The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

I twang ,--z,ull;

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1851.

In the House of Lords, last night, the adjourned debate
on the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Title As-
sumption Bill was resumed by

The Earl of WINCHILSEA, who expressed his inten-
tion to abstain from voting on the question because, in
his opinion, the Bill did not go far enough. All
these aggressions had been occasioned by the measure
of 1829.
Load LYNDHURST had 110 doubt that the assumption of
these titles was as illegal as it was insulting. He should
vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Lord VAUX and the Earl of WICKLOW opposed the
i Bill.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE contended that no aggres •
sion had taken place, neither had there been any en-
croachment on the Royal prerogative. lie should vote
against the Bill.
The Marquis of CLINRICARDE supported and Lord
MONTEAGLE opposed the measure.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it would be impos-
sible to pass over this insolent assunlption of the POPE
in silence, and as a mere resolution would not meet the
requirements of the case, the only course left to pursue
was to pass some such Bill as the present.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS opposed the Bill, which
NT(); Earl EITZWIL•
and
Marquisth the E aorfl ofL AllNAsDnonwwNicExEre.
T
was supported by the Earl of __Mi-
plied. The House
LIAt
divided: the numbers were—
For the second reading—
Present
Proxies

146
119
-265

For the amendment—
Present ...
Proxies ...

- 38

Majority for the second reading 227
The Commons were occupied during the early sitting
in the consideration of the treatment to which Mr. Ea
NEST JONES had been subjected during his imprisonment
in Tothill,fields Prison.

The case was brought foward by Lord D. STUART,
who in moving for papers stated that he should next
session move for a Committee of Inquiry into the case.
Mr. W. WILLIAms said that the fault was in the law,
which left the visiting magistrates no option. Ulti-
mately the motion was withdrawn on the understanding
that such papers as could be furnished should be granted.

In the evening sitting,
Lord J. RUSSELL brought forward the motion of
which he had given notice, to the effect " that DAVID
SALomorts, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House,
or to sit in this louse during any debate, until he shall
take the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law."
Mr. ANSTEY moved, by way of amendment, " That
DAvm SALOMONS, Esq., Member for the borough of
Greenwich, having sat and voted in this House without
haven taken the abjuration oath in the words contained
and set forth in the form tendered unto him at the table,
the Attorney-General of England be ordered to institute
proceedings against him at law for such default, pur-
suant to the;Act 6th Geo. 111., c. 53."
Sir B. HALL hoped the Hon. Member for Youghal
would withdraw his amendment, in order to allow an-
other to be proposed.
Mr. ANSTEY then withdrew his amendment, and
Mr. BETHELL moved another amendment, to the
effect " That Baron LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD and DAVID
SALostotts, Esq., having taken the oaths in the manner
in which the House was by law bound to administer
them, they were entitled to take their seats in the House."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the words
" on the true faith of a Christian" were part, not of the
form, but of the substance of the oath.
Mr. J. Evizis contended that the words were merely
formal.

-----
Mr. NAPIER supported the original motion, and Mr.
AamoNay the amendment. _

Mr. H. DRUMMOND said the oath was intended to
operate against Jacobites and not against Jews.
Mr. ANSTEY supported the amendment.
Sir R. INGus contended that, even admitting that the
words in question were introduced into the oath by acci-
dent, there never was a time in which the oaths were
not administered upon some symbol that would exclude
members of the Jewish persuasion.
Upon a division, the amendment was negatived by
118 against 71.
Mr. BRIGHT suggested the appointment of a Commit-
tee to consider the question.
Lord J. Russicm. replied that such a Committee had
been appointed last year, and had reported.
Sir B. HALL asked for delay, to give the constituency
of Greenwich an opportunity of petitioning.
Mr. G. Tnomrson supported the appointment of a
Committee.
Mr. ANSTEY moved the adjournment of the debate.
A division negatived the motion for adjournment by
190 to €9.

Mr. G. THOMPSON moved another amendmen

pledging the House forthwith to cause such alterations
to be made in the form and mode of administering the
oath as should enable Mr. SALOIIONS to take and sub-
scribe the same. _ _

A long and acrimonius discussion ensued, in the course
of which Lord JOHN RussELL pledged himself to re-
introduce the Jewish Relief Bill next session.

The motion for adjournment was negatived, on a di,

vision, by 207 against 59.
It being now nearly one o'clock, Lord J. RUSSELL,
adverting to the character which the debate had assumed,
said he would no longer oppose an adjournment of the
debate, which was accordingly adjourned until Friday.
The remaining business having been disposed of, the
House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

The result of the division last evening in the louse
of Peers, on the motion for the second reading of the
Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, ought to prove
to the Court of Rome how gross has been the decep-
tion practised on the Porn and his Ministers by
those who, to forward their own ambitious schemes
of personal aggrandizement, represented that the
aristocracy of England were favourably disposed
towards the Romish Church, and on the faith of that
representation induced the POPE to issue the arrogant
rescript which has excited the just indignation
of the whole of the Protestant, and we add
of the majority of the lay Roman Catholic, population
of these realms. Out of the whole of the aristocracy
of England assembled in the House of Lords to dis-
cuss a measure, having for its object to repel the
aggression which by interested misrepresentations
the POPE was induced to commit, only 38 could be
found who refused to concur in that measure, whilst
no less than 265 recorded their votes in favour of the
Bill, which emphatically declares that the Porn
shall exercise no temporal authority within these
realms. The Court of Rome must nowobe convinced
that the aristocracy of England does not take
its tone either from the sentimental "fine ladies,".who,
blasee by a perpetual round of dissipation, seek to
keep up the pleasing excitement of the Saturday
1 night's opera by the clerical histrionics of the Sunday
morning's service, or from the weak-minded but am-
bitious among the clergy, who, conscious of their
utter deficiency in all the qualities which deserve the
respect of their fellow men, endeavour by their arro-
gant pretensions to secure from their station that
deference which would never be accorded to them
for their merits. The true aristocracy of
England despises both these classes, and are not more
inclined than their fellow-countrymen to humour the
caprices of painted butterflies, or to permit themselves
to be tyrannized over, or their substance plundered
by :the intoning drones of the social hive. The
aristocracy of England, the descendants and
representatives of those stalwart barons
who enacted the Constitutions of Claren-
don under HExat 11., who forced Magna
Charts from JOHN, who passed the Statute of
Prmeaunire under RICHARD 11., and who by their
memorable resolution, Nolumus leges Anglia mutari,
resisted, and successfully resisted, the attempts
of a former POPE to introduce the canon
law into these realms, proved that they,
too, like their ancestors, were determined
never to submit to the degrading tyranny of a sacer..
dotal despotism, and by a majority of 227 gave a se-
cond reading to the Bill, one of the principal effects
of which will be to prevent the introduction of
tile canon
law into this country. The debate, which
was commenced by a somewhat rambling speech
from the Earl of VirnicEimseA
, was conducted, on
the whole, in a manner which did honour to their
Lordships' House. The speech of the night was that
of Lord LYNDHURST ; never have we heard a more
clear and convincing legal argument than that by
which he proved that the sees pretended to be erected
by this Bill were even now only pretended and il-
legal sees, and seldom bas there been a
display of eloquence more tasteful than
the concluding ' passages of his speech.
LYNDHURST was " himself again," the LYNDHURST of
ten years since. The Earl of WICKLOW, who followed,
must be a nobleman of very obtuse
perception ; he could
not for the life of him perceive
should
lidn
like
had been intended or offered by
exceedingly to hear the Noble Earls definition of an
insult, he evidently places a very liberal construction _