appointment of bishops by the Pope was warranted.
But the question was, had the Roman pontiff, by the
course he had pursued, invaded the prerogative of the
crown, and violated the municipal law of this country
and the public law of Europe? Throughout the whole
Roman Catholic period of our history the parliament
never allowed the Romish see to interfere with the
nomination of bishops. By the law of England, as well
as by the canon law of Europe, it was not competent to
the see of Rome to establish sees without the consent of
the Sovereign. If this was the case in the Roman
Catholic times, under what law had the Pope obtained
the power now? It could not be contended that the
functions of the bishops he had appointed were purely
spiritual, when the whole country was divided into
dioceses, and when towns were by the Papal brief
elevated into cities. Incidental to the status of a bishop
there were rights of a temporal character which our
courts of law would enforce. This was an exercise of
authority, therefore, which could only emanate from
the Sovereign or the legislature. If an organised
hierarchy was necessary for the development of the
Roman Catholic church, and it could only be established
by the Papal see, what prevented its being done in
concert with the government of this country? If
necessary, it should have been obtained by legal and
constitutional means. Dr. Wiseman had said it was
indispensable to the introduction of the canon law and
to synodical action. They had not forgotten the
synod of Thurles, and it was not likely that the synods
that would spring up in this country, over which the
government would have no control, would be more
abstinent in the exercise of their jurisdiction and
authority. Let not parliament refuse to the Roman
Catholics any just claims; let it grant them as a matter
of right, not of favour; but, on the other hand, let
what was done be done through the intervention of the
law and the known forms of the constitution. He did
not agree with Mr. Palmer that he should wait until
the evil became intolerable; he would make a stand in
the first instance upon the law and the constitution.
—Mr. CARDWELL said that the bill was a measure large
enough to irritate, but not to satisfy; not adding any
security to the Protestant church, but leaving in the
vitals of the country a little festering wound. Believing
that of all wars the worst is a little war, and the worst
of little wars a little civil war upon religious matters;
believing that this bill would not vindicate the honour
of the crown, protect the sovereignty of Great Britain,
or repel territorial encroachment; believing that the
only remaining clause would be sure to be evaded, he
refused his concurrence in the second reading of the
bill. The debate was adjourned.

On Tuesday, March 18, the debate was resumed.
Lord Ashley and Mr. Sidney Herbert were the
principal speakers.—Lord ASHLEY said that resistance to
Papal aggression was simply discharging a subject's
duty in coming to the succour of the Queen. He was
not for retrenching a hair's-breadth of the privileges
already accorded to the Catholics, but he had a right to
demand that such privileges should not be used to the
hurt of others. This was no light question, for we were
debating principles involving the future fate of empires.
After replying to some objections which had been made
to the bill, he warned the house and the country against
the artful and deeply-laid schemes of Romanism, which
(as in the case of the bishopric of St. David's) cautiously
committed a violation of the law, and if that were
permitted would afterwards stand upon such violation as a
right. This act of the Pope was a virtual declaration
that the house of Hanover had ceased to reign; and if
the House of Commons would submit to such an aggression,
the Queen and the country would not. He
reminded the house that Dr. Wiseman had, in 1848,
declared that he had taken Thomas à Becket as his
father and model; and that his lordship regarded as a
significant proof of the cardinal's real spirit towards the
English crown. Denying that there was any persecution
in the bill, he said that the only persecution in the case
was by the Pope against the English Catholic laity.
He dwelt at considerable length upon the increasing
power and influence of Rome, and declared that the
British people would never suffer synodical action on
the part of individuals owing allegiance to a foreign
potentate; adding, that the introduction of the canon
law would, from its effect upon the consciences of the
Catholics, alter their position in ordinary transactions,
in courts of law, and in society. He concluded with an
earnest declaration of his determination to resist all
Papal aggression.—Mr. Sidney HERBERT held, that in
tolerating any form of Christianity, they could be
scarcely said to be tolerating error. The vastness of the
truth of redemption was so great, that an admixture of
error could not overpower its effects on the human mind.
Under this persuasion, he marked the theological
character of the debate, and instilled charity. The people
of England (he said) confuse bishoprics with titles;
their abstract idea of a bishop is a person with 5000l. a
year and great temporal advantages. If we had
possessed an Episcopal Dissenting body, the distinction
would have been clear: and if the Pope had called the
bishops "overseers," so complete is our slavery to words
that probably no notice would have been taken of the
proceeding. In reference to the measire, if it is meant
to make a protest and declaration, why not simply
protest and declare, and not legislate—or, by trying to
legislate, fall into the present inextricable confusion?
—Lord PALMERSTON supported the bill, denying that it
was of a penal or persecuting character (though he
thought that charges of persecution came with the
worst grace in the world from Catholic prelates); and
declared that it was merely the complement of the
measure for emancipating the Catholics, and in principle
was precisely the same as that of the act of 1829. It
applied directly to the evil for which a remedy was
demanded, and imposed no restriction on the Catholic
hierarchy inconsistent with the discharge of their
religious duties. Nor did he believe it would be disobeyed
by the Catholic prelates, for encroaching as their church
was, it did not openly violate the laws of the country
in which it found itself. Nor did the bill tie up parliament
from further legislation, should such measures
unhappily be needed.—The debate was then adjourned
till Thursday.

On Wednesday, the 19th, the Hop Duty Bill, on the
question of the second reading, was thrown out, after a
short debate by a majority of 131 to 9.

The Sunday Trading Bill, after some discussion, in
which it was opposed by Mr. B. Wall and Mr. Leonard,
was read a second time and ordered to be referred to a
committee.

The adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill was resumed on Thursday, the 20th.—Mr. NEWDEGATE
condemned the measure, as being quite inefficient
against the dangerous encroachments of the Papal
power. He asked Lord John Russell whether he was
prepared to permit the residence of Cardinal Wiseman
in this country, and intimated that if the people were
unable to obtain legal protection they would take the
law into their own hands.—Mr Henry DRUMMOND
delivered a speech which produced violent excitement in the
House. He said the question was nothing less than this
—whether Roman Catholics should remain a tolerated
sect under the spiritual dominion of the Queen, or
whether the Queen should be a licensed heretic under
the spiritual dominion of the Pope; and whether
one-third of the people of this kingdom, under the pretext
of religious development, should be governed by a law
unknown to the remaining two-thirds, and deemed by
the former paramount to all other law? In the course
of his argument, Mr. Drummond, apostrophising the
Roman Catholics, exclaimed, "Your nunneries are
prisons or brothels, and you may take your choice."
This called up the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, who,
with some emotion, appealed to the Speaker whether
Mr. Drummond had not transgressed the rules of order.
The Speaker decided in the negative, and Mr. Drummond
resumed his argument, adducing various written
authorities to show the usurpations in temporals, the
intolerant and dangerous tenets, and the unchanged
and unchangeable pretensions of the Romish See,
commenting sarcastically upon the extracts as he read them.
He then spoke of the attitude of the English public.
"The people are now waiting for the decision of those
leaders of opinion to whom they are accustomed to
look up, and they are willing to abide by the decision