stock, 35 13-16 dis.--West di 5.61 5 7-16 dis. —No rth Staffordshire, 6% L s " -- 6 14 p-- -- t b. North-Western, 132—Ditto, New Quarters, ,....50U (C), Quarters, 3% p.—East Lancashire, 1 , 1 ,4 d, 27 Sr' Eastern and Dover, 27 6 4,—Y0rk and North follaul Eastern Counties, PA - Caledonian, 1 31- h• BIRMINGHAM, M.Ancir ' • &I we atO STOCK EXCHANGE.—The only transactions t() A ,....p,.. Shrewsbury and Birmingham (A), 41. 135. 9d. ` (B), 3% dis. IV Dir, ham. He luolt cd produc cpoa it at the time as a Jesuitical, hypocritica l tion—(Uarglater) —intended as a sort of clap trap te, cetch bath sides of the House, and so it bad tong' out. The Noble Lord first endeavoured t o get the suort of his own side of the Hou se ; but fro l whet had taken place it appeared that the 131 e 1 would receive more opposition than before. When th Noble L brought itt the Bill, he determined to giv! him a lair trial; but having been deceived, he shoals now feel it his duty not to support the Noble Lord. Ile would take no part in the matter, and endeavour o pre vent himself fr being caught in a snare.—(ugh And he should adopt a similar course with respect te,tb e f c i Ct , eincellor of the Exchequer's Budget; for in its sinew sh Ape, like the Papal Aggression Bill, it would most likely turn out nothing at all—neither satisfactory to the pub ' lw generally, nor beneficial to any portion of the ° , he only rem e dy f o r the present disastrou s p ositioo.te affairs was a dissolution of Parliament, which the peeple the oppol tutity of expressing their attrhe., tUP7It to the Throne, and their determination to mal e the constitution ot the country in Church and State•., ;co tslUCt express his dete,,tation of the political cowardice t r lt}d hypocrisy of the Government, and would say 7 ....ord defend our gracious sovereign from their ed" c fid —(Leingliter.) If the Whigs continue in office, be eh°'; or expect to sett the Pope, t:ut in the Crystal Palsee,ttin owcing-street, and very likely a would pr. B ho was deiericined not to go there—(Laughter)-Ilibt, taillfulieens,te.—(L: secret service money might be appropgrrieaatted"trotibuins °eat'er, ec l sajottre ) oi the until Fri, ay next. APPOIN I'MENT OF A V B I iI C I E w C as Ii ti L nCELI,O3 BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the see ° reading f this Bill. Mr. J. r suggested the propriety of freel ifig h the Bill so as to repeal the 21st section of the 5t- to toria, which prevents the appointment of a wool be Vice-Chancellor %Vigram. The ground on whi cu o . made the suagestion was, that if by any unfortuher,eho, cidect the public should this Act, be deprived of the Vice "' celior appointed und.r theremight be the:A:thee ot supplying the deficiency without comi n g for see' Act of Parliament. After a few words from the ATTORNEY-o°. RAL, the Bill was read a second time. bir GEORGE GREY brought in a Bill to OW/ the inclosure of certain lands, purs uanc e of the Bil report of the Inclosure Commissioners. The House then adjourned at a Quarter before Nine until Monday next. co 041