The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-30 00:00:00

W. Edmond, T. Edmond, and R. M'Kinn, Liverpool
and Bombay, merchants, sucond dividend, 25., any, Thurs-
day, between ten and coo, at the office of Mr. Lee, Man-
chester.

J. Watson and R. Y. Watson, Sunderland, ship-
builders, 53., any Saturday, between ten and three, at
the office of Mr. Baker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
G. Staight, final dividend, 6d., any Tuesday, between
eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Pennell, Guildhall-
chambers, Basinghall.street.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
F. E. D. Mast, Aldermanbury, City, merchant, Aug.
21, at twelve.

In the Country.
W. Gray, Sunderland, Durham, draper, Aug. 28, at
eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—J. T. Hall,
North with, Cheshire, bookseller, Aug. 21, at eleven, at
the Court, Liverpool—S. W. Isherwood,Kingston- upon-
Hull, woollendraper, Aug. 20, at half-past twelve, at the
Townhall, Kingston-upon-Hull.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED.

J. Reed, Bermondsey-street, Southwark, hop-mer-
chant, certificate of the second class—E. Woodruffe, Old
Broad-street, City, ship broker, certificate of the third
class—T. Brighouse, Liverpool, contractor, certificate of
the second class—J. Emery, Preston, Lancashire, inn-
keeper, certificate of the second class—A. Y. Barrett,
Horncastle, Lincolnshire, engineer, certificate of the third
class—J. B. Browne, Newcastle-undo-Lyne, wine mer-
chant, certificate of the third class.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

A. T. Creasy and P. R. Wilkinson, Brighton, auc-
tioneers—H. Lelliott and J. Lolliott, Derby, coal mer-
chants—W. Winnow and T. Dike, Pimlico, builders—
H. B. Brown and J. C. A. Smith, exhibitors of a moving
panorama—J. Hudson and M. D. Hudson, liington.
upon-Hull, merchants—J. Fish and R. Watson, Oswald-
twistle, Lancaster, cotton spinners—F. Barker and J.
Barker, Great Mitchell-street, St. Luke's, iron founders
—S. Cook and W. J. Down, • Plymouth, painters and
glaziers—H. W. Capes and E. Ralph, Manchester, auc-
tioneers and appraisers—T. Marsh, J. Marsh, G. Marsh,
W. Marsh, and E. Marsh, Dudley, stove grate manufac-
turers (so far as regards T. Marsh)—T'. Smith and R.
Jones, Stoke-upon-Trent, colliers—W. Copland and G.
Wyllie, Manchester, braziers—A. Hooper and E. S.
White, Birmingham, irontounders—G. Wright nud R.
Wright, Derby, coal masters—J. Ferris and W. Gill,
Devon, drapers—W. Bedington and W. Tonks, Birming-
ham, brassfounders—W. Smith, E. Sewell, S. W. Cox,
and T. Holland, Derby, cheise factors—T. Lund and
A. M'Neil, Preston, pawnbrokers—G. E. Fox and W.
L. Barrington, Manchester, manufacturing chemists.

INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
Stephen Dickenson, Manchester, dealer in drysalteries.
Richard Jones, Hirwain, Glamorganshirc, carpenter.
Henry Waters, Troedyrhiow, Glamorganshire, grocer.
William Moulding, Aberavon, Glamorganshire, butcher.
John Coates, Swansea, tobacconist.
James Rock, Dover, licensed hawker.
Thomas Lag&:n Ewer, Borough-green, Cambridgeshire,

grocer.
Edward Minton, Knighton, Radnorshire, plumber.
Edwin Smith, Eaton Bishop, Eiereforthhite, butcher.
Ann NVitoonab, Hereford, innkeeper.
David Parry, Cefrillamiewrch, Denbighshire, blacksmith.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
A. Edmond and A. J. Gibb, Edinburgh, stock
brokers and commission agents, to meet within the Rooms
of Messrs. Cay and Black, Edinburgh, Aug. 4 and Sept.
1, at three.

J. Cochran, Largs, to meet within the King's Arms
Inn, Ayr, Aug. 2 and 23, at elEveo.
J. Allen, Jun., Glasgow, oil nvrchant and drysalter,
to meet within the Crow Hotel, Glasgow, Aug. 4 and
25, at twelve.

J. R. Nlr.cfa-quhar, Portleich, ?less-shire, farmer, to
meet within tne ailnagown Arms Inn, Tuin, Aug. 5
and 26, at one.

R. Levey and W. Paton, Glasgow, manufacturers, to
meet within the Globe Hotel, Glasgow, Aug. 4 and 25,
at twelve.

IMPERIAL PARLI A MENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 29.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDO WNE moved the third read-
ing of this Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, although he had on a
former occasion occupied a considerable portion of their
Lordships' time, yet could not permit this the last op-
portunity he should have to pass without again entering
his protest against this ill•omened Bill. He was almost
alone in his opposition to this measure, and therefore at
least he was entitled to the credit of acting from
conscientious motives in thus placing himself in opposi-
tion to the great majority of their Lordships. Yet, although
this Bill had been carried by large majorities in both
Houses, he had not heard of any single individual who
expressed himself as entirely satisfied with this Bill.
All that the supporters seemed to be agreed on was that
something must be done;" and nothing could be more
dangerous than to legislate under the pressure of pas-
sion, which was always the case with those who said
something must be done." The arguments of the
Noble Baron Ctlonteagle), who the other night moved
the omission of Ireland from the Bill, were conclusive
against any legislation on the subject. Here was a
measure proposed by her Majesty's Government, which,
ho believed, was pregnant with mischief of every de-
scription, calculated to lead to the meat disastrous con-
sequences, and likely to produce a spirit of disobedience
which they ought not to encourage; and even at that
last stage of the Bill he felt it his duty to enter his pro-
test against it.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that had he consulted
his own feelings alone he should not have troubled the
House with any remarks at this stage of the Bill, cir-
cumstances rendering it peculiarly painful to him to ap-
proach the subject at all; but as his silence would, he
knew, undoubtedly lead to misconstruction of his motives
with regard to a matter so deeply affecting the religious
interests of the country, he felt it his duty, holding the posi-
tion which he did, and alluded to pointedly as he had been
in the course of these debates, to state his opinions, lest it
should seem that he felt a lukewarmness with regard to
the great object which that Bill was intended to achieve,
or that he did not give a hearty and full, and—in spite
of what bad fallen from the Noble Earl—a rational
assent to the Bill which her Majesty's Government bad
introduced.—(Hear, hear.) It had been argued with
singular ability before their Lordships, that that Bill was
simply and altogether a civil and political measure, and
did not in any degree touch religious considerations.
If by " civil and political" was meant that it only
affected the civil and political standing of this country,
then he must say that he could not assent to that Bill on
any such grounds, but he believed that, on the contrary,
it immediately and directly concerned the religious
character of this country, and on that ground alone did
he give it his assent. He did not mean by that to main-
tain that it was the province of that House, by their
votes, to establish religious truths—he thought it was
not, and his Noble Friend opposite who assented to that
proposition, seemed to him to confound the place which
he (the Bishop of Oxford) held in this country, with
that which he held in that House as a legislator. He
had different lines of duty as a bishop and a clergyman
of the Church, and as a legislator of the land sitting in
that House. He thought they were bound as being set
in trust with great truths still professed by this nation,
and as occupying places in the Church of this land.
to which had been committed the spiritual superin-
tendence of the people, to protest against that act of
aggression on two grounds, first as being in their
judgment an introduction of false and fatal doctrine
into this their laud, and next as being a schismati-
cal intrusion of a rival Church on to ground
already legitimately occupied by the Church of
this land.—(Hear, hear.) On both grounds ho thought
they were bound to protest, and the clergy had so pro-
tested in their solemn synod, and he was prepared in
spite of what hed been said against that synod, to jus-
tify every separate detail of that protest, as in their pre-
sence he declared he believed them to be fully justifiable.
But he did not mean to say that it was the duty of that
House to follow the same course, or that it was for
Parliament to attempt to hold the scales between dif-
ferent allegations of truth—between Catholicism and
Protestantism. As soon as they gave the British Ca-
tholics seats in Parliament they made it impossible for
Parliament to act on the presumption that one faith
was true and the other false, and, therefore, in that
House, he had never argued against the falsehood of the
Roman Catholic faith, deeply convinced as he was of its
falsehood on all points in which it differed from the
faith of the Church of England, because he did not feel
it lawful for hire to do so in that House. And still
less did he assent to this Bill with any idea that they
could maintain truth by persecuting error, or make en-
actments to decide what was right. The whole series
of such endeavours had been futile in execution, or ini-
quitous and unjust in their operation. Therefore he'had
never lent his aid to any attempt of a nature which
seemed like persecution of others for their religious
opinions. But this was not a measure of that description,
and as a Christian people he thought they could not do
less than thus enter their protest against what was an
act of aggression upon their religion and their Church.
It had been held by some, that this measure was alto-
gether to be considered as a repulsion of an insult to the
Crown of England; but if that wore so—if it was as
patriots and Englishmen, and not as a Christian people,
they felt that act—how could they difference that act
of the Bishop of Rome from those which they applauded
in the very highest manner when done of old, when from
Jerusalem, as a eentre, went forth those who, denying
that they had anything to do with the kingdoms of the
world, did at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Jerusalem, and
pßroe me
pep, t fso
eu
tia
adp oohs
taei
irtse orfelaeirslytohliyc,a
juitthhoireiety,and lay
et
ei t
he Bishopow n
of Rome were an aggression merely quoad the nation,
then every one of these acts of the apostles was an ag-
gression, because there too there were empires and mo-
narchies, and it was as much an aggression to set up
bishops without the consent of those monarchies, as it
an u n
ofC
Rome
was to do so now in this country. But there was this
hsot of
ine
himself, it was impossible for him to do as he had done
difference, that this country was a Christian country,
which those of old were
the Pope was an aggression, because he de-
cnlaw
lapsedo not
of the
t ne t aon d
Bishop
this actr
ia
de-
clared that this was not a nation, and because he
sdeclaredstate.
By
yy thatthe no
w canon ware
with regard to this country, unless he assumed that to
be the fact, and be would be acting against the laws of
his own Church if he by any act abolished the ancient
sees of England, except on the ground that we were not
a Church of Christ. Thus those expressions in the Papal
brief, which had been treated as hyperbolical, had for
their basis that assumption. He (the Bishop of Oxford),
therefore, took a legttimate and right view of the mat-
ter—and he was not now speaking as a member of the
Church of England, but as a member of a Christian
nation—when he said that it was for all the Christian
sects of this, country to declare that that net of the Bishop
of Rome was a denial of their Christianity and an ag-
gression upon their common faith. It was indeed takin;