ashamed to say that he had seen reformers hiding like
political rats in holes and corners, in order to avoid
making a house.—Sir G. GREY thought it manifest that
the subject of parliamentary reform was not very attractive
to the members of that house, otherwise more than
twenty-one would have been found, attending when the
subject was to come under discussion.

Mr. LACY moved the second reading of The Religious
Houses Bill. It was opposed by Sir George Grey
who contended that the bill would be powerless to
frustrate the exercise of spiritual control in such houses,
whilst the hon. member had stated no instance of physical
control which could establish a case for interference.
It might be necessary to do something for the protection
of the property of the inmates, in order to guard against
its being disposed of under undue influence, as well as
to take some power of supervision. But the bill of the
hon. gentleman would be wholly inoperative for these
objects. It was a bill to prevent the forcible detention
of females in religious houses, an evil of the existence of
which there was no proof, and which, for aught the
house knew, might be wholly imaginary.—After a debate,
in which the principal supporters of the bill were
Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. Freshfield, and
its opponents were Lord Ashley, the Earl of Arundel
and Surrey, Mr. Keogh, the Solicitor General, Mr.
Sergeant Murphy, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, the bill
was thrown out by a majority of 123 to 91.

On Thursday, the l5th, the adjourned debate on the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was resumed, after the reception
of a great number of hostile petitions, by Mr. SCULLY,
who opposed the bill because it was not founded upon
facts, and because, if it passed, it would endanger the
morals and disturb the social condition of Ireland. He
gave a representation, very different from that of the
supporters of the bill, of the manner in which the Papal
authority, in the matter of the hierarchy, was treated
by other states; he denied that the act of the Pope was
aimed at civil or constitutional liberty, or that it interfered
with the Protestant church; he dwelt upon the
disorders which the bill would produce amongst the
Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, and he denounced
the policy of the measure as repugnant to the liberal
principles of the age. There was no necessity for the
measure, and the attempt to enforce it in Ireland would
raise a storm that must provoke other measures of
persecution.—Mr. Wegg-Prosser, Mr. Trelawney, and
Mr. Howard, opposed the bill.—The LORD-ADVOCATE
said, as this question had produced considerable interest
in Scotland, and as the people in that country, though
they had not made a strong demonstration, looked with
great anxiety at the result of these deliberations, he
desired to reflect to their opinion and express his own.
The brand of discord had not been flung by the
government of this country.—a party which had fought the
great battle of toleration; the Papal rescript altered
the footing upon which the Roman Catholic Church had
stood in this country for centuries, and that was the
initiative. The rescript was a sufficient cause of some
measure, because it was not so much an encroachment
upon the Queen's supremacy (though there was enough
of that to justify and even compel legislation), but it
was the assertion of a spiritual dominion and supremacy,
not only over Roman Catholics, but over the people of
this country. The temporal supremacy of Rome was
based on her spiritual supremacy over the community.
The bill did not trench in the slightest degree upon the
principle of toleration. There had been a public assertion
of an absolute right on the part of the Pope to exercise
spiritual jurisdiction in this land—a tentative step which
could not be overlooked without giving encouragement
in a quarter where a little encouragement was dangerous.
This bill would not interfere with the proper exercise
of the episcopal functions of Roman Catholic prelates.
—Mr. Reynolds opposed the bill.—Mr. WHITESIDE,
in a maiden speech, defended the bill, in which the
Protestants of his country, he said, took a deep interest.
The relations of this country and Ireland towards the
Pope were at this moment of a peculiar and almost
unprecedented nature. He had reminded the English
people of the happy days they had enjoyed when James
was upon the throne, and he had announced his
determination to reunite England to the Romish church.
Describing the recent proceedings of the court of Rome
towards Ireland, especially with reference to the
colleges,—every step of which, he observed, required
the attention of the house,—Mr. Whiteside accused the
Pope of doing an unexampled act in the appointment of
Archbishop Cullen, in order to acquire a domination
over the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and to govern
them according to his will, and that of the Propaganda.
He then adverted to the next step, the assembling of
the synod of Thurles—an extraordinary transaction, he
said, and illegal throughout, for it was convened under
the edict of the Pope, with the view of putting in
circulation the Papal rescripts. In connexion with these
proceedings, he charged Lord Clarendon with not
upholding and enforcing the law, thereby offering
encouragement to Papal encroachment; and he
concluded with an animated reply to the speeches of Mr.
Bright and Mr. Keogh.—Mr. LAWLESS moved the
adjournment of the debate-—a motion which was
supported by Mr. Moore.—Lord J. RUSSELL objected
to the further adjournment of the debate, which was
negatived, upon a division, by 359 against 46.—Mr. R.
M. Fox then moved the adjournment of the house,
whereupon Lord J. Russell consented to the debate
being adjourned until next day.

On Friday, the 16th, the debate was renewed, after a
division on the question of the Speaker leaving the
chair, which was carried by 116 to 35. The house having
gone into committee, Mr. Keogh moved that the usual
course of postponing the preamble should be departed
from, and that it should be considered before the clauses.
—Mr. DISRAELI alluded to the statement made by the
prime minister on a former evening, that the measures
of the papal see formed part of a conspiracy against the
liberties of Europe and the liberal influence of England,
and that the government bill was a political measure
directed against a political influence. If so, and he
doubted not that the noble lord had well weighed the
purport of his statement, the bill itself did not allude to
the grievance it proposed to remedy. The first thing to
have done would naturally have been to remove the
arch-conspirator himself, but nothing of the kind was
hinted at. The house might have laid down a principle
adequate to deal with this question, by declaring the
assumption of any title, civil or ecclesiastical, granted by
a foreign prince, illegal. This would have shown the
country that they were determined to baffle the
conspirators; but ministers had called upon them to legislate
without the slightest reference to the circumstances
which called for legislation, and the measure proposed
assumed the unhappy semblance of petty religious
persecution. There were two classes of amendments; first,
those which connected the measure with the circumstances
which occasioned it, applying a political remedy
to a political evil; and second, those which, in his view,
would only aggravate the dangers and inconveniences of
the petty legislation proposed. Under no circumstances
would he consent to apply legislation on this subject to
England which did not apply to Ireland. He should
support those amendments which he considered effectual
for the purpose of making the bill really a retaliatory act,
but not those which would leave the bill in a really
inefficient state.—Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the
house should now go into committee pro formá, for the
purpose of amending the bill as he had explained on a
former occasion, and also of inserting as a clause the
words proposed to be added to the preamble by the
member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). The bill would
then be brought into the form determined on by government,
and reprinted, so that the house might proceed
with its consideration on Monday. He made this proposal
on the understanding that no opposition should be
offered on Monday to the Speaker leaving the chair.—
Mr. Walpole approved of the course proposed, reserving
to himself the right of moving the other amendments
of which he had given notice.—Mr. KEOGH also acceded,
announcing that he should renew his motion on Monday
—The bill then passed through committee pro formá,
to be recommitted on Monday.

On Monday, May 19, the House went into committee
on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. The question that
the bill be read a first time having been put, Mr.
Reynolds moved that the chairman should report