moved the order of the day, for taking into further consideration the report of the Committee on this bill.

observed on the disadvantage in which every one stands who has to advocate a cause of exclusion of large classes of citizens from political power, which is one which in itself is so uncongenial to every liberal mind, that it tames the temper and cripples the imagination of even the most experienced orator, who has, moreover, in opposing the present measures, that extreme discouragement which arises from the knowledge that he his fighting against one of the strongest propensities of human nature—the preference of present ease and freedom from pain, to suffering and inconvenience for the sake of future security. He must strongly object to the assumption, that this is a political question, if it is meant to be urged that it is exclusively such; for were it such he never should have opposed the admission of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects to the full rights of citizens. Etymology and common sense tell us that the politics of a state are con- stituted of whatever makes its weal or its woe. That religion is the source and root of all this matter, appears even from every provision of the present bill, which turns upon nothing else; and the whole question has no other source than the divisions in religion of large classes of the subjects of the state. In looking to what has passed, he admitted that it was but with too much truth that the right hon. Secretary had stated his surprise that, if the English Protestant church and state took so deep an interest in the support of the Protestant cause, they made no efforts to troduce the gospel into Ireland. He certainly considered such a reproach was but too well founded. The Reformation found the English in Ireland and the Irish divided in territory, language, feelings, and interests, having religion alone in common; but the Reformation, embraced by the English alone, raised a more insurmountable wall of separation than had ever before existed; and it was marvellous that the politic Elizabeth and her able ministers, if not for the sake of religion, at any rate in sound policy, had not made every possible effort to abate that evil—a tenth part of the men and money employed by her to support the Protestant cause in Holland and in France would have secured the state of England far more usefully in conveying the reformation to the Irish, than any measures for the weal and safety of the state that could have been devised. Now, however, this cause of reproach was done away with, since of late years various societies, some under the sanction of the government, have been, in various shapes and systems, making great exertions for the promotion of scriptural knowledge in Ireland. In speaking of the Roman Catholic subjects of the king it would cost him nothing to do it in perfect temper and good will, any more than to bring those feelings to bear on the whole of the question. They had sought eagerly, and at times it appeared illegally, their objects; but were encouraged so to do when not repressed, and the greatness of the object before them accounted for the vehemence of the pursuit. In speaking of their church he wished to omit all avoidable harshness of expression—he had the consolation to know he could not speak as ill of it as it did of that to which he belonged; but there was a great peculiarity in its doctrines which it was important to remark. You cannot treat them as other dissenters from our church, since the far greater part of the Dissenters are separated from us far more by church discipline than doctrine, in which the difference from those of our church in regard to the largest sects cannot be practically asserted to exist; but with regard to the Roman Catholics the case is one of extreme heresy, which, however, has very remarkable features. In other heresies the origin is purely theological, and nowise affects the relation of the priesthood to the state. It exists in erroneous opinions in theology, but which nowise influence the relation of the priesthood entertaining them to the public; whereas in the church of Rome there is no one tenet which has not its origin in its views of forming a priesthood separated as much as possible from the mass of the peoples and vested in the overpowering authority. It is clear that in the early ages of christianity the priesthood, constituting a numerous and powerful body, possessing all the learning of the state, and in possession of the spiritual interests of the people, succumbed under the temptation to embody a series of doctrines, which it augmented successively, such as the Pope's infallibility, the worship of saints, the celibacy of the priesthood, absolution, auricular confession, &c, all tending to create a priesthood apart with unrivalled authority; and this being so, every interest, both personal and professional, is wrapt up in the maintenance of the system, which must be either maintained entire, or perish. There can be no measure for the systematic and energetic support which the whole body of the Roman Catholic clergy must give to the maintenance and extension of their church, and thus, in Ireland, the people being detached from their sovereign and their nobles by a dissimilarity of faith of an extreme nature, the Irish Roman Catholic people are thrown wholly into the arms of their priests for counsel, guidance, and protection; and hence arises their exorbitant power, the action of which, in the state of the Irish Protestant church, is obvious. They have not a juster, but a stronger, claim to its temporalities than the gratuitous concessions now made. Those temporalities were theirs; they were, in their view, unjustly dispossessed of them by heretics for heretical purposes, and to maintain a few pastors of slender flocks; whilst their own had to contribute to that heretical church, as well as to support them. But we are told, if the Roman Catholics, in bad faith, shall rush down on the church of Ireland, the government, strong in a good cause, will have no difficulty in repelling the invasion. But let us consider that its power must come from the parliament and the people; and how will the case stand with both? It has been shown by others, that a body such as the Irish Roman Catholics, will be in parliament, will act by uniformly holding together in a common view. Such a squadron, keeping apart from the battle till the ranks of the combatants are ragged and thin, will inspire awe and mistrust and fear on all sides, and give the victory where they please. As to the church of Rome, he considered it as a far more dangerous church than it was before the French Revolution, when the leading governments of Europe entertained feelings more or less of aversion to it. It has less atheism and infidelity in its members than it had. Reduced in temporalities, it has less temptations to vice and splendour; it is hardened by adversity, and excited by what it has undergone to increased exertion. Witness its but too successful labours in the Turkish dominions to obtain the aid of the Mahometan against the missionaries of other churches. It has the full support of the Roman Catholic powers. He had recent information, of indisputable authority, that when the news of the king's Speech reached Rome an ecclesiastic of high authority and consideration there exclaimed "Ours was always the universal church;" it will now be seen to be the universally triumphant church and his correspondent believed, in opposition to an opinion entertained by many, that the art, vigour, and consistency displayed by the leading men of that church, in furtherance of their object in enslaving the other churches, must ultimately be victorious. Then take a lesson from the recent history of the Jesuits. The court of Rome, in or about 1759, was compelled by the Catholic powers to annihilate the Jesuits by a bull. They took refuge in Russia, and, in sixty years, were supported in men and money by Roman Catholic Europe, which could not possibly have happened, had it not been with the privity of that court of Rome, which, however, in the exercise of its infallibility, had ostensibly destroyed them. In 1819, they were driven from Russia, in consequence of their proselytizing their pupils to the church of Rome, and returned into Roman Catholic Europe; in truth rebels to the whole power of the Papacy, had not the church of Rome acted with the deepest duplicity, and were instantly re-established. He had heard in 1814, a distinguished Roman Catholic statesman, the minister of a Roman Catholic state, express great anxiety as to what the congress of Vienna would do respecting the Jesuits, and he predicted, that if it did nothing, in a few years they would convulse Europe. The congress left the matter untouched, and this prediction was nearly verified in them this last year, in the crisis of the French government, brought on entirely by that order. As to the securities, it was idle to consider them as such. When you gave to men concessions beyond their utmost hopes, the retention of a couple of offices which are under the entire influence of one who maybe a Roman Catholic, end the re-enactment of laws, existing long since in substance, against Roman Catholic religious orders. In the absence of all other securities, some limiting of the spiritual influence of the court of Rome on his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects might at least have been looked for. It may he said that, during a hundred and fifty years, we did well enough without any check on it; but, in reply, it is to be observed, that we knew not, during that time, that the court of Rome had given the nomination to every Roman Catholic dignity in the church to the Pretender's family; and precautions formerly less necessary became imperatively such, when the Roman Catholics are admitted into parliament, and to nearly all the highest offices in the state. If any one recurred to the example of the most eminent men of modern times—the great king of Prussia, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the one a Protestant, the other a Roman Catholic—we find the former uniformly naming the successor to every Popish bishopric in his dominions; and Bonaparte declaring, in 1809, that the spiritual influence of a foreign potentate was inconsistent with the independence of France, and the dignity and safety of his throne, and vet that influence we left uncontrolled. The hon. gentleman said, that a few weeks back he had stated, that on the entrance of Roman Catholic members into the legislature it would lose its Protestant character, since, where the religious differences are so extreme, no religious question could possibly be agitated without consulting the House; but, instead of Protestant, he ought to have said its christian character, since even the mention of religion must be banished from its deliberations; and this would be felt most in the upper House, where the bishops sit on the part of our church, and who may be encountered there by dignitaries of the church of Rome, bishops and cardinals, members of noble Roman Catholic families, who may succeed to peerages by the demise of their relations, and whose right to sit in the House of Lords would be unimpeachable. Upon the whole, the bill in progress left him nothing but the gloomiest forebodings of the future fortunes of the church and of the state; but no prophet ever so ardently desired the accomplishment of his predictions, as he did the frustration of these forebodings.

said:—I am anxious to say a few words upon this important subject, because I am prepared to avow sentiments different from those which I have hitherto entertained; and I am the more anxious, because the opinions which I find myself now obliged, by an overwhelming necessity to adopt, differ from those of a considerable portion of persons with whom it has been my good fortune and my pride (hitherto) to agree in every point of public policy, and to whom I am bound by the indissoluble ties of esteem and gratitude. I feel deeply the duty I owe to these highly-respected individuals: but I feel still more deeply the paramount duty I owe to my country, and to my conscience. There are times when it may become the bounden duty of public men to abandon determinations once made, and which, if persevered in, may prove highly injurious to the interests of the country at large.—Sir, ever since I first became acquainted with the real state of Ireland, I have been a constant and conscientious opponent to Catholic concession, and why? Because I saw an uneducated, enthusiastic, superstitious people, blindly subjugated to the dominion of their priests; and because I dreaded that this priesthood might one day become a powerful political engine. The lapse of years has made very little alteration in the situation of the people, and my anticipations are more than realized as to the priests becoming political agents and political agitators. Education has been stifled by causes not altogether Catholic; every social tie has been dissolved, and the dearest domestic connexions snapped asunder in the furious animosity of party violence. In the midst of this anarchy, the Catholic Association gradually assumed a despotic power, not only over Catholics, but, through the influence of fear, over many Protestants also, while the government stood by, and permitted this new tyranny to establish itself. The natural consequence was, that Protestants formed Brunswick clubs in self-defence, and the opposite parties ranged themselves in hostile array, waiting but a signal or an accident to begin the conflict.—Such, Sir, was the state of Ireland when his majesty's gracious message proposed concession, and this proposal was supported by the duke of Wellington and by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Sir, I will never yield up my honest conviction to either the monarch or his ministers; but when I see his majesty's recommendation brought forward by two such men,—men who have always been the most firm supporters, and most zealous advocates of the Protestant constitution,—I feel bound to renounce my own strong and deeply-rooted prejudices!—for I believe the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department to be a truly honest statesman; and I am confident that the noble duke at the head of his majesty's council, is as disinterested, as able, and as intrepid, a minister as ever wielded the energies of this great empire. I have given the subject the best consideration in my power, and the result is, that I feel myself compelled to support the measure proposed.—The right hon. member for Louth has stated, that only three courses presented themselves:—to let the parties fight it out, to settle the question under Protestant auspices, or to settle it under Catholic auspices. I think another course might have been pursued in 1823, 1824, 1825, and even later. I would have drawn a circle round the throne, the cabinet, and the Houses of parliament, and have conceded everything else; and by this means, I think, the necessity of the present measures would have been prevented; but, as matters stand now, we have only a choice of difficulties—a partial, or a total revolution. Some gentlemen talk lightly of civil war, and maintain, that the Protestant power was quite sufficient to put down the Catholics in Ireland. Sir, I, who have witnessed the horror of civil war, would make great sacrifices rather than expose the country to so dreadful an evil;—but what would be the result? Why, after wading through seas of blood, and after a war of burnings and of massacre, we should find this question in precisely the same situation; and we should stand with our arms crimsoned in blood, and our country one scene of desolation. You cannot sink Ireland in the ocean; and there is no third course—you must coerce, or conciliate.—Under this impression, I give a reluctant consent to the measure now proposed. I think I could point out how we have been betrayed into our present fearful situation. But the temple of the constitution is on fire; and, instead of pausing to inquire for the incendiary, I will endeavour to stop the conflagration, and save as much as I can from the flames.

said, he was happy to perceive that his majesty's government had, by the simplicity of the measures introduced, avoided implicating itself in the maintenance of the errors of the Romish church. He felt this to be a subject of congratulation, and trusted the House would join him in support of the government, and thus confer an important benefit on a country which so eminently needed the care and attention of the legislature, for its pacification and improvement.

said:—I beg leave to direct the attention of the House to the observations of the hon. and gallant member who has just addressed it. The hon. and gallant member says, that we should not now inquire how the evil was created, but how we can best escape it. I submit to the House, that this, though a convenient doctrine, is a most dangerous one, when applied to public men. By such means, any great public delinquent may escape exposure amidst the ruin which has originated solely from his own mal-administration. I think we have a right to take a retrospective view of the causes that have led to the predicament in which we are placed, whilst we are endeavouring to extricate ourselves from it. Being determined to pay the most respectful attention to the desire intimated in the Speech from the throne, I abstained from offering any observations on the Catholic question, until the measure was fully before the House; and up to the hour when the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department entered into his explanation, I entertained a sanguine hope that the measure would be one to which I could conscientiously give my support.? The first few sentences of the right hon. gentleman were not at all calculated to dispel this illusion. He stated, that he rose in his place, "as a minister of the Crown, and armed with the just authority which belonged to that situation." What, then, was my astonishment to find, that though thus armed, the right hon. gentleman stated, that he could not put down an association which he declared to be dangerous and illegal, without yielding in the most unqualified manner to all its demands. What, said the right hon. gentleman, can we do? I reply to that question by another—What have you done? What have you tried to do? Is it not in the recollection of many, that in this House last year several hon. members repeatedly directed the attention of government to the state of Ireland, but without effect? Government asks, what can they now do? I reply, that they have long had a medium between utter exclusion and unlimited concession, but they would not avail themselves of it. They still have it, but they are as rash now as they were unbending before. They say the government of Ireland was divided. Why was it so? In whom were the appointments vested? In those who now complain of the effects of their own errors. The case presents no new features, but the Clare election and the Brunswick clubs; and I did expect that an unprejudiced observation of the events of the Clare election and the power of the Catholic clergy would rather lead to a proposition that a law should be supplied (were such a law wanting) which would exclude from the administration, or what is called the cabinet, all men who acknowledged themselves under the control of such influence as the Catholic clergy exercise. I refer the House to the last year's speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland, in which he puts forth the very arguments used by the right hon. Secretary in the present year, particularly as to the state of society in Ireland; yet that speech then produced no effect whatever on the mind of the right hon. gentleman who now brings forward a measure for unconditional emancipation; I call it unconditional, being one of those who consider the poor forty-shilling freeholders sacrificed to ambition, and uselessly so; as nothing short of a 20l. qualification would ensure what government state to be their sole object. I beg leave here to state, that I never was opposed to qualified emancipation. In October last I published my opinion, that concessions ought to be made to Roman Catholics, and before the present measures were known; that opinion was through the medium of the press submitted to my constituents, and though they are as decidedly hostile to the present measure as any constitutional body of intelligent Englishmen can be, they did not object to my ideas on the subject of qualified and limited concession. Many members on both sides of the House have shown us the danger of admitting Roman Catholics to the ministry—none more ably or more frequently than the members of the present government; but I have not yet heard any one state that there would be danger in excluding them from becoming privy councillors. If we hold Ireland by so slight a tie, that her population would join America, France, or any power which might be hostile to England, unless Roman, Catholics were rendered eligible to direct the councils of the king of England, her adherence cannot long be depended on. Perhaps I shall be told, that a Catholic question will still remain behind. Let his majesty's government grant what they may, and a Catholic question will still remain behind, one far more important than any—the existence of a Protestant church in Ireland, and the admission of Roman Catholics to high offices here will ensure the ultimate success of any design against such an establishment. One of my greatest objections to the present bill is, that it affords to the Catholics the power of legislating on all matters connected with our church, whilst we are not permitted to interfere in the most trifling degree with theirs; besides, I have not considered England merely in reference to Ireland—I have considered her as the prop of Protestantism in Europe, as the sole check to the encroachments of papal power, the sole protectress of those Protestants who are now tolerated in the Roman Catholic countries; but alter the constitution of England, place the government in the hands of Roman Catholics, and can we expect that the shield of her protection will be interposed for the benefit of foreign Protestants in the hour of oppression? We are told by the Roman Catholic leaders—honestly and openly told—that they will curtail the Protestant church establishments; and in whose hands have you placed, not the knife to prune, but the axe to cut?—in the hands of the very men who have made this declaration. Connected as I am, by early intimacy as well as by blood, to many highly estimable Roman Catholics, and never having entertained a feeling of disrespect or hostility towards persons of that persuasion, I trust I may lay claim to a disinterested and conscientious opposition of this measure; the very circumstance of being in a minority voting against government clearly proves it; had I suddenly changed when men in place and power altered their opinions, I might, perhaps, be looked on with suspicion by my Irish friends, but they cannot mistake the motives of a conscientious opponent, who votes against ministers as well as against Roman Catholics, and whose opposition has been uninfluenced by the movements of either minister or government. Much has now been done for Ireland, and much remains yet to do for England. The rumours of a coalition of parties hitherto opposed, are daily growing louder. I anticipate good from some alterations—reform is necessary in many departments—perhaps in this House: wherever it begins, unpledged, as I now am, to any government, I shall ever be found ready to support any measures which I consider advantageous to the country, from whichever side of the House they may emanate.

expressed his conviction that the measure of emancipation, if granted. would cause the immediate destruction of the Protestant church of Ireland; and that the destruction of that church would inevitably lead to the destruction of the established church of England. Under this conviction he had determined to give his decided opposition to the measure now in progress through the House. He apologized to the House for having detained them upon this subject; but, standing before them as he did, as the representative of a very large body of people, he felt that it would be the most straight-forward and manly course to come forward to the House, and state what his opinion really was. Having done so, he had only to thank the House for the attention whirl had been afforded him [hear, hear].

said:—The hon. member for Hull seems to have founded his argu ments on the supposed unchangeableness of our Protestant constitution. Is it, or ought it to be, unchangeable? The con stitution of this country, while, with a wise regard to the inviolable rights of property, it excludes anarchy and disorder admits the slow and silent tide of opinion to flow in upon ancient institutions—to subside—to retire, and to leave its fertilizing influence to future generations. The hon. member has stated, that he has heard no new arguments upon this subject now before the House. Are any new arguments necessary? Has not our course been one of uniform evil in Ireland? Our policy has run parallel with the misfortunes of that country. Is it not time to diverge from such a course? But, are there no new reasons for concession? Will the hon. gentleman deny that there is in Ireland, on the Catholic side, a majority—a majority increasing in wealth and intelligence; on the side of the Protestants, a minority now divided in opinion. What have we then? On one side, an increasing majority—on the other, not a minority only, but a disunited minority. So much for the arguments against the measure. What remedies have been proposed on the other side? The hon. member for Newark recommends education and the introduction of capital into Ireland. Can he constrain and control the flow of capital? Is not the present century too late for such a measure? It would have been well in more ancient times—in the days of Psammis, or Chosroes, or Cheops, or some other of the Tory kings of primeval Egypt. But the nineteenth century, the reign of George the 4th, with England for the scene, is somewhat too late for these arbitrary acts of despotic benevolence. The only other remedy suggested is the fatal one of coercion. Coercion may be tried. It may even be tried with success. But let the advocates of so fatal an expedient remember, that in such a case, victory is not always triumph: to be defeated is not to be subdued. There is a long and dreary interval between conquest and subjection—

—"For tho'the fight be won

All is not won; the unconquerable will

And study of revenge, immortal hate,

With purpose never to submit or yield,

And what else is not to be overcome."

It is impossible to contemplate this great measure otherwise than in two aspects: one with reference to the past—the other prospectively to the future. It is impossible to separate from our consideration the remembrance of those great men, whom we almost envy for having stood alone in this cause, and who vindicated what we now assert with a majority in a glorious minority of the legislature. To none is the tribute of praise more justly due than to that great statesman, the echoes of whose eloquence still lingers on these walls. Time and truth now justify, as they ever will, the efforts of departed genius, and history stands ready to consecrate his name. With regard to the future, this great act will promote what Mr. Pitt declared to be the object of the Irish Union, "tranquillizing Ireland, and attaching it to this country." By tranquillizing Ireland we shall introduce capital into Ireland by promoting the security of property. It is vain to expect capital to flow where that security does not exist. The right hon. member for Inverness had stated in a speech which it would be presumption to praise, that the argument from expediency had been too much relied on. We had not sufficiently considered the argument from justice. In my humble opinion, it is expedient to be just. This is the rule—a contrary course is the exception. He hailed this great measure on the general principles of universal toleration. He hailed it to the emancipated Catholic, as a brother in the constitution, adding to the councils of the empire the bond of united interests, and now undivided power. In advancing with this bill, we are proceeding, as it were, in solemn pomp, to lay the deep foundations of a nation's happiness. God speed the accomplishment of a work so auspiciously begun.

, as a conscientious man, said, he was bound to oppose a bill, which, if passed into a law, would drive the vessel of the constitution out to sea, without rudder or compass. The Protestant ascendancy had been thrown overboard, the forty-shilling freeholders had been thrown overboard, and the only hope seemed to be, that a sail might heave in sight, as they had put a broom at the mast-head [a laugh]. For his own part, he did not see what was to save them all from drowning.

said, he considered the measure to be in opposition to the Bill of Rights, and to all the principles of Protestant ascendancy, established at the Revolution.

said, he would take that opportnnity of reiterating his objections to a measure that swept away all the existing Protestant securities of the constitution, without substituting any others in their room—a measure that was brought forward against the feeling of the people by a set of men who had usurped the sovereign power of the state and the authority of the monarch. He repeated that it was a measure that would sweep away all the securities that our ancestors had provided for the stability of the Protestant interest. For where was there to be found in the bill, a full security for those establishments which his majesty had said it was their duty to preserve inviolate? How, if this bill passed into a law, were they to control the increasing strength of the Catholic church? It was in vain to hope that this measure would not lead to much worse effects than had been anticipated. He would take upon himself to say, that his majesty, in consenting to such a measure, had been misled by evil councillors—by men who had ventured to array themselves with an authority to which they had no title. He would maintain, that the opinions of the people of England were decidedly hostile to this measure, and he would only ask for the opportunity to establish the correctness of his assertion. Let the question be sent to the hustings in every county in England—let the genuine opinions of the people be had on this question—let their representatives be sent back to them, and the House would soon see that this measure was odious to the nation. The restless spirit of the age—that spirit which overturned thrones, and set up fantastic constitntions—had achieved this victory over the genuine principles of the British constitution. It was a base compromise of principle—a shameful surrender of the great bulwarks of the constitution. The faithful page of history would record the damning fact that the minister of the day had yielded to the clamour of popish agitators and popish priests. He must declare that the time had arrived when every man who valued the Protestant constitution should openly express his sentiments; and that the period had come, when it was expedient, and highly necessary, that they should, without delay, honestly, efficiently, and sincerely, enter upon the question of parliamentary reform [Cries of "hear," and a laugh]. He said this not more with reference to the past, than with a view to the future. It arose from opinions he had long entertained, but which were now matured; and he now tendered in all sincerity his support to those gentlemen who had hitherto advocated a reform of parliament, from a thorough conviction of its necessity, and as a peace offering to the insulted and outraged feelings of the people of England.

The House then proceeded to the further consideration of the report on the bill. The amendments were read by the clerk, and on the question "that these amendments be agreed to" being put,

rose to propose two amendments in the clause containing the oath to be taken by Catholics. He was astonished to find that the bill proposed by ministers had omitted two most material portions of the oath of 1791. The following words occurred in that oath, after the words "to the crown of these realms"—"and I do swear that I do reject and detest, as an unchristian and impious position that it is lawful to murder or destroy any person or persons whatsoever for or under pretence of their being heretics; and also, that unchristian and impious principle, that faith is not to be kept with heretics or infidels:" and at the end of that oath were annexed the following words, which were omitted in the oath proposed by this bill;—"And without any dispensation already granted by the pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, or any person whatever; and without thinking that I am, or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the pope, or any person or persons, or authority whatsoever shall dispense with, or annul the same, or declare that it was null or void." Now he would propose, as an amendment, that the first portion of the oath of 1791, which he had read, be inserted in the oath contained in the present bill, after the word "realms," and before the words "and I do further declare." It was well known, that the principles of the Roman Catholic religion remained unchanged; and that the principle against which the oath of 1791 was intended to guard, still actuated professors of that creed, might be gathered from the events of modern times. He would only refer the House to the year 1816, when this principle of persecution against heretics was carried to its full extent of blood and murder in the south of France. He would wish to know from the right hon. Secretary, the reasons which had induced him to omit this portion of the oath, containing so essential a security, and which was so considered by the framers of the bill of 1791. As to the dispensing power of the pope, to which the other portion of the oath which he would propose to insert had reference, he would only observe, that it existed still, and was recognised in some of the European Catholic countries. Revolutions had occurred within the last few years in Naples and in Spain, and hon. members must know, that the conduct of the sovereigns, in both instances, afforded evidence of the existence of this power on the part of the pope. The king of Naples was a conscientious man, and of all men the least likely to break an oath, unless he could satisfy those scruples which a religious man must entertain in doing such a thing. It was, he believed, a fact, that at Laybach, the king of Naples exhibited strong scruples on the subject. All these points would be cleared up in the pages of history, and it would then, no doubt, appear, that the pope had exercised his dispensing power in relieving those sovereigns from the obligation of their oaths. At the present moment, the pope exercised a dispensing power, as to the degrees of kindred within which marriage was not allowed, and he believed that that power, was intended to be exercised in reference to the royal family of Portugal. It was, therefore, a just and legitimate feeling, and not a prejudice, on the part of Protestants which induced them to call upon Catholics to disavow such doctrines. The hon. member concluded by moving the first amendment.

said, that if the hon. baronet conceived that the amendment which he proposed would offer any additional security, he was greatly mistaken; for it would be no security at all. He had no hesitation in saying, that he had omitted the words from the oath, which the hon. baronet now proposed to insert in it, because he conceived it would be perfectly unnecessary to call upon the parties whom they were about to admit to all the rights and privileges of the constitution, to declare, that they did not believe, as an article of their faith, that it was lawful to murder heretics. It appeared to him, that it would only be encumbering the oath with an unnecessary declaration, which would merely serve to weaken the force of the oath, and to divert the attention of the party who took it from those parts of the oath which were required to be taken by him as a test of his civil allegiance. When they were about to admit the Catholics to an equality of civil and political privileges, it did appear to him, that it would be an odious as well as unnecessary thing, to call upon any man, on whom they were going to confer such privileges, to declare that, under any circumstances, it would be lawful to commit murder. The hon. baronet had further objected to the present oath, because it omitted the clause which obliged Catholics to declare, that they did not believe that the pope possessed the power to dispense with the obligation of an oath. Now, if any party believed that the pope possessed such a power of dispensing with oaths, it must be clear, that no oath whatever would be a security against such a party. Against individuals who entertained such a belief, if any there existed, no oath that could be devised would afford any security whatever; the declaration, therefore, in reference to the dispensing power of the pope, had been omitted in the present oath, because it was useless and unnecessary. The present oath afforded the best of all securities when it called on the party taking it to swear solemnly in the presence of God, that he "makes this declaration and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever." If they could not believe the man, who in the presence of God, made such a solemn declaration as that, it would not be possible to devise any oath which could bind him, or afford them any security. It ought not to be forgotten, that it was oaths alone which excluded Roman Catholics from seats in that House, and from all the privileges of the state. They were not excluded by the direct operation of any law in England or Ireland. There was no law which excluded Roman Catholics as such: they were excluded by the indirect and consequential operation of oaths. Now, if Roman Catholics held the belief of the dispensing power of the pope in respect to the obligation of oaths, what was it, he would ask, that prevented Catholics from taking their seats in parliament, and from filling the various offices of the state? As the law at present stood, they allowed Roman Catholics to give evidence in the courts of justice, both civil and criminal, and to act as jurors in cases where the lives and properties of their fellow-citizens were concerned. Would it be right to call upon those men whom they were now about to admit to the highest privileges, to declare, that they did not believe that any power could absolve them from an oath? And were they further to call upon such individuals to declare, that they did not believe that it was lawful to murder heretics or to destroy any persons for or under pretence of their being heretics? If it were possible that such a belief should exist amongst the Catholics, they should not only not admit them to the privileges which this bill went to confer upon them, but they should disqualify them from giving evidence in courts of justice, and from discharging the duties of jurors, where they exercised a power over the lives and properties of their fellow-citizens. It was for these reasons that his majesty's government had determined to omit the words, the insertion of which was now proposed by the hon. baronet, feeling as they did, convinced, that if a man could not be believed after taking the present oath, there was no possible oath by which they could attempt to bind his conscience.

said, that were it not that he did not wish to place any private opinion of his own in the way of the measure which was proposed by his majesty's ministers, he had contemplated to move that those very clauses, into which the hon. baronet wished to insert the words of the former oath, should be expunged from the present. He conceived that the oath, even as it stood, cast an unjust imputation on the Catholics. He thought that, after the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Ireland had solemnly declared, that they disavowed such principles, and that their declaration was sanctioned at Rome, it should no longer be assumed, that such principles were held by Roman Catholics.

said, he did not arise to taunt the right hon. Secretary, but he believed that some few years ago these very oaths were advocated by him. The oaths which excluded Catholics from parliament did so, because they called upon them to deny the fundamental articles of the Roman Catholic faith—such were the declarations against the mass and transubstantiation. Their forefathers, who framed those oaths, saw that no oaths could bind Roman Catholics save those which called upon them to renounce the fundamental articles of their religion, and from which no dispensation of the pope could absolve them. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last said, that the bishops and clergy of England and Ireland disavowed the principles imputed to them and that the pope had approved of it. He would ask that right hon. member, when he was last at Rome, why he did not advise his friend the pope to call a general council? [a laugh]. He believed that the hon. gentleman was a friend of the pope; and further that he had been lately giving advice to the pope. Now, he wished to know why the right hon. gentleman, and his friend, Dr. Baines, did not advise his holiness to call a general council, to reverse the decree of the council of Constance, which declared that no faith should be kept with heretics. Until that was done, he would retain his old fashioned opinions as to the principles of Roman Catholics. He would only refer hon. gentlemen to the Catholic Almanack to prove that the principles of the Catholics were in full vigour at the present day. Any hon. member who chose to lay out a shilling on the "Catholic Lay Directory," would find that Catholic chapels, of all sorts and sizes, were spreading over the country. In Lancashire alone, there were eighty-six places of Catholic worship. It was the fashion to object to the oaths which were taken in that House. Their ancestors, however, had stronger stomachs than they possessed—they swallowed those oaths, and they required no Abernethy pills to digest them—they had no qualms of consience on the subject, when their object was to protect their civil and religious liberties. For himself, he had taken them, and could never consent to their repeal.

said, that as the hon. member had asked, why a general council was not called to repeal some decree or other of the council of Constance, it was perhaps necessary to inform him, that a general council required the attendance of all the bishops in Europe, and that it was not in the power of the pope to call one without the consent of all the Catholic sovereigns in Europe. The hon. member should take into account the expense and inconvenience, not to enumerate the other difficulties, which would attend such a proceeding, and he should bear in recollection, that the last general council, the council of Trent, was assembled by the powers of Europe, for the purpose of arranging certain differences, that after repeated discussions it separated without accomplishing that object, and that the person who opposed them at the council, namely the pope, had his power consolidated and increased by the result of that council. With such a result before them, it was rather unlikely that the Catholic princes of Europe would consent to call another general council.

maintained, that the principles of the Catholics remained unchanged. He referred to the decree of the Council of Lateran in support of his position, that persecution formed one of the principles of the Catholic religion. "Simulatio utilis est, et in tempore assumenda" was one of the maxims laid down by that Council, and enforced by the popes. He referred to a bull of pope Alexander, regarding heretics, in which the words "persequar usque ad necem" were to be found, and asked, whether there could be a stronger proof of the persecuting principles inherent in the Catholic religion?

wished to state a fact, as illustrative of the existence of the belief amongst Catholics of a dispensing power as to the obligations of an oath. The circumstance had been stated to him by a highly respectable magistrate in the county of Cork. That gentleman assured him, that having been in the habit of administering affidavits to Roman Catholics, and suspecting, in some instances, that they did not swear the truth, he put this addition to the usual oath—"I swear that I will not ask for, nor do I expect, absolution from this oath;" and that many persons who were ready to take the oath before, refused to take it with that addition.

said, that the anecdote which the hon. member had related, spoke volumes as to the character of the magistracy in Ireland. What were they to think of a magistrate who, when persons came before him to take an oath, which it was his duty to administer without addition or qualification, should require of them to take an additional oath, pledging them not to approach one of the Sacraments of their religion, to which as conscientious Roman Catholics they should have recourse, if they broke their oath by the commission of any crime? What were they to think of a magistrate who would call upon those Roman Catholics to swear, that they would not unburthen their consciences, as they might feel in duty bound to their priest, and seek that absolution which their church promised to a sincere repentance? This was a most melancholy example of the kind of magistrates that had existed in Ireland, who exercised their power, not for the benefit of the country, but for purposes of injury and injustice against their Catholic fellow population. The hon. baronet wished to call upon the Catholics to abjure the doctrine, that no faith was to be kept with heretics. The Catholics had, over and over again, disavowed such principles; and at this time of day it was needless to call on them for such a disavowal. In the time of Elizabeth it was the principle and doctrine of the law of England, that no faith should be kept with infidels. In "Coke's Institutes," it was laid down expressly, that no faith should be kept with infidels. Would any man in England be called on to disavow such a principle at the present day? In the progress of time they had all, both Protestants and Catholics, become wiser; and equally good reasons existed for calling on Catholics to disclaim the decrees of the Councils of Lateran or Constance, as for calling on English Protestants to disavow the doctrine' of lord Coke, that no faith should be kept with infidels.

contended, that the circumstance mentioned by the hon. member for Dublin completely exemplified the opinions entertained by Catholics on the subject of oaths, and that the right hon. Secretary should be extremely cautious in framing the oaths intended to be taken by them.

The two resolutions were then put and negatived.

said, that although some gentlemen had been accused of being over-cautious in wishing to make "assurance doubly sure," he was inclined to make assurance trebly sure, and therefore gave notice that he should move an amendment to the clause which enabled Roman Catholics to be members of lay corporations. In page 6, line 27, after the words "or any college or school of ecclesiastical foundation within this realm," he proposed to add the words, "or to enable any person or persons professing the Roman Catholic religion to vote, or to have any power or control, in matters relating to the management or appropriation of sums of money, or other grants which have heretofore been made, or which may hereafter be made, in aid, support, or endowment, of schools, almshouses, or charitable institutions of Protestant foundation." He had before stated the reasons which induced him to propose this amendment. As he understood the bill, it was not intended to enable Catholics to act, in respect of the foundations in any way in which they were now disabled from acting; and he supposed, therefore, that there would be no objection to his amendment. Let it not be thought that he looked upon this as a sufficient security. For his own part, he considered all securities as nonsense [a laugh]; but as it appeared to be generally understood, that something under the name of securities should be added to the bill, he would contribute his mite towards that something. There could be no doubt that the Roman Catholics would get as much power as possible into their hands; indeed, on a former occasion, the right hon. gentleman had expressed his apprehension of this propensity to power on the part of the Catholics. One of the great instruments of power was money; and though he should be very glad to secure all corporate funds from the control of the Catholics, yet, not being able to do that, he now proposed to place beyond their reach such funds at least as were appropriated to the maintenance of schools, alms-houses, and charitable institutions of Protestant foundation.

said, that he was anxious to accommodate the hon. member to the utmost of his power; but as the hon. member had told them, that he looked upon all securities with contempt, he thought on the hon. member's own shewing, the amendment was mere surplusage. The part of the bill, in which the hon. member proposed to introduce his amendment began thus—"Provided also, and be it enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to enable any persons, otherwise than as they are now by law enabled, to hold, enjoy, or exercise, any office," and so forth. In this clause, therefore, there was no specific mention of Roman Catholics; while, in the amendment, there was a specific mention of them. He really did not know the meaning of the amendment, nor could he see how far it might extend. In the case of family trustees, Catholics might have influence over insti- tutions, such as were mentioned in the amendment. Did the hon. member mean to deprive them of that influence? Did he mean to disqualify a Catholic who might have been confided in by the person making a bequest, from acting in pursuance of a trust committed to him The amendment did not relate to corporate funds: it was a general disqualification. There might be a trust left by a Protestant family; the object of the trust might be a Protestant; and yet, by succession or appointment, a Roman Catholic might be or become the trustee. To such a case this amendment would apply; and it would disqualify the Roman Catholic. He really thought that the hon. member would do better by adhering to his original intention of giving notice of this amendment, and refraining from moving it then.

said, he could at once mention a case such as the right hon gentleman had alluded to. He referrer to the Shrewsbury Hospital and almshouses, over which the heir of the duke of Norfolk had control, and which would be taken out of his hands by this amendment.

said, that as the hon. member was so anxious to prevent Catholics from interfering with funds appropriated to Protestant foundations he had better extend his amendment, ark prohibit Mr. Petre, a Roman Catholic gentleman, from paying the large subscription he had so handsomely offerer towards restoring York Minster.

(who spoke from the Opposition side of the House, near the bar) said, it was very well known that nearly all the foundation schools in the kingdom were delegated for education in the Protestant faith; that then was a positive, a legal necessity, that the scholars in such seminaries should be educated in the Protestant faith. It was well known that most of these schools had been founded since the Reformation. Some of them, it was true, had bees founded before the Reformation, but most of them since; and, what was more, they were of lay and not of ecclesiastical foundation. If honourable gentlemen would look into the reports of the committee which had inquired into these foundations, they would find the fact to be as he had stated it; namely, that these schools were of lay and not of ecclesiastical foundation, and, that the education in them must be education in the Protestant faith. Now, the object of his hon. friend's proposition was, that Roman Catholic corporations should not have the power of controlling, appointing, and regulating schools unavoidably dedicated to the Protestant faith. As the bill at present stood, supposing a Roman Catholic were mayor of a corporation, did he or did he not acquire an ascendancy over institutions directly and exclusively Protestant? He would again ask, whether this bill of Jacobin equalization, and of undistinguishing amalgamation, would not, under these circumstances, confer that ascendancy? He conscientiously believed, that not one clause of this Jacobinical bill was understood by those who proposed it [Here the hon. and learned member, whose action was extremely energetic, accidentally struck Mr. Bankes violently on the head with the bill which he held in his hand; and the occurrence raised so hearty a laugh throughout the House, that the hon. and learned member was for some time unable to proceed]. He begged pardon of his hon. friend. He meant to level no blow at him—he meant to level blows at no man: he spoke in the most perfect good humour, and his blows were levelled only against this bill. Abstracting the bill from the framers of it—speaking de re and not de personâ he would repeat his conscientious belief, that the framers of the bill did not understand one single clause of it, from the beginning to the end. His hon. friend proposed to interdict a Catholic from interfering with establishments connected with the Protestant faith, if he were a member of a corporation having control over such establishments; and there was scarcely a corporation in England that had not a school or alms-house, or other place, devoted to education upon Protestant principles. As the bill now stood, any man might become a member of a corporation, and in all the schools attached to corporations, as he had before observed, the education must, of legal necessity, be Protestant; so that this bill—this Jacobin bill, as he would call it, in its Jacobin liberality—not only invested Catholics with all corporate powers, but in the corporation it gave him also the power of setting a Catholic school-master over a Protestant school, and of delivering the control of these foundations for Protestant education into the hands of a Catholic. He saw the point of this amendment, and he gave his hon. friend great credit for his spirit in bringing it forward. The case was not whether he could persuade the House to adopt the amendment [hear, and a laugh.]—The gentlemen laughed—and he would tell them why they laughed. It was clear that there was no use in dividing—and therefore the gentlemen laughed. It was clear that there was no use in attempting to arrest the progress of a bill, which was pressed forward with such reckless haste—a bill of which the pages were still wet when they first saw the amendments—a bill which, as the framers of it did not understand the clauses, was precipitated onward, in order that the members of the House might not understand it. Such was the bill, such its motion, and therefore gentlemen in their pleasantry indicated by a laugh, that it was of no use to oppose it. Perhaps so; but he hoped they would accept his apology for opposing it. He must take the liberty of saying, that the bill, as it stood, was an unconstitutional, egregious, and monstrous violation of the rights of hundreds of schools founded by laymen, in which, by law, the education must be Protestant, but which, by this bill, Catholics were enabled to convert into places for Catholic education.

said, his hon. and learned friend had truly stated, that some of these schools had been founded before, but most of them since, the Reformation, and that they were generally of lay, and not ecclesiastical foundation. Such was undoubtedly the fact; but it might be stated with equal truth,—and the more the subject was examined, the more apparent the fact would be,—that all the schools attached to corporations were grammar-schools. His hon. and learned friend had thought it exceedingly hard that Catholics should be allowed to appoint masters to these schools; but he would tell hon. gentlemen that which would relieve their mind from these calamitous forebodings, and which, he trusted, would carry satisfaction even to the mind of his hon. and learned friend. It was necessary that every master of a grammar-school should be licensed by a Protestant bishop. He would not detain the House by citing authorities on this subject, but he appealed to every hon. member present, if he had not rightly stated the law. He maintained, that it was necessary that the master of every grammar-school should be licensed by the bishop in whose diocess the grammar-school was situated, and that the bishop could prevent any master of a grammar-school from teaching, until he had given him a license. It did therefore appear to him, that the law, as it stood, afforded a very satisfactory security.

said, that his object was, to prevent Catholics from interfering in the corporate funds destined for particular purposes; and that what had fallen from the hon. and learned doctor had not touched that part of his proposition.

perfectly concurred in what had been laid down by his hon. and learned friend. If the hon. and learned doctor had not made the statement, he should have made it. He had never entertained a doubt that the license of the bishop of the diocess was necessary; and he knew that in a very learned discussion, in which this point was involved, there was no difference of opinion upon it. If there were any grammar-schools under a different regulation, the fact was new to him. He conceived the law on this subject to be perfectly settled.

said, that if the law was as it had been stated to be, there was, certainly, pro tanto, a security; but the question was, was the law enforced?

said, that when the bill was before the committee he had taken the liberty to observe, that its securities were not sufficient with reference to schools over which corporations had control. Whether the license of a bishop was or was not necessary, he was not prepared to say; but certainly there was a variety of cases which ought to be guarded against. If the principle of the clause was protection, that principle ought to be carried into full effect. He thought the amendment ought to stand over, in order to give time for inquiry.

said, that, on a former occasion, the observations of the hon. member for Dublin on this subject had been directed to a chartered school in Dublin called the Blue-Coat school. Since that time, the Secretary for the Home Department had put the charter of that school, together with other documents, into his hands. He had perused them, and he begged leave to say, that the present bill did not trench, in the slightest degree, on the rights of that school. If the alarm re specting other schools had no better foundation, he must be allowed to say that it was very unnecessary.

begged to be allowed to withdraw the amendment, and to give notice that he would move it on the third reading of the bill.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

said, that he had an amendment to propose. On a former occasion, when he had the honour to present some petitions from the county which he represented, he had stated that there was a great conspiracy on foot throughout Europe, which had filled many persons with alarm,—a conspiracy at one time carrying on its machinations at Rome, and at another projecting the suppression of the liberties of the people by sabres and standing armies. He had then expressed himself of that opinion, and he now saw no reason for renouncing it. With the permission of the House, he would enter more at length into the subject. He would begin by calling attention to the existence in France of the body known by the name of the "Congregation," or, in other words, the Jesuits. He did not intend giving any thing like a history of the order; he would content himself by referring to it in general terms. Although its founder, Ignatius Loyola, appeared, after Luther, at a time when the Reformation had spread in Germany, and when the papal power was apparently drawing to a close, he could not for years obtain a bull to sanction its institution, and it was at last obtained only by a declaration of unprecedented and implicit devotion to the papal see. Before Loyola's death twelve societies of Jesuits were established, and he had the satisfaction of seeing members of the order become the confessors of kings; and he believed that had it not been for their dissolution by pope Ganganelli, and the occurrence of the French Revolution, they would have succeeded in securing the papacy itself. As it appeared to be the opinion of his majesty's ministers that the order in this country should be gradually suppressed and abolished, he hoped he should not be considered as advancing much beyond them in proposing a measure more severe. It might be supposed that, after their dissolution by Ganganelli, who said he was advised to the measure by every Christian sovereign, and after they had become mer chants and traders, and were dispersed throughout Europe, it might be imagined, that nothing more would be heard of them. But there were two sovereigns who gave admission to the order, and one in particular, the emperor of Russia—a country at all times solicitous to interfere in the affairs of the west. In Russia they found a refuge, as they also did in Prussia, Frederick the Great, conceiving that there was no danger to be apprehended from them. Thus they at length received an asylum among heretics. The order of the Knights of Malta—an order not yet dissolved—had once been extremely powerful; its grand master was, at a certain period, one of the greatest sovereigns of Europe. The island was now in our hands, but the Jesuits might be regarded with the same apprehension as the order of Malta. It was not until the late emperor of Russia found that the Jesuits were tampering with his subjects, that he ordered them to quit his kingdom. The charge against them was thus expressed:—"They have turned aside from our worship young people who had been intrusted to them, and some women of weak and inconsiderate minds, and have drawn them to their church." His imperial majesty's ideas of this conduct are thus expressed:—"To induce a man to abjure his faith, the faith of his ancestors—to extinguish in him the love of those who profess the same worship—to render him a stranger to his country—to sow discord and animosity in families—to detach the brother from the brother, the son from the father, and the daughter from the mother—to excite divisions among the children of the same church—is that the will of God, and of his divine Son Jesus Christ our Saviour?" The result of his deliberations are contained in the following articles:—"That the Catholic church in Russia be again established as it was in the reign of the empress Catharine the Second, and till the year 1800; that all monks of the order of Jesuits be immediately banished from Petersburgh; and that they be forbidden to enter the two capitals." In 1801 the emperor Paul had called for the re-establishment of the order. His request was complied with, and it was afterwards allowed to exist in his dominions: and, in 1814, it was again permitted to remain there under certain restrictions. Documents from the papal court respecting its re-establishment in 1814 proceed thus—"We granted to the said Francis Karen, and his colleagues residing in Russia, or who should repair thither from other countries, power to form themselves into a body or congregation of the company of Jesus; they are at liberty to unite in one or more houses, to be pointed out by their superior, provided those houses are situated within the Russian empire. We named the said Francis Karen general of the said congregation: we authorised them to resume and follow the rule of St Ignatius of Loyola, approved and confirmed by the constitutions of Paul 3rd, our predecessor, of happy memory, in order that the companions in a religious union might freely engage in the instruction of youth in religion and good letters, direct seminaries and colleges, and, with the consent of the ordinary, confess, preach the word of God, and administer the Sacraments. A short time after we had ordained the restoration of the order of Jesuits in Russia we thought it our duty to grant the same favour to the kingdom of Sicily, on the warm request of our dear son in Jesus Christ, king Ferdinand, who begged that the Company of Jesus might be re-established in his dominions and states as it was in Russia, from a conviction that, in these deplorable times, the Jesuits were instructors most capable of forming youth to Christian piety and the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom, and to instruct them in science and letters. The duty of our pastoral charge leading us to second the pious wishes of these illustrious monarchs, and having only in view the glory of God and the salvation of souls, we, by our brief beginning 'Per Alias,' and dated the 30th of July, 1814, extended to the kingdom of the two Sicilies the same concessions which we had made for the Russian empire. The Catholic world demands with unanimous voice the re-establishment of the Company of Jesus." Now, it was not generally known in Europe, that in 1801 the Jesuits existed, and as a body recognized by the pope; for thirty years had not elapsed from their suppression by the bull of pope Ganganelli until the secret bull was issued for their re-establishment in Russia. At the congress of Vienna, when the allied sovereigns were assembled in full council, and when the pope of that time was completely at their disposal, and when an individual, not royal certainly, but with power equal to royalty, having such extensive influence over the minds of the sovereigns, took a leading part in their deliberations, the order was revived and encouraged, and in his opinion, with the view of repressing the progress of freedom and liberality.—The doctrines of the Jesuits might be inculcated in two ways in the human mind—either by despotic authority, or by plausible delusion; and that they would he so inculcated, unless efficient measures were taken to prevent it, he firmly believed. But the reign of terror and delusion would not, he hoped, exist long; for hon. gentlemen might depend upon it, that there had been, and still was, a great struggle between the two great principles of despotism and liberality. In his view of the case, this question had as much to do with the question of despotism amongst the sovereigns of Europe, as it was possible to imagine; for there was no form of religion in the world so little favourable to liberty as the Roman Catholic religion. Pagan Rome was not more anxious to obtain the empire of the world, than ecclesiastical Rome was, to rule over the human mind—and that rule they would endeavour to attain through the indefatigable exertions of the Jesuits. He believed that they were, in the present age, safer from the intrigues of the church of Rome, than those who went before them, but, at the same time, if the Papists continued to annoy the Protestants, as they were doing in different places, particularly in France,—if they proceeded from one aggression to another—it would at length become necessary to make a great effort to crush such a system of bigotry. He was aware that in France one generation had escaped the Jesuits, but the rising generation was before them, and they sought to instil their principles into the minds of young people of seventeen or eighteen years of age. This was a part of their plan; and he believed that it succeeded but too well. That sect possessed, ever since its establishment, an immense power. Through their means Louis 14th, who was the author of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, who banished fifty thousand of his best subjects from their native country, submitted himself to a Roman Catholic confessor, and on his death-bed sent a letter to the pope praying forgiveness for having doubted certain articles of the Catholic faith.—The hon. baronet, in support of his argu- meat as to the fatal consequences which were likely to be produced by the toleration of the Jesuits, read an extract from a work entitled "Secreta Monita," in which an ex-Jesuit gave an account of the order. He now came to what he meant to propose to the House. The clause in page 10 of the bill ran thus:—"And whereas Jesuits and other religious orders, communities, or societies of the church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows, are resident within the United Kingdom, and it is expedient to make provision for the gradual suppression and final prohibition of the same therein;" for "United Kingdom," he would substitute "his majesty's dominions;" because it was absurd, when they were legislating with respect to a body of men of whom they were afraid, to check their growth merely in the United Kingdom, leaving them to spread and increase in the colonies, and that too at the very moment when they were about to allow Roman Catholic governors in those colonies. He was perfectly sure, that if they suffered Jesuits to flourish in the colonies, they would soon interfere with the business of the government, and that this country would feel the effects of that interference, as other countries had formerly done. The clause then proceeded—"Be it therefore enacted, that every Jesuit, and every member of any other religious order, community, or society of the church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows, who, at the time of the commencement of this act, shall be within the United Kingdom, shall, within six calendar months after the commencement of this act, deliver to the clerk of the peace of the county, or place where such person shall reside, or his deputy, a notice, or statement, in the form and containing the particulars set forth in the schedule to this act annexed." Now he could wish the clause to run thus:—"Be it therefore enacted, that every Jesuit, and every member of any other religious order, community, or society of the church of Rome, whatever be his title, character, or designation (this was particularly necessary, for a greater difficulty never existed than that of finding out who really were Jesuits), bound by monastic or other vows, who, at the time of the commencement of this act, shall be within his majesty's dominions, shall deliver to the clerk of the peace of the county or place, or his deputy, or to the governor of the colony where such person shall reside, a statement in the form and containing the particulars set forth in the schedule to this act annexed." The hon. baronet concluded by moving his amendment. On the question being put, "That the words 'United Kingdom' proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,"

said, that the provision contained in the bill was meant to apply exclusively to certain Jesuits, now resident in the united kingdom. The object was to prevent the increase of that body; and sure he was, that very little fear could be entertained on that account, since their number was so extremely small. He believed that a great deal of prejudice had gone abroad on this subject, and it was his duty to state to the House, that there were but three members of the order in Ireland, and but one seminary devoted to their purposes. It was clear, therefore, that under the provisions of this bill, the order must soon cease to exist altogether. When he was occupied in examining into the state of education in Ireland, he, as well as others, was anxious to procure some information with respect to that body. The commission wished to have an explanation on that point, and with that view Dr. Kenny, the principal of the seminary at Clangowes, was examined. It was doubted whether he would not show some indisposition to answer any questions on the subject; but that gentleman immediately replied to every question with considerable ability, and with much sincerity. A reference was made to certain volumes, said to contain the rules of the order of Jesuits, and Dr. Kenny was asked whether there were any instructions, admonitions, or suggestions, given to the society, other than those contained in the work alluded to. His answer was, that every admonition, instruction and rule—that every enactment or ordinance relative to the order—were contained in these volumes. He was then examined—and let it be remembered that he was on his oath—with respect to certain instructions contained in a book, denominated "Secreta Monita," and his answers were equally fair and honest. The hon. member for Louth, who was one of his colleagues, had said, after Dr. Kenny had been examined for three days, that no man ever gave more candid answers than had been given by that individual. Dr. Kenny, in the course of his examination, speaking of the "Secreta Monita," said, "I am quite prepared to give my opinion of that work. Whoever expects to see in that work the rules of the Society of Jesuits will be greatly disappointed. It is a false, infamous, and malicious libel—a libel, imputing conduct to the society, which no charitable man would impute to another without the most decided evidence." He could not agree with those who thought that this publication did no mischief. It was got up for the purposes of inflicting an injury, by falsifying the rules, institutions, and ordinance of the Jesuits; and he was certain, that numerous copies of it were sent to various places. Dr. Kenny had declared that it was a libel—he named the author of it, and stated out of what circumstances it arose. For himself, he had no interest in defending the Jesuits; but he conceived that they ought to have the full benefit of the statement which he had made; because, if they were to decide against this order, they ought not to do so on hasty prejudice, or on false and malicious publications. They had nothing now to fear, in his opinion, from any Jesuits in the united kingdom. Their only establishments were at Clongowes and Stoneyhurst, and means were taken to prevent the increase of the order. Ample security was provided under this bill, to render it impossible that the Jesuits should grow more numerous in the united kingdom. Any precaution beyond that appeared to him to be founded on prejudice, and to betray an unnecessary caution, for which there was no reason whatever.

in answer to the allusion which had been made to himself, thought it necessary to say a very few words. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend on one point; namely, that the "Secreta Monita" was not a work deserving of any credit; and he felt further bound to declare, that be believed the members of the order of Jesuits, now employed in England and Ireland acted entirely from a conscientious feeling of what they conceived to be their duty, and did only that which they believed to be right. There was, however, another topic on which he could not coincide with his hon. friend. He did not think that his hon. friend's memory had served him correctly, with respect to the number of Jesuits in Ireland. It clearly appeared, from the statement of Dr. Kenny, that at a period of time prior to the examination there were thirty Jesuits in Ireland, and that they bad considerably increased since, Now, he agreed with his hon. friend in not viewing with any sentiment of alarm the numbers of that order, whatever they might be; but this he would say, that those numbers would soon increase to a very great extent, if efficient measures were not taken to prevent it. The very essence of the order of Jesuits was missionary labour. That distinguished them from all other orders. They made a vow of special obedience to the pope; and they passed their lives in travelling on missions. The superior directed the order, and he selected for their labours any spot in the world, where he conceived they could most effectually serve the church. He was sure that there was no Jesuit at that moment in the united kingdom, except by the order of his superior. He agreed perfectly in what was said by the hon. member for Cornwall, that, in proportion as France and other countries got rid of the Jesuits, they would pour in here, if they were allowed; and, in proportion as the legislature thought it beneath their dignity to take proper care of the Protestant church, in that proportion would the order increase. The order was bound by a conscientious vow; and, in proportion as they relaxed their attention to the interests of the Protestant church, in the like proportion would the Jesuits become dangerous. There was much difference between the provision contained in the bill, and the extreme measures which the hon. member for Cornwall proposed. Seeing, as they did, that those individuals were not at present subject to a certain, reasonable, and proper control, they had a right to assert such a control, and to prevent their numbers from increasing. They were perfectly competent to say to that body, to the general of the order, and to the papal authority, "You shall send no more foreign Jesuits amongst us; neither shall you increase their numbers from the natural-born subjects of these realms;" but further than that he did not think it was necessary to proceed. It was unquestionably necessary that the Protestant religion should be thus guarded and protected. When the Bible was put into the hands of children in a Roman Catholic school, they all knew what a cry of proselytism was set up by those who were adverse to such a proceeding; and he would ask those gentlemen who had joined in that cry, whether they had no feeling for the safety of the Protestant church? Whether at Stoneyhurst, or Clongowes, or Carlow, the daily and nightly care, the sole and only object of the Jesuits, was not to make converts, in every class and branch of society, high or low? This was the great point to which their attention was directed. They constantly devoted themselves to that special purpose. This was what they considered their paramount duty, and by this they were distinguished from all other orders. He gave them credit for a conscientious feeling to discharge their duty, and make proselytes; but, at the same time, he, as a Protestant, thought it was his duty to preserve this Protestant land from them, by every means in his power.

was of opinion, that the House would be able to discuss the amendment to more advantage, if the hon. baronet would state the general outline of the plan he meant to propose with respect to the monastic orders. That information once given, the whole question might be discussed together.

stated his object to be, that the provisions of the bill should be extended to the colonies, and that stronger means should be adopted for preventing the increase of monastic institutions of every kind.

said, the hon. baronet had now stated generally what enactments he contemplated. For himself, his desire was, that justice should be observed towards individuals, while the object of preventing the spread and increase of those monastic institutions should be effected. He entirely concurred with the hon. baronet in thinking, that it was perfectly consistent with the interests of a Protestant state to follow the example of other states, governed by Roman Catholic sovereigns, and to take the precautions which they had taken against any danger to their rights, which might be apprehended from those monastic orders. It was the duty of the legislature to take care that the Protestant institutions of this country were not abused, by allowing those Jesuits who were expelled from other places to assemble here; but in doing that they ought to have a proper regard to the just rights of individuals. Now, in pursuing this inquiry, it was material to ascertain, in the first instance, what was the existing law with respect to the Jesuits, and with reference to monastic orders generally in England and Ireland; and to see whether those individuals were not here on the faith of that existing law. They would then have to inquire, whether the present bill which would prevent the future admission of British subjects in this country into the Society of Jesuits, and which would also prevent the arrival of foreign Jesuits in the United Kingdom, was not sufficient to meet every apprehended danger? Now, the state of the law in England and Ireland was this:—At present there was in Ireland no law whatever against the Jesuits or the monastic orders. He did not know what the state of the law was before 1793; but since 1793 he apprehended there was nothing in the law of Ireland to prevent the residence of Jesuits, or of other monastic orders in that country. In England, since 1791, there was nothing to prevent the residence of Jesuits here: but the law gave the Roman Catholic, who took the oath of 1791, the express power to belong, if he pleased, to any of the monastic orders. The act of 1791 provided, "that no Roman Catholic who has taken and subscribed the oath hereinafter appointed to be taken, shall be presented, indicted, sued, prosecuted, or convicted, in any civil or ecclesiastical court for being a papist, or a reputed papist, or Roman Catholic priest or deacon, or for entering into any ecclesiastical order or community." The part of the bill which he was now reading related to the Jesuit in his individual capacity, and it had the effect of preventing any person from being prosecuted as a Jesuit, in his individual capacity. As to monastic endowments, the law of 1791 left that subject exactly as it stood before. Such endowments were illegal. The endowment of a college for Jesuits, or for any other monastic order whatever, was contrary to law, and if discovered, became forfeited. The existing law, therefore, which the act of 1791 did not touch, gave as complete security as law could give, against the application of property to the support of monastic orders, or to any other superstitious uses of that nature. What was looked to by the act was, merely the individual capacity of any Roman Catholic. The law did not touch him; and he might in his private capacity, attach himself to the order of Jesuits, or to any other monastic order, under that act which specifically declared, that he should not be liable to prosecution. He thought, therefore, though policy might require that they should interdict an addition to the number of Jesuits at present here, that it would be a very harsh measure to deprive individuals of the liberty to reside in this country, after they had relied for protection and security on the existing law. If the statute of 1791 had given them notice, that, at a future time they would be deprived of this privilege, they would not probably have come to this country, or remained here. But they had, under the act of parliament, permission to stay here for their lives; and under these circumstances he conceived it would be unjust to interfere with them. The bill left the law as it found it, with respect to monastic endowments: it compelled the Jesuit or the member of any other monastic order, to register himself, so that the government must have a perfect knowledge of the number of those persons; and it likewise forbade the arrival in England of any more individuals of that class. If there were any British subjects, prior to the passing of this measure, who, relying on the statute of 1791, became Jesuits, they had a right to come forward and perform the act of registration under this bill. But notice was given, that after the act came into operation, any British subjects who connected themselves with the Jesuits, or any other community of that nature, could not avail themselves of the benefit of this law. This was going, he thought, as far as they should go.—The hon. baronet wished to extend this measure to the colonies. But he ought to recollect that some of the colonies were peculiarly circumstanced. He did not exactly know the state of the law with respect to Canada. He believed the College of Jesuits there had been suspended; but he thought it would be a difficult and delicate matter to legislate on this subject for a colony, the inhabitants of which were almost entirely Roman Catholics. In Canada the legislature had the power of regulating the Jesuits. In those colonies which had no legislature the Crown had the power of regulation. His wish was, to extend this law to all colonies where there were Roman Catholics. There was no difficulty in the governor's requiring a return of all the monastic orders, and of Jesuits in each colony. The effect of the present bill was, not to abolish all the monastic establishments for education, but to prevent an increase in their number. In 1800, in consequence of the troubles in France, there was a great resort of foreign regulars to this country; the atten tion of the legislature was in consequence called to the subject, and a bill passed that House, which required the registration of all foreign regulars residing temporarily in this country, and prevented any addition to their number. This bill, which did not affect British subjects who were affected by the bill of 1791, did not pass into a law; it was rejected in the House of Lords, mainly owing to the speech of bishop Horsley; so that the Jesuit would appeal to the bills of 1791 and 1800. In his opinion, much less evil would be occasioned by suffering them to remain, than by violating a kind of pledge given them by the legislature.

After some desultory conversation,

proposed a clause, providing that where the name of George the Fourth occurred in the oath, it should be altered, from time to time, to the name of the sovereign for the time being. This clause was necessary, he observed, to obviate any objection that the oath, in its present state, would apply only to his present majesty.

The clause was agreed to.

then stated, that it might be desirable that an individual Jesuit might be allowed to reside in England for a limited time: there might be eminent scholars, or persons specially called here, to whom it might be proper to extend this indulgence. The clause he should propose for this object, provided, that it should be lawful for one of his majesty's secretaries of state, by license, to allow a foreign Jesuit or member of a religious order, as aforesaid, to come to the united kingdom, and to remain therein for a period not exceeding six calendar months, with power to revoke such license if he should see fit; and if such foreign Jesuit or other person did not depart within twenty days after the license had been revoked, or within twenty days after the expiration of the license, he should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be banished for life from the united kingdom. He should also propose, in another clause, that a list of all such licenses granted within the preceding twelve months be laid before parliament each session.

said, he knew no class of men to whom the world had been more indebted than to the Jesuits. We were indebted to them for the best editions of the classics. It was true they had abused the power they acquired; but that abuse was at an end. They were now usefully employed in Ireland, and in other countries, in the promotion of education, and it was a reflection upon the country to be so afraid of them. It was too great a power to give to a Secretary of State to grant and revoke licenses at his pleasure.

complained of the countenance which the Jesuits were receiving in this country and under this bill, after they had been expelled from every other country in Europe for their mischievous intrigues. The right hon. Secretary had, it was true, come forward with a clause which empowered him to grant or refuse a license of residence in this country to the Jesuits. This was nothing less than a dispensing power. At any rate, the Protestant Secretary of State, who was to exercise this discretion, might himself have been appointed by a Catholic prime minister. He thought it would be better if the right hon. Secretary were no longer to amuse the people by an appearance of security where none actually existed, but were at once to allow the Jesuits free privilege of coming into and settling in this country.

wished, that the limitation of time might be extended, and that more latitude might be given.

said, he could not accede to this suggestion. He did not mean, by this clause, to fritter away the security, but to obviate an objection which had been made the other evening.

approved of the clause. He said, he thought the country was under great obligations to his majesty's ministers, and especially to the right hon. Secretary, for bringing forward this measure. As he had not spoken on the subject, he took that occasion of expressing, in the strongest terms, his admiration of the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, who had shown much magnanimity and true patriotism.

The clauses were then agreed to.

with reference to the system of education practised by the Jesuits, and which had been commended by the hon. member for Aberdeen said, he knew that much mischief had been done thereby, as they had thereby been enabled to make many converts. The right hon. member for Liverpool had suggested a longer time than the right hon. Secretary. Now that was what he was much afraid of. He had no opinion of their system of education. What would the Jesuits teach our children? What had occasioned their expulsion from France? So far from agreeing with the hon. member for Aberdeen, as to the good which the Jesuits had done, he maintained that whenever they had had the power, they had acted in a manner inimical to Protestant liberty. And in literature, what had they done to ennoble or elevate mankind? The hon. baronet concluded by moving a clause, of which the effect was, that no Jesuit or member of any monastic institution should be a school-master, under a penalty, for the first conviction, of 200l.; for the second of 500l.; and for the third of banishment for life. He intended also to propose, that if within three months after the passing of this act any monastic establishment should harbour any young person, being a subject of his majesty, the establishment should be dissolved.

observed, that the clause would be unjust, because the act of 1791 gave to the Catholic clergy the right to keep schools for the education of Catholic youth; and the clause now proposed prevented both Catholics and Protestants from being educated by Jesuits. With respect to school-masters, the act required, that their names should be registered with the clerk of the peace, and parties who kept a school on the faith of the act would have just ground of complaint. On the principle of public faith it was objectionable. Although it might be desirable to prevent the education of youth by Catholics, he would rather stand on the public ground of good faith.

agreed with his hon. friend, that no religious order had produced more eminent men than the order of Jesuits.

declined giving his support to the amendment on the grounds stated by the right hon. gentleman; with whom he perfectly agreed.

said, that in 1791 there were no Jesuits in any part of Europe except Russia, as the order was not revived until the year 1814. He believed that before many years elapsed the gentlemen who now talked so loudly of showing kindness to the Jesuits would lament their own injudicious liberality.

opposed the amendment. All experience had, he said, taught him that in religious concerns severity defeated its own object. With respect to the clause gone by, nothing was further from his in tention than to touch those who resided in this country. His object was to invest the Crown with power, in particular cases, to extend the term of residence, not for life, but for a longer period than six months. One great advantage of the clause proposed by his right hon. friend was, that but for it the severity of the law would make it fall into disuse. It ought to be in the power of the Secretary of State to grant a second license; for there were cases in which it would be impossible for a person to perform the business he had to transact in this country in so short a time as six months. He knew a case in which four of these individuals had been sent for by government from Canada, on account of public business; the transaction of which occupied them a considerable time.

The amendment was negatived. On the motion, that the bill be engrossed, the House divided, Ayes 233; Noes 106; Majority 127.