a situation that should reflect credit upon them. He considered that their tastes individually were at stake. The money might be easily raised, and as easily disposed of; but at least let them recollect what was due to themselves and to the character of the nation, in the selection they made of a depository. Let them not subject themselves to the same sort of ridicule for an abortive attempt to rival their neighbours in such a selection, which the poet who had satirized the taste of England as it prevailed in his day, seemed to imply in these lines

"So when some cit his weak invention racks

"To dine, like peers, at Boodle's or Almack's; "Three roasted geese salute th' astonished

eyes,

"Three legs of mutton, and three butter'd pies."

To return, however, to the trustees. They, at length, imported taste from a country, which was said indeed to have been once the land of arts and sciences; they bought and imported from Egypt a head of Memnon; and, having got it safely home, they discovered that it stood rather higher than their ceiling. Then they wanted a place to hold the head, and two other huge Egyptian relics of a singular shape; so they built a double cube, which was the continuation of the aforesaid parallelogram. Unfortunately, it turned out that this head of Memnon was a dev'lish long head; insomuch that they were obliged to raise the ceiling of his closet somewhat higher; so that the roof of the closet which held the Townley Venus was of one elevation, and the roof of the closet which enclosed the Memnon's head of another. In all that he had said, he would wish the House to observe, that no doubt could exist as to the purity and disinterestedness with which the affairs of the British Museum were administered. No person could in reason doubt of the earnestness or zeal of the trustees: all that he complained of was, that that zeal had hitherto taken a rather tortuous and unsightly direction. He would submit to the House, that in regard to any proposed new building for these books, a wholesome doubt ought to be entertained about their selection of the architecture. It had been said, that this was a new era of taste in England; and he hoped the truth of the assertion would be testified in that selection. In conclusion, he would suggest that it would be better, by way of amendment, to leave out of the motion

all the words which had relation to the British Museum, and make the grant of money to the king merely, to be disposed of by and with the advice of parliament.

Mr. Bankes, as an individual connected with the important trusts of which the management of the British Museum was the principal object, felt that a very personal attack had been made upon himMr. Croker disclaimed any intention of making a personal attack.

Mr. Bankes said, that however that might be, the hon. gentleman had not been very scrupulous to adhere to facts as they now stood; and, from the total error under which he appeared to labour as to the internal arrangement of the Museum, he was apt to suppose that the hon. gentleman had not very lately visited that establishment. He had described the forms of the rooms in a manner totally at variance with the fact. First, with respect to the Townley Venus, it was placed in a kind of rotunda, which had no more resemblance to the form of their table than a circle had to a square. A second mistake of the hon. gentleman was, his de. scription of the building said to be fitted up for the reception of Memnon's head, but which had in reality been fitted up for the reception of two curiosities, one of which was an extraordinary sarcophagus, which had been given by his majesty. Again, with respect to the staircase, which had afforded the hon. member an opportunity of lugging in the battle of Copenhagen and lord Nelson head and shoulders, he had only to say, that the joke, however apparently good, was lost; inasmuch as the staircase of the British Museum was not of wood but of stone, and was considered the handsomest thing in the metropolis, being curiously supported upon the principle of a half arch. The hon. gentleman then entered iuto a general defence of the conduct of the trustees, and declared his intention of opposing the amendment.

Sir C. Long defended the conduct of the trustees, and said that the hon. secretary of the Admiralty was completely misinformed as to what had passed in the committee.

Mr. Bennet complained of the want of convenience which was felt in the British Museum, and said that much money had been expended on that building to very little purpose.

Mr. Hudson Gurney said, he should vote with the chancellor of the exchequer.

There was immediate and pressing necessity to provide a fire-proof building for the manuscripts and documents of all sorts preserved in the Museum; and if we were to wait till the magnificent plans proposed by gentlemen could be realized, the end might be, that we should see nothing would be done. At the same time (the hon. member said), he rejoiced at so strong and universal an expression of a feeling, that the establishment should be more adequately supported; and adverted to the late negotiation with Mr. Salt for his Egyptian antiquities, in which he considered Mr. Salt had not been met by the trustees on the part of the public, with the liberality, which, in common fairness, he merited.

Mr. Maberly thought, that the disposition of the money which was to be expended in a new building should be placed in the hands of a committee.

Mr. Hobhouse rose to withdraw his motion. He would take that opportunity of observing, that his hon. and learned friend had attacked, not any thing, certainly, which he (Mr. H.) had stated, but something which he had himself advanced. Like Tom Thumb, "he made the giants first, and then he killed them.” His hon, and learned friend had broached a plan which was as liable to objection as any that had been proposed from any other quarter [a laugh].

Mr. Croker moved as an amendment, that the words "British Museum," in the original motion, be omitted.

The committee divided; the numbers were, for the original motion 54, against it 30.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, June 23.

BRITISH ROMAN CATHOLICS TESTS REGULATION BILL.] Lord Nugent, on rising to move the order of the day for the committing of this bill, said;-I trust the House will indulge me with leave to make a few observations. When I first offered to the House, the observations that occurred to me in its support, I stated that I had carefully avoided an communication with those who were principally the objects of it. I stated then, as I feel still, that I should have very much regretted the seeing them petition for any act of imperfect toleration like this. I should have very much regretted the placing them within so painful

an alternative as that of choosing between, on the one hand, a high spirited disclaimer of the whole of this measure, and, on the other, the approaching you to pray to be placed upon an equality in point of privilege with those whose conditions. they still feel and I think most justly, feel, to be one of grievance and indignity. It was on this conduct of mine at that time for which, if it was erroneous in judgment, they were in no respect answerable, that an argument, of some singularity at least, was founded by my hon. friend, the member for the university of Cambridge. He seemed to feel that, even if this measure were founded in policy and in justice, still the case in support of it would be incomplete, until it had been urged upon your consideration by the parties themselves. Until they had told you that what was just in itself would also be beneficial to them. Sir, I would never have proposed to them such an alternative, nor could I at the time agree with my hon. friend, who, not very consistently as I think, while he was protesting against admitting the Roman Catholics to any share of what he would term political power, would at the same time make the impression of their opinions a sine qua non with the House upon the question of, whether or no we should pass a law. I am the less disposed now to repent the course I in that respect adopted, because I am rather disposed to suspect that, even if I had adopted the contrary course, I should scarcely have removed any part of the real difficulty my hon. friend must always feel in supporting any measure for the relief of the Roman Catholics. Having, however, done what, on that oc casion I felt to be my duty, in laying their case and the purport of my bill before you, it is some satisfaction to me to find that they do not disapprove of the conduct I have pursued. If they had I should certainly have very much regretted it. The more so because it would have subjected me to a repetition of my hon. friend's argument. But I should not on that account have altered my views nor swerved from my object. My object never was, to obtain favour from them. It was, as far as I might be enabled, to obtain justice for them. It was not to reconcile their opinions, it was to do them service; and through them allow me to say, to do service to the country, with the great body of the people of which it is my wish to reunite the Roman Catholics in

privilege and in sentiment, undistinguishingly and inseparably. It is, however, satisfactory to me to find that I have not misconceived their wishes or opinions. At a meeting of the most considerable persons of their body, held since I first introduced this bill to your notice, it was resolved, that they approved of this bill, I quote their own words, as of one which, "brought under the consideration of parliament without any participation on their part, they are convinced would enable them, in the discharge of new duties, still farther to evince their zealous attachment to the institutions of their country." And now, Sir, the bill is in the hands of the House, and the House will this night determine whether it answers the objects, or whether in any respect it goes beyond the objects, to which the House the other night gave its pretty general sanction. The objects of the bill are two-fold. First, the elective franchise, and secondly, under the limitations of the act of 93 in · Ireland, and under the conditions of the annual Indemnity bill, the magistracy and certain offices. The first of these provisions, the elective franchise, is by far the simpler-It resolves itself into a question of principle only. This object was met by the right hon. secretary for the home department with that candour and frankness which characterizes every part of his conduct in this House, and on which I am sure he would feel, that no compliment ought to be paid, or received. It would be impertinent, in the one sense of that phrase, to the question, and almost an impertinence, in the other sense of the phrase, to himself. He will, I trust, however, allow me to say, that these qualities in him, while they increase ten-fold the value of his support, render his opposition always much more formidable, because always much more consistent and much more respectable, when a sense of what he feels to be his public duty deprives a measure of his sanction. Even to the friends of Catholic Emancipation it is some consolation that, by him whose opposition is the most to be deplored, their wishes never fail to be encountered in a spirit of manliness, which would scorn to avail itself of any topics, or of any means which he would feel to be unworthy equally of the subject and of himself. On the subject of the offices, I wish to address myself principally to him, and to my hon. friend the member for the city of Oxford, in consequence of what fell from them on a preceding

evening. They have more than once expressed themselves as attaching great value and importance to the provisions of the Test act; as considering them valuable and important securities to the Established Church. Now Sir, I do feel that any disguise on my part would be unpardonable. It would be an ill return to them for what I feel to be the spirit of candour and unreserve with which they have met me. It would be bad policy with regard to the bill itself, which, unless it can be fairly carried without any disguise of opinion or compromise of principle, I have no hesitation in saying ought never to pass. Sir, whenever the provisions of the Test act may come fairly under discussion, I should be prepared to say, that, so far from considering them to be any real security to the Established Church, I think its best security would be found in their total repeal. Because I believe that no established church can long subsist securely, or even beneficially, in a state, excepting as founded upon the affections of a great majority of the people, except also as founded in that perfect freedom and toleration with which any laws to incapacitate politically other sects are incompatible. In this feeling, and for the sake also of a body much more important in point of numbers and of political influence in the state, than the Roman Catholics, I mean the Protestant Dissenters, I cannot but look forward with eager hopes to the ultimate repeal of the Test act. I cannot consider it to be, as an honourable gentleman assumed it the other night to be, a

fundamental law, because I find, from the history of the times in which it was passed, and from the contemporary authority of some who were parties to it, that it was passed for temporary objects, and that it was passed in times of great heat and violence, and popular delusion. I cannot consider it as an operative act, because I find that practically, systematically, invariably, annually, for near a century, it has been voted by a succession of Indemnity bills, that it is not by the provisions of the Test act, but against the provisions of the Test act, that protection can alone be afforded. Still, Sir, desirable as I may think the repeal of this law to be, I must conform my wishes to what may appear to me a practical object, and I should think myself acting most unworthily, could I attempt covertly to cancel or contravene what I am not prepared directly to attack. The

right hon. gentleman, therefore, and my hon. friend, the member for the city of Oxford, will perceive, that by my bill neither of the securities of the Test act is repealed. A certain number, it is true, and a very limited number, of offices, is practieally withdrawn from under the operation of one of the provisions of the Test act, namely, the declaration against popery. The other provision, namely, the sacramental test, still remains operative over the whole range of offices. In this view, if I render myself intelligible to the House, I wish my bill to be considered. The effect of it will be, to render the British Catholics admissible to those offices which are already open to the Irish by the bill of 93. But, in this respect, to leave them still in a condition lower in point of privilege than the Irish, that they may only hold those specified offices under the same conditions as those under which all offices are open to the Protestant Dissenters. Sir, with every feeling I entertain on the subject of the Test act, with every feeling I entertain on the subject of universal and perfect religious toleration, and those feelings are confirmed by every year's reflection and experience, I do feel myself, in respect of this bill, bound to the House by a pledge which it would be, if possible, more dishonourable in me to attempt to evade than even directly to violate. It has been demanded of me, why I relieve the whole magistracy of the country from the oath and declaration against popery. Sir, a considerable portion of the magistracy do not take them now. Remember they are, as well as the sacramental test, made conditions subsequent by the Test act. So that, in truth, it is now little more in practice than an exploit of purely gratuitous zeal, that makes a man, qualifying for the magistracy, volunteer to charge with idolatry four-fifths of the Christian world, and the whole Christian church for at least seven centuries before the Reformation. But, Sir, for another reason, and a pretty strong one in my mind, I have adopted this course that my avowed object being, in respect of these offices, to place the British Catholics on the same footing with the Irish Catholics and the British Protestant Dissenters, I should defeat that object if I left the Catholic magistrate under the obligation of one oath, and all other magistrates under the obligation of another oath. For example: two gentlemen, a Protestant and a Catholic,

qualify together for the magistracy; the one, we will suppose the Catholic, takes an oath, such as the wisdom of this House might provide for his case, but beginning I, B. A. am a Catholic; the other, being a Protestant, turns round upon his brother magistrate elect, and says, in the presence of God, and under the obligation of an oath, I declare that you are an idolator. Sir, would this be a becoming, or an useful scene to exhibit at the qualification of two persons to fill the same important office? What is the oath it is proposed to me to tender to the Catholic who qualifies? The oath called Dr. Duigenan's oath of 93? Sir, for two reasons, I never will propose such an oath. The oath begins by an absurdity in terms. It requires a man to swear that he considers himself bound by the objection of an oath. Did the mind of man ever conceive a greater practical absurdity? But it goes on to make the Catholic swear that he abhors fraud and murder. Sir, what right have we to pass upon them this cold-blooded insult? I know, the House knows, every man with whom one reasons on these matters, at least every man whom it is worth reasoning with on any matters at all, knows that the Roman Catholic abhors these doctrines with as deep an abhorrence as we do. I will not, then, enact such an oath; I will not insult the Deity by calling on his name to witness a rank and drivelling absurdity; I will not insult my fellow Christians, and fellow Englishmen, by calling on them to swear that they do not consider themselves absolved from every tie the most sacred to civilized man. If any other gentleman should attach any value to such an oath, and suggest the insertion of it, sooner than lose the whole benefit of the object I am contending for, I would, doubtless, with whatever reluctance, submit to its insertion. But it shall not be willingly on my part that such an oath shall ever find its way into a bill of mine. Sir, I was accused by an hon. member, the other night, with having changed my ground, and departed from the spirit in which I had opened my intentions on a former evening. To the judgment of the House I appeal whether I have changed my ground or not. To the hon. member I content myself with denying the fact.

With regard to the magistracy, it is perhaps known to the House that there are a few instances of Roman Catholics now acting in the commission. I know