The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

ii
Lllll.ollt .--=111t11"6

n'iv
LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1851.

In the House of Lords last night,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second read-
ing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, who contended that there had
been no aggression committed by the POPE in conferring
territorial titles on the Roman Catholic Bishops, moved
that the Bill be read a second time that day three
months.
Lord BEAUMONT, who considered the aggression as of
entirely a political and temporal character, and com-
mitted in conjunction with the Absolutist Powers, for
the purpose of destroying, if possible, all civil and reli-
gious liberty, supported the second reading.
The Duke of WELLINGTON considered that the enact-
ment of some such measure was necessary to meet
the recent aggression, and he, therefore, supported the
Bill.
The Earl of MALMESBURY supported the Bill.
Lord BERNERS considered that not the Crown, bat
the Church, bad been insulted by the rescript of the
POPE.
The Duke of ARGYLL, Lord AIRLIE, and the Bishop
of ST. DAVID'S, spoke in favour of the Bill, after which
the debate was adjourned on the motion of the Earl of
WINCHILSEA, and their Lordships rose.
In the Commons, the discussion in the case of Mr. Al-
derman SALOM NS was resumed.
On enteri❑g the House Mr. Alderman SALOMONS took
his seat below the bar.
In reply to Sir B. HALL,
Lord J. RUSSELL announced that the Government did
not int4ond to institute any legal proceedings against
Mr. SALOMON&
Sir B. LIALL then announced that the Hon. Member
for Greenwich would take his seat ; whereupon Mr.
SALOMONS walked up the House and took his seat be-
tween Sir B. HALL and Mr. C. ANSTEY.
A scene of great confusion followed, and the SPEAKER
ordered Mr. SALOMONS to withdraw. The worthy Al-
derman, however, remsieed in his seat, and the SPEAKER
appealed to the House to support him.
Great uproar hereupon followed, in the midst of which
Mr. B. OSBORNE made several unsuccessful attempts to
address the [louse; at length
Lord J. RUSSELL moved a resolution ordering Mr.
SALOMONS to withdraw in the name of the House.
Mr. C. ANSTEY, after going into a legal argument to
prove that the administration of the oath of abjuration
was not required by law, moved the adjournment of the
debate.
The House divided—
For the adjournment ... 65
Against it ... ... 257
Majority ... ... —192
In this division Mr. SALOMONS voted, and when the
Members returned from the lobbies, resumed his seat.
Mr. ANSTEY then proceeded with his arguments on
the main question.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE moved as an amendment that
Mr. SALOMONS do take his seat.
Mr. T. HO/MOUSE contended that a resolution of the
House could not exclude the Hon. Member for Green.
wich, who might sit or vote if he chose to run the risk
of incurring the penalties.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered the statute im-
posing the penalties was prohibitory as well as penal.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought they ought to proceed with
great caution.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL considered that the oath,
as Mr. SALOMONS had taken it, was legally complete
and effective.

Mr. CLAY advised the House to assume the responsi-
bility of letting in the Jews at once.
Atter a few words from Mr. VILLIERS and Lord J.
RUSSELL,
Mr. BETUELL contended that the House had both the
right and the duty to vary the formula of the oath ac-
curding to each particular case, and quoted a variety of
precedents in support of his position.
Sir F. THESIGER controverted the position of the
Hon. and Learned Member fur Aylesbury.
After a few words from Mr. Acuorißr and Sir H.
INGLIS,
Mr BRIGHT said that the precedent set in the clue of
Mr. PE .LSE ought to govern the present case.
The House was then addressed by Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Mr. EVANS, COI. THOMPSON, Mr. CROWDER, Mr. WAWN,
and Mr. J. A. SMITH.

On a division there appeared—
For the amendment ... 81
Against it ... ... 229
Majority against the amendment —l4B
Oa the question being put on the original motion,
Mr. C. ANSTEr stated that if the division should be
against Mr. SALomoNs, that gentleman would still con-
tinue to disobey, and a motion would be made that he
be heard in his place in defence of his right to re-
tain his seat.

Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that the division would be
allowed to be taken on the original motion, referred to
the precedent set by Sir W. WYNDHAM, who punctili-
ously obeyed the vote ordering him to withdraw, and
promised, if this course should be now followed, that he
would this day move a resolution similar to that proposed
in the case of Baron ROTHSCHILD, upon which the House
might have an opportunity to discuss the principle, and
revise its decision of last year.
Sir B. HALL believed that prolonged discussion would
throw no more light on the subject.
Mr. HEADLAM advised Mr. SALOMONS to claim his
right to speak, as he had already exercised the right of
sitting and voting.
Thus appealed to,
Mr. SALOMONS, after apologising for the unusual
course which he had adopted, affirmed that he designed
no disrespect to the House or the SPEAKER, but acted in
support of a constitutional question, and iii defence of
the privileges of his constituents. He should obey the
order to withdraw if the vote passed to that effect, and
provided just sufficient force were used to constitute an
ostensible compulsion. The speech was listened to with
much attention and followed by much cheering.
After some remarks from Mr. BRIGHT, Sir DR LACY
E VANS, Lord JOyi,7 RUSSELL, and Mr. B. OSBORNE,
Thy House divided on the question of adjournment,
when there appeared—

Ayes
Noes

... 75
:2
A socond division immediately took place, on the nio-
,on that Mr. SALOMoN9 be ordered to withdraw. There
Majority .. :.•: 37162
appeared,—
For
.- 231
... ••• •••
Against ...
Majority .••150
The Sereeant-at-Arms then advanced to the Hon.
Member, and touching his arm, Mr. SALOMONs quitted
the House, protesting that he did so under compulsion.
A confused and tumultuous discussion followed, in the
course of which it was settled that Mr. SALomorrs was
entitled to occupy, if he pleased, a seat behind the bar ;
that the resolution proposed for to-day would be brought
on by Lord J. RUSSELL at five o'clock, on a question of
privilege ; and that if the lion. Member for Greenwich
wished to be prosecuted, the process must be instituted
by some private a:tuba, as the Gomrnment still de.
clinscl to interfere.

LON DON,

The subject was then allowed to drop, and the House
resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
The Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock.

There is at length some prospect that the debates
on the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill will be
brought to a conclusion, and that the session will not
pass over without the entry on the pages of our statute.
book of this solemn protest against the arrogant
assumption of a foreign Prince to exercise territorial
rights, and confer territorial titles within these
realms. The second reading of the Bill was moved
last night, in the House of Lords, by the Marquis of
LANSDOWNE, and, although the debate was adjourned,
yet as the Pore has not in the House of Lords
a " Brass band," " making night hideous" by
their discordant yells, there will be no fac •
' tious opposition offered to the Bill, which
we confidently expect will be the law of the
land ere a fortnight shall have elapsed. The speech
of the Marquis of LANI)DOWNE was calm, dignified, and
statesmanlike, worthy ot himself and of the cause of
civil and religious liberty, of which this Bill will,
when it shall have become law, be one of the most
important bulwarks, defending those liberties, as it
does, against the most grinding, the meanest, the
most degrading, the most body-and-soul enslaving
of all tyrannies—a sacerdotal despotism, whose
miserable and grovelling victims dare not even
think, or hope, or wish, or pray but as their masters
tell them, and are, therefore, placed in even a more
degraded position than the negro slave, whose
thoughts at least are free. Tne 1V ,tsis of Lass-
DOWNE, at the very commencemee of his speech,
placed the argument on its proper basis when he de-
clared that the Bill dealt not with the Roman Ca-
tholic subjects of this realm but with a foreign power,
and most happily did he illustrate this argument by
the constant practice of the Government of this
country, which " had at all times so steadily,
and, he might add, so stiffly refused to
admit the existence of foreign titles within it, ex-
cept in rare cases and under peculiar circumstances,''
adding, that if they attached such importance to
titles of a profane nature, how much more would
they attach to titles of an ecclesiastical character,
which a foreign power disposed of here by assump-
tion, and by assumption alone ? This line of ar-
gument completely took the wind out of the
sails of the Earl of ABERDEEN, who followed in
a prepared and laboured speech, evidently drawn up
to meet the arguments which he supposed the Mar-
quis of LANSDOWNE might have used. That the
Earl of ABERDEEN should have opposed this measure
was naturally to have been expected. When
was there ever a measure proposed to vin-
dicate the honour or to secure the in-
terests of this country from foreign encroachment,
but it was sure to be opposed by the Earl of ABER-
DEEN, whose whole career in office has been one of
timid truckling, of yielding compliance with the most
unreasonable assumptions of foreign Powers,
whilst out of office he has invariably been
the mouthpiece of the Absolutist powers
in Europe, aiding to the very best of his
small abilities their intrigues against any patriotic
Minister who dared to uphold the honour and interest
of England. The author of the Ashburton capitula-
tion is only consistent with his antecedents when he
recommends to us to bow our heads in all humility
before the PorE ; cet excelleat ABERDEEN could not
do otherwise than counsel us to submit to encroach-
ments on the part of those foreign Powers of
whom he is the excellent friend and ally. The man
who went out, of his way to betray the BANDEIRAS
to Austria could not be expected to oppose the en-
croachments of Rome, those encroachments being
counselled by Austria. Throughout the whole
of the heavy, lumbering, inconsequential speech
of the Noble Earl, we find but one sentence in which
anything like a principle is laid down, and that prin-
ciple is a false one. The principle laid down by the
Noble Earl, that if the State interfered in any
manner with that which a church considered necessary
for its full development, it did not tolerate that church,
and that, therefore, the State was bound to permit
every sect which it tolerated to do all and everything
which it might consider necessary for its developintnt.
Now the Roman Catholic Church considers the
existence of the Inquisition necessary for its full
development. Would the Noble Earl permit the
establishment of the Inquisition within these realms?
We tolerate the religion of the Hindoos, but be-
cause the sacrifice of widows is necessary to the full
development of that religion, the Noble Earl
would hardly contend that we persecuted a
Brahmin because we refused to permit him to
celebrate a suttee at Charing-cross, yet to
this extent must come the arguments of the
Noble Earl, if they are logically carried out to their
ultimate consequences. The true principle was
that laid down by Lord BEAUMONT, in the
best speech that has yet been delivered
on this subject, and who said that nu
man was entitled to any liberty, civil or religious,
which interfered with the exercise of a similar liberty
on the part of every other individual he then pro-
ceeded to describe that liberty enjoyed by the Roman
Catholics in this country, and to contrast it with the
liberty they enjoyed in other countries, in the follow-
ing words :—" As individuals, the Roman Catholics
enjoyed in this country a liberty which they did not
enjoy in most foreign countries, and which certainly
they did not enjoy in any Roman Catholic
country with which he was acquainted.
They could in this country worship as they
pleased and where they pleased, and, while
allowed to do as much as they chose, they were not
compelled by law to do more. They were in every
way free agents, and he wished that as free agents
they should ever remain. With regard to the Roman
Catholic Church in this country, it was more than
tolerated. It was, to a certain degree, protected.
No one had a right to interfere with it or with
the building of its temples, or to prevent it
having as many men as it chose ministering within
those temples—archbishops, bishops, deans, Ste.
The English Catholic Church had every opportu-
nity of communicating freely with the Court of
Rome without let or hindrance, or of ministering its
affairs by domestic government, if it preferred that
course. Nay, more; it had the perfect power and
privilege of having a regular hierarchy, if it chose."
This, as the evidence of a liberal Roman Catholic, is
invaluable, and outweighs whole oceans of such drivel
as that of the Earl of ABERDEEN. The truth is,
the old Roman Catholics ot this country, the en-
lightened and educated Roman Catholics, are
opposed to this aggression ; the persons who
excited it were the Puseyites, as was justly ob-
served by Lord BEAUMONT. "The step taken was but
the first of a series on the part of the Court of
Rome, directed against the liberal Catholicism
which had grown up in this country. It was in-
tended to bring over fo the views of the fanatical con-
verts, whose extravagance and absurd prejudices had
brought disgrace on their adopted religion, those
honest, liberal, straightforward Catholics who were
satisfied with their position, and endeavoured to con.
form to the spirit of the free and liberal institutions
of their country. Above all, the recent aggression
was intended to open the way for the interference of
the Court of Rome with the educational establish

ments of the empire—to enable it to destroy the
QUEEN'S Colleges and the liberal system of edu-
cation prevailing in Ireland—to build, as it were,
a wall around Roman Catholics, within which their
minds should be trained in a system imbued with the
spirit of absolutism that existed in the Government
of Rome, and to establish something in the nature of
an Index Expurgatorius for science and literature."

The Puseyites are to a man the supporters of
absolutism. Among them and among them alone
are to be found the eulogisers of HATNAU

and the apologists for Austria, and it is
to subserve the views of Austria that this
aggression has been made by the POPE. The
Duke of WELLINGTON declared that when he
read the rescript he saw clearly that something like
this Bill must be passed, and theretbre he supported
the second reading; and the Duke of ARGYLL and

the Bishop of ST. DAVID'S both spoke most elo-
quently in favour of the Bill. The discussion does
_ _

great honour to the House of Lords.

Indignation is gradually extending throughout
France at the faithlessness displayed towards ABD.
EL-KADER by its Government. We are beginning,
therefore, to be sanguine that that illustrious victim
of monarchical turpitude may ultimately be released
from captieity by ri national sense of justice on the