dignant denunciation of the conduct of certain of our clergy, who, whilst Romanists in their hearts, continued to administer the offices and receive the emoluments of the Church of England.

Mr. Keogh warmly opposed the measure in question, because he disputed every one of the grounds upon which it was based. He denied that the Queen's prerogative had been interfered with, that there was an assumption of territorial power, or that an insult had been offered to the Sovereign or her subjects. There was nothing in the common or statute law to prevent the creation of sees, or that made the act of the Pope an invasion of the prerogative. That act was no assumption of territorial power, at least beyond what was sanctioned by precedents, several of which he cited; and he complained that the Government, for a series of years, had been leading the See of Rome to believe that the act would be acceptable. With regard to the details of the measure, he asked the noble Lord whether he had considered maturely the effect of the Bill in Ireland, the practical working of which would be, he believed, to stop the ecclesiastical functions there. Was he prepared to rouse the fell spirit of religious hate? Did he intend to execute the law, and to prosecute the Roman Catholic prelates of that country before an Irish jury?

Sir G. Grey said, notwithstanding the inconvenience of the present discussion, arising upon a preliminary question, he did not regret it, since it had cleared the ground for future debate by establishing certain propositions. It was clear that the Government were acting on the defensive, in obedience to

the

the call of the country, when provoked by those who now complained of the course which the Government had been driven to. It was clear, too, that the act which had rendered this measure necessary was an illegal act. It had been likewise established that that act was not a spiritual act of a merely spiritual authority, but was an act of ecclesiastical authority by a power exercising mixed temporal, ecclesiastical, and spiritual power, which not only invaded Queen's prerogative, but ignored the very existence of any other Church or religious denomination in this country, over which it claimed universal dominion. Sir George then replied to the three charges which had been 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, Mr. C. Anstey, Mr. Hume, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. A. B. Hope opposed the Bill as involving an infringement of the principles of religious liberty. Col. Thompson and Mr. Spooner gave it their support. Mr. Napier spoke in favour of the necessity of legislation against the encroachments of Rome, but suspended his judgment as to the provisions of the proposed Bill. Mr. F. Peel made an impressive speech against the measure. The Bill seemed to him not entitled to the merit of being a permanent and comprehensive settle

ment of the questions agitated; and especially he doubted if it would not wholly fail as a weapon to prevent or control synodical action: it would only afford another illustration proving how utterly powerless the heavy arm of temporal power is in dealing with the voluntary submission of the mind-with those questions of opinion and belief as they have been called, which reside within the precincts of the conscience.

The House was addressed by a great number of members in addition to those already named, during the discussion of this preliminary stage of the measure, which was protracted throughout four nights by successive adjournments. The limits of our space, however, preclude more detailed notice of the several speeches. At length, on the 14th of February, after more than one ineffectual attempt to close the debate, the House was brought to a division, when the numbers were as follow:

:

For the introduction of

deserves notice, not only in reference to the subject matter and objects of the proposition, but still more on account of the effect which it was calculated to produce, and did actually produce, upon the relations of parties and the position of the Government. The resolution moved by the hon. Member for Bucks, and which was debated by adjournment on the 11th and 13th of February, was in these terms, viz.:-"That the severe distress which continues to exist among the owners and occupiers of land, lamented in Her Majesty's Speech, renders it the duty of the Government to introduce, without delay, measures for their effectual relief." Mr. Disraeli began by observing that the fact, admitted in the Speech from the Throne, that, concurrent with the general prosperity of the country, there was a continual depression of a certain 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 agricultural produce, and the effects of the change of the system upon landed property. The result had been the reluctant recognition of continued distress among the agricultural classes, after attempts in past years, on the part of the Government, to represent the depression of prices as exceptional and temporary, and to prove that what had happened could not possibly occur. He did not mean to build upon these results a proposition to retrace our steps; but if all the estimates upon which the changes of system had been founded were wrong, and

all the calculations erroneous, and if a most important class continued depressed amid the general prosperity, it was the duty of Parliament to investigate the subject in a charitable spirit, and to adopt the course which reason and policy dictated. Mr. Disraeli vindicated the character and the conduct of the British farmers from the stigma of sloth and want of skill, and characterized the outcry against rent, and the plea that this was a landlord's question, as economical fallacies, tending to arm one agricultural class against another. The object of his motion was not to dispute the fact of the general prosperity of the country, or to attack the new commercial system, but to adapt the condition of the owners and occupiers of land to that system. He should make no attempt to bring back the abrogated system of protection; if that system was to be restored, it must be done by a very preponderating opinion out of doors. What, then, was the reason why the cultivator of our soil could not compete with the foreign producer? It was the amount of taxation to which he was liable, and which had been allowed to press unequally upon him in consequence of the artificial state in which agriculture was formerly placed. The great mass of our general taxation was supplied from three sources-external imposts, inland revenue, and local contributions. Nearly one-half of the first was raised by not permitting the cultivators of this soil to produce a particular crop, or loading it with a peculiar impost; two-thirds of the inland revenue were raised by a colossal tax upon one crop of the British agriculturists; while of the 12,000,000l. of local contributions, 7,000,0007.

were paid by them, and the whole was levied upon a very limited class. Mr. Disraeli entered into the details of these several burdens, urging, at much length, the hardships they inflicted upon the landed interest; and, with respect to the last, he referred to the proposal made by him in the last session for relieving the land in the matter of local taxation-a question which had been since much advanced. He urged, in addition, the severity with which the tithe fell upon the owner and occupier, not merely in the commutation, but in the incidence of the charge itself, which, as Mr. M'Culloch thought, justified an adequate countervailing duty upon foreign corn. All these facts proved that the British farmer was overweighted. But it was said that the land enjoyed exemptions. These, however, Mr. Disraeli endeavoured to show were comparatively small or illusory, and he opposed to these exemptions the land tax. It was only by that powerful instrument, the property and income tax, that our present financial system was upheld, and from the returns of that tax it appeared that at least one-half was levied from the owners and occupiers of land-from owners whose rents were reduced, and from occupiers without profits. What these classes required was only justice; they did not shrink from competition, but they asked not to be forced into it manacled. Mr. Disraeli, in conclusion, reviewed the remedies suggested by others, pointing out their intrinsic inefficiency, or the impediments thrown in their way; treating even a fixed duty upon corn as no boon to the farmer, but merely a compromise. He desired no legislation that was not consistent with the welfare of all Her Majesty's

subjects, not excluding one particular class, which it was acknowledged had been treated with injustice.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite ready to discuss this subject with calmness and temper, but Mr. Disraeli had asked no distinct opinion of the House upon anything, throwing into the hotch-potch of his speech all the subjects which had occupied it for the last five years. Sir Charles justified the opinions he had expressed in past years respecting the effects of the change in our commercial policy; he had never concealed his apprehensions of the difficulties which agriculture, like manufactures, might experience upon the withdrawal of protection, but he thought still that it would revive and stand upon a sounder foundation than before. The anticipations of the advocates of free trade had not proved more exaggerated than the gloomy forbodings of its opponents. The distress alleged to exist among our agriculturists was paralleled in France, notwithstanding its large exports of corn to this country and its importing none. The diminished price of meat here was the result of increased production, and cattle were produced at a cheaper rate. Mr. Disraeli had dealt only with the owners and occupiers of land; but, though it might be very convenient to ignore that important fact, the agricultural labourers-whose condition on a former occasion was made the point upon which the whole question turned-were never in more prosperous circumstances than at present. In Ireland as well as England the numbers of ablebodied paupers were rapidly diminishing. Wages, in relation to