bill were passed, the second must go on. Indeed, if the first bill went in its present shape through a committee, he was ready to say that there might arise no objection to the consolidation of the two bills in the committee. Of course he made this observation with reference to the event of the main principles of the first bill being adopted. That bill consisted of various provisions, and it might be granted in toto or in part. If only in a trifling part (which he could not possibly anticipate), the concession might not justify the House in calling upon the Catholics for these ecclesiastical arrangements. Mr. Banks and Mr Peel opposed the bill: Mr. Wilberforce and sir James Mackintosh supported it. Mr. Canning spoke on the same side, and with more than his usual fervour and eloquence. He said, that the argument against the question now was, as if the connection of the Catholics with a foreign state had always been merely a spiritual one. On the contrary, a connexion of a totally different nature formed the ground of the enact ment of the penal laws. The right hon. gentleman entered into an history of the penal laws, and a recapitulation of their enact ments; and concluded it by arguing, that if the danger which called for them had ceased, or if no danger had ever existed, it was full time to revoke them. Suppose a murder was said to have been committed by a person wearing a wig and spectacles, still, if it appeared no murder had been committed, was every man wearing a wig and spectacles to be punished? He asked, was it the Roman Catholics who brought Charles the First to the block? He then alluded to a bill having been sent up from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, in 1641, for excluding the bishops from seats in parliament. The bill was rejected in the Lords by a small majority, and in that majority every one of the Catholic peers had voted. In a few years after, those very bishops voted for the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from parliament. He trusted, as one good turn deserved another, that the passing of the bills then before the House would afford the present bishops an opportunity to pay the debt. He contended that, from the moment of passing the repeal laws in 1793, the conviction on every man's mind was, that a total repeal should follow. To give the Catholic the elective franchise, at the same time that you denied him every thing else; to make him an elector, at the same time that you rendered him incapable of being elected; to attract to your sides the lowest orders of the community, at the same time that you repelled from it the highest orders of the gentry, was not the way to bind Ireland to the rest of the empire in ties of affection. What was there to prevent the union from being drawn more closely than at present? Was there any moral, was there any physical obstacle? Opposuit natura? We had already abridged the channel. Ireland now sat in the representative assembly of the empire; and when she was allowed to come there, why was she not also allowed to elect members for it from her Catholic children? For three centuries we had been erecting mounds, not to assert or improve, but to thwart nature; we had raised them high above the waters; and they had stood for many a year frowning proud defiance upon all that attempted to cross them; in the course of ages, they had been nearly broken down, and the narrow isthmus, which they now formed, stood between two kindred seas; the fountains saw each other, and fain would meet. Shall we fortify the mounds, which are now almost in ruins, or shall we leave them to moulder away by time and accident-an event which, though distant, was certain to happen, and which, when it did happen, would only confer a thankless favour? Or shall we, as has been advised, cut away at once the isthmus that remains, and float upon the mingling wave the ark of our common constitution? But some were afraid, that when this was done, those persons who had stood by the constitution when they only enjoyed its benefits partially, would rise up against it, if they were admitted to the full participation of it. This was not likely. At present the constitution was to them negative and repulsive. Then it would be positive and full of advantage. With the established religion of the country the Roman Catholics would of course have nothing to do. This must be a first and fundamental principle both of all that was yielded and all that was retained. None but those, who professed the established religion of the state, ought to pretend to the exercise of any functions immediately connected with that religion, or with the ecclesiastical system in which it was embodied. They had already provided liberally for diffusing the benefits of education in Ireland; and God forbid that any sect of Christians should, on account of their faith, be deprived of the means of obtaining knowledge. God forbid, he should also say at the same time, that the means of education should not, wherever it was possible, be conferred under the auspices of our national church. If he made these observations, it was chiefly for the purpose of accounting for those provisions of the bill, which went still to exclude Roman Catholics from the universities, and from the spiritual courts. He could perceive no difficulty in carrying the provisions into effect, nor did he therefore feel any in supporting this measure, and in considering it as a final adjustment. The exclusion was in its nature perpetual; an indispensible condition of the new compact, which, he trusted, we were on the point of ratifying. He relied for the observance of that condition on the nature of the thing itself, as well as on the millions of hands and hearts, which would be put in motion and were ready to defend it,in case of an attempt to abrogate or repeal it. Suppose for a moment the case of a certain number of these much-dreaded Catholics possessing seats in that House, what was it that they could combine to accomplish or to repeal? They must necessarily be objects of private or local interest: for with regard to political designs, with regard to all that appertained to the advancement of their faith or spiritual interests, suspicion was alive, and the attempt must be defeated, as soon as it was made. Such a combination, if directed to general purposes, must be as notorious as the sun at noon; and if the objection were, on the other hand, that there was danger of the return of demagogues to parliament, he should only answer that he wished to see them there. He had never known a single demagogue, who, when elected to a seat in that House, did not shrink to his proper dimensions. In the event of a parliamentary reform, it would be his wish to see a nest of boroughs reserved for their separate use, and he should not be alarmed at their introduction, even although they had been qualified in Palace-yard. "Here," he would say, "let this demagogue appear; and let him do his worst." This bill, or, as he did not mean to say that it was perfect of its kind, a bill of the same nature was necessary, and it was most expedient at the present season. The moment was peculiarly favourable for discussion, and singularly free from any hazard with which the measure might otherwise be attended. We were in the enjoyment of a peace, in a great degree achieved by Catholic arms, and cemented by Catholic blood-a peace which, notwithstanding the terrific aspect of affairs in one quarter of Europe, he hoped was yet destined to be permanent. But it became us, with a view to political contingencies, to fortify ourselves by adopting all those means of strength, which were offered to our hands; and never did a more auspicious period occur for augmenting our resources and elevating our hopes. It must be always beneficial to extinguish a question, that never could be discussed without agitating large classes of the community, and which, if now lost, would be revived from year to year with increasing and more hopeless agitation. It was difficult to say, in what form the ex pression of national gratitude was most effectually conveyed; certainly not always by the proud column or the triumphal arch; but, that it would appear in full radiance, and shine out with lasting splendour, if this grand effort of legislation were consummated, he had not the shadow of a doubt. It was indifferent to him, provided the result was concord, by what particular mode, or on what general understanding it was established. He cared not, whether it was plucked from Protestant gratitude, or was tendered in generous confidence, as a voluntary gift. It would in either case bless both the giver and the receiver-resembling those silent operations of nature, which were usually beneficial, whether they rose in grateful exhalations or descended in fertilizing showers. And should we adopt this measure, he would cheerfully pledge all the prescience of his mind, that we would not repent of the result, but would ere long reap from it a rich harvest of added strength, enthusiasm, and renown. Mr. Canning's speech was received with fervent and general applause. The House then divided: For the original question, 254; Against it, 243: Majority for the second reading of the bill, 11. On the 23rd of March, when this measure came again under consideration, Mr. Plunkett was absent in consequence of the death of his wife; and sir J. Newport moved the recommitment of the bill. The House having gone into the committee, the clause respecting the new oath of supremacy was opposed by sir William Scott, sir J. Nichol, Mr. Peel, Mr. Brownlow, and Mr. Wetherell. The measure was supported by Mr. C. Grant, sir J. Mackintosh, and Lord Castle. reagh, and opposed by Mr. Peel and others, and carried on a division by 230 to 216. was On the 26th of March, sir J. Newport, in moving the commitment of the Catholic bills, gave notice of his intention to propose the consolidation of the two bills now before the House. This intimation called forth a statement from Mr. C. Hutchinson, in which he declared, that he had received a communication from high authority in Ireland, a titular bishop, announcing the opposition of the Catholic clergy to the bill for regulating their intercourse with the see of Rome, and mentioning, that a meeting of the Catholic bishops was about to take place, in order to consider this important subject. The House then went into the committee. The clause respecting the declaration against transubstantiation agreed to. Upon the reading of that clause, which provided that nothing in the present act should extend to repeal any of the laws. in force, respecting the Protestant succession to the throne, the uniformity of public prayers, or the administration of the sacraments in the established church, Mr. Banks moved the clause of which he had previously given notice; the object of which was, to prevent Catholics from sitting in either House of parliament. A long discussion took place upon this proposition, in which Mr. Canning took the chief share, and ultimately the committee divided; when the numbers appeared, for Mr. Banks's proposition, 211; Against it, 223; Majority in favour of the bill, 12. On the following day, the pro posed bill for regulating the intercourse of the Catholics with the see of Rome was, on the motion of sir J. Newport, referred to the committee, for the purpose of consolidating the two bills. Mr. Peel moved, that Roman Catholics should be excluded from seats in the privy council, and also from the judicial bench. The motion was opposed by sir J. Newport, and supported by sir J. Nicholl and others; and, after a discussion of some length, the committee divided; when the amendment was rejected by a majority of 19; the numbers being, in favour of it, 169; Against it, 188. An amendment, proposed by Mr. Goulburn, to render Catholics ineligible to hold the office of governor of a colony, shared the same fate. It was rejected on a division; the numbers being, For the amendment, 120; Against it, 163. On the 28th of March the House proceeded with the consideration of the clauses of the consolidated Catholic bill. Mr. Hutchinson strongly opposed the intercourse clauses, as tending to degrade the Catholic clergy unnecessarily. The hon. member, however, submitted no motion to the House on the subject. The House ultimately went into the committee, and the several clauses were agreed to, with some verbal amendments. Mr. Ellis proposed a clause for excluding Catholic ecclesiastics from seats in parliament, which was agreed to. On the following day, when the report was brought up, Mr. Croker moved a clause to enable the Crown to make a suitable provision for the Catholic clergy. Lord Castlereagh resisted the pro position as premature; and Mr. Croker withdrew it for the present, declaring himself satisfied with the admission that his principle was just, though the season for acting upon it had not ar rived. On the 2nd of April, the question being put for the third reading of the bill, sir William Scott moved as an amendment, that it should be read that day six months. Sir George Hill seconded the amendment, arguing on the general principles of the measure, and alleging that there was already experimental proof, that the measure did not promote conciliation. The Roman Catholic clergy and laity were united against it. They called it "the slavery bill,"—"the bill of insults;"-and there was no epithet too insulting to be applied to those, whom they sneeringly called "their advocates."-In Dublin, the titular archbishop, Dr. Troy, had assembled the clergy; and they had come to certain resolutions, declaring that they could not assent to the provisions of the bill for regulating their intercourse with the see of Rome, or to those which sanctioned the intermeddling of the government with the appointment of their bishops. In Limerick, the Roman Catholic bishop had called the clergy together, and they had come to certain resolutions, disapproving of the bill, which were stronger than those come to at Dublin. Similar meetings were announced to be held at Cork, Galway, Tuam, and Kerry. The sentiments of Dr. Coppinger, the titular bishop of Cloyne, were also strongly opposed to the bill. He had distinctly declared, that the oath amounted to an abjuration of the Catholic faith, and ought to be indignantly rejected by every Catholic. After elaborate speeches from Mr. Peel and Mr. Canning, there appeared on a division, For the third reading 216 Majority 19 The Bill, being thus carried in triumph through the Commons, was, on the 3rd of April, carried up to the Lords, by sir John Newport, attended by an unusually large number of members. Upon the motion of lord Donoughmore, it was read a first time without any debate; lord Liverpool and the Chancellor intimating their decided hostility to the measure in both its parts. Many petitions were presented both for and against it: and, while it was yet in suspense, a petition was laid on the table of the lower House, signed by the Catholic bishop, and eighty or ninety Catholic clergymen of the diocese of Limerick, which remonstrated strongly against the regulations contained in what had been originally the second of Mr. Plunkett's bills. The second reading came on, on the 16th of April, and the debate on it occupied the Lords, during that and the following night. Lord Donoughmore moved the second reading of the bill, and after supporting the general principle of the measure, entered into a detail of alterations, which he meant to propose in it, if it should go to a committee. Of these alterations, the most important related to the clause, which provided that |