Mr. Yorke was against the motion. The authority of the Pope is still formidable. He will not allow of marriages with Protestants. The powers of the Vicars Apostolic are very great. They compelled those who signed the Declaration and Protestation in 1789, to renounce their signatures. Judge of the Pope's importance by the necessity which Buonaparte has felt for conciliating him, though his prisoner. The Roman Catholics have a divided allegiance; they could bow to an Italian Prelate, whilst they would not bow to a Prince of the House of Brunswick. A great change has taken place since last year;-the Roman Catholics have spoken in more violent terms; and the Irish Protestants have declared their opinion against further concessions.

Mr. J. Smith for the motion.

Mr. Courtenay ditto.

Lord Castlereagh moved an adjournment. The House rose at half past three.

Second Day's Debate, Friday, February 26.

Sir John Coxe Hippisley for the Claims.

Mr. Yorke explained something in which Sir J. C. H. misunderstood him.

General Mathew for the Claims.

Sir Eyre Coote, ditto, with an eulogy on the Irish soldiers.

Sir N. Coulthurst was for going into a Committee.

Mr. Hart Davis against the motion, firmly.

Sir J. Stuart said, that the penal code was reconcileable with the soundest principles of justice; and that it kept back nothing but power. Mr. Ward said, that if securities could be given, the restrictions might be taken off. For a Committee.

Mr. W. Fitzgerald for a Committee.

Mr. Protheroe condemned the violence of the Roman Catholic committee.

Mr. Wise for the Claims.

Sir Fr. Flood ditto.

Mr. Round, with most becoming firmness, against the motion. Sir J. Newport attempted to speak, but the cries of "Question " being urgent; he thought it would be right to adjourn till Monday, March 1, and moved accordingly.

Lord Castlereagh coincided in the propriety of adjourning-The House rose at two o'clock.

Third Day's Debate, Monday, March 1.

Sir J. Newport for the Claims. Last rebellion not a Popish rebellion. Protestants at the head of it.* Only one Roman Catholic amongst the leaders. Clergymen should not meddle with politics. †

Mr. W. Pole for a Committee. There must either be a re-enactment of the penal statutes and a rebellion; or the Parliament must take the Claims into consideration, and endeavour to devise means of conciliation.

Mr. IV. Fitzgerald explained.

Mr. R. Peele exposed Mr. Pole's inconsistency with himself when in office. If two branches of the legislature were laid open to the Roman Catholics, why should they be excluded from the third? Should there be Popish counsellors round a Protestant King? A Popish Keeper of a Protestant King's conscience? A Popish Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

and a Protestant King of England? Against the motion.

Mr. Grattan explained.

Hon. Mr. Ward for the motion.

Mr. Shaplin Carew, ditto.

Mr. Ryder against. The Protestants, he observed, are of opinion that the Claims should not be granted;-and the Papists are not prepared to offer securities.

Mr. Pole explained.

Mr. Ryder ditto.

Mr. Marsh vindicated the conduct of the Bishop of Norwich. For the Committee.

Mr. Whitbread for ditto.

Sir J. C. Hippisley explained.

Mr. H. Addington disclaimed all knowledge of an article in the Hue and Cry, attributing the filing of Sidney College, Cambridge, to the Papists.

Mr. Robinson was for a Committee, but expected some better security for the Protestant Establishment than the mere reciting a clause from the Bill of Rights in any conciliatory act that might be brought in.

Mr. Ackland for the motion.

Sir Thomas Sutton opposed it.

Those, at the head, were men of no religion-a jacobinical crew. We always thought that Father Murphy, who pretended to catch the Protestant musket-balls, and put them miraculously in his pocket, had been a Popish Priest. But this was not a Popish rebellion!

This might be proper if clergymen were not citizens.

Lord Palmerston, with exemplary moderation, was for it.

Mr. Hart Davis cautioned the House against abandoning securities. Mr. H Lascelles wished that the grievances of which the Roman Catholics complained, could be removed; but he expected securities. Mr Ponsonby moved an adjournment till the next day.

House rose at two o'clock.

Fourth Day, Tuesday, March 2.

Sir H. Parnell for going into a Committee. He blamed the Bishop of Lincoln. Argued that the old Romish Catechisms were now obsoleteand that the decrees of general councils were no longer binding. The rebellion of 1798 was not a Roman Catholic rebellion.*

Mr. Wilbraham against a Committee,

Sir William Scott vindicated the clergy from the imputations cast on them. They had only done their duty. States have a right to maintain the ascendancy of those who are friendly to them. The placing of the Protestant Necker at the head of the French finances, promoted the revolution. The edict of Nantz, by elevating the Protestants, only produced fiercer contentions in France. He had foretold (though, like Cassandra, he had not been credited) the refusal of the Veto. The Roman Catholics demanded an absolute equality with the Frotestants, and offered no securities. The House, on all sides, expected security for the Protestant religion. The going into a Committee could be of no service to the Roman Catholics; it would only tantalize them, and excite hopes which must end in disappointment. He was against going into a Com mittee, where the House was to get they knew not what information from they knew not whom.

Lord Castlereagh spoke with an avowal of great embarrassment. The question was not made an object for the interference of government. He differed from his colleagues in office. He was for going into a Committee, but he must have security for our Protestant constitution. He should oppose every thing in the form of a sweeping bill of unconditional

concessions.

Mr. Rose was against the motion. He was convinced that Mr. Pitt, if alive, and in the House, would be against it.

* Dr, Milner will coincide in the blame imputed to the Bishop of Lincoln; he will smile at the two following assertions; and he will be delighted with the last.

+ We are glad to be informed of this; although we had rather that Lord Castlereagh kad voted with his colleagues, than with Mr. Canning.

Lord Castlereagh explained; he would leave it to the House to judge which side of the question Mr. Pitt, were he living, would take.

Mr. Manners Sutton was against the motion. He vindicated the Clergy. He was shocked to hear the Bishop of Lincoln treated as he had been. The present was not a mere political question. He was of opinion that Mr. Pitt would have insisted on securities, and would have opposed the going into a Committee.

Sir R. Heron explained, and read passages from the Bishop of Lincoln's Charge, to confirm what he had said of his Lordship.

The Hon. F. Robinson deemed some expressions, which had been used concerning clergymen, calumnious.

Mr. Manners Sutton explained.

Mr. Ponsonby observed on the way in which the Bishop of Norwich had been attacked.

Mr. Croker spoke to order.

Mr. Ponsonby went on. He supported the motion. Let a Committee take the Question into consideration ;-if the Roman Catholics would come forward with reasonable propositions, this might bring about conciliation. If, after the House had done all in its power, the Roman Catho lics should reject the offered boon, he then would support those who were prepared to oppose their Claims..

Mr. Canning was called on from all sides of the House. He was for going into a Committee. Still he looked for securities. He would not have the Protestant Establishment endangered. He would not consent that Roman Catholics should be placed in a situation to regulate the ecclesiastical affairs of Protestants. He would not have a Roman Catholic Keeper of the King's Conscience.

Mr. Bragge Bathurst rose to explain amidst overwhelming cries of "Question."

Mr. Ryder moved an adjournment ;-which was negatived.

Mr. Ponsonby wished the House to hear gentlemen.

Mr. B. Bathurst attempted to proceed.

Mr. Grattan made a short reply.

The House divided :-For the Question 264

On this occasion it may be necesary to observe that in the last session, when the House divided on Mr. Canning's motion, the majority was 129. The number of members that divided then, was 341. On Mr. Grattan's

* A nearly verbatim report of this Debate is now in the press of our publisher. It

is a valuable and authentic recpid.-Editor.

motion, 488 members voted. In the latter case, the proportion which the majority bore to the members who divided, was little more than a twelfth part of the whole; in the former, the proportion was less than one half. The comparative majority in favour of the claims is much diminished; and if we consider that a very great number of those who have voted for a committee, insist on security for the established religion, we cannot have much to fear.-We must give credit to Messrs. Ponsonby and Canning for the sentiments which they expressed, recorded above.-Whatever may be the result, we call the country to witness, that we have done our duty; at least we have done all in our power to ADVOCATE, and to maintain, the PROTESTANT CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.Esto perpetua!

To the Editor of the Protestant Advocate.

SIR, At a time when the very existence of the establishment is endangered, and all the subtlety and wily stratagems of the Church of Rome are put in action to destroy the national religion, it is the natural wish and, in my opinion, the duty of every friend to the Established Church, and of every well-wisher to the Constitution, to exert himself to the utmost of his ability to repel the insidious attacks which the Romanists are now making upon Protestantism.- And I know not how this can be better done, than by endeavouring to expose the fallacy of, and remove the veil of plausibility from the arguments urged by the supporters of the Roman Catholic claims.-But many of the Clergy have been prevented from widely diffusing their opinions, by the expense attending the publication of, even the smallest, tract. To you, therefore, Sir, not only the Clergy, but the public in general, are much indebted for bringing forward a medium, through which every good subject may contribute his "mite" in support of our most excellent constitution, both in Church and State.

When the supporters of the Roman Catholic Question are reminded of the reign of Mary, of the Parisian and of the Irish massacre-their answer is," But the present race of Catholics are not like the Catholics of those days." I ask, "in what do they differ?" I will only refer them to Sir Richard Musgrave's history of the rebellions in Ireland, to prove that they are exactly similar.

They will there see Priests entire strangers to that meekness and humility so warmly recommended, and so strongly insisted upon by their divine master, eagerly seizing the sword of carnage-vehemently urging their deluded flocks to the most atrocious deeds, and assuring them, that the only true road to heaven lies over the bodies of HERETICS.-That the influence of