So he believed the verses ran. But he was not answerable for that description of the learned baron. It was given by one who knew him much better than he did.

Whether just or not might soon be known, if it should be the pleasure of the house to inquire into it: an opportunity would soon occur. A gentleman was coming over to support a petition which had been presented two years ago, whose desire was to be allowed to prove his case at the bar of the house, and he would undertake to make good charges of malversation against Baron M'Cleland. Whether made out or not upon hearing, was nothing to the present purpose. He had stated what he had heard and believed→ what he still must believe-because of the defects in the answer of the learned baron. It was not necessary that he should add more in his objections to the bill. He deplored its progress deeply: he denounced it as the harbinger of ill: it was his unalterable opi nion, that it would produce remediless mischief; that it would break up that short-lived tranquillity, which they owed to the exertions of this association. He called the house once for all to pause. It was not a measure directed equally against orange and catholic associations, but against catholic associations. He had hoped, if not for the substance, at least for the semblance, of even-handed jus➡ tice. The catholics were forbidden to associate, while the

vilege. (Cheers, and cries of

No.") He said it was so. The orangemen were prevented from associating in secret, so were the catholics. But the catholics were, also prohibited from meeting in public, in order to obtain any alterations in the affairs of church or state. Who ever heard of orangemen wanting any alteration in church or state? Their petitions, were to maintain things as they were. They were only too glad to have them remain; alteration would annihilate them and their hopes. Under the mask of an equal law, which would scarcely affect the orangemen, they were drawing a double edged sword against the catholics. The orange party might have a parliament, and all the regulations which were denied the catholics, provided that they sought no alteration in church or state? Why should they? They felt no grievances, and they could wish for no alteration. The catholics only had grounds for complaint. They alone wished for alteration: and this the house called justice! This was dealing equally between the two parties! His last prayer was, if they would persist in this act of hostility to the catholics, this grievous measure of injustice, which went to shut the gates of justice (he might almost say of mercy) upon Ireland, that they would think deeply of it between this and Tuesday night. Then, if they were men consistent in their feelings if they were not dead. to the voice of justice, policy, and reason, late as it would be, yet not being too late, they would gladly retrace the steps which they had so madly taken; and,

instead

instead of this bill, they would give emancipation.

Mr. Peel explained; after which the house divided-for the third reading, 226; against it, 99. Adjourned at a quarter before one. House of Lords, Feb. 28.-Lord Melville rose, pursuant to the notice he had given of his intention to introduce a bill for better regulating the mode of choosing juries in Scotland. The bill was read the first time.

Mr. Goulburn, and others from the commons, brought up the bill for suppressing unlawful societies in Ireland. The bill was then read.

Several petitions were presented against the unlawful societies' bill, and some in its favour.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells presented a petition from the city of Bath, in favour of the bill for suppressing unlawful societies in Ireland, and against the catholic claims. It was signed by 300 persons. The right reverend prelate also presented a petition to the same effect from the archdeacon and clergy of the diocese of Bath and Wells. This last petition, which was drawn up in strong language, intimated in one passage, that the catholics had covered their designs with a cloak of loyalty, which they had now thrown off, and were proceeding to threaten.

Earl Fitzwilliam rose to express his disapprobation of the spirit in which the petition was conceived. He condemned the use of such language as that which the petitioners used, on account of its impolicy, as well as its illiberality and injustice to the catholics. We understood him to object to petitions from the clergy for the exclusion of others from

constitutional privileges, as coming from an interested body. If a rich corporation petitioned for objects which were supposed to favours its interests, why might not the army be allowed to petition in the like manner? He condemned all penal laws for opinions-all attempts to control the consciences of men. Such conduct was flying in the face of heaven, and it was dreadful to think of the consequences which might follow from thus persisting in inflicting misery on six millions of human beings. He wished their lordships to recollect that the only pretext for this manner of proceeding was a conscientious difference of opinion in men who acknowledged the same Saviour, and, in all its great principles, the same faith as themselves.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells was surprised to hear what had fallen from the noble earl respecting the language of the petition.

What had been stated, however, consisted altogether of general assertion, which he could only answer by a general negation. In his opinion, the sentiments contained in the petition reflected credit on those from whom it came. He was not aware of any improper language in it; if there was, the noble earl had not pointed it out. He hoped he should be excused from following the noble earl in the observations into which he had entered on the general question of the Catholic claims. The noble lord had drawn a sort of analogy on the subject of the petition, but it was an analogy without any similitude. He could not see why petitions against a measure should not be received by persons whose interests might

be

be affected by that measure; and in the present case, he thought the clergy had as good a right to petition as any other class of his Majesty's subjects.

Earl Fitzwilliam explained. He pointed out passages of the petition which ascribed designs to the catholics, which the petitioners could not know to be true, and ascribed motives to them which they disclaimed.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells again explained, and contended, that as petitions had come at different times from every body of men in the kingdom, and had been received, he could not see why the petition of the clergy of his diocese should be refused. If any thing could show the unreasonableness of this exception, it would be the reception of a petition which professed to come from the whole body of the catholic priesthood of Ireland.

Lord Holland observed, that the question which arose out of this petition was merely one of order and regularity. For his own part, always inclined to open the widest door to the applications of the people, he would make no objection to the reception of this petition. But if the right reverend and learned lord (the Bishop of Bath and Wells) thought that it was regular to receive petitions so circumstanced as this, he laboured under a mistake. Petitions which professed to come from corporate bodies must have the corporation seal attached to them, otherwise they could only be considered as the petitions of the individuals who signed them in the name of the corporation. But though the present application wanted this official mark, he (Lord

1825.

Holland) was still willing to receive it. He would receive it notwithstanding the absolute falsehoods which it was said to contain --notwithstanding the gross allegations of improper motives with which it was filled-notwithstanding the spirit and temper which it displayed, and which he needed not to characterize. His willingness to admit it, therefore, was entirely independent either of the' regularity of its form, or the nature of its contents; and arose solely from the general principle on which he acted, to listen to the representations of all persons and classes who addressed the house. The petitioners in this case came before their lordships humbly representing their views and their fears; but what evidence did they give of christian humility in their arrogant denial of equal privileges to their christian brethren? They professed their regard for christian establishments, but showed none to christian charity. noble friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) had objected to the petition, that it contained imputations of motives which the petitioners could not prove, and asserted facts, of which the catholics could establish the falsehood. When this was denied by the right reverend and learned lord (the Bishop of Bath and Wells), his noble friend had justified his assertions by an appeal to the words of the petition. It broadly stated that the catholics avowed the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy in civil matters-an assertion which the catholics, or papists (as they were called), denied. It next asserted that the real object of the catholics was to overthrow the protestant church establishment, and possess them

H

His

selves

selves of its revenues; and this the catholics denied. It did not well become a body of men professing to act under the influence of christian charity, to suspect lightly the motives of others, even when there existed reason for suspicion; but no man with the least pretensions to candour or justice, or comprehending even the meaning of true charity, could impute bad motives to his neighbours where none existed, or ascribe designs to them which they disavowed. But it was said, the designs imputed to the catholics in the petition were avowed; if so, where? In every petition presented to the house for catholic emancipation, which he (Lord Holland) had seen, so far were designs against the establishment of the country from being avowed, that they were distinctly disclaimed. In the general catholic petition presented lately to the house, not only were such designs disclaimed, but the principles of civil and religious liberty were eloquently stated and enforced. Notwithstanding the character of the petition, he again repeated that he was willing to receive it, though it contained falsehoods, and imputed criminal intentions; but it should not be thought strange that his noble friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) who knew best the calumniated body to whom it applied, should stand up and point out its objectionable passages, especially when it was considered as coming from a learned body, whose knowledge andprofession might be supposed to confer authority on its statements. The Bishop of Hereford said, that the assertion about the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy in the petition was not made on light

grounds. This doctrine was not disguised or disclaimed by the catholics in his diocese: it was openly avowed. There was a catholic journal, which was extensively circulated among that body, which had lately asserted the doctrine in its full latitude. The editor, in speaking of a late ordinance of the King of France, disapproving of the conduct of a cardinal for compromising the liberties of the Gallican church, said, that he could not agree with the views of the French government on this occasion, because the King had no title to interfere with the conduct of the church to the injury of the indefeasible rights of his Holiness the Pope. The same doctrine was asserted by all the Roman-catholic priests of Lancashire. They made no scruple to say that the churches of this kingdom had been their's once, and that they expected they would be their's again. The noble baron opposite (Lord Holland) imputed a want of charity to the petitioners for suspecting the designs of the catholics, and had found fault with some allegations in the petition. He (the Bishop of Hereford) did not entirely approve of all the expressions in the petition. There were some of them that he would have been glad to see expunged; but it would be hard to refuse conscientious men the right of making known their fears, and raising their voices in defence of our establishments, though they might, in their sincerity and honest conviction, employ a greater severity of terms than the occasion warranted. If he wanted any farther excuse for such conduct, he might find it in what the world looked upon as a justification—

namely,

namely, a similar harshness of language in the opponents of the petitioners. The worthy clergymen of the establishment who conscientiously discharged their duties were styled "hungry protestant parsons" in all the publications of the catholics. He did not mean to detain the house with any further observations, but he could not sit silent while he heard the conduct of the petitioners arraigned, and motives imputed to them which they would disclaim.

Lord Holland explained.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells said, he had looked over the petition, as any other member of the house would do a petition which he was requested to present. He had observed nothing in it objectionable in point of language, and, therefore, he had presented it. With respect to the imputation of motives, he thought that the petitioners had more reason to complain of that than those against whose claims they petitioned. A noble baron had ascribed to them motives of an objectionable kind.

Lord Holland denied that he imputed any motives to the petitioners.

The Earl of Carnarvon had no objection to receive the petition. He did not disapprove of churchmen petitioning on public measures any more than any other class; but he objected to their separating themselves from the great body of the people in their applications. If he (Lord Carnarvon) were a clergyman, he should feel a distrust of his own impartiality in a matter which had reference to the establishment, and would not petition, lest he might be actuated with prejudices

our

which rendered his opinion of no value. The petitioners had not shown this prudent distrust, but had completely justified its necessity. They evinced the strongest bias, and were actuated with prejudices which led them to distort facts. The petition prayed that the house would protect established religion, which was threatened with spiritual tyranny and oppression. What man could look around him in the country, and witness the situation of the two systems, and say that the protestant body were threatened with spiritual violence, oppression, and tyranny from the catholics? He (Lord Carnarvon) had always heard it represented that the tyranny and oppression was not only threatened, but inflicted from the other side. However this might be, there certainly was spiritual coercion. The noble earl concluded by expressing his regret that the petitioners should have thrown such discredit on themselves and their order by the uncharitable nature of their allegations, and the falsehood of their assertions. They had justified Lord Clarendon's character of churchmen, who said, that of all classes of men the clergy were on general subjects the least informed, and took the most incorrect view of human affairs.

Lord King expressed his belief that such a petition could not have come from any other corporation or place in the kingdom than from the wise men of the diocese whence it issued. Such a mass of nonsense could no where else have been concocted. The clergy in that town were entirely in the dark. They read and knew nothing. They had not even perused