regular clergy, and which would enable him to keep the people in abject slavery almost without effort.

How this bill would have enabled the government to control the priesthood, we cannot discover. What is it that gives the government influence with the regular clergy? It is their head; it appoints not only to the higher dignities, but to many of the inferior benefices. But it was to have no share, not the slightest, in the appoint ment of the Catholic priesthood;-it was to have no power whatever to remove any of its members for misconduct, or to withhold their stipend. It was merely to have the power to pay certain salaries to certain individuals whom the Pope and his bishops might name, and nothing more. The priests were to be as perfectly independent of it, in point of conduct, as they are at present, when it pays them nothing.

We need not say that the principle of this bill was, in the highest degree, unconstitutional and detestable. A quarter of a million of the public money was to be annually paid to individuals chosen, directly or indirectly, by a foreigner, and these individuals were to be accountable to no authority in the nation for their official conduct.

For this large sum, nothing was ask ed as an equivalent. All sides are declaiming against the pernicious nature of Catholicism. Much of its discipline, putting Protestantism out of sight, is directly at variance with the spirit of the laws and constitution-with liberty and the weal of the state-yet not a single attempt was made to obtain a modification of it in return for this lavish grant of the public money. No effort was even made to obtain for the poor Catholic laymen liberty to enter the national churches and to read the Scriptures. So far from this, it was actually declared, that the Catholic priests would only accept the money as a matter of condescension and concession-that, in accepting it, they would do prodigious violence to their feelings!! So much for the second and last security.

The common and natural way of settling differences was never once thought of. Not a single endeavour was made to obviate the objections of the great body of those who were hostile to the relief bill. The discipline of the Catholic church varies in almost every Catholic country, and this shows that

it is a thing capable of change. It is to this discipline principally, rather than to doctrines, that the nation objects. The Catholics declare that they ought to have a peculiar_system of discipline in this country, because the government is a Protestant one; and surely this proves, that the nation, in its turn, has a right to insist on so much peculiarity in discipline as will leave nothing in Catholicism at variance with its laws and constitution. If something be conceded to the Catholics in the appointment of their clergy, certainly, on every principle of reason and justice, something ought to be exacted in return, in the way of securing knowledge and freedom to their laity in the discharge of their political duties. The boundless, unconstitutional, and dangerous political, as well as religious influence which the priesthood exercises over the vast body of the laity by means of its penal laws, is familiar to every one. No other body in the state is suffered to have such party laws as the Catholics possess. They would, with their present party laws, were the disabilities removed, enjoy exclusive privileges and liberties, as a political, as well as a religious party, of the most formidable and dangerous character. We know that this has been denied in Parliament; we know, too, that it has not been disproved, and we know, in addition, that it is incapable of disproof. We know that it is as much a matter of state necessity to prevent the Roman Catholic Church, as to prevent the Church of England, from having pernicious laws and direct authority. All this, however, was nothing. The detestable penal code of the Catholic church was not even to be spoken against. Lord Liverpool happened to censure certain parts of it, and he was covered with obloquy. The State was to concede everything, and the Catholics nothing; all that the latter asked was to be granted without examination !

The House of Commons never exhibited a more extraordinary spectacle than it did during the progress of these three bills. One member wished to vote for one of them, and yet he was compelled to vote against it, from the fear of supporting the others. Another member was placed in the same situation with regard to another of them. The wings of the misshapen and non

descript fowl could not be touched or looked at, from the fear of injuring the wind-pipe;-some, who protested against them, were yet compelled to support them, to keep alive the body. The two subsidiary bills were just carried sufficiently far to pick up the doubting votes on "the right and the left," and to secure the passing of the main one, and then they seemed to be forgotten. The latter was passed and sent to the Peers without them, to be decided on without them, when the Peers could neither have any constitutional knowledge that they existed, nor any certainty that they would reach the Upper House. Those who, in effect, held in their hands the majority of the House of Commons, saw the Lords called upon to decide on the relief bill without the securities which induced them to pass it. The bill which the Lords had to decide upon was, in strict truth, a perfectly different one from that which had passed the Commons, and yet they were compelled to regard it as the same.

The business was very far from being free from trickery and deception. The security chiefly relied on was that for taking the Catholic priesthood into the pay of the nation. It was that which gained the wavering votes and secured the majority. Now, why was not this security introduced into the main bill, instead of forming a separate one?Whatever might be the case with Mr Lyttleton's measure, it seems unaccountable that the payment of the priests was not made one of the provisions of the Catholic relief bill, when it was to procure votes for the latter, and not to deprive it of them. There was a reason. It was, we believe, known to the chief framers and supporters of the bill for paying the priests, that it could not pass into a law, even if the other bills should do so. Some of them must have known this; yet these individuals assured the members who voted for the relief bill solely on condition that it should be accompanied by the one for paying the priests, that if the one bill became law, the other would likewise. Now, had one bill comprehended the provisions of both, it could not have become operative as a law, contrary to the sense of the majority of the House of Commons; but, as matters were, the disabilities might have been removed, both against the sense, and, even in

reality, against the vote, of this majority!

This took place not touching a petty question, an enclosure act, or a new company bill, but touching a measure of the most gigantic importance-a measure vitally affecting the interests of the empire. It is, in sooth, new in English legislation-it is, in sooth, a new method of managing the interests of England. If anything could make us detest the legislation of lawyers, it certainly would be proceedings like these. We care not who were the authors of them-we care not whether they were Irishmen or Scotchmen— we will tell them, that such things will not do in England. We are a plain, blunt, straight-forward people; and what we scorn above all other things is-imposition.

We will now say a word or two on certain parts of the debates in the House of Commons, which seem to call for some notice.

On one occasion, Mr Brougham very truly declared it to be highly unconstitutional to use the King's name in Parliament for the purpose of influencing the votes of the members. At the same moment, and in the same speech, Mr Brougham used the King's name evidently for this purpose. On several occasions, this learned individual declared, that the King must be, and was, friendly to the removal of the Catholic disabilities. Our readers know that this was as unwarrantable as it was unconstitutional. We will say no more; we will not drag his Majesty's name into the question: but we will advise Mr Brougham and his friends to wait until the King shall declare himself, before they hoist over themselves the royal standard. We have perhaps at present quite as much right to do it as they have.

It is a fact, although posterity will never believe it, that some members voted for the removal of the disabilities on the ground of its being contrary to "liberality" to retain them. Such portentous consequences will fashion sometimes produce among weak heads and pliant principles. Liberality, however, has, upon the whole, fared very scurvily in the business. It has received such a thump on the head from the agitation of the Catholic question, as has stretched it in its last agonies.

We need say but little on the ex

traordinary change of opinion in Mr Brownlow and some others, for it would be no easy matter to add to the humiliation into which they have plunged themselves. Every great statequestion is composed of a multitude of parts, which change, in their character and effects, every hour; and, of course, nothing could be more preposterous than for us to argue, that, because a man opposes a matter at one time, he is, for that reason alone, always to oppose it. A few years may reverse a question in everything but name, and, in such case, a man must reverse his opinion respecting it, to be truly consistent. We believe a man to be a drunkard, because we witness his drunkenness, but then we are not from this to believe him a drunkard, if he reform and show proofs of his sobriety. The change, however, in the question, must precede and govern the change in opinion; and it must be distinct and satisfactory in the eyes of impartial men. The Catholic question has, no doubt, undergone some change in late years; but what is this change? The British and Irish Catholics have displayed far worse opinions, spirit, and conduct. The Catholicism of Europe has become much more powerful and active-it has renewed its offensive operations against Protestantism, and it has become a potent political instrument in the hands of foreign governments. Now, the corresponding change in opinion ought evidently to be, a more determined opposition to the removal of the disabilities. Mr Brownlow, however, and those who followed his example, could only find in this change a reason for becoming strenuous friends of the Catholics. The winter's blast destroyed the summer's warmth, therefore they put out their fires and threw off their garments.

On what did these individuals ground their change of opinion? On the evidence of Bishop Doyle and Lawyer O'Connell. We know not by what unaccountable chance it happened that these two persons were examined. It is amazing, that after what they had done, spoken, and written, any one should have thought that their evidence would have the weight of a feather with the nation; and it is still more amazing that, after comparing this evidence with their opinions given on other occasions, any one should have dared to venture his reputation upon it.

The reasons which Mr Brownlow and his friends assigned for their change, did not satisfy the public. The British nation is in the practice of subjecting to a very severe scrutiny the reasons which public men assign for going from one opinion to another. It feels this to be a matter of absolute necessity: it knows that such men are surrounded by powerful temptations to change, from unworthy motives, and that their changes have often very great influence over its interests. There is, moreover, something in the nature of the Englishman which holds change of side in abhorrence. If a public man cannot assign satisfactory reasons for his change of opinion, he loses public confidence then and for ever. This is most proper and necessary.

It would be very idle in us to give any summary of the reasoning of the two parties. The real merits of the question were carefully avoided by the Catholic advocates. The most distinguished of these rested principally upon abstract right, and the bad spirit and conduct of the Catholics. Mr Peel fought the battle with very great ability. His speech on the second reading of the Relief Bill cut a far better figure in the newspapers than that of Mr Canning, delivered on the same occasion. He was very powerfully supported by Mr Goulburn.

The bill passed the House of Commons, and the Catholics declare, that this proves that the British people are with them. Unluckily for them, it admits of arithmetical refutation. Mr Spring Rice, their champion, has asserted, that two-thirds of the Irish members voted in favour of the bill. Now, no one-not even a Catholicwill say that the Irish members are the representatives of the British people. Assuming Mr Rice's assertion to be correct, and placing these members wholly out of sight, we find the majority of the British members voted against the bill in all the divisions. We find that if the question had been left solely to the British members, the bill would never have entered the House of Commons. This, we think, is sufficiently decisive; it ought even to convince a Catholic.

We will look a little more closely at this boasted majority in favour of the Catholics. Many of the Irish members are elected by the Catholics, or by those who are, from personal rea

descript fowl could not be touched or looked at, from the fear of injuring the wind-pipe;-some, who protested against them, were yet compelled to support them, to keep alive the body. The two subsidiary bills were just carried sufficiently far to pick up the doubting votes on "the right and the left," and to secure the passing of the main one, and then they seemed to be forgotten. The latter was passed and sent to the Peers without them, to be decided on without them, when the Peers could neither have any constitutional knowledge that they existed, nor any certainty that they would reach the Upper House. Those who, in effect, held in their hands the majority of the House of Commons, saw the Lords called upon to decide on the relief bill without the securities which induced them to pass it. The bill which the Lords had to decide upon was, in strict truth, a perfectly different one from that which had passed the Commons, and yet they were compelled to regard it as the same.

The business was very far from being free from trickery and deception. The security chiefly relied on was that for taking the Catholic priesthood into the pay of the nation. It was that which gained the wavering votes and secured the majority. Now, why was not this security introduced into the main bill, instead of forming a separate one? Whatever might be the case with Mr Lyttleton's measure, it seems unaccountable that the payment of the priests was not made one of the provisions of the Catholic relief bill, when it was to procure votes for the latter, and not to deprive it of them. There was a reason. It was, we believe, known to the chief framers and supporters of the bill for paying the priests, that it could not pass into a law, even if the other bills should do so. Some of them must have known this; yet these individuals assured the members who voted for the relief bill solely on condition that it should be accompanied by the one for paying the priests, that if the one bill became law, the other would likewise. Now, had one bill comprehended the provisions of both, it could not have become operative as a law, contrary to the sense of the majority of the House of Commons; but, as matters were, the disabilities might have been removed, both against the sense, and, even in

reality, against the vote, of this majority!

This took place not touching a petty question, an enclosure act, or a new company bill, but touching a measure of the most gigantic importance-a measure vitally affecting the interests of the empire. It is, in sooth, new in English legislation-it is, in sooth, a new method of managing the interests of England. If anything could make us detest the legislation of lawyers, it certainly would be proceedings like these. We care not who were the authors of them-we care not whether they were Irishmen or Scotchmenwe will tell them, that such things will not do in England. We are a plain, blunt, straight-forward people; and what we scorn above all other things is imposition.

We will now say a word or two on certain parts of the debates in the House of Commons, which seem to call for some notice.

On one occasion, Mr Brougham very truly declared it to be highly unconstitutional to use the King's name in Parliament for the purpose of influen cing the votes of the members. At the same moment, and in the same speech, Mr Brougham used the King's name evidently for this purpose. On several occasions, this learned individual declared, that the King must be, and was, friendly to the removal of the Catholic disabilities. Our readers know that this was as unwarrantable as it was unconstitutional. We will say no more; we will not drag his Majesty's name into the question: but we will advise Mr Brougham and his friends to wait until the King shall declare himself, before they hoist over themselves the royal standard. We have perhaps at present quite as much right to do it as they have.

It is a fact, although posterity will never believe it, that some members voted for the removal of the disabilities on the ground of its being contrary to "liberality" to retain them. Such portentous consequences will fashion sometimes produce among weak heads and pliant principles. Liberality, however, has, upon the whole, fared very scurvily in the business. It has received such a thump on the head from the agitation of the Catholic question, as has stretched it in its last agonies.

We need say but little on the ex

traordinary change of opinion in Mr Brownlow and some others, for it would be no easy matter to add to the humiliation into which they have plunged themselves. Every great statequestion is composed of a multitude of parts, which change, in their character and effects, every hour; and, of course, nothing could be more preposterous than for us to argue, that, because a man opposes a matter at one time, he is, for that reason alone, always to opposé it. A few years may reverse a question in everything but name, and, in such case, a man must reverse his opinion respecting it, to be truly con sistent. We believe a man to be a drunkard, because we witness his drunkenness, but then we are not from this to believe him a drunkard, if he reform and show proofs of his sobriety. The change, however, in the question, must precede and govern the change in opinion; and it must be distinct and satisfactory in the eyes of impartial men. The Catholic question has, no doubt, undergone some change in late years; but what is this change? The British and Irish Catholics have displayed far worse opinions, spirit, and conduct. The Catholicism of Europe has become much more powerful and active-it has renewed its offensive operations against Protestantism, and it has become a potent political instrument in the hands of foreign governments. Now, the corresponding change in opinion ought evidently to be, a more determined opposition to the removal of the disabilities. Mr Brownlow, however, and those who followed his example, could only find in this change a reason for becoming strenuous friends of the Catholics. The winter's blast destroyed the summer's warmth, therefore they put out their fires and threw off their garments.

On what did these individuals ground their change of opinion? On the evidence of Bishop Doyle and Lawyer O'Connell. We know not by what unaccountable chance it happened that these two persons were examined. It is amazing, that after what they had done, spoken, and written, any one should have thought that their evidence would have the weight of a feather with the nation; and it is still more amazing that, after comparing this evidence with their opinions given on other occasions, any one should have dared to venture his reputation upon it.

The reasons which Mr Brownlow and his friends assigned for their change, did not satisfy the public. The British nation is in the practice of subjecting to a very severe scrutiny the reasons which public men assign for going from one opinion to another. It feels this to be a matter of absolute necessity: it knows that such men are surrounded by powerful temptations to change, from unworthy motives, and that their changes have often very great influence over its interests. There is, moreover, something in the nature of the Englishman which holds change of side in abhorrence. If a public man cannot assign satisfactory reasons for his change of opinion, he loses public confidence then and for ever. This is most proper and necessary.

It would be very idle in us to give any summary of the reasoning of the two parties. The real merits of the question were carefully avoided by the Catholic advocates. The most distinguished of these rested principally upon abstract right, and the bad spirit and conduct of the Catholics. Mr Peel fought the battle with very great ability. His speech on the second reading of the Relief Bill cut a far better figure in the newspapers than that of Mr Canning, delivered on the same occasion. He was very powerfully supported by Mr Goulburn.

The bill passed the House of Commons, and the Catholics declare, that this proves that the British people are with them. Unluckily for them, it admits of arithmetical refutation. Mr Spring Rice, their champion, has asserted, that two-thirds of the Irish members voted in favour of the bill. Now, no one-not even a Catholicwill say that the Irish members are the representatives of the British people. Assuming Mr Rice's assertion to be correct, and placing these members wholly out of sight, we find the majority of the British members voted against the bill in all the divisions. We find that if the question had been left solely to the British members, the bill would never have entered the House of Commons. This, we think, is sufficiently decisive; it ought even to convince a Catholic.

We will look a little more closely at this boasted majority in favour of the Catholics. Many of the Irish members are elected by the Catholics, or by those who are, from personal rea