chuse to do so. When any vessel was on the island, or in sight, the governor was directed to keep him confined within the boundary where sentinels were placed: but the execution of this order had been very liberal; and strangers whom he was disposed to see were allowed to visit him. It was not true that all intercourse with the inhabitants was refused, though he had chosen to act as if it were. The original allowance made by government for his establishment was L.8000 a-year, but on Sir H. Lowe's advice, it had been at once raised to L.12000. This appeared sufficient, and if he wished for more, it ought to be drawn from his own funds, which he boasted of as ample. It had been complained, that his household establishment allowed only one bottle of wine a-day for each per son. This did not appear to Lord B. so very poor an allowance it was thought by a regimental mess sufficient both for their own use, and for enter taining their friends. The fact, how ever, was this. There was an allow ance of strong and of weak wine. The quantity of weak wine was 84 bottles in the course of the fortnight; but he should put that out of the question, and merely state the quantity of the other description of wine. Of that better sort of wine, there were no less than 266 bottles in one fortnight, applicable wholly and entirely to General Buonaparte and his attendants. The particulars were 7 bottles of Constan tia, (or 14 pint bottles,) 14 bottles of Champaigne, 21 bottles of Vin de Grave, 84 bottles of Teneriffe, and

140 bottles of claret ; in all, 266 bottles. The number of persons connected with General Buonaparte, excluding those of tender age, amounted to nine, so that there was an allowance of nineteen bottles in one day for ten persons; and, taking one day with another, the allowance might be con sidered two bottles a-day for each grown person, which he was sure was as much as would satisfy the noble lord's wishes, either for himself, or for any person in whom he was interested. In addition to this quantity of wine, forty-two bottles of porter were allowed every fortnight, being at the rate of three to each individual. Seeing no ground for the motion, he gave it his most decided opposition.

The Marquis of Buckingham entertained no doubt as to the purity of the motives of his noble friend in bringing forward this motion; but with the views which he entertained of the character of Napoleon Buonaparte, it appeared to him quite unne. cessary and injudicious.

Lord Darnley was happy the mo. tion had been made, as it had afforded to the noble lord opposite the opportunity of making the candid and able statement by which the allegations in question were certainly entirely refuted. He thought his noble friend ought not to press the motion.

Lord Holland, in reply, endeavour ed to prove that there was still room for entertaining his motion, which, however, was negatived without a di vision.

VOL. X. PART I.

H

THE HE two leading questions during this session, aiming at an important and permanent change in the constitu. tion, were those relating to the privileges of the Catholics, and to parliamentary reform.

On the 10th May, the annual motion relative to the Catholic question was made by Mr Grattan, who proposed a committee to endeavour a final and satisfactory adjustment of the existing differences. He expressed his sanguine hope that securities would now be afforded, calculated to afford satisfaction to all parties. The Catholics had held a communication with the Pope, and if their claims continued to be rejected, an entire separation from England was to be dreaded. He therefore moved the appointment of a committee, to take into its most serious consideration the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, with a view that such a final and conciliatory adjustment may be made as may be conducive to the force and strength of the United Kingdom, the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and the general satisfaction of all classes of his Majesty's subjects.

Mr Leslie Foster could not conceive upon what grounds the honour

able gentleman could ascribe to the Catholics a peculiarly conciliatory disposition at this moment. The House would have the goodness to recollect that in the last session two petitions had been presented to them from different parties of Irish Catholics; the one from the Catholic aristocracy, professing to accede to any securities which the House might please to require; the other, far more numerous. ly signed, by all the Catholic clergy, and declared to be expressive of the feeling of the whole Catholic population, expressing an unqualified opinion on the subject of the restrictions, branding the other petition as mischief, and denouncing with anathemas those who signed it as worse than Orangemen. The veto was now out of the question, and the only security offered was domestic nomination. The present mode of nominating a Catholic bishop was by a committee of the other bishops, who recommended a successor to the Pope. This recommendation was uniformly attended to, at least there had never occurred above one or two instances in which any difficulty was made. The committee, too, invariably recommended the coadjutor, appointed by himself, of the

deceased bishop, so that in fact the Roman Catholic bishops appointed their own successors. He understood something was to be done to take away this influence of the predecessor. This might be useful to the Catholic, but it was nothing to the Protestant; the one was domestic nomination, as much as the other. The grand concession, therefore, by which the Catholics were to remove every ground of distrust was, that matters should stand exactly as they were. He would proceed to inquire into the nature of that danger which required restrictions as a defence against it. It was impossible for the Protestants in Ireland to view without apprehension, a population of four millions, depending for their education, habits, morals, principles, and attachment to the Government of Great Britain, on a numerous body of ecclesiastics, whom the fatal and mistaken policy of our ancestors had treated in such a manner, that it was inconsistent with human nature that that body should be otherwise than alienated from that government. We might lament that which was passed, but we could not annul it. The Protestants had seen that numerous body so lately proscribed, even for the discovery of any of whom a reward had been offered, who were studiously rendered a severed order, nevertheless exercising more power over the population and feelings of Ireland, than the legislative or executive authority had ever been able to obtain. The Protestants had seen this order submitting to a small body of bishops; and they had seen those Catholic bishops acting with an unanimity and a perseverance in furtherance of their common interest, unparalleled, except in the history of papal Rome. The Protestants had seen these bishops assemble annually for the ostensible purpose of regulating a college of education, but not separat

ing until they had accomplished the more important object of communicating with each other on their general affairs. The Protestants had looked in vain for any friendly feelings as following upon the numerous concessions which had been made in the course of the last thirty years. In too many instances a personal proscription had been established against those who professed the Protestant faith. The Protestant tradesman had been deprived of his Roman Catholic customers.

The Protestant farmer had been menaced, his habitation destroyed, himself way-laid at night, and treated with brutal outrage, until he either sought peace in emigration, or bought it by his conversion. Added to this had been the system of intermarrying Protestants with Catholic families, producing in many instances a change of faith in the Protestant husbands, and almost invariably ending in the Catholicism of the children. The Protestant saw all this; he saw the number of Protestants diminishing; he saw the property of Protestants decreasing; he saw the interests of the Roman Catholic clergy pursued with indefatigable activity; and he was then told to be of good cheer, for he had nothing to apprehend. Such had been the state of things under the system of domestic nomination. As to the veto, it was a curious fact, that when that House in a committee expressed an opinion favourable to the Catholic claims, with the restriction of the veto, a synod of Roman Catholic bishops was holding in Dublin; and on the very day which brought to Ireland the news of the vote of the House of Commons, that synod of Catholic bishops published a declaration, that "they would cheerfully lay down their lives rather than submit to such an interference in spiritual matters." In what a situation would the country have been, had that

proposition of the committee been carried into effect! If such was the opinion of the Catholic clergy with respect to the veto, that of the laity went hand in hand with it. At all subsequent public meetings the Catholics vied with each other in finding terms sufficiently expressive of their abhorrence of the proposition. He held in his hand some resolutions agreed to at a meeting in the county of Kilkenny, which he had selected not by any means as the strongest that could be found, but as affording a fair sample of the whole. These resolutions termed the veto "a penal law, and a persecution, which, if persisted in, would shake the British empire to its foundations." He would put it to any friend of Catholic eman cipation, if any change had taken place in the sentiments of the Catholic clergy in respect to the veto, except that of regarding it with still deeper detestation. Domestic nomination and the veto being thus proved to be both nugatory, what new security could a committee be expected to devise? It had on a former occasion been said to the House, "Give us a committee, and then you will see we will find securities." The expedient had been tried. The House had gone into a committee to see what could be done. That committee had groped about for principles. The mountain had laboured, and brought forth-the veto, an object at once of Protestant ridicule, and of Catholic abhorrence. The uniform opinion of all Europe on the subject might be collected from the report on the table, of which he should merely give a general outline. It was a curious fact, that there were but two states in Europe, Prussia and Great Britain, in which Catholic bishops were suffered to exist at all. The example of Prussia, therefore, was very material, as bearing on this question. In Prussia-not merely in

Silesia, which was Catholic, but in Prussia-there were several Catholic bishops. The King, however, nominated to all the bishoprics. What was still more surprising was, that there was not a Catholic priest in the Prussian dominions who was not appointed by the Protestant Government. There was no synod allowed to be held until its object was ascertained, and until it had received the express sanction of the state. No communication was allowed with the see of Rome, but through the bureau of the Protestant minister of state. If there was any proposition to put the Irish Catholics on this footing, even if he were wild enough to suppose that they might be induced to accede to it, it would by no means be his wish that they should do so. But there were degrees of interference and restriction. Some securities of a similar nature might be devised to which no Catholic objection could be made. He had heard it said by some who sought for a distinction between the Catholic clergyman in Ireland and the Catholic clergyman in Prussia, as one part of it dwelt on the fact, that in Prussia a stipend was annexed to all ecclesiastical functions, Protestant or Catholic. Of this distinction he could get rid in two ways. First, he was decidedly for allowing the Catholic clergy in Ireland stipends, (hear, hear!) convinced as he was that no possible system of countercheck, such as that in Prussia, could be otherwise established in Ireland. But the second and more substantial answer was, that it was impossible, if the interference of the King of Prussia in the appointment of Catholic bishops interfered with the spiritual authority of the Pope, that the Pope could ever have consented to it. It was said he gave aliquod spirituale pro aliquo temporali; but the fact of his having acquiesced in such a bargain was a proof

that he only gave up a temporal privilege. As to the other Protestant states in Europe, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, &c. no Roman Catholic bishops were permitted to reside; and the inferior Catholic clergy were pro. hibited from holding any intercourse with the see of Rome, except through the respective governments of those states. If, therefore, the parliament consented to grant the full participation in all civil rights to the Catholics, it would be to try an experiment which no state in Europe had ever made; and when the right honourable gentleman (Mr Grattan) spoke of this country as the only intolerant state in Europe, he should have also added, that if it adopted the course now recommended, it would be the only Protestant Government which ever ventured such a trial. In Rus. sia, the Catholic bishop was appointed by the Emperor; but it was said in a work of great authority on the question, (the Edinburgh Review,) that there was less difference between the Greek church and the Catholics than between Catholics and Protestants. This was not the fact, as the Greek church differed from the Romish in all the points at issue between the latter and the Western Reformers, and besides esteemed the Pope and his adherents madmen, schismatics. But notwithstanding this, when the Empress of Russia proposed to give a stipend to the Catholic Archbishop of Mohilew, and to appoint that officer, the proposal was gladly accepted by the see of Rome. A regulation which the Pope could accept under a Greek Emperor, he could not object to under a Protestant King of Great Britain, on any religious principle; and if the objection was merely political, he should on that account be more disposed to insist on the enforcement. Thus much as to the states which dis

sented from the church of Rome. As to the Catholic states, there were none, great or small, enlightened or ignorant, which permitted any communication between their clergy and the see of Rome, except with their own privity; and in all states, with some inconsiderable exceptions, in the case of a few sees in Naples, the bi shops were appointed by the sovereigns of the respective countries, and not by the Pope. In Spain, where it would be expected there would be the most superstitious attachment to the see of Rome, any communication between a clergyman and that see was punished by deprivation and imprisonment in Africa. Even the attornies, who were the parties in such a transaction, were punished by ten years' imprisonment in Africa. The free communication with Rome which the Catholic clergy were to enjoy in this country, while the laity possessed all civil rights, was a perfectly novel experiment. Indeed all countries in Europe, Catholic as well as Protestant, had carefully shut out the doctrines propagated by the court of Rome for its own power and interest. These tenets, known by the name of transalpine doctrines, were excluded from all Europe, excepting two spots

the one was the Vatican, the other the college of Maynooth. The intolerance which still prevailed in the Romish church was shewn by the rescript of the Pope against that noble society, which, like the angel in the Revelation, bore the gospel through the world. He referred also to the late pamphlet of Dr Gandolphy, in which Protestantism was described as a visitation on England, worse than pestilence and the sword, and the Bishop of London was represented as an emissary of the Prince of darkness. He believed, that in the acts of violence which took place between the