upon any Motion for an Address to the Crown to which
opposition is offered, but in a committee of the whole
house, except with respect to matters which have been
previously submitted to a select committee." He pointed
out the incongruity of the existing practice with the
general rules of the house, and the inconveniences
attending it, as exemplified last session in the case of
the Post-office.—Objections to the resolution were
suggested by Mr. Herries, Mr. Goulburn, and other
members, and it was ultimately withdrawn until
Tuesday next.

On Friday the 7th, Lord John RUSSELL moved for
leave to bring in a Bill "to prevent the Assumption of
certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the
United Kingdom." In illustration of the aggressive
spirit of the papal power, he referred to recent acts of
the papacy in Ireland, where an archbishop had been
appointed in an unusual manner, and a synod convoked
by the Pope, to which powers were assigned of a nature
unprecedented for many centuries in any section of the
United Kingdom. From that synod an address had
emanated, not limited to spiritual subjects, but
promulgating very violent opinions respecting education
and the occupancy of property. Passing to the
continent, he adduced, as specimens of the same
tendency, various circumstances that had occurred
in Sardinia and Belgium. Reverting to England,
he explained the scope of the letters missive published
in September last, to be the formal division of the
country into sees, over which a Roman Catholic
archbishop and twelve bishops were appointed. This act had
been done without any leave being asked or intimation
given to the British government; though it was of a
nature which, according to all precedent, and the
invariable courtesy of nations, could never be accomplished
without previous negotiations, and must be viewed as
an intrusion and an insult. Instancing from French
and Austrian history the pretensions of the Roman
spiritual power to interfere with things temporal, and
the resistance that had been offered to those pretensions,
he arrived at the conclusion that, even throughout
Catholic nations, no bull or missive of the Pope was
allowed to take effect for any temporal or secular purpose
without the sanction of the home government. In
Protestant countries the prohibition was more strict; and
in none would such an insult have been permitted as
was attempted to be passed upon the crown of England.
In the letters missive and the addresses of Cardinal
Wiseman, the church and the independence of England
were absolutely ignored, and terms used which, though
they had been exculpated as merely formal, could be
interpreted into nothing but an assumption of territorial
authority, and of a title inconsistent with that of Queen
Victoria. Lord John, in reference to the story
concerning Lord Minto, stated, that certainly the Pope said
at one interview, "pointing to a table in the room,
'There is something there that regards you;' but Lord
Minto did not look at the paper, or make any observation
whatever on the subject."  Neither the Pope nor any
other person said, 'Here is a paper that we would wish you
to take and peruse, and submit it to your government;'
if anything was said at all, it was only, 'That is a project
that concerns you.'" When a private individual of the
Roman Catholic persuasion told Lord John himself that
there was such a project, he said he should "not approve
of it," and said nothing more; and he did not dream of the
possibility of what has happened. "I did not believe,"
said Lord John, "that it could be intended so to insult
the Queen. I may have been like the foolish Italian
shepherd, who said—

       'Urbem, quam dicunt Romam, MelibÅ“e, putavi,
        Stultus ego, huic nostra similem;'—

I may have thought most trustingly and imprudently
that the Court of Rome would observe such relations,
such discretion, such courtesy in her conduct with the
state of England, as all other states that are friendly
observe towards each other, and as she herself has
observed towards every other state in Europe."
Approaching the existing question, Lord J. Russell stated,
that when the contingency first arose, the opinion of
the law advisers of the crown was taken to the effect
that the assumption of the prelatic titles could not be
successfully impeached; and that though the introduction
of the letter apostolic fell under the penalties
enacted by certain statutes, these had lain dormant for
a very long period, rendering the success of any
prosecution very doubtful. Two plans, modelled upon the
practice of other countries, had been proposed for new
acts. One was to enact that no bulls or writings from
Rome of a nature prejudicial to the kingdom should be
allowed to enter it; another, to subject all such writings
to the scrutiny of some civil authority, without whose
sanction they could not obtain currency. After
explaining the inconvenience that might result from the
adoption of either of these plans, Lord John referred to
the principles laid down when the Emancipation Act
was passed, and accepted then by the Roman Catholic
clergy, that no titles should be assumed in the hierarchy
of that church bearing any aspect of rivalry with the
Protestant establishment. This principle it was now
designed to carry out. In order to protect the Catholic
laity from aggression, and to guard against the absorption
of endowments, the measures he designed to introduce
would forbid the assumption by Roman Catholics
of any titles taken from any territory or place within
any part of the United Kingdom, and would contain
clauses rendering void any acts done by any parties
under those titles, and annulling any bequest made to
them, which should at once fall into the power of the
crown to administer according to its discretion. This
measure, he contended, would repel the offered insult,
and secure the independence of the kingdom. In
concluding his speech, Lord John made a pointed
allusion to Dr. Wiseman. "If he has been given
by the Pope a title which belongs to the Government
of Rome to confer, and has been honoured by an
election which has placed him in the band of the
Sacred College, I should think that if he has any
regard for the welfare of this country—if he has
any regard for the peace and stability of the Roman
Catholic community—the best course he can take
will be to renounce the title which he has assumed
in this country, and rather do that which I believe it
was his original intention to do, and which he assured
me it was his original intention to do—namely, reside
at Rome. But if other counsels should prevail, and if
he should be able to instil notions of conquest, of
ambition, or of revenge, into the Court of Rome, we may
then probably, though we can well know the end, look
for a long and arduous struggle."—Mr. ROEBUCK
contrasted the vast premises laid down by Lord J. Russell,
alleging invasion and insult, with the insignificance of
the measure he had founded on them. He controverted
the applicability of the comparisons drawn from Catholic
countries, referring as a better example to the United
States, where the Catholic religion was not acknowledged,
and yet the Pope was not feared. The best
answer to a usurping bishop was, "We know you
not;" the best repellent of insult was ridicule; and
the best safeguard against future danger, to spread
education amongst the people. The measure of the
government he believed not to be inspired by fear of
the papacy, but was a truckling to prejudices out of
doors, and the opinions of members on the opposition
benches.—Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL would support the
measure, as being temperate, though he thought it
would prove inefficient and paltry.—The measure was
opposed by Mr ROCHE, Mr. MOORE, and Mr. BRIGHT.
—Mr. DISRAELI announced his intention of voting for
it, though it would utterly disappoint the country.—
Sir R. INGLIS was more inclined to thank the Prime
Minister for his letter and his speech, than for the
measure, which would prove insufficient. The debate
was adjourned to Monday following.

On Monday, February the 10th, the adjourned debate
on the proposed bill to prevent the Assumption of certain
Ecclesiastical Titles was resumed.—The ATTORNEY-
GENERAL explained the scope and effect of the measure.
The offence which it was intended to meet consisted in
the introduction of a bull, by which certain persons were
authorised by the Pope to assume the titles of bishops
in England, with jurisdictions defined by territorial
limits. The act of the court of Rome was resented by
the country because, first, it was an insult offered to the
British crown; secondly, it was an injury inflicted upon