The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-21 00:00:00

AMENT.

Government debt 11,0[5,100
Other securities .. 2,954,900
Gold coin and bullion 13,265,175
Silver bullion .. • • • • 33,375

£27,298,550
M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
Dated the 19th day of June, 1851.

127,293,550

ROUSE OF COMMONS, June 20,
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Edinburgh,'Perth, and
Dundee Railway Bill were considered and agreed to.
The following Bills were considered and agreed to
and the Bills ordered to be engrossed :—St. Helen's Im-
provement (No. 2) Bill, the Warkworth Harbour and
Dock Company Bill.
The Duchy of Lancaster (High peak Mining Customs
and Mineral Company) Bill was read a second time
and ordered to be committed.
The General Reversionary and Investment Company's
(Imposition of Stamp Duty) Bill went through Com-
mittee.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed—
Cheltenham Improvement and Health Bill
Magneto-Electric Telegraph Company Bill.
United Kingdom Telegraph Company Bill
PETITIONS.
Lord C. MANNERS presented a petition from Lei-
cestershire complaining of agricultural distress, and
praying for protection.
Sir W. VERNER presented a petition from the county
of A rmagh against the National system of education.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from an individual,
formerly an i.ffieer in the Austrian navy, complaining
that during the war his ship was seized by a British
cruiser, underthe impression that she was a French vessel,
and since then he had been striving to obtain redress
from Government without success. The petition prayed
the house to take his case into consideration.
Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition from 1,000
mariners frequenting the port of London, praying for
the unconditional repeal of the Mercantile Marine Act.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition against Papal
aggression.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh,
praying for the abolition of tests in the Scottish Univer-
sities ; also a petition from the same place, praying for
the abolition of the annuity tax.
Sir JOHN YOUNG presented a petition from Cashel
against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. PACKE presented a petition from the Agricul-
tural Society of Leicestershire complaining of agricultu-
ral distress, and praying for protection.
Mr. A. HASTIE presented a petition from Glasgow
against the Public Houses (Scotland) Bill; also a peti-
tion from the fish dealers of the same place in favour of
the Fisheries Bill.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from a place in the
West Riding in favour of the People's Charter.
NEW W RIT.
On the motion of Sir DE LACY EVANS, a new
writ was ordered for Greenwich for the election of a
burgess to serve in the present Parliament in the room
of Mr. Barnard, deceased.
PETITIONS.
Sir G. PECHELL presented a petition from the tem-
perance society of Brighton, praying for the repeal of the
taxes on knowledge.
Mr. FORDYCE presented a petition from Aberdeen
in favour of the abolition of tests in the Scotch Univer-
sities.
Sir J. PAKINGTON presented a petition from Droit-
wich complaining of the expense of the rural police.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
The dropped notices of motion were re-appointed.
MERCANTILE MARINE ACT.
Mr. WA WN asked the President of the Board of
Trade when he would be ready to lay a Bill on the
table for the amendment of the Mercantile Marine Act?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Bill was nearly ready,
and he hoped to lay it on the table in a few days.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES.
Mr. SCULLY presented a petition, numerously
signed, from the county of Tipperary against the Eccle-
siastical Titles Bill.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill, Mr.
BERNAL in the chair.
Mr. KEOGH said as Lord J. Russell had promised to
introduce a clause to prevent the Bill being construed
against the synodical action of the Roman Catholic
Cnurch in Ireland, it was not his intention to move the
proviso to the end of the clause which he had placed on
the paper.
Mr. MONSELL moved the insertion of the following
words to the end of the clause:—" Provided always,
that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to
interfere with or in any manner to restrict the
free action of the Human Catholic church in
the United Kingdom in matters of a spiritual
nature." He was sure there was no one in
the House who was not sincerely anxious to avoid those
angry bickerings which had for so many days past di-
vided the people of this country and Ireland
into two hostile camps. The amendment he
proposed would not altogether satisfy the views
which he individually entertained on the subject, but he
could not conceive it possible how any Hon. Members.
who were really desirous to maintain religious
liberty, could oppose it. He knew there were
Hon. Members opposite whose vote he could not expect
on this occasion, but he was unable to conceive any
grounds on which the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government could consistently refuse to give him his
support. It was evident to everyone who had paid any
attention to the discussions in the House, that while on the
one hand the opponents of the Bill declared in a dis-
tinct and solemn manner that they had no desire to
interfere directly or indirectly with the temporal
authority of the Queen, on the other, it was
equally clear that those Honourable Members
who supported the Bill distinctly stated that they
had no wish to interfere with the spiritual action of the
Roman Catholic Church. Under those circumstances it
seemed possible that the two parties might come to
some sort of agreement upon the question which
now divided them. The question was this—who was
to decide what is spiritual and what is not spiritual?
Now, the proposition which he made would have the
effect of leaving the decision of that question entirely
and absolutely with the civil courts. If it were
carried, it would not bo for the Roman Catholics
to decide what ells spiritual and what was temporal—
the decision of that question would fall solely within
the jurisdiction of our civil courts of law. It might be
said, perhaps, that great litigation would arise if such a
course were adopted, but he had only to appeal
to three great authorities against the truth of that as-
sertion. Grattan distinctly said, the statement that the
Roman Catholic Church in any way interfered with
temporal matters was the calumny of a scolding
sect.—(Hear.) The Rev. Sidney Smith asserted,
also, that in all his experience ho never knew a single in-
stance in which the spiritual power had encroached
on the temporal power, though during the time
Sidney Smith alluded to there was a Roman Ca-
tholic hierarchy in Ireland. Lord Plunkett, again,
said on the occasion of the Roman Catholic Emancipa-
tion Bill debate in the House of Lords, that though
during the previous thirty years the most acute minds
had made the most searching inquiry, they never
found a single instance in which the spiritual power
of the Pope had interfered with the temporal interests
of the people of this realm. He would leave the motion
in the hands of the House, trusting that it would be
agreed to in a spirit of conciliation.
The SOLICI ['OR-GENERAL said that he should be
sorry if any expression should fall from the Govern-
ment indicative of anything else but that conciliating
feeling to which the Hon. Gentleman had alluded.
The Hon. Gentleman must, however, remember
that the question which he had raised was one which
had been before the House several times during the
long discussion which they had had on the Bill. The
Hon. Member had proposed one himself of a similar
nature.—(Hear, hear.) The answer then given,
which seemed to satisfy the Committee, was that
in reality if any spiritual purpose were pointed
out which would be interfered with by this clause, it
would be most desirable they should pay attention
to the subject, and endeavour to devise a means to pre-
vent such interference. But no such purpose had been
pointed out in the course of the debate either by the
Honourable Gentleman himself or any other Honourable
Member, except that the Bill would interfere with
ordination, and therefore with the sacrament of
marriage. Now it had beea pointed out, then, that the
functions of bishops did not depend upon the titles held
by them, but upon their ordination. And in fact since the
year 1829 ordination, and marriage, and all other sacra-
ments, had been going on with as much freedom as pos-
sible. That being in reality the only suggestion pointed
out with any interference which the Bill would effect,
he thought it was rather too much to ask the Committee
to consent to a clause which would only introduce con-
fusion and difficulties in explaining the cause.
Mr. MONSELL continued to maintain that this Bill
would interfere with the action of vicars-apostolic, and
he remarked that the argument of the Solicitor-General
did not touch upon the point at all.
Mr. SCULLY said the speech of the Solicitor-
General applied only to the action of the 10th
George IV. This Bill, however, went much further
than that Act, for it rendered illegal the introduction of
every bull from the Court of Rome, and therefore inter-
fered with the ceremony of ordination. No bishop here-
after could be ordained in Ireland, and every act done
by a bishop would be illegal.
Mr. SADLEIR was exceedingly sorry that the Go-
vernment had not acquiesced in the amendment. Those
who proposed it were quite ready to make any verbal
alterations in it to meet the views of the Minister, but
the fact was the Minister was opposed to it in principle,
and he would not therefore allow it to pass under
any circumstances. True, a similar amendment
had once or twice been proposed while the first clause
was under discussion, but they wero told then that the
first clause was purely of a declaratory charaeter, and
the time had not then arrived when such an amend-
ment could be; entertained. Now Government had
often announced that they had no desire to
interfere with the spiritual affairs of the
Roman Catholic Church; but what they laid down as a
precept they were not disposed to put in practice, or
they would not hesitate to adopt this amendment. But,
said the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, it would
be dangerous to pass this proviso, because the
'Semen Catholic attributed a different and a larger
meaning to the term spiritutual functions than the
the Government, could prove, Protestant; but ho must take the liberty of denying that
little to him what determination the assertion, which he was convieced neither the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman,However,any
h e C otheroCommittee
supportermi t t
matteredtee
ulti-
mately.
were determined_
,t,came to on this subject,
the majority .as ho as well as
of
uthat the present system of go-
his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects
verning
apostolic.
tht,t,rshe3o.uhldrcfuhreeshthoeunald
tournedtuerrgnotontohecshyagntegme.
They were oetermined that no Bill, however stringent
of
tfs pr o
bishopsv is ounps
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said, if he
Thrione.
while
it
trreemcoemmmbeernedde rdi
ehgt
.li.ev.,
the
lanai] t
se the House not to Spoenec
this
from et the
subject,
in-
terfere with the religious liberty of the people Now if this
proviso ?giro not adopted would the beats be oeroPlYing

The question that clause 3 stand part of the Bill was
then put.
Mr. KEOGH said the proviso was not originally in
the Bill exempting Scotch bishops.
After a few words from the Earl of ARUNDEL and
SURREY,
Sir G. GREY said there was nothing in that clause
giving them a right to assume those titles.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there Wes a very material
distinction to be drawn on that discussion between the
bishops who held their titles under a foreign authority
and those who did not. Although that clause took away
somewhat of the intolerant character of the Bill, he
should like to see it extended to other bishops besides
the Scotch, who did hold their titles under a foreign
authority. He might be told there were none such
now, but could it be said that that would always be the
cage ?

Sir G. GREY said the measure was to meet existing
cases, not imaginary ones, as suggested by the Right
Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. OSWALD sa;d the territorial titles of bishops
had been used in Scotland since 1721, and therefore it
was erroneous to suppose that they had only been called
into requisition within the last few years.
Mr. GLADSTONE did not think that Parliament had
any right to interfere in that matter except on the ground
ofinconvenience or danger. They here placed restric-
tions on the principle of religious liberty, but had not
shown on what grounds they did so.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that as that was an emanci-
pating clause he would not vote against it; but if a divi-
sion took place he would leave the House, as he was de-
termined not to give his suffrage in favour of any clause
of that Bill.

' The clause was then agreed to without a division.
Mr. S. CR A.WFORD then moved a clause to the effect
that the Bill should not extend to Ireland. He thought
there were very good reasons for the adoption of that
proposal. The act of aggression against which the Bill
was directed had no connexion whatever with that coun-
try, and had been expressly confined to England. The
Ministers had withdrawn certain clauses of the mea-
sure, as originally introduced, in order that they might
not interfere with the reasonable exercise of the juris-
diction of the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland; but
the most eminent lawyers differed upon the point
whether the measure, as it then stood, would not still
seriously affect that jurisdiction. They proposed to
prevent Romsn Catholic Bishops from taking the titles
of any sees. But as a particular seo was indispensable
to the ministration of a Roman Catholic Bishop. such a
provision was equivalent to depriving Roman Catholics
altogether of the right to have bishops. He would re-
mind the Committee that Parliament had already pur-
sued a different system of legislation for the Established
Church in Ireland and the Established Church in this