what had been done could be done legally, and all had
been planned and published years ago. Alter they had
been thus lured on, was it wise or worthy of the noble
lord, so long the advocate of civil and religious liberty,
to aid a cry which had its source in some of the vilest
passions, and lend the sanction of his great name to the
old puritanical bigotry of England?—Sir R. INGLIS
replied to Mr. Roebuck, insisting that no country in
Europe would have submitted to such an act as that by
which the Pope had usurped the prerogative of the
Sovereign, and treated the people as a nation of heretics.
Resistance to such aggression was not new in our history,
though he admitted too large concessions had been made
by the present ministers in Ireland and the colonies. He
appealed to the extraordinary unanimity of the nation
upon this subject, and trusted that the government
would not be deterred from acting up to the spirit of Lord
John Russell's letter to the Bishop of Durham.—Mr. J.
O'CONNELL, vindicated the act of the Pope in
substituting a regular hierarchy for vicars apostolic, which,
though not sanctioned by, was known to, the government
of this country.—Mr. ANSTEY, as a Catholic, not of
the Court, but of the Church of Rome, was not ashamed
to call the act of the Pope an aggression. It was an
aggression upon the Roman Catholic laity, who had
struggled against subjection to the undue power of their
prelates.—The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY would
oppose any attack on the liberty of the Roman Catholic
Church, from whatever quarter, but temperately and
constitutionally: if persecution should be imposed, he
trusted that his co-religionists knew how to suffer with
firmness and dignity.—Mr. FAGAN altogether dissented
from the assertion in the Speech that certain ecclesiastical
titles had been conferred by a foreign power: they had
been conferred by the Pope as spiritual head of the
Church, and not as Sovereign of the Roman States.—
Mr. HUME remarked, that a stranger, judging the
House by its talk, would take it for an assembly of
ecclesiastics. He endeavoured to call attention to the
paragraphs of the Speech not ecclesiastical. The settlement
in Denmark by no means gratified him, ending as
it does with the occupation of the free city of Hamburg
by the troops of Austria against the solemn protest of
its rulers and people. His approval of the paragraphs
referring to legal reform was the more lively as he
believes the expenses entailed on the country by the
Court of Chancery to be "more oppressive than the
ordinary taxation." Regretting that the general
prosperity has not reached the whole of the agricultural
class, he thought the present a good opportunity for
giving to that important part of the community their
constitutional rights in the choice of Parliamentary
Representatives. The Bible monopoly should be
abolished. The Queen should disband her useless
and unnecessary armies, and, like Queen Elizabeth,
rely on her subjects as her guards.—Colonel SlBTHORP
hoped to God that some hail-storm or some visitation
of lightning might descend to defeat the ill-advised
project in Hyde Park. When the foreigners come, he
warned the people of this metropolis to "beware of
thieves, pickpockets, and whoremongers—take care of
your wives and daughters, take care of your lives and
property."—Mr. BANKES, on the part of the agricultural
interest, thought it his duty to make some remarks upon
that part of the Speech which referred to the condition
of that interest, whose "difficulties," it was said, would
be diminished by the "prosperity of other classes."
He contended that if the producers of the food of our
labouring classes were foreigners, it was a fallacy to
suppose that increased consumption could benefit
British farmers, who were desponding and alarmed.
Agriculture must have relief, and the only shape in
which it could he afforded was by a fixed duty on
foreign corn.—Lord J. RUSSELL justified the course
pursued by the government in respect to foreign affairs,
and in allusion to the suggestions of Mr. Bankes,
observed, that, although a temporary fixed duty upon
foreign corn, adopted in 1840 or 1841, might have
prepared the agricultural interest for an inevitable
change, he did not believe it could have been
maintained as the foundation of a permanent system.

On the subject of the Papal Aggression, Lord John
reproached Mr. Roebuck for the low motives he
sometimes imputed to public men, and avowed that he
had written the letter to the Bishop of Durham
because he entertained the sentiments he then
expressed, and could not refrain from giving publicity
to them. He enumerated the concessions made to
the Roman Catholics, the liberality, and even favour,
with which they had been treated by the present
government. In this state of things, the Roman
Catholics having no reason to complain, the court of
Rome suddenly thought proper to divide the whole
country into dioceses, creating an archbishop of
Westminster, of all places, and proclaiming to the people
that English counties were to be "governed" by
Roman Catholic prelates. With respect to the measure
necessary to check this proceeding, his opinion was
that the authority of Parliament would be sufficient,
and it was not his intention to go beyond the occasion
in the measure he should propose, which would
embrace the whole of the United Kingdom.—Mr.
DISRAELI said, that as it was vain to expect any
measure to be proposed by government for the relief of
the agricultural distress, he himself should do so on
Tuesday next; "and (said he) if I do not succeed in
producing a proposition for applying a remedy to this
evil—a remedy entitled to the sanction of Parliament,
and the confidence of the country—I now undertake never
again to bring forward any motion connected with this
great subject." With respect to the Papal aggression,
he took Lord John Russell's letter to be the
manifesto of a cabinet, and he believed that when that letter
was written, much more was contemplated than the
mere preventing the assumption by Cardinal Wiseman
of a territorial title. That the aggression was "insidious,"
he did not agree with; on the contrary, the Pope had
only frankly done what the noble lord had said there
was no harm in doing, and what had long ago been
done in Ireland with the noble lord's full consent.
Unless, then, the premier was prepared to attempt the
solution of the great problem of the reconciliation of the
claims to allegiance of the English throne with the
demands of obedience made from the papal chair, unless
he was prepared to undertake this great task, he would
have done much better in leaving the whole matter
alone. The Address was then agreed to.

On Wednesday the 5th, Lord J. RUSSELL moved a
resolution expressive of the appreciation of the house of
the long services, extending over a space of forty-nine
years, of The late Mr. Ley, the clerk of the house.—
Mr. HUME, while agreeing cordially with the resolution,
expressed his opinion that the vacancy had been most
improperly filled up, by the appointment of a gentleman
utterly inexperienced in and utterly ignorant of the
practices and customs of the House of Commons.—Lord
J. RUSSELL defended the appointment, stating that, in
his conscientious opinion, the selection of Sir Denis Le
Marchant was an excellent one. As for want of
experience, a Speaker, a far more important official, could
necessarily have no experience when first appointed to
the chair.

Mr. BROTHERTON proposed a regulation, instructing
the Speaker to Adjourn the House punctually every
night at twelve o'clock, no matter what business may
be under discussion. He attributed the recent great
mortality of members to late hours, and urged the adoption
of his plan for the present session as a trial.—Sir
G. GREY opposed the motion, which was negatived by
108 to 32.

Lord D. STUART inquired whether, among the
negotiations entered into with foreign powers, any attempt
had been made to rescue Kossuth and his Fellow-
Captives from the prison in which they were kept by
the Turks, not willingly, but under terror of the
menaces of Russia.—Lord PALMERSTON was sorry to
say that the communications which had been
interchanged with Constantinople for the release of Kossuth
from Kutayah, had not been attended with any
successful result.

On Thursday the 6th, Lord John RUSSELL, in answer
to a question from Mr. Ward, said it was his intention
to carry out the resolution of last session respecting the
Oath of Abjuration, with a view to the relief of a certain
class of her Majesty's subjects. He then moved the
following resolution:—"That the house will not proceed