GENERAL HISTORY. 



[53 



went to m;ike an alteration in the 

 religion of the country, should be 

 discussed in that House until the 

 proposition had been first con- 

 sidered by a committee, or agreed 

 to by the House. 



This being done, the Speaker 

 said that in matters of this nature 

 it was the practice to begin witli a 

 committee of the whole House, 

 but at the same time he did not 

 know that any member was pr9- 

 cluded from moving abstract le- 

 solutions. After some further 

 conversatioji on the subject. Lord 

 Castlereagh spoke warmly respect- 

 ing the injury the hon. baronet 

 was doing to the cause by the 

 course he svas taking ; and put it 

 to himself if many friends to the 

 question had not withdrawn tiiem- 

 selves on this account. He him- 

 self could not give it his support, 

 and he hoped the hon. baronet 

 would not persevere in his mo- 

 tion. 



Sir H. Parnell, after defending 

 his conduct on the ground of pub- 

 lic duty, consented to withdraw 

 his resolutions. 



In the House of Lords, on June 

 11th, the petitions of the catholics 

 of Ireland were presented by the 

 Earl of Donoughniore, and read ; 

 and his motion for taking them 

 into consideration on the 21st, 

 was agreed to. At the same time 

 Earl Grey ])resented the petition 

 of the catholics of England, which 

 was also read and laid upon the 

 table. 



The catholic question was taken 

 into consideration on the 21st, 

 when the Earl of Donoughmore, 

 in calling the attention of their 

 lordships to the petitions before 

 them, stated a resolution which he 

 intended to propose to the House. 

 Its substance was a declaration 



of the duty of parliament to endea- 

 vom- by a ccmciliatory policy to 

 bind together o\xr fellow-subjects 

 of whate\er religious persuasion, 

 and that this House will accord- 

 ingly, in the next session of parlia- 

 ment, take into its early considera- 

 tion those disabling statutes which 

 still press upon the Koman-ca- 

 tholics of Great Britain and Ire- 

 land. In the subsequent debate, 

 the resolution was opposed on the 

 ground of the impropi iety of fet- 

 tering the discretion of the House 

 by such an engagement ; and also 

 by the arguments so often before 

 urged relative to the dangers of 

 the constitution in church and 

 state, from the catholic claims, 

 especially as the clergy of that 

 jieisuasion in Ireland had expli- 

 citly declared a tletermination of 

 standing independent of the Bri- 

 tish crown. The supporters of 

 the resolution, on the other hand, 

 argued in its favour from those 

 principles of the equality of civil 

 rights amidst all differences of 

 religion not hostile to civil govern- 

 ment, which they had always 

 maintained. These discussions 

 could afiford no novelty requiring 

 notice ; but the liberal opinion 

 declared by the Bishop of Norwich 

 respecting the church of which he 

 is a dignitary, appears to us too 

 interesting to be passed over. 

 " It had been asked (said his 

 lordship) as a triumphant objec- 

 tion, wotdd we pull down the 

 bidwarks of our faith ? would we 

 remove the defensive guard of 

 our religion r would we shake 

 the pillais of our church? Im- 

 ])iessed with those feelings that 

 became his situation, he would 

 give a short answer. The only 

 way to secure permanently the 

 existence of any establishment, 



civil 



