count of the difficulties and obstructions which had been thrown in the way of the managers, and a most able and eloquent vindication of the conduct of the whole business. He then made a solemn protest against any limitation of the charges, all of which the committee were able to prove, if the temper of the times, and the criminal impatience of too many persons, would permit them so to do. But all mankind must bend to circumstances. Therefore, he now, in compliance with the unhappy circumstances of the times, meant to call their attention to a motion for the limitation of the impeachment. In the fixed and unalterable course of human affairs, it had pleased God to decree that injustice should be rapid and justice slow. Justice could only be obtained by a long course of labour and series of time. The motion which he was now to make, he trusted, however, if not measured by impatience, or the revolution of seasons, would bring the business to a very speedy decision. He concluded with moving, "That, in consideration of the length of time which has already elapsed since carrying up the impeachment now depending against Warren Hastings, Esq. it appears to this House to be proper, for the purpose of obtaining substantial justice with as little farther delay as possible, to proceed to no other parts of the said impeachment than those on which the managers of the prosecution have already closed their evidence, excepting only such parts of the said impeachment as relate to contracts, pensions, and allowances." Mr. Ryder moved, as an amendment, that the latter part of the motion, which contained the exception, should be omitted. Mr. Jekyll afterwards proposed a second amendment, viz. "that after these words in the original motion, in consideration of the length of time which has already elapsed, since carrying the impeachment now depending against Warren Hastings, Esq.' it be added, this House will proceed no farther in the said impeachment.' Mr. Sumner moved the question Yeas 26: Noes 231. On Mr. Jekyll's amendment, Yeas 54: Noes 194. On Mr. Ryder's amendment, Yeas 79: Noes 161. The original question was then put and carried without a division. ON CATHOLIC DISSENTERS' RELIEF BILL. March 1. N the 21st of February, Mr. Mitford moved for a committee of the whole House, to enable him "to bring in a bill to relieve, upon condition and under certain restrictions, persons called Protesting Catholic Dissenters, from certain penalties and disabilities, to which papists, or persons professing the popish religion, are by law subject." He prefaced his motion, by observing, that it was well known there was great severity in the laws now subsisting against Roman catholics, but that the extent of such severity was not equally known. In Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, no less than seventy pages were occupied with an enumeration of the penal statutes still in force against them. The present reign was the only one (except the short one of James the Second) since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in which some additional severity had not been enacted against this description of people. He remarked, however, that the extreme rigour of the statutes in question during the reign of Elizabeth could not be much a subject of wonder, when it was considered that the pope had excommunicated that queen, and absolved her subjects from their oath of allegiance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Windham. Mr. Pitt thought the House had heard enough to induce them to be unanimous in receiving the bill, and giving it their most serious and deliberate consideration. Mr. Fox said, he felt it absolutely necessary to offer a word or two, to shew that there was not that unanimity on the subject which the right honourable gentleman anticipated. The objection, however, which he had to the bill proposed, was not in regard to what it did go to, but to what it did not go to; for, in his opinion, it by no means went far enough. When the proper time came, he should move to leave the word protesting," out of the title of the bill, and when it should arrive at a committee, he would move some amendments, though he would not divide the committee if he should find their sense was against him. — It was then agreed that the said motion should be referred to a committee of the whole House on the 1st of March. On which day, the House having resolved itself into the said committee, Mr. Mitford moved for leave to bring in his proposed bill. He said he wished not for the general repeal of the penal statutes in question: but merely for an exemption from their operation in favour of a few; an exemption, which he trusted could give no possible cause for alarms. His intention was not to admit Roman catholics of any description to situations of trust or places under government; he was only anxious to have them considered as men of honour and loyalty, and good christians, though they differed from us in the forms of religion. Mr. Fox observed, that notwithstanding his conviction of the liberal and serviceable tendency of the motion, he could not avoid meeting it with the proposed amendment in the addition of the words " and others." He would, however, relinquish it, if it should not appear satisfactory to the committee. Mr. BURKE rose and observed, that he perfectly agreed with his right honourable friend, as to the propriety of relinquishing the amendment, provided it should not appear satisfactory, since the way to prevent a failing of obtaining a desired end, was to accept the smaller good where the greater was not attainable. The surest mode of remedying grievances was to proceed moderately and do away a little at a time, rather than attempt to cure them all at once. Such violent changes were dangerous, and like a lever swung back at a single stroke from the place from whence they set out. He should, therefore, rather think it wiser to repeal the laws complained of so justly by piece-meal than all at once. Men ought to be relieved from their prejudices by degrees. The doctrines asserted by his right honourable friend in his speech, though he could not subscribe to all of them, did the highest honour to the could not agree with him, that a state was not impowered to inquire into the religious opinions of all who lived under its protection. It had an uncontrollable superintending power over those opinions, and it was highly necessary for the prosperity, the safety, the good morals, and the happiness of the community, that it should have such a power. Opinions influenced the passions, and the passions governed the man; it was a natural effect, proceeding from a natural cause. Quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, And so long as such was its operation, it was the interest and the duty of government to maintain and exercise it. But then, its exercise should be governed by virtue and wisdom, which alone could regulate a good government, the conduct of which should be always marked by candour and temperance. Mr. Burke next proceeded more immediately to the subject of the laws against Roman catholics, and began by stating, that in the preamble to the 27th of Queen Elizabeth, danger to the state was the plea made use of, and instead of any religious or moral purpose being assigned as the ground-work of the statute, it was in so many words declared, that the act was passed solely for the suppression of a dangerous faction in the state; and, therefore, all the severities against the Roman catholics which that bill contained were enacted into a law, and had so continued. Were the preamble founded, and the plea true, had he been to pass that bill, he should have voted for it, as the state must be preserved for the good of the whole. The first and dearest object to every individual was self-preservation, and, in like manner, must legislators regard the preservation of a state. But, at this time at least, no man thought of any danger from the machinations of the pope. Why, then, should a danger be pretended which did not exist, and pretended merely for the sake of persecution? He had not lately heard, that the pope was preparing a crusade to invade us, nor was his holiness now supposed to be very active either in rebellions or revolutions. Had the revolution in America been occasioned by his holiness sending bulls and absolutions to discharge and absolve the Americans from their allegiance? He had never heard that any persons who could have been supposed to have been sent by the pope, went to America, except in one ship, which reached Philadelphia; neither had he heard that they made many proselytes in that country. The pope, he believed, had no share in any of the late revolutions in Europe; and, as to this country, he believed no person now thought the pope would come and pay us a visit. There was no pretender, it was well known; and the pope, politically speaking, was as dead as the pretender, or as dead as Pope Julius Cæsar, who once visited us as Pontifex Maximus, when he invaded this country. popes had attempted to come here since, as Pope Claudius, but he did not succeed. Pope Domitian, and Pope Nero, visited us by their legates, and in the reign of King John, the legate Pandulphus came over and did us as much mischief as the best of them. Other Mr. Burke followed up these remarks with an enumeration of some of the extreme severities under the acts that were yet unrepealed, such as its being high treason either to hear a mass or have a mass-book in the house, although the law in the first instance prevented our understanding it. He expatiated upon the cruelty of hanging, drawing, and quartering persons - for, hanged, drawn, and quartered they had been, in Charles the Second's time-for offences, arising out of mere religious opinion. Such laws were not made for the safety of the state, but for the purposes of civil tyranny. They enabled men to oppress their neighbours, and to rob them of their goods: they were calculated to make a man not love his neighbour, and he who loved not his neighbour, would not love the state. It was the duty of every government to make the people |