laid on the Catholics, "True, we have called upon you to repair Protestant Churches, but recollect we Protestants are also taxed to support your religious institutions."

Mr. Spring Rice observed that he should support the present Bill. First, because he knew that the Roman atholic Clergy of Ireland, were more powerful than the Clergy of any other communion, except those of the Established Church, and therefore it became more desirable to place them in an amicable relation with the State; and, secondly, because the population of that persuasion were the poorest in the empire, and who consequently stood more in need of relief from a contribution to their own pastors, being obliged by law to support the religion of that State (hear.) He would say, as a mere matter of finance, that no measure could apply more efficaciously, as a benefit to that population, than to be relieved from the maintenance of their own Clergy, always recollecting that the law had imposed upon them the necessity of supporting another Priesthood (hear.) And, speaking of the Catholic Clergy, he would appeal to the Irish Members of that House, whether in their capacity of magistrates and administrators of the law, they had not uniformly experienced the most active and zealous co-operation from the Roman Catholic Clergy in their respective counties? He should refer to the evidence of a most enlightened and venerable character, a relation to his own, Mr. Justice Day, late a Judge of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, as to the conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy. To remunerate such men by a fair and constitutional grant, must be productive of the highest benefit. The argument of economy would not, he was persuaded, weigh with the people of this country when they contemplated the greater good. And, as a gentleman and a magistrate, he most conscientiously assured the House, that if in either, or both characters, he was able to have upheld attachment to the laws, and the punishment of evil doers-and he believed he might take the credit of not being inefficient-he was, he declared, enabled so to act through the unwearied co-operation of the Catholic Clergy of his county (hear).

Mr. Goulburn said he could not support a proposition like that before the House, unless they had further information to guide them. The Bill in his opinion made a provision for those who were not very anxious to receive it, and who would be especially unwilling to receive it hereafter, when they came to understand the conditions with which it was coupled.

Mr. Calcraft supported the motion, and thought it a little extraordinary that the two right honourable gentlemen who had the best opportunities of acquiring information on the state of Ireland, should be the loudest in complaining of their ignorance upon the subject.

Mr. Creevey declared his opinion that the Roman Catholic Clergy ought to be paid out of the funds of the Establishment.

Mr. Brougham supported the measure on the ground that the numbers of the Roman Catholics gave them a claim which no other Dissenting Sect could allege, but stated that he voted on the understanding that no increase should take place in the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Plunkett gave his assent to the Bill as a measure likely to cure the jealousy of the Roman Catholics, who could no longer complain of having to contribute to the support of a Clergy whose doctrines they disapproved, without the reproach being retorted upon them by the Protestants.

The measure was afterwards abandoned, upon the loss of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill in the House of Lords.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, May 6.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

"Mr. Brougham moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.

After General Gascoyne and Sir T. Lethbridge had spoken at great length against the principle of the Bill, Mr. Peel rose and declared that he still felt it his duty to enter his decided protest against the measure, but as an understanding prevailed in the House, that it should not be divided on the present occasion, he would not call for a division. The House then resolved itself into a Committee. Mr. Macdonald in the chair. The Bill having been read a first and second time,

The Speaker rose, he said, to occupy the attention of the Committee but for a very short time. After the recent and very elaborate discussion which this subject had undergone, he very much doubted whether any person could say any thing now with regard to it, and he certainly was not prepared to arrogate to himself the capability of doing so. He was perfectly aware, that according to the strict rules and forms of the House, the present stage of the Bill under consideration was neither the most convenient, nor the most regular occasion, for any member to state his opinion with regard to it; but as his opinion on the question remained entirely unchanged, and as this was the first opportunity, and perhaps it might be the last, on which he should be enabled to address the House on the measure, he trusted he might be permitted to say a few words. (Hear, hear.) Nothing, then, which he had heard or read had relieved his mind from the serious apprehensions with which it was filled with regard to this great, and, as he thought, most dangerous measure. (Hear, hear.) Having said thus much, he could assure the Committee that he had no amendment to propose, nor did he wish to press a division, particularly after the opinion of the House had been so decidedly expressed on that point. However painful it might be to him to differ from the majority of the House-however painful it might be to his feelings to differ from the opinions of those whose opinions he ought to respect, and on whose opinions he in almost every case placed the greatest reliance; and, above all, notwithstanding he felt that the course he was now pursuing was a great evil, and to be justified only by the necessity of the case, still feeling that a question of this kind admitted of no compromise, so long as he retained his conscientious objections to the question of emancipation, he should be ashamed of himself if he did not declare them (Hear). He hoped that the Committee would pardon him for having troubled them with these few words. He had, as he before stated, no amendment to propose, nor was he aware that it was intended to propose any, or to come to any division in the Committee. He had been anxious not to remain silent with regard to the present Bill, the only public measure with which he had interfered since he had had the honour to fill the chair (Hear, hear).

In the discussion of the different clauses of the Bill which followed, the construction of the qualification oath occupied considerable time.

Mr. Bransby Cooper professed himself at a loss to understand how any good Catholic could take the oath at all. Mr. Brougham observed, that it was to be exacted of those only who were to exercise some public function. Mr. Peel thought it rather extraordinary that the Roman Catholic should be relieved from taking the oath of supremacy, while the Protestant would be still called upon to swear" that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or temporal in these realms." The same right hon. gentleman also objected to the legal recognition of the Pope's authority, and exposed the absurdities involved in that part of the arrangement, which enjoined the appointment of a Roman Catholic commission. "No Commissioner," said he, "would like to question the loyalty of a man, who had not been convicted of a disloyal act. There is nothing more vague than the idea attached to the words loyal and disloyal."

Upon Lord Ennismore expressing a hope that the Bill would not be pressed to a third reading until the Clergy Provision Bill was passed, Mr. Brougham contended that the measure for the maintenance of the Clergy would be quite out of the question, unless they first gave emancipation.

The Bill was ordered to be printed, and read a third time on Tuesday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, May 17.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

The Earl of Donoughmore moved the second reading of the Bill from the Commons in

a very short speech.

Lord Colchester met the question by shewing the unreasonableness of the demands of the Catholics, and the danger of conceding to them. The property of Roman Catholics, as his lordship observed, was protected in the same way as the property of others. They were admitted to the full career of military honours, and now they insisted upon the full, free, and unqualified enjoyment of political privileges. Without multiplying allusions to former times, he would confine himself to examples of the period in which we now live, and prove from the present temper of popery, that Papists were not likely to make a good use of power. The most prominent person among the Roman Catholics for character, learning, and abilities, was Dr. Doyle, and one of the declarations of Dr. Doyle before the House was, that the Roman Catholics could not receive the doctrine of supremacy as held by the Church of England. The Catholic Bishops took an oath to hold sacredly "consilium domini Papæ." Was there to be one sort of allegiance for his Majesty's English, and another for his Irish subjects? As to the election of Bishops, a curious provision was made in the Bill: it was to be a kind of domestic nomination. The Sovereign was not to interfere. Much had been said of countries, where Protestants enjoyed civil liberty under Catholic rulers. This might be where princes are despotic, and can put an end to the influence of a dangerous subject at once, but it would not do in a state where the constitution is popular, and where a man of talent and address can elevate himself to a share in the councils of his Sovereign. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day six months.

The Marquis of Anglesey felt convinced that emancipation was not the object of the Roman Catholics, but that they aspired to Catholic ascendancy. They threatened a trial of strength, and if it must come to a struggle, he thought the sooner the matter was brought to an issue the better.

The Marquis of Camden was of opinion that the time had arrived when concessions should be made to the Roman Catholics, and entered with great feeling and earnestness into a description of the opportunities which he had enjoyed of witnessing the loyalty and zeal which the inhabitants of the south west of Ireland had displayed, when their assistance was required against the common enemy. He entertained great love and affection for Ireland. He was bound to it by strong ties, and he thought that its welfare would be best consulted by passing this Bill.

Lord Darnley agreed with all that had been said by the noble Lord (Camden) and thought it absurd to argue that any thing was to be feared from the measure while they had a Protestant King, a Protestant Commander-in-chief, and a Protestant army.

: Lord Longford said, that he could not see how it was possible to draw the line between the points where spiritual and political influence began. The Catholic priesthood were always eagerly and jealously employed in quest of power, and the power they exercised over the people was unlimited. With all this influence they refused to submit to that control to which our own establishment yielded, and what view was to be taken of this refusal, when it was coupled with the fact, that they admitted of control elsewhere? Without a decided Protestant ascendancy, he could see no security for Protestant interests. He was satisfied that the right of the proposed change did not exist, that necessity did not exact it, and that expediency did not require it.

The Bishop of Llandaff declared his sentiments in one of the most argumentative and luminous speeches that were ever delivered before the House. He contended that the supposed benefits expected from the measure could not be obtained without the sacrifice of some essential principles of our Protestant Constitution and Government. The very preamble, said he, of the Bill sets forth that the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland are established permanently and inviolably, and make a direct acknowledgment not only that some religion is essential to the constitution, but also that it shall be Protestant and Episcopal. His Lordship then proceeded to argue that the Roman Catholics are not excluded merely on account of their theological tenets, but because they are what they do not choose to call themselves, PAPISTS. My Lords, said the Right Rev. Prelate, I beg it may be distinctly understood, that I do not mean to use this term as a term of reproach, nor with the slightest intention to give offence. I have too high a respect for the general body of the Roman Catholics, to intend any such thing. But it is necessary, it is unavoidable, in the course of argument I have to pursue, that this their fixed and (I believe) unalterable characteristic should be kept in view. If, therefore, I should happen to use the terms Popery and Papists more frequently than I may wish to do, or than may be acceptable to many who hear me, I trust it will be excused. I certainly will endeavour to abstain from them as far as circumstances will permit.

What then, is the distinguishing feature of the real Papist? It is, my Lords, the ac knowledgment of the Pope's supremacy,—the acknowledgment, that, in certain respects, the Pope has an authority over the whole Christian world; and, consequently, that in whatever country, or under whatever government, the members of the Church of Rome are placed, they owe to him, as their supreme head, a special allegiance, and are bound, by an obligation paramount to all others, to render him homage and obedience. His Lordship next examined the extent of the Papal pretensions and prerogative, and maintained, that under whatever definitions and limitations, and although spiritual in its purpose and effect, the power of a foreign Potentate cannot be exercised in this country without a palpable interference with the authority of the State, and cannot be carried into execution without a perceptible and powerful influence upon men's temporal interests. The learned Prelate fortified his assertions, that a divided allegiance only can be expected from those who acknowledge the Pope's supremacy, by a reference to authorities which are allowed to be unexceptionable, and after adducing examples from the evidence lately taken before Parliament to prove that the tenets of the Roman Catholics are unchangeable, his Lordship concluded by appealing to the House in defence of the position on which he set out. While these continue to be the avowed tenets of the Roman Catholics, again I ask, are they not really Papists? and can their admissibility to the same power and trust with other subjects be reasonably claimed, or safely granted?

My Lords, in making these observations, let me once more disclaim any sentiments of ill-will, any hostile or unchristian feelings towards those who are objects of them. My Lords, if I know myself, I am not of an intolerant spirit; and it is painful to me to seem opposed to a body of men whom I know how to respect and esteem. In the early part of my professional life, I lived in habits of social and friendly intercourse with persons of distinction among them, for whom I entertained a sincere regard. With others of the same description I have since cultivated acquaintance, and hope still to continue doing so. I can honour a Papist, who is a Papist indeed; and I can honour Dissenters of other denominations, who are Dissenters indeed. But I cannot equally honour those who affect an approximation of sentiment to ourselves in matters even of essential importance, where there can be no real agreement. The best foundation of unaffected good-will between parties thus differing in religion, is, in my opinion, an honest and ingenuous avowal of such difference, without compromising our own principles, or being intolerant of those of others.

One more observation, my Lords, I cannot forbear to offer. The declared object of the proposed measure is to conciliate the Roman Catholics. But has it been sufficiently considered, what may be the result, with respect to the great mass of the Protestant community? The effect, even in removing dissatisfaction from the lower orders, at least, of the Roman Catholics, appears to me exceedingly doubtful, if not hopeless. But supposing it to have that effect, what are likely to be the feelings of our Protestant fellow subjects? What can be expected but a revival of those protracted and acrimonious controversies which, from the Restoration to the Revolution, so vehemently agitated the public mind? A struggle might probably ensue; and not only would it, under such circumstances, be the natural inclination of the clergy of our Establishment, but it would become their bounden duty to press forward in vindication of their own spiritual rights and liberties, and those of the Laity committed to their charge. I have no fear, my Lords, of the issue of such a struggle. When I look around me, and see the daily increasing phalanx of able and learned defenders of our Church, I cannot doubt of a favourable result: and having now passed the meridian of life myself, it gives me increased satisfaction to contemplate such a prospect. Nevertheless, my Lords, I cannot but deprecate any course of proceeding that may render such a conflict necessary. I am too conversant with polemics, (perhaps have been too much of a polemic myself,) not to know that these contests unavoidably engender strife, and enmity, and bitterness, of which no one can foresee the termination.

My Lords, for these reasons, among many others, I cannot but view the present Bill as most objectionable in its principles, and ill-calculated to produce any such effects as would justify your Lordships in suffering it to pass into a law. I must therefore meet it with my decided negative.

The Bishop of Norwich supported the Bill, and spoke of the existing disqualifications of the Roman Catholics as oppressive and insulting.

The Bishop of Chester began his address to the House by a candid declaration, that his present sentiments upon the subject of Catholic Emancipation were in opposition to

bis early sentiments. The change, he said, was not recent, but if aught had been wanting to the fullness of his conviction, he should have found it in the evidence lately delivered before Parliament, nay, in the very portions of that evidence on which the advocates for legislation in this instance principally rely. His lordship then went on to protest against the unfair insinuation which had been so often repeated, that the Episcopal Bench could not come to the decision as impartial judges, because they were influenced by interested motives. The same charge might with equal justice be made against other Lords, who, as great proprietors of the soil, might be accused of giving their support to this measure from temporal considerations of danger to their possessions, "My Lords," said he, "I have heard a great deal, though not so much on this evening's debate, of the injustice and cruelty of debarring four millions of our fellow subjects of their indefeasible and unalienable rights: but if this momentous question is to be determined upon principle, it can make no difference whether the claimants are forty or four millions. If concession be just, let it be made to four men as well as to four millions; for, in a matter of mere justice, the element of numbers ought not to enter into the calculation. But, let me ask, what is the meaning of the words debarred of their indefeasible and unalienable rights,' which some have called civil, and others, with more propriety, natural rights? Is there any civil right which an individual in a state may not be called upon to forego, when public expediency requires its relinquishment (Hear, hear)? Is not this principle recognised by our own Constitution, and to a degree that seems to have escaped the notice of noble lords, who talk so loudly of the injustice of excluding from political power, a certain number of the King's subjects: for that after all is the real question (Hear). It seems to me as unjust to exclude an individual from a share in the enactment of laws, merely because he has not a certain amount of property, as to exclude him because he professes tenets incompatible with the religion of the State. I can find no real difference between the two cases, and the only answer will be, that in the one case the criterion of qualification is certain, and in the other uncertain. The principles of the Roman Catholics are certain and notorious, and in both cases the fact is, that the civil right is coucluded and foreclosed, because it is required by public expediency. Give me leave to say, that the very same principle is recognised by the friends of the present measure. It appears to my mind, that the right to have a voice in the legislature is not a more sacred right than that of having a voice in the election of legislators, and that to deprive any body of men of that right, is a greater violation of natural justice than to shut them out of the legislature entirely. Yet this is the very injustice which the great advocates of this Bill propose to effect." His lordship next alluded to the troubles and distress which prevailed in Ireland, and which it was said would be removed by the measure under debate, but in his opinion it was a condition of society which required prompt and vigorous measures of statistic legislation, which could only be remedied by a more equitable system generally, by a purer administration of justice in the lower departments, by a revision of the revenue laws, by the establishment of institutions for education, and, what would lead to all the rest, by the return of the natural proprietors of the soil. Could it be expected that the present Bill would produce content and pacification, when it must be notorious that if the great body of Roman Catholics in Ireland had any religious feelings at all upon the subject, they must go a great deal further than the narrow limits of this enactment, and would not be satisfied, until they advanced from equality to superiority and supremacy. The Catholic priesthood could not but aim at the subversion of the Protestant Church, and contemplate the erection of their own upon its ruins, every opposition therefore ought to be given by sincere Protestants to a political step which gives facilities to the attainment of that object. The right reverend prelate then called the attention of the House to the statements made by Roman Catholic leaders and doctors at public meetings, and in productions that issued from the press, to shew the temper by which they were governed, the hostility they entertained to the Protestant establishment, and the expectations they indulged of abolishing tithes at least, if not of appropriating them to their own priesthood. From this topic he proceeded to an examination of the spiritual power of the Pope, as alleged to be contra-distinguished from temporal authority, quoted modern examples to prove that the ecclesiastical supremacy of the sovereign pontiff, had repeatedly been exercised against the rights of Kings and States, and reminded the House that the ultima ratio Pape, by which the Roman See claims a power of releasing subjects from their allegiance, had been recognized when Pope Pius VII. issued a bull in favour of Buonaparte, and absolved the French Prelates and Clergy from the oaths