sure, of the necessity of which it had no evidence whatsoever. Such was the principal evidence brought by the right hon. member in favour of the party he was supporting.

After several members had given their opinion concerning the question, of whom the majority were clearly in favour of the means employed by the right hon. mover, the House resolved itself into a committee on the Bank-restriction acts, and leave was given to bring in the bill. The House having resumed, the bill was read a first and second time, committed, and reported. On the motion, that it be read a third time, Mr. Gurney said that he could not avoid expressing his fear that the measure would be productive of more evil, than could result from any good expected from it.

The bill was then passed.

In the House of Lords, after the Earl of Harrowby had risen to move that the standing order relative to the progress of bills be suspended, that the present measure might pass through its remaining stages forthwith, some other lords made observations on the bills at issue.

The standing orders being suspended, the bill was then read a second time, and the commitment having been negatived, it was read a third time, and passed.

Roman Catholic Claims. In the House of Commons, on May 3rd, petitions were presented respecting the claims of the Roman Catholics, by the following members: Mr. Bastard,

against their claims, from the county of Devon, and from the city of Exeter; Mr. Peel and Mr. Methuen, on the same side; sir George Hill, from the citizens and inhabitants of Londonderry, on the same side; Lord Ebring ton and Mr. Western, in favour of the Catholics; and many other petitions on the same subject, which were ordered to lie on the table.

On the same day, the Right Hon. Mr. Grattan presented eight Roman Catholic, and five Protestant petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, after which he rose, and made a speech, of which the following were the leading points:

The hon. member began with expressing his ardent hope, that the wishes of the Catholics should ultimately succeed, and that they would give strength to the Protestant church, to the Act of Settlement, to the Protestant succession to the crown, and would form an identification with the people, so as to preserve tranquillity at home, and security and respectability abroad. He proceeded in his argument to observe, first, that the Roman Catholics had a common law right to eligibility; secondly, that the parliament had in justice no right to require them to abjure their religion; thirdly, that the Roman Catholic religion is no evidence of perfidy or treason; fourthly, that you reject the Roman Catholics for what they have abjured, and require of them to abjure that which does not belong to the cognizance of the civil magistrate, namely, the articles of their religion.

In continuing the disqualification of the Roman Catholics, we not only deprive them of the common law right of eligibility, but we affect the foundation of our own religion. When we say that the Roman Catholic is incapable of moral obligation or political allegiance, we affirm that Christianity does not extend to France, to Italy, to Spain, to a great part of Germany, and of course we deprive it of one great proof of its divinity. You answer this by charges against the Roman Catholics. I have stated those charges to be unfounded. You did not believe in them in the 17th of the king, when you declared the Roman Catholics to be good and loyal subjects; when you gave them the right of bearing arms; when you gave them in Ireland, the election franchise; when you gave them the army and navy; when you restored the popedom; when you helped to restore the house of Bourbon, and with them to give new strength to the Roman religion in France. You saw that a Roman Catholic church establishment was better than philosophy, and that Christianity with seven sacraments, was better than infidelity.

But it is said, if you emancipate Roman Catholics, their clergy will overturn the government; they will use their influence with the laity, who will for feit their lives in the vain attempt to give domination to their church. This argument is fun damentally erroneous: it supposes that man struggles for the domination of his church establishment by nature. Man is not

attached to church establishment by nature; it is a creature of art, and a question in politics, not a work of nature. The argument goes farther, and says, that men would prefer the domination of their church establishment to all considerations, moral or political : that is to say, that all men are by nature fanaties. This argument is not only not according to human nature, but the reverse. It is supposed that Dr. Poynter, an excellent subject, will, upon the emancipation of his flock, say to the Duke of Norfolk, your grace is now possessed of the privileges of the constitution, and will now, of course, try to subvert the government; that is to say, lose your head by a fruitless attempt to get me made archbishop of Canterbury. ment arrives at last to the monstrous palliation of two crimes, rebellion of the Roman Catholics for the ambition of their church, and pains and penalties imposed upon the Roman Catholics, for the exercise of their religion.

Argu

The argument I combat not only goes against the nature of man, but against the drift of the age. The question is not now, which church? but whether any. When you attack the religion of Europe, you attack the religion of England. There is a great similitude. You send for your clergy when you are sick, or dying: your sacrament is more than a commemoration, though less than a transubstantiation : there are shades of difference it is true; but if their hierarchy be so abominable, yours cannot be pure, and in your common downfall, you will learn your similitude.

The objection which alleges the growth of demand, naturally connects itself with this part of the subject; if the Roman Catholics get a share in the state, they will demand a share in the church, that is to say, they will desire to become Protestant clergymen. Here, however, the nature of things interposes insuperable limits; but if they mean that he will desire a church establishment of his own, they are mistaken: it is what the Protestants in general wish to give him, and the Roman Catholic declines, because he does not feel that impulse in favour of a church ascendancy; because they wish to have their pastors a little nearer themselves, and less connected with the court.

Mr. Grattan, pursuing his line of argument, says, the oath and declaration framed at the Revolution, were intended to be final, parliament says otherwise; the House of Lords, in its resolution of 1705, says otherwise; in the act of the Scotch Union, it declares that the oath and declaration were not to be final; and parliament, in the act of the Irish Union makes the same declaration. In order to obtain the approbation of the Roman Catholics in favour of the Union, they were informed by parliament, that their exclusion was not final. So that instead of a covenant amongst the Protestants, against the Roman Catholics for their final exclusion, there is a covenant between the same against their final exclusion. The rigour of the acts directed against the Roman Catholics was intended

against such as refused to abjure the temporal power of the pope. Now this description does not comprehend the present race of Catholics, and therefore they do not come within the meaning of the act of exclusion, as declared in the act of 1793. Of the petitioners against the Roman Catholics I know, and personally regard many; but I would ask them, do they really think their fellow subjects should be excluded on account of extreme unction? certainly not: for transubstantiation ?-certainly not: and yet their application, if strictly taken, would, for no better reason, deprive them of their civil rights for ever. They will observe, also, that there was no law against the admission of Roman Catholics into the Irish parliament at the time of the Revolution, nor did any law take place till near one hundred years after. They have then chosen a period as the standard of their rights, when the Roman Catholics were not excluded from seats in parliament by law, and when the whole country was deprived of trade and liberty, by power.

After a considerable number of detached observations on various topics, Mr. Grattan concluded his speech in the following

manner:

Our prince is, on the part of his father, the supreme head of the church; we are his national council, and have a right to advise him. I avail myself of that privilege, and say to him, My Prince, my Master, you must take the lead in the deliverance of your people. Your predeces

sor,

sor, the Plantagenet, conquered on the continent, so have you; but then they confirmed the great charter thirty times: your other predecessor, the Tudor, saved Holland; but then she passed good laws without number: the Hanover, and under your direction, has carried Europe on his back; but then a great work still remains for the fulfilment of this glory, a fourth part of your subjects are now before you. Come, the destinies of the house of Hanover are waiting for you; come, be the emancipator of the Catholics, as you have been the deliverer of Europe, and look in the face the Plantagenet and the Tudor. I move, Sir, "That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider the state of the laws by which the oaths or declarations are required to be taken, or made as qualifications for the enjoyment of offices, and the exercise of civil functions, so far as the same affect his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and whether it would be expedient in any, or what manner to alter or modify the same, and subject to what provisions and regulations."

Mr. Croker now rose to second the motion, in which he said that he owed some apology to the House for venturing to solicit its attention at so early a stage in the debate, but he trusted that an apology would be found in the nature of the considerations which he had to offer to its notice. The statute which the hon. gentleman found prescribing the oaths at present existing as

the principal one now in force on this point, is the first of Geo. 1st, which provides, that all persons holding any office, civil or military, or any place of emolument or trust, shall, within three months after they shall have entered upon any such place or office, subscribe in one of the courts at Westminster, or at the general quarter sessions of the peace, the oaths in the statute set forth, namely, the oath of allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of abjuration. By a subsequent act of 9th George 2nd, it is provided that, instead of the period of three months given by the statute of George 1st, a period of six months shall be allowed for qualification; and farther, that the declaration against transubstantiation enacted 25th Charles II, shall also be made at the same time. From this time commences a new series of legislation on the subject, for, from the extension of the period allowed for qualification, the wisdom of parliament has been pleased annually to pass an Act of Indemnity, which reciting the acts, imposing the oaths of qualification, and the declaration against transubstantiation, enacts, that any person who may, before the passing of such an act, have omitted so to qualify himself, shall not be liable to any pains or penalties for such omission, provided he shall qualify before the 25th of March next ensuing. If (says the hon. gentleman) with all the attention I have directed towards this subject, I should have failed in unravelling its details, if no

research

research can guide us, and if no authority will direct us to a clear view of the true state of the law, I ask, confidently ask, is it not high time to have a committee of investigation? Again-What, on all creatures, is the effect of the lash, but to make them pursue their course with a blinder, and more headlong fury? Jealousy and severity may have produced distrust and disaffection; but by the very same operation of our nature, moderation and kindness must generate mutual confidence, and a reciprocity of affection.

Mr. Leslie Foster opposed the concessions to the Catholics on various distinct grounds. The first was the actual state of the Protestant feeling in Great Britain, which, he said, was not ambiguous, at least could not be contradicted in that House. His second ground was the indisposition of the majority of the Protestants in Ireland to entertain such an idea, which, from undoubted authority, he contended to have been very inconsiderable. A third case is the feelings of the Roman Catholics themselves. The Relief bill, of 1813, were in search of expressions to mark their execration of it. They pronounced it to be a law of penalty, and preferred to it their present state of exclusion. The clergy in their pulpits, and the bishops in a solemn synod, declared that they could not submit to it without incurring the guilt of schism; and that, with the blessing of God, they would lay down their lives for it. In 1792, the claim for political power was advanced by the highest Catholic authority, a

regular convention sitting like a parliament in Dublin. By their secretary they promulgated their declaration, of which their whole demand was limited to the four following objects: admission to the profession and practice of the law; a capacity to serve as county magistrates; a right to be summoned, and to serve on grand and petit juries; and the right of voting in counties only for Protestant members of parliament. This ultimatum of Catholic desire was conceded to them; but in two short years afterwards, they approached the Irish parliament with such fervency of entreaty for admission into both houses of parliament, that Lord Fitzwilliam, then lord lieutenant, declared in a speech delivered after his recall, that the Irish Catholics would go into a rebellion if they were refused.

The right hon. gentleman concluded with saying, the church of England has grown with the growth of our civil freedom, been overcome when it was overcome, and triumphed when it triumphed. Like our civil constitution, it is a happy mixture of whatever there is safe and beneficial in the opposite extremes of liberty and power, adopting the free spirit, though not the tenets, which marks the church of Geneva, but tempering it by retaining the principles of supremacy and episcopy. And never be it forgotten, that in Ireland it superadds the additional claim to your present protection, that in all times past it has been your tenure of the island.

Lord Normanby next rose, who after strongly expressing his feel