vocal terms. They fay, that they think themselves" bound by an oath which they have already taken, and that they are ready to ftrengthen the obligation by a new oath, to defend, to the utmoft of their power, the civil and ecclefiaftical eftablishment of the country, even though all the Catholic powers in Europe, with the Pope him felf at their head, were to levy war against the King for the exprefs purpose of eftablishing the Roman Catholic religion." My Lords, there are other points in this oath which Roman Catholicks, I think, muft fcruple. I believe the gentlemen of the Catholic Committee, who declared themfelves ready to take this oath, will fee fome difficulty in particuJar parts of it, when they confider the full import of certain terms. But, my Lords, I fhall go no further at prefent in this detail; I will only fay in general, that there are parts of the oath which I myself would refufe to take. My Lords, I mutt obferve, that the gentlemen of the Catholic Committee, and the party that as with them, who fcruple no part of this cath, declare that they, equally with the fcrupulous party, maintain the Pope's fpiritual fupremacy; they are shocked, that the denial of it fhould be imputed to them. Your Lordships, therefore, perceive that the two parties are perfecily equal in the degree of affection, or difaffection, take it which way you will, that they bear to the Government of the country. Therefore, I cannot fee upon what principle a relief, which is granted to the one, fhould be denied to the other. It may be laid, this relief is a matter, not of right, but of mere grace and favour; and that the perfon who confers a favour may, at his own will and plea fure, prefcribe the conditions on which he will beftow it. But, my Lords, the favours of a Government are furely to be difpenfed by fome rule of diftribution, and that rule ought to be an equal one. My Lords, it ought not to be a rule of arbitrary election and reprobation, making a diftinction of perfons, where there is no difference of character, in the degree of civil merit. My Lords, I have heard it faid, not in this Houle, but out of doors, that the Legiflature has nothing to do with the difputes of thefe people among themfelves; that it may be rather an object of good policy to promote and in cicate their divifions, as it may be a means of weakening the ftrength of the party. My Lords, the maxim, divide et impera, if it be ever wife, is wife only in defpotical governments. My Lords, if it be wife in fuch governments, it is becaufe fuch governments are radically unjuft; the relation of the governor and the governed to each other being that of enemies. But in governments such as this, under which we have the happinefs to live, it is a wicked maxim." In our Conftitution, the promoting of the happiness of the governed is not only the duty but the actual object of Government, and the aim of all its operations and of all its measures. In fuch a government union and harmony amongst citizens of ali defcriptions is to be defired, and it should be the endeavour of the Government to promote it, as the means of binding the love and affectjons of all to the Conftitution. But, my Lords, admitting, for a moment, that we have nothing to do with the difputes of thele people among themfelves, yet your Lordships furely have to do with the justice and equity of your own proceedings. Now confider, my Lords. Upon what principle were the penal laws againft the Roman Ca. thoiicks first introduced? Certainly upon this principle, that the Roman Ca tholicks in general were difaffected fubjects. Upon what principle would the Legiflature now relieve any Roman Catholicks from thofe laws? Certainly, my Lords, upon this principle, that the Leg flature acquits thofe, to whom it extends the relief, of the crime and fulpicion of difaffection. Upon what principle is the relief, which is extended to fome, with-held from others? Certainly upon no juft principle but this, that thofe others ftill lie, in the eye of the Legiflature, under a fufpicion of difaffection. Thus, my Lords, by palling a law which will give only a partial relief, you will impress a ftigma of difaffection upon the party not relieved; which, in my judgement, if there be no ground for fufpecting them, would be the height of cruelty and injuftice. But, my Lords, give me leave to fay, that though your Lordships would indeed have nothing to do with any dif putes among the Roman Catholick, upon controverted points of their own divinity, the matter and the fate of the prefent difpute are fuch, that your Lord 30 Parliamentary Proceedings of Lords and Commons for 1791. [Sept. Chips have much to do with it, in forming a judgement upon the prefent bill. The matter in difpute is the propriety of the oath, as it ftands in this bill; which oath the one party is ready to accept, the other reprobates. The difpute began in terms of mutual refpect and great moderation; but, as it went on, both fides, as is the cafe in all difputes, grew warmer. Both fides have now loft all temper; and the quarrel, a religious quarrel, my Lords, is raging. The fcrupulous Catholicks fpeak of the writings on the other fide as fchifmatical, fcandalous, and inflammatory. The Catholic Committee charge the former with inculcating principles hoftile to fociety and governinent, and to the confiitution and laws of the British Empire. My Lords, thefe reproaches are, I think, unmerited on either fide; but they are, for that reafon, the stronger Symptoms of intemperate heat on both fides. My Lords, this bill, fhould it pafs into a law, will not mitigate the quarrel, but inflame it; and, as it reenacts the penal laws against all thofe, who, from their fcruples about the bath, cannot bring themfelves within the benefit of it; the Roman Catholicks that will be relieved by this bill will be impowered to inforce thofe laws against their more fcrupulous brethren, with whom they are quarreling. My Lords, the hiftory of the Church too clearly proves, that men, whofe minds are inflamed with religious controverfy, are not to be trufled with fuch weapons. My Lords, when I look at the names of the gentlemen who compofe the Catholic Committee, men of high birth, of diftinguished probity and honour, I cannot for a moment fuppofe, that any of them would purfue the quarrel with their adverfaries in that bafe manner. But, my Lords, the leaders of a party cannot always command the paflions of their followers; and your Lordships will have no fecurity that this may not be done, but the liberality and honour of the individuals. And is it wile or juft, my Lords, to put any innocent man in the power of his enemy, relying only on the good difpofition of that onemy, to refrain him from the abule of that power, which you put into his hands? My Lords, if the party relieved by this bill thould take the advantage, which the law will give them, against the other party, a horrible perfecution will arife. My Lords, I hudder at the feene of terror and contulion which my imagination fets before me, when, under the operation of this partial law, fhould it unfortunately receive your Lordships' fanction, mifcreants of bafe informers may be enriched with the fortunes, our gaols may be crouded with the perfons, and our streets may ftream with the blood, of confcientious men, and of good fubjects! And of all this cruelty, my Lords, if it fhould take place, the laws of the country will get the credit. My Lords, I am aware that it may feem to your Lordships that there is an eafy answer to all this: fend the bill to a Committee, and amend the oath. My Lords, there is the difficulty. I fear, that we are not competent to make fuch amendments in the oath, as may obviate the mifchief. My Lords, look at the fate of the controverfy among the Roman Catholicks. Three of the four Roman Catholic Bishops, who call themselves the apoftolical vicars for the four diftricts of this country; three out of thefe four have promulgated an encyclical letter, in which they reprobate the oath as it ftands in the prefent bill and they go farther; they advance this principle, that a confcientious Catholick ought not to take any oath, declaratory of any opinion upon doctrinal points, till it has received the approbation of the ecclefiaftical fuperiors. The gentiemen of the Catholic Committee exclaim against this as an extravagant firetch of authority. I confefs, my Lords, I fee no extravagance in it. I believe, were I a Roman Catholick, I should think it my duty to fubmit to it. But the Catholic Committee are indignant under this ufurpation of authority, as they think it, of the apoftolical vicars; and a paper has appeared, figned by the gentlemen of the Committee, which I know not very well what to call. My Lords, it looks fomething like an appeal to the Pope; and yet I can hardly tuppofe, that an appeal to him has been actually made, or that this is a copy of a paper fent as a formal appeal to Rome. But the Committee fay, "We appeal to all the Catholic Churches in the univerfe, and efpecially to the first of all Catholic churches, the apoftolical feerightly informed." My Lords, if this be an appeal to the fee of Rome, or if it be a notice of an intended appeal-and, my Lords, it must be fomething-it should feem that the Legiflature cannot Air a ftep further. For it would be perfectly nugatory to pals a law to give re llef upon the condition of an oath, when the perfons, to whom the relief is offered, are divided into two parties, one of which fay, "We cannot take this oath," the others fav, "We muft go to Rome, and afk the Pope, whether, under the circumftance of the interdict of the ecclefiaftical fuperiors, we may take the oath or no." And, my Lords, fup. pose you amend the oath; what affurance can your Lordships have, that the apoftolical vicars will approve the oath as amended by your Lordships? If they fhould not approve it, the more fcrupulous Roman Catholicks will not take it. My Lords, the remedy for this feems to me to be unique. The remedy would be, to find an oath which may be fufficient for the fecurity of Government, and which the majority of the Roman Catholicks have already taken, and the apoftolical vicars, having themfelves taken it, must approve. Such, my Lords, is the oath which was required of the Roman Catholicks by the law of 1778; and I am very forry that that oath was not adopted in this bill. But, from what I have heard, I have much doubt whether, if we go into a Committee, we fhall be unanimous upon a motion for fubftituting that oath inftead of the oath that now ftands in the bill. And for this reafon, my Lords, I fear the bill is incurable*. My Lords, I have detained you much longer than I thought to have done. It only remains that I thank your Lordhips for the patient attention with which I have been honoured; and that I make it my requeft, that any expreffion that may have efcaped me, in the courfe of a fpeech in print of language in many parts quite unpremeditated, may be candidly interpreted. My Lords, what most of all I deprecate is, that I may not be fufpected of infincerity in my profeffions of an abhorrence of the peal laws; that my objecting to the commitment of this bill may not be deemed a stratagem of mine, to get rid of the bufinefs altogether, and difap * In this apprehenfion the Bishop had the pleasure to find himself mistaken. In the Committee of the whole Houfe upon the bill (June 4th), the oath, as it stood, was, upon the Bishop's own motion, expunged, and the oath, taken by the Roman Catholicks in Ireland in the year 1774, with fome very flight alterations, fabftituted. The Irish oath is in effect the fame with the oath of 1778, and, of the two, is drawn with the greater accuracy. point the petitioners at your Lordships bar, in their juft expectations of relief. My Lords, I call the great Searcher of Hearts to witnefs, that there is no fuch duplicity, no fuch malice, in my intention. My Lords, if your Lordships fhould be moved by what has been faid by me, or what may be faid with more ability by others to the fame effect, to reject this bill, rather than that the Roman Catholicks should be finally unre lieved, I would pledge myself to your Lordships, to the Roman Catholicks, and to my country, to bring in a bill, early in the next feffion, which should not be pregnant with the mischiefs which feem to me the certain confe quences of this bill. But 1 fhould hope, that your Lordships would not leave a matter of fuch moment to the difcretion and abilities of any individual Lord, but that your Lord hips will think proper to name a Committee to revife all the fubfifting laws againft the Roman Catholicks, and to frame a bill for the repeal of fuch as may with fafety be repealed. The only objection that I can fee to fuch a measure is the delay; for it is much too late in the feffion to begin fuch a bufinefs. But, my Lords, in a matter of this magnitude and importance, the Legidature fhould think little of the delay of a few months; nor ought the Roman Catholicks themfelves to murmur at a delay, which may con duce to put the relief they folicit upon a broad and permanent bafis." Lord Stanhope thought the parties had a right to the indulgences the bill went to allow; that the objections might be obviated in the Committee; and was again any delay. The Duke of Leeds profeffed himself to have a high opinion of the complying difpofitions of the Catholicks to the laws of this country, and that they were entitled to every indulgence that could be given them without innovating the Conftitution; but being of opinion it ought to be given in a more liberal and extenfive manner than was the cafe in the prefent bill, he was of opinion that adjourn ing it till the next feffions would give an opportunity of torming one more congenial to what was evidently the wishes of their Lordships. The Bishop of Peterborough thought there was not fufficient fecurity for their not encroaching upon the Proteftant re ligion; he had no objection to thofe of the Catholic perfuation being relieved from any perfecutions, but hoped it might 832 Parliamentary Proceedings.-Spelman Monument. not be ill done at the hazard of our own. Lord Fauconberg was fo much of opinion that the bill did not go to that extent it was intended, that he moved it to be committed for that day month. Lord Loughborough thought that fuch a delay might be dangerous, and inftanced the tumults of 1780, which, he faid, had their origin in the interval between the propofing and the paffing of a bill upon the fame fubject. He alfo thought, that all the objections to the bill might be very eafily obviated in a Committee. The Marquis of Lanfdown was for going into the Committee; and though there had, even of late, been times in which the intentions of the Catholicks might have appeared dangerous, as when the Pope bleffed the fword of Marthal Daun, in the feven years war, he thought that the Catholicks of the present day might be fafely relieved from oppreffion. The Bishop of Salisbury hoped that, if the bill reached a Committee, it would be very seriously attended to there, as he thought many claufes wanted amendment. Lord Grenville wifhed the bill to go into a committee; where, if it could not be made to answer the wishes of the Noble Lords, an adjournment would be made with more propriety. Lord Fauconberg withdrew his motion. The bill was read a fecond time, and ordered to a Committee on Friday next. In the Commons, the fame day, Mr. Jolliffe, upon the report of the alehouse licenfing bill, moved to infert a claufe, rendering it neceffary for a certain number of inhabitants, not lefs than feven, paying fcot and lot, to fign the requifition for granting a licence, upon which the Houfe divided, Ayes 32, Noes 5. The Houfe having resolved itself into a Committee on the bill, to remove all doubts refpecting the rights of Juries to decide by a general verdict in all criminal cafes, Mr. M. A. Taylor in the chair, The Solicitor General propofed, as an amendment to the firft enacting claufe, the infertion of words to the following effect; that, with the affillance and direction of the Judge, in all matters of law, the Jury should give, if they thought proper, a general verdict of Guilty, or Not Guilty, upon the whole matter put in iffue upon the indictment. This gave rife to a very long, but uninterefting, converfation, in which Mr. Fox, Mr. Bragge, Mr., Harrison, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Bearcroft, Mr. Serjeant Watjon, and other gentlemen, oppofed the amend ment, and proposed others in its Acad. [Sept. The Solicitor General at length withdrew his amendment, and offered a provifo in nearly the fame words; which, after a further converfation, was agreed to. The Houfe, in a committee, went through the Quo Warranto bill, brought in by Mr. Fox.-Ordered to be reported. June 1. There being only thirty members in the House at four o'clock, no butiness. H. OF LORDS. Lord Stormont wished to be informed when a bill of the greatest magnitude, namely, the corn bill, now lying upon their Lordships' table, was to be taken into confideration. Lord Catbeart immediately moved, that the bill be then read a second time; which caufed a debate, wherein Lords Loughborough, Stormont, Lauderdale, and King, were againft its being read fo foon; and Lords Cathcart and Hawkefbury, and the Duke of Montrose, were for its being then read a fecond time; which was carried without a divifion, and ordered to be committed for tomorrow. (To be continued.) Mr. URBAN, Aug. 6. AMONG the monuments of the M.S. Henrici Spelman de Wickmere in Norfolcia armigeri, patre Clemente, barone de Scachario, avo Henrico equite aurato, fcriptis celeberrimo, tum fuis maxime meritis clari, qui inventa fundata Londini focietate ad reparanda damna ex incendiis oriunda et urbis æter nitati confulunt et suæ. P. Patruo Wilhelmus Spelman hæres defuncto 19 Novembris A.D. 1698, a. æt. 18. Do any of your readers know any thing more of this fociety, which feems to have laid the foundation of the affurance-offices against fire? The Hand in Hand was the firft of thefe, being eftablifhed in 1696, by about 100 perions, who afterwards formed a deed of fettlement, enrolled in chancery, Jan, 24, 1698. Qu. Was this the society wherein Mr. Spelman was concerned? The Sun Fire-office was founded in 1706; the Union in 1714; the London about the fame time, their fecond charter be ing granted in 1721; and the Royal Exchange at the fame time. Yours, &c. CURIOSUS. 131. The A 131. The London Medical Journal, for the Year 1789. Part the Fourth. 8vo. RTICLE I. An Account of a remarkable Difeafe of the Heart, Lungs, and one of the external Mamma; with the morbid Appearances as they prefented on Diffection. By Mr. Robert Kinglake, Surgeon at Chipping-Norton, in Oxford hire. Every endeavour to investigate the caufes of difeafes deferves well of the community at large, but more particularly of medical practitioners; and it is certainly a valuable acquifition when we can difcover, by ocular teftimony, what has eluded the refearches of our closest reflection. Inftances frequently happen where diffcctions prove the most plaufible theories to have been founded in error; and the cafe now before us, which is of a very curious and extraordinary nature, feems, in fome meafure, to justify the truth of this remark. The fubject of this cafe was a young woman, named Catherine Kinch, of Enftone, in the county of Oxford, who, about the year 1786, being then in her 21ft year, began to complain of an uneafy fenfe of motion at her heart, which The attributed to a jolt fhe had recently received when riding in a carriage. From this period feems to have been dated the commencement of a difcafe that afterwards became a fource of inceffant afiction, and terminated in death. To relieve this diftreffing complaint, various medicines were tried, without effect. Bleeding was found, by experience, to be the only fure means of leffening the patient's fufferings. It was, therefore, had recourfe to, perhaps with an unprecedented frequency, fince, in the fpace of two years, we find that it was repeated no lefs than 312 times. About four ounces were the average quantity of blood taken away at a time; a lefs quantity being found, by experience, to have no effect. The operation was repeated, at first, twice a week, then every other day, and, latterly, every day. The relief derived from it was uniformly the fame. Mr. K. oblerves, that, to defcribe the be"nelit gained by each bleeding would "be to exhibit the difference between "the molt acting pain and compara "tive eafe." But fuch was the fatal complication of difeafe, that nothing more than temporary palliation could be obtained. The patient gradually funk, and died in May, 1789, in the GENT. MAG. September, 3791、 most tabid ftate imaginable. On diffection, Mr. K. found, among other morbid appearances, feveral diftinct fleshy concretions, refembling polypis of different fizes, in the right auricle of the heart; and in the trunk, or rather in the tunics of the pulmonary artery. about half an incli beyond its figmoidal valves, a hard fiony fubftance, weighing about half a drachm, and projecting fo far into the cavity of the artery as very much to abridge its capacity. ART. II. Facts relative to the SmallPox. Communicated, in a Letter to Dr. Simmons, by Mr. Thomas Davidson, Surgeon in Carriacou. "In the month of January, 1786, upwards of 1500 perfons, the greater number of whom were Negroes, were inoculated for the fmall pox upon this ifland; and at that time a Negro woman, then in the third or fourth month of her pregnancy, underwent the difeafe. She was inoculated on the 11th of January, 1786, and was delivered of a girl about the fame time of July following. This Negro girl, when near three years of age, was inoculated in both arms on the acth of May, 1789, with Ruid matter taken immeSuppuration of the arms took place as ufual,' diately from a perfon under the disease. and about the ninth day the eruptive fever commenced, which, three days afterwards, was fucceeded by a kind eruption of smallpox, to the number of forty or fifty puftules." From this cafe it appears, that the fmall-pox, feizing the mother while pregnant, will not always be communi cated to the child in utero; although there have been the moit undoubted proofs of this having fometimes happened. Another cafe occurred here; which, as being fomewhat fingular, we shall alfo extract, together with Mr. D's remarks on it. "A boy, about five years of age, having been inoculated with variolous matter upon a cotton thread, his arms fuppurated at the ufual time, but no fever or eruption enfued. This induced the furgeon who attended hint to apply fome fresh fluid matter to the fur face of the incitions which had been formerly made in his arms, and which were then pretty large. The application of fresh matter produced no other elect than another fuppuration, from which fresh matter was inoculated, who all had the difcafe correfurnished, and with it feveral others were fponding to the time when the operation this boy was infected naturally, and had a was performed. Some weeks afterwards, vaft number of small pox -Here the valiblous matter, being applied to an inflamed furtace, |