The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-25 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

The Duke of ARGYLL presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of Glasgow against the Inhabited
House Duty Bill; also several petitions in favour of the
maintenance of the Crystal Palace.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented several peti-
tions from Westminster and other places, praying for
the preservation of the Crystal Palace.
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE, this Bill
was passed through Committee.
TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of UARLbLE, this Bi
was passed through Committee.
PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND:

BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE this Bill
was passed thrc,ugh Committee.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.

The Marquis of LANSI)OWNE moved that the
House should go into Committee on this Bill.
Lord MONTEAGLE would now put the questions of
which he had given notice :—First, if a Roman. Catholic
diocese bore the same title and is conterminous and
identical with a diocese in the Established Church, is such
Roman Catholic diocese " a pretended diocese" under
sections 1 of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill.
Is the Papal instrument appointing to such diocese illegal
and void under such Bill; and is the jurisdiction, authority,
pre-eminence, or title conferred or proposed to beconferted
by such appointment, unlawful and void under such
Bill. Secondly. If a Roman Catholic diocese bears the
same title with a diocese in the Established Church, but
is not conterminous or identical therewith, is such
Roman Catholic diocese a pretended diocese under
section 1 of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill ?
Is the Papal instrument appointing, or purporting to ap-
point to such diocese unlawful and void under such
Bill ? and is the jurisdiction, authority, pre-emi-
nence, or title, unlawful or void under such
Bill ? Thirdly, If a Roman Catholic diocese
neither bears the sumo title nor is conterminous with
any diocese of the Established Church, is
this pretended diocese under section 1 of the
Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill? Is the
Papal jurisdiction appointing or purporting to appoint
to such diocese unlawful and void under such
Bill; and is the jurisdiction, authority, pre-emi-
nence, or title, unlawful and void likewise
under the said Bill P Fourthly, is the ap-
pointment of a vicar apostolic in England or
Ireland, under the authority of any papal rescript, letters
apostolic, or other instrument from the Roman See,
rendered illegal and void under the 16th
Richard IL, coupled with the declaratory and
enacting provisions of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assump-
tion Bill; or is the person acting or claiming to act
under such instrument or appointment subject to any
penalty or prohibition under the Ecclesiastical Titles
Assumption Bill.
Tho Lord CHANCELLOR, in :reply to the first
question, said that inasmuch as the Bill enacted that cer-
tain briefs and rescripts erecting certain pretended
dioces were unlawful, it followed as a matter of course
that everything done under those briefs was unlawful;
also, in reply to the second, he would remind the
Noble Lord that it was already unlawful to usurp
the titles of dioceses of the Established
Cnurcb, and that the bishops appointed to such
dioceses were, !therefore, unlawful and void, and
all that was done under them was consequently
void also. In reply to the third question he said
that the law never interfered with the free exer-
cise of the Roman Catholic religion, and always
allowed that which was necessary to carry it out. In
reply to the fourth question, of which ho had only had
notice a short time, ho would state that the Bill made
no alteration in the law, but merely declared
that to be unlawful and void which was before unlawful
and void. The appointment of vicars apostolic had not
been heretofore considered unlawful, and the present
Bill did not in the least, in that respect, alter the exist-
ing law.

Lord MONTEAGLE complained that the answers of
his Noble and Learned Friend was most unsatisfactory,
and should therefore move that it be an instruction to
the Committee to introduce a clause exempting Ireland
from the operation of that Bill.