should so be scattered among foreigners always
dinning into their ears a comparison of the treatment
of their religion in England and abroad.—Mr. REYNOLDS
seconded the amendment. He compared the past
unpopularity of Lord Stanley in Ireland with the
present immensely greater unpopularity of Lord John
Russell; declared that he voted for the late motion of
Mr. Disraeli to record his want of confidence in the
Ministry, and was prepared to repeat the vote again
and again,—though he regarded the motion as a thing
having no merits at all, and in fact as perfectly absurd.
He announced to ministers that he is "in the market,"
and, "with a few others," to be bought at the price of
the "total withdrawal of this measure," and the
introduction of measures favourable to the physical interests
of starving Irishmen.—Mr. M'CULLAGH added a long
list of instances to those already made public in which
important ecclesiastical as well as lay functionaries, in
official documents, have used the territorial titles of the
Roman Catholic Bishops, in reference to the incumbents
of those sees. He also read a case submitted to Mr.
Bethell, of the English Chancery bar, Mr. Bramwell,
at the English Common-law bar, and Mr. Surrage, the
learned English conveyancing barrister, declaring
unhesitatingly that the "first section of the bill involves
the second and third sections," and has all the effects
which are supposed to be avoided by omitting the third
and fourth sections.—Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER opposed
the bill at great length, upon the principle that it is in
a political and religious sense uncalled for by the
emergency: he declared himself much more alive to the
dangers which false and erroneous legislation of this
description threatens to the great principles of civil and
religious liberty, than to any idea which he is able to
grasp of possible political danger: and with respect to
the Church of England he did not fear—she had every
advantage in the contest, and the contest would only
add to her strength.—Sir R. INGLIS expressed his
dissatisfaction with government, who ought either to have
met the Pope's act by proclamation, to have summoned
parliament to legislate upon the subject, or to have
signified to the Pope, through existing channels of their
own creation, the opinion of the English people on his
act. He accused Lord John Russell of having lost the
quality of courage which Sydney Smith had assigned
to him, and, as regarded this agitation, had "been
scared at the sound himself had made." The bill was
very inadequate to the occasion, and unworthy of the
Durham letter; and if Lord John Russell feared that
parliament would not enable him to pass a better one,
he should have advised a dissolution on the question.
After dilating at great length upon the aggressions of
Rome in various parts of the empire, and stating his
apprehensions of a continued policy of assault on its part,
he concluded by calling on the house to maintain Protestant
associations. He would support the bill in default
of something better.—Sir Robert PEEL (who spoke
for the first time) declared himself an advocate for
perfect toleration, and said he was prepared to
resist all interference with the merely spiritual
doctrine or discipline of the Roman Catholic church.
But he proceeded to say that, believing the government
bill to be calculated to control abuses, he
should support it, regretting at the same time that the
recently-announced modifications had been introduced
into it. He expressed his sorrow at being unable to
agree upon this subject with one to whom he looked up
with respect and reverence, and with whom he was
on most subjects happy to concur; but he supported
this bill upon the very ground that he was a friend of
civil and religious liberty. He then alluded to the
aggrandisement of Cardinal Wiseman, as the self-sought
tribute to the vanity of an individual; and reminded
the house that the cardinal's hat had often been
conferred on most unworthy individuals. After a brief
glance at several of the most prominent cardinals of bad
historical  character, he described Pio Nono as
endeavouring to tread in the steps of Gregory VII. Next
he referred to the various causes of complaint which
the sovereigns of England, from King John downward,
had had against the Popes, arguing that the policy of
Rome had ever been and ever would be the same. He
ventured to doubt that the Roman Catholics would be
induced to give the loyal obedience to this bill anticipated
by Sir George Grey, but at the same time he regretted
that Ireland was included in the measure, as it was, he
said, futile to seek to struggle against convictions which
the Irish Catholics believed to be religious ones. He
next adverted to the dangerous character of Jesuitism,
and said that he had been a passive observer of its
agency in a small country where he had been
diplomatically placed by Lord Palmerston, under strict
orders to maintain a rigid and impartial observance,
which the sights he saw around him made it very
difficult for him to observe. Describing the struggle
among the Swiss Cantons as having been stirred up by
the mischievous agency of Rome, he cautioned the
house to beware of dangers from that quarter, though
proceeding from what seemed slight causes, and he
dwelt upon Romish arrogance, hypocrisy, and indifference
to the consequences, so that the end of Rome was
served. Believing that the recent act of the Pope,
though apparently insignificant, was the first step of a
great system of attack, he entreated Lord John Russell
to watch vigilantly over the interests of the nation, and
implored the House by timely legislation to avert the
dangers which threatened the state. The other
speakers were Mr. Page Wood, in opposition to
arguments used by Mr. Roundell Palmer against the bill;
and Sir Benjamin Hall against the Papal aggression,
but blaming ministers for the way they had met it.
The debate was adjourned.

On Monday, March 17, Lord J. RUSSELL asked Mr.
Baillie whether he had made any arrangement with
other members in order to the bringing on his motion
respecting the Affairs of Ceylon on the 25th inst.—Mr.
BAILLIE complained that Lord J. Russell had distorted
this motion into one of censure, and had thereby placed
him in the invidious position of one who was impeding
the discharge of public business. Lord J. Russell had
also prevented this motion from being judged on its
merits by its being made a question of want of
confidence in the ministry. It had been a question of two
years' standing, and one which Lord J. Russell must
constantly have expected. As he was not inclined to
be made an instrument for enabling Lord J. Russell to
escape from his public duties, he should remove his
motion from the book, reserving his right to renew it
hereafter.—Lord J. RUSSELL said that Mr. Baillie had
originally described his motion as one of censure. It
was a charge of wanton cruelty against Lord Torrington,
and of unqualified approval of that cruelty by the
Colonial Secretary. He never knew a case in which,
such a charge having been made, the accuser had
refrained from bringing it on as early as possible. This
proceeding presented a contrast to recent political
incidents, during which all parties had behaved to one
another with great fairness.—After a somewhat sharp
conversation, in which Mr. Disraeli supported Mr. Baillie,
and Sir G. Grey and Sir B. Hall defended the conduct
of government, the subject dropped.

The adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill was resumed by Mr. MOORE, who denied the
necessity of any legislative interference in the
matter.—Mr. WIGRAM contended the interference
was necessary, and that the Papal bull was a
direct infringement of the Emancipation Act.—Mr.
SEYMOUR, in a maiden speech, expressed his opinion
that it was a violation of civil and religious liberty to
interfere with the appointment of Roman Catholic
bishops; but he believed that enactments might be
made to restrain the number and look into the conduct
of monastic establishments.—Mr. GOULBURN said that,
though he supported the bill, he did not approve the
proceedings of the government with reference to this
aggression; he thought more moderation at the beginning
would have led to a calmer discussion of the
subject, and he could not but fear that the discrepancy
between this measure and the expectations which had
been raised would have a prejudicial effect.—The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the opponents of the bill,
who had argued upon the fallacy that because the end
was good the means were justifiable, had omitted one
most important element. They argued that, because
an organised hierarchy was essential to the development
of the Roman Catholic church, it followed that the