the bill be now read a third time. This was carried by Ayes, 64; Noes, 2: Majority, 62. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

though it might, like other prerogatives, be abused; but if taken from the Crown, where would the hon. baronet have it placed? When a party was prosecuted for a criminal offence, it was necessary that he should be charged upon oath, and a grand jury must find a bill before he could be put upon his trial; but in a case of appeal, it was only necessary for the appellant to make affidavit that he believed the party to be guilty. Yet such was the system which the hon. baronet, an avowed friend to the liberty of the subject, felt himself called upon to applaud.

The Attorney General justified the clause as absolutely necessary. If, in the case of Ashford v. Thornton, the appellant had persevered in the trial by battle, he had no doubt the legislature would have felt it their imperious duty at once to have interfered, and have passed an ex post facto law for preventing so degrading a spectacle from taking place.

The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question," the House divided; Âyes, 86; Noes, 4.

On the 22nd of March, the same bill being moved for a third reading by the Attorney General, Sir Robert Wilson, after moving, as an amendment," That the bill be read a third time this day three weeks, the House again divided upon the question that

mittee, on the expediency of the Bank resuming Cash Pay

ments.

"The Committee of Secrecy, appointed to consider of the state of the Bank of England, with reference to the expediency of the resumption of Cash Payments at the period fixed by law, and into such other matters as are connected therewith; and to report to the House such information relative thereto, as may be disclosed without injury to the public interests, with their Observations thereupon-Are engaged in deliberating upon their report, which they hope to be able to present to the House on an early day after the approaching recess.

"The committee having a confident expectation that, in that report, they shall be enabled to fix a period, and recommend a plan, for the final removal of the present restriction on the Bank, think it their duty to submit to the House, that the execution of any such plan would, in their opinion, be materially obstructed and delayed by a continuance of the drain upon the treasure of the Bank, on account of the engagement of the Bank to pay cash all its notes outstanding, of an earlier date than Jan. 1st, 1817, and on the account of the payment in cash of fractional sums under 5l.

in

"That the committee, therefore, think it their duty to sug

gest

gest to the House the expediency of passing forthwith a bill, restraining all such payments in gold coin, until the report of the committee shall have been received, and considered by the House, and a legislative measure passed thereupon."

The Report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Peel then said, that the object of this bill would be, to restrain, till the expiration of the present session of parliament, issues of cash in the manner he had described. The delay would enable the House to consider the subject, and to take the measures which the committee might hereafter suggest. The reasons for this measure lay within a short compass. Whenever the time came for removing the restriction, a large sum in cash would be necessary; that sum considerably exceeded the sum which the Bank had at present in its possession; and as it was manifest that any diminution of this sum would not be productive of any advantage to the country by its immediate effects, so it was also plain, that this diminution of its treasure would make the Bank more unable to return to cash payments, and would therefore tend to postpone the period for the termination of the restriction. It was for these reasons, and in the fullest confidence that it would tend to hasten the period of cash payments, that he should propose the measure. He then moved" for leave to bring in a bill to restrain the Governor and Company of the Bank of England from making payments in cash, under certain notices given by them for that purpose."

Mr. Peel then added, as it was of the highest utility that the measure should pass as expeditiously as possible, he hoped the House would allow it to go through its several stages that evening.

Mr. Brougham, among various other grounds by which he justified an opposition to the proposed bill in all its stages, said, that it would be one of the most unwarrantable kinds of proceeding, to commit a violent breach of the forms of the House to protect the House against its own regulations. The Bank had not been compelled to pay the notes issued before 1817; they had the option to pay or not pay. If, therefore, the measure had been founded on the convenience of the Bank, he had no doubt as to the course to be taken. But he had more doubt when it was put on another ground, namely, that the committee not having finished its investigation, but having made a certain progress in it, not seeing exactly to what end their deliberations would lead, had grounds for supposing, that another measure, if not necessary, would be mainly subservient. But when the proposition was thus stated, the question arose, why should this measure be hurried through the House with such extraordinary rapidity. The question now came to a balance of evils. If he was persuaded that the measure was necessary, and if it were delayed three or four days it would be wholly nugatory, he might be content to take the extraordinary step which was recommended; but unless the right hon. mover, and the other members of the com

Mr. Tierney affirmed that this was one of the most important measures that could be brought before parliament; and if one thing surprised him more than another, it was the extraordinary composure with which the proposition had been received. He went on to say, that they would now find that the promises of the Bank were worth nothing; and that the faith of the legislature was not more valuable than the promises of the Bank; for those who from excessive wariness chose to possess notes convertible into gold, were cut off by an act of parliament passed through each House in a single night, from the property which was gratifying to their own private feelings. But it would be said, necessitas suprema lex, and it was necessary to examine how the question of the issues stood. It was in 1817 that the notices were issued under which the payments were made; and the drain had gone on from that time to this without answering any other purpose than to enable the chancellor of the exchequer to make a speech, to say that cash payments were virtually resumed. In the last year he had brought in a bill for continuing the restriction act, and at the same time he saw with his eyes wide open, the drain which was

then going on more rapidly than at any time since, yet he took no step to stop it. He believed there was not a gentleman in the committee who before Saturday had heard a word either of the danger or the remedy; and for his own part, till yesterday, he should no more have thought of the committee making such a report, than of their doing the most improbable and extravagant thing in the world. The House at large were in the dark from knowing too little he, on the contrary, was in a difficulty from knowing too much as a member of the secret committee, But to mention a fact that was no secret; what had been the conduct of the Bank? Their whole object, it was said, was to resume cash payments; they lived in the hope of it, and the delay of it was misery. The noble lord was very anxious on the subject: he had laboured to prove, that the less money the Bank had, the less they could pay (for that was the amount of his proposition), but as for the Bank, they felt no alarm whatever. So quiet were they, that no conversation had taken place between the Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last three months. It was said, on the part of the Bank, that they did not ask for this measure. It was, indeed, only on Saturday night, that its expediency was suggested by two hon. gentlemen, one a Bank director, the other a gentleman, no doubt, of mercantile consequence. But it was for the House to consider, whether it would allow, upon such a suggestion, all the usual forms to be suspended, in order to carry a mea

sure,

sure, of the necessity of which it had no evidence whatsoever. Such was the principal evidence brought by the right hon. member in favour of the party he was supporting.

After several members had given their opinion concerning the question, of whom the majority were clearly in favour of the means employed by the right hon. mover, the House resolved itself into a committee on the Bank-restriction acts, and leave was given to bring in the bill. The House having resumed, the bill was read a first and second time, committed, and reported. On the motion, that it be read a third time, Mr. Gurney said that he could not avoid expressing his fear that the measure would be productive of more evil, than could result from any good expected from it.

The bill was then passed.

In the House of Lords, after the Earl of Harrowby had risen to move that the standing order relative to the progress of bills be suspended, that the present measure might pass through its remaining stages forthwith, some other lords made observations on the bills at issue.

The standing orders being suspended, the bill was then read a second time, and the commitment having been negatived, it was read a third time, and passed.

Roman Catholic Claims.

In the House of Commons, on May 3rd, petitions were presented respecting the claims of the Roman Catholics, by the following members: Mr. Bastard,

against their claims, from the county of Devon, and from the city of Exeter; Mr. Peel and Mr. Methuen, on the same side; sir George Hill, from the citizens and inhabitants of Londonderry, on the same side; Lord Ebrington and Mr. Western, in favour of the Catholics; and many other petitions on the same subject, which were ordered to lie on the table.

On the same day, the Right Hon. Mr. Grattan presented eight Roman Catholic, and five Protestant petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, after which he rose, and made a speech, of which the following were the leading points:

The hon. member began with expressing his ardent hope, that the wishes of the Catholics should ultimately succeed, and that they would give strength to the Protestant church, to the Act of Settlement, to the Protestant succession to the crown, and would form an identification with the people, so as to preserve tranquillity at home, and security and respectability abroad. He proceeded in his argument to observe, first, that the Roman Catholics had a common law right to eligibility; secondly, that the parliament had in justice no right to require them to abjure their religion; thirdly, that the Roman Catholic religion is no evidence of perfidy or treason; fourthly, that you reject the Roman Catholics for what they have abjured, and require of them to abjure that which does not belong to the cognizance of the civil magistrate, namely, the articles of their religion.

In continuing the disqualification of the Roman Catholics, we not only deprive them of the common law right of eligibility, but we affect the foundation of our own religion. When we say that the Roman Catholic is incapable of moral obligation or political allegiance, we affirm that Christianity does not extend to France, to Italy, to Spain, to a great part of Germany, and of course we deprive it of one great proof of its divinity. You answer this by charges against the Roman Catholics. I have stated those charges to be unfounded. You did not believe in them in the 17th of the king, when you declared the Roman Catholics to be good and loyal subjects; when you gave them the right of bearing arms; when you gave them in Ireland, the election franchise; when you gave them the army and navy; when you restored the popedom; when you helped to restore the house of Bourbon, and with them to give new strength to the Roman religion in France. You saw that a Roman Catholic church establishment was better than philosophy, and that Christianity with seven sacraments, was better than infidelity.

But it is said, if you emancipate Roman Roman Catholics, their clergy will overturn the government; they will use their influence with the laity, who will forfeit their lives in the vain attempt to give domination to their church. This argument is fun. damentally erroneous: it supposes that man struggles for the domination of his church establishment by nature. Man is not

attached to church establishment by nature; it is a creature of art, and a question in politics, not a work of nature. The argument goes farther, and says, that men would prefer the domination of their church establishment to all considerations, moral or political: that is to say, that all men are by nature fanatics. This argument is not only not according to human nature, but the reverse. It is supposed that Dr. Poynter, an excellent subject, will, upon the emancipation of his flock, say to the Duke of Norfolk, your grace is now possessed of the privileges of the constitution, and will now, of course, try to subvert the government; that is to say, lose your head by a fruitless attempt to get me made archbishop of Canterbury. Argument arrives at last to the monstrous palliation of two crimes, rebellion of the Roman Catholics for the ambition of their church, and pains and penalties imposed upon the Roman Catholics, for the exercise of their religion.

The argument I combat not only goes against the nature of man, but against the drift of the age. The question is not now, which church? but whether any. When you attack the religion of Europe, you attack the religion of England. There is a great similitude. You send for your clergy when you are sick, or dying: your sacrament is more than a commemoration, though less than a transubstantiation : there are shades of difference it is true; but if their hierarchy be so abominable, yours cannot be pure, and in your common downfall, you will learn your similitude.

The