and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, by the respective acts of union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, therein severally established permanently and inviolably." Now, why were these two clauses introduced into the preamble? There was no clause in the bill, which provided for the permanent and inviolable security of the Protestant establishment. These clauses had some connexion with the first bill that was introduced by the late Mr. Grattan; for they were there followed by a third clause to this effect "And whereas it would tend to promote the interest of the same, and strengthen our free constitution, of which they are an essential part, if the civil and military disqualifications under which his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now laboured were removed."

That clause was omitted in the present bill; for to say that the privileges, which it conferred upon the Catholics, were intended to promote the interest of the church of England, and to strengthen our free constitution, would be an absurdity too great for any man to think of believing. In the feast in Macbeth, that tyrant, before he went round the table to pay his respects to his guests, expressed an anxiety for the presence of Banquo, whom he had doomed to die: and one of the commentators had remarked, that this single touch of nature showed a greater consciousness of guilt in Macbeth's mind, and excited a stronger suspicion that he intended mischief to Banquo, than a thousand laboured speeches would have done. So he (Mr. Peel) thought, that the

or

anxiety for the welfare of the church of England exhibited in the preamble, and not followed up in any of the enactments of the bill, was one of those touches of nature which showed a consciousness of danger in the bosoms of the framers of the bill; and which ought to excite a lurking suspicion that all was not so correct in it as at first sight it might appear to be. The constitution, he contended, was virtually altered by this bill. The bill of Rights was repealed by it. That bill provided, by a most solemn enactment, that the oath taken by every person, on his admission to office, should be the oath of supremacy, which asserts, "that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical spiritual, within this realm." This oath was now to be repealed. He did not deny the right of the House of Commons to alter this oath, but, when they told him that they wished to secure to the church of England permanency and inviolability, and when they altered that act which provided for it most effectually, he had a right to ask what security they had to give him for the fulfilment of their promises? He would not deny, that the maintenance of the succession to the Crown in the Protestant line, together with the necessity of two or three of its principal officers still remaining Protestants, was an important security. Still it amounted only to this-that the individual who came to the throne should make the declaration against transubstantiation, and should be in communion with the church of England. All the security derived from surrounding him with Pro

testant councillors was taken away. How was it that James 2nd endeavoured to effect his purposes? "By the assistance of divers evil councillors, judges, and ministers employed by him"-(such was the language of the bill of Rights)"did he endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom." The House would therefore see, that, though the king was obliged to be in communion with the church of England at his accession to the throne, he was left at liberty, by this bill, to make his selection of councillors amongst his Roman Catholic subjects. What might be the consequence of such an event? He would suppose that the individual who filled the throne, after he had taken the oath against transubstantiation, found the grounds of his creed to be erroneous, and considered the ancient religion of the country to be the wisest and the best. He would suppose that he took advantage of the liberal doctrine which had been that night advanced, that a man's religious opinions were not matter of his own choice, and that it would be the height of intolerance to subject him to any disqualification on that account. Now, if a king or queen of this country, with a mind liable to the influence of designing persons, were, after his accession, to become a convert to the Catholic faith, and were to declare his or her adherence to it, the peace and tranquillity of the country would rest on the will of a single mind. An attempt to dismiss that individual from the throne, because he had, upon conscientious principles, changed his religious faith, might be productive of very serious convulsions in the country. In the

He

reign of James 2nd it had produced them; and in that of Charles 2nd, the suspicion of such an event had given rise to the precautions which it was the object of the present bill to get rid of for ever. knew that such an event might occur under the present system; but, if the ancient barriers of the constitution were broken down, and the sovereign was enabled to surround himself with Catholic advisers, facilities for it would be created which at present had no existence. He allowed that the danger he was now describing was merely speculative; but, when the fundamental laws of the country were going to be repealed, it was right to look even at speculative danger. It had been said, that they were not to look at the clouds with a telescope, and disregard the immediate danger at their feet. Agreed; but still they were bound to be cautious; and, if they saw a cloud in the sky, which at present was not larger than a man's hand, they ought to recollect that it might, ere long, overcast the firmament, and involve the whole face of nature in gloom and desolation. Against this they were bound to provide. They ought to act towards those who were to succeed them, with the same caution and prospective regard with which their ancestors acted towards them, and were not, for any temporary convenience, to diminish the strength and security of their institutions. They were not now deciding on the formation of new institutions. The question was not, whether the form of government was to be republican, where all religions were admitted equally to the participation of political power, but whether, being a monarchy, with the Protestant religion

established by law, and interwoven with that monarchy, they were now prepared to abandon those securities by which that government was preserved and supported? It was to be recollected, also, that the temporalities of the church of Rome had been transferred to the Protestant church; and that, upon the principles of human nature, those who professed the tenets of the former, must view the latter with jealousy, and consider it as an usurping body. Without imputing to the Roman Catholics any immoral feeling, under the circumstances in which that religion stood in relation to our establishment, he undoubtedly considered it unsafe to allow them to legislate for us. In that view, he could find no security in the assurances which the proposed oath demanded. What, he would ask, was the practice of the constitution under circumstances analogous? When the legislature disqualified revenue officers from voting for members of parliament when it denied to the clergy the capacity of sitting in that House it at once founded its disqualifications on the undue influence by which it presumed, on the general principles of human nature, those classes would be actuated. It legislated on that ground, and wholly disregarded all securities which declarations, under such circumstances, afforded. The recollections of history teemed with illustrations of the same principle. His right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) had always disclaimed any thing like negociation with the Catholics, and had said, he would legislate for them, not treat with them. But, what had been the course pursued during the last ten years? What was the history of the securities that were to accompany the relief

to the Catholics? The first security that was offered was the Veto. Such a security existed in every Protestant state in Europe. And, was it not enough to excite surprise, to find, in this Protestant kingdom (for so it was designated in the bill of Rights), the Crown called upon to pay the professors of religion, in the appointment of whom it was denied any influence? But thus it was; and any attempt of the Protestants to legislate on the subject was termed bigotry. The Veto was abandoned; and, in 1821, his right hon. friend produced those securities, which he, no doubt, thought adequate on the one hand, and necessary on the other. On looking for those securities now, however, they were nowhere to be found. They had been entirely done away with, and others substituted. The securities having thus grown

"Small by degrees, and beautifully less," were now become so exceedingly minute, that they could not well be reduced any further in size. They had sunk below zero, and had been almost too minute for calculation. So insignificant were they at present, that he implored his right hon. friend to leave them out of the bill altogether. They were told, indeed, that the question of securities could be properly considered only in the committee. On this point he would say, that if the great measure were once conceded, he would infinitely rather place all its details upon a principle of generous confidence, than fetter them with a jealous and ineffectual system of restriction. To establish a permanent Catholic commission coming in contact with the Crown, and for the purpose of advising the Crown; the Crown being notwithstanding compelled to make ap

pointments which it might think liable to great objection, was no satisfactory provision. But, forsooth, there was to be a certificate of loyalty. Now, every body knew what loyalty meant in private conversation; but, what did it mean by act of parliament? He did not know what loyalty meant in a legal sense, except that the individual, to whom the term was applied, was never convicted of a crime in a court of justice. When Dr. Doyle was asked, if, in his opinion, the proposed provision for the Catholic clergy should be inalienable, he answered yes, while they comported themselves loyally and peaceably as became subjects; and when he was asked, whether by not comporting themselves loyally and in obedience to the laws, he did not mean their being convicted by some legal court of such conduct, he replied in the affirmative. Now, really, he could not conceive a more painful duty, than for the commission to certify to the Crown the loyalty of those whom they recommended. It was a delusion also to suppose that such an arrangement would diminish the dangerous character of the correspondence of the Catholic prelates with the see of Rome. His right hon. friend had observed, that that correspondence existed at present. True; but how different would be its character when it became sanctioned by act of parliament, instead of being carried on under the terror of severe laws which might be executed.

Between the second and the third reading of the bill, an event occurred, which had a very decided influence on the fate of the measure. On the 25th of April the duke of York rose in the House of Lords, and stated that he had been

requested to present to their lordships the petition of the dean and canons of Windsor, praying that no further concessions should be made to the Roman Catholics. He considered it unnecessary, in bringing before their lordships the petition of so learned and respectable a body, to assure them it was worded so as to ensure its reception; but before he moved that it should be read, he must be permitted to say a few words.

"Sensible," said his royal highness, as he was, of his want of habit and ability to take a part in their lordships' debates, it was not without the greatest reluctance that he ventured to trespass upon their time and attention; but he felt that there were occasions when every man owed to his country and to his station, to declare his sentiments; and no opportunity could, in his opinion, offer, which required more imperiously the frank avowal of them than the present, when their lordships were called upon to make a total change in the fundamental principle of the constitution, and, in his royal highness's view of the question, to strike at the very root of its existence.

"His royal highness observed, that twenty-eight years had elapsed since this question had been first agitated, under the most awful circumstances, while this country was engaged in a most arduous and expensive, though just and glorious war; that the agitation of it had been the cause of a most serious and alarming illness to an illustrious personage now no more, whose exalted character and virtues, and whose parental affection for his people, would render his memory ever dear to this country; that it had also produced the temporary retirement from his late majesty's

councils of one of the most able, enlightened, and most honest states men of whom this country could boast.

"Upon this question they were now called to decide; and from the first moment of its agitation to the present, his royal highness had not for one instant hesitated, or felt a doubt, as to the propriety of the line of conduct he had adopted in reference to it.

"That he must also call their lordships' attention to the great change of language and sentiments which had taken place since the subject was first introduced, among the advocates for Catholic emancipation.

"That at first the most zealous of these had cautiously and yet strenuously endeavoured to impress upon the minds of the people, that Catholic emancipation ought not to be granted without establishing strong and effectual barriers against any encroachment on the Protestant ascendancy. But how changed was now their language! Their lordships were now required to surrender every principle of the constitution, and to deliver us up, bound hand and foot, to the mercy and generosity of the Roman Catholics, without any assurance even that they would be satisfied with such fearful concessions.

"His royal highness had, upon a former occasion, taken the liberty of stating his sentiments fully upon the subject, and had endeavoured to convey to their lordships that no person was more decidedly inclined to toleration than his late majesty, but that it must be admitted there was a great difference between toleration, participation, and emancipation. He would not now enter into this discussion, convinced as he was that if the bill should again be

brought under their consideration, its merits would be much more ably discussed by others of their lordships. There were, however, one or two points which appeared to him to have been kept out of view in the different debates that had occurred in various places, and which seemed to him of such vital importance that he could not help touching upon them.

"The first was, the situation in which the Church of England would be placed should Catholic emancipation pass. If his royal highness were mistaken, he would doubtless be set right, but he had always understood that the Established Church of England stood in a very different situation from any other religious persuasion in the world-different even from that of the sectarians in this country. The Established Church was subject to its own government, and did not admit the interference of the civil authorities. It was placed under the authority of the king as the head of it, and under the control of parliament, so much so, that the Church was not only not represented as a body in the lower House of parliament, but that no clergyman was admitted to a seat in it.

Surely, their lordships could not wish to place the Established Church of England upon a worse footing than any other church within these realms ; nor allow the Roman Catholics, who not only refused to submit to our rules, but who denied any authority of the civil power over their church to legislate for the Established Church, ́ which must be the case if they should be admitted to seats in either House of parliament.

"The other point to which his royal highness had to advert was one he felt to be of a more delicate