did not require; and on the part of the Catholic, not to refuse any thing which, consistently with his principles and conscience, he could give, although it might appear to him unnecessary.

A great part of Mr. Plunkett's speech had been devoted to answering the arguments, by which Mr. Peel had on former occasions resisted concession to the Catholics; much of it, indeed, had been directed personally to that right hon. gentleman. Mr. Peel accordingly now felt it to be necessary to take the lead in opposing the motion. The principle, he asserted, laid down by the other side, was, that every subject of the realm had an equal right to office, and that, to exclude him, you must show some great and paramount danger, with which the country would otherwise be threatened. Grant this, and what is the consequence? You must not merely modify, but entirely repeal the Test and Corporation acts those restrictive laws of which Burke and Windham had approved, and which Mr. Pitt had revered as the bulwarks of the national church. The very basis, therefore, of the argument on the other side was an assumption which had not been proved, and which was at variance both with authority and with sound principle. He then went into some critical discussion of the views, with which, and of the circumstances, under which the laws, sought to be repealed, had been first adopted; insisted upon some partial objections, and concluded with contending, that the measure now proposed would exasperate rather than mollify the political dissensions of Ireland. Sir James Macintosh supported the motion, and was followed by Mr. Charles

Grant and lord Castlereagh on the same side. The House divided: the Ayes were, 227; the Noes, 221; so that the motion was carried by a majority of no more than 6.

On the 2nd of March, the order of the day being read for the House to resolve itself into a committee to consider the Roman Catholic claims, Mr. Plunkett stated the course which he meant to pursue. It was, to propose in the committee certain resolutions; and after they were carried, and leave was given to bring in a bill founded on them, to fix the first and second readings of that bill at such intervals, as would leave ample time for the full consideration of its merits. The House went into the committee, and Mr. Plunkett proposed the six following resolutions:

1. "That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned.

2. "That such parts of said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and that the sacrifice of the Mass, as used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous; appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may, therefore, safely be repealed.

3. "That it appears to this committee, that, in several acts

passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, a certain oath, commonly called the oath of Supremacy, is required to be taken, as a qualification for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned.

4. "That in the said oath and declaration is contained, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms.

5. That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects with respect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word spiritual' being inserted therein; and that for the purpose of removing such scruples, it would be expedient to declare the sense in which the said word is used, according to the injunction issued by queen Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, and recognised in the act of the fifth of her reign, and which is explained by the thirty-seventh of the articles of the church of England, imports merely, that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesias tical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doer.

6. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that such act of repeal and explanation, should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant succession to the crown, according to the act for the further limitaVOL. LXIII.

tion of the crown, and better se curing the rights and liberties of the subject, and for maintaining inviolate the Protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and discipline thereof; and the church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline thereof, as the same are by law respectively established."

The resolutions were agreed to pro forma, Mr. Peel at the same time declaring his determination to oppose the measure in every successive stage; and leave was given to bring in a bill founded on them.

Mr. Plunkett digested his scheme in two bills.

On the 7th of March they were read a first time without discussion; and the second reading was fixed for Friday, the 16th of March, an order having been previously made, on the motion of sir George Hill, that the House should be called over on that day.

In the mean time, petitions from various bodies of Protestant clergy and others, were presented against the Catholic claims; and on the 16th, Mr. Wilberforce presented one from the Roman Catholics in Staffordshire and Warwickshire. It was numerously signed, and among the signatures was that of Dr. Milner. Professing the utmost loyalty and the strongest attachment to the king and constitution, it prayed that the bills before the House might not be passed into a law, because they imposed intolerable restrictions on conscience. Sir Thomas Lethbridge having made some remarks on this petition as affording clear [D]

proof, that the bills then pending were more likely to irritate than to conciliate the Catholic body, a desultory discussion arose, in which Mr. Plunkett animadverted severely on the conduct of Dr. Milner. That individual, he said, was the instigator of this petition, which it was absurd to treat as a fair exposition of the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of England. Lord Nugent had, on a former night, presented a petition of a very different character, which had been signed by seven vicars-apostolic; of whom there were only eight in England. The eighth vicar, whose name had not been signed to the petition, which distinguished the temporal from the spiritual allegiance of Roman Catholics, and which recognized the most liberal and conciliatory principles-that eighth vicar-apostolic it was, on whose instigation the present petition had been gotten up. The same evil spirit was once more busy, which had before blasted the work of Christian charity. In 1813, when the House was on the eve of gratifying the hopes of the Roman Catholics, Dr. Milner came forward, and by his interference frustrated their fair prospects. He had been member of a board for conducting the arrangements of the Catholics in this country; but they had removed him from the board and disowned him as an agent in their affairs; and he (Mr. Plunkett) held in his hand a document, which charged Dr. Milner with having said, that the day, which abrogated the laws of exclusion, would be the day of the downfall of the Roman Catholic religion in this country.

Sir James Macintosh also ob

served, that the counties of Stafford and Warwick contained some of the most ancient and respectable Catholic families in the kingdom; and yet not one of these ancient and respectable families, or of their connexions, had subscribed their names to this paper, which was introduced with so much pomp to the House, as the unanimous petition of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity of the counties of Stafford and Warwick. Was not the earl of Shrewsbury, was not lord Stourton, an exception to this muchboasted unanimity of the Roman Catholics of Staffordshire? Were the De Cliffords, the Jerninghams, the Fitzherberts, the Smiths no exception to it-individuals who were much better representatives of the Catholic body of England, than one right reverend apostolic-vicar. The petition, notwithstanding an informality in the title of it (it was addressed to the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland), was ordered to be printed.

On the same evening, Mr. Plunkett moved the second reading of the bill for removing the disabilities of the Roman Catholics. He stated, that the bill removed two distinct disqualifications-that arising from the oath of Supremacy, and also that arising from the declaration against transubstantiation. There was a clause in the way of exception, which provided" That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be con'strued to extend, to enable any person, being a Roman Catholic, to hold and enjoy the office of lord high chancellor, lord keeper, or lord commissioner of the great seal of Great Britain, or of lord lieutenant or lord deputy, or

other the chief governor or governors of Ireland." The exceptions in the bill went no further than these offices: but Mr. Plunkett remarked, it would be perfectly open for any member on the committee to propose other exceptions if he thought proper. With respect to the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the bill provided, that all their existing institutions should remain in exactly the same situation, as that in which they stood at present. The test laws were left as they stood, and liable only to the operation of the annual indemnity act.

Mr. Plunkett then went on to explain the purport of his second bill, the title of which was, " to regulate the intercourse of persons in holy orders, professing the Roman Catholic religion, with the see of Rome." It set out with declaring, that it was fit to regulate the intercourse and correspondence between the subjects of this realm and the see of Rome, and "that it was expedient that such precautions should be taken in respect to persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion, who might at any time thereafter be elected, nominated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties, or functions of a dean, in the said church, within any part of the United Kingdom, as that no such person should at any time thereafter assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions within the United King. dom or any part thereof, whose loyalty and peaceable conduct should not have been previously ascertained to the satisfaction of his majesty, his heirs, or succes

sors."

On the subject of the intercourse between the Catholic clergy and the see of Rome, Mr. Plunkett said, he was entitled to assert, that it had long been carried on merely for spiritual purposes, and that in no single instance was it found to have been carried on for any factious or party purposes. With respect to the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops by the pope, the nomination was formally made in that manner, but not practically; so that in making any provision respecting the appointment of the Catholic bishops by the pope, he was providing a theoretical remedy against a theoretical danger. As to the actual nomination of the Catholic bishops in Ireland, there had been a series of disputes and a variety of claims. It was first contended among the Catholics, that the bishops of the province should elect one to fill the vacant see; then, that the dean and chapter should; and, lastly, the parish priests put in a claim to the right of election. In all these instances, the nomination by the pope was practically excluded. The pope had, therefore, practically, as little to do with originating the nomination of the Catholic bishops in Ireland, as he had with the nomination of the Protestant bishops in England. But to give satisfaction to particular scruples, he had introduced a proviso into his bill, which stipulated that an oath in the following terms should be taken by every Roman Catholic individual, who was admitted as a clergyman into holy orders, for the purpose of satisfying the state, that their intercourse with the see of Rome should be confined ex

clusively to ecclesiastical matters. The proposed oath was as follows:

"I, A. B., do swear, that I will never concur in or consent to the appointment or consecration of any Roman Catholic bishop, or dean, or vicar-apostolic, in the Roman Catholic church in the United Kingdom, but such as I shall conscientiously deem to be of unimpeachable loyalty and peaceable conduct; and I do swear, that I have not and will not have any correspondence or communication with the pope or see of Rome, or with any court or tribunal established or to be established by the pope or see of Rome, or by the authority of the same, or with any person or persons authorized or pretending to be authorized by the pope or see of Rome, tending directly or indirectly to overthrow or disturb the Protestant government, or the Protestant church of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Protestant church of Scotland, as by law established; and that I will not correspond or communicate with the pope or see of Rome, or with any tribunal established or to be established by the pope or see of Rome, or by the authority of the same, or with any person or persons authorized or pretending to be authorized by the pope or see of Rome, or with any other foreign ecclesiastical authority, on any matter or thing which may interfere with or affect the civil duty and allegiance which is due to his majesty, his heirs and successors, from all his subjects."

Mr. Plunkett next assigned the reasons why he did not, as in the bill of 1813, consolidate the ecclesiastical and civil arrangements

of the question, and why he preferred that they should be kept distinct, and made the subject of two specific bills. The one bill did not necessarily arise out of the other as cause and effect, for the Catholic layman was entitled to his civil rights, without any connexion with the ecclesiastical rules of his communion. In drawing this distinction, he admitted the propriety of legislating upon both points at the same time. They were now, he hoped, about to place his majesty's Roman Catholics upon the same footing as the rest of the people, and to put an end for ever to these impolitic and jealous distinctions. When performing this great work, he thought it expedient to embrace the whole of the question in one comprehensive view, and to legislate for it at once. In so doing, they were justified in guarding against the possible abuse of the control of a foreign potentate over a clergy in our own dominions, who had naturally considerable influence over one class of our subjects. But he thought it right, that the ecclesiastical parts of the measure should be separated from those which related to the laity. The clergy might feel disposed to assist in carrying the ecclesiastical arrangements into effect, and yet might not wish to do so at the very time when the particular question of the laity was at issue; they might have some delicacy in seeing the two matters mixed up together, lest the one should appear like a compromise or a barter for the other. At the same time, both he and the gentlemen who had assisted him in preparing the bill, were perfectly ready to admit, that if the first