ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.

HL Deb 27 May 1808 vol 11 cc643-95

The order of the day being read for taking into consideration the Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, presented on the 12th of April, the said Petition was read by the clerk; after which,

Lord Grenville

rose and spoke as follows: My lords; I am now to bring before your lordships the important subject of the Petition which has just been read. I am sincerely sorry if its postponement to a later day than that which I had originally proposed has produced inconvenience to any member of this house, especially to those whose character and functions must give them peculiar interest in this debate, whichever side they may think it their duty to espouse. To their wishes I would gladly have shewn that attention to which they are so well entitled. But, for the sake of the cause entrusted to me, I was bound to consult also the convenience of others whose assistance on such an occasion I could not but be anxious to obtain. I have still, however, to regret the absence of one noble friend of mine (earl Grey), whose eloquence is so well calculated to adorn and to enforce any opinions which he honours with his support. That absence is owing solely to the same domestic circumstance which would before have prevented his attendance. He has particularly requested me to state this fact, and to declare to your lordships his full and complete concurrence in the motion which I am about to offer. A declaration which he was desirous that I should make, in order to obviate the possibility of misrepresentation; but which was wholly unnecessary to those who know his character. From an agreement with him on any subject I must always derive the greatest plea- sure; but I have peculiar satisfaction in claiming for this question, in the success of which I have been so long and so deeply interested, the full advantage of his high authority. In other respects the postponement has been extremely advantageous to the discussion of this night. To myself it is a source of unspeakable satisfaction. I know not what may be the feelings of others; no language can express the difference of my own sensations at the present hour, from those with which, only a few days since, I should have brought this subject forward. I allude to the effects already produced by the recent discussion of this matter in another assembly. From that discussion a dawn of better hope has risen upon the advocates of this great cause; and we enter on the duty of the present day with the cheering confidence of approaching to complete success. I speak not merely of the brilliant talents, and dignified moderation, with which the question was introduced; these were anticipated from the person who proposed it. The manner in which the subject was discussed, the statements which its agitation produced, and the impression which has been made upon the public mind, must lead to the most extensive and beneficial consequences. I am confident that the happy influence of that discussion will extend itself to this place, and that we shall all emulate that temper and moderation, that patriotism and wisdom, which are at this hour the theme of every tongue. Those certainly who see no other safety to their country but in conciliation and union, will be peculiarly careful so to speak and act on this memorable occasion, as it becomes men pursuing such a purpose. To myself I trust no fresh incitement was wanting for this determination. Three years ago, the temperate and conciliatory manner in which I then brought before you the same question, was acknowledged even by its warmest opponents. Such was the conduct which I then felt due, not only to my own character and to that of the petitioners, but also to the dignity of the great cause which they had entrusted to me. How much more is it now due to those flattering hopes of approaching success which animate all my exertions, and brighten all the prospects of my country! No sentiment, no word shall fall from me that can impede the happy progress of conciliation: nothing that can revive the memory of past animosities, or inflame those passions which we have, I trust, already consigned to eternal oblivion. There are, I know, among the warmest friends of conciliation, some who disapproved the choice which the petitioners have made of the time at which they come before you. Charged with presenting their Petition, I deemed it improper then to express any opinion on this point. They were the fittest judges of their own interests; and in laying their grievances before you at their own season, they exercised the undoubted right of British subjects. In the first session of the present parliament, I had, in stating to this house the general situation and prospects of the empire, pointed out to the new ministers, as their most urgent duty, the conciliation of the great mass of the people of Ireland. But I added, that while I recommended to the government to meet, and even to anticipate, the reasonable wishes of that body, I wished, on the other hand, to impress upon the Catholics themselves the patriotism and the wisdom of forbearance. This counsel I felt justified in offering as a tried and zealous, though hitherto unsuccessful, advocate of their cause. Of their intention to apply to you in the present session I was not informed until the resolution was adopted; had I been consulted I might probably have thought it for their interest to discourage it: the event has shewn how greatly I should have been mistaken. Yet even then I should have felt some difficulty in determining for others a question of such importance to their interests, and so much depending on local circumstances. Ever since the Union, the best and wisest men of that persuasion have laboured indefatigably to fix the attention of their fellow-subjects steadily on parliament, as the legitimate source of every political benefit, the centre of light and genial warmth which cheers and vivifies the empire. The maintenance of this sentiment is of the highest importance to the public welfare. This it is that requires the frequent renewal of these applications to the united legislature. It is the object of our enemies to drive the Catholic to despair. The endeavour of our friends must be to encourage, by frequent manifestations of the growing dispositions of this country, his just confidence of ultimate and approaching success. Many new circumstances had also arisen to influence this question. Neither the situation of Ireland, nor that of Europe, had remained unchanged during the last twelve months. The rapid revolution of this awful period outrun the slow deliberations of a temporising and timid policy. That measure which was before expedient, is now become necessary for the common safety. Let it not be delayed until it can be no longer useful. All the dangers, which it is calculated to avert, are at this moment impending over us—all the mischiefs which its suspension aggravates—all the evils which its refusal may render irremediable—are fast accumulating upon the British empire. The lines of circum-vallation are closing round us. Every port in Europe is barred to our commerce. Every nation armed against our existence. The fearful hour of trial is upon us; requiring all we can command of strength and power, of courage, energy, and virtue. Shall we complain, if in such a moment our fellow-subjects again desire to defend our common country—again entreat that they may partake in our exertions as they must share our danger—and renew their supplication for arms to be used in our cause and theirs, now in the very moment when the trumpet is sounding for the battle? They have also fresh authority to adduce in support of their request—powerful advocates, whose voice till this hour has never yet been raised in their behalf. Long has that unhappy country been distracted by religious animosity. Too much reason had we formerly to fear that conciliation to one class of our countrymen might to others be matter of offence and jealousy. Even in that state no other course was safe, as none was honourable, but that of equal and impartial justice. But this difficulty is now removed. The Protestants of Ireland desire the repeal of those disabilities which still attach upon their Catholic brethren. No longer confining themselves even to a friendly neutrality, they stand forward in behalf of their fellow subjects, and of their country. In eight or nine counties of Ireland they have testified publicly their anxiety for the success of this Petition. They whose rights these exclusions were supposed to protect, they whose monopoly they were intended to uphold, they come forward now and entreat you to extend to the whole population of your kingdom the inestimable benefit of equal laws. A circumstance of immortal honour to themselves—a pledge, I trust, of lasting union to their country. Under these circumstances, then, of fresh inducement and increased encouragement, with new arguments to your wisdom, with new claims upon your justice, the Petitioners repeat their appeal to this great assembly. And the experience of the last three days has confirmed their anxious hope, that the discussion could be productive only of advantage to the public interests. The motion which I mean to ground upon this Petition is—to refer it, without delay, to a committee of the whole house; not that I have myself any doubt that we ought to comply with it at once, and to its full extent; but because it is above all things desirable that the whole subject should be fully and deliberately investigated. Whenever this great measure shall be adopted, let it not be one of hasty and inconsiderate concession, on which the pressure of the times shall stamp the character of weakness; examine in detail all the bearings of the question; look into the whole situation of Ireland; satisfy your own judgments, both as to what you ought to grant, and at what period the concession should be made. Grant it because you think it just to be claimed and fit to be conceded, not merely because you feel it dangerous to be withheld. Consider also with what measures it ought to be accompanied, what course of policy is necessary to render its benefits effectual, what new safeguards its adoption may require. Far from wishing to endanger your constitution, the Petitioners declare themselves ready to support it at the hazard of their lives. To its security this measure will above all others effectually contribute. But if by any additional suggestions jealousy can be satisfied, and fear allayed; if in doing this great act of justice to the Catholics, you can at the same time gratify and benefit every other description of your subjects; that will indeed be work worthy of statesmen and legislators. These are the enquiries on which I propose that the house should enter. Questions of more extensive policy can never be submitted to your wisdom, nor a wider field opened to you for promoting the public happiness. Do not refuse to yourselves so glorious and necessary a task. Let it not be reproached to you in the history of your country's calamities, that your torpid indifference, or groundless apprehensions, suffered an opportunity to pass away which no repentance could afterwards recall! You have indeed been told that the supporters of this cause exaggerate the effects of a few remaining disqualifications: that we speak of their removal with all the confidence and ignorance of empirics; proposing it as the one marvellous and universal remedy for all the long-continued evils of that country. The reproach, I am confident, is unfounded. Such sentiments we have never entertained or uttered. Very different, at least, are my views of the extent of policy necessary for the peace and union, for the good government and happiness of Ireland. You cannot reasonably expect all these inestimable benefits from a single act of justice. It is much easier to forbear from further injury, than to remedy the mischiefs of past oppression. "The evil that men do lives after them." The consequences of misgovernment will long survive its authors; the effects of religious animosities will extend their influence through many generations. Let us apply ourselves, we cannot do it too soon, to annihilate the last remnants of a destructive system. But that state of your country which has resulted from it, will not so speedily be changed. The feelings of mutual distrust, the remembrance of mutual hostility, all the long-cherished offspring of a whole code and constitution of intolerance, these will yield only to the gradual though certain operation of a wiser and happier policy. Our first resolution should be to comply with this Petition; to remove every remaining civil disability on account of religious belief. This is the looked-for and natural consequence of the union; this is necessary, if not to redeem your plighted faith, at least to satisfy the just expectations which you then created. But this must be a part only of a large and comprehensive system. It was so considered by that great statesman, now no more, (Mr. Pitt) of whom I never think but with the warmest affection, respect, and admiration. Our opinions on this subject were not only in complete unison, but I may truly say they were formed together by mutual communication, and unreserved confidence. The plans which were then in contemplation embraced the whole ecclesiastical state of Ireland; its religious establishments, if such they may be called, in all their various branches. They included, in the first instance, measures of considerable benefit to the established church; calculated to promote both its honour and its advantage, and to render it (if I may use the expression without offence) far more adequate than it now can be to the purposes for which it was provided. A short statement will convince your ldships what ample occasion this matter alone affords for the exercise of your wisdom and liberality. By accounts which have been published, and have not, as far as I know, been disputed, it appears that two thousand four hundred parishes in Ireland are now consolidated into little more than eleven hundred benefices; of which reduced number more than a tenth part are absolutely without churches, and not four hundred have glebe houses. Surely your ldships must see, in such a state of things, better means of assisting the established Church, more satisfactory measures to be taken for the encouragement of the Protestant religion, than by any laws of exclusion or intolerance. Nor had the situation of the Dissenters, by far the most numerous Protestants in that country, been overlooked. Measures were in contemplation for increasing the provision which the wisdom of government had long since granted to their ministers. These measures have, I believe, since that period, been carried into effect; whether wholly or in part, I am not perfectly certain. The state of the Catholic Church in Ireland, administering to the spiritual wants of four millions of your people, had also been an object of deliberate consideration. Much has been said elsewhere of the influence of their bishops; and in a former debate even in this house, great stress was laid on the dangers of a Catholic hierarchy. If you tolerate the Catholic Church, which is episcopal, you must of course allow it to have its bishops. But it is unquestionably proper that the crown should exercise an effectual negative over the appointment of the persons called to execute those functions. To this the Catholics of Ireland declare themselves perfectly willing to accede. The precise mode of giving effect to the principle, will best be settled by the wisdom of parliament. It is fit matter for discussion in such a committee as I propose. The declaration of the Catholics on this subject is an unquestionable proof of their solicitude to meet the kindness of their fellow-subjects, and to accede to any practicable means of removing even the most groundless jealousies. As such, I rejoice that it has been made, and I see with infinite satisfaction the just impression which it has universally produced. To me it is not new. I always felt the propriety of providing for this point. The experience of other countries proved both its expediency and its practicability. It formed apart of the plans intended to be brought forward at the period of the Union; and what we then knew of the sentiments of the Catholics respecting it, left no doubt upon our minds that the matter might be easily and satisfactorily adjusted. Provision was also intended to be made for the decent and necessary subsistence of the Catholic clergy of that country. More than that they did not ask, and even that they were unwilling to receive in any manner that might tend to separate their cause from that of their community. The propriety of this step rests on grounds of policy and reason, which will not, I think, be questioned even by the warmest adversaries of the present motion. Much as we must regret the error of their faith, desirous as we must be that the light of reformation may by the progress of knowledge be diffused over that people, we can not forget that there is in Ireland a rapidly increasing population of above four millions of Catholics. What legislator, what christian, would wish, either to leave such a people destitute of religious instruction, or to place their teachers in absolute dependance for their bread on the voluntary contribution of the poorest peasants? On this point I believe all are agreed—I mention it only as one of the many measures which call for inquiry and adoption. Many of the most plausible arguments against the petitions of the Catholics are drawn from their objections to the Oath of Supremacy. This matter, also, it is much to be desired that your ldships should consider in detail. It is generally and greatly misapprehended in this country. We are often told that Catholics refuse to acknowledge the same obedience to their sovereign which he receives from all his other subjects. The charge is wholly groundless. They recognize, as you do, in the civil government of their country, all temporal power and authority. Their uniform and repeated declarations, the pledges they have already given, the oaths they have already taken, ought to satisfy you fully on this head. If more security be necessary, let it be exacted; but let your measure apply only to that fir which it professes to provide, the authority of your sovereign and the security of your government. The oath, as it now stands, includes a question of spiritual supremacy, foreign to those objects. The church of England itself does not acknowledge any such supremacy in the crown. The king, acting by the councils, and exercising the powers which the laws have given him, is indeed in all matters ecclesiastical or temporal, supreme. But he is so as a civil magistrate only. He is not the spiritual head; he is not, if I may so express it, the pope of the church of England. Such a claim was indeed once maintained by the capricious despotism of a prince whose wildest imaginations it was not always safe to resist. But the wise and virtuous men who laid, after his decease, the true foundations of our church, admitted no such authority in their sovereign. It exists not, therefore, in the church of England. Of the other established church of this united kingdom, the king is not in any sense whatever acknowledged as the head. The same temporal obedience which both these Protestant churches pay to their sovereign, the Catholics acknowledge also. In all matters of civil government, even of that mixed nature in which ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions are combined, they submit themselves without reserve to the supreme authority of the king, in this parliament as legislator, in other councils as civil governor of this empire. In the spiritual head of their church they acknowledge, as all the subjects of this realm formerly acknowledged, a spiritual authority confined to questions of faith. The reformation has taught us, that for that spiritual authority there is no warrant in the principles of our religion. But this is a question purely of religious belief; in no degree affecting that absolute duty and undivided allegiance, which our Catholic fellow-subjects, in common with ourselves, owe and pay to the person and government of their sovereign. In a committee you may place this matter in its true light, and bring it to the unerring test of experience. With that view it was intended, at the period to which I have so often referred, to submit to parliament, in lieu of the oath of supremacy, framed as we all know for the purpose of exclusion, a new form of oath, calculated to unite, not to divide our people. That oath would have contained an explicit pledge of support to the established constitution, and the most express disclaimer that could be devised, of any interference with his majesty's legitimate and undoubted sovereignty. Whatever words may be most effectual for this purpose, let them be adopted; provide the fullest security that jealousy itself can dictate for that which we are all equally anxious to defend: and let it then be seen whether the Catholics of Ireland are reluctant to concur in such declara- tions. There is yet another subject, the consideration of which was designed to accompany these important measures. It is not indeed exclusively connected with the situation of the Catholics, but it is an inseparable part of any comprehensive system for the good government and happiness of Ireland. I mean the matter of Tithes; a question as delicate as it is important; and into which, therefore, I will not now enter farther. It was carefully considered at the period of the Union, and was intended then to have been brought forward. It came again under discussion when I had last the honour to serve his majesty; the greatest attention was given to it by the noble duke who at that time represented his maj. in Ireland; and from the result of both deliberations, I am confident much may be done upon it, greatly to the advantage of the church, and of the country. The groundwork of every such proceeding must be laid in an inviolable respect for the sacred rights of property; one of the main pillars of security for all that we enjoy of law or liberty. I have thus enumerated, however imperfectly, the various measures with which the great statesman, of whom I have spoken, always meant to accompany the proposal for the repeal of every civil disqualification which still attaches upon religious belief. Great and important safeguards they were, in my judgment, for the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the realm: wise and salutary provisions for promoting the interests of religion, for extending the beneficial influence of our reformed and established church, for conciliating the warmest affections of a people whose various interests and feelings were thus consulted, and for insuring (as far as human wisdom can insure it) the success of a system of universal and unreserved benevolence. I know of no other means adequate to such purposes; and the good effects even of these would, as experience has but too plainly shewn, very much depend on the spirit in which such laws should be executed, and the temper in which such a government should be administered. If any farther measures connected with this extensive question, measures either of local or of general advantage, of additional conciliation to Ireland, or of increased security to our civil or religious establishments, were in the contemplation of that wise and good man, I knew them not. I have no doubt that I enjoyed his full confidence on the subject. But if any such intentions were communicated to any other person, let them be stated to parliament with the same explicitness. His name will recommend them to your attention; their own merit, if they were his, will infallibly entitle them to it. What I ask is only that you should enter fully into the discussion of the subject. Let it not be understood that you are determined to leave Ireland in its present state. Against that part alone of the whole population of your empire, let not the doors of parliament be closed, and a barrier established of perpetual and irrevocable distinctions. Whatever be the result of your deliberations, much benefit will be derived from the mere examination of these questions. Many asperities will be softened, many unfounded jealousies allayed. Much uneasiness has been excited by your apparent unwillingness even to look into the situation of that great portion of your fellow-subjects. Great good will therefore be done whenever it is known that you are seriously employed in consulting for their happiness; seeking to reconcile the prejudices of others, and to satisfy your own apprehensions; and at least endeavouring to extend to four millions of British subjects, the full enjoyment of the British constitution. My lords, these are questions which will force themselves upon our thoughts. We are placed in a situation such as no country has ever seen since the commencement of civilization in Europe. So much power has never before been directed by so much inveteracy, against the existence of any state. No people has ever had so much to lose; none has ever been threatened with a greater danger of the loss of all. Every former peril of our own history shrinks into nothing in comparison with the present hour. No confederacy ever formed in Europe possessed so great a force as is now combined against us. We have no recourse as formerly to the support of other powers. Their strength is annihilated, their independence lost, and even their wishes are for the most part alienated from us. We cannot look with any hope to the divisions of our enemies. The whole power of Europe is grasped by a single hand, and directed by a single will; wielded exclusively against this country, and pointed with undivided energy at the sole object of our destruction. In this great and awful crisis, what is proposed to you? Not to despair of your country—God for- bid! But to apply yourselves to the best means of its defence. That when we are thus menaced from without, we may at least be united within; that if we hope for no extreme aid, we may not deprive ourselves of any part of our own resources; that if we cannot profit by any divisions of our enemies, we may not ourselves be found, in the hour of trial, a divided people. The magnitude of our real danger the mind of man can scarcely grasp. Do not add to it by visionary alarms. Our enemy is formidable without example. Against him, and not against your own countrymen, call forth the whole strength and energy of the empire.—All may yet be insufficient. But if we then fall, we shall be reverenced even in our defeat; and if we conquer, that triumph will be doubly glorious, which is achieved by the union of a free people. To the exultation of present victory it will add the confidence of permanent security. This is a policy too plain and obvious to be argued. What is there that can prevent its adoption? In some former periods, danger might have been apprehended from the Catholics of Ireland. If king William, against the whole tenor of his life, and in opposition to those principles which constitute the glory of his character, consented to measures of intolerance in Ireland, he had at least the plea of notorious disaffection. In the eyes of every Irish Catholic his government was an usurpation. The same opinion may have operated in a less degree under some of his immediate successors. But does it now exist? The very family is extinguished whose pretensions were opposed to him. If those pretensions could be now revived, does any man believe that one arm would at this day be raised, one voice heard, in their support? The claim is at an end; the danger has ceased; the very circumstances in which it originated are forgotten; and your jealousies alone survive! Has any fresh ground of apprehension since arisen? None is pretended. Are we threatened with any practical inconvenience from these conceptions? No. We hear only of imaginary theories of government, of fixed and immutable principles of our constitution, which must, it seems, for ever withhold its benefits from these Petitioners. Dreadful principles, if such must be their eilect!—Hard necessity, which is to raise an eternal barrier against four millions of your subjects! I know of no such principles under any form of government; much less are they compatible with the doctrines of a free constitution. All legislative bodies are bound to accommodate their laws to the sole objects for which their power is given —the safety and happiness of the community. It is their duty to exact no more than those interests require; to leave untouched all that can be enjoyed consistently with them. Times and seasons, the mind and dispositions of men, the state and condition of nations, must regulate the exercise of this authority. The principles of moral justice are alone immutable; the regulations of political society must fluctuate with the chance and changes of human events, with the circumstances of national character, and the objects of civil institutions. But let these fixed and universal principles be examined in detail. What are they? First, that the sovereign of these realms must always be a member of the religion established bylaw. Where is this principle found? In the Revolution? The Revolution placed upon your throne a sovereign who was not a member of the Church of England. The Revolution, and the two successive Unions, have established under your present sovereign, and in this his united kingdom, two separate Churches of different persuasions. In what manner shall he conform to both; or how shall he fulfil this new obligation, which purports, without warrant of law, and by an impracticable condition, to fetter his conscience? The Act of Settlement provides that the sovereign of these realms shall not be a Catholic; and this provision both the Unions have confirmed. But this is matter of positive enactment, not of general principle. It originated in an occasional, though very imperious necessity. It authorizes no inference beyond the express provision of the law itself. It affords no warrant for the second of these pretended universal principles, which purports to apply the same exclusion to all participation in the legislature, and to all share in the councils of the state. On what ground indeed is this contended? From argument, or from analogy? From the history of other countries, or from our own experience? Is there no difference between the authority of a sovereign, and the duties of his subjects? Is it an eternal maxim, that all persons differing from the religion of the state must necessarily be anxious to overthrow its government? Has such actually been found the consequence of toleration? No sect of Christianity inculcates such a duty. The revela- tion, on which our common religion rests, expressly commands the contrary. All history disproves the assertion; our own daily experience confutes it; and our conduct in this very case itself, is inconsistent with it. The government of France was not subverted by Sully; her armies were not betrayed by Turenne. Among the very troops with which our great deliverer rescued us from civil and religious tyranny, were bodies of Catholic soldiers and Catholic officers. He trusted them; they justified his good opinion. Such are the effects of just and liberal government, the fruits of confidence in honourable and conscientious minds. We ourselves have two established Churches in this island. Are they labouring to subvert each other? What mutual persecution ever kindled greater animosity than once existed between them! What Christian charity ever exceeded the harmony in which they now live together? What convulsions did their hostility occasion in this country! What miseries did it not produce in Scotland, so long as either endeavoured to force upon the other its own establishments and doctrines! What advantages have not resulted from their Union ever since that wicked project was mutually abandoned! In this respect at least, the principles of the revolution were those of religious conciliation. The revolution did in Scotland much more than we are asked to do in Ireland. It established in the same island with us, that Church which had so long cherished an inveterate hatred to our reformed episcopacy. We have since, by a solemn act of Union, made the same Church a member of our own kingdom. We have received its disciples into both houses of parliament, and admitted them to every civil and military office. They have sat upon the wool-sack; they have filled our chief scats of justice, and all the highest stations of our government; they have led our fleets and armies to victory— with how much benefit and how much glory to the empire! Is it on the Catholic alone that these universal principles attach? Does his belief alone inspire irreconcilable hostility to every government in which his Church is not established? Where then were these eternal truths, when we admitted the Catholics of Ireland to the command of regiments and fortresses; when we opened to them the great mass of the civil offices of their country; and above all, when we imparted to them the elective franchise, and bid them share in the choice of our own legislature? It is too late now to erect your standards of exclusion against a part of the constituent body of parliament, and to treat as aliens the members of your own family. If you consider them as brethren and fellow-citizens, admit them fully to share and to defend your constitution; if as irreconcilable enemies, repeal your past improvident concessions. Their present state is inconsistent with both opinions. I trust we shall not on this day hear again of the exploded calumnies of last year—the very remembrance of which is disgraceful to the times in which we live! We shall not again be told that four millions of our fellow Christians disclaim the obligation of an oath! that four millions of our fellow-subjects think it lawful to depose and murder their sovereign! That these opinions form a part of their religious creed, are inculcated by pious and enlightened teachers, and received by a whole community, including men of as high birth, as extensive knowledge, as liberal education, and as tried loyalty, as any of your lordships!—You do not believe it. If you did, should we at this day be arguing about their exclusion from a few remaining offices? Should we not rather be considering how to defend against them the very first foundations of our society? How could persons holding such opinions partake even of the lowest functions of government? How indeed could any government whatever be administered to them? To argue such a question farther at this day, would be to insult your understandings. Yet must I not omit, in justice to your fellow-subjects, to remind you how often they have disclaimed these horrid tenets. Grateful for the opportunities you have afforded them, they have subscribed to every test, they have signed every declaration, which you have provided, to vindicate their moral character. Is any man still unsatisfied? Judge them by the testimony of their accusers. Did the authors of these laws believe that the Catholic disregards the sanction of an oath? Are the supporters of this code at this moment sincere in the same opinion? On what security have they rested their whole system of exclusion? Why does not the Catholic peer this day claim at your table his hereditary seat—the commoner avail himself in the other house of the suffrages of his countrymen? What in every other line of life denies to the people of this persuasion every just object of high and laudable ambition? What else but that dreaded sanction of an oath, which conscientious men of every faith are equally afraid to violate? Your laws are therefore nugatory, if the charge be true; how unjust are they, if they themselves are founded on the knowledge of its falsehood! Every part of your present system is indeed equally inconsistent with any belief in these atrocious calumnies. Does the religion of a Catholic teach him that treason and murder may be commanded by any human power? Why then have we trusted them so far? Are such men fit to fill our army and our navy, to hold all but the highest commissions in our service, and to execute almost every civil office? Such monstrous incongruities are unfit even to be discussed in this assembly. Such accusation can serve only to inflame the passions of the lowest and most ignorant of mankind. The very suspicion is an outrage against justice, and the necessity of repelling it, an indignity under which your fellow-subjects ought not to have been placed. Yet many years ago, the Catholics, impatient of such reproaches, have vindicated by the most decisive testimony, both their own profession, and the common religion of Christianity. Not content with testifying their abhorrence of these imputed principles, they produced the solemn declarations of all the most famous Catholic universities. By those learned and religious bodies the detestable doctrines of which I am speaking were unanimously disclaimed. Every foreign Catholic concurred in the same sentiments. They heard of the charges with horror; but with grief and indignation also, that in this liberal country, and enlightened age, such tenets should be imputed to our fellow Christians. What farther testimony could strengthen this disavowal? The confirmation of the Papal see. That also has been had, and the same declarations have been solemnly promulgated from that quarter. What then remains? Of the oath of supremacy I have already spoken at large. All fears of Catholic hierarchy must be at an end, since the offer, now publicly made, of submiting the nomination of the Bishops to an effectual control. The present loyalty of that body is unquestioned; the proposed arrangement secures you against all future danger. The practice of excommunication was objected to. To exclude from their community those who disturb its peace or violate its rules, must be a right incident to the members of every Church suffered to exist under your government. If that Church be Episcopal, the exercise of this right must be subject to Episcopal jurisdiction; if Catholic, it must be regulated by Catholic doctrines. But this principle can justly be applied to spiritual matters only. Have there been attempts to extend it farther? Permit no such interference with the temporal interests of your people. Prohibit it by your law; and if prohibition be found ineffectual, punish it. I am assured that if you go into this committee, and are willing to pursue the inquiry, the most satisfactory defence can be made against the accusations on which so much stress was laid. I have no doubt that those who urged these charges, would find on such investigation how grossly they have been imposed upon. Be this fact however as it may, you can at least provide effectually against such practices in future. No man will be more ready than myself to concur in any reasonable security against every such abuse; thoroughly persuaded that in so doing, I shall not only discharge my own duty, but also gratify the wishes of the Petitioners. These then, thus shortly enumerated, thus easily answered, are all the grounds which are commonly urged for continuing these proscriptions against our fellow-subjects. They are incapable of being supported by argument; at the mere touch of inquiry they vanish into air. Yet if our prejudices are still unsubdued, if our judgment is still unconvinced by reason, let us at least profit by experience. What country in Europe was there but your own, in which Catholics had not, before the late revolutions, enjoyed unlimited toleration? In what country were they found to undermine the government, or to conspire with that powerful enemy always so ready to profit by internal divisions? In Russia, under the Greek Church, the Catholics proved themselves faithful and loyal subjects. In Prussia, under the Protestant establishment, the unqualified toleration of Catholics produced none but the happiest effects. In Holland they were found good citizen's; in Swisserland, faithful allies. Even in your own country, and during all the rigours of your past intolerance, the fact is acknowledged in the most solemn proceedings of your government. In 1778, the first act passed in Ireland for the relaxation of the penal laws, was grounded, as its preamble declares, on the long and uniform good conduct of the Catholics. It is for the honour of both parties that the fact should thus be recorded; for the interest of both, that it should always be remembered. It is on the same grounds that I now propose to you not to adopt a new and untried course of measures, but to persevere in that of which we have already experienced the advantage; to repay loyalty by protection, and to deal out kindness in reward for attachment. This is the happier policy which we have pursued for the last 30 years; have we seen reason to repent it? At the commencement of that period, we first invited a depressed and desponding population to share in the blessings of industry: we opened to them the various channels of domestic and foreign commerce; we restored to them that interest in the soil of their country, which the barbarous policy of our ancestors had denied; and we effaced from their statute book, laws, which dishonoured the legislature, and sapped the morals of the people. And surely never were wisdom and liberality more abundantly rewarded. Under the happy influence of this system, one and the same generation has seen Ireland start from poverty, contempt, and weakness, into wealth, consequence, and power. Has she alone enjoyed these benefits, or have they not all been shared with Great Britain; augmenting even in a still greater proportion our own prosperity, and at this hour essentially contributing to our defence? Examine all the resources of the empire: its revenue augmented by her contributions; its wealth, and commerce, and navigation, of which she furnishes so large a part; its naval and military strength, the bulwarks of our common safety, and the glory of our common name. These are the genuine fruits of an enlightened and liberal policy, cultivated by the extirpation of barbarous prejudices, and incapable of being reared to maturity, except by the blessed influence of tolerant principles and equal laws. How satisfactory, how honourable the reflection, that against the dangers of this tremendous crisis we are armed chiefly by the consequences of our own magnanimity! How glorious the contrast between the magnitude of our present efforts, and the more limited exertions, by which, only thirty years ago, we must have met this great necessity, unaided by the prosperity of Ireland! How unanswerable the call of these Petitioners, who urge you to grant to your country, by the completion of this great and necessary work, that additional security, which no period ever more required, which no policy was ever better calculated to insure. You have not hitherto stopped in this honourable career; when you had opened to this people the means of industry, and the sources of opulence, you did not, in the language of the present day, 'take your stand there.' You adapted new benefits to the improved condition of your people. By agriculture and commerce, wealth and influence had been rapidly acquired; with these, civilisation had been extended, and knowledge diffused? and by an inevitable consequence, the enjoyment of these advantages had created an increased attachment to the government which secured them. No longer confined within its former limits, of a gentry debarred from, the exercise of every liberal profession, and a depressed and ignorant peasantry; the Catholic population now included all the gradations of a flourishing and free community. In this state you opened to them the sanctuary of civil rights: you judged them worthy to enjoy the benefits and execute the functions of a constitution, which imposes on all its members duties commensurate with the advantages it confers. You sanctioned, by the concessions of 1792, the principles of the present demand. You gave to the Catholics political capacity; you admitted them to civil and military offices, to ail but the highest; and you opened to them the elective franchise. Were these concessions meant for the detriment, or for the advantage of the commonwealth? Were they granted to men irreconcileably adverse to your government, bound by no oaths, and restrained by no political or moral duty—or to faithful and loyal subjects, on whose co-operation you justly relied in the hour of danger? Have they been productive of evil? Or if there be any thing to regret; is it not rather that the benevolent intentions of the legislature have, by the more narrow policy of your government, been so imperfectly and inadequately executed? Let us then complete the course in which we have hitherto so well succeeded. Little remains behind for us to grant, though much for them to receive. Feeble indeed is the argument, and circumscribed the wisdom of those, who measure the political effect of these remaining restrictions by the number of the individuals of whose services they actually deprive you. The glory of the prize is not confined to the conqueror; it ennobles the contest, and honours even the unsuccessful competitor. The splendour of high reward diffuses itself over all who may aspire to the same eminence. It is not the pay of the ensign or midshipman, that compensates to the sons and brothers of your ldships for the hardships and dangers of their station. No, it is the hope of treading in the paths of those under whom they serve, of leading in their time our fleets and armies to victory, and of sharing perhaps one day the rewards and honours of a Marlborough or a Nelson. What would their feelings, what would your own be, if against your connections alone these hopes were irrevocably closed? The same principle applies to every walk and every situation of life. The peer degraded from his hereditary rights; the commoner forbid to avail himself of the confidence of his countrymen; the officer limited to subordinate command; the barrister pleading before a bench to which he cannot rise; the very merchant declared unworthy to control his own property, and to administer the affairs of a banking corporation; four millions of people proscribed by law from the legislature and government of their country, debarred from the exercise of those talents which might save the empire, and looking on as men bound and fettered in the midst of a contest which is to decide on their existence. What a picture does this offer of a free community! Can you believe that the feelings of the higher classes only are affected by such a proscription? If it were so, I should still inquire on what principle you dishonour all your most distinguished subjects; what policy has banished from the service of a monarchy all those by whom its institutions are best upheld?—But do not deceive yourselves with this belief. Your exclusions are as odious as they are unjust. The sense of dishonour, and the consequences of distrust, extend themselves to every class. The personal advantages of a more liberal confidence might probably be enjoyed but by few; this is not the light in which the British, constitution considers political functions. Open to the emulation of all, and exercised by those who have a common interest with their fellow-subjects, they are a protection and safeguard to the whole community. Limited to particular classes, and withheld by distrust from the great majority of the people, they become instruments of oppression and degradation. Nor is this a matter of reasoning only; nor are these impressions confined to those who know how to estimate the value and to feel the deprivation of political equality. The influence of such a system extends itself unseen through all the classes of society, and operates on all the transactions of life. It establishes two descriptions of your people: the one trusted, and therefore protected; the other whom your laws stigmatize with disaffection, and whom their fellow-subjects are therefore taught to regard with jealousy. My lords, these feelings must prevail so long as such distinctions are permitted to remain; they result much more from the principle of the exclusion, than from the value, great as it is, of that which is withheld. They operate on those who might never have aspired to the distinctions or honours of the state, but who will daily feel the want of that protection, which nothing can insure to the lower classes of society except a government of equal laws. Whatever be the issue of this discussion, I trust their loyalty will remain unshaken. But do not flatter yourselves that your refusal will not be deeply felt. You are daily calling upon the people, of Ireland to make great sacrifices, and for great objects; you are exhorting them to hazard even life itself, in defending their country against invasion, conquest, and slavery. To excite and to uphold this resolution, you must seek to cherish in their minds those feelings which these exclusions are most calculated to wound; you must animate them to the sentiments and the virtues of freemen; you must teach them to value the British constitution; you must give them an equal participation of its benefits. Such, I have already said, will, I am sure, at no distant period, be the wise and fortunate decision of my country. This certainly we have acquired by the course of these discussions; and we hail it as a most auspicious omen for the peace and union, for the safety and glory of the empire. May the completion of these hopes be accelerated! The necessities of the times are urgent; the opportunity is favourable beyond all expectation; God grant that it may so continue until this great work be finally accomplished!—One thing more before I conclude: one reflection I would wish to suggest, not to the respectable persons whose names immediately follow this Petition, to them it is unnecessary; but if my voice could extend itself to the remotest corners of our sister island, I would address myself to all those whose rights I have asserted, and in whose cause my heart is warmed; I would beseech them still to look for the gratification of all their wishes to the united legislature of their country. In that course they will infallibly succeed; no man any longer doubts it. In any other, they will insure to themselves misery and remorse, and to their country the heaviest of calamities. Let them not consider this as the language of prejudice; or as dictated by any interest, however public, yet separate from their own. Let them look at the continental states of Europe, crsuhed into one mass of undistinguishable slavery. What artifices were not used to disunite the people of those unhappy countries! what hopes were not excited, what promises held out of complete relief from every political and every religious grievance! In what single instance have their expectations been fulfilled? Upon disunion, what has followed? conquest. Upon conquest, a tyranny more merciless than language can describe or imagination paint. The cruelty of the oppressors has been exceeded only by their rapacity; the miseries of France herself have been inferior only to those of her deceived and subjugated allies. There is not one among the nations who have sought her friendship, that has not been brought under her iron yoke. There is not one individual that has assisted her views, who does not groan at this very hour under a slavery far more dreadful than that of the most oppressed class in the worst governed country of Europe before this revolution. Religious persecution, commercial ruin, political degradation, these are the instruments of her dominion, and the never-failing consequences of her success. All ranks, all classes, all descriptions of men, have been alike involved in-common destruction; the Church with the State, the Cottage with the Palace. Yet all these evils, yet all the miseries that France has felt, or has inflicted, are as a feather in comparison with those which she is endeavouring now to pour down upon Ireland. There the war, if once established by the disunion of Irishmen, must be long protracted; there all the horrors of civil contest would aggravate those of foreign invasion: there the success of France would be more terrible to the deluded victims of her perfidy, even than to her enemies. In Ireland, submission would not disarm her hatred; dominion would not satisfy her ambition; nor could she secure the advantages of con- quest, except by the total desolation of the country. Let then the people of Ireland be persuaded, that there is no individual, however low in rank or obscure in station, whose religion and liberty, whose property and life, are not threatened by these designs; none who is not as deeply interested in resisting them, as the most powerful, or the most opulent member of society. Let them be convinced, even those who most complain of these unjust exclusions, that there is one course only by which their civil rights can finally be established, one only by which their present advantages can be preserved. Let it be indelibly impressed upon the mind of Ireland, that it is only by union, by close and intimate union with Great Britain, that she can, in this dreadful convulsion of the world, defend her soil, protect her people, or maintain her independence.—My Lords, I move you, "That this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the Petition of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland"

The motion having been read from the woolsack,

Viscount Sidmouth

rose and said, that differing entirely as he did from the noble baron, by whom the motion had been made, he was desirous of submitting the grounds of that difference to their lordships' consideration. That the subject to which it applied was of "the most awful importance, and delicate in the highest degree," he most readily admitted; but he was utterly at a loss to account for the agitation of it at this time. The noble baron had on a former day distinctly declared that he had no share in advising it: by a noble earl (the earl of Moira) it had been deprecated in the strongest terms: both those noble lords were then apprehensive that the cause to which they were friendly, might be prejudiced by a discussion at the present moment: it was, indeed, impossible but that they must be conscious of what was clue to the opinion so recently expressed by parliament, and to feelings, the prevalence of which had been still more recently manifested throughout, the kingdom. The petitioners had therefore come forward under circumstances, which, in the opinion of some of their most powerful friends, reflected no credit on their prudence: he was, however, apprehensive that they had also subjected themselves to the danger of imputations on their public spirit and patriotism: not that a doubt-was entertained by him of the zeal and determination with which those immediately interested in the success of this petition would assist in repelling an invading enemy; but, considering the time of presenting it, and the terms in which it was expressed, it seemed evident that there was a disposition to operate, if possible, upon the fears of those to whom it was addressed. The petitioners appeared to be not unwilling to do themselves some injustice for the sake of their object; and it was accordingly intimated that the ardour and animation at least, with which they might perform their duties at a period of the utmost emergency, might depend, in some degree, upon the fate of their petition. For the honour of those by whom such a condition might seem to be held forth, he could not but question its reality. As well might the soldier refuse to march in the face of the enemy, or the sailor to weigh the anchor, without a previous stipulation for an increase of pay and emolument. It was therefore not to be supposed that the respectable individuals to whom alone the objects of this petition were important, could so discredit themselves, as thus to bargain with their country; it was not to be supposed that, because by their own refusal to take the oath of supremacy, they were debarred from holding the highest situations of judicial, military, and political authority and power, they could lose sight of the unexampled beneficence which they have experienced? from their sovereign; and by withholding, or abating their exertions in his support, impair his means of protecting his dominions, and his crown, and the liberties and property of themselves, and their fellow subjects, against the malignant and implacable enemy of every independent stale in the world.—Having thus commented on the time and mode of bringing forward this petition, lord S. proceeded to observe upon its object, which, he said, was narrow, selfish, and delusive, inasmuch as it held out the prospect of benefit to the many, without the possibility of ad vantage; except to a very few. The term emancipation was not indeed to be found in the petition, nor had it been used by the noble baron; but it was still employed as an instrument of deception; and no doubt could be entertained that it had been successful in raising those hopes and expectations, which could alone account for the numerous signatures subjoined to the petition. But, in fact, between its real object, and the condition of the great body of the Catholics of Ireland, there was no relation whatever: they would remain in the same state if the prayer of the petition was complied with: their restlessness and discontent arose from an imperfect state of civilization, and from its concomitants, poverty, ignorance, and bigotry. To them it would afford no relief to enable Roman Catholics to hold the highest situations in the army, the navy, the law, and the state; nor would it even administer to their gratification, as there were few subsisting ties, which connected the higher with the inferior classes of the community, and in such a state of things what could be the inducements to sympathy and attachment? The peasant could take little interest in any accession of honor and emolument to a superior, whom he scarcely knew but by name, and whom he regarded with no other feelings than those inculcated by his priest, the sole object of his respect, and by whom alone he was influenced and controuled. The multitude were therefore deluded and misled by being made use of for the attainment of an object, in which they had no interest, and the accomplishment of which would not have the effect of removing any of the material causes of what was to be deplored in the present state of Ireland. This being the case, it was in vain to pretend that a measure, so limited and partial in its operation, could possibly effect its professed purpose of conciliating and satisfying the great body of Irish Catholics. It might produce present exultation, which would however be followed by lasting disappointment.—But this measure was not only to be the instrument of conciliation, but the reward of loyalty: and yet when this inducement was mentioned it was usually accompanied with a cautionary, if not a menacing intimation with respect to the probable consequences of refusal. Over the past he wished to draw a veil, admitting however that nothing could be more unjust than to attribute to the Catholics, exclusively, the disaffection and turbulence by which Ireland had been convulsed: but in looking to the future, it was not unreasonable to consider how political power, if obtained, was likely to be exercised by those, who, it should seem, were not to be implicitly relied upon for the active performance of their most momentous duties, if it was withheld. He had already said that he neither did nor could suppose that such would be the conduct of the Catholics; but there was evidently a desire to give them the benefit of the apprehension which, such intimations were calculated to produce. The objections to such an innovation appeared to him to be strong, and insurmountable.—Religion was the great bond of society: there must therefore be a religion of the state. This was peculiarly necessary in this country, where the reformed religion was an essential part of the constitution, and identified with our limited monarchy: they had always suffered together: puritanism, and democracy overwhelmed both in the time of the Commonwealth; and in that of James 2nd both were endangered by the attempt to introduce popery and arbitrary power. It had therefore been a part of the wise policy of our ancestors to strengthen and protect the ecclesiastical establishment, and with it our civil constitution, by requiring that those persons who held certain offices of trust should give proofs of their fidelity and attachment to the church, as well as to the stale. Upon this basis it was that the policy of religious tests was founded; and without a condemnation of the conduct of our ancestors at the periods of the Reformation, and the Revolution, and at the accession of the house of Brunswick, it was impossible to depart from it.— These were his general objections: the special and detailed reasons which led him to resist this motion were, That there was no instance in which Protestants and Papists had agreed in the exercise of political power in the same state:—That the attempt must occasion continual competition, and contentions the most violent; particularly in a country, where, by its constitution, so many situations were elective, and in which the weight of numbers was, with persons of one persuasion, and that of property with those of another:—That it appeared to be highly dangerous to render any persons capable of holding the highest situations of political power, who in the conscientious exercise of it were liable to be directed and controuled by an authority foreign from, and occasionally adverse to, the supreme authority of the state under which they lived:—That the consciences, and conduct of persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion being thus under the influence and guidance of others, they could not possibly be sure of themselves, as was particularly exemplified by James 2d, who upon his accession, declared to his privy council that 'he should make it his endeavour to preserve the go- vernment both in church and state, as by law established;' * a declaration soon afterwards repeated in his first speech from the throne; but the disregard of which through the instigation of his religious confessor, cost him his crown. That it behoved those, who favoured this Proposition to consider what use had heretofore been made by Roman Catholics of political power; and particularly to reflect on the manner in which it was exercised in the reign of queen Mary, and by James 2d, and his parliament in Ireland:— That it was the height of absurdity to suppose that this concession (which could not fail, notwithstanding all that had been said by the noble baron to the contrary, to spread terror amongst the Protestants of Ireland) could possibly have the effect of conciliating, and satisfying the Catholics: that for the great body of persons of that persuasion, and particularly for the priests, it would do nothing: it was therefore in vain to expect a contented acquiescence in a measure, founded upon an invidious preference of the higher classes of the laity, and which, by totally neglecting, excluded the clergy from the enjoyment of those emoluments, honors, and dignities, which were deemed to belong, as of right, to what is termed Holy Church, and to be fit and necessary instruments of its influence and power.—These were some of the objections which he felt to the proposition of the noble baron, the practical object of which was to obtain a repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, and to dispense with the Oath of Supremacy, for the purpose of enabling all persons of all sects and religions whatever to fill the highest offices of trust in the united kingdom. All distinctions on account of religion were to be done away: a Catholic was to become capable of keeping the conscience of the king, and of dispensing the preferments of a Protestant Church. But it was in vain to enter into a detail of all the mischief, and absurdities, to which, as it appeared to him, this innovation would necessarily lead. His objection was to the principle of getting rid of all distinctions on account of religion; which objection was strengthened in the present instance by the tenets of the Church of Home, as detailed in her Canons, all of which were in force, until repealed by the * See Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, vol. iv, p. 1342. authority of a general council; and still further, by the proofs with which history abounded, that the doctrines and discipline of that Church were hostile to the progress of knowledge, and to the civil and religious liberties of mankind. To him, therefore, it was a subject of astonishment that such an alteration should be countenanced by those who were friendly to the principles of the Revolution; an event, produced, not by feelings of aversion to the Stuart family, but by a dread of arbitrary power, and of a religious communion, which had ever been its handmaid and instrument; and it was not true that the danger was removed because the house of Stuart was extinct: on the contrary, the necessity of precaution continued because the tenets and discipline of the Church of Rome were unchanged.—It appeared therefore to him to be indispensably necessary to adhere firmly to the fundamental principles of the Reformation and Revolution: principles that were not violated, although their application was in some respects suspended, by measures of severity which were adopted under the pressure of a cruel, but, as lord Clare truly stated, an overruling and indispensable necessity, and which during the reign of his present majesty had been gradually and completely done away. Perfect toleration was now enjoyed by all the inhabitants of the united kingdom, and in Ireland there was no other distinction between the Catholic and the Protestant, but that the Act of Supremacy not being wholly repealed, the former, in consequence of his refusal to take the oath which it prescribed, was not qualified to hold the highest situations of judicial, military, and political power.— Much, however, remained to be done for Ireland, and much he trusted would be accomplished by the provident and superintending wisdom of government and of parliament. The evils inherent in her present condition were poverty and ignorance; which could only be obviated by industry and instruction. This was the emancipation which the state of Ireland called for, and without which all other expedients would be fruitless.—A system of education comprehending the children of Protestants and Papists, and the utmost possible encouragement to the Protestant Clergy to reside on their benefices, (for which latter purpose, he was happy to observe that a bill was then on the table) would lay the foundation of a gradual change of habits, and manners, the most favourable to the welfare of individuals, and to the interests of the state.—It was, he was convinced, by such means only as he had last adverted to, that we could hope to approach the object, of which all their lordships must be desirous, namely, that of rendering Ireland a Protestant community. This could never be effected by measures of severity towards the Catholics: persecution had never made a real proselyte. With these measures he should wish to combine a moderate provision, at the charge of the state, for the deserving part of the Roman Catholic Clergy; with a view to the relief of individuals, to whom the expence of contributing to the support of two establishments was burthensome and vexatious, and for the purpose too of convincing the Catholic Clergy, that by peaceable, and becoming conduct, they would entitle themselves to the consideration and favour of the government. On the proposal for a modification of Tythes, he acknowledged that he had not formed his opinion; but he was glad to find that it was a subject to which ministers were turning their serious attention.—Lord Sidmouth concluded, by expressing his conviction, that it was not by such a measure as that now proposed, that Ireland was to be tranquillized; but by a comprehensive system, founded upon a just view of the condition of the great body of the people. The history of the last thirty years had afforded continual proofs of the inefficacy of mere concession. Whenever a measure of that description had been urged, an assurance was given that it would be the last; and yet it was invariably followed by a fresh demand. The prodigal concessions of 1793, it was universally believed, had fully satisfied every possible claim: nevertheless, within the period of the last ten years, there had been two rebellions, the object of which, according to the acknowledgment of those by whom they were excited, and conducted, was not Catholic Emancipation, nor the redress of any alledged grievances; but separation from Great Britain. This unhappy bias could only be changed by correcting the ignorance, promoting the industry, and improving the conditions of the great mass of the people: thereby creating that confidence and sense of security, which by encouraging the residence of the landlord would bring him into habits of communication with his tenants and dependants; and thus establish those links that, belong to a well conditioned state of society, and which in this country happily connect the higher with the lower orders of the community. But he objected to the measure now proposed because it did not go to the root of the existing evil; because it did not reach what appeared to him to be the real causes of the present state of Ireland. He also felt himself irresistibly called upon to oppose it by his veneration for those principles which produced the Reformation, and the Revolution, which placed the illustrious house of Brunswick upon the throne, and which must ever constitute the solid security for the civil and religious liberties of the United Kingdom.

The Earl of Moira

said, that he could not let a moment pass, as soon as he had caught the attention of their lordships, until he had met and combated the opinion of the noble viscount in the outset of his speech, where he had taken upon him to assert, that there was in the petition, or in the manner or the time of its being presented, something that would justify a suspicion of the loyalty or public spirit of the catholics of Ireland. They had come forward in no underhand way, nor had they pressed their claims in any intemperate language. They had, in the most respectful manner, submitted to this house a manly statement of the grievances they laboured under, and asked to be relieved from them. What, then, his noble friend could have seen in that petition, or the circumstances of it, that could have warranted such an imputation, he was totally at a loss to conceive. The noble viscount had further objected, that the prayer of the petition was circumscribed, and related only to few and partial exemptions. He was of a very different opinion. He could not be brought to think, that the disabilities under which the catholics at present laboured, were either few in number, or partial in operation. But the noble viscount was apprehensive, that if even the present claims of the catholics were acceded to, they would not stop here. While that body was excluded from the participation of any of the rights and privileges of a British subject, he not only thought that they would not stop there, but that they ought not. The noble viscount had extolled the constitution, and was it unnatural that those who were so long witnessing its benefits should be anxious to share in it? Was it not an ambition natural to the mind of every Briton? and while the noble viscount poured out such eulogiums on the glorious Revolution, how could he consider it a light and partial evil to be deprived of any of the blessings of which it was the cause? But it was contended, that the prayer, if complied with, tended necessarily to the subversion of the constitution; and this danger was to be illustrated by a most extravagant supposition of a case barely possible and most improbable—the appointment of a Catholic to the office of chancellor. Why, it was certainly true, that the king might, if he pleased, appoint his groom to be his chancellor; but this he imagined, that the royal discretion would be as effectual a preventive against such an appointment as any law of parliament could be. He was as much attached to the church as any noble lord, and he did think, with his noble friend who spoke last, that, the church was so rooted in the state, that it was impossible to affect the one without injuring the other; but with respect to the penal code, he could not agree with his noble friend, that the principles which gave rise to that code were the result of religious differences. He had always looked upon them rather as the effect of political precaution. He severely deprecated the language of his noble friend, which, though not intended to be so, might be attended with mischievous effects. The present was not a time to alienate the hearts or damp the spirits of four millions of people willing to share our danger and our fate, and only wishing in return to partake of the common privileges of Britons. The crisis had been represented as an awful one: it was truly so, perhaps not to be paralleled in the history of the civilized world; and in the prevalent indifference, the smoothness of our passage, he feared, was owing to the rapidity of our descent; and at the first fatal shock our fears would be lost in our despair. Therefore he thought we should awake from our lethargy, and apply the remedy before it was too late. An hour should not be lost in acceding to the just, equitable, and unanswerable claims of our Catholic brethren. If it was objected to him, why, such being his sentiments, did he, upon a former occasion, express his regret that the petition had been at the present period introduced; he was ready to answer, that his regret then arose, not from any disapprobation of the prayer of that petition, but because he thought that at the present period there was not only no hope, but on the other hand, a certainty, that their claims would be rejected: and his regret arose from his dread of the exasperation likely to be produced by such rejection; for it was not in the nature of man to be disappointed, and not manfully to feel that disappointment. At the same time he was satisfied, that if the Catholics had seen in his majesty's present government any wish to accommodate, any disposition to conciliate them, they would have waited more patiently; but from the ill judged policy that had so recently been evinced towards that body, they were compelled to appeal to the constitutional organ for a legitimate object. The late government, of which he had been an humble member, had brought in a bill which, if its object had been literally translated into its title, might have been called a bill to prevent 100,000 of his majesty's subjects from joining the French. This bill certainly was not meant to embrace any of the great objects had in view by the Catholics: it was rather meant as a peace-offering, as a forerunner of better times; and might be said to have been sent forth as the dove with the olive-branch, to tell the persecuted catholics that the waters had subsided, and that the rising day would soon restore her original beauties to the face of nature. He was grieved to find that such had been the policy of the present government; nothing to allay, to sooth, or to reconcile, but every thing to incite and exasperate. Why was this? At any time, such conduct would have been impolitic; but, at the present crisis, it was such a union of folly and madness as never had been equalled. When the powers of Europe were wielded against us by one man, the most formidable, and at the same time the most inveterate foe England ever had to cope with, was it immaterial in such a contest, whether the people of Ireland were fired with all their native ardour in our cause, or sunk by our injustice into a listless dejection and a cold-blooded neutrality? With what face could the noble viscount ask the Irish Catholic to brave every danger, to expose himself to the hazards of battle, for the mere purpose of securing to the Englishman what he refused to share with him? The noble viscount could not make so selfish a proposal, and if he did, it would be met with merited indignation. The noble earl concluded with conjuring the house to think well of the claim that was made upon their justice, and to answer it in the manner that best became the interests of the empire.

The Bishop of Norwich.

—My lords; I rise, for the first time in my life, to address your lordships, and I rise with unaffected reluctance; not because I entertain the smallest doubt respecting either the expediency, the policy, or the justice of the measure now under consideration; but, because, to a person in my situation, it must be exceedingly painful, (however firmly persuaded he may be in his own mind) to find himself impelled by a sense of duty, to maintain an opinion, directly the reverse of which is supported by so many wise and good men who belong to the same profession, and who sit upon the same bench with him. Important occasions however, sometimes arise, on which an individual may be called upon to avow his own sentiments explicitly and unequivocally, without any undue deference to the judgment of others. Such an occasion I conceive the present to be, and shall without further apology trouble your lordships with a few remarks.—I have considered, with all the care and attention of which I am capable, the various arguments which are urged against the Petition in favour of the Catholics of Ireland, which has, this day, for the second time, been presented and supported by the noble baron on the other side of the house, with his usual abilities, and at the same time, with that well known regard for the real interest of the Established Church, for its peace, its security, its honour, and its prosperity, which forms, and has always formed so distinguished a part in the character of that noble lord.—These objections, my lords, numerous as they are said to be, may all of them, I think, be reduced under four heads. In the first place, it is asserted, or rather strongly insinuated, that the religious tenets of the Catholics, are of such a nature as, per se, to exclude those who hold them from the civil, and military situations, to which they aspire. It is next said, that if this were not the case, these situations are matters of favour, not of light, and therefore, the Catholics have no just cause to complain that they are excluded from them. In the third place, we are told, that if it were admitted, that the measure were, abstractedly considered, just and right; it would be highly inexpedient to repeal statutes, which were passed with much deliberation; and are considered by many, as the bulwarks of the constitution, in church and state. And, lastly, there are some, who contend, that if there were no other objection, the words of the Coronation Oath present an insuperable bar to the claims of the Catholics. I shall not detain your lordships long in the examination of these objections, because they have been repeatedly discussed, and, as it appears to me, very satisfactorily refuted, by far abler men, both in this house and out of it.—With respect to the religious tenets of the Catholics of the present day, it is not a little singular, my lords, that we will not allow them to know what their own religious tenets really are. We call upon them for their Creed, upon some very important points: and they give it to us without reserve; but, instead of believing what they say, we refer them, with an air of controversial triumph, to the councils of Constance, or Thoulouse, to the fourth Lateran council, or to the council of Trent. In vain they most explicitly, and most solemnly aver, that they hold no tenet whatsoever, incompatible with their duties, either as men, or as subjects, or in any way hurtful to the government under which they live. In vain they publish declaration upon declaration, in all of which they most unequivocally disavow those highly exceptionable tenets which are imputed to them: and not only do they disavow, but they express their abhorrence of them. In vain they confirm these declarations by an oath—an oath, my lords, framed by ourselves, drawn up with all possible care, and caution, and couched in terms as strong as language affords. In addition to these ample securities, for the principles and practice of this numerous and loyal class of our fellow subjects and fellow christians, a great statesman, now unhappily no more, caused to be transmitted a string of very important queries, to the principal Catholic Universities abroad; for the purpose of ascertaining, with precision, the sentiments of the Catholic Clergy, respecting the real nature and extent of the papal power, and some other weighty points. The answers returned to these queries, by those learned bodies, appeared to me at the time, as they do now, perfectly satisfactory, and in the same light they were considered by most dispassionate men. Notwithstanding all this, a concealed jealousy of Catholics still lurks about, by far, too many of us; a jealousy, in my opinion, as unworthy of a frank and enlightened people, as it is injurious and cruel towards those who are the objects of it: for surely, my lords, if there be one position more incontrovertibly true than another, it is this: if an in dividual, or a body of men, will give to the government under which they live such a security upon oath, as that government itself prescribes;—if, moreover, they maintain no opinions destructive of moral obligation, or subversive of civil society; their speculative opinions of a religious nature, can never, with justice or with reason, be urged as excluding them from civil and military situations. The Catholics, my lords, give this security; and having given it, the legislature itself has declared, that they ought to be considered ' as good and loyal subjects;' as such, therefore, in my view of the subject, they are unquestionably entitled to the privileges which they claim. When I speak of merely speculative opinions of religion, I wish to be understood as meaning such opinions as begin in the understanding, and rest there, and have no practical influence whatsoever upon our conduct in life. With this limitation, I am not sensible that there is any fallacy in the argument which I have made use of; if there be any, I shall be happy to have it pointed out; as I cannot possibly have any motive in view but what from my heart, I believe to be the truth.—Should an unfortunate and deep rooted prejudice prevail so far, as to make us say, decidedly and openly, that we will not believe a Catholic even upon his oath, there is an end, my lords, of the discussion at once; but the argument, if argument it can be called, proves a great deal too much; and for this plain reason: no obligation more binding than that of an appeal to the Supreme Being by an oath, has hitherto been devised in civil society:—he, therefore, who can justly be supposed capable of setting at nought such an obligation, upon any pretence whatsoever, is not only unworthy of the privileges here contended for, but he is unfit for all social intercourse of every kind—Vetabo sub iisdem sit trabibus.—Harsh, and horrid, as the expression must sound in your lordships ears, he ought to be exterminated from the face of the earth; or at least he should be banished for life to Botany Bay; and even when arrived there he should be driven back into the sea;—for there is no den of thieves, no gang of robbers, no banditti so thoroughly profligate, and at the same time so devoid of common understanding, as to admit that man a member of their community, upon whose fidelity to his engagements no reliance can be placed even for a single hour.—I come now to the second objection; my answer to which will be very short. Civil and military appointments, are it seems, matters of favour, not of right, and therefore the Catholics have no just cause to complain that they are excluded from them. I can hardly, my lords, conceive any man in earnest who regards this distinction as applicable to the present case, because no one pleads for an abstract right to these situations, but for a capacity of holding them: no one contends for the absolute possession of civil, and military offices, but for equal eligibility to them, and having endeavoured to prove, that all men are equally eligible, who give to the government under which they live, such a security, upon oath, for their conduct as subjects, as that government itself prescribes, and who maintain no opinions destructive of moral obligation or subversive of civil society, I shall only add here, that they are so considered to be, in almost all the governments of Europe and over the whole continent of America: and I should be sorry to see England the last to follow so good an example. 'But it is inexpedient,' we are told, 'to repeal statutes, which 'were passed with much deliberation, and 'are considered by many as the bulwarks 'of the constitution in church and state.' How long, my lords, it may be thought expedient, or necessary, that the remaining part of these restrictive disqualifying statutes should be enforced against the Catholics, or at what precise period their operation shall end, is a question not for a divine, but for statesmen and lawyers to decide. I may, however, be permitted to observe, that under any government, however free, though peculiar circumstances may perhaps call for statutes of a very strict, and even of a very severe nature, for a limited period of time, yet no wise statesman would, I imagine, wish those statutes to remain unrepealed, a moment after the circumstances which occasioned them cease to exist. Those who are acquainted with the history of the statutes here alluded to, and of the times in which they passed, will anticipate my application of this remark; the application of it is, indeed, made for me, by a very eminent lawyer, and a very cordial friend to the Ecclesiastical, as well as to the Civil Constitution of this realm. This able writer observes, more than once, in his Commentaries, that whenever the period shall arrive, when the power of the Pope is weak and insignificant, and there is no Pretender to the throne, that then will be 'the time to grant full indulgence to the 'catholics.' That time, my lords, is now come; there is no Pretender to the throne; and with respect to the Papal Power, not a single person present, apprehends, I am thoroughly persuaded, any danger from it;—in truth that once gigantic, power—magni stat nominis umbra—and nothing more. Where, then, can be the objection to granting the Petition of the Catholics of Ireland? A Petition founded on the immutable principles of reason and of justice; a Petition also which worldly policy loudly calls upon us to accede to in the present very serious crisis—a crisis which demands the union of the wise and brave of every description and of every denomination; that cordial union, I mean, which is most assuredly the best support, and indeed the only secure bulwark of every government upon earth. It is unnecessary to add, that an union of this kind, can be obtained only by confidence and conciliation: but, if worldly policy did not thus loudly call upon us, a principle of gratitude should lead us to pay all the attention in our power to these numerous loyal and respectable petitioners, to whom we are in a great measure indebted, for the noblest monument of wisdom and beneficence combined, which modern times have seen: I mean the union of Ireland with England, an union, which, without their cordial co-operation, could never have been effected.—In reply to these observations, which appear to me to carry some weight with them; there are who maintain, that if there were no other objection the words of the Coronation Oath present an insuperable bar to the claims of the Catholics of Ireland. Of all the arguments, my lords, which either principle or prejudice had suggested, or which imagination has started, there is not one, which appears to me to rest upon so weak a foundation, as that which is built upon the words of the coronation oath. This oath, as your lordships well know, underwent some alteration at the period of the Revolution in 1688, at which period, that great prince, William the third, entered into the following solemn engagement when he ascended the throne of this kingdom:—'I will maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the reformed protestant church established by law; and I will preserve to the bishops and clergy of his realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or to 'any of them.'—If, my lords, even intelligent and honest men, were not sometimes disposed to adopt any mode of reasoning, however weak, which coincides with their preconceived ideas upon a subject, it would be no easy matter to find out upon what principle of fair construction, the words which I have just just repeated from the coronation oath, can be thought to militate against the claims of the Catholics of Ireland. It will not, I trust, be said, for I am sure it cannot be proved, that it is either repugnant to the 'laws of God,' or, to the unconfined and benevolent tendency of the gospel, or to those liberal and enlightened principles upon which the reformation was founded: to admit to situations of honour or of profit in the state, men of talents and of virtue, to whom no objection can possibly be made, but their speculative opinions of merely a religious nature; nor can I conceive in what manner 'the rights and privileges of the bishops and clergy of this realm, or of the churches committed to their charge,' can be affected by granting civil and military appointments to men, cordially devoted to the civil constitution, and who have solemnly declared upon oath, that it is neither their intention, nor their wish, to injure or disturb the ecclesiastical. For my own part, my lords, as an individual clergyman of the church of England, sincerely attached to the established church, and proud of the situation which I hold in it, I should be exceedingly sorry, if I could think for a moment, that I possessed any rights, or privileges, incompatible with the just claims of so many excellent subjects and conscientious fellow christians. Be it however admitted, my lords, that the words of the coronation oath, will bear the construction which has been put upon them, I wish to ask where was the objection drawn from this oath, when, in 1782, so many indulgencies were wisely and justly granted to the catholics of Ireland? Indulgencies precisely of the same kind, though differing in degree, from those which are now petitioned for.—But, I forbear to push this argument any further; various considerations restrain me; and perhaps enough has been said, to prove, that the words of the coronation oath, have been unadvisedly and inconclusively brought forward during the discussion of that important question, which has engaged the attention of the public for more than three years. I will now detain your lordships no longer: indeed, I should not have presumed to in- trude so long upon your patience, had I not thought it incumbent upon me to assign the best reasons in my power, for differing so widely from those around me, whose judgment I respect, though I cannot implicitly bow to it, against the clearest conviction of my understanding and the best feelings of my heart.

The Archbishop of York

could not adopt the opinion of his right reverend friend, for whose understanding and virtues he had the highest respect, nor relinquish the safeguards which our ancestors had found it necessary to establish against the principles of the Popish religion. If this Petition had only sued for toleration the most extended, he would have felt no difficulty in acceding to its prayer: for toleration was the key-stone of the reformed church. But no complaint of this sort had been made. The Catholics enjoyed their rights under the protection of the law, and he was glad of it; but he hoped parliament would always resist their attempts at acquiring political power; because, however temporal and spiritual power might be disjoined in theory, they could not be practically separated. It had been said, that Catholics ought not to be judged now by the sentiments which had been formerly held by people of that persuasion. If any material alteration in their articles of faith had taken place, it became them distinctly to shew it. But it was a well-known rule of that church, that all the canons remained in force that were not repealed by a general council; and, certainly, there were many objectionable points, that by this rule must be still considered as part of the Roman Catholic faith. He allowed that many Catholics had been eminent for virtue and piety. Who could hear the name of Fenelon without veneration? He admitted that men might live together very well in society, notwithstanding differences of opinion on speculative points, but he denied that parliament could be opened to the Catholics as long as they owned a foreign jurisdiction, and maintained that there was no salvation beyond the pale of their own church. Impressed with these sentiments, though he by no means regretted what the Catholics had already obtained, he thought it inconsistent with wisdom and sound policy to break down the remaining barriers.

The Bishop of Bangor

had no objection to the fullest toleration in every respect; but if the prayer of this petition should be granted, the Catholics would be on a foot- ing with the Protestants, and therefore the word toleration would be totally inapplicable. There were some of the principles of the Catholics that ought to be regarded with peculiar jealousy. He did not mean to say that Catholics had no regard to their oaths; it was impossible that any set of men could exist so totally abandoned as this would imply. But still he contended that their priests might persuade the violation of these oaths. The nobility of France swore allegiance to Henry 4th; and no doubt conscientiously intended to keep their oaths; but many of them, seduced by their priests, abetted the monk Ravillac, who assassinated that excellent prince. He should rejoice to be convinced that the Catholics had abandoned these detestable principles, but he was not disposed to give implicit credit on this point to the foreign universities. He adverted to the tenets of the Catholics as to confession, absolution, excommunication, foreign jurisdiction, &c. and maintained, that notwithstanding the assertions of the Catholics, their notions on these points were still highly exceptionable. He quoted some passages from publications of their own to prove this—such as, subjecting all oaths and every human law to the cardinal virtue of prudence. He ascribed no evil intention to them on this account; probably, like some of the ancient philosophers, they were for referring all virtue to the utile, exclusive of the honestum. He also adverted to a passage where a great deal of temporal power in fixing the number and extent of parishes and dioceses was ascribed to the Pope. But what principally attracted his attention was, a publication lately ushered into the world, with great solemnity, by the Catholics, called "Ward's Errata of the Protestant translation of the Bible," where the English church was charged with falsifying the Scriptures. To this some Queries were subjoined, lending to shew that the church of England was no church at all, and putting it to the wisdom of Englishmen, whether there was any advantage in hiring the clergy of that church at the expence of nearly a million sterling, to lead them in the broad way of perdition? If the Catholics were loyal and patriotic, these good qualities would not be endangered by the refusal of the prayer of this petition, the granting of which could only benefit a few persons.

Lord Hutchinson

denied that this was a party question, or that any influence had been employed by those with whom he acted, to bring forward this petition, or to aggravate the irritation of the catholic body. The matter was not under their controul; the catholics themselves had judged it proper to bring their claims before parliament, and had first offered the petition to a noble duke at the head of the government. Upon his refusal they had requested his noble friend to present it. What private interest could they have in the agitation of this question? That it had been often urged before, was no reason why it should not be discussed now. The oftener the subject was discussed, the better founded would the catholic claims appear. There were few great constitutional objects gained without repeated discussion and perseverance. The march of truth might be slow, but it always came up, and gained the victory at last. Those, however, who had to contend with prejudice, passion, and narrow views, could not but expect to meet with calumny. The arguments against the claims, drawn from the power of the pope, had been often urged raid refuted. The power of the catholic church existed no longer, its imperious head was bowed to the ground, and itself bound in adamantine chains. Yet the opposers of the claims spoke of the power of the church, as if that power had been in its zenith, and as if the pope commanded the world. It was a miserable employment, to be constantly obliged to repeat these refutations. However obnoxious the doctrines ascribed to the Roman-catholic church were, it was evident that if ever they were maintained by the catholics, they now disclaimed them. It had been said, that nothing was more absurd than to surround a protestant king with Roman-catholic officers. Experience, however, had proved that there was no absurdity whatever in this: protestants commanded the armies of Louis 14th; catholics were employed in the Russian government, and the three mandarins that attended lord Macartney in China were of three different sects. Could any one imagine that a man who possessed scope of mind sufficient for the conduct of government, that a general fit to be trusted with the command of an army, should so far forget his honour and his duty as to render his power subservient to any improper practices connected with speculative matters of faith? In the present age, the influence of religious opinions was not so strong. In the dread events that had lately happened, religious notions were not concerned. Great as the mischief had been, the name of religion had not been abused. The ideas which some appeared to entertain of the influence of speculative points of faith were not applicable to the present times. In almost every country except our own, these restrictions were done away. The Roman-catholic church, instead of domineering over others, was scarcely able to sustain itself The clamour raised about its being subject to one head was now idle and absurd, though a century ago, perhaps, this circumstance might afford reasonable grounds for apprehension. It had been remarked by the opposers of the claims, that a compliance with the prayer of the petition would be contrary to the principles of the revolution. He respected the principles of the revolution, because he had a different view of them: their object was to guard the liberty of the subject, to secure his right, and the stability of the contract between the king and the people; their object was real liberty, and in order to secure that, these restrictions were then imposed; but the occasion for them having ceased, the spirit and principles of the revolution required that they should be abolished. Many of the misfortunes of Ireland had resulted from this impotent attempt at keeping the power in the hands of a few, to the exclusion of the great body of the people from the chance of attaining the higher offices. Miserable and short-sighted politicians! the evil they had done lived after them, and Ireland still smarted under its effects. The general disrespect of the law, the long-continued and deep-rooted discontent in Ireland, must have resulted from as general a cause. His countrymen were extreme in their love and their hatred, their gratitude and their resentment; and hence the distractions that had arisen from an erroneous policy. But, he was told that the peasants would be indifferent to the benefits now claimed; and that even though granted, the effects would not reach them. The odious distinction established by law between the Roman-catholic and the protestant being done away, the former would find his consequence much-increased; and many poor people might have access to several little offices, from which they were at present in effect excluded by the stigma under which they laboured. The noble general concluded by a long comment upon the absurdity of excluding the catholics from power upon such futile grounds, while all Europe had coalesced against us; when all governments had become tolerant but our own; when all the power of the people was reduced to nothing; and when our danger had increased in a tenfold degree.

Earl Stanhope,

in allusion to what had fallen from a right reverend prelate, admitted that a million sterling was a great deal of money to pay annually to him and his brethren. As to the mistranslation of the Bible, the papists were not perhaps far wrong, as far as respected the early versions. The garbled manuscript in the British Museum was a proof of this. The parts improperly translated having been written in a different ink from the true and genuine passages, time had consumed one of the sorts of ink, and the whole imposition was detected. But the bishops were very eager for uniformity: where was that uniformity in the church of England, when the differences in the Common Prayer Books of Cambridge and Oxford amounted to 3,600 and upwards? All the bishops ought to be ashamed of themselves. He begged pardon for saying 'all;' one respectable prelate had made a most logical, sound, and liberal speech on the present occasion, and had been most miserably answered by the priest who spoke last. When the privileges of three millions of people were under consideration, it was scandalous to be reading anonymous libels against them. He should have thought that the noble viscount on the cross bench (Sidmouth) might have been better acquainted with the rule of order, than to accuse the catholics of a want of patriotism, merely because they persisted in claiming what appeared to them to be their due. The noble earl then read a paper published by the English catholics, disclaiming all the mischievous doctrines imputed to them, in which they were joined by the Irish catholics, and concluded by observing, that there could not be a libel urged against them to which that paper was not a complete answer.

Lord Mulgrave

was satisfied that the discussion of this subject could produce nothing but irritation and mischief. He contrasted the conduct of the noble lords opposite when in power, with their conduct now they were out of power. When in power, they were ready to relinquish even a comparatively insignificant measure to relieve the catholics; now they were out of power, nothing would content them but a full and complete concession. The noble baron who brought forward this motion declared, that this concession was necessary for the salvation of the empire. If he thought so when in office he ought to have declared it; if his opinion had changed, he ought to explain the cause of that change. A great delusion was practised by stating that three millions of people were interested in this question, when in fact not more than three hundred could be actually interested. He wished, however, to be distinctly understood as giving no opinion on the catholic claims; what he meant was, that it was extremely indiscreet to agitate the question when its fate must be anticipated.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire

opposed the motion, because he was averse to the whole principle of the measure. He had every reason to love the people of Ireland, but he was convinced that a compliance with the prayer of the petition would be so far from tranquillizing that country, that it would have a quite contrary effect. The catholics now wanted seats in parliament; but this was only to be the step to a great deal more: He gave it as his opinion, that if the parliament was opened to the catholics, eighty dissenters from the church of England would be returned for Ireland; and this opinion was founded on the great increase of the catholic freeholders. Adverting to the negative proposed to be allowed to his majesty in the appointment of Roman-catholic bishops, he observed that this was no more than giving a concurrent jurisdiction with Buonaparte, who commanded the pope. The principles of the catholics, he thought, ought to be watched with jealousy. He quoted an observation in the publication of Dr. Milner, in order to shew the spirit which still appeared to prevail among them. This was a remark on the statue of his majesty, or his predecessor, at Cork; which was said to be painted yellow because the king was an orange-man, and sided with a few thousands of his subjects against as many millions. He agreed perfectly with the noble baron who introduced the subject, that it would be wise to make a provision for the catholic clergy. This, and a proper plan of education to enlighten the minds of the people, would be the best boon for Ireland. The granting of the present claims could do little good, and might do a great deal of harm.

The Duke of Norfolk

supported the motion. Adverting to the power of rejecting their Bishops, which the Catholics were willing to give his majesty, he explained it more fully. They were disposed to lay before his majesty a list of three persons, of whom his majesty was to be at liberty to reject two; the remaining one would be invested with the episcopal dignity; but if his majesty were to reject the whole three, then another list of three distinct persons would be submitted to his consideration, and so on until his majesty should signify his approbation of any individual, by allowing his name to remain. The noble duke said he was somewhat surprised at the manner in which the name of Dr. Milner had been mentioned; he was a gentleman of learning and science, with whose acquaintance he had been some time honoured. The petition was recommended to the house by the signatures of several noblemen, the ancestors of some of whom had been in parliament in times more favourable to their religious tenets, and one of them had been raised to the peerage by his present majesty. He himself respected the established church as much as any man, and if he thought it would be in the smallest degree endangered by the indulgencies sought by the catholics, he should most assuredly oppose the measure; but being convinced that nothing of that kind was to be apprehended, he should support the reference of the petition to a committee.

Lord Erskine

was of opinion, that parliament had gone on too far in the system of concession to the catholics now to make a stop, consistently with the object which gave rise to that system. He could not conceive the principle upon which the catholics were admitted into the army, the navy, and certain civil departments of the state, while they were to be excluded from those appointments for which the petitioners sought. The house should, he thought, go into the proposed committee, and there it might be considered how far the prayer of the petition might be acceded to, and whether any and what conditions were necessary to accompany the grant of the prayer of the petitioners in order to secure the Protestant establishment, in solicitude for the maintenance of which he would yield to no person or party whatever.

Lord Hawkesbury

had hoped, from the conduct of the learned lord when this subject was last before parliament, and from his knowledge of the laws and constitution of his country, that he would vote against the motion, and not for it. For his own part, he should fail in his duty if he did not declare most decidedly, that his objection to granting the prayer of the petition did not rest on times and circumstances, but on principle. This opinion was founded on his conviction that a protestant government alone was consistent with the laws and constitution of the British empire. The noble baron by whom the question had been brought forward had said, that it would be no injustice to keep a Roman-catholic from the crown, because no person who could have any pretensions to the crown was a catholic. But such a case might exist: the presumptive heir to the crown might be a catholic, and then his exclusion would be a hardship; but that was not to be set against the safety of the protestant establishment. Our allegiance to the house of Brunswick was paid, not because it was the house of Brunswick alone, but because it was a protestant house. If it was necessary that the king of Great Britain should be a protestant, was it not necessary that his advisers should be so too? that the lord chancellor (the I keeper of the king's conscience), the judges, and the great officers of the state, should be protestants? And if this were so, was it not more wise and expedient to exclude catholics from these situations by law, than to throw upon the king the odium of rejecting them? For let the house bear in mind, that the principle of the prayer of the petition went to the attainment of all power, on equal terms with the protestants, a principle which no monarch could venture to apply practically without endangering the constitution. It must be recollected, that the catholics were not at present excluded from places of the highest trust by any direct law. They excluded themselves because they would not take the prescribed tests (prescribed to all the subjects of the empire indifferently); and particularly because they would not take the oath of supremacy, by which they abjured all foreign temporal and ecclesiastical dominion in these realms. The first question therefore was, whether or not this oath was founded in reason and principle? Was it just, as long as the country possessed a protestant government and a protestant establishment, to require that the members of the legislature, and the great officers of the state, should abjure foreign temporal, as well as foreign ecclesiastical, dominion? Consistently with the security of the protestant government and the protestant establishment, it was not possible to dispense with this test. The large pro- portion of the population of Ireland which the catholics formed, had been stated as a reason for acceding to their request. This question must be viewed in one of two points: if the empire were, considered (and in his opinion we were bound so to consider it) as a whole, then in any legislative regulation, parliament ought to be influenced, not by what was the majority of a certain class in a part of the empire, but by what was the majority of that class in the whole empire. On this footing, the claim of the catholics was indefensible; and it was that the two islands might thus be considered as a whole empire, that the Union had been projected. If the other view of the subject were taken, if the majority in a part of the empire were to determine, the regulations of the legislature, the consequence would then be, that if the present question were carried, the catholics might go further. They might then say, that as their having a majority in the population of Ireland had been admitted as a ground for their admissibility into the high offices of the state, the same circumstance would entitle them to substitute a catholic for a protestant establishment in that country. This was a question directly affecting every catholic who had an acre of land in Ireland; every man who now paid to the support of two churches, would be very ready to get rid of that burden by the subversion of protestantism, as the established religion of the country. He allowed that no such object was hinted at in the petition, but experience had pronounced decidedly on this subject. Was it not within every man's recollection, that in 1793 and 1794, the catholics of Ireland were called upon to state the whole of their demands? They did state the whole of their demands. They were granted by the Irish parliament, and what followed? Why, that they urged fresh demands. In support of his opinion, with respect to the disposition of the catholics to presume on any indulgence that was granted to them, he read an extract from a work by sir John Throgmorton (a moderate catholic), in which their wish to insinuate a catholic establishment was sufficiently indicated. If, therefore, the legislature of Great Britain were to surrender to the catholics the barrier in question, that surrender would lead to the destruction of the present ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland. The next question to be discussed was the probability, should the prayer of the petition be complied with, that such compliance would benefit the Irish people at large. No one could more lament the disturbances that had recently occurred in the sister kingdom; but, on a close examination, he found that these disturbances had not originated in any political or religious cause. They chiefly arose from a demand made by the catholic priests for an increase of their dues, and from other local grievances, which, although they were severely felt, were still but local. If he was well-founded in this statement, what became of the noble baron's assertion, that a compliance with the petition would allay the general discontent of the Irish? No man could deny-that it was desirable to allay that discontent; but he would positively deny that the measure proposed was calculated to do so; on the contrary, he was convinced, that by inciting to new demands, demands which could not be complied with, we should give birth to new causes of discontent. The noble baron had dwelt on the necessity of compliance on account of the great danger to which the country was exposed in the present state of the world. The country certainly was in great danger; but in former periods it had also been in great danger (though perhaps not in such great danger as at this moment, yet in danger so great that the government would not have been justified had they not resorted to every means of defence within their power), yet the government at those periods never sought for assistance by surrendering the barriers of the constitution. In the beginning of the reign of king William, the country was exposed to a great foreign force; the French fleet disputed with the British the dominion of the seas; Ireland was in a most disturbed state; in England there existed a strong party attached to the exiled family. But, amidst all these dangers, did the government think of surrendering the barriers of the constitution? No; they felt that the security of the country depended upon the constitution, and that the security of the constitution depended upon the protestant establishment. By uniting these firmly together, they were enabled successfully to battle with the enemies by whom they were surrounded. In declaring his conviction that the mass of the people of Ireland would not be benefited by the concession which it was proposed to make to them, he was supported by very high authority. Arthur O'Connor, Messrs. M'Nevin and Emmett, had distinctly stated, that they would not. But it was to-him most obvious, that those who, under a protestant establishment, were allowed to make and to administer the laws, ought to submit to some test of their determination inviolably to maintain that establishment.

Lord Holland

did not think it necessary to enter into a discussion of the various polemical points which had been brought forward in the course of the debate. The question for parliament to consider was, what was the state of Ireland, and what the remedy proper to be applied to it in the present exigency? If the good will of four millions of the people was necessary to the safety of Ireland, if Ireland was necessary to the safety of the empire, this measure ought to be acceded to. With the danger of the present day he contended that no preceding period could fairly be compared. The reign of William III. which had been quoted, had no analogy whatever to it, and therefore the existence of the penal laws, at that or any other period that had been mentioned, could present nothing in their justification at this moment. These penal laws were, in his mind, always odious, but peculiarly so at present, when all the pretexts for their original enactment ceased to exist. The noble lord vindicated the book of Dr. Milner against the misrepresentation of it which appeared in the speech of one of the reverend prelates; but he contended that whatever that book, or the book of any other individual, however high in talent or character, might contain that should be reprehensible, could not fairly be alleged as a ground of censure upon the whole sect of which that individual might be a member. He replied to the assertion, that the peasantry of Ireland cared not a farthing about, the object for which the higher orders of their persuasion were now seeking. What, he would ask, bound a man to the glory of his country? What made the lower orders rejoice in the honours and achievements of their generals and admirals? What made their hearts beat with exultation at the mere mention of such names as Nelson's? What, but the principle and feeling which must excite pleasure in the Irish peasant's breast, when informed of the advancement and distinction of one of his persuasion and way of thinking. As to the attempt made to identify the Revolution with the abominable code against the catholics, he protested against the identity. He also protested against the Revolution, as being provoked by ca- tholicism, or by the peculiar partiality of James H. to that creed. No; it arose out of his perseverance in urging that dispensing power which his unfortunate father attempted to establish. But the main question to consider on this occasion was this: by whom had any of the riots or commotions, ascribed to the catholics, been excited and directed? Certainly not by catholic generals, admirals, or senators, whatever concern the catholic populace might have in them. Therefore no precedent could be adduced from history to justify any apprehension of danger from such persons as this petition referred to. Indeed, as to history, it would not be the interest of either sect to refer to it, as a great deal of excess might be shewn on both sides. To the assertion of the noble baron (Hawkesbury) that the catholics owed their exclusion to their own conduct in refusing to subscribe to the oaths of supremacy and abjuration, he would shortly reply, by referring to those oaths, and then he would ask any candid man, whether it was possible for any catholic to swear such oaths; to subscribe to tests which absolutely proscribed his own faith: the proposition was mockery. The noble lord concluded with a commentary upon the principles and objects of those with whom the penal laws originated, and pronounced the conduct of the old whigs of the Revolution who sanctioned them, as highly disgraceful.

Lord Auckland

said that he should state very shortly the motives of his adherence to the opinion which he had expressed so fully on a former occasion. He had even been inclined to give a silent vote; for it did not appear to him that any new circumstances had arisen, or that any new arguments had been adduced to shake or controvert the solemn decision of 1805. Without entering into any details, he felt himself compelled by his sense of public duty to resist any further indulgences to the Roman-catholics of Ireland. From 1778 to 1793 concession had followed concession, and every indulgence had produced a new demand; "Increase of appetite had "grown by what it fed on." Many of those concessions had been wise and just, and he had materially contributed to some of them; but he had always considered the concessions of 1793 as going beyond the line of prudence; and to the effect of those concessions he attributed the embarrassing anomaly in which Ireland was now placed, with reference to the other parts of the united kingdom. The petition now under discussion demanded every thing that had been reserved in 1793; and, in short, a lull participation of the official, judicial, and legislative powers of the empire. He could not bring himself to accede to such a claim. He thought it right to resist the theoretical solecism of a protestant king and papist councils, and to maintain the predominance of that mild and reformed religion, which by its principles was incorporated with the system and security of the British constitution. This opinion had been sanctioned by the wisdom of our ancestors in all the measures which immediately preceded and accompanied the Revolution of 1688. The same doctrine had been recognized in the union with Scotland, and through the whole of the eighteenth century, and finally in the fifth article of the union with Ireland. If then it were clear (as he contended) that what is now asked is not a claim of right but matter of indulgence, the decision must rest on expediency; and he could not hesitate to say, that he was not prepared to break down the remaining barriers, under the protection of which we have risen to a state of prosperity, freedom, and pre-eminence, which distinguishes us among the nations of the world, and has made us what we are. Nor did he think it necessary to argue how far the catholics, if they should attain what they now asked, might be disposed to look forwards to the attainment of an acknowledged church establishment, and to the withholding of all support to the exercise of the protestant reformed religion. Under these impressions, he was not disposed to go into a committee on the petition, because he remained in the persuasion that every thing had been done which could reasonably be asked or granted. Nor did he feel himself called upon to say whether under any supposable circumstances, it might not become expedient to give what their lordships would now refuse. From the past conduct of parliament he had the fullest confidence in their wisdom, temper, firmness, and consistency; and greatly would it have been to the credit of many of his countrymen, and of several corporations, if, in the last year, they had preserved the same dignified and conciliatory moderation, of which their parliament had set so eminent an example. But instead of trusting to those on whom it became them to rely, they had converted this great national question into a senseless electioneering cry and cla- mour: and had done every thing in their power to endanger the whole question, by giving to it a temporary and personal character, under a pretext of exaggerated loyalty and ill-founded alarm; With respect to the mover and supporters of the present question, he gave every credit for the full purity of their motives; he knew them to be as far removed as he could be from any indifference concerning what is called the establishment in church and state; nothing had occurred to lessen his friendship for them, or to shake his attachment to them. But he happened to differ from them on a point in which it is impossible to have any complaisance or compromise, and in which the weight of authority cannot be placed against the weight of self-conviction.

The Earl of Suffolk

vindicated the character and conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland and Great Britain from the aspersions thrown upon them by their enemies, and gave his hearty support to the motion.

Lord Grenville

made a short reply. The proposition relative to the future appointment of catholic bishops in Ireland was, to his knowledge, long in contemplation, although the catholics had not, until lately, thought proper to make it public. It was a proposition, indeed, known to his right hon. friend now no more (Mr. Pitt), and was one of those guards and conditions with which he meant to accompany the concessions which he proposed to grant to the Catholic body. With regard to the nature of the proposition itself, he should rather think, that instead of presenting the names of three persons to the king, for his majesty to choose one from among them, as had been mentioned, it would be more eligible to present but one name, and if that were rejected, another, and so on in succession until bag majesty's approbation should be obtained.—As to the personal animadversions in which some noble lords had thought proper to indulge, he really thought that whatever reflections might be made upon his character, it would have been quite secure upon the question at present before then-lords, through his solicitude for which he had twice sacrificed the highest offices in the state.—Upon a division, the numbers were:

Contents	74
Non-Contents	161
Majority	87

List of the Minority.
Dukes of	Lords
Norfolk,	Somers,
Somerset,	Braybrooke,
Bedford,	Grenville,
Argyle.	Upper Ossory (earl of)
Marquises of
Buckingham,	Mendip (v. Clifden)
Stafford,	Dundas,
Headfort.	Cawdor,
Earls	Carrington,
Derby,	Butler (earl of Ormond),
Suffolk,
Essex,	Hutchinson,
Shaftesbury,	Erskine,
Albemarle,	Crewe,
Jersey,	Ponsonby of Imokilly.
Oxford & Mortimer,
Cowper,
Stanhope,	Proxies.
Lauderdale,	Dukes of
	Grafton,
Wentworth Fitzwilliam,
	St. Albans,
Spencer,	Devonshire.
Glandore,	Marquis of
Fortescue	Bute.
Conyngham,	Earls
Donoughmore,	Clanricarde,
Rosslyn.	Thanet,
Viscounts	Carlisle,
Hereford,	Tankerville,
Duncan.	Guildford,
Bishop of	Hardwicke,
Norwich.	Charlemont,
Lords	Orford,
Say and Sele,	St. Vincent,
St. John,	Grey.
Grey De Ruthyn,	Viscount
Spencer of Wormleighton (marquis of Blandford),	Anson,
	Lords
	Stawell,
Clifton (e. Darnley)	Lucan,
King,	Foley,
Ponsonby (earl of Besborough),	Southampton,
	Bulkeley,
Holland,	Fife,
Hawke,	Yarborough,
Hungerford (earl of Moira),	Glastonbury,
	Breadalbane.