perfectly free and without duty, excepting the ordinary registration at the Custom House. On the other hand, when the average price should amount only to 59s. the duty should be 22s. and for every diminution of 18. in price, 2s. of duty should be added; so that when the average price reached 55s. the duty should be 30s. If the propositions he had the honour to submit were adopted, the market would then exhibit no more such fluctuations of price as had been experienced, and which had extended from 112s. to 36s. per quarter; the variation would be bounded between 55s. and 65s. This plan would also get rid of the abuse to which the system of averages had been exposed. The averages would be declared weekly, in such a manner as to prevent the deep speculations which now took place. He did not now propose to call upon the House for any vote upon the resolutions, but would prefer that the debate be adjourned until this day se'nnight. In the mean time he entreated the House to receive them as they were intended-as a peaceoffering, and as the best effort of the Government, and of his Noble Friend (who was entitled to the largest share of whatever credit might belong to them,) to reconcile conflicting interests, and to promote the welfare of the country in one of its most important branches. The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved a series of resolutions to the effect above detailed.-Mr. C. Western felt great apprehensions respecting the utility of the proposed alterations, and avowed himself strongly in favour of the present system. Mr. Whitmore thought that the duty of 20s. when the price reached 60s. was too high.-Sir T. Lethbridge expressed himself dissatisfied with the propositions, while Lord Althorp, Sir J. Sebright, Mr. Curwen, Lord Milton, and Aldermen Wood and Thompson, spoke in their favour.Mr. Brougham said this was as effectual a prohibition to importation, as if the law had absolutely said, you shall not import corn whilst the price of British corn is 59s.-Sir F. Burdett declared himself the decided advocate of a free trade in corn, as well as in other branches of trade, and he felt satisfied that the opposition to free trade arose from misconception.-The House then resumed, and the future discussion was fixed for Thursday the 8th of March.

March 2. Nearly the whole of the evening was occupied in presenting petitions relative to the ROMAN CATHOLICS.-Mr. Plunkett, on presenting a petition of the Roman Catholic Bishops, took the opportunity of paying them some high compliments; when Mr. Marwell asked whether the name of Doctor Doyle was annexed to the petition, and, on receiving an answer in the affirmative, quoted some atrociously

seditious and libellous passages from a letter ascribed to that person, and lately published. Mr. Maxwell also mentioned some of the late proceedings of the persons eulogized by Mr. Plunkett.-Mr. Plunkett remonstrated against the unfairness of ascribing to the Roman Catholic Bishops the sentiments avowed in the writings of Doctor Doyle, and practically evinced in the conduct of the priests alluded to by Mr. Maxwell. He ascribed the violence of the Roman Catholic clergy to the "crusade of Lord Farnham," from which he professed to anticipate no good result; and even affected to apprehend the most disastrous consequences to the peace of the country. Finally he implored the House not to impair the authority of those venerable persons, to whose forbearance or influence it was, he confessed, due that Ireland was not even in a worse state than at present.-Mr. Leslie Foster complained of the strain in which the Irish Attorney-General had spoken of Lord Farnham's noble exertions in the cause of religion, and described the success of those exertions to the progress of educa tion.

The House divided upon the grant of £9000 per annum to the Duke of Clarence, (see p. 165) which was carried by a majority of 128 to 39.

March 5. Sir Francis Burdett introduced the CATHOLIC QUESTION. He said that when he recollected the numerous and important discussions which this great question had undergone; when he recollected that

the cause of the Catholics had received the sanction of the most eminent men; when he recollected that it had been supported by Burke, by Fox, by Pitt, by Sheridan, and "last, not least," by Grattan; when he recollected that almost every individual distinguished for intellect had added his authority to the great mass of opinion in its favour-it appeared to him that that man must be possessed of singular coufidence, who, without the most mature deliberation, and the most profound reflection, and also without the means and the ability to account for and justify his conviction, could make up his mind, against such a weight of authority, to resist the motion, with which he (Sir F. Burdett) should have the honour to conclude. The Hon. Baronet, after expatiating on the hardships to which the Catholics were exposed, proceeded to defend them from the charge of slavish subserviency to the Pope of Rome, and quoted in their behalf the answer of the Catholic Barons in the reign of Edward I. to the Pope, refusing his jurisdiction. He submitted that the Catholics were fully entitled to the removal of disabilities from the first article in the Treaty of Limerick.[Mr. Peel said, these words referred to the

besieged only.]-It was impossible to suppose that this article referred to the garrison only, as if they who were most violent in their opposition were entitled to the greatest protection, but the article says all Catholics. We had kept the Treaty of Braganza, and broken that of Limerick. Mr. Pitt intended to have afforded to the Catholics their emancipation; from what he had done he signified what he intended. He had even left office at one period, because he could not support the Catholics in his official situation-the friends of Mr. Pitt, then, ought to be the friends of the Catholics. Taking it as a measure of economy only, the Catholic claims should be granted. Had we treated Ireland as she deserved? The apprehension respecting the Pope was a bugbear; the practical point to which the case was brought was this, that things could not remain as they were some thing must be done, and the sooner the better. The Hon. Baronet then adduced the King's visit to Ireland as implying relief to the Catholics. He then submitted his resolution as follows :-"That it is expedient for this House to take into consideration the state of the laws which impose civil disabilities upon the Roman Catholic subjects of this country, with a view to their repeal."

Mr. G. Dawson opposed the motion, and severely animadverted on the conduct of the Irish Catholic Priests, by whom every tie, every connection between landlord and tenant had been severed. In lieu of gratitude for the kindness of his landlord, the Priest taught the Irish tenant to look upon him as a tyrant who oppressed and withheld from him his rights. The priesthood, in almost every instance, succeeded in thus detaching the tenants from their landlords, but in none of them had the tenants followed the conviction of their own minds. They had been made the victims of the most unfair and reprehensible practices, menaced with temporal injury and eternal punishment the Priests threatening them with all the vengeance of the Holy Church, denying to them religious consolation and absolution, even refusing the sacrament, and, in some instances, extreme unction to the poor creatures who had not voted at the late election as they (the Priests) had desired. The Priests thus abused the power invested in them by the practice and the rules of their church, not to excite to acts of patriotism, but to deeds of ingratitude. Let their apologists exculpate them if they could; but let them not profane the sacred name of justice, by saying that it was in a just cause that those exertions had been used. Mr. Dawson then laid before the House several documents which proved the truth of his statements relative to the atrocious conduct of the Catholic leaders and the Priests, and concluded by saying, that the Roman Catholics did not so much look for political power as for spiritual supre

macy. The Catholic religion is unchanged, and so long as it shall continue unchanged, so long will it be necessary to oppose its views. Mr. S. Rice supported the motion, and observed, they should pause ere they spread discontent (perhaps rebellion and wretchedness) among a turbulent and brave people. If they be wise they will at once grant emancipation, if generous, they will hesitate ere they refuse the reiterated claims of a people of whom they are comparatively ignorant; and if true to themselves, they will remember that the alternative-Protestant Ascendancy, is a phrase not known to the British constitution, but that civil and religious liberty is.-Mr. V. Stuart vindicated the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, and supported the motion. Mr. Cust opposed any further concessions to the Catholics, and observed "that a burnt child dreads the fire, so ought we to dread Popery!!"-Adjourned.

March 6. Sir J. Newport having moved the order of the day for resuming the CATHOLIC QUESTION, the Master of the Rolls rose, and gave an historical detail of the proceedings of the Roman Catholics at different periods, which he contended proved the necessity of retaining the existing Laws against them. He observed that when Hon. Gentlemen stood up in the House as advocates for the Catholics, and spoke of the oppressive and intolerant laws that had been enacted against them, they most carefully kept out of sight the occasions on which those laws were enacted. God forbid (said he) that I should ascribe to Roman Catholics of the present day, sentiments such as those, which are known to have been professed and acted upon by Catholics of the seventeenth century. (Loud cheering.) But we are called upon to confer political power on a class, whose principles, experience has taught us, are adverse to liberty and constitutional government. A most remarkable difference occurred in the oath proposed in the Bill of 1825, as contrasted with the oath of 1793. In the latter there were words to this effect-" I do solemnly swear, that I will defend the settlement of property as in this realm now established by law." If that were a necessary provision in the oath of 1793, why is it now omitted? I say, will not the House be astonished to learn that, in the Bill of 1825, the whole of this provision is completely omitted? (Loud cheering.) Was the omission made advisedly and deliberately? Sir, I think there is no manner of doubt that it was. If so, I ask, where is the power, or the wish, on the part of the Catholics, to give the security to which we are entitled? Let me ask Gentlemen to take a view of the present condition of Ireland? In 1810, and from that to 1813, Ireland was comparatively tranquil; but now it is unne

cessary to say, the whole island is in a state of extreme agitation and disorder. (Hear, hear, hear.) What occasions the present state of things in that country? I answer, body which domineers over the country has caused the insubordination and disorder. (Hear.) What do they ask-I should rather say, demand? In terms the most emphatic and peremptory, they demand the restoration of their rights-their unconditional restoration. (Cheers.) "Ireland," to use the expressive language of one of the Roman Catholic orators, Ireland is a gigantic suppliant, thundering at the gates of the Constitution." (Hear, hear.) The Learned Gentleman said, there is one argument which I have heard over and over again in this House, that, supposing some sixty or seventy Members of the Roman Catholic profession were returned to serve in Parliament, what possible injury could arise from such a circumstance, and by what possible means could they be dangerous to the State. Now, Sir, I will entreat the House to recollect (and it is with sincere regret that I do so), that there are at the present moment, and have always been, many Protestant Members of the House of Commons, who entertain views, and profess sentiments, of a nature hostile to the Established Church of these realms; and if we throw into the scale another weight, if we add to this body another mass, knowing as we do that both will act with the same spirit, and make one common cause, shall we, I ask, be discharging our duty to the Church, of which we are members, and which we have pledged ourselves, and are bound, to support? I am sure, from what I know of the Roman Catholic religion, that the moment of granting this measure would by no means lead to the permanent allaying of those differences and dissensions which now exist. Sir, the Roman Catholic religion is a religion of ambition, and its nature is continually to aim at the possession of something beyond that which it had beretofore possessed. The Roman Catholics have always considered the Protestants as a people by whom they have been supplanted, and the Church property as property that has been wrested from their hands. Is there, then, any person in this country, who can seriously think that an Hierarchy, possessed of unbounded sway, would ever suffer Ireland to remain tranquil, while some object or other was yet to be obtained that it would ever cease its exertions, day after day, until it had obtained, not Catholic emancipation, but Catholic ascendancy. I, therefore, exhort the Members of the British House of Commons not to imagine that such a measure as that to which they are now called to give their sanction-notwithstanding what some honourable and distinguished individuals may think upon the subject—is at all calculated to restore a permanent tranquillity to Ireland. -Mr. Plunkett sur the motion, and

replied to the arguments used by the Master of the Rolls, in a speech replete with close reasoning and eloquence, which he thus concluded:-"This country had wooed, had won, and wedded Ireland-had raised her to a share in the empire-participating her glory with her. Was she not then to admit her to the equal enjoyment of political rights? Instead of making war upon ourselves, ought we not to consolidate our power? This country had been truly called the admiration and the envy of surrounding nations. But when we held up the mirror of public freedom to those nations, let them not see the flaw by which its beauty was disfigured. Let them not see that we are a divided people-Jet them not see that we are at war among ourselves, and should we be engaged in foreign hostilities, let not our enemies perceive that we are weakened by our intestine divisions, but rather that we possess that which is our best security in peace or war-an unanimity of sentiment, founded upon a community of interests, and a community of affection. Mr. Peel replied to the arguments of the last speaker, in a speech which occupied two hours in the delivery. The Right Hon. Gentleman examined the article of Limerick by the usual tests-the interpretation of contemporary writers, from all which he concluded that the articles in question promised nothing but a toleration of the Roman Catholic worship. In allusion to the inflammatory topics of the Irish Attorney-General, Mr. Peel remarked, that he was not surprised at the existence of agitation and discontent in a country over the legal affairs of which he presided. The Right Hon. Gentleman then exposed the fallacy of treating the question as a religious question, by showing that the machinery of the Romish Church was an engine for the acquisition and exercise of temporal power. He successfully resisted the attempt to draw a distinction between the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and the seditious Association, by stating that eleven of the whole number of titular Bishops were actually incorporated in that body, and that all of them were in correspondence with it; he proved by quotations from the addresses of the Roman Catholics, even from those which were designed to be conciliating, that they had objects in view beyond an equalization of civil privileges, objects inconsistent with the safety of the Church, and concluded by avowing that whatever alternative of danger might be held out, he would adhere to the preservation of the Constitution.-Mr. Brougham spoke at length in support of the resolution. He applied himself principally to the speech of the Master of the Rolls, and taunted that Gentleman with the circumstance, that the University of Cambridge had given him a colleague favourable to the Roman Catholics.-Mr. Canning supported the motion with his usual strain of eloquence.

He said that his full and settled conviction was, that Parliament should enquire, deliberate, and determine, as to the course which it was wise, and upright, and expedient, to pursue; and, having done that, should not invite the Catholics to accept or reject, but call upon them to obey. (Cheers.) In order finally to set the question at rest, it was deemed, and justly, that the Crown should have knowledge of the power of interference in the appointment of Bishops. The Government of Prussia was defended by that security. The King of the Netherlands was at that moment negotiating on the subject; Austria, Saxony, and many others, were in actual possession of it. The proposed resolution goes no further than to state, that the House adopts the opinion of its predecessors, who sent three Bills up to the House of Lords, of relief to the Roman Catholics. By voting

with the Hon. Baronet, he did no more than sanction this proposition; reserving to himself the power of acting or not acting upon it. On the other hand, if this Resolution be negatived, if the House of Commons should decide that the consideration of the state of Ireland is not worthy to be entered upon, then is the House of Commons changed indeed; and he shuddered to contemplate the consequences which might arise from such a change.

A division then took place, when there appeared-For the motion 272; against it 276; majority 4.

There were present at the division on the Catholic Question 420 English members, 91 Irish, and 37 Scotch. The number absent amounted to 110, being 93 English, 9 Irish, and 8 Scotch. Of the Irish members 57 voted for Sir Francis Burdett's mo tion, and 34 against it; of the Scotch 22 for, and 15 against; and of the English 193 for, and 227 against; leaving a majority of 34 English members against the motion.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 13. Several Petitions were presented against the CATHOLIC CLAIMS. The Bp. of Bath and Wells, on presenting one of these Petitions, assured the House, that however opposed he was to any further concessions to the Catholics, he should be most happy to give his support to any measure calculated to improve the state of Ireland.-Lord Carberry, in answer to some observations by Lords Darnley and Downshire, stated that the best and surest way of raising the Catholic population from their present degradation, was to emancipate them from the trammels of the demagogues by whom they were excited and oppressed.-The Earl of Carnarvon said that the Catholics of Ire

land are kept in a state of degradation as bad as that of the Greeks under the Turkish government.-Lord Roden said, that there are no people on the face of the earth who enjoy more liberty than the Irish Catholics. They enjoy every civil and political right possessed by British subjects, with the exception only of that of legislating for a Protestant Church and nation. The more the question is discussed, the better it will be understood, that it is impossible to admit Roman Catholics to legislate under our Protestant Constitution.

In the HOUSE of COMMONS, the same

day, Mr. Secretary Peel brought in his proposed bills for the consolidation of part of the CRIMINAL LAWS. The bills he proposed were four in number. The first would con

solidate the whole of the statute law relative

to theft; the second would consolidate the whole of the statue law relative to malicious injuries to property; the third, which, for the purpose of obtaining greater clearness, he had separated from the other two, consolidated the whole of the statute law relative to the important subject of remedies against the hundred; the fourth was an act for re

pealing the whole of the laws which would be rendered unnecessary by the introduction of the other three bills. The effect of these

bills, if they met with the sanction of the legislature, would be to remove no less than 130 statutes; and he had the satisfaction of stating to the House, that notwithstanding the repeal of so many acts, the whole of the statute law relative to theft would be comprised in 29 pages. With respect to the wording of these bills, he had not adhered strictly to that of other statutes; he had found it necessary to take a middle course between the phraseology of the law of England and the brevity of the French. The first bill, "A bill for cousolidating and amending the laws in England relative to larceny, burglary, and robbery," was then read for the first and second time.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 16.

On some Irish Roman Catholic Petitions being presented, the Earl of Winchelsea replied to the arguments of the Petitioners, and cited the authority of Bossuet, of the present Pope, and of others, in proof of the unchangeable character of the Church of Rome, and of its avowedly intolerant and unsocial spirit. The Noble Earl implored that in whatever shape, or at whatever time, the Roman Catholic Question should come before their Lordships, they would so act as to leave the British constitution unimpaired to their posterity, the best security that this empire should remain, as it had long been, the most exalted nation on the face of the earth.