The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-15 00:00:00

, u t to be Hear•) t hougbi ke th e " to g ° with ip W"' ' t P P ort of tha t S i ' oat Cad ie , c a t r i ol 0 b een ye of THE SUN, i e n e 7 eb e °g•nizance of the authorities, under the Th rs" concordat entered into with Francis I. e R Point of • °llan Catholics knew not the Pope in a temporal view, he was looked upon only as a spiritual soverei The gn, and as such submitted to. Mean) tholica as such did not recognize the Pope in his ca- V• itiYuf,al temporal . sovereign. They regarded him as the En dad of their Church. He had temporal authority Curtis g l and; Dr. Doyle gave evidence to that effect, and Dr. aae at the time Archbishop of Armagh, ii i his evidence, vi lltt that he had no other authority than spiritual exercised e .t n n the canons of the Church. Many Catholics thought t o uld have b een b etter if the Popes had never interfered 'Eta temporal authority. It was true that at one period of ( history of this country some of the Popes attempted to e::ise temporal authority for their own aggrandisement . a hear.) Such an individual was Alexander VI, who 4,",a disgrace to the Popedom. It was also to be observed i i " i f s l t out of 260 Popes who had presided at Rome, not more te ei t wenty or thirty had failed to act up to the principles of ea' religion. Gregory VII. and Innocent 111. had used their spiritual authority kr their own aggrandisement an but it their families, and disgraced the cloth they wore; Wri'lt could not be denied that the great part of them People front the people, and acted with and fur the tit ) and that they exercised their *spiritual autho sitic_ao put an end to the vices of the time, in oppo• a __ e a to despotism, and in suppert of the people. He con &sun indepen rierarred with what had been said by the Noble Lord the euetary for Foreign Affairs, that the Pope of Rome should dent Prince. There was no religion of the kel lt of notion Rome and the Church of Rome. He repudiated We s the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church eiane e sam e everywhere. The question of a divided alle tioa w e w as raised when the question of Catholic emancipa owe a s discussed, but the Catholics recognised the Pope " I ! as the spiritual head of their Church. The Catholics tie ngland and Ireland did h o more tha n th e t wo th ousan d th_re'3Men, with the Bishop of Exeter at their head when cheL asse rted that the Queen had not supremacy , in the had cb of England in matters ecclesiastical. Catholics div_fitinother doctrine, that the hierarchy was a eecTi.:. i nstitution, and in its normal and ordinary to e u ° ll , the bishops must have territorial titles in order were z h erci ae episcopal jurisdiction. The vicars-apostolic h r t gl a in factut temporary substitution. The Bishop of Rome, of a , with the system of vicars-apostolic, is the Bishop with the vicars-apostolic • acting under him was nbstitate. Under the vicars-apostolic the country 'ar tween Parc elled out into districts; the only difference be- Ihe f; (ibishops with local titles is, that the former hod of the Pope. He might be asked why they legate s sought an hierarchy before. The Catholics had been • ay e . % sp l it xious for the restoration of the hierarchy, as an pus gem had been made to Queen Elizabeth for that eoalire, which was postponed, as it was though she would 10 h e r r n i to the Roman Catholic Church ; but afterwards, in for exe . re gn, one hundred priests were drawn and quartered for a ieeksing their ministry. That was not a time to ask itot. i!aierarehy. In the reign of James the First, after the it Plot, with which the Catholics as a bogy had it. fg t ° do, the prejudice was too great to think of getting ape .. a the reign of Cearles the Second the same prejudice r•fh`silled, arising from the conspiracy of Titus Oates. C j i tt threes 11. came to the throne, and toleration of fort ()li es was permitted, an application was made to him catitibs establishment of an hierarchy. He, although a eyst ea °li et inquired what was the difference between the two soe er - a s t and it was from the document presented to that I ear n .? explanation that he (Mr. Fagan) himself reto w nat the difference was. The Catholics were not gn'ised until the reign of George 111. The Catholics but that time were few, and did not require it, there numbers were increased by the immie E l l i n of the Irish. The case was now different, for the eetc, ° "" in. London were a greater number than the % o il Population of Rome. The Hon. Gentleman then letl o s Z t a Passage from Mr. Macaulay, which stated the revo- C l o a : e ani the nineteenth century, which put an end to the an e n', went of one nation ever another, and that which put th a t' to the property of man in man, was effected through the atholic religion. The promulgation of the sovereignty of People was first promulgated by the Jesuits, and that of this divine rights of kings by Protestants. The provisions to o h l° a ßill were extended to Ireland because the Government the offence that the Synod of Thurles had condemned an rish colleges. He had defended the colleges more than a n Y roan in Ireland, but the bishops had a right to express ed4°Pinion upon them as the guardians of religion, and th e f at ion was nothing without religion, and had a right to h a ke them "dangerous to faith and morals." The Bill a i ii • t° , Paralyse the Episcopals, and would make every act of ato e j li a m r ° P with a territorial title invalid ; the consequence W oe that such a bishop ordaining a priest the ordination al ea W would be invalid, and marriages solemnized by him tee n w° uld be invalid. All suOle priests Ire) law were lay one'eand therefore if the constituencies in and returned the hundred and five priests the Noble Lord would not Jeet t o th e a their taking their seats in the House. He warned the uo verrirnent against endangering the 600,000/. paid to felt ' of the minority of the people of Ireland, and he Re ft .."„ l enis duty also to state to the Noble Lord (Lord J. the m and to his Government, that though he voted with e o eaa on last evening under the influence of conscientious fiction, , yet a question might arise which would neces soi,P induce him and many other Irish Members to oppose, h ear " thereby to jeopardise the present Government.-( Hear, nigh t ) ' Fla admitted that he might have, by his vote of last be run the r i s k o f l os i ng hi s p o p u l ar ity, y e t, h owever l ie estimated th e goo dwill of the people of Ireland, uld not ei etio for an consideration vote contrary to his con k% 4 * 49 a friend of the Noble Lord and of his Govern t' he earnestly implored him to give up a measure that a eind e ntail on his f ormer generous and heroic achievements thaloat i nfelicitous and disareeable character ; but should ke" e , s Noble L ord persevere, he was determined, on every occa that h measure coul d conscientiously, to vote against any meat._ re proposed by him or any member of his Govern (Hear, hear.) . 3 ,e ti oral Hon. Members rose together, but itt:, S PEAKER called on 111 '• PEEL (Leominster) who entirely concurred in seve• • tui sentiments expressed more than once in that discussion, (t t c n Y, that it would be better to wait till the Noble Lord r' John Russell)bad developed the hewing and details of h a measure. S uc h a line of procedure he believed would ve can on with great advantage, for then the House f e ° ,,n l fl be able to judge of the merhe or demerits of the Bill iaipwa . l lich he (L or d J o h n R usse ll) h a d move d f or l eave t o ia e - e ih inoe• With the permission of the House, he would " a few remarks, thoughthose remarks he did not by to establish his conduct with regard to the reca ll-el.° in its f u ture discussion through the House. He should, on , w eaer, s a y that there were, in his opinion, some matters 11:"Ileeted with the subject, as it appeared at prrent, iihere totally irrelevant to the manner in which the Bi 1 sad°tlld be franeed.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") He evidently thatthat • lof the Noble Lord's (Lord John Russell) Bill thelnot satisfy either side of the House ; for consideredtherewer r a l ;' t han. Gentlemen on the opposite side who went beyond what was necessary for the present emer- P-neY, athilothers his side of the House considered that it e on their not by any means come up to their expectations or Zeir wishes. Many Hon. Gentlemen ou this side of the House V. eon sidered that the language used by the Noble Lord in a,,,P tr oductory preface of the measure to be altogether at 11 2 - m at lee with the spirit of his letter to the Bishop of Dur not') a nd they therefore thanked him for the letter, but were his at all satisfied with his speech on the introduction of tl eo i lle He was not surprised that many Honourable Gen % -en, who advocated this measure as an attack on the tentstitution, a violation of the prerogative, and an insult lt % he b ishops of the Established Church, should have fe d th,,siderable disappointment that a measure, which engage re.;' attention of Government and the country, should be ;actin to the narrow limits of only extending the . 28th that of the Catholic Relief Bill of 1821 He considered t h an t was their duty as legislators to do something more . eelapla""elY to review the opinion of the country, parti este - a' es it n rested with the Government to decide the e t * Th ow.. h Bill was whether anv revo a , .° question implied in t e the I , l lstia:. t ion had been given by the Court ot Rome too dno netit a 7 ; B and rights of this country ? And he had sect a i• u n in asserting that such was the case when hele• be ( a d °n. the arrogance of the recent pastoral letter. Yet enact s a n ,, ° t think that there was any necessity for legislative . , I n i _ent;,/ t ,si and even though he should, for aigu `ue p - :^e• admit that there was, he doubted whether * 1 111 -s ure f th Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) ou e maintain . o e Co .e inviolate the sanctity of religious liberty. t ° loe 4side red that there was no great value or importance th o u,: aatteehed to the system of attacking the Roman . Ca that '4,`Altrch by the severity of legislation, but he believed theZ e i seirit and disposition evinced by the majority of tion;• - . ° ine of this country, by their meetings and protests rrote%and every other symptom of their attachment to the gu ard ant Church of this country, were a sufficient safe- Pro test Ogainst any aggression from without. Were not the ne ant Dissenters, in union with the Protestants of the 04. ah Church continually bolding meetings under the in • ah e ll , e° (d. thei;fears that - the Roman Catholic Church was Th e - ," t ° make rapid strides on their much-cherished faith? to the Met to a ssure eac h o th er o f th e i r zea l an d attachment te m b er eed of their fathers, and thus by entering into a Pri4, ; ,,, n d of uni on , th e y were determined t o s tand by the alea t ' e s of the revolution. On those occasions they showed that the cause of their religion was indis- Cl ar l hound up w ith the interests of the Protestant rae 4 ;„`" - (Hear, hear.) He did not consider the present heeter• re to be a sufficient one; though the Attorney-go • a ald that it was intended to provide against a specific Course and that he (the Attorney-General) in taking that th at Wa s acting on a sound maxim of policy. He thought rhos; t , would be desirable that the Roman Catholic religion rec or d be arranged in such a manner as would . prevent the eleh.'enee of any such agitation that might again arouse the atered feelings of the country. When he heard the lio r i l • Member for Meath (Mr. 11. Grattan) allude to the th ci Of 1813, for the relief of the disabilities of Roman Ca liesat as being one that, if then passed, would remove . the o f 1 - uurre e gs and agitation which so virulently prevailed rnoattate,a he should say that though the Act of 1829 had re- Were"' so me securities from the Protestant Church, yet there t o other securities given by the Roman Catholic Church wiser of those; and such a course he thought to be much ted by th e f r lnd more judieious than any that could be effec eke, ill of 1813 ; for the Act of 1829 sanctioned a communi this-etween the see of Rome and the Roman Catholics of C oant • was free and unim Pecied . 1 79 and that communication - Per gn „ owing to the well-known loyalty of the I - " 3 Professi g that reed and in consquence of that °Y alt c 9 Y these was no interference with the temporal cori ti4:4 of this country. He would next allude to the disposi of e e tineed by the Government relative to the appointment bott Roman Catholic bishop.- (H ear .) The Government i st ated it a s th e i r fi xe d reso l ve not to i nterfere i n t h e th e of their bi s h ops , b ut to l eave all to the good sense o f ton °ye. who they knew would not sanction the consecra 046°' PY persons who might be in any way suspected of selt) ;a dY• He believed that the Noblelord '(Lord Rus jot_ avowed that he had no intention to interfere with the re,,trual machinery of the Roman Catholic religion ; and with 04 1 , ) , : l t to that case, he should say that there were two points be u leh be felt very strong, and by which he was resolved to of Paled throughout that discussion. He meant the position thcrtholic bishops in this country, and the constitution of th e i r c hurch discipline, and their spiritual authority over tee d O wn Peopl e . Wi t h regar d t o th e f ormer, h e did not in •sey, wto look to mere abstract questions of law; but he should be er , b en he saw the Government declining to prosecute, ' e otie "se there were no legal precedents for such prose the Ts, that Roman Catholics were justifiable in recognising ex er •l'. lr isdictio n of the Pope, and the Pope had a right to Catholicse piritual and ecclesiastical authority over theßoman that e of this country.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware pro s ome Persons would consider such an (pinion as he then i sehai t l f Tatted to be at variance with the oath of supremacy, °Li : ai lie, a s a Protestant Member, bad &ken, but to that take e should reply, that he was prepared, as before, to waFTat oath with a clear and unsullied conscience, for, hc"wnevelie did not mean to take refuge in words, he should, P ope ha r a in explanation say, that he did not believe that the one could any legal jurisdiction in this country, though no did exist. deny that his spiritual and ecclesiastical authority who differedHe was aware that many of his fellow-subjects, fora long rom him in religious belief, had been proscribed were eh nne but he was happy to say that those times the Churctedo—(Hear, bear.) It was a well-known fact that that that soc• f t Rome was an ecclesiastical Church, and who claimed': Zama placed under the government of men, Divi • • Med the hierachne Mission, and that those men consti hiktlea w an to - be y 0,1: the Church of Rome. Then if a pro- OMereci to th cse men ha tho discharge 9f their opiscopal functions, their office would - be altogether in complete, and consequently the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church would be totally neglected. He was aware that it had been said, and would be again said, that there was no necessity for bishops, as vicars-apostolic had for the last 800 years, discharged the duty of bishor3 in this country ; but it should be borne in mind that thos” Liahops believi_that they have by divine institution a Pose vern their own society ( Hear -he therefore t lieueht it better that the c mcerns of the Rothan Catholic Church should be governed by the ecclesiastical power of bishops, which power actually exis s and cannot be denied, rather than to be administered as they have been for the last :00 years, since the time of Benedict IV., under the guidance and control of a Pope of Rome. He did not see any reason why the canon law should not be administered by the Pope in matters relevant to the Roman Catholic Church, although the Noble Lard (Lord J. RusSell) stated 'it as his opinion, after having examined the Acts by which the diocesan farm of government had been exercised, that the introduction of such forms and such canons was opposed to the rights and constitution of this country.-( Hear.) What had the Pope done ? As a foreign power, yet a spiritual head of the Roman . Catholic Church, he had assumed the authority of erecting sees, of filling those sees with his own nomination, and o f issuing authority by which diocesan bishops might exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But then the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had said that, for a subject of the Crown of this country to assume a title, was opphsed to the rights and prerogative of the Sovereign, who was solely in vested, by her authority, to make such a partition of this country. 'He should add, that the Noble Lord did not confine himself to the creation' of ecclesiastical sees, but he went so far as to bring a charge against those prelates of parcel ling out the territorial districts of the country ; and in sup port of his (Lord John Russell's) assertion, he stated that the public law was on his side, and that that public law prohibited the Pope from dividing the country with the Sovereign. But be (Mr. Peel) should say that that public law guaranteed the right of communication between the Pope, on the one side,. and the priests and laity, on the other.-(Hear, hear.) He saw a very great and enormous evil in any legislation of that kind ; for if it proceeded a little tarther, the act would be stigmatised as infamous. st- (Cheers.) Again, the Attorney-General stated that the consequences of that Bill would be to pre vent synodical action, which he inferred, from the address of Cardinal Wiseman, as likely to be introduced into this country, but he (Mr. Peel) fur his part, doubted very much if the measure would have the effect of preventing synods, as the Roman Catholic prelates, priests, and laity, would evade the provisions of the Bill by every possible means. It had been also said that the feeling on the part of Ireland relative to that measure had been very strong, as being an attempt to deprive them of the long-enjoyed rights of canon law, and, on the other hand, the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) said that the avowed object of establishing diocesan divisions and episcopal jurisdiction was the inteoaeetion of 'the canon laws, and the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) had on that occasion brought to light a number of passages from that code of the most, disparaging char cter, though Lord Stowell, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, while presiding in London, passed the highest etriogium on this code of canon laws. When the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) stated that the canon law was opposed to the common and statute law of Ibis country, he should recollect that there was a considerable difference between the canon law and the ecclesiastical law of this country. When the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) said that our Consuls-General exer cised a jurisdiction over the British subjects in Turkey, by virtue of the treaties with Turkey and the Levant Company, he should have considered that the Pope did not at any time give or receive diplomatic correspondence, and that there fore, there was no analogy whatever between the two cases, and he would add, moreover, that the code of canon law only prevailed over those Roman Catholics who paid vo luntary obedience to it, for there could be no coercion in a free country such as this.-(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He deeply regretted thst the bishops of the Roman Ca tholic Church in Ireland should have assembled for the purpose of depriving the children of their diocese of that beneficent education which a paternal Government afforded them. If it were the wish of the Government to prevent synodical action, he considered that some other means should be adopted besides the present measure, and he should also add, that he did not wish to trust the security of the Protestant religion to a mere Act of Parlia ment, but he relied on the power of ' controversy, on the good sense of the people, and on the belief that the tenets of the Church of Rome cannot be upheld on the warranty of Scripture, and more especially on the attachment of the people to their creed and their clergy, as has been strongly exemplified in the building of churches, and the erection and endowment of schools, and other beneficent acte ; and lie felt assured that the Church could not only main tain her ground without artificial aid or support, but Viet she could even make way against her enemies. In his opinion the Church of England had nothing to fear from the Church of Rome, for every man had a right to' judge by his own interpretation of the Scripture, which ever renders that Church unassailable and impregnable against any assault. He should, therefore say, that there was no reason not to grant toleration to all religious denominations.-(Cheers.) Sir J. DUKE felt under great disadvantage in addressing the House at all times; and that disadvantage was certainly not lessened on the present occasion by his rising as he did immediately after the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down. Indeed, had he consulted merely his own feelings he would gladly have contented himself with giving a silent vote on the present question; but, having the honour to represent au important constituency, which had been referred to by the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he felt it necessary to say a few words with which he hoped the House would indulge him. But, before lie referred to the observations of the Hon. Member for Manchester, he begged to say that something like an unfair censure had been cast upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern ment for the letter which he had addressed to the Bishop of Durham. It had been said that that letter had been the means of occasioning the meetings which had taken place in London and throughout the country, and that the Noble Lord, being in want of "political capital," found it necessary to call upon the people to come forward and resist Papal aggression. It had also been alleged that that letter was published on, the day before the sth of November, in order to excite the city on the oc casion of the annual processions. Now, he (Sir J. Duke) happened to be abroad at the time that letter was publisheo, but, on his return, he took the opportunity of going over the public papers to see what course the City of London and the public had taken upon this important question in his ab s ence ; and he found that, so early as the 14th of October, nearly the whole of the newspapers of the capital had united in calling upon the public and the Government to resist the Papal aggression. He found articles to the same effect in those papers on the 21st and 22d of October. On the 23d appeared a letter from a gentleman at Exeter, desiring to know whether the Noble Lord and the Government sup ported the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. Oa the 25th the clergy of Westminster met, and addressed the Bishop of London. On the 30th the inhabitants of the important parish of St. George, in the metropolis, met for the same object. On the 31st the London clergy also met, and ad dressed the Bishop. On the 28th a reply appeared to the Exeter letter, from the secretary of the Premier, to the effect. that neither directly nor indirectly had the Noble Lord sanc tioned the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. On the 2d of No vember he found that the great parish of Marylebone, in vestry assembled, protested against the Papal aggtession. Ile found also that the parish of Stepney met about the same time, and that similar meetings were held at Gloucester, Canterbury, Dover, l)cal, Southampton, Worcester, Reading, and other places-all before the appearance of the Noble Lord's letter.-(Hear, hear.) That letter appeared only on the 7th of November, so that it was an error to say that it was published on the 4th for the purpose of exciting the public on the following day.-(Hear, hear.) On the 7th of November took place the meeting of the Corporation of London ; but he could assure the House that the Noble Lord's letter had nothing to do with that meeting, which was held on the usual day, and had been summoned a week before.- (Hear.) Being a member of that corporation he was unwilling to say anything about its proceedings, except to re mind the House that they had the high honour of approach ing the Sovereign on great and important occasions; and, although he had been twenty years connected with the cor poration, he never remembered it availing itself of that privi lege except in the present instance-( Hear, hear)-and he presumed that nothing but the consideration Ural it was a case of unusual importance would have induced then to do so. --(Hear, bear) But although he would say nothing more of the proceedings of the corporation, he might be allowed to refer to the great and importaut meeting of bankers, mer chants, and traders of the city of London.-( Hear, hear.) Among other meetings which had taken place throughout the country, there was one, he believed, of the enlightened constituents of the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roe buck), who had not only addressed the Queen, but had passe d a vote of thanks to the Noble ,Lord. - ( Hear, hear.) Now, those meetings had been described as the result of in tolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. He (Sir J. Duke) did not know whether that was the case or not; but he believed that if those addresses to the Queen. had been petitions to the House of Commons iu support of some favourite scheme of free-trade policy. certain Hon. Members would have talked loudly enough of the dignity of the ancient corporation of London, the great weight of the merchants, bankers, and traders of the first commercial city in the world, and the in telligent and irresistible voice of the country.-(Hear.) He did not know what might be the result of this debate ; but he was quite certain, that by whatever combination of parties the measure might ultimately be defeated, the feeling of the country would rally round the Noble Lord and his Govern ment, and, in the language of the magnificent speech with which he had introduced the measure, would show them that they were ready to resist the Papal aggression "'in all points and with all their power."-(Hear, hear.) With re gard to the remarks which the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had made respecting the Rev. Dr. Russell, he begged to say that he had known that Rev. Gentleman for many years, and that a more upright, exemplary, and pious clergyman could not ba found in the Church or country -and, when he found his name mentioned as having had recourse to or sanctioned the exactions which had taken place in a meeting-house in his parish, he felt it due to him to say, that he had no more to do with that transaction than the Hon. Member himself; and that the persons who were alone responsible for it were the parochial authorities acting under a warrant from one of the magistrates of the city of London, than whom he would venture to say there was no set of men more kind or considerate in the discharge of such delicate and difficult duties.-(gear, hear.) • Mr. B. WALL wished to state to the House the reason why he was about to take the unusual course of opposing the introduction of a Government measure. A great deal had been said about. the unanimity of feeling prevailing in the country. Doubtless the meetings had been numerous, and the public mind had been much excited, but the chief advantage gained by the demonstration was that it had elicited from all phrts of the country the value which yeas attached to the rights of private judgment, and showed how ready the people were to come forward when there was the remotest idea of the Royal supremacy or prerogative being irivaded. It ought not to be forgotten that in dealing with Protestant states which had no. concordat the Pope could only proceed in two ways-either by excommunicating or ignoring them ; and of these ,two courses the Pope had adopted the more gracious towards the. Noble Lord. He had hoped that this Bill would have embodied the minimum of intereference ; but after !homing to the speech of the At torney-General he was convinced that it amounted to the maximum of persecution.-(:fin ironical cheer from Lord J. Russell.) The more bold arid honest, the more true and faithful the Catholic, the more bitter would the per• secution be. It was the first aggressive Parliamentary mea sure since 1829, and was oppoesd to all the declarations made by the First Minister. The Noble Lord, it seemed, had changed his mind. Why, then, did he nor say as much to his old friend and ally the Pope?- (Cheers and laughter.) The Pope certainly could not, by any . possibility, c once i ve from what had already been permitted in Ireland that his appointment of bishops and archbishops and the establish ment of an hierarchy would cause to much surprise and in dignation to the Government. He felt bound to say that the bishops of the Eetablished Church in this country had not in opinion. any interferedmay tThe improperly Member ipor Ayrshirewith th e e hadexpression public le is . county had not petitioned in favour of these measures of the Noble Lord; but the Hon. Gentleman might have added the important fact. that scarcely any of the Scottish counties had petith ned Parliament upon the subject; and with re gard;to Tractarianism he might have stated also, that though there were VIAVI is *timid IA which th 999 9P 41194 were LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 15, 1851. held, and where public worship was carried on in the Fame manner as that with which the Noble Lerd had been so well acquainted, yet not an instance was known of a Presbyterian in that country b eying been converted to those opinions. The reasons which Lad been put forward for the present Bill were, that there had been great public demonstrations with reference to tie art of, the Pope, that the Archbishop of Canterbury had stated that he desired such a measure, that Archbishop Cullen had been selected.- instead of archbishop somebody else, and that the, Synod of 'Mules had met and cnesidered the quest•ort of the occupancy of land and the system of education; but, in his (Mr. Wall's) judgment, these reasons were not sufficient to justify, the Noble Lord in changing the line of conduct which he had hitherto uni formly pursued, or in introducing a Bill which would prac tically have the effect of making every, man (Roman Catholic) a Jesuit, and every priest a spy !—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had tried the experiment how far he could goVern this country without any Bills of pains and penal ties, and in that course he had been eminently successful. But now, to his (Mr. Wall's) deep regret, he was about to swerve from the principles which had heretofore guided him, and proceed in' an opposite direction. When the Noble Lord came to put the measure into operation in Ireland, he believed he would experience extreme difficulty in the at tempt to do so. The Irish Members were not at all inclined to support the views which the Noble Lord had taken, and unless a law of this sort were passed, not by a bare majority, but with something of unanimity of feeling in this House, the Noble Lord would find that he had embarked upon a. dan gerous experiment, which would redound neither to the safety of the state nor the peace of the country. Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said, before he entered on the subject before the House, he had to refer to some animad versions which had been passed on the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend and colleague (Mr. Napier) by the Hon. and Learned Member fur Athlone (111 r. Keogh). The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had accused his Hon. Friend and colleague of being secretary to the Brunswick Club in Ire land, which had for its object the opposing the Emancipa tion Act of 18:9. Now, his Hon. Friend lied no recollection of being so. Mr. KEOGH—Dees he deny it ? (Hear.) Mr. HAMILTON—However that might be, it could not be said that the club was instituted for the purpose of vio lating or resisting the law;and it was dissolved immediately after the passing of the Act. His Hon. Friend, in 1832, was secretary to a party, which had for its object the ameliora tion of the condition of the Irish people, but he had no re collection of being secretary to the one alluded to. The lion. and Learned Gentleman also stated that hie lion. Friend had said that Catholics were admissible to the ho nours of the University of Dublin, and that be (Mr. Keogh) would show the hypocrisy which dictated that statement. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Keogh) had adverted to a state ment made by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Napier) that in the offices connected with the law courts of Ireland, a preference had been shown by the present Government in favour of Ro man Catholics over their Prtsteatantiellow-eotanti, tutu. Now he, On his own part, could fairly say that since the passing of the Emancipation Act no difference should be made between Roman Catholics and Protestants in their appointment to offices in the gift of the State, and the only question was, whether the best men should be appointed..-..(Hear, bear.) But at the same time he would ask why, in the Irish ap pointments to judicial offices, such men as Mr. Henn and Mr. Bennett had been overlooked in these appointments, except that they were Protestants? The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath•(Mr. Grattan), had made a statement to the effect, that the late Chancellor of Ireland, Sir Edward Sugden, had recognised Dr. Croly as Archbishop of Ar magh and Primate of all Ireland. Now, being anxious to set the Hon. Gentleman right, he was able to state that although hit% Croly was thus designated in a report in Chancery, it had never received the sanction of the Chan.e cellor, the report never having come under his cognisance. However, the real question before the House was, whether her Majesty's Government had shown sufficient grounds to call on the House to grant them permission to introduce this Bill. It appeared to him that the recent act of the Pope was' a violation of the law of nations, and certainly of the laws of Europe. that those who had carried out, the Pope's brief had violated the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and that an indignity had been cast on the Sovereign of these realms.— (Hear, hear.) He, therefore, thought her Ma jesty's Government were quite justified • in introducing the present Bill, which it was inconvenient to discuss until it was brought before the House. He would, however, admit that all legislation on this matter should be framed so as not to be insulting, while, at the same time it was not inoperative, and that it should in no wise trench on that settled principle of the Constitution, that they should not infringe on the free and religious exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. If he, as a humble individual, might be permitted to make a defence of the Noble Lord (Lore J. Russell), he would say that when the Noble Lord admitted his confidence in Roman Catholics' had been mistimed, it did not occur to him that no such defence was necessary, and that he might be fully jus tified in resisting Papal aggression, while he advocated mea sures in favour of civil and religious liberty.—(Hear.) Mr. SADLEIR challenged Mr. Napier to deny that he had been either secretary to, or a member of, the Brunswick Club in Ireland; and, in answer to Mr. Hamilton's state ment, said he had no hesitation in asserting that these clubs were illegal associations, and that they were regarded by every statesman as subjecting their members to the penalties which the law justly assigned to illegal associations. With respect to what the Noble Lord had said on the subject of the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants employed in public offices in Ireland, he (Mr. Sadleir) had always ab stained from noticing that painful and invidious topic; but the Noble Lord attached great importance to what he had done for Roman Catholics, and he hadno doubt, without intend ing it, lent his countenance to the fallacy which the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of - Dublin ( Mr. Napier) would have them believe, that Protestantism was a disqualifi cation for office in Ireland. In refutation of that statement he ( Mr. Sadleir) boldly asserted, what must be well known to the Noble Lord, that the heads of every public department were all Protestants. The Hon. Gentleman here read a list of' the law officers, judges, assistant barristers, masters in Chancery, and others employed in the public service in Ireland, together with the amount paid in public salaries, for the purpose of showing that the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants to whom Government patronage was extended was exceedingly small, and that notwith standing the declaration of the present Viceroy, that in con • felling the patronage of the Crown he would be guided solely by professional merit. He would not dwell on that painful and invidious subject. It was not the Roman Catholics who had courted the introduction of it in connexion with the unfortunate project of the Government; but, as it had been introduced, he had been desirous of removing any erroneous impressions on the matter. With respect to the propose a Bill of the Noble Lord, and the cry of "No Popery," with which they had hounded on the scum of the people against their countrymen, he reminded them of the opinion of one of the greatest patriots of their country, as to the inutility of such factitious ails to repress the free development and per feet organisation of a rival creed And to his Roman Ca tholic countrymen and fellow-subjects and believers he would say, that at the present critical juncture they ought to be vigilant and firm. He felt an honest and a national pride in belonging to that body, so loyal and so faithful, not withstanding the slanders that had been heaped upon their doctrines and their religion. He felt an honest pride in belonging to that body, always distinguished for its allegiance to their Sove reign and for its love of peace. To the denunciations from the platform which had been directed against his religion, his reply was, that one of the most distinguished of their own divines had paid a just tribute to all that was admirable and holy in the faith he professed, and showed how the mission aries of the Roman Catholic Church were to be found in Cardinal Wiseman that did not suit Dr. Cumming, not the temporal a g gression which the Bill professed to deal with. Again, Le iMr. M. Gibson) would take the letter of the Noble Lord himself, dated Downing-street, November, 1850, and printed for distribution at ss. per 1,000 on unstamped paper—(Laughter)—contrary to the Act of Parliament in that case made and provided —( Laughter)--whereby every one selling or buying a copy was subjected to a penalty of 201. The Noble Lord said that the aggression of the Pope was oti the Protestantism of England—on an ism, on an opinion, it would be remarked, not on the temporal power or authority of the Queen. That warranted him (Mr. M. Gibson) in coming to the conclusion that the real desire of the promoters of the measure was to keep the Ro man Catholic religion from spreading in the country by means of penal laws. Another authority he should quote was the Rev. Dr. M'Neile's speech at a meeting is St. Jar tin's Hall, the Duke of Manchester in the chair— an autho rity which the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford would admit to be unimpeachable on his side of the question. That Reverend Gentleman :had denounced domestic inter course as between British Christians and Roman Catholics, and said that if their sons and daughters should touch the unclean thing— (Laughter)—their parents would be alone to blame. They should deny, therefore, all domestic inter course between them, otherwise they would go on with the unclean thing - (Laughter) - and take it to their breasts, until at length it turned round and stung them.— (Loud laughter.) That was, however, a speech against Papal ag • gression. The Noble Lord did not in the slightest degree meet the objections of the Reverend Gentleman, who was a member of that State Church whose rights were to be vin dicated, and a sort of attachment to it got up by villifying the Roman Catholic religion —a mode of proceeding which tallied exactly with the recommendation of a late Noble Viscount, at the head of a certain party, to his friends, "Don't praise us, but abuse our enemies—that's the way to create an attachment to us."—(Laughter.) In the letter of the Noble Lord, which began the movement, a movement however which bad not reached the working classes, that Noble Lord had himself committed an aggression on the Protestantism of the country, by propounding a code of Downing-street divinity.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord, while contending for the invaluable privilege of private judgment in mattere of conscience, took upon him self to point out what was superstition and what was not, in the practice of the Established Church of the country, al though the competent tribunal only the other day had de clined deciding the question of infant baptism and prevenient grace. But supposing the Noble Lord had a right to lay down that doctrine, the policy of doing so could not be a ques tion. For it might so happen that a Roman Catholic Prime Minister might do the same: and that a Unitarian Premier would, with equal right, condemn the Trinity. Still, as suming it to he not alone right, but expedient, for the Noble Lord to settle the differences that existed among many conscientious members of the Church in this mat• ter, was the existence of these differences any reason why he should bring in a Bill to impose pains and penalties upon the Rowan Catholics. who had nothing whatever to do with them ?—(Hear.) Indeed. he (Mr. Gibson) could not for the life of him conceive why what was called Puseyism was pressed into the question of Papal aggression at all. The House was called on, however, to pass a law against Roman Catholics because the Pope ap pointed these bishops; but the Noble Lord had made an un worthy use of the word " govern," to be found in the pas toral of one of these bishops, seeing that it could obviously mean nothing except the spiritual government of the Roman Cathelics. It was agreed on all hands that the intercourse of the Roman Catholics with Rome should be unrestricted, and that the Pope had a right to appoint their bishops. The Government, however, was going now to narrow and lessen the religious liberty conceded by the Emancipation Act. It was urged that the proceeding of the Pope was an act of aggression on the rights of this country and the supremacy of the Queen; but in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion such an ar• gnment was mere clap-trap. He regretted that the speech of the Noble Lord was calculated to prejudice the House as against the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and he maintained that in respect to secular education no such tolerance was to be found among the bishops of the Church of England as had been manifested at the Synod of Thurles, when 13 bishops of the Roman Catholic Church voted against it, and 12 for it. The wt a writer t l re i torh e t eesa a cti aldhrn.ut;Gcathu.h authority. ofE a r v in o iti u t heo Churchat n e ed t u e r fa n hr u g irms u e of o ho t ar e se Noble Lord had quoted M. Dupin as against the Church of n T ( ev il hea e rt ar, hear.) The Hon. Member then proceeded to argue a Rome.gr e w e that the Church of England had committed aggress on in other countries of a far more serious character than tha imputed to the Church of Rome in this; and he instanced • the case of some missionaries at Fow Choo Fow in China, who, according to the Overland Mail of the 28th November, 1850, had forcibly taken possession of a temple, and held it as against the townsfolk. He also instanced the case of the Rev. Dr. Brittelheim, a Hungarian Jew by birth, but a converted Christian, and a naturalised or adopted En glishman, in the island of Loo Choo, who had had a steam-sloop dispatched specially to ascertain hew he was getting on; and on whose account the Government at Hong-Kong remonstrated with the local authorities when he was assaulted by the police, in the same manner as another European state demanded this country should in terfere in a recent riot in the vicinity of the river. Now that was a description of oppression which the British Go vernment ought not to authorise; and he for one should be prepared to advocate resistance to it, if it were attempted in this co entry. He complimented the Noble Lord on his a s corrupte-E.finGsghtl ja.z”nca—)dts: statement that he did not like the interference of eccle siastics in secular and temporal matters. But he regretted to find, notwithstanding that statement, that the Noble Lord, in the course of the long speech with which he had favoured the House had quoted but two au thorities that bore on the matter in hand, and those two were ecclesiastics. The Noble Lord had told them that the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury had expressed to him their belief that there ought not to be any persecution in that case, but that legislative measures ought to be passed for preventirg the assumption of titles by Roman Catholic bishops. Now he (Mr. M. Gibson) did not think that those two prelates were the proper persons to consult in such a matter as that. He certainly should not expect much impartiality from Dr. Blomfield while surrounded by the pumps and vanities of the world, and not altogether exempt from the infirmities of our nature—he should not expect much . impartiality from him, anxious, as he must naturally be, to " stand alone in his glory " upon a point relating to the claims and preten sions of a rival churchman: He did not think that Dr. Blomfield, or even Dr. Sumner, was the most fitting guide on Such a subject. For his part, he would deal with that matter; not on the advice of ecclesiastics of the Established Church, but he would deat with it as a national question, and he would base his legislation on purely secular considera tions, looking only to its fitness for promoting the peace, happiness, and harmony of all classes of her Majesty's sub jects.—(Hear, hear.) If he understood rightly the tendency of the measure as explained by the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman the Attorney-General, he hoped there would yet be inserted in the Bill a clause to the following effect: a " And be it enacted, that this Act may be broken with impunity during the present session and all future sessions of Parlia ment."—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was persuaded that the measure then before the House would be entirely nuga tory for any good purpose, and would only produce great ir ritation, for, as hal been well obserued by the Hon Member for Buckinghamshire, it was but a piece of petty persecution. To such a measure he, for one, should not give his support, but would, on the contrary, use his utmost efforts to ensure it rejection.— (Cheers.) Mr. C. BRUCE said that, however opposed he might be every clime, scaling the steepest rampart of infidelity, and triumphantly planting upon its highest citadel the banner of faith. As for the boasted efforts of the Noble Lord in favour ,o the general polioy of her Majesty's Government, he should never have thought of offering any opposition to the introduction of such a measure as that then under their of Roman Catholic freedom, he had to say that it was not to consideration ; and neitherZZld—he—bare attempted for a the isolated efforts of any individual—it was not to the Noble moment to have delayed the decision of the House upon the Lord that they owed the legitimate advantages they pos• subject had it not been that he felt most anxious to notice sessed ; no, they had overcome the spirit of religious intole- a statement which had fallen from his Hon. Friend the Mem rance by subduing and controlling their own passions, by ber for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswald) on Wednesday last, to the their dignified resignation, by their firmness and fortitude effect that the opinion of th e people of Scotland was op under years of persecution and oppression, guided by the posed to any interference with the recent acts of the Papal energies and unrelaxing efforts, by the towering genius, by aggression. He (Mr. C. Bruce) believed thal his Hon. the constitutional knowledge, by the legal acumen, by tbeun- Friend, in making that statem en t, had completely misrepre deviating allegiance and fidelity of their own O'Connell. seeded the feeling of the people of Scotland upon that Thus it was that they had worked out their own emancipa- question; and he felt it his duty to protest against any tion and the gradual resurrection of their country. He asked allegation so monstrous as that the people of that country— Hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind before they gave their sup- the people perhaps the most opposed in all Christen port to the proposed measure, that the moment might be doin to the errors of the Church of Rome should nearer at hand than they imagined when they might be be indifferent to the attempt of their brethren in this called on to decide whether they would gradually sink into country to resist the assumptions of Romanism. But an insignificance more obscure than any from which they it was said that the people of Scotland had taken no bad emerged, or should be triumphantly conducted to na- active steps in that matter. The fact was that the people of tional concord and peace. that country were not very apt to volunteer their services Mr. M. GIBSON observed that he was in Parliament when they knew that those services were not wanted. They since 1P37 with a short interval of absence, and the present had such reliance on the firmness, energy, love of truth, and was the first occasion on which he had been invited to em- attachment to the principles of civil and religious liberty-- bark in a policy involving principles which lie considered principles to which the Church of Rome bad ever been opposed—they had such reli ance on those qualities of Eng were embodied in the propotition of the Noble L md, and he was justified, therefore, in hesitating before he took the first lish character, that they felt assured the people of England step in the matter, and in satisfying himself that the course would be able, without an ex t ri n s ic a id, successfull y to resist he took was founded on pure considerations. He had been that aggression. He would venture to say, on behalf of frequently asked to oppose the removal of disabilities from the great majority of the people of Scotland, that if their carious portions of his fellow-countrymen who had die . brethren at this side of the T wee d req uired their assistance a a bilities laid upon them in consequence of their religious ill timed, and most unwarrantable tenets. But the present was the first time, lie repeated, to prevent that unjust, i aggression; such assistance would at once be forthcoming.— that he had been invited to impose disabilities upon men (Hear- ) His Hon. Friend th e M em ber for Ayrshire had on account of their religious opinions. The proposal before said that the Government had not interfered with the Free the House was one calling on them to go out and impose Church Establishment ice Scotland But there was the penalties n men for merely carrying out those religious grea t es t difference between that es t a blishment and the new , arrangements which they considered best adapted to theln the one Case they had the ends they bad in view in the practice of their religion. Church for Bpi , itual objects, while He (Mr. Gibson) could scarcely suppose the measure was a t ect of a Church which, as the ex erience of all ages proved, mixed up temporal with its serious one, such were the reports that had been circulated. P other etsht ee ynt had hierarchy, aedletrhe ne spiritual pretensions. Another Hon. Member had stated In the Times newspaper, which was supposed to shadow that the prelates of the E acti Romant o h f e ao Catholic P th r e o Episcopal Church of Scotland had the views of Government, it was hinted that Ireland was to be left out of the Bill. If that was to be the assumed the titles of ancient sees without any objection on case, :t would be better for the Government to be open and the part of the Government. But between that case also Lair in the matter, and not int r oduce Ireland at all unless and the one then und e r the consideration of the House there was no real analogy. The Scottish Prelates assumed they intended to include it bond fide. But it seemed to him a thing most strange to plac e th e Roman Catholics of Eng- the titles of sees for which there were no other claimants, land and Ireland i n a worse osition than the Roman and there was nothing in t he proceeding that could be p con- Catholics of the other parts o f her Majesty's dominions. sidered of an aggressive character. With respect to the If it was the duty of the L eg i s l a t ure t o p reven t e pi sco p a l speech by wh ich the Noble Lord bad introduced that mea organisation in England, it was equally their duty to prevent sure, he should observe that the people of Scotland would in it in Australia and in the North American colonies.—(Hear, his belief consider that speech as worthy of the Protestant hear.) The interference of foreign potentates was equally to Minister of a Protestant Sovereign—(Hear)—addressing a be resisted in the colonies as in the United Kingdom. If it Parliament which the literal spirit of Protestantism had had been a matter of local or municipal arrangement, thrown open to Christians of all denominations. But with be admitted it might be left to any particular colony; and respect to the Bill itself, he co n f essed that he could not that, perhaps, in such circumstances, it would not be wise for think it went f ar enough.—(Hear.l e He believed that the Parliament to interfere; but if it were the fact, as stated by Noble Lord must not content himself with prohibiting titles; the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the ap. he believed that the Noble Lord must render penal the in puintment of bishops by the Pope was an outrage on the troduction of bulls and rescripts.—(Hear.) He believed that Queen's supremacy—a violation of the law of nations— he must put down bylaw all monkeries—gre7, white, or any then it was the duty of the Government not to shrink from other colour. He believed that unless the Noble Lord went defending her Majesty's rights in all her Majesty's posses- that length, he would not satisfy the justice of the case. But sions as well as in the United Kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) he thoUght that the House of Commons would then be want- This fact made him (Mr. M. Gibson) conclude, that ing in its duty if it refused to sanction the introduction of a those who proposed this Bill were not sincere when they measure having for its object to give effect to the declared stated that it was based upon secular and merely wishes of the Protestant people of this country.—(Divide.) political considerations, and on those considerations alone Mr. F. MAULE said be was glad to perceive on the part it was applied to this country. The House was invited o f th e H ous e a disposition to, bring that debate to a close to come to a decision on the insolent and indignant aggres- (Hear, t heee) But lie wishe d to address a few words to them s ion. He (Mr. Gibson) did not see any insult; and he b e f ore th e y proceeded to a division. He should first draw agreed with the Bishop of St. David's that there was no to- their attention to the speech of his Hon. Friend who bad suit in the matter. They were constantly told that those just sat down; and ho wished to contrest with that speech who supported the measure were the strongest advocates for the speeches of those Hon. Members who had advocated a religious liberty ; and they were asked not to be alarmed, for decidedly opposite View of the question. He believed that the statute was not a penal one beyond the face of it, as those there conflicting speeches would serve to show, at least, gentlemen would never impose a penal law on the exercise of that her Majesty's G o vernment had steered a middle course re li g ious liberty. Nothing, however, was more common in in that matter between two violent extremes. His Right f orme r periods than for men who opposed the removal of the Hon. F r i en d the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) disabilities from Catholics to designate themselves as the had said that they ought to legislate upon a national view advocates of religious liberty, and even to assert that it was of that question • and be (Mr. F. Maule) said so too. But because they were so that they opposed all concession to his Right Hon. Friend would not allow Parliament to in men whom they professed to believe held a divided allegiance. terfere in such a matter as the appointment of Lord Eldon and other great authorities of that class might bishops. But it appeared to him (Mr. F. Maule) be quo ted as instances. He (Mt. Gibson) would not, there- i that th a t H ous e ought not to confine its labours to matters fore, be deterred from scrutinising the measure because its pro- connected with taxation and the material wants of the motera said that they were not adverse to religious liberty, people; but that it Was their duty to maintain the Protestant and because their friends insisted on it thitt they were its ad- constitution of this country — (Hear, hear)—as established by vo ca t es . Th e y were told that the country had taken up the i the unwritten law and the customs handed down to them by question in a similar spirit, and that the proceed- their forefathers, and entrusted to them as a sacred deposit, ings that had taken place had nothing whatever to do with i which th e y wer e to deliver unimpaired to those who were to the religion of the Roman Catholics. Looking, however, at follow them.—( Hear, bear.) It had been alleged by his the proceedings at these meetings, he found that in the great ! Bight H on . F r i en d that his Noble Friend had acted in that majority of them religion was the only reason which was : matter upon the advice of the Bishop of London and of the urged f, e t th e enactment of this penal law. Dr. Cumming, a Archbishop of Canterbury. But his -Noble Friend bad done great authority, slid in his lecture on Papal aggression, that :no such thing. Ho had entertained the opinions of those " the teachi n g of Cardinal Wiseman was the best reason for prelates, but had acted (maxis own view s o f public policy. the protest against his intrusion." It Ras the teaching of Ministers had proposed this measure on their own respon- sibility, and without consulting any ecclesiastical authorities. —(Hear, hear.) But, then, his Right Lion.. Friend had stated that the letter of his Noble Friend had stirred up all this strife in the country. It was not so. The well-known fact was, that the intelligence of the Papal aggression reached the c,atntry three weeks before that letter appeared ; that in the tucunwhile the spirit of the country had been aroused; the bar of the country had assembled, and a very remarkable petition had bmanated from them ; and all this had occurred before the letter was published.— (Hoar, hear.) His Noble Friend had, he considered, been most unfairly dealt with in this matter—a fact that he believed would yet be acknow ledged when it was found that he had guided public opinion to a fair and just conclusion. • (Hear.) He then re ferred to the statement of the Hon. Member for Ayrshire. He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman that no persons were more opposed to Popery than Scotchmen, and he lamented that sometimes that feeling was carried to excess. They were well aware, too, of this attack of the Pope on the pre rogative of the Crown and the Protestant liberties of the country, and there was not a single yeoman in Scotland who would not be fully prepared, if it were worth his while, to go to a public meeting, and denounce what bad occurred. As to theFreeChurch of Scotland, there was no similarity between . . PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIDNS. (From the Yctes and :.proceeLtios of the Howe of 0 )mmons ) FRIDAY, FEB. 14. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES. Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question (7th February), " That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the Assumpdon of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom :"—Question again proposed; Debate resumed :—Question put. The House divided MAJORITY—AYES, &95. Abdy, Sir Thomas Einlyn, Viscount Nowise!, T. P. Acland, Sir T. Enfield, Lord Maxwell, J. F. Adair, Hugh E. Estcourt, J. B. B. 'deux, Sir Henry Adair, It. Shaft° Easton, Earl Miles, P. W. Adderley, C. Is. Evans, John Miles, William Alcock, Thomas Evans, William .Milner, W. M. Anderson, Arthur Evelyn, William J. Milnes, R. M. Anson, Colonel Ewart, William Mitchell, T. A. Archdall, Captain Farnham, E. B. afolesworth, Sir W. Arkwright, George Ferrer, James Moody, 0.. A. Ashley, Lord Fellowes, E. Morgan, 0. Begot, William Fergus, John Morison, Sir W. Bagsha sv, John Ferguson, Col. Morris, David Bailey, Joseph Ferguson, Sir R. Mostyn, E. Baines, M. T. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Mulgrave, Earl Baldock, E. H. Fitzroy, Henry alullings, J. B. Baldwin, Barry FitzwWiam, G. W. Muntz, G. F. liankes, George F o l e y, John H. Napier Joseph Baring, H.B. Forbes, William Weeld, John Baring, Sire. Forester, G. C. Newdegate, N. Baring, Thomas Forster, Matthew Noel, G. J. Baring, Francis Fox, S. L. Ogle, S. C. Barnard, E. G. Freestun, Colonel Ossulton, Lord Barrington, Viscount Frewen, C. H. Owen, Sir John Bass, M. T. Fuller,-.A. E. Paget, Lord A. Bateson, Thomas Galway, Viscount • Paget, Lord C. Psskett, William Gaskell, J. M. Palmer, Robert Bell, Jacob Goddard, A. L. Palmerston, Via. Bennet, Philip Gooch, E. S. Parker. John t Berkeley, Admiral Gordon. Admiral Patten, J. W. Berkeley, Henry F. Goulburn, Henry Peel, Colonel Berkeley G. F. Granby, Marquis of Peel, Frederick Berkeley, C. L. G. Greenall, Gilbert Pelham, D. A. Bernal, Ralph Greaten, Charles W. Pennant, Colonel Bernard, V iscount Grey, Sir G. Perfect, Robert Best, John Grey, R. W. Peto, 'amuel Birch, Sir T. Grogan, E. Pigott, Francis Blackstone, W. Grosvenor, Lord R. lamington, J ame , Blair, Stephen Gwyn, 1-towel Plowden, W. H. Blandford, Marquis Hall, Sir B. Plumptre, J. P. Booker, T. W. Hall, Colonel Powlett. Lord W. Booth, Sir R. G. liallyburton, Lord Price, Sir Robert Bowles, Admiral Halsey, T. P. prime, Richard Boyd, John Hamilton, Geo. A. Pugh, David Boyle, Coione. Hamilton, J. H. Reid, Colonel Bramston, T. W. Hamilton, Lord C. Renton, - J. C. Breatrtage, Richard Hanmer, Sir J. Reptbn, G. W. Brisco M. Harris, Captain Ricardo, Osman Broadley, H. Harris, Richard Rice, E R. Broadwood, Henry Hastie, Alexander Rich, Henry Broeklehurst, Johu Haste, Archibald Richards, Richard Brockman, E. 1). Hatenell, John Robartes, T. J. Brooke, Sir A. B. Hawes, Benjamin Romilly, Colonel Brotherton, J. Hayes, Sir E. Romilly, Sir John Brown, H. Headlam, T. E. Rumbold, C. E. Brown, W. Heald, James Russell, Lord John Bruce, Lord E. 1-1 eat 11co a t . John Russell, F. C. Bruce, C. L. C. Heathcote, G. J. Sanders, George Bruen, Colonel Heneage, G., H. Sanders, J. Buck, L. W. Heneage, E. Scott, Francis Buller, Sir J. Y. Henley, J. W. Scrape, G. P. Banbury, William Herbert, Sydney Seaham, Viscount Banbury, Edward Herries, J. C. Seymour, H. D. Burghley, Lord Hervey, Lord A. Seymour, Lord Burrell, Sir,C. Heywood, James Shot to, R. D. Busfeild, W. Hildyard, R C. Shelburne, Earl of Buxton , - sir E. Hill, Lord E. Sibthorp, Colonel Calvert, Frederic Hindley, Charles Sidney, Alderman Cardwell, Edward Hobhouss, Sir J. Blaney, Robert A. Carew, W. H. P. Hodges,',T. L. Smith, J. A. Carter, John B. Hodges, T. Twisden Smith, M. T. Caulleild, J. M. Hodgson, W. N. Smyth, J. hn George Cavendish, C. C. Hogg, Sir J. Somerset, Captain Cavendish. G. H. Holiond, Robert Somerville, Sir W. Chaplin, W. J. Hood, Sir A. Sotheron, T. Chichester, Lord J. Homby John Spearman, 11. J Childers, J. W. Hotham, Lord Spooner, Richard Christopher. It. Howard, C. W. Stafford, Augustus Christy, Samuel Howard, J. K. Stanford, J. F. Clay, denies Howard, E. G. Stanley, Edward Clerk Sir G. Hudson, G. Stanley, E. H. Clifford, H. M. Humphery, Ald. Stanley, W. 0. Clive, R. H. Hutt; William Stanfield, W. R. C. Clive, H. B. Inglis, Sir it. Stanton, W. H. Cobbold, J. C. Jackson, William Staunton, Sir G. Cochrane, A. D. Jermyn, Earl Strickland, Sir G. Cockburu, Sir A. Jocelyn, Viscount Stuart, Lord J. Cocks, T. 6. Johnstone, Sir J. Stuart, Henry Codrington, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stuart, John Cole, H. A. Jones, Captain Start, H. G. Coles H. B. Ker, Richard Taylor, T. E. Collins, William Kershaw, James Thicknesse, R. A. Colvile, C. R. Kildare, Marquis of Thompson, Colonel Compton, H. C. King, P. J. Thompson, Alderman Conolly, Thomas Knox, Colonel Thornely, T. Copeland, Alderman Labouchere, Henry Thornhill, George Corry, H. Lacy, H. C. Tollemache, F. J. Cowan, Charles Langston, J. H. Tollemache, John Cowper, W. F. LascellesoE. Townley, R. G. Craig, Sir W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Townshend, Capt. Crowder, it. B. Legh, G. C. Trevor, G. R. Cubitt, William Lemon, Sir C. Tufhell, Henry Currie, Henry Lennard, T. B. Turner, G. J. Dazymple, Captain Lennox, Lord A. Tyrell, Sir J. Dashwood, Sir G. Lennox, Lord HG. Verner, Sir W. Davies, D. A. Lewis, Sir T. Verney, Sir H. Deedes, W. Lewis, G. C. Villiers, Charles D'Eyncourt, C. T. Lindsay, Colonel Wakley, Thomas Disraeli, B. Littleton, E. R. Walpole, Spencer invett, E. Locke, Joseph Walter, John _ Dod, J. W. Lockhart, A. E. Watkins, Colonel Dodd, G. Lockhart, W. Welby, G E. Drax, J. S. W. Lopes, Sir Ralph Wellesley, Lord C. Drumianrig, Viscount Lovcden, Pryse West, F. R. Drummond, Henry Lowther, Henry Westhead, J. P. Duckworth, Sir J. Lygon, Gen. Wlgram, L. T. Duke, Sir James Mackenzie, W.F. Williams, John Duncan, Viscount Mackie, John Williams, W. Duncan, George M'Naghten, Sir E. Williamson, Sir H. Duncombe, 0. M'Gregor, John Willoughby, Sir H. Duncuft, John El'Taggart, Sir J. Wilson, James Dundas, Admiral Mandeville, Viscount Wilson, Matthew Dundas, George Mangles, R. D. Wood, Sir Charles Dundas, Sir David Manners, Lord C. wood, W P. Dunne, Colonel Mariners, Lord J. Worcester, Marquis Du i're, C. G. Marshall, William Wyld, James East, Sir J. B. Marshall, J. G. Wynn, H. W. Ebringtou, Viscount Martin, C. W. Wy val. Marinadnke Edwards, Henry Masterman, John Yorke, E. T. Egerton, W. T. Matheson, A. Ellice, Edward Matheson, James TELLERS. Ellice, li., jun. Matheson. Colonel Hayter. W. O. Elliot, J. E. Maule, Fox Hill, Lord M. its proceedings and those that had occurred in this country. He then observed that the penal laws had fallen into disuse in this country, and the Roman Catholic Church was left in the full enjoyment of every spiritual exercise. There was no complaint of an impediment in the administration of the sacraments, and of all other rites, as efficiently under the vicariate system as it had been for two hundred years. With the exception of an occasional growl from the " the Lion of Judah," all was peace and harmony ; when, all of a sudden, this state of things was disturbed by the decree from the Court of Rome. He could say, that in his administration of the office he held, the Catholic soldiers, who formed no small number of their army, were in the full enjoyment of the ordinances of their Church ; and he was sure they would say whatever attacks were made on him, that in his office he was no bigot. In the circumstances in which they were placed he was determined to do his duty as became a sincere Protestant, as became a fearless Alember of that House, and as a servant to his Sovereign who had a paramount duty to perform.—(Hear, hear.) - :3lr. SCULLY opposed the motion. He regretted that that subject of religious discussion should have found its way into a British Parliament; and it was a subject which was not wanting iu that House. Such was the nature of that measure that no Irish Member ought to sit in that House without protesting against a Bill which proposed the re-enactment of the penal laws. If, as it had been said, Scotland and England were in favour of that measure, he could tell the Secretary at War that Ireland was opposed to it. He could tell him also, that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, which was a free church, would not support it, and had refused to meet to petition in its favour, for which conduct, as a Roman Catholic, and on behalf of his Roman- Catholic fellow-countrymen, he begged to tender that Church his best thanks. He called upon the Noble Lord to pause ere he mig h h o t p r r a o i cs raise e a d Bent i t t‘ h r course w w h h i c h h m h i e g h contempla ted neverx ; ti guished, except in confusion and blood. In conclusion, he expressed a 'hope that when the hill was brought in, the elapses relating to Ireland at least would be expunged from it— (Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") Colonel SIBTHORP said it was only his intention to tres pass for a very short time on the attention of the House, for he would not wish to interpose between the expressed senti ments of the House and the division to which they seemed desirous of coming.—( Hear.) He thought it, however, his duty to say, that although he could not place much confi dence in the Government, or its capability to maintain, as the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had said, the dignity and security of this country, he shoulsi vote for them on that occasion. They had seen so much on the part of the Noble Lord opposite and others since the passing of the Act of 1829, that he (Colonel Sibthorp) would rather have both arms cut off than vote for that Bill, and that he said without having any unchristian or uncharitable feeling to wards any class of his countrymen. As it was a duty he owed his Sovereign, however, on account of what was re commended in her Majesty's Speech, he should feel obliged to register his name for the motion of the Noble Lord, how ever little ho might think the measure calculated for the se curity of the state, or satisfactory to either Protestant or Ca tholic.—( Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide ") Mr. MUNTZ trusted the House would excuse him while he briefly Stated the grounds upon which he rested his vote in favour of the bringing in of that Bill. The present was one of the most disagreeable questions which had ever arisen since he had entered upon political life. He had taken no part in the proceedings on that subject, in order that he might hear everything which might be said on both sides, and do justice to all. In Birmingham, the place which he represented, the division on the question had been so close that no resolution had been come to. (Hear, hear.) The so d nt hao i y ffi ie c bur u ,cuc, hsa t ei y n3pae l of isaysge t uro h eef e loi q fn cu broughtbe; soht both he o n wyi no l a a tuso y r nec i oo n htl tstrsihcorehnen4l:id and.gi n i fl u uc s heLn c e a h ecue a odg r u a bbl c at N t e, e r r na. ). no yt,iiv, Two sec tarian i but regard him self t to be to himself, influencedfeelingauthority he theg p c vyr o ee u nr se l e d tl noi religious ti a , h y ) ue s h pb e h occasion. oaps i e n nHs never etthhh eeadatprl appointment allowed oonkisnaetedint toeonn tthooeff b p i r s a h c o t practice ose without the the o c a o n n senCatholictof the h eC sovereignhurch in p o o t w h countries, (n ea r.) er.— even where that religion prev a il e d, an d h e b a d f oun d th ere was He was ready to give the Roman Catholics everything which they had, but not more than they had in other countries.— (Hear, hear.) He had also searched the history of other countries, and he found that where the Roman Catholic reli gien prevailed no true or real liberty existed.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") He would, therefore, vote for the introduction of the present Bill, but would reserve to himself the right of taking such steps on its future stages as to him might seam fit.—(Hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. BROTHERTON said he had taken no part in the proceedings relative to that question, nor did lie intend to have mingled in that debate. He had endeavoured to see as clearly as he could the part which he ought to take. The lion. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had placed him in rather a painful position, for most Hon. Members knew that Manchester and Salford, the place which he re presented, were almost the same constituency. (Hear. ) Now he had reason to believe that the sentiments uttered by the Hon. Member for Manchester were not those of a great majority of his constituents —(Hear, hear.) He had never given a vote agains`, the civil and religious liberty of any class of his fellow-subjects, and he trusted he never would do so ; but the grounds upon which he should give his vote in favour of the introduction of that Bill were very different from anything like such a motive. He had seen the opinions of eminent lawyers, enlightened statesmen, and the senti ments of the most experienced men in the community; and it did appear to them that the rights of the Sovereign were infringed upon. and the independence of the subject invaded —(Hear, hear) —by the act of which they complained. — (Hear, hear.) That, then, was not a religious question. (Hear.) In voting on that motion he was neither called upon to defend the Established Church nor assail the Roman Catholic Church.—(Hear.) In introducing that Bill the Noble Lord had said it was not his intention to infringe on the civil or religious liberties or rights of any class of her Majesty's subjects; and for his own part he was anxious to see what the Bill was before he came to any final judgment upon it.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the Bill was in favour of a great majority of his constituents, and was in accord ance with the wishes of many of the Roman Catholics themselves.--(0h, oh.) He had received letters from most respectable members of that persuasion in Manchester and Salford, brief extracts from which he would read if the House permitted.—(Cries of " Hear," " Read," and " Divide.") One of the letters, after asking for a copy of the Bill, pro ceeded to say that they (the Roman Catholics) felt consider able interest in the measure, as one which would protect their property invested for the benefit of churches and cha ritable institutions from the control and administration of a foreign power, which as Englishmen they could not submit to.—(Hear.) Such were their sentiments, and he would not trespass longer on the time of the House than by stating his intention to vote for the motion.—(Hear, and loud cries of " Divide.") Mr. F. O'CONNOR and other Hon. Members arose amid the loudly expressed impatience of the House, when the for mer was left in possession. Ile said, although he intended addressing the House on the measure, he would not then take advantage of his having possession, but merely asked Hon. Members to consent to go to a division at once. He hoped as he had foregone his privilege of speaking, as there would be other opportunities on future stages o f the Bill, that other Hon. Members would follow,his example, and abstain from adtressing the House on that occasion. —(Hear, and cries of MINORITY-NOES. 63. Anstey, Thomas Higgins, G. G. Power, Sicholas Arundel, Earl of Hobhouse, T. B. Reynolds, John Blake, M. J. Hope, A. Sadlair, John Blewitt, Reginald Howard, P. H. Sell°Wield, W. Brand, Thomas Hutchins, E. J. Scully,Francis Butler. P. S. Keating, Robert sitneun, JOlll.l Clements, C. S. Keogh, William Smith, John B. Cobden. R. Lawless, Cecil Smythe, G. Corbally, M. E. M'Cullagb, W. Somers, J. P. Devereux, J. '. Megan, W . 11. Stuart, Lord D. Fagan, William Meagher. Thomas Sullivan, Michael Fagan, James Mahon, O'uorman Talbot, J. li. r ortescue. Chichester Monsen, William Taucred, 11. W. Fox, Richard M. O'Brien, Sir T. Tenison, E. K. Fox, W. J. O'Connell, John Towneley, John Gibson, T. M. O'Connell, Maurice Treiavrny, J. S. Gould, Wyndham O'Connell, M.. 1 Wall, C. B. Grace, 0. 1). O'Connor, Feargus Walmsley, Sir I. Grattan, Henry O'Flaherty, Anthony Wegg•l'rosser, F. Greene, Joh). Oswald, Alexander VELLUM. Henry, Alexander Pechell, Sir G. Roche, E. B. Heyworth, L. Power, Dr. Moore, G. H. 'Divide.") Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said he would not detain the House many moments, but as he unfortunately ditlered from his Hon. Colleague and some of his constituents, he wished briefly to state the grounds upon which he voted against the present motion. He could not be supposed to possess any sympathy with regard to Rome. But he regretted to say that measure had raised feelings in this country which were encouraged by the letter of the Noble Lord. They were told that the discipline of the Charch of Rome could not be pro perly carried out unless in the manner which the Pope pro posed—namely, by the appointment of an hierarchy. But with respect to the Bill of the Noble Lord, it was one ineffectual to carry out those points which it professed to do. He con cluded by saying he would vote against the motion.— (Loud cries of " Divide divide.") Strangers. were then . ordered to withdraw at about a quarter to .twelve o'clock. The House then. divided, when the numbers were— For the introduction of the Bill ... .. 895 Against it ... 63 Majority in favour of the Bill ... —332 Mr. ROCHE hoped the Noble Lord would fix the second reading of' the Bill at such a time as would enable the people of Ireland and the people of England to understand fully its provisions. Lord J. RUSSELL said he hoped the Bill would be deli vered on Monday, and he would fix the second reading for Friday se'nnight.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. KEOGH moved for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the jurisdiction sad improve the practice of her Majesty's Prerogative Court in Ireland. Mr. GROGA.N, objected to the Bill; and The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place. The Bill was then brought in and read a first time. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL brought in the Ecclesias tical Titles Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday se'nnight. Mr. KEOGH brought in the Prerogative Court (Ireland) Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday next. The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve. INCREASE IN THE COAL TRADE. CARDIFF. The coal trade in Monmouthshire is rapidly extending, and so densely crowded have the Bute Docks at Cirdiff been, that notwithstanding every facility for the rapid shipment of coal, much delay has been experienced in meeting the de- mand. In order properly to meet this great extension of the staple trade of the port and the district, it has been pro posed to construct mother dock to the eastward of the pre sent docks, for the acco modation of large vessels, and a project has been mooted to convert the sea-lock into a dock. The merchants, and others interested in the trade, have taken the matter up, and petitioned the trustees of the Bute Docks on the subject. In the valley of Aberdare, Glamorganshire, several very deep pits are being sunk, with every prospect of success. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee: — That in the case of the Towcestar, Brackley, and Weston on-the-Green Turnpike Road petition, for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to deposit a petition accordingly. That in the case of the Buckingham, Brackley, and Ban bury Turnpike Road petition, for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with : filet the parties be permitted to deposit a petition accord ingl T fiat in the case of the General Reversionary and Invest ment Company petition, for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to deposit a petition accordingly. That in the case of the London and Blackwell Railway (from London and Blackwell Extension Railway to Tilbury, &c.), the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided the same be deposited not later than three clear days after the presentation of this Report, and that an =Wed plan be forthwith deposited in the Private Bill-office:—That the Committee on the Bill do examine, in the first place, bow far such order has been complied with, and do report the same to the House on the Report of the Bill. Resolutions agreed to. NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. The undernamed Bills are appointed to be read a second time on Monday, Feb. 17 : Angerstein's Branch IZailway. Baggotrath and Sandymount Improvement. Bath Improvement, Markets, Waterworks, and Bath Com mons or Freemen's Estate. Cambridge Waterworks. Cheltenham Improvement and Health. Chorley Waterworks. Commercial Docks Improvement. Dundee and Arbroath Railway. Durham Markets. East Anglian Railways. Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway. Edinburgh Royal Asylum for the Insane. Electric Telegraph Company. Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland). Great North of Scotland Railway. Great Western Railways (Railways to connect the Birming ham and Oxford Junction with the London and North- Western Railway at Birmingham, &c.) Hartlepool Freemeu s Lands and Harbour Dues. Hartlepool Pier and P...rt (Construction of New Pier, &c.) Hastings Improvement. Hayling Bridge and Causeway. Huddersfield and New Hey District Turnpike Road. Imperial Continental Gas Association. Law Property Assurance and Trust Society. Leeds and Thirsk Railway. Llynvy Valley and Duffryn Llyuvi and Porthcawl Railways. Lnndon (City) Sewers. Manchester Parish Highways. Musselburgh (Arrangement with Creditors of the Burgh.) Newington St. Mary Parish. New River Company. North British Railway. North Staflurdahire Railway (Extensions to Derby and Burton-upon-Trent, &c.) North Staffordshire and London and North-Western Railway Companies. Saint Pancras (Middlesex) paving. Severn Steam Tug Company. Ssoliureth Wales wsburyactailta ilddrg(tswo. 1 rthT urnp ike Roads. - y tin n, &c., Waterworks. Stockton, Illiddlesbroug Stroud and Gloucesterßoad• o e g a r n ap d. h D C u o b ni lin pa ß ny ai . l way. Tees River Conservancy: Junction Railway. United Kingd n o d m A l t i l in : ‘,c r a T mi Warrington Waterford, Wrzforc , , Weston super Mare improvement and Market. hitby Waterworks i Wrexham Improvement. RATLW NY A CCIDEIVIS.—It appears, from returns r-esented to Parliament, and yesterday printed, that in the half-year ending the 30th of .3 ane last there were 93 persons killed ny railway accident, and 08 injured, of which number To be good and distigraeable is high treason against 3 passengers were killed and 33 injured from causes beyond their own control; 7 Rassengers were killed, and 3 injured, ~ owing to their own misconduct or want of caution ;25 set- s N atu_e.— _Eliza Cook's Journal. TON "—A new style of navel-writing has been brought vants of companies were killed, and 17 injured, from ca o u o s: . Me. howires NEw WORK, 44 MADAM DORRlNG before the public by an author already widely known for beyond their own control • 29 servants of compaieoswoor rois. works of merit in other branches of literature William tractors were killed, and 10 ' injured, owing to their w conduct or want of caution ; and 26 trespassoetrws ays efe killed, , i Howitt. and 6 injured, by crossing or walking on I ~ there The title of this new effort of his imagination is were three suicides. The number of Pa 'The 'u' length et rail -5 r =us conveyed in Its chief characteristic, and a very pleasing one it is, is a " Madame Dorris ton of the Dene •; the Story of a Life." the half-year 'amounted to 31,766,5031.849, peculiarly picturesque description of English provincial life, way open on t'de 31st of December,loo was 6,032 miles; the half- in which the old country families, the resident clergy, and of 276 miles in n xtnded to and on the 30th of June last the 6,308 miles, showing all increase the thriving yet menry, are brought on the canvas with a skill that renders the story in which they figure one of the year. , g rural pictures ever E . xeba i nge Bank of Scotland most refreshing of• presented to the eye. The proprietrr-; of the . are to have one thirU of their capital returned to them, a t i ow I"Madame porringtou, of the Dane,. can scarcely fail of be. balance of wets et the Winding-UP of the concern. 1 coming a favourite both In town NA 001111tr1' ANALYSIS OF THE DIVISION ON MR. DISRAELI'S MOTION. The Irish Radical Members who voted against the Govern ment are Messrs. Wyndham Goold, Limerick ; J. T. Devereux, Wexford; Col. Dunne, PO7 tarliugton ; J. Fagan , Wexford; 0. D. J. Grace, Roscommon; Henry Grattan. Meath; R. Keating, Waterford; Hon. C. Lawless, Clonmel ; T. M'Cullagb, Dundalk ; J. Meagher, Waterford ; W. Mon sell, Limerick; G. H. Moore, Mayo; T. o:Brien, Cashel; Anthony O'Flaherty, Galway; N. Power, Waterford; J., Reynolds, Dublin; E. B. Roche, Cork; J. Sadleir, Carlow • P. Scully, Tipp erary; M. S u lli van , Kilk enny; W. Keogh:Athlone. We7notice also amongst the Liberals voting against Govern ment Messrs. T. Alcock, Viscount Anson, Humphrey Brown, W. M. Bunbury, W. J. Chaplin, H. C. Lacy, T. B. Lennard, Earl of Euston, G. F. M untz, Feargua O'Connor, and J. Simeon. _ The Peelites who voted with Mr. Disraeli were—Messrs. S. Christy, Hon. R. H. Clive, A. D. Cochrane, T. S. Cocks, Hon. H. L. Corry, W. Cubitt, Hon. Colonel Dinner Henry Drummond, Lord C. Hamilton, H. T . Hope, SirJ. John stone, G. C. Legb, Sir E. Mac N ag h ten, Colonel Peel, Colonel Reid, G. Sanders, Alderman Sidney, J. G. Smyth, H. Stuart, and Sir.H. Willoughby. Members who voted for Mr. Disraeli's motion this year who voted against him last year—W. J. Chaplin, Liberal ; J. T. Devereaux, Liberal, Wexford ; H. T. H ope, P eelite ; W. Keogh, Liberal, Athlone; W. T. M'Cullagh, Lib eral, Dundalk; G. T. Muntz, Radical, Birmingh am ; Si r T. O'Brien, Liberal, Cashel; Nicholas Power, Liberal, Water ford ; David Pugh, Liberal Conservative, Montgomeryshire; J. Reynolds, Liberal, Dublin; and Francis Scully, Liberal, Tipperary. Members who voted for Mr. D'israeli's motion this 3-ear, who did not vote at all last year—C. B. Adderley, Charle s Baldwin, Vi s count Bernard, Thomas Booker, Sir R. G. Booth, Sir A. Brooke, CorezervAtive ; Homplry Brown, a Liberal; Col. Bruen ' Alex. D. Cochrane, Hon. Col. Da rn er, D. A. S. Davies. W. Deedes, Sir J. T. B. Duckworth, Hon. 0. Duncombe, G. Dundas, H. Edwards, Viscount Emlyn, Conservatives; James Fagan, Liberal; W'.ndham Liberal; Marquis Granby, G. Greened', li. J. Hcathcote, W. R Huelns, W. N. Hodgson, Conservatives; R. Keating, Liberal; Hon. C. Lawless, Liberal; G. H. .iaoore, Liberal; Sir Luc.us O'Brien, A. Oswald, Col. P&L Col. Powell, Lord W. Powlett. Conservatives; E. B. Roche, Radical ; Viscount Seaha t: ; Alderman Thompson, Loftus Wigram, and Herbert W. W. Wynn. - Amongst the Peelites, or Free-trade Conservatives, who voted for Government were:—Admiral J. Boyo, Lord E. Bruce, E. H. Bur bury, E. Cardwell, Sir G. Clerk, Alderman Copeland, E. Denisn, !Marquis of Douro, J. Duncutt. J. B. B. Esteourt, Hon. H. Fitzßoy, Sir J. Grail-in, Sir J. Hanmer, Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, Lord A. Herve% , Sir J. W. Hogg, Earl Jermyn, Sir C. Lemon. A. F Lockhart, W. A. Mackinnon, Sir J. M e raugart, C. W. Martin, J. Masterman, Lord Norreys, Sir J. Owen, J. Sandars, W. Wrightson, Sir J. Young. REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH' NOT- TINGHAMSHIRE. The polling commenced yesterday (Friday) at six diffe rent places, and will close this afternoon at four o'clock. It will be remembered that the candidates are, Lord Newark and Mr. Barrow. We•have received two telegraphic reports of t►he state of the poll at the close. giving somewhat diffe rent versions of the numbers, but coinciding in the fact that Mr. Barrow had succeeded in obtaining a very small majo rity. The first of these accounts gives the numbers as follow : _ For Mr. Barrow ... For Lord Newark ... 1,344 ... 1,330 Majority for Mr. Barrow .. The other report gives the numbers thus : For Mr. Barrow ... For Lord Newark ... 1,344 ... 1,325 Majority for Mr. Barrow ... 19 The contest was very close. No fewer than 2,674 voters, according to Lord Newark's Committee, have exercised the franchise the first day, whilst the numbers polled in the two days of the last contest, between the Earl of Lincoln and Mr. Hildyard was 2,783, being only 109 more than has now been polled in one day. There are 3,539 electors on the register, so that only 865 voters remain unpolled this morning, a number that must be liable to considerable diminution from a variety of circumstances. The Nottingham Journal says there is not the slightest doubt of the return of Lord Newark. THE PAPAL AGGRESSION. The part which Austria has played, and is playing, in the Papal aggression affair, is borne out, to a great ex tent, by what appears in the accredited organ of the Austrian Government. In what our correspondent quotes from the Austrian Lloyd, more is meant than meets the eye. The journal is afraid to speak out; but enough transpires to indicate the feelings and the con duct of the Austrian Government on the question of Papal aggression in England. As presumptive evidence of the part which the Cabinet of Vienna his played in this matter, it may be right to direct attention to the fact, that Dr. Wisi.mate on receiv ing his double appointment a- Carl:heal and Archbishop of Westminster, proceeded to Vienna before returning to this country. It is strange that a fact so significant should have been overcooked in all the discussions and controversies which have recently taken place on the subject. Nor was t h e visit cf the newly -sppointed Cardinai to Vienna a mere y paving or csmplinientary visit: he remained in the Austrian capital forty-eight hours, during which protracted period—protracted in the peculiar circum stances of the care—he was in almost uninterrupted per sonal communication with Prince Schwartzseherg. There is. therefore, we rep , ie. taking all the circum stanc of the case into consid. r mess • the strongest pre sumptive reasons fur believitie that our csrrespundent is right, when he asserts that Austreau ill:Bum - leas are at the bottom of that Papal insolence and ths se Papsl aesomptions which base aroused ititen.c mud universal a feetieg of in • digeation in the United Kingeom. It wait; not likely,en the face of matters, that Dr. se io•mau would have oared to counsel the Roman Pontiff to act as he has done, uelees there had been some secret premriegs, some private instigati ns, ot which the world knows euthieg. Even with the coattails and premised support of a foreign power, the step was a bold ore. Wr may, therefore, readily believe that. wieueut such instigation, we should never have heard of the daring audacity of the Pope. People will naturally aak, what could have been the motives eh ch induced the Government of Vienna to in terfere at ail in a matter in which they bed nceimme diate concern. Ali the considerations which weighed with Austria, in acting as she has done, will probably never be known, but some of them are easy of com prehension. She is, first of all, a Roman Catholic power. That fact would not be without its weight in disposing her to the course she has adopted. But there are other and still more potential considerations which aro no less obvious. The Court of Vienna has not yet forgiven Eng land, and never will forgive her, for the line of conduct which she pursued during the Hungarian war. By-identi fying herself with the cause of Hungarian independence, in the noble and manly manner in which she did, England incurred the fierce and imperishable hatred of Austria. That power was not, and is not, nor will she ever be, in a condition to retaliate openly on this country; but from that hour the Cabinet of Vienna made up its mind to annoy and harass Groat Britain in every possib:e way, whenever an opportunity should present itself. And Austria reasoned rightly, when she concluded, that no more effectual mode of annoyance to this coun try could be adopted, than to put forward the Roman Pontiff as a virtual rival to her Majesty, for political and ecclesiastical power in these realms. So far Austria has been successful in her schemes. The whole country is incensed and mortified at the audacity or the Papal pretensions. All classes feel the affront. The indigna tion it has caused is equally shared from the highest to the lowest in the land—from the Sovereign on the throne to the humblest of her subjects. But Austria had other motives still in instigating the imbecile Pontiff of Rome to pursue the course which he has adopted. She knows full well how exceedingly useful Popery has been to her iu carrying out her despotic de signs. The Church of Rome has been an able auxiliary in every tyrannical plan she has formed. She never yet contemplated a measure, having for its object to enthral and debase the mind, in the carrying out of which she might not confidently rely on the zealous co-operation ot the Romish Church. That Church has proved, in all countries where she has acquired en ascendancy, the moat efficient instrument which human ingenuity ever devised, for promoting the objects of political despotism. Austria knows full well, that could Romauism only obtain a footing in the councils of the Sovereign of Great Biitain, the political retrogression of the eteuery would not only be certain, but immediate. The backwards process would comns nce at once, and would preceed at an eatouud ingly rapid pace- until our country had become as de based and enslaved as Austria herself. Ner is Austria the only continental country that is watching with profound inter. et the result of the conflict which is now going on between Popery and Prides terrtted in tie pre tautism, in these realms. The. , to not a despotic Court in Eurot e white is not intensely grese and termination of the ::!..u4 1. %":_ p .1 . k now, one and all, that as it was to , th e n f. Protestant principles that wc ewe lb's-8, SO it is to the contiuve3 prevalence of ru.ist&!lt principles cip greates t countiy, sucielly, and ooze ' t aiteswoefeerisv, finaanerredeligforout,hle. tmiAl Eng land t ie merc ially, in the world. cannot be too fie- The the legions battle o fw Poperyhi h iis quentl y li :; 11 b o c f t forciblywE between n gla t d em reminded th i and f d t f h u t a r h t e : n ow waging involves ether than purely religious issues. All our civil liberties, all our must cherished political rights and privi leges are at stake. We do not despair —we never have de spaired—of the res u lt. Thouels the Minister has faltered and failed in the hour of trial, the country remains true to itself and to it. Protestantism. We, therefore regard the triumph of th e l atter as certain. The conflict may be protracted a little longer, but it will only be to render the discomfiture of the Popish hosts more complete; it will only be to ensure to Proteetantiam a more signal victory.—Morning Advertiser. [ADVERTINEMENT ]—A Suff. , rer from severe De bility and a shattered Constitution cured by Holloway's Pills. —Mr. Reintjes Van Veersseen, a merchant, residing at Nyrae gen , in Holland, had been suffering for years from a general H o ll owa y's Pills, and by th ' debility ; his strength bad become so prostrated that he was quite incapable of attending to any kind of bwiness ; his con stitution was rapidly giving way, no twithstanding the eff or t s of the cleverest medical men to arrest the decl.ne. At this err use crisis he commenced taking his health and strength are perfe,tly re-established, i n grati tude for which blessing be desires that publicity be givenio't lII N ' o s rt 6 I T I were The that others may seek relief by the sante. means. —Sold by a l it Druggists, and atProfessor Holloway's Establishment, .14, -R \N R-N eSte it rn AT C L o lr m AY. ' Strand, ' London. nNtioonaTaniid issued yesterday- in anticipation of the half-yearly Pail) meeting on Friday next. They are extremely minute, and being divided into classes, the exact financia l accounts of tte *l L D o p „ y may readily be ascertained . position of the com- The general balance :beet shows a disposable surp l us 678,698/. 16s. 10d. The profit, upon the half-year, of proposed dividend on the consoli dated stock is 5 per cent. ' and on the other ahar, i n FOrtion; and it will absorb 527,4071. pro. 13s1 5d., l eaving A till. MCI to WO Cinat of the current half-year of 141,21/. 33. 34 r 1443" t Oke re 014 onli t° :orlo to ° icl i cot °- , meo , 16: 15 13% ° ' a e 10". e, dutl4- ` n e 1 acio ,0 0, , or t for a b°