subject. Two nights of debate served them to discuss the principle of the measure, on the second reading, but the reputation of the House was well sustained on that occasion by several lucid and impressive speeches. The Marquis of Lansdowne, commencing the discussion on the 21st of July, recapitulated the well-known circumstances which had led to the introduction of the Bill into the other House, observing that the Bill being very short and simple it was not necessary for him to enter at large upon the general character of its enactments, or the ground on which its preamble had been framed. Nothing could be further from his intention than to enter into any doctrinal discussions, or to recommend any proceedings calculated to interfere with the perfect religious freedom justly belonging to every British subject; on the contrary, the Bill had no other object than to assert and enforce the hitherto undisputed right of the Crown to prohibit the use of titles conferred by foreign potentates, and to resist the slightest approach to the exercise of territorial jurisdiction. Having referred to Lalor's case, to the Roman Catholic Relief Act, as well as to many of the arguments already put forth in the Lower House by the supporters of the measure, he declared that in urging those considerations he was influenced by no fear that the Protestant religion in this country had been endangered, yet it was not the less necessary to announce what were the prerogatives of the Crown in this matter, and to recognise the necessity of their full maintenance.

The Earl of Aberdeen, in referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, expressed

his conviction that it became law against the wishes of a numerical majority of the people of this country, and thought the strong and unanimous sentiment on which the promoters of the present Bill justified its introduction might be regarded with rejoicing, as a noble manifestation of Protestant spirit; yet he contended-fortifying his opinions with some historical instances-that the demands of a mere numerical majority were not sufficient to justify any direct or violent interference with religious freedom. In the measure now under consideration he feared that the Government attempted to accomplish objects beyond their control. Did they intend to deny to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects the advantage of bishops regularly consecrated? If so, it amounted to a refusal of toleration. To perfect toleration he held that the Roman Catholics were fully entitled, though he demanded for them no greater privileges than were enjoyed by every class of Dissenters throughout this realm. Upon the history of the Bill he thought it right to make a few observations, it appearing to him most extraordinary and mysterious that the Ministers should have introduced a measure containing some strong provisions, should then submit to have those enactments struck out, and subsequently should allow them to be restored with additions of still greater stringency. In passing from that line of argument he quoted several authorities to show that the change recently introduced amongst the Roman Catholics of England had long been desired. by them, and appeared in their judgment to be necessary to the government of their Church. As to the late proceedings of the

Roman Catholic prelates in this country being a violation of the existing laws, he denied that position altogether, and argued that the appointment of vicars-apostolic was fully as illegal as that of bishops, if either could be so considered. The Bill was a measure which he regarded with alarm, seeing that its enactments would invalidate every act done by Roman Catholic bishops in this country; and though it might be carried, he attached very little weight to the arguments by which it was supported, and nothing in his opinion could have less justification than the appeal made to the loyalty of Englishmen, under a pretence that by the proceedings of Rome the integrity of the British Crown was assailed. In going through the details of the measure he pointed attention to the clause relating to the Protestant bishops in Scotland, saying that the footing on which they were established was exactly that on which he desired to see the Roman Catholic prelates placed. With reference to the complaints made against the arrogance of the Pope, they amounted to a complaint against his existence, but there evidently was no intention on the part of the Pope to offer the least offence to the Crown of England. Although those considerations, as objections to the measure, well deserved attention, yet he had always opposed, and should continue to do so, any attempt to introduce a Popish Nuncio into England. There were many persons who had just reason to complain of the Bill, but none had greater cause than the Pope; for the declarations of Lord John Russell and other Ministers laid a trap from which he could scarcely be expected to escape. If the Bill

continued to be anything but a dead letter, there never again would be peace in Ireland; and on such grounds he concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Lord Beaumont pointed out to the House that all those acts of Rome bearing the names of bulls and rescripts were deemed by Roman authorities to be of a spiritual nature, but he denied that they all ought to be so considered, and he doubted whether the language in which they were couched could be endured by any independent community, for he regarded such language in many cases as nothing less than an infraction of the law of nations. In reply to the statement that the Pope had sacrificed some portion of his authority in substituting a regular hierarchy for vicars-apostolic, he showed from the appointment of the Most Rev. Dr. Cullen that the Pope had assumed an arbitrary power in Ireland, which he was prepared also to exercise in England, by the absolute appointment of all the Roman Catholic prelates. These recent proceedings of the Court of Rome were evidently intended for the purpose of drawing over to ultramontane opinions all the educated and free-minded Roman Catholics who in this country had declared their adhesion to liberal institutions. The further purpose of those proceedings he fully believed was to influence popular education, and, amongst other things, to destroy the greatest boon ever conferred on Ireland, the Queen's Colleges. Finally, his cordial support should be given to the Bill, regarding it as a great national protest, which the necessity of the case had rendered unavoidable.

The Duke of Wellington had

always endeavoured to support the provisions of the great measure of 1829, but, when the recent proceedings of the Court of Rome were brought under his notice, he felt at once that they could not be passed over without legislation. The Pope had appointed an Archbishop of Westminster, had attempted to exercise authority over the very spot in which the English Parliament was assembled,-and under the sanction of this proceeding Cardinal Wiseman made an attack upon the rights of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. That

this was contrary to the true spirit of the laws of England no man acquainted with them could doubt, for throughout the whole of our statutes affecting religion we had carefully abstained from disturbing the great principles of the Reformation. If in their legislation upon this subject they did what was necessary for protecting the religious liberties of the people, and no more, they might rely upon the cordial support of England and of the better portion of Ireland. He should therefore give his vote without hesitation in favour of the motion that the Bill be then read a second time.

The Earl of Malmesbury supported the Bill, but nothing would induce him to do so if he thought it could be fairly considered as an interference with the religious free dom of any Roman Catholic.

Viscount Canning feared that the Bill might jeopardize the great principle of religious freedom; and when they founded legislation of that character upon a belief that the Pope had been guilty, as regarded this country, of an act of usurpation, the proof which they offered ought to be of the most perfect kind; but whatever doubt

might exist as to the question of usurpation, he was ready to admit that an insult had been offered, not to the Crown or the people of England, but to the Church.

The Duke of Argyll reminded the House that they had two documents to deal with the rescript of the Pope, and the pastoral of Cardinal Wiseman; and if the party to which Lord Aberdeen belonged were in office, they could not, consistently with their avowed principles, do otherwise than direct their legislation against the pastoral, for they argued strenuously that the rescript was expressed in the terms always used upon such occasions. In reply to the argument against the Bill founded on the necessary consequences of toleration, he pressed upon the House the position, that because they tolerated the faith of the Roman Catholic, they were not therefore bound to permit everything that the Court of Rome chose to call the requisite developments of its ecclesiastical system; and with regard to the Charitable Bequests Act, he had always held that there was nothing in that statute which at all precluded them from legislating upon this subject in whatever way the necessity of the case might seem to require; further, he would maintain that Parliament had done nothing to deprive itself of the right and power to control any part of the ecclesiastical system of Rome which in the least degree interfered with the freedom or independence of this country.

The Earl of Airlie briefly supported the Bill.

The Bishop of St. David's said he should vote for the second reading of the Bill; but he would not pretend that he was completely satisfied with it. It was one, and

only one, of several modes which might have been adopted for bringing about a particular end. A diplomatic representation to the Pope to withdraw his rescript might have been tried. He was not very sanguine as to its success; but he regretted that some proceeding of that kind had not been adopted. He did not look to the other side of the Channel for a favourable result as arising from this measure. He saw so much danger to that part of the empire, that he could hardly suppress his regret that a rigid exactness of theory, so far as Ireland was concerned, had not given way to practical expediency. The measure before their Lordships might answer the purpose of a strong remonstrance, and it might dispose the minds of the parties to come to some reasonable compromise on the subject. Meanwhile, it secured the inestimable advantage of keeping inviolate and unimpaired that deposit of the law, the rights and privileges of the Crown and the empire, which had been bequeathed to us by our ancestors and committed to our charge.

The Earl of Winchilsea, regarding the question from a high Protestant point of view, characterized the Bill as a paltry Bill, below contempt, which endeavoured to vindicate in pounds, shillings, and pence the wounded honour of our illustrious Queen. He would vote neither for it nor against it.

Lord Lyndhurst observed that the House had not given much attention to the details of the Bill. He therefore reviewed it at considerable length, with the view of showing that the earlier or declaratory part of it was grounded on

the notorious law of this realm, and that the after or enacting part was expedient and just. Recapitulating in a condensed form the events of the aggression, he concluded, on all the grounds of principle and precedent, of public and national law and policy, that the act of the Pope was a violation of the independence of this country and our Sovereign, and therefore illegal and void. He did not found that opinion on Lalor's case, for that case he did not like: under it, indeed, vicars-apostolic would be equally illegal with territorial bishops. He briefly stated his approval of those portions of the Bill which had not been introduced by the Government, but had been forced upon it, especially the informer's clause, which would stimulate a slumbering Attorney-General. Having completed his legal review, he went on to a justification of himself, as a member of the Administration which passed the Relief Act, for his support of this Bill. His object in passing the Relief Act was the extension of toleration. Did he say toleration? He meant a full participation of all the rights and privileges of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. But such toleration would never satisfy the Roman Catholic Church. The late Pope, in a letter to the Bishops of Belgium, declared "liberty of conscience" to be an "absurd and erroneous maxim—a wild notion," which he "rejected with disdain." Their principles were immutable. Now, as much as 300 years ago, their aim was "domination hesitating when it was politic, blinking when it was necessary, advancing when they might with safety. The provisions of the Relief Act had been totally disregarded in Ire

land; titles had been assumed, the Jesuits recalled, and twenty monasteries of men established. The national election of a Roman Catholic Primate had been overruled by the Pope; a Synod established; and the Queen's Colleges, when they could not be sapped and perverted, had been condemned. Such were the evidences of the unchanging designs of that Church. Here, then, Lord Lyndhurst said, he would make his stand. In adhering to the principle of the Bill, he acted on the maxim principiis obsta, for while retracting nothing which he had conceded to toleration, not one step would he yield to ascendancy or domination.

The Duke of Newcastle expressed his deep regret at hearing a member of the Administration which had passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act ground his support of this Bill on the arguments urged by Lord Lyndhurst. The noble Duke combated the position that the Pope's act was an invasion of the Queen's supremacy. The Queen could not appoint Romish bishops, and her prerogative could not be infringed by the assumption of titles which were not the creatures of law. The clause exempting the Scotch bishops showed that the office was spiritual.

Much had been said about protecting Roman Catholics from the Pope it was not the function of Parliament to interfere on behalf of parties who voluntarily submitted themselves to a spiritual power. If Parliament so interfered, there was an end to all religious freedom. The spread of ultramontane opinions was indisputable, not merely here, where they were comparatively harmless, but abroad, where they

were more dangerous. But against which party was this Bill directed? Practically it would militate against the English party. Of course he offered no apology for the want of common civility which characterized the proceeding of the Pope; but under all the circumstances of the case-remembering especially that the Court of Rome might very naturally have reckoned on the consent of our Governmenthe did not think that the omission to communicate to our Government their intentions should be visited with such legislation as this. It was convenient to call it a protest, but who ever heard of a protest which inflicted heavy penalties? An eminent lawyer and an attached member of the Church assured him that the measure, if carried out, would render invalid the appointment of the Irish bishops and the ordinations of priests, and would unloose the marriages which the priests had performed. Nor would the preamble deal with Roman Catholics alone; if it revived the old laws under which Lalor was prosecuted, the Dissenters of this country, and that most respectable body the Wesleyans, might tremble at the force and effect of this provision.

Referring to the demonstrative argument of the Earl of Aberdeen, that there was nothing in the Act of 1848 to prevent our sending a Minister to Rome, though we received no Nuncio thence, he regretted that the language of the original rescript had not been subsequently modified. But the language of Dr. Wiseman was wholly without excuse. He thought it would have been sufficient, as the case stood, if the two Houses had agreed to a joint address to the