of this house. But, if the leaders and their parties
throw them over—if you refuse to give them efficient
protection—the people will take the law into their own
hands; and the only way of preserving the peace is to
give them a bill with adequate powers. When a nation
is excited, a great many motives are brought out; but
if there is one thing on which they are at the present
moment more unanimous than another, it is in an honest
John Bull hatred of imposture. Everything like
imposture they detest; and above all, they scorn those
who are importing cargoes of blinking statues, bleeding
pictures, liquefying blood, and drops of the Virgin
Mary's milk." During the delivery of these sentiments
Mr. Drummond was interrupted by groans, cockcrowing,
exclamations of "Oh, oh," and all sorts of
inexplicable noises.—Mr. O'FLAHERTY here rose to order,
and submitted to the English House of Commons
whether it would permit any portion of the members
of that house, or any portion of her Majesty's subjects
professing conscientiously no matter what creed, to be
insulted; and he added, "I think the language that
gentleman has used is as worthy of his taste as it is of
his judgment." Great confusion ensued.—Mr. John
O'CONNELL moved an adjournment of the House, and
called "Order" so loudly, that the Speaker told him
that he was out of order himself.—The SPEAKER
decided that Mr. Drummond having used no expression
personally offensive to a member, or disrespectful to
the house, was not out of order; but he, at the same
time, expressed a hope that members, in discussing a
question of so much delicacy, calculated to produce so
much excitement, would abstain from all expressions
that might cause irritation. This request, however,
did not calm the disputants, all of whom rose at once,
and each attempted to address the house. Another
scene of extraordinary confusion was the consequence;
the old noises, including the cockcrowing, were renewed,
and there were incessant calls for order, and the
interference of the Chair. At length the Speaker said, "I
must call on hon. members to support me in the
maintenance of order. I have already stated that the hon.
member for Surrey is not out of order, and I trust he
will now be allowed to proceed."—Mr. Drummond
accordingly proceeded, amid immense cheering. He
said that he was not out of order, and that he had not
been reprimanded. He had been provoked by repeated
and offensive interruptions to say things which, in the
heat of argument, escaped his lips. He did not retract
one word of what he had said; but if he had given
offence, whether merited or unmerited, to any
individual, he humbly begged his pardon. He then
concluded his speech by declaring that the bill was unjust
and uncalled-for towards Ireland, and that a law must
be passed to prohibit the residence of cardinals in
Ireland, to avoid everything done under the canon law,
and to extend the mortmain act for the protection of
dying men.—Sir James GRAHAM began by condemning
in strong language the tone of the previous speech.
"I have seen," he said, "a gentleman, an accomplished
gentleman and a scholar, so much heated by the subject
we are now discussing, as entirely to forget what I
must say is due to the feelings of a large body sitting in
this house on terms of perfect equality. I will not
sully my lips by repeating the words which fell from
him, not only as respects the individual honour of
members of this house—with reference to their veracity,
but also as respects, what I shudder to think of—the
allusion which he made to the female relatives of those
gentlemen, who had devoted themselves to the service
of God, according to their consciences, in lives of
seclusion, but of chastity. Although the order of the
house, according to its letter, may not have been
violated by the honourable gentleman, yet if Catholics
are to sit here and take part in our debates, I must say
that the rules of order can hardly be said to be
preserved in spirit if scenes like the one we have just
witnessed are allowed to be repeated. I say that assertions
have been broadly made in a tone and manner
which must not be repeated, if the freedom of debate
and the rules of order be anything else than a name."
These remarks were received with loud cheers, chiefly
by the Roman Catholic members. Sir James Graham
proceeded to say, that he would treat the subject as a
political as well as a religious question. His principal
objections to the bill were—first, that it was the
introduction of a penal enactment; and, secondly, that it
was the reversal of a policy. He agreed with the ministers
that if legislation were attempted upon this subject,
it should embrace the whole United Kingdom; and if
that was done, according to the Solicitor-General, by
striking at territorial titles, this bill would put down an
organised episcopacy in Ireland, and prevent meetings
in synod. He doubted the Solicitor-General's law; but
if accurate, it was clear that all that had been done in
1829 was as nothing. Two centuries ago there was an
organised episcopate in Ireland, and the canon law
existed there; if so, the blow about to be inflicted went
further than the penal code which existed prior to
1829. Sir James then retraced the policy which had
been pursued with reference to Catholic relief, and
pointed out the difficulty of dealing with the Papal
pretensions without reverting to the code of Elizabeth.
The appointment of bishops was incident to
the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, and territorial
divisions were the necessary and inevitable consequence.
With reference to the territorial titles of Roman
Catholic prelates, Sir James quoted Lord Clarendon's
letter, in which, he contended, these titles had been
distinctly recognised; and likewise a speech of Sir J.
Romilly, who had said, in terms, that "the Pope might
divide the country into bishoprics and archbishoprics."
If the effect of the bill as altered would be to carry its
provisions to the same extent as in its integrity, the
government, as he had said, must withdraw it; but, in
the social condition of Ireland, this question should not
be left in doubt. The passing of this bill would be a
repeal of the Emancipation act, and then the dissenters
must look about them. Synods were to be proscribed;
but if laymen and dissenting ministers could meet, why
should Roman Catholic bishops be interdicted? Step
by step we should be led by this measure to the destruction,
he feared, not only of religious, but of civil liberty.
Sir James Graham pictured the difficulty of the
ministerial position, with their mutilated and emasculated
bill. "You are (he said) in a dilemma: if you cut
down your measure and reduce it to insignificance, you
cover it with contempt: but while impotence is
disgraceful, vigour is dangerous—so dangerous, that I
do not dissemble that the danger which relates to
Ireland is the danger of civil war." He concluded,
amid loud cheering, as follows: "My Noble Friend
(Lord J. Russell) has referred proudly to the names of
Mackintosh, Romilly, Horner, Grey, and Althorp; but,
alas! he omitted the great name of Grattan, now lying
in the Abbey by the side of Pitt, Fox, Canning, and
Wilberforce: does Lord John in his heart and conscience
believe they would approve of this measure? Appealing
then from the dead to the living, does Plunkett
approve of it? does Brougham approve of it? does
Denman approve of it?—oh that he were here to
announce for himself!—Does Macaulay, the great
historian of the Revolution, approve of the principle of
this measure? There may have been some movement
towards Rome on the surface of what are called the
higher ranks; but the deep under-current of the
feeling of this country is essentially Protestant. It is
written in their very heart's core; what is more, it is
written in those Bibles to which they have access: and
while they enjoy those privileges and possess those
feelings, we have no occasion for a bill like this. I say
there is no danger in England which justifies it—every
feeling in Ireland condemns it. It is a brand of discord
cast down to inflame the passions of the people; and,
with confidence in the wisdom of parliament, I hope,
and confidently predict, the bill will never pass into a
law."—Lord John RUSSELL, on rising, was received
with such a burst of cheers and counter-cheers, that he
was unable, for some time, to address the house. He
hoped that the house would indulge him while he
defended the general principle of the bill. For many
years since the restoration of Louis the Eighteenth, the
Court of Rome had endeavoured to revive pretensions,
assert a domination, and restore a supremacy, that many
thought had been for ever abandoned. Austria now
surrendered to her that which had been pertinaciously
withheld. If, after the sense of indignation this country