The Sun. — London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

S THE I not been much considered in its details. Adverting to the situation he formerly had the honour to hold, he might pro bahly be allowed to express his opinion as to the operation and effects of this Bill. It divided itself into two parts. The first part was declaratory of the existing law; the second, to a certain extent, enacted a new law. The preamble stated that divers of her Majesty's subjects had assumed the titles of pretended sees, under colour of authority from the See of Rome, viz., by virtue of a certain brief, that of September last. It went on to state that the attempt to establish such pre tended sees by the authority of the Pope of Rome was " ille gal and void." It further proceeded to " declare and enact" the usual words of a declaratory law, but such briefs being without the authority of the Crown, were illegal and void. It went on further to provide that all jurisdiction, all autho rity, all power attempted to be conferred by such illegal briefs, was also illegal and void. Now what was the point to be established? First, this was a declaratory law, and was the law correctly stated in it? Ho proposed to inquire into this point, and he was the more anxious to make the inquiry, because it was not until the Bill had arrived at its last stage in the House of Commons that these provisions were introduced, and were, consequently, not much dis cussed. He apprehended, too, tl at the bare statement of the facts would be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships that the attempt to create those pretended sees by a brief of the Pope was illegal and void by the law of England. What were the facts? A foreign prince of spiritual and temporal authority, issued an ordinance or brief, for the purpose of creating, or rather of dividing, the territory of au independent sovereign into various jurisdictions. He appointed persons possessed of ecclesiastical and spiritual authority to preside over those ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and his object was to introduce a code of laws unknown to this country, which we had indeed sometimes considered in this country, but uniformly repudiated. Another object was, that those persons might unite and confederate together for the purpose of passing any measure suggested or required for the purpose of their Government. This ordinance, or edict, was suggested and framed, not merely by the authority of the Pope himself, but by a council of foreigners—of foreign ecclesiastics. A person high in rank in that country, raised to the dignity of cardinal, but an Englishman by birth, came into this country bearing that title without the assent of our Sovereign. He took possession of the territory that was as signed to him—he was enthroned in it—and he published this ordinance, or brief, without the least regard either to the Parliament or to the Sovereign of this country. He (Lord Lyndhurst) now ass ed their Lordships whether such conduct as that was not in direct violation of the independence of the country? But the case did not rest here. It had been a part of the common law of England from the earliest time, that no see could be created without the assent of the Crown. That point had never been disputed.—(Hear, hear.) It was laid down as a maxim by all our legal writers. Had there been any alteration in the law since the period of the Reforma tion? None whatever. No authority over any part of the King's dominion could be exercised without the consent of the Sovereign of the country, or what was equivalent to it, the assent of the Parliament. But the case did not even rest here. What was the public law of Europe on the subject? The universal law was clear and express There was not a text-writer on the law of nations of any eminence who did not state in distinct and broad terms, that in no country of Europe could a see be created without the consent of its Government or of its Sovereign. And was the practice consistent with the law, as he had stated it? Per- ' fectly, clearly so he believed, without a single exception. Having cited the examples of Leo the Tenth attempting twice to found a bishopric on the frontier of Savoy, against which the King of France remonstrated, in consequence of which the briefs were withdrawn and cancelled; of Prussia, a Protestant country, where the Pope being desirous of founding a bishopric at Magdeburg and two other places, asked the consent of the King, and was refused per mission; of Belgium, where the revolution put an end to the concordat; of England, where the government of the Catholic Church had hitherto been carried on by vicars apostolic; and of a Protestant Swiss canton, where a see was founded with the permission of the Government—the Noble and Learned Lord said that these and all other instances of the kind clearly showed that where a country was in communication with Rome, or under concordat, or not under concordat, the practice of all nations was in strict conformity with the law as he had stated it. Now, he had mentioned these cases in illustration of the law which he had stated on the autho thority of the most eminent text-writers, and he repeated it again, that all the writers on the law of nations that had addressed themselves to this subject, uniformly and con stantly stated that no see could be established in any coun try without the consent of the ruling sovereign. But how did all this bear on the subject? First, the bare statement of the facts, as he had before said, might carry conviction to 'the mind of every sensible man, but this act of the Pope was a violation of the independence of our country, and, therefore, illegal and void. He hoped their Lordships would think with him that this declaratory law was sufficiently established—viz., that these briefs, as referred to in the preamble of the Bill, were illegal and void. Now, further, he did not mean to rely on the statute of prmmunire of Richard the Second. He agreed with his Noble Friend who spoke last night, that it was unwise and imprudent to drag from their obscurity obsolete statutes, and particularly obsolete statutes accompanied with such severe and heavy penalties. It was not only unwise, it was wholly unne cessary. For what was relied on? The general words at the close of that Act were, or were supposed, to apply in the present case. But he said, that if any act were done, coming strictly within the scope of those words, it would constitute an offence at the common law of England, and therefore be illegal and void. And though they might take the Act to enforce the penalty, it was not necessary to refer to it for the present purpose ; for if, by the law of England, it were an offence at the common law, it was of necessity illegal and void. In his opinion it was imprudent, indeed, and improper in the highest degree, to refer even to what was commonly called " Lalor's case." The observations he had hitherto made applied only to the first clause of the statute, and that was a declaratory law. Now, what were the ether parts of this Bill? A person who assumed the title of a pretended see, adopted the act of the person who conferred, and which being an illegal act by this Bill, a fortiori, it was illegal to adopt it. As the law stood at present, the prohibition could only be enforced by the At torney-General. That law had been in force for upwards of twenty years, and a violation of it—he would not say to what extent, had long been going on in Ireland. What, therefore, could be more unwise than to institute a prohibi tion and suffer it to become dormant from the want of pro per machinery to enforce it ?—(Hear, hear.) It was on those grounds, therefore, that he felt it necessary to adopt the ad ditional means provided in the Bill, for enforcing the penalty. He was a party to the Relief Act of 1829, and was satisfied, not only that it was a measure of justice, but that, consider ing the state of parties in that House, it was absolutely ne cessary. They were well aware themselves at the time of the poobable consequences of the measure ; but the question was of such a nature, and the sense of duty so strong, that they yielded to it as a matter of reason and justice—and he should never regret, for one, the part he had taken in passing it. The Noble Lord who spoke so well last night from the other side of the House, directed his attention to various Acts of Par liament, which, though necessary, he admitted, at the time they were introduced, had become, he would not say a shame, but certainly anything but a credit to the statute-book. At his request ke had referred the subject to a Commission then sitting on the state of the criminal law, and instructed the Commissioners to report to him upon it. with a view to ascertain how far those Acts might with safety be dispensed with. The consequence was that he expunged from the statute-book the greater part of those statutes, and in some cases the extreme penalties that were attached to the offences they were directed against. The object he had in view was to grant tolera tion to Roman Catholics, and a full participation in the rights and privileges of their fellow-subjects. This was his object, and he thought he had accomplished it. He was disappointed. Toleration had never satisfied the Roman Catholics; it was a principle, indeed, wholly alien to the Roman Catholic Church. What was its object but domina tion and ascendancy ? Its advocates and agents never flagged in the race until they had fully attained the object of their ambition. What they were 300 years ago, they were now, and would, probably, coatinue se. While he was favourable to a full concession of their rights, he still remem bered that toleration was not domination and upon that ground he took his stand, and voted in support of this Bill. The Roman Catholic Relief Act was much discussed at the time, and its provisions were adopted and approved by those in whom the Roman Catholics placed confidence. But what happened? An assumption of titles, and encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown, certainly not general, but very extensive, had taken place, and now demanded attention, The Noble and Learned L( rd then referred to the prohibition against the introduction of Jesuits, but that prohibition he said had been set at defiance, and there were in this country nearly twenty monasteries, established in open violation of the prohibition he had alluded to. The Roman Catholics had taken all that was granted to them, and had taken more, but in return they had not given a single thing they had promised.—(Hear, hear.) What had been the conduct of the Catholics in Ireland ? An Act of Parliament was passed for establishing colleges for the education of the middle classes of that country. Every care was taken to make these colleges acceptable, and that they should not raise any idea of a desire to make proselytes, and they were approved of by some of the best men among the Roman Catholics, yet what was the result? On the death of the late Catholic Arch bishop of Armagh, the names of three dignitaries of that Church were sent to the Pope, according to the usual prac tice, for the selection of the new archbishop. Yet these three names were set aside by the Pepe, and a stranger was chosen monk, he believed—to be Catholic Primate in Ireland. k When the new primate arrived, he convened a synod, which spoke by the mouth of the majority, and, as might be imagined under such circumstances, the decision of the synod was against the colleges. That decision was con firmed by the Pope, and all the beneficial intentions of Par liament were set aside. When they were talking of educa tion—of Roman Catholic education—he would refer to a work he had seen nearly 60 years ago, and had not seen since—he meant the Principia of Newton. Two Jesuits wrote notes on the Principia—very learned notes—and they showed that they knew very well the principles of the P:incipia, and the conclusions at which it arrived. They sa id, We have commented on this curious work ;we show what are the intentions and conolusions of the author, but it must not be conceived that we assent to those conclusions, or that we differ onehioeatar.f)romsutchhe doctrinesasthe reference to education. Ch h " (Hear urc . conduct f nd t u li c e t Catholic pursued havingthat in establishing the everything w as b lt y w t as hat t C o hubrechmatters n ind. new colleges done for the purpose of preventing them being turned into purposes of proselytising. Yet, the Catholics endea voured borne in Roman Catholic youred to appoint professors, and the object evidently was, to turn them out Roman Catholic colleges. The Government baying interfered, the priests took measures in consequence to withdraw the Roman Ca tholic children.—(Hear, hear.) As to what had been done for the relief of the Catholics, he approved of it, and if it was to be done again he would do it ; but not one step would he go farther to contribute to that domination which the Catholics aimed at.—(Hear, hear.) On that principle he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he trusted he had acquitted himself in the course he was pur suing, and had shown that he was not departing from those principles which he had before supported.—(The Noble and Learned Lord then sat down amid loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Lord VAUX considered that this Bill was infinitely more stringent than it was at first intended to be, and he felt sa tisfied that a declaration might have been framed with re ference to the formation of a Catholic hierarchy, which would have met the wishes of the people of this country, and have been satisfactory to the Catholic people.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord was understood to oppose the Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the second reading of the Bill. A Bill had been made, a totally different measure from that which the Government intended it to be, yet the Noble Marquis had not called the attention of their Lordships to that circumstance. It was clear that the clauses which had been introduced in the other House of Parliament would render illegal all the acts of the Roman Catholics in the ap pointment of their bishops, and, among other things, would annul their marriages. The evil effect of such a law might easily be anticipated. The only hope was that it would be permitted to remain what his Noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) last night hinted at—a dead letter in the statute book—as the 24th clause of the Catholic Relief Act had been allowed to remain since its enactment. The Noble and Learned Lord who had just addresSed them, said the exist- tiring to ind uce th e H ouse to pass a l aw w hi c h would Dinad- Jews to Parliament, was lecturing or travelling in Anierica—(Hear, hear) —and totally neglecting the inte rests which a numerous body of constituents of the Hebrew ?illusion had entrusted to him—(Hear, hear)—and who f"w came forward at this late period, after having re rained from giving his vote when that vote might have the great i n fl uence, and might have contributed to change ‘ue decision arrived at ultimately.—(Hear, hear.) Had the sense of the House been such as that they should have had a lar ge majority in favour of the admission of the Jews, his Persuasion was, that after having passed the Bill for that pur pose by a l arge ma j or i ty, w h en i t had one up to the to ou se of Lords th a t c i rcums t ance wou ld have disposed them Pass it, and if the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets l a.c k d other Hon. Members who now talked about religious ct tY had been there to assist them by their votes they viuu,i have con t r ib ute d somet hi ng towards that result. Th e n ° cd ' i un of promoting religious liberty and endeavouring to do Peßeq with the laws which interfere with it by attempting to ahl the law to a sense it would not bear was preposterous. I nanY years the cause of the Roman Catholics was rought forward by eminent statesmen, Mr. Fox, Mr. Can and Mr. Plunkett, but they never proposed they should 'dam them by changing the oaths, but by changing the 'or, and he had no doubt he (Lord John Russell) was pnr ;tiling te roper course on the present question. The Hon. eaaberh for Chichester had asked him if he would not ! I)° .atPone the close of the debate until the con tltueacy of Greenwich had presented a petition asking to be heard at the bar on the question. Whenever that petition was presented it would be the duty of the House to the to any p rece d ents w hi ch shoul d gu id e their conduct in e matter. But he could not see in that any reason, as the t c h or . w wood, why the House should not, on its own au h •• ltv decide the case before them as to whether or not e was entitled to sit without taking the oath of abjure r; in the form appointed by law. That House was b ta t-Y,_ competent to decide the question for itself. It would th his duty to bring in next session a measure to relieve c Jews from their disability, and it would be a matter for ßhin consideration whether that Bill should be exactly in shape of the Bill of the present session, or one 'ell should affect generally the oaths taken by Mem • fur he admitted, with the Ilonourable Member for ti t t,‘'lin, that they were in a very unsatisfactory state. But t • be said, that the relief of the Jews from their disabili- Was connected with the great cause of civil and religious es e „ a rt)? and he meant to persevere in the drie and ne tlaa, rY course of asking the assent of the House to 111 for that purpose in the bel:ef that if there e ev ° „ ul d be a considerable majority in that House in D e ' r ''' a r of the measure, and the voice of the country sup th ted that decision without any sort of nace or threat, ta : other House, arguing from their conduct s on other former e e aa h ares, would not further oppose it, and that they would th e ii . a .e to wait long before, in the due course of legislation, e b t should be passed. He would do all in his power to h, t a i ' s ct, in some shape or other, the passing of such a Bill, hi s " 11 would not vote that to be law which he believed in si cens cience was not the law. tid I..I3 ETHELL said that the Noble Lord's resolution de wed or affirmed nothing, and it would be a miserable re wasof all their deliberation to go forth to the people. It the Merely a piece of bad English, which would make I,,,ein s urprisingly ridiculous in the eyes of the . people. He g s'P d ed that, if the Noble Lord carried his motion with re to members of the Hebrew persuasion not being en „ e to sit and v t in that House until they had taken the ghatsat Prescribed by oe law, he would . add the words, " And tt be referred to a Select Committee of that House, in srder to ascertain in what form and manner the oath should p leai nicered."—(flear, hear.) Th e House then divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment of the debate ... 59 Agai nst i t ... •.• ... 207 Majority ... ... —l4B 0 1 1 our re-admission we found te nRIGHT urging upon the Government the necessity ht„,,opting the suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Mem -1; air tf Aylesbury. A petition would be presented to that vic teßs from the constituency of the Hon. Member for Green eeci",,_ Praying that the question might be further considered; 4 a , U . B hoped that it would be received there in a generous I t : liberal spirit. In conclusion, he vindicated the lion. slitern_ber for the Tower Hamlets Mr. G. Thompson) from the r cast upon him by the Noble Lord at the head of the seat ver t, who he supposed had been carried away by the l of debate. —(Cries of "No," and laughter.) ti c ,' ° i'd J. RUSSELL said he could not accept of the sugges el of the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury. The _eoate seemed likely to assume a character which he should l'eligeret to see; and, perhaps, it would be more advisable that tyY should not continue a debate likely to engender feelings an ang r y na t ure . I n d e f erence, therefore, to what seemed „, 4 e wishe s o f th e H ouse, h e would consent to the adjourn "`e,Lit of the debate.—(Hear, hear, and cries of "No, no.") effect DISRAELI would like to k now w h a t wou ld b e the of the adjournment upon the conduct of the house ? t 'pe whol e of th© night had been expended in the discussion point of' privilege, which he considered had b een mos t ~tunnecessarily raised—(Cheers)— an d they had thereby been evented from discussing the motion of his Hon. Friend the vo ember f or t h e University of Dublin. He should like the noble Lord to st a t e at once upon what day he intended to inue the debate.—(llear, hear.) ~1 . - ord J. RUSSELL said he should be prepared to go on 11119irthe debate on Friday next. e 4 tit f 3 . HALL said he would present the petition from the day o ,.' l ncY of the Hon. Member for Greenwich on Thurs rLdaY, whichever would be most convenient to the The debate was then adjourned till Friday next. kr. A T „, GUANO. 'nto th e ""'uOR moved for a Select Committee to inquire tho ugh n2eittee l ''tate and prospects of the trade in guano, which, ot i i 3 , ra a t , was shamefully neglected. If the Corn et rnonstrat at one day it would be amply sufficient to tied on. ° the value of the commerce which might be car e4)ro LABORCIIE T he highttee. RE objected to the appointment of a ""e had heard no reason for its appointment. p l aced on `, - , 4 e of guano was owing to the high export duty the "°Y the Government of Peru ; and no legislation lert part of that House could lead to a diminution of that he dot or of that price. 'P ° ( -! c ti,on waa th gatived without a division. *Q * 4 e -- "'NCELL en h EXCHEQUER then obtained e to introduce en o t f w t o e following Bills—a Bill to con ilatutreciri a mend the Metropolitan Sewers Aet, and a Bill i c tl theri sea le the application of advances (out of money now ' t aPert t° be advanced for the improvement of landed dil• tnet-Y3):_forfacilitating emigration from certain distressed erettitne:a Scotland; and the Bills were afterwards read a b e follo • leti wing Bills were read'a third time and passed : laterierrientile Marine Act Amendment Bill, the Arrest of A ld, th Nevi, Debtors Bill, the Law of Evidence Amendment 'As ril"‘evi - Forest Deer Removal, &c., Bill, and the Local elirninary Inquiries) Bill. C°4lt aitte e Mul°llB ' Enclosure (No. 2) Bill passed through thehe UET ROPOLITAN INTERMENTS. .I:f'eutLANCELLOR into. EXCHEQUER proposed that ding o s`7 should go Committee for the purplDse of "Vol'aervn°te for 130,000/., to carry out the intentions of Sae il t ,,l (3, l !tit in respect to metropolitan interme at li fir opposed proceeding with such an important Card b . „alf - Past one o'clock in gran morning. tine. S TUART also opposed gng such a sum at -aBc nable hour, e O4 T r e b e h "'eELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the 444 )3}tv,ad proposed. •Nlit a V"lT thought that the course proposed was most to tbe 'l Government. • 11111 g• HA LL also opposed the grant at that hour of the Clu v , I ,4l} cnee th — ',.,CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ultimately 1, ren i :', e ,unnunittee until this day (Wednesday). ebe 11," " ,: a nig business on the paper was then disposed of Hou se adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock. f4 4klcie an I" i i i h ' rtri r Ali c runlPhery paired off with Captain Boldero in er bL errnan Salomons taking his seat. srcrman Mahon paired : in favour of the admission Ge t i d unst With Colonel Chatterton, against.. _ rese„,," s ardpaired, in favour of Lord J. Russell's resolu s — "ng Mr. Salomons, with Mr. Banbury, against. air .1-110 USE OF LORDS, July 22. tiZ'''°rdships assembled at Five o'clock. a h? ‘ l, PETITIONS. 11 41 14 far of Vi T INCHILSEA. presen teTitles d veral peti- T — °lir of the Ecclesiastical Assumption • h f , so ; 4m l ], Vast ti„ e „,of NEWCASTLE presented one petition The I .r, oclesis.stical Titles Bill. e k es h i t t" of ARGYLL presented 67 petitions from anoashire in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles v"oa ' , ESb A ti lt° Bills were, on tho moti on o f L or d c.OetitsiLE, forwarded a stage. ThornedLat-SYICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL. d WINCHILSEA rose to renew the ad ittsero theeinate on this Bill, and in doing so . he could tlf wb,tt ate ips that be had no intention, ttl 'Y Nobl e 1 8 :tid, of wounding the feelings I. ken Catholic I ord. Since the passing of the altudi nn , telief Bill he had cautiously abstained ` l `risure b e subject. In his opposition to that fpporters of had n u e that 4d ett n a %Personal feelings; am . ong th te 4 : l ods, en d to retil it 4 w dl4 at nerifi e tu their Were several of his se ntient© ti i lta beca use ho f e l Short o f friendship he would . ha a ve . P sacrifice of principle, solutel were ab e t that the principles of the Church tif "I that b destructive of civil and religious (gibe eb ure „, h, !td opposed the Relief Bill. The object • ee . , hea _u s ot home Was to obtain political power.— ty of ' ) . „rfo had then maintained that an tlr oh, and that if the relief sought by that Bill were had 1-0 0 made only the foundation for sig ai re,f_u• tie had at mind s „, that time been scouted as a nar *it% e lapse b igot; three and twenty years had 1 ) 1s. not ri and he now asked if he e t - 'ed gtf The Roman Catholics had been t e tl Ot!y i r)° , l l l . ,an equality with the Protestants in this a i ity. V 11 " r they sought for more than 110.41,4_1:pine never seceded from her arrogant t ,gs in 0d t sup ta re aoY• Those pr e t e nsions might be so,titeall„ l ° Lo°Yalloo at the time, but they were sure °ptAd be renewed. H e would not i ns i st upon 4,,Othe the since done, upon the sacrifice of our faith, a.P 4 "1 18 of the Established Church in Ireland, e , 1 , . h : ool a, mon of the Scriptures from the national , 3 p .. l ' , iir e h y uPn the opposition of the Roman Catholic 4 411 this trio 9 1 e Queen's Colleges. The fruits 14ream,on.uc,k‘lng to Rome had been to invite this daring i tt Porti o __ They had been deceived with regard to the _ e la ta, us of the Romish and Protestant population of s mi _ . and he had no doubt but that if there were 14 tio ' ill Of the dreadful persecution to which the popu , and Was subjected by the priests, the people It t i o s_eurtlohYaaistß r othfo_usands embrace Protestantism, and tlatNever would equal the number of 11 %4 °0 as th t which had such an insult been offered to a het 44 th had been offered to the English n are • ssion of the Pope. It should have been er e h str o n g th_ essures. The Roman Catholic s ,,_ lovednt every lib . erty, and ho denied that ;, 1 ‘ es,l4Pol meats of bishops in ordinary was ` '‘ t hr)l' the f itlfa • I(l f ree exercise of the Roman 4 "e ' llt • This The vicars-apostolic were k o t ßgre se i o _ liPpOitataellt of bishops was therefore g eie Ple, ti e ",.o,od an insult to our Sovereign and her 404 t i i l t to meet the not consider the Bill before them sill ,. r not therefore vote one way Lord e should outrage which had been committed, 1 ,•• thibi ps Ll 'N DRURST trusted to be or the other. h igh Ps befor e able to satisfy their he sat down that the course he had with ° Pursu ed . r th at ~, on similar occasions was not at variance or th inch he purposed at present to pursue in voting t;t4epertitee°t'd reading , 04 t ofth e ini ,. n g of this Bill. But before coming to )301 o_ject hewould. be permitted to draw atten -44(111-1 which 14' the ottroo Vf this debate had ro' '` tb cbol '7 °"i t u ir) ea to 6 gic, z the I °o. 3 01 % 1 6 0 ' - 0 P VA - ,i3of e ' ,Quid „nti s ubs , ' f ell' to tb e icp , t oo. youl d 0° of es rib . Laolll/6c ?0 ...-12 1 on to Plfp I not Pr e to ° haft od vf e y ht t the rig f LONDON, WEDNESDAV ing law was sufficient. If so, what necessity was there /fir any new laws?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord also said the 24th clause of the Ca tholic Relief Act had been systematically set at defi ance, and that each successive Attorney-General had slept at his post. He approved therefore of the introduc tian of this measure for the purpose of awaking him. But the Noble and Learned Lord forgot that he himself had been in power, and had not enforced the law.—(rear, hear.) if the Attorney-General of the day attempted to enforce the law in Ireland, he would not only fail to do that, but pro duce the most direful effects in that country.—(Hear, hear.) The Government seemed to have forgotten that if it was their intention to avenge an insult, they had taken the most feeble and unreasonable course of doing so. He did not say that they should enter into a war with a puny power, but they should have remembered that in endeavouring to punish that power for any aggression committed by it, it was not a foreign power they were inflicting this wound upon, but their own fellow-subjects.—( Hear, hear.) It was not the Roman Government they assailed, but the members of the Roman Catholic Church in this country.—(Hear, hear.) If this law was put in fosce, the Roman Catholics of this country could no longer exercise their religion here, they would be obliged to pack up their goods and chattels, and find sonic other land where they could worship God. Was it likely they would do so? He thought not. On the contrary, he believed they would set the law at nought, and laugh at it. Under these circumstances he should give his cordial sup port to the amendment of the Noble Earl. _ _ The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he could not help ex pressing the very deep regret with which he heard the con cluding sentences of the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord. He stated that the Roman Catholic Church was never satisfied with toleration, but always aimed at domina tion.—(Hear, hear.) If such were the reasons which in duced the Noble Lord to act as he did now, they ought to have influenced him before. For that had always been true of the Roman Catholic Church, and instead of taking away disabilities we should have retained all the disabilities which had ever been imposed for the purpose of repressing that Church. He would not pretend to dispute the legal point raised by his Noble and Learned Friend. He believed no one in that House was competent to do so. He, at all events, was not ; but, taking the law as it was laid down by lawyers of eminence in the other House of Parliament, the present Bill, so far from meeting the object intended, would make confusion worse confounded. Supposing the Pope withdrew the hierarchy he had recently created, and reappointed the vicars apostolic, or proposed to enter into an arrangement with the Government. Would that be done? He believed not. It never had been the practice in this country to give or to seek the consent of the Crown in the appointment of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. His Noble and Learned Friend had complained of the remissness of Attorney-Gene rals with respect to the 24th clause of the Relief Act. He must say that it was strange his Noble and Learned Friend had not stated his complaint sooner.—(Hear.) The whole course of his own career, wh en i n office, and of all successive Governments, had been such as to impress the people of Ireland with the belief that that clause was intended to be a dead letter, and but for the speech of his Noble and Learned Friend that night he should have treated it as one of those obsolete laws which his Noble and Learned had repealed. If this measure was intended to give any security to the Established Church, he should say, as a member of that Church, he should oppose it on that specific ground, for the day had gone by when it was for the interest of that Church that its maintenance or security should be based on the in jury or exclusion of any other class whatever.—(Hear.) It was said, however, that this was an aggression on the Queen's supremacy. He did not concur in that opinion. The rescript of the Pope in reality asserted only a canonical power, not a temporal authority. As to the argument that it interfered with the prerogative of the Queen as the foun tain of honour—and a Noble Lord who spoke last night rested his whole case on the fact, that it was an interference with the:prerogative of the Sovereign—he would not attempt to justify the manner in which this aggression had been made.—(Hear, hear.) There had, to say the least of it, been a want of common civility.—(Hear, hear.) But there was a differencein the character and nature of titles. Titles of honour and distinction, such as those borne by their Lord • ships, could only be conferred by the Sovereign; but the titles of the Roman Catholic prelates were derived from their offices. They were not appointed to their dioceses by the Queen; they were not recognised by the law, and there fore he could not see how such titles could, in the slightest degree, be considered an invasion of the prerogative of the sovereign ; and even the clause which recognised the spiritual character of these titles was enough, in his opinion, to stultify the whole Bill. He did not consider that this measure affected Roman Catholics alone. He knew the risk he ran in hazarding that opinion on a matter of law in the face of the House, and in the presence of Noble Lards so competent to deal with it, but he appealed to his Noble Friend on the woolsack whe ther, by modifying and giving effect to the statute of Richard 11., which this measure did, would not merely enable the immediate purpose which it was enacted to be effected, but also purposes which it never was intended to effeet. If such were the case then, he thought the Dis senters of this country, including that mast respectable body of Wesleyans, who had approached them with so many petitions, might tremble at the future effect of these pro visions. He thought that in these days, as in days gone by, the Puritans might tremble at the consequences of some fresh persecution which might arise from the reeuscitation of those laws. So far from it being an extension of the Act of 1829, it was a measure revivifying old statutes which had be come obsolete, not merely to the prejudice of the Roman Catho lics, but of every other class of dissenters from the Established Church of this kingdom. Now to return to the observation of the Noble Marquis with regard to dealing with a foreign power. Suppose they were dealing with a foreign power— which he maintained they were not—in what capacity had the Pope of Rome sent the rescript of which you complain, and in which complaint he joined them, so far as its tone was to be taken into consideration ? Although a foreign power, in one sense, the Pope had not sent that rescript here in his capacity as Sovereign of the Roman States, but as the head of the Roman Catholic Church all over the world.— ( Hear, hear.) He would not touch upon what his Noble Friend had said respecting a concordat, although it seemed to him an obvious remedy for the evils complained of; whether it was an expedient measure he would not discuss. But when they spoke of the concordats established with other countries, he asked whether more was assumed in them than the power to consent to certain arrangements ? ( Hear, hear.) He believed that in no country had there been exercised a power of prohibition such as was to be enforced by the measure before them. But, in reality, the objection to this act of the Pope, as that of a foreign power, struck at the root of all toleration. The Roman Catholic clergy received their ability to perform their functions from none but the Pope, and if they cut off from them the source of their authority, they deprive them of all power of performing their functions. Even the priests indirectly, and their superiors directly, received their authority from Rome, and the whole fabric must fall to pieces if they raised that objection and acted upon it. But they said this was not a spiritual, but a temporal act. If that were so, then, he said, the measure under their con sideration was far too weak. The Noble Marquis and the Noble Lord opposite both advanced, as one ground for this measure, that there were many Roman Catholics in this country who claimed the protection of the Legislature against the proceedings of their own clergy. Now he must say he thought they should have nothing to do with that.— (Hear, hear.) There would be an end of all religious free dom if Parliament were thus to be called on to interfere in the religious concerns of any sect. The Roman Catholics submitted voluntarily to the influence exercised over them by their clergy, and they were not compelled to submit to it longer than they chose. The Noble Marquis said he was satisfied that the functions of the Roman Catholic religion had been always satisfactorily performed by the vicars apostolic. It might be so or not, but he questioned the right of the Noble Marquis, or of that House, to set them selves up as judges on that point. He would only say, that that opinion was at variance with the opinion entertained by other parties. He admitted that he saw with regret the spread of Roman Catholic principles. But he asked them against what party in the Church of Rome was this Bill directed? Was it against what he might term the English party, or against what he might term the Roman party? He thought it would follow that the Bill was directed, not intentionally, but practically, against the English party, who desired to be independent of the Court of Rome. He next maintained that he had a right to assume that, if the Pope had asked the consent of Government to this appointment of a hierarchy, that consent would have been given, at least, sub silentio. In 1846, the Noble Lord now at the head )f her Majesty's Government advocated the establishment of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, and said his policy with regard to that country would be, to place the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church in the north of Ireland, and the Roman Church, o n a footing of perfect equality in every respect.—( Hear, hear.) Was that no encouragement to the Pope ?—(Hear hear.) Had not the Pope a right to assume that the Noble Lord who ex pressed such opinions, would not resent so much smaller a measure as that he had adopted, and that he would not have encouraged, so unwisely, those expressions of Pro testant feeling which that measure gave rise to.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis would no doubt have alluded to the appointment of the Bishop of Jerusalem in terms more fitted to his purpose had he been able to do so. But ho maintained it was impossible to appoint a bishop without giving to him the name of the diocese over which he had jurisdiction. The Noble Marquis could not contend that the words of the preamble were intended merely to prohibit titles, for they had a decidedly larger operation. He would refer to the opinion of a lawyer of great eminence, and a faithful member of the Church of England, that the invali dation of the appointment of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops would invalidate also the rite of ordi nation, and the sacred one of marriage, and he could not contemplate a more frightful social evil. With regard to the parcelling out of the country into districts, the cant phrase which the Noble Marquis had adopted to describe the division of the country into die• ceses, that parcelling out had taken place on several former occasions without remonstrance from the Government and without alarm br production of mischief on the part of those who had been loudest in declaring their apprehension of what might ensue from the recent act of the Pope. It was divided in 1688 without remonstrance, and again in 1840 into 8 districts for vicars apostolic; and again, subsequently, into 13 districts, or rather dioceses. Tne Noble Marquis had com plained that the Pope had practically ignored the existence of the Anglican Church; but, apart from what might appear to be offensive in such a line of conduct, there was really no thing to complain of. He, for one, would not consent to give a vote in favour of a measure which had been supported on such grounds as he had heard advanced on behalf of it, and which would have such an operation as he apprehended. The Noble Marquis feared the increase of influence which the Catholic priesthood were acquiring over the Catholic laity ? He (the Duke of Newcastle) feared that this Bill would only serve to increase that influence. Complaint had been made of the number of religious houses in this country, but it ought first to be shown that they were not conducted in accordance with the law or the dic tates of morality. He believed they strictly were so. And with regard to their denunciation of the Synod of Thurles, or of Dr. Cullen, he believed that the colleges of Ireland were not in the slightest danger from either of those quar ters, but rather the spirit which was being engendered by the course of legislation they were now engaged in.— ( Hear, bear.) The Irish colleges were, perhaps, the greatest boon that had yet been conferred upon the Irish people, and he confidently believed that the laity of Ireland, if not thwarted by the irritating offensiveness of alßill of this kind, would, of themselves, render them all that the Legislature had ever desired.—(Hear, hear.) Assuming the correctness of the law which had been laid down by his Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), and which he was not prepared to dispute, that the Pope had committed a breach of international law, he was of opinion that such being the case the course they should have pursued was not the bringing in of such a 13ill, but they should have endeavoured to obtain redress by means of diplomatic inter. course. He thought that at the meeting of Parliament if they had, either by means of a protest, or by an address to the Crown, stated their disapprobation of the act of the Pope, and of their attachment to the Protestant Church, he believed that by so doing they would have obtained all that was re quired, and all that the necessity of the case demanded. Say what they would, the passing of this Act was making a step backwards, and was letting in, the small end o f th e we d ge for the undoing ogmuch of that which Parliament had al r ready done. He felt bound to enter his protest against the ' Bill, and against the raising up of so futile a barrier, which, on both sides of the water, and especially in Ireland, would be productive of most injurious conse quences.—( Hear, hear.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE complimented the Noble Duke on the able and temperate speech which he had just addressed to their Lordships. The Noble Duke and the Noble Earl who led the opposition to this Bill ( the Earl of Aberdeen) had contended that this Act of the Pope might have been amply and sufficiently met by a Parliamentary protest. But the Noble Earl and the Noble Duke must have a very strange notion of the Church of Rome if they thought that a mere Parliamentary protest would have been sufficient to deter the Pope from proceed ing in such encroachments.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl and the Noble Duke had said that the Government by its conduct, had given encouragement to the Pope to take the course complained of. What the Government had done was to treat the Roman Catholics with every possible liberality, and to resist nothing that was not a direct attack upon their own Established Church, and on their own privileges. Their Lordships knew that attempts had been made all over the continent of Europe to increase the power and authority of the Church of Rome. Let them look to the Spanish Penin sula—( Hear)—and if they wanted to know what the Pope was aiming at, let them read the treaty that had been en tered into between the Court of Naples and the Court of Rome and the Court of Spain.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that the action of the Court of Rome was altogether spi ritual, and yet what did the Pope do in Ireland ? He set aside the parties who were recommended for primate, and appointed an individual of his own choice, and they saw the result had been that attacks were made upon institutions which had previously met with the support of the people. The question for the Government, looking at all the circum stances, was whether they would accept the Bill as amended by the Committee, injuriously altered as it was in his opinion, in some respects, or throw it out altogether. Rather than adopt the latter alternative, he was prepared to take the Bill as it was. The Noble Earl (Wicklow), who had spoken so strongly against the Bill as one which would prevent the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in Ire land, had made a statement which could not be borne out by the fact. This Bill would not have that effect, for it was es sentially the same as the Act of 1829, and the Roman Ca tholics accepted that Act as a boon.— ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Duke had said that Archbishop Murray bad been re cognised by the Government as Archbishop of Dublin. He distinctly denied that this was the case. The rescript up. pointing him Archbishop of Dublin had never been acknow ledged by the Government. It was a fact that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church had, in 1797, proposed to give the Government a veto on the appointment of vicars aposto lic, and that even so late as 1810, Mr. Ponsonby read in the House of Commons an authoritative statement from Dr. Milner on the part of the Roman Catholics, in reply to a statement of Mr. Ponsonby's. In that letter it was distinctly stated that the Roman Catholic prelates of this country were prepared to give the Government a direct negative in the appointment of bishops to the ancient sees of Ireland—namely, that they,would not nominate parties until the Government was satisfied that they were, as the Pope himself had phrased it, good and loyal subjects. He did not mean for one moment to impugn the loyalty and good faith of the Roman Catholics in this country. Nothing of the kind. And it was well known to those who had intercourse with the Roman Catholics of this country that they neither were parties to the aggression or approved of the conduct of the Pope.—( Hear.) He believed that the toleration and the conciliation which we had shown towards the Roman Catholics should have led to a very different result ; and, further, that the requirements of their religion needed not the establishment of this new hierarchy. The Noble Duke said he did not justify the manner of its appointment, but the matter was not so aggressive as it bad been called. Now, in such a case as this, the manner was everyaing ; it was the essence of the whole question, and therefore it was that the Government had felt th e mselves bound to repel and resist the aggression.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl last night, who roved the rejection of the Bil, had compared the present times with those of the Popish plot. Why was there any delusion about the circumstances in which they were placed? Was it not a fact that a now hierarchy had been created by the Pope, in a manner which all admitted to be insulting?—(Hear, hear.) That 'has a reality, the feelings it had excited were also a mane , . Under these circumstances, he called upon the ir Lordsli ps to adopt the measure, the necessity for which must 10 regretted, but could not be denied. Lord MONTEAGLE confessed he had net heard any in formation respecting the present Act which was at all satis factory to his mind. He thought this was a very extraor dinary course with respect to a Bill which all would admit was a penal Bill, and which ought to be Poked at with ad ditional jealousy, when they remembered that it was a penal Bill based upon religious distinctions. He asked any member of the Government, he asked any of the I'oble Lords who had supported it, or who intended to support it, to tell them what would be its practical effete He would ask his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack, what would be the practical operation of this Bil on the ancient Roman Catholic sees in Ireland, as well as its practical operation upon the intruders into the pretended new sees in England ?—(Hear, hear.) He did not deny the manner of the act was offensive; but he said, by the Bill we did not attack the Pope, but other people. It wts, in fact, the g reatest collection of Irish blunders ever seer, with the added injustice of inflicting penalties upon innocent parties for the acts of others. It was, therefore, a combination of blunders and injustice such as, perhaps, was never befire known. He admitted that the introduction of a new hierarchy, and the formation of new sees by a foreign power, was indefensible by the law of nations ; he quite agreed with the Noble Lord, in saying that the act itself could not be justifies.—(Hear.) He would admit that this was a case whick demanded the attention of Parliament, but it did not follow that he was bound to accept the measure that was new before them. It might as well be said, that standing in seed of medical treatment we should submit to the first medicine that the most arrant quack might offer to him. sow, this measure, he conceived not to stand on much better ground than that of mere quackery. It was a Bill that would be a dead letter in its operation ; and of all stets to take in these religious matters, the most imprudent was those is which unnecessary irritation was produced. If they were obliged to irritate, let them irritate for a lawful ptrpose ; but a mea sure that irritated for mischief, without iritating for a useful purpose, was decidedly bad. It was a mater of notoriety, not only to Ministers, but to every Memberof either House of Parliament, that these Catholic orders wee extending in the country, and not any of the Cabinets thathad been in power since 1829 bad ever dreamt of taking a s ngle step for their suppression. But in this year, 1851, there was a gigantic reversion of the old French maxim, On r oient toujours a sea premiers amours: for now men were returnng to their old ani mosities. The clause in the Emancipation Act against titles had a very curious origin, because it was rounded upon the objections against the Bill which were eetracted from, the petitions presentekby its opponents. He would affirm, that if they kept an Act of Parliament hangin; over the heads of members of the Catholic Church of such a subject, they were not only doing a great injustice but they were virtually repealing the Catholic Relief Bile--(Hear, hear.) If it were the intention that this law when eased should not be acted upon, he would say that it was I most miserable juggle to attempt in such a manner to saisfy the people— Hear, hear)--and they were giving to the ?ope and to Car dinal Wiseman the greatest possible triunPh. He wished now to call the att en ti on of the Noble and ,earned Lord on the woolsack to the practice which prevailet in the courts of law in Ireland on the subject of these tiths•—(Hear.) In 1847 a case occurred in which Dr. WHale vas a party, and the Doctor was described in the proceedines as Archbishop of Tuam, and the description was reco gn i s ed by one of the most Protestant judges in Ireland, the Mar of the Rolls.— (Hear.) The same thing occurred with reference to Dr. Cantwell, who was recognised as Bisho o f hleath. He could also state to the H onse t h at in a report wlich was brought under the notice o f L or d Chancellor Sug l en' the late Dr. Crolly was describ e d i n that report as bein( Catholic Arch bishop of Armagh an d Primate of Ireland—l Hear)—and the report passed without any remarks on that joint by Sir Ed ward Sugden.—(Hear.) After some furteer observations the Noble Lord said, if the Catholics o Ireland had to struggle for freedom, he hoped they won'' not be left to struggle alone.—(Hear, hear.) Ile calla on their Lord ships for th e sa k e o f t h e i r own dignity, dignity of the state, to pause before they give the sake of the g ive their consent to such a Bill. But if they did not believethat t h e remedy proposed by this Bill was a good one, or that it would not be acted upon, they were bound to reject the miserable Bill altogether. The Noble Lord concluded by stating his deter mination to vote against the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR and the Bislele of OXFORD rose at the same time, and there were lout cries for each of them, but the Right Rev. Prelate gave way,and The LORD CHANCELLOR said he understood from the Noble Lord, that some other Bill, or some Ether course than the present, would have been more effectve, and he had waited with some anxiety to hear the Noble Lord describe what, in his opinion, would have been a betel* Bill or a better course, but he was disappointed. He malls could not un derstand the Noble Lord. The Governmeef presented the Bill to the House ; they recommended their Lordships to pass it, not because they approved of it mall respects, or because they would not like a Bill in some respects different from this, but still at the same time, looking all the cir• cumstances, they were satisfied with it, and filling to acc e pt its' responsibility. Was there anything inconsistent in that ?—(Hear, hear.) What then was the ground of the imputations cast on the Government by the Ncble Lord? The Government were prepared to take the ressonsibility of a measure which they thought was demanded by the interests of the country. They had been told much of the difficulty which would arise in putting this Bill in force in Ireland, and the difficulty which the religious question had always caused in that country. Ho admitted it. It had been the over throw of many Governments, but it must be grappled with. The Noble Lord did not agree with the Noble Earl in think ing this a trifling matter which might be passed over with indifference. But what did he suggest instead of a Govern ment measure? He had condemned that in very strong terms, and said the noble Lord who framed i t seemed more fond of his own puny offspring than the wise s uggestions of others. But let him recall to their attention the circumstances Was the which preceded the framing of this Bill. What feel ing manifested by the country w hen the q ue stion was first raised? Was it not one of great excitement, and would that excitement not have been still greater but for the conviction that Parliament and the Government would deal with it. For twenty years we had been earnest in our endeavours to relax all the restrictions on our Roman Catholic fellow -subjects, because we believed them to be loyal. From time to time these relaxations were made, and there was at last a strong impressionghat there was a disposition to favour of the Roman Catholics at the expense of the institutions of the country. The Noble Lord at the moment of that aggression issued a strong letter in which he showed the people of England that while he was devotedly attached to the great principle of re ligious liberty, he was at the same time as determined to support the institutions and the independence of the count That letter had the effect of producing public confidence, and allaying all suspicion on the part of the people as to the in tentions of the Government. He believed that to its publica tion they owed the moderate nature of the Bill itself, -be cause the people, though dissatisfied with the measure' as not coming up to their expectations, were yet s a ti s fi ed s be cause they had confidence in his Noble Fri en d . —( Hear, hear.) We had a long struggle in this country, whi c h though apparently a religious struggle, was in reality as much a political one. The penal laws were adopted from time to time, more on account of the political and temporal tendencies of the Romish system, than its religious doctrines. But after a time confidence in our:Roman Catholic fellow subjects began to be restored, and the penal disabilities vanished and disappeared. From our own sense of justice, more than any demand on their part, we made these rela tions and did them justice. What had occurred since? A gradual end stealthy advance of the Romish Church. Was it unnatural, then, the people of this country should look with suspicion on the character and motives of the heads of that Church—(Hear, hear)—not on the Roman Ca tholic laity in England.—(Hear, hear.) They were content with equality with their fellow-subjects.— (H ear , hear.) But it was, the heads of that Church who we re ever a i m i ng at power, and that not of a spiritual nature, b u t t empora l power and dominion. The rescript of the Pope constituting the new hierarchy was but one of many steps in the same direction, all of them tending to establish a foreign power in this realm. The object evidently was also first to establish the new hieararchy in England ; because if once established there, the male powers would have hem claimed for Ireland SUN, Pr . tr JULY 23, 1851. I on the ground that they had a right to equal laws.—(Hear, hear.) The public saw the effect of all this, and were neither to be deterred by sneers, nor lad astray by the various questions propounded for their consideration. The Noble Lord that night had also attempted to lead their Lordships into discussions wide of the question before the House. He wanted to know what constituted an Established Church? It was sufficient to know that the Queen was the he a d o f a ll the courts which had jurisdiction or r elationto ecclesiasti ca l matters in the realm.—(Hear.) It was against the Church thus duly constituted with its courts, and the Sovereign at its head, that they had a foreign power sending forth a document—in which we were treated not as if we had no church at all—but a church, which, at the discretion of that foreign power, might be and was swept away— ( Hear)—while at the same time it gave a new ecclesias tical organization and hierarchy to England.—(Hear.) If they turned to the rescript from Rome, they would find that its aimed object was the restoration of the old Church with all its consequences. The language used by the Pope was, indeed, more sweeping than he used in relation to Roman Catholic countries.—(Hear.) Any attempt to as sume that which could only be had through the authority of the Crown was contrary to law. Their Lordships would recollect that one of the charges against O'Connell was that he had established courts of arbitration, in which contending parties were to abide by his decision, and by which he was thus to supersede the constituted tribunals of the country. There was a law, moreover, of a general character, which embraced the aggression, and which said, that to enforce any document which attempted the prero gative of the Crown was contrary to, and a violation of the law. It was said that the statutes of Richard 11. and of Elizabeth, by which the importation of bulls from Rome was prohibited, was obsolete—that it was old. Why, .Magna Charta was old, but probably no Englishman would be disposed to contend that it was obsolete. It was well known, however, by those who had infringed the law, that, whether those statutes were obsolete or not, the importation of bulls from Romo was illegal ; and hence there had not only been a violation of the law, but a violation of it in the most offensive degree. And having to take notice of an offensive violation of the law on so import ant a point, could they have introduced a more mild mea sure, or one in which they had manifested a more moderate desire to vindicate the assailed institutions of this country? It was said that they ought to have passed a resolution on the subject. Were they, then, to have allowed this ag gression to proceed, and were they to disregard the loudly-expressed feelings of millions of the people?— (Hear, hear.) This was a mild measure under every point of view; but if it were not so, still he would say that their Lordships were not to take their lessons of toleration from those who claimed it of them. They were not to take their lessons in legislation from the Pope, who thought the Inquisition an excellent aid in promoting the interests of the Roman Catholic religion. Persecution was necessary to the complete developement of the Catholic religion. In a recent document the Pope had shown that he quite ridiculed the idea of toleration. If they wanted to see an example of toleration, let them go to Spain and Portugal, and to Rome. They would there see what toleration was, and how its name was prostituted. But in restricting the exercise of the Catholic religion iii England in the way proposed, there was no violation, he contended, of the principles of religious liberty, and he had authority for saying so. What was religious liberty? It had been defined to mean the complete exercise of every religious faith, provided that the exercise of it was not op posed to the general interests of the State. Now, that being so, Paley said it was no violation of the principle of religious liberty to impose up on th e exerc i se o f any particular _wor ship such restraints as public interest might require. He contended, now, after having carefully considered the sub ject, that there was no duty which the Catholic priesthood had to perform under authority that cou ld no t b e p er f orme d by bishops in pa r tib us , or bi s h ops d er i v i ng t h e i r title from foreign parts. It was not necessary to the execution of their sacred functions that they should be presid e d over b y bi shops having terri torial titles. The difference between bishops in partibus and bishops possessing territorial titles was, that the latter had a jurisdiction beyond the mere spiritual matters which formed the general characteristic of their office. He would contend that this rescript of the Pope was in tended to give temporal as well as spiritual power. The object of the Bill was properly to prevent the assumption of territorial titles. He was told that the people of Ireland would not obey this law; but If Parliament passed the Bill, as he expected it wouldothere would not, he anticipated, be occasion to enforce it. If the Catholic clergy attempted to raise rebellion against the Bill ho trusted that Parliament would pass another law to meet the difficulty. The object of justice was at an end if they did not vindicate the law. What other course than the one that is proposed should they pur sue under the circumstances? One Noble Lord said they should protest, and another that they should adopt some other course; but he (the Lord Chancellor) would contend that it was essentially necessary they should legislate, and they were doing so in the mildest manner, and merely so far as would meet the difficulty of the case. It was said that the Attorney-General would not prose cu t e under the Bill, but the Attorney-General was bound to answer to Parlia ment if he refused or neglected to do his duty as a public servant. A prosecution on a religious matter should un questionably be brought under the responsibility of the Crown. It seemed to him that there was no foundation for the imputations cast upon the Government for taking up that Bill with thej alterations which had been introduced into it, and he therefore expressed a hope that their Lordships would pass the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of ST. GERMANS and Earl FITZWILLIACX rose to gether, and the latter Noble Lord having given way, The Earl of ST. GERMANS proceeded to address their Lordships. He could not avoid saying that he was much disappointed in the speech of the Lord Chancellor, a speech which was much better adapted for the atmosphere of the Mansion-house:than for their Lordships' House.—(Hear, hear.) It was, in ,fact, a no-Popery speech.—(Hear.) He confessed that he could not see anything in the conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland which justified the course of penal legislation. In the recent rebellion, if he might speak of the late outbreak by such a term, the parties en gaged in it were Protestants, as was the case also in the re bellion of '9B. The address of the Roman Catholics, which had been referred to by the Noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), had been signed by eight or ten Catholic Ppers, approving of the act of the Pope, and expressing their disavowal of any intention to stand aloof from him in that proceeding. He contended that the vicariates, under the old system, were as objectionable as the bishoprics under the new, if the argu ments on the temporalities were valid. But one Noble Lord had given them an example from Naples. He eer • tainly must say he did not expect to hear foreign absolute powers held up as an example to us.—(Hear.) But it would be recollected that with these powers, or the greater portion of them, the Pope had a concordat, by which both parties gave up something for the sake of a defined position. In short, he thought that a fallacy had run through the whole of the arguments of most of the Noble Lords who had spoken on this subject. They had confounded the temporal with the spiritual power. No one would more strongly con demn any aggression on the power of the Sovereign than he would, and allusion had been made to the aggression on the Sovereign as:the fountain of honour. But there were many subjects of her Majesty who bore the titles of Baron, Count, and so forth, not conferred by her Majesty, and be never heard of their being iobjected to. There were many of them in Ireland, and at least one whose name was often mentioned in England—Baron Rothschild, and he was not aware that the title had been conferred by the Sovereign' The title of bishop merely signified an office in the church. It had been conferred by the Pope on persons in America; and though they were as jealous of their temporal sove reignty as we could be, yet he had heard no objection raised either by the Federal Government, or by any of the state Governments,to the assumption of such titles as Bishop of New York or Bishop of New Orleans. There was evidence to show that the canon law had been exercised in England, though not quite in the same form as it was at Rome ; and canonthat l being aw so, into whatthis country?was this information e d:tes) ier i teatdi nnhshntetaedlrihitorkLiadsoetbeeunoaitc bishops. hwnh i ooseehn,pdopal:oft.e,Lfheoavotipnchlrel which 000wfnno operationui rh h ldee e as w ant iff o db j e e oeh l c woolsack d c aao k anf Bhdrt invalidate g vtoß i aft v i lol e ipl d n , kaaaintnn t eos h dw e ill conclusion he it, would only say, th a t k nowing a great deal of Ireland, and taking a great i n t erest i n everything that con cerned there was no m easure that had so deeply affected him as this, and his fears were strong that it would lead to a long reign of agitation and animosity that must have the most injurious effect. The . Earl of MINTO said that there was a c l ause intro duced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill of 1848, which, by excluding priests, he feared would prevent the arrangement of diplomatic relations with Rome. When at Rome he certainly heard of the projected appointment of an arch bishop for England, but he had no idea that the choice would have fallen on Cardinal Wiseman. He supported the Bill. Earl FITZWILLIAM said, he was desirous of making a few observations before their Lordships came to a division. Ho approved of the Bill, because he thought the act that was done by the Pope required the interference of Parlia ment. He thought that some measure was necessary, and that none was more effectual than the disallowing of those territorial titles which had been assumed. When he looked at the Bill, he nevertheless was dissatisfied with the proposed measure, and he confessed he was alarmed at the language which had been used by the Lord Chancellor. As he (Earl Fitzwilliam) thought some measure to be necessary, he would, how ever, give the Bill his support. He admitted that legislation was necessary, but not such legislation as that of the present measure. By the mode, however, in which the other House of Parliament, and her Majesty's Ministers in that House had acted, they were driven into a corner, aid they had no resource but to pass the Bill. He was compelled on that account to give his support to the measure, but at the same time he did not think it should be extended to Ireland, as that country had nothing to do with the aggressions which had called for its enact ment. He had always been of opinion that the Roman Catholic religion ought to be established in Ireland. He did not mean that it should be so to the exclusion of the Pro testant establishment, but that it should be co-established along with that re!igion in Ireland. It was, however, to England only that the rescript of the Pope referred. And it was to England that the measure ought to be confined. He] had great objections to the establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. He had no objection to that Church providing for the wants of the Roman Catholic population, by the appointment of additional priests, but the establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy was what he could net consent to. lie could not shut his eyes to what was now taking place throughout the country in respect of this subject. — ( Hear, hear.) He knew well what was the power the Roman Catholic priests exercised on the lower orders of society, but he could not, at the same time keep out of view what was taking place among the aristocracy in respect of this subject —( Hear, hear)—and he did not hesitate to say in respect to them, he would place more reliance on the lower orders than he would on the aristocracy.—(Hear, hear.) So far as the aggression itself was concerned, he would have met it by a simple resolution of both Houses of Parliament, declaring that no such titles should be imposed in this country without the consent of her Majesty, and he would have extended that prohibition to both civil and ecclesiastical titles. He would have prohibited the use of any of those titles in England: but he would have granted that permission in Ireland, be cause there the Roman Catholic religion was the religion of the majority. He would, therefore, vote for the second read ing of the Bill, though, at the same time, he believed that it went further than the exigency of the case required. Earl HARDWICK supported the Bill with some reluct ance, and simply for the reason that he considered a great public principle was at stake, and which had to be vin dicated. Was it to be supposed that this Bill would carry out the views of the Government in Ireland? He believed that so far as that couutry was concerned legislation would have to be again resorted to before the question could be considered as settled. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied. He bad not heard a single statement made in the course of this lengthened discussion to justify the conduct pursued by the Court of Rome. Even the Noble Lord who led the opposition to the second reading could only urge the habitual annoyance and assumption of that Court in ex tenuation of the aggression which they now resisted. The Bill would administer a ,useful ;lesson to the Pope, and would, by attacking his bastruments in this country, Cut short the career of Papal usurpation which he evidently appeared bent on pursuing. With reference to what had been said as to the alterations made in the Bill, he had to observe that several attempts to make the Bill more stringent had failed, the amendments in several in stances having been withdrawn by the parties who moved them, because her Majesty's Government refused to give the amendments their aupprt. He denied, however, that Government was answerable for the alterations made in I the Bill. A Bill was introduced by Government for a particular purpose, and the alterations which had been in troduced affected the machinery and not the principles of the Bill. Because the machinery of the Bill had been somewhat altered, Government would not have been warranted in abstaining from proceeding with it. The good that he anticipated from this measure, which he doubted not would be passed by a large majority, would be that it would disabuse the mind of the Pope of the error into which he had fallen as to the feeling of this coun try, and would prevent him proceeding in the course which he seemed bent upon pursuing. For the reasons which he had stated he hoped they of the Bill. would agree to the second reading Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared— Contents, for second reading Present . , 146 Proxies ... .. .. Not contents, for amendment-- . 119-265 Present ..• ••• • • .•• 26 Proxies ... ••• ••• .. 12- 38 Majority in favour of second reading ... 227 Their Lordships adjourned at Five minutes to Four o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) TUESDAY, JULY 22. DAVID SALO MONS, ESQ. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That David Salomons Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House during any debate, until he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law :" Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word Esquire" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " Member of Par liament for the borough of Greenwich, having sat and voted in this House without having taken:the Abjuration Oath in the words contained and set forth in the form tendered unto him at the table, the Attorney-General of England bo ordered to institute proceedings against him at law for such default," instead thereof:—Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question :"—Amendment by leave withdrawn. Original Question again proposed :—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" Baron Lionel sathan de Rothschild and David Salomons, Esq., having taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and also the Oath of Abjuration, in the manner in which this House is bound by law to administer the same, are entitled to take their seats as Members of this House,' instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided : [AJORITY—AYES, 118. Acland, Sir T. D. Fox, S. L. Nowdegate, C. N. Adair, R. Shaft° Freshfleld, J. W. Newport, Vlsct. Adderley, C. B. Frewen, C. H. O'Brien, Sir Lucill3 Arbuthnott, Hon. 11. Gilpin, Colonel Ogle, S. C. Archdall, Captain Goold, Wyndham Packe, C. W. Baines, M. T. Gordon, Admiral Palmer, Robert Baird James Gore, W. 0. Palm erston, Viscount Baring, Sir Francis Goulburn , H enr y Parker, John Barrington, Lord Grogan, E. Portal, Melville Barrow, W. U. Gwyn, Rowel Prime, Richard Bellew, R. M. Raiford, Sir Henry Posey, P. Birch, Sir Thomas Hamilton, Geo. A. Reid, Colonel Blandford, Marquis HAlllner, Sir John Renton, J. C. Bowles, Admiral Hawes , B en j . Ricardo, Osman Brisco, M. Henley, J. W. Richards, Richard Burroughes, H. Berries, J. C. Romilly, Sir J. Campbell, Sir A. Rindley, Charles Russell, Lord John Cardwell, E. Hodges, T. L. Sibthorp, Colonel Child, Smith Hodgson, W. N. Somerville, Sir W. Christopher, R. Hotham, Lord Spooner, Richard Christy, Samuel Howard, C. W. G. Stafferd, Augustn3 Clements, C. S. Inglis, Sir R. H. Strait, E. Clerk Sir G. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stuart, Henry Clive, H. B. Jones, Captain Stuart, J. Cockburn, Sir A. Knightley, Sir C. Thesiger, Sir F. Coles, H. B. Knox,:W. S. Tyler, Sir G. Collins, T. Labouchere, Henry Vane, Lord H. Compton, H. C. Lacy, 11. C. Waddington, David Craig, Sir W. 0. Lewis, G. C. Waddington, H. B. Crowder, ,R. B. Lindsay, Colonel Walpole, S. H. Denison, Edmund Lockhart, A. E. Denison, J. E. Lockhart, W. Whiteside, James Duncuft, John Lowther, Colonel Wigram, L. T. ' Williamson Sir H. Dundas, Admiral Manners, Lord C. Willoughby ' Sir H. East, Sir J. B. Mastcrman, John Wilson, Jam es Egerton, W. T. Maxwell, J. P. Weed, Sir Charles Elliot, John E. Monsell, William Estcourt, J. B. B. Morris, David TILLERS, Fergus, John Mailings, J. R. nayter, W. o. Ferguson, Sir R. Mundy, William 11111, Lord Marcus Fltawilliam, G. W. Napier, Joseph MINORITY—NOES, 71. Adair, Hugh E. Fox, W. J. Robartes, T. J. Aglionby, H. A. Gibson, T. M. Sadloir, John Alcock, Thomas Granger, T. C. Salwey, Colonel Andorson, Arthur Hall, Sir B. Scholefleld, William Anstey, T. C. Hastie, Archibald Scobell, Captain Armstrong, R. B. Henry, Alexander Scully, Francis Bass, M. T. Heywood, James Seymour, i ll. D. Bell, Jacob Hobhonse, T. B. Smith, John B. Boyle, Colonel Kershaw, James Spearman, Henry Bright, John Langston, J. 11. Tancred, 11. W. Brotherton, J. Locke, Joseph Tennent, R. J. Brown, W. Lushington, Charles Thompson, Colonel Butler, P. S. M'Cullagh, W. Thompson, George Clay, James Milues, R. M. Thornely, Thomas Clay, Sir W. Molesworth, hir W Tollemache, F. J. Crawford, W. S. Murphy, F. S. Wakley, T. Dashwood, Sir G. Norreys, Lord Walmsley, Sir J. Dawes, Edward O'Brien, J. Wawn, J. T. D'Eyncourt, T. O'Brien, Sir T. Williams, W. Duke, Sir J. O'Connell, M. J. Williams, 11. Duncan, George Osborne, Ralph Wilson, Matthew Evans, Sir De Lacy Pilkington, James Wood, Sir W. P. Evans, John Fewer, Dr. TELLEIS. Ewart, William Reynolds, John Bethell, Richard Forster, Matthew Ricardo, J. L. Smith, John Abel Original Question again proposed: Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, " That the Debate be now adjourned :" The House divided; Ayes 69, Noes 190. Original Question again proposed :—Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words " and that this House, having regard to the religious scruples of the Hon. Member for Greenwich, will exercise its undoubted privilege in that behalf, and proceed forthwith to cause such altera tions to be made in the form and mode of administering the said Oath as shall enable the lien. Member to take and sub scribe the same:"—Question proposed, " That those words be there added :"—Debate arising ; Motion made and Ques tion put, " That the Debate be now adjourned." The House divided: — MINORITY—AYES, 59. Adair, Hugh E. Flail, Sir B. Salwey, Colonel Aglionby, H. Hastie, Alexander Scholerleld, William Alcock, Thomas Heywood, James Scully, Francis Bell, Jacob liobhouse,'T. B. Smith, J. A. Bethel', Richard Kershaw, James Smith, J. B. Bright, John Locke, Joseph Stuart, Lord D. Brocklehurst, J. Lushington, C. Tennent, R. J. Brotherton, J. M'Cullagh, W. T. Thompson, Colonel Clay, James M'Gregor, John Villiers, Charles Cobden, Richard Milnes, R. M. Wakley, T. Crawford, W. S. Muntz, G. F. Walmsley, Sir Z. D'Eyncourt, C. T. Murphy, F. S. Wawn, J. T. Duke, Sir James Norreys, Sir D. Willcox, Brodie Duncan, George O'Brien, J. Williams, John Ellis, John O'Connell, M. J. Williams, W. Forster, Matthew Osborne, Ralph Wilson, Matthew Fortescue, Chichester Pechell, Sir G. Wyld, James Fox, W. J. Pilkington, James Geach, Charles Pinney, William TELLERS. Gibson, T. M. Power, Dr. Anstey, Thomas Greene, John Reynolds, John Thompson, George MAJORITY—NOES, 207. Adana, Sir T. Dkyo Ebrington, Viscount Morgan, O. Adair, R. Shafto Elliot, J. E. Morris, David Adderley, C. B. Estcourt, J. B. B. Mostyn, E. M. Archdall, Captain Euston, Earl Hollings, J. E. Baines, M. T. Evans, John Mundy, William Baldock, E. 11. Fergus, John Naas, Lord Baldwin, Barry Ferguson, Sir R. Napier Joseph Bankes, G. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Newdegate, C. N. Baring, Sir F. Fitzwilliam, G. W. Newport, Viscount Baring, Thomas Forester , G. C . Noel, U. LUcIUS . J. Barrington, Viscount Freestun , Colonel O'Brien, Si Harrow, W. H. Freshfield, J. W. Ogle, S. C. Bateson, T. Frewen , C. 11. Owen, Sir John Beckett, William Fuller, A. E. Packe, C. w. Bellew, R. M. Gaskell, J. M. Paget, Lord A. Beresford, William Gilpin, Colonel Paget, Lord Clarence Berkeley, Henry F. Gladstone, Wham Paget, Lord George Berkeley, C. L. G. Goold, Wyn Pakington, Sir J. Blackstone, W. S. Goulburn, Henry Palmer, Robert Blandford, Marquis Granby, Marquis Palmerston, yi& Boldero, 11. G. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Parker, John Booth, Sir It. G. Grenfell, Charles W. Peel, Colonel Bowles, Admiral Grogan, Edward p Pigott, onsa by n, c Francis .k. Brisco, M. , Peel, Frederick B renar idge, Richard Gwy n, Rowel Raiford, Sir Henry Broadley, 11. Hall, Colonel Portal, Melville Brooke, Sir A.B. Hallewell, E. G. Brown, Humphrey H amilton, G. A. Powlett, Lord W. Buller, Sir Y. H amil ton , J. 11. Prime, Richard Posey, Philip Burghley, Lord Hanmer, Sir J. Ilardeastle, J. A. Renton,Reid, Co John ionel c . Btxgoughes, 11. Buxton, Sir E. Hatchell, John Repton, G. W.:J. Cabbell, B. B. Hawes, B. Ricardo, Osman Campbell, Sir A. Hayes, Sir E. Rich, Henry Cardwell, Edward Headlam, T. E. Richards. Richard Carew, W. H. P. Henley, J. W. Robartes, T. J. Carter, J. B. Herbert, Henry A. Rumbold, C. E. Cavendish, C. C. Hervey, Lord A. Russell, Lord John Chichester, Lord J. Hodges, T. L. Sibthorp, Colonel Child, Smith Hodgson, W. N. Somerset, Captain Christy, Samuel Hogg, Sir J. Somerville, Sir W. Clements, Charles 110thaal, Lord Spearman, 11. I. Clerk, Sir G. Howard, C. W. G. Spooner, Richard Clive, H. B. Hudson, George Stafford, Augustus Cobbold, J. C. Hutt, William Strutt, E. Cochrane, A. D. Inglis, Sir R. Stuart, H. Cockburn, Sir A. Johnstone, Sir.J. Blurt, Henry G. Cocks, T. S. Jones, Captain Tancred, H. W. Codrington, Sir W. Knightley, Sir C. Taylor, Colonel Coles, 11. B. Knox, Colonel Thesiser, Sir F. Collins, T. Knox, W. B. Towneley , John Compton, 11. C. Labouchere, Henry Townley, R. G. Conolly,ThomaS Langston, J. H. Tyler, Sir G. Corry, Henry Lennard, T: B. Verner, Sir W. Cotton, W. S. Lennox, Lord A. Vesey, Hon. T. Cowper, W. F. Leslie, C. P. Vyse, it. H. Craig, Sir W. G. Lewis, G. C. Waddington, H. 5, Crowder, R. B. Lindsay, Hon. Col. Waish,Sir J. B. Denison, Edmund Littleton, E. R. Watkins, Colonel Disraeli, B. Lockhart, W. Whiteside, Jamea Dodd, G. Lowther, Colonel Wigram, Loftus Douglas, Sir Cl. Mogan, W. H. • Williams, T. P. Drummond, Henry manuers,,Lord C. Williamson, Sir H. Duckworth, Sir J. Manners, Lord G. Willoughby, Sir H. 1 Duncuft, John March, Earl of Wilson, James Dundas, Admiral Masterman, J. Wood, Sir Charles Dundas, G. Matheson, Colonel Wortley,'J. S. Dundas, Sir D. Maxwell, Hon. J. P. TELLERS. Dunne, Colonel Mena, Sir H. Ilayter, W. G. East, Sir J. Moffatt, George Hill, Lord M. Tun LAW or BURIAL.—Some months ago memorial addressed to the archbishops and bishops of the provinces of Canterbury and York upon the present unsa tisfactory state of the law of burial, was extensively circu lated amongst the clergy. The result is that about 4,000 of this body have attached their signatures thereto, and the committee who were charged with the management of it have presented it to the archbishop s and bishops. No offi cial re[.ly has yet been given, but it is understood that many of the right rev. prelates have signified their willingness to attend to the requisition, and have expressed their approba tion of its object. [ArvnansEmErm.]--Holloway's Pills, an effectual Cure for Dropsy..—Extract of a letter from Mr. W. Tomlin son, of Bangor, dated May 1. 1851. "To Professor Hollo way. Sir,—For several years I was severely afflicted with dropsy; at times my feet and legs were so much swollen that I was quite unable to walk. I consulted many doctors, and tried remedy after remedy with hopes of obtaining relief, but I was disappointed in all until I tried your invaluable pills, which I gatefully acknowledge have been the sole means of effecting a cure of my complaint, and I am now in the enjoy ment of excellent health.—Sold by all Druggists, and at Pro fessor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. The population of Renfrewshire, which includes part of the city of Glasgow, has only increased 8,704 since the census of 1841. In that year it wee 155,072; at present it is 10317761 EVENING, 10 - TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. (EVERY MONDAY ♦ND WEDNESDAY.) Sir,—On Monday the 21st, was scene the second of the Jewish drama. The Member for Greenwich took his seat in the House, and ultimately voted three times. The division-lists, which may be had for a penny, ought to be bought up as curiosities by all who love the House of Israel. On the motion that the Member for Greenwich " do now withdraw," amendment was proposed, that he " hay. ing been returned to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Greenwich, and having taken the oath required by law in the manner most binding on his con science, is entitled to take his seat in this House." But notwithstanding this display of vigour, there was every appearance that the House was going to a division with out debate. Strangers had been erdered to with draw, and the operation nearly completed, when the Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), who as a lawyer is inferior to none in the House, threw himself into the breach, and to him, under Providence, is attributable the step finally gained for the advancement of religious liberty. After this the debate again languished, and would have gone out like a dying taper, if a second deliverance had not been wrought at the hands of the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hobhouse). The debate then proceeded with considerable liveliness; which was further invigo rated by a speech from the Member for Greenwich him self, the first time probably that the vo i ce o f t h e pecu li ar people has been heard in that assembly. His address was everything the most fastidious judge could have de sired; aided too by a personal presence which even an Inquisitor would not dare impugn. Efforts were after wards made to effect the adjournment of the debate; which would at all events have been keeping possession of the conquered ground for twenty-four hours longer. But one after another of the ostensible leaders of the case rose to declare that they could not see of what pos sible importance this was; and there was no getting three men t o agree upon i ts necess i ty , an instance of most imperfect knowledge of the ways and steps by which a cause works its way in public opinion. After the motion that he should withdraw was car ried by 231 against ii, the Speaker directed the Mem ber for Greenwich to withd raw, an d on t h e M em b er ' s continuing in handd s it on him and h e withdrew. his seat, the Sergeant-at-Arms placed his The speech of the evening, was that of the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell, Though opposite lawyers did their best to pick holes in its details,the sub stance of what was left untouched was this,--that the Oath of Abjuration had been framed so l e l y w i th a view to know who would repudiate the .Pretender, and who would not; and that on every occasion where it had been hold desirable; to apply this test to per sons of the Jewish persuasion, those words had been die,. pensed with, which in point of fact were never put there with any idea of keeping out Jews at all. Th e opponents answered by harping on the consequences of allowing men to put out first one portion of an oath and then another; as not discerning that the question was not of putting out any of the substance of an oath, but a portion of the form, which by universal law has been determined to be alterable. The upsh o t o f t h e w h o l e i s, t h at the cause o f reli gious liberty has made a great step. The bigots ha ve . seen a Jew in th e i r un h o l y of nnholies, and heard hue speak and vote. I n cases o f th i s k i nd, c ' est le premier pas qui come; and the obtaining such an outward visible sign of success, is as important as hoisting a certain flag upon a fortress, however it may be averred to be only a particular configuration of bunting. There is oue new move left for th e next corner, and that is, that after go in g through th e p rev i ous parts o f the process according to precedent, he should utter the words "on the true faith of a believer in this book." This would be clinching the absurdity, and augmenting the dilemma of the House. What is clear is, that the majority which voted for the Bill sent to the Lords. might have settled the question for themselves if they bad chosen, and that the Lords on a future occasion must act under the conviction, that the Government have the full moans of doing the thing themselves, if the second estate refuses to be the agent. On Tuesday the debate was renewed, upon the motion that the Member for Greenwich should not sit. The Attorney-General proved to the satisfaction of all, that the Oath of Abjuration was not directed against Jews at all, but simply against the abettors of the Pretender; and the Solicitor-General voted with the minority. The Member for the Tower Hamlets, who is just re turned from America, was treated with violence hardly to be matched in that semi-barbarous country. By great efforts on the part of the minority, the debate was adjourned till Friday. I am, Sir, yours very sincerely, AN OLD REFORMER. London, 23d Jaly, 1851. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Sin,—l have just read in this evening's Sun a paragrapk stating that there is great sickness in the navy on the Indian station, and special notice is made of her Majesty's ship Amazon, whose Captain (Barker) is said to be just con• valescent from, and frightfully disfigured by, small-pox. I received a letter from Captain Barker this morning, dated Singapore, June 1, where the mail from Hong-Kong to England had just arrived ; there cannot, therefore, be any later dates. He speaks of himself and crew being all well. As the notice in your paper may cause anxiety to those who have friends in the ship or on the station, I beg you will insert this statement. I am, Sir, &c., Athenaeum, July 21, 1851. A. B. COURT CIRCULAR. OSBORNE, MONDAY. Her Majesty, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, with the usual suite, attended Divine service yesterday morning at the parish church at Whippingham. The service was performed by the Hon. and Rev. F. P. Bouverie. There was no addition to:the Royal dinner party yester day. Sir James Clarke arrived in the afternoon from London. TUESDAY. Her Majesty, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, and the junior branches of the Royal Family, walked and drove in the grounds of Osborne yesterday. Mr. Birch and Mr. Becker had the henour of dining with her Majesty and his Royal Highness. Sir James Clarke left early for London. Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Harry Darrell had an in terview with Earl Grey yesterday at the Colonial-office. The officers and corps of her Majesty's Royal Body Guard of Yeomen of the Guard assembled yesterday in the garden in front of St. James's Palace, in full uniform under arms, and were inspected by the Marquis of Do negal, G.C.H., Captain of the Corps. ALARMING RIOT (A the OXFORD, WORCES TER, and WOLVERHAMPTON RAIL WAY. CAMBIUM, WORCESTERSHIRE, TUESDRIC.—For some time past an extraordinary degree of excitement has prevailed in a little village named Cambden, a place where the head offices of the contractors for the formation of a line of road through the Muckleton tunnel are situated, in consequence of a party warfare being carried on between the officers of the above oompany and a contractor of the name of Marehant. It ap pears that the contractor Merchant failing to complete his contract, it was resolved that that part of the line should be also taken in hand by Messrs. Peto and Betts, the contractors for the whole line with the above exception, between Oxford and Worcester. To this end, upon several occasions during the past month, Mr. Merchant has been requested to desist from keeping on any workmen, but he having refused, physi cal force was unhappily resorted to, and the consequence was, that Mr. Brunel, engineer of the line, was made an swerable for any breach of the peace committed by the " navvies." At first a slight skirmish between the " nav vies" of each party was the only evil result, but yester day morning, although happily no life was sacrificed on the spot, several Severe blows were dealt, and great cruelty at times perpetrated. From official information received, the agents of Messrs. Peto and Betts were authorised to col lect about 500 men, and march them on the Sunday night to Muckleton tunnel, in order to be the first on the ground, and prevent Mr. Merchant's men from pursuing their work on the Monday, On reaching the Worcester end of the tunnel, Mr. Cow dery, with his gang of 200 men from Evesham and Wyre, was met by Mr. Merchant, who dared any one of Messrs. Peto and Bette' men to pass the bridge, on p a i n o f b e i ng shot, Mr. Merchant himself being well supplied with pistols. Mr. Cowdery, exercising great forbearance at the unseemly conduct of Mr. Merchant, told his men on no account what ever to strike a blow. Mr. Cowdery finding that all expos tulation with hiarchant was useless, and Mr. Brunel giving peremptory orders for Messrs. Peto and Betts' men to pro ceed and take everything on the line, a rush was made to the men, which for a few seconds was repelled with great force by Merchant and his men, and the consequence was that several heads were broken and three men had their shoulders dislocated. Up to this time the navv ies" had not called into requisition their pickaxes or shovels, but a man in the employ of Merchant having drawn Pletels, he was eeized undisputed ptuhteedpos-upon, and his skull nearly severed in two. This occurrence for a time daunted Merchant, and he left Messrs, Peto and Bette' men for session of the ground. At the expiration of that time he an o h l o ic ur em ill en returned with some three dozen 10 Glou cester constabulary and some privates of the Gloucester Artillery, accompanied by the two magistrates of the place, menced reading the Riot Act. At who immediately com d taken 1 this juncture a melte ha P a " on a high embank ment, and here several broken limbs were the resu lt of the eontlict. r. Charles About four o'clock M Watson, of Warwick, ar rived with of two upwardshundred men, and the Great Western c o mpany also sent a similar number, in order to h t ass i s t them. ai arc an now finding that all attempts at re sistance were useless, from the vast majority in numbers of hie opponents, gave in, and he and Mr. Brunel aijourned, in or d e r to come to some amicable settlement. In their ab sence a small batch of " navvies" again met, and ene of them had his little finger bitten off and another his head severely wounded. Ultimately it was arranged that Messrs. Cubitt and Stephenson were to act as arbitrators, and that the works were to be suspended for a fortnight. LIVES OF THE QUEENS OF ENGLAND. BY AGNES STRICKLAND. A new and revised edition, embellished with Portraits of every Queen. Vol. I.—The announcement of this new, revised, and cheaper edition of Mien Strickland's popular work will be received with satisfaction by thousands who desire to possess it. The opportunity afforded by this republication has been employed for the purpose of careful revision, and the addition of materials that had been accu mulated since the first publication of the work, either in the course of the author's own researches or supplied by the zeal of friends and readers. The first volume is an earnest of the value of the completed whole : in it are comprised thir teeen biographies, commencing with that of Matilda, Queen of William the Conqueror, and extending to Anne of Bo hemia, the first Queen of Richard 11. The entire work is to be i completed in eight volumes : and we record the fa ct of ita re-appearance in this new form with the heartiest recom mendation of it to our readers as an acquisition of great value to their libraries, for Miss Strickland's" Lives of the Queens" has taken its place amid our permanent literature as a truly national work.—Critic. The two daily papers which have been published for some time in Glasgow—viz., the .Nerth British M a u (an d the Daily Mall—have undergone the prccess of amalgama tion, and are now published by the proprietors of the former, under the title of the North .Urttzth Daily Kail4 I