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

eloquent speech, having first proved the necessity
for the introduction of some measure to repel the Papal
aggression, proceeded to explain the provisions of the
proposed Bill. The Bill would extend those provisions
of the Act of 1829 which imposed a penalty of
1001. upon the assumption of the title of
any existing see to that of asy title whatever,
from any place in the United Kingdom; the Bill also
made every act done in virtue of such titles by persons
assuming them absolutely void, and declared all endow-
ments of such pretended sees illegal, and such gifts and
endowments f)rfeited to the Crown. Th© Bill would be
found to effectually remedy the evil it was intended to
meet, whilst, at the same time, it did not extend to any
case which the existing law was competent to reach, or
to anything which, being of a purely spiritual charac-
ter, could not be dealt with by legislation.
Lord ASHLEY supported the measure as one absolutely
required to prevent the ecclesiastics of the Romish Church
from occupying a position and exercising an authority
which they had never previously been permitted to
occupy or to exorcise in this or in any other country,
not even in those countries i❑ which the Roman Catholic
religion was established. The Noble Lord contended
that this aggression had been encouraged and invited
by certain Romanizing clergy in our own Church, who
claimed to exercise a tyrannical power over th© laity,
and declared hia belief that if the Puseyite clergy con-
tinued such practices a collision must eventually take
place between them and the laity. The Noble Lord ex-
pressed a hope that some measure would be adopted to
purify the Church.

Mr. GRATTAN opposed and Mr. CONOLLY supported
the motion.

Mr. PAGE WOOD eulogised the late national move-
ment for repelling the Papal aggression as an indication
of religious earnestness without any feeling of bigotry.
Nowhere had any desire been expressed for a return to
the penal laws. He contended that this was not a mere
dispute about names ; for bishops possessed powers,
such es that of holding synods and of introducing the
canon law, which vicars-apostolic did not. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman then made several quotations
from the canon law for the purpose of showing that that
law placed the laws of the State in subordination to the
laws of the Roman Catholic Church, and that thus it
placed the Roman Catholics in the dilemma of a
divided allegiance. He likewise contended that Car-
dinal WISEMAN and the other newly-appointed Roman
Catholic bishops had violated the Acts of the 16th
RICHARD 11., and of the 13th ELISABETH, and con-
cluded by denouncing that portion of the Church of
England clergy who continued to receive the emolu-
ments of a Protestant Church whilst they were Romanists
at heart.

Mr. M'Cum.kon defended Dr. CULLEN and the Synod
of Tharles from the attack of Lord Jour? RUSSELL.

Sir GEORGE GREY said the measure was of a purely
defensive character, and had been introduced in obedience
to the demand of the nation to repress an aggressive
act of an illegal character, which invaded the QUEEN'S
prerogative and ignored the existence of every religious
denomination in the country, except the Roman Catho-
lics, thus claiming for the POPE universal dominion. He de-
fended Lord CLARENDON from the attacks which had been
made on him, and denied that he had ever, as represented
by Mr. DISRAELI in his letter, addressed the Roman Catho-
lic prelates of Ireland by titles prohibited by law, remind-
ing ►Mr. DISRAELI that it but ill became him, who had
committed so many blunders in his own letter, to indulge
in captious criticism on the letters of others. Sir GEORGE
repeated the denial of Lord MINT°, that any communi-
cation had been made to him on the subject of the estab-
lishment of a Romish hierarchy in this country, and con-
cluded by vindicating the late national manifestation
from the charge of bigotry, which had been brought
against it.

On the motion of Mr. P. HOWARD, the debate was,
after some opposition, adjourned to Wednesday.
Mr. ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the repeal of enactment: imposing certain pains, pe-
nalties, and disabilities on her MAJESTY'S Roman C.i.•
tholic subject 3, which, upon a division, was refused by
175 against 35.
The House adjourned at Oae o'clock,

Another valuable day has been consumed in dis-
cussing whether leave shall be given to the First
Lord of the Treasury—the responsible head of her Me-
JESTY'S Government—to introduce a Bill for the pro-
tection of the Royal prerogative, and of the inde-
pendence of the British nation from foreign aggres-
sion and foreign usurpation. It might be thought
that the importance of the subject, and the high posi-
tion of its Parliamentary sponsor, would alike have
demanded that every possible facility should be
afforded for the calm and dispassionate consideration
of a topic possessing the deepest interest to
all classes of the community. The usual
courtesy of Parliament is to grant the
necessary permissio❑ in all cases, except those of a
frivolous and trivial character, where it is desirable
to prevent the public time from being wasted by
entering into the details of measures utterly re-
pugnant to the feelings of the great majority, and which
there is almost a certainty of being ignominiously re-
jected during some of the future stages of its progress.
Accordingly the required permission for the intro-
duction of a Bill could nut be supposed in any de-
gree to pledge the House itself, or individual Mem-
bers, to the approval either of its principle or its de-
tail& It is generally considered that the second reading
affords the fitting opportunity for debating the principle,
while the details and separate clauses are afterwards
disposed of in Committee. It will greatly and un-
necessarily multiply the labours of the chosen repre-
sentatives of the people, which, even under the most
favourable circumstances, and with every practicable
degree of economy of time and trouble, are already
sufficiently onerous, if the precedent thus adopted,
at the commencement of the session, should be fol-
lowed in other matters which may chance to be ob-
noxious to small minorities. The whole of Fri-
day evening was consumed—Monday was like-
wise occupied, and but little real progress
was made. On the first motion for adjournment the
House rejected the demand by a majority of more
than six to one—there being 364 against, and .59 (!)
only in favour of the proposition. This is a point,
however, on which a factious minority can coerce the
entire assembly, while there are half a doeen Mem-
bers ready and willing to set public opinion at de-
fiance, and to incur the odium attendant upon such a
proceeding. When, therefore, it was clearly shown
that the House was to be harassed by repeated divi-
sions Lord Joule RUSSELL very judiciously yielded,
declaring at the same time that "he did not
propose to go on with any Government business until
the motion was disposed of." This wise determina-
tion, and the over whelmieg majority that supported
Ministers on the first division, will probably prevent
further attempts at procrastination. There will be
no temptation held out to Honourable Gentlemen to
seek a martyr's crown, or to "die upon the floor of the
House," in resisting the insult to their religion.
The principal feature in the evening's debate was
the exceedingly lucid exposition by Sir JOHN
ROMILLY of the general scope and effect of the pro-
posed Bill, and of the specific ()fence it was intended
to guard against. The Right Hon. Gentleman used
the word "offence" advisedly, because he is well
aware that the law has been violated by the intro-
duction of these " bulls" from Rome, which were con-
sidered so highly objectionable to our Roman Catholic
ancestors, and so vigilantly watched by the Govern-
ment, the Legislature, and the people of Great
Britain for ages anterior to the Reformation. A
foreign Prelate bad ventured to subdivide the English
soil into districts, and to confer titles of honour and
territorial distinctions and authority upon persons of
his own selection, not chosen or recommended by the
English Roman Catholics, or any parties owing alle-
giance to the British SOVEREIGN. That was the overt
act, which so strongly excited the indignation of the
people of Great Britain—that was the disease for
which a suitable remedy was to be provided. It is
true that many of the old Tories—many who had
hoped that the occasion would enable them to give
full scope to their ancient feelings of bigotry—de-
sired to improve the occasion by a return to the penal
restrictions and intolerant enactments that so long
disgraced the naticnal statute-book. But Lord JOHN
steered clear of both extremes—he took good care
lest, in avoiding Scylla, he might fall into Chary bdis.
lie would adequately vindicate the independence of
the Throne and people of this realm, without encoun-
tering the evil, E (Dal 1 y to be shunned, of exposing
our country to the charge of intolerance, or impair-
ing the civil and religious liberty so justly prized by
the people of England. It was not expedient to in-

troduce a measure more extensive than was required
by the mischief to be provided against. The object
of the contemplated Bill was to prevent the nominees
of the PONTIFF from assuming the ecclesiastical

titles appertaining to certain territorial eees•
gal dioceses defined by certain limits, which