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

"If 'l7,
Cebourg Gotha, and Doke Ernest of Wurtembnrg,
rode out on horseback -at the same_ time, attended by
Lieutenant-Colonel F. H. Seymour. 2. -
A deputation, consisting of H. H. wilson, Sir
G. Staunton, the Right Hon. Holt Mackenzie,, Sir Her-
bert MAdock, Si: Cimrles Malcolm, Colonel Rairlinson
Colonel Sykes, Mr. H. T. Prinsep, Dr.. J. Bird,'Mr. G.
Forbes, the Hon. H. Stanley. Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Fer-
gusson, Mr. Bland,_ Mr. W. L.-Strachey,. Mr. Ravensbaw„
and Lir. R. Clarke,
,had an interview with laird John
ll'esterday, at his official regilecco iu -Palvoing-
strcet.

Mr. W. 0. Stanley had an. interview yesterday with
Sir George Grey, at the Home-office.
Dispatates were received yesterday at the Colonial-
Uffier from the Governor of the Canadas, and.irem the
Geverners of the other North American Colonies. Dis-
patches were also received from the Lord High . Com-
missioner of the Malan. Islands, from the Governer 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 Edward Ryan. The appeal " Lomi v. Ash-
well," (from tho Prerogative Court), part heard, was
heard.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TIMES.—The extraordinary transformations which
the Ministerisl 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 much7practised
art of preparing and passing Acts of Parliament. The
first question relates to preambles. The practice is in
preamble last. Mr. Keogh is
faenvxeill
so f t
oe otiaaski
take
eirti eign
this
instance first. Other Mem-
no, preamble at all. The
Ip!srerstanctoinesiid,.esia•ittliistAt,
ctloieurteainneetht
principle of the Bill; and
ascertain a principle
cifi.eiatrblya abestoournedwuie
aatxtiemint
pitatcl,ega ic
so
apply >}t; Arr. lieogh'e view
would seem not to he devoid of plansibifity. It err-
Willy seems :more stitillectory to select- rz sound prin-
ciple and frame at= Abt upon it, than to pass the Act
first, and then fish out its prineipleo from its details
afteresrds. Much also may be said in favour of
hating no preetiable -at 41:11. If-the original pferimble
can be struck our, and another of totally different ten-
dency can be inserted, the enacting part all the time
remaining precisely the same, it is not easy to see
whet useful part in the constitution chi, law
.the
preamble can perform.. But besides all these different
questions as to the nature and use of preambles-to which
this Bill has glve-n rise; there is yet another, mere press-
ing and-practical than any or them—the question as to
the propriety of having two preambles quite independent
of each other, and leading to different conclusions. The
Ministerial measure as it originally stood was simple
and intellig iiel6 enough. It recited a mischief, the vio-
lation, namely, of the 24th action of the Emancipation
Act, by the assumption of territorial titles not strictly
within its provisions—and extended the section so as to
re
remedy the mischief complained of. This manner of
treating the suhisct hai its faults, but it was at any rate
clear end consistent wish itself. The misfortune was,
that it neither touched the grievance of which the nation
complained which it required.
T grievance
was not so much the
infraction of the 24th section (..f the Emancipation
hcr appliedcomplained
c;fne remedy
Act, about which nobody troubled themselves
very much, es the intolerable insult received by the
Crown, the Church, and the country; end the remedy
required was. nut the extension of what Mr. Disraeli calls
petty penal 1-gi-lation, but the vindication of the national
honour and independence. People whose minds were
full of the Rescript and the Pastoral were surprised and
disl leased 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. Hera
again was a clear and logical Bill founded on a notorious
aggression, and applying to that aggression an adequate
remedy. The preamble 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 be conceded that to have ex-
tended the 24th section of the Emancipation Act to
England alone would have been to have introduced an
iuvidious anomaly against which the Irish Churpla
would have had every reason to complain. This neces-
sary consequence of the form in which Ministers cut
the measure was not the least among its defects. Bat 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. Alt
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
conclusien 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 be 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 tilts
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 r'strictions. 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 justifisd on the ground on whiPh
alone Mr. Disraeli puts it—that of retaliation for ag-
gression on England. The absurdity which Me; Dis-
raeli has announced in general terms Mr. Walpole
_fiP'S
worked out in detail. The Bill, as he frames it, and
as
Ministers seem disposed to assent to it,
has
sf
really two
preambles, distinct from, and independento
the other
—one true the other false; one natural,
of truly exposing the
arti-
ficial; one introduced for the sake
in
motion, the other
causes which have put Parliament
d.
g the measure to a case
to give an excuse for ete
' norm compatible with its
not covered by its principleiptheremay
not be reasons, such
ob-
jects. We do not say
thatthe conduct of Primate Cullen; and
as the Syncd of Thurlesh
with Government measutres of educe-
lion, which might interferenceht
render it necessary to control with
more stri the conduct of the Roman Catholic bier-
his ever
ctnesood. y
right to
But we do say that Ireland
arehy in
complainlrela when
thesymmetry
of the Bill has
been purposely in
mutilated and destroyed order to
thrust her into a quarrel in provoking which she had no
share, though the penalty is to alight equally upon her
head. 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
by an odiods parenthesis with a measure complete without
her, and whose organization her presence only serves to
destroy. But the more strongly we are impressed with
these convictions the more clearly we see that the most
devoted member of the Irish Establishment would have
no right whatever to complain of the absence of Ireland
from the quarrel between England and the Pope—the
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 labouritig eO:5
of
ear-
nestly as Mr. Disraeli himself to confound the e
the
their own ancient and firmly-settled hierarchy with
tottering and new-fangled titles of 111lethoine and Wise-
man.

THE VAUXHALL MURDER. h
Yesterday evening Mr. Payne, the City re-
sumed the inquiry, commenced by im afort-
night since, into the circumstances attendant upon the
death of Henry James Chaplin, a police-constable of the
L division, who was killed by the violence offered to him
by several his duty.
The names of the jury having been called over and
r e'w xr
division.
s
answered to
men while in the discharge of
ina T
d— he deceased was
a police-constable in hAis •
division. He was 33 years of
lie always bore t
aglen,spector'Carber
e had already stated,
0 character of a steady and well
conducted
several men in custody and awaiting further examination
for having murdered the deceased. He deemed that the
in n . Thereas*
evidence lie had already adduced would be sufficient for
the purpo es of
s the prosecution, and theref h
ore e had not
The
come pre eto bring for d
war any more.
CORONER, upon this intimation, read over the de-
positions taken at the former examination, and then
proceeded to charge the jury, explaining to them the
different circumstances which constituted' the crimes of
murder and manslaughter. He cited several instances,
showing the difficulty of determining the precise bound-
ary between the two offences; but added, that in the
present case no difficulty could exist, as all the circum-
stances seemed to indicate that it would be their bounden
duty to convict the prisoners upon the more serious
charge. Here was a constable,
proved to be a mild and
steady man, assaulted with such violence that ho sur-
vived it but a short time, by a set of men to whom he
had given no provocation, but with whom he was remon-
strating in the due execution of his office. He thought,
that whatever might ultimately be the result of the case,
these men ought tot
be, indicted for the capital offence.
After a few minutes' discussion, the jury returned a
verdict of " Wilful Murder" against Pattick Cane and
John Thickey.
The CORONER then issued his warrant in the usual
form, and round over the witnesses to give their eaidaVe
at the trial.