Queen. In that way the sanction of the three branches of the Legislature would have been given to the determined protest previously made by the country at large.

The Marquis of Clanricarde observed that the Government was not responsible for the amendments. In past times, the honour of the Crown had been vindicated by the Roman Catholics of this country, when their privileges were less; now when liberty had increased, and in spite of efforts to prevent it education had spread, the Pope would not be able to enforce rescripts giving unlawful titles in derogation of the rights of the Crown of England.

Lord Monteagle characterized the Bill as a complication of blunders and injustice. The Pope's conduct was unjustifiable; but what could be more arrant quackery than to offer this Bill as a vindication? or what more unjust than to answer the act of the Pope with a penal measure upon our own fellow-subjects?

The Lord Chancellor admitted, and was ready to accept, the responsibility of Government for the Bill. He held that Lord John Russell's spirited letter to the Bishop of Durham had "disabused the public mind:" "but for that letter, Her Majesty's throne would have been shaken." He argued legally, that the Queen was supreme over all courts in this country in relation to ecclesiastical matters. One of the counts in the indictment of O'Connell arraigned him for establishing courts of arbitration; but this rescript established a regular hierarchy in explicit terms, "with all the jurisdiction incident to such a hierarchy." With reference to laws still in force but not put in action, he said he hoped never to

see the day when the law was invariably enforced. The country could not live under such a state of things. A man might be a trespasser on a common every time he crossed it, but would you punish him for every such act? Penal laws were to be executed only when the benefit of the State called for such serious. consequences. Referring to the argument of the Duke of Argyll, that religious liberty did not imply the right of every church to develop itself at its own discretion, he carried it out by saying, if that were so, the Inquisition might be revived in this country. It was said that the Bill would be disregarded: if the Catholic clergy should attempt to raise an agitation, a rebellion, or any outbreak of violence against the law, it would be for Parliament to pass measures to cause it to be respected.

The Earl of St. Germans still demanded the explanation of the Bill which had been required from the legal authorities who supported it. In reply, they had received from the Chancellor a No-Popery speech, better fitted for the meridian of the Mansion House than for the House of Lords. If Lord John Russell's letter was a soothing letter, it might be said that the proposition to trample under foot the Cardinal's hat would be calculated to sooth irritation. Still stronger measures were hinted at if the law should be resisted: what was that but a returning to penal legislation? Lord St. Germans concluded with a most earnest reference to Ireland. "I know something of Ireland. I am sure I

take a great interest in all that relates to the people of that country, and I can unfeignedly declare that I never felt so strongly and

deeply on any political question affecting them as I do upon this. I cannot contemplate the adoption of this Bill without dismay. You may put down rebellion with the sword, but, my Lords, how will you contend with

"The unconquerable will And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield?""

The Earl of Minto gave the latest explanation respecting his mission to Rome.

When there, he had had a conversation with the Pope on the question of resuming diplomatic relations between the two countries. He told the Pope openly, that we should not be willing to receive in this country an ecclesiastic as his representative. The Pope said, he could not undertake to send a Minister who was not an ecclesiastic; but added, that this need not occasion any difficulty in the transaction of business between the two Courts, because we might adopt the course suggested by the noble Earl who had moved the amendment-the course taken by the Governments of Prussia and Russia, and accredit a Minister to him. On that understanding matters stood at that time; but when a clause, supported by the noble Earl (Aberdeen), was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill in their Lordships' House, the Pope said that that circumstance had entirely altered the state of the case, and that after that parliamentary refusal to entertain such a Minister from him as could alone represent him, nothing on earth should induce him to receive a Minister accredited from this country to Rome. Lord Aberdeen had said, that while Lord Minto was at Rome a paragraph appeared in the Roman

Gazette announcing that a subscription was opened to build a church in London, and that among the persons appointed to receive subscriptions was Cardinal Wiseman, Archbishop of Westminster." He (Lord Minto) never saw that paragraph until he entered the House that evening, when a copy of the paper was placed in his hands. On a former occasion he had acknowledged he was aware that an intention existed of creating Cardinal Wiseman Archbishop of Westminster. Every one knew it. (Laughter.) It was spoken of on all hands. At the time that appeared, he understood that something had occurred, and that the elevation of Cardinal Wiseman would not take place. He thought he could perceive in the paragraph evidence that Cardinal Wiseman was not the person referred to. The Cardinal was not named in the paragraph, and he believed that it referred to Dr. Gregory.

Lord Aberdeen.-" What difference does that make? The paragraph speaks of an Archbishop of Westminster.''

6

Lord Minto. It certainly showed an intention to create somebody "Archbishop of Westminster." Of course he was aware of the intention, as he stated before, long before he visited Rome. ("Hear," and laughter.)

Lord Fitzwilliam said, that he did not quite understand the effect of the Bill. He would have preferred a declaration condemning the assumption of titles, and he would not have interfered with the peculiar circumstances of Ireland.

The Earl of Hardwicke observed, that the Bill was not thoroughly supported by any party: he should vote for it reluctantly, to maintain

The Bill, thus sanctioned by the votes of a great majority of the Peers, passed through Committee in a single night. A good deal of questioning and explanation, however, took place at this stage between the opponents and supporters of the measure. Lord Monteagle addressed a string of questions to the Lord Chancellor respecting the operation of the various clauses, but professed himself unsatisfied with the explananations of the learned Lord. Lord Monteagle then moved an amendment, supported by Lord Camoys, to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Bill. Viscount Canning, and the Earls of Wicklow and St. Germans condemned the application of the measure to that country, but could not vote for the amendment, because it drew a distinction between the supremacy of the Crown in the two parts of the United Kingdom.

On a division, Lord Monteagle's proposition was negatived by 82 to 17.

More opposition arose on specific clauses of the Bill, the leading

opponents being the Earl of Aberdeen and the Earl of Ellenborough, supported by other Peers. Lord Aberdeen pointed out, that the word "otherwise" prohibited the appointment of any bishops, and yet they exempted the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Duke of Argyll strongly objected to the provision which enabled any informer to sue for the penalty, and he moved to omit it. The Lord Chancellor ascribed the insertion of that clause to the absence of the Irish Members in the House of Commons. That was no reason, said the Duke of Newcastle, why the Peers should neglect their duty. But in fact, he added, Ministers were afraid to let a word of the Bill be altered, lest the other House should have an opportunity of revising it. The amendment was negatived by 61 to 26.

The first clause was carried by 77 to 26, and the other sections and the preamble without a division.

On the 29th of July Parliament was at length relieved of the measure with which it had so long and painfully travailed, by the Bill being read a third time in the House of Lords. The final stage was not suffered to pass sub silentio. The Earl of Aberdeen repeated some of his general arguments against the policy of legislation on the subject; announcing his intention of recording his protest against it. He argued that this Bill would prove most injurious to the public interests; he anticipated from it greater evil than he could contemplate" without feelings of the deepest horror."

The Bishop of Oxford made a speech of some length to explain the reasons which induced him to

give his assent to the Bill. His main argument in favour of the Bill was, that the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops constituted an aggression in this country; and he supported that conclusion by distinguishing the act of the Bishop of Rome from certain acts of the central Christian authority at Jerusalem in olden times, appointing bishops in certain foreign countries still under heathen control.

--

"England," he said, "is a Christian country, and the new bishops are appointed to supersede the Protestant bishops; so that if there were a revolution in favour of the Roman Catholic faith, - which may God avert, the Bishop of Rome would have swept away all our ancient sees, would have no necessity to try the existing bishops for heresy, but find his work ready done to his hands, with his new bishops in full power. Thus the Bishop of Rome has interfered with our institutions, and particularly with those religious institutions which England has established for the instruction of her people." It was on these grounds that he supported the Bill,-first, because the Bishop of Rome had endeavoured to remove us from the category of Christian people; and, secondly, because he had been assailing the Church of England, by attempting to abolish, and, as far as his rescript went, actually abolishing, its separate bishoprics. Such aggressions he held that, as a nation, we were bound to repel. The Bishop accepted the Bill for that purpose; but avowed he was quite discontented with it. He totally objected to persecution. He objected to a concordat according to the general idea, but regretted that there was no arrange

ment to regulate the admission of Papal bulls: such a regulation would have prevented all this unhappy dissension. He regretted

various amendments that have been lost in the Commons; and, inter alia, the want of a provision for controlling religious houses by a visitation.

The Duke of Argyll defended the Bill against the support of Dr. Wilberforce, and himself against some allusions which the Bishop had made to him. He remarked, that though he was willing to defend the Church of England, this was not the time to be singing Io Peans upon the state of that Church, which was the only Church day by day and week by week giving forth converts to the Church of Rome.

The Bill was supported by Earl Fortescue-who looked for a more stringent measure from Parliament if the provisions of this one should be evaded; by the Earl of Glengall, Lord Redesdale, and Earl Grey-the last mainly in defence of his own consistency. It was opposed by Lord Stuart de Decies; by Earl Nelson-who objected to the aggression, but also to penal legislation; by the Marquis of Sligo; and Lord Gage.

The Bill having been read a third time, Lord Monteagle moved an amendment, providing that the Bill "should not apply to, or in any way affect, any act done by any Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, by virtue of his appointment by the See of Rome, or create any penalty, disability, or offence, by reason of an instrument of appointment, or the assumption or use of an ecclesiastical title conferred or purporting to be conferred by the authority of the See of Rome; provided that the ecclesi

astical name, style, designation, or title assumed, or used by any such Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, in the holy orders of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be the style or title of Roman Catholic Archbishop, Roman Catholic Bishop, or Roman Catholic Dean, as the case may be, officiating or having episcopal functions within the diocese or district in which he is authorized to officiate, in respect to all persons and congregations of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."

The Marquis of Lansdowne opposed the addition, maintaining that it was needless. He would

say at once and without hesitation, that if the Pope had desired to secure, as it was a lawful object for him to secure, the benefit of episcopal administration to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen

if he had informed the Government that such was his intention

and if he had confined himself, both in his brief and in the mandate announcing the brief, to the designations which were contained in the proposed amendment-there would not have been the least objection to his so doing. Lord Lansdowne would go further, and say that even now, although the Pope had not taken that course, there was not one of the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church which, stripped of all connection with the assumption of territorial titles, could not be sufficiently exercised under the Bill as it now stood, without the addition proposed by his noble Friend.

After a short debate the amendment was withdrawn, and so the Bill passed, and shortly afterwards received the royal assent.