was there to hinder his learned friend, Mr. O'Connell, from coming into the house at the present day but an oath? There were many parts of Ireland (he would not name them, lest he should give alarm to some of the Irish members) where, if Mr. O'Connell presented himself as a candidate, his election would be certain. There were also some places in England in which, if he presented himself, his return would be secure. What was it that prevented him, but an oath? "Oh, but," said the opponents of this bill, "the pope may absolve him from that oath." "No," replied Mr. O'Connell," I do not believe that he or any other authority has that power, and therefore I will stay out of parliament, because I cannot conscientiously take it." Why, the thing was quite plain, and he did not despair of making it understood even by the hon. member for Bristol. The hon. member, however, and his consort the member for Surrey (Mr. H. Sumner), who sailed together on this question, fired whole broadsides at every kind of oaths, and yet turned round and said this was not sufficiently strong as a security. Why, in the name of heaven, or he would say, as perhaps something of greater weight with those who were now so much alarmed for the security of the protestant establishment,-in the name of Dr. Duigenan himself, what security could they have greater than that which they already possessed? What, he would repeat, prevented the catholic from coming into parliament without the intervention of any bill, but his respect for the sanctity of an oath, and his consequent unwillingness to take one 1825. from which he knew he could not be absolved? For his (Mr. Brougham's) own part, he was not anxious for any oath, because he did not believe any such security necessary; but he consented to an oath being embodied in the bill, because he knew that he had to conciliate prejudices; and if, by allowing the oath to remain, he could make even one convert in this house or in the other, he would consent to the oaths remaining as they now stood in the bill: but he did not admit that they were in themselves necessary to the security of the country. He concurred with what had fallen from the right hon. secretary of state for foreign affairs, that no force could be required to enter by the door of the constitution unless it were closed. Let the door be opened, and the force would spend itself. Mr. Peel said, that when they relieved the catholic from taking the oath of supremacy, they should also consider the situation in which they might leave the conscientious protestant with respect to it. By the very fact of exonerating the catholic from the oath, an admission was made that the pope had some spiritual supremacy; and yet the protestant would still be 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." Now how, after an admission of the spiritual authority to the Roman-catholics, could a protestant be called upon to swear that it did not exist? bill than they were before it, with respect to the oath of supremacy. Why, his right hon. friend knewevery body knew-that the pope did at the present moment exercise an authority—a spiritual authority in this country. But those who took the oath denying any such authority, did so with great safety, because they meant it, and the oath meant no more than that no such authority or control existed over the person taking it. If the oath was intended to convey that no such authority existed any where in this country, then all those who swore that, must swear to what was false. If, however his right honourable friend wished to have a bill to relieve the tender consciences of any individuals with respect to the oath, he should have no objection whatever to such a course as a distinct measure. Mr. Peel did not consider the explanation of his right hon. and learned friend satisfactory. It was true in one sense, the situation of the protestant would not be worse than at present, if this bill should pass; but in another it would, because by this bill, the spiritual authority of the pope would, to a certain extent, be legalized, which it was not at the present moment. We were now about to grant salaries to Roman-catholic archbishops and bishops, which would be recognizing the catholic church as legally established, which it was not at present. Mr. Brougham observed, that after the able statement of his right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Plunkett), he should despair of convincing the right hon. gentle man opposite; but still he could not avoid saying a few words. If the oath of supremacy was to be understood in the sense in which the right hon. gentleman took it, no man could swear it without swearing falsely, because no man could deny that the pope had a spiritual authority recognized in this country by a large portion of our fellow-subjects. He had taken the oath, and he did it safely. He swore, not that the pope had not some authority over many of his (Mr. Brougham's) fellow-subjects, but that he had not any over him, or those who thought with him. But the right hon. gentleman said, that we had not hitherto recognized the Roman-catholic establishment; but was it recollected that the government paid for the education of Roman - catholic priests, who were commissioned by the pope ?-that was a recognition of the catholic church as great as that now proposed, and yet he had not heard of any man who had vomited forth the oath of supremacy in consequence. Mr. Peel did not admit that the catholic bishops were recognized in their prelatical capacity. They were called most reverend, and right reverend; but their titles as archbishops and bishops was not admitted. Sir J. Newport asked why were the titles "most reverend" and "right reverend" given to the catholic archbishops and bishops, if not to distinguish their rank from that of the other orders of catholic priesthood. The time was, when catholic priests were hunted down wherever they were found in this country. That time was now gone by for ever. Was it intended to re-enact those penal laws, and reduce the catholic priest to his former state? If not, why deny the catholic hierarchy that rank rank to which they were by ordination entitled? He thought that when his present Majesty was advised by his ministers to receive the catholic bishops, and did receive them, at his levee in Ireland, that he fully recognized them as such, and that it was not quite decent in a minister of the crown now to deny that which his sove, reign had publicly acknowledged. Mr. Peel said he was not recurring to the subjects which the hon. member had introduced, nor had he any wish to proscribe the catholic clergy. All he contended for was, that they were now about to make an alteration inconsistent with the existing law, and that some other law would be required to reconcile the oath of supremacy to the conscientious feelings of many individuals. The next clause provided that no catholic should be eligible to be lord-lieutenant or lord-deputy in Ireland. Mr. Robertson spoke at some length against the bill. He concluded by proposing that there be added, as an amendment to this clause, the following words :-" or of being returned as member to serve in parliament for any of the universities in that part of Great Britain called England and Scotland." The amendment was negatived without a division. The Chairman then put the clause containing the regulations which are deemed necessary touching the appointment of bishops and deans of the Roman-catholic church in Ireland, and the commission which is to issue to Romancatholic bishops.. Mr. Brougham said that he had an amendment to propose upon this clause. After reading the following words of the clause, "And whereas it is expedient that such precautions should be taken, in respect of persons in holy orders professing the Romancatholic religion, who may at any time hereafter be elected, nominated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties or functions in the Romancatholic church in Ireland, or to the duties or functions of a dean in the said church, as that no such person shall at any time hereafter assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions within the united kingdom, or any part thereof, whose loyalty and peaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascertained, as hereinafter provided"-he said he wished to add to them these words: "And whereas it is fit and requisite to regulate the intercourse between the subjects of this realm and the see of Rome, be it therefore enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, by two seve ral commissions, to be issued under the great seal of Ireland, to nominate and appoint such persons in holy orders professing the Romancatholic religion, and exercising episcopal duties or functions in Ireland, as his Majesty, his heirs, and successors shall think fit to be commissioners under the act for the two purposes before men! tioned, and that the person first named in the said commissions should be the president thereof." The learned gentleman said, that as he had before stated the grounds on which he recommended these securities, he should not now pres tend to repeat them. The objec tion to this measure was, that by agreeing cc 2 against them; on the contrary, he was rather anxious to concede them, in the hope that they might be of some utility in allay agreeing to it the house would legalize the spiritual authority of the pope. He asserted that the house would do no such thing: it would merely regulate the existing the rancour of religious anience of that which had existed for mosity. The learned gentleman many years, in spite of its enact- then placed his amendment in the ments. That the pope had spi- hands of the chairman. ritual authority in this country could not be contradicted. For instance, if the pope were to ordain him a priest, and the king were to appoint him to the bishopric of Durham-one of the most lucrative appointments, by the by, in his gifts, and the best trade of all now going-he would be entitled to become a bishop per saltum, and would not require ordination from any person qualified to confer it in the English church. As a proof that he was not indulging in mere idle assertion upon this point, he would remind the house of a case of recent occurrence in Ireland. Dr. O'Beirne, the late protestant bishop of Meath, was originally ordained a priest by the pope at Rome. He was then a catholic, but afterwards becoming a protestant, he was made a bishop without any farther ordination. He would offer no further argument in addition to those which he had already advanced on the subject of securities. He saw no danger, and therefore could not admit the necessity of securities. He was, however, willing to grant them, in order to obtain the support of those who were not willing to accede to the bill without securities. He believed that the proposed securities were perfectly innocent, and he was nearly certain that they were utterly inefficacious. He had therefore, upon principle, no objection to urge Mr. Peel said, that as the authority of Bishop Horsley had been referred to in the course of the debate, he could wish that hon. gentlemen would refer to the reverend bishop's speech for the arguments contained in it. The reverend prelate drew a distinction between the different authorities exercised by the pope of Rome, which well deserved the attention of the house. He admitted the pope was bishop of Rome, and that he had liberty to confer degrees within his own jurisdiction; but he denied that the pope had any liberty to do so in this country, and upon that principle refused to remove the disabilities under which the Romancatholics laboured. He would only say a few words on the provisions which this clause introduced into the bill. He declared, with the utmost candour, that it would be a great satisfaction to his mind if the hon. and learned gentleman would leave these provisions entirely out of the bill. He made that declaration, not with any sinister intention of thereby defeating the bill, but from a full conviction that such provisions were worse than nugatory. No objection which he felt to the removal of the catholic disabilities would be removed by the existence of such securities. They were very different from those which had formerly been proposed by his right hon. friend the secretary of state state for foreign affairs; and such as they were, they were disclaimed by the hon. and learned gent. opposite, who said that they did not come from him, but were framed out of pure deference to the scruples of those gentlemen with whom he (Mr. Peel) had the honour of acting. It was remarked by the fabulist, that "The child, whom many fathers share, But seldom boasts a father's care;" and his remark seemed verified in the present instance. This clause appeared to have no legitimate father. The hon. and learned member disclaimed the securities it contained; and he was obliged to follow his example. They were not required, the hon. and learned gentleman said, by the catholics; and he would add, that they were not all wanted by the protestants. If any gentleman would get up and say that these securities would be effectual securities to the protestant church in Ireland, he would wave the objection which he now felt to them; but if no person should be found anxious to support them, he hoped that the hon. and learned gentleman would consider whether the bill would not be better calculated to conciliate the people of Ireland without these securities, than it would be with them. He objected to them on this ground-that they imposed on the crown an obligation to appoint two permanent commissions, composed exclusively of ecclesiastics. Besides, they provided that if the bull, dispensation, or other document received from Rome were of an innocent nature, it should be sent to the parties to whom it was directed, but did not provide for what was to be done with it, in case it should appear to be of a dangerous description. There was likewise no penalty attached to any bishop who should exercise episcopal functions without having received such a certificate as was mentioned in the present clause. Add to this, that no commissioner would like to impeach of disloyalty a man who had not been convicted of some disloyal act. There was nothing more vague than the ideas attached to the words loyal and disloyal; and he would therefore wish to know what construction the hon. and learned gentleman intended to put upon them? Mr. Plunkett said, that he should have no objection to throwing these securities overboard, if by so doing he could ensure the company of his right honourable friend to the conclusion of his voyage; but as he could not flatter himself with a hope of such a consummation, and as he knew that the abandonment of these securities would deprive him of the support of several of the crew with whom he was then embarked, he felt bound to keep them at all hazards, For his own part, he thought these securities to be effectual securities, and to be highly essential to the success of the bill. Still, if he deemed them as useless as he believed them to be serviceable, he would abide by them for two reasons-first, because they tended to make the bill more likely to succeed; and secondly, because they tended to conciliate towards it the protestant feeling of the country. In spite of the taunts of his right hon. friend that these securities had not the good fortune to possess a father, he would avow that he was the person on whom this bantling had a right for support. When he recollected |