it was enough for him that it was assumed. He next showed, from the earliest history of this country, even in the time of the Conqueror, that our Roman Catholic ancestors were jealous of the encroaching power of Rome, and took measures to check it. Before he indicated the course he intended to propose, Lord John stated that the Government had, in the first instance, consulted the legal advisers of the Crown as to the existing law, who were of opinion, that neither by the common nor statute law could the mere assumption of titles be prosecuted as an offence; and that, although the introduction of bulls or writings from Rome was illegal, and subjected the party to penalty, the law had been so long in disuse, that a prosecution would on that ground probably fail. After specifying the objections to which other courses were open, the Government, he observed, had, under the circumstances, and with reference to the control which the new Roman Catholic prelates would obtain over large endowments in the hands of Roman Catholic trustees in this country, proposed, in the first place, to prevent the assumption of any title, not only from any diocese now existing, but from any territory or place in any part of the United Kingdom, and to restrain parties from obtaining by virtue of such titles any control over trust property. In conclusion, he remarked, the best course Dr. Wiseman could pursue was, to renounce the title he had assumed, and, as he assured him (Lord John) was his original intention, to reside at Rome; but if other counsels should prevail, and he should instil motives of ambition or revenge into the Court of

Rome, we must prepare for a long and arduous struggle, in which the part he should take would be guided by the principles which had always governed his conduct in these questions. He was for the fullest enjoyment of religious liberty, but he was entirely opposed to interference by any ecclesiastics with the temporal supremacy of this realm.

Mr. Roebuck said, one broad fallacy ran through the whole of Lord J. Russell's speech; he applied facts and principles derived from Roman Catholic States to one that was not Roman Catholic, and he omitted all reference to a country which bore the strongest analogy to ours-the United States of America, which, governed by our institutions, and speaking our language, was not afraid of the Pope. He insisted upon the injustice of legislating against one class of ecclesiastics only-a class which in Ireland had been constantly acknowledged by their territorial titles, even in Acts of Parliament. He objected to this Bill as a step backwards in obedience to prejudices out of doors; an Act, however, which derived its benefit from its utter inefficiency. If Dr. Wiseman, instead of being called Archbishop of Westminster, were called Archbishop in Westminster, the Act would not touch him. What was the offence to be called? How was it to be tried? What was to be the penalty? He warned the House of the terrible consequences of such a persecution in Ireland. The whole conduct of Ministers, he contended, had induced the Roman Catholics to believe that what was about to be done was no offence; and he had heard, he said, that Lord Minto had received a letter from Abbate

Hamilton, a Scotchman, resident at Rome, who reminded his Lordship, that when coming from an audience of the Pope, he had stated that he had seen the brief by which the Roman Catholic hierarchy was to be established in England.

Mr. J. O'Connell declined to discuss the merits of the Bill-a mouse out of a mountain. He explained and vindicated the proceedings of the Papal authorities in reference to Ireland, to the appointment of Dr. Cullen, and the Synod of Thurles; he controverted some of the allegations of Lord J. Russell as to the conduct of the Pope in other Catholic countries, as well as his deductions from English history; and repelled the implied charge of disloyalty made against the Roman Catholics because they do not acknowledge the spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy of the Queen over their own affairs.

Mr. Henry Drummond was astonished to hear that this was not a question of aggression; in no State of Europe would the Pope have dared to do what he had done here. This act was in furtherence of the old scheme for establishing the domination of the priesthood and the subjection of the laity. In Ireland, hostility towards this country was kept up in the minds of the people, who were taught to believe what their priests told them as if it were the voice of God. To this anti-English spirit at Rome, as well as to the thirst for power, Mr. Drummond traced this act of usurpation, the civil and social evils attending which he described in very dark colours.

Mr. Roche, who characterized the speech of Lord J. Russell as a homage to the spirit of bigotry, which he had contributed to raise,

contended that the Bill proposed was unnecessary, inasmuch as the statute of 13 Elizabeth, c. 2, was sufficient to meet the offence of introducing bulls; whilst it was an attempt to ignore the Roman Catholic Church, which had been virtually, and even directly, recognised by the Legislature. The worst feature of the bill was, that it was to extend to Ireland, where a religious agitation would be most mischievous.

Mr. Moore said, the appeals which Lord J. Russell had made to ancient English history, and to the examples amongst European States, seemed to adopt the policy of despotic Governments, and to abandon that of free institutions. America was a more germane example, and that he had overlooked. The question was, whether the Roman Catholic prelates should be nominated at all; if the Pope must not nominate, and the State stood aloof, the Sovereign protesting against the religion of onethird of her subjects, this was tyranny. If the nation had retrograded into second childhood, this House should assume its high function of asserting, against the wild voice of agitation, the development of mature public opinion. If so much respect was paid to the voice of the people of England, what was to be said of the people of Ireland? There but one answer would be given to this measure, "We defy you to carry it into effect."

Mr. Bright, in animadverting upon Lord John Russell's letter, accused him of appealing thereby to the bigotry of the country. There was a belief that the Roman Catholic religion was making rapid strides in the United Kingdom, and that this measure of the

Pope was an indication of its progress; and thinking, as he did, that it would be a calamity to this kingdom if it should return to Catholicism, he proceeded to inquire how far our past policy had been calculated to make this a Protestant empire. In the course of this inquiry, he described the Irish Church, abounding in wealth, and leagued, as he affirmed, with the civil power in acts of oppression, as at the root of the extended Catholicism of Ireland. And how had our legislation acted with regard to the Roman Catholic religion in England? According to the noble Lord's letter, the Church of England, which had been called the bulwark of Protestantism, was a kind of manufactory of home Popery. Notwithstanding the power and influence of the episcopacy in England, and its revenues, the depth of which the plummet of inquiry had never sounded, not only had the Church of England not saved the country from Popery, but it was said to be deeply infected with it; yet it was the ascendancy of this Church that the Bill of the noble Lord was intended to bolster up, and which he believed would be impotent for the object in view.

Mr. Disraeli said, the reason why he should vote for the introduction of the Bill was, that the community might see the result of the agitation which had been fostered by the Government, and which had led to a national demonstration seldom equalled-a result which, when known, would produce a feeling of great disappointment, and perhaps of mortification. He contrasted the feebleness of the measure with its antecedents, and even with the speech of the noble Lord that night, the proportions of

which could not have been more colossal if the object had been to re-enact the penal laws. He had expected at least a measure consistent with the exposition of the First Minister, who had given a most unsatisfactory reason for the contrast between his introductory statement and the remedy he proposed. With respect to the proceedings of the Pope, remembering the language and acts of the present Government, and of the noble Lord himself, it was not just or fair for him to say that that proceeding was a blunder on the sudden. The course which the Government were now taking was not merely very unsatisfactory for the present, but extremely perilous for the future. Suppose another Papal aggression, was there to be another measure adapted to the new assault? He considered a Roman Catholic hierarchy not recognised by the law to be a great political evil; but the problem was to be solved by the introduction of a measure equal to the occasion, not by a petty remedy unworthy of the dignity of Parliament.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell disputed the grounds upon which the noble Lord had based his Bill, the effect of which would be merely to create annoyance and irritation.

Sir R. Inglis, after briefly replying to Mr. Bright, thanked Lord John Russell for his speech, as well as for his letter, and wished he could make the same return for the Bill he had proposed, which he feared would fall far short of what had been expected. He would not, however, pronounce a decided opinion upon a measure not yet before the House.

Mr. Reynolds, in opposing the motion, attacked the temporalities

of the Established Church, which Church, and not the Pope, he contended, had been the aggressor in this case. This Bill would be an aggression upon the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom, whom it would deprive of the benefit of the legislative compact in 1829; it would, therefore, directly violate that compact, and it was especially unjust in being applied to Ireland, where it would be a Bill of pains and penalties, creating discord and disunion.

The Attorney-General explained the general scope and effect of the proposed Bill, and the specific offence which it was intended to meet. The offence consisted in the introduction of a bull, by which certain persons were authorized by the Pope to assume the titles of Bishops in England, with jurisdictions defined by territorial limits. It was a sound maxim in politics that you ought not to introduce a larger remedy than sufficed to meet the evil complained of, and he believed the proposed measure would effectually attain the object in view. The act of the Court of Rome was resented by the country because, first, it was an insult offered to the British Crown; secondly, it was an injury inflicted upon certain classes of its subjects. With respect to the insult, he thought it would be sufficiently repelled by the opinion expressed throughout the country and in that House, and by words introduced in the Bill. The injury -which affected the Roman Catholic classes of the community-was of a two-fold nature, spiritual and temporal. With the spiritual effect of the bull the House had nothing to do; but its effect in temporal matters would be to give to the Bishops having territorial jurisdic

tion a power of dealing with religious endowments made by parties who had not intended that they should be so administered; and whilst he was not aware that, in respect to spiritual matters, Vicars Apostolic, who were Bishops in partibus, had less authority than territorial Bishops, it was important to estop persons dependent upon the Pope of Rome from interfering with the rights of British subjects. The Bill, therefore, in the first place, extended the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, which imposed a penalty of 1007. upon the assumption of the title of any existing see, to that of any title whatever from any place in the United Kingdom. But it did not stop there. In order more effectually to prevent the assumption of territorial titles, the Bill would make every act done by persons assuming such titles, by virtue of them, absolutely void; and, in addition, in order to hinder parties from making gifts to persons assuming such titles, the Bill would declare the endowment of such pretended sees illegal, and the gifts would be forfeited to the Crown, to be disposed of as Her Majesty saw fit-a course which was deemed better than that of declaring such gifts void, since the Crown could distribute them equitably. By thus preventing persons from assuming territorial titles, and preventing the existence of the dioceses or sees themselves, the Bill would effectually remedy the mischief complained of; and it was very desirable that it should not be extended to cases which might not arise, or which the existing law was competent to reach, or which, being of a spiritual character, could not be effectually dealt with by legislation, and must be left to the good

sense and judgment of the Roman Catholics themselves.

Lord Ashley said that the question was, whether ecclesiastics of the Church of Rome were to be allowed to occupy a position in this realm which they had never occupied in their most palmy days; and whether the civil and religious liberties of the people of this country were to be protected. The question did not affect the Church of England merely; it affected Dissenters of all denominations, and touched the civil and religious liberties of Roman Catholics themselves. The measure proposed had been objected to because of the weakness of the Pope; but his spiritual power was vast. Then it was said to be a restriction upon religious liberty, and to intrench upon the Act of 1829; but this was not a question of taking anything from the Roman Catholics, but of allowing them to take something from us. Lord Ashley then considered whether a hierarchy was necessary for the development of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, and whether it was consistent with the rights of the Crown and the civil and religious liberty of its subjects. On the first head he showed that territorial titles were unnecessary, and on the second head he cited the testimony of Dr. Wiseman himself, who had declared that the object of the hierarchy was to obtain synodical action, which was repugnant to the rights of the Crown and to the liberties of the people. The Roman Catholic laity would be thereby subject to the canon law (extracts of which he read) for the first time in England. Lord Ashley concluded with an impressive warning to those within our own Church who, he believed, had invited this attack,

Vol. XCIII.

against the further results of their proceedings, amongst which might be, he feared, a collision betwixt the clergy and the laity, which would go very far to purify the Church. Mr. Grattan, in a very discursive speech, opposed the motion.

Mr. Page Wood denied that any feeling of bigotry had been manifested in the country upon this subject. There had been no desire to advocate a return to the penal laws. There had, indeed, been great earnestness, and a sense of aggression attempted by a power, lately dormant, which our ancestors had always resisted. It was said that this was a dispute about names; but Mr. Wood showed the essential difference between a Vicar Apostolic and a Bishop of a diocese, in respect to ecclesiastical (distinguished from spiritual) jurisdiction. The erection of sees, he argued, was an act of sovereign right. In England no attempt had ever been made to erect a see except by royal authority, nor had the Pope ever been allowed to erect a see in any continental State. The attempt to erect sees was, he contended, an offence at common law, and under the statutes of 16th Richard and 13th Elizabeth; therefore the bill was no ex post facto law. This was not a solitary indication of the designs entertained by the Pope and his advisers; they had endeavoured to extend the Papal authority in like manner over the East, where it had encountered the like resistance. The object of Dr. Wiseman was, to introduce into England synodical action and the canon law, which, declaring that the laws of the State were subordinate to those of the Church, placed Roman Catholics in the dilemma of a double allegiance. Mr. Wood concluded with an in[C]