The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

Cobourg Gotha, aid Duke Ernest of Wurtemburg,
rode out on horseback at the same time, attended by
Lieutenant-Colonel F. H. Seymour.

A deputation, consisting of Mr. H. H. Wilson, Sir
G. Staunton, the Right Hon. Holt Mackenzie, Sir Her-
bert Msddock, Sir Charles Malcolm, Colonel Rawlingua
Colonel Sykes, Mr. H. T. Prinsep, Dr. J. Bird, Mr. G.
Forbes, the Hon. 11. Stanley, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Fer-
gusson, Mr. Bland, Mr. W. Strachey, Mr. Ravenshaw.
and Mr. R. Clarke, had an interview with Lord John
Russell yesterday, at his official residence in Downing-
street.

Mr. W. 0. Stanley had on interview yesterday with
Sir George Grey, at the Home-office.
Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-
office from the Governor of the Canadas, and from the
Governors of the other North American Colonies. Dis-
patches were also received from the Lord High Com-
missioner of the lonian Islands, from the Governor of
Ceylon, and from the Governor Western Australia.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yes-
terday. The I.Jrclio present wee.:, the Chicf Justice of
the Court of Common Pleas, the Chr.ncellor of the
Duchy of Cornwall, the Jatige of the Admiralty Court,
and Si, Ed ward Ryan. The appeal " Lorni v. Ash-
well," (from the Prerogative Court), part heard, was
heard.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
.TIMES.--The extraordinary transformations which
the Ministered measure, no longer properly called the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, has undergone, and seems likely
to undergo, lead the contemplative mind to some curious
speculations as to the noble science mad much-practised
art of prepasing :tad passing Acts of Parliament. The
first question rcletes in preambles. The practice is in
favor of considering the preamble last. Mr. Keogh is
amsious to take it in this instance first. Other Mem-
bers consider that there need be no perseeactertbalien
a p
at sill.
principle
clearlypi
frietamb eb lithe
esifsoousrtaei said to
maxim
contain t
o the principle of the Bill; end
ie to
apply i
t,
Mr. Keogh's view
would seem not to be devoid of plausibility. It cer-
tainly seems more satisfactory to select a sound prin-
ciple and frame an Act upon it, than to pass the Act
first, and then fish out its principles from its details
afterwards. Much also may be said in favour of
having no preamble at all. If the original preamble
of totally different can be struck out, and another
ten-
dency can be inserted, the enacting part all the time
remaining precisely the same, it is not easy to see
what useful part in the constitution of a law the
preamble can perform. But besides all these different
questions as to the nature and use of preambles to which
this Bill has given rise, there is yet another, more press-
ing and practical than any of them—the question as to
the propriety of having two preambles quite independent
of each other, and leading to different conclusions. The
Ministerial measure as it originally stood was simple
and intelligible enough. It recited a mischief, the vio-
lation, namely, of the 24th section of the Emancipation
Act, by the assumption of territorial titles not strictly
within its provisions--and extended the section so as to
remedy the mischief complained of. This manner of
treating the subject had its faults, but it was at any rate
clear and consistent with itself. The misfortune was,
that it neither touched the grievance of which the nation
complained nor applied the remedy which it required.
The grievance complained of was not so mach the
infraction of the 24th section of the Emancipation
Act, about which nobody troubled themselves
very much, es the intolerable insult received by the
Crown, the Church, and the country; and the remedy
required was, not the extension of what Mr. Disraeli calls
petty penal legislation, but the vindication of the national
fullhou honour rr
haen
Rd
e2orpt o independence.ndth e
People whose minds were
Pastoral were surprised and
displeased to find themselves, in the very heat and tur-
moil of agitation, called away from the exciting ques-
tions of the present to discuss them uudor the arbi-
trarily-selected and ill chosen form of an attempt to
patch up the provisions of a penal law of more than
twenty years' standing which no government had ever
attempted to put into execution. The view of Mr.
Disraeli, in Friday night's debate, which is substantially
the same as that announced by Sir Frederick Thesiger
and Mr. Walpole himself on the second reading
of the Bill, was also simple and coherent as ori-
ginally expressed. That view was to substitute for
the Ministerial measure a Bill which, avoiding the
prudery of appearing to forget the very circum-
stances to which it owed its origin while they were yet
loud in every one's mouth and fresh in every one's mind,
should deal with realities instead of shadows, and, as it
was undoubtedly caused by the Papal rescript, should be
framed with exclusive reference to it. Such a Bill would
be, as Mr. Disraeli phrased it, a purely retaliatory mea-
sure. It would meet the overt act of that great con-
spiracy against the liberties of Europe which Lord John
Russell announces, and which the confiding leader of
the Conservatives affects to believe, by a counter move
proportioned to and directed against that act. Here
again was a clear and logical Bill founded on a notorious
aggression, and applying to that aggression an adequate
remedy. The preamble to such a Bill would be, of
course, a recital of the Papal rescript, and of the acts
done under it. The Bill itself would declare the rescripts
and the acts to he illegal and void, and inflict some
punishment on those who put the rescript in use by as-
suming titles confirmed by it, or giving it effect in any
other manner. Here are two perfectly distinct ways
of treating the subject—the first, by patching up an old
law; the second, by making an entirely new one. The
original Ministerial Bill could not have omitted Ireland
from its provisions without deviating from the spirit of
the section which it undertook to sluiced, and intro-
ducing nu entirely new principle under pretence of ex-
tending au old one. The Bill not pretending to 'be
formed on recent occurrences, but simply on former
legislation, it may readily be conceded that to have ex-
tend. d the 24th section of the Emancipation Act to
England alone would have been to have introduced an
invidious anomaly against which the Irish Church
would have had every reason to complain. This neces-
sary consequence of the form in which Ministers cast
the measure was not the least among its defects. But if
the Ministerial Bill necessarily included Ireland, the pro-
position of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Walpole of founding
the Bill on the rescript as necessarily excluded it. All
the logical considerations which drew Ireland into the
one enactment rendered it inadmissible in the other
The Papal rescript had nothing to do with Ireland, and
any measure really founded on the rescript could only
embrace that country by forcing on the premises a
conclusien wider than they could support, or by adopt-
ing new and complex principles, and so marring the
simplicity and coherence of the original design. Thus,
Mr. Disraeli, while he announces that he can only
consent to a measure of strict retaliation, tells us in the
same breath that it must extend to Ireland, and thas
lose the very etaliatory character for which he stipu-
lates. There may be abundance of reasons why the Ro-
man Catholic Prelates of Ireland should be subjected to
penalties and restrictions. It may be necessary to the
security of the Protestant Establishment, it may be re-
quired to repress synodical action, but it certainly never
can be required or justified on the ground on which
alone Mr. Disraeli puts it—that of retaliation for ag-
gression on England. The absurdity which Mr. Dis-
raeli has announced in general terms Mr. Walpole has
worked out in detail. The Bill, as he frames it, and as
Ministers seem disposed to assent to it, has really two
preambles, distinct from, and independent of, each other
—one true the other false; one natural, the other
the
causes which have put Parliament in motion, arti-
ficial; one introduced for the sake of truly
to give an excuse for extending
the
mteiablsu e with its otenrxe to a case
not covered by its principle nor comp bselh ,pto
othergther
not be reasons, such
as the Synod of Thurles, the cousl a
ob-
jects. We do not say that there Cullen;mcatyofPrinsate end
u measures of educe,
the interference with Government
it necessary to control with
more strictness the conduct o
Lion, which might render
of the Roman Catholic hier-
archy iu Ireland. But we do say that Ireland has every
when the
lheansdymdmesettrroyyed of tihhe
oßrdiellr toha
thrust her into a quarrel in provoking which she had no
share, though the penalty is to alight equally upon her
bead.
It might have been too much to ask that she
beenright t o
purposely complain mutilated
should have been made an exception to a measure in
whose scope she was naturally included, but it was not
unreasonable to ask that she should not be intertwined
by an odious parenthesis with a measure complete without
her,
Butwhoa©
the n
organizationore
strongly
presence only serves to
destroy.
we are impressed with
memberwhatever o
tf theoomlprli
as
iho Eofs t a
thel l i sahhms
eennete woof u
ohl a
ha v
de
these convictions the more clearly we see that the most
quarrel between England and the Pope—the
fromnd oe vroi tgethdhte
more do we feel the helplessness of the condition in which
her Parliamentary champions have placed her. Instead
of urging on the House the propriety of discriminating
between the cases to which the rescript did and those to
which it did not apply, we find theta labouring as ear-
neatly as Mr. Disraeli himself to confound the easeO
totteringtotter and n ent i ed Wise'.
man.

coroner, re-
Yesterday evening Mr. Payne, theb City
THE VAUXHALL MURDER.
irn about a fort.
sumed the inquiry, commenced Y
eesolice-constable of the
night since, into the eireumstan b
death of Henry James Chaplin, I?
aseolence offered to hita
L division
.who was killed by tb
discharge of his duty.
attendant upon the
by several' men while in the
ring been called over and
The names of the jury be
answered to,
re.examined—The deceased was
a police-constable i
Inspector Carter was
in
his division. He was 23 years of
Ha always bore the character of a steady and well
There wore, as he had already stated,
age.
conducted
n in custody
the deceased. He deemed that the
mane. ustody and awaiting further examination
already adduced would be sufficient for
evidence bees
of
the
prosecution, and therefore he had not
the pur
fsoervehraavlimnge
murdered
°s
to bring forward any more.
come prepared,
, read overthe e
The CORONER, upon this intimation, d -
positions taken at the former examination, and then
proceeded to charge the jury, explaining to them thoe,
different circumstances which constituted the crimes '
murder and manslaughter. He cited several instances,ne.
showing the difficulty of determining the precise bound-
my the
my between the two offences; but added,
thatthe circum.
present ease no difficulty could exist,
stances seemed to indicate that it would be alll'
beeet In' ore serious
duty to convict the prisoners upon
tto be a mild and
charge. Here was a constable, provedlenee that he eir bounden
steady man, assaulted with such
sur-
vived it but a short time, byaye men to whom he
a setle whom he was remove
had given no provocation, but wft_
his office. He thought,
strating in the due execution o
for the capital offence.
these men ought to be indictedss
on,
be the result of the case,
that whatever might ultimatelyi
After a few minutes' disc,u
' against Patrick Cane and
verdict of " Wilful Murder the jury returned a
John Thickey.
issued his warrant in the usual
the witnesees to give their evidetwe
form, and hound over
at the trial.
The CORONER then