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

vote of Ministers in support of his motion, as the clause ment agents in the late election, and pray
had been forced upon them.—(Hear, hear.) He should, inquiry.
therefore. move the omission of the clause.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he particularly de-
sired to have some explanation of the operation of this
clause with regard to the Charitable Bequests Act,
the operation of which, as was provided iu a special
proviso, was not to be affected by this Bill.
If the Charitable Bequests Act was to stand,
end this Bill to go, then how much of this Bill was to be
annihilated by the operation of the first? He thought
that in Ireland, which case they were now chiefly con-
sidering, the effrct of the proviso would be to render the
whole Bill a nullity. It would be an absurdity, under
the circumstances, to say that they had the same law in
England as in Ireland. He should be glad to have some
explanation on that subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if a parish
priest was bound acting as a priest the law did not per-
mit any inquiry. If parties were married by a priest,
unless evidence could be given that that priest was not
properly appointed, and that the parties were aware of
it at the time they submitted to his officiation, the law
permitted no inquiry. Tbat was one of the many
cases in law where tney were buund to submit to persons
acting in a public capacity. The question, theretere,
??1,9 not whether an archbishop, bishop, priest, or other
person claiming to exercise a spiritual function, was le-
gaily appointed or not, but whether, at :.he 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 it the law survived it, it would re-
main as a mere useless expression, illustrative of the
vindictiveness of Parliament.
The Earl of WICKLO VV objected to the clause, that
the appointment to chaplaincies, end to the of :2e of pa-
rish priest in Ireland, which were always objects of
much canvassing, could not be called iu question, if the
Noble and Learned L )rd's view of the subject were 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 mutters 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 MONTEAGLE put the case of a bishop claiming
property by virtue of the provisions of the Bequests
Act, and its being objected 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,
Tho 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" 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 touch the Pope,
who was the principal offender, would inflict a most
unjust penalty on the Roman Catholic population of
Ireland.
The Duke of ARGYLL rose to move an amendment,
and apeloeised 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 nut 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. So far as the addition with respect to giving
the power to prosecute to a common informer was con-
cerned, he regretted that it had been 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 ELLENBOROUGEI also expressed his
objection to the addition of the clause referred to, which
ho thought one of the most unfortunate things in its
practical results that could have occurred.
Tne LORD CHANCELLOR said the introduction of
the clause was chiefly owing to the Irish Members, who,
to spite the Government, had withdrawn from the House
and Billowed the clause in question to be carried against
the wishes of the Ministry.
Tne Earl of ELLESMERE, who spoke in a very in-
audible tone, was utiderstood 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,
ho did nut think the best way to meet it was by pro-
posing that Bill. He considered if their Lordships
thought 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. He 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 them 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 MALMESBURY 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 CANNING 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
bishop' or archbishops, as the case might be, that would
have wade all the difference in public feeling.
Lord CANNING did not find his question 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 WOR'ra said, if in the late Roman Ca-
tholic creations the parties had prefixed the words
Boman Catholic" before their title 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 theri motion for the 3d clause,
the la seusTheeaer,l of Sr. GER NIANS moved the omission of
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.

77
26
-51

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 25
(Continued from our Third Edition of yesterday.)
The House resumATER SUPtePLY. ed at a Quarr before Six.
W
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. PECIIELL presented a petition from Brigh-
ton against a state church.
CRYSTAL PALACE.
Mr. SCUOLEFIELD presented petitions from Bir-
mingham and Kensington, praying for the maintenaue
of the Crystal Pglsee.

Mr. fIYWORTH presented a petition to the stow
effect from Newport, in the Isle of Wight.
Several other similar 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 Salomons, Esq.,
one of their representatives, to sit and vote as ts Member
of this House, and moved that these petitions be prints ,d.
Agreed to, and ordered to be taken into considerati on
on Monday next.
HARWICH ELECTION.

BARON ROTHSCHILD.

Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from the elector 5
of Harwich, complaining of the interference of Govern

Log for an

Mr. RAIKES CURRIE presented a petition from the
electors of the city of London, praying the House
(amongst other things) to admit, by resolution,
the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one
of their representatives, to his seat in this
House; or that the petitioners may be heard by counsel
at the bar of this lions:, in support of the prayer of
their said petition. This petition was also ordered to be
printed with the votes, and taken into consideration on
Monday next.

ANNUITIES.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD moved for returns showing the
amount of annuities for lives, and for terms of years,
granted in each year since 1810 inclusive; and the
amount of capital stock cancelled in each of the said
years on account of such terminable annuities:
and of the amount of the annuities for lives, and for
terms of years, which have ceased in each year since

1810 inclusive.—Agreed to.
CLERKS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
Sir G. PECHELL inquired of the First Lord of the
Admiralty, whether any arrangement was likely to be
made for carrying out the prayer of the memorial of
the clerks in the Mediterranean fleet for granting
them the same rank and privileges as awarjed to the
other subordinate officers on passing their examination?
Sir F. BARING said that part of their prayer had
been agreed to, and the remainder of it would be taken

into consideration.
IRISH LEGISLATION.
Mr. REYNOLDS said it was customary for the Trea-
sury S.,.cretary to move on a Friday that the House a
its rising should adjourn to Monday, but as the Hon.
Gentl,man had not to-day made that mo,ion, he would
avail himself of the omission to make that motion for the
purpose of drawing attention to the state of the legisla-
tion for Ireland in the present session. In doing so he
thought he might as well at once anticipate the objec-
tions which would be take❑ to the course he proposed to
pursue. It would be objected that too much time had
been devoted to Irish affairs. He must deny that. Since
the month of February last, when Parliament met, no
measure fur the benefit of Ireland had been passed. It
was true the Noble Lord passed a Bill of pains and pe-
nalties against the religion of the country, which he car-
ried with large majorities through that House, and
which was now passing with railway speed the other
House of Parliament. He also had the credit of with-
drawing the public grants hitherto made for the medical
hospitals of the city of Dublin. It would be much
better not to allow the Irish Members to sit ill
the House at all than to treat them as they had
been.—(Hear, hear.) A Committee had been appointed
to consider the propriety of doing away with minis-
ters' money in Ireland, of which the late Mr.
Shiel was chairman ; the result of the inquiries was
that this obnoxious tax was unanimously condemned
as an insult to the Roman Catholics, and most irksome
to the clergy to receive. The Noble Lord promised to
bring in a Bill to remedy this abuse, and when he
called attention to the subject the Noble Lord's answer
was, that too much time had been given to the Ecclesi-
astical Titles Bill to allow him to bring the measure
forward. The amount of this payment was 16,0001.
year, and of that 11,0001. was paid by his constituents,
and be had therefore a right to call attention to this
subject. He would refer to another subject, with regard
to which, however Irish Members might differ upon
other. matters, they all felt that the business of Ireland
was not conducted in that House in a proper and busi-
nosa-like manner.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON rose to order.

The

course which the Hon. Gentleman now pursued was an
illustration of that. He considered that it was over'
straining the rules of the House to bring forward this
subject without notice, and wished to take the opinion
of the Speaker upon the point of order.
The SPEAKER said it was overstretching the rules
of the House for the Honourable Member, upon a motion
of this kind, to introduce such a discussion, and wee
most inconvenient. The Honourable Gentleman was
not, however, out of order. He certainly ought uPer
such a motion to assign some reason for moving the an'
journment.
Mr. REYNOLDS said he was glad the Right gee'
Gentleman (the Speaker) had decided not to interrupt
him. In the first week of February between ten and
twelve Irish Bills had been introduced, and with eel
exception they were still in that House, and which had
escaped to another place. The Chief Secretary for Ire'
land, however, now proposed an attempt to carry thent
forward when Parliament had not more than ten days Le
sit and one-third of the Irish Members were out of
town, while others were kept watching the progress of
these Bills till very late hours. He would refer to three
Bills to illustrate the course of their legislation for Ire'
land. There was the Improvement of Towns Bill, which
contained 180 clauses. This Bill was read a first time
the 10th of February, and on the 11th of April it wee
read a second time, and then sent to a Select Com'
mittee, and remained until the Ist of May for report;
the Bill was afterwards postponed from day to day until
the present period of the session. Ho also traced the
progress of the Valuation of Ireland Bill, and the Me'
dical Charities Bill, which had been postponed in the
same manner. He then referred to the mortality in Ire'
land, and remarked that the population in 1841 vote
8,200,000, and in 1851 was only 6 500,000, and whic4
ought to have increased to 9,ooo,ooo.—(Hear, hear.)
They said that a million of this decrease had arisen from
emigration. but what had become of the other
million
and a half? They were to be found in graveyards. The
Honourable Gentleman complained that the return,
from Krlrush, in relation to the mortality and
went of the poor in the workhouse of that place, haa
not been laid on the table. The consequence was that
he was not able to bring forward his motion on the
subject. If he had had the opportunity, he would have
establish a case of manslaughter against the Poor-10
Commissioners in Ireland. He asked the Noble Lord to
call upon his subordinates to save Ireland from this mid;
night legislation of which he was complaining. Irelanti
was said to be the right arm of the empire. She Wet
neither the right arm nor the left now. She was in feet;
no arm at all (A laugh)—owing to the way in laic},
she was treated by this country. He would call tlPr
his country to combine to defend themselves.—(ll:
hear.) They had passed the Ecclesiastical Titles 131 t,
and let them take care that their passing of this -A°
and such like conduct, did not so operate as to wean e;
tirely the affections of the people of Ireland from t1"11
country. He had always advocated a unity of aetio,„
between England and Ireland, and he regretted that 11;
land was treated in the manner she had been, Ith,
that treatment was calculated to destroy the great °e
ject which he desired. He begged to move that t"
House, at its rising, should adjourn till Monday. ie
Sir H. W. BARRON seconded the motion, and se!,
that the people of Ireland were progressing in poor'.
and misery. He knew that the shipping interests vier'
seriously injured in Ireland, and that the coach-mekil
and the manufacture of glass and other interests, i'leao
suffering from the policy pursued towards Ireland. pd
complained of the manner in which the House Peas
treated the agricultural question, in which Ireland
so deeply interested. They also rejected his motion bet
Ewdmoenewrgmeni
an inquiry into Irish distress—although a large nuinuett
of the Irish Members supported the motion—but an
English n.ajority defeated bins. The Hon. BarOtlet the,
referred to the motions made in respect to the ris;
spirit duty, the milling interests, and other Irish cle°
tions, and said that, although these motions had receive
teehhsr
set
Members nnoli consequence
osefcr,
the support of a large body of the Irish Members, 'l3
clhepreeniacned_ofoEn nsgulbi
js.elictMs einmbwerbsionttreileo
o'
a interested—and
no
interest
whatever.
eye respectr. toj. 13,
"
tested against this species of legislation, which TO*
not be suffered by any other people in the world. a.
Mr. MONSELL said there were at least three Me/
sures before the House, which, unless they made ge
ese
effort, they would not be able to pass; and, Be thed
measures were of the greatest consequence to Ireli
he wished to know if the Government would take efiV
ra,'
tive steps to carry them? He alluded to the JMee,lo
Charities Bill, the Irish Health of Towns Bill, and '
Valuation of Lands (Ireland) Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL would object to the motion of thea°
Hon. Member fur Dublin, because ho wished to prec,,erj
with Irish business. The Bill in relation to minietthe
money was not brought in owing to the delay in the
business of the House, by the opposition given IV to,
Hon. Member for Dublin, and the other Irish Merobe r,
to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. He was desirous of eebs,
eying through Parliament the measures referred 100(j
the Hon. Member for Limerick, and Government Wc'dite
do so if they were not interrupted by uncalled-for
cussions by lion. Members for Ireland. 'O4
Mr. ROCHE hoped that next session a morning sitting
,ir.
on one day in the week would be granted, for the Plo'
pose of disposing of Irish questions of a purely so
character.
',tea
Mr. SCULLY comp!ained of the legislation au°,.ed
with respect to Ireland, and said, if the Noble Pc",,-r•
(Lord J. Russell) had heard the charges brought ;if
ward by the Hon. Member for Dublin, he would ear
have felt it right to have replied to them. roe
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY wished to know what eetithe
the Noble Lord intended to pursue in reference t°
also
question of the minister's money, and he should lilte:res
to know what was the precise course to be adopted issose
spect to the three measures referred to by the 1-"
Member for Limerick. It it
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER -coo
impossible to say precisely when his Noble Friend at
Arcl
head of the Government would be able to bring I°re`ce on
the subject of ministers' money. Of six Irish Bill fee'
the paper for that evening three might have been ° iga
taken had it not been that lion. Gentlemen had oeetili)iol)
so much of the time of the House. The discussion 'fiaiept
had taken place effectually prevented the Improve
of Towns Bill being arrived at to-night. ee- that
Mr. WAKLEY intimated his desire to know to
there was any prospect of arrangements being rae,cicolso
complete the formation of Finsbury -park. Ho shoo my'lo
inquire whether it was the intenti( n of her Meje:cier,
Government to bring in a measure forthwith to lotioa
the Crystal Palace a permanent structure, tor be eye
the feeling universally prevailed out of doors ths'aha
Crj stel Palace should remain a permanent structure: Des
the public had heard with alarm that the contrsT' the
twe,n the Commissioners for the formation ei er
OE
Palace, and the Noble Lord the First Comusisti°v eye
Woods and Forests, imported that the mine"' °,301°
structure would commence in November, and the
be taken down wi,hin ,ox m fobs.
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER. iiieroer
Sir J. PAKING tiN stated Una the lion. ,'.013 oe
for Penrhyn, when he brought forward his inetinisao?
the Rochester case, made a statement which tbe fe hire
of Rochester thought injurious and unjust towerti3i,ho9
at the time he was Dean of Rochester.
ember t°
complained of a statement made by the Hon• nle foods'
the effect, that the stipends of the boys on the 4d, to,
tip at Worcester had been reduced from 21. 13:th,drs'
led. Mr. Wheeler, the head of the Bich the,
school at Worcester, had written a letter (sv.,d pat
Non. Baronet read), to the effect that the stire"