The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-25 00:00:00

MOTION.

Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY said that in conse-
quence of the vote come to last night, and to which he
was, no party both private and public business had been
placed in a peculiar position, for.if notices of motion were
altogether to be set aside, in order to give way to orders
of the day, private Members would be altogether ex-
cluded at any time from bringing forward their mea-
sures. He wished to know whether he could now bring
on the motion of which he had given notice?
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member could
only bring forward his motion after the present order of
the day was disposed of. It was always customary in
the early part of the session for the House to fix the
days on which notices of motion should be specially en-
tertained, but it always reserved a right to itself ot set-
ting them aside on particular occasions. Therefore it
was that the Hon. Member could not now bring on his
motion.

Mr. HUME said that in that case private Members
were always in the hands of the House, and might never
bring on their motions at all.

The SPEAKER stated that in former days the
notices of motion were frequently set aside without cere-
mony at any time, but now they could only be super-
seded by the orders of the day on an express resolution
of the House.

SALARY OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
I❑ reply to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,
Lord JOAN RUSSELL stated that the new Master
of the Rolls would be appointed with the understanding
that the office would be subject to any alteration in the
salary which Parliament might deem necessary.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented 49 petitions from
Wesleyan bodies in the different counties of England
praying that a more stringent measure than the Govern-
ment Bill might be introduced with regard to the Papal
aggression.

Thir.
NEWDEGATE presented several petitions from
Warwickshire against the Papal aggression.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned
debate being read,
Mr. HOBHOUSE said he moved the adjournment of
the debate last evening, because he understood the Hon.
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.—(Hear, hear.) He must
say, that the more he had heard of the debate, the more
he had sifted the different arguments of Honourable
Gentlemen, and examined the question on its
merits, the more he was fortified in the convic-
tion which ho had previously entertained, that
all legislation on the subject was unnecessary.—(Hear,
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 fur the purpose of deceiving the House and pre-
venting the people of England from discerning the real
truth.—(Laughter.) If he understood the arguments
offered to the House, they wero 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 show
what the meaning of the word " bishop " was
it would be necessary to look back to the history of the
bishops, and see how they were appointed in earlier
times. Now, he thought no one would venture to dis-
pute that the original mode of appointing them
was by the laity and clergy per clericum et populum.
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 office than a title, and hence he
objected to the Bill. It was simply directed
against names, and he could not think that
itself
with was worthy of the Houle to mix
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