1605. formity were passed; and under the first many Dissenters took the sacrament, to shew their disposition in favour of the Established Church, however they might not agree with parts of the liturgy. Thus then even taking the sacrament did not prové a man to be a supporter of the Church of England. Might not a man take the sacrament, and yet consider the liturgy of the Church of England, as the most consummate bigotry? According to Sir William Scott's argument, the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament, and the existence of the Test Acts were the constitutional support of the Church of England. What then was the state of the Church of England in the reigns of Elizabeth, of James I. and Charles I.? Were not these princes heads of the Church, as effectually as his present Majesty? Did not Charles I. fall a martyr to the Church of England? Did not the Book of Homilies absolutely condemn whatever took placè at the time of the Revolution of 1688? Did not Sacheverell, upon the authority of those Homilies, attack and stigmatize that great proceeding as impious, and utterly destructive of the Church of England Did not the university of Oxford pass a decree in 1683, against limiting the government, describing it as one of those things, which lead to Atheism? To use a homely phrase, he warned those not to throw stones, whose eyes were made of glass. He lastly noticed, that Mr. Percival had said that if he were a Catholic in a country, where the Protestant Church was established, and he had the power, he would exercise it to weaken that es tablishment. Mr. Fox had too good an opinion 1805. of him to think he would. If every man were to conceive himself at liberty, because he differed from the established religion of a country, to attempt to overturn it, the general tendency of such a principle would be to destroy all peace in the world. He did not believe any good Catholic would so act. He was sure no good subject, who loved his country, ought so to act. tion upon At half past four in the morning, the ques- Division. Mr. Fox's original motion was negatived by a majority of 212, there having been, on the division, Ayes, 124, Noes, 336,* Conceiving it to be a matter of no slight moment to the Irish nation, to know, who have stood forward in their interests we subjoin the following lists of the peers and Irish commoners who voted on the question : LIST OF THE PEERS WHO VOTED FOR GOING INTO A COMMITTEE ON THE IRISH ROMAN The late hour prevented Lords Egremont, Carnarvon, Stair, Hutchinson, De Clifford, and others from voting. LIST OF THE IRISH MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WHO VOTED IN THE MAJORITY Acheson, Hon. A. Armagh co. Knox, Hon. George, Trinity College, Dublin. King, Hon. Edward, Roscom mon county Longfield, M. Cork city Leslie, C. P. Monaghan co. May, Edward, Belfast Macnaghten, E. A. Antrim co. Neville, R. Wexford town Ormsby, Charles, Carlow tn. Pole, Hon. W. Wellesley, Queen's county Ram, Abel, Wexford county Sneyd, Nath. Cavan county the debates upon the Catholic question produced Hill, Sir G. Londonderry eity Keane, Sir John, Youghall bor. Stewart, Hon. C. W. London- Stewart, Right Hon. Sir John, Stewart, James, Tyrone co. Vereker, C, Limerick city LIST OF THE IRISH MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WHO VOTED IN THE MINORITY FOR Bagnell, W. Carlow county Hawthorne, C. S. Downpatrick Caulfield, Hon. H Armagh co. Lee, E. Waterford county Crosbie, J. Kerry county Corry, Right Hon. I. Newry Kerry county city Matthew, Right Hon. Viscount Tipperary county Martin, R. Galway county The Right Hon. D. Browne, Member for Mayo, was taken suddenly ill, and unable to attend the House. Lord George Beresford, Member for Londonderry County; and the Right Hon. John Beresford, Member for the County of Waterford both voted, but we have not been able to ascertain upon which side. 1805. 1805. so powerful an effect upon the public mind, even in despite of the great majority of parliamentary votes against it, that the deputies returned to Ireland, under the gratifying conviction, that the numerical triumph of the minister had rather forwarded, than retarded the progress of their cause with the empire at large. The Parliament was still pressed with Irish matter. The Marquis of Abercorn was indefatigable in his persecution of Judge Fox. His Lordship's pride and resentment were stimulated by the ferocious and blind sympathies of the interested tools of the system, which the integrity and firmness of the judge exposed and punished. It is difficult to say, whether the malice or rashness of the judge's persecutors were' predominant. It was matter of notoriety, that the whole of Lord Abercorn's parliamentary interest had been devoted to Mr. Pitt, cn the special eondition of his being allowed the aid and countenance of the minister in crushing the upright judge, who had virtuously dared to make head against the system. As the minister had artfully avoided making it a government question, he assumed no responsibility for the irregularities and inconsistencies of the proceedings up to the present time. The more they were impartially considered, even by the most obsequious tools of the system, the more unconstitutional in principle, and unwarrantable in practice. did they appear. Nearly two years had now elapsed, since the original ground of the alleged offences had existed, aud after the great variety and rancorous nature of the proceedings in Parlia |