that of Pope Pius the Fourth? for Catholicity, or for Popery? for Primitive Antiquity, or mediæval Novelty? for the Doctrines of the Church of England, or for the Decrees and Discipline of Trent ?—these are the questions which are now propounded to all of us for our consideration; these are the enquiries which now force themselves upon us, and which will occupy the minds of the people of England not only at general elections and at public meetings, but will pervade the abodes of English households, and will dwell on the lips of their inmates during our own generation, and probably for that of our children.

This, my Lord, is a necessary consequence of the remarkable character of the times in which we live. These questions are, we repeat, now forced upon us all. Never were the responsibilities of individuals, as citizens and subjects, more solemn than at this day.

"A deliberate attempt, as we have seen, is now being made to rob Royalty of its conscience! And this attempt is not resisted, but is actually abetted, by some among us, who are bound by the strongest obligations to defend the due exercise of that conscience." (Pp. 61, 62.)

It is in reality Popery against Protestantism, God's word against man's folly, truth against Trent. The battle is being fought on Irish questions, but the real point is one which lies far deeper. It is not confined to ourselves, for Germany, France, and Spain, are watching our movements. Every step is important, every move in the fearful game increases the risk. But why is the game so fearful? Have we not a phalanx of Conservatives in power- men who have by all solemn ties and pledges bound themselves to maintain the truth and the Church as by law established! Even Sir Robert Peel's memory is not so treacherous as to forget a motion which was made in the year 1840, by Sir John Yarde Buller, Bart.: "That Her Majesty's govern"ment, as at present constituted, does not possess the confidence of "this House." Every one knows what was the public profession of the great Opposition then, but we will recall the leading feature of that debate by a few extracts, which will illustrate the present "policy "to Ireland." The mover is reported to have adduced as one of his reasons for no confidence, that the government had introduced "a system "of education of which religion was not the basis (Hear, hear), which "excluded the clergy from the superintendence of the schools, or per"mitted them merely to communicate a little religious instruction during "the hours of relaxation from their other studies."

"This was a regulation which rendered it nearly, if not altogther, impossible for Churchmen to partake of any of the advantages of that grant. Their plea was to give the people moral instruction, and to lessen the amount of crime throughout the country; but Churchmen could not help regarding it as one of those modes of attacks the object of which was to lower the influence of the church, and detach the people from her pale by bringing them up in ignorance of her doctrine. (Cheers).” (P. 4.)

Sir George Grey answered this allusion, and let us mark how it was received by the then opposition:

"The next topic which was alluded to by the hon. gentleman was the Church. (Hear, hear, from the Conservative benches.) The hon. gentleman had stated-but here again he was totally silent upon the facts on which it was to be presumed that assertion was founded-that Her Majesty's Government were the enemies of the Church, that they had patronised the voluntary system, and that the Church was not safe so long as they retained office. (Renewed cheering from the same quarter.)" (P. 14.)

In the same debate some slight allusion was made to the fact that the Duke of Wellington had complained that no mention was made of Prince Albert's Protestantism. Why, therefore, can we fear under such chivalry?

In the same debate, Mr. Litton, since promoted, spoke as follows:

"It was said that there had been no complaint in Ireland respecting the system of national education now adopted in that country. Complaints there were, bitter and reiterated, by one class in that country--he meant the Protestants. That those complaints were not made in that house was, because the Protestant part of the Irish population had applied to it for redress for years, and had always applied for it to no purpose. (Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Let it not for a moment be supposed that the want of complaint to that house was a proof of the absence of the cause of complaint. Quite the reverse. Those schools were now for the most part under the control of the priests, and were therefore deserted by the children of Irish Protestants. (Hear, hear.)" (P. 45.)

Then follows a declaration that Sir Robert and his party have no differences, which was loudly cheered.

Mr Pakington also said,

"In his opinion, the general policy of the Government was most dangerous to the interests of the Established Church, and those Protestant institutions which the nation revered. (Hear.) The Judge-Advocate last night endeavoured to prove the contrary, but his arguments were used in vain. Let her Majesty's Ministers answer this question-Did the Church of England trust him? (Hear, hear.) Had the Church of England any confidence in any portion of the Government?" (P. 49 )

The same gentleman alluded to the Irish education scheme, as "hostile to the best interests of the nation." We need not quote Sir James Graham, as he has given a verdict upon his own fixedness of tenure, and he shall for once be judged by his own opinion, and we will pass on in order. Mr. Macaulay's essay may pass unnoticed, except for his prophecy, that Sir Robert Peel would in three years after taking office be expelled by his own party. Poor Lord Powerscourt was ashamed at the omission of the word Protestant. Even Mr. Liddell

declared his bitter disappointment as to the effects of the measure of 1829, while Mr. Lascelles, not knowing how convenient such a course would be to his own party in 1845, declared that "nothing could be "more dangerous than any political discussions involving the authority "ofthe Sovereign." One of the ministry also, who spoke his own condemnation by anticipation, was Mr. Sydney Herbert.

"He observed hon. members of her Majesty's Government cheering to-night when it was asserted that they were not hostile to the Established Church; but he certainly doubted that assertion, when he saw them introducing into the Government gentlemen, one of whom had demanded the destruction of the public Church, had resisted the payment of tithes, and had put himself forward in that lucrative spirit of patriotism by withholding from the Church that which was in common honesty due to her. (Hear.)" (Pp. 92, 93.)

The consulters and patrons of Dr. Higgins, Dr. Cantwell, and Dr. M'Hale should have been more guarded in their expressions, but we must hurry on.

The party went still further, and Lord Wharncliffe was charged by Mr. Ward with being President of the Protestant Association at Sheffield, when M'Neil and M'Ghee were entertained at that place. The present Solicitor-General had denounced the Government as minions of Popery, and Lord Stanley adopted the phrase in a peculiarly sarcastic application. But we come to Lord Stanley and his system of unpleasant interrogations :

"Had they, however, the confidence of the clergy of the country? (Cries of 'Oh, oh !' from the Ministerial side of the House.) Oh! that was a proposition too monstrous to be entertained in that House. (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) Had they the confidence of the constituency of England? (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) His answer to that cheer was the repetition of the question had they the confidence of the constituency of this part of the United Kingdom? (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Did the majority of the constituencies of England give their confidence to her Majesty's present advisers? (Renewed cheers from the same quarter.) But then, said the Government, We have the con'fidence of the people of Ireland.' (Hear, hear,' from the Ministerial benches.) Had they the confidence of Ireland? Through what organs did they derive their knowledge? Was it from the hon. and learned member for all Ireland? (Loud cheers from the Opposition )" (P. 145.)

Again, we produce an emphatic declaration, and one deserving recollection :

"The hon. member talked of speeches he had heard; he (Lord Stanley) had never heard one of those speeches. He had met one of the gentlemen referred to on one occasion. He had met the Rev. Mr. M'Neil, and a more eloquent, temperate, and sound speech than that he had heard him deliver, or one in which he more entirely

concurred, he (Lord Stanley) had never heard. (Hear, hear.) But, said the hon. gentleman, who talked of every species of calumny in such wholesale terms, and who suppressed the names by whom those calumnies were uttered-' If you do not mean to adopt those speeches, what do you mean by a Protestant Government?' (Hear, from the Ministerial benches.) He (Lord Stanley) would tell him. (Cheers.) He (Lord Stanley) was for a Protestant Government. He had not forgotten that the constitution of England was a Protestant constitution (hear, hear); he had not forgotten that the Sovereign of England was, by the constitution, a Protestant Sovereign. (Cheers.) He had not forgotten that the Establishment of the country was a Protestant Establishment. (Loud Cheers.) And what he meant by a Protestant Government was a Government that would not be the minions of Popery. (Tremendous cheers.) That was the expression quoted by the hon. member for Sheffield. Mr. Ward (we believe).-It was an expression of Mr. Thessiger's.

"Lord Stanley resumed.-There was a great difference between being a minion of Popery and a labourer to procure for the Roman Catholic subjects of the realm the enjoyments of all those civil rights to which they were entitled. (Hear, hear.) At the same time he would not forget that he was a Protestant subject of a Protestant Sovereign-he would not forget that he belonged to a Protestant country; and he would not, by any measure, private or political, consent to any measure calculated to endanger the welfare or security of the Protestant Establishment. (Loud cheers.) This was what he meant when he talked of a Protestant Government. (Cheers.) " (P. 108.)

These are a specimen of Conservative policy with England, before the party was embarrassed by office. Sir Robert Peel heard these speeches, heard his supporters claim a harmony and sympathy with himself, and get no word of denial or disclaimer. In reference to education we read his own words:

"But the education which he wished to see established in this country for those who belonged to the Church of England must be in connexion with that Church; for he would never lower it by viewing it as a mere legal establishment which could not be constitutionally dispeused with (Cheers.) As far as those in the schools were in connexion with the Church, in so far should he require the Establishment to perform its duty properly by them. At the same time he did not think it right to impose the same rules on the education of Dissenters. (Hear, hear.) He would not refuse to Dissenters the assistance which they might require; but in the attempt to unite them in a common bond, he would not compromise the doctrines of the Church through any dread of offending sectarians. (Cheers.) In schools connected with the Establishment he would endeavour to make the education as effective as possible by calling in the assistance of the spiritual members of the Church, and so far from apologising for so doing, he would invoke that assistance. (Cheers.)" (Pp. 145, Rep. published.)

We have a further declaration of policy in general, which is worth diligent perusal :

"At the time when the disabilities of the Roman Catholics were removed a strict pledge was given that they should be admitted to a civil equality in the eye of the law, and an equal capacity for all the rights and privileges of British subjects, while a solemn assurance was exacted from them that they would not exercise the power

which they thus acquired so as to disturb the property and privileges of the Established Church. (Henr, hear.) He (Sir Robert Peel) would insist on the practical fulfilment of that condition, which had been guaranteed by the testimony of Mr. Canning, as to frequent conversations with the Roman Catholic leaders by the uniform assertion and dying declaration of Mr. Grattan. (Hear, hear.") (P. 147.)

This is a summary of promised policy. This is one side of the picture, which has another of widely differing character. The Whigs had for ten years attempted to rule Ireland. Agitation more violent than before had followed the Relief Bill. Four months only of smothered peace, and Tipperary burst out in one flame of agrarian outrage. In 1831, the military force in Ireland, with yeomanry, was 44,000. As Mr. Macaulay expressed it, agitation followed disappointment, and coercion followed agitation, while it produced fresh coercion, until the Government needed aid from Ireland. Lord Normanby opened the gaols, cried liberty, and convictions decreased, while crime was increasing. Justice was proclaimed in a very Irish fashion, for the Crown not wishing to prejudice a case, refused to object to any juryman on the panel; and the right of challenge, the bulwark of liberty, was changed into a claptrap for base adulation. O'Connell was at the castle, and boasted of half a million, who, headed by himself, as prince of cowards, would compel England to retain the Ministry, which fawned on him and favoured him. This was the Government which Churchmen had to oppose, one which dared everything and effected little, boasted of the appropriation clause, cast it over when it became inconvenient. Now, we have referred to the debate as indicating in no especial manner, but, as an every day occurrence, the object and profession of the party now in office, and we have thrown out a hint of the general tone of Whig misrule in Ireland. Protestants were said to seek redress in vain. Romanists to triumph, not for virtues, but for vices. If ever any Ministers entered on office on Church principles, and with understood and expressed pledges to support Protestantism, it is the present Government. If ever a Ministry succeeded an Anti-Protestant Ministry, it is the present. Everything smiled on them. Ireland was peaceful by comparison.

We have to judge of promised policy and actual policy, and as we have seen what words were uttered by Ministers out of office, we may now enquire what has resulted from this splendid display? Mr. Colquhoun has, with great irony as well as power, shown that the leader of the Opposition is the real guide of ministerial policy in religion, and his instances are surely incontrovertible. The first is, that Lord John Russell yielded his scheme of English national education in obedience to Sir Robert Peel, as well as the appropriation clause, which he had at