The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-18 00:00:00

SUN,

LONDON,

inefficient, but would support a Bill for establishing a
supervision over monastic establishments.
Mr. GOULBURN considered the rescript of the POPE a
violation of the compact of 1829, and at variance with
the, spirit of the Emancipation Act. He would support
the Bill, although ho thought it inadequate to meet the
case.
Sir 11. W. BARRON said the Bill would create continual
disturbance in Ireland.

Mr. CALTERT considered the measure as one purely of
self-defence.

Mr. CHARTERIB said there was no danger from Ro-
man Catholic ambition, nor any doubt of Roman Ca-
tholic loyalty, and therefore he considered the Bill un-
called for.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in a most eloquent and ar-
gumentative speech, proved that in no country in Europe
had the PorE a right to ereate dioceses without the
consent of the State; that the new prelates were by the
canon law endowed with extensive temporal authority,
and with a civil status, and, as an illustration of the
encroaching ambition of Rome, he adduced the
abnormal appointment of Dr. CULLEI, followed as it was
by the Synod of Thurles. Alter alluding to the Roma-
nist tendencies exhibited by several admirers of the
" pieturusple in religion in the Church of England, he
concluded by declaring his intention of supporting the
measure as the mildest possible enactment that could be
devised for preventing Papal encroachment.
Mr. CARDWELL denied that the proposed Bill would
either prevent synods or the introduction of the canon
law; it was just large enough to irritate, and not large
enough to satisfy, and therefore ho should oppose it.
On the motion of Mr. ANSTEY, the debate was ad-
journed.
The House rose at Half-past Twelve.

The debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill drags its slow length along. Three nights have
already been consumed on the question of the second
reading, in addition to the five previously wasted on
the almost formal question of obtaining liberty to
introduce the measure, and yet no one can venture
to say when the discussion will come to a conclusion.
To use a " fancy" phrase, the combatants seem
"fresher than when they came to the scratch."
Their bloods are thoroughly up, and " they
mean mischief and no mistake." Will this
week see the division ? We can scarcely con-
ceive how the unfortunate SPEAKER could bear the
infliction for a longer period. The fervid, impas-
sioned eloquence of the Hibernian Members must
begin to " pall his weary ears ;" any change
whatsoever would he a relief to that much-bored
man. We can almost conceive his attending as "an
amateur " on the estimates, or appearieg in the
House as a private Member, when relieved from his
official duties by the Chairman of Committees, ra-
thar than submitting to another evening's de-
bate on the Papal pretensions. It is, how-
ever, manifest that Ministers look forward
to an almost interminable discussion. In answer to
a question by Mr. DISRLELI, as to when the Budget
would be brought forward, Sir CHARLES WOOD
said, " Not on Friday. It is impossible to say how
long this debate will take. It (i. e., the Budget)
will come on the first night after this debate." We
have it thus on official authority that the precious
Budget will not come on on Friday, and that it will
come on the first night after the debate. Ergs, the
debate will not terminate before Friday. We must,
however, recollect that the respondent was our excel-
lent Minister of Finance, and we must make some
allowance for the natural anxiety that must be felt
by that unfortunate person to postpone the evil day
when his " crotchets" will be gibbeted before the
popular branch of the Legislature. We have heard
of criminals on their way to execution • who could
rejoice at the temporary respite afforded by a stop-
page of the thoroughfares, although they knew that
their miserable existence would only be prolonged for
a few brief moments thereby; and as,' owing to the
withdrawal of Mr. BAILLIE'S motion, the " PEE-
CIOUi BUDGET" must again be brought forward,
its unfortunate author eagerly clutches at an
additional day's delay, at any expense of time to the
country. How can we wonder at the loud and gene-
ral complaints of legislative supineness, and the vexa-
tious delays that must take place before acknow-
ledged abuses and grievances can be remedied,
when the public time is so wantonly and recklessly
thrown away in the most valuable part of the

session ?

Few of the " great guns" have as yet come for-
ward (luring the debate. We have had, however,
three new aspirants for senatorial honours who
made their voices heard for the first time within
" the QUEEN'S Palace at Westminster." We have
already spoken of the sensation created by the
maiden oration of Sir RONERT PEEL, who eminently
merited the congratulations he received, and gave
ample promise that he would one day acquire a Par-
liamentary reputation worthy of the heir and repre-
sentative of his distinguished and lamented sire.
Mr. H. KER SEYMER, the second postulant, spoke
briefly, but to the purpose, although we do not
suppose that the sentiments to which he gave utter-
ance will prove very acceptable to his constituency.
Mr. CALVERT, the new Member for Aylesbury, made
a very creditable " first appearance" on the Parlia-
mentary stage, during which he chiefly applied him-
self to answering the arguments of his old opponent
of the Court of Chancery, Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER.
The speech of last night was, however, that of
the SOLICITOR- GENERAL,WhO took a sound, practical,
common-sense view of the subject, and did much
to relieve the diluted measure of the odium that has
been cast upon it. The Right Hon. Gentleman clearly
exposed the fallacies that had been put forward by
the advocates for non-legislation on the subject, who
assert that it was a merely spiritual authority that
was exercised by the Sovereign PONTIFF. If that ar-
gument were once sanctioned—if it were admitted that
" means which were illegal and unconstitutional,which
involved a violation of our municipal and constitutional
laws, a violation of the public law of Europe,
an invasion of the sovereignty of the State,
an outrage on the national independence, should be
tolerated, because some persons might please to as-
sert that these illegal and unconstitutional acts
were necessary to the due development of their
religious opinions, there would be no limit or
boundary beyond which it might not be carried." The
Thug might justify his amiable weakness by assert-
ing it was only the conscientious performance of his
religious duties. It is not in this manner, however,
that we understand the glorious principle
of universal toleration. Each man should
be at liberty to exercise his own judgment so
far as he himself is personally concerned, but he
should not be allowed to insult his fellow-subjects, or
to do anything forbidden by the statute or common
law of the land. This liberty is best expressed by
the legal maxim—Sic ulere sue, ut alienurn non lepclas.
We give th© most extensive privileges to our Roman
Catholic brethren, so long as they do not encroach
upon the sacred and inalienable right which we
claim for ourselves as Protestant subjects of this
Protestant State.

We rejoice to find that the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
of ENGLAND has taken charge of the Registration of
Assurances Bill, and that it will be carried through
the House of Peers under his auspices. We have
long since pointed out the vast importance of such a
measure, and the great relief that would be thereby
afforded to the landed interest, not merely to
the owners of real property, but to all persons in
any degree interested therein as occupiers or encum-
brancers. It is almost unnecessary to recapitulate the
frauds and losses to which purchasers, mortgagees, and
others are exposed under the existing system, and
from which no amount of precaution can effectually
protect them. The delays and expenses necessarily
encountered in every dealing with land, whether
a permanent transfer or a temporary change, are un-
fortunately but too well known, and we have no
hesitation in saying that they materially de-
preciate the value of land throughout the
country. If the territorial • aristocracy knew
the price that they are paying for these ab-
surd, would we could say "obsolete" remnants of the
feudal law—and the regarding "land" as somethieg
SO sacred that the title thereto is not to be touched
woorultdhsepireedwilhstle Therey know the price
i
bthyaptrtohleaynearhean"dps—hey
for
can be no doubt that if land could be cheaply, cer-
tainly, and expeditiously transferred or charged—
disposed of like stock in the public funds, or in any
of our great joint-stock companies, at a few hours'
notice, and a few shillings outlay, its value
in the market would be greatly enhanced,
at least ten per cent. on the ordinary price. If, then,