between bishops and vicars-apostolic was immaterial to the Roman Catholics, but most material to the Protestants. Mr. Goulburn did not mean to imply by his vote for the Bill any approval of the mode in which the aggression had been met by the Government. He could not but feel that the contrast between the measure proposed to be enacted and the excitement which had been mainly aroused by the act of the Ministers, was calculated to produce a prejudicial effect. The position so often asserted by Roman Catholics, that the Pope could not revoke a bull once issued, was contradicted by history. Very recently the Pope had recalled the bull appointing a bishop to the diocese of Goa on the coast of India. If he wished to conciliate the good-will of the people of this country, he would withdraw his recent act, which Mr. Goulburn characterised as an encroachment upon the sovereign_authority of the Queen, upon the Protestantism of England and the Established Church.

Mr. Cardwell expressed the disappointment which he felt on comparing the conclusions of the Solicitor-General with his comprehensive exordium. If the municipal and national law had been violated and the honour of the Sovereign attacked, what was the Government about all the while? If the Romish hierarchy would have temporal as well as spiritual power, and would introduce the canon law, would the single operative clause of the present Bill prevent that effect? The proposed measure contained no possibility within itself of remedying the evil; for however it restrained the assumption of titles, the real hierarchical and synodical power, and the intro

duction of canon law, would be untouched, and the whole usurpation would be left entire and complete. Adhering to the settlement of 1829, he had uniformly assisted in removing all obsolete enactments only offensive to the feelings and irritating to the tranquillity of large bodies of his countrymen; he had done that in earnest hope and expectation-though not without a misgiving, which he hoped his Catholic friends would forgive-that by mutual moderation they might live calmly and peacefully together. It might be that the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion and of the Protestant religion could not harmoniously coalesce; but he earnestly hoped that the day of struggle would be averted; for of all wars the worst was a little civil war about religious matters. As he believed that by supporting this Bill he should rather offer an affront than comply with the desire of Protestant England-that he would be doing much to render Ireland ungovernable-and that upon him would rest a share of the responsibility of that social strife which might arise on a subject in which they were now in the right-he refused his consent to the second reading.

an

Lord Ashley pointed out an infringement of the Act of 1829, in the nomination of one of the new sees, as that of " St. David's, Merioneth, and Newport"-a feature recently disclosed in authorized Roman Catholic translation of the brief. In the tone of Napoleon in his most haughty and terrible days, the Pope virtually declared that the house of Hanover had ceased to reign. If the Parliament of England submitted to that, he could tell them that the Queen would not-(Cries of "Or

der!")-Well, the Crown would not, nor the people. In France the spirit of persecution was so revived by Popery, that schools were empty he could prove it by authentic documents; public worship forbidden; and, excepting the dragonade, the Protestants of France were, as a body, as piteously oppressed as under Louis XIV. It behoved the Legislature to enter a record on the statute-book, that all these things were the work and for the behoof of a foreign power -not a person, but a powerwhich we utterly repudiate and abhor. The weak residue of a measure, now before the House, was altogether inadequate; but, being so, he rejoiced that the people of England should know it. The task was, how to repress the onward march of Papal domination; how deal with such a Protean power. The forms of our free constitution and our Parliamentary system seemed infantine before its machinery-so vast, so complete, so utterly impenetrable. Yet, by God's blessing, we would deal with it. "Penal laws," continued the noble Lord, "objectionable in principle, are ruinous in practice. While Ireland lay under penal laws, the spirit of Protestantism was heavy and asleep; when they were repealed, and men could no longer trust to statutes, she awoke like a giant refreshed with wine. (Cheers.) Her progress is rapid; and, say what you will, we will make in Ireland more converts in a year than you shall throughout this realm of England in the whole of a century. Everywhere there is preparation for a religious war. Austria, espousing the quarrels of the Pope, is panting to put down nascent liberty in Sardinia; another Simon de Montfort may head VOL. XCIII.

another crusade against the recovered rights of the Waldensian Christians; France, supporting Papal tyranny in Italy, and busy in unprecedented persecution of Protestants at home, may soon seek political aggrandizement under pretext of religion. This realm of England may stand alone, but it will not give way by submission; no, not for an hour. What may be the issue to the empire, no man can foretell; but, for ourselves, happen what may, we will, by God's blessing, stand immoveably on our immortal faith, which we have neither the right nor the disposition. to surrender." (Continued cheering.)

Mr. Sidney Herbert held that, in tolerating any form of Christianity, they could be scarcely said to be tolerating error. The vastness of the truth of redemption was so great, that an admixture of error could not overpower its effects on the human mind. Under this persuasion, he deplored the theological character of the debate, and recommended charity. The people of England confused bishoprics with titles; their abstract idea of a bishop was a person with 5000l. a year and great temporal advantages. If we had possessed an episcopal Dissenting body, the distinction would have been clear; and if the Pope had called the bishops overseers,' so complete was our slavery to words, that probably no notice would have been taken of the proceeding. In reference to the measure, if it meant to make a protest and declaration, why not simply protest and declare, and not legislate-or, by trying to legislate, fall into the present inextricable confusion?

66

Lord Palmerston repudiated the word "toleration;" deeming that the principle established by the [E]

Emancipation Act was the far greater principle of religious freedom. But churches were, like all corporate bodies, encroaching. The Bill would supply an omission in the Act of 1829; and as the Church of Rome obeyed that Act, he be lieved it would obey this.

Mr. H. Drummond delivered a speech which led to a scene of great excitement in the House. Commenting in strong terms upon the distinctive tenets of the Romish Church, the hon. Gentleman was so far carried away by the excitement of his subject, and provoked by the taunting cheers of his opponents, as to use language which wounded very keenly the religious feelings of the Roman Catholic portion of his hearers. The Earl of Arundel, with great earnestness, appealed to the Speaker whether it was consistent with the rules of debate thus to outrage the feelings of Members of the House?

The Speaker said that Mr. Drummond had not exceeded the freedom of speech necessarily allowed in debate, but he suggested to Mr. Drummond the propriety of using caution in handling topics of so delicate a nature. Great excitement, however, still prevailed in the House, and several Members, among whom were Mr. Grattan and Mr. Moore, warmly expressed their indignation at the insulting language used towards their faith. Mr. John O'Connell moved the adjournment of the debate. At length, however, after the Speaker had earnestly called on the House to support his authority in maintaining order, Mr. Drummond was suffered to proceed. The hon. Member concluded by saying, that he thought the extension of the Bill to Ireland was

unjust and uncalled for. He would pass a law to prevent cardinals from coming to this country, to declare all acts done under the canon law null and void, and to extend the Mortmain Act, so as to protect dying men.

Sir J. Graham, after condemning in strong terms the expressions which had fallen from Mr. Drummond, said he should treat this, not as a religious, but a political question. He repeated

the admissions he had made on a former occasion, that the language used by the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman was arrogant and needlessly offensive to the feelings of a great Protestant community; that it was extremely difficult for the servants of the Crown to pass it by in silence and contempt, and that they were bound to assert the great Protestant principles fixed at the Reformation, confirmed at the Revolution and by the Act of Settlement, and ratified by the solemn compacts at the union of Scotland to England and of Ireland to Great Britain. He would not discuss the point how the aggression should have been met, whether by proclamation or diplomacy; the question was a narrower one-Was legislation the right mode, and if so, was this Bill the proper scheme of legislation? He had doubted, and the doubt had been confirmed by legal opinions, whether the first clause of the Bill, coupled with the preamble, would not carry all the provisions of the clauses which it was proposed to exclude; in which case the Government would be bound to vote against the Bill. His principal objections, however, were-first, that it was the introduction of a penal enactment; and, secondly, that it was a reversal of a policy.

He agreed with the Ministers that if legislation were attempted upon this subject, it should embrace the whole United Kingdom; and if that was done, according to the Solicitor-General, by striking at territorial titles, this Bill would put down an organized episcopacy in Ireland, and prevent meetings in synod. He doubted the Solicitor-General's law; but if accurate, it was clear that all that had been done in 1829 was as nothing. Two centuries ago there was an organized episcopate in Ireland, and the canon law existed there; if so, the blow about to be inflicted went further than the penal code which existed prior to 1829. Sir James then retraced the policy which had been pursued with reference to Roman Catholic relief, and pointed out the difficulty of dealing with the Papal pretensions without reverting to the code of Elizabeth. The appointment of bishops was incident to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, and territorial divisions were the necessary and inevitable consequence. Referring to Lalor's case, in 1607, he observed that if the act of the Pope had violated the statute of Richard II., touching the regalities, the Crown, and the realm, here was an ancient law, under which the parties could be prosecuted before a jury; but if the object was to put down the Pope's spiritual supremacy, we must embark in a fearful contest, which for 200 years had distracted England and ruined Ireland. With reference to the territorial titles of Roman Catholic prelates, Sir James quoted Lord Clarendon's letter, in which, he contended, these titles had been distinctly recognised; and likewise a speech of Sir J. Romilly, who had said, in terms,

that "the Pope might divide the country into bishoprics and archbishoprics." If the effect of the Bill as altered would be to carry its provisions to the same extent as in its integrity, the Government, as he had said, must withdraw it; but, in the social condition of Ireland, this question should not be left in doubt. The passing of this Bill would be a repeal of the Emancipation Act, and then the Dissenters must look about them. Synods were to be proscribed; but if laymen and Dissenting ministers could meet, why should Roman Catholic bishops be interdicted? Step by step we should be led by this measure to the destruction, he feared, not only of religious, but of civil liberty. We were in this dilemma-that if the measure were cut down, it would be contemptible; if made effectual, we must embark in a course of legislation that would conduct us to a penal code, with all its horrors; impotence would be disgraceful, and vigour would be pregnant with danger a danger, as regarded Ireland, of civil war.

Lord J. Russell defended the general principle of the Bill. He reviewed the recent examples of Papal encroachment on the Continent, observing that the friends of liberty, whether in Germany or Italy, or elsewhere in Europe, must now be looking to this country, and if, after Protestant feeling had been so strongly manifested there, a Bill was brought before this House to restrain the aggression of Rome and assert the supremacy of the Crown, and that Bill were rejected without any clear or definite substitute, they would think that, in addition to its other triumphs, the Court of Rome had achieved its greatest conquest,

over the minds of the House of Commons. Lord John then proceeded to show the difficulty of defining what was spiritual jurisdiction, remarking that we could not trust to the decision of the See of Rome as to the division between spiritual and temporal matters; and, referring to the substitution by the Papal rescript of new sees for the ancient sees of England, he insisted that this was not a spiritual, but a temporal act-an assumption of power over the realm of England, at variance with the rights of the Crown and with the independence of the nation. Then, how was this aggression to be met? The expedients hinted at by Sir J. Graham might be wholly ineffectual; the precedent of Lalor had been misapprehended by him; Lalor had been prosecuted, not for anything done immediately against the temporal power of the Crown, but for using episcopal jurisdiction; and if Cardinal Wiseman had been proceeded against as Lalor, it would have raised a storm in the country. If Lord Stanley, as the head of the Ministry, had proposed resolutions, Lord J. Russell might, out of respect to the Government, have supported them; but in the absence of any other definite proposal, and though the present Bill might not be the best possible course, he claimed the support of the House. Lord J. Russell referred to his own letter to the Bishop of Durham; and, while adhering to everything he there said, pointed out that its promises were "sufficiently guarded:" the letter merely said that the "propriety of taking any proceedings should be deliberately considered." But it would be far better to fall somewhat short of what the occasion might seem to justify, than to exceed

in any degree the absolute necessity of the case. He again said, he would not conceal that this Bill might not meet every danger we might have to encounter: if the spirit lately shown be not checkedif further aggressions should take place if it should be attempted to deprive the people of Ireland of the benefits of mixed education

or if those who served the Crown were to be menaced with the withdrawal of religious consolations— then other measures might be necessary; for, while remaining a friend to religious liberty, Lord John Russell would never confound that cause with the cause of Papal encroachment.

Mr. Walpole, in a long argumentative speech, advised Lord J. Russell to reconstruct the preamble of the Bill, so as to make it distinct in constitutional principles and declaration of law; and when the Bill should be carried, to allow it to be carried into effect. Then, with truth, honour, and justice on her side, the Queen might challenge the loyal support and attachment of her subjects.

Mr. Roebuck warmly opposed the Bill, and commented on the late condition and present prospects of the Ministry. What was the relative position of the two great powers in this country? On the one hand we had a great people, the foremost in the world, hardly equalled, certainly not surpassed, by any nation upon earth. We had a Sovereign whom all hearts obeyed, in whose presence we were proud to be men, and for whom we were all ready to die. Now, that was one side of the question; and, in addition, did it not prove what was the real Protestant feeling of the country? Then, as to the other side, he would take the