The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-08 00:00:00

alumina ;;;Atit

LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1851.

I❑ the House of Lords last night,
A short conversation took place on the subject of the
erection of a Protestant place of Worship in Rome, in
the course of the Marquis of LANSDVWNI: ex-
pressed his far that no liberality v: a 3 to be expected
from Roman Catholic Governments towards Protestants.
The Royal assent was gi7en by Commission to several
Bills.

The Patent Law Bill was thrown out.
Several Bills were forwarded a stage, and their Lord-
ships adjourned.

In the House of Commons,
The report of the Committee on the attendance of
Members at the bar of the House of Peers was read,
and resolutions founded thereon were agreed to.
In answer to Sir DE LACY EVANS,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government could
not interfere in the affairs of Naples, but that he had
directed the British representatives at foreign Courts to
brirg under the notice of the Governments to which
they were accredited the pamphlets which had been
recently published by Mr. GLADSTONE.
Mr. HumE moved that the evidence taken before the
Income-tax Committee be printed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
motion, and on a division, it being discovered that there
wero only thirty Members present, the House adjourned

This day the Parliamentary Session of 1851 will
be brought to a conclusion. Many and serious as
have been the backslidings of former years, perhaps
the difference between promise and performance has
never been more painfully conspicuous. There was
a reckless procrastination—an anxiety to postpone
any and every subject of the slightest importance
until a more convenient season. The Ecclesias-
tical Titles Assumption Bill will be the
chief monument of legislatorial labour dur-
ing the year of the Great Exhibition, as it
consumed the greater portion of time not de-
voted to merely formal business, and in saying this,
we believe that it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to pass a stronger censure on the proceedings.
Even to the very last, matters were conducted in
the same spirit. Although the House of Commons,
contrary to our expectations, made acreditable attempt
to pass the Patent Law Amendment Bill—although
by a laudable effort it repaired the evil occasioned by
the discourteous conduct of the legislative GEDULD:,
no benefit was derived from these exertions,
It was true that the Earl of MINT() moved that the
Commons' amendments should be agreed to, but he
did so in the style of Sergeant LENS, " very faintly,
and as if without a hope of success." The Noble
Lord, in fact, invited opposition, by stating that the
amendments " were of such a nature that it was al-
most too much to ask their Lordships, at this period
of the session, to assent to them." On the first
show of resistance, although proceeding from one
of the least influential Members of the Upper
House, and that resistance actually courted, the mea-
sure was abandoned and rejected without a division.
It was, in fact, as if a strongly armed convoy had sent
out flanking parties to ascertain the chalices of attack,
and to rouse any sleeping opponent, and that, on
discovering a boy armed with a pop-gun, they had
flsd in disorder, abandoning the goods they had un-
dertaken to protect. We cannot imagine a more
suitable comparison for the ignominious surrender
of one of the few measures of practical utility which
might have in some degree redeemed that reproach
that must now attend the session just concluded, and
that on the first summons of the Lord MONTEAGLE
But why should we wonder ? greater events have
sprung from more trivial causes ? The cackling of a
goose saved the capitol—the hissing of the ci (levant
SPRING RICE, who was pitcbforked into the Upper
House by the Whigs in order that they might get
rid of an incompetent Chancellor of the Exchequer
—oh that Sir CHARLES WOOD had received similar
promotion !—has thrown impediments in the way of
inventors for another (we trust only for another)
year.
The proceedings in other matters were of a similar
character ; the same temporising and procrastinating
policy was perceptible in every matter and on every
point brought under the notice of Parliament. The
myth of Pesainorz's web received a new illustration,
the labours of one portion of the Legislature being
neutralized by the other. Thus the Marriages
Affinity Bill, which on successive years had been
carried in the House of Commons by large and over-
whelming majorities, was rejected by the hereditary
legislators—lawn sleeves being on the occasion
" Thick as leaves on Vallambrosa—"
the Right Rev. gentry being apparently as anxious
to get their fingers into the pie,_ as if another Hor-
field Manor was surrendered to their tender mercies,
to be dissevered from the property of the Church,
and transferred to that of the individual bishop.

Again the Oath of Abjuration Bill came up from
the Commons with unusual prestige. The matter
related solely to the House of Commons,
which should be the best judge of the
privileges and qualifications necessary for its own
Members. With singular, and, as we conceive, most
uncalled•for delicacy, it declined adjudicating on the
matter of its authority, as it might, and with any
degree of proper self•respect, would have done. The
question lay in a nutshell. A precedent bad been
established in the case of Mr. PEASE that should have
been decisive on the point. There waa no truckling
on the part of the popular branch of the Legislature,
while the Reform Act was yet recent, and its effects
perceptible in the conduct of the representatives
of the people. That exaggerated complaisance was
reserved for a later period—for the second moiety
of the 19th century. Subsequent statutes,
more especially the 1 and 2 Victoria, cap. 105,
might have removed any doubts as to the validity of
the tendered oaths. But the Commons behaved like
a timid maiden, referring the pressing suitor to its
elder relative, and "ask my Ma" was the only
answer which Alderman SALOMONS could obtain to
bis earnest solicitations. We need not state the un-
toward result. The question stands over for the
present, and will, most probably, be decided
by one of the legal tribunals of the coun-
try, and the House of Commons will have
abdicated its natural functions without any sufficient
cause, and without any recompense.
It would be too painful a task to go through the
various subjects respecting which complaints might
justly be preferred ; we shall, therefore, only refer to
the proceedings on the Property and Income-tax
Bill. In place of dealing with the subject in a
manly and straightforward manner, and making
such alterations as would render the impost,
if not altogether equitable, at least in
some degree approximating thereto, the House
transferred the responsibility to a Select Committee,
renewing the measure for a single year with all its
imperfections. Although the appointment of the
Committee was thus carried, more than a month
elapsed before the nomination of its members, which
might never have taken place if Mr. Hunta bad not
surrendered his privileges to Sir CHARLES WOOD,
and enabled the Right Honourable Baronet
to constitute it so that no possible ad-
vantages could be derived from its labours.
We now find that although evidence was
.taken it is
not to be published, and that, in fact, the country is
to be left in the dark on this all-important subject
until next year. Let Ministers, however, pause,
they may press too strongly on the national forbear-
m manoeuvres ante. The income-tax is a subject on which no
trickery
may Ministerial
to difficulties of
will now be tolerated or sanctioned. The
led to the Minist
office in 1852.
CHARLES WOOD on tbis point
haii°slic—oltlehaegyuesoffroSmil.the present ses-
sion—they the ignominious expulsion of

An elegant and gratifying token of their apprecia-
tion of the energy and talent of Mr. PAXTON, in
owing his design of th Crystal Palace to be sue.