The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-29 00:00:00

PAPAL ENCROACHMENTS.

Mr. STANFORD rose to ask the First Minister of
the Crown, whether it was the fixed intention of the
Government, in conformity.with the declaration made by
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to
limit the measures of the Government for the repression
of Papal encroachments" to the single clause of the
" Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," which declares the meaning
of the 24th section of 10 Geo. IV., c. 7; and whether her
Majesty's Government will resist any attempt to enlarge
the scope of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and to render
its provisions more stringent, as, for instance, by extend-
ing the penalties to persons giving as well as using or
claiming the titles there prohibited; by extending the
penalties to the assumption or use by British subjects of
any title, ecclesiastical or secular, as of cardinal, emi-
mence, &c., not conferred or authorised by the Sove-
reign; by extending the same to the publica-
tion of Papal bulls, rescripts, or other documentse
without the consent of the Crown, and to the holding of
synodical meetings, &c., and by permitting the penalties
to be sued for without the intervention of the Attorney-
General; and by enlarging the terms of the preamble of
the Bill, so as to render it declaratory of the opinion of
Parliament on the entire question of papal aggression?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that before the second reading of
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, his Right Hon. Friend the
Home Secretary had stated the course which it was intended
to pursue in respect to the measure by the Government; it
was therefore quite unnecessary for him (Lord J Russell) to
go into the matter again. However, before the Easter re-
cess, if the Hon. Members who intended to move amend-
ments to the Bill would place them on the paper, he would a
few days before the Bill went into Committee—say the 28th
April, state to the House whether the Government intended
to adopt them or move their rejection.
Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that shortly after Easter he
should call the attention of the House to the condition of the
Church of England as regarded its temporal and spiritual
affairs. - (Oh, and laughter.)
AYLESBURY AND ST. ALBAN'S ELECTIONS.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE presented a petition on the subject
of the Aylesbury election, which the Hon. Member moved
be read.
The petition was accordingly read.
Mr. AGLIONBY proceeded to address the House relative to
a petition from Mr. Coppock on the subject of the St. Alban's
election. The Aylesbury petition was similar in principle,
but without assuming any knowledge as to the statements
set forth in that petition, he was authorised to say that a
misunderstanding existed with respect to the attendance of
Mr. Sergeant Merewether at the Committee. The question
involved in the petition was similar; but he did not think
it would engage the attention of the House very strongly,
because it concerned only a dry point of law ; but, then, the
decision of the House would affect the seats of he did not
know how many Members, but he was certain it would at
least affect the seats of two Members on his side of the
House. With this introduction, he would beg the
House to give its attention to the points under
discussion, and not to allow party or political feelings to in-
terfere with their judgment_ The first point was, that the
St. Alban's petition was informal, because not addressed in
proper form. That point, he considered, might be disposed
of by the qnestion being referred to the Committee of
Selection when that Committee sat. The next and most
important one was, whether the Committee had followed the
proper precedents, and had given due and sufficient notice
with respect to the petition. The first question to be deter-
mined was, was the notice bad? and if so, was the appoint-
ment of the Committee void ? and if void, whether there was
any mode under the statute of curing this irregularity ? Now
did the notice mean 14 clear days? He was not aware that
the case had been raised before in that House, and therefore
the House would have to decide upon it for the first time.
There were numerous cases in the courts, far too numerous,
in which decisions had been given in favour of fourteen
clear days.- After citing several cases, the Hon. and Learned
Member said the point was made so clear, that no lawyer
could venture to dispute it. Then, with respect to the
validity of the notice, he was of opinion that the notice was
not regular, and that therefore the Committee was void.
If the Committee was void, there would be no difficulty if
the mode were adopted which he would venture to suggest.
Assuming that the Committee was void, what was the course
to be pursued? The course he should propose was, to move
for a Select Committee to inquire if the election was null
and void.

Mr. FOX MAULE would state how the matter stood, first
thanking the Honourable Member for the temper he had
shown and the upright motives by which he had been actu-
ated throughout. (Hear, hear.) The Committee,
he contended, had not acted without precedent. The Dart-
mouth Committee, in 1845, was appointed under ex-
actly the same circumstances. The Wigan Committee,
in 1846, was appointed under the same circumstances, and
at that time Mr. Coppock, then the petitioner, as he was
now, took no objection to the proceedings. lie would next
proceed to state that the main objection to the present peti-
tion was, that there were not 14 clear days as required.
Notwithstanding all he had heard from his Hon. Friend, he
was still of opinion the Committee had discharged their
duty correctly and properly, and he must say he considered
th's was a question to be decided rather by the good sense of
the House, than by legal argument. He asserted that the
Committee had discharged their duties faithfully, sad he
should, therefore, move that the motion be negatived.
Mr. HEADLAM contended that the Act required 14 clear
days, and therefore it was necessary that the notice should
have been published on the 10th, whereas it was not pub-
lished till the morning of the 11th March. Such being she
case, he did not think they could proceed to direct that the
Committee be sworn at the table.
Mr. R. B. ARMSTRONG opposed the arguments of the
Secretary at War, on the point of notice,and maintained that
the Act required 14 clear days.
Sir.R. INGLIS said they must be guided by the terms of
the Act in deciding this matter, and the q
-ue th e Act had
to ask was, whether the publication required y. .
st on they had
be
op
0 imon, no
or had not been made. There could, in his
more complete publication than the statement
by the Chairman of the Committee of Eleti in that House
ons that he and
t were so, the spirit
his colleagues had fixed the day.
compftthahp to the 25th March.
of lied with, for there
and the letter of the Act had beenl
were fourteen clear days from the 1
He should support the amendment the Secretary-at-War.
Mr. ANSTEY reminded the House that requiredptlrioeeceAeodettewsithth':
V
not only publication, but publica
n
opinion was, that they had no power tono th
Committee.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that their first care ought to be
to see that no objection interfered with the proper administra-
tiOl3 of juatice. If the geu.erid C 9.131141" A 14,PPRilltiDg the