The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-11 00:00:00

.to the oitrec, and were desigaatel aceording_ to their oFilja_
nary titles.„ yhe designation, be admitted, was erroneous,
and for any error in that way "the responsibility belonged
to him (Sir G. Grey), as well as to any other party. The
Hon. Gentleman, in his letter, said that the Roman Ca-
tholic prelates were received over and over again by her
Majesty. Now he (Sir George Grey) must say that nothing
could be more impartial than the manner in which they
were received—her Majesty conducting herself with the
greatest kindness, and with a graciousness exercised by her
towards all, and the Roman Catholic prelates demeaning
themselves with a courtesy and humility quite becoming
their station, and designating themselves in the presentation
of their addresS, " We, the undersigned Roman Catholic
bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland." But
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was not satisfied
with the two errors which had been made in relation to the
• designa ions of the Roman Catholic prelates; and charged
the Governmeut,in his letter on the subject, with having
given precedence to Dr. Wilde, the pseudo Archbishop of
Team, and to the pseudo Archbishop of Armagh, Roman
Catholic Primate of Ireland. He (Sir G. Grey) (lid not
know whether the Han. Gentleman repeated the statement
reap ,cting the offer said to have been made to those prelates
respecting the office of visitors of the Roman Catholic col-
leges established by the Government in Ireland; but the
statement had been put forth in Mr. Bowyer's pamphlet. If,
then, he said that the olli.!e of visitors of those colleges had
been offered to those prelates, he (Sir George Grey) admitted
it, but it was with a view to the advantages of the colleges,
and to satisfy ahem that the discipline and education
of the Catholic youth were conducted in a manner that
was not incompatible with the Roman Catholic faith. But
if it was meant to say_ that the offer was male as to the
Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishiop of Tuam, in
recognition of such titles, he (Sir George Grey) meant to
say that that was stated which was not the fact, and that
the statement was utterly and entirely destitute of
shadow of truth.—(Heir, hear.) The Honourable Member
for v,uckinghanishire next stated that the whole que,tiou of
the colleges had, in fact, been resigned by her Majesty's
Government to the Pope, alai that the Archbishop of Tuam
had been allowed to take the wall of the Archbishop of
Canterbury; but in that, as in most other statements in the
lion. Gentleman's letter, he was mistaken. The Roman
Catholic prelates did net receive any titles from the pre-
sent Government, beyond what was accorded to them by the
reports of the Commissioners of the Bequest Act : and be
(Sir George Grey) found that on the 9th of January, 1845,
Archbishop Crawley was designated by that title, and that
another Prelate was also designated by the title given to him
in his own Church. He (Sir G. Grey) did not complain of the
acts in that way of his predecessors, and all he should say
was that if there were blame in the matter, it • ought not to
fall on Lord Clarendon, and that he had merely acted in a
kindly spirit of conciliation in all his acts towards the
great body of Roman Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) With re-
gard to the title of Cardinal the Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire had also stated that the Govern-
ment had tacitly' allowed it to be assumed; but he (Sir
George Grey) would tell the Hon. Gentleman that the Go-
vernment had not sanctioned the conferring and use of that
title in this country, and that no foreign title whether
conferred by the • Pope, or any other foreign Power, could
have any weight, or meet with any recognition in this
country unless by letter of licence from the Crown, and
no such letter of licence having been given, the title of
Cardinal in this . country was of no avail.—( Hear, hear.)
With respect to the Archbishop of Tuam, an error,
it appeared, had been put forth in a pamphlet written
by the Earl of St. German's that a petition had been re-
ceived by this House from that prelate assuming that
title; but the facts were otherwise, for the House had
declined to receive the petition as so designated. He had
received a letter, from Lord Clarendon, in which his Excel-
lency had given the most satisfactory explanations respect-
ing the manner. in which Archbishop Murray, and other
Catholic prelates were invited to visit the colleges established
by the Government in Ireland, with a view to their satisfac-
tion as to the course of conduct pursued towards the Roman
Catholic youth in those colleges, and he could add that Dr.
Nicholson, coadjutor of Corfu, had been also consulted on
the subject, and requested to make report at Rome whither
he was going. 'And it. was thought that the manner in
which the subject was represented to the Pope would be at-
tended with the best results. The Pope throughout Europe
in 1848, the time to which he was alluding, was regarded as
an enlightened reformer, and it was not for a moment sup-
posed that he could be opposed to the system of education
inculcated in the colleges. With respect to the charges
which had been brought by the Honourable and Learned
Member for Sheffield, that the Earl of Minto had been
made aware at Rome of the step which the Pope
was about to take in relation to the re-establishing of a
Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, he (Sir George Grey)
must say what already had been denied by Lord Minto him-
self on that subject, that there appeared to be a very great
mistake about the matter; and in the correspondence which
took place between his Noble Friend (Lord Minto) and the
Abbe Hamilton on the subject, his Noble Friend had plainly
stated that he had no recollection of the statement that he
had been apprised of the intention. A great deal too had
been said in condemnation of his Noble Friend the First
Lord of the Treasury, on this subject; but his Noble Friend,
when asked a question on the matter by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Oxford, stated distinctly that no such proposi-
tion had been made to him, and that he was not aware that
any such step was contemplated by the Pope.—(Hear, hear.)
tvhnosfeeewlihnogsado-f
toirngweht Grey)
)ea
ssoafimdthosesgtawi again
unwise and
r4sPet
that and entirely
AthnedGhoevernment and people of this country, had advised
unwarrantable.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Bill was
vhiisme d
to the(dSo
founded in good faith on those principles of civil
and religious liberty which they professed; but it is
in the meantime, intended to meet, step by step. the act
committed by the Pope, and place an effectual check on its
operation. The letters apostolic constituted an archbishop
of Westminster, with a certain number of suffragan bishops
taking titles from some of the ancient sees of this realm;
the measure about to be brought in states, that there shall
be no such archbishop or bishop, and that the Pope's
attempt to constitute such a hierarchy unless constituted by
the law of this country, passed in the united Parliament of
Queen, Lords, and Commons, shall be null and void. The

Pope, acting on the widest sovereignty over this country,
gives those bishops power and authority to govern and regu-
late the sees over which they were appointed. The present
Bill declares that every such act performed, or authority exer-
cised was also null and void. The Pope said that every
authority but that which he assumed, and by whomsoever
exercised, not excluding Parliament itself, shall not be at
liberty to set aside what had thus been done. The Bill
declared that whatever acts were performed by those bishops
should be totally prohibited, and the authority so con-
ferred null and void. The Pope invited the wealthy to come
forward and endow those newly-created sees the Bill
proposes that such endowments shall, to all intents and
purposes, be null and void.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir George
Grey) agreed with the llonourahle Member for Bucking-
hamshire, that this measure did not go the length to which
perhaps, it might have gone, and that it Ras most desirous
to settle, at once, all the relations which should subsist
between the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown of Eng-
land and the Pope. It may be very desirable that some
such settlement should take place; but he would, caution
Honourable Gentlemen who were anxious to check the am-
bition of the Pope of Rome, not to reject a practical Mea-
sure, such as that now brought forward, for one, which the
present may not be the fitting time to propose, nor a suit-
able opportunity to carry into accomplishment. He would
also caution those who were full of the notion that they
could do so easily, that it was better to wait until the
object could be accomplished. There was no doubt
one way of doing so, and that was by re-enacting the penal
code.—(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp.) He (Sir
George Grey) believed the House utterly repudiated such a
notion—(Cheers)—and he also believed the country itself
would also repudiate it.—(Cheers.) There was another way
of meeting the difficulty, and from the peculiar circum-
stances of Ireland, it may be desirable and politic to enter on,
but he would ask the House whether they would reject the
measure and proceed at once to reconsider the whole ecclesi-
astical arrangements of that country, in the absence of infor-
mation on which they could safely act.— (Hear, hear.) He
asked Hon. Members, therefore, not to threw away the pre-
sent remedy for a shadow.—(liear, hear.) His own real
feeling was that their security consists iu the national de-
monstrations of the full, free voice of the people
of this country, such as had taken place within
the last three months, from one end of Great
Britain to the other.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Sheffield called that a burst of puri-
tanical hatred against the Pope, but he utterly denied that
it could be characterised in those terms. He believed those
national demonstrations, anti that feeling, and those semi.
ments, had a holier origin. Ile believed them to have con-
sisted of a national protest; in which various religious de-
nominations concurred, against what they believed to be
the first attempt tore-impose that yoke against which their
Roman Catholic forefathers struggled, and for which, at the
Reformation, by the wisdom and enlightenment of its pro-
mpters, they succeeded in rescuing the people of England.—
(Cheerei.) The people of this country had declared that
they were not prepared to return into the bosom of the
Roman Catholic Church. He believed they were grateful
ter, and appreciated those blessings, which, from the time of
—(Cheers.) As to the charge
ietenjoyed ; and he, for one,
roachments of the Court
ascendancy, he must say, in
brought against his country-
taohmhnfa
aasddßtwenßoe
no fear
ffoeoe
ftra
to the
in
oaftttiitohi
heni
se,
'Protestant t
echh
aggressionsoa,rtgit ersy had.
men on this subject, that he in his official capacity
received numerous deputations and large bodies, com-
plaining of what had been done, and for the purpose of
presenting addresses to the Crown, and he found that in
almost every instance, with a few rare exceptions, that they
fully and amply recognised as the right of their Roman Ca-
tholic countrymen the freest, fullest, and most unrestricted
exercise of their religion.—(Cheers.) Then as to the condi-
tion of the Roman Catholics previous to this change, it was
a matter of fact that their bishops exercised those functions
which belonged to their office-as an episcopal church, and
which it would be absurd to say the bishop of such a church
ought not to be at liberty to perform. He agreed with what
huenequivocally displayed
o
conduct of y
was about to take place
been said and dine, those
rejoicedm em members
theof theirfeel
awt phhoeas tt ahc
would find themselves mistaken.—(Cheers.) I.le believed
ownings
oCfhutrhceh,
ebountn,
tfotyr hhiasdowbenenparst
England were now more than ever determined
the people of
s granted
to hold fast to those blessing, them by the Reforma-
tion—blessings which had been handed down to them by
ohwnah dot bh
bee
ee sni ue saidvb jee believed
t ar ;e snf poaert aot ifnnt
national
ir
"ons amid many and vile
successive generations, various vicissitudes,
~and which they were determined to enjoy; and, by God's
blessing, transmit unimpaired to their. posterity. (The
Right Hon. Gentleman, who was in many portions of his
address totally inaudible, then resumed his seat amid loud
cheers.)
Mr. P. HOWARD moved that the debate be adjourned.
Lord J. 11.1:,SELL said that last night an Hon. Member
asked him to state the details of the Bill, and his Hon. and
I Learned Friend the Attorney-General had accordingly stated
those details, which he (Lord J. Russell) had hoped would
have been sufficient. If the motion for adjournment should
succeed, it must be a very considerable time before the
house would be able to take the provisions of the Bill into
consideration. As the principle would again have to be dis-
cussed on the second reading, he hoped his Hon. Friend
would not persist in his motion of adjournment.
Mr. ROCIIE (amid the impatience of the House) said
that many Hon. Friends of his who had not been fortu-
nate enough to hear the Attorney-General's explanation of
the details, were anxious to express their opinion upon the
measure; he therefore did trust that upon a question so im-
portant as this the Noble Lord would accede to the motion
for au adjournment, and give them at least one other night
to discuss it.—(Question, question !)
Mr. M. GIBSON must say, with all deference to the
Noble Lord, that in a matter which involved in a certain
degree an attack upon the religious feelings— (Cries of
" No, no ! ")—at least it was so understood by a large num-
ber of persons, and be thought it would be better to give
gentlemen full scope for an expression of their opinions
upon it. This question had been debated precisely upon
the same rounds for years past, and he therefore called
upon the Noble Lord to postpone it for the present, and
to go on with the budget and the practical business of the
country. When those subjects were disposed of, they
might return to this difficult, and he was afraid almost
interminable, question, as to the
propriety of endeavour-
Mg to keep down the influence of the &mu Cathoice in

this country. If a division, took place,. he would vote for the
adjournment.
Mr. KEOGH thoUght it desirable thatian -adjournment
should take place. The Government proposed. to extend
the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and smile very im-
portant provisions of the Bill had been stated to night
for the first time by the Attorney-General. He thought,
therefore, that any further discussisn on the subject . should
be postponed until they had the aid and assistance of the
Attorney-General for Ireland.—(Laughter and cheers.)
During the last session of Parliament the business of th,.
Attorney-General for Ireland had been done, to a great
extent, by the Attorney-General for England —(A laugh)_
and he thought that upon a question of this kind they ought
to have the opinion and advice of the Attorney-General for
Ireland.
'Mr. ANST EY said if the motion for an adjournment was
pressed he would certainly vote for it. He was not disposed
to offer anything like factious opposition to the principle of
this Bill, but he thought it most desirable that the measure
should be fairly discussed in its present stage—(Cheers)
before Ministers were committed to all its details. He was
anxious himself to have an opportunity of stating the grounds
upon which he was disposed to go to much greater lengths
with respect to the Roman Catholic Church io England than
this Bill proposed, but he was (.ecidedly opposed to any at-
tempt to change in the slightest decree the status of the
Boman Catholic Church in Ireland. He intended, on a to.•
tare stage of the measure, to ask the House to dejde upon a
question which would test the professions they had heard on
that (t!le Ministerial) side of the douse, and particularly
from the Hon. Member for Oxford, of attachment to the
great principles of civil and religious liberty.
The House then divided; the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

Majority against adjournment .. —305
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. E. B ROCHE was speaking in support of a renewed
motion for an adjournment of the debate, which had been
moved Ly some Hon. Member in our absence.
Lord J.:RUSSELL said, that in replying to the suggestion
made for the adjournment of the debate, he could not but
take notice of what had been said by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. • Milner Gibson),
who, as he did not care about the question, assumed that it
was one that could not be of importance to any others—
(Laughter)--and asked the Government to go on with
other business, to bring on the budget—and to have this
question taken some other night. He (Lord J. Russell)
thought it necessary to say at once that that was a proposi-
tion to which he could not accede.—(Hear, hear.) It was
his intention, therefore, after the House had shown very
clearly what was its opinion, that if the motion before them
was withdrawn, they should agree to the adjournment of the
debate, and fix it for the first order day. He could not take
to-morrow (Tuesday), as the Hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire (Mr. Disraeli) had a motion of great importance, but
he would fix it for Wednesday next, and he did not propose
to go on with any Government business until the motion
was disposed of.

The motion for the adjournment was withdrawn, and the
debate was then adjourned to Wednesday next,
ROMAN' CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Mr. ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the
repeal of all enactments against the religious profession or
discipline of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.—
(Laughter.) It was the same Bill aa that of last session,
with the exception that the clause respecting the admission
of bulls from Rome had been omitted, as he thought it more
decorous to omit mention of the matter at present, and he
had added a clause of a very stringent 'kind bearing on the
Queen's temporal and ecclesiastical supremacy, .so as to get
rid of all scruples on the part of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
They would now have an opportunity of following Lord
Stanley's recommendation, to look narrowly into the securi-
ties afforded by the Emancipation Act; and all he asked was
leave to bring in the Bill, so that the House could see if it
came within the description he gave of it.
Sir R. H. INGLIS could not but think that it would have
been more seemly and deferential to the feeling of the House
if the Hon. Member had consented to forego discussion on
the question after the decision at which they had just
arrived. He would test the opinion of the House upon the
subject.
Sir G. GREY expressed his surprise that the Hon. Mem-
cbeeprtsiohnouilt had
dagaminept withropo in former sessions.setointroducethe
Bill, after the re-
Mr. BERESFORD moved that leave be given on that day
six months.

... 35
... 175

On a division, there appeared—
• For the motion ...
Against it •
.
• Majority .. —l4O
Mr. BAINES moved for, and obtained leave, to bring in a
Bill for the better protection of young persons under the care
and control of others as apprentices or servants; and to
enable guardians of the poor to institute and conduct prose-
cutions in certain cases.
The Bill was brought in, and read a first time.
The House then adjourned, at One o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGE.NCE:
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 10.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
RATCLIFP V. PEARCE.
This was an action in trespass to recover damages for
alleged injuries done to the plaintiff's property.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Charnock conducted the plain-
tiff's case; and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Lush appeared for
the defendant.

Mr. lisrowLEs, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
was a glass-cutter, carrying on business in Gray's Inn-
road, and the defendant a builder at Camden-town. In
the month of August last year the defendant was build-
ing some first-class houses in Camden. town, and he re-
quested several glass dealers to furnish him with esti-
mates of their charges for glazing the windows with
plate glass, and among others the plaintiff, whose tendbr
was accepted, the terms being that ready money should
be paid on the completion of the work. The defendant
accordingly sent the wooden frames to the plaintiff's
shop for the purpose of having the plate put in. In the
meantime the plaintiff learnt that Mr. Pearce had in the
previous year taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors'
Act, Sand being anxious not to lose 80!. or 901., the value
of the glass, he refused when the frames were finished to
deliver them up to him unless ho had either the money
or some security for it. After some negotiation the
plaintiff was at length induct d to send them in a van to
the premises, and on arriving there he refused to pay
the money as agreed upon, observing that the plaintiff
had two alternatives, either to trust him or to take the
glass out of the frames. The plaintiff said he would not
accept these terms, and the defendant thereupon
ordered a body of Irish labourers, nearly 20
in number, to stop the van and to seize what
he called his own property. They blocked up
the wheels and seized the horse by the head
and there being no one to resist them except the driver
and the plaintiff's foreman, they proceeded to hammer
out the glass, and in doing so destroyed many panes and
injured the rest. On seeing the work of destruction
which was going on, the plaintiff was anxious to save the
glass, and he offered to deliver it if they would desist,
but no notice was taken of the offer. The damage
done to the glass amounted altogether to 401. Bs., and it
was to recover this sum, as well as compensation for the
annoyance and inconvenience which the plaintiff had
suffered, that the present action had been instituted.
The defendant had paid 31. into court, which he con-
tended was ample to cover the value of the glass de-
stroyed.

gvidence having been given in support of the plain-
tiff's case,
Mr. CROWDER addressed the jury on the part of the
defendant He admitted the trespass, but said the defen-
dant had been aggravated by the great delay in sending
the windows, which had had the effect of injuring the
houses. He also contended that 3L was sufficient to
compensate for the loss of the plaintiff.
Several witnesses were called, who stated the glass
was taken out very carefully, and that not more than
31.'a worth was broken.

Mr. KNowLEs replied, and
The Learned. JUDGE then summed up, and the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 601.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Feb. 10.
Sittings at Nigi'Prins, before the LORD CHIEF. BARON and
a Special Jury.)

VILE ATTORNEY-1111ENERAL V. •TILE LONDON DOCK COMPANY.

The-Court was again occupied with this cause. The case
.or the plaintiff having terminated, the jury thereupon re-
tired fora few minutes to take some refreshment. On their
return,. .
Sir F. KELLY rose to address them on behalf of the defen-
dants, the London Dock Company. The case was probably,
upon every ground, the most important that had ever been
brought into a court of justice. He must therefore implore
that they would dismiss from their minds every rumour they
might have heard prior to the commencement of the present
tiial, and lie likewise besought them not to allow their
opinion to be arrived at until they had heard the whole of
the evidence which he should have to place before them
on the part of the London Dock Company, for he felt that
when he should have done this he should have shown to them
that the company had been as pure, as honourable, and as full
of integrity in all their dealings and transactions as it was
possible for human beings to be. When he should have pre-
sented his evidence to the jury they would find that he had
established the observance of the most perfect integrity, and
the most cautious regard for the rights of their fellow-sub-
jects and their fellows in the mercantile world, on the
part of the London Dock Company in all their dealings and
transactions. The London Dock Company was estab-
lished towards the close of the last century, in the year
1795, and since that establishment they had had in their
possession the property of the mercantile community of
that vast city, even to the extent of 20,000,0001. per
annum. They had, too, in their employment between 3,000
and 4,000 servants, and never had they, until the existence
of the present Board of Customs, on any occasion come in
contact either with the Government or with any individual
of the general community whom they had now for upwards
of 60 years served. The London Dock Company, as he had
already stated, had been established in 1795, prior to which
period-the vast amount of shipping which came to the port
of London was compelled to lay out exposed in various parts
, of the river, or down at sea, until there was found room for
them respectively at some of the many wharfs where they
might unship their cargoes. The result of this exposure
was, that proofs were given of frauds being committed upon
the revenue to the extent of 172,0004 per annum. To that
extent it was known that the system of plundering and pil-
fering was carried on without the possibility of any safe
check being put upon the system. That was the estimate
of the amount of the frauds which had been carried on, but
there were reasons to expect that that estimate did not
arrive at one-third even of the actual plundering. The
London Dock Company was upon this established, and
from that day down to the present the directors had
carried on one of the largest undertakings that had
ever been known in this or in any other country.
They had carried on that vast undertaking
in the greatest commercial community in the world without,
until the present proceedings, ever having come in contact
with the Government or the mercantile community. They
had carried on the business, dealing with a capital of several
millions early, without the least suspicion of wrongful con-
duct. The 172,000/. of pilfering to which he had referred
had had reference alone to the one article of sugar, and
that, too, was at a period when the importations of sugar,
did not amount to one-third of their present extent. So
far, then, from the London Dock Company having
defrauded
the revenue, they had, on the contrary, added many, many
millions to that fund by the means of the adeoua
arrangements of their establishment for the cnduct
of the public business. So excellent were the arrangements
their
that for the last 50 years they. had bad se throng
hands property to the extent of 2),000,0001. or 30,000,0001
the present
i
in every year, without complaint either from the Customs or
from the mercantile world at large. He was on
occasion fully prepared to admit that if it had n any way
been shown that the coraeanY,
either directly or indirectly,
'lad evaded the
aymtnt of any one single duty upon a single
.„.