formity were passed; and under the first many Dissenters took the sacrament, to shew their disposition in favour of the Established Church, however they might not agree, with parts of the liturgy. Thus then even taking the sacrament did not prove a man to be a supporter of the Church of England. Might not a man take the sacrament, and yet consider the liturgy of the Church of England, as the most consummate bigotry? According to Sir William Scott's argument, the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament, and the existence of the Test Acts were the constitutional support of the Church of England. What then was the state of the Church of England in the reigns of Elizabeth, of James I. and Charles I.? Were not these princes heads of the Church, as effectually as his present Majesty ? Did not Charles I. fall a martyr to the Church of England? Did not the Book of Homilies absolutely condemn whatever took place at the time of the Revolution of 1688? Did not Sacheverell, upon the authority of those Homilies, attack and stigmatize that great proceeding as impious, and utterly destructive of the Church of England? Did not the university of Oxford pass a decree in 1683, against limiting the government, describing it as one of those things, which lead to Atheism? To use a homely phrase, he warned those not to throw stones, whose eyes were made of glass. He lastly noticed, that Mr. Percival had said: that if he were a Catholic in a country, where the Protestant Church was established, and he had the power, he would exercise it to weaken that es

tablishment. Mr. Fox had too good an opinion of him to think he would. If every man were to conceive himself at liberty, because he differed from the established religion of a country, to attempt to overturn it, the general tendency of such a principle would be to destroy all peace in the world. He did not believe any good Catholic would so act. He was sure no good subject, who loved his country, ought so to act.

1805.

At half past four in the morning, the ques- Division. tion upon Mr. Fox's original motion was negatived by a majority of 212, there having been, on the division, Ayes, 124, Noes, 336,*

Conceiving it to be a matter of no slight moment to the Irish nation, to know, who have stood forward in their interests we subjoin the following lists of the peers and Irish commoners who voted on the question:

LIST OF THE PEERS

WHO VOTED FOR GOING INTO A COMMITTEE ON THE IRISH ROMAN
CATHOLIC PETITION.

Dukes Norfolk

Earls Lucan

The late hour prevented Lords Egremont, Carnarvon, Stair, Hutchinson, De Clifford, and others from voting.

LIST OF THE IRISH MEMBERS

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WHO VOTED IN THE MAJORITY
AGAINST THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

Acheson, Hon. A. Armagh co., Knox, Hon. George, Trinity

the debates upon the Catholic question produced

Hill, Sir G. Londonderry city Stewart, Hon. C. W. London-
Hamilton, Sir C. Dungannonderry county.

Hamilton, Hans, Dublin co.
Jones, T. Tyrwhitt, Athlone
Jones, Walter, Coleraine bor.
Jephson, Denham, Mallow

Keane, Sir John, Youghall bor.

Stewart, Right Hon. Sir John,

Tyrone county.,

Stewart, James, Tyrone co.
Tottenham, C. New Ross'

Vereker, C, Limerick city

LIST OF THE IRISH MEMBERS

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WHO VOTED IN THE MINORITY FOR
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

Bagnell, W. Carlow county
Burton, Hon. E, Clare co.
Butler, Hon. J. Kilkenny co.
Butler, Hon. C. Kilkenny city
Bligh, T. Meath county

Hawthorne, C. S. Downpatrick
Latouche, D. Carlow county
Latouche, R. Kildare county
Latouche, P. Leitrim county
Latouche, J. Dublin city'

Caulfield, Hon. H Armagh co. Lee, E. Waterford county

Matthew, Right Hon: Viscount

Tipperary countyo no

Martin, R. Galway County

Newport, Sir J. Waterford city,
Odell, W. Limerick county
DO'Brien, Sir E. Clare county1
Ponsonby, Right Hon. W. B.

Kilkenny county

Ponsonby, G. Wicklow county,
Somerville, Sir M. Meath co.

The Right Hon. D. Browne, Member for Mayo, was taken suddenly ill, and unable to attend the House....

Lord George and the Right Hon. John Beresford, Member for the County of Waterford both voted, but we have not been able to ascertain upon which side,

Peresford, Member for Londonderry County;

1805.

1905.

so powerful an effect upon the public mind, event
in despite of the great majority of parliamentary
votes against it, that the deputies returned to Ire-
Jand, under the gratifying conviction, that the
numerical triumph of the minister had rather for-
warded, than retarded the progress of their cause
with the empire at large. The Parliament was still
pressed with Irish matter. The Marquis of Aber-
corn was indefatigable in his persecution of Judge
Fox. His Lordship's pride and resentment were
stimulated by the ferocious and blind sympa-
thies of the interested tools of the system, which
the integrity and firmness of the judge exposed
and punished. It is difficult to say, whether the
malice or rashness of the judge's persecutors were
predominant. It was matter of notoriety, that
the whole of Lord Abercorn's parliamentary interest
had been devoted to Mr. Pitt, en the special con-
dition of his being allowed the aid and countenance
of the minister in crushing the upright judge, who
had virtuously dared to make head against the sys-
tem As the minister had artfully avoided making
it a government question, he assumed no responsi-
bility for the irregularities and inconsistencies of
the proceedings up to the present time. The more
they were impartially considered, even by the most
obsequious tools of the system, the more unconsti-
tutional in principle, and unwarrantable in practice
did they appear.
Nearly two years had now
elapsed, since he original ground of the alleged
offences had existed, aud after the great variety
and rancorous nature of the proceedings in Parlia-

い