descript fowl could not be touched or looked at, from the fear of injuring the wind-pipe;—some, who protested against them, were yet compelled to support them, to keep alive the body. The two subsidiary bills were just carried sufficiently far to pick up the doubting votes on " the right and the left," and to secure the passing of the main one, and then they seemed to be forgotten. The latter was passed and sent to the Peers without them, to be decided on without them, when the Peers could neither have any constitu- tional knowledge that they existed, nor any certainty that they would reach the Upper House. Those who, in ef- fect, held in their hands the majority of the House of Commons, saw the Lords called upon to decide on the re- lief bill without the securities which induced them to pass it. The bill which the Lords had to decide upon was, in strict truth, a perfectly differ- ent one from that which had passed the Commons, and yet they were com- pelled to regard it as the same. The business was very far from being free from trickery and deception. The security chiefly relied on was that for taking the Catholic priesthood into the pay of the nation. It was that which gained the wavering votes and secured the majority. Now, why was not this security introduced into the main bill, instead of forming a separate one ? Whatever might be the case with Mr Lyttleton's measure, it seems unac- countable that the payment of the priests was not made one of the provi- sions of the Catholic relief bill, when it was to procure votes for the latter, and not to deprive it of them. There was a reason. It was, we believe, known to the chief framers and sup- porters of the bill for paying thepriests, that it could not pass into a law, even if the other bills should do so. Some of them rrr:st have known this; yet these individuals assured the members who voted for the relief bill solely on condition that it should be accompa- nied by the one for paying the priests, that if the one bill became law, the other would likewise. Now, had one bill comprehended the provisions of both, it could not have become opera- tive as a law, contrary to the sense of the majority of the House of Com- mons ; but, as matters were, the dis- abilities might have been removed, both against the sense, and, even in reality, against the vote, of this ma- jority ! This took place not touching a pet- ty question, an enclosure act, or a new company bill, but touching a measure of the most gigantic importance a measure vitally affecting the interests of the empire. It is, in sooth, new in English legislation it is, in sooth, a new method of managing the interests of England. If anything could make us detest the legislation of lawyers, it certainly would be proceedings like these. We care not who were the au- thors of them we care not whether they were Irishmen or Scotchmen we will tell them, that such things will not do in England. We are a plain, blunt, straight-forward people; and what we scorn above all other things is imposition. We will now say a word or two on certain parts of the debates in the House of Commons, which seem to call for some notice. On one occasion, Mr Brougham very truly declared it to be highly uncon- stitutional to use the King's name in Parliament for the purpose of influen- cing the votes of the members. At the same moment, and in the same speech, Mr Brougham used the King's name evidently for this purpose. On several occasions, this learned individual de- clared, that the King must be, and was, friendly to the removal of the Catholic disabilities. Ourreaders know that this was as unwarrantable as it was unconstitutional. We will say no more; we will not drag his Majes- ty's name into the question : but we will advise Mr Brougham and his friends to wait until the King shall declare himself, before they hoist over themselves the royal standard. We- have perhaps at present quite as much- right to do it as they have. It is a fact, although posterity will never believe it, that some members voted for the removal of the disabili- ties on the ground of its being con- trary to " liberality" to retain them. Such portentous consequences will fa- shion sometimes produce among weak heads and pliant principles. Libera- lity, however, has, upon the whole, fared very scurvily in the business. It has received such a thump on the head from the agitation of the Catholic question, as has stretched it in its last agonies. We need say but little on the ex-
