effected, and the Revolution established, he should give his decided negative to the measure now under discussion.

Lord Binning supported the Bill upon the conviction that the Established Church in Ireland would be strengthened by taking from its ramparts that which tended rather to weaken than to defend it. The truth of its doctrines, if properly enforced, would do more for it, than all the penal laws now in existence. He congratulated the friends of the Catholics on the great progress which their cause had made, and trusted that the House would continue to send up Bills like the present, to the other House, until the united sense of both would impose on Government the duty of doing that which Parliament in its wisdom and justice thought fit to enact.

Mr. Wallace opposed the measure, and was followed by Mr. Portman and Lord Valletort who spoke in favour of it.

Mr. Canning began his address to the House, by some remarks upon certain Petitions which had been presented to it against the present Bill, and expressed his opinion that the language of such Petitions was to be ascribed to an extreme ignorance of the merits of the question. The right honourable gentleman animadverted with particular severity upon the Petitions which had come from Dissenters, and then proceeded to examine the objections, which had been urged against the Roman Catholics; and as the theological turn which he gave to the debate had some very novel and extraordinary features in it, we will extract some copious extracts from that part of his speech. What was it, he asked, which kept the Roman Catholics from taking their seats in that House? The oath against transubstantiation. But did the House forget, there might be men amongst their members who believed in consubstantiation-the doctrine which had been avowed and taught by Luther? Did they believe that man a traitor whose creed embraced the one, but rejected the other? He did not say there was no difference between the two opinions; but was that difference of a nature to justify the political distinction? The man who could make it a ground for exclusion from political power, who should contend that the one believer was to be admitted, and the other excluded from a seat in that House, must have a minute perception of the niceties of ratiocination, for which he might be envied as a logician, but which was wholly useless for the purposes of common life. (Hear, hear) The next ground of objection was, that the Catholics held the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Why, almost all the churches were exclusive on some articles; and let not honourable members who urged this objection forget that the Church of England held the Athanasian Creed-a human exposition of the great mysteries of Christianity (cheers)—and held it with the expressed declaration that they who differed from it could not be saved. With this fact before them, could the Catholics with any fairness be excluded from the enjoyment of their civil rights on the ground of believing in the doctrine of exclusion? The doctrine of absolution was the next ground on which the opponents of the Bill rested. He would admit, that in the abstract that doctrine was absurd; but the evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords went to prove, that the absolution depended on the disposition of the party receiving it, and not on the abstract power of the person giving. It depended on the sincere repentance of the party who received it, on his disposition to amend, and on his resolution to repair, as far as he could, any injuries he might have inflicted. Was this an opinion confined to the Roman Catholic? Let any man read the instructions for the visitation of the sick, as directed by the Church of England, and he would find that the power of absolving might be exercised, and was resorted to, when the sick party desired it. There were points in which, essentially, there was very slight difference between the two religions. He did not mean to say there were no important distinctions between the Protestant and Catholic Creeds. There were, he admitted, many distinctions, and they were such as made him heartily glad that the latter had separated from them; but they were not such, as that the one should be refused that eligibility to power which the other possessed. He did not wish to be understood as saying that there was no very material difference between the Church of England and some of those Christians who dissented from it; but let it be remembered, that while some honourable members turned up their eyes in astonishment at the thought of admitting to the privileges of the constitution those who differed from them in some minor points, they made no scruple of sitting and voting and acting in constant and social fellowship with those who denied the divi nity of our Saviour. If there was a difference which at all could merit exclusion, this K. k

VOL. II. NO. IV.

was certainly a stronger mark of it than any which could be discovered between the Established Church and, the Roman Catholics. The next objection-and it was one which he could not expect to have heard that the Roman Catholics attached an overweening value to the merits of human actions. Why, that he should consider more likely to operate for the good of the state, than a contrary doctrine. Was it likely to make men better subjects to believe that good works were of no value, but that faith was every thing? For his part, he should prefer as subjects of a state those men who believed that good works were of some value, to the men who held that works were nothing, and that every one was fated to his lot. (Hear, hear.) Neither did he see any valid objection in the argument drawn from the belief in the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The question was not, whether it was acted upon by the Catholics, but whether it was acted upon in such a way as to make it dangerous to the state. He did not on this subject rest alone on the evidence of Dr. Döyle, but he must contend that the insinuations thrown out against the testimony of that reverend divine were not warranted by the fact. It was said as another objection to the concession of any political power to the Catholics, that they were (in Ireland) under the guidance of men whom they regarded with a veneration bordering on idolatry. He admitted the fact; but he laid the blame on another quarter. If they were idolatrous in their devotion to their priests, we were to blame; if they bowed down before idols, it was our persecution which had set them up. We had left them no other objects of political reverence. (Cheers.) Let us, however, lift up the veil of the constitution, show them the idol which we worshipped, point out the benefits that we enjoyed, and make them partakers of those benefits; and we should wean them for ever from the imputed crimes of political idolatry and superstition. (Cheers.) The right honourable Secretary then proceeded to contend that it was in vain to deny that the Roman Catholics laboured under heavy grievances. The penal code was dreadful, it set father against son, and wife against husband; it enticed into, and dissevered all the relations of social and domestic life-it impoverished, degraded, and debased, and threw a million of human beings into a complete state of moral and political misery. He had seen with disgust those ingenious devices of oppression, but he now looked upon them with pleasure, a pleasure caused by the hope that he was looking on them for the last time. He next pointed at the absurdity of supposing that men, who by great industry and active exertion, had possessed themselves of wealth, would, when they got possession of political power, use it for the purpose of destroying the constitution. We cannot follow him through all his observations upon this topic, or upon the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders and the provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy: it will be enough to report that he concluded his speech by saying, that for the sake of their support, he should be anxious, if he could, to vote for those measures, but in case they should not be carried, he would not say that he would withdraw his support from the present Bill. He did not pretend to wed himself for life to either of those measures, but to the great question, to that question which involved the tranquillity of Ireland, and the welfare of the empire, he declared that he was wedded for ever.

Mr. Peel expressed his regret at being obliged to differ from his right honourable friend in opinion upon this great question, more especially as he cordially agreed with him upon every other occasion. He then entered into a defence of those who had petitioned against the Bill before the House, and insisted that the Clergy of the Established Church were, in an especial degree, called upon by the nature of the measure to come forward with their remonstrances. When the clergyman, said he, is told that the doctrine discipline and government of his church are established permanently and inviolably, and yet sees that it is intended to erect a modified establishment for another church, which holds as articles of implicit faith, those articles which he condemns as contrary to the Bible, has he not reason for thinking that the time is come, in which his duty compels him to introduce into his petition, matter which touches closely upon theological discussion? He must confess that he was himself somewhat surprised at the two first clauses in the preamble of the present Bill. They were as follow:-"Whereas the Protestant succession to the Imperial crown of this United Kingdom and its dependencies, is, by the act for the further limitation of the Crown and the better securing the liberties of the subject, established permanently and inviolably: and whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland,

and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, by the respective acts of union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, therein severally established permanently and inviolably." Now, why were these two clauses introduced into this bill? There was no clause in it which provided for the permanent and inviolable security of the Protestant establishment. These clauses had some connexion with the first bill that was introduced by the late Mr. Grattan; for they were there followed by a third clause to this effect" And whereas it would tend to promote the interest of the same, and strengthen our free constitution, of which they are an essential part, if the civil and military disqualifications under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now laboured were removed." That clause was omitted in the present bill; for to say that the privileges which it conferred upon the Catholics were intended to promote the interest of the Church of England, and to strengthen our free constitution, would be an absurdity too great for any man at this time of day to think of believing. He had some apprehension from these two clauses being still inserted in the preamble, that there was in the enactments of the bill something pregnant with hidden danger to the constitution. The right honourable gentleman investigated the other clauses of the bill, and maintained that the constitution was virtually altered by them, the bill of rights repealed, and the security of surrounding the throne with Protestant counsellors removed. All the proffered securities, in return for these invasions of the constitution, he considered nugatory and delusive, he therefore preferred abiding by the bulwarks which the law had already provided, for securing the Protestant predominance of this Protestant government. When he compared the conduct at present pursued by this government, with that pursued by the legislature of a neighbouring nation, when a law was in agitation for inflicting death upon those who offered insults to certain mysteries in the Roman Catholic church, the firmer he became convinced, that the Protestant principle of predominance afforded a greater security than was likely to be provided by any other for the preservation of civil and religious liberty.

He

Mr. Brougham disclaimed any intention of troubling the House with any enlarged expression of his own sentiments upon this vital question. He only wished to have it clearly understood, on his own part at least, that he voted for the old, known, and not-tobe misunderstood measure of Catholic Emancipation. The accompanying measures which were to be annexed to the bill were pregnant with difficulties, and the vote on the question to night, ought not to be understood to bind the sentiments of any member upon those ulterior plans. He had thought fit to express his doubts upon each of the plans. He might be wrong in the views which he had taken, and he was prepared to hear the opposite case made out-but he was not singular in taking those views. was quite ready for the discussion of the new topics; but he must be allowed to say, that they had no necessary connexion with the Catholic question. His opinion upon that question was clear from all doubt. On all grounds upon which he had ever heard it argued, on all motives of expediency, or dictates of policy, ever suggested, the question stood where it did before; nor could it be influenced by either of those considerations. Policy it was not at present, and still less could it be referred to expediency; it was rather necessity, for the safety of the empire depended upon the use which the Parliament might make of this, perhaps the last opportunity it would have, for granting as a matter of grace that which would otherwise be extorted from them in the hour of peril and adversity. There were, however, very good reasons to induce them to look forward from the effect of their own proceedings to a triumphant majority in that other house, where alone the question had been for many years rejected. The House then divided.

HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, April, 25.

CATHOLIC QUESTION AND THE CORONATION OATH.

His Royal Highness the Duke of York presented a Petition from the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, against acceding to the demands of the Roman Catholics. His Royal

Highness took the opportunity of delivering his own sentiments upon the question, nearly in the following terms :-I hold in my hand a petition from the Dean and Chapter of the Collegiate Church of St. George, Windsor, praying that no further concession may be made to the Roman Catholics. I am sure that any representation from so learned and respectable a body will be received with the attention which it deserves; and therefore I should not have troubled your lordships with any observations in support of it, if I did not feel that this was an occasion on which any man may well be permitted to address your lordships. I do this more readily on the present occasion, because, feeling that I have not the habit of taking part in your discussions, I will not interrupt the progress of the debate on the Bill to which the Petitioners refer, if it should come into this house. It is now 25 years since this measure was first brought into discussion. I cannot forget with what events that discussion was at that time connected. It was connected with the most serious illness of one now no more; it was connected also with the temporary removal of one of the ablest, wisest, and honestest ministers that this country ever had. From that time, when I gave my first vote on this Question, to the present, I have never seen any reason to regret or to change the line which I then took. I have every year seen more reason to be satisfied with my decision. When the question comes regularly before your lordships, it will be discussed much more fully and ably than I can do it: but there are two or three subjects on which I am anxious to touch: one is, that you place the Church of England in a situation in which no other Church in the world is placed; the Roman Catholic will not allow the Church of England or Parliament to interfere with his Church, and yet he requires you to allow him to interfere with your Church, and to legislate for it. There is another subject, still more delicate, on which I cannot, however, help saying a few words. I speak (I beg to be understood) only as an individual: I desire not to be understood as speaking for any body else but consider, my lords, the situation in which you place the Sovereign. By the coronation oath, the Sovereign is bound to maintain the Church established, in her doctrine, discipline, and rights inviolate. An Act of Parliament may release future Sovereigns and other men from this oath, or from any other oath to be taken; but can it release an individual who has already taken it? I speak, I repeat it again, as an individual; but I entreat the House to consider the situation in which the Sovereign is thus placed. I feel very strongly on this whole subject; I cannot forget the deep interest ness which was taken upon it by one who is no more: and the long and unhappy illin which (Here his Royal Highness was sensibly affected). I have been brought up from my early years in these principles; and from the time when I began to reason for myself, I have entertained them from conviction; and in every situation in which I may be placed, I will maintain them, so help me God.

The following is the clause in the Coronation Oath, to which His Royal Highness alluded in the course of his address to the House.

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, AND THE PROTESTANT REFORMED RELIGION ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this realm, and to the -Churches committed to their charge, all such rights or privileges as by law do, or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?" "All this I do promise to do."

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 29.

PROVISION FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF IRELAND.

Lord J. L. Gower rose to move, "that it is expedient to make a provision towards the maintenance of the Secular Clergy of Ireland," and introduced the subject by a long panegyric upon the Roman Catholic Priesthood. He would not enter into any minute details as to the proposition which he was about to submit, because his task was simplified by a sound precedent, viz. the present establishment of the Presbyterian Clergy of Ireland. That body had been supported by statute since its first settlement in the country. A direct salary was granted in 1652, and a Regium donum in 1719. He would estimate the parish Clergy in round numbers at 2000, and propose to allow to a certain number under the first class, 200% a year each. To 800 under the second class, 1207. a year each; and to 1000 under the third class, 601. a year each.

He

would also allow four Archbishops 15007. a year each, twenty-two Bishops 1000% a year each, and twenty-six Deans 300l. a year each.

Colonel Bagwell seconded the motion.

Mr. Leslie Foster opposed it, and declared that he never could give his support to such a measure, unless the Crown had some authority in the appointment of the Catholic Bishops. Were there any consideration which would persuade him to adopt the proposition, it would be upon the understanding that the sums exacted of the peasantry should be given up.

Mr. Hume thought it impossible for any man to form a sound opinion as to the expediency of the noble Lord's motion amidst the mass of contradictory evidence before the House. It was impossible to say, after the examination of Dr. Doyle and others, whether the proposed provision would not be the means of exciting fresh discord in Ireland, instead of preserving peace and unity. But he would go further, and would not consent to the measure unless similar grants were made to the Dissenters. Was a paltry sum of about 14,000l. a year, all that was allowed to the Presbyterian Clergy, a sufficient precedent to call upon the House for 250,000l. for the Roman Catholic Priesthood? He concluded by moving an amendment, "That a select Committee be appointed to enquire whether the Catholic Priesthood, and all dissenting ministers from the Established Church of England and Ireland, and from the Established Church in Scotland, should be paid annual stipends."

Mr. William Banks opposed the original motion, as being unjust to Protestants of all denominations, but especially to Protestant Dissenters, who would have to pay three bodies of Clergy, their own, those of the Establishment, and the Roman Catholic.

Mr. P. Courtenay could not give his consent to the present motion, although he was always ready to support Catholic Emancipation. He did not think the Roman Catholics had any decided hostility to the Protestant Religion, or that they would subvert the Established Church to substitute their own.

Lord G. Cavendish was of opinion, that an ample provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy, such as would render themselves more enlightened, would enable them to enlighten their flocks, and to be of great benefit to the country.

Mr. Peel said that there was no instance of a State, in which they could find a sum of 250,000l. annually paid to support a Church over which there was no control; and therefore he considered that the House was not in a condition to vote for such an arrangement. How could Parliament call upon persons entering upon public offices to sign certain declarations, when they vote a sum of a quarter of a million to support the religion against which they protest? It appeared to him that the extreme precipitation with which this measure was urged on, in our imperfect state of information, was at variance with the principles of the constitution, and as such he should oppose it.

Mr. Wynn said, that one of the strongest recommendations of Catholic Emancipation he had always considered was, that it was likely to lead to a measure of this description. He considered the proposition as one abstractedly right, and à fortiori; if, by acceding to it, he could gain one additional vote in support of the measure of Emancipation, he should be most happy to give it the precedence, and pledge the House to its adoption. He would beg to remind his right honourable friend (Mr. Peel) that a measure of this nature had had the support of a Pitt, a Castlereagh, and a Cornwallis: he had heard Mr. Pitt say that "this and this only was the security he considered of importance; that he disapproved of securities depending on religious opinions; but that the best of all securities was to render the Clergy as connecting links between the people and the government" (hear); and this was by a pecuniary provision for them. No man who advocated further concession to the Roman Catholics, had ever argued; none indeed but an idiot would assume that the mere measure of Catholic relief, if passed into law, would necessarily put an end to the turbulence and discontent which had, unhappily, so long prevailed in Ireland. Undoubtedly much benefit was expected to result-first from the accomplishment of that measure, followed up, as it was concluded it would be, by regulations and subsidiary measures calculated to correct existing and local evils.

Mr. R. Martin had good reason to believe, that the Roman Catholic Clergy with the greatest sincerity did not wish for the measure, because their influence with the people would be diminished in proportion to their connection with the State. Why then, it would be asked, did he support the motion? Because he should have the satisfaction of stating in reply to any expression of discontent in consequence of certain assessments