The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-26 00:00:00

ac ing n pubUe er..acily. The question, theref,r,,
was riot whither an archbishop, bishcp, priest, or other
person claiming to exercise a spiritual function, was le.
gaily appointed or not, but whether, at the time of his
officiating, he had spiritual superintendence of any given
matter.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he could see no
use in the clause; and if the law survived it, it would re-
main as a mere useless expression, illustrative of the
vindictiveness of Parliament.

The Earl of WICKLOW objected to the clause, that
the appointment to chaplaincies, and to the office of pa-
rigi priest in Ireland, which were always objects of
much canvassing, could not be called in question, if the
Noble and Learned L ird's view of the subject wore the
correct one; and also because it would be impossible to
procure the bishop's appointment.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that these
were notoriously matters of fact, and decided without
reference to validity of appointment. It was always
doubtful who was parish priest in Ireland, and a popular
candidate would not. retire.
Lord MONTE AGLE put the case of a bishop claiming
property by virtue, of the provisions of the Bequests
Act, and its being obj: cted that upon the proposed Act
he was not the true bishop. In that state of facts there
were only two things for their Lordships to say, either
that the bishop should not have the property, or that the
Commissioners of Bequests should have a virtual power
to repeal an Act of Parliament.
After a desultory discussion upon the legal effect of the
clause in connexion with the Charitable Bequests Act,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and their Lord
ships divided—
Contents
Non-Contents ...
Majority for the clause...
On clause 2,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH observed that it did
not appear to have been looked through with any great
care by the House of Commons, which probably arose
from there being no discussion on the third reading. For in-
stance, there was the word " shall," a word of considerable
importance in Parliamentary language, and it also con-
tained the words "such Bill," no Bill whatever having
been mentioned previously.—(A laugh.) But these
were unimportant, and only served to show the extreme
negligence with which one of the most important Acts
ever passed had been treated by both Houses. He did
not mean to propose anything, however, inasmuch as he
believed the Government were resolved not to afford the
House of Commons an opportunity of re-considering
the Bill. He had hoped that the door had been closed
for ever on religious persecution.—(Hear, hear.) The
Catholic Emancipation Act was designed to establish re-
ligious peace, but the latter part of this Bill would cer-
tainly tend to establish religious discord. He regretted
that her Majesty's Government should have passed the
limit within which they were justly entitled to legislate,
in consequence of the aggression which had taken
place against her Majesty's supremacy and the indepen-
dence of an Imperial State; and he deeply deplored that
they should have thought fit to adopt a mode of legis•
lation which, while it could not tench the Pope
who was the principal offender, would inflict a mosl
unjust penalty on the Roman Catholic population o
Ireland.

••• 77
... 26
••• -51

The Duke of ARGYLL rose to move an amendment,
and ap dogised for doing so at so late a period of the
session. He took this course, however, from the strong
feeling which he entertained that they had not seen the
end of the subject. Looking to the feeling exhibited by
the Roman Catholic Church, and in the address drawn
up by the Catholic laity, they might expect to see a re-
vival of the spirit of the Papacy in its most encroaching
form. He (the Duke of Argyll) considered that that
penalty of 1001. against the old sees in Ireland was the
greatest millstone round the neck of those who supported
the Bill. S.) far as the addition with respect to giving
the power to prosecute to a common informer was con-
cerned, he regretted that it had beau introduced into the
Bill, and would move its omission. If he wanted argu-
ments, however, in favour of his own views he could find
them amongst those who opposed the measure. He
thought, however, that they were fully entitled to pro-
hibit those titles in Ireland.

After a few words from the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE, which were inaudible in the gallery,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH. also expressed his
objection to the addition of the clause referred to, which
he thought one of the most unfortunate things in its
practical results that c4,u1:1 hare occurred.

Toe LORD CHANCELLOR said tha introduction of
the clause was chiefly owing to the Irish Members, who,
t. spite the Government, had withdrawn from the House
and nllowed the clause in question to be carried against
the wishes of the Ministry.
The Earl of ELLESMERE, who spoke in a very in-
audible tone, was understood to say, that although he
had shared in the same feelings of irritation which many
others had felt in consequence of the acts of the Pope,
he did not think the best way to meet it was by pro-
posing that Bill. He considered if their Lordships
thnught it necessary to embody their protest against
that conduct in a legislative form, that which his Noble
Friend the Noble Duke proposed to them would have
bsen in many respects the safer and better course to
pursue. Ho should support the amendment of the Noble
Duke.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE was surprised at the
argument of the Noble and Learned Lord, that these
words ought to be retained, because the Irish Members
must take the consequence of having allowed theca to be
inserted. If the Irish Members neglected their duty,
that was no reason for their Lordships neglecting theirs.
It ought to go forth that the Government, disapproving
of those words, were yet determined, backed by the ma-
jority of their Lordships, not to allow a word of the Bill
to be altered, in order that further discussion might not
be raised on it in the other House.

Earl GREY said the Noble Duke had misapprehended
the argument of his Noble and Learned Friend. What
his Noble and Learned Friend had said was that these
words made no practical difference in the Bill, for whe-
ther they were in the Bill or not, the Attorney-General
would have to institute a prosecution if the prerogative
of the Crown were infringed upon, and the evidence
sufficient.

The Earl of MALITESBURY thought the words
would be regarded by the people of England as of the
greatest importance, and hoped they would be retained.
The people had lost confidence in the conduct of the Go-
vernment, and these words would keep the Attorney-
General to his duty.
Their Lordships divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... ... 26
Against it ... ... ... 61
Majority for retaining the words ... —35
Lord MONTEAGLE stated that he would bring for-
ward the clause of which he had given notice on the
third reading. _ _

Lord CttgNING wished to know whether, under the
third clause of this Bill, archbishops and bishops of pre-
tended sees, if they fixed " Roman Catholic" before their
titles, would be exempted from the operation of the pe-
nalty of 100/.?

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, had the Ro-
man Catholic prelates called themselves Roman Catholic
bishops or archbishops, as the case might be, that would
have made all the difference in public feeling.
Lord CANNING did not find his questio❑ answered.
Earl GREY said he considered the clause of the Noble
Lord (Lord Monteagle) unnecessary. The Bill would not
touch any one taking title as a Roman Catholic prelate,
if that title were according to the form in the Bequests
Act. Practically, as far as Ireland was concerned, the
Bill would make no difference whatever.
Lord CRAN WORTH :aid, if in the late Roman Ca-
tholic creations the parties had prefixed the words
" Roman Caih,lic" before their titles, it would un-
doubtedly have made a great difference in public feel-
ing; but he did not think that it would have exempted
them from the operation of the Act.
The 2d clause was agreed to.
On the motion for the 3d clause,

Toe Earl of moved the omission of
the clause, because it contained words which permitted
Scotch bishops to use titles prohibited to the Roman Ca-
tholics.

The Duke of ARGYLL said the law had an un-
doubted right already to prohibit illegal titles. There
was not the same reason for prohibiting titles to Scotch
bishops which there was in the case of Roman Catholics.
The clause was then agreed to without a division.
Clause 4 and the preamble were also agreed to, and
the House having resumed, their Lordships adjourned
at a Quarter to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 25,
(ContinuedS frEAMom our ANAVIGATION
fternoon Edition of yesterday.)
through Committee, and after the
va-
rious ThisBILL.
clausesßil w l en
had
t beenagreed to,
Mr. MUNTZ proposed the insertion of the following
clause:—"And be it enacted, that from and after the
first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and
fifty-two, it shall not be lawful for any steam-boat to
go to sea, or to steam upon the rivers of the United
Kingdom, without having a safety valve upon each
boiler, free from the care of the engineer, and out of his
control and interterence, and also subject to the approval
of the surveyors acting under this Act."
Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed the clause which gave
rise to a brief discussion, and ultimately led to a division,
when the Government were defeated; the numbers

For the clause
Against it...

... 37

Majority
The clause was accordingly added to tho• Bill: to be
reported on Monday.
The remaining twelve o'clock orders were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at Half-past Three o'clock
till a Quarter to Six.

The House resumed at a Quarter before Six.
WATER SUPPLY.
Sir J. WALMSLEY presented a petition from Mr.
James Miles, praying to be allowed to give evidence be-
fore the Committee on Wafer Supply.
STATE CHURCH.
Sir G. PECHELL presented a petition from Brigh-
ton against a state church.
CRYSTAL PALACE.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented petitions from Bir-
mingham uud Kensington, praying
of the Co stal Palace. for the maintenance
Mr. HEYWORTH presented a petition to the same
effect from Newport, in the Isle of Wight.
Several other sinolar petitions were presented.
MR. SALOMONS.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL presented two petitions from
the electors of Greenwich, praying to be heard by
counsel in support of the claim of David Salornons, Esq.,
one of thf-ir representatives, to sit and vote as a Member
of this House, and moved that these petitions be printed.
Agreed to, and ordered to be taken into consideration
on Monday next.

HARWICH ELECTION.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from the electors
of Harwich, complainiug of the interference of Govern-