HC Deb 13 May 1805 vol 4 cc833-950

—The order of the day being read for taking into consideration the Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and the petition itself (see p.97) being also read by the clerk,

Mr. Fox

rose and spoke as follows: Sir, at the same time that I cannot help feeling a considerable degree of anxiety at being about to bring before the house a subject which, according to my conception of it, seems, in its probable consequences, some nearer and some more remote, to be of the very highest importance; yet I confess, I feel infinitely less agitated than upon many other subjects on which I have lately had occasion to address you. It is certainly a sort of recreation, if I may be allowed so to express myself, after having been obliged to perform the harassing duties of accusation; after having promoted enquiries into circumstances, certainly not more honourable to the country at large than to the individual concerned in them; after having had my mind so harassed and occupied, to feel that I am not now the mover of accusation, but that I am pleading the cause of my fellow subjects, and that I urn endeavouring to add to the strength of the country, without taking from the credit, power, or authority of any living man in the empire. I cannot help being sensible of the contrast between the duties lately imposed upon me, and that of attempting to draw the attention of the house to a subject, which, however embarrassing the discussions of it may be to some persons, has at least this advantage, that it rests entirely on principles of general affection and good will, connected With views which every man must approve, and no man can condemn. The question, sir, that I have the honour of bringing before you, and I do feel it a great honour to have been desired to bring it before you, is no less than a petition, signed not indeed by any very great number of persons, but embracing, and I take it at the lowest calculation, when I say, one-fifth of his majesty's subjects. Nay, further, I believe I shall not be incorrect, if I state them at one-fourth of the whole of his majesty's subjects in Europe. My duty, therefore, calls upon me to plead the cause of 3 or 4 millions of the people of Ireland, without reference to the proportion they bear to the population of that part of the empire, but which must be allowed to contain the greater proportion of the catholic subjects of his majesty—a proportion amounting to nearer a fourth than a fifth of the whole population of the empire. I feel particularly fortunate, that when I am pressing the claims of the catholics of Ireland to the consideration of this house, I am not pressing them as adverse or hostile to the power or pre-eminence, much less the liberty, or privileges, of the subjects of any other part of the country. If I could persuade the house to do justice to the catholics, I should persuade them to render a most important service indeed, perhaps the most essential that remains to be done, or that ever was done, for the security, the greatness, and general weal of the empire, whether with regard to its internal policy, or external relations.—It may be somewhat difficult for me to choose on what part of the subject it is most proper to begin. The plain and simple statement of the question, and the first argument in support of it, would naturally be drawn from matter of fact, concerning which no controversy or difference of opinion ever did or can exist; I mean the number of persons who are affected by the question. If I had not heard that different opinions were entertained with respect to the policy and expediency of granting the prayer of this petition, I should hardly think it could be a question, whether a portion of his. majesty's subjects, so considerable as nearly one-fourth, should be on a footing With the remainder, or should have the enjoyment of equal laws, privileges, or advantages, and the full participation and benefit of the constitution and government of the country? Against the principle so generally stated, cause may be shown, suppositions may be urged, and facts may be referrer to, with a view to show that this, as well as any other general principle, may be liable to error. I Will not detain the house long upon this point; but it is necessary I should call its attention to a topic, which may be considered more an object of theory than any thing else. I shall trouble the house tint shortly, and only explain my opinion, that, whatever difference of sentiment and feeling may exist, that difference is purely theoretical—the question, in point of practical application, is precisely the same. What some call rights, and what others call indulgences, are precisely and exactly the same. The differences are rather differences between words than things.— There are two modes of considering this question; 1st, as it regards the rights of the subject and 2dly, as it affects the rights of the right of crown. That which was most in fashion at different periods of the last century, was the latter mode of viewing it. For my own part, I do consider the rights of the people governed to be the prominent rights. I consider, that those who compose the society of a state have a complete and unquestionable right to equality of law; but I do at the same time admit, that this principle is not to be taken generally. I admit the force of the other general maxim, that salus populi suprema est lex, and ought with propriety to be considered as an exception, Not only very able men, but men of practical knowledge, have in their closets considered it in that light. A most respectable modern writer of our own country, now living, (Dr. Paley) has stated, that the general right of government is to do whatever may be necessary for the advantage of the people: but he, and every man of sense, will tell you, that although this is undoubtedly the general right, yet whenever it is exercised by restrictions with regard to one class of the people, such exercise becomes ail abuse; or, in other words, the people have a right not to he restricted in any thing that is not adverse to the safety of the country. The people have a right to be exempted generally from unequal restriction; but when the safety of the country demands it, and history shows us that such instances are numerous, they are exceptions to the rule, and have always been so considered.—In the way in which different persons consider this subject, a difference of opinion has been produced, but the conclusion is the same. Some say they would give the catholics what they require, as a matter of favour, and a matter of policy; but not as a matter of right. Now, I say, I would give it to them as a matter of right: but we, however, shall not differ, if the practical consequence of our reasoning come to the same thing. I would give it as a right, because it is the general right of the people, and because there is no exception which ought to operate against the catholics of Ireland. Though government has a right to impose restrictions; yet, if there be no necessity for them, then comes the right of the people to enjoy the benefit of every law, provided such enjoyment is not mischievous in its consequences to the country. It was therefore, sir, I wished to say these few words, because it is so important a part of the subject, and one which, from the nature of it, cannot be a question to-day, but may recur and become a question for future consideration. I should wish that all should understand each other, and particularly that it should not be supposed there is any essential difference, when, in fact, it is a difference of words rather than of principles. Whatever differences exist with respect to the two theories, it is evident they lead to the same practical consequences. To apply this to the Roman catholics of Ireland, I do not lay down a principle too large, when I state that it is the general right of the catholics, as well as of the Protestants, to be on an equal footing, to have equal laws, privileges, and immunities, in all cases where they are not prejudicial to the welfare of the state. The only differences that could arise would be with regard to the degree in which they should enjoy those rights. Cases might be put where persons might say nothing could justify a departure from the rule of right, but expediency. Some might say, political advantages, connected with external relations, would justify it; others would require such a degree of expediency as would amount to a necessity. They would require that not only the greatness of the country, but the security of the country, should be concerned. I flatter myself we shall not go on such near shades. The Roman catholics of Ireland have undoubtedly a right to equal laws; but the government has thought fit to curtail that right, and to put them on a footing disadvantageous to them.—To enter into the question, whether the laws for restraining the catholics were originally politic, or, rather, whether, they were just; that is to say, whether the policy which dictated them was of such a nature as to render that just which was not within the general rule of justice, would be a discussion exceedingly unnecessary at this moment. At the same time, it will be necessary to attend to the particular period of history in which these restrictions were principally imposed. I think I need not state what will be the argument in reply. No man's. mind, I hope, is so framed as to imagine that the restrictions can be justified on account of the length of time they have been allowed to continue. Such an opinion would be a solicism in political reasoning; it would do away the original principle on which such slaws were founded, to contend, that though they might be unnecessary at the dine they were adopted, yet that, by a long lapse of time, they have acquired a prescriptive light. If a restrictive law is made on account of peculiar circumstances of a political nature, the moment those circumstances cease the restriction ceases to be politic, and consequently ceases to be just. I cannot conceive how any man can be justified in supposing that, where the circumstances on which A law is founded have ceased, the justice of continuing that law can be a matter for fair reasoning. It may so happen, though I think it has not so happened in this case, but it has nearly happened, that the fact of long restrictions may make it difficult afterwards to restore the objects of them to that situation in which they would have been if the restrictions had never been imposed. I think one may generally state, that all the restrictions of the catholics were laid, not on their religious but their political opinions. At the time they were made, I have doubt whether many of those who concurred in them did not disapprove of the principle; and have doubts also, whether. others did not mix sentiments of persecution and rancour with those restrictions. I would not wish to go to antient times; but in the early period of the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I. no one can suppose it was any particular religious bigotry that led to the restrictions with regard to the catholics. As far as one can learn of the character of Queen Elizabeth, her faith was not so repugnant to the catholic religion as that of many protestant ministers, who were principally concerned in the restrictions. She managed the question with a degree of prudence which proved her one of the most consummate princes of the age. She seemed to be engaged in a general war with several great catholic powers, and particularly with the King of Spain. From the connexion which the King of Spain had with catholics by the league with France, she was necessarily involved in disputes with France, as well as other powers of the continent; therefore they were political circumstances which occasioned those harsh and severe laws against the catholics which passed in her reign. Whatever other pretences might have been resorted to, it is plain the catholics were not considered as the loyal subjects of Queen Elizabeth. But I am speaking of old times, and the circumstances them do not relate to the present. Even in the reigns that followed, very few restrictions by penal law were enacted, very restrictions of disabilities took place till a much later period. This may be accounted for from the circumstance that there was no suspicion of the catholics; but afterwards, in the time of the Stuarts, and Charles I and II, suspicions had taken possession of the minds of people of this country, which made those restrictions necessary, many of which have been done away, and some are now under consideration. When we come to the revolution, it is impossible not to see that all the laws of the Catholics were political laws. It was not a catholic, but a Jacobite, you wished to restrain. When King James was driven from the country; when his enormous tyranny became so mixed with bigotry, that many persons professed to be able to unravel his conduct, and tell what to attribute to religion, what to bigotry, and what to tyranny, it was easy to suppose that the catholics should be actuated by an attachment for a king who had lost his throne in consequence of his partiality for their faith. Ireland at this time was the seat of civil war. Undoubtedly it was natural, after that war was settled by conquest, to prevent the conquered from enjoying the privileges of the conquerors. It was not against the religious faith of those who adored the Virgin Mary, or believed in the doctrine transubstantiation.—King William was unquestionably a great man; I may say the greatest that ever filled the throne of this or any other country; but whoever would wish to raise his character, by representing him as a persecutor of heresy and idolatry, materially mistake the character of that prince. I am persuaded, that be most reluctantly consented to harsh measures against the catholics of Ireland, and only did so, because it was represented to him by his ministers, that they Were absolutely necessary. That King William would have acted wiser, if he had made those restrictions less harsh, it is not now our business to consider. King William, in conceding his own to the opinion of others, acquiesced, on the ground of the difference of opinion among the Roman catholics as to the right of succession to the crown, and in conformity to that advice which his ministers gave him. The years that followed the revolution were most of them years of war; and those that were not years of war, were, with reference to the catholics, years of a suspicious nature. Endeavours were made to bring about a religious war, in which it was impossible for the enemy not to have looked with confidence to the assistance of Ireland, and therefore the catholics were disarmed. It might have been wise so to do. That there were bigoted motives actuating some I will not attempt to deny— there were many persons in this, as well as that country, who were of opinion, that by these persecution they should convert to the protestant the property of the whole kingdom of Ireland: other there were, who thought that more lenient measures were likely to be more successful. The effect proved that the measures adopted not only failed, but they were of a nature which rendered their success absolutely impossible. They were laws which, though nominally against the catholics were substantially against the jacobites. In the two next reigns the same laws continued, because the same spirit was supposed to exist, and the same danger to be apprehended from it. In the rebellions which followed, the conduct of the catholics in remaining quiet, gave them a just claim to the indulgence of the house; yet no man who considers the grounds of those rebellions, will think that any degree of trust could have been reposed in the catholics.—We come now to the period of his present majesty's reign: a period at which all danger of a pretender, and the return of the Stuart family to the throne, was extinguished. I should certainly say, that all danger of that nature had vanished in the latter end of the reign of George II., and that there was no longer any dispute as to the succession to his majesty's crown. From that period no further danger existed. During the lord-lieutenancy of the duke of Bedford, at the time of his majesty's accession, the system of relaxation towards the body of the catholics was adopted. There was a remarkable circumstance at the period to which I am referring, that proves to me more clearly than any thing else, that the causes of these restrictions were at an end. So far Was the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, during the American war, and the war with France, from pretending that there was any danger to be apprehended, that upon an alarm on the coast of Cork, arms, though contrary to law, were put into the hands of those against whom the restrictions remained, on account of the unjust suspicions that they were not worthy of being trusted. Then undoubtedly there was a good deal of difference of opinion; for although there was not much doubt in this house, yet gentlemen must know that the catholics of Ireland were the subject of much consideration. I need only refer to the letters published by the late Mr. Burke relative to the conversations in those days. I remember in 1776 or 1777, the matter being mentioned in a conversation in this house. It became a topic of discussion ring the period of the American war, when party politics ran high, and when persons felt warm, as undoubtedly they ought to feel upon occasions such public im- portance. The opinion then was, that it was a desirable thing to liberate the catholics from the disqualifications which attached to; and I rather believe that the real grounds of the motion, and the bill, moved and seconded by two celebrated names, sir George Saville and Mr. Dunning, were not so much to relieve the catholics of Ireland. I did conceive, that to bar a man of his right on account of his religious opinions, was tyranny, that the maxim of salus populi never could apply, because the safety of the people could not operate as a ground for preventing a man from enjoying his religious opinion. A great disposition was shown to follow up the system of relaxation. It was thought that what had been done might lead to a relaxation of all the laws against the catholics. All that scattered men's minds at the time was this,—an apprehension of the pope or pretender. There might have been in some persons sentiments of respect and compassion, and in others an inclination to taunt or insult; but there was not one person who had any degree of fear or terror, as one single ingredient in forming his opinion. It was said, that the restrictions in Ireland, the ferocious manners of those who were protestants, and the insults sustained by the catholics, had produced, as Mr. Burke says, a degree of desperation in that unhappy people, which made it doubtful how far they were to be trusted. The effect of the system had been that of changing, by degrees, the whole property of Ireland, and that country was brought into a state highly to be lamented. I do not mean to make any comparison between the treatment of the black slaves on the coast of Africa, and that of the people of Ireland; I mean only to state, that it was a circumstance likely to produce the general disaffection of the people, that the whole of the property was in the hands of the protestant ascendancy, while the mass of the population was catholic. Even among those whose forms of government are less free than ours, the property and power should go hand-in-hand, and there should be no other distinction except that of the proprietor and the servant. We began by enabling the catholics to acquire property. What has been the consequence? The power connected with the free trade and constitution we gave to Ireland in 1782, has produced an increase of property beyond all proportion greater than that enjoyed by the Protestants. There has been not only an increase of mercantile property among the ca- tholics of Ireland, but also of the landed property. This has been attended with they happiest effect. It has produced the effect of softening and correcting those distinctions between the catholics and the protestants, which were found so oppressive. The catholics are now possessed of a great deal of that property which was taken froth their ancestors. I mention this, because one of the apprehensions with respect to the catholics was, that they had preserved memoirs of the ancient state of property, and that, on a favourable opportunity, they were to claim of the protestants all the property that belonged to their ancestors. This objection has been completely clone away; for at this moment, if you were to reverse the act of settlement, and restore the property of those who possessed before Cromwell's time, I believe the catholics would he as great sufferers as the protestants. And what catholics? Why, the catholics who are now rich and powerful, viz. the only catholics to whom we would give an addition of power. From the time of the acquisition of property by the catholics, I have never been able to conceive on what principle their demands were not conceded to them; least of all, why particular restrictions should have been kept up, when others were abandoned. What are the restrictions now existing? The general restrictions may be comprised under these two heads: one, the incapacity under which the catholics lie with regard to the enjoyment of certain offices, civil and military; the other, the incapacity of sitting in either house of parliament. Gentlemen who have attended to all this history of the restrictions of the catholics (sorry I am to say, a large chapter in the history of Great Britain,) need not be told, that it has been useless with reference to the ends proposed, and certainly odious to those who have been affected by it. I believe it is not considered by foreigners as that part of our constitution which is most deserving of admiration. The two heads of restrictions are quite distinct. Suppose I proceed to consider, first, that with respect to offices; the restrictions under this head go either to limit the prerogative of the crown or the choice of the people. We restrain the prerogative of the crown in appointing the catholics to certain offices: let us examine on what ground. Originally the test act was for the purpose of excluding the catholics from the service of Charles II, to prevent catholics being appointed by Charles II. to executive offices: and here a very whimsical but strong observation occurs. One of the most popular arguments in favour of the test, with a view to the restraint on the prerogative, and I have heard it frequently used, was, that it was necessary to make the constitution agreeable to analogy; and that when it was insisted that the king should be of the church of England, it was necessary all his officers should be of the same persuasion. What beautiful uniformity there is in this, I own I cannot see. I apprehend that our ancestors reasoned in a very different manner. I apprehend it was not because we forced the king to be a protestant, that we found it necessary to have his officers of the same religion, but because we doubted whether the king was in reality a protestant or not, and because we suspected him of a design to overturn the constitution of the county, as in the case of James II. If we suspected him of being a catholic, it Was right we should not suffer any officers to be near him who might assist him in an infraction of the constitution. But it is the most strange reasoning I ever heard, that because the king being a protestant, and therefore not liable to suspicion, you are to prevent him from having the assistance of his catholic subjects. This test passed in the reign of Charles II., and with the approbation of a very great man (Mr. Locke), who observed, that it might have been a necessary measure. The next reign was that James II., who was a professed Catholic. If there was any virtue in other days—God knows there was little enough in his: if he had repealed the test act, it would have been for the purpose of obtaining the Means of acting against the liberty of the subject. Then how came the laws to be continued? The continuation of the test laws after the revolution, was because the dissenters being included in the test act, it was the object of the high church party to hold the dissenters to a law which they had favoured. It was a kind of compromise, on enacting it against the Roman catholics, to say, we will retain it against you. In this control of the parliament, it ought to be observed how the question stands. The test does not prevent the king from appointing a catholic to any office, civil or military; it only makes it necessary, after a certain time, for the person appointed to do certain act. With respect to the catholic dissenters, you have given it up in a great number of points, and you have maintained it in others. We come now to the distinction of those cases in which you have given up the restraint. You have given it regard to all subordinate offices in the army and navy, and in the profession of the law, but you refuse it with respect to the higher offices. Then you say to the catholics, "we have kept nothing from you as a body; you do not all expect to be chancellors, generals, staff officers, admirals, or other great officers; therefore, as you do not all expect to arrive at these distinctions, there can be no harm in forbidding any of you to obtain them!" Do you wish the Roman catholics to be actuated by a sense that they are trusted by the executive government, or not? If not, and you should, in giving them offices, appear to entertain diffidence and mistrust of them, they will be executed with that remissness and disregard of the public service which such mistrust is calculated to inspire. Suppose I send to a gentleman of the law, and I say to him, it is true you may possess talents, but do you think there is any probability of your being lord chancellor? He might probably answer, that there was not; but is there not a very material difference in having an impossibility and bar put to the advancement of a man to the honours of his profession? Suppose a person is engaged in trade, and he can gain a bare living, or perhaps save about twenty pounds a year. I say to him, "you may go on, and be as industrious as you please, but you shall never make more than 1,000,000l." He says, he is contented. Well, but does any one think that this country could have arrived at the height it has, if there had been such a restriction on the exertions of industry? It is not because a man's quality is low, that he is prevented by the exercise of his faculties from becoming wealthy; but if you limit his endeavours, you destroy the spirit of enterprise and exertion which impels him, and, by such a system finally prevent his success. Do you not think it would be the most destructive blow to the enterprise, industry, and energy of the country, and undermine the principal source of our riches, to put a restraint on the exercise of a man's genius and industry? Do we not often hear of a person, not of consequence either from birth or fortune, say, " I live, thank God, in a country, were, by industry and talents, I may arrive at the fortune of the greatest duke in the land." Is not this cheering? Is not the unlimited power of gain the great principle on which industry, enterprise, and commerces exist? What should we say if men of particular descriptions were to be restricted in their fair pursuits? They stand marked and circumscribed to the limit of their possible gain. Apply the principle to the professions—to the law particularly, the one perhaps in which it operates the most. I would ask those who are conversant with the profession, whether it would not damp the ardour of a young man, if he were to be told that he might obtain some pecuniary advantage, but that he could never rise to any office of dignity. I am not supporting the propriety of indulging sanguine hopes, but certainly one of the greatest incentives in the breast of a parent to give his son a good education, is the hope of one day seeing him till the situation Of chancellor, or some other splendid office. Take that hope away, and you destroy the greatest incentive to an aspiring mind. But when you apply the argument to a military life, how much stronger is it! Is Hot the very essence of the profession ambition, and a thirst of glory? What can you expect of a lieutenant or captain, who, after exerting himself in the service of the country, comes home, and, reflecting upon the dangers he has shared, admires the skill and ability of his commander, or perhaps thinks something might have been done better—what must he his feelings, if he is obliged to add, " But I can never expect to command an army; all my thoughts are useless; I may be a colonel, perhaps a general, but a general on the staff, that I can never be! I go to my station, because I am a man of honour; but can I do it with the same eagerness as if, after have escaped the danger, my reward was to he proportioned? Does not such a consideration as this lay an extinguisher on military enterprise? Is it not desirable that every man should look, for the purpose of exciting his activity and zeal, to future rewards of the highest sort? But put it in another way. Is it not of importance that every man entrusted with the concerns of others should feel the necessity of gaining a great character for ability and integrity? It is not only satisfactory but necessary. But if you say, there there is a plus ultra, beyond which you cannot go—you are to think only filling your coffers, quocunque modo rem, how different must be the situation of him who feels he can never rise in his profession, though endued with the most splendid talents, compared with the man whose exertions are excited by the prospect of future honours! Do you think these men the Catholics, do not believe themselves to be a marked people, separated from the rest of the community, not on account of then religious opinons, but the-political opinions connected with them? In all great concerns, the extent of the justice or injustice is of considerable importance. Who is it you are thus stigmatizing and degrading? Is it a people of a particular way of thinking? No, it is three-fourths of the people of Ireland, and one-fourth of all his majesty's subjects in Europe. Would you think, that, under these circumstances, such a thing could be, so far as to the part that relates to the control of the king's prerogative? I ought, however, first to mention the exclusion from being sheriffs; but that is more connected with the jurisdiction I shall have to mention hereafter. Can any body suppose, that government would be likely to put improper persons into the office of sheriff in Ireland? Would they nominate catholic sheriffs, to raise disturbances? I say, it is one of the occasions in which it is least possible to suspect an abuse of the King's prerogative, and where it ought not to be controlled. Now with respect to parliament, the votes of the peers in parliament subsisted during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I. Charles I. and II. till somewhere about the period of 1698. I would ask the most zealo is historian that took the side against the Stuarts, whether any mischief by the votes of the catholic peers did really occur? Here I quote Mr. Locke, who says— "and with respect to the votes of the catholic peers, I think, provided the test act is preserved, they are fit and beneficial." When did they cease? In 1698, upon discovery of the popish plot, suppose it to be true or false, when the country was thrown into a paroxysm of terror, when it was believed that the catholics were going to massacre the protestants, when it was expected they were to have the assistance of the king of Spain, and when the ridiculous story of the silver bullets was set on foot. It was at such a moment of popular fury this measure passed. No man thought of expelling the catholics from parliament till the people had been put into a paroxysm of rage and terror. Why did they do this? Because there was nothing else to be done against them: it was for no other reason they passed that intolerable law, which put an end to their sitting the house of commons—You come now that part of the case which does not affect to diminish the power of the king, but to con[...]trol the rights of the people. You go to the elector of Ireland, and you shall not elect a catholic. Upon what principal is it you conceive, that in a Roman catholic has mischievous project in his head, it can be defeated by keeping him out of parliament? It has always been the objection to the test act, that two descriptions of protestants are in the house of commons. We know the dissenters do sit, and have become the most meritorious of any of its members. What is the objection to the catholics? That they cannot wish well to the church of England. Why, that is your argument against the dissenters. You do not deny the dissenters the privilege of sitting in parliament, though you say they do not approve the church establishment. But the practice is every thing. What would be the practical effect of the catholics having a seat in the house of commons? Does any man believe, that if there were a total repeal of these restrictive laws, there would be twenty catholic members returned from Ireland to this house? But I would take it according to the population of the country, and say, that there were four-fifths catholic. If, contrary to all the principles that govern elections, the mere population were the only thing to be considered, this would, perhaps, give about 80 members. Now the house consists of 658 members. Supposing it possible that 80 catholics were to be returned out of that number, though I do not think there would be more than twenty, could they he dangerous to the establishment of this country? If the doctrine of virtual representation be well founded, would it not add to the true virtual representation of this country, if three-fourths of the representatives were catholics? When people put the argument to extremes, and say, that this place is not represented, and that place is not represented, but that you have those in the house of commons who represent the whole community; that the trading and commercial interests, and the military, naval, and learned professions, are all duly represented; that you have the landed country gentlemen, statesmen and politicians, soldiers, sailors, merchants, lawyers—in fact, that you have a kind of virtual representation of all the people of the coutnry,—I deny it: you have not the representation of the Roman catholics—you want what you are afraid to have—you ought to desire what they pray for—you ought to have that complete virtual representation they offer you. I have been speaking for the public benefit—I now speak for the benefit of the catholics. You say to the people of Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester, it is true, you seed no members to the house of commons, but you have members of parlia- ment who fare connected with the commerce and manufactures of those places. It is true; but still it is my wish to have a more direct representation. The fact is, the virtual representation is undoubtedly a vital principle in the constitution of the country. If any particular class of men are excluded, you have not a real virtual representation, in the sense the word representation ought to he understood, implying a sympathy and fellow feeling between the representative and the persons represented. The very substance of representation is, that the members of parliament should not be able to tax their constituents without taxing themselves. Now I say that there is no feeling of this kind with respect to the catholics. Upon the same principle you deprive the electors of Ireland from electing Roman catholics—you deny the corporations the right of choosing them, for they cannot be at the head of any corporation. I want to know upon what principle it is that corporations are to be denied the privilege of appointing catholics to the office of mayor, or other superior offices? Corporations being composed chiefly of protestants, there is not much danger, as some would say, or not much hope, as others would say, of the catholics being admitted. Is not this one of those additional instances in which you keep the stigma without any practical advantages? You fix an unnecessary stigma on the catholics; and an unnecessary stigma is, of all modes of punishment, that which is most grating to the people, and destructive of the unanimity and concord necessary for the safety of the state. I shall say a very few words as to certain objections to the matter of this petition. I think the objections to the jacobites are given up; but it is said, that there is something in the nature of the Roman catholics that makes it dangerous to grant them the same privileges as protestants. Some have stated, that there is a general impropriety and incongruity in persons of different religious principles acting together. I should like to know the theory on which this argument rests. I am speaking now of religious differences;—why two men sitting in council together should, instead of inquiring how the forces of the country ought to be disposed of, and where the fleets ought to be sent, whether to Jamaica or any other part of the West Indies, fall to a discussion about transubstantiation, and dispute because one adores the Virgin Mary and the other adores the saints? Is it to be supposed that justices on the bench, when they try criminal or civil points, will quit their duty, in order to commence idle controversies on religion points? There are countries where the law and religion are one and the same thing; where consequently, there would be an impropriety in separating them: but I want to know, upon what principle it is that men may not act together, who entertain strong differences on religious creeds. This stands upon theory only, for the practice is against it. Is there Europe one state or country that does not employ persons of different religious persuasions in the highest offices? In former times even this was the practice, when there was more heat and animosity. When bigotry was at its height in France, when it led Henry the Fourth to renounce the protestant and embrace the catholic religion, in order to obtain the throne of the kingdom, did ever occur to any one to suggest, that the Duke de Sully, his minister, who was a protestant, could not advise with him about public affairs? Was he ever accused of being a bad minister, because he was a protestant? No one ever objected to M. Neckar, the minister of the late king of France, because he was a prolate king France, because he was protestant. Does not the emperor of Germany employ protestant in the various important affairs of dominions? The government of Vienna is intrusted to prince Ferdinand of Wirtemberg, a protestant. It is true, the bigotry of Frederick the Great could not induce him to employ protestants as his minister or officers; but perhaps it was because he could not find any that were fit for his service. What is the case with Russia? The first employment in the service of the emperor of Russia if filled by prince Sartoriski, whose religions is that of the Greek church. With regard to the Swiss cantons, the employment of protestants has been, perhaps, less than in other places, but they have frequently filled offices of government jointly with the catholics. In the democratic canton of Uri, and some other, the catholics were more numerous; a proof that they may take an active part in the administration of a popular government, without any evil consequences resulting from the opinions they profess. In the canton of Appenzel the catholic and protestants are half and half.— The pretender being gone, and all other question of radical difficulty removed as to him, we now come to another person—the pope. I wish to know whether, during the last 200 years, the pope had been a person to be feared? If he has, it can only have, been in one way, by his oppression of the catholic. Long before the period of the revolution, all the political influence of the pope, with respect to country, had ceased. His power became afterwards absolutely insignificant; and during the whole of the question between the house of Stuart and Brunswick, it was notorious that the pope could not stir one Roman catholic in Ireland. But it is stated that the persons principally concerned in the rebellion of 1798 were Roman catholics. I have no doubt that the catholic had there share in that rebellion; but were they stigated by the pope? What! by the pope, while he was in a state of servitude and humiliation? Did the pope, while he looked to this county as almost his only support, wish to overturn our government, and prevail on the Irish catholics to follow Messrs. O'Connor, Emmett, and M'Nevin? This fear of the influence of the pope, when he has no power to do us harm, and when he cannot do us good, even thought he wished it, is perfectly absurd. It is an alarm which can be accounted for on no rational principal. Has the recollection of the proconsuls, sent by the Cæsars to govern this country, left such an impression upon us, as to make us dread every thing that comes from Rome? But it is said, Buonaparté has obtained an influence over the pope, the pope governs the Irish priests, and thus Buonaparté will be able to attach to him the catholic of Ireland. Without canvassing the question of the inclination of the pope to serve the views of Buonaparté, I shall admit that the French government will willingly employ his influence so far as they can obtain it. That the great enemy of this country would be very willing to make use of such an engine to serve his purpose in Ireland, I have no doubt. But how will he use his influence? If you will repeal these laws, you will have nothing to fear from that quarter; but if, on the contrary, you persevere in your restrictions, the way in which influence so much dreaded may be exercised can only be this: The Irish catholic will be told, 'An equal participation of right was held out to you; but, instead of granting your just claims, instead of affording you relief and protection you were promised, you are still stigmatized as outcasts. You have, therefore, now only to look a catholic emperor for assistance, and through him you may expect the [...] which had been denied you. This is the language which may be used if you are determined to persist in your present system; but, in the other alternative, what influence can the pope have? Suppose he were to direct the priests to take care that non but Roman catholic member were chose for Ireland and suppose this influence were so far to succeed as to bring a considerable proportion of Roman catholics into this house among the representatives from Ireland, is it likely that Buonaparté would find many friends among these Roman catholic members? If there were eighty members Roman catholics, it would be an extravagant supposition indeed to say that even three of them would be so dead to all sense of honour and duly, so blind to the interests and happiness of their country, as to become the instruments of Buonaparté. Of the influence to be used in this way by the pope, surely no reasonable person can entertain any serious apprehension. Is it possible to look forward to any future circumstances under which that influence can become dangerous? Great men, it is said, have long views; but some views are so long, that my sight; I must confess, cannot reach them. It has been said of our system of government, esto perpetua; but I should desire no better security for the power and the constitution of this country lasting for ever, than that they should continue until either a pope or a Buonaparté could obtain a majority in this house. —I must now turn to another view of the question. It has always been maintained that the differences between the Roman catholics and the Protestants are not merely religious, but political. It is on this ground the oaths the former are required to take are defended. The oath is framed against the authority Of a foreign priest, though that authority is merely spiritual. But if it be any objection to the Roman catholics, that they deny the king's supremacy, what do you say to the opinions of the people of Scotland? The presbyterian religion, which is established in Scotland, does not admit the king to be the head of the church; and surely the presbyterian doctrine and discipline of it are at least as repugnant to the established religion of this country, as the. opinions of the Roman catholics are! Yet Scotland, with this presbyterian church, forms a part of the united kingdom. But do not the Roman catholics swear, that no temporal consequences whatever follow from the doctrine they hold on the question of Supremacy? They do swear, and yet it is said we cannot believe them. What! are they not to be believed On oath, because they are Roman catholics? To make such a declaration, is to display to my mind either great malignancy of heart, or an extraordinary deficiency of understanding: but if the declaration were made on the part of the go- vernment of this country, it would be an avowal of wickedness beyond any thing I can conceive. Would you say, that you proposed and passed acts of parliament to persuade them to swear that which you would not believe when sworn? Would you own that you wished to seduce them into perjury? The moment you find that a man attends mass, he is therefore a Roman catholic, and therefore no longer to be believed. To add to the absurdity, you frame another oath, to keep out of parliament those very persons of whom it is said you must not believe that which they swear. This is really at once insulting to the understanding and the feelings of mankind. It is more than a generous and ingenuous mind can be expected patiently to bear.—I shall not pretend to enter into controversial arguments on the question of doctrine. Indeed, that is a subject respecting which I own I have neither sufficient learning nor patience to fit me for the discussion; but if I had as much of both as the lord chancellor of Ireland, I am sure his example would deter me from undertaking so arduous a task. When I consider the state of religion in Europe, of which perhaps three-fourths of the inhabitants are Roman catholics, I am astonished that such opinions respecting that religion can be maintained. Is it possible that any man can be found bold enough to say of three-fourths of the inhabitants of civilized Europe, that they are not to be believed upon oath? Such an assertion implies, that Roman catholic nations are not only incapable of the relations of peace and amity, but unfit for any of the relations of society whatever. The existence of any such maxim supposes gross ignorance and barbarism in the people among whom it prevails. Every enlightened mind, every man who wishes well to his country, must treat it with scorn and indignation. When a bill was some time ago introduced respecting the army, I objected to the oaths it contained, on the ground that it was not fit to ask any man to take them; but it will be extraordinary indeed, if those who insisted upon prescribing these oaths should now turn round, and declare, that they will not believe them when taken. When the petition I had the honour to bring into this house was first read, the clear and temperate statement of the case which it contains appeared to make a deep impression. I think I could see gentlemen say to themselves this is not the way I used to think of the Roman catholics. No, certainly not. It is not the way in which many used to think, because they had received false impressions from persons who perhaps had an interest in misleading their judgment. But it has since been whispered, that the language of the petition signifies nothing, because it is subscribed only by laymen. I can assure the house, however, that there is no ground of any suspicion on this account. The reason why there are no names of priests in the petition is, because it relates only to civil rights; on this account only, clerical persons thought it would be improper in them to subscribe it. The oath, however, has been taken by all the archbishops, bishops, and most of the priests of Ireland; and if it be thought necessary that it should be taken over again, it will be taken. I, however, have always regarded the administration of the oath as improper, and I recollect having some difference of opinion with a late noble friend of mine on this subject, 1 mean lord Petre, from whom, had he sat in the house of lords, the established religion of this country would have had nothing to fear, for he would have only obtained more frequent opportunities of displaying his sincere attachment to the constitution. His lordship defended the oath, because it afforded the Roman catholics an opportunity of publicly contradicting the calumnies reported against them. I said, that that might be an object with him, but it was none with me, and that I did not wish such a law to remain on our statute-book. Having stated that I entirely disapprove of this oath, I must, however, inform the house, that I have at this moment, in my pocket, a letter from several of the archbishops and bishops, declaring that they have taken and signed the oath. They also declare, that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrines or faith of the Roman catholic religion, and that it is to be taken equally by the clergy and the laity; but foreseeing that the fact of the oath being taken might be questioned, certificates have been sent from the courts before which it was administered. It is in these courts, therefore, a matter of record, and the authority of the fact is completed. It is said, that since the Roman catholics have already got so much, they ought not to ask for more. My principle, however, is directly the reverse. It is natural that men in a state of servitude should wish to recover their rights; that they should desire to assimilate their rights with those of their fellow-citizens, in order that they may acquire a greater degree of similarity with them. It is their ambition to be no longer slaves, but to become men. They ask this; and until they,obtain all they want, they have comparatively gained nothing. It would be to shut your eyes to all the evidence of history, to suppose that you could impose upon men an obligation not to look forward to the complete acquirement of their rights; from the moment they began to enjoy any of them, they must aspire to be on a parity with the rest of their fellow-citizens The better argument is, that having already conceded so much, what remains is nothing to you to give. Nothing can be more absurd than the conduct which is adopted towards the Roman catholics. You admit the lower orders into the army and navy, and you prevent the higher from rising to that rank they might expect to attain. You put arms into the hands of men, who, if the French were to land, might be, from their want of knowledge, influenced to do you mischief; and yet you will not trust lord Fingal, or his brother, with a command. You rely, however, it appears, with confidence, on the loyalty of the ignorant and the prejudiced, and you intrust them with arms. Of which class of Roman catholics are you afraid; the higher, or the lower? You do not trust those whose property gives them an interest in the country, and whose superior knowledge and information teach them to prefer the government of their country to every other; but you rely on the ignorant and uninformed. You place in the hands of the latter the means of insurrection, and you take from the former the power they would have, by their influence, to repress commotions. But though you have little to give, what they have to ask is to them immense. You have left them much power to do you mischief, and have afforded them little means of doing you good. Though they require only qualification, coporation, parliament, and offices under government, the object is of great magnitude to them. It is founded on the great principle of requiring to be placed on a footing of equality with their fellow-subjects. Equality of rights is one of the principles which is dearest to the human heart, and it is one which the laws of Great-Britain, to their immortal honour, sanction. In whatever country that principle prevails, it produce the greatest of blessings. That country is truly happy, where, in the language a great modern poet, Though poor the peasant's hut, his feasts though small, He sees his little lot the lot of all; Sees no contiguous palace rear its head, To shame the meanness of his humble shed If a people are placed in a state of humility and degradation, can it be said, that to get out of that situation is to them nothing? But the confusion which prevails on this occasion has arisen from mixing politics and religion, two things which it has always been the wish of the wisest philosophers and statesmen to keep distinct and separate. It is with great concern I have heard, that some eminent members of the established church are hostile to the proposition I have to make; but I have some consolation in reflecting, that I have with me a person who enjoys as high a reputation as any member of the church, and for whose character I had the highest veneration and respect—I mean, Dr. Paley. He observes, "it has indeed been asserted, that discordancy of religions, even supposing each religion to be free from any errors that affect the safety or the conduct of government, is enough to render men unfit to act together in public stations. But upon what argument, or upon what experience, is this assertion founded? I perceive no reason why men of different religious persuasions may not sit upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same ranks, as well as men of various or opposite opinions upon any controverted topic of natural philosophy, history, or ethics." Dr. Paley considers restraints only justifiable on account of political opinions, which may affect the safety of government. In endeavouring to state the case of exclusion, he says—"After all, it may be asked, why should not the legislator direct his test against the political principles themselves, which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them through the medium of religious tenets, the only crime and the only danger of which consist in their presumed alliance with the former? Why, for example, should a man be required to renounce transubstantiation before he be admitted to art office in the state, when it might seem to be sufficient that he abjure the pretender? There are but two answers that can be given to the objection which this question contains: first, that it is not opinions which the laws fear so much as inclinations, and that political inclinations are not so easily detected by the affirmation or denial of any abstract proposition in politics, as by the discovery of the religious creed with which they are wont to be united: secondly, that when men renounce. their religion they commonly [...]all con- nexion with the members of the church which they have left, that church no longer expecting assistance or friendship from theme; whereas particular persons might insinuate themselves into offices of trust and authority, by subscribing political assertions, and yet retain their predilection for the interests of the religious sect to which they continued to belong. By which means government would sometimes find, though it could not accuse the individual, whom it had received into its service, of disaffection to the civil establishment, yet that, through him, it had communicated the aid and influence of a powerful station to a party who were hostile to the constitution. These answers, however, we propose rather than defend. The measure certainly cannot be defended at all, except where the suspected union between certain obnoxious principles in politics, and certain tenets in religion, is nearly universal; in which case it makes little difference to the subscriber whether the test be religious or political: and the state is somewhat better secured by the one than the other." I shall only take up the time of the house a few moments in reading another passage, in which it is clearly stated, that restrictions should not be continued after the circumstances in which they have originated have ceased. "Thus, if the members of the Romish church for the most part adhere to the interests, or maintain the right, of a foreign pretender to the crown of these kingdoms, and if there he no way of distinguishing those who do from those who do not retain such dangerous prejudices, government is well warranted in fencing out the whole sect from situations of trust and power. But even in this example it is not to popery that the laws object, but to popery as the mark of jacobitism; an equivocal, indeed, and fallacious mark, but the best, and perhaps the only one that can be devised. But then it should be remembered, that as the connexion between popery and jacobitism, which is the sole cause of suspicion, and the sole justification of those severe and jealous laws which have been enacted against the professors of that religion, was accidental in its origin, so probably it will be temporary in its duration; and that these restrictions ought not to continue one day longer than some visible danger renders them necessary to the preservation of public tranquillity." Whatever then may be the opinions of certain members of the establishment, I am happy to have the opportunity of quoting one authority which all who love profound learning, exalted virtue, and sound morals, must respect.—With regard to the time when these restrictions ought to have been removed, if there could be one time more proper than another, it was when the union was carried. To that measure I certainly was hostile, and I have seen nothing since which could induce me to alter my opinion; but whether that opinion be right or wrong, is nothing to my present argument. The period at which the introduction of this measure would have been most proper, doubtless, was the moment when the expectations of the Roman catholics were raised, when hopes were held out to them, or when they themselves at least conceived that the hour of their emancipation was arrived, and that they were to be placed on an equal footing with their fellow citizens. It has been said, however, that on this subject an argument may be drawn from practice which is sufficient to silence all reasoning. No one is a greater friend to the opposition of practice to theory than I am, when that opposition is justly applied. In the present case it is observed, that when the severe laws existed against the Roman catholics in Ireland, all was tranquillity, even during the rebellions of the years 1715 and 1745; but that, after the concessions had been granted, the rebellion of 1798 broke out, in which the Roman catholics joined for the purpose of subverting the monarchy and the constitution. It this argument were true, it would go only to this; that restrictions are good for keeping mankind in a state of tranquillity; and, therefore, you ought never to release them from severe laws, never restore them to their rights. This argument goes against every principle of liberty, and is only calculated to support the cruellest tyranny and most degrading slavery. Its present object is to deprive of their rights one-fourth of his majesty's subjects, and to place them in a state which must greatly embarrass the power and resources of the empire. Surely if there be a malady in our situation, this is it. But were there no circumstances besides the concessions, which rendered the situation of the Irish catholics very different in the year 1798 from what that situation was in the reign of George II? Is it supposed that the operation of the French revolution had no influence on their minds, as well as on the minds of men in other parts of Europe? The circumstances of that revolution may fairly be allowed to have tended to make them swerve from their alle- giance, not as catholics, but as subject. Is there not also some allowance to be made for the connexion formed between the Roman catholics and the protestants of the north of Ireland, a people of enlightened minds, powerful from their talents and their industry? But the people of that part of Ireland, who are well known not to be much attached to the established church, considered the catholics to be like themselves, persecuted. The year 1798 opened new views, and to the union which was then formed between the protestants and the catholics ought the activity of the latter in the rebellion to be in some degree ascribed. There is also another little circumstance which ought not to be passed over, when it is attempted to he argued that nothing intervened between the concessions in the year 1793 and the rebellion. Did nothing happen during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration? Did that noble lord not conceive that he was acting the best for the peace of Ireland, by holding out to the catholics the hope of what they called their emancipation? Doubts have been entertained whether he was authorised by government to encourage such hopes: but that has nothing to do with the present question; that the expectation did exist, is a fact of the greatest importance. When that noble lord was recalled, whets a motion was. made on the subject in parliament, and negatived, the Roman catholics saw with grief the cup they had looked at with so much eagerness, suddenly dashed from their lips, at the moment they at last expected to enjoy it. Would not any man say, that if he were a catholic, this would have been to him a great cause of despondency? The history of the country showed the melancholy consequences of that disappointment; for it was not until after the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, that a connexion began to be formed between kind and France: and there is every appearance that the disappointment then experienced by the Roman catholics, drove some of them into this connexion. We have been told, that it appears from certain inquiries made by the Irish parliament, that catholic emancipation and reform were not considered by the people in some parts of Ireland as of more value than a bit of paper or a drop of ink. I believe this may be the fact; but was it not also stated by the same persons, that, had these measures been granted, they were aware that they must have given up all hope of doing what they call good, but which we call mischief? All those who wished to revolutionize Ireland were greatly alarmed during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration, and were perfectly convinced, that, if the measures to be proposed were carried, their intentions would be completely defeated. I have been told, that at the time of the union no distinct promise of redress was made to the Roman catholics, and I believe it. No minister could promise that which depended upon the determination of parliament. The right hon. gent. opposite to me could have done nothing more than promise to recommend their claims: but did not the catholics believe that through the measure of the union they would obtain complete redress? Did they not rely on the promised support of the right hon. gent.? It was on that ground they gave all their weight to the proposition of the union; and I know some who have felt less kindness to the catholics on that account. The persuasion was certainly general, that the catholic claims would be fully granted after the union, and a learned gentleman (Dr. Duigenan) now hostile to these claims appears to have promoted this persuasion. In a letter written by that learned gent. to an hon. friend of mine, whom I am happy to see a member of this house (Mr. Grattan), there is a paragraph, to this purport; "if we were one people with the British nation, the preponderance of the protestant interest in the whole state would then be so great, that it would not be any longer necessary to curb the Roman catholics by any restraints whatever." Now when the Roman catholics found the opinion stated by the learned gent., who had been through the whole of his life against granting them redress, must they not have expected that the passing of the union was to be the signal for the redress of their grievances? In a printed speech, too, (printed in a way which might entitle it to be referred to as some authority) of a noble lord who once filled the chair of this house (lord Sidmouth), this passage of the learned gent.'s letter is referred to in support of the opinion, that no restraints would be necessary after the union. If, then, that noble lord drew this inference, what conclusion was it to be expected the Roman Catholics themselves should form? At that time, then, it appeared to be thought that the repeal of these laws would be a measure of safety to the British empire; and yet they remain in the same situation. I state not this as any reproach to the right hon. gent. opposite to me; but what must the catholics think, when they find that those who most favoured the union, and who, on account of the measures then in contemplation, held up that event as eminently calculated to promote the well being and security of the British empire, opposed their hopes? What the circumstances were, which prevented this question being then brought forward, I shall not attempt to discuss, because I do not pretend to know them; but I must observe, that its delay might have led to the very worst consequences. The catholics, however, have shown by their conduct that they are guided by principles which merit the highest encomium. Their disappointment has not made them resort to popular clamour or tumult. They have brought forward their claims in the most constitutional manner, and they rely with confidence and respect on the justice of this house. The presenting of the present petition is a pledge of the propriety of their conduct; and though my motion should not this night be acceded to, they will still have gained something, by having an opportunity afforded them of stating their opinions. A great and respectable part of the people of the empire are now in favour of their claims. The people of England will soon be completely convinced of the propriety of granting them all they demand; and antiquated prejudices, which it is my lot to expose in 1805, and which were doubtful in 1669, will be completely done away.—Hitherto I have said nothing of a kind of mysterious objection which has been lately started. I have been asked—"Why do you bring on this question when success is impossible?" Another tells me, "I like the measure as well as you; but why press it when there is no chance of success?" Why, I know of no circumstance that should render it impossible to carry this question in this house; and there would at least be a little better chance of success, if all those gentlemen who are in favour of the measure would favour us with their votes. I have been told that the repeal of these laws is conceived to be contrary to his majesty's coronation oath. Now, sir, were I to propose any thing which would be a violation of his majesty's coronation oath, I should not only think myself a disloyal subject, but a dishonest man. But how absurd would it be to suppose that parliament, who made that oath for the king to take, should understand it to bind bins to refuse his assent to future acts which they might present to him! The oath, as framed by parliament, was admi- nistered to king William, and statutes now proposed to be repealed were passed after he had taken the oath. Now, if it could be maintained that the oath has any reference at all to legislative measures, still I would ask, how can it affect acts passed after it was framed Such a doctrine appears to me calculated to produce the greatest confusion, and completely to overturn the constitution. If it were true, the government of this country would no longer be a mixed monarchy, but we should be in a mixed state of anarchy and confusion. But it is supposed that the coronation oath would be violated, because the effect of the measure now proposed would, it is said, be to overturn the church establishment of this country. These laws were, however, made against dissenters of all descriptions; and yet the church was not overturned by our union with the presbyterians of Scotland. Was the coronation oath made to bend in the one case, and not in the other? According to this new doctrine, Queen Anne must have broken her coronation oath when she consented to the union with Scotland, and his present majesty must already have violated his coronation oath more than once, when he sanctioned the acts passed in his reign for the relief of the Roman catholics. His majesty did not refuse his assent to these acts; on the contrary, he did what I am sure he always will do; he followed the advice of parliament, exercising at the same time his own judgment. While I glory in the name of an Englishman, I never can say that any thing which parliament thinks fit to be done. cannot be done. If it had been the practice that nothing was to be moved in this house, but such questions as gentlemen had a reasonable hope of carrying, the country would have been deprived of most of the laws which now constitute its greatest pride and boast; for the best measures have in general been at first strongly resisted, and have at last been rendered ultimately successful by the perseverance of those who introduced them, and the good sense of parliament. But I never can believe that any branch of of our constitution will forget its duty; and I am sorry that the report of an opinion having been given on this subject, should be circulated—said to be given, too, by one who has a legislative voice, but who has no right to pronounce any opinion on matters pending in this house. His majesty's lawful authority is one of the corner stones of the constitution; but while I shall always exert myself to support that lawful authority, I cannot be silent when I see interested persons endeavouring to extend that influence beyond its due bounds. It would be a great and incalculable evil, were it to be established as a maxim in this house, than no person must move any measure, however great its benefits might be, if it were once whispered about, that it could not be successful, because another branch of the constitution was hostile to it. I could wish to see any sacrifice made for the gratification of the crown, except the sacrifice of the welfare and security of the country. The man who countenances such a sacrifice is not a loyal subject; is not one who loves his king, but one who flatters him in order to betray him.—Having now troubled the house at so much length, I shall only briefly state a few of the minor points which the subject presents. There may be some persons who would not wish to repeal the whole of the restraints upon the Roman catholics, but who would wish to do away a part: I should therefore expect, that all who view the question in this way will concur with me in voting to refer the petition to a committee, in order to discover what part of the laws it may be fit to repeal. Among these minor points will also fall to be considered the situation of the army. A catholic may serve in the king's army in Ireland; he may arrive to the rank of a general, but not a general on the staff! If, however, he comes to England, he is liable to pains and penalties on account of his religion. Surely those who would resist the question in the whole, must at least allow that this is a case in which some relief ought to be given. I am also assured that the common soldiers are restrained from the exercise of their religion sometimes in Ireland; but almost always in England. Some alteration is also necessary in the law of marriage. I mention these circumstances as forming parts of the question which ought to induce such persons as think them worthy of redress, to go into a committee, whatever their objections to the general question may be. I have stated, that the disabilities under which the catholics suffer are of two sorts; namely, those which consist of restrictions on the king's prerogative, and those which restrain the choice of the people. I think that Roman catholics ought, like all the other subjects of his majesty, to be enabled to hold places under the crown, and to sit in parliament; but I understand there are some who would consent to a proposition for rendering them accessible to offices, but who would not agree to give them seats in parliament. Those who entertain this opinion, surely cannot refuse to go into the committee. I understand there are others who, on the contrary, think it advisable that Roman catholics should be excluded from offices in the executive part of government; but that, on the ground of virtual representation, which I have stated, they ought to be admitted to seats in the house of commons. I own that I think this opinion the most rational of the two; and surely those who entertain it cannot object to the motion I am about to make. —I have now stated most of the general ground on which I think the repeal of the laws complained of is advisable; and I shall now very briefly mention a few of the advantages which may be expected to result from such measure. A great proportion of the last and of the present session has been consumed in considering of the best means of recruiting the army, and of increasing our local and disposable force. Now, without disparaging the modes recommended by my right hon. friend (Mr. Windham) on this bench or the right hon. gent. opposite, for attaining this desirable object, I will venture to say, that no scheme whatever of parish recruiting, limited service, or militia volunteering, can equal the effect of this measure. All these schemes are tardy and trifling, compared to the prompt and large supply which would be afforded by Ireland, were the laws against the Roman catholic repealed. You now receive into your army Irish Roman catholic; but what might not be expected from the zeal and gratitude of a nation famed for warmth of temper and generosity, fondly exulting in a triumph obtained over illiberality and prejudice? All your other supplies would be little rivulets, compared to this great ocean of military resource. But you are not merely to consider the number, but also the nature of the circumstances under which you would obtain the recruits. Look at the situation of France, our formidable enemy; is she formidable for her finances, her naval power, her comerce, or any other resource except her population? It is from the disproportion of our population to her, that we can have any our population. Why then do we hesitate to adopt a measure which would afford us powerful a reinforcement. In this age foreign conquests have been less valued than they were in former times; but if conquests deserved to be ever so much esteemed, what conquest ever could equal either the true glory or solid advantage of re-acquiring one-fourth of your population? What prospect can be more consolatory than that of thus adding to your strength that which cannot now be called a part of your strength, but may rather be named a part of your weakness? The protestant ascendancy had been compared to a garrison in Ireland. It is not in our power to add to the strength of this garrison, but I would convert the besiegers themselves into the garrison. How can you suppose that the four millions of men should feel themselves in the situation of the other twelve millions, which form the population on the British empire? They know that they furnish you with recruits, from whom you may with reluctance choose serjeants: they send you officers, but they know they can never rise to the rank of general. They supply you with sailors, who never can advance to any eminence in their profession. How different would our policy be, how different our situation in a military point of view, were the means I proposed adopted! There would be no differences, no discontents; but all the subject of the empire, enjoying equal rights, would join with one heart and one mind in its defence. I am sanguine in believing, that these equal rights and laws will be granted to the Roman catholics. I am even sanguine enough to believe, that many bad consequences which might be expected to result from a refusal of them, will not follow the rejection of this petition. I rely on the affection and loyalty of the Roman catholics of Ireland; but I would not press them too far, I would not draw the cord too tight. It is surely too much to expect that they will always fight for a constitution in the benefits of which they are not permitted to participate. No permanent advantage can arise from any measure, except that which shall restore them to the full enjoyment of equal rights with their fellow citizens. In the present situation of Europe, and when the designs of the enemy are considered, Ireland is a place where the active exertions of this country may be required; and this is one of the ground on which I am anxious that the motion I am about to propose should be acceded to. Whatever be the fate of the question, I am happy in having had this opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the longer, but to move, "that the petition be referred to the consideration of the committee of the whole house."

Doctor Duigenan

then rose, and spoke as follows: Sir; I have read the petition now before the house, and list of names subscribed to it; they amount in the whole to ninety-one persons: of these, six are peers; three are baronets, the rest untitled commoners. Of the six peers, one is an English as well as an Irish peer, who has no property in Ireland, and is an Englishman both by birth and residence. The petition is thus entitled: "A petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland, whose names are thereunto subscribed, in behalf of themselves and of others his majesty's subjects professing the Roman catholic religion." With what propriety this English peer can be styled a Roman catholic of Ireland I shall not take upon me to determine. Of the remaining five peers three may be said to have been created during his present majesty's reign. Lord Kenmare claimed a peerage under a patent of King James II. dated after the abdication of that unfortunate prince, at a time when he was no longer a king, and could not create nobility: his present majesty has been pleased to create him a peer: the ancestors of two others, the Lords Fingall and Gormanstown, were attainted for high treason and outlawries; which attainders continued for four generations. His present majesty was graciously pleased to direct his attorney general in Ireland to confess error in these outlawries, on which confession the outlawries have been reversed, and these noblemen have been restored to the rank of their ancestors. Lord Southwell's ancestors were protestants; his father some time since went to France, and there became a Roman catholic, and educated his son in that profession. Thus it appears, that the whole Roman Catholic nobility of Ireland, a few years back, did not exceed one or two at the most. I speak not this out of any disrespect to the noble personages thus mentioned, but to shew what little cause of complaint there is for the alleged degradation of the Roman catholic nobility of Ireland. Of the three baronets subscribed to the petition two have been created by his present Majesty. Ireland is divided into thirty-two counties: out of nineteen of these counties there is not one subscriber, and out of four of the remaining thirteen counties there is but one each. There is not the name of one Romish ecclesiastic subscribed to this petition. How then does it appear that these petitioners are commissioned by the Roman catholics of Ireland, or those of England and Scotland, to petition on their behalf, or to express their political or moral principles? It is much to be suspected that they are self-commissioned, as well by what is already observed, as by the following circumstance: five of the subscribers have set themselves forth as delegated by the rest to procure the presentment of this petition to the two houses of parliament, and solicit its success: of these, one is Mr. Denys Scully, barrister at law, a gentleman with whose person I am totally unacquainted, but not so with his writings. He published in the year 1803, a pamphlet in Dublin, entitled, "An Irish Catholic's Advice to his Brethren how to estimate their present Situation, and repel French Invasion, civil Wars, and Slavery." This pamphlet advises the Irish romanists, in the event of an invasion by the French, rather to join the King's standard than that of Bonaparte, solely on the ground of such conduct being more for their advantage, and not at all on the ground of their allegiance due to their sovereign: and notwithstanding the specious title of the work, the whole tenour of it is, in my opinion, by the suggestions of ideal grievances, in the most horrid forms, to excite the Romish populace to the most furious acts of insurrection and revenge against their governors; so that the advice to resist Bonaparte seems to be merely an artifice to protect the author from the legal punishment due to so malignant, vindictive, and atrocious an attack on the conduct of the protestant government of Ireland for two centuries past. The pamphlet overflows with gall it will be sufficient to read a passage or two out of it to give the house a just idea of its real purpose and tendency: " It is one hundred and twelve years since the capitulation of Limerick to William III: it was the last place in Ireland or England that surrendered to him; and never was any place more gallantly and obstinately defended than Limerick had been by our loyal ancestors, who with Sarsfield at their head fought for their hereditary King James against a Dutch invader and his hired battalions."—Page 12, Dublin edition.—Writing of the gallant army which went to Ireland to punish the Irish rebels and murderers of 1641, he has the following passage: "You see what misery that army caused her: their tailors, tinkers, smiths, coblers, drummers, and trumpeters, after the slaughter of one hundred thousand persons, obtained various estates and lands amongst us." It is to be remarked, that the superior officers of this gallant army thus reviled by Mr. Scully, were the chief instruments in restoring Ireland to the monarchy of England, and that their [...] at this day compose a most considerable part of the Irish nobility and gently—In another place Mr. Scully Calls the Irish parliament a club, and the place of their meeting their club-house. In another payee he gives the following character of the person he styles the first magistrate: "That he may be liable, like the master of a family, to fits of anger and caprice, and prejudice; that he may naturally be at times obstinate, ill-humoured, improvident, or even infatuated upon some particular subjects."And adverting to the coronation oath, and to his majesty's scruples on the score of that oath, respecting the demands made by the Irish romanists, he undertakes to apologize for his majesty, and to express his hope that the king will change the opinion which it is generally understood he has entertained. "It is not," says he, "to he imagined that a quibbling crotchet in an oath will circumscribe the justice of the beneficent father of his people."—Can it therefore be imagined that Mr. Scully is a person specially commissioned by the Roman catholics of Ireland to solicit the success of a petition to the representative body of the nation, claiming a right to be put upon an equal footing, in respect to political privileges, with all other his majesty's subjects, and demanding such boon on the score of their alleged loyalty and attachment to the state?—The petition contains a long state of what the petitioners allege to be their political, moral, and religious principles, and openly asserts that such principles are not only conformable to their opinions and habits but are expressly inculcated by the religion they profess; yet this petition is not subscribed even by. one ecclesiastic of that profession. I shall state to this house what I conceive to be the reason that the Romish ecclesiastics have declined to subscribe it. There are two oaths prescribed by the Irish statutes to be administered to romanists; one, by an act of the Irish parliament in the year 1773; the other, by an act of the Irish parliament of the year 1793. Such romanists as decline to take the oath of the year 1773, which is nearly the same with the oath prescribed to be administered to the English romanist by the English act of the year 1791, are not entitled to the benefit of the several Irish laws repealing what is styled the popery code in Ireland; it is therefore incumbent on all Irish romanists to take the oath of 1773, to entitle themselves to the benefit of such repeal: but they are not under an equal necessity of taking the oath of 1793; for it is merely a qualification-oath, which, if they obtain places under government, or tender their votes at elections for members of parliament, the law requires they should take; but not otherwise.—The oath of 1773 is an oath of allegiance to the king; it contains an engagement to disclose all traitorous conspiracies; abjures the pretender, and the doctrine that no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that princes excommunicated by the pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects; renounces the temporal jurisdiction of the pope, and declares that it is taken without equivocation, in the ordinary sense of the words.—The oath of 1793 goes much further, and renounces the infallibility of the pope; the power of the priest to give absolution unconditionally; the intention of subverting the present church establishment, and substituting a Romish establishment in its stead; of overturning the present arrangement of property in Ireland, and of using the power and privileges demanded by the romanists to weaken the protestant religion and protestant government in Ireland; and, so far as it relates merely to religious principles, is the same oath which was drawn up and prepared by a committee of English romanists in the year 1790, to be offered to the then English ministry as a proper oath to be tendered to all English romanists; and they taking thereof to be sanctioned by an act of parliament. This oath three out of the four apostolic vicars, the special agents and emissaries of the pope in England, reprobated and anathematized by an encyclical letter, dated London, Jan. 12, 1791, and commanded all the English romanists to reject this oath, and stated in their letter that they thus acted with the approbation of the apostolic see, and of all the romish bishops in Scotland and in Ireland. These apostolic vicars had so much influence with the English ministry in 1791, that they prevailed upon them to omit from the oath by statute prescribed to be taken by the English romanists, the abjuration of the pope's infallibility, and of the doctrine of unconditional power of absolution in the priest. It is also to be remarked, that all the professors and members of the college of Manooth in Ireland are by an Irish statute exempted from the obligation of taking the oath of 1793. This is a college founded by government for the education of Romish priests.—From what I have mentioned, I conceive; that the petition's containing a declaration against the pope's infallibility, and the doctrine of unconditional power of absolution in the romish priesthood, is the reason why no romish ecclesiastic has subscribed it.—The petition prays that all statutes now in force against romanists (that is, all statutes requiring them to take tests as qualifications for offices and seats in parliament) may be repealed, and they may be restored to the full enjoyment of the benefits of the British constitution, equally and in common with their fellow-subjects throughout the British empire:—this they claim as matter of justice and public utility. It is very remarkable, that this measure thus demanded upon the grounds of justice and public utility, is the very measure which King James II. attempted to force upon the nation, and for which attempt he forfeited the crown handed down to him by a long and illustrious line of ancestors; and that the reasons given by him for his attempt are the very same reasons pleaded by the petitioners and their advocates for the justice of their demand; to wit, "that it would cause and promote a brotherhood of affections and a conciliation of religious differences;"— "to render the nation happy at home, and formidable to foreign nations."—See his declaration for general liberty of conscience, the letter left upon his table previous to his flight to France, and his speech to his pretended popish parliament in Ireland after his abdication. If his attempt was just, and the measure for the public benefit, it follows that he was unjustly dethroned; and the direct consequence of that is, that his present majesty's title to the throne is an unjust one. Let this house determine whether such doctrine is or is not consistent with loyalty.—I shall oppose the motion for submitting the consideration of this petition to a committee; and in doing so, I shall enter fully into a discussion of the broad and general question before the house, whether the prayer of this petition should be granted or rejected; as I think it is a question of the greatest magnitude which has been debated in this house since the revolution.—The petitioners have particularly stated that the principles, religious, moral, and political, set forth in their petition, are expressly inculcated by the religion they profess: it will be therefore incumbent upon me specially to examine the principles taught by their religion, as they are laid down by their own writers ancient and modern, and as they are warranted by the uninterrupted practice of their church for ages. It will, however, be first necessary to examine how and in what manner they are disqualified from enjoying offices and occupying seats in parliament.—The only obstacle at present to the occupation of seats in the two houses of parliament by the members this sect, arises from the laws enjoining the taking of the oath of supremacy, and repeating and signing the declaration againt transubstantiation, &c. by all members of the two houses of parliament, previous to their taking their seats and voting in either house: with which injunction if romanists complied, they would be as capable of occupying seats in parliament as protestants. This injunction they obstinately refuse to obey, and thereby exclude themselves.—If indeed they would offer to take the oath of supremacy, there might be some plausible arguments adduced for the repeal of the parts of these acts which enjoin the repetition and subscription of the declaration against transubstantiation, &c.; because that is a declaration against certain doctrinal points held by romanists, which do not immediately tend to a disavowal of the supreme authority of the state, so far as to countenance or commanded a resistance to the civil magistrate, and is a matter of opinion only, unconnected with the government: but their rejection the oath of supremacy is an open avowal, that they do not admit the state to have any just power to compel their submission to its laws, in any point of temporal government, intimately and inseparably connected with the administration of the supreme power in spiritual matters; that is, in other words, they refuse and reject an oath of allegiance to the state, and insist that there is an extraneous power paramount to that of the state, to which their allegiance is due in all spiritual matters, or in all matters which that power shall deem spiritual; and in all temporal matters which are inseparably connected with such spiritual supremacy, which amount to nearly one half of the whole temporal power of a state; and may indeed swallow up the whole, which it has attempted in many countries: because the determination of what portion of dominion, in temporal matters, is within the vortex of spiritual supremacy, is left to a foreign ecclesiastic, and his vassal the romish priests, within this empire. The pope never did claim any temporal power, save under the pretext, that it was inseparably annexed to the supreme spiritual power, and a consequence of it. What immense temporal power he claimed, and in fact exercised within this under such pretence, let our histories and statutes declare; the fourth Lateran general council shews the extent of they authority over temporal princes and their dominions claimed by the pope.—The qualifying, subjects, who hold so anarchical a doctrine as a point of faith, to become part of the supreme power, by admitting them to a share of the supreme legislative authority rein a protestant state; and that too a state, the powerful part of whose supremacy is lodged in a popular assembly, is in its own nature an absurdity, and must, if effected, be attended with the most ruinous consequences to the constitution.—Before I proceed farther, it will be necessary to put gentlemen in mind of the oath of supremacy (which we have all taken) by repeating it: I—do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed murdered by their subjects, or by any other person whatsoever; and I do declare, that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."— The oath of supremacy was originally framed in the reign of King Henry VIII. merely as an pope then becoming intolerable in England, he claiming and exercising a power over the subjects, under the mask of spiritual power, or as inseparably annexed to it, equal to the power of the crown at least, and in many cases paramount to it, and subversive of it. See preambles to the statues of the 24th Hen. VIII. ch. 12, 25; 25th Hen. VIII. ch. 21; 26th Hen. VIII. ch. 1; 32d Hen. VIII. ch. 38; and the Irish statues of the 28th Hen. VIII. ch. 13; 2d Eliz. ch. 2.—By this oath, in its original form, the king was declared to be the only supreme head on earth of the church of England and Ireland. This clause was objected against as an acknowledgement of a sacerdotal power in the king; to obviate this, he took care to declare publicly, that he claimed only a civil supremacy, that he made no pretension to any [...] power; that his supremacy was not that purely spiritual power which is lodged in the church, but a temporal supremacy over all the spiritual power of it within his own do- minions.—. All the great officers of the state, bishops, and nobility, within his realm (two excepted,—Sir Thomas More, and Fisher, bishop of Rochester), took this oath. Romanists were then better subject than they are present!— The objection, however, being still urged by the partizans of the court of Rome, queen Elizabeth, at the commencement of her reign, changed that clause in the oath, and inserted in its room, "that the king (or queen) is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastic things or causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have, &c.—To guard against any perverse interpretation of this oath, she published injunctions, wherein she declared, "that she pretended to this oath, she published injunction, wherein she declared, " that she pretended to no priestly power; that she challenged no authority, but what was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of England; that is, under-God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of person born within her dominions, of what estate, whether ecclesiastic or temporal, soever they be, so as no foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them." The romanists, however, by the anathemas of the pope, were so changed for the worse, and their obligation of fidelity to their prince and country so loosed since the reign of Henry, that they universally rejected this oath, thought simply an oath of allegiance to their natural sovereign.—On the accession of James II. a bigoted papist, he, finding himself invested by this oath with the supreme governance of the established church, was induced by his bigotry, in direct breach of his coronation oath, to use this authority for the subversion of the church, from the monarch's being invested with such power, was noticed by the sagacious patriots who conducted the revolution; and on that glorious event they determined to rescue the church from such peril, and expunged from the oath of supremacy the clause "that the king is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastic things or causes, as temporal;" so that the subject is now only bound to swear, by the oath of supremacy, to the independence of the empire on any foreign power; and it is merely and simply and oath of allegiance to the state: in fact it was always so, and such as no subject, who is not a traitor, can conscientiously refuse; it is, as it now stands, completely purged of all reasonable, or even plausible objection: it never was an oath of exclusion, or even of restriction, unless of traitors; it is absolutely, strictly, and literally conformable to the ancient and acknowledged common law of the realm. That ancient common law is acknowledged, repeated, and recognised, in the preamble of statue of præmunire, enacted in the 16th of Richard II. at the time this kingdom was in communion with the Romish church: that statue recites, "that the crown of England hath ever been free, and subject to none, but immediately unto God; and the laws and statues of this realm ought not to be submitted to the bishop of Rome, to be defeated at his pleasure, to the destruction of the king, his crown, and his regalia, and of all the realm, which God defend." This was the voice of the people in open parliament at that time. See the statue, Carte's Ormod, vol. I. from page 36 to 43. See also Davis's Reports, case of Præmunire.—The romanists of day complain of the laws which enjoin the taking of this oath, declaring that they cannot in conscience take it, that it is to them an exclusive oath, as they cannot sit in Parliament without taking it; and they and their abettors (among whom in this point they muster all the jacobins in the country) desire to have these laws repealed. They plead thus: we are from conscience traitors to our country; we maintain that our country is subject to a foreign power; we are always ready to support the authority of that foreign power in every possible way, by arms or otherwise, and to bow down our country to its authority: we therefore demand the repeal of the laws which oblige us to swear allegiance to the constitutional governing power of our country; which repeal will be a national acknowledgment of the dependance of our country on, and its subjection to, a foreign tribunal. It will enable us to procure seats in the great supreme council of the nation; and confer power on us to betray the independence of our country. The pope and all our divines assure us, that we are bound in conscience to do so, when we shall procure power. Dr. Troy, our archbishop of Dublin, and eminent dignitary of our church, in his pastoral letter, published in 1793, has told us, "that it is a fundamental article of the Roman catholics faith, that the pope or bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, in that see: that he enjoys by divine right, a spiritual and ecclesiastical primacy, not only of honour and rank, but of real jurisdiction and authority in the uni- versal church: that catholics cannot conscientiously abjure the ecclesiastical authority of bishop of Rome: that Henry VIII. of England was the first christian prince that assumed ecclesiastical supremacy, and command an enslaved parliament to enact it as a law of the state, and that the catholics consider it as an usurpation." Pursuant to this doctrine, we, the catholics, will endeavour, by every means in our power, to free ourselves from that usurpation; and pray, good protestant usurpers, assist us in dong so! put us into a capacity of effecting it! that is, of betraying our common country to dependance and slavery.—The patrons of this measure argue that the sentiments of romanists are changed for the better from what they were formerly. It is already shewn that if they have suffered any change since the reign of Henry VIII. the change has been for the worse, and that they now avow greater hostility to the constitutional independence of the nation (justifying that hostility upon principle) than they did at that period.—But to give a clear and explicit refutation of this argument, it will be necessary to exposed the avowed principles of the Romish religion in respect to temporal government; to inquire whether they have been ever disavowed, and whether any material change has been effected in them at any, and what period—And first, it is necessary to state, that all Romish bishop, and among the rest his majesty's subjects now resident in the British dominions, under denomination of titular archbishop and bishop (who, in direct defiance of the laws, assume the titles of most revered and right reverend, being the titles of real archbishops bishops of the realm), at their respective consecration swear an oath of allegiance to the pope, which is utterly inconsistent with their duty to his majesty and the state. Among other clause (all exceptionable) are the following: "that they will from that hour forward be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the holy church of Rome, and to their lord the pope, and his successors, canonically entering: that the papacy of Rome, the rules of the holy fathers, and the regality of St. Peter, they will keep, maintain, and defend against all men. The rights, privileges, and authorities of the church of Rome, and of the pope, and his successors, they will cause to be conserved, defended, augmented and promoted." Another clause in the oath is, "that heretics, schismatics, and rebels to the holy father and his successors, they will resist and persecute to their power." This clause Dr. Troy states to be now omitted in the oath of Romish bishops, in countries not in communion with the Romish church, at the instance of the late Empress of Russia, who made that a condition of her permitting a Romish bishop to reside within her dominions. If such be the case, the oath is sufficiently hostile to a protestant government without it.—I shall next repeat an extract from the oath taken by all Romish priests at their ordination. "Fifthly, the holy catholic, apostolic, and Roman church, I acknowledge to be the mother and mistress of all churches; and to the Roman pontiff, successor of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, Vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and swear true obedience. Sixthly, all doctrines delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and by the general councils of Trent, without the smallest doubt I receive and profess; and whatsoever is contrary thereto, and all heresies condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church,I equally condemn, reject, and anathematize. Seventhly, this true catholic faith, out of which there is no salvation, which at present I freely profess and sincerely hold, I do promise, vow, and swear that I will most constantly retain and conserve, inviolate; with God's help, unto the last breath of my life; and that, as far as in me lieth,I will be careful that it be held by, taught and preached to my subjects," [All Romish priests call their parishioners subjects, in latin subditi.] "or those the care of whom shall belong to me in my function. So help me God."—The next evidence of the principal of the Romish religion, in respect to temporal governments, which it is proper to adduce, is the decrees of the fourth general Lateran council, held under pope Innocent III. in 1215, in its third chapter. This council consisted of four hundred bishops, and eight hundred other fathers. These decrees assert the power of the church (that is, of the pope) of disposing of the dominions of kings and princes, commanding temporal lords to purge their dominions of heresy under pain of excommunication, absolving their subjects from their allegiance, and exposing their dominions to the invasion of catholics; denouncing against kings, ruler, and subjects, guilty or even suspected of heresy, or inactivity in detecting and punishing heretics, the most terrible temporal punishment, such as confiscation, banishment, torture and death; declaring that faith is to be kept with heretics, nor conventions nor agreements made with them; or if made, that they were nullities in themselves, and that no communication of any kind is to be held with them.—The council of Constance in 1415, the subsequent council of Basil, and the famous council of Trent, of later years in the sixteenth century, all confirmed the decrees of the Lateran council, particularly in respect to heresy. That of Constance, in conformity with the decrees of the Lateran council, compelled Sigismund, king of the Romans, to break his faith with John Huss, and deliver him up to the council contrary to his faith and safe-conduct, declaring "that no safe-conduct given to a heretic under what covenant soever, by any emperors, kings, or other secular princes, ought to exempt such heretic from the judgment of his competent ecclesiastical judge, who may punish him, though he come to the place of judgment, confiding in that safe-conduct, without which he would not have come;" and John Huss was condemned for heresy by that council in its twelfth session, and burned alive in its fifteenth.—In conformity with the decrees of the council of Lateran, Pope Pius V. excommunicated Queen Elisabeth, and absolved her subjects from their allegiance: his bull for that purpose wag afterwards renewed and confirmed by his successor Gregory XIII. Pope Clement IX. in conformity with the same decrees, issued his bull, enjoining the English romanists to do their utmost to keep out the Scotish heretic (so he styled King James I.), that he might not in any wise be admitted to the kingdom of England, unless he would reconcile himself to Rome, and hold his crown of the pope, and conform himself and all his subjects to the religion of the Roman church [See Carte's Ormond, vol. i p. 33.]—It is to be remarked, that all these bulls were issued, not from the private ambition of the popes had court of Rome, but in direct conformity with the injunctions and decision of the general council of the Romish church.—Charles VI. Emperor of Germany, executed the treaty of Alt' Radstadt, and thereby granted certain privileges to some of his protestant subjects, and entered into some convents with the protestant princes of the empire. Pope Clement XI. in a letter to that emperor, dated June 4, 1712, writes thus: "We, by these prosents, denounce to your majesty, and at the same time by the authority committed to us by the most omnipotent God, declare the above-mentioned covenants of the treaty of Alt' Radstadt, and every thing contained in it which are any wise obstructive of, or hurtful to, or which may be said, esteemed, pretended, or understood to occasion or to bring, or to have brought the least prejudice to, or any ways to hurt or to have hurt the catholic faith, divine worship, the salvation of souls, the authority, jurisdiction, or any rites of the church whatsover, together with all and singular matters which have followed, or may at any time hereafter, follow from them, to be and to have been, and perpetually to remain hereafter de jure, null, vain, invalid, unjust, reprobated, and evacuated of all force from the beginning, and that no person is bound to the observation of them or any of them, although the same have been repeatedly ratified or secured by an oath; and that they neither could nor ought to have been, nor can nor ought to be observed by any person whatsoever."—The pope's legate at Brussels, in the year 1768, when an oath was in contemplation in parliament to be taken by the Roman catholics of Ireland, writes to Ireland in the following manner respecting that oath:— That the abhorrence and detestation of the doctrine, that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and that princes deprived by the pope may be deposed or murdered by the it subjects, as expressed in that proposed oath, are absolutely intolerable, because, as he states, those doctrines are defended and contended for by most catholic nations, and the holy see has frequently followed them in practice. On the whole he states, that as the Oath is in its whole extent unlawful, so in its nature it is invalid, null and of no effect, insomuch that it can by no means bind or oblige consciences.—It is now time to come to authorities still more modern in this point, and those of men of the Romish persuasion in high credit with our ministers. Doctor Troy, the Romish archbishop of Dublin (who at this day openly assumes and uses the arms of that archbishopric, surmounted with a cardinal's cap, from whence I presume him to be a cardinal), in a treatise which he entitles a pastoral letter, published by him in London and Dublin so late as the year 1793., asserts, that all Roman catholics consider the express decisions of their general councils, as infallible authority in point of doctrine.". And Dr. Hussey, who informs us that Romish bishop of Waterford, appointed by the pope, in a pamphlet styled a pastoral letter, published by him in London and Dublin in 1797, not only holds the same doctrine, but forbids all romanists, under pain of excommunication, to permit any of their children, under any pretence, to resort to a protestant school in the same pamphlet he addresses the Romish soldiery, and exhorts them by no means to obey their officers in any orders relating to spiritual concerns, without particularly specifying what he means by spiritual concerns, but reserving the interpretation to himself and the Romish priesthood; and stating, that if any officer should enforce obedience to his orders relating to spiritual concerns, such officer might feel the effects of such conduct in the day of battle; that is, the Romish soldier might then turn upon, and assassinate him, or desert to the enemy—It is very proper to remark here, that Doctor Hussey was, within these very few years, sent over to Ireland by the British ministry, under the protection of the English secretary of state in Ireland; and was made president of a most magnificent college, (infinitely more grand, and of more expensive foundation, than any college in his majesty's dominions) then founded and endowed for the exclusive education of Romish priests in Ireland by the government, and by express directions of the British ministry; that is, for the perpetuation of popery and disaffection in so great a limb of the British empire! and that Doctor Troy, during the lieutenancy of the Marquis Cornwallis in Ireland, was in great credit at the Irish court. An English Romish priest of the name of Milner, who as I understand is one of the four apostolic vicars in England, in a very recent publication has taken pains to inform his sovereign or future sovereigns how far he or they may be bound by the coronation oath; and states, "that every human law and every promise or other engagement, however confirmed by oath, must necessarily turn upon the cardinal virtue of prudence;" which implies that it depends as to the obligation of fulfilling it in such and such circumstances on the question of expediency. I believe the protestant subjects of this empire have no great occasion to apprehend that his present majesty will consult this casuistical Romish divine on case of conscience.—After this exposure of the present Romish religious principles, so radically hostile to the temporal government and established constitution of the British expire in church and state, of such antiquity, of such indisputable authority, and of such recent avowal, let the supporters of the present measure inform the house, at what period, and by what public authority did the Romish church or it votaries renounce or disavow these principles, or any and which of them.—It is notorious they never did; their rejection of the oath of supremacy, simply an oath of allegiance avowing the independence of the state, their anxiety to have the law enjoining the taking of it repealed, amount to a full confession and avowal of the romanists, that they have not in any shape changed those principle.— It has been frequently and confidently asserted by romanists and their abettors, that the doctrines held by them respecting the supreme jurisdiction in spiritual matters, and its residence in a foreign tribunal, can never affect the temporal authority and jurisdiction in this, or in any other country.—What has been already advanced is sufficient to refute this assertion; but it is proper to add, that the supreme jurisdiction in spiritual matters does draw into its vortex a very large share of temporal power, as inseparably annexed to it, and incorporated with it, even though we exclude a vast portion of temporal jurisdiction claimed by the romanists as adhering to the supreme jurisdiction in spirituals, which in fact does not belong to it, nor is incorporated with it. in proof of this, let the preambles of the several statutes heretofore enacted in this kingdom, for abolishing the pope's usurped jurisdiction in be referred to; they particularise the vast portion a temporal authority inseparably annexed to the exercise of supreme jurisdiction in spirituals. (See the preambles of the acts of the 16th Richard II.; 24th Henry VIII. chaps. 12, 25; 25th Henry VIII. chaps. 20, 21; 26th Henry VIII. chap. 1; 32d Henry VIII. chap. 38; Irish acts of 28th Henry VIII. chaps. 13, 19; 2d Elizabeth, chap. 1.) These preambles recite the great mischief done to this empire, "by appeals made to the see of Rome in causes testamentary; causes of matrimony and divorces; right of tithes; oblations, and obventions; by intolerable exactions for bulls, delegacies, and rescripts, in causes of contention; as well as for dispensations, licenses, and faculties, in an infinite number of cases."—Matrimony is held by the Roman catholics to be a sacrament, and the cognizance of in to belong to the spiritual jurisdiction. This, in many eases, would confer a jurisdiction on the pope as surpreme head of the church, of deciding whether a man was the lawful heir of his father, and entitled to his real and personal estate; and whether a woman was entitled to dower; with several other temporal concomitants. Excommunication is a matter of spiritual jurisdiction; and tyranny exercised over the property and other temporal concerns of the laity by the Romish priesthood in Ireland is terrible almost beyond description. Auricular confession and absolution, by giving them the dominion over the consciences of men, confer a mighty power in temporal matters upon them; and Buonaparté, though a fierce unprincipled tyrant and usurper, was so well convinced that the supremacy in spirituals would essentially contribute to the support and establishment of his temporal power, that he procured himself to be crowned by the pope as supreme head of the church.—In favour of the measure of investing romanists with political power in the British empire, it has been urged, that the doctrine of the supremacy of the pope in spirituals is not attended with any ill consequences at present, and affords no subject of complaint to the temporal power, in any state in Europe, popish or protestant; though in all popish states, and in many protestant, romanists are admitted into places of power and trust.—The plain answer to this is, that all the popish states in Europe, previous to the anarchical progress of the recent French revolution, were either despotic monarchies, or equally despotic oligarchies, and that the people at large had no political power in theme. The despot, or aristocratic rulers, insignificant in number when compared with the population of the state, possessed the whole political power; and no person, professing a different religion from that of the state, was permitted to enjoy any political power. The great mass of the people, being excluded from all manner of power or influence in the state, were, what Englishmen term, slaves: and every question which could arise from the claim of papal supremacy in such states, was decided by the despots and the court of Rome.—As these despots were themselves of the Romish persuasion, no controversy could happen between the temporal and spiritual jurisdications, on the score of heresy or difference in religious opinions: the spiritualty could never have occasion to put in execution the tyrannical decrees of the lateran council against the despots themselves; and these despots actually became the executioners of the judgments of the spiritualty, on such of their enslaved subjects as presumed to question any tenet or the Romish superstition: or they permitted the spiritualty themselves to execute them: in respect to any other points of temporal jurisdiction claimed by the spiritualty, as annexed to the supreme Jurisdiction in spirituals, it became the interest of the despots to acquiesce in part in theme, and thereby to attach the interest of the clergy to their own domination, well knowing that superstition can give strong support to despotic power, by inclining the people to submit to slavery; and the temporal and ecclesiastical powers found it their mutual interest to unite themselves, to ensure and continue the submission of the people.—In protestant despotic states it is not of great moment to the despot, what religious opinions are held by a part of his subjects: the people have no power in the state, and it is little consequence to the despot whether the men he employs as his servants are of one religious persuasion or the other, they being merely his creatures, and extinguishable at his pleasure. But in protestant states, in which the people, or their elective representatives, have some share in the government, romanists were excluded, before the baneful progress the French revolution, from all share of political power. The Swiss confederacy, composed of a league of small protestant and Romish states for their mutual security, is a strong instance of this: in the protestant cantons no romanists were admitted members of the senates, or even to any places of trust or confidence in the state a similar regulation took place in the Romish cantons with respect to protestants. In the United Provinces, so often cited as models of toleration, though all sects were tolerated, yet civil offices were only enjoyed by professors of the established religion: "It was not there considered as a punishment on men to be excluded as a punishment on men to be exclude from public offices, and to live peaceably on their own revenues and industry." (See Hume's history, vol. Viii. Page 274.) Romanists were also exclude in Holland from seats in the assembly of the states general.— If therefore the British empire is to be influenced by the practice of every popular protestant state in Europe, romanists should not only be excluded from all places of trust and power, but from all situations which would invest them with any share of political power; and above all from seats in the supreme legislative assemblies, the house of lords and commons.—But the very constitution of Britain is such, as renders the exclusion of romanists from seats in the legislative assemblies not only expedient, but of absolute imperative necessity. In the British empire the supreme legislative power rests in the king, lords, and commons; the commons being the representatives of the great mass of the people, or the democracy; the peers the representatives of the richest and most dignified part of the people, or of the aristocracy. In these two assemblies, but particularly in the house of commons, vastly the most powerful of the two, is vested the greatest and most efficient part of the sovereign power of the state: and to admit the avowed enemies of the constitution in church and state, is so manifestly and absurdity in politics, that it is surprising such a measure should be supported by men of ability professing themselves to be friends of the constitution.—As it has been more than once openly and confidently asserted by an able member(Mr. Fox) of this house, that the exclusion of romanists from the houses of lords and commons is an unjust invasion of their natural rights, it is necessary here to repeat what has been already mentioned, that romanists exclude themselves, by their rejection of the oath of supremacy; an oath enjoined to be taken not by them alone, but by all members of the houses of lords and commons, not being in its own nature an oath of exclusion, but an oath of allegiance to the state, abjuring all foreign jurisdiction: and their rejection of of this oath amounts to an avowal, that they are in principle traitors to the state, in acknowledging a foreign jurisdiction. The argument by which this able senator support this opinion is, that all members of the state are by natural right entitled to an equality of political power, so far as a capability of enjoying all the honours, emoluments, and privileges of state, according to their respective abilities: that no member of the state should be curtailed of any of these privilege for any opinions he may entertain or promulge, be they ever so traitorous or hostile to the constitution, unless he attempts by some overt act to carry them into effect; for that opinion are not objects of laws, but actions only. But though it be admitted that private opinions are not properly the objects of criminal or disqualifying laws without overt acts, are not the dissemination of opinions traitorous and hostile to the constitution, and attempts to proselytize people to such opinion, overt acts, and the objects of penal and restrictive laws in the British empire? A man may keep destructive poisons in his closet, without becoming obnoxious to the operation of any penal or restrictive law; but if be publicly vends or administers them, the laws restrain and punish him. It is also fact, that preventive laws in the British empire, the wisest of all laws, do make opinions their objects, and fix disqualifications, not only on the maintainers of opinions, but also on those who may be reasonably suspected of holding certain opinions. For instance, revenue-officers are by act of parliament disabled from voting elections of members of parliament; and by the place bill, certain classes of placemen and pensioners are disqualified from sitting in parliament; persons, not possessed of 300l. per annum of landed estate, are disqualified from representing a borough, and those not possessed of 600l. per annum from representing a county, in parliament: on what ground is it that so many persons are curtailed of their privileges? is it not on the suspicion, that their particular interests will inspire them with opinions adverse to the interests of the state, and that they will vote in conformity with such hostile opinions, if admitted to the enjoyment of such privileges? Romanists, whose opinions are openly and avowedly hostile to the state, are in a better condition than the already mentioned respectable classes of society: by taking the oaths administered to all the members of the legislative body, they may sit in parliament: not so with the classes mentioned; they are absolutely and irrevocably excluded.—This doctrine of natural rights, besides what is already mentioned, may receive the following full and decisive answer. Man from his very nature is a gregarious animal; there is no instance in nature of savage solitary man; society is necessary for his preservation and the continuance of the human race; therefore no right can be properly termed a natural right, which is not also a social right; or, in other words, the rights of society an natural rights: if therefore any man, or class of men, claim privileges as natural rights, utterly inconsistent with the well-being, and even existence of the society, or political state, of which he is a member such claim is to be utterly rejected, as not being properly a claim of a natural right; or if of a natural right in a solitary state of nature (such a state being supposed to exist), certainly not a claim of right to be admitted by the society of which he is a member; because it tends directly to the destruction of the society, and all claim of presume right must yield to the paramount claim of real social right, the preservation of the state. A way then with the claim of roman- ists to seats in both houses of parliament as heir natural right! —It is here fit to remark, that romanists cannot derive any support to their exertions and those of their abettors, for the repeal of the acts enjoining the taking of the oath of supremacy, from this doctrine, that opinions without overt acts are not the objects of legislation; because the overt acts of our own countrymen, and others, professors of this cruel and unrelenting superstition, for the purpose of subjecting the British empire to a foreign jurisdiction, since the commencement of the reign of queen Elizabeth, have been too frequent, flagrant, and notorious to be denied. Witness the bulls of Pope Pius V. and his successors, for the dethronement and assassination of that queen and James I.; the conspiracies of her own Romish subjects, in conformity with these bulls, for her assassination, and that of her successor; the projected Spanish invasion; the gunpowder plot; the desperate Romish rebellion and horrible massacre of the protestants of Ireland in the reign of Charles I.; the obstinate and destructive rebellion of the Irish romanists in the reign of William III.; the recent atrocious rebellion in Ireland, and the unprovoked murder of thousands of Irish protestants, men, women, and children, in cold blood: in extenuation and excuse of which rebellion and massacre, all the malevolence and falsehood of the whole republican, jacobinical, Frenchified faction in England, have been ever since employed; in too many instances with a pernicious and even a fatal effect.—In justification of the present proposed measure, pleas of merit in the modern race of Romish subjects have been advanced; and first, that they have conducted themselves peaceably and loyally ever since the revolution, though under the pressure of rigorous, impoverishing, and disqualifying statutes; and a great minister of state, (the present chancellor of the exchequer) has been so far deluded by the misrepresentations and falsehoods of Romish advocates and emissaries, as to declare himself a patron of their claims, on the score of their patience and forbearance for a century past. Secondly, it has been asserted, that the Irish romanists heartily concurred in the measure of union of the two nations (though it:was opposed by the Irish protestants), and by their power, influence, and interest, not only contributed to the success of that great measure, but were the chief instruments of it.—The truth of these two pleas I will separately examine, and reply to them both. The first is a plea of loyal and peaceable conduct of the romanists of the empire since the revolution. When the Romish scheme of subversion of the protestant establishment in church and state, under the conduct, patronage, and influence of the bigoted monarch who then swayed the British sceptre, was completely defeated by the spirit of the nation (raised and directed by the renowned William III.), but through the medium of a bloody civil war, from the obstinate resistance of the Irish romanists the political power and consequence of the romanists in Great Britain were annihilated, and in Ireland reduced to a very low ebb. In Great Britain their dwarfish number, compared with the gigantic multitude of protestants, ensured the political impotence of the seat; but the case was different in Ireland: the romanists exceeded the other subjects in number in that country (though not in the magnified ratio stated in their own inflated accounts), which prevented their sinking into political impotence. Yet their decisive defeat at that period reduced them to great political imbecility: though fallen to the earth in both kingdoms, their reiterated conspiracies and rebellions induced the state to guard against their acquisition of new strength after their fall, Antæus-like: hence sprung the system of what are called popery laws in both kingdoms, enacted since the revolution. These laws, by popish writers, and the abettors of popery throughout the empire, are represented as most oppressive and unjust; and as the causes of the notorious disaffection of the romanists to the state, and of their conspiracies, massacres, and rebellions; but this is gross misrepresentation; for that part of the code particularly complained of as unjust and oppressive, was enacted in the reigns of William and Anne, after their conspiracies massacres, and rebellions, had been plotted and executed, and therefore was the effect, and not the cause, of their notorious disaffection and treasons. And these laws could not have been the causes of the last rebellion and massacre in Ireland, for they were all repealed prior to that rebellion, and massacre. The popery code was nearly the same in both kingdoms.—These laws (for wise and provident they were, notwithstanding the false and their abettors against them) prohibited romanists from the acquisition of landed property, political influence, and power, in both countries; and thereby disabled them in a great measure from disturbing the state, in conformi- ty with their avowed principles. Whilst these laws remained unrepealed, romanists were more peaceable subjects than they now are, because it was not in their power to be otherwise: the maniac in a straight waistcoat, or the tiger in a cage, can do no mischief, yet deserve no commendation for their gentleness. The British ministry, influenced by active and able Romish agents (particularly the late Mr. Edmund Burke), and imposed upon by the grossest falsehoods and misrepresentations (which have had a powerful effect on them, from their own absolute ignorance of the true state of Ireland) have, for these twenty years last past and upwards, exerted all their influence in the Irish parliament to procure the repeal of these laws, session after session, and have in a great measure succeeded, though they have not yet procured the repeal of the popery code in England in the same degree. In this respect they treated the Irish nation in the way that condemned malefactors have been sometimes treated, on whom dangerous experiments in physic and surgery have been tried, before their general application is sanctioned to the public. The English ministry, not content, in the year 1793, with procuring a bill to pass in the Irish parliament, for repealing all the laws which disabled romanists to vote at elections of members of parliament, prefaced the bill with an assertion I cannot admit, to wit, that the conduct of the romanists had been loyal. Whoever will take the trouble of turning to the Irish acts of the 19th of Geo. II. of the 29th of Geo. II. and to all acts passed Ireland for twenty years preceding the year 1793, for the suppression of the petty rebellions of the White Boys and Defenders, all romanists, who have from time to time infested, and desolated several parts of Ireland, committing the most atrocious acts of treason, will be clearly convinced that the Irish romanists have no good claim to the character of loyal subjects, from the time of the revolution to the era of their late rebellion. But supposing it were admitted, for argument's sake, that romanists have been generally peaceable subjects, from the revolution till a few years. before the breaking out of the late rebellion. (loyal it cannot be pretended that they were, their avowed principle of the subjection of the nation to a foreign yoke being disloyal), they can derive no merit from such peaceable demeanour: the popery code rendered their submission to the laws a matter of necessity; they were peaceable because they were disabled, in a great measure from exerting their avowed hostility constitution by the efficacy of the popery code; and nothing more clearly demonstrates the truth of this conclusion than this fact, which cannot be denied, that they have advanced in their march of sedition and treason at the same rate of progression, as the English ministry proceeded in Ireland with the repeal of the popery code; and they broke out into open rebellion, and commenced a massacre of the protestants of Ireland, very shortly after a great part of that code was repealed, and they were admitted to an equality of civil privileges with protestants, the capacity of sitting in parliament, and enjoying some great civil officers, excepted.—Can any circumstance carry a more decisive proof of the wisdom of the popery code, and of the folly of repealing it, than the actual consequence of that repeal just mentioned? and can any thing be more clear than the insufficiency of the claim of merit of romanists, on the score of their peaceable and loyal conduct since the revolution? Loyalty certainly they never had the slightest claim to; their avowed religions principles are disloyal. To peaceable conduct their is also ill founded in general; and where it has any foundations, it entities them not to the gratitude of the state, because it was not the effect of choice, but of imbecility; and that the effect of the wise system of laws, the repealed popery code. It may not be here improper to quote a passage out of the the speech of the late earl of Chesterfield, at the opening of the Irish parliament in the year 1745, he being then lord lieutenant of Ireland, to shew the opinion entertained by that able statesman, and the government he then served, of the popery laws.—"The measures (said he) that have been hitherto taken to prevent the growth of popery, have I hope, had some, and will still have a greater effect; however, I leave it to your consideration, whether nothing further can be done, either by new laws, or by the more effectual execution of those in being, to secure this nation against the great number of papists, whose speculative errors would only deserve pity, if their pernicious influence on civil society did not both require and authorise restraint."—The second plea of merit of romanists, to wit, that they supported in Ireland the great measure of an union of the two kingdoms, and by their exertions effected it, is as void of foundation in fact, as the former. Every one, who has the smallest acquaintance with the history of Ireland, must acknowledge, that the whole body of Irish romanists, from the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth to the present time, has directed all its exertions to the separation of Ireland from England. Such separation was and is the point to which Irish romanists have uniformly directed all their conspiracies, all their massacres, all their rebellions, all their political views and measures. The Irish protestants, on the contrary, were always firmly attached to Great Britain, and always looked to Great Britain for protection, countenance and support; being ready at all times to expend the last shilling of their property, and spill the last drop of their blood, in defence of the just rights of the British empire. The whole body of protestants till a few years back, and a very great majority of them since, were ambitious of uniting the nation indissolubly to Great Britain by an incorporating union; and by their representatives in parliament actually petitioned the crown to procure such an union in the reign of queen Anne; which petition was then, with unaccountable, haughtiness, rejected. But the Irish romanists, so late as the year 1795, proclaimed their hostility to that measure. In the spring of that year, the representatives of the whole mass of the Roman catholics of Ireland, chosen from every considerable district, city, and town in that kingdom, open, popular election, assembled at St. Francis's Romish chapel, in the city of Dublin. In this assembly the most treasonable speeches, stuffed with the most virulent invectives against the British nation, and the most lavish praises of the French revolution, stigmatizing the war against the French regicides with the epithet of an impious crusade, and exhorting the nation to a separation from Great Britain, were uttered by several of the leading and popular romanists. The assembly entered unanimously into several factious and treasonable resolutions. It was surmised at this assembly, that an union between Great Britain and Ireland was then in the contemplation of government, though no such measure had been announced; and one of the unanimous resolutions was the following: "Resolved, that we pledge ourselves, collectively and individually, to resist even our own emancipation, if proposed to be conceded on the ignominious terms of an acquiescence in the fatal measure of an union with Great Britain" By the unanimous vote of this assembly, consisting of above fifteen hundred men, re- presentatives of all the romanists of Ireland, these resolutions, together with abstracts of the speeches of the principals demagogues among them, were published in most of the factious papers, both in Great Britain and Ireland. Here then is proof positive of the hostile sentiments of the whole mass of Irish romanists, not of any partial body of them, to the measure of and incorporating union of the two nations so late as the year 1795. —Their declarations against the measure did not stop there: in the year 1799, as soon as an union was proposed by government, a meeting of the romanists of the city of Dublin was convened by their leaders at the Royal Exchange; at this meeting, a very general one, they entered into violent resolutions against an union, which they published as usual in the factious papers both in England and Ireland. The same line of conduct was pursued in several other parts of Ireland, though this hostility of the Irish romanists to an union was perfectly impotent, the political imbecility of the whole sect, particularly after the suppression of their then recent rebellion, rendering them incapable either of promoting or obstructing the measure; yet the English government in Ireland condescended to negotiate with the party, and endeavoured to procure signatures of the dregs of the people of that persuasion to papers and addresses in favours of the measure. Several addresses this kind appeared in the government prints; the names of wretches who could not write their names, appeared as if they were subscribers to such addresses. The very gaols were canvassed to procure subscribers, and multitudes of names appeared, as the names of real subscribers to these addresses, though persons of such names did not exist in the places from which the addresses were stated to have been sent: in short, with all the activity and intrigue of government, no considerable body of romanists throughout the kingdom could be procured publicly to avow their approbation of the measure. It is admitted, that many honest men, and good subjects at this side of the water (utterly ignorant of the state of Ireland, and of Irish affairs) have been duped, by the grossest falsehoods and misrepresentations, into on approbation of the measure now in debate; and that there is a difference of opinion among men of that description respecting it; but among demagogues, republicans, and infidels, there is no difference of opinion of it. They are unanimous in its support; and their unanimity on the point should induce all loyal subjects, who have been deluded into an opinion of its utility to the state, to re-examine the grounds of their opinion, and the authenticity of the information on which they formed it. It is fit to be remarked, that the first decisive step of the French revolutionists in their career of anarchy, was the subversion of their church establishment, which led mediately to the subversion of their civil government. The consequence of the proposed measure, if adopted, will be the same in the British empire; it therefore meets the approbation of all the Jacobins in it. To demonstrate that Irish romanists neither gave, nor could give, any assistance to the measure of an incorporating union, it is only necessary to state a known matter of fact, which is, that a great majority of the Irish parliament would never have agreed to an incorporating union with Great Britain, if any hint had been given, or had it even been suspected, that the present measure would be attempted, after an union had taken place. I call on the persons concerned on the part of government in conducting the business of the union in the Irish house of commons to deny this fact, if they can; for my own part, I can truly aver; that, instead of warmly supporting the measure of an union in the Irish commons, I would have opposed it to the utmost of my power had I suspected that measure as the precept would have been introduced into the imperial parliament, in the event of an incorporating union taking place; and I know many members of the Irish commons, supporters of the union, who would have decidedly opposed it, had they any suspicion of the present measure being one of its consequences: in short, a great majority of the Irish commons would have done so. One principal argument made use of by all the agents of government to the Irish members to induce them to agree to an union was, that all hostility of the British Cabinet to Irish protestants, and all fart her encouragement and support of Irish romanists, would for ever cease, on an union between the two countries taking place, because all inducement to such a species of policy would then for ever cease. Could any British subject ever suspect that in the reign of a prince of the house of Brunswick, a measure would be proposed in a British parliament, the attempting of which cost the unhappy James II. his crown, expatriated him and his posterity, and caused a breach in the hereditary succession of our kings, always serious evil in an hereditary monarchy? Astonishing, that what our kings could not even attempt with impunity, should be, after a lapse of one century, daringly attempted; and that too under the reign of a prince, whose sole title to the crown rests on a principle, directly adverse and opposite to the principle of this measure! His title is a protestant title, and, thanks to heaven! our monarch is a protestant, a sincere one, and bound by his oath, and as strongly by his principles, to maintain the protestant religion as by law established. This measure directly tends to the sapping of his title; for if it is just and advantageous to the state, now to invest romanists with equal political privileges with protestants, it was equally so in the reign of king James II. Such a measure, now that an union between Great Britain and Ireland has taken place, is more mischievous to the British empire, than it could have been in the reign of James; because in his reign few romanists could obtain seats in the British parliament, as their sect was not then, nor is it now, very numerous in Great Britain. But Irish romanists, if this measure succeeds, will obtain seats in the imperial parliament, and in the course of a few years (as will be presently shewn) above eighty romanists, out of the hundred Irish commoners, will obtain seats in the imperial parliament:— a strong hand, indissolubly knit together, who will certainly be allies to every junto of republicans, every band of dissenters, in every opposition to government, unless they shall be gratified to the utmost extent of their wishes, by the utter subversion of the constitution church and state. Can any doctrine make more for the purposes and designs of the infidel and republican factions in our empire? Can any measure more directly tend to the subversion of our constitution in church and state, and the introduction of anarchy, democracy, and infidelity? It may be justly remarked, that this measure for the elevation and aggrandisement of popery, following so immediately on the heels of the Romish rebellion in Ireland, and the horrible massacre of the Irish protestants in the course of it, coupled with the almost general pardon of the principal traitors and murderers, actors in if it should be adopted, must, by every reasonable man, be considered as public reward conferred on Irish romanists for their rebellion and cruel murder of their protestant fellow subject blood; and that too a reward of the utmost magnitude and value: it is al- ready proved, that it cannot be esteemed a reward of their merits, for merits they have none. The favourers of this measure allege, that it is calculated to produce unanimity among the European subject of the British empire, now more necessary than heretofore to the prosperity and independence of the state, from the overgrown power of France, and (echoing the words of James II. in support of the same measure) that it will render the subject of the British empire, happy and flourishing at home, and formidable abroad. But it is demonstrate that the adoption of it will produce the direct country effect, and will arm the romanists with a formidable power, which they will infallibly exercise for the destruction of the state. The religious tenets of romanists render them irreconcilable enemies to a protestant state; they must cease to be romanists before their hostility to such a state can be extinguished: they hold, as infallible doctrines, the decrees of the fourth Lateran council: they hold as a point of faith, the supremacy of the pope: they hold themselves bound by all the obligations of religion, to propagate these doctrines by every means of persuasion and force. In conformity with such doctrines they hold, that all people, differing from them in matters of faith, are heretics doomed to eternal perdition: they hold that no faith is to be kept with heretics: they hold that no oaths of allegiance to an heretical prince or government are binding, Can the members of such a sect be admitted to share in the government of a protestant state? I conceive that no honest man in his reason will answer in the affirmative. No protestant state in Europe, in the government of which the people at large had share, such as the republic of the United Provinces before the late revolution, ever admitted a romanist or any person who did not profess the religion of the state, to any portion of political power. No arguments in favour of the measure can be deduced from the employment of romanists in some department of the state by states the people at large have no political power, and the ministers must implicitly obey the orders of the prince; yet even in such despotic states, the instances of the elevation of romanists to great employments are very few, if any. It may be objected, that romanists declare themselves ready to swear allegiance in temporal matters to a protestant government; and assert, that they hold no such doctrine, as that faith is not to be kept with heretics: and to shew that they look on oaths to heretics to be binding, they argue, that if they did not think themselves bound by such oaths, they would not refuse to take the oath of supremacy, the taking of which would qualify them to enjoy the privileges they are now so ardently in pursuit of. To this it is answered, that the aforesaid doctrine is contained in the decisions of the Lateran council, a very general one, and so held to be by all romanists: that the practice of the court of Rome and of all its vassals and votaries, has been always strictly conformable to such doctrine: that the recent publications of the most celebrated divines of that persuasion, and among others, of Doctors Troy and Hussey, one an archbishop, the other a bishop, and both subjects of this empire, state, "That Roman catholics consider the express decisions of their general councils, as infallible authority in points of doctrine:" that the rejection of the oath of supremacy by Romanists, notwithstanding their taking it would entitle them to great privileges, is no proof that they consider themselves bound by oaths, by which they plight their faith to an heretical government, or to heretics in general: because the oath of supremacy contains an abjuration of the supremacy of the pope, under the title of a foreign prelate; and such an oath their religion will not permit them to take. Doctor Troy, among others of the eminent divines, tells them, "That Roman catholics cannot conscientiously abjure the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome, the supreme jurisdiction of the pope in spirituals being a fundamental article of the Romish faith." But the express decisions of the council of Lateran (infallible authority with them in points of doctrine) tell them that no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that all pledges of faith given to heretics, by oaths, or otherwise, are absolutely null and void, consequently are not binding, and ought not to be observed; so that they may take such oaths, and break them at their pleasure, as absolute nullities in themselves: and such has been the constant and avowed practice of their church.—It is now time to give a general catalogue of the momentous alterations in the British constitution in church and state, which will be the inevitable consequences of this measure if it shall take place: but it is however first necessary to make a few preliminary observations.—By the union the number of Irish representatives in the commons are reduced from three hundred to one hundred; of these, sixty-four are members for counties, and the remaining thirty-six for cities and great towns. All close boroughs, with the exception of one, as I recollect, and the most of the influenced boroughs, are deprived of the privilege of sending representatives to parliament. By an Irish act of parliament in the year 1793, obtained by the intrigues and influence of the British ministry, and passed in opposition to the opinions of the best informed men in Ireland, romanists became entitled to vote at the elections of members of parliament. Most of the cities and great towns, which retain the privilege of sending members to parliament since the union, such as Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Derry, Carrickfergus, and Drogheda, are counties within themselves; and a freehold of forty shillings annual value entitles the person seised of it to a vote. Newry and some other towns are pot-walloping boroughs: so that the representatives of the Irish commons are almost all returned to parliament by elections merely and purely popular. The right of voting in very few of the towns or boroughs entitled to representation in parliament is confined to the members of the corporation only; and romanists, by the aforesaid Irish act of 1793, are entitled to become members of corporations. The Irish romanists are in the proportion of about two to one to the Irish protestants general; and the proportion among the peasantry of Ireland is greater in favour of the romanists, than among the other classes of society. The landed estates in Ireland, in the possession of protestants and romanists, are in the proportion of fifty to one in favour of the protestants: but when the bill in 1793 passed, qualifying romanists to vote for representatives in parliament, the protestant lordlords almost universally changed the tenures of their popish tenants, which before were for terms of years, into freehold leases; vainly imagining, that they would always retain influence enough with their Romish tenantry to command their votes at elections. Little did they consider the all-ruling authority of Romish bigotry over its votaries, as many of them found to their great disappointment at the general election, which first succeeded the year 1793. One gentleman of large landed property, and a representative of a county, informed me, that he and his colleague had every reasonable expectation, from their great landed interest in the county, of being returned members for it Without any contest or expense: but a gentleman of very insignificant landed property in the county, unexpectedly declared himself a candidate, and went round to all the Romish chapels, soliciting the votes of romanists in the county, and promising, if elected, to support all their pretensions in parliament. On this occasion the Romish tenants of the gentleman who gave me the information, made freeholders by himself, universally deserted him, and promised their votes to the new candidate; and the Romish priests through the county so effectually bestirred themselves with their votaries in support of the new candidate, that my friend and his colleague were obliged to give a large sum of money to this adventurer to induce him to abandon the canvass, and thereby to save themselves from the fatigue and expense of a contested election. Certain it is, that the whole body of the Romish peasantry, who by the folly and credulity of their landlords have been made freeholders since the year 1793, will desert their interest on every election, when told by their priests that it is for the interest of their religion that they should do so. In the last Irish rebellion, the popish peasantry pursued their landlords (most of them very indulgent to their tenants, and from their attachment to romanists entitled men of liberality) with the utmost fury and rancour, massacreing them and their families without mercy, when they fell into their hands. Such has been the frenzy of the protestant landlords of Ireland, and their ambition of surpassing each. other in county interest, that they have made almost the whole mass of. the popish peasantry forty-shilling freeholders since the year 1793; so that the Romish freeholders of that description exceed in number the protestant freeholders of every description, throughout three parts in four of Ireland: and if this measure shall take effect, romanists will be returned members of parliament for most of the counties at large, counties of towns, and pot-wallopping boroughs throughout Ireland: and the principle of representation in the British constitution, that property should be the basis of representation, will be completely reversed in Ireland, and the basis there will be numbers, not property.— But even in respect of property, the influence of popery will be daily advancing in Ireland, because, in a commercial country, land is as often at market, and changes hands, as personal property; and lauded as well as personal properly will, in a slow but certain progression, creep to that class of the population which is the most numerous. From the foregoing observations it is a just conclusion, that in a very short time, if this measure is effected, eighty at least out of the hundred Irish representatives will be romanists; and it is fair to conjecture, that twenty or more romanists will obtain seats in the imperial commons for English boroughs, as the whole Romish faction throughout the empire will exert their powers to strengthen their party in parliament; and some Romish peers will sit in the upper house. The romanists will certainly act in parliament as one body; their union, cemented by religious principle, and the interest of their sect, will smother every seed of dissension among them: all allurement of individual interest will fail of effect, when put in competition with the interests of their religion; their bigotry will bind them together in adamantine bonds; and what their conduct in the supreme legislative council of the empire will be, it is not hard to divine.—The first measure they will unanimously propose, and with unremitting efforts pursue and support, will be the repeal of-so much of the Irish act of 1793, conferring on them the elective franchise, as continues the disability of romanists without taking the oaths, to fill about thirty or forty of the great offices of the state, in the departments of which is lodged the executive power of the government. By the incessant intrigues in Ireland of the English ministry, the test and corporation acts had been repealed in that part of the empire previous to the union, with the exception of the above mentioned great offices of the state: these are the offices of lord lieutenant, of lord chancellor of the twelve judges, of the commander in chief of the army, of the king's counsel, of sheriffs, and a few others. If the minister of the day, at a future critical period, should oppose, or decline to support such a measure, the whole corps will immediately join the opposition; and the opposition, to secure the assistance of such numerous auxiliaries, will heartily fraternize with them. In many cases of national distress and difficulty, the ablest minister, though adverse to their claims, will be unable to stem the torrent; and the part of the test and corporation acts, yet in force in Ireland will not survive the admission of romanists into parliament for many sessions. When the capability of romanists of filling these great offices in Ireland is once established, will it be practicable to exclude them from occupying them? Certainly it will not. Their dissatisfaction at such exclusion would be greater than at their-former disqualification. The great majority of the Irish representatives in the imperial parliament being romanists, aided by the English romanists, and indissolubly connected, would wring from the minister the whole civil patronage in Ireland, and secure all the offices there for their own sect: in fact, the civil establishment in Ireland would become completely Romish.—Would the Romish representatives in parliament then contented? Would their clergy in Ireland, and the mass of their persuasion, acquiesce without murmur in the enjoyment of the ecclesiastical revenues in lands and tithes by the protestant clergy? Would they not immediately grasp at them? If the whole executive power of the state there be committed to romanists; if the lord lieutenant, the lord chancellor, the judges, sheriffs, and all the administrators of the law in that nation should be romanists; who would warrant the enjoyment of the ecclesiastical revenues there to the protestant clergy, or maintain their possession of them? The minister himself would not be able to secure the laws entitling the protestant clergy to these emoluments from alteration and repeal, if the great body of the Irish representation in parliament demanded such a sacrifice, which it would not fail to do. The utter subversion in Ireland of the church establishment would follow on the heels of the subversion of the civil, and Ireland would immediately become a popish country—But would the ambition of the Romish faction in the imperial parliament stop here? Certainly it would not. The tenets of popery enjoin continual exertions for its propagation, support, and aggrandizement; and every romanist would beside have the additional spur of parliament interest and ambition, to stimulate him to further exertions on behalf of the sect. The test and corporation acts, being in full force in England, would oppose effectual barriers against the attainment of offices of profit and power in England by romanists. They would observe, that Scotchmen, by the weight of Scottish representation in the imperial parliament, much lighter than that of Irish and Romish representation, had obtained such offices in England, though they had almost engrossed all places of emolument or power in Scotland; they would also observe, that would also observe, that British and Irish protestants were capable of enjoying offices in Ireland; but that British and Irish romanists were excluded from all offices of emolument or power in England by the test and corporation acts: they would then loudly complain of this inequality of condition with their fellow-citizens the British empire, and state that they were excluded from such offices in four-fifth parts of the British empire, and admitted only to the full privileges of citizens in the one-fifth, without having any exclusive privilege even in this one-fifth. If the minister of the day stood in need of their assistance in parliament, as he often would, he must listen to such complaints, and listen with attention and favour: circumstances might compel to join them in their efforts to repeal the test and corporation acts; and if he should determine to support these remaining bulwarks of the constitution, they would join the whole herd of republicans, who have so often reprobated these statutes, and attempted their repeal. Two attempts of this nature, one in 1789, the other in 1790, must be in the recollection of many members of this house: it required all the abilities of the able minister, who at that time principally conducted the business of the nation, to defeat them. If the party which made these attempts shall be reinforced by above one hundred members, steady and determined in their hostility to these two statutes, who can answer for their continuance as part of the law of empire for any length of time? They: will undoubtedly yield to the incessant mining and continued assaults of a determined, vigilant, and insidious enemy, constantly recruited by the venomous offspring of infidelity, republicanism, and jacobinism: the constitution, in church and state, will infallibly sink under the combined pressure of such a chaotic mass of desolating innovation.—The attempt to obtrude this measure on the nation, is, in fact, but the rehearsal of the first act of the Gallic tragedy on the British stage. The introduction of members of all sects into the Gallic national assembly was followed immediately by the subversion, or rather extinction, of their national religion; and that by the complete subversion,of their government, and the substitution of the most barbarous despotism which ever ravaged and deformed any region of the civilized world. Principils obsta: let us firmly resist all approaches of the ferocious monster, Gallic anarchy!—Britons, it is necessary to call to your recollection, and set before your eyes, the statutes, the repeal of which must precede, or inevitably follow, the adoption of. this measure; because such display will convince you, that this measure and its consequences directly tend to the complete subversion of your constitution, which has been improving from the commencement of the reign of the glorious Elizabeth, till its attainment of its present unrivalled excellence! under which you and your ancestors for two centuries have lived and flourished; and which has descended as an inheritance, during that period, in succession from father to son!—The statute of the first of Elizabeth, enacting that all public officers shall take the oath of supremacy: that of the first of William and Mary, or the bill of rights, new-modelling the oath of supremacy, and extending the sphere of administration of that oath: the acts of the thirtieth of Charles II. ch. 2, and the first of George I. ch. 13, enacting, that no members shall sit or vote in either house of parliament, till he hath, in the presence of the house, taken the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and adjuration, and repeated and subscribed the declaration: the act of the thirteenth of Charles II. called the test act requiring all public officers to take the above oaths, repeat and subscribe the declaration, and receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the usage of the church of England: and the act of the twenty-fifth of Charles II. ch. 2, called the corporation act, incapacitating all persons from being elected officers of any city or corporation, without their having within a twelve month previous to their election, received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the usage of the church of England; and also requiring them to take the above-mentioned oaths:—all these acts must be repealed! all the fortifications, erected for the safety and preservation of our constitution in church and state for two centuries must be levelled with the dust.—Judge Blackstone, an able and constitutional lawyer of modern days, states, that the acts of Charles II. and George I. requiring all members of both houses to take the oaths, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, were enacted to prevent crude innovations in religion and government. The test and corporation acts he styles the bulwarks of the constitution, and states, that they were enacted to secure the established church against perils from non-conformists of all the denominations, among whom he particularly enumerates papists. (See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 158, and vol. iv. p. 57, 8vo. edit.)—It is now time to advert to the conditions of union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, which relate to the church establishment; and to enquire whether the present measure can be adopted consistently with the conditions, and the preservation of the public faith.—In the act of union of England and Scotland, the fifth of Ann, ch. 8, two acts of the respective parliaments of England and Scotland, for the unalterable security of their respective church establishments, are recited: that of England being for effectually and unalterable securing the true protestant religion, professed and established by law in the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof. The English acts of uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles II. and all other acts then in force (among the rest, the thirtieth of Charles II. before-mentioned), for the preservation of the church of England are declared perpetual: and it is enacted, that every subsequent king and queen shall take an oath inviolably to maintain the same within England, Ireland, Wales, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed. And it is further enacted, that these two acts shall for ever be observed as fundamental and essential conditions of the union. On these conditions of the treaty of union judge Blackstone makes these observations: "that whatever else may be deemed fundamental and essential conditions, the preservation of the two churches of England and Scotland, in the same state they were in at the time of the union, is expressly declared so to be; and that therefore any alterations in the constitutions of either of these churches, would be an infringement of these fundamental and essential conditions." The fifth article of the union of Great-Britain and Ireland is in the following terms: "that it be the fifth article of the union, that the churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one protestant episcopal church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said united church shall be and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are now by the law established for the church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said united church, as the established church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union; and that in like manner the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland shall remain, and be preserved, as the same are now established by law, and by the act of the union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland."—It is clear that every measure tending to the breach of these fundamental and essential conditions of the two unions ought to be rejected by this house with indignation: the very proposal of such a measure to this house is an insult to it, as it must be found ed on the presumption, that this house is capable of violating the public faith reciprocally plighted by the nations composing the British empire to each other, on their consolidation into one body. If this measure should be adopted, the act of the 30th of Charles II. requiring all members of both houses to take the oath of supremacy, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, will be repealed by its adoption, as well as the bill of rights and the, test and corporation acts: these are made perpetual by the conditions of the union of England and Scotland, being enacted for the preservation and continuance of the church of England; and as Judge Blackstone expresses it, for the prevention of crude innovations in religion and government. Exclusive of this direct breach of the conditions of the union, it is already shewn, that the whole tendency of the measure, and. its notorious consequences, are, the subversion the established church in Great-Britain and Ireland, in violation of the public faith plighted on the completion of two incorporating unions; the introduction of infidelity and atheism, by the annihilation of all the bonds of society springing from an established religion: and the consequent introduction of anarchy and democracy—the true reason (however disguised under the mask of liberality) why this desolating, faithless, Gallic measure has met the approbation, and acquired the patronage and support of all the jacobins in the British empire.—It is some consolation to reflect that the subjects of this empire, attached to the constitution, have yet one barrier left to resist that inundation of impiety, democracy, and barbarity, with which this measure is calculated to overwhelm it: that is, his majesty's coronation oath; a barrier, I am convinced, sufficient to defend us, during the precious life at least, of the pious and conscientious prince who now sways the British sceptre; a barrier raised by the wisdom, piety, and patriotism of our forefathers.—The oath enjoined by the statute of the first of William and Mary, to be taken by the king at his coronation, has the following clause: "I will to the utmost of my power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the protestant reformed religion established by law." By the act of Anne ratifying the union of England and Scotland, as is already stated, it is enacted, "that two acts of the respective parliaments of England and Scotland, for the unalterable security of their respective church establish- ments therein-recited, shall be perpetual; and in both of these recited acts, an addition is made to the coronation oath; and it is enacted, "that the succeeding kings of Great-Britain shall, at their coronations, swear to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the church of England, as specified in that statute, for the unalterable security of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as in that act specified, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging." A similar oath is prescribed to be taken at the coronation by all succeeding kings, for the inviolably preservation of the then established religion in Scotland. The Coronation oath not only binds the king to refuse his assent to any alteration in the religions of England, Ireland, and Scotland, as they were established at the time of the union of England and Scotland, but he is equally bound to refuse his assent to any measure, directly tending to the subversion of the religion then established; and also to discountenance, as far as in him lies, all attempts of that nature—The patrons of this measure, sensible of this impediment, have not been wanting in their endeavours, by sophistical arguments, casuistical distinctions, misrepresentations of some facts, suppression of others, and suggestion of falsehoods, in pamphlets and newspapers, to sap the foundation of this barrier, which they were unable to surmount. One pamphlet of this nature deserves particular notice, inasmuch it is an epitome of all the arguments against the obligation of the coronation oath; and is launched into the world under the name of a gentleman, whom I understand be a person of some reputation, as a lawyer or conveyances, and of the Roman catholic persuasion. It is entitled, "A Letter to a Nobleman on the proposed Repeal of the penal Laws which now remain in force against the Irish Roman Catholics, from Charles Butler, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn, Author of the Notes and Annotations on Coke on Littleton." This pamphlet, after stating, that the author is less acquainted with the Irish popery laws than with the English (which is indeed sufficiently manifested by its contents), proceeds to give what it styles an outline of them; but in truth it is an odious, monstrous, and detestable caricatura of provisions and effects of the Irish popery acts of the 2d and 8th of Queen Aune, The whole scope of these two wise and provident statutes was to prevent romanists from acquiring landed property in Ireland, their antecedent rebellions and barbarous massacres of the protestants of Ireland haying rendered such a prohibition at that time not only expedient, but absolutely necessary. The pamphlet admits, that these acts are new repealed, but the caricatura is inserted by way of ornament to the subsequent argument against the obligation of the obligation oath, the main drift of the pamphlet. The pamphlet then praises the loyalty of the Irish romanists in the course of the war; and states that five of the directors of the united Irish only one was a romanist; but it should at the same time have stated, as the truth is, that the other four were desperate jacobins and infidels, with which species of people the Irish rebels-had closely connected themselves; and that nearly the whole mass:of Irish traitors which broke out into open rebellion in the year 1798 were romanists, not one in five hundred of them being of any other religions persuasion; and that they massacred in cold blood all the protestants, men, women, and children, who fill into their hands; giving no other reason for their barbarity, than that the victims were protestants and heretics. It appears from some passages in the pamphlet, that it was written and published since the year 1798. In that year burst forth the last rebellion of the Irish romanists, and the barbarous massacre of their protestant countrymen. The reports of the committees of the English and Irish houses of commons have been some years published: the conspiracy for rebellion, and the dreadful and dangerous mutiny of the Irish romanists in the:British fleet, are fully exposed in these reports; yet the author of the pamphlet has the confidence to praise the loyalty of the Irish romanists, and to state, that in the late invasions of Ireland, none were more active in repelling the invaders, that among the men of influence and property, who were engaged the rebellion, three catholics cannot be mentioned. There was but one invasion of Ireland during the last war, and conducted by Humbert, at the head of one thousand French troops. He landed in a part of Ireland, in which the bulk of the inhabitants were romanists, who joined him in a mass on his landing; at his first encounter with the king's troops, the greater part of a regiment of Irish militia, all romanists, deserted to him; all the romanists of influence or property within the districts adjacent to his quarters joined him. What then could induce the author to praise the loyalty of the Irish romanists? He states, that if the Irish romanists did not flock to the standard of Britain, frightful indeed would be the solitude of her camps and her fleets. Poor Britain! I Irish romanists, according to this pamphlet, are your only defenders! The author means to insinuate, that all the Irish serving in the British fleets and armies are romanists, whereas not one half of them are so. And it is certain, that the protestants of Great Britain and Ireland would furnish sufficient armies and fleets, if romanists were entirely excluded. Since the mutiny in the fleet;the recruiting officers for some time refused to enlist any Irish romanists for the marine service. The degree of merit of a Romish common soldier, serving under protestant officers in an army, nine-tenths of the common soldiers of which are protestants, in countries remote from his native land, removed from the baneful influence of his priests, and subject to military discipline, is so minute, that its value is not easily appreciated. He enlists for the bounty; he is paid for, and obliged to perform his allotted service. The author of the pamphlet either did or did not know of the already mentioned rebellion and mutiny, when he published his praises of the loyalty of the Irish romanists: in the first case, he seems to be deficient in candour; in the other, in. information. The pamphlet then states, that the Roman catholics acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the pope, but to man deny his right to temporal power. It can be hardly supposed, that the author, if he be a lawyer, can be ignorant, that the wisest and most sagacious statesmen and legislator cannot separate a vast portion of temporal influence, authority, and power, from the supremacy in spirituals; their adhesion is indissoluble, they must for ever accompany each other.—It is now time to advert to the principal argument in the pamphlet, that the.;king is not by his coronation oath bound to resist the adoption of the present measure: this the author rests on the clause in that oath, which binds his majesty "to govern the people according to the states in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the realm.' The author then gives a mutilated extract from the next clause, to wit, that his majesty swears "to maintain the protestant reformed religion established by law;" [for coronation oath, as settled by the act of 1st William and Mary, see Black- stone's Commentaries octavo edit 1st vol. page 228, 229], and adverts only to the coronation oath as settled by the 1st of William and Mary, without at all adverting to the additions made to that oath by 5th of Anne, or the act of union between England and Scotland. He then draw, the following conclusion from these garbled premises, that the last clause can only mean the protestant reformed religion, as from time to time, under the legislation of parliament, it should be the church establishment of the country: that, as to the constitutional interpretation of the clause, it would be absurd in the extreme, unconstitutional, and perhaps even treasonable, to contend that the last clause precludes his majesty from concurring with both houses of parliament in any legislative act whatsoever; and even if it did preclude him from such a concurrence, it would be no objection to his repealing the laws remaining in force against the Irish romanists, as the repeal of them will not interfere with the legal establishment of the church, with any part of the hierarchy or spiritual rights and privileges. I have already remarked the disingenuity of the author of the pamphlet in respect to his garbled quotations of the coronation oath, and his total omission of the additions made to it, by the act of union of England and Scotland, by which the king is obliged to swear at coronation, to maintain and preserve inviolably the church of England, the act of uniformity, and all acts in force at the time of that union, for the perpetual preservation of the church of England in its doctrine, worship, discipline, and government (the act already mentioned of the 30th of Charles II. among the rest, whereby all members of both houses of parliament are bound to take the oaths previous to their sitting or voting in the houses), as it stood at the time of the union of England and Scotland, and consequently not to make or consent to the making any alteration in its doctrine, discipline and government, as it then stood. But the first deduction of the author from the clauses in the coronation oath, as partially quoted by him, that they can only mean, the protestant reformed religion, as from time to time, under the legislation of parliament, it should be the church establishment of the country, is founded on a sophism, to wit, the fraudulent assumption, that bills depending in parliament, and which have, perhaps, passed the two houses, are acts of parliament or statutes. The king, by his coronation oath, is bound to govern his people according to the statutes in parliament agreed on (that is, agreed on by king, lords, and commons, the king in his legislative capacity being an integral part of the parliament), but not according to bills depending in parliament, and which may perhaps have been agreed on by a majority of the members of the two houses of parliament; for such bills are not laws nor statutes, nor in any manner binding on prince or people, till they have been agreed to by the monarch, and received the royal assent, without which they become waste paper.—It is sincerely to be hoped, that there will be such harmony always subsisting between the king and both houses of parliament, that no bill will be ever offered to his majesty for his assent, which he shall deem it expedient to reject; especially such bills, as he is bound by his coronation oath, and by the express conditions of the two unions consolidating the British empire, to reject. But I cannot agree with the doctrine of some bold innovators on the British constitution, who have asserted, that the king is bound to assent every bill which has passed through the two houses of parliament. Such doctrine is, in my opinion (to use the words of the author of the pamphlet), absurd in the extreme, unconstitutional, and perhaps even treasonable; as it teaches, that the king in his legislative capacity is a mere cypher. If (which God forbid!) the two houses of parliament should pass a bill containing clauses in direct contradiction to his majesty's coronation oath, and in violation of the articles of the two incorporating unions of England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Ireland, and tender such a bill to his majesty for the royal assent, who will assert that his majesty is bound to give that assent in violation of his coronation oath, and the public faith? Such a crisis I have the firmest hope never happen; if it should, I have no difficulty in asserting, that the king is bound by every principle of religion, and by every true principle of the constitution, to refuse his assent; though by such assertion, I incur the guilt of treason in the opinion of the Annotator on Coke on Littleton! I acknowledge no power, in either or both houses of parliament, of dispensing with the obligation of lawful, positive, solemn oaths. I will not admit, that any man, or body of men, on the face of the earth, is invested with such a power. King James II. was chased from his throne for attempting to dispense with the laws of the land; what punishment is too great for those who would attempt to dispense with the laws of God? Leave such doctrine to romanists and the court of Rome! it is not a protestant doctrine!—It may not be improper to observe here, that in the purest æra of the constitution in the reign of William III. the royal assent to bills which had passed both houses of parliament has been more than once refused by the sovereign. In 1693, that king refused his assent to a bill to render all members of the house of commons incapable of places of trust and profit: the commons, in their resolution on that occasion, state that the royal assent had been refused to several public bills, and by that king in particular. [Harris's Life of William III. page 398.—William refused his assent, in 1695, to another bill for the further regulation of elections of members to serve in parliament, Ibid. p. 437.—See also Commons' Journals.]—The author of the pamphlet asserts, that the repeal of all the laws complained of by romanists would not interfere with the church establishment, or with any of its temporal rights and privileges. I trust it has been already proved, that though the present measure, if adopted, would not be immediately attended by the subversion of the present church establishment, yet the subversion of that, as well as the civil establishment, would be the certain, and not very remote consequence of such adoption—The author of the pamphlet then puts the following query: "What system of casuistry made it lawful for his majesty to assent to the repeal of the large proportion of penal laws, repealed by the acts of 1782, 1788, and 1793, and now makes it unlawful for him to assent to the repeal of the small proportion of those laws yet remaining unrepealed; or, that made it lawful for him to sanction a partial repeal of the test act in 1782, and makes it unlawful for him to sanction a total repeal of it in 1801? To this question it is answered, that the repeal of the parts of the popery code (which the pamphlet styles penal laws, but which are, in fact, remedial laws only) at the periods mentioned, does not confer any very considerable portion of political power on the Romish sect even in Ireland; and the repeal cannot be followed by consequences subversive of the constitution in church and state; and therefore his majesty might give the royal assent to such repeal consistently with the obligations of his coronation oath. The partial repeal of the test act exempts romanists in Ireland from the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy, and receiving the sacrament, on their appointment to places, and becoming members of corporations; but all places in the department of which the executive power and authority of the state are lodged, and all offices in corporations, are yet reserved and excepted from their grasp, unless they perform the usual requisites of all others his majesty's subjects on their attainment of such places and offices. The author of the pamphlet is desirous that these reservations and exceptions should be repealed, and styles them a small proportion of the popery code yet remaining: it may be admitted, that they are small in bulk, but very great, indeed, they are in importance. On the continuance and perpetuity of them depend the continuance and perpetuity of the constitution in church and state. Are these matters of trifling moment? What commandant of a strong and important fortress, the chief defence of a kingdom, would be justified in the surrender of it to a cruel, merciless, and unrelenting enemy, because it was deemed advisable, for the better defence of the place, to slight some weak and unimportant outwork, and permit the foe to possess themselves of it?—The author, after the preceding train of reasoning, seems to abandon at all for the purpose of introducing one conclusive argument against the obligation of the coronation oath, which he deems irrefragable. "All this discussion," says he, is superfluous;—the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the first of William and Mary; at that time Roman catholic peers had their seats, and voted in the hose of lords; Roman catholic commoners were eligible to the house of commons; and all civil and military offices were open to Roman catholics: they were deprived of these rights by the acts of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the 1st and 2d of queen Anne. Now the coronation oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the act which prescribed if was passed; but the Irish laws meant to be repealed are subsequent to that act; to these laws therefore, or to any similar laws; the coronation oath cannot be referred."—Before I expose the absolute errors in fact in the premises from which the author deduces his conclusion, I will examine the justice of the conclusion, supposing the premises to be true. The coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary binds the king "to the utmost of his power to maintain the laws of God the true profes- sion of the Gospel, and the protestant reformed religion established by law." Shortly after the accession of William and Mary, it was deemed necessary to add further fortifications to the established religion by statute in Ireland. The test and corporation acts passed in England in the reign of Charles II. And in the 30th year of the same king's reign, the act passed enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy, and repeating and subscribing the declaration, by all members of both houses of parliament, previous to their sitting or voting in either house: by the coronation oath, as settled by the 1st of William and Mary, the king swears, that he will to the utmost of his power maintain the protestant reformed religion established by law; the obligation, of this oath extends to Ireland, so that he is bound to the utmost of his power to maintain it in Ireland, as well As in England, as then established in England by law; and all the barriers for its support erected in England previous to the 1st of William and Mary. The English parliament in the 3d and 4th of William and Mary passed an act, enjoining all members of both houses of parliament in Ireland to take the oath of supremacy, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, the parliament of England at that time exercising the power of binding Ireland by its acts; not for the purpose of making any addition to, or alteration in the protestant religion established by law in that kingdom, but to give that establishment an additional security. How then does it follow from the premises laid down by the author of the pamphlet, that his present majesty or future king of Great Britain and Ireland, having taken the aforesaid coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary, can, consistently with that oath, consent to the repeal of the aforesaid English statute of the 30th of Charles II. or the above mentioned statute of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary? His present majesty swore to maintain to the utmost of his power the church established by law in England and Ireland, as he found it established by law, at the time of his accession, and not as it was established by law in the 1st of William and Mary; though in fact it is the very same church, which was established by law in England and Ireland that time, and which has received an additional barrier in Ireland since, by the enaction of the said English statute of the 3d and 4th of, William and Mary for that country. I apprehend I have taken up too much time in refuting this absurd argument, and shall only further observe, that is not cre- ditable to an Annotator on Coke on Littleton to support the cause of his party by the quibbling of special pleading.—It is necessary however to make a few remarks on what the author has adduced as facts to support his argument. He states that the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the 1st of William and Mary; true it is, it was fixed as well for England as Ireland, by the English statute of the 1st. of William and Mary; but the author has totally omitted to state the additions to the coronation oath introduced by the act of union of England and Scotland, the 5th of Anne. By this act the king is obliged at his coronation to "swear (as is already noticed) to maintain and preserve invoilably the settlement of the church of England; as specified in that statute, for the unalterable security of that church, and the, doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as in that statute specified, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed." The statute particularly specifies, that the act uniformity, and all other acts for the perpetual preservation of the church of England (among which are the aforesaid English act of the 30th of Charles II. enacted for Ireland it the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the test and corporation acts), shall be unalterable and perpetual. The author was either ignorant of these additions to the coronation oath, or designedly omitted them: if inserted, they would have completely overturned his quibbling argument, the king is not bound by his coronation oath, to resist the repeal of any law for the support of the established church, which was not law at the time the coronation oath was fixed; for the aforesaid additions were made to the coronation oath by the 5th of Anne, many years subsequent to the 3d and 4th of Wm. and Mary, and also subsequent to the 1st and 2d of Anne; by which acts, he states that romanists were deprived of their rights seats and votes in the houses of lords and commons in Ireland. He admits also, that the coronation oath refers to that system of law which was in force, when the acts which prescribed it were passed; that is, that the king cannot conscientiously, consent to the repeal of any of the acts for the perpetual security of the established church which had passed previously to the fixing of the coronation oath: that oath was ultimately fixed by the of 5th of Anne; and therefore of the author's own shewing, the king cannot conscientiously to the repeal of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, or to that of the 1st and 2d of Anne, so far as they enjoin the taking of the oath of supremacy and the repetition and subscription of the declaration by all members previous to their sitting and voting in either of the houses.—The author states, that at the accession of William and Mary, Roman catholic peers had their seats, and voted in the house of lords; Roman catholic commoners were eligible to the house of commons; and all civil and military offices were open to Roman catholics. In respect to Roman catholic peers, I am not sufficiently conversant in the journals of the Irish house of lords to ascertain, whether Romish peers were, or were not, excluded from seats or votes in that house, unless they took the oath of supremacy, previous to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary; they certainly were not so excluded by any Irish statute: but very few such Irish peers could have sat in parliament in Ireland, from the restoration to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary (excepting in the Romish mob assembled in Dublin by king James II. after his abdication, and by him and themselves styled a parliament); for the Romish peerage in Ireland was not numerous previous to the year 1641; and almost the whole of them were attainted as traitors, having joined in that wicked Romish rebellion, and massacre of the Irish protestants, which broke out and commenced in the year 1641; and the remainder for their rebellion in 1689, 1690, and 1691. The author displays much artifice in his assertion respecting Romish commoners he states that previous to the accession of William and Mary, and till the 3d and 4th years of their reign, they were eligible to seats in parliament; they certainly were so, and are so still, and may occupy these seats, and vote in the house of commons, provided they will take the oaths prescribed to be taken, not by them particularly, but by all his majesty's subjects sitting and voting in the house of commons: but the idea the author means to convey to his readers is, that romanists, antecedent to the 1st of William and Mary, were capable of occupying seats in the Irish house of commons, and did sit therein, without taking any oaths whatsoever, particularly the oath of supremacy. This is a gross mistatement. By a resolution of the Irish house of commons in the year 1642, [see the Journals of the Irish house of commons, vol i. page 434, page 568. Vol ii. page 443.] all the members were obliged to take the oath of supremacy, or to vacate their seats. By another resolution of the Irish house of commons in the year 1661, all the members were obliged to take the oath of supremacy and the oath of allegiance of the 3d of James I. and receive the sacrament according to the usage of the church established, or to vacate their seats. The commons in the first parliament assembled in Ireland after the accession of William and Mary, in the 3d and 4th year of their reign, immediately on their meeting, and before they proceeded to any business whatsoever, took the oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and repeated and subscribed the declaration, deeming the resolutions of the commons before mentioned, and the English act of the 30th of Charles II. imperative upon them: so that the idea that any member could sit in the Irish house of commons at all times previous to the accession of William and Mary, or to the third and fourth years of their reign, without taking the oath of supremacy; or that Irish romanists were for the first time, abridged of that alleged right, by the English act of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, is erroneous; they were, long before that period, abridged of it by the resolutions of the house of commons, warranted by the law of parliament, part of the law of the land, under which that house has claimed and exercised the power of judging of the qualifications of its own members —The author's assertion, that all civil and military offices in Ireland were open to Roman catholics, previous to the accession of William and Mary, smells of the same artifice with his former assertion respecting the eligibility of romanists to be members of the house of commons: it is true that such offices were then open to romanists (as they now are), if they performed the acts required to be performed by all his majesty's subjects appointed to such offices; but what he means to insinuate is, that romanists, till the accession of William and Mary, and till the third and fourth years of their reign, might enjoy all such offices in Ireland, without taking the oaths, &c.; this assertion, in such sense is as groundless as any other in the pamphlet; for no person in Ireland could enjoy any such offices, without taking the oath of supremacy, as enjoined to be taken by the Irish act of the second of Elizabeth; by the universal rejection of which oath romanists disable themselves to hold or enjoy such offices. The cautious artificial manner in which the pamphlet attempts to convey to the reader, the period of Romish exclusion from the houses of parliament, induces a belief, that the author, at the time of writing the pamphlet, was not ignorant of the resolution of the Irish house of commons just mentioned, not of the Irish act of the 2d of Elizabeth; and if he was not, what opinion must the public entertain of his candour!—The author cannot resort to the unlawful and riotous assembly convoked at Dublin, in the year 1689, by king James II. after his abdication, and by him honoured with the title of a parliament, in proof of his assertions; it consisted almost entirely of romanists, unlawful elected, after he had destroyed all the corporations, and driven out of the country, or into the protestant armies, almost the whole of the protestant nobility and gentry; and after he had himself ceased to be a king, and had therefore no power to convoke a parliament. By act of parliament in the reign of William and Mary, this mock parliament was declared to be unlawful assembly, and all its acts and proceedings were condemned to the flames, and were publicly burned and destroyed accordingly.—I trust l have demonstrated to the house, that the doctrines, political, moral, and religious, contained in the petition, and stated to be the principles inculcated by the Roman catholic religion, are diametrically opposite to the principles taught and inculcated by the canons, decrees of general councils, by all writers, lay and cleric, of the greatest authority amongst the romanists, and adopted, by the universal practice of their church from the date of the council of Lateran to the present day; and that their modern writers, such as Dr. Troy and Mr. Plowden assert, "that the religious principles of Roman catholics being unchangeable, they are applicable to all times; and that if any one says, or pretends to insinuate, that the modern Roman catholics differ in one iota from their ancestors, he either deceives himself or wishes to deceive others; and that semper e[...]ndem is emphatically descriptive of their religion."—It has been urged in this debate, that the establishment by the British government of the Roman catholic religion in Canada, furnishes a reason for establishing it in the remainder of the British empire, because it has not been productive of any bad effects there. It is rather premature to form any decided opinion of what effects may hereafter flow from such establishment; but even supposing that the effects of such establishment may hereafter be found to be pre- judicial to the British government there, yet the establishment of it in Canada was a matter of necessity and not of choice; for Canada surrendered to the British arms upon express stipulated conditions; one of which was, that the Roman catholic religion, which was professed by that country before the conquest by the British arms, should be for ever preserved inviolate; and Britain ever faithful to her treaties, was thus obliged to establish the Roman catholic religion in that province. As to the fidelity of the Canadians during the American war, it may be accounted for also by necessity on their side: their communication with Europe is by the river St. Lawrence, which is open to navigation for six months in the year only; for the other six months it is blockaded by ice. Britain, in case of rebellion of the Canadians, could cut off all communication with Europe by a few ships stationed in the river St. Lawrence; and the Canadians cannot at present subsist without European commodities, and with these they could not be furnished from the United States without great difficulty and intolerable expense, besides infinite risk and hazard.—The hon. member who has introduced this motion, has argued in favour of the motion from the number of romanists in Ireland; and, to strengthen his argument, he has represented them, in the course of his speech, sometimes to amount to four millions, sometimes to three millions; but in the whole course of his reasoning he has never mentioned the Irish protestants, but has endeavoured to impress on the members of this house, unacquainted with Ireland, that all its inhabitants, with a few trifling exceptions, are romanists. To expose the errors of the hon. gentleman in this particular, it is necessary to state, that a calculation of the number of the inhabitants of Ireland was made in the year 1692, after the revolution war, and that they then amounted to one million two hundred thousand only. Another calculation was made in the year 1731, as Dr. Burke, Romish titular bishop of Ossory, has informed as, in his Hibernia Dominicana; and he states, that there were then found to be in Ireland seven hundred thousand four hundred and fifty-three protestants, and one million three hundred and nine thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight romanists; so that 1731 the romanists of Ireland did hot exceed the protestants in the proportion of two one. Dr. Burke published his book in 1762, and he makes bitter complaints, that the proportion of the inhabitants of Ireland had increased greatly on the protestant side in the interval between 1731 and 1762: it may from hence be fairly deduced, that the romanists of Ireland are not, at this day, in the proportion of two to one to the protestants of Ireland. From the best calculations lately made, it appears that the whole inhabitants of Ireland do not now exceed three millions; and it may be fairly deduced, that one million two hundred thousand of these are protestants, the persons so much contemned by the hon. mover, that when speaking of the inhabitants of Ireland, he does not even condescend to mention them; and if all the inhabitants of the British islands amount to sixteen millions, then the romanists do not exceed one-eighth part of that population. It is notorious, that the Romish inhabitants of Ireland do not possess one-fortieth part of the real and personal property of that country, nor one-thousandth part of the property of the united kingdom in fact they compose the mo' and the beggary of Ireland, and are not consequence enough, either in numbers, wealth, or power, to demand (as this petition does) the subversion of the constitution in church and state, and the the destruction of the protestants of Ireland, for their gratification—There is an argument advanced in the petition for the grant of the representative franchise to romanists, from the elective franchise being conceded to them in Ireland. I trust that I have already shewn to this house, that the grant of the representative franchise to romanists would be attended by the subversion of the constitution in church and state; and that therefore their enjoyment of the elective franchise is so far from being an argument for conceding to them the representative franchise, that demand of the representative franchise, grounded upon their enjoyment of the elective franchise, is a strong and powerful argument for depriving them of the elective franchise: because, by their mode of argument, the enjoyment of the elective franchise entitles them to a privilege which would be subversive of the constitution in church and state—It is much safer for a Romish government; even a popular one, to admit protestants into places of trust and power, than for a protestant government to admit romanists; because protestants hold no doctrine as a point of faith hostile to the independence of the state of which they are subjects; but romanists do—The plea that the measure is necessary to reconcile a considerable share of our population to the government is absurd; for people who maintain, as a point of faith, that the state is subject to a foreign jurisdiction, and is not independent, can never be reconciled to the state till they renounce so anarchical and degrading a tenet; they must be always enemies to it; and giving them political power, is furnishing them with the means of overturning the constitution.—The mob, and the indigent part of the population of a state (as the romanists of Ireland), ought not to be gratified at the expense of the ruin of the loyal, opulent, and respectable part of the state. If the contrary conduct shall be pursued, agrarian laws and the system of equality must be adopted in every state; because the indigent in every state compose the bulk of the population, and are desirous of degrading and plundering the great and rich in every state, as well as in Ireland.—To sum up the arguments against this measure, the laws enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy are not restrictive nor exclusive laws, in respect to any class of people in the community except to traitors, because it is merely an oath of allegiance to the state. No subject, refusing it, should be admitted to the functions of a legislator, or or to any place of trust and power in the state. To use the words of a great minister of state, (Mr, Pitt) in debate in 1790, on-the attempt to repeal the test and corporation acts, "persons professing modes of belief which endanger the welfare of the society of which they are members, should be excluded from possessing the authority of the state; and here such line of exclusion should be drawn." The romanists in the British empire (but particularly in Ireland) enjoy a complete toleration and liberty of conscience. To use the. words of the same great minister again on the same occasion; "Toleration consists in a free exercise of religion according to the tenets of the professors of that religion, and in the enjoyment of the protection of the laws; not in a communication of an equality of political power." And in combating the arguments made use of on that occasion he used the;e following expressions: " even papists, acknowledging the supremacy of a foreign ecclesiastical prince, must, by such arguments, be admitted to offices of power and trust." Indeed every argument he made use of that occasion, can be used with signal strength and effect against the present measure—The present measure, if adopted, would directly lead to the subversion of the constitution in church and state, and let in an universal deluge of atheism, infidelity, democracy, and anarchy. The repeal of the laws enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy, will be a constructive admission of the justice of the claim of the supremacy of the pope.—The adoption of this measure would be a violation of the conditions of the two unions of England and Scotland, and of two unions of England and Scotland, and of Great-Britain and Ireland, and a notorious breach of the public faith.—The adoption of the measure would tend to a violation of the coronation oath; it cannot therefore be supposed that his majesty will ever agree to it: the tendering a bill to him for the royal assent, to carry this measure into effect, would be an insult to him.—For all reasons I shall give my hearty negative to the motion.

Mr. Grattan

rose and spoke as follows:—Sir, in offering to the house my sentiments upon this most important subject, I shall endeavour to avoid the example set me by the learned member who has just sat down. I shall deprecate all animosity on the one side or on the other. As the causes have ceased, I think all animosity arising out of those causes should also cease; and instead, therefore, of calumniating either party, I rise to defend both. I do not wish to revive in detail the memory of those rebellions to which the learned member has alluded.—The past troubles of Ireland, the rebellion or 1641, and the wars which followed, (said the hon. gent.) I do not wholly forget; but I only remember them to deprecate the example, and renounce the animosity. The penal code which went before, and followed those times, I remember also, but only enough to know that the cause and reasons for that code have totally expired; and as on one side the protestant should relinquish his animosity on account of the rebellion, so the catholics should relinquish their animosity on account of the laws. The question is not stated by member: it is not whether you will keep in a state of disqualification a few Irish catholics, but whether you will keep in a state of langour and neutrality a fifth of your empire. Before you impose such a sentence on yourself, you will require better arguments than those which the member has advanced. He has substantially told you that the Irish catholic church, which is more independent than the catholic church here, is the worst in Europe; that the Irish catholics, our own kindred, conforming to our own terms, are the worst of papists; that the distinction, a distinction made by the law, propounded by ourselves, and essential to the state, between temporal and spiritual power, is a vain discrimination, that the Irish people, to be good catholics, must be bad subjects; and finally he has emphatically said, "that an Irish catholic never is, never was, or will be, a faithful subject to a British protestant king—they hate all protestants and all Englishmen." Thus has he pronounced against his country three curses: eternal war with one another, eternal war with England, and eternal peace with France; so strongly does he inculcate this, that if a catholic printer were in the time of invasion to publish his speech, that printer might be indicted for treason as the publisher of a composition administering to the catholics a stimulative to rise, and advancing the authority of their religion for rebellion. His speech consists of four parts, 1st, invective uttered against the religion of the catholics; 2dly, invective uttered against the present generation; 3dly, invective against the past, and 4thly, invective against the future: here the limits of creation interposed, and stopped the member. It is to defend those different generations and their religion, I rise; to rescue the catholics from his attack, and the protestants from his defence—The civil interference of the pope, his assumed power of deposition, together with the supposed doctrine that no faith was to be kept with heretics, were the great objections to the claims of the catholics; to convict them the learned doctor has gone forth with a sinister zeal to collect his rueful materials; and behold! he returns laden with much comment, much doubtful text, much of executive decrees, and of such things as are become obsolete, because useless, and are little attended to, because very dull and very uninteresting, and wherein the learned gent. may for that reason take many little liberties in the way of misquotation, or the way of suppression. All these, the fruits of his unprofitable industry, he lays before you: very kindly and liberally he does it; but of this huge and tremendous collection you must reject a principal part, as having nothing to say to the question, namely, al that matter which belongs to the court of Rome, as distinct from the church; 2dly, of the remnant after that objection you must remove every thing that belongs to the church of Rome which is not doctrine, regarding which is not confined to doctrine, regarding faith and moral, exclusive of, and unmixed with, any temporal matter whatever. After this correction you will have reduced this gentleman of the 15th century to two miserable canons, the only rewards of his labour, and result of his toil, both centuries before the reformation, and therefore not bearing on the protestants or the reformers. The first is a canon excommunicating persons who do not abide by a profession of faith contained in a preceding canon, which notably concludes with the following observation, that virgins and married women may make themselves agreeable to God. Now I cannot think such a canon can excite any grave impression or alarm in this house; passed 600 years ago, 300 years before the birth of the reformation, made by lay princes as well as ecclesiastics, and never acknowledged or noticed in these islands even in times of their popery. The other canon, that of Constance, goes to deny the force of a free passport or safe conduct to heretics, given by temporal princes in bar of the proceedings of the church. Without going farther into that canon, it is sufficient to say that it is positively affirmed by the catholics, that this does not go farther than to assert the power of the church to enquire into heresy, notwithstanding any impediments from lay princes; and, farther, there is an authority for that interpretation, and in contradiction to the member's interpretation, not merely above his authority, by any that it is in his studies to produce; I mean that of Grotius, who mentions that the imputation cast on the catholics on account of that canon is unfounded. Here I stop, and submit that the member is in the state of a plaintiff, who cannot make out his case, notwithstanding his two canons: that he has failed most egregiously, and has no right to throw the other party on their defence: however, the catholics have gone, as far as relates to him, gratuitously into their case, and have not availed themselves of the imbecility of their opponents; and they have been enabled to produce on the subject of the above charges, the opinion of six universities, to whom those charges, in the shape of queries, have been submitted: Paris, Louvaine, Salamanca, Douay, Valladolid, Alcala. The universities have all answered, and have in their answers not only disclaimed them with abhorrence. The catholics have not stopped here: they have drawn up a declaration of nine articles, together with other doctrines or views objected to them. They have gone further, they have desired the protestants to name their own terms of abjuration; the protestants have done so, and here is the instrument of their compact; it is an oath framed by a protestant parliament, principally manufactured by the hon. member himself, in which the Irish catholics not only abjure the imputed doctrine, but are sworn to the state, and to the present establishment of the protestant church in Ireland, and to the present state of protestant property. This oath has been universally taken, and by this oath both parties are concluded, the catholics from resorting to the abjured doctrines, and the protestants from resorting to the abjured charge. Therefore, when the member imputes, as he has done, to the catholic the principles hereby abjured, it is not the catholic who breaks faith with him, but it is he who breaks faith with the catholic. He acts in violation of the instrument he himself formed, and is put down by his own authority. But the Catholics have not only thus obtained a special acquittal from the charges made against them in this debate, they have obtained a general acquittal also—The most powerful of their opponents, the late earl of Clare, writes as follows: "they who adhere to the church of Rome are good catholics, they who adhere to the court of Rome are traitors;" and he them quotes Lord Somers as his authority, in which he entirely acquiesces, and acknowledges their innocence in their adherence to the church Rome as distinct from the court—A test, such as I have already mentioned, is formed, abjuring the doctrine of the court of Rome, and reducing their religion to the church of Rome. This test together with a number of other articles, is reduced to an oath, and this-oath is introduced into an act of parliament, and this oath is taken universally. Here again are the opponents to the catholics concluded by their own concessions. By tendering an oath to catholics, they allow oath to be test of sincerity; by framing that oath under the circumstances, they make it a test of pure catholicism; and by their own arguments, they pronounce pure catholicism to be innoxious. But the hon. member has gone a little further than pronouncing the innocence of the catholics, he has pronounced the mischievous consequences of the laws that proscribe them; he has said in so many words that an Irish catholic never is, and never will be faithful to a British protestant king, he does not say every catholic, for then he would include the English catholics and those of Canada; nor does he say every Irishman must hate the king, for then he would include every protestant in Ireland. The cause of the hatred is not then in the religion nor in the soil—it mut be then in the laws, in something which the protestant does not experience in Ireland, nor the catholics in any country but in Ireland; that is to say, in the penal code. That code then, according to him, has made the catholics enemies to the king: thus has he acquitted the catholics, and convicted the laws. This is not extraordinary, it is the natural progress of a blind and a great polemic. Such characters begin with a fatal candour, and then precipitate to a fatal extravagance, and are at once undermined by their candour, and exposed by their extravagance: so with the member, he hurries on he knows not where, utters he cares not what, and is equally negligent of the grounds of his assertions, and their necessary inferences. Thus, when he thinks he is establishing his errors, unconsciously and unintentionally he promulgates truth; or rather, in the very tempest of his speech, Providence seems to govern his lips, so that they shall prove false to his purposes, and bear witness to his refutations. Interpret the gentleman, literally, what blasphemies has he uttered? He said that the catholic religion, abstracted as it is at present in Ireland from popery, and reduced as it is to mere catholicism, inconsistent with the duties of morality and allegiance, as to be a very great evil. Now, that religion is the christianity of two thirds of all Christendom; it follows then, according to the learned doctor, that the christian religion is in general a curse. He has added, that his own countrymen are not only depraved by religion, but rendered perverse by nativity; that is to say, according to him, blasted by their Creator, and damned by their Redeemer. In order, therefore, restore the member to the character of a christian, we must renounce him as art advocate, and acknowledge that he has acquitted the catholics which meant to condemn, and convicted the laws which he meant to defend. But though the truth may be eviscerated from the whole of the member's statement, it is not to be discerned in the particular parts; and therefore it is not sufficient to refute his arguments, 'tis necessary to controvert his facts. The catholics of Ireland, he says, hate the protestants, hate the English, and hate the king. I must protest against the truth of this position; the laws, virulent as they were, and mitigated as for the last seventeen years they have been, the people better than the laws, never could have produced that mischief; against such a position I appeal to the conscious persuasion of every Irishman. We will put it to an issue: the present chief governor of Ireland is both an Englishman and the representative of English government; I will ask the hon. gentleman whether the Irish hate him? If I could believe this position, what could I think of the protestant ascendancy, and what must I think of the British connection and government, who have been for six hundred years in possession of the country with no other effect, according to this logic, than to make its inhabitants abhor you and your generation? But this position contains something more than a departure from fact; it says, "strike France; strike, Spain; the great body of the Irish are with you:" it does much more, it attempts to give them a provocation; it teaches you to hate them, and them to think so; and thus falsehood takes its chance of generating into fatal and treasonable truth. The hon. gentleman having misrepresented the present generation, mistates the conduct of their ancestors, and sets forth the past rebellions as proceeding entirely from religion. I will follow him to those rebellions, and shew, beyond his power of contradiction, that religion was not, and that proscription was, the leading cause of those rebellions. The rebellion of 1641, or let me be controverted by any historian of authority, did not proceed from religion; it did proceed from the extermination of the inhabitants of eight countries in Ulster, and from the foreign and bigoted education of the catholic clergy, and not from religion. The rebellion of the pale (for it was totally distinct in period or cause from the other) did not proceed from religion; loss of the graces; they resembled your petition of right, except that they embraced articles for the security of property; disarmament of the catholics, expulsion of them in that disarmed state from Dublin; many other causes,—order for the execution of certain priests. You will not forget there was an order to banish their priests in James the First's time, and to shut up their chapels in Charles the First's. These were the causes. There was another cause: you were in rebellion, Scotland was in rebellion! These was another cause, the Irish government was in rebellion; they had taken their part with the republicans, and wished to draw into treason the Irish freeholders, that with the forfeiture of another's rebellion they might supply their own. I go back with concern to those times: I see much blood, no glory; but I have the consolation to find that the causes are not lodged in the religion or the soil, and that all of them but the proscriptive cause have vanished. I follow the member to another rebellion, the which should properly be called a civil war, not a rebellion; it proceeded from a combination of causes which exist no longer, and one of those causes was the abdicating king at the head of the catholics, and another cause was the violent proscription carried on against the catholics by the opposite and then prevailing party. These causes are now no more; or will the member say there is now an abdicating prince, or now a popish plot, or now a pretender? There are causes, most certainly, sufficient to alarm you, but very different, and such as can only be combated by a conviction that, as destinies are now disposed of, it is not the power of the catholics which can destroy, or the exclusion of the catholics which can save you. The conclusion I draw from the history above alluded to, is very different from that drawn by the member, and far more healing; conclusions to shew the evils arising from foreign connections on one side, and from domestic proscription on the other. If all the blood shed on these occasions; if the many fights in the first, and the signal battles in the second period, and the consequences of those battles to the defeated and the triumphant, to the slave that fled, and the slave that followed, shall teach our country the wisdom of conciliation, I congratulate her on those deluges of blood: if not, I submit, and lament her fate, and deplore her understanding, which would render not only the blessings of Providence, but its visitations fruitless, and transmit what was the curse of our fathers as the inheritance of our children.—The learned gentleman proceeds to mistate a period of 100 years, namely, the century that followed the revolution, and this he makes a period of open or concealed rebellions. The sources of his darkness and misinformation are to be found in history and revelation. Of his charges against that period he brings no proof; none of those on the same side with him can bring any. They heard from such a one, who heard from such a one: I neither believe them nor such a one, and I desire so many generations may not be convicted on evidence that-would not be- admitted against the vilest caitiff; and that against evidence by which that vilest caitiff would be acquitted, again the authority of four acts of parliament; the act of 1778, which declares their loyalty for a long series of years, that of 1782, that of 1792, and that of 1793; and farther against the declared sense of government, who, in the year 1762, proposed to raise four catholic regiments, because the catholics had proved their allegiance; and against the authority of the then Irish primate, who supported that measure, and in his speech on that subject, assigns as his reason, that, after his perusal of Mr. Murray's papers, nothing appeared against the Irish catholics of any connection whatsoever with the rebellion of that period. The member proceeds to the rebellion of 1798, and this he charges to the catholics; and against his charge I appeal to the committee of the Irish house of commons in 1797, in which it sets forth the rebel muster, containing 99,000 northerns enrolled in rebellion, and all the northern counties organised. At the time in which the committee of the house of commons states the rebellion of the north; the dispatches of government acknowledged the allegiance of the south. To those dispatches I appeal, written at the time of Hoche's projected invasion, and applauding the attachment and loyalty of the southern counties, and their exertions to assist the army on its march to Cork to oppose the landing of the French. If you ask how the rebellion spread, and involved the catholics, I will answer and tell you, that as long as the proscriptive system continues, there will be in our country a staminal weakness, rendering the distempers to which society is obnoxious, not only dangerous, but deadly. Every epidemic disease will bring the chronic distemper into action. It is the grapestone in the hand of death, which strikes with the force of a thunderbolt. If you have any apprehension on this account, the error is to be found in yourselves; in human policy, not in religion; in the fallibility of man, not of God. If you wish to strip rebellion of its hopes, France of her expectations, reform that policy; you will gain a victory over the enemy when you gain a conquest over yourselves. But I will for a moment accede to the member's statement against facts and history: what is his inference? during one hundred years of the proscriptive system, this state has been in imminent danger: therefore, adds he, continue the system; here is the regimen under which you have declined—persevere. But the member proceeds to ob- serve, that you cannot hope to reconcile whom you cannot hope to satisfy; and he instances the repeal of the penal code. I deny the instances: the repeal in 1778 and 1782 did reconcile and did satisfy; and according you will find that the Irish catholics in 1779, 1780, 1781, and 1782, were active and unanimous to repel the invasion threatened at that time, when the French rode in the Channel, and Ireland was left to the care 6000 regulars, and was only defended from invasion by the spirit and loyalty of the catholics, in harmony and in arms with their protestant brethren. The repeal of a principal part of the penal code, in 1793, did not reconcile, and did not satisfy: it was because the Irish government of that time was an enemy to the repeal and to the catholics, and prevented the good effects of that measure. That government, in the summer of 1792, had sent instructions (I know the fact to be so) to the grand juries, to enter into resolutions against the claims of the catholics. Their leading minister opposed himself at one of the county meetings, and took a memorable post of hostility and publicity. When the petition of the catholics was recommended in the king's speech 1793, the Irish minister answered the king, and with unmeasured severity attacked the petitioners. When the bill introduced in consequence of his majesty's recommendation was in progress, the same minister, with as unmeasured severity, attacked the bill, and repeated his severity against the catholics. When the some bill a of reconciliation, in consequence of the recommendation and reference of the petition, was on its passage, the Irish government attempted to hang the leading men among the petitioners, and accordingly Mr. Bird and, Mr. Hamil were by these orders indicted for a capital offence, I think it was defenderism; and so little ground was there for the charge that those men were triumphantly acquitted, and the witnesses of the crown so flagrantly perjured, that the judge, I have heard, recommended a prosecution. These were the causes why the repeal of 1793 did not satisfy; and in addition to these, because the government took care that the catholics should receive no benefit; therefore opposing these with their known partisans and dependents in the corporation of Dublin, when they sought for the freedom of the city, seldom giving any office (there are very few instances in which they got any) in consequence of the act of parliament, and always attacking their cha- racters from a court press; so that the aversion of the Irish government stood in the place of disqualification by law, and the hostility of the Irish minister succeeded to the hostility of statute. The catholics, some of them I know, thought so, and there are gentlemen now in parliament to whom they communicated their sentiments, that they would prefer their situation before the repeal of 1793, to the situation which followed; inasmuch as they experienced in the then Irish government a more deadly and more active enemy than before they had experienced in the law. I refer to the speeches delivered and published at the time by the ministers and servants of the Irish government, and persisted in and delivered since. There you will see an attack on all the proceedings of the Irish from the time of their address for free trade, such as were glorious as well as those that were intemperate; without discrimination or moderation: there you will see the Irish ministry engaged in a wretched squabble with the catholic committee, and that catholic committee replying on that ministry, and degrading it more than it had degraded itself; and you will further perceive the members of that ministry urging their charges against the members of that committee, to disqualify other catholic who were not of the committee, but opposed it: so that by their measures against the one part of the catholics, and their invective against the other, they take care to alienate, as far as in them lay, the whole body. The fact is, the project of conciliation in 1793, recommendation in the speech from the throne, was defeated by the Irish cabinet, which was at that time on that subject in opposition, and being incensed at the British cabinet for the countenance afforded to the catholics, punished the latter, and sowed those seeds which afterwards, in conjunction with other causes, produced the rebellion—I leave the member, and proceed to discuss the differences now remaining that discriminate his majesty's subjects of the protestant and catholic persuasion. Before we consider how far we differ, it is necessary to examine how far we agree. We acknowledge the same God, the same Redeemer, the same consequences of redemption, same Bible, and the same Testament. Agreeing in this, we cannot, as far as respects religion, quarrel about the remainder, because their merits as christians must in our opinion outweigh their demerits as catholics, and reduce our religious distinctions to a difference about the eucharist, the mass, and the Virgin Mary, matters which may form a difference of opinion, but not a division of interests.—The infidel under these circumstances would consider us as the same religionists, just as the French would consider you, and cut you down, as the same community. See whether we are not agreed a little farther, and united by statute, as well as religion. The preambles of three acts declare the catholics to be loyal subjects; the act of 1778 declares that they have been so for a series of years; the same act declares that they should be admitted into the blessing of the constitution; the act of 1793 goes farther, and admits them into a participation of those blessings. Thus is the principle of identification established by the law of the land, and thus are the catholics by that law proclaimed to be innocent, and the calumniators of the catholics guilty. Let us consider their situation under these laws, professedly and in principle admitted to every thing except seats in parliament, and certain offices of state; they are, in fact, excluded from every thing under the circumstances of paying for every thing; the few places they enjoy make no exception; they pay their proportion to the navy, and contribute one-third to its numbers, and have not a commission: they contribute to the expenses of the army, and to one-third of its numbers, and have not a commission: and shall I now be asked how are the catholics affected by this, or be told that the catholic body would not be served by the removal of this? How would the protestant body be affected, if only removed from the state, the parliament, the navy, and the army? In addition to this I am to add the many minor injuries done to the catholics in ways that must be felt, and cannot be calculated; the inestimable injury done to the catholic mind by precluding it from the objects of ambition, and to the catholic spirit by exposing it to the taunts and insults, (you cannot be at a loss for an instance), such as are uttered by the vilest of the protestants against the first of the catholics. I am to add the mischief done to the morals of the country by setting up a false standard of merit, by which men without religion, moral or public integrity, shall obtain, by an abhorrence of their fellow subjects, credit and consequence, and acquire an impunity for selling the whole community, because they detest a part of it. You see it is impossible for any one part of the society to afflict the other without paying the penalty, and feel- ing the consequences of its own policy in the re-action of its own bad passions on itself. I am to add the mischief done to the peace of the country, when the spirit of religious discord descends to the lower order of people, and the holiday becomes a riot: and when the petty magistrate turns chapman and dealer in politics, turns theologian and robber, makes for himself a situation in the country formed out of the monstrous lies he tells of his catholic neighbours, fabricates false panics of insurrection and invasion, then walks forth the man of blood, his creditors tremble, the French do not; and atrocities, which he dare not commit in his own name, perpetrates for the honour of his king, and in the name of his Maker. I have heard of the incivilisation of Ireland: too much has been said on that subject. I deny the fact; a country exporting above five millions, even at your official value, near about half a million of corn, three millions of linen, paying eight millions to the state, cannot be barbarous; a nation connected with you for six hundred years, what do you say? cannot be barbarous. If France should say so, you would contradict her, because it is not on Ireland, but on you, the reflection must fall. But if anything, however, delays the perfect and extensive civilization of Ireland, it is principally her religious animosity. Examine all the causes of human misery, the tragic machinery of the globe, and the instruments of civil rage and domestic murder, and you find no demon is like it, because it privileges all the rest, and amalgamates with infidelity as well as murder, and conscience, which restrains other vices, becomes a prompter here. To restrain this waste, and this conquest exercised over your understanding, your morals, and your fortune, my hon. friend makes his motion. The present lord lieutenant of Ireland has done much to reconcile, but his mild integrity and good sense must be aided by parliament. Come, let us hear the objectors. The catholics, they say, should not have power. Why, they have it already: they got it when you gave them landed property, and they got it when yen gave them the elective franchise: "Be it enacted, that the catholics shall be capable of holding all offices, civil and military, except;"(and then the act excludes a certain numeration.) This is the act of 1793, and is not this political power allowed by act of parliament? so that the objection goes not so much against the petition, as against the law, and the law is the answer to it. The reasons they give for objecting to the law are, first, that the catholics do not acknowledge the king to be the head of their church. To require a person of the catholic faith to acknowledge a person of another religion, who makes no very encouraging declarations towards them, to be the head of the catholic church, is going very far; but to make the withholding such acknowledgment the test of disaffection is much farther; farther than reason, and farther than the law, which does not require such test, but is satisfied with a negative oath: and therefore, the presbyterian, who makes no such acknowledgement, may sit in parliament. So that here the objector is answered again by the law, and the reason he gives in opposition to the law shows, that the legislature is wiser than he is; the reason alleged is, that he who allows his majesty to be the head of his church, has more allegiance, because he acknowledges the king in more capacities. According to this, the Turk has more allegiance than either, for he acknowledges the grand seignior in all capacities; and the Englishman has allegiance than any other subject in Europe, because, whereas other European subjects acknowledge their king in a legislative, as well as an executive capacity, the English acknowledge their king in the latter capacity only. But such men know not how to estimate allegiance, which is not measured by the powers which you allow, but by the privileges which you keep; thus your allegiance is of an higher order, because it is rendered for the proud circumstances belonging to an Englishman; to the peer who has his rank, the commoner who has his rank, the commoner who has his privileges, and the peasant who has magna charta; the catholic too, he has an interest in his allegiance; increase that interest, that is, increase this privilege, you increase the force of the obligation, and with it your own security. But here, again, the objector interposes, and alleges that the catholic does not only acknowledge the king to be the head of their church, but acknowledges a foreign power. Whom? I cannot find him; there was, indeed, a power which you set up in the last war, and guarded with your troops. Is that the memory at which gentlemen tremble? a sort of president or chair, in whose name the business of the catholic church is conducted; for whom no catholic would fight, and against whom the Irish catholic would fight, if he came into their country would fight, if he came into their country at the head of an invading army—they have said so. You will recollect how little you yourselves feared that name, when you encompassed and preserved it at the very time of the Irish rebellion; and now do gentlemen set it up, and bring it back again into the world as a principle to influence the action of the Irish? But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics. But here the objector interposes again, and tells us it is in vain to look for harmony with the catholics, inasmuch as they deliver the protestants to damnation. Gravely they say this, soberly they say this in a morning; and, according to this, you must not only repeal your laws of toleration, but you must disband part of your army and your navy, and disqualify your electors. The catholic who hears this, produces a protestant creed which does the same thing, and damns his sect likewise. The infidel who listens agrees with both, and triumphs; and suggests that it were better not to cast off your people, but to shake off your religion. So Volney makes all sects contend and all conquer, and religion the common victim. The truth is, exclusive salvation was the common frenzy of all sects, and is the religion of none; and is now not only rejected by all, but laughed at: so burning one another, as well as damning one another. You can produce instances—they can produce instances: it was the habit of the early christians to anathematise all sects but their own. No religion can stand, if me, without regard to their God, and with regard only to controversy, shall rake out of the rubbish of antiquity, the obsolete and quaint follies of the sectarians, and affront the majesty of the Almighty with the impudent catalogue of their devices; and it is a strong argument against the proscriptive system, that it helps to continue this shocking contest—theologian against theologian—polemic against polemic, until the two made men defame their common parent, and expose their common religion. With argu- ments such as those, it is urged, the the the laws were in error which gave the catholic political power; and it is farther added, that he will use that political power to destroy the church. I do not think they have now said he will destroy the present state of property; bigotry has retired from that part, and has found out at last that the catholics cannot repeal the act of settlement in Ireland, by which the property of the country was ascertained, until they become the parliament; nor become the parliament till they get the landed property of the country; and that when they get that property, that they will not pass an act to set aside their titles. Further, it is now understood, that the protestant title is by time; that there are few old catholic proprietors—a multitude of new ones; that the catholic tenantry hold under protestant titles, and therefore that there is, in support of the present state of property in Ireland, not only the strength of the protestant interest, but the physical force of the catholics; therefore the objectors have judiciously retired from that ground, and now object to catholic power as certain to destroy the protestant church—how? They must do it by act of legislation, or by act of force: by act of legislation they cannot, and by force they will not. They will not by act of force, because the measures proposed, which do not go to increase that force, do go decisively to remove the animosity. Or will you say, when you give them every temporal motive to allegiance, they will become rebels? that when indeed they had rights of religion, rights of property, rights of election, they were loyal; but when you gratified their ambition likewise, they then became disaffected, and ready to sacrifice all their temporal rights and political gratifications—in order to do what? To get a larger income for their clergy; that is, that their bishops should drink more claret, wear finer clothes, and with whose assistance should they do this? With the aid of the French, who starve their clergy. The ordinary principles of action, the human motives that direct other men, according to these reasoners, are not to be found in the catholic. Nature is in him reversed: he is not influenced by the love of family, of property, of privileges, of power, or any human passions, according to his antagonists, no more than his antagonists are influenced by human reason, and therefore it is these reasoners deal mostly in the prophetic strain, with a prophets fury and his blindness—with much zeal, and no religion. I would ask then, what authority have they for, thus introducing the church as an obstacle to the advantages of the state? Is it political, or is it moral, to deprive the catholic of the franchises of the constitution, because they contribute to the church, lest, on obtaining those franchises, they should pass laws with-holding that contribution? as if you had any right to make that supposition, or any right to insist on that perilous monopoly, which should exclude them at once from church and state, that they might pay for both without compensation. The great preachers of our capital have not said so, Mr. Dunn, that meek spirit of the Gospel—he has not said so. Mr. Douglas, in his strain of piety, morals, and eloquence—he has not said so. Nor the great luminary himself—he who has wrung from his own breast, as it were, near 60,000l. by preaching for public charities, and has stopped the mouth of hunger with its own bread—he has not said so. I ask not what politicians may instil and may whisper; what have the labouring clergymen preached and practised?—But the revolution, it seems, is an eternal bar: they find the principles of slavery in the revolution, as they lane found those of darkness in the revelation. If they mean to measure the privileges of the empire by the model existing at the revolution, they must impose on Ireland eternal proscription, for at that time she was deprived of the rights of trade and constitution, and the catholics of all rights whatsoever; and they must impose on the empire two opposite principles of action, the free system for England, and the proscriptive principle for the rest. They are then to make Ireland fight for British liberty and Irish exclusion. Their argument is therefore not only a wicked wish, but a vain one, Nor is this the practice of other countries; those countries do not require the religion of the public officer to be the religion of the state; their practice has been notoriously otherwise: they who said the contrary labour under a glaring error. Nor will you be able to encounter France and the other nations of Europe, if they should avail themselves of the talents of all their people, and you will oppose them by only a part of yours, and while you deprive yourself of the full strength of those talents, expose yourself to their animosity. It follows then, whether you look principles of liberty or empire, that you cannot make the proscriptive system existing at the revolution the measure of the other parts of your empire; you must then make the principles of the revolution that measure. What are those principles? Civil and religious liberty. They existed at that time in full force for you, they existed as seminal principles for us, they were extended to the protestant part of Ireland a century after, they remain now to be extended to the catholics. Then will your revolution be completed, not overthrown; then will you extend the principles of your empire on those of your constitution, and have secured an uniformity of action by creating an identity of interest; thus will you have simplified the imperial and constitutional motions to the one and the same principle of action, moving you in your home and in your imperial orbit, informing the body of your laws, and vivifying the mass of your empire.—The petition of the county of Oxford states the catholics have been ever enemies to freedom, just as the controversialists have said the catholics must be enemies to the king. The revolution, from whose benefits you are to exclude the catholics, was founded on a model formed and moulded by catholics, the declaration of right being almost entirely declaratory of rights and privileges secured by your catholic ancestors. One of your great merits at the revolution was not to have exceeded that models, but on the contrary you restrained popular victory, and restored establishments, and with them kindled a modest spirit, which has outlasted the French conflagration, a vital heat, which then cheered you, which now should cheer the catholic, and,giving light and life to both, I hope will be eternal—The great objects, church, state, and property, I adopt With the controversialist, and beg to rescue them from his wisdom, and to give them for their support the physical force of the catholic body, inasmuch as our danger does not arise from the possible abuse of his constitutional power, but from the possible abuse of his physical thoughts to obtain that constitutional power. In all this debate you will observe we argue as if we had but one enemy, the catholic, and we forget the French: and here what I said to the Irish parliament, on the catholic question, I will repeat to you. I said to them, "the post you take is unfavourable,—in dependency of the British parliament, exclusion of the Irish catholics, a post to be kept against the power of one country, and the freedom of the other." I now say to you, the post you would take is unfavourable, a position that would keep France in check and Ireland in thraldom, to be held against the power of one country and the freedom of the other. There are three systems for Ireland: one such as primate Boulton has disclosed, a system to set the people at variance on account of religion, that the government might be strong and the country weak; a system, such an one as prevailed when I broke her chain, which made the minister too strong for the constitution and the country, too weak for the enemy; a system which one of its advocates has described, when he said the protestants of Ireland were a garrison in an enemy's country, and which another gentleman has described when he considered Inland as a caput mortuum. This system has failed; it ought to have failed; it was a party government and a party god.—There is another, extermination, that will not do—the extermination of three millions of, men would be no easy task in execution, no every charitable measure in conception. The justices of 1641 had dreamed of it, Cromwell had attempted, Harrington had talked of it. I hold the extermination of the people, and even of their hierarchy, to be such experiment as will not be proposed by any gentleman who is perfectly in his senses. Extermination,, then, will not do; what is left? The partial adoption of the catholics has failed, the eradication of the catholics cannot be attempted, the absolute incorporation remains alone; there is no other; or did you think it necessary to unite with the Irish parliament, and do hesitate to identify with the people? See whether you can conduct your empire on any other principle. The better to illustrate this, and in order to ascertain the principles of your empire, survey its comprehension, computing your West Indies, and your eastern dominions. England has now, with all deference to her moderation, a very great proportion of the globe. On what principle will she govern that proportion? On the principles on which Providence governs that and the remainder. When yon make your dominions commensurate with a great portion of her works, you should make your laws analogous to her dispensations. As there is no such thing as exclusive Providence, so neither, considering the extent of your, empire, should there be such a thing as an exclusive empire, but such an one as accommodates to peculiar habits, religious prejudices; prepossessions, &c. &c. You do not, in your dispatches to your generals, send the thirty-nine articles: you know the bigot and conqueror are incompatible; Lewis XIV found it so. You know that no nation is long indulged in the exercise of the two qualities— bigotry to proscribe at home, ambition to disturb abroad. Such. was your opinion when you established popery in Canada; I do not speak of Corsica— such your opinion when you recruited for the foot in Ireland. It was in the American war this practice began: then you found that the principle of exclusive empire would not answer, and that her test was not who should say her prayers, but who should fight her battles. On the same principle the Irish militia, which must be in a great proportion catholic, stands; and on the same principle the Irish yeomanry, who must be in a considerable proportion catholic, stands; and on the same principle you have recruited for the navy in Ireland, and have committed your sea thunder to catholic hands. Suppose in Egypt the general had ordered the catholics to go out of the ranks; or if, in one of your sea-fights, the admiral had ordered all the catholics on shore, what had been the consequence? It is an argument against the proscriptive system, that if adopted practically, in navy or army, the navy and army and empire would evaporate. And shall we now proclaim these men, or hold such language as the member, language, which, if he held on the day of battle, he must be shot; language for which, if a catholic, he must be hanged; such as you despised in the case of Corsica and of Canada, in the choice of your allies, in the recruiting your army and your navy, whenever your convenience; whenever your ambition, whenever your interest required. Or let us turn from the magnitude of your empire to the magnitude of its danger, and you will observe, that whereas Europe was heretofore divided in many small nations of various religions making part of their civil policy, and with alliances influenced in some degree and directed by those religious distinctions, where civil and religious freedom were supposed to be drawn up on one side, and on the other popery and arbitrary power, so now the globe has been divided anew. England and France, you have taken a first situation among mankind; you are, of course, excluded from a second: Austria may have a second situation, Prussia may have a second, but England seems to have linked her being to her glory, and when she ceases to be of the first she is nothing. According to this supposition, and it is a supposition which I do not frame, but find in the country, the day may not be very remote when you will have to fight for being, and far what you value more than being, the ancient renown of your island. You have said it yourselves, and you have added, that Ireland is your vulnerable part: why vulnerable? Vulnerable because you have misgoverned her. It may then happen that on Irish ground, and by an Irish hand, the destinies of this ancient monarchy called Great Britain, may be decided. Accordingly, you have voted your army, but you have forgot to vote your people; you must vote their passions likewise. Their horrors at the French proceedings will do much, but it is miserable to rely on the crimes of your enemies always, on your own wisdom never. Besides, those horrors did not prevent Prussia from leaving your alliance, nor Austria from making peace, nor the united Irishmen from making war. Loyalty will do much, but you require more—patience under taxes, such as are increased far beyond what we have been accustomed to, from one million and a half to 8,000,000; nor patience only, but ardour—the strong qualities, not such as the scolding dialect of certain gentlemen would excite—the fire, a spirit that in the case of an invasion will not sit as a spy on the doubt of the day and calculate, but, though the first battle should be unsuccessful, would come out with a desperate fidelity, and embody with the destinies of England. It is a wretched thing to ask, how would they act in such a case? What, after a connexion of six hundred years, to thank your admiral for your safety, or the wind, or any thing but your own wisdom! and therefore the question is not whether the catholics shall get so many seats, but whether you shall get so many millions; I in such a case you live all people. What is it that constitutes the strength and health of England but this sort of vitality, that her privileges, like her money, circulate every where, and center no where? This it was which equality would have given, but did not give, France; this it was which the plain sense of your ancestors, without equality, did give the English; a something which limited her kings, drove her enemies, and made a handful of men fill the world with their name.—Will you, in your union with Ireland, with-hold the regimen which has made you strong, and continue the regimen which has made her feeble? You will further recollect, that you have invited her to your patrimony, and hitherto you have given her taxes and additional debt, I believe it is of 26,000,000. The other part of your patrimony, I should be glad to see that, Talk plainly and honestly to the Irish —'tis true your taxes are increased, and your debts multiplied, but here are our privileges, great burthens and great privileges: this is the patrimony of England, and with this does she assess, recruit, inspire, consolidate. But the protestant ascendancy, it is said, alone can keep the country, namely, the gentry, clergy, and nobility, against the French, and without the people. It may be so. But, in 1641, above ten thousand troops were sent from England to assist that party; in 1789, twenty-three regiments were raised in England to assist them; in 1798, the English militia were sent over to assist them. What can be done by spirit will be done by them; but would the city of London, on such assurance, risk a guinea? The parliament of Ireland did risk every thing, and are now nothing; and in their extinction left this instruction, not to their posterity, for they have none, but to you, who come in the place of their posterity, not to depend on a sect of religion, nor trust the final issue,of your fortunes to any thing less than the:whole of your people.—The parliament of Ireland—of that assembly I have a parental recollection. I sat by her cradle, I followed her hearse.—In fourteen years she acquired for Ireland what you did not acquire for England in a century—freedom of trade, independency of the legislature, independency of the judges, restoration of the final judicature, repeal of a perpetual mutiny bill, habeas corpus act, nullum tempos act. A great work! you will exceed it, and I shall rejoice. I call my countrymen to witness if, in that business, I compromised the claims of my country, or temporised with the power of England. But there was one thing which baffled the effort of the patriot, and defeated the wisdom of the senate; it was the folly of the theologian. When the parliament of Ireland rejected the catholic petition, and assented to the calumnies then uttered against the catholic body, on that day she voted the union. If you should adopt a similar conduct, on that day you will vote the separation. Many good and pious reasons you may give, many good and pious reasons she gave, and she lies there with her many good and her pious reasons. That the parliament of Ireland should have entertained prejudices, I am not astonished; but that you—that you who have as individuals and as conquerors visited a great part of the globe, and have seen men in all their modifications, and Providence in all her ways—that you, now at this time of the day, should throw dykes against the pope and barriers against the catholic, instead uniting with that catholic to throw up barriers against that French—this surprises; and, in addition to this, that you should have set up the pope in Italy to,tremble at him in Ireland; and further, that you should have professed to have placed yourself at the head of a christian not a protestant league, to defend the civil and religious liberty of Europe, and should deprive of civil liberty one fifth of yourselves, on account of,their religion—this surprises me; and also, that you should prefer to buy allies by subsidies rather than fellow subjects by privileges; and that you should now stand, drawn out as it were in battalion, 16,000,000 against 36,000,000, and should at the same time paralize a fifth of your own numbers, by excluding them from some of the principal benefits of your constitution, at the very time you say all your numbers are inadequate, unless inspired by those very privileges. As I recommended to you to give the privileges, so I should recommend the catholics to wait cheerfully and dutifully. The temper with which they bear the privation of power and privilege is evidence of their qualification. They will recollect the strength of their case, which sets them above impatience; they will recollect the growth of their case, from the time it was first agitated to the present moment, and in that growth perceive the perishable nature of the objections, and the immortal quality of the principle they contend for; they will further recollect what they have gotten already, rights of religion, rights of property, and, above all, the elective franchise, which is in itself the seminal principle of every thing else. With vessel so laden they will be too wise to leave the harbour, and trust the fallacy of any wind. Nothing can prevent the ultimate success of the catholics but intemperance; for this they will be too wise. The charges uttered against them they will answer by their allegiance. So should I speak to the catholics. To the protestant I would say—You have gotten the land and powers of the country, and it now remains to make those acquisitions eternal. Do not you see, according to the present state and temper of England and France, that your country must ultimately be the seat of war; do not you see that your children must stand in the front of the battle, with uncertainty and treachery in the rear of it? If then, by ten or twelve seats in parliament, given to catholics, you could prevent such a day, would not the compromise be every thing? What is your wretch- ed monopoly, the shadow of your present, the memory of your past power, compared to the safety of your families, the security of your estates, and the solid peace and repose of your island? Besides, you have an account to settle with the empire. Might not the empire accost you thus? "For one hundred years you have been in possession of the country, and very loyally have you taken to yourselves the power and profit thereof. I am now to receive at your hands the fruits of all this, and the unanimous support of the people; where is it, now when I am beset with enemies, and in my day of trial?". Let the protestant ascendancy answer that question, for I cannot. Above twenty millions have been wasted on your shocking contest, and a great proportion of troops of the line locked up in your island, that you may enjoy the ascendancy of the country and the empire, not receive the strength of it. Such a system cannot last; your destinies must be changed and exalted. The catholic no longer your inferior, nor you inferior to every one, save only the catholic; both must be free, and both must fight—the enemy, and not one another. Thus the sects of religion, renouncing, the one all foreign connection, and the other all domestic proscription, shall form a strong country; and thus the two islands, renouncing all national prejudices, shall form a strong empire, a phalanx in the west, to check, perhaps ultimately to confound, the ambition of the enemy. I know the ground on which I stand, and the truths which I utter; and I appeal to the objections you urge against me, which I constitute my judges, to the spirit of your own religion, and to the genius of your own revolution; and I consent to have the principle which I maintain tried by any test; and equally sound, I contend, it will be found, whether you apply it to constitution where it is freedom, or to empire where it is strength, or to religion where it is light.—Turn to the opposite principle, proscription and discord. It has made in Ireland not only war but even peace calamitous: witness the one that followed the victories of King William, to the catholics a sad servitude, to the protestants a drunken triumph, and to both a peace without trade and without constitution. You have seen, in 1798, rebellion break out again, the enemy masking her expeditions in consequence of the state of Ireland, twenty millions lost, one farthing of which did not tell, in empire and blood, barbarously, boyishly, and most ingloriously expended! These things are in your recollection. One of the causes of these things, whether efficient or instrumental, as aggravating the proscriptive system, I mean you may now remove. It is a great work. Or has ambition not enlarged your mind, or only enlarged the sphere of its action? What the best men in Ireland wished to do, but could not do, the patriot courtier and the patriot oppositionist, you may accomplish: what Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Langrishe, men who had no views of popularity or interest, or. any but the public good; what Mr. Daly, Mr. Burgh, men whom shall not pronounce to be dead if their genius live in this measure; what Mr. Forbes, every man that loved Ireland; what Lord Puy, the wisest man in Ireland ever produced; what Mr. Hutchinson, an able, accomplished, and enlightened servant of the crown; what Lord Charlemont, superior to his early prejudices, bending under years, and experience, and public affection; what that dying nobleman, what our Burke, what the most profound divines, Doctor Newcome, for instance, our late primate, his mitre stood in the front of that measure; what these men supported, and against whom? Against men who had no opinion at that time on the subject, except that which the minister ordered, or men whose opinions were so extravagant, that even bigotry must blush for them; and yet those men had not before them considerations which should make you wise—that the pope has evaporated, and that France has covered the best part of Europe. That terrible sight is nerve before you: it is a gulph that has swallowed up a great portion of your treasure; it yawns for your being. Were it not wise, therefore, to come to a good understanding with the Irish now? It will be miserable, if any thing untoward should happen hereafter, to say, we did not foresee this danger; against other dangers, against the pope we were impregnable. But if, instead of guarding against dangers which are not, we should provide against dangers which are, the remedy is in your hands,—the franchises of the constitution. Your ancestors of the petitioners were less fortunate; the posterity of both, born to new and strange dangers; let them agree to renounce jealousies and proscriptions, in order to oppose what, without that agreement, will overpower both. Half Europe is in battalion against us, and we are damning one another on account of mysteries, when we should form against the enemy, and march.—But I am exhausted.

The Attorney General.

—I am as anxious to concur in any measure, which has for its object the consolidation of the strength and interest of the empire, as either of the two hon. gentlemen who have supported this motion; but the proposition of the hon. Member who opened this debate does not appear to me in any way calculated to meet that end. The hon. gentleman has stated the abstract question of right, with his usual precision, but certainly not so strong as he might have done, nor can I agree with him in the inferences he has endeavoured to deduce from it. The hon. mover of the question has argued, that no danger is to be apprehended at present in admitting catholics to the representative privilege. Possibly not. Great numbers may not come in at first, but parliament is to look prospectively to the effect of the measure, and the probable line of conduct that would be pursued by the catholics when they shall obtain a share in the representation. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to recall and replace upon the throne a branch of a family which had been formally excluded. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to take away all the tithes from the protestant clergy for the purpose of giving them to their own; but if a proposition were made to take away part of the tithes from the protestant clergy, for the purpose of conferring them on the catholic clergy, I am not sure that many worthy men may not be found in this house to entertain it; and, in the event of a division, I am sure the catholic representation would be as a dead weight in the scale, I shall not take up the time of the house in considering all the objections to which, in that particular respect, the motion is liable. I will content myself with proving that it is repugnant to solemn stipulation between Ireland and Great Britain, and in doing that, I shall furnish, I trust, sufficient matter for rejecting it. The stipulation to which I allude is that contained in the fifth article of the act of union, which expressly mentions, that the protestant church is to be the established church of the state. It is said that the measure would put an end to all disaffection, and yet, in the very same breath, gentlemen assert that none exists. I would agree with them it, praises which they have bestowed upon the loyalty of the catholics, and admit that the rebellion in Ireland was not a rebellion of catholics; and that no greater number of that persuasion were to be found in it than might be expected in a country whose population was in so great a proportion catholic. The conciliation of Ireland is the ostensible reason for bringing forward the measure, but if that be really the question, gentlemen will do well to consider the effect of it, not only upon the catholics, but upon the protestants also. They should consider what would be the alienating operation of the repeal of the fifth article of the union, upon the protestant population of Ireland. I fear the effect of it would be to destroy that tranquillity which the honourable mover of the question seems so anxious to maintain. Even that morality and conscientious regard of their oaths, which is said to be so strongly inculcated by the tenets of the catholic religion, should convince gentlemen, that in a regular, orderly way, they would omit no opportunities of procuring for their religion all possible advantages. It is true that the petitioners have abjured any intention to subvert the protestant religion for the purpose of introducing their own: but do they profess for the whole catholic body? do they profess for the clergy as well as the laity; or do they only profess for themselves? I have looked at the petition, and I cannot find the hand of single clergyman of the catholic persuasion affixed to it; and the reason assigned, as I understand, is, that it is a petition for civil rights, in which they could not participate. The catholic clergy have not abjured the expectation of being restored to all the dignities which were possessed by them previous to the reformation; and if they had, I should not have thought so well of them as I do. Have they not their bishoprics, their deaneries, and all the gradations which are to be found in the established church? And knowing this, who can say that they have relinquished all hopes of enjoying the emoluments appertaining to those dignities? One of their tenets is, and of which any member who goes into a bookseller's shop may convince himself, that they are bound to pay tithes only to their lawful pastors. Nay, some persons have carried the principle much further. A Mr. M'Kenna, a very able man I will acknowledge, has proposed in a treatise of much learning and ingenuity that thirty or forty acres of land should be purchased in every parish in Ireland, and a house should be built on it for the catholic clergyman. Is not this a plain indication of the extent of their hopes and prospects? No man can entertain a doubt that it is their inclination to propagate their religion by every means in their power. This is a principle inseparable from the character of every reli- gion. Were I in a catholic country, professing the religion I do, I should feel an inclination to advance that religion; and so it is natural to expect the catholics would do, whenever they had an opportunity. I am not so sanguine as the hon. mover, in his expectations of the advantages that are to result from the measure proposed. I no not think it would produce conciliation in Ireland, or give that satisfaction to the catholic body that is asserted. On the contrary, the effect of it, in my opinion, would be, to bring the two sects nearer to each other, and consequently to increase that spirit of rivalship and jealousy which has unfortunately subsisted between them. (Murmurs of impatience.) I claim the indulgence of the house for a few moments longer. I see there is no great disposition to listen to me; and after the manner in which the attention of the house has been gratified by the eloquent and able member who has just addressed it for the first time, I am aware that any thing which falls from me must appear flat and uninteresting. I think that no alternative can exist between keeping the establishment we have, and putting a Roman catholic establishment in its place. If gentlemen can make up their minds to that, they may conciliate Ireland, but not otherwise; or perhaps they may enter into a treaty with Buonaparté to allow the pope to grant them another concordat. This appears to me to be the only true way of stating the question. The immunities which have been already granted to the catholics, I think, are sufficient; and there is one of them, I mean the elective franchise, which, had I been a member of the legislature, I should have felt an inclination to oppose, and also the Roman catholic college. What privilege is there which the catholics do not enjoy, with the exception of sitting in parliament, and the capacity of being appointed to a few great offices, in as full and complete a manner as those who profess the established religion? They have nothing to desire on the score of toleration, that they and every other dissenter from the established church do not enjoy as fully as they could wish. Anxious as I am to conciliate so important a member of the empire, I cannot bring myself to approve of the measure proposed by the hon. mover. If the demands of the petitioners were conceded to their numbers, and their majority, no possibility would remain of refusing to comply with any future demands they may think proper to make. What their numbers and majority shall have once obtained, will only tend to stimulate them to fresh demands, until nothing remains for them to require, and they become not merely a prevailing party in the state, but exclusively the state for itself. For those reasons I will vote against the motion for referring this petition to a committee.

Mr. Alexander.

—Sir, unwilling as I am at all times to obtrude myself upon the attention of the house, yet I feel too deeply interested upon the present occasion to be awed from expressing my sentiments. When the right hon. gent. who has just sat down feels so much embarrassed under the impression created by the very eloquent speeches of both the hon. members who have preceded him in support of the petition, I cannot deny that I too have my feelings under that impression; but I should ill perform the duty I owe to my conscience, to the crown and my country, if I gave way to them. I own my national pride is certainly gratified by the attention paid to the talents of the hon. gent. who spoke last but one; but I can never forget, that I have witnessed those talents employed successfully in beating down the laws and constitution of his country: (Loud cries. of no! no!) I do not accuse the hon. gent. of design; but he has amplified so much on the strength of the physical numbers of what he has called the Irish people, has asserted and painted their imaginary grievances in such high colouring, that there grew in the minds of an influenced and infatuated peasantry, a conviction that they had just motives for rebellion, and strength to accomplish their object. What admits of no doubt, and which I cannot forget, is, that the honourable member's conduct and sentiments prevented his taking any share in putting down that rebellion;prevented him from manifesting active loyalty, or exposing himself with other gentlemen to common exertions, common inconveniences, and common dangers. With such recollections I feel it a duty to withstand all impressions made upon my mind by the talents and reputation of the honourable member, and to recall the attention of the house to the arguments of the gentleman who has opened the debate. That hon. gent. has stated truly from archdeacon Paley, that tests were introduced when religions sentiments and religious interests were so universally connected and diffused through certain classes in the community, as to be a proof of a determined purpose of action, and that public necessity justified a general law of exclusion, sacrificing the pretension of the few, who might feel differently from the mass of their own sect, to public tranquillity and security. He has admitted that the Roman catholic were in general so strongly attached to the house of Stuart, as to have justified the legislature in enforcing the oath of supremacy, and other tests, to the exclusion of Roman catholics from political power. He has debated much upon that subject, and has justified our ancestors for their precaution. And I ask no other grounds of reason than those upon which that hon. gent. has relied, to justify parliament in the rejection of the present catholic claims. If attachment to the house of Stuart has justified suspicion, and restrictions from power, how much more strongly does from power, how much more strongly does the general aversion of the lower order of catholics and of their priests, to Britain and British connexion, justify all our precaution! I do not hesitate to assert, that with the middling and lower orders of Roman catholics, and the generality of their clergy, under every change of governors or government, proposed or attempted, separation from England has been the object invariably aimed at. Every passion, religious and temporal, all their traditions, all their prejudices, unite to excite such feelings, and to render this sentiment predominant in their minds; and this house is deceived most fatally, if it suffer itself to be persuaded that they have changed those sentiments. The best historians agree that the Irish catholics of king James's day used him but as an instrument of separation; they rendered him desperate with England to ensure success to their design—a separation—by forcing him to confiscate all the protestant and British property in Ireland. The hon. gent. has disclaimed, with great levity, all knowledge of councils, and of the former opinions of the catholics, and has entered into abstract discussions of rights, and first principles, for his purposes—in my mind with great judgement; but an application of men's minds to the situation of the day, and to existing circumstances, would prove fatal to his arguments, and to his object. Without a knowledge of the catholic doctrines, and of the influence of those doctrines, the question cannot be fairly understood, and that wilful or assumed ignorance of their opinions is unjustifiable in a gentleman agitating such a question. I repeat, that the influence of the Roman catholic clergy in Ireland is now most formidably great; that in that country, an hierarchy exists unconnected with the crown, but immediately dependant upon the pope; that there exists in Ireland at this day a most numerous body of Roman catholic clergy devoted to the doctrinal opinions of the church of Rome, and maintaining the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that court. In fact, the papistry is in many points of view more formidable in the present state of Ireland, from the objects on which state of Ireland, from the objects on which it attaches, and the persons it influences, and produces a more uncontrolable power over their people, than even before the reformation. The objects of the first reformers were two-fold: the remedying the avarice, voluptuousness, and power of the clergy; the abolition of their separate courts of jurisdiction, and all those privileges, exemptions, and distinctions, they claimed or proposed, and which enabled the clergy to cope with princes, and to oppress and insult the people. Princes and people had feelings in common, that led them rapidly to concur in those points with the reformers; and countries the most catholic, and the most devoted to the see of Rome, limited and curtailed its power and possessions, and wrested from it the supremacy in temporal matters. But matters of doctrine being blended with matters of, faith, and being admitted to be above the comprehension of the lower and middling classes of the people, not being equally apparent upon the qualities of the mind, and the ostensible conduct of those who governed or were governed by them, were not an object of jealousy to princes, or of painful and degrading contrast to the people. The catholic clergy, unequal, therefore, to combat the feelings excited by their luxury and power, seldom attempted to punish, or indeed bring into question, offences against their temporal interests, but accused their antagonists of offences against the fundamental articles of faith, and, with consent of prince and people, inflicted punishments to any extent to which their passions and vengeance led them. The Roman catholic church, now, in Ireland, has all those sources of doctrinal influence over the faith of a bigoted people; their clergy frequently (as I admit), in the transactions between man and man, exercise them for good purposes; but they also have the power of giving a direction to the popular mind, with an effect which is inconsistent with the general safety; and, in corroboration of my opinion, I appeal to their conduct in the late and in former rebellions. In Ireland the British government seems, hitherto, to feel no apparent interest in op- posing the power and encroachments of the Roman catholic clergy; the people are left totally in their hands; and from that inattention, their great, and, in this debate, much-boasted influence has arisen: the Roman catholic clergy are now interwoven with the people in all their common transactions of life; true it is, they cannot punish criminals; but criminals bear no proportion to the number in any state. But I call upon gentlemen to consider, what is the effect of excommunication among the lower orders Irish papists?—It excludes a man from his family, and renders him hateful to it; drives him from his little tenement, nay, precludes him from earning his livelihood, if dependent upon his labour; a power possibly greater than any possessed by the state, from its general diffusion, unsuspected influence, and extensive consequences: add to these considerations, the recollection of confiscated property, the long series of injuries alleged to have been committed by the English against the Irish, the remembrance of which has been constantly kept alive by tradition, and by recent exaggerated statements; and the well-known historical fact, that claims to property cannot fail for want of hereditary succession, as, by the Brehon law, it,exists not in individuals, but in the name and Sept; and the house will see the reasons and motives for that dislike to British connexion, which ever has, and still continues to influence the lower and more numerous part of the catholics of Ireland, a peasantry directed by a clergy generally ignorant in every point but their school-divinity, all influenced by common motives of action, irreconcileable to British connexion at present; under such circumstances, though we cannot anticipate what growing wealth and more diffused intercourse may hereafter effect, we must still be on our guard. For these reasons I consider a knowledge of the doctrines of the see of Rome, and their actual influence upon the Irish clergy and the Irish catholics, as a most serious subject of consideration upon this occasion. As long as these prejudices and habits continue to influence their people, I am convinced no good effect can result from concessions. I am equally convinced that the better informed, the nobility and gentry, feel too many advantages resulting from their present situation, not to act with the utmost loyalty, and many, I admit, have already distinguished themselves by their conduct. But it would be reasoning like novelists, and not like statesmen, to make the great fundamental principles of a con- stitution like that of this mighty empire, bend so far, as to sacrifice its bulwarks in exchange for the strength expected to be derived from the gratification of the feelings of a few individuals; those new doctrines which teach a man to forget all he owes to the laws, the constitution, and the king; all that he owes to his family, his property, and his honour, if checked or controled in the pursuit of objects which he may be taught to over-value; and I lament that such loyalty is represented as only to be of retained and secured by the sacrifice of our constitution! The numbers of the Irish catholics have been stated with a double object, to describe them as a source of strength, if conciliated, and of terror, if not gratified in their demands. If the higher classes of the catholics have influence, and have not hitherto exerted it, they can have no claims upon the confidence or gratitude f the legislature; but if (as I believe the case to be) they possess no power when opposed to the passions of the inferior people and the interested exertions of their clergy, I consider the yielding to their claims, a sacrifice of the constitution for a most trivial consideration. On more general grounds, the introduction into parliament and the cabinet of a certain number of the catholics, heading and acting as the organ of the catholic people, might be productive of the most fatal consequences; divisions might arise among the protestants, and a misguided monarch might attempt to obtain powers incompatible with the safety of our church and state, by the aid and: support of that catholic party or interest. Such views were imputed to Charles the First; such conduct was certainly adopted by James the Second; and of that misguided effort we only escaped the fatal consequences, by placing the present royal family on the throne. The concessions now sought might also prove fatal to the catholics themselves, and tempt them (as it has hitherto done) into struggles for ascendancy, which might prove fatal to the privileges they now enjoy. Their advocates boast much of their wealth, fairly and honourably acquired under our mild and equal laws; honours have been conferred by the crown, or restored to their most distinguished families; the absence of jealousy, and the consciousness of our superior constitutional strength, justified our monarch in conferring these favours, and the protestant people in rejoicing at their attainment. But great states are distinguished by the wisdom of their precautionary measures; the wisdom of Bri- tish policy has led its councils to protect the crown from temptation, and to guard the conduct of the monarch against the effects of his passions and his wishes, by with-holding the instruments by which our constitution in church and state might be assailed and subverted. Should a British monarch entertain such views, the manufacturing and preparing instruments would alarm the jealousy, and enable the wealth and independence of the empire to rise in defence of its civil and religious liberties. As far as the feelings of the crown itself may be concerned, we must consider how cruel it would be to render the exclusion of such a description of subjects from his councils and the higher offices of state a matter of personal objection, and consequently of personal odium against the monarch himself.—The catholics surely expect that the capability which they now wish to obtain should be productive of its effects. At present no individual can feel, in his exclusion from power, a personal degradation; he must attribute it to existing laws, and to the existing constitution. Give them capability, and then do not confer upon a great proportion that share in the cabinet and the councils of the crown which they fancy their boasted numbers and wealth entitle them to, and will you conciliate a single individual? Will not discontent be more formidable than it is at present? On the other hand, what would be the sentiments and the sensation of the people of this empire, were they to see a protestant monarch, whose tenure to his throne depends upon his fidelity to his religion, surrounded by catholic counsellors? Could any circumstances reconcile them to such a choice in the monarch himself? And should the strength of parties (as it is sometimes supposed to have done) force such ministers, and such counsellors upon the throne, how miserable, how degraded must be the situation of our monarch, and how precarious the state of our religion and of our civil liberties! Such appear to me to be the inevitable evils of concession to the present claims; and if we are to be reduced to a choice of evils, and must consider catholic numbers (as the hon. members have held out) a source of intimidation, our ancestors have held Ireland in times infinitely more unfavourable, and against numbers infinitely more disproportioned; and I entertain no doubt that we should do so again. Let England but understand her true interest; let her justly appreciate the spirit, zeal, and loyalty of the protestants Ireland let her be convinced, they feel their properties, their honours, and their lives, dependent upon British connexion: but if England unfortunately forgets what is to, as brave and as zealous allies as any nation ever possessed, her protestant subjects of Ireland, she will have the most fatal reasons to lament her acquiescence in their and her own destruction. Let England be firm in her adherence to her laws and constitution. No catholic can be oppressed by the laws in Ireland; his property and his person are protected by the same code and juries that protect the protestant. If, notwithstanding these advantages, any of them should appeal to numbers, and be rashly tempted into rebellion, arms and the law must punish the rebels! With such impressions upon my mind, I should have felt myself unworthy of being the representative of my protestant countrymen, had I not borne testimony to their zeal and, their loyalty, but had shrunk from the weight and talents of the hon. gent. I trust in God, and in the courage of the nation, that we are able to defend our laws, religion, and property; to maintain our faith, and to uphold the throne.

Mr. William Smith

proposed that the debate be adjourned. He was perfectly prepared to deliver his sentiments at the moment, if the house were willing to hear him, and other gentlemen who might wish to speak on the important question before them. It would, however, be unbecoming the character of the house, and the importance of the subject, if they came: to any hasty decision.—The question of adjournment being loudly called for,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

expressed a wish that the discussion could have been terminated at that sitting. As, however, it seemed to be the wish of other gentlemen to deliver their Sentiments, he thought it would be better to adjourn than to state them at a more advanced hour.—The debate was accordingly adjourned till the following day.—The other orders of the day were also postponed, and, at 3 o'clock on Tuesday morning, the house adjourned.