voice of reason, but he would be the last man to give way to any thing like a threat on a question of this nature. He had been hostile to this measure on former occasions, on the very same grounds that he was now. He held it to be inconsistent with the British constitution, which was in dissolubly united with the church establishment; he held it to be inconsistent with the first principles of that constitution, to admit those within its pale who were actuated by religious feelings of the most bitter hostility to the church of England. He agreed with the hon. member for CorfeCastle in thinking that if they should give their sanction to this bill, they would depart from the ancient principle of the constitution. The constitution was built upon this principle-to exclude every thing that was dangerous to its existence, and to guard against any evil which it foresaw by checking its operation. Now they were told to neglect that principle, and to trust to the securities which had been formed to neutralize the effects of the evil apprehended in the present instance. He was not disposed to take that advice, but felt inclined to adhere to the old principle, and not to desert it for the new. His hon. and learned friend behind him (Mr. North), in one part of his speech, had doubted whether any danger could arise from granting these concessions to the catholics; and yet in another part of his speech had admitted that he did behold some danger, but a danger that was remote in its operation. He left his learned friend to reconcile this inconsistency as he could. He should merely remark that the

bill itself admitted that there was some danger. If there were not, why should it contain so many precautions? why should it contain a special certificate as to the loyalty of the bishops? The securities which the bill gave against the apprehended danger were of three kinds-the first kind was the declarations in the preamble; the second, the oaths in the bill itself; and the third, the commission formed to control the intercourse of the bishops with the court of Rome. He was proceeding to show that they were all inefficient, when the increasing noise in the house, and the cries of "adjourn," compelled him to desist.

It was then agreed to adjourn the debate till Thursday...

House of Lords, April 21.Petitions were presented against the catholic claims; one was from a congregation of dissenters at Margate.

Lord King thought it odd that the clergy of the establishment should seek the aid of the dissenters on this occasion, considering how the former at other times treated the latter, who were branded as worse than the catholics. A very eminent and reverend person, reckoned an ornament of the church, had declared, that the catholics were nearer, far nearer, to the church of England, than the dissenters.

The Bishop of Chester held in his hand a petition against the catholic claims, and it was singular that it came from a congregation of one of those denominations to which the noble lord had just alluded namely, the ministers, deacons, and congregation of Jewry-street chapel. As each congregation

congregation of the sect to which the petitioners belonged was independent of the rest, he must acknowledge that the opinions of the whole body could not be inferred from what was expressed by one congregation. But the petitioners not only deprecated the removal of the present restrictions on the Roman-catholics, but wished those under which they were themselves placed to remain. They expressed their perfect acquiescence in the present state of things. They desired no change, because they believed that in proportion as the church of England was made strong, in so much was the interest of the great body of the protestants secured. He was aware that there might be a difference of opinion among dissenters on this question, but he firmly believed that great numbers concurred with the petitioners, not only because they believed that they were indebted for their own security to the church of England, but also because it was their persuasion that with it they enjoyed more freedom than they would under any other system. It was with great satisfaction he presented this petition to their lordships.

Earl Grosvenor asked what was the number of signatures to the petition?

The Bishop of Chester said, it was signed by the whole congregation, which was not very nu

merous.

Lord Calthorpe observed, that many of the warmest friends of the church of England supported the catholic claims on the very ground stated in the petition,namely, the wish of securing the church itself. Believing as he did, that the dissenters of England

had rendered most essential service to the cause of protestantism, and to civil and religious libertybelieving that they had produced a beneficial re-action on the church of England, and had greatly contributed to the revival of true religion in this country, he could not but be glad to hear them spoken so favourably of from that bench where not very long since they had been treated in a very different manner. He did not mean this observation to apply to the right rev. prelate who spoke last, who, from his liberality and candour, could never be supposed to adopt such a course. He rejoiced, however, to see this spirit of cordiality towards the dissenters; but he could not believe that the great body of that important class of the people were against farther concessions to the catholics.

The Bishop of Chester disclaimed, in the name of his brethren and himself, the compliment of the noble lord. At no time had it been the habit of the bench to which he belonged to speak disrespectfully of dissenters. If there were an overflow of cordiality towards that body, it was a return due to the fairness and candour which had been experienced. On such an occasion could the clergy of the church of England be expected to do otherwise than to hold out the right hand of fellowship to their brethren?

House of Commons, April 21.Many petitions were presented both for and against the catholic claims; among those opposed, was one from London, signed by 3000 persons.

Mr. Goulburn presented a petition from the master upholsterers of the city of Dublin, praying for

an

an alteration in the combination laws.

Mr. Hume took that opportunity to correct a mistatement which had been made on a former evening by the right honourable secretary for the home department (Mr. Peel) when the subject of the combination laws was brought under the notice of the house. He found, on inquiry, that two lives, instead of twenty, had been lost in Dublin, in consequence of proceedings connected with the combination of workmen during the last three years. He felt it necessary to state this for the purpose of removing the impression which the statement of the right hon. secretary was calculated to produce.

Mr. Peel wished to set the hon. member right on the point to which he had just referred. He (Mr. Peel) had made no assertion on the subject. He had merely referred to a statement which was to be found in the evidence given before the committee. The individual examined had expressly said, that within the last three years no less than ten lives had been lost in Dublin in consequence of the system of combination. The hon. member had admitted that two lives had been sacrificed; but, independent of this, he believed the hon. member would find, that, in these affrays, twenty persons had their limbs and skulls fractured in a very serious manner. He had asserted nothing of his own knowledge. But it was quite clear, that if combinations were formed, the members of which resorted to acts of such savage violence, the subject was one that demanded the attention of the house.

The petition was referred to the committee on the combination laws.

Sir F. Burdett moved the order of the day for the house resuming the adjourned debate on the second reading of the catholic relief bill. The original motion and the. amendment having been read,

Mr. Goulburn proceeded to address the chair. He said he had, on the preceding evening, endea→ voured to impress on the minds of gentlemen, that the contents of the bill now before the house afforded evidence that they would incur danger by adopting the course they were now called upon to pursue. He stated then, and he would repeat it, that he could not comprehend the necessity of introducing all these securities, unless danger was apprehended. He proposed to examine the nature of those securities, to see how far they were applicable to meet the danger which they were intended to guard against, and to inquire in what degree they were calculated to afford protection against the risks which were likely to be incurred. Those securities were of three descriptions :-first, the declarations which were contained in the preamble of the bill; second, the oaths required to be taken in certain cases; and thirdly, that which was considered the great security, the commission for the purpose of assuring the crown of the loyalty of those who were hereafter to hold high situations in the Roman-catholic church, by superintending and controlling the correspondence between the catholic bishops and foreign powers. With respect to the first class of securities-those contained in the preamble of the bill-they did not

appear

appear to him to be valid. The first part of the preamble relates to the protestant succession to the throne of these realms, which it set forth, was established permanently and inviolably." At pre sent, the protestantism of the throne, and also the protestantism of parliament, were provided for; but the moment this bill was passed, the protestantism of the crown being preserved, it was declared, that it would be of no consequence what was the religious persuasion of those who filled high political offices in the state. It was important to know how far this arrangement was satisfactory to those with whom they were now treating. They ought to consider how far this established protestantism of the crown, on which they so much relied, was likely to be attended to they ought to examine into the degree of dependence which they could fairly place on those who called for this bill. He saw, in this measure, no slight indication of the feeling, on this point, of those who were connected with the bill. In his opinion, so far from this protestantism of the crown being viewed by this measure as inviolably fixed, it was considered at a matter that had its limits. It was quite clear that those who were connected with the measure cast forward their views to that period when the crown would be no longer protestant. This was apparent from the letters of a gentleman, whose opinions on this question had very great weight, and whose evidence before the committee had tended to alter the sentiments of the hon. member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow) on this subject. He alluded to Mr. O'Connell, who had taken

care to guard himself most sedulously on this point. That gentleman said, "that the inviolability of the protestant succession would be maintained in the present succession. There was not one," he observed, "amongst them, (the Roman-catholics) who would wish to see it altered in that feeling the Roman-catholics all concurred." But did not this point at a period when the present family might become extinct?-a contingency to which he adverted with the most anxious desire and feeling that such a period might be far distant. Did not this seem to suppose that a period might arrive when Roman-catholics might become eligible to the throne? The next point to which the preamble adverted was the discipline of the protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland, which was to be permanently and inviolably protected, in conformity with the act of union. If he correctly understood the act of union, the fair construction of that act was, that the only establishment should be, the protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland, as it existed at the time of the union. He did not think it was intended, at any period whatever, to place any other religion on a level with the protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland; but he had no difficulty in saying, that there was, in the bill before the house, a recognition of the Roman-catholic church of Ireland. He had heard his right hon. friend (Mr. Plunkett) discuss this question. And what had he said? stated, that so long as individuals remained merely bishops of the Roman-catholic church, it was legal and proper; but that when

He

they

་

they denominated themselves bishops of the Roman-catholic church of Ireland, it was illegal and improper. And yet what were they now called upon to do? They were asked to recognize permanently a body of bishops of the Roman-catholic church of Ireland, who were to be paid out of the funds of this country. There was no one provision which he could discover, that went to preserve the established protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland, as it was recognized at the union. The protestant church of Ireland was, at the union, permanently fixed as the established church of that country. But now an attempt was made to place on a level with it the catholic church of Ireland. When they saw this, could they be idle enough to suppose that any confidence could be placed in the pompous declarations with which the measure was accompanied? He came, in the next place, to the security which would be derived from the oaths that were to be administered to Roman-catholics. He agreed with the hon. member for Corfe Castle in the view he had taken of those oaths. They applied only to temporal matters, but left untouched the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of a foreign power. He would ask gentlemen, as that hon. member had done, to look at the situation in which they would be placed, if this bill passed. They were obliged to take the oath of supremacy, declaring that the ecclesiastical and spiritual authority of the pope was not, and never should be, recognized in this realm. And yet, by this act, other persons would be allowed to sit in parliament who did recognize that

spiritual and ecclesiastical dominion. He thought the hon. baronet (Sir F. Burdett), and those who drew up the bill, ought not to have placed the house in such a difficult situation as this. Gentlemen were called on, either to perjure themselves or to alter the plain and evident meaning of words. A considerable portion of those oaths was, he knew, taken from the acts already passed for the general relief of the Roman-catholics; but, notwithstanding that, he could not help looking at the measure with very great jealousy. He conceived that those concessions were fraught with danger to the church establishment; and, in his opinion, the oaths' attached to the bill afforded the protestants but very little security. The Roman-catholics were called on by the oath, to disclaim and disavow any intention to subvert the established church. That was clear and decisive; but when it was accompanied with the words "for the purpose of substituting a Roman-catholic establishment in its stead," he would ask, whether it did not allow a considerable degree of latitude for invading the rights of the protestant establishment, so long as there was not, in the mind of the invader, a desire to establish the catholic church in its room? He could acquit the Roman-catholics of any wish to overturn the protestant church; but, for all that, he could easily conceive that a conscientious catholic might think himself justified in removing an establishment which he looked upon as a great heresy and a great evil. Such a man might think it a moral duty, intimately connected with moral principle, to remove a

church