Mr. W. Smith was of opinion that in the colonies a considerable reduction might be made in the military force. All the force necessary for their defence was one of sufficient magnitude to guard them from surprise by a coup de main. Now, which of the powers, in any one quarter of the globe, was likely to surprise, in a hostile way, a colony of Great Britain? Not one of our colonies stood in danger, either in præsenti or in prospectu. If they reduced their foreign garrisons, the saving would be more considerable than any that could be effected in any other branch. Jervoise, G. P. Rickford, W. Robarts, col. Smyth, J. H. Stuart, lord J. Sykes, D. TELLERS. Hume, J. COUNTY COURTS RATE.] Lord Althorp moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. Lockhart agreed in the principle of the bill, because he conceived it was not proper that the superior courts should be occupied in deciding causes, where the property in dispute, whether money or chattels, was of trifling value. It was also a great hardship on the suitor, who frequently lost 30%. or 40%. in endeavouring to Lord Palmerston said, that the increase since 1819 consisted of the augmentation of the regiment at New South Wales, from 650 to 1,000 men, which was effected in consequence of the representation of the governor of that colony. A regiment had also been appropriated to the service of Heligoland, &c., instead of proceeding on the old system of drafting companies to those places. He called on gentlemen to mark the situation in which the country would be placed, if they only voted 70,000 rank and file, which would be the number granted, if the amend-recover a much smaller sum. The noble ment were carried, exclusive of the veteran battalions. There were at present afloat 4,550 rank and file, a body not now available for any purpose to which the army about to be voted was applicable. There were non-effectives of the line 4,400 men. There were at the dépôt at the Isle of Wight 3,100 raw recruits belonging to regiments abroad. Here, then, was a total of 10,250 rank and file to be deducted from 70,000, which the gentlemen opposite proposed. So that, in fact, they were only giving to government 60,000 men disposable for all the purposes which required a military force. lord meant to remedy this evil by creating a sort of county judge-a barrister-who, with the aid of a jury, would be able, four times in a year, to determine causes of a certain value. Now, he conceived, that a new tribunal was wholly unnecessary. In his opinion, if the powers of the courts of quarter session were amplified, the duty could be done more constitutionally. This would be a much more respectable and efficient tribunal-more under the aggregate eye of the country, and attended with less expense to the public. He hoped the noble lord would explain whether there was any foundation for the rumour, that it was intended to pay the judges in these courts by allowing them a fee of 6d. for each cause. It was evident that such a regulation was quite incompatible with any thing like the respectability which ought to attach to the judicial character. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the bill; but if it went into a committee, he should certainly oppose it in toto, or move such an alteration as would prevent the appointment of barristers to the offices of judges in county courts. Mr. F. Palmer hoped the House would not agree to the suggestion of his hon. friend of throwing the business in ques tion upon the quarter sessions. The increase of business in that direction had already become very inconvenient. Mr. Chetwynd conceived it necessary that some change should be made in the constitution of the county courts. The poor had great reason to complain of the impositions practised on them by the country attornies under the present system. As to the quarter sessions, they had already sufficient business; and if the House, by adopting the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, should overburthen the country magistrates, the consequence would be, that no gentleman would accept the office, and the country would be obliged to have recourse to that greatest of all curses, a stipendiary magistracy. At the same time, in the present distressed state of the people, he could not consent to anyadditional burthens on the county-rates, and therefore he should oppose that part of the bill which proposed to provide salaries for the judges by the imposition of a new rate. The Attorney General had no hesitation in saying, that he thought the plan of the noble lord extremely objectionable. It went to establish a perfectly novel jurisdiction, and one that would be attended with heavy expense. The noble lord proposed to establish no fewer than 80 tribunals, with a barrister at the head of each. The salaries of these judges, considering that their time was likely to be occupied exclusively by the business of their courts, could not be averaged at less than 500l. a year, which amounted to no less a sum than 40,000l., exclusive of the salaries of 80 clerks. The plan of paying the judges by allowing them a fee for each cause was too degrading to be entertained for a moment; and therefore their salaries must be paid out of the county-rates. Lord Althorp said, that as the opinion of the hon. and learned member was unfavourable to the bill, he feared there was little chance of its ultimate success; but he would press it to a second reading, in the hope that he should be able to alter the bill so as to render it free from objection. The bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 16. PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Mr. Wilberforce VOL. IV. presented a petition from certain Roman Catholics of Staffordshire and Warwickshire, against the bills now in progress for the relief of the Catholics. He did not concur in the prayer of the petition; but as it had been forwarded to him, he had thought it his duty to present it. Sir T.Lethbridge said, that from the sentiments expressed by these petitioners, he would call upon the House to pause before they proceeded further with the bills now in the House, one of which went to give the Catholics what they wanted-the other to impose restraints upon them, to which they were not subjected at present. What reason could they have for thinking that these measures would satisfy the Catholics, when a petition like this was presented from them, with the name of Dr. Milner attached to it? If the bill, which the Catholics wished to pass into a law, were passed, the Protestants, he was sure, could not be satisfied, unless another bill were passed to impose such restrictions as could not be other than unpalatable to the Catholics. He could see no reason for two bills being brought in, unless he assumed that the one which the Catholics desired should be passed, was intended to be permanent, while the repeal of the other, at no distant period, was in contemplation. He had no doubt, that if these measures were passed, they would in a few years find the Catholics coming again to parliament to petition for the repeal of one of them. loyalty and merit of the petitioners he would be the last man to deny. He had a great respect for the Catholics both of this country and of Ireland; but still he had ever thought it his duty to oppose their claims, and he would continue to do so. Granting all they desired would, in his opinion, be likely to subject the country to the same disasters which had unhappily been experienced at a former period of our history, and from which we had only relieved ourselves by means of laws-not like those now in force against the Roman Catholics, but by such as were in force fifty or sixty years ago. the repeal of those laws which were no longer in force, he did not complain, but he hoped the House would not take a course that would be likely to reproduce the misery formerly experienced. The Of Mr. Plunkett said, the hon, baronet had thought proper, in some degree, to anticipate the discussion of the subject, to which the attention of the House would 4 M shortly be directed, and he felt it necessary, therefore, to make one or two observations in reply to what had fallen from him. With respect to the signature of Dr. Milner, from which the hon. baronet appeared to derive so much satisfaction, he could not help saying that in that individual it was only an act of undeviating, consistent bigotry. If he had felt some exultation in his mind that a measure of the highest possible public good was now apparently on the point of attainment, it was with the deepest regret that he witnessed an attempt to darken the prospect of happiness and security. The same evil spirit which in 1813 came forward to blast the hopes of the Catholics, was once more at work. The name of Dr. Milner was not at the head of this petition, but he was persuaded that he was the prime instigator of it-he was satisfied that he was at the bottom of a measure, the object of which was, to destroy once more the hopes of his Catholic fellow-subjects. He had a right to say, that the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of this country could not fairly be collected from this petition. The petition of the Roman Catholics of England, which was laid before the House a few nights ago, was signed by seven apostolic vicars. Now there were eight apostolic vicars in this country, and the eighth apostolic vicar, whose name was not annexed to that petition, who disavowed that spirit of conciliation which animated his brethren, was the same upon whose intervention the hon. baronet had that night thought proper to congratulate the House. That gentleman was the same person, who, in 1813, came forward on the eve of the adoption of a measure for the relief of the Catholics, and by whose interference that measure had been abandoned. He had been censured and disowned by the Catholic board; and the House would judge of the bigoted spirit of a man, who could publicly declare, that the day on which Catholic emancipation was granted, would be a day of downfall of the Catholic religion in this country. What was the object of this man? What, but to prevent the possibility of Roman Catholic emancipation to destroy all hopes of conciliation-to keep alive religious dissention-and render discord and dissatisfaction interminable, by perpetuating the distinctions between Protestants and Catholics. He had never expected a general concurrence; for it was visionary to expect the concurrence of bigotry. Bigotry was unchangeable; he cared not whether it was Roman Catholic bigotry or Protestant bigotryits character was the same-its pursuits were the same-true to its aim, though besotted in its expectations-steady to its purpose, though blind to its interests, for bigotry time flowed in vain. It was abandoned by the tides of knowledge—it was left stranded by the waters of reason, and worshipped the figures imprinted on the sand, which were soon to be washed away. It was inaccessible to reason-it was irreclaimable by experience. Mr. Bright was satisfied that this ques tion could never be set completely at rest, unless the House conceded all the Catholics required, or resolutely took their stand where they now were. All who approved the Catholic claims, were either directly, or by inference, accused of bigotry. Let the Protestant Dissenter be first raised to his proper rank in the state; and then it would be time enough to consider what ought to be done for the Catholic Dissenter. Sir James Mackintosh said, that the petition did not come before the House with that authority which might have been concluded from its title. There were in Staffordshire many ancient Catholic fa milies, and yet none of those illustrious fa milies, had put their names to the petition. He would ask, whether the omis sion of the names of the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Stourton, the Fitzherberts, the Cliffords, the Jerninghams, and others, who formed the ornament of the Catholic body, was no objection? He would have considered the authority of such names even superior to that of the right-reverend-vicar-apostolic. He would not apply the term bigotry to the Catholic, who on the one hand fanned the flame of dissention; or to the Protestant on the other, who laboured in the same unfortunate cause; but he was glad to find, that to a petition which was opposed to liberali ty, good sense, and the spirit of conciliation, there was not the name of a single Catholic gentleman of known respectability. The sole and undivided honour should be given to Dr. Milner, whom he believed to be the irreconcileable enemy of all union and mutual good-will between Protestant and Catholic, and it was not strange that such an enemy should be hailed by all Protestants, who, on the other side, held in alarm and detestation the union and sincere coalition of every class of his majesty's subjects. After some further conversation, the Petition, together with several others, both for and against the claims of the Catholics, were ordered to lie on the table. ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill, most degree of deference for sentiments, which, although they appeared to him to originate in prejudice and error, might be so regarded by him through his own prejudices and errors. Those errors, if they were such, he was ready to yield to the force of argument, and to a proof of actual danger arising to the establishments so justly dear to us, from admitting the Roman Catholics to share in the full advantages of the constitution. It had been his endeavour, and that of the distinguished individuals who were associated with him inthe preparation of this bill, to proceed with the greatest caution, and to evince a deference for the opinions of those classes to whom he was now alluding. Their object was not only to give security against danger, but to satisfy every reasonable apprehension. They had felt it to be their duty also to defer to the apprehensions and jealousies of the Roman Catholics. It was their wish to reconcile both Protestants and Catholics, by not yielding on the one hand what was necessary to the security of the establishment, nor demanding on the other what must violate the religious scruples of the Roman Catholics. The present state of public affairs, and the state also of the public mind, seemed to him peculiarly favourable to the success of this im Mr. Plunkett rose. He said, it was not then his intention to trespass long on the time of the House; indeed, after the indulgence which he had so largely experienced on a former night, it would furnish but a bad specimen of taste to go a second time into a general consideration of the question. When he took the liberty of opening his views on the question, he had described the measure as having for its primary object a great end of public justice. He had expressed a hope that it would be favourably regarded by all those whose interests it was designed to promote; and he had received great pleasure in finding, from all that had passed in the country with which he was most nearly connected, that his hopes had been more than realized; for he must take leave to say, that he never entertained the chime rical notion of being able to conciliate the approbation of all persons on such a sub-portant measure. He considered that the ject. There were persons by whom that general satisfaction would be felt as a grievous calamity, who prized the religious hostility which they bore to other Christian sects and denominations as a valuable inheritance descended to them from their ancestors, and which it was incumbent on them to leave as a legacy to their children. With such persons he would not argue; they lived in a territory of their own, wholly inaccessible to any reasoning which he could employ. It was however some consolation to know that the measure, if carried, could not interrupt their happiness, but that they would rise the next morning in possession of as much comfort and security as they had ever before enjoyed, and, as he hoped, -for they were very worthy and respect able persons-they would long continue to enjoy. He must take that opportunity also of remarking, that he had never applied the term " bigotry" to the great body of Protestants with whom he had the misfortune to differ on this subject. Nothing could be more foreign from his disposition; and in truth, he felt the ut indifference and apathy spoken of by an hon. member, as characteristic of the public mind, proved only that the people willingly left the decision of this question to the wisdom of their representatives. They were satisfied that nothing would be done by parliament to endanger the constitution, and they suppressed their own feelings from their confidence in the legislature. The time, therefore, was most favourable to a full consideration of those claims which had been so often and hitherto so unsuccessfully urged on behalf of the Roman Catholics.-Without further preamble, he should proceed to state the substance of the bill, endeavouring only to set himself right with the House, as to what had fallen from him in the former discussion. He had then asserted, that admission to the franchises and offices of the state was the right of every Roman Catholic liege subject, and that exclusion from eligibility was inconsistent with the first principles of the constitution. In the sense in which he had stated, and in which alone he could be supposed to have stated it, he now re-as erted that proposition. The right of the Roman catholic was precisely the same as that of the Protestant; but he never was so absurd as to maintain that that right could not be controlled by the exigencies or necessities of the state. If ever a clear case were made out to him of expediency arising from danger serious enough to countervail a general principle, he would say at once that the Roman Catholic must yield to the imperious rule which that expediency would dictate. But whence did the Protestant derive his claim to vote at elections, or to hold himself eligible to sit in parliament? Not from any written law or charter that he had ever met with; but from the first elements, from the essence and the stamina, of the constitution. The Roman Catholic complained that since the reign of Charles 2nd he had been subjected to certain disabilities. He did not deny the right of parliament to impose them, but stated that they were originally designed to be temporary, and were enacted in consequence of a suspicion that the reigning monarch was not a Protestant. The Roman Catholic added, that those circumstances had gone by; that there no longer existed any danger of a Popish king, or of a Popish successor. Therefore, he submitted, as the danger had ceased, so ought the restrictions which that danger alone had justified. If the Protestant could show no over-ruling necessity for the exclusion of the Catholic, could he show any principle by which it was made an essential or fundamental part of the constitution? The Catholic denied it: he challenged discussion; he contended that such a proposition was at war with the first principles on which that constitution was founded. a He was the more anxious to set himself right upon this point, because he had been supposed to argue the case of the Protestant dissenter, as well as of the Roman Catholic. But the truth was, that each question stood on its own special grounds; that of the Protestant dissenter was altogether distinct. As regarded the Roman Catholic, it was question of danger between letting him in and shutting him out; but the situation of the dissenter was extremely different. Perhaps the House would allow him to explain the actual state of the Protestant dissenter in Ireland, as he believed the public was in general ignorant of it. The Protestant dissenter was not then subject to any test in Ireland, nor had he been for the last forty years. An act passed in the year 1780, exempted him from the operation of the Test act; the exclusion of the Roman Catholic did not, therefore, involve the Protestant dissenter. As he was now on this subject, he could wish to put the House in possession of a curious fact. The act of 1780 relieved the Protestants from the sacramental test: the words were distinct and positive, that from and after the passing of the act the Protestants should not be bound by the sacramental test. In 1793, an act passed to relieve the Roman Catholics; and it went on to state, that the Roman Catholics should be subject to no other disqualification or disability in this respect than those to which the Protestants were liable. Some persons, however, thought that the Protestants of the established church were not included, and that the act exempting from the sacramental test did not apply to them; and as some doubts and difficulties arose in consequence with regard to the Catholics, a statute passed the Irish House of Commons to explain the act of 1780, and to exempt the Protestants of the established church. It was sent up to the House of Lords, and there, on consulting the Journals, it appeared that it had been read with unexampled celerity three times in one day; that an amendment by the insertion of the simple word not was introduced, in fact negativing the whole object of the measure; and that being returned to the Commons, it passed in that shape unanimously. Under the operation of the law thus explained, the Roman Catholic in Ireland was therefore still liable to the sacramental test. He had thought it right to put the House in possession of this fact, to show how what had been meant here as a piece of justice, grace, and favour to the Catholics was marred in Ireland, by trick, artifice, and management. He would now proceed to state particularly the nature of the bill, as framed by the committee on the resolutions of the House. The bill for removing disqualifications comprised two distinct objects. First, the disqualification by reason of the oath of supremacy; and secondly, the disqualification by reason of the declaration of transubstantiation. As to the last, he need not long occupy the time of the House; for he had never heard any man, whether clerical or lay, contend for the propriety of that declaration : it was |