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

obourg Gotha; Mid Duke Ernest of Wurterahurg,
I rode out on horseblitk at the same time, attemiled by
Lieutenant-Colonel' t. H. Seymour. -
A deputation, consisting of Mr. H. H. Wilson, Sir
G. Staunton, the Right Hon. Holt Mackenzie, Sir Her-
bert Maddock, Sir Charles Malcolm, Colonel Rawlinson
Colonel Syko, Mr. H. T. Prinsep, Dr. J. Bird, Mr. G,
Forbes, the ion. H. Stanley. Mr. Atkinson, Mremluot-
gusson, Mr. Bland, Mr. W. Strachey, Mr. BtlyeMlhaw,
and Mr. R. .Clarke,, lad an interview with tOrd John
Russell yesteplay, sit.;bis official residence ill-DOWning-
street.

Mr. W. 0. Stanl4 had yestercitit with
Sir George Grey, at the Home-office.
Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-
( office from the,Governor of the Cansdas, 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 of Western Australia.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yes-
terday. The Lords present were, the Chief Justice of
the Court of Common Pleas, the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Cornwall, the Judge of the Admiralty Court,
and Sir Ed ward Ryan. The appeal " Lomi v. Ash-
well," (frodirThe Prerogative Court), part heard, was
heard.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TIMES.—The extraordinary transformations which
the Ministerial 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 and much-practised
art of preparing and Passing Acts of Parliament. The
first question relates to preambles. The practice is in
favour of considering tbi;'preasable last. Mr. Keogh is
anxious to take it in this instance first. Other Mem-
bersprinciple of the Bill; and
consider that there need be no preamble at all. The
ipfrietamhebalesiususuaidd
mtoacmoimntaihin the principle
to
awmain, a
principle
clearly before wo attempt to apply it, Airs Keogh's view
would seem not to be devoid of plausibility. It tier-
'tainly seems more satisfacititY 'to select a sound, prin-
ciple and frame an Act upon it, than to pass the Act
first, and then fistssetttlits ~ principles its details
afterwards. Much/ alio- may be said in favour of
having no preamble at ail. If the original preamble
can be struck out, and another of totally different ten-
sdency-can be inserted,-ttre- etacting 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-
the propriety of having
ing and practical than any of them—the question as to
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 assnmption 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 much the
infraction of the 24th section of the Emancipation
Act, about which nobody troubled themselves
very much, as 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
honour and independence. People whose minds were
full of the Rescript and the 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 under 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. Hero
again was a clear and logical Bill founded on a notorious
aggression, and applying to that aggression an adequate
remedy. The pteamble 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 be 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 amend, and intro-
ducing an entirely new principle under pretence of ex-
tending an old one. The Bill not pretending to 'be
formed on recent occurrences, but simply on former
legislation, it may readily bo conceded that to have ex-
tended the 24th section of the Emancipation Act to
England aTO-no would have been to bare 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
conclusion 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 thus
lose the very retaliatory 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 Mrie
Dis-
raeli has announced in general terms Mr. Walpo
has
worked out in detail. The Bill, as he frames it,sndtwaus
Ministers seam disposed to assent to it,
has
other
osing a
preambles, distinct from, and independent of,
—one true the other false; ono natural, ties
to
reallyemchother
rath ii u3otion. ,the other
e measure to a owe
ficial; one introduced for the sake o f truly exp
causes which have put Parlism- the
to give an excuse for extending
nor compatible with its ob-
jects. We do not say that
principle pthle ere may not bo reasons, such
as the Spied of Thurles, the conduct of Primate Cullen, and
the Government measures of educa-
tion,
which
might with h
render
tt necessary to control with
interference t
more strictness the conduct of the Roman Catholic hier-
archy in Ireland.
. But we do sly that Ireland has every
right to comp
jam when the symmetry of the Bill has
been
tilated and destroyed in order
purposely mu to
her into a quarrel in provoking which she had no
share,thrust though the penalty is to alight equally upon her
bead. It might have been too much to ask that she
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
whoseßu tt oh reg api
morez a tsi
torne
uhgel ry presence sae
rnec ei
mo
pnrl ye s
ss
ee
dr v ews
tt
ho
by an odious parenthesis with a measure complete without
dh ee sr raonyd.
these convictions the more clearly we see that the most
from
m rightthe whatever
quarrel
betweento com pl a
England
n u
devoted member of the Irish Establishment would have
goflanthde and the absence
pofeple_t
Ireland
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 them labouring es ear-
nestly as Mr. Disraeli himself to confound the case
ofthe
their own ancient and firmly-settled hierarchy with
tottering and new-fangled titles of Ullathorne and Wise-
man.

ehcimityabcooruotnaer,fort
TILE VAUXHALL a 111polVicile-DcoEn 'sßtf:tble of the
ga
ettoefndhaiisitduuptyo.n th e
Yesterday evening Mr. Payne byth
re-
Burned the inquiry, commenced
over and
night since, into the circtuhme
death of Henry James Chaplin,
L division, who was killed by the violence offered to him
by several' men while in scliasnch"asr
answered to,
The names of the jury having been called
was re-examined--
Inspector Carter
his
a police-constable in.division. IT
—.O was 23 years of
age., He always bore the character of a steady and well
conducted man. There were, as he had
already stated,
and
several men in custody awaiting further examination
for having murdered the deceased. He deemed that the
evidence be bad already adduced would be sufficient for
the purposes of the
come prepared to bring forward any more.
The CORONER, upon this intimati• • on, read over the de-
positions taken at the former examination, and then
proceeded to charge the jury, explaining to them the
different circnmsta which • ' of
tees constituted the crimes
murder 1111,.. A
manslaughter.TT 'several
.L.Le cited instances,
showing the diffirnity of determining the precise bound-
ary between the two offences; but added, that in the
present case no difficulty cou!fl exist, as all the circutu•
stances seemed to indicate that it would be their bounden
duty to convict the prisoners upon the more serious
charge. Here was a countable, prored to be a mild end
steady man, assaulted with such violence thr,t he sus
vived it but a short time, by a cc' of men to whom he
had given no provocation, but with whom he was remon-
strating in the duo execution of his offiee. He thought,
that whatever might ultimately be the result of the case,
these men ought to be indicted for the capital offence.
After a few minutes' discussion, the jury returned a
verdict of " Wilful Murder" against Patrick Cane and
John Thickey.
The CORONER then issued his warrent in the usual
form, and hound over the witnesses to gird their evidence
et t,40 triltil , 1,71 at, t, oi:-.. - ... ~ 2 1 a ,
~ ,i cl/2..., ~,,

..R.41a.03