tual personal restraint; but he was desired to consider himself as arrested, and the arrest was continued for some time. This latter transaction had led to a correspondence between colonel Gordon and lord Sidmouth. The noble lord concluded by moving for a copy of the order in council, of the 20th of February, 1820, transmitted to the moderator of the General Assembly of Scotland; and also for a copy of the letter written by lord Sidmouth to colonel Gordon of the Kirkcudbright yeomanry, or to the lord lieutenant of the county, during the year 1820, relative to placing the Rev. Wm. Gillespie, officiating chaplain of the said corps, under military arrest. The Lord Advocate contended, that the privy council had a right to issue the order in question to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, on the ground, that the 10th of Anne, chap. 7, sec. 10, was not confined to queen Anne and the electress Sophia, but extended to every future sovereign and heir apparent; and as a proof that it had been so construed, he produced decisions of the court of session, by which persons had been convicted and punished for not praying for Geo. I. This, it ought to be observed, would prove only that the privy council had the right to command the king to be prayed for; but would not give them any power to restrain the clergy of Scotland from praying for the Queen too; and this the lord advocate candidly admitted. He admitted further, that the 32nd of his late majesty was applicable merely to the episcopalian clergy; but as to this admission, lord Castlereagh differed from him. With respect to the particular instances mentioned, without defending the rashness which had been displayed in both of them, he maintained that there was no neces. sity for the interference of the House. The first had been long since terminated by the measures, which the presbytery had pursued. As to the arrest of Mr. Gillespie, the commanding officer had communicated it to the lord lieutenant of the county; and he, without either approving or disapproving what had been done, communicated it to the secretary for the home-department. Government refused to interfere: it was immediately intimated to Mr. Gillespie, that his arrest was at an end; and the parties were left to settle the affair between them. selves. The clergyman had at first threatened to bring an action against colonel Gordon; but, at the suggestion of his friends, he had thought that it would be better to make it the subject of reference, and had finally left it to the award of the lord advocate himself, who, after endeavouring to decline the task, had at last been obliged to undertake it. Under such circumstances, there was no ground for bringing either transaction before parliament.Sir James Macintosh and lord Castlereagh took a share in the debate; but Mr. J. P. Grant suggested the only new topics, that were urged in it. To oppose the cases adduced by the lord advocate, he contended, that subsequent acts of parliament proved that the 10th of Anne was not considered by the legislature as extending to whoever might be sovereign for the time being; and in proof of this, he appealed to the 5th George I. chapter 29, sect. 3. That act had been passed in 1719. The last case quoted by the lord advocate was in 1718; consequently the act was later authority than any of the cases cited. The 5th of George I. prohibited any number of persons, exceeding nine, to assemble in a meeting-house or episcopal place of worship, who did not pray for the king, the prince and princess of Wales, and their issue, under the pain of imprisonment for six months. Here there was no reference to the act of queen Anne. How then did the case stand? The act of Anne was either effec tual, or it was ineffectual. If it was effectual, there was no need of a new act; if it was not effectual, and a new act was required, then had the force of the act of queen Anne ceased with her life. The House having divided, there appeared, For the motion...... 35 -75 The bill for granting her majesty an annuity of 50,000l. went through the regular stages; and, though there were members who objected to the sum as too large, it was passed. Her majesty, notwithstanding her declaration that she would not accept of any provision while her name was excluded from the Liturgy, changed her purpose and received the money. Her conduct and her treatment ceased to be the theme of parliamentary discussion, till the very close of the session; when some weak attempts were made to agitate her claims to share in the honours of the coronation ceremony. CHAP. II. Roman Catholic Claims-Mr. Plunkett's Motion for a Committee to consider the State of the Laws affecting the Roman Catholics-His Speech-Mr. Peel's Reply-Mr. Plunkett's Resolutions agreed toPetitions-Dr. Milner-The second reading of Mr. Plunkett's two Bills-their Purport-the Reasons for keeping them distinct—Mr. Canning supports them-Their subsequent Progress-Their Consolidation-Amendments moved by Mr. Bankes, Mr. Peel, and Mr. Goulburn, rejected-The Bill passes the Commons-Opposed in the Lords by the Duke of York, the Chancellor, and Lord LiverpoolMeetings for Parliamentary Reform-Mr. Lambton's Motion on that Subject-Lord John Russell's Motion-Mr. H. G. Bennett's Motion on the Independence of Parliament-Lord J. Russell's Bill for the Disfranchisement of Grampound, and the transference of the right of Election to Leeds-Amendments moved by Mr. Davies Gilbert, Mr. Beaumont, and Lord Milton, rejected :-Mr. S. Wortley's Amendment carried-The Bill opposed in the Lords by the Chancellor, and Lords Redesdale, Lauderdale, and Harewood-Supported by Lord Liverpool-An Amendment carried, giving two additional Members to the County of York-The Bill passes-Lord A. Hamilton's Motion on the State of the Scotch County Representation-Breach of Privilege by the John Bull Newspaper-Examination of the Persons connected with it-The Editor committed to Newgate. HE sudden arrival of the that a committee of the whole year prevented the discussion of several of those great points of internal policy, on which the nation usually feels the deepest interest, and on which the greatest diversity of opinion exists. These now resumed their habitual importance, and occupied the public attention. In the early part of the session, the claims of the Roman Catholics were brought before the notice of both Houses of Parliament by their petitions; and on the 28th of February, Mr. Plunkett moved, of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, and inquire whether it would be expedient to alter or modify the same. He argued the question, as a question of religion, of the constitution, and of policy. In the first view, he maintained, that, for mere abstract religious belief, independently of any reasons of state, no man should be deprived of the privileges enjoyed by his fellow-subjects; and that, even if it were admitted, that adherence to the established creed was to be a title to favour in the eye of the law, why should its wrath be directed against Catholics rather than against Jews, Mahometans, and Pagans? He who worships Osiris, the ape, the crocodile, the host of heaven, and the creeping things of the earth, is admitted to the privileges of the state; and our abhorrence is reserved for the Roman Catholic, who believes all that we believe, and differs from us only by believing something more. Proceeding to the second view of the subject, Mr. Plunkett held, that the constitution intended to admit every person performing the duties of a liege subject, to all the franchises of the state. Now, were not the Roman Catholics the liege subjects of the king? No one denied that they were. What shut them out, then, from the general right? Nothing, that he had ever heard of, except that they asserted a spiritual supremacy in the pope-a supremacy which had been universally acknowledged long before the constitution existed, and had for centuries formed part of the creed of the country. Circumstances, he allowed, had afterwards occurred, under which it had been thought prudent to impose certain restraints and exclusions on those who acknowledged that supremacy; but these circum stances had long past away, and the present times called for a different course. "Backed, said he, by the original principles of the constitution, by the object and scope of the course of our history from the Reformation to the Revolution-backed by the concurrent declaration of the legislatures of England and Scotland on the first union, and of the parliaments of England and Ireland on the last-backed by the unimpeached loyalty, the unquestionable integrity of our catholic fellow-subjects recorded in the enactments of the legislature, and guaranteed by their own oaths-backed by the numerous concessions of the last fifty years--by that spirit of Catholic conciliation which presided during the late reign, and which, if the arguments in favour of exclusion were at all tenable, would have been so many outrages on the principles of the constitution, backed by the memories of the great lights and ornaments of that reign, of Dunning, Pitt, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Windham-backed, by the name of every man who possessed buoyancy enough to float down the stream of time;-I feel that I have made out-I had almost said that I have established-the position that I sought, triumphantly. But when I look around me, and reflect on those whom I miss, and who were present when I last had the honour of addressing the House on this question, I am checked. When I reflect that since that period we have lost Whitbread, the incorruptible sentinel of the constitution—that we have lost the aid of the more than dawning virtues of Horner-that we had then Romilly, whose mature excellencies shed a steady light on his profession, on his country, and his nature-that Elliot, the pure model of aristocracy-that the illustrious Ponsonby, the constitutional leader of the ranks of Opposition in this House, revering alike the privileges of the Crown and the rights of the subject, are no more-but above all, when I dwell upon that last overwhelming loss-the loss of that great man, in whose place I this night unworthily stand: and with the description of whose exalted merits I would not trust myself;God knows I cannot feel any thing like triumph! Walking before the sacred images of these illustrious dead, as in a public and solemn procession, shall we not dismiss all party feeling, all angry passions, and unworthy prejudices?" Mr. Plunkett then went on to argue the question on the grounds of policy. He admitted, that the established church in Ireland was in a situation by no means free from danger: but the danger arose from this-that a great majority of the people belonged to a different religion; and it would be lessened by every measure that softened down the animosity of the Catholics. By acceding to an act of justice, we retained all the securities we already possessed, and gained some which we had not. These were the main grounds on which the question ought to be determined; and the House ought not to allow the least weight to the partial cavilling objections, which were too often advanced. It was frequently said, for instance, that the Catholics were not aggrieved to the extent they complained of, and that the specific plan proposed had defeets or inconsistencies: objections were taken to some of the offices proposed to be opened, or to some of the oaths proposed to be retained, and it was urged, that the friends of the measure were not themselves agreed as to the nature of the conditions or securities which should accompany it. This, Mr. Plunkett maintained, was neither a candid nor a manly mode of meeting the question. Was the question itself fit to be entertained? Did justice plead for it? Did the constitution sanction it? Did policy demand it?-These were the only grounds on which it could be properly argued. But it is asked, said Mr. Plunkett, where concessions should stop? He answered, concessions should stop, when there was a necessity that exclusion should still exist; but that necessity should be clearly made out, and the difficulty which attended it would be more than compensated by the result; for wherever the necessity was clearly shown to exist, there the exclusion conveyed no insult. If the Catholic saw the reason, he was bound to submit ; as the Protestant would be, whose law, which should be nothing but the supreme reason of the state, placed him of necessity under civil restrictions. Exclusion so originating could not brand the object of it; it might be felt as an inconvenience, but not suffered as a dishonour. It was for the purpose of seeing how far this necessity existed, that he called upon the House to go into a committee. If the House did go into that committee, it was his design to propose, that the declaration against transubstantiation should be removed from our establishment; and also to submit some alteration in the oaths of abjuration and supremacy. On behalf of the Protestant population, he would propose a measure for their security, and a pledge of the loyalty of the Catholics. There were many modes by which this object might be obtained, but that was not the time for considering any of them. The feeling which he wished to see acted upon was this-on the part of the Protestant, not to ask the Catholic for any thing in the way of security, which necessity |