has expressed, the government should now recede, the
friends of liberty throughout Europe would think that,
in addition to all other conquests, the Court of Rome
had obtained a conquest and triumph over the minds
of the House of Commons of England. Lord John
then proceeded to show the difficulty of defining what
was spiritual jurisdiction, remarking that we could not
trust to the decision of the see of Rome as to the division
between spiritual and temporal matters; and, referring
to the substitution by the Papal rescript of new sees for
the ancient sees of England, he insisted that this was
not a spiritual, but a temporal act—an assumption of
power over the realm of England, at variance with the
rights of the crown and with the independence of the
nation. Then how was this aggression to be met? The
expedients hinted at by Sir J. Graham might be wholly
ineffectual; and if Cardinal Wiseman had been
proceeded against under the statute of Richard II., the
government would have been reproached for putting
into activity an obsolete statute. Abiding by the sentiments
contained in his letter to the Bishop of Durham,
he denied that this measure fell short of the letter. His
opinion was that our main security consisted in the
liberty of conscience and of person, and in political
freedom; but it did not follow that it might not be
necessary to have some legislative assertion of the supremacy
of the crown and nation. The measure, however,
should be of the mildest character, and err rather on
the side of deficiency than excess. If further aggression
should take place—if attempts should be made to
deprive the people of Ireland of the benefits of mixed
education,—which the Roman Catholics had themselves
sought for,—he did not deny that other measures might
be necessary; for, while remaining a friend to religious
liberty, he would never confound that cause with the
cause of Papal encroachment. The debate was again
adjourned.

It was resumed on the following evening, Friday, the
21st. Many members spoke on both sides.—The bill
was opposed by Mr. Fortescue, Mr. Goold (the new
member for Limerick), Mr. W. J. Fox, and Mr.
Roebuck; and supported by Mr. Baillie Cochrane, Mr.
Child, Mr. Walpole, and the Attorney-General, who
discussed the legal bearings of the bill, and the extent
and manner of its operation in accomplishing its
intended object. The debate was again adjourned till
Monday.

On Monday, March 24th, the adjourned debate on
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was resumed. The bill
was supported by Mr. Milnes, Mr. H. Berkeley, and
Mr. Grantley Berkeley; and opposed by Mr. Fagan,
Mr. Smythe, Mr. Sadleir, Sir J. Young, Mr. H. Grattan,
Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. A. B. Hope. A motion was
then made for an adjournment, which produced an
appeal from Lord John Russell, that the debate, on
which six nights had been spent, should be allowed to
close. The house divided on the motion of adjournment,
which was negatived by 414 to 64.—Mr. M. O'CONNELL
moved an adjournment of the house; but the motion
was withdrawn, Lord John Russell having consented to
adjourn the debate to the following day.

The Designs Act Extension Bill was read a second
time, after a short discussion.

The adjourned debate was concluded on Tuesday the
25th. The bill was opposed by Mr. HUME, who said
that, on first reading the letter of Lord John Russell, he
had sympathised with the political necessities which,
he presumed, had compelled him thus to prepare
employment beforehand for unquiet spirits during the
session. But he found no justification for the bill now
before them, or for the speech by which it had been
introduced by the Prime Minister, and he saw no
proof that the rescript was an aggression. The bill, he
added, would create many inconsistencies in Scotland
and Ireland.—Sir F. THESIGER condemned the bill as
inefficient, but expressed his intention to vote for the
second reading, partly because he thought legislation so
necessary that he would accept even a minimum
measure, but principally because he looked forward to
the probability of getting it largely strengthened in
committee. In no other way did he think it possible
that the public could be satisfied, or the legislature of
England be saved from becoming a by-word throughout
Europe.—Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the measure at
great length. He admitted that the language of the
Papal rescript and Dr. Wiseman's appeal were offensive,
but it was the substance only with which it became the
House to deal. The bill was in every respect
contradictory and irrational. The temporal character of the
Papal aggression had never been fairly proved. One
class of arguments, asserting that the Catholic religion
generally produced temporal evils, went much too far.
Another class, based upon the assumption that all acts
of the Pope had a temporal significancy, because he
held in Italy the title of a temporal prince, fell just as
much too short. Interference could not be justified
until it was shown that the new bishops were appointed
for temporal purposes and invested with a temporal
authority. This, he contended, had never been done,
and, failing in this, he had no right to fetter the spiritual
liberties of the Catholic subject. To the apprehensions
expressed against the Roman canon law, he replied that
the bill contained no provision to keep it out. But the
fact was that the canon law would create a safer and more
constitutional government of the catholic Church in this
country, and leave it less in the power of the Papacy
than it was at present. It was a serious matter to
invoke the secular authority upon religious subjects;
and to this question he invited the solemn consideration
of the house. If an act must be passed, he insisted that
it should be made uniform, including the Presbyterian
and Wesleyan bodies, and not making an invidious
exception against the Catholics. The real import of
the Papal measure had been altogether misapprehended.
It was a fact not generally recognised, but which he
quoted many authorities to substantiate, that the
establishment of an episcopate in England had been for
three centuries vainly sought by the moderate section
of the Anglican Catholics, as against the extreme or
ultramontane party, and, in that desire, had been
supported by the government, even in the days of Queen
Elizabeth. Gross, therefore, was the injustice of now
seeking to prohibit this proceeding under a pretended
fear of ultramontane intrusion. Mr. Gladstone concluded
by protesting against the present miniature of a penal
law, which might be a nullity in practice, but was a
persecution to conscience and feeling. It was disgraceful
to attempt, and impossible permanently to effect, a
retrograde step towards religious intolerance.—Mr.
DISRAELI said that though he believed the measure to
be wholly insufficient, yet, like Sir F. Thesiger, he
should vote for the second reading in the hope that it
might be improved in another stage. On a division,
the second reading was carried by 438 to 95—majority
343.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

House of Lords.—Feb. 25th.—Marriages Bill thrown out on
second reading.

28th.—Vice-Chancellor's Bill read a third time and passed.

March 6th.—Income Tax Resolutions introduced by Lord
Brougham.

7th.—County Courts Extension Bill introduced by Lord
Brougham.

10th.—Passengers Act Amendment Bill read a second time.
—Sale of Arsenic Bill read a first time.

13th.—Sale of Arsenic Bill read a second time.

14th.—Designs Act Extension Bill passed through committee
and reported.—Prevention of Offences Bill read a second time.
—Passengers Act Amendment Bill reported.

17th.—Registration of Assurances Bill read a second time,
and referred to a select committee.

21st.—County Courts Extension Bill read a second time.

25th.—Commons Enclosure Bill read a third time and passed.

House of Commons.—Feb. 28th.—Metropolitan Cattle Market
Bill; second reading opposed and postponed.—Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill postponed.

March 7th.—Public Business; statement by Lord J. Russell.
— Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; statement of proposed alterations
by Sir G. Grey; second reading postponed till Friday.
—Vice-Chancellor's Bill read a second time.

10th.—Caffre War; statement by Lord J. Russell.—Navy
Estimates.

11th.—New Writ for Dungarvon, in room of Mr. Sheil.—Lord
Duncan's Resolution respecting the Woods and Forests carried
against Ministers by 120 to 119.—Leave given Mr. Lacy to
bring in a Bill to prevent the Forcible Detention of Females in
Religious Houses.

12th.—County Expenditure Bill read a second time and referred
to a select committee.—Apprentices and Servants Bill, and
Expenses of Prosecutions Bill, read a second time.