The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1851.

of their Lordships' Committee, by endeavouring to re-
model the law?
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the
clergy were under great obligatio❑ to the Noble Earl for
bringing this subject under the consideration of the
House; but he knew not whether the prelates should feel
equal obligation for the contrast which the Noble Earl
bad drawn between them and the clergy. Although the
Noble Earl's statement was in most respects true, it,was
not impossible that the public might draw a wrong in-
ference from it. As long as the law remained in its pre-
sent state, the contrast which the Noble Earl had ad-
verted to as existing between prelates and the clergy
with respect to contributions to the poor rate must con-
tinue. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that
there was no part of the episcopal income which did not
contribute to the rates, although not directly out of the
pockets of the prelates. The process was this—the pre-
lates paid the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the
commissioners paid the rates. The Noble Earl, however,
had made out a case for the clergy, and it certainly ap-
peared unjust that the personal services of that class,
ithout which they could not receive their incomes,
were not represented in tho rent-charge.
Earl GREY believed that the Right Hon. President
of the Poor-law Board had given notice of his intention
in the other House of Parliament of introducing a Bill
for the purpose of effecting some alteration in the law of
settlement and parochial assessment. At the same time
he could give no assurance that the proposed change in
the law of settlement would be consistent with the Noble
Earl's views. As tar as he understood the Noble Earl's
views on the subject, he believed that it would be most
detrimental to the interests of the country to carry them
into effect.
Lord PORTMAN wag understood to say that the ques-

tion with which the Noble Earl wished Co deal was one
encompassed by many and serious difficulties. Whether
the Noble Earl intended to bring in a Bill to effect this
object under another Administration he did not know,
but he would advise him to pause before attempting to
legislate en the subject. The clergyman referred to by
the Noble Earl, as paying 10s. in the pound for rates,
paid no more than the other ratepayers in the same
parish. That the area of rating should be extended he
would admit, but that was not the tithe owner's grievance.
The Earl of MALMES BURY, with reference to what
had fallen from the primate, disclaimed the remotest
intention of casting a stigma upon the Right Reverend
prelates.
The Bishop of OXFORD maintained that the clergy
were suffering under a grievance which demanded re-
dress. That proposition he submitted to the Committee
of last session, and it was negatived by two votes only,
and if his two Right Rev. Brothers who were associated
with him on the Committee had been present on the oc-
casion the votes would have been equal on either side.
By a strict adherence to the letter of the law, it was held
that the personal services of the clergy must not be taken
into cousideration with reference to the payment of rates;
but if the law were strictly interpreted in another res-
pect all property should be equally charged for the sup-
port of the poor. Some time subsequently to the pass-
ing of the 43d of Elizabeth it was found desirable, from
motives of convenience, to exempt personal propery
from direct assessment, and that object was effected
in a roundabout way. As long as agriculture was
protected the consummer indirectly contributed to
the support of the poor. Now, however, that the law
had been altered—as he thought wisely—and the price
of wheat was regulated not by the expense of produc-
tion, but by the cheapest rate at which it could be
brought in from other countries, the consumer was re-
lieved from his indirect contribution to the rates; and
the whole burden was cast upon the landed proprietor
and the titheowner. This circumstance constituted a
claim, not for the reversal of free trade, but for a re-
consideration of the principle on which rates were levied.
He was satisfied it would be foiled the law pressed
heavily on a most deserving body of men, the parochial
clergy of the Church of Eugland.
Lord BEAUMONT thought their Lordships had
allowed one error to run through their speeches in not
regarding rates as taxes on property. There was no
injustice at present, as all real property was rated on the
same principle; but, if the rates were reduced on one
description of real property on account of services ren-
dered, there would be an unjust distinction between the
rates on the same kind of property. He did not wish to
see income rated to poor-rates, but thought realized per-
sonal property fairly liable.
Lord PORTMAN observed that there were duties
rendered by lay impropriators which did not procure
them exemption from rating—for example, there were
services as high sheriffs, on grand juries, and in the
militia.
After a few words from the Earl of Malmesbury. Lord
Wodehouse, and the Earl of Hardwicke, the petitions
was ordered to lie on the table.
THE COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions against
Papal aggression from Cavan, Dublin, Down, and other
places.
Earl GREY presented petitions in favour of the Copy-
hold Enfranchisement Bill.
Their Lordships adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, March 25.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
ADJOURN ED DE BATE.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned
debate being read,
Mr. HOBLIOUSE said ho moved the adjournment of
the debate last evening, because he understood the Lion.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, were anxious to
deliver their opinions to the House, and not from any
personal vanity of his own.—Oleos, hear.) He must
say. that the more he had heard of the debate, the more
he had silted the different arguments of Honourable
Gentlemen, and examined tae question on its
merits, the more he was fortified in the convic-
tion which ho had previously entertained, that
all legislation on the subject eas unnecessery.—(flear,
hear.) He would grapple at once with some of the
main arguments which had been offered, casting aside all
those wordy arguments with which the subject had been
invested for the purpose of deceiving the House and pre-
venting the people of England from discerning the real
truth.—(Laughter.) If tin understood the arguments
offered to the House, they were principally these—that
an insult had been levelled at the Queen in her character
as first magistrate, and also as supreme head of the
Church; that her authority and prerogative had
been invaded, and the independence of the country
interfered with by the act of the Pope in ap-
pointing Roman Catholic bishops. It appeared to
him that the word" bishop" had not been sufficiently
considered, that they had not separated the essence from
the accident, the spiritual from the temporal authority,
and hence they were led into a great constitutional
error. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") In order to chow
what the meaning of the word " bishop " was
it would be necessary to look back to the history of the
bishops, and ace how they were appointed in earlier
times. Now, he thought no one would venture to dis-
pute that the original mode of appeintiug them
was by the laity and clergy per clericttnz et minium.
This was the simple history of the origin of the bishops,
and their functions were originally strictly spiritual.
The temporal power which they now exercised was
nothing more than an accident. The word bishop had
reference more to an offiee than a title, and hence he
objected to tho Bill. It was simply directed
against names, and he could not think that.
it was worthy of the House to mix itself
with such a matter as this. This was not the first time
that confusion had arisen out of names in this country.
Similar disputes arose in Scotland about the sixteenth
century, when a good deal of excitement arose from the
fact of some of the Roman Catholic clergymen having
adopted titles, but then, as he hoped it would turn out
now, it was thought unadvisable to battle with trifles,
and the excitement ultimately died away. Now if the
House followed that example on this occasion, and no
longer frittered away its valuable time in wordy
debates about nothing, the Legislature would elevate
itself in the estimation of the country. Lofty
terms and large expressions had been applied
to Rome to stigmatize her for insulting
the Sovereign of those realms; but those lofty terms and
large sounding expressions were just as much applicable
to the Free Church of Scotland as to the Pope
of Rome, for they gave titles to their Church dig-
nitaries without consulting the Crown. Such, then,
were a few of the objections which he enter-
tained against this Bill. He had many others, indeed
their name was legion, but he should be falling into the
same fault that he was condemning if he wasted the
time of the House by going over the whole of them.
He had stated enough, he thought, to show that the
measure was wholly uncalled for; and since be thought
it opposed to the spirit of the Reformation, as a staunch
and uncompromising Protestant he should assist his
Roman Catholic fellow subjects in giving it his decided
and steady opposition. He maintained that it did not
belong to incorporated bodies of any kind to petition the
Crown on the subject of Church matters. As to the ar-
guments which had been used of the Pope's supremacy
over the consciences of his followers, he asserted that
the Roman Catholics of this country entirely repudiated
any interference on the part of the Popo in their
temporal concerns. No such power over was conceded
to him by his most ardent supporters in this country.
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the
three questions which had been submitted to six of the
Catholic universities of Europe—Louvain, Paris, Douay,
Alcula, Valladolid, and Salamanca: whether the Pope
could have any temporal jurisdiction in this country,
whether ho could absolve Roman Catholics from
their allegiance to the sovereign, and whether
there was anything in the constitution of the
Roman Church which forbade its members to keep faith
with heretics. All these questions were anawered in
the negative by each of the universities, and more than
one of them expressed its surprise that such opinions
should be entertained in a country so celebrated
for its intelligence and freedom of thought.—(gear.)
He thought, therefore, he had fully succeeded in de-
monstrating that bishop in its original signification was
not a title at all, and that in this country we ought not
to be angry at the Pope interfering in spiritual
matters, when we knew that ho lied dour so long ago:
They were gravely told that the Church was to be aeb
jected to the exercise and jurisdiction of this canonlaw.
Why, when he looked around and considered that law,
he was vile surprised that the people or the House
should in any way have been alarmed at such_ a bugbear
as this. Let them look only into the mature of this canon
law, and to its true position. If they did. so they would
find that it was, in every case, subject to the common law
of England. All the great writers by whom this country
had been adorned averred that such was the case;
and Blackstone himself, than whom no greater au-
thority could be adduced, had stated that the
canon law was overridden by the common law
at all times during our history, as was remarkably evi-
dent by three great ensigns. It was in the first place
subject to the common law; it was in the second only
to be construed and explained by the atatutee which