the warrants of two or more magistrates should be necessary in both cases. The clause was defended from the impossibility in many instances of procuring the concurrence of two magistrates in time for an effectual search; and the clause was carried on a division by 77 against 18.

A second division took place on the clause empowering magistrates to lodge the arms so taken in a safe depot, which passed by 75 against 16. When the third reading of the bill was moved, July 20, the former objections were renewed, particularly with respect to the powers granted of searching for arms; and it was asserted that the necessity of such a measure no longer existed, tranquillity having been restored in the disturbed districts. Mr. Batherst, however, declared, that on this very morning information had been received at the secretary of state's office that eight new attempts for seizing arms had been made within these few days. Mr. Tier ney then proposed the following amendment to be inserted by way of rider: "Provided always that it shall be lawful for his Majesty, by and with the advice of his privy council, to declare such districts as are now subject to the operation of this act, to be no longer in a state of disturbance, and that this act shall no longer be in force in such districts."

Lord Castlereagh approved of the amendment. A division then took place upon the question of the third reading of the bill; ayes 69, noes 15: the bill was then read and passed.

The report of the secret committee of the House of Lords was

presented by the Earl of Harrow by on July 14. It is much more copious and minute than that of the Commons, particularly with respect to the military organization of the rioters. See State Papers..

The bill for the preservation of the public peace being sent up from the Commons, its second reading was moved, July 23, by Lord Sidmouth, who introduced it with some observations on the necessity of such a measure, and hoped that its enactinent would not be delayed a sing e day. As it was understood that there should be only one discusssion on the sub. ject, a few general remarks only were made by those who were. hostile to the principle of the bill, and it was read, and committed for the following day.

On the third reading, before a very thin house, Lord Holland roe, and made objections to the bill, similar to those which had been urged in the House of Commons. He contended that the nature of the evidence brought to prove its necessity, was not such as could justify the measure proposed; and he particularly objected to the powers granted of searching for and taking away arms from private persons by a single magistrate. He concluded with moving the amendments of inserting two magistrates instead of one; and that the magistrate should attend the search in person, and not delegate his power to the constable.

Lord Stanhope said he disapproved of the bill on several grounds, but principally because it was inconsistent with the law of the land, which provided that the

officers

officers of the hundred should go so sufficiently armed as to quell any riotous proceedings.

The Earl of Darnley also opposed the bill, which was defended by Earls Camden and Liverpool. The third reading being carried, Lord Holland's amendments were put and negatived. He then pro

posed as a third amendment, that the magistrates should not have the power of search in the night. This was rejected on a division by 17 against 6, and the bill was passed.

Its operation was limited to the 25th of March, 1813.

CHAPTER

OTWITHSTANDING the

was not to preclude a temperate

tempts in parliament to procure a concession of the claims of the Irish Catholics to an equal participation in the rights and prerogatives of their fellow citizens, the advocates of their cause, probably imputing the opposition in part to circumstances of temporary irritation, resolved not to give up the contest, but to appeal, as it were, from the heat of the moment, to a future period of calmness and sobriety. In pursuance of this idea, Mr. Canning, on June 22, rose in the House of Commons to make a motion on the subject. He began his speech with alluding to a circumstance which might be regarded as embarrassing to an advocate of the Catholics, but which he considered as only one symptom of the habitual irritation of the public mind in Ireland, and an additional motive for an immediate consideration of the question in the proper place; this was, the receipt on that morning of the resolutions of the aggregate meeting of Irish Catholics at Dublin. He shewed that the warmth of these resolutions

tion, but rather to inculcate the propriety of dropping the recollections of all that had passed in former debates, and considering the subject as if now presented for the first time. He then laid down three principles on which, in his opinion, the whole matter rested. 1. He would assume as a general rule, that citizens of the same state, living under the same government, are entitled, prima facie, to equal political rights and privileges. 2. That it is at all times desirable to create and maintain the most perfect identity of interest and feeling among all the members of the same community. 3. That where there exists in any community a great permanent cause of political discontent, which agitates men's minds without having any tendency to subside of itself, it becomes the duty of the supreme power in the state to determine in what mode it may most advantage. ously be set at rest.

The right honourable gentleman then went on to enlarge upon these several heads, with the force and

eloquence

worship and assemblies, and persons teaching or preaching therein. He stated that in consequence of certain decisions at the quarter sessions, doubts had arisen as to the question of qualification; and that the object of this bill was to place the dissenters in the situation in which they practically stood previously to such decisions. The bill was brought in and read.

At the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, July 20, Mr. W. Smith congratulated the house on the unanimity with which it had hitherto passed, as a favourable omen of the increasing liberality of the times. He thought it would remove the practical evils of which the dissenters had to complain, although it did not recognize their great principle, that the civil magistrate had no right to interfere in matters of religious opinion. It removed the arbitrary discretion of magistrates, and required no other oath than that of allegiance. As an act of toleration, it was certainly the most complete which had hitherto been passed in this country. The honourable member concluded by moving a clause "to continue the exemptions now enjoyed by the toleration act, without requiring a fresh oath.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred with the honourable gentleman in his congratulations, which he was happy to consider as not arising from indifference to religion, since the same parliament had distinguished itself by its bountiful regards to the established church; and he instanced in the grants made to the parochial clergy, and the exemption of the smaller livings from the land-tax. He

the late Mr. Perceval the cregave dit both of those measures, and of

the design of the present bill. He alluded to an intention of the honourable gentleman to have brought in a bill for the protection of a particular sect (the Unitarians), and was glad that he had not put it into execution; for he believed the persons in question were in no danger of molestation, and such a bill might have given great offence to many well meaning persons, by exposing doctrines to contumely which were generally viewed with great veneration. In a future session means might be devised to reconcile the respect due to those doctrines with a full protection to the decent profession of opposite opinions.

Mr. Whitbread said he had examined the bill, and found it the same that he had intended to have brought in, and drew the same happy inferences from its silent progress as his honourable friend had done. He hoped this spirit would continue till the great work of religious freedom received its final consummation.

Mr Smith's clause was then brought up and agreed to, and the bill was read a third time and passed.

The second reading of the bill in tue House of Lords was moved, on July 23, by the Earl of Liverpool, who observed that the subject could not be properly entered into without repealing certain acts which remained on the statute book, but which no one would now think of putting in force. Among these were the conventicle, and the five-mile acts. The latter was entirely abrogated: some parts of the former were retained in another shape. In order to combine the most ample toleration with the requisite securities, it was pro

posed