The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-11 00:00:00

(Rear, hear.) But the conduct of the Roman Catholics in this matter was a proof of the value which they placed upon titles Did they think they would have run the lima creating all the f ee li ng th a t h a d b een recen tly ex hi- Leted by the country if they did not feel that titles conferred 2 1 1 their bishops' were of permanent value ? (Hear, hear.) If this assumption of titles were not opposed, it would be Made the starting point for fresh aggression. So much, then, " regarded the first question. Now with respect to the se en th"er; was it c om p a tibl e w i t h the rights of the Crown that e sho u ldb e bi shops having titles in connexion with the , • Church of Rome? Now he would let Dr. Wiseman answer -• this question himself. He said it was neces sary, in order • at the hierarchy should have synodical action. He would r t s naY anything on th a t su bj ec t, as hi s N o bl e F r iend (Lord ti c t s u r c l, Russell) had a l rea d y we ll d escr ib e d , w h en re fe rr i n g to e Q3'nod of Thurles, what was meant by synodical action. ut blr. Wiseman said the hierarchy was necessary to carry ant the canon law. Now, had the House any idea of what Ir icl n law was? L e t M r . H a ll am spea k on this subject. I n a Middle Ages" he says,— " The superiority of the ecclesiastical over the temporal says,— eve may be considered a sort of key-note, which regulates Te that pha.ssage in the canon law. It is expressly declared at au jeets owe no allegiance to an excommunicated sove t*,,gti.” He adds these citations :—" The laws of kings have tint Pre-eminence over ecclesiastical laws, but are subordi *e to them. The statute law of laymen does not extend I ° churches, or to ecclesiastical persons, or to their goods to their rejdice." Pala u of Sardinia, referred to by his Noble Friend ord J. Russell), illustrated the effect of this principle of tenon law. Again the historian says o : Whatever decrees of princes are found injurious to the n' rests of th e Ch urch, are d ec l ared to b e of no aut h or i ty h atev es. • while a sovereign remains excommunicated his sub etts S - 4s t/ w . e, him s no allegiance : and if he do not submit him- Bel , hi 'g rn ,Vie Church, his subjects are absolved from all fealty And ere disadvantageous oaths the D ecre t a l o f G regor y s t a t es ,—" O a th s th a t Lusad vantageous to the interests of the Church are not to Vocensidered as oaths, but rather as perjuries." wa :, l ‘ , let them suppose that their Sovereign had acted to- If Rome as the Pope had acted towards this country. and if had created a Bishop of Civita Vecchia—of Altona ; t s i s ," she had gone farther. and had divided Rome into dis and nominated a bishop of one of these districts, what -teed tee "are been the consequence? Why, that Rome and dated of the Courts of foreign nations, would have inun opethis Noble F r i en d (L or d Palmerston) with protocols, rain ining of the aggression. —(Hear, hear.) . He should tegll- t s dni7 a cu such aggre as the subect thst toti ussion ; fbr ssion no other had sect been of religionists in pf this th at "lY would d are t o assume t err it or i a l titl es in the manner •th —e Roman Catholic hierarchy had lately done. There ssOnether point in this question, one of vital importance, w h l e,h he considered necessary to be introduced, as the so:h'ekquestion could not be well discussed without bringing $a before the notice of the House. He would ask the Was there nothing within themselves that tended to • Ovid ' this attack? Should they not examine if there was the h ae s int thing among themselves to invite this division on be s s rft of the Roman Catholic Church, which something te ss `'‘ assured tended to invite such attacks in an increased b yre or? He would intrude on the attention of the House tan s -- ;`"ing the words of a person of very great impor tieC in this business—not the words of a low church - or the wor d s o f a man o f bi tterness —b u t th e wor d s fon* Personage of great authority, which ran to the ae °Wi ng effect, as spoken by Dr. Wiseman:—" It may , % At pecessary to state my reason for imagining . ileh ss ; see an approximation, not merely towards stst s ,nal Catholic practices and doctrines, but towards re ss 'ic union. . . . . It seems to me impossible to the works of the Oxford divines, and especially to them chronologically, without discovering a daily °a cil towards our holy church, both in doctrine and e ta , 'oboe feeling. Our saints, our Popes, have become b ur the m hy little and little; our rites and ceremonies, far ° : i ces, nay, our very rubrics, are precious in their eyes; i i.,.! beyond many of us consider them ; our monastic bee oss -ett ens, our charitable and educational provisions have -4 e More and more objects with them of earnest study. lic e ; ' • Their admiration of our institutions and prac %al' s and their regret at having lost them, manifestly spring ' Th e f l ue value which they set on everything Catholic. That 10 ! c lings which have been expressed in favour of a return es saiity by the Anglican Church, are every day widely "adi • tentsten t ng, and deeply sinking, no one can doubt. Those . have a silent echo in hundreds of sympathising notes • . . . There are many evidences (which it • key s •ee hardly proper to detail) that Catholic feelings sem' Penetrated deeper into society than at first one would itrf e r c h , t • L _ Whole parishes have received the leaven, and it lieet e es — lcnling, and places where it might least be ex- to have received it in more secret and 111311 1 - eri stein th e nue ways By two ways the popula ttthief this country would be worked upon (through the disO l ialled Church) for its moral improvement—the rural °f t i nts through parochial influence, the denser population i• osti t ew ns or manufacturing dist r i c ts th roug h m onas ti c oopaiutiess. Experience has now shown that the country gees L i t,ien are ready to receive, without murmuring, in * Oaf ess " 4ll pleasure, the Catholic views propounded from reg s r , and indeed, even more, when taught through Ili eh a; Parochial instruction." Such are the words of at ass c . ) ,Las, Bishop of Melipotamus. The same person after . ta le t' added, that if there was any one in the country ade- Saa ! hold out a hope for the Roman Catholic Church, resh 51t0euld it assume a bold front, he felt assured that • aseJ in this kingdom would embrace that religion ere es t e r Months elapsed. He (Lord Ashley) could not avoid , lala s te s. ',ing his coincidence of opinion on that point, particu estres'nen he was aware that no less than 1,800 ecclesi- Asloel of the E s t a bli s h e d Ch urc h s i gne d a d ocumen t %k il l denied the royal supremacy. He asked, was not ern o •an Act as this sufficient to prove to the Court Nish that there was a sympathy for the Church of Rome, ties nee when auricular confession and other doctrines eitlyeerecnonies of that church were practised by persona not IN s Prefeasing the Church of England doctrines, but by 44,2 „, Who were actually officiating ministers of that tsi e S* -1 , When such proceedings were designated as his • tia, °- I°3 , ' the Bishop of London, he considered that it was th eis t islit and the duty of the House to speak up against 'noel; If these things were allowed to continue there th o arise, and at nos d time, a collision between Sot e ccl esiastics and the laity, the issue of which could 4 4 0 e doubtful to any reflecting mind.—(Loud cries of thei r ar s ; hear.") He asserted, nevertheless, that the laity loved te le; `-hurch, its doctrine, its discipline, its parochial syss tales t hat they desired to maintain its orders of bishop, ‘l.43,tiiner, and y deacon, deacon, in all their efficiency and all their ie eo l Y ; but they would maintain it in its purity, and not ase es 4 s uPtion.—(Ch eers. ) T o o bt a i n thi s en d, th e y wou ld, ore, w A's blessing, incur every hazard, try every &terns ' eel ea a nd shri n k f rom no consequenc e w hatever, in the i r Il ear es v "rs to bring back the Church that they love still keti - and nearer to the standard of the glorious Refor ' 4 ° , n s s giae es • GRATTAN said as to the charge of divided elle ' Vol ) Lt had been already entirely repudiated. This aggre k.erci-ss3 i ; was called, had been practised before. The Noble ; t it he f, not forget that this country had been parcelled `„riest o f,' n There were, first, four districts andlour vicars :4le ,f , and they were subsequently increased to eight by i lesia t '",.e Power and by a letter of similar import. What ;be er , s itd been offered to her Majesty ? Did not her Majesty a nd w ' u at a great portion of her subjects were Catholics, iere eta ere not governed by her as far as their spiritual in !heir. w ere concerned? English Protestants must make up Iretst,eillninds_so live in peaco with their Roman Catholic • he c on d uc t o f th e G overnmen t was th e mor e tes et cable after the course which they had pursued with Th e e ti ll ne to the Roman Catholic bishops in the colonies. entniuurable Member then proceeded to comment upon s n :hai -e i ee s of Mr. Henry Drummond on Friday night. b rs ","e Honourable Member had stated with regard s 'elle o `Mien was 'totally and entirely a mistake. Dr . le,„„ i was born in his (Mr. Grattan's) county. He was es i l l' . Meath man ; and he had met him both abroad t ad, es ni ne, and a more erroneous conception of Dr. Cullen t et, t os the Court of Rome, and of the difference cunningly b ad by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashley) 'ad ri s ' e the Court of Rome and the Church of Rome, he coe s i d e ver hea in his life. In opposing the measure under ' i s t ,t Is s e s ra iien lie was defending the cause of his countrymen t"ghteS e s - , not the Roman Catholics in particular, but the • i ereb e 7 s n very honest Irishman. He called upon the Irish ts aiest s - 7' t hen, to look to themselves that night; and if her • •T 8 kinisters acted in opposition to Irish wishes upon the 1 n aent • la s h question —upon the Lord-Lieutenancy, ,, and it h John upon - ( 7 ( 17 1 s e s ; 4 11 4 ( 1ik u r p t e w s Tt l t o t j h o e in n him i a n n saying, f "Down h o e w c n ou w ntry !" ge e ° „ h ' Ind laughter.) Her Majesty had been spoken of • ,„/ tse`n the Grace of God." Yes, and she was Queen the gra eo r Gape, ° the God ; but not alone by tbat—it was . also by as et people ; and that was as good a title, per ' s t gre et `ue grace of God.—(Oh, oh.) Of much use was s t,Nclor o ° 'Ged to James 11., when he was driven from his IsmtYlis,h, oh.) For his own part, he discharged his tsl it t th - e'r n eing the Bill, and 1:e had only to trust (4.,1 4811, 0 would not lead to discord, or the revival o f 41e. 1yp.",f41 animosities which he apprehended. cPr. c,,....;;,umoisTD explained. ,f,.creti on - s` s uLLY said that the question now under the con -1;lea of i s c n the House had been discussed in all the coun ,,M bee r s" l- .°Pc, and in every one of them the same answer ►nelgiven—the same determination had been come to 'erne s , h( t ) uat the power of Rome must be restricted within pf d ine os en da - that that power, in its unrestricted state, ice"udotent with the free government and the inde h kr. i s. hose re s p ec ti ve s t a t es . 014Zre the / 1 0 0 0 D would much rather . he had seen the Bill had of th e previous to his having entered upon any . ki been k i s in cussion. But some of the principles which Ilisteriaa) s ,,l"lted, more particularly on his own (the ti varia nce ) sid e Of the House, seemed to him so entirely ght e With . t44loolnanbcilemes the views which ought to lead them to a la re main -41 on the subject that he felt it impossible On Bii `• ken% Me mber for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and the for Manchester (Mr. Bright), between whom th a ' a ' s uat one un s n_l!d thought . there . syas at least perfect accord on t ,7 genti etas Penn.t of their political creed—he . had heard sa . Lie ettbie en with surprise say that the opinion expressed he laiv oc !,ct throughout the whole country in so plain and e s , u s 'ed - roul '; manner—in a manner more decided than any ~nlbered since the Reform Bill—was to weigh for bi atone 234 5 11 Y,n1ure, that those who had expressed their_ tuanould be stigmatised with the charge of t fr a ' 4%l °f at te r. 'Wood) had alwa y s wished and still iec bf s". suffrage should be, largely extended—the nt o seen . at o must be, in a great measure, to bring public • ea--mite* ' -. is-ear more fully upo n th e quest i ons d i scussed i n t hi s mite, the if t h I ne'eXY had ey were to be told by lion. Members, be aome.particular opinions of their own, that ttetheaghtllietitPublic opinion of the country should be set at , ea_ eemed strange that those Hon. Members should at liet he tune be the advocates of the extension of the suffrage. tilki:aliculd show that there had been no feeling of bigotry • aOt 4latter. There had been grea earnestness -he did ti kata eak of individ ua l displays of bigotry or individual ‘ ,7: 4 , but o f the resolutions which had been passed and gat generally _which had been expressed at the public 7 t h e Iligh .h e resolutions had in the main redounded to • Vtint s Mous, good sense, and sound judgment a the ted t Y , attribute all the agitation which had been ex , N:ble Lord's letter was attributing to the Noble it.ll `" s tr i r ` e v a p , wer than he possessed. t was called forth by t 4Pon „%on---by the insult which they deemed had been l i 4 hai t i ereuun .luelr Sovereign. It was called forth by what was a e n ou a u t t t: y l4 , t vh a i t . the revival by Rome of claims eh had long lain dormant but, qre ci . to which it w s known it would endeavour to pe'ats,ssantiquaied opinions a sooner or later upon t'ateitt anti' It was, therefore, that it was re .. with earnestness. But earnestness was not ta, y J noininatohtrtite:tahian indifference was liberality. It was ror c tC et tll neuts Wiseman and those who published was d efence to tell one thing to them whilst ho. e another think understood by all the Roman It el ls le c curtmunit and 'lige of s and That were told there was nothing but Le tune, and that had been e hoed by the Hon. 'w aa !trued Member for c ther e is t a -er for Sheffield ; and they added, what ; , h ato_p of menp n o a t en atn e name? ; Ininewhid bweaean only y ar-apostolic and Cis t munstweras, aandraegrecsed the same'duties there as before. th'er e At,eairl'SnPestolie and Archbishop of gettiabwoutp tttlyWer...esthmai 33. hlifference between his position as nster. o.f. Melipotamus . and that as As the former he had no juris t:a:spiritual influence wad spiritual THE SUN, power— powers of ordination and confirmation episcopal powers which he exercised in ford conscienthr, but no powers which he exercised in ,foro extern°. That was the distinction to be borne in mind. There might be jurisdiction in spiritual matters totally distinct from jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters—spiritual jurisdiction as opposed to temporal on the one hand, and as opposed to ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the other - spiritual jurisdiction not only over the one, two, or three hundred individuals of the same communion which he had had as vicar-apostolic, but also the more extensive Juris diction of the bishop of the diocese, for the bishop, os such, claimed to exercise distinct and direct jurisdiction over every person in his diocese. The distinction was perfectly well known to. Dr. Wiseman. The term diocese was well understood. It was a term of true, of classic Latinity, and occurred in Cicero, when, speaking of his government of a province, he mentioned among the districts which he ruled the diocese of Cilicia. The Roman Catholic Church had adopted that among o her terms in use in the Roman Empire—it signified a local dis trict, including all the inhabitants residing there, and it was always accompanied by a seda or principal town, which we called a see. When then they talked of a Bishop of West minster, and a Bishop in Westminster, they did not mean the same thing. Bishops of dioceses there could be none in this country except by the authority of the Crown. Even Roman Catholic authorities, Van Aspin, and others, declared that the Pope could not anywhere create new secs or dioceses without the consent of the Sovereign of the country. If so, what consent had been obtained to that act by which the Pope had taken upon himself to create dioceses and erect new sees in this country ? All the Roman Catholics understood the matter well. Thanks to the very strange regulation lately made in France, they had the names of the authors attached to the various articles published in the journals. In the present case the regelatisn was of use as giving the authority of a name of importanee on the sub ject to an article which had appeared in the Univers, where, after quoting the Bishop of London's words that the brief was a denial of the Queen's authority, of the English epis copacy, of the validity of our orders, and a claim of spiritual jurisdiction over our whole Christian population, the writer went on to say :—" The brief of Pius IX. is, in fact, no thing less than that. The Bishop of London exactly ap preciates its bearing. Just as St. Gregory transferred the primacy from London to Canterbury—as Popes Boniface and Houorious confirmed this change—so Pius IX. transfers to day the primacy of Canterbury to the now archiepiscopal see of Westminster. It is by virtue of the authority be queathed to him by his predecessors that the Pope substi tutes for the see of London that of Southwark, and abolishes all the ancient sees erected in England by the Popes who have preceded him in the chair of St. Peter. Consequently, from the promulgation of the brief, their exists neither see of Canterbury, nor of York, nor London, nor any of the sees established anterior to the Reformation. The personages who shall for the future assume the title of Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London will be mere intruders, schismatic prelates, without any spiritual authority." Was there no insult in that ?—(" No, no," from an Hon. Member on the Opposition benches.) Was there no insult in telling them that the sees of London, Canterbury, and York, had vanished, and that they had all been transferred to the mer cies of a cardinal archbishop? If any person in Ireland, not being in a state of intoxication, should enter his Hon. Friend's house and say he was master in that House; that he claimed to possess it by by virtue of titles and authori ties far anterior to those of the Hon. Gentleman—dating from times long prior to Cromwell—would not the Hon. Gentleman have considered that an aggression—an insult? Let them just see how they had always looked upon the matter. The Church of England had always acknowledged the right of the Sovereign in that respect—it never had created a see otherwise than upon royal authority. An Hon. MEMBER—The authority of Parliament. Mr. P. WOOD—The Crown had the power of its own mo tive to create sees in the colonies. The Crown did not erect sees in this country, because they already existed. An HON. MEMBER—Manchester. Mr. P. WOOD—How was Manchester created? A part of the see was taken from that of Chester, a part from the see of York, and thus the see of Manchester was created. For the Crown had not the power to destroy sees; it could not destroy the titles of Chester and York; therefore, an Act of Parliament was necessary, not for erecting the new see, but for the purpose of taking parts from two other sees to make it up. But where there was no see in existence, as the Cape of Good Hope and other colonies, there the Crown erected sees at once, and so did the Pope within his own ju risdiction. He (Mr. Wood) cared not how many sees the Pope erected in Romagna. The Pope bad never been allowed to do so in this country at any period, and he (Mr. P.Wood) hoped the time would never arrive when he would. He (Mr. P. Wood) would, however, go further; he would unhe sitatingly say that the attempt to create sees in England on the part of the Pope was an assumption of that which could only be legally done by the royal power, in respect to titles, dignity, and jurisdiction, an offence against the common law. A man oould be indicted for holding a court feet—one of the lowest courts in the country—as an offence at common law in usurping the rights of the Sovereign. The offence committed by the agents of the Pope in this matter was, therefore, equally indictable. Cardinal Wiseman and those acting with him had clearly infringed the statute 16 Richard 11., as well as 13 Elizabeth. To say the Act of 1829 abrogated these statutes was a complete confusion of its purpose. The, object of that Act was simply to say that the titles of existing sees should net be assumed, because it would be insulting to those who held those dignities; but the object the House had now to deal with was not this—it was, on the contrary, to decide a graver and a wider question—the question how far they should allow any person to set up again in this country that power which had already disturbed Europe, and which might disturb it again at any moment, so inscrutable were the ways of Providence.—( Hear.) It was sought to be shown that the case under discussion was analogous to that of the appointment of a Bishop in Jerusalem and of a Bishop of Gibraltar; but of all the monstrous misrepresentations of Cardinal Wiseman, the most monstrous was that in which he laid it down that the patent of the Bishop in Jerusalem—for he was not Bishop of Jeru salem—was the same as that of the Bishop of Gibraltar. The Bishop in Jerusalem had only jurisdiction in that patent over such churches as placed themselves under his control, within certain limits therein defined ; whereas the patent of the Bishop of Gibraltar erected his jurisdiction into a diocese —and very properly too, because it formed a portion of the Queen's dominions. He (Mr. Wood) did not look upon the act as that of the Pope, but as the act of his advisers. He was surrounded by those unfortunate men who had led to his expulsion from Rome—the cardinals—and these men, ima gining to hide their want of strength, by creating confusion, advised him to this aggression upon England.—(Hear.) But this was not the only aggres , ion that had been committed by their advice. On the 6th of January, 1848, the Pope issued a similar incendiary rescript to the churches of the whole East, in which he attempted to extinguish their patriarchates. He (Mr. Wood) had read extracts from the Encyclical epistle of the four great patriarchs in reply to that rescript, in which it was treated with the same contempt as the present document is now treated by the people of England.—(Hear.) It was urged in Mr. Bowyer's pamphlet, that it was all a mistake to suppose that there was any aggression in the case ; for that if this letter of Pius IX. and the bull of Gregory XVI., respecting the vicarates apostolic, were placed side by side they would be found in all respects identical; in fact, that it was a mere matter of form. But he (Mr. Wood) asserted broadly that such was not the case The bull of Gregory XVI. spoke of the Catholics in England, not of the Catholic Church ; and even them it appointed vicars-apostolic. But the brief of Pius IX. spoke of the Church as extinct for 300 years, said it was about to revive that Church, and decreed and ordained that England should again flourish. There was nothing of all this in the bull of Gregory. The bull creating a bishopric in Galway, which had been called to recollection by the existing excitement, could not be held as a sufficient proof of similarity. The case of Mr. Bowyer, therefore, was a fiction. But it was said by the Hon. Member for Sheffield and others that the question at issue was entirely connected with spiritual matters, and that all this excitement was about "a poor harmless priest" coming over to this country from Rome on these matters. How the Roman Catholics would like this way of putting the question he (Mr. W.) did not know ; but he believed they generally went on high grounds on these questions.—(Laughter.) What, however, did he (Mr. Wood) find? In the strange document issued by the cardinal a document calculated rather for the meridian of China or India than of England—it was seen that he spoke of this country being received into its place among the constellations of the Church —restored to the firmament, as amid the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction. England was now, it appeared, to re volve round the Pope as regarded jurisdiction. The claim of exercising jurisdiction over the whole Church in England by means of bishops, instead of over the Roman Catholics in the country by means of vicars-apostolic, made manifest to him (Mr. Wood) a clear intention on the part of Rome to bring back England to the state he which it was 300 years ago, with all its evil consequences.—(Hear, hear.) They were told by those who upheld this act of Rome that they should not revive obsolete statutes ; and it was true that the opinion of the Attorney-General was against trying the parties under a disused law. The law officers of the Crown, however, were clearly of opinion that the law existed, and that the law had been transgressed, and they only waived it because it was never popular in this country . to try under an obsolete statute. The Cardinal and his friends, relying on not being tried under an old statute, demanded loudly to have the law enforced ; but when they found that there were private individuals ready to carry out that statute, if they only ad mitted certain facts necessary to commence a prosecution, they declined the proceeding. This, in itself, was an ad mission of transgressing the law on the part of the Cardinal. Until, therefore, the question was tried, he (Mr. Wood) should hold that the statute was violated, and he could net, consequently, admit the proposition under .discussion to be ex post facto law.—( Hear, hear.) The Cardinal, however, let out why he wanted the measure of the Pope to be ac complished. It was a very different thing to be Archbishop of Westminster and to be vicar-apostolic of the London district. England was created a province by the Papal brief. Of this province Cardinal Wiseman would be archbishop, and the several bishopswould be within his control. Unless there were sees there could be no synodal action, and unless there was synodal action in the Roman Catholic Church, the canon law could not be introduced. To introduce the canon law was what Cardinal Wiseman wanted. But the canon law bound those who obeyed it to disobey and set aside all civil and municipal laws which were at variance with its provisions. That being so, who would venture to say that the question to be decided by Parliament was not one of the most grave and serious nature, which could not be avoided except by a neglect of the most solemn duty? He (Mr. Wood) had been considerably pained by the observations of the lion. Member for Manchester, when that Hon. Member said that the present was the proper moment for an onslaught on the Church of England; and he fully agreed with the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who asserted, on the contrary, that of all other times none could be so inap propriate.—(Hear, hear.) The Church of England was one of the great living institutions of the country.—(Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Wood) went with the Noble Lord in his opinions respecting the scandalous con duct of those who held preferments in the Church when their hearts were weaned from her doc trines, and who continued to officiate in her edifices, and uencepeNrY‘i,lei pervert th theth e r position, o e t f i, a other guasevethte influence to (Loud cheers.) He felt convinced that not one Roman Catholic gentleman who heard him—he spoke not of priests —was other than disgusted at the conduct of these indi viduals in that respect—administering in one Church, while they were preparing to pass over to another. These cir cumstances excited just indignation in the minds of all right-thinkieg men, and so far he (Mr. Wood) would go with the Noble Lord, that they should be put an end to. But he could not agree with the Noble Lord in going all lengths and every length to purify the Church, because he believed that there were many most estimable men who stood in the middle of the line and touched neither extreme, and whose ejection from the Church would be a cause of great disruption among her members. With respect to the perversions from the Church, he thought the evil had been exaggerated. The Roman Catholic calendar, which was sure to scrape together all it could, only showed within the last nine years a defection of seventy clergymen among 15,000. This was lamentable , no doubt, but it could not be held as a justification to go all lengths, as suggested by the Noble Lord, or indeed to any length which would lead to a disrup tion of the Church. lie (Mr. Wood) denied that the course proposed by the Government was a course of retrogradation. He denied Also the amnion of the Hon. Member for Shef- LONDON, field that all was calm until the letter 'of the Noble ; Lord at the head of the Government appeared. The Honourable Member seemed to have . forgotten.. the intervening letters of the Pope. He (Mr. Wood) could not agree with the Hon. Member for Bucking hamshire either, that the measure was " paltry, mean, and useless." The Honourable Member had a measure of his own to meet the evil, it was true ; but the people of England would not be satisfied with the Hon. Member's denial of merit to the measure of the Government until they had means of comparing it with his own measure. He (Mr. Wood) had not seen the Bill ; but if it was framed in the shape of a solemn protest against the encroachment on the part of the Pope, he was satisfied it would meet the emer gency. Mr. M'CULLAGH confessed, that havinc , listened to the speech of his Hon. Friend, who had just ' addressed the House (Mr. Page Wood), he was unable to detect in the greater portion of that speech any logical argument in favour of the reading of the Noble Lord's Bill. The first part of that speech would have been very fitting if a bill of indict ment had been issued against Cardinal NViseman. Such a prosecution, however, could not but lie considered as a dis grace to the time, and it was therefore too bad for Hon. and Learned Gentlemen to come there and talk as they had done about offences committed by C irdinal Wiseman. —Meal% hear.) It was to be borne in mind that the practice and courtesy of the House ordinarily ,yielded permission to the Ministers of the Crown when they asked for leave to bring in a Bill—( Hear. hear)—but on the present occasion that had not been done, and he had no doubt that men who had never done so before would in this instance vote against the Bill being brought in. —(Hear, hear.) One objection to the motion was this, would they be justified as Members of Parliament. and responsible to the nation, in setting open the floodgates of bigotry? It had been said that the statutes of Elizabeth had not been repealed by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and it was also said that that period furnished a precedent which they should follow. But let them consider what the Ministers of Elizabeth had. to deal with. Elizabeth came to the throne when her rights to the throne were qUestioned, and she was called upon to yield obedience to the canon law of Rome. Her rival Mary was on the throne of Scotland, and more than half of her subjects were inclined to side with the Scottish Queen. The Princes of the house of Stuart were, besides objects of great suspicion, and the people of England felt that they could not be trusted. In the reign of William and Anne, too, there was a pretender, who was acknowledged by the Ccurt of France, and who was at that time a formidable rival.— (Hear, hear.) But where was there a Pretender now, and where was there a pretence for saying that the Queen's rights were questioned, or that the law of the land could be jeopardised by the late proceeding?—(Hear, hear.) That Noble Lord had attacked the appointment of Dr. Cullen, and bad insinuated to the House that Dr. Cullen was appointed primate for other than religious purposes to preside over the hierarchy of Ireland. Now he (Mr. M'Cul lagh) believed that Dr. Cullen, by the position he held at Rome, and by his education and intercourse, was peculiarly well informed of the state of. Ireland, and was, therefore, fitly chosen to the eminent office to which he had been appointed. The Noble Lord had alluded in a very significant tone to the address issued by the synod of clergy to the people of Ire land. The Noble Lord told the House, and endeavoured to leave the impression, that the object of the synod's address was to deal altogether with the question of landlord and te nant and the Queen's Colleges. With respect to the Queen's Colleges, he would only say that if the Roman Catholic bishops were not warranted in dealing with the question of education, considering their position and the number of the population under their charge, he could not conceive with what public question they were to deal.—( Hear.) As to the question of landlords and tenants, would the House believe him when he told it, that out of the 26 pages of which the synod's address consisted, there were only 16 lines which referred in any way whatever to that question, and even in those 16 lines there was no direct allusion to the landlords. As to the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord, he must say the exposition of its nature and scope given by the Hon. Gentle man the Attorney-General was far from being calculated to allay the fears of those who were previously opposed to it. It bad been declared again and again that the religious liberty of the laity was not interfered with by this measure, but that full religious toleration was to be secured to them. His answer was, that he hated the word " toleration" ; it was at best but a cover for real intolerance, for paltry tempori sing, and mean persecution. Equal justice for all, equally dispensed to all, was the only permanent basis on which the legislation ought to rest. He believed that every step they might take in that retrograde legislation, which the Noble Lord called upon them to sanction, they would be compelled to retrace ere long. But it might not be until much mischief had been done, and he hoped the House would pause at the commencement.—( Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY said, it was impossible not to feel the evils of a protracted discussion, on a question involving the minute details of a Bill, which, though prepared and ready to lay before the House, was not yet in its possession.—(Hear, hear.) But still be did not lament the length of the debate because he thought it had cleared the ground of many pro positions, which it was desirable to deal with at the outset ; and had, on the other hand established many propositions and concurrent demonstrations which must tend to increase the strength of the argument which must follow in other stages of the measure.—(Hear.) He thought it had been demonstrated that we were acting solely on the defensive—. (Loud cheers)—that every step that had been taken had been caused by the issue of that document, which stirred the country from one end to the other—(Hear, hear)—and which had caused them to call upon Parliament to take steps which had been provoked entirely by those who complained of their now being compelled to take them.— ( Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Dublin, followed by the Honourable Member who had just sat down, had ac cused them of bigotry. The Honourable Member for Dublin drew a delightful picture of the religious accord which previous to this occurrence bad existed between people of all persuasions, and then he turned round to the Government, and complained that it bad destroyed that peace and harmony—that it had renewed bigotry and in. tolerance. Why, if there was one point that had been more clearly established than another, it was the fact, that that act which the Government and the nation complained of was an illegal act.—(Hear, hear, and "No.") It had been demonstrated to be illegal, to be opposed not only to the universal law of civilized nations, but also to the statute law of this realm.—(Hear, hear.) That fact had been clearly demonstrated by his lion. Friend the Member for Oxford, by reference to these statutes themselves ; and the Hon. Member who spoke last had contradicted that Honi Gentleman, not by quoting any counter-law, but by mere assertion.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member had alluded to the changes in the law produced by the Bill introduced by Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords for the repeal of the penal statutes. But the Hon. Member had omitted altogether to notice that Lord Lyndhurst, who introduced the bill, and who, after a change of Ministry, was solicited by the present Government to retain the charge of it, after they came into office, introduced into the Bill the clause complained of by some lion. Members, namely, that nothing contained in that Bill should render lawful the bringing in of any foreign bulls or writings—a clause which, in fact, re-enacted, in almost identical terms, the statute of Elizabeth.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member said, if it Wll3 illegal, it was the duty of the Government not to permit the illegality.— ' (Hear.) He told the Honourable Member that there were many cases in which the Government, for various reasons, did not think it their duty to enforce the provisions of sta tutes, and that the question had been maturely weighed whether they should not institute a prosecution against Car dinal Wiseman under the existing law. That had been ne gatived, and he was fully prepared to justify the conduct of the Government in that respect. Another point which had been demonstrated was, that the act of which they com plained was not one which was exclusively required for or intended for the spiritual welfare of the Etoman Catholic community, but an act by which a claim was made to ex ercise temporal and spiritual sway over the whole of England. If that was disputed, it was only necessary to turn to the document in which the aggression was an nounced and to the rescript that followed it. That document disregarded altogether the authority of the Queen over England, it disregarded entirely not merely the existence of the Church of England, but of every other church, and claimed that all should be governed and dictated to by the Pipe of Rome.—(Hear.) It contained assumptions which were not only incompatible with the authority of the Sovereign, but rights and privileges which were at present enjoyed by the members of the Church of Rome, by the members of the Church of England, and by members of all Dissenting denominations.—(Hear, hear.) This had been, he thought, satisfactorily established in the course of this debate, and it only remained to show that this Bill would meet the case.—( Hear, hear.) On that point he would say a few words immediately; but first he would advert to some reflections that had been cast on his Noble Friend the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The charges pre ferred against the Government during this debate, and which he was prepared to answer and explain, were three: First, that they had given encouragement to the Ro man Catholic religion and Roman Catholic bishops, by giving them titles to which they were not entitled by law, but which were merely titles of courtesy and honour ; second, that the Roman Catholic bishops had been given honours and precedence which was prohibited by law ; and, third, that the lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, immediately on his arrival in that country, had called them to his counsel and assistance. With respect to titles of courtesy and honour, considering the peculiar position these prelates oc cupied, as the spiritual heads of the Church to which the great bulk of the people of Ireland belonged, he confessed that he acquiesced in the taste and courtesy which treated them with respect, and gave theca the honorary titles of your grace and my lord.—(Hear, hear.) Nor could he coincide with the attacks that had been made on Lord Clarendon for treating them with that respect. But what was the fact? The charge had been made first by the lien. Member for Bucks, and though implied in his speech, it was not so dis tinct as in his letter to the Lord-Lieutenant of Buckingham shire. The Hon. Member had commented severely on the letter of his Noble Friend, and in his speech the other night bad characterised it as a great blunder. He must say that a greater blunder than the letter of the Hon. Gentle man to the Lord-Lieutenant of Bucks he never saw. It was a collection of blunders, and he thought the Hon. Gentle man, considering his own blunders, should be less captious in his criticism on the epistolary correspondence of others.— ( Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman said that his Noble Friend (Lord Clarendon) had called upon the Catholic pre lates to take precedence at his court, and to give him their counsel. That was the charge which he had distinctly and publicly to deny.—(Cheers.) It was true that his Noble Friend, on his arrival, when Ireland was in a state of ex treme danger, did receive a . deputation, consisting of, he believed, five Roman Catholic prelates, who presented to him, from those parts of the country with which they were connected, a lamentable des cr ipti on of its condition, and offered their suggestions as to the measures by which it might be relieved. His Noble Friend had received that deputation, and listened to them with that respect and attention, which • their position and their knowledge entitled them to—(Hear, hear)—and had answered that , he would at all times be happy to listen to any suggestions they had to make, or to receive any in formation they might possess, as to the condition of the people. The Hon. Gentleman had also made charges against the Government of having given precedence to the Roman Catholic prelates on occasion of her Alajesty's visit to Ire land. Some Catholic prelates, it was quite true, were pre sented on that occasion to her Majesty, they having to pre. sent addresses ; but they did 'did not get any undue prece deuce 9n the occasion, and were received in common with the corporation and inhabitants of Dublin, in the same manner in which they were received on the occasion of the visit to Ireland of George the Fourth. All were received with the same honour, including the Presbyterians and the SoCiety of Friends, which were the only two bodies that were re ceived after the Roman Catholic prelates. With regard to any error which had taken place, the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had said that he (Sir George Grey) was re sponsible ; but as he was not, lie felt that it was duc also to those, who were not present is this House, to say something in defence of them. The party who was responsible was the Lord Chamberlain, who was a member of the Free Church of Scotland, and who was not very likely to give honours and titles unnecessarily. An officer of his had written a letter of explanation on the subject, which he (Sir George Grey) thought was, quite satisfactory, with respect to the' mention of the titles Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, as applying to Dr. Crolley, and Archbishop Murray. The Roman Catholic Prelates were habitually admitted TUE_SDA,Y EVENING-, FEBRUARY 11, 1851. .to the oitrec, and were desigaatel aceording_ to their oFilja_ nary titles.„ yhe designation, be admitted, was erroneous, and for any error in that way "the responsibility belonged to him (Sir G. Grey), as well as to any other party. The Hon. Gentleman, in his letter, said that the Roman Ca tholic prelates were received over and over again by her Majesty. Now he (Sir George Grey) must say that nothing could be more impartial than the manner in which they were received—her Majesty conducting herself with the greatest kindness, and with a graci ousness exercised by her towards all, and the Roman Catholic prelates demeaning themselves with a courtesy and humility quite becoming their station, and designating themselves in the presentation of their addresS, " We, the undersigned Roman Catholic bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland." But the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was not satisfied with the two errors which had been made in relation to the • designa ions of the Roman Catholic prelates; and charged the Governmeut,in his letter on the subject, with having given precedence to Dr. Wilde, the pseudo Archbishop of Team, and to the pseudo Archbishop of Armagh, Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland. He (Sir G. Grey) (lid not know whether the Han. Gentleman repeated the statement reap , cting the offer said to have been made to those prelates respecting the office of visitors of the Roman Catholic col leges established by the Government in Ireland; but the statement had been put forth in Mr. Bowyer's pamphlet. If, then, he said that the olli.!e of visitors of those colleges had been offered to those prelates, he (Sir George Grey) admitted it, but it was with a view to the advantages of the colleges, and to satisfy ahem that the discipline and education of the Catholic youth were conducted in a manner that was not incompatible with the Roman Catholic faith. But if it was meant to say_ that the offer was male as to the Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishiop of Tuam, in recognition of such titles, he (Sir George Grey) meant to say that that was stated which was not the fact, and that the statement was utterly and entirely destitute of shadow of truth.—(Heir, hear.) The Honourable Member for v,uckinghanishire next stated that the whole que,tiou of the colleges had, in fact, been resigned by her Majesty's Government to the Pope, alai that the Archbishop of Tuam had been allowed to take the wall of the Archbishop of Canterbury; but in that, as in most other statements in the lion. Gentleman's letter, he was mistaken. The Roman Catholic prelates did net receive any titles from the pre sent Government, beyond what was accorded to them by the reports of the Commissioners of the Bequest Act : and be (Sir George Grey) found that on the 9th of January, 1845, Archbishop Crawley was designated by that title, and that another Prelate was also designated by the title given to him in his own Church. He (Sir G. Grey) did not complain of the acts in that way of his predecessors, and all he should say was that if there were blame in the matter, it • ought not to fall on Lord Clarendon, and that he had merely acted in a kindly spirit of conciliation in all his acts towards the great body of Roman Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) With re gard to the title of Cardinal the Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Buckinghamshire had also stated that the Govern ment had tacitly' allowed it to be assumed; but he (Sir George Grey) would tell the Hon. Gentleman that the Go vernment had not sanctioned the conferring and use of that title in this country, and that no foreign title whether conferred by the • Pope, or any other foreign Power, could have any weight, or meet with any recognition in this country unless by letter of licence from the Crown, and no such letter of licence having been given, the title of Cardinal in this . country was of no avail.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the Archbishop of Tuam, an error, it appeared, had been put forth in a pamphlet written by the Earl of St. German's that a petition had been re ceived by this House from that prelate assuming that title; but the facts were otherwise, for the House had declined to receive the petition as so designated. He had received a letter, from Lord Clarendon, in which his Excel lency had given the most satisfactory explanations respect ing the manner. in w hi c h Archbishop Murray, and other Catholic prelates were invited to visit the colleges established by the Government in Ireland, with a view to their satisfac tion as to the course of conduct pursued towards the Roman Catholic youth in those colleges, and he could add that Dr. Nicholson, coadjuto r o f Corfu, had been also consulted on the subject, and requested to ma k e re p or t a t R ome w hi t h er he was going. 'And it . was thought that the manner in which the subject was represented to the Pope would be at tended with the best results. The Pope throughout Europe in 1848, the time to which he was alluding, was regarded as an enlightened reformer, and it was not for a moment sup posed that he could be opposed to the system of education inculcated in the colleges. With respect to the charges which had been brought by the Honourable and Learned Member for Sheffield, that the Earl of Minto had been made aware at Rome of the step which the Pope was about to take in relation to the re-establishing of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, he (Sir George Grey) must say what already had been denied by Lord Minto him self on that subject, that there appeared to be a very great mistake about the matter; and in the correspondence which took place between his Noble Friend (Lord Minto) and the Abbe Hamilton on the subject, his Noble Friend had plainly stated that he had no recollection of the statement that he had been apprised of the intention. A great deal too had been said in condemnation of his Noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, on this subject; but his Noble Friend, when asked a question on the matter by his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, stated distinctly that no such proposi tion had been made to him, and that he was not aware that any such step was contemplated by the Pope.—(Hear, hear.) t v h n os f e ee w li h n o gs ad o - f toirngweht Grey) ) e a ssoafimdthosesgtawi again unwise and r4sPe t that and entirely A th n e d G h o e vernment and people of this country, had advised unwarrantable.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Bill was v h i i s m e d to the ( d S o founded in good faith on those principles of civil and religious liberty which they professed; but it is in the meantime, intended to meet, step by step. the act committed by the Pope, and place an effectual check on its operation. The letters apostolic constituted an archbishop of Westminster, with a certain number of suffragan bishops taking titles from some of the ancient sees of this realm; the measure about to be brought in states, that there shall be no such archbishop or bishop, and that the Pope's attempt to constitute such a hierarchy unless constituted by the law of this country, passed in the united Parliament of Queen, Lords, and Commons, shall be null and void. The Pope, acting on the widest sovereignty over this country, gives those bishops power and authority to govern and regu late the sees over which they were appointed. The present Bill declares that every such act performed, or authority exer cised was also null and void. The Pope said that every authority but that which he assumed, and by whomsoever exercised, not excluding Parliament itself, shall not be at liberty to set aside what had thus been done. The Bill declared that whatever acts were performed by those bishops should be totally prohibited, and the authority so con ferred null and void. The Pope invited the wealthy to come forward and endow those newly-created sees the Bill proposes that such endowments shall, to all intents and purposes, be null and void.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir George Grey) agreed with the llonourahle Member for Bucking hamshire, that this measure did not go the length to which perhaps, it might have gone, and that it Ras most desirous to settle, at once, all the relations which should subsist between the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown of Eng land and the Pope. It may be very desirable that some such settlement should take place; but he would , caution Honourable Gentlemen who were anxious to check the am bition of the Pope of Rome, not to reject a practical Mea sure, such as that now brought forward, for one, which the present may not be the fitting time to propose, nor a suit able opportunity to carry into accomplishment. He would also caution those who were full of the notion that they could do so easily, that it was better to wait until the object could be accomplished. There was no doubt one way of doing so, and that was by re-enacting the penal code.—(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp.) He (Sir George Grey) believed the House utterly repudiated such a notion—(Cheers)—and he also believed the country itself would also repudiate it.—(Cheers.) There was another way of meeting the difficulty, and from the peculiar circum stances of Ireland, it may be desirable and politic to enter on, but he would ask the House whether they would reject the measure and proceed at once to reconsider the whole ecclesi astical arrangements of that country, in the absence of infor mation on which they could safely act.— (Hear, hear.) He asked Hon. Members, therefore, not to threw away the pre sent remedy for a shadow.—(liear, hear.) His own real feeling was that their security cons i sts iu the national de monstrations of the full, free voice of the people of this country, such as had taken place within the last three months, from one end of Great Britain to the other.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentle man the Member for Sheffield called that a burst of puri tanical hatred against the Pope, but he utterly denied that it could be characterised in those terms. He believed those national demonstrations, anti that feeling, and those semi. ments, had a holier origin. Ile believed them to have con sisted of a national protest; in which various religious de nominations concurred, against what they believed to be the first attempt tore-impose that yoke against which their Roman Catholic forefathers struggled, and for which, at the Reformation, by the wisdom and enlightenment of its pro mpters, they succeeded in rescuing the people of England.— (Cheerei.) The people of this country had declared that they were not prepared to return into the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church. He believed they were grateful ter, and appreciated those blessings, which, from the time of —(Chee rs .) As to the charge ietenjoyed ; and he, for on e , roachments of the Court ascendancy, he must say, in br ought against his country taohmhnfa aasddßtwenßoe no fear f foe o e ftra to the in o a f t tt i it o hi he n i se, 'Protestant t echh aggressionsoa , rtgit ersy had . men on this subject, that he in his official capacity received numerous deputations and large bodies, com plaining of what had been done, and for the purpose of presenting addresses to the Crown, and he found that in almost every instance, with a few rare exceptions, that they fully and amply recognised as the right of their Roman Ca tholic countrymen the freest, fullest, and most unrestricted exercise of their religion.—(Cheers.) Then as to the condi tion of the Roman Catholics previous to this change, it was a matter of fact that their bishops exercised those functions which belonged to their office-as an episcopal church, and which it would be absurd to say the bishop of such a church ought not to be at liberty to p e rform. He agreed with wh a t h u e nequivocally displayed o conduct of y was about t o ta k e p l ace been said and dine, thos e rejoicedm em members theof theirfeel a wt p hh o ea s t t a h c would find themselves m istaken.— (Cheers.) I.l e b e li eve d own ings o C f hu t r h c e h, e b o u n t n , t fo ty r h h i a s d ow be n en par s t England were now more th an ever determined the people of s granted to hold fast to those ble ssin g, them by the Reforma tion—blessings which had be en handed dow n t o t h em b y o h w n a h d o t b h b e e e e s n i ue saidvb jee believed t a r ; e s n f p o a e r t a o t ifnnt national i r "ons amid many and vile successive generations, various vicissitudes, ~and which they were determined to enjoy; and, by God's blessing, transmit unimpaired to their. posterity. (The Right Hon. Gentleman, who was in many portions of his address totally inaudible, then resumed his seat amid loud cheers.) Mr. P. HOWARD moved that the debate be adjourned. Lord J. 11.1: , SELL said that last night an Hon. Member asked him to state the details of the Bill, and his Hon. and I Learned Friend the Attorney-General had accordingly stated those details, which he (Lord J. Russell) had hoped would have been sufficient. If the motion for adjournment should succeed, it must be a very considerable time before the house would be able to take the provisions of the Bill into consideration. As the principle would again have to be dis cussed on the second reading, he hoped his Hon. Friend would not persist in his motion of adjournment. Mr. ROCIIE (amid the impatience of the House) said that many Hon. Friends of his who had not been fortu nate enough to hear the Attorney-General's explanation of the details, were anxious to express their opinion upon the measure; he therefore did trust that upon a question so im portant as this the Noble Lord would accede to the motion for au adjournment, and give them at least one other night to discuss it.—(Question, question !) Mr. M. GIBSON must say, with all deference to the Noble Lord, that in a matter which involved in a certain degree an attack upon the religious feelings— (Cries of " No, no ! ")—at least it was so understood by a large num ber of persons, and be thought it would be better to give gentlemen full scope for an expression of their opinions upon it. This question had been debated precisely upon the same rounds for years past, and he therefore called upon the Noble Lord to postpone it for the present, and to go on with the budget and the practical business of the country. When those subjects were disposed of, they might return to this difficult, and he was afraid almost interminable, question, as to the propriety of endeavour- Mg to keep down the influence of the &mu Cathoice in this country. If a division, took place,. he would vote for the adjournment. Mr. KEOGH thoUght it desirable thatian - adjournment should take place. The Government proposed. to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and smile very im portant provisions of the Bill had been stated to night for the first time by the Attorney-General. He thought, therefore, that any further discussisn on the subject . should be postponed until they had the aid and assistance of the Attorney-General for Ireland.—(Laughter and cheers.) During the last session of Parliament the business of th,. Attorney-General for Ireland had been done, to a great extent, by the Attorney-General for England —(A laugh)_ and he thought that upon a question of this kind they ought to have the opinion and advice of the Attorney-General for Ireland. 'Mr. ANST EY said if the motion for an adjournment was pressed he would certainly vote for it. He was not disposed to offer anything like factious opposition to the principle of this Bill, but he thought it most desirable that the measure should be fairly discussed in its present stage—(Cheers) before Ministers were committed to all its details. He was anxious himself to have an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which he was disposed to go to much greater lengths with respect to the Roman Catholic Church io England than this Bill proposed, but he was (.ecidedly opposed to any at tempt to change in the slightest decree the status of the Boman Catholic Church in Ireland. He intended, on a to.• tare stage of the measure, to ask the House to dejde upon a question which would test the professions they had heard on that (t!le Ministerial) side of the douse, and particularly from the Hon. Member for Oxford, of attachment to the great principles of civil and religious liberty. The House then divided; the numbers were— Ayes Noes Majority against adjournment .. —305 On our return to the gallery, Mr. E. B ROCHE was speaking in support of a renewed motion for an adjournment of the debate, which had been moved Ly some Hon. Member in our absence. Lord J.:RUSSELL said, that in replying to the suggestion made for the adjournment of the debate, he could not but take notice of what had been said by the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. • Milner Gibson), who, as he did not care about the question, assumed that it was one that could not be of importance to any others— (Laughter) --and asked the Government to go on with other business, to bring on the budget—and to have this question taken some other night. He (Lord J. Russell) thought it necessary to say at once that that was a proposi tion to which he could not accede.—(Hear, hear.) It was his intention, therefore, after the House had shown very clearly what was its opinion, that if the motion before them was withdrawn, they should agree to the adjournment of the debate, and fix it for the first order day. He could not take to-morrow (Tuesday), as the Hon. Member for Buckingham shire (Mr. Disraeli) had a motion of great importance, but he would fix it for Wednesday next, and he did not propose to go on with any Government business until the motion was disposed of. The motion for the adjournment was withdrawn, and the debate was then adjourned to Wednesday next, ROMAN' CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Mr. ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of all enactments against the religious profession or discipline of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.— (Laughter.) It was the same Bill aa that of last session, with the exception that the clause respecting the admission of bulls from Rome had been omitted, as he thought it more decorous to omit mention of the matter at present, and he had added a clause of a very stringent 'kind bearing on the Queen's temporal and ecclesiastical supremacy, .so as to get rid of all scruples on the part of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. They would now have an opportunity of following Lord Stanley's recommendation, to look narrowly into the securi ties afforded by the Emancipation Act; and all he asked was leave to bring in the Bill, so that the House could see if it came within the description he gave of it. Sir R. H. INGLIS could not but think that it would have been more seemly and deferential to the feeling of the House if the Hon. Member had consented to forego discussion on the question after the decision at which they had just arrived. He would test the opinion of the House upon the subject. Sir G. GREY expressed his surprise that the Hon. Mem cbeeprtsiohnouilt had dagaminept with ropo in former sessions . setointroducethe Bill, after th e re - Mr. BERESFORD moved that leave be given on that day six months. ... 35 ... 175 On a division, there appeared— • For the motion ... Against it • . • Majority .. —l4O Mr. BAINES moved for, and obtained leave, to bring in a Bill for the better protection of young persons under the care and control of others as apprentices or servants; and to enable guardians of the poor to institute and conduct prose cutions in certain cases. The Bill was brought in, and read a first time. The House then adjourned, at One o'clock. LAW INTELLIGE.NCE: COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 10. Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.) RATCLIFP V. PEARCE. This was an action in trespass to recover damages for alleged injuries done to the plaintiff's property. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Charnock conducted the plain tiff's case; and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Lush appeared for the defendant. Mr. lisrowLEs, in opening the case, said the plaintiff was a glass-cutter, carrying on business in Gray's Inn road, and the defendant a builder at Camden-town. In the month of August last year the defendant was build ing some first-class houses in Camden. town, and he re quested several glass dealers to furnish him with esti mates of their charges for glazing the windows with plate glass, and among others the plaintiff, whose tendbr was accepted, the terms being that ready money should be paid on the completion of the work. The defendant accordingly sent the wooden frames to the plaintiff's shop for the purpose of having the plate put in. In the meantime the plaintiff learnt that Mr. Pearce had in the previous year taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, Sand being anxious not to lose 80!. or 901., the value of the glass, he refused when the frames were finished to deliver them up to him unless ho had either the money or some security for it. After some negotiation the plaintiff was at length induct d to send them in a van to the premises, and on arriving there he refused to pay the money as agreed upon, observing that the plaintiff had two alternatives, either to trust him or to take the glass out of the frames. The plaintiff said he would not accept these terms, and the defendant thereupon ordered a body of Irish labourers, nearly 20 in number, to stop the van and to seize what he called his own property. They blocked up the wheels and seized the horse by the head and there being no one to resist them except the driver and the plaintiff's foreman, they proceeded to hammer out the glass, and in doing so destroyed many panes and injured the rest. On seeing the work of destruction which was going on, the plaintiff was anxious to save the glass, and he offered to deliver it if they would desist, but no notice was taken of the offer. The damage done to the glass amounted altogether to 401. Bs., and it was to recover this sum, as well as compensation for the annoyance and inconvenience which the plaintiff had suffered, that the present action had been instituted. The defendant had paid 31. into court, which he con tended was ample to cover the value of the glass de stroyed. gvidence having been given in support of the plain tiff's case, Mr. CROWDER addressed the jury on the part of the defendant He admitted the trespass, but said the defen dant had been aggravated by the great delay in sending the windows, which had had the effect of injuring the houses. He also contended that 3L was sufficient to compensate for the loss of the plaintiff. Several witnesses were called, who stated the glass was taken out very carefully, and that not more than 31.'a worth was broken. Mr. KNowLEs replied, and The Learned. JUDGE then summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 601. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Feb. 10. Sittings at Nigi'Prins, before the LORD CHIEF. BARON and a Special Jury.) VILE ATTORNEY-1111ENERAL V. •TILE LONDON DOCK COMPANY. The - Court was again occupied with this cause. The case .or the plaintiff having terminated, the jury thereupon re tired fora few minutes to take some refreshment. On their return,. . Sir F. KELLY rose to address them on behalf of the defen dants, the London Dock Company. The case was probably, upon every ground, the most important that had ever been brought into a court of justice. He must therefore implore that they would dismiss from their minds every rumour they might have heard prior to the commencement of the present tiial, and lie likewise besought them not to allow their opinion to be arrived at until they had heard the whole of the evidence which he should have to place before them on the part of the London Dock Company, for he felt that when he should have done this he should have shown to them that the company had been as pure, as honourable, and as full of integrity in all their dealings and transactions as it was possible for human beings to be. When he should have pre sented his evidence to the jury they would find that he had established the observance of the most perfect integrity, and the most cautious regard for the rights of their fellow-sub jects and their fellows in the mercantile world, on the part of the London Dock Company in all their dealings and transactions. The London Dock Company was estab lished towards the close of the last century, in the year 1795, and since that establishment they had had in their possession the property of the mercantile community of that vast city, even to the extent of 20,000,0001. per annum. They had, too, in their employment between 3,000 and 4,000 servants, and never had they, until the existence of the present Board of Customs, on any occasion come in contact either with the Government or with any individual of the general community whom they had now for upwards of 60 years served. The London Dock Company, as he had already stated, had been established in 1795, prior to which period - the vast amount of shipping which came to the port of London was compelled to lay out exposed in various parts , of the river, or down at sea, until there was found room for them respectively at some of the many wharfs where they might unship their cargoes. The result of this exposure was, that proofs were given of frauds being committed upon the revenue to the extent of 172,0004 per annum. To that extent it was known that the system of plundering and pil fering was carried on without the possibility of any safe check being put upon the system. That was the estimate of the amount of the frauds which had been carried on, but there were reasons to expect that that estimate did not arrive at one-third even of the actual plundering. The London Dock Company was upon this established, and from that day down to the present the directors had carried on one of the largest undertakings that had ever been known in this or in any other country. They had carried on that vast undertaking in the greatest commercial community in the world without, until the present proceedings, ever having come in contact with the Government or the mercantile community. They had carried on the business, dealing with a capital of several millions early, without the least suspicion of wrongful con duct. The 172,000/. of pilfering to which he had referred had had reference alone to the one article of sugar, and that, too, was at a period when the importations of sugar, did not amount to one-third of their present extent. So far, then, from the London Dock Company having d e f r auded the revenue, they had, on the contrary, added many, many millions to that fund by the means of the adeoua arrangements of their establishment for the cnduct of the public business. So excellent were the arrangements their that for the last 50 years they. had bad se throng hands property to the extent of 2),000,0001. or 30,000,0001 the present i in every year, without complaint either f r om the Customs or from the mercantile world at large. H e was on occasion fully prepared to adm it t h at if it had n any way been shown that the coraea n Y , either directly or indirectly, 'lad evaded the aymtn t of any one single duty upon a single .„. pound weight of - the merchandize which had come into their possession, or had in any way knoWingly defrauded or deprived st'single merchant of one shilling's worth of his property, he would consent at once to a verdict [wing passed against him upon this as well as upon the other 67 iufoi ma tions which the Board of Customs had thought proper to tile against the London Dock Company. But let him ask where there was any evidence, out of the vast mass which the jury had heard during the last three days—now nearly four days —which went in the least to establish or to prove thecharge which had been set up against his clients? That being so, then, he would here throw back, with the fullest contempt and with indignation, the base accusations which had been preferred against the London Dock Company, upon those who had instructed his Learned Friend on the other side. Unhesitatingly, too, did he declare that these informations were as disgraceful to those who had got- them up as were the charges untrue. The charges which his Learned Friend the Solicitor-General had made and insinuated he repelled with scorn and indignation. The imputations were false from their beginning to their ending, and he threw those im putations back upon those who had cast them upon the London Dock Company in so unscrupulous and so dis graceful a manner. He begged to be distinctly under stood as not looking these or any other of his obser vations in reference to - his Learned Friend, Lecause he took it for granted that his Learned Friend ii id only ash d upsti his instructions. He repeated again, then, that these proceedings from their commencement to their ending were utterly disgraceful to those by whom they had been get up and carried on, and he at the same time wholly acquitted Lie lion. and Learned Friend of haying been actuated by lei worthy motives in his address on behalf of the Crown. But his Learned Friend had made these imputations in a public court of ju-tice— he might say he had made them to the world at lar.ze - not merely to that court, not merely to the Lord Chief Baron, nut merely to the jury, not merely to Europe—bat he had made them to the world at large, be cause they all knew that what occurred in that court found its way to all parts of the civilized glebe. His Learned Friend, then, bad made these charges in hearing of the whole world, against a company of mercantile gentlemen, without one single tittle of evidence to substantiate the accusations. The charges had not only not been supported, but they could nut be substantiated. His Learned Friend had told the jury, among other things, that the London Dock Company had been in the habit of giving a bonus to such of their officers as were employed in those departments of the esta blishment where the " sweepings" were carried on, and that those of their servants who were the most successful in the collection of those " sweeping " were the persons who were made the objects of the largest rewards. Let him ask, had there been one syllable or one word of evidence given in reference to this part of the accusations? Had there been one word of proof in respect to this base and odious at tempt at blackening the characters of the gentlemen whom he had the honour to represent on the present occasion—a body of gentlemen whose integrity was as pure and un blemished as that of any portion of the community? What right had the Board of Customs, who were themselves the trustees of the public, to expend the money of that public by the institution of proceedings like the present, when they had not one particle of evidence to support their odious and base calumny? The Board of Customs well knew what was the nature of the gratuities which had been given by the London Dock Company to their servants, because the whole proceeding had been fully explained to the board by the company—that explanation being, that the company had been accustomed to make a triennial distribution of rewards to the superior order of officers on account of "superior dili gence " and for " over work " which was actually per formed by any of the officers. Not the most remote refer ence had these rewards to the "sweepings," while upwards of two-thirds of the gratuities were bestowed upon officers whose duties were in no way connected with the collection of " sweepings." After the London Dock Company had furnished these explanations to the Board of Customs, the latter wrote back to the company, stating that not the slightest imputation attached to that body on account of the distribution of the gratuities in question ; and yet, notwith standing this communication, exculpating them as it were from all blame upon the subject, his Learned Friend had been instructed to come into that court and trump up a repetition of so odious and so base an accusation. Such a proceeding, he might say, was totally without precedent, especially, tco, where the Board of Customs bad been unable to adduce any evi dence to establish their charges. The London Dock Company, after an existence of upwards of fifty years, now found them selves dragged into a public court to defend a series of infor mations based upon testimony which he would presently show was at once the most discreditable as well as the most fallacious. If the Customs or the Crown had confined them selves to offering evidence as to the question arising upon the 28 casks of sugar and the 50 or 55 packages of cocoa, which constituted the subject of the first information, he could have shown long ago, with regard to 20 of these casks, that they had been lying in the docks waiting for the visit of the Custom-house officer to pass them for exportation. With respect, also, to the cocoa, it was in his power to show that it was utterly impossible for the London Dock Company to convert it to their own use, or even to defraud the revenue of one single shilling of the duty on account of that cocoa;, unless, indeed, it had been the intention of the company to smuggle it out of the docks and to dispose of it for home consumption. As the case for the London Dock Company Froceeded, the jury and his L or d s hi p , ay, and his Learned riend too, would find from the evidence he should adduce, that the cocoa seized had been in course of collection for many years—that it was made up of " sweepings," and stray bags which had not been claimed and could not be ac counted tor, and, moreover, that the whole would have come into the Customs' account and then been exported in the usual manner. It was perfectly absurd to say that the mer chants of London could have been defrauded of the amount, seeing that during the half century since the establishment of the London Docks not one single complaint of any de scription had ever been advanced against that great com pany, and that on the contrary they had throughout car ried on their business in the most perfect harmony with the Government and the revenue, and also to the universal satisfaction of the mercantile community at large. He felt no hesitation in admitting that if one fortieth part of the allegations which had been set up against the London Dock Company by his Learned Friend the Solicitor-General could have been substantiated, the board of directors of that com pany would be deserving of expulsion from all society. They would in that case have deserved to have been driven out from all society with the brand of shame and disgrace placed upon their brows. But he was in a position to show that there was not one atom of truth in any of the accusa tions which had been brought forward against the com pany; and that, on the contrary, every one of the 24 gen tlemen who represented the interests of the Dock Company was a man of honour, integrity, and honesty—persons who, of all men of the world, would have revolted from any idea of evading or attempting to evade the payment of one farthing of the duty which the revenue was entitled to de mand, or of abstracting cue single pound of merchandize from the trader and merchant. The Dock Company were accused of having defrauded the merchant of the sugar which might have remained in the ship or had escaped from the packages; and they were also charged with the still graver offence of carrying on a systematic felony by the abstraction of original packages of' merchandize. Why, if this were so, the London Dock Company was neither more nor less than a band of felons, associated together for the express purpose of plundering the mercan tile community at large. Probably the jury were not aware that the greater proportion of the shareholders in the London Dock Company were some of the most extensive merchants in the land—some of the largest mercantile pro prietors in the empire; and if the imputations and accusa tions which had been advanced by his Learned Friend the Solicitor-General were true, 20 out of the 24 directors of the company would lose, by several thousands per annum, a larger sum than they could by any possibility derive from their dividends as shareholders, swollen as their funds were said to have been by these alleged peculations. Would it not, then, be a national shame, as well as a national misfor tune, that a number of gentlemen, who imported no less than 25,000,0001. worth of merchandise yearly, could be parties to a base and contemptible fraud upon their fellow-merchants? But he was in a position to prove that the amount derivable from the "sweepings" would not afford to the shareholders one additional penny to their dividends. Was it, then, to be supposed that for such a consideration the directors of this ancient company would connive at a system of plunder and fraud, the effect of which must, in the common order of things, be that they themselves, as the largest importers, would be the largest sufferers? He could not but feel that it was almost disrespectful on his part towards the jury to dwell so long upon the supposition that the directors of the London Dock Company could so far betray the hitherto un bounded confidence which the company had had reposed in it from the day of its formation until the imputations about which they were at that moment inquiring. Witnesses, how ever, had been called, who had with so much shamelessness sworn that the custom had been for the company, by its ser vants, to plunder the merchants of an enormous quantity of good marketable sugar in each year. He was not going to shrink from meeting every one of the charges which his Learned Friend had brought against the Dock Company, for. on the contrary, he would prove beyond the possibility of doubt that each charge was founded on fabrication and posi tive.falsehood; and while he should 'not in' the conduct of his cause shrink from meeting every point of accusation, his clients did shrink with feelings of horror at the supposition that any persons could believe that they had been guilty of the nefarious and fraudulent conduct which: was imputed to them by the Crown. He besought the jury to bear in mind the class of witnesses who had been brought forward to support the information on the part of the Crown. What had some of these witnesses proved ? Why, that there was a regular system of felony being carried on in the London Docks, which a - few years since would have been punishable by death. Then nearly all of the witnesses had been betraying the company, even supposing their statements were true—which he in the most unqualified terms denied—while they had been eating the bread of the Dock Company. The Learned Counsel then commented with much severity upon the evidence given by several of these witnesses, and then took a general review of the case which had been made out on the part of the Crown—the whole of which he designated as a gross and wilfully base fabrication. He took his stand to the case made, out by his Learned Friend on behalf of the Crown by stating that that case was a tissue of fabrications and falsehood. That that was so he should bring forward a mass-of evidence of so clear and distinct a character that it would be impossible for any man to resist its convincing and satisfactory effect. The Board of Customs had been offered an inspection of the books of the Dock Company, and free access to every corner of the premises, which the communication had gone on to state were at all times open to the revenue officers. The Learned Counsel then entered into an outline of the evidence which it would be his duty to call, and coin• plained in bitter terms of the way in which the Crown ,had conducted its case, and of its having withh e ld every infer - oration from the Dock Company which could have a spis i _ 0 1 7 3, them in the preparation of their defence; and , in. c ' interference called on the jury to discountenance such an the London with the proceedings of such a company a 9, was s as he contended Dock Company, unless it could be proved, that their acts it had not been proved in the presenl m .i ved isc a e , interference.' were such as to justify any such The Learned Gentleman sat down the at the conclusion of a :partial plaudits fr om speech of six hours' duration amid , d an over-crowded court. The further proceedings were then a . a djourned at h a lf- past six o'clock to till-morrow (this) morning. Holloway's Ointment and [ADVERTISEME_I% t g Cure Bad Legs.—Eliza Dew, the with Mr. King, of Dinton, near b : i e n veral months with a sore leg, the which was so dreadfully obstinate that it defied the ulceration of e minent medical men to abate its malignancy. When in skill of t state she commenced using Holloway's Ointment and s its worst wifePl l Salisbury, otfh ae aer srnt sufferedrsee(to Pill s , which soon produced favourable appearances, and by per severing in their use for a short period, she can now boast a sound cure. There is no case, however obstinate, bad, or long standing, but may be cured by these admirable medicines. —Sold by all Druggists and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. VINTRY WARD CHARITY SCHOOLS.--Yesterday morning the Lord Mayor, the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and the members of the Court of Common Council, went in their state carriages to the church of St. James, Garlick-hythe, Garlick hill, Upper Thames -street. where a sermon was preached hy the Reverend Edwa r d Ri ce, D.D., head master of Christ's Hospital, &c., in aid of the funds of the Vintry Ward charity schools, RAIL WAY INTELLIGENCE. MIDLAND. DERAY, MONDAY EVENING. —An extraordinary 'special meeting of the shareholders ot the above company wts' held this afternoon, at the Derby station, for the purposb of con sidering, and, if thought lit, of approving of the *Visions of the undermentioned Bills proposed to be introduced into Parliament in the ensuing session:— " A Bill to authorise the acquisition by the Midland Rail way Company of the estate and interest of the Leeds and Bradford Railway Company in the Leeds and Bradford Rail way, and to empower the Midland Company to 'rink) Money for such parpose. ...--- " A Bill t o extend the time forlhe purchase of pertain ands and completion of works authorised 4. tiii . Midland Railway Ripley Branches Act, .1848,1 and on the Gloucester and Stonehouse Junction Railway. • ' - -" A Bill to regulate and increase the capital bilhelifidlaud Railway Company, and to confirm 'and legalise the 'Creation and issue of certain 501. shares, and the_ applicatiCin a the proceeds of such shar es , and f ur other pUrptottes.7 Mr. Ellis, MP. (the chairman of the hoard of directors), presided. - The advertisement by which the Mee - ling had been con vened having been read by 31r. B, it (the secreterV), The Cit AtrotAl . s.,id it. migtit. append' b. -exp-:,:inicinia' -that th.s-shareholden, slronhl he calrevi togethe r - on - The - ive of holding their half yearly- meeting; but the reason was, that the dirt ctors wete anxious to lay beiine them the question of the purchase of the-Leeds and Bradford Railwev'prior to the subject corning under the discussion of ithe.Leeds and Brad find shareholders, who would hold a meeting ma the follow ing (this) day hi referen c e to th e matter. The hoard we re also desirous to have the questi on res p ec ti ng the 501. shares settled. This subject hati ,already been before . the proprie tors, and the directors were unanimous in recomrnding that :he proposed measure in reference to such ..shares should be carried out. The proposed arrangement with the holl ers of s"l: , sharei was then explained. The number of 501. shares created is Of which are imissusd • 77,8L5 •• 610 Issued ... The amount called up being 35/. per glaze, • the interest payable in 1851, at .5 per. cent. would be ... £135,178 is 0 But supposing the proposed arrangement be agreed to, and the dividend on the consolidated stock to be at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, the account vrould stand thus : Dividend on 77,245 shares of 331. 6d. Bd., at 3 per cent ... ... £77,245 0 0 Ditto on 77,245 shares of • 1/. 13s. 4d., at 4i ditto... 5,793 7 77,`j45 83,038 7 Benefit arising to the holders of consoli dated stock If, however, the dividend on the stock be -at the rate.of 2i per cent. only, the benefit would then amount to Supposing a further sum of 31. 6s. Bd. to be called up on or before the Ist of January, 185!, making 5/. per share guaranteed, and the dividend on the con solidated stock be at the rate of 31. per cent., the account would stand thus : Guaranteed dividend on 77,245 shares, of 51. per share, 386,225/., at 4i per cent. ... If not guaranteed, the dividend would be on 386,2251., at 3 per cent. ... £17,380 2' 6 11,586 15 0 £5,793 7' 7 • Should the dividend on the unguaranteed stock be at the rate of 21 per cent, only, the loss would be £7,724 10 0 It was urged that it would thus appear that the gain to the non-guarant ee d s t oc k i n 1851 would cancel the loss for at least eight subsequent years, or until 18.59 ; and should the dividend be then equal to 4-} per cent., no disedvantve would arise to the h o ld ers o f consolida ted stock from the proposed arrangement. The CHAIRMAN said he thought it would be a grearad vantage to a company like the Midland to have a call to fall back upon, should adverse circumstances arise. He believed the Bill in reference to the proposed arrangement a good measure, and that it was calculated to put an end to that state of disturbance in-'the company's proceedingkwhich had been of so much injury to the concern. The Secretary (Mr. BELL) then read the bill ".to regulate and increase the capital of the Midland Railway Company, and to confirm and legalise the creation and issue of certain 50/. shares, and the applicati on o f t h e proceeds of such shares, and for other purposes. • . After a long discussion a resolution for the.adoption of the Bill was moved and seconded. Upon a show of hands the motion was carried by a large majority. A poll was demanded. While the votes were being taken the Leeds and Bradford Bill was laid before the meeting., The object of the Bill is to enable the Midland' Raili!ay Company, at any time within three years after the paElaiug of the Act, on giving three months' previous notice of their intention so to do to the Leeds and Bradford Company, te commute the yearly rent 0f90,0001., by the payment of a fixed sum of 1,800,0001. with a provision that it they fail to give the notice, or, having given the notice, fail to pay the money, the power hereby given to them shall c.ealle. A resolution for the adoption, of the Bill having been moved and seconded, An amendment was proposed, to the effect that 'the share • holders refuse to consider or approve of the Bill for the pur chase of the Leeds and Bradford ,Railway, until a full and searching inquiry has been instituted by a special committee into all engagements existing between the Midland Com pany and the Leeds and Bradford Company, and into the mode in which such engagements were contracted, and the result reported to the shareholders. It was stated by Mr. Gannurr, one of the directors, that while the proposed purchase of the line would set at rest any doubts which might exist as to the validity of the Leeds and Bradford lease, it would at the same time sate the Mid land Company 18,0001. per annum in the event of their being able to raise the purchase money at 4 per cent. A discussion of great length took place on the subject of the lease, the chief feature of such debate being the OfteD• mooted question of the personal interest which some of the old directors ar e a ll ege d to. h ave i u this matter. It was, akit has been frequently urged on this point, that the discussion of it could not in any way affect the validity of the lease, and that the whole matter had been fully inquired into by their investigation committee. At a quarter past six o'clock (the chairman having ex plained that according to the standing orders of Parliament a simple affirmative or negative must be given to the Bill) the amendment was put as a negative to the original resolu• tion. Upon a show of hands the amendment was lost by about 10 to 1. A scrutiny was then demanded, and the following resitlt was declared at 10 o'clock For the first resolution Against it „• Stock. Veto. £3,686,808 ... 17,594 ... 319,375 ... 1,677 Majority ... £3,367,433 ... 15,917 For the second resolution Against it ... Stock. Votes. ... £3,620,737 ... 17,426 ... 278,947 1,444 Majority X 3,341,790 ... 15,982 The proceedings concluded with a vote of thanks to-the Chairman. GREAT WESTERN. It appears from the statement of the accounts of this com pany t ot he 31st of December last, that 13,815,204/, had been received on capital account, including 8,347,685/. on shares and 5,467,5191. on debentures, loans, &c The total expen diture to the same date amounted to 13,818,138/., leaving a balance against the company of 2,9341. The expenditure on railways completed, abandoned, or not in progress, amounted to 10,541,6721., including 133,899/. paid during 1850 on ac count of the estimated amount of liabilities on the 31st of December, 1849, of 350,000/. It is stated that the expen diture for new works and additions to works in 185 ) is charged in the general revenue account. The expenditure on railways partially opened--viz„ Oxford and Rugby, opened to Banbury, 995,4891., and Wilts, Somerset, and Wey mouth, opened to Frome, 20,0424, together 1,015,5314 The subscriptions and disbursements for the South Wales, the gig cester, and Dean Forest, the Birmingham and •Oxford, :and the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railways, amounted to 1,200,011/. The subscriptions and disburse ments for the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth, the South Devon, the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, the Cheltenham and Oxford, and• the Cornwall Railways, and the Plymouth Great Western Dock, &mounted to 1,051,882/, but the interest on this amount is bouts by revenue. For new. locomotive stock, under.voteCfprepri A .. tors at the last meeting, 9,0114 making the- toes! expendi ture on capital account 13,818,138/. The revediai among for the half-year ending 31st December last; shows that 455,8551. had been received, and'154,238/., expended, includ ing 12,5234 for Government duty, and 1ff,700/, raise and taxes, leaving a balance of 801,617/. The expe,nditure on revenue account for the past half-year amounted - eci33 , 835 per cent. of the gross receipts, while at the corresponding period of-1849 it amounted t o 39 1 0 88 per cent:l - The - 7101We brought forward from the half-year endin the .34 M S 1850, amounted to 24,3541 . T his sum, • a 4ded to.thaibeve balance of 3 01,6174, gives an available sum of 3P,V711, from which is deducted 2,033/. 'paid ,foi . r ie* • werka and additions to works on lines opened, 15,2 76 V . gintrenteed 4 per cent. to shareholders of the -wilts, Some rset,, ,. and trsistas or rtaaangtos Weymouth Railway ; 1,1541 . rent ohalfe. , •Pe;a ?? -the Bishop of London and aid on wens a n estate ; and 91,975/. interest P .th e divTien u g a . disposable Berks and Hants Extension a g l e 'rate of 2 pers.ce It 18 Pre. balance of 215,5324 for p en w at ilich will amount to' 161114:2" the per cent. stock 442 ' . 1 " ana of 49 ,f , 60/. half -year making to a ad leav ingbalance over ther 165,8724 a g in e terest on the r • • UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE. - MORAL SCIENCES—TIIIPOS. (Issued this day. CAMBRIDGE, FEB. 18.--EXaßlitlenh•—W. D.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy ; H. s., Moine, D.C.L., Professor of Civil Law. A. Amos; M.A.,.Pro. fessor of the Laws of England; G. Pryme. M.A., 'Pro fessor of Political Eoonomy; F. W. Gibbs, M.A., Deputy Professor of Modern History; A. Holden, M.A. (Trinity College), additional examiner.' , . FIRST cLiss. Ds. Mackenzie, Trinity. Ds. Braes, HUD. T., Jetill.. I —*Wilson, A., Trinity. — *Hort, Trinity. Ds. Pool e y, Ch r i st ' s College, having been taken ill during the examination, is not classed. Conrus Coma GE. The Spencer Scholarship has been appropriated by tha master to Richard Pearson Greaves. Moial Philosophy (Whewellib) prizemem MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—At the Middlesex See• sions ye s t er d a y, th e appea l " St. Clair v. Bingham" w as tried before Mr. Sergeant Adams. It was an appeal against 3 conviction by Mr. Bingham, one of the Magistrates of the was te Marlborough-streetsennceato w tPo months' Police-court, ce- co ut, under which the appell an t imprisonment for an offence against the Act relating to combinatiewl of workmen, 6th the building was Leing " botched" lieorge IV., c. 129. The appellant was a glazier, wh o some time since struck work at the Crystal Palace, and h e t a letter to Mr. Fox, in which he stated that unless some alter ation were made, he would put an adverti sement i n t h e morning system ni contracting, and th at i t would therefore be worthless and unsafe. The conviction wa s con fi rme d, an d the appellant committed to prison. ng papers of outstating - that N E WMARKET RAILWAT.—A.t the special meeting of this company on Saturday, power was given to the direr• tors to deal with the shareholders in default in such manner a s might be deemed by them most d . expe lent for the benefit of the general body of shareholders. ... 42,140 7 6 ... X 65,014 11 2 al