certain classes of its subjects. With respect to the
insult, he thought it would be sufficiently repelled by
the opinion expressed throughout the country and in
that house, and by words introduced in the bill. The
injury—which affected the Roman Catholic classes of
the community—was of a twofold nature, spiritual and
temporal. With the spiritual effect of the bull the
house had nothing to do; but its effect in temporal
matters would be to give to the bishops having
territorial jurisdiction a power of dealing with religious
endowments made by parties who had not intended that
they should be so administered; and whilst he was not
aware that, in respect to spiritual matters, vicars
apostolic, who were bishops in partibus, had less
authority than territorial bishops, it was important to stop
persons dependent upon the Pope of Rome from
interfering with the rights of British subjects. The bill,
therefore, in the first place, extended the provisions of
the Roman Catholic Relief act, which imposed a penalty
of £100 upon the assumption of the title of any existing
see, to that of any title whatever from any place in the
United Kingdom. But it did not stop there. In order
more effectually to prevent the assumption of territorial
titles, the bill would make every act done by persons
assuming such titles, by virtue of them, absolutely void;
and in addition, in order to hinder parties from making
gifts to persons assuming such titles, the bill would
declare the endowment of such pretended sees illegal,
and the gifts would be forfeited to the crown, to be
disposed of as her Majesty saw fit—a course which was
deemed better than that of declaring such gifts void,
since the crown could distribute them equitably. By
thus preventing persons from assuming territorial titles,
and preventing the existence of the dioceses or sees
themselves, the bill would effectually remedy the mischief
complained of, and it was very desirable that it should
not be extended to cases which might not arise, or which
the existing law was competent to reach, or which,
being of a spiritual character, could not be effectually
dealt with by legislation, and must be left to the good
sense and judgment of the Roman Catholics themselves.
—Lord ASHLEY met the argument that the proceeding
of the Pope is necessary to the development of the
Roman Catholic religion. He granted that the act of
1829 gave full right and privilege to the Roman Catholics
to diffuse, extend, and promote their religion; he
allowed that the Roman Catholics have full power to
convert their vicars apostolic into bishops; he knew
perfectly well the detriment we should receive from the
constitution of such a hierarchy, although it appears to
be in perfect conformity with the concessions made in
1829. But no one has proved that territorial titles are
necessary to the exercise of episcopal functions. They
are worldly and material affairs of high importance, but
the office of a bishop is spiritual altogether. In nothing
was this distinction more clearly shown than in the
very appointment of a Protestant bishop in Jerusalem,
which Dr. Wiseman had quoted on the other side.
Instead of being styled "Bishop of Jerusalem"—which
would be a territorial and therefore an aggressive title
—he was styled in his deed of consecration, "Alexander,
Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland,
resident in Jerusalem." This distinction between
territorial and personal dignity has been observed by
nations in matters of civil sovereign rule, as well as
in these instances of ecclesiastical government. The
revolutions of 1830 in France and Belgium placed on
the throne kings who were specifically entitled "King
of the French" and not "of France," and "King of
the Belgians," not "of Belgium": there was the testimony
of two nations as to the importance of a territorial
title. The territorial office is unrestricted; the personal
one is restricted to those alone who yield it submission;
and this office is sufficient for all the purposes of spiritual
rule. Lord Ashley quoted Mr. Hallam's impartial
historic testimony on the aggressive opposition of the
canon law to the civil laws of every realm; its declarations
that "the laws of kings are not preeminent over
the ecclesiastical law, but are subordinate to them," and
that "oaths disadvantageous to the interests of the
church are not to be considered as oaths, but rather as
perjuries." Lord Ashley concluded with an impressive
warning to those within our own church who, he
believed, had invited this attack, against the further
results of their proceedings, amongst which might be,
he feared, a collision betwixt the clergy and the laity,
which would go very far to purify the church.—Mr. PAGE
WOOD discussed the legal bearings of the subject,
international and domestic. He especially dwelt upon the
distinction between the personal and territorial jurisdiction
marked by Lord Ashley; showed that the word
"diocess" has from the time when Cicero himself used
it (speaking of the diocess of Cilicia) meant a local
district, including every inhabitant in it, and that a
Bishop of Westminster is therefore a widely different
thing from a Bishop in Westminster; he added
illustrations founded on the personal and unterritorial
jurisdiction in Turkey of the consular agents of the
Levant Company; and followed out the English law of
the subject explained by the Attorney-General, by
referring to the principle that it is an indictable offence
to hold even a court-leet, the smallest jurisdiction known
to our law, without a delegation of authority from the
crown or by parliament. In reference to Dr. Wiseman's
implied excuse that every instrument has its proper
form, he stated that the instrument by which Pope
Gregory the Sixteenth enlarged the English vicariates
spoke throughout not of a Roman Catholic Church
in England, but merely of the members of the Roman
Catholic faith in England. He referred with pleasure
to an encyclical letter, in which the four chief Patriarchs
of the East had repudiated with astonished indignation
the insulting aggression of the Bishop of Rome.—
Sir GEORGE GREY, replied to the three charges brought
against the government—namely, giving titles of honour
and respect, such as "your Grace," to Roman Catholic
prelates; addressing these prelates by titles prohibited
by law; and lastly, that a member of the government
had a previous knowledge of the intentions of the court
of Rome. He did not deny the first, and declined
offering an excuse for it. He did deny the second
charge, and declared that the letter of Mr. Disraeli, in
which it was preferred, was full of blunders. He also
corrected an error on the part of Lord St. Germans with
reference to this point, which had crept into the work
of Dr. Twiss. With regard to the last charge—that,
prior to the promulgation of the bull, a direct
communication upon the subject had been made by the
Pope to Lord MINTO—Sir George referred to the
distinct denial of his lordship; and with respect to the
statement of Abbate Hamilton, quoted by Mr. Roebuck,
he admitted that the abbate had written upon the
subject to Lord Minto, who, in return, had
acknowledged that he had received an intimation of an
intention to confer upon Dr. Wiseman archiepiscopal
rank, but repeated that down to the promulgation of
the bull he had been in total ignorance of any design to
establish a hierarchy. In conclusion, he vindicated the
manifestation of public feeling from the imputation of
bigotry: it was a national demonstration against an
attempt to force upon us a foreign domination, which
our ancestors had successfully withstood.—Mr P.
HOWARD moved the adjournment of the debate, which
after some discussion, and an adverse division, was
agreed to.

Mr. ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
repeal of enactments imposing certain Disabilities on
her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, which, upon a
division, was refused by 175 against 35.

On Tuesday, the 10th, Mr. DISRAELI moved his
resolution on Agricultural Distress, in the following
terms:—"That the severe distress which continues to
exist in the United Kingdom among that important
class of her Majesty's subjects the owners and occupiers
of land, and which is justly lamented in her Majesty's
Speech, renders it the duty of her Majesty's Ministers
to introduce without delay such measures as may be
most effectual for the relief thereof." He observed that
the fact, admitted in the speech from the throne, that,
concurrently with the general prosperity of the country,
there was a continued depression of a particular class, well
deserved, not only the consideration of the government,
but the deliberation of Parliament, in order to ascertain
the nature and sources of that particular distress. He
then referred to the anticipations which had been
formed five years ago as to the future prices of