officers of the hundred should go so sufficiently armed as to quell any riotous proceedings.

The Earl of Darnley also opposed the bill, which was defended by Earls Camden and Liverpool. The third reading being carried, Lord Holland's amendments were put and negatived. He then pro

posed as a third amendment, that the magistrates should not have the power of search in the night. This was rejected on a division by 17 against 6, and the bill was passed.

Its operation was limited to the 25th of March, 1813.

CHAPTER

NOTWITHSTANDING the re

peated failures of the attempts in parliament to procure a concession of the claims of the Irish Catholics to an equal participation in the rights and prerogatives of their fellow citizens, the advocates of their cause, probably imputing the opposition in part to circumstances of temporary irritation, resolved not to give up the contest, but to appeal, as it were, from the heat of the moment, to a future period of calmness and sobriety. In pursuance of this idea, Mr. Canning, on June 22, rose in the House of Commons to make a motion on the subject. He began his speech with alluding to a circumstance which might be regarded as embarrassing to an advocate of the Catholics, but which he considered as only one symptom of the habitual irritation of the public mind in Ireland, and an additional motive for an immediate consideration of the question in the proper place; this was, the receipt on that morning of the resolutions of the aggregate meeting of Irish Catholics at Dublin. He shewed that the warmth of these resolutions

was not to preclude a temperate discussion of a great political question, but rather to inculcate the propriety of dropping the recollections of all that had passed in former debates, and considering the subject as if now presented for the first time. He then laid down three principles on which, in his opinion, the whole matter rested. 1. He would assume as a general rule, that citizens of the same state, living under the same government are entitled, prima facie, to equal political rights and privileges. 2. That it is at all times desirable to create and maintain the most perfect identity of interest and feeling among all the members of the same community. 3. That where there exists in any community a great permanent cause of political discontent, which agitates men's minds without having any tendency to subside of itself, it becomes the duty of the supreme power in the state to determine in what mode it may most advantageously be set at rest.

The right honourable gentleman then went on to enlarge upon these several heads, with the force and eloquence

eloquence habitual to him; but as his path lay directly through all those topics which had already so often been brought forwards in the former debates on the Catholic question, it would be superfluous prolixity to go through his train of argument, and we shall only transcribe the motion with which he concluded. It was, "That this house will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration the state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland; with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the united kingdom; to the stability of the protestant establishment; and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects."

General Matthew, who spoke next, moved as an amendment, "That the House should take the Catholic claims into their early and immediate consideration, aud go into a committee upon them on Thursday next."

Of the debate which followed, we shall, for the reason above assigned, decline giving a sketch. One of the most observable circumstances was, that Lord Castlereagh made a liberal declaration in favour of an inquiry into the Catholic claims. That the general feeling of the House was similar was proved on the division, when, after the amendment of General Matthew had been negatived, the original motion was carried by the decisive majority of 235 to 106. In the House of Lords, on July 1, the Marquis Wellesley, after a strong argumentative speech, but

of which the topics were such as had been amply dwelt upon in former debates, made a motion precisely the same with that of Mr. Canning. The previous question was moved upon it by the Lord Chancellor, and a number of lords on each side declared their sentiments upon the subject, in the arguments and observations already so often repeated. The division showed an extraordinary balance of opinion in the members of that house. On the motion of the previous question, the numbers were, contents, present, 74, proxies, 52; total, 126: not-contents, present, 74, proxies, 51; total, 125. Majority, 1. Ministers, and their usual supporters, were ranged on each side; and of the royal dukes, two voted on one side, and three on the other.

Even the bench of bishops was divided, though unequally, for 15 supported the previous question, and three alone opposed it.

Such was the state in which the close of the session left the very important question of Catholic emancipation.

In the debates concerning Lord Sidmouth's motion of last year to make alterations in the act of toleration, it had been stated, that different decisions respecting the meaning of certain clauses of that act had been given by the justices at the quarter sessions of different counties. It was, therefore, a laudable purpose of government to introduce a legal exposition of them which might prevent any future disagreement.

On July 10. Lord Castlereagh moved the bringing in of a bill to repeal certain acts, and amend other acts, relating to religious

worship

worship and assemblies, and persons teaching or preaching therein. He stated that in consequence of certain decisions at the quarter sessions, doubts had arisen as to the question of qualification; and that the object of this bill was, to place the dissenters in the situation in which they practically stood previously to such decisions. The bill was brought in and read.

At the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, July 20, Mr. W. Smith congratulated the house on the unanimity with which it had hitherto passed, as a favour able omen of the increasing liberality of the times. He thought it would remove the practical evils of which the dissenters had to complain, although it did not recognize their great principle, that the civil magistrate had no right to interfere in matters of religious opinion. It removed the arbitrary discretion of magistrates, and required no other oath than that of allegiance. As an act of toleration, it was certainly the most complete which had hitherto been passed in this country. The honourable member concluded by moving a clause" to continue the exemptions now enjoyed by the toleration act, without requiring a fresh oath."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred with the honourable gentleman in his congratulations, which he was happy to consider as not arising from indifference to religion, since the same parliament had distinguished itself by its bountiful regards to the established church; and he instanced in the grants made to the parochial clergy, and the exemption of the smaller livings from the land-tax. He gave the late Mr. Perceval the credit both of those measures and of

the design of the present bill. He alluded to an intention of the honourable gentleman to have brought in a bill for the protection of a particular sect (the Unitarians), and was glad that he had not put it into execution, for he believed the persons in question were in no danger of molestation, and such a bill might have given great offence to many well-meaning persons, by exposing doctrines to contumely which were generally viewed with great veneration. In a future session means might be devised to reconcile the respect due to those doctrines with a full protection to the decent profession of opposite opinions.

Mr. Whitbread said, he had examined the bill, and found it the same that he had intended to have brought in, and drew the same happy inferences from its silent progress as his honourable friend had done. He hoped this spirit would continue till the great work of religious freedom received its final consummation.

Mr. Smith's clause was then brought up and agreed to, and the bill was read a third time and passed.

The second reading of the bill in the House of Lords was moved, on July 23, by the Earl of Liverpool, who observed that the subject could not be properly entered into without repealing certain acts which remained on the statute book, but which no one would now think of putting in force. Among these were the conventicle, and the five-mile acts. The latter was entirely abrogated: some parts of the former were retained in another shape. In order to combine the most ample toleration with the requisite securities, it was pro

posed

posed in the present bill to give to places for religious worship notoriety and publicity, and to require from the preachers and teachers of the same some test or security in the oaths taken by them. Meetings for worship in which the persons assembled did not exceed 20 above the family of the occupier of the house, were exempt from any restriction. Others were required to be registered, and their meetings were to be held with unbolted doors. The preachers of congregatious were to take the required oaths at the sessions, but were not required to take them antecedently to their exercising the duties of teaching and preaching.

Earl Stanhope objected to the bill, that it was founded in its preamble and clauses upon expediency alone, and did not recognize the right of religious worship, which he contended to be the unalienable right of man.

Lord Holland, though he agreed with his noble friend as to this right, was nevertheless a warm friend to the bill, as so much gained to the cause of toleration.

Viscount Sidmouth could not give his unqualified approbation to the bill. He regretted the extension of the number allowed at unregistered meetings, from five to twenty. He thought the exemptions granted from civil duties and the militia might lead to abuses: and he particularly lamented that no qualification was required from preachers or teachers, but that all persons, whatever might be their ignorance or moral character, might assume the office on taking the oaths. He did not, however, mean to oppose the bill.

The Lord Chancellor expressed a dissent from the clause granting

exemptions, but said it would be best judged of in the committee.

The bill was then read a second time, and committed.

In the committee on this bill, July 24, the Lord Chancellor objected to the clause granting exemptions to teachers and preachers exercising any other profession or occupation; and coutended that complete justice was done by the exemption before granted to all teachers or preachers exercising no other profession except that of a schoolmaster. He therefore, moved to strike out the clause.

Lord Holland was disposed to acquiesce in this amendment, but was doubtful how it might affect dissenting ministers in the possession of land.

The Lord Chancellor thought that the same rule might apply to them, as did to the established clergy: namely, that though they could not take land to farm, yet that being in possession of a lease of land in consequence of the death of a relation, or holding land in fee simple, was not considered as farming. The clause was struck out.

Earl Stanhope moved some amendments which were negatived, and the bill passed through the committee. The report was received on the next day, when the bill passed.

It is to be observed that Earl Stanhope had some time before introduced into the House of Lords a bill" For preventing the imposition of disabilities upon persons on account of religious opinions, or the exercise of their religion," which was founded on the enlarged principles that he held on these subjects, and in supporting which he took

occasion