The Bill, thus sanctioned by the votes of a great majority of the Peers, passed through Committee in a single night. A good deal of questioning and explanation, however, took place at this stage between the opponents and supporters of the measure. Lord Monteagle addressed a string of questions to the Lord Chancellor respecting the operation of the various clauses, but professed himself unsatisfied with the explananations of the learned Lord. Lord

Monteagle then moved an amendment, supported by Lord Camoys, to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Bill. Viscount Canning, and the Earls of Wicklow and St. Germans condemned the application of the measure to that country, but could not vote for the amendment, because it drew a distinction between the supremacy of the Crown in the two parts of the United Kingdom.

On a division, Lord Monteagle's proposition was negatived by 82 to 17.

More opposition arose on specific clauses of the Bill, the leading

opponents being the Earl of Aberdeen and the Earl of Ellenborough, supported by other Peers. Lord Aberdeen pointed out, that the word "otherwise" prohibited the appointment of any bishops, and yet they exempted the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Duke of Argyll strongly objected to the provision which enabled any informer to sue for the penalty, and he moved to omit it. The Lord Chancellor ascribed the insertion of that clause to the absence of the Irish Members in the House of Commons. That was no reason, said the Duke of Newcastle, why the Peers should neglect their duty. But in fact, he added, Ministers were afraid to let a word of the Bill be altered, lest the other House should have an opportunity of revising it. The amendment was negatived by 61 to 26.

The first clause was carried by 77 to 26, and the other sections and the preamble without a division.

On the 29th of July Parliament was at length relieved of the measure with which it had so long and painfully travailed, by the Bill being read a third time in the House of Lords. The final stage was not suffered to pass sub silentio. The Earl of Aberdeen repeated some of his general arguments against the policy of legislation on the subject; announcing his intention of recording his protest against it. He argued that this Bill would prove most injurious to the public interests; he anticipated from it greater evil than he could contemplate" without feelings of the deepest horror."

The Bishop of Oxford made a speech of some length to explain the reasons which induced him to

give his assent to the Bill. His main argument in favour of the Bill was, that the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops constituted an aggression in this country; and he supported that conclusion by distinguishing the act of the Bishop of Rome from certain acts of the central Christian authority at Jerusalem in olden times, appointing bishops in certain foreign countries still under heathen control.

"England," he said, "is a Christian country, and the new bishops are appointed to supersede the Protestant bishops; so that if there were a revolution in favour of the Roman Catholic faith, which may God avert, the Bishop of Rome would have swept away all our ancient sees, would have no necessity to try the existing bishops for heresy, but find his work ready done to his hands, with his new bishops in full power. Thus the Bishop of Rome has interfered with our institutions, and particularly with those religious institutions which England has established for the instruction of her people." It was on these grounds that he supported the Bill,-first, because the Bishop of Rome had endeavoured to remove us from the category of Christian people; and, secondly, because he had been assailing the Church of England, by attempting to abolish, and, as far as his rescript went, actually abolishing, its separate bishoprics. Such aggressions he held that, as a nation, we were bound to repel. The Bishop accepted the Bill for that purpose; but avowed he was quite discontented with it. He totally objected to persecution. He objected to a concordat according to the general idea, but regretted that there was no arrange

ment to regulate the admission of Papal bulls: such a regulation would have prevented all this unhappy dissension. He regretted various amendments that have been lost in the Commons; and, inter alia, the want of a provision for controlling religious houses by a visitation.

The Duke of Argyll defended the Bill against the support of Dr. Wilberforce, and himself against some allusions which the Bishop had made to him. He remarked, that though he was willing to defend the Church of England, this was not the time to be singing lo Pæans upon the state of that Church, which was the only Church day by day and week by week giving forth converts to the Church of Rome.

The Bill was supported by Earl Fortescue-who looked for a more stringent measure from Parliament if the provisions of this one should be evaded; by the Earl of Glengall, Lord Redesdale, and Earl Grey-the last mainly in defence of his own consistency. It was opposed by Lord Stuart de Decies; by Earl Nelson-who objected to the aggression, but also to penal legislation; by the Marquis of Sligo; and Lord Gage.

The Bill having been read a third time, Lord Monteagle moved an amendment, providing that the Bill "should not apply to, or in any way affect, any act done by any Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, by virtue of his appointment by the See of Rome, or create any penalty, disability, or offence, by reason of an instrument of appointment, or the assumption or use of an ecclesiastical title conferred or purporting to be conferred by the authority of the See of Rome; provided that the ecclesi

astical name, style, desiguation, or title assumed, or used by any such Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, in the holy orders of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be the style or title of Roman Catholic Archbishop, Roman Catholic Bishop, or Roman Catholic Dean, as the case may be, officiating or having episcopal functions within the diocese or district in which he is authorized to officiate, in respect to all persons and congregations of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."

The Marquis of Lansdowne opposed the addition, maintaining that it was needless. He would

say at once and without hesitation, that if the Pope had desired to secure, as it was a lawful object for him to secure, the benefit of episcopal administration to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen

if he had informed the Government that such was his intention

and if he had confined himself, both in his brief and in the mandate announcing the brief, to the designations which were contained in the proposed amendment-there would not have been the least objection to his so doing. Lord Lansdowne would go further, and say that even now, although the Pope had not taken that course, there was not one of the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church which, stripped of all connection with the assumption of territorial titles, could not be sufficiently exercised under the Bill as it now stood, without the addition proposed by his noble Friend.

After a short debate the amendment was withdrawn, and so the Bill passed, and shortly afterwards received the royal assent.

WE

E have already described the very unfavourable reception that was given to the first financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, though not the avowed cause, was generally believed to have contributed in no small degree to the temporary abdication of the Whig Ministry. On their resumption of office, it followed, in accordance with the prevailing expectation, that the financial schemes of the Government underwent a reconsideration, and a remodelled budget was produced, which avoided some of the principal objections to the original propositions.

On the 5th of April Sir Charles Wood submitted his amended plans to the House. He began by saying that time had been afforded him to reconsider the proposals he had made to the House, and he had had the advantage of hearing the course of financial policy which Lord Stanley was prepared to pursue. The two proposals were before the country, which could decide which of the two was most conducive to the welfare of this great empire. He admitted that his proposals had not given general satisfaction, but he had been surprised at the manner in which they had been received in some quarters. The main demand made upon him had been for a remission of taxation to which he felt it impossible to accede con

sistently with the maintenance of public credit, and the establishments which were necessary for the welfare of the country. The all-pervading objection to his proposals was that he had thought it necessary to retain some margin of the surplus to meet sudden emergencies-a policy the wisdom of which had been verified by experience-and to maintain the public credit. He saw no reason to alter his estimate of financial receipts, or of the disposable surplus; with this surplus he did not attempt to effect any great operations, but in fact the great monopolies had been already destroyed. The principle which had actuated all his schemes was the desire to relieve and benefit the great mass of the population, Government being instituted for the benefit of the many and not of the few. It was for their sakes that he had supported the remission of the duties on corn, meat, foreign cattle, and foreign sugar. With the same view of cheapening their provisions and their clothing, he had advocated the reduction of duties on raw materials. There still remained one matter of vital importance to the poorer classestheir dwellings. It was with the view of improving their condition in these respects that the duty on bricks was abolished in the preceding session, and that it was now proposed to reduce the duty