HC Deb 02 March 1813 vol 24 cc985-1074

The House, according to order, resumed the adjourned Debate upon the motion made upon Thursday last, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into its most serious consideration the state of the Laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the united kingdoms, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects

Sir Henry Parnell

rose and addressed the House as follows:

Sir; the speech of the right hon. gentleman who spoke second in the debate last night (Mr. Pole), was not less creditable to him for its candour and sincerity, than deserving the attention of the House, inasmuch as he is a most competent witness to all the leading points of the question. He has said that the whole Catholic body, even the very poorest of them, are anxious for emancipation; that the sense of the Protestants of Ireland is in favour of it, and that we are now come to that point, in consequence of the increased knowledge and riches of the Catholics, at which we must make up our minds, either to concede what they ask, or to re-enact the penal code and prepare for a rebellion.

A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ryder) has, like many others who preceded him, founded his opposition, in a great degree, upon the language and resolutions of the Catholic board. If, however, there were any thing, in that language, expressing soreness under grievance, or impatience to obtain redress, the Catholics have learnt it from your own history. If their language has been violent or intemperate, it has been taught them, either by the doctrine or the example, certainly by the provocation of their opponents. But great allowances should be made for the circumstances of irritation, under which this board was formed, the circular letter of the Irish Secretary; the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant; the arrest of lord Fingal; the trials of the delegates; and the speech of the Attorney General, imputing treasonable intentions to the whole Catholic body. But the circumstance which should be most attended to, occurred immediately prior to the resolutions, which are the most condemned—the negociation for forming a new administration, which continued a whole month, and the Regent's having acceded to the emancipation of the Catholics, as a part of the basis of the proposed arrangements.

The Catholics must have been more than men, to have borne the result of it, the restoration of their opponents to power, in silence and satisfaction. But whatever may have been the impropriety of the language of the Catholics, it has nothing to say to the question; we are not to legislate upon this local and narrow view of the subject, but upon those great principles of wisdom and justice, which direct us to take the whole of the case under our consideration, and adopt one general and comprehensive measure.

A right hon. member (Mr. Ryder) has asserted that the sense of the people is decidedly hostile to the Catholics; but this does not appear to be the case from the Petitions. Four counties only have met by public requisition; one of these, Cornwall, has said that enquiry ought to be gone into; and another, Wiltshire, refused to oppose the Catholics. Nine counties have sent only one Petition each, from one town in each; three counties have sent two; three counties have sent three; and two counties more than four, from towns within them, signed by the laity. Twenty-three Petitions come from corporations. From twenty English counties, five Welsh counties, and all Scotland, there is not one Petition from the laity. The just inference, therefore, is, that the sense of the people is decidedly in favour of the Catholics. Of the manner in which these Petitions have been obtained, it is only requisite to call to the recollection of the House, that the Third Part of the Statement of the Penal Laws was read, and believed to be an authentic work, during the whole time that these Petitions were preparing and deciding upon. In regard to the matter contained in them, this is of much more serious importance, as it indicts a whole community of professing treasonable principles, and teaches the people of England to form false notions of the nature of the constitution. By so doing, it leads them astray, from taking a right course, in case its safety should really be endangered by an attempt to subvert it.

But before entering on any examination of the contents of these Petitions, it is fit to enquire whence the necessity arises, of again discussing the obnoxious tenets which are imputed to the Catholics. Every one, who was present at the debate, when a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) made his motion, last session, must well remember that the only point at issue was, whether or not any conditions should be annexed to the concession? The House would not have listened to any member, who might have wished to revive these charges. A right hon. and learned doctor seemed to have made his dying speech, in the preceding debate on the Catholic Petition. He had actually retired from the contest, as if wholly and for ever overthrown by the incessant and well directed attacks of an hon. baronet (sir J. Cox Hippisley). But now we have, again, imposed upon us the task of resuming a discussion of antiquated doctrines and exploded calumnies, of that rubbish, as it was called by Mr. Burke, that nuisance, which he supposed to have been removed, even when writing, in 1795; of those accusations, which, even the corporation of the Protestant charter schools in Ireland have abandoned, by suppressing the catechism which taught them; of those doctrines which lord Liverpool disclaimed in 1810, and which Mr. Perceval allowed, in his last speech on this subject, were never, in any degree, the grounds of his opposition.

All this we were again called upon to reargue, when this debate began; but it would appear that we have once more gained our advanced position; for the arguments, which have already been advanced, have put to flight the whole bench of ministers, who seem unwilling, any longer, to hear what may be said in favour of the motion, because they are utterly incompetent to answer or refute it.

If we examine what the causes are, which have given so much confidence to those who have lately revived a clamour against the Catholics, we may discover the fons et origo mali, by referring to the history of the last thirteen months. The secondary causes have been the Charges of reverend prelates, and the activity of the inferior clergy.

It seems, the bishop of Lincoln has considered the church to be in such imminent danger, as to justify him in delivering to his clergy, at a triennial visitation, what, to some, may appear, a bad political pamphlet, in place of a pious and religious Charge,—a pamphlet full of unfounded statements, exaggerated inferences, and inaccurate quotations; charging, on the whole body of Catholics, the profession of principles, incompatible with their duty as good subjects; and calling the rebellion of 1798, a Catholic rebellion. If similar charges had been brought against an individual Catholic, the consequences must have been the conviction of the reverend prelate for a libel. That this must have been the case is evident, from the fate, which befel a work, entitled a "Fair Representation of the Political State of Ireland." The author of which did try the experiment, of making similar charges against a Catholic gentleman of the name of Latin. Mr. Latin brought as action against the publisher, Mr. Wright: lord Kenyon told the jury it was an atrocious libel, and 500l. damages were given to Mr. Latin. If the crime of libel consists, in its tendency to disturb the public peace, how much more deserving of punishment is the reverend prelate, for having directed his Charge against a whole people? But though the laws may be inadequate to reach the precise description of offence, which he has committed, is the reverend prelate to escape with perfect impunity? We are told that parliament, in such cases, may interfere and provide for their defect; would it not then be but common justice to the Catholics, to make this publication of the reverend prelate the subject of a distinct motion?

Of the several petitions, which have been laid upon the table, many of which have evidently been framed on the model of this reverend prelate's Charge, there is one which peculiarly deserves attention:—that from the town of Huddersfield, in which a rev. Mr. Coates took a leading part. This petition contains a paragraph stating that the Catholics hold it to be a praiseworthy act to murder a heretic;—a more unfounded, a more uncharitable, or a more unprincipled accusation never was advanced by any other body of men. Such a petition, containing such a charge, ought not to be allowed to be on the table, without further examination; for if the charge could, by any possibility, be true, it is due to the public to provide against the danger which threatens the state: but if it is false, then it is due to the Catholic" to give them an opportunity of exposing it. If the House should take no further notice of it, it would lend its sanction to converting the right of petitioning, into a ready instrument of calumny and defamation.

The cry of the danger of the church is not now set on foot for the first time, by the clergy of this country. Such an occurrence took place in the reign of queen Anne: in that reign, both Houses of parliament took up the subject and voted that the church was not in danger, and addressed the queen to punish the authors of the scandalous reports, and publications, which were then forced into circulation. Bishop Burnet gives the following account of what passed in parliament on that occasion:

"On the day appointed we were all made to believe, that we should hear many frightful things; but our expectations were not answered; some spoke of danger from the presbytery, that was settled in Scotland; some spoke of the absence of the next successor; some reflected on the occasional Bill, that was rejected in that House, &c.

" In opposition to all this it was said, that the church was safer now than ever it had been: The toleration had softened the temper of the dissenters and they concurred zealously in serving all the ends of the government, &c.—In one respect it was acknowledged the church was in danger; there was an evil spirit and virulent temper spread among the clergy: there were many indecent sermons preached on public occasions. This was a danger created by those very men, who filled the nation with an outcry against imaginary ones, whilst their own conduct produced real and threatening dangers."*

This state of things every unprejudiced mind must allow to be extremely applicable to the present day; may it be deeply reflected upon, and produce its proper influence in causing those to repent, who have been so forward in calling into action the worst and most dangerous passions of mankind.

The observations, which had been made by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke) in regard to marriages, are not correct; for no difficulty-whatever prevails in Ireland, in consequence of the mixed religions of that country. To prove this it will be sufficient to quote the Statement of the Penal Laws; to this work, as one of high legal and practical authority, on such a point, no objection can be made, whatever some persons may think proper to say, in regard to its general political character.

The author of it says,—" The marriage of Catholics by Catholic priests have never been prohibited or restrained in Ireland; they have been always recognized in courts of justice as perfectly valid; in those cases, where the actual fact of the marriage of two Catholics is necessary to be established, proof of its solemnization by a Catholic priest is held to be sufficient."—" The marriage code of Ireland is perfectly clear and intelligible."

The same right hon. gentleman has dwelt very much on the great influence, which the Pope now possesses. But it is rather unfortunate for his argument that * See the new Parliamentary History of England, vol. 6, p. 516. the first part of his case consisted in the strongest possible proof of his weakness; his captivity, by Buonaparté, without any remonstrance on the part of a single Catholic country in Europe. The right hon. member mentioned what occurred in 1791, in respect to the oath, contained in the act, passed in that year, for the relief of the English Roman Catholics, as evidence of his influence in this country; but his whole statement on that subject, has been shewn to be incorrect, by the hon. baronet, whose explanation, in a note to his printed speech of last year,* and repeated again in this debate, ought to lay at rest, for ever, the charge, which is manufactured against the Catholics, and confidently urged and re-urged against them out of this transaction.—The next proof of the right hon. member, of the modern influence of the Pope, is equally void of foundation. He has said that the Irish Catholic bishops were induced, by the Pope, to make the Irish Catholic laity enemies to the Veto—a more incorrect opinion never was formed.—It is notorious that the opposition to the Veto began among the laity, and that the bishops were induced by them, to suspend their own judgment on the subject, as formerly expressed in their resolutions of 1799.

In regard to the obnoxious tenets which are still imputed to the Catholics, it would save a great deal of time and controversy, if the House were to decide, by a preliminary question, on some rule of evidence by which the enquiry should be governed; whether scraps of pamphlets, paragraphs of newspapers, and assertions of individuals, are to be preferred to the writings of eminent Catholic divines,—the resolutions of the Irish bishops,—the opinions of Popes, the answers of the six Foreign Universities, and the oaths required to be taken, and actually taken, by all Catholics, by the acts of 1773, 1791, and 1793.—If the House should, in its wisdom, declare that the testimony of the first series of proofs is preferable to the latter, then the Catholics may give up the contest, and submit to their fate; but if it shall determine on those principles of common sense and justice, which usually govern its judgment, the controversy about their tenets must cease, and, so far as the religious principles of the Catholics are in question, it must be allowed that there is nothing in them incompatible with those principles * See Vol. 22, p. 770. of liberty and loyalty, which are necessary for the preservation of our constitution.

As, however, no such preliminary arrangement has been made, and as these obnoxious tenets are, even to this hour, industriously ascribed to the Catholics, it is still necessary to produce further matter to disprove them, in addition to that, which has already been urged in this debate. It is true, a learned and right hon. doctor who has just left the House, has not, nor has any other member, stated what he asserted against the Catholics last year, that the Irish bishops took an oath of fealty to the Pope; but this fact is repeated in lord Kenyon's recent publication—" Observations on the Roman Catholic Question:"* a publication formed out of the speeches of the learned doctor. It therefore becomes necessary to repeat, what was said, on this point, last year, by the hon. baronet, to set this head of charge to rest, namely, that the oath has been altered, and the oath, used in Russia, adopted in place of that oath, to which the observations of the learned doctor and noble lord are, if at all, applicable. As the alteration took place with the consent of Pius the 6th in the year 1791, it bespeaks a strong inclination on the part of the learned doctor and noble lord, not to be very nice in their selection of instruments for opposing the Catholic claims. The new oath concludes with these words,—" I will observe all and every one of these things the more inviolably, as I am firmly convinced that there is nothing contained in them, which can be contrary to the fidelity I own to his most serene highness the king of Great Britain and Ireland, and to his successors on the throne."

As to the charge, so often, so loudly, and so confidently brought against the Catholics, of their great intolerance, and which is founded on their doctrine of exclusive salvation, whoever has taken the trouble of examining the true character and meaning of this doctrine, will allow it is a charge altogether devoid of foundation. In justification of this charge, the Catholics are able to say, all the reformed churches lay down the same principle. Calvin writes (64 Inst. c. 1,) "Extra ecclesiæ gremium nulla est speranda pectatorum remissio nec ulla salus." The same doctrine is taught in the profession of faith of Strasbourg, presented to Charles * Fourth Edition, published by J. J. Stockdale, Pall Mall. 5 in 1530; in that of Switzerland in 1566; in that of the Low Countries; and in that of Scotland in 1647. It is also to be found in the 18th of the 39 Articles, which is as follows:—" They are also to be held accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the right of nature. For holy scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby man must be saved."—Moreover the church of England openly professes the same doctrine, as often as, in her service, she recites the Athanasian creed, which concludes in these words:" This is the Catholic faith, which whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe, he cannot be saved."

But the Catholics do not rest their defence against this charge, barely upon the practice of the reformed churches, but deny the inference of intolerance as not justly belonging to their avowal of this general principle. To maintain this, Dr. Hawarden published a work entitled, "Charity and Truth, or Catholics not uncharitable in saying that none are saved out of the Catholic Church."—He gives the following quotation from the great authority of St. Augustine.

" If they, who hold an opinion in itself false and perverse, maintain it with no pertinacious obstinacy; if they have not been misled by their own presumptuous audacity, but have received their error from seduced or lapsed parents; if they be serious and diligent enquirers after truth, and manifest a disposition to yield to it, when found by them, such persons are on no account to be set down as heretics."

In a word, it may be collected from this and all other writers, that the Roman Catholic holds, that every person is received within its pale by baptism, by whomsoever administered:—That involuntary error is not exclusive; and that the church has its concealed children in the sects separate from its unity.

If any thing farther be wanting to repel the charge of intolerance brought against the Catholics, it may be found in this historical fact. When the Bill, for readmitting the Protestant bishops into the House of Lords, was before that House in 1641, 26Cathofic peers voted for it.

The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke), wholly overlooking what had been said by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grattan) in his speech, in support of his motion, re- garding the Class-book of Maynooth, called the Tractatus de Ecclesiâ, has quoted the last sentence of that work, from the late Mr. Perceval's speech of last year, to shew that the students of Maynooth are, at this day, taught all those obnoxious tenets, which are ascribed to the Catholics. But; if the right hon. gentleman had taken the pains, which it was becoming him to take, before he hazarded such an assertion, to inform himself on this point, he might have learned, from a note to the printed speech of the hon. baronet (sir J. C. Hippisley) of last session, that, upon an explanation which took place between him and Mr. Perceval, the latter acknowledged he had made a hast) reference to this work, and that it taught the students of Maynooth such opinions, in respect to these tenets, as were perfectly satisfactory.* This will appear to be the case to every one who reads this book; as, also, that it is a book, in every respect, eminently calculated to instruct those who are intended for holy orders, in a manner most likely to render them useful clergymen and loyal subjects.

But though the opponents of the Catholics fail in this instance, as well as in every other, wherein they endeavour to shew that they still are bound not to keep faith with heretics, and that they acknowledge the Pope to possess the power of absolving subjects from their allegiance, of deposing princes, and are wholly unable to support their cause, the Catholics have not remained satisfied to do no more than merely expose the objections of their enemies; but have left no means untried for removing the many errors and prejudices which have been, at all times, so prevalent concerning the principles they really do profess. For this purpose, they have assented to, and taken, as a qualification for each civil right, which they enjoy, the; oaths that have been read by the right hon. mover (Mr. Grattan). For this purpose, the answers, which he also read, of six Foreign Universities, to certain queries proposed to them, were obtained; and, for the same purpose, has that part been written of the Roman Catholic Prayer-book which he referred to. But, besides these proofs that they do not profess the, obnoxious tenets ascribed to them, there are many others equally conclusive. The Catholic writer Gother, to whose great character the late Dr. Law, bishop of El- * See Vol. 22, p. 773. phin has borne testimony, in order to remove the prejudices of Protestants, published a work, entitled:

" A Vindication of the Roman Catholics:—as also, their Declaration, Affirmation, Commination; shewing their abhorrence of the following tenets, commonly laid at their door; and they here oblige themselves, that if the ensuing Curses be added to those appointed to be read on the first day of Lent, they will seriously and heartily answer Amen to them all:—

  1. 1. "Cursed is he that commits idolatry; that prays to images or relics, or worships them for God. R. Amen.
  2. 2. "Cursed is every goddess-worshipper, that believes the Virgin Mary to be any more than a creature; that honours her, worships her, or puts his trust in her more than in God; that believes her above her Son, or that she can in any thing command him. R. Amen.
  3. 3. "Cursed is he that believes the saints in heaven to be his Redeemers, that prays to them as such, or that gives God's honour to them, or to any creature whatsoever. R. Amen.
  4. . 4. "Cursed is he that worships any breaden God, or makes Gods of the empty elements of bread and wine. R. Amen.
  5. 5. "Cursed is he that believes priests can forgive sins, whether the sinner repent or not; or that there is any power in earth or heaven that can forgive sins, without a hearty repentance and serious purpose of amendment. R. Amen.
  6. 6." Cursed is he that believes there is authority in the Pope or any others, that can give leave to commit sins: or that can forgive him his sins for a sum of money; R. Amen.
  7. 7. "Cursed is he that believes that, independent of the merits and passion of Christ, he can merit salvation by" his own good works; or make condign satisfaction for the guilt of his sins, or the pains eternal due to them. R. Amen.
  8. 8. "Cursed is he that contemns the word of God, or hides it from the people, on design to keep them from the knowledge of their duty, and to preserve them in ignorance and error. R. Amen.
  9. 9. "Cursed is he that undervalues the word of God, or that, forsaking Scripture, chuses rather to follow human traditions than it. R. Amen.
  10. 10. "Cursed is he that leaves the commandments of God, to observe the constitutions of men. R. Amen.
  11. 11. "Cursed is he that omits any of 996 the Ten Commandments, or keeps the people from the knowledge of any one of them, to the end that they may not have occasion of discovering the truth. R. Amen.
  12. 12. "Cursed is he that preaches to the people in unknown tongues, such as they understand not; or uses any other means to keep them in ignorance. R. Amen.
  13. 13. "Cursed is he that believes that the Pope can give to any, upon any ac count whatsoever, dispensation to be or swear falsely; or that it is lawful for any, at the last hour, to protest himself innocent in case he be guilty. R. Amen.
  14. 14. "Cursed is he that encourages sins, or teaches men to defer the amendment of their lives, on presumption of their deathbed repentance. R. Amen.
  15. 15. "Cursed is he that teaches men that they may be lawfully drunk on a Friday, or any other fasting day, though they must not take the least bit of flesh. R. Amen.
  16. 16. "Cursed is he who places religion in nothing but a pompous shew, consisting only in ceremonies; and which leaches not the people to serve God in spirit and truth. R. Amen.
  17. 17. "Cursed is he who loves or promotes cruelty, that teaches people to be bloody-minded, and to lay aside the meekness of Jesus Christ. R. Amen.
  18. 18. "Cursed is he who teaches it lawful to do any wicked thing, though it be for the interest and good of Mother Church: or that any evil action may be done that good may come of it. R. Amen.
  19. 19. "Cursed are we, if, amongst all these wicked principles and damnable doctrines commonly laid at our doors, any one of them be the faith of our Church: and cursed are we, if we do not as heartily detest all those hellish practices as they that so vehemently urge them against us. R. Amen.
  20. 20. "Cursed are we, if, in answering and saying Amen to any of these curses, we use any equivocations, mental reservations, or do not assent to them in the common and obvious sense of the words. R. Amen.
" And can the Papists then, thus seriously, and without check of conscience, say Amen to all these curses?

" Yes, they can; and are ready to do it when so ever, and as often as it shall be required of them. And what then is to be said of those who, either by word or writing, charge these doctrines upon the faith of the church of Rome. 'Is a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets? are they ail gone aside? do they back-bite with their tongues, do evil to their neighbour, and take up reproach against 'their neighbour? I will say no such thing, but leave the impartial considerer to judge. One thing I can safely affirm, that the Papists are foully misrepresented, and shewn in public as much unlike what they are, as the Christians were of old by the Gentiles; that they he under a great calumny, and severely smart in good name, persons, and estates, for such things which they as much and as heartily detest as those who accuse them. But the comfort is, Christ has said to his followers, Ye shall be hated of all men' (Matth. x. 22.), and St. Paul, 'We are made a spectacle 'unto the world;' and we do not doubt, that he who bears this with patience, shall, for every loss here and contempt receive a hundred fold in heaven: For base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen'. 1 Cor. i. 28.

"As for problematical disputes, or errors of particular devices, in this, or any other matter whatsoever, the Catholic church is no way responsible for them: nor are Catholics, as Catholics, justly punishable on their account. But,

"As for the king-killing doctrine, or murder of princes, excommunicated for heresy: it is an article of faith in the Catholic church, and expressly declared in the General Council of Constance, sess. 15, that such doctrine is damnable and heretical, being contrary to the known laws of God, and Nature.

"Personal misdemeanors, of what nature so ever, ought not to be imputed to the Catholic church, when not justifiable by the tenets of her faith and doctrine. For which reason, though the stories of Paris Massacre, the Irish Cruelties, or Powder-Plot, had been exactly true (which yet, for the most part, are misrelated), nevertheless, Catholics, as Catholics, ought not to suffer for such offences, any more than the eleven apostles ought to have suffered for Judas's treachery.

" It is an article of the Catholic faith to believe, that no power on earth can licence men to lie, forswear, and perjure themselves, to massacre their neighbours, or destroy their native country, on pretence of promoting the Catholic cause, or religion. Furthermore, all pardons and dispensations granted, or pretended to be granted, in order to any such ends or de- signs, have no other validity or effect, than to add sacrilege and blasphemy to the above-mentioned crimes.

" Sweet Jesus, bless our sovereigns; pardon our enemies; grant us patience; and establish peace and charity in our nations."

Mr. Perceval, in his last speech on this subject, observed that, if the Catholics did really abjure these tenets, it was extraordinary that the Irish bishops had never formally denied them, when assembled at a regular synod. They have since completely met this objection, by their resolution of the 18th of last November, declaring, "that although the substance of the answers returned by six Roman Catholic universities, relative to the duties of subjects, in the years 1788 and 1789, is manifestly contained in the oath of allegiance and declaration which we have solemnly sworn, we think it nevertheless fitting to declare that we consider those answers as perfectly conformable to the doctrine and tenets of our religion, and we adopt them as our own."

Mr. Perceval also said, it was surprising that none of the Popes had disclaimed these tenets; but in this he was mistaken, as will appear from the following extract from a letter from the congregation of Cardinals, by order of his holiness Pius 6, addressed to the Roman Catholic archbishops of Ireland, dated Rome, 23d June, 1791.—" The see of Rome never taught, that faith is not to be kept with the heterodox; that an oath to kings separated from Catholic communion can be violated; that it is lawful for the bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights and dominions. We, too, consider an attempt or design against the life of kings and princes, even under the pretext of religion, an horrid and detestable crime."

Should these several proofs be deemed insufficient to shew that the principles of Catholics are compatible with loyalty to the state, there still remains another illustration that they are not so, of no small force, the Act of 1793, of which this is the preamble: "Whereas various acts of parliament have been passed, imposing on his Majesty's subjects professing the Popish or Roman Catholic religion many restraints and disabilities to which other subjects of this realm are not liable, and from the peaceable and loyal demeanour of his Majesty's Popish or Roman Catholic subjects it is fit that such restraints and disabilities shall be discontinued." Here there is a legislative acknowledgment of the truth of the position, that there is nothing in the religious principles of the Catholics incompatible with their loyalty. Here in truth is a solution of the question, under the highest possible authority, of some years standing, which ought to have put it to rest for ever; and which proves that, so far from there being any just grounds for charging obnoxious tenets to the Catholics, there are none whatever even for raising a controversy about them.

The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke), and the greater part of the petitioners, assert that the exclusion of the Catholics from political power, is a fundamental principle of the constitution, as settled at the Revolution in defiance of all that we learn, from the history of that event, the Bill of Rights, and all the greatest constitutional authorities. The bishop of Lincoln has quoted Mr. Fox in support of this doctrine; but all Mr. Fox's speeches clearly prove that his opinion was decidedly at variance with it. The following extracts from the speech, which he delivered in this House when he introduced the Catholic petition in 1305, fully establish this fact.*

"I think one may generally state, that all the restrictions of the Catholics were laid, not on their religious, but their political opinions.

" In the early period of the reign of queen Elizabeth, no one can suppose it was any particular religious bigotry that led to the restrictions with regard to the Catholics.

" In the reigns that followed, very few restrictions by penal law were enacted. This may be accounted for from the circumstance that there was no suspicion of the Catholics; but afterwards, in the time of the Stuarts, suspicions had taken possession of the minds of the people of this country, which made these restrictions necessary. When we come to the Revolution, it is impossible not to see that all the laws against the Catholics were political laws. It was not a Catholic, but a Jacobite you wished to restrain.

" 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."

To this authority may be added that of Mr. Justice Blackstone. He says, in his * See Vol. 4, p. 830. account of the penal laws against the Catholics, "they are rather to be accounted for from their history, and the urgency of the times which produced them, than to be approved (upon a cool review) as a standing system of law.

"The wishes for the succession of the queen of Scots,—the Powder Treason,—the intrigues of queen Henrietta,—the prospect of a Popish succesion in the reign of Charles 2,—the Assassination Plot in William 3,—the avowed claim of a Popish pretender,—account for the extension of those penalties at those several periods of our history. But if a time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant, when all fears of a pretender shall have vanished, and the power and influence of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despicable, not only in England, but in every kingdom of Europe, it probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these rigorous edicts; at least till the civil principles of the Roman Catholics called again on the legislature to renew them; for it ought not to be left in the breast of every merciless bigot to drag down the vengeance of these occasional laws upon inoffensive, though mistaken subjects, in opposition to the lenient inclination of the civil magistrate, and to the destruction of every principle of toleration and religious liberty."—(Vol. 4, p. 57)

De Lolme, also, in observing upon the Catholic religion in the time of James 2, says, it was a mode of faith which repeated acts had proscribed. "Proscribed, not because, it tended to establish in England the doctrines of transubstantation and purgatory, doctrines in themselves of no political moment, but because the unlimited power of the sovereign had always been made one of its principal tenets."—(P. 55.)

And Justice Blackstone, in summing up what actually took place in consequence of the Revolution, says, "formerly the descent was absolute, and the crown went to the next heir without restriction, but now, upon the new settlement, the inheritance is conditional."—(Vol. 1, p. 217.)

He further says, "the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, with its conditions, the Act for uniting England with Scotland, and some others, have asserted our liberties, in more clear and emphatical terms; have regulated the succession of the crown by parliament, as the exigencies of reli- gious and civil freedom required, have confirmed and exemplified the doctrine of resistance, when the executive magistrate endeavours to subvert the constitution."—(Vol. 4, p. 44.)

These opinions of such great constitutional authorities, fully expose the errors, which have been so loudly and so industriously promulgated, in respect to the nature of those laws, which exclude the Catholics from office, and from the legislature. They all agree in shewing that the political, and not the religious principles, were the grounds of that exclusion, and that it never was the intention of our ancestors, who were the authors of the exclusion, to continue them after the danger ceased, against which it was calculated to provide. But the Bill of Rights is a complete denial of all that is asserted by the opponents of the Catholics, in respect to what was done concerning them at the Revolution. It is only necessary to read it to discover their refutation.

There are contained in this Act, thirteen heads of complaint against king James, and thirteen clauses, declaratory of the rights and liberties of the people of England; but among them there is nothing whatever relative to the Catholics. The enactment concerning the oath of supremacy, has no other object than that of making such an alteration in the then existing oath, as would enable the Presbyterians to take it, which they could not do, according to their religion, so long as it declared the king of England to be supreme head of the church. By the new oath, they were only required to deny that a foreign power was the head of it. The only part, in fact, of this law, which relates to the Catholics, is that clause, which excludes a Catholic from silting on the throne. This is the only enactment of exclusion, and to say that this exclusion amounts to a general exclusion of the Catholics from political power, is to rest the case on a mere inference. But if we are to make inferences from the Bill of Rights, it will be much more correct to say that the authors of it would have inserted a positive exclusion of the Catholics from office, and from the legislature, if they had considered it essential and fundamental for the preservation of the constitution.

It is worthy of remark, in order more fully to illustrate the futility of those arguments, which are set forth, with an attempt to prove this exclusion to be a fun- damental principle of the safety of the church and constitution, that king William was not a member of the church of England,—that the House of Brunswick was not brought into the succession to the throne at the Revolution, but in the 12th year of the reign of king William,—that the English Catholics were not excluded from office and the legislature at the Revolution, but in the reign of Charles the second,—and that the Irish Catholics were not excluded till three years after the Revolution had taken place, and then in direct contravention of the treaty of Limerick, by which king William engaged to protect them from any such exclusion.

In support of what has already been said to shew that the concessions to the Catholics will not be a violation of the constitution, the great authorities of Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Windham may be quoted. These names have already been mentioned in this debate, but the particular point, to which their great authority is most useful and applicable, is this, concerning the constitution. For it is not to be supposed, for one moment, that they could have been ignorant of the bearings of this question on the constitution; or that they ever would have sanctioned the Catholic cause if Catholic emancipation could not be effected without removing the bulwarks of the constitution.

If then there is nothing in the religious principles of the Catholics, incompatible with their loyalty, and if the laws for excluding them from office and from the legislature were grounded, according to Mr. Justice Blackstone, De Lolme, and Mr. Fox, upon their civil principles, the whole and only question to be decided is, whether there is any thing in the civil principles, at this time, professed by the Catholics, to justify the continuance of these laws.

Can any one now say they are the friends of a pretender, or the advocates of arbitrary power? Such a charge has not been brought forward in the course of the debate; but a new attempt is made to discover, in the political conduct of the Catholics, a plea for continuing the exclusion. The bishop of London and others have called the rebellion of 1798 a Catholic rebellion. But what is the true character of that transaction? The report of the Committee of the Irish parliament, drawn up by the noble lord (Castlereagh) shews, that if it had began in 1797, as once intended, it would have been a rebellion confined to the Protestants of the north of Ireland. That the Catholics, who were concerned in it in 1798, were such of the peasantry who had been brought into it, by the northern and Protestant leaders. That the Catholic nobility, gentry, and clergy cooperated with the government in suppressing it. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Elliot) who was in the Irish cabinet at the time, has, on a former occasion, borne witness to the loyal and essential services of all the Catholic bishops, and it is now ascertained that not one Catholic priest, having a benefice, was implicated in it, and that out of nearly 3,000 priests, who administer the Catholic religion in Ireland, nine only were engaged in the rebellion, all of whom had been previously censured or punished for misconduct, by the superiors of their own church.

Of the twenty-four leaders, who were banished to Fort St. George, only four of them were Catholics. But what is still more decisive on this point, Mr. Pitt, who must have been the best qualified of all persons to give a correct opinion, has declared, in his place, in this House, that the rebellion of 1798 was not a Catholic rebellion.

The Catholics are not afraid of having their whole conduct inquired into. They have faithfully fulfilled what they bound themselves to do by the treaty of Limerick. In 1715 and 1745 they fully proved that they had renounced those principles, which formerly had Jed them to support the family of the Stuarts. There is the evidence of primate Stone, to shew that, in the papers, which fell into the hands of government, relating to the rebellion of 1745, there was no trace to be found of a single Irish Catholic being, in anywise concerned in it.—In the American war, when all the King's troops were withdrawn from Ireland, and a French invasion was threatened, the Catholics again stood by the cause of their country and the House of Brunswick. What a contrast does their conduct form, since the treaty of Limerick, to that of king William and his successors!!! On their part the steadiest compliance with their engagements; on the other side a succession of violations of the royal faith, till that most horrible code of laws was completed, which deprived the Catholics of every personal and political security. These violations it has been attempted to justify, by saying that parliament would not ra- tify the treaty of Limerick. But the principles of the constitution of this country will admit of no such justification. The king has the undoubted prerogative of making peace, and binding his subjects to the terms of it, provided they do not violate any existing law. For which reason, every king, who has sat on the throne, from the reign of king William to the present day, has been, and ought so to consider himself, bound to make good, to the Catholics, all that was stipulated by him.

Upon the whole it seems to be a just conclusion to draw, from a fair examination of the allegations of the petitions, and what has passed in this debate, that there is nothing, in the religious principles of the Catholics, incompatible with civil liberty; nothing, in the concession of their claims, inconsistent with the security of the constitution, but every thing, that can be desired, on their part, demonstrative of their loyalty to their country and their king, and therefore that the House is called on, by every principle of justice, to adopt the motion which is now before it.

Mr. Wilbraham Bootle

would not have offered his sentiments, had there not been a call on those members who voted last year for the committee, and who did not intend to do so this year. He had voted for Mr. Canning's motion in the hope and expectation that the spirit of conciliation and concession shewn by the House would have been met by a corresponding spirit on the part of the Catholics of Ireland, which would have led to the conciliatory adjustment which was the object of the motion, but in this expectation he, in common with many others, was disappointed, for the account of the debate was received in Ireland as an insult instead of an act of grace, and was treated as such.

But what (he asked) is a committee of the whole House to do under such circumstances, and avowedly without any plan before it? It seemed to have escaped the recollection of gentlemen who supported this panacea for all evils, that a committee would be composed of the very same individuals who had been for the last three days discussing the question without being able to produce a plan. It is true that in a committee members might speak more than once, but where they had nothing to propose he doubted this advantage, and at all events it was counterbalanced by their not having the Speaker in the chair to regulate and moderate their debates.

He asked again, what benefit would the Roman Catholics derive from a committee of the whole House under these circumstances? Those who wish to go all lengths and to abolish all tests, without caring for securities, had a straight and plain way before them; but what would those members do who were advocates for restrictions and safeguards? The right hon. and venerable mover of the question had said that the Veto was out of the question, and professed to have no plan. Some hints had been given about domestic nomination, which though a principle acknowledged and acted upon in various countries, and amongst them in Canada, was certainly a greater infringement on the right of the Papal see than even a Veto.

Some persons were sanguine enough to believe that if the Catholics were placed between conscience and power, the former would give way, but he had too good an opinion of them to think that love of office would so prevail. The English Roman Catholics are too well principled a body of men to barter their consciences for lucre of gain, and they have declared it in their petition, from which there is no reason to believe they will recede. He did not see the analogy which had been mentioned between the Sinecure Bill and this measure, for this (at least in the present session) originates in the petition of persons who require relief, and bring forward specific demands and objects. These demands it seems are not to be complied with, but are to be so modified and clogged with restrictions and securities, as to render the relief unacceptable to, and deprecated by, the very persons who are the object of this relief. He here read extracts from the petitions of the Roman Catholics, of which he spoke in terms of commendation as being most properly expressed, which shewed they prayed for the total repeal of all disabilities.

A committee of the whole House, he said, appeared to him a cowardly way of solving the difficulty and of shifting off responsibility from the shoulders of individuals on those of the whole House. As an instance how ill-calculated such a committee was for a measure not maturely considered and prepared, he cited an observation of a late eminent statesman, who said that no member ever moved for a committee of the whole House intending that his motion-should be carried. He would prefer the more manly plan adopted by lord Howick in 1807, that of bringing in a bill. The House would then know what it had to consider, and the various stages of a bill, with its commitments and recommitments, would afford opportunities of knowing what we were about.

He added, that if any arrangement could be made to conciliate the Catholics, to whom (the English ones) he was attached by every tie of friendship, regard, and good opinion, without endangering the security of the Protestant establishment, no one would feel more sincere pleasure than himself, or more heartily desirous of giving his warmest concurrence.

Sir William Scott

Sir; it is always with great reluctance, and not unfrequently with some degree of personal pain, that I obtrude myself upon the notice of the House; but the importance of the present question, and the connexion, which I have, with those who have expressed a strong feeling about the decision of it, induce me to hope that the House will think me entitled to claim some portion of their attention.

Sir, if I could agree in opinion with a right hon. gentleman, (Mr. Plunket,) who distinguished himself, by a speech, not more to be admired as an exhibition of talents, than for the honourable and manly candour, by which it was still further dignified and adorned, that, if there was no danger in relaxing the present restraints, I should likewise agree that they ought immediately to be relaxed; for I am very ready to admit, that eligibility to public offices and seats in the legislature, (call it a right, or a pretension, or what you please) ought not to be abridged without necessity; and when I say necessity, I mean a grave necessity, arising from apprehensions of danger, not chimerical and visionary apprehensions, but such as may affect men of firm and constant minds, of danger to some interests of the state, which are deservedly held dear and important. And when I describe the interests of the church of England and Ireland to be of that species and magnitude, I presume, I express, with very few exceptions, the universal sense and feeling of this House. But, Sir, I cannot agree to this position of fact, that there is no rational apprehension of any danger, direct or indirect, to the established church, from any relaxation of these restraints. I do not mean to say, that the admission of Catholics to some of the offices, from which they are at present excluded by law, does not furnish a reasonable ground of apprehension; in my humble opinion, our present exclusive enumeration of offices is too large; and that some of those offices into which at present they are told they must not intrude, are offices to which their ambition might safely enough be allowed to aspire. But then I say, first, that, if any man has such offices in his view, with an intention of offering fair relief, so far as such offices are concerned, he ought to bring them forward, not as an appointment of a committee for general undefined grievances, but in particular bills in which they shall be submitted to fair and distinct and specific consideration; and I say further, that no admission can, with any degree of safety to the interests I have described, be given to offices, which are either judicial, with a jurisdiction extending to ecclesiastical questions, or to such as convey, to the person who holds them, a great portion of political power. For these are the two principles, within the range of which, I conceive the danger, and the necessity of providing against it, to be bounded. The office of the common law for instance, is one from which a Catholic ought to be excluded. And, why? Because a person, in that situation, has to decide most important questions, intimately connected with the safety of the Protestant establishment, of religious questions, of rights of advowsons, presentations, tythes, offerings, modusses, church rates and a thousand others; and I would ask that hon. gentleman, whether, if he had a son or a brother in the church, he would, with his experience of mankind, think that his son or brother would confidently trust a Catholic judge, sitting to decide many of such questions, between the Protestant clergyman and the Catholic parishioners; and whether there would not be that distrust, and suspicion of an improper bias, which might disturb the fair course of justice, even if that suspicion and distrust were not itself an evil, which is the duty of prudent institutions entirely to remove, by removing their natural causes. So with respect to the office of privy counsellor, who has to advise the sovereign in matters of religion, which are then matters of state, in some degree, though, in a still higher degree, matters of conscience. All the same objections apply to the office of chancellor in a much higher degree, and with the addition of his being the constitutional guardian of the royal conscience, in affairs of this nature, as well as in those of a merely civil description.

With respect to political power, I am not afraid to avow that it appears unsafe to delegate, to Catholic hands, a large portion of Protestant power; for, by the constitution of this country, as settled upon its present basis, political power is Protestant power. Sir, I cannot contemplate the admission of Catholic members into the senate, where they will have to decide upon questions, directly affecting the religion of the state, without some degree of uneasiness, indeed the right hon. member seemed to admit the existence of some danger, by the antidote, which he held out; for his reasoning was, What could one hundred members do against the body of the House? thereby appearing to admit, that danger would be introduced, but that it would be disarmed by the inferiority of their numbers; that the safety was to be found, not in their dispositions, but in their minority; that a certain degree of mischief would be infused, but that it would be diluted and rendered harmless, by the prevalence of the sounder particles, which form the general substance of the mass.

Sir, I am not quite clear that the right hon. member's arithmetic would, eventually, turn out to be correct. He will please to remember, that, if Irish Catholic gentlemen are admitted, English Catholic gentlemen cannot be excluded. Many of these are of ancient honourable families, and possessing great hereditary influence in the counties and boroughs where they reside. And if to these two descriptions of persons, you add those, who may bring into this House the opinion, much too fashionable in the world, that legislation has nothing to do with religion, and that the state has no right whatever to interpose at all, in the intercourse between the Creator and the convenience of man, I cannot think that the danger of the church is altogether so chimerical, as has been represented, or that the clergy are justly liable to the free observations which have been made upon them, for the anxiety they have ventured to express. Sir, I cannot avoid saying, that it is one of the most alarming signs of the times, that that venerable body has been, on this occasion, treated with a rudeness and disrespect which lam confident they have never before experienced, within these walls. Sir, that there should not be in Catholic minds, a spirit, which I am loth to call a spirit of hostility, but wish rather to describe as unfriendly to our Protestant establishments, it is impossible to conceive. Such a spirit is unavoidably produced by the fundamental principles of their faith, and the more sincere a man is in the entertainment of those principles, the more sincere must be his disinclination to the maintenance of those establishments. A man of common benevolence, really attached to the importance of that religion, must wish it to become the favoured religion of his country. He would act in contradiction, not only to his own theory, but to his own natural feelings, if he did not. Sir, those feelings have been expressed with but little reserve. I find a worthy baronet of great authority in that profession of faith, though, by some, represented as no friend to the higher claims of that church, expressing himself thus in a published pamphlet, "I shall expect, very seriously expect, when the subject has been more matured, to hear that the Irish bishops of the establishment, having since made over a portion of their revenues, for the decent maintenance of their Catholic brethren, are ready to make further proposals, and to agree to an alternate enjoyment, subject always to his Majesty's choice, of dignities and emoluments." Is this no language of hostility to the present establishments of the country If such views and expectations are now avowed, what are we to look for when they are advanced further to the consummation of their wishes? If these things are done in the green leaf, what will be done in the dry? Sir, I cannot but think that sentiments of this unfriendly kind are most heartily entertained in Ireland; and for this reason, that the Catholic religion is truly more Catholic in that country than in any other Catholic country, and this again, for an obvious reason. In most Catholic countries the doctrines of the church of Rome come softened and ameliorated, through the strainers, if I may so call them, of the civil government. The civil government is a sort of middle term; and the people, having a confidence in the religion of their government, which is in communion with the Church of Rome, range themselves on the side of their civil government, whenever it comes into hostilities with the pontiff. Before the Reformation, this country did so, universally, in the conflicts, which led to the statutes of provisors, præmunires, and others of that kind so in France, the li- berties of the Gailican Church against the Pope, have always been popular in that country. So in the matters of concordats, even in Spain itself. But in Ireland there is no such middle term. The Pope is the direct head of the Irish Church; in close and immediate contact with it, without any communication through the state, which, being Protestant, has none of the confidence of the people, in any transactions it may have with the Pope. They regard, with extreme jealousy, every attempt of their civil government to oppose his authority. His dogmas, therefore, naturally direct the opinions of the Catholic Church of Ireland, in a much more unqualified way than those of other national churches. The question then comes, what are the opinions of the pontiff upon this matter of Protestant establishments?

Sir, upon this point I shall not travel back to ancient, and, as they are represented, antiquated authorities; I will use no other than the declarations of the present Pope, delivered in the most solemn manner, and upon the most serious occasions, within these four or five years. I find, in the interesting account given of the transactions of the Pope, under the usurpations of Buonaparté declarations of the Pope, given in pastoral instruction to this effect: "The system of indifferentism which does not in truth suppose any religion, is that which is most injurious and opposite to the Catholic religion, which, because it is divine, is necessarily sole and unique, and for that reason cannot make an alliance with any other, just as Christ cannot ally himself with Belial, light with darkness, truth with error, or true piety with impiety." Pastoral Instructor, 22d May, 1808.—So again, "We reject that all religions should be free and publicly exercised, as contrary to the canons and councils, the Catholic religion, the tranquillity of life, and the good of the state." Page 45.—So again, "The protection, much boasted of, for different worships, is only a pretext and a colour to authorise the secular power to meddle in things spiritual, since, in shewing respect for all sects, with all their opinions, customs, and superstitions, a government does not respect, in effect, any right, any institution, any law of the Catholic church. Under such protection, is concealed a persecution, the most crafty and dangerous which can be exercised against the religion of Jesus Christ.—He does not love or understand our most holy religion, out of which there is no hope of salvation, who does not revolt at such an order of things."—These are the opinions of the supreme head of the church, upon the mere toleration of other worships. If so, what must be his opinions of a state of things, in which another worship is dominant, and the Catholic faith is in a state of depression? Do I misrepresent the opinion when I say it can be no other than this, that such a state is an inverted and unnatural state, which cannot continue without endangering the salvation of the country where it exists?

Is there any reason to suppose that the Catholic church of Ireland dissents from the opinions of the see of Rome, upon a subject so interesting to their common feelings? I am sure I do not misrepresent the prelates of that church, when I describe them to be faithful disciples and votaries of that see, and most conscientious in their adherence to its tenets—and most singular it would be, if they deserted it, upon a point which is so immediately connected with their own personal interests of every species. It is quite impossible that they, of all men, should be better satisfied than the Pope himself is, with the Protestant ascendancy and with the comparative depression of their own church where they live! But it is intimated that the Catholic laity hold no such opinions. In the first place, I look in vain for the evidence of that fact. In the second place, there may be, I believe, some more philosophical spirits, who entertain other opinions, but who are charged, in the suspicions of their brethren, with departing from the strict rules of faith, and whose general opinions, upon these matters, I must say, I have always found extremely difficult to reconcile with the superficial notions of that faith, which I have been able to collect from any exposition of them; but, however that may be, I have not a doubt that the number of such persons is comparatively small, and that the general body of the faithful would follow their pastors upon such subjects. It is a remark of that profound observer, who has been stiled the chancellor of human nature, lord Clarendon, that any agreement which you may make with that class of men, will signify little, unless it is followed by the approbation of their clergy.

Sir, in this state of opinions, I cannot but think there is great hazard in arming such persons with the authority belonging to many of the situations, from which they are now excluded. Their opinions unavoidably exclude them. It is a very simple, and, I should have thought, a very inoffensive proposition. "We cannot invest you with power which, we think, will be employed injuriously to interests we hold dear and sacred, but which you hold mischievous and intolerable. We lament the necessity, but we are compelled to act upon the common principle of self-preservation. We are sorry to exclude persons, whose talents might be otherwise useful, and whose ambition, on their part, is fair, but whose talents and ambition would be fatal to our favourite establishments—and this without any crime on their part; without any other conduct, than such as would be directed by their own moral and religious conscience."

Sir, it is a fallacy which runs through the whole of this discipline, that we are imputing crime or imposing punishment—neither the one nor the other. The measure we take is not one of criminating penalties; it is a mere measure of self-defence, against opinions and inclinations, which we do not presume to censure, because they do not proceed from any depravation of mind, but which we must guard against, because they import danger to interests, which we cannot suffer to be disturbed.

Sir, it is no more than a defensive precaution, which I am equally inclined to allow to Catholics against Protestants, for the protection of their religion. It always appeared to me that the appointment of Mr. Neckar, under the royal government of France, was as impolitic as it was unconstitutional—that it weakened the frame of that government, and tended, amongst many other causes, to produce those calamities, which have since spread themselves over every part of civilized Europe.

Sir, it appeared to me that the right hon. gentleman answered his own question,—where was the danger directly or indirectly? When he admitted, as he did, most candidly and explicitly, that he must insist upon securities; and that, without securities, he was disposed to resist the application; for, if no danger, nor reasonable apprehension of danger, why call for securities? He likewise appeared to admit that the security of the present oath was not sufficient, for if it was, why call for other securities? for every unnecessary security required is a mere tyrannical imposition. Nothing could be more cor- rect than his opinion, that the security, afforded by the oath, was insufficient; not upon the ground that oaths will not bind Catholic consciences, (I make no such assertions) but because the oath cannot be construed so as to meet the apprehended danger. It cannot be so interpreted, with any fairness, so as to bind them to the defence of the established church, if they think it inexpedient and sinful, and are called upon, for instance, as senators, to pass a legislative opinion upon any question relating to it. The oath abjures any intention to subvert the Protestant religion at the time of taking it. The utmost effect, which can be given to that is, that it abjures all direct purpose, all plan or project at that time. But would he not be fully as much at liberty to vote, according to his own conscience, on such questions, as any other member of the House? Would he be guilty of perjury in the opinion of any then breathing, if he should vote honestly for the abolition of Protestant episcopacy, when such a question was brought before him, and his own conscientious opinion directed the vote he gave. Sir, I take this to be as independent a member, in spite of his oath, as any other member of the House. If so, you leave him, in the spite of the oath, to the operation of every principle and prejudice which has taken possession of his mind. And, in that state of things, what are you to expect but a Catholic vote, upon a Protestant subject? Remember the memorable declaration of the earl of Bristol, in the House of Lords, upon the passing of the Test Act.—" Upon the whole matter, my lords, however the sentiments of a Catholic of the church of Rome may oblige me, upon scruple of conscience, in some particulars of this Bill to give my negative to it, when it comes to passing; yet as a member of a Protestant parliament my advice cannot but go along with the main scope of it.*" Here is the natural working of the religious conscience of the Catholic against the prudential and political conscience.—The measure proclaimed to be right and fit, but the vote directed against it, because it tended to the safety of the Protestant establishments of the country, which, as a disciple of the church of Rome, he was bound religiously to discountenance. * See new Parliamentary History of England, vol. 4, p. 566. Sir, what are the securities proposed? 1st. The Veto, and 2d, the Domestic Nomination of Prelates. The Veto, after an apparent acceptance, has been rejected with abhorrence; and the domestic nomination with increased abhorrence. I remember incurring some degree of ridicule in this House, some years ago, for intimating that such would be its fate; for it always appeared to me more objectionable, if it is possible to extract any knowledge of Catholic principles from the ordinary sources of general information upon such subjects. It is certainly a greater violence to those principles to discard the Pope entirely, and to create an independent church, internally governed without him, than to admit his authority, controuled by some interference on the part of the civil sovereign. Take away the Pope, and you take away all the spiritual authority, which is merely derivative from him.—No bishops,—no priests,—no valid administration of sacraments. For all these offices and functions are emanations of that spiritual authority, which resides plenarily and fundamentally in him. To be sure, the last concordat with Buonaparté seems to imply some surrender of this sacred supremacy, for it expressly provides, "that if the Pope does not confer the investiture within a certain time, the metropolitan shall do it." This amounts to little less than an abdication of the papacy, and only proves that the spirit and firmness of that venerable person (for I wish to speak of him without disrespect) have at last sunk under his necessity and distresses. However this may be, both these professed securities were rejected by the Irish church, with horror, as contaminating the ark of God.

Sir, when I hear it said, (as I hear it repeatedly said) that these are the intemperate expressions of violent men, I look about in vain for any grave and public disclaimer of them—they appear to express the universal sentiment—the feelings of reverend prelates—no public body disclaims them—nobody protests against them. There is a profound silence on the other side, if any such side exists. If other sentiments are felt, why are they not expressed? Why compel us to presume an unanimity in the opinion so vociferously proclaimed, that, to require the securities, is insult and injury, and persecution?

These particular securities being out of the question, (supposing that their suffi- ciency was admitted) what others are prepared? I hear of none, and therefore am compelled to conclude, that if the thing is to take place, it must take place without any securities at all. It has been admitted by almost every gentleman, that, without reference to any other consideration, foreign influence, which is to be watched at all times, is to be guarded against; peculiarly, when the Pope is liable to be considered either as the captive or as the protégé of Buonapartéor, indeed, as, in different respects both; for he is his captive, as chained to a residence in France;—liber non est qui non potest ire quo vult; and yet he has been reinvested with some authority, some revenue, and is assured of particular protection, for the numerous wants of the church. It is impossible not to see that the Pontiff's power is Buonaparté's power; that his concordat will be Buonapartés concordat; in short, (hat he is not in a treatable condition. But if even that were not the case, there still remains the radical objection of a conscientious hostility to Protestant establishments. It is said, that no such apprehensions are entertained by other Protestant states. But they are no authorities upon the point. For, first, the Protestant religion is not deeply incorporated in their civil constitutions, if civil constitutions they have; most of them being despotic states, in which the prince has a ready corrective, in his own hand, for any inconvenience which may be apprehended. In the next place, the Roman Catholics do not bear the same formidable proportion of numbers. Here is a great country, the population of which, is described to be generally Catholic; at any rate, the Protestants are in a minority. If, to the advantage of such superior numbers, growing, as they have been described, in knowledge and in wealth, you add an equal access to power, how long will the equality subsist? Is it in nature that it should not be overthrown? You can meet the advantage of numbers, only by the advantage of the possession of power—by making the few govern the many; the actual footing on which all governments exist, whatever be the theory on which they are founded. But if the majority (so qualified) have power, in conjunction with numbers, it is very easy to foresee how the minority will be disposed of.

It is said, that all this assumes a principle of hostility, in Catholic minds, to Protestant establishments. Sir, if I could readily conceive the case of two great religious parties, equally and peaceably dividing the power of a great state, or engaging in struggles for it, with a total oblivion of their religious differences, I should be inclined to admit that no mischief might possibly follow. But I fear that that state of things is reserved for the times when the leopard is to be down with the lamb. Are we entitled to expects in his act that state of things from the past experience of that country? Is there a country, in which religious zeal has made more intemperate and more persevering struggles for the possession of power? Would these struggles be less violent and less persevering, when they advanced more to a footing of equality; when the party, which complained of depression, had advanced nearer to the completion of their wishes. Look at the experience of other countries. What was the result of the treaty of Oliva, in Poland? What was the result of the edict of Nantz, in France, celebrated as a master-piece of pacific policy? And both founded on principles of distribution of power. Did not parties become envenomed, struggles more acrimonious, till allayed, at last, by a return (though carried to most inordinate lengths) to that policy, which the practice of most nations has been content to adopt, of giving a decided ascendant to that religion, which it approves; and keeping its opponents, not in a degraded condition, but in that disarmed state, as to the possession of power, which is indispensably requisite for the preservation of that ascendancy. My humble, but confident opinion is, that the measure proposed, instead of being a measure of peace, will only sound the trumpet of religious and civil animosity.

Sir, what is the measure proposed to us, by the right hon. gentleman, as the result of the really profound wisdom, which he has applied, to the consideration of the subject? That we should pass an act, including the securities, which we think necessary to obtain; such act to be suspended in execution till the Catholics shall be content to give those securities. I cannot help thinking this mode of legislating, de bene esse, is very novel, and very inconvenient. It may be a totally nugatory exercise of our legislative powers, and, if we can trust strong declarations, will certainly be so. If it should so turn out, it will certainly be no very dignified nor useful exercise of those powers. But if there is no reason to hope that good will be done, is there no reason to fear that much mischief will be done? It can be no secret, that there are very large portions of the community, in both countries, who regard the attempt with the most painful anxiety, and who deprecate such concessions to the Catholics. And these persons, Sir, are not rabble; they are not uninformed persons, without character or weight in the community. They compose some of its most serious and considerate, and respectable classes. In this condition of things, all that will be achieved, will be so much positive evil, without any counterbalance of good. Here will be an idle parade of legislative benevolence, producing nothing but extreme uneasiness and dissatisfaction among the Protestants, and increased ferments and resentments amongst the Catholics. For, if such proposals are regarded as insults and persecutions, I do not see how they are much recommended to the affections of the Catholics, by merely being put into the black-letter of an act of parliament. It really never occurred to me that an insult would be at all lessened in their feelings of it, for being offered to them by the legislature of their country.

On such grounds as these (omitting many others in the exhausted state of the question, and in my own exhausted state) I shall certainly vote against going into a committee. If there are particular grievances, apply the remedy to each case, fairly and distinctly considered; but do not open a wholesale shop of grievances. I have no doubt that such a shop would be plentifully fed, for the remainder of the session, with fresh importations from the Catholic board at Dublin, which, as far as I can judge from two volumes I have perused, is a very well stocked depot of such articles. But do not let the legislature let loose the angry passions of men, upon subjects most likely to excite, in times of difficulty and danger; for such I conceive the times still to be, though otherwise described by the right hon. gentleman. The modern Hannibal, or rather Attila, still lives. We have scotched the snake, not killed it. We have to oppose, by every means, which human prudence can suggest, the most subtle and bloody tyrant which has ever infested the earth. Let us not waste any portion of our strength in aggravated contentions amongst ourselves.

Sir, I cannot sit down without expressing a regret, that I have yet heard nothing of the plans which we had reason to expect, from two honourable friends of mine, the noble Secretary of State, who sits near me, and my right hon. friend, on the bench below. I must do the eloquent mover the justice to acknowledge that he fairly stated his plan, though I cannot agree with him in thinking it satisfactory. That plan was to embody, in his act for the Catholics, a declaration, couched in the strongest terms, of the firm and eternal establishment of the national church. We all remember the effect of declaratory acts in the case of America—a right maintained in words, given up in facts, and never afterwards recovered. I think it but a feeble security; and if I rightly interpret the right hon. gentleman, to whose speeches I have had frequent occasions to advert, his expectations were not satisfied with it, for he was looking out for further securities. However, I must do justice, at least, to the candour and frankness of the original mover. I regret that I cannot pay the same compliment to my hon. friends, from both of whom, and particularly from my right hon. friend, who obtained the resolution of parliament, last year, some elucidation of their further views might naturally have been expected, at the beginning of this debate. At present, they drive us, darkling, into this committee, for surely it is no better, to reserve their plans till a very late hour,—when no man worketh,—when it is impossible to devote any faculty of a fatigued mind to a fair consideration of them. I hope they will immediately recollect this; in the mean time I have only to add, that my decided vote is against going into the proposed Committee.

Lord Castlereagh

said, it was with great pain and distrust in his own individual judgment, that he felt himself, on the present occasion, compelled to differ from those with whom he usually acted; but a sense of duty alone would influence his vote that night. He never felt less prone to suffer personal considerations to enter into a discussion of a great public question, conducted as it had been throughout with the utmost moderation and temper; he hoped, therefore, that if he held himself bound to repel an accusation brought against him by a right hon. and learned gentleman, (Mr. Plunket) on a preceding evening, that right hon. gentleman would impute the answer to the sincere respect which he thought due to every thing which fell from so distinguished a character. It was charged to him as a fault, that holding the opinions which he held on this subject, he had consented to form part of an administration, whose understood principle, upon their accession to office, was a resistance of the Catholic claims. He must, say in answer to this charge, that so far from feeling it to be disadvantageous to the empire that the control of government should be withheld from this measure, he most decidedly thought that it ought to be above all others entirely free from party struggle. If it could not be carried by the cordial unbiassed wishes of all parties,—if it were not exempt from all influence except its own principle and the deliberate judgment of the represented Commons of England,—it could never be a blessing to the nation.

The right hon. and learned gentleman (whose talents excited the highest admiration, and whose convincing speech could uever be forgot) might easily call to his recollection, whether it was a taste for office or a sense of duty which induced the present administration some time ago to remain in power. He might also recollect, that the present was not the first administration which had been divided on this very subject: that of which the right hon. gentleman formed so distinguished a part, it was well known was so constituted, that the only Catholic measure in which the persons in that cabinet could concur, was that Bill which they afterwards abandones; consenting to remain in office, and holding themselves entitled to give individual opinions, instead of the united weight of government, on this very same proposition, which was now before the House.

As to the measure itself, his opinion was decidedly in favour of it, as it had been last session. Though he had been called upon by his right hon. friend, he did not think himself bound to originate any specific plan: he confessed that he thought he saw almost insurmountable difficulties to the accomplishment of the proposed object: yet he did not feel the less inclined cordially to embark in the proposition which had been made last year by one right hon. gentleman, and this year by another right hon. gentleman, because he was willing, though he could not see his way himself, to follow the views of others, who might be able to ef- fect that which was not obvious to his own mind. It was evidently the prevailing sense of the House last session, that a Committee should be appointed, that it might be ascertained what were the precise difficulties of this important question; what were the obstacles which caused it to stand still; and whether and how far those impediments could be removed! Then, as now, he was himself determined, never to assent to any proposition which should not secure the established religion; but he must say, that when he compared the present situation of affairs with the state of things at that time, he could see no substantive changes since the last year which should induce the House to come to a different decision. As to the temper evinced by the Catholics (which he lamented as tending to the destruction of their own hopes), what feelings were now expressed by that body, which had not appeared last year? The situation of the Pope was not effectually altered; and the opinion of the Catholic bishops, as to the operation of his confinement, was given so far back as November 1809. All these obstacles were, therefore, in as full force in the last year, as they were now. Why, then, it would be asked, did he then consent to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman? for this reason—because, though his own understanding did not furnish him with the means of seeing his way through the opposing difficulties, yet he thought it a subject becoming the united wisdom of parliament to investigate and determine.

It was said, that there had been, in the course of the year, a great change in public opinion; he differed with those who thought so. But if it were so, he should think this an additional reason for a full and impartial discussion. For himself, he could not collect, from the public temper expressed in the petitions, that the people would be averse from Catholic concession, provided the measure should be accompanied with proper regulations, and the Catholic tone were less violent and intemperate. It was certainly true, that a very respectable number of Protestants, both in England and Ireland, had a general dislike to the measure; yet this was by no means the universal or the more prevailing opinion. There were, indeed, strong feelings on this subject among the great mass of the population; yet those prejudices were so softened and altered, that had the Catholics assumed a milder language, the country would have felt a very different disposition. As a proof of this, he would refer, as well to the tenor of most of the petitions, as to the tone of moderation and temper which had pervaded the debate.

He would now offer a few remarks on one or two views of this subject, as taken by hon. members who had preceded him. As to the declaration of the Catholics, that all regulations would be mockeries and insults,—he felt that he should be acting a contemptible part, if he held out to them the prospect of desired privileges on conditions, which as men of honour, or in consistency to the faith of their ancestors, they could not conscientiously accept. An hon. general had alleged that such must be the case with respect to any regulations: this was not the language held in 1793: such a reflection would then have been thought a reproach. What! shall the Catholics of Ireland declare, that they cannot consent to adhere to such a constitution of things, as has prevailed in all Catholic countries in Europe? Such a pretence would be quite idle: they must see, that in this, as well as in other countries, there could be nothing inconsistent or unreasonable in the proposed scheme of regulation. Such an argument was, therefore, highly injudicious; and he would defend the Catholics against the imputation that such were their sentiments: if they were, they were much altered since he had the opportunity of knowing them in 1793.

He wished to speak of the Catholic faith in the only part in which it appeared to him to touch upon this subject. In adverting to the tenets of an establishment, great forbearance should be exercised; every church had on its records, tenets, of which it in time became ashamed; these, though obsolete, were suffered to remain, because it was frequently a difficult and unpleasant employment to wipe away the errors of our ancestors. The Pastoral of the Pope, which had been so much reprobated, was issued at a time when he was completely stripped of power, and must be considered as an angry effusion uttered in self-defence. He did not pretend to be blind to the danger of the power of the Papal see: it might be rendered formidable as a political instrument, and his opinions might become strong engines of attack to serve particular purposes. He well saw, that not all the might of the emperor of France was able to depress or destroy the influence of the Pope; and not long since he had an opportunity of seeing the effects of this influence. In the expedition of general Moore, a courier was intercepted, who was conveying to Buonaparté the weekly dispatch of Fouché, the minister of police. In this document was explained the state of the public mind; and it was predicted, that Buonaparté would succeed in Spain, if he did not attempt to do violence to the Pope, and through him to the universal Catholic feeling throughout Europe. Attention was paid to this advice, and it was not till after the defeat of Austria that the Pope was humiliated: and now, when difficulties pressed on the ruler of France, the Pope was released. He did not, therefore, deny that the influence of the Pope was great,—that, wielded in conjunction with the resources of the French empire, it might be formidable. The Pope, therefore, became a proper object of constitutional jealousy; but he did not the less feel, on this account, the necessity of entering into this great question, and providing the best remedies against all possible danger. He would not consent to stir a step, unless he was convinced that every step would be secure: but he was convinced that if the Catholics should be suffered to embark in one common cause with common privileges, the nation was strong enough not to suffer by this allowed union in a common interest. Whatever might be the sentiments of the Pope, the conduct of the Catholics had been most friendly to the British constitution; and he conjured them now to consider, that, in the proposed regulations, no other principles, no other modes of action would be adopted, than what were common to all Catholic states in Europe. Even in Spain, the government had been so jealous of Papal interference, that by an act of state, they extinguished the power of the Pope till it should operate merely for religious, and not for political purposes. All, therefore, that was intended to be offered by way of security, appeared to be the fundamental policy of every state: and the Catholics should remember, that the precedent was drawn from the records of those times when their ancestors laid the foundation of our liberties.

As authorities have been adduced, (continued lord Castlereagh,) to which the House seems inclined to pay every proper attention and deference, it would be a dereliction of the duty which I owe to the character of Mr. Pitt, as well as to my own feelings and conviction, were I, on the present occasion, interesting as it is, both from the vast importance of the question, and the circumstances under which we are called upon to; discuss it, to omit staling the opinions of that great statesman; I must, therefore, with the most perfect candour, declare, that with all the means which I possessed in the full confidence of friendship with Mr. Pitt, I had no reason whatever to suppose, that he did not think the enquiry as proposed to be now instituted into the claims of the Roman Catholics, and the adoption of measures of concession proportionate to the justice of those claims, were not only expedient, wise, and salutary, but fundamentally necessary. I am, at the same time, bound to observe, that he thought the principal objections arising to these concessions, sprang out of the violent and inconsiderate views entertained and expressed by the Roman Catholics themselves. But although these were his sentiments, and to his expression of them, I am at this moment enabled to bear the most unequivocal testimony, I can safely add, that during the whole of my friendly and political intercourse with him, I never could at any one period discover, that the determination of his mind was changed with respect to the proposed concessions to the Roman Catholics, either in the justice or the expediency of the measure. I have, Sir, taken the liberty to be thus explicit, because my confidence and conviction are strengthened, not only by the means I possessed of knowing his mind and feelings, but because my recollection of his opinions is unimpaired.

During the present as on all former discussions, the word 'security' has been used, and used certainly, I admit, with great propriety as far as the true sense of the word respects our establishment in Church and State. If I understand the meaning of the expression, I should not hesitate to call security the adoption of some system, whatever that system may be, which, prevailing as it does in every Catholic country, ought not to be denied to a country, Protestant in the establishment of its civil and political rights,—Protestant in their progressive state,—and Protestant in their present permanence and ultimate prosperity. There is one broad principle which I can never be induced to abandon,—I mean the guards and provisions necessary to be adopted, in order to meet and counteract the interfer- ence of the court of Rome, with regard to its political opinions, and the dissemination of them in a country which does not entertain religious doctrines of a similar nature. This safeguard, although required by the establishments of Catholic countries themselves, is still more decidedly called for and enforced by the peculiar situation of the Pope, who, being detained by our most inveterate enemy, may be compelled to become the instrument of his perfidious and ambitious views. I should not, in my allusion to the influence of the papal authority, forget to call the attention of the House to the uses and employments to which the different orders of Monks and Friars dependent upon the will of their different principals, may be perverted for the attainment of political ends, in consequence of the commands of these principals, to whom their respective orders and institutions have sworn submission and obedience. Why, let me ask, are the communications from the see of Rome, or from the principals of these religious orders, to be made matters of secrecy? What necessity can there be for concealment? Certainly none, but in the single point of confession. I am, Sir, now speaking with respect to facts which cannot be contradicted, and with the truth of which every Catholic is acquainted. Where concealment is necessary, I can have no objection to concealment in matters of pure religion and conscientious feeling; but in those common acts of public intercourse, secrecy and concealment are not only unnecessary, but must necessarily become the subject of distrust and well-founded suspicion.

Having, Sir, noticed the nature of the security to which I naturally look in the course of the proceedings which may be adopted in the Committee, I next direct my attention to the Veto, which has so frequently become the subject of discussion, both in and out of doors. After all the care I have bestowed upon the consideration of this point, I must confess I am at a loss to find how the Catholics can find it inconsistent, as it has in certain cases been maintained, with the best spirit of their religion, and with the justice of their claims. I have been lately led to believe, and I am now confirmed in the opinion, that this Veto affords, not only no satisfaction to the Catholics, but that it is even condemned as a measure which we have no right to require. But, Sir, be this as it may, it becomes my duty to state facts as they have actually occurred, and to assure the House that this Veto was not proposed either by myself, or by those with whom I had the honour to act. On the contrary, Sir, I can venture to state, that it was formally and explicitly proposed to his Majesty's ministers by the Roman Catholics themselves. I can also stale, with the same confidence, that no idea was ever entertained of acquiring patronage in the Catholic church, on the part of the government, in consequence of the Veto, which was not, as I have observed, the favourite measure of my colleagues or myself, but which, in truth, was first held out as the result of the best wishes and mature deliberations of the Catholics themselves. I will be still more explicit on this head; and I can add, that such was their liberality on the occasion, that they ran before the wishes, and outstripped the desires of the government itself. I am therefore, authorised in laying down this plain and undeniable principle, that the Roman Catholics, in their avowed character as honest men, have no right to attribute to the government any idea of acquiring patronage in the Catholic church by the exercise of the Veto; and that the Veto was in reality not suggested by the government, but was proposed to the consideration, and recommended to the adoption, of ministers by themselves. This principle did not go by any means, or by any possible operation, to sever the Pope from the Catholic church. It was proposed to learn from their own statements and opinions, the state and condition of the individuals whom they were desirous of placing in the situations which they wished to have properly filled; the proposition came with the more earnestness, from the certain conviction that it was calculated to prevent the revival of jealousies, and the diffusion of animosities and bickerings, prejudicial to the interests and happiness of the community at large.

In expressing my wish to go into the committee, I do it the more sincerely, because I am convinced it is the best and the only way of meeting the wishes of those who are friendly to the Catholics, and of encountering and satisfying the objections of those who are inimical to their claims. I concur in resting this right upon the same, principle which I laid down and supported last year. The right hon. gentleman who brought forward this question.—in a way certainly which does honour to his candour and abilities, no less than to the cause which he advocates. —tells us, that he means to propose in the committee a general Resolution, as the foundation of the Bill which he intends to propose; and he assures us, that the Bill will be in strict conformity to the Resolution. This line of conduct I think perfectly fair, for the Bill must of course be submitted to the committee, and after having undergone the examination which it may be found to require, it will be then for the House to determine, whether the Bill be fit and proper to be entertained. So far I readily coincide with the views of the right hon. gentleman; yet I must say, with all the candour which the right hon. gentleman has a right to expect from me, that the proposed Bill is one, if I understand it as I should, designed to repeal all former acts against the Catholics, with the simple but full recognition of the established church. If this be all the provision to be made,—if this be all the safeguard to be set up for the establishment in church and state, as it actually exists,—I must, Sir, now declare, that this Bill shall have my decided and unqualified opposition; for, anxious as I am to obtain the best possible security for the preservation of the constitution in church and state, I am bound to maintain, that such a Bill cannot impart any security proportionate to the apprehensions which a measure so very general and undefined must excite. Let me rather speak out plainly, and say, that such a Bill would call in question the very security of the constitution, as it is at present established in church and state. I cannot, Sir, consent to a sweeping Bill of Repeal, without the adjustment of precise points,—without the settlement of disputed claims,—without the sanction of those safeguards to which we are bound finally to look, leaving us, should we be so absurd and preposterous as to adopt it, in danger,—if not of sudden ruin, at least exposed to certain and ultimate destruction. It is, therefore, my fixed opinion, that the right hon. gentleman ought to give to the House the whole of the system upon which he means to proceed; and to state in specific terms the means by which he hopes to be enabled to carry it on I think most seriously, that great danger is likely to arise to the country, from the exclusion in which the Catholics are compelled to live out of the constitution, and from their consequent connection with and dependence upon a foreign power; yet the difficulties that are to be overcome in obviating the danger are, no doubt, numerous and considerable. I certainly would not propose that this House, in legislating for the Catholics of Ireland, should go so far as to proceed by way of premunire against their intercourse with a foreign power; but I would have recourse to every justifiable mode to render that intercourse, since it is thought indispensably requisite, congenial to the spirit and practice of the constitution. The right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunket) would agree to some temporary and contingent provisions and conditions suitable to the acceptance and conformity of the Catholics. Surely, Sir, so vague,—so indefinite a system, could not be attended with any results satisfactory either to the claims of the Roman Catholics, or to the views of the Protestants most favourable to those claims. What could be the security they would hold out? What ground could the claimants have for their permanence? They might remain altogether, if unaccepted, a dead letter; and if accepted, they might be repealed by any new parliament. Upon due consideration of the whole of this important question, I am convinced, that the proposition under just regulations may, so far from being dangerous to the church and state, give great additional security to the constitution, and impart new strength to the British empire. Under this impression, I shall give my vote for going into the committee: yet I must say, that parliament will, notwithstanding, be unprepared immediately to proceed to the final adjustment of all the necessary regulations and guards for the preservation of our happy establishment, whether civilly or religiously considered. There unquestionably does appear to me, at the present moment, an almost insurmountable obstacle, in the state to which the Pope is reduced, and in the thraldom to which he is degraded by a perfidious and inveterate enemy; yet I will not presume to maintain, that this obstacle, great as it is, may not be overcome by precautions and provisions, which it will become the duty of the committee and the House to ascertain and to adopt. I cannot but consider it prudent and wise in the House to take the whole of the case under their grave consideration; their interference must be felt with gratitude, and the consequences may be productive of the most salutary benefits not to the Catholics only, but to the general interests of the empire. Upon these principles I feel it my duty to go into the committee, where all the doubts and difficulties connected with the subject may be fairly met and discussed, and where investigation will, in all probability, produce results equally calculated to give satisfaction to the Catholics, and security to the constitution in church and state.

Mr. Rose

assured the House, that if he were convinced any real benefits were likely to arise from going into the proposed committee, no man could be more disposed to assent to that measure than himself. He fell it due, however, to his own feelings and conviction, to observe, as the noble lord had mentioned the authority of Mr. Pitt, as having undergone no change of mind with respect to the question before the House, that if the noble lord meant to say, that Mr. Pitt was of opinion relief should be extended to the Catholics of Ireland, he agreed with the noble lord; but if the noble lord meant to say that Mr. Pitt's mind had undergone no change whatever on the subject, he should beg leave to differ totally with the noble lord; for he was convinced that if Mr. Pitt were at that moment in the House, he would vote against the motion.

Lord Castlereagh

contended, that Mr. Pitt had been uniformly consistent in supporting the expediency of the Catholic claims; and in advocating that sentiment, exclusively of his own individul experience of that great statesman's opinions, he begged leave to appeal to the causes which had influenced his going out of office. With regard to the particular line of conduct which Mr. Pitt might adopt, were he then present, he would leave it to the House to decide, whether either the right hon. gentleman or himself, could be justified in delivering a decided opinion.

Mr. Manners Sutton

rose and said:

Sir; anticipating that I shall probably vote in a minority, on this occasion, I am anxious, as briefly as possible, to state the grounds upon which I shall give my vote: it may be owing to my ignorance of the forms of the House, but really, Sir, I do think, in consequence of the concluding part of the noble lord's speech, many members are placed in an aukward predicament. Is the going into the committee a mere matter of form? Is it intended, in that committee, substantially, and, one by one, to consider the details of this great measure; a measure depending in its policy, in its safety, in its practicability, avowedly on details? If this committee is to be mere matter of form, or rather to be considered a necessary step preliminary to entertaining any bill on the subject of so important a constitutional change, I am no longer surprised that those who argue for full and unqualified concession, without any reserve or restriction whatever, should now vote for the first formal preliminary. They will do right, and act consistently. But I am certain that many, who have delivered their sentiments, in the course of this debate, on both sides, have been equally unapprised with myself, of the precise, nature of this committee; for to those who argued what were considered as minor matters of detail, it was constantly answered, 'All this is fit subject for the committee;' and, indeed, many who expressed their intention to vote for this committee, distinctly stated their grounds for such vote to be these, that full opportunity would be given, in the committee, for the most ample discussion. This expectation, however, it now seems, will be disappointed and the discussion is to be reserved for the Bill itself.

Now, to those who agree with me, that great difficulties are involved in the consideration of this question; but who, seeing these difficulties, much in the same light with myself, still see their way out of them,—to such persons I wish particularly to address myself. I object to this first step, because I anticipate no result but mischief, confusion, and dangerous irritation. For what has the House come to after three nights' serious debate? Nothing, as I conceive, but an acknowledgment, that the difficulties, upon investigation, are increased instead of diminished.

The right hon. gentleman who opened the debate, has not very explicitly described his plan. He stated that the disabilities of the Roman Catholics ought to be done away, but, at the same time, that care must be taken to preserve inviolate our present establishments. How this was to be done, the right non. gentleman did not explain. Then followed a right hon. and learned gentleman, to whose speech so much reference has been justly made, for its candour, moderation, manliness, and eloquence; and he, conceiving that the mover's views had not been clearly understood, stated, that the safeguards, in his contemplation, were Domestic Nomination, salaries to the clergy, and some arrangements about education. He distinctly objected to the Veto, as having been already rejected, and not worth contending for. This called up an hon. baronet, whose industry, information, and zeal, in favour of those claims, entitle him to the warmest thanks of the Roman Catholics, and to every attention from this House; and he stated, that Domestic Nomination could not be listened to; the Veto must be adopted, and even that would be inefficient, without other auxiliary restrictions. And lastly, the House was addressed by many honourable members, who not feeling assured that any of the plans proposed would answer the purpose, and having none to propose themselves, still voted for the committee, under confident hopes that some new lights would be struck out in the committee, though the committee, now proposed, and for which they stated their intention to vote, did not afford any reasonable expectation of realizing those hopes.

Now, I am certain the House will go along with me in considering these securities, restrictions, and safeguards, as substantial ingredients in the measure proposed. It would be a monstrous deception to consider them as mere matter of detail in the framing and embodying the measure; they form a main part of its essence, and therefore to say, that the House, being only called upon to recognize the principle, it is not necessary to explain in detail the securities, is, in my judgment, a perfect fallacy. The principal point of restriction, alluded to in the debate, has been with reference to foreign influence, and the discussion, on that single point, affords sufficient grounds to call for a resistance to the motion. It has been asserted, that the Veto is not worth contending for; that Domestic Nomination will do as well. I admit the Veto is not worth contending for: but at the same time, think it important to remark, that the Veto has been rejected, not because it was obnoxious to the feelings of the Roman Catholics, but because they considered that it was inconsistent with the tenets of their religion, in the light in which they viewed the proposition at the time it was made, to admit of such a restriction on the spiritual supremacy of their church; and how, therefore, can any hope or expectation be entertained that Domestic Nomination, which involves the same question, of the spiritual supremacy, the only other avowed expedient, can possibly be acquiesced in: and here is the im- portance of the present tone and temper of the Roman Catholics, and also of the present captivity of the Pope; because it is most essential, in order to ascertain what restriction on this foreign influence can be chalked out, both efficient for the security of the Protestant establishments, and admissible by the Roman Catholics, that a communication should be had with the head of their church, with that authority, which would now be acknowledged as full, free, and undoubted, and which would, at all times hereafter, be considered as indisputable and unimpeachable: and I will ask, can such a communication be now considered as practicable? Nobody has ventured to affirm it, and few, I am persuaded, will think that, without such a communication, these claims can be conceded.

Having thus stated myself dissatisfied with the heads of the plans that have been suggested; having it admitted to me, by a great majority of the House, that safeguards are necessary; having none to propose myself, I cannot agree with those members, who, being much in the same state of darkness with myself, both as to the propriety of what has been proposed, and the practicability of putting it into execution, are nevertheless inclined, at once, to vole for this committee, and trust to future discussions for the essential details of this measure. No man, in my opinion, is justified in taking this step, without an entire conviction that the measure can now be perfected; hopes and expectations that it may be matured are not sufficient, for I am certain that, if the House adopt the present motion, and afterwards fail in accomplishing the whole measure, great mischief will ensue. This step will have excited hopes and expectations in the Roman Catholic mind, which cannot be satisfied, and apprehensions and irritation in the Protestant mind, which cannot easily be allayed. For these reasons, without entering more into detail, I shall give my vote against the motion. Indeed I feel that I am strongly confirmed in some of my positions by the noble lord, though I have the misfortune to differ from him, in the conclusion to which he came.

The noble lord has stated, that the present tone and temper of the Catholics are important circumstances, though he considers them rather as a bar to the immediate completion of this measure than the entering upon. it. So also the right hon. gentleman, last year, in proposing his Resolution, thought the feelings of the public, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, a circumstance of essential importance; for the Resolution was, that this measure might be effected, to the satisfaction of all classes of his Majesty's subjects. Now, I think, the feelings of one class of his Majesty's subjects, the Protestants, both of England and Ireland, are pretty clearly shewn, by the Petitions on the table; and here I beg to express my regret, that, for the first time, those Petitions have been subjected to a scrutiny and sarcasm, unprecedented in this House. I have been astonished to hear the right hon. mover deal so harshly with the Anti-Catholic Petitions from Ireland, and that those criticisms occupied the larger part of his speech.

The right hon. mover began with announcing his intention, more particularly, to address himself to an examination of those Petitions, as if the measure itself had been so clear and plain, that there were no difficulties nor impediments, but such as were to be found on the face of the Petitions, to which he referred: and he proceeded to state, that he strongly protested against the high sheriffs of counties in Ireland, lending themselves to any requisition for the convening of the Protestant inhabitants of the different counties, to petition the parliament against their Catholic brethren. He seemed to think the meetings ought to have been general to the whole county.

I beg to ask how it would have been possible for the Protestants, in Ireland, to have expressed their opinions or apprehensions to parliament, on this subject, in any other way. For, if the meetings had been general, could there have been any doubt, considering that the Roman Catholics are said to be in the proportion of three to one to the Protestants, that those petitions, whether in favour of, or in opposition to, the Roman Catholic claims, must necessarily have been the Petitions of the Roman Catholics, and not of the Protestants,—the majority of the meeting must have decided its resolutions, and that majority must have been Roman Catholics,—therefore, if the Protestants were to be permitted, at all, to express their opinions, by petition, it could only have been effected in the way it was. But, with respect to the subject of the Petitions, is it fair that the Protestants should have been placed in this dilemma? If they do not petition, as was the case last year, it is concluded they are favourable to the claims—and if, to avoid any such mistaken conclusion, they feel themselves actually goaded into petitioning, in order that their real opinions may not be misunderstood and misrepresented, then they are reflected upon as petitioning the parliament against the liberties of their Roman Catholic brethren.

With respect to the other petitions against these claims, I again repeat that I think they have been held up to a nicety of criticism perfectly unusual; very ill suited to a fair, temperate, and impartial discussion of the subject, and not very well calculated to promote that general satisfaction, without which the resolution of last year admits that the attainment of the object, now in view, is impracticable. There have been, however, other observations, with respect to a certain description of petitioners, which I cannot suffer to pass unnoticed,—I mean the reflections which have been cast, most unjustly, and, as it seems to me, with as little liberality as justice, on the clergy who have petitioned.

A noble lord, on a former evening, to my astonishment, asserted that it was indecent in the clergy to petition parliament on a purely political question, I deny both the position itself, and its applicability to the subject now before the House. It is the first time I have ever heard, and I will not readily believe it, that, even if this question was simply political, the clergy is the only description of British subjects, who are to be considered as divested of, what has, so often and so justly been styled, the birthright of Englishmen. But is this a purely political question? Has it no religious consideration involved in it? What are the restrictions and safeguards for? Why, it has been admitted, by all who have pressed the necessity of them, that they are mainly for the security of the Protestant establishment. I will leave, therefore, the noble lord to settle this point with the promoters and framers of the intended measure, with this one farther observation, that, in my judgment, the clergy are so far from stepping out of their line by expressing their views, in the way of petition, that I should have considered them most remiss, in the discharge of their duty, if they had omitted gravely to consider, and firmly to declare, their sentiments, upon the effects, which these concessions might produce.

An hon. baronet, who spoke early in, the debate, did not confine himself to reflections on the clergy in general, as far as they appeared in petitions; but conceived himself justified in animadverting, with great severity, on a publication from a right reverend prelate. The hon. baronet charged that right reverend prelate with having accused all the advocates of these claims of "artful misrepresentation, specious liberality, or infidel indifference." I have read this production, which I doubt whether the hon. baronet had, at the time he hazarded such a charge; for I undertake to state, that no such construction belongs to the passage. His friend, the right reverend prelate argues, that the Roman Catholic question combines both religious and political considerations, and that any opinion, which maintains, that this question is simply and exclusively within either the one or the other, either religious or political, but not combined of both qualities, could only be founded in artful misrepresentation, specious liberality, or infidel indifference. I then ask the House whether the misrepresentation of the hon. baronet is not most glaring? and whether the comments and observations, with which he has connected it, are not only unwarranted by the passage referred to, but equally inconsistent with the high respect and esteem, which the right hon. baronet professed himself to entertain for the talents, the learning, the elevated rank, and high character of that right reverend prelate? But the hon. baronet did not stop here; for, in quoting another expression of that right reverend prelate, in which he states himself "a friend to the fullest toleration," the hon. baronet took rather an unusual mode of proving the sincerity of his own respect and esteem, by representing this right reverend prelate as a friend to just so much toleration as has been conferred, and which consequently he could not take away. But I hope the hon. baronet has read the publication since: I believe that curiosity may have led him to read it, if it were only to see whether there should chance to be any passage, to which he could attach such general and unmeasured censure. If, however, the hon. baronet, with any view, has now read it, I am certain he will not maintain what he thus advanced.

Much has been said on both sides, with reference to the opinions of Mr. Pitt; as if, by such reference, the course could be made quite clear for those, who should be willing to shape their own conduct, on the present occasion, by his great authority. I know nothing of the opinions of that great statesman on this subject, but from such sources as are accessible to every one, I mean his public conduct, and his speeches, as published. From these sources collect that, unquestionably, Mr. Pitt was favourable, in principle, to the Catholic claims—that he was decided, that these concessions should be accompanied with solid and efficient restrictions and safeguards; and that, viewing these claims as matter of expediency and not of right, he was distinctly also of opinion, that times and circumstances were considerations of the greatest importance; whether, therefore, the present times and circumstances would have been judged, by Mr. Pitt, as favourable, I do not know, nor can I place much reliance on the speculations of others on this point; of this, however, I am certain, that Mr. Pitt would never, at any time, have consented to go into a committee, or take any preliminary step, such as the present, towards the completion of that great measure, without having previously made up his own mind clearly and distinctly, as to what should be conceded—what should be withheld—and what precise restrictions should be imposed.—In such a state of preparation, I do not conceive the majority of this House, to be at the present moment; I think, the reference, which has so often been made, to Mr. Pitt's opinions, is a very insufficient guide, even to those who look with all the admiration and respect, that I do, to such authority, and shall therefore give my decided negative to the motion.

Sir Robert Heron

, in explanation.—Sir; I am extremely unwilling to detain the House, even for a moment; but, after the violent and unexpected attack, which has been made upon me by the right hon. gentleman, who spoke last, the House will not expect I should remain silent. Another hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) last night accused me of having uttered a grosss calumny, and after that Charge had been brought, I must so far agree with him as to say, that it must belong either to me or to him; but the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, has entirely misrepresented me. I did not call the learned bishop my friend; that term with me is sacred; and I have no right to use it towards the learned bishop, with whom I have not had the opportunities of cultivating much acquaintance. But I did say, that I had a high personal respect for the learned bishop, and that I had derived both pleasure and instruction from his former writings. As to my application of the passage in the charge of the learned bishop, it will, I think, be most satisfactory to the House, I should read this passage, with the context. "No one can be a greater friend than I am, to toleration, properly so called; I consider it as a mark of the true church, as a principle, recognised by the most eminent of our reformers and divines. But I contend, that the Roman Catholics are already in complete possession of religious toleration. What they now demand is political power—a species of political power which, in my judgment, could not be granted, without extreme hazard to our constitution in church and state. Popery is not only a system of religion, it is also a system of politics. This, indeed, is so manifest, from the history of these kingdoms, subsequent, as well as prior to the Reformation, that those who have, of late, undertaken the cause of the Papists, and urged the removal of all the restraints, framed by the wisdom and piety of our ancestors, to prevent a repetition of those horrors and miseries, which were fresh in their memories, assure us, that Popery now is different from what Popery was. I am confident that this opinion has led many to support the claims of the Papists, who are truly and zealously attached to the church of England, and would be among its most firm defenders, in any time of trial; but I am convinced, that no opinion was ever more unfounded. To trace this opinion to artful misrepresentation, specious liberality, or infidel indifference—to prove it false from the dogma of infallibility, which allows no change—from the decrees of the councils and the bull of Popes, which contain the most mischievous political maxims, and authorise the most unwarrantable interference with the rights of civil government and of religious liberty—to prove that recent facts, and recent publications, absolutely and authoritatively maintain the same doctrines, and contradict the idea of any alteration, as derogatory to the honour of their church, may perhaps, if life be spared me, and circumstances should demand it, employ some future hour."—I now leave it to the House to judge, whether the passage in question is or is not applied, by the bishop, to those who differ from him in opinion?

Mr. Robinson

explained, that what he had said, and to which the hon. baronet had alluded, referred to that remarkable expression in the hon. baronet's speech which he had used when speaking of the petitions received from the clergy. Those petitions he had represented as coming from men who had mitres ontheir heads, or mitres in their heads. This, I said was a gross calumny, and from that expression I do not depart.

Mr. M. Sutton

repeated that the passage in the pamphlet which had been alluded to, did not deserve the construction which had been put on it, and contended he had a right to state such to be his opinion, and this opinion he would still maintain.

Mr. Ponsonby

said, what had just passed showed to what perfection the critical taste of the House had been brought. This, however, had been amply illustrated in the course of the present discussion. They had, nevertheless, been told, that they ought not to criticise the petitions submitted to them too closely; yet one hon. gentleman who had spoken from under the gallery, had said he could not vote for the motion on account of the intemperate language held by the Irish Catholics, and this though the English Catholics, it was admitted, had urged their claims with singular modesty. Thus it would be seen, in whatever temper the Catholics pursued the object they had in view, with some it was impossible their prayer could have effect. Particular notice had been taken of what had been said by an hon. baronet, respecting a certain prelate, yet last night the chief secretary for Ireland had cast quite as strong a reflection on another reverend prelate, who was in every respect as venerable and as immaculate as the bishop of Lincoln.

Mr. Croker

spoke to order. He wished merely to say that his right hon. friend had last night distinctly disclaimed any intention of casting the most distant reflection on the bishop of Norwich.

The Speaker

said it was not strictly regular for one hon. member thus to rise to explain what had fallen from another.

Mr. Ponsonby

resumed. The intemperate language held by the Catholics, he contended, was not to be wondered at when the slate of the press in Ireland was considered, which was understood to be under the controul of the right hon. gentleman's government, from which publications were constantly issuing, filled with vituperative slanders against the Catholics. It was said that as the Catholic religion remained unchanged, the Catholics were no more to be trusted now than they were a century or a century and a half ago. Did they believe any reliance was to be placed on the oath of a Catholic? If they did not, they must believe the Catholics capable of the most abominable perjuries; if they did believe the Catholic on his oath, when he swore that no foreign ecclesiastical authority "has, or ought to have" any temporal power whatever in the King's dominions, they ought to be satisfied that his faith was not dangerous to the state. Before they assumed that it was hostile to the state, it ought to be shewn in what respect his acknowledgment of the supremacy of the see of Rome could produce mischievous effects. Would the Pope raise an army to fight against this country, or Would he assist the views of foreign powers, by seducing the subjects of this country from their allegiance? Would he assail us, by open force, or endeavour by secret plots to undermine our ruin? In no one of these designs could the Catholics concur according to the oath they had taken. He had felt much satisfaction at hearing the noble lord (Castlereagh) say, he would certainly vote for going into the Committee, but that satisfaction had been considerably abated, at finding that he would as certainly vote against the Bill which it would subsequently be proposed to bring in. On the subject of the Veto he had to observe, he did not know that it was impossible for it ever again to be brought forward. The Catholics had not said they would never concede it. All they had said was, that at the time at which their resolutions were passed, it was inexpedient to give it up. He admired the tender anxiety which had been displayed by some hon. members for Catholic consistency, as manifested by their earnest endeavours to prove that the Veto would never be conceded, and that domestic nomination would never be submitted to, and on this ground objected to taking their claims into consideration. The Catholics were suspected of entertaining some secret opinions (secret they must be, for no such opinions had ever been allowed), that they were not bound by an oath to keep their engagements with those who professed a different religion. On the doctrine of mental reservation, he wished to read the opinions of the Catholics. To these he wished to call the attention of the House, as what he was about to read was worth hearing. The Catholics had not affected to despise the charge preferred against them on this subject, but had applied themselves to disprove it, and declared, "That it was a fundamental principle of their religion, that no person on earth could license men to lie, forswear, or perjure themselves, or to act against their country, under the pretence of serving the cause of religion; and all pardons issued on such grounds, could have no validity, and would only add sacrilege and blasphemy to the above mentioned crimes."—The noble lord had said this was not the time at which the measure that might be resolved on, in favour of the Catholics, could be immediately carried into effect: that it was one, which ought not to be hurried, which could not he come to in a day. No one wished it to be hurried; on the contrary, they were ready to give any time for the consideration of it which the public might think reasonable. Motions on this subject, it was formerly said, were useless; but, he would ask, had the discussion of the claims done no good for the cause? He had heard, indeed, that the sense of the country was against it, but he believed the contrary to be the fact, and that the great body of the property and information of the country was decidedly in favour of the Catholics; and this he believed to be the effect of the frequent discussions which had taken place on the subject. The objection made to the declaration of the inviolability of the Protestant establishment in the proposed Bill, he thought futile and ridiculous. It might as well have been contended that because the security of the Protestant succession to the throne had been enlarged upon in the Bill of Rights, that that Act had settled the succession; as it could never be maintained that those laws which it was proposed to name in the Bill to be brought in, could appear by that to have been enacted. Nothing could be rationally apprehended from admitting the Catholics to the privileges of the constitution. They would naturally be attached to that form of government which gave them emancipation. Was it feared that they would enter into a traitorous correspondence, or commit treasonable offences? If they were to act thus, would they not be amenable to the common law? Was it supposed that they would attempt to rise in a body to kill the Protestants? If they were disposed to act thus in consequence of their being admitted to the constitution, would it not be in the power of those who gave them emancipation to reduce them to their present situation again? This could not be doubted; nor could it be doubted that the Protestants, who relieved them from the disabilities of which they complained, would guard against the succession of a Catholic to the throne.—He denied that going into a Committee, even if they did nothing, would exasperate the Protestants and disappoint the Catholics. Oh! but it was said, they must give the Catholics every thing they asked, or they would not be satisfied. Had the Catholics said so? was there no reason to believe they would be grateful if but a part of what they asked were granted? But they would not be satisfied, it was said. If they meant by satisfied, that they would never ask any thing more, he would not promise this for them. And could it be any imputation on any class of subjects, that while any disqualifications remained, they should apply to parliament for relief? By going into the Committee they would shew a spirit of conciliation which he thought would be likely to do more good than any thing that had been done for centuries. They had not taken their claims into consideration, and going into a Committee was a great advance in favour of the Catholic cause. The charges brought against the right hon. mover for not bringing forward his Bill, were unfairly urged, as by a standing order he was prohibited from doing so. A Bill could not be brought in to alter the laws in religious matters without the authority of a Committee of the whole House. The right hon. and learned gentleman had said, if means could be devised in the Committee which could remove from his mind the apprehension of danger, he should be most happy to concur in any proposition for relieving the Catholics from the disabilities of which they complained. Mr. Ponsonby said he hoped every man would go into the Committee with the same feeling. He hoped no one would go into it, in the hope of defeating its avowed object. Those who had such a wish, he conjured to oppose the present motion. It would be acting a better and an infinitely more manly part, than to go into the Committee to excite false hopes only to produce disappointment. If they went into the Committee with a sincere desire to ac- complish the object in view, he thought they would do more good for the country, than had been done by any one act for many years past; and when the House agreed, bona fide, to take into consideration the Catholic claims, they would give themselves a right to expect a spirit of conciliation on the part of the Catholics. The best security for the allegiance of subjects was their own interest. He despised what were usually called securities; but when the House shewed a disposition to go as far as they could to conciliate the Catholics, he thought the Catholics were bound to go as far as their faith would admit them to go, to meet the House in a spirit of conciliation. This he should not value as a measure of security, but he should value it as a measure of satisfaction.—He had told the noble lord twice last year, that if America proved unreasonable, he would support the government of this country in resistance to her demands. He had kept his promise, and he would now pledge himself in a similar manner with respect to the Catholics. He was confident his friends about him would do the same. The conduct of government, when it was that which was demanded by the welfare of the country, would ever meet with his support, and though this might exclude him and his friends from power for ever, he, for himself, should cheerfully do it, and he was satisfied from the noble disinterestedness of his friends around him, which had been displayed on many occasions, that they would cordially join him, as he knew they had no wish for power, but to employ it for the general good.

Many gentlemen rose at the same time, but being loudly called upon by the House,

Mr. Canning

rose and spoke as follows:

I am sorry, Sir, even at this late period of the debate, to interfere with other gentlemen, many of whom, I see, are still anxious to deliver their sentiments upon the great question now before you. But, called upon as I have been in the course of this evening, by my right hon. and learned friend (sir William Scott), and rebuked for having continued so long silent, I feel myself compelled no longer to defer offering myself to your indulgence. I should have thought, indeed, that I owed an apology to the House, had I risen earlier on this occasion; considering the ample opportunities which I have already had of explaining my views and opinions on the subject in discussion. I should have thought so the rather, as, in the present state of this question, it does not appear to me to be at all incumbent on myself, or on those who think as I do, to urge any original matter, to induce the House to agree to the Resolution now submitted to their consideration. The natural and obvious course for the House is to agree to it. It is for those who would dissuade them from so agreeing to state the grounds of their dissuasion.

If, on former occasions, it has been matter of dispute on which side the burden of proof lay, on the present that dispute cannot be maintained with any shew of reason. It might be matter of dispute in instances where some called for innovation in existing laws, and others resisted that call. But, in the present instance, the only question is, shall we redeem a pledge, given by the House of Commons to the country? We stand committed to proceed, this session, to a consideration and settlement of what is called the Catholic Question; to a settlement of it, at once conciliatory with respect to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and consistent with the security, and conducive to the strength of the Protestant establishment in Church and State. This pledge, the last House of Commons gave to Protestants and Catholics,—to the united kingdom, and to the world. To set about redeeming this pledge is, I say, the natural and obvious course for the present House of Commons. The burden of the proof lies with those who would divert us from pursuing it.

Considering, therefore, Sir, the present Resolution as the offspring of that, which I had the honour of submitting, last session, to the House, and the satisfaction of inducing the House to adopt,—I feel myself quite as much responsible for this Resolution, as the right hon. gentleman himself who has moved it, and quite as much interested for its success. I have, therefore, thought it my duty rather to wait to hear the objections, which might be urged against our following out the line of conduct which the Resolution of last year had laid down for us, than to overlay the debate with unnecessary and misplaced exhortations to do that, which, until the contrary should have been recommended to them, it was to be presumed that they must be disposed and determined to do.

I am not unaware, Sir, that I am addressing a new parliament: and that this House is not, technically speaking, bound to redeem the pledge of the last House of Commons. But, on a matter of such high national importance, I may surely be allowed to hope that our conduct will be conformed to the dictates of morality and sound policy, rather than fettered by mere technical forms. This House of Commons has certainly the power of departing from the Resolution of last session; that resolution is not absolutely binding upon us: but, in my humble opinion, we should not easily satisfy the country,—I hope we should not satisfy ourselves,—if we came to the determination to abandon a moral duty, because we might do so with impunity.

Instances are not wanting, in which succeeding parliaments have adopted, and executed, with filial fidelity, the declared intentions and bequeathed trusts of their predecessors. It will be in the recollection of many who hear me, that, in the case of Mr. Hastings, it was held that the dissolution of parliament did not abate an impeachment instituted by the House of Commons. Would it not be strangely ungracious and impolitic to contend that, in all harsh and inquisitorial proceedings, we are studiously to guard against interruption by a dissolution: but that, in every thing of a milder and more agreeable nature, we are to invert the rule; and to admit that proceedings of conciliation and kindness are defeated and annulled by a dissolution; and are not to be resumed nor recommenced without exceeding jealousy and circumspection? And is there not something in the peculiar circumstances of this question, and of this time, which should make us particularly anxious to avoid the imputation of such a construction? It is impossible to forget the condition in which the ministry stands, in relation to this question. They are divided amongst themselves; and act upon it, not as a ministry, but each member of the government on his own individual opinion. It is, however, well known, that the preponderance of sentiment, among the members of the government, is adverse to the discussion of the Catholic claims. Would it not be unseemly, at least, if not of fearful consequence, to lead the people to believe that the dissolution of parliament had been resorted to, under these circumstances, in order to defeat the purpose of the House of Commons, and to interpose between their pledge and its accomplishment? I attribute not to the government this de- sign,—and, indeed, the conduct of the noble lord (Castlereagh) this night encourages the belief that such could not have been the intention of the act, to which I have alluded. But I state the danger and inconvenience of such a misconstruction, as contributing strong additional reasons for our proceeding, without hesitation, to give effect to the determination of the late House of Commons, and for our not suffering ourselves to be turned aside from this plain, straight-forward course, by any quibbling dispute, as to the degree of obligation, under which we lie, to discharge the duty which has devolved upon us.

I have said, Sir, that I feel myself fully as responsible for the present proposition, as the right hon. gentleman who has brought it forward. The House will recollect that, on the night on which I was so fortunate as to carry the Resolution, which has been read from the Journals of last session, I did most willingly surrender into the hands of the right hon. gentleman the task of rearing the superstructure on the foundation of which it was then my happiness to lay. I surrendered it to him with all that deference, which his great talents and authority demanded; and with a confidence, which his moderation has justified. From that moderation—from the temper displayed, in the course of these debates, by the right hon. gentleman himself, and infused into them by his example, I augur the happiest effects.

To him is to be joined, in the same praise, a right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunket) near him; to the merits of whose speech, on the first night of this debate, it is superfluous to add my feeble testimony: a speech displaying not only the talents of an accomplished orator, but the large views and comprehensive mind of a statesman; but still more commendable for a still greater excellence,—that of manfully disclaiming all meretricious popularity; and courageously rebuking the excesses of those, whose cause he came forward to plead. This debate will, I hope and I believe, have taught the Catholics that, while they may look, with confidence, to such powerful advocates, so long as they advance their claims with temper and constitutional deference to the authority of the state under which they live, they are not to rely upon a factious countenance and support, if they should attempt to extort, by intimidation, that boon, which we hope to grant to their prayer; or should contumaciously refuse to receive it in the same temper in which it is intended to be proposed. Sure I am that this conduct of the advocates of the Catholics has contributed mainly to that favourable disposition, which I think I perceive around me, on this night, and which, I trust, we shall carry with us, into the committee.

The objectors, Sir, to the present motion, may be divided into three classes. The first are those who, having concurred in the vote which I had the honour to propose last session, find, in circumstances which have since occurred, reasons for changing their opinion. The second and third classes comprize all those who either not having been parties to the vote of last session, or having opposed it, are equally at liberty to decide on the present question, according to their own judgment, and the difference between these two classes is this, that the objections of some rest on circumstances, which are transitory and temporary in their nature; while others cannot conceive any time or any circumstances, which could remove their difficulties, or soften their hostility to the Catholics, or make any change in the aspect and policy of the question.

With respect to the first class, or, I should rather say, with respect to him, who constitutes that class by himself—for my hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) has yet had no followers; he stands, as Cowley says of Pindar, "a phœnix," "a vast species alone." With respect to him, Sir, (for whose opinions, both when they differ from my own, and, I need hardly add, when they agree with my own, I feel the most unfeigned respect) the main objection which he feels to going into the committee, is founded on an apprehension that its result will be wholly unsatisfactory; that it will disappoint the sanguine hopes of the Catholics, and will equally fail in realizing the just expectations of the Protestants. He says, that the conduct of the Catholics, since the last session of parliament, has been full of turbulence and audacity; he says, that an alarm and inquietude pervades the Protestant community; and that the two parties are so far asunder, as to make any attempt to approximate them altogether hopeless: and he is of opinion, therefore, that, instead of persevering in the course chalked out by the last House of Commons, we cannot too soon put an end to any expectation of an interference on the part of parliament in a work so unpromising of advantage. My hon. friend well knows, and has correctly and candidly allowed that, with my view of the matter, I might admit his premises, both as to the conduct of the Catholics, and as to the state of the Protestant mind, and still contend that they are not conclusive against the proposition, upon which the House is to decide. I might admit, that the Catholics are in a state of ferment and agitation; and that the Protestant mind is anxious, and irritated in a high degree; I might admit, that these feelings of the Protestants are not less just than they are strong; and that the conduct of the Catholics has been such as their enemies must rejoice at, (if indeed their worst enemies be not those who have produced it), and as their friends must lament, though they will not immediately desert them, on account of it: but when I had admitted all this; when I had described this state of things in as dark colours as my hon. friend could supply; when I had exhausted all the figures of speech in expatiating upon its deplorable nature, and dangerous consequences, I should then have to ask ray hon. friend, "Is this a state of things which you wish to continue? or is it not rather one for which it is the duty of parliament to endeavour to find a remedy?" I feel as much indignation, as any man, at the conduct and temper which the Catholics have, in too many instances, exhibited: but I attribute it (as it has been attributed by many of the best informed upon the subject) to the influence and efforts of persons, who care not for the Catholic any more than for the Protestant part of the community; who see, in the distractions of the empire, the opportunity of gratifying their own personal ambition; who, for that purpose, would push the Catholics to excess, and exasperate the Protestants into resentment; whose object, in short, is not the settlement of the question, but its prolonged, and angry, and turbulent agitation. My policy, therefore, would be very different from that of my hon. friend. I would not go forth in the spirit of anger. Whatever indignation I may feel against those who have raised this storm, and who endeavour to encrease it, I consider the expression of that indignation as a secondary duty; our first duty is to tranquillize the storm: as the fabled Father of the Sea is beautifully described by the poet, when the ocean had been disturbed without his consent, as rebuking the felon winds which had thrown his element into such fearful agitation; but presently recollecting that the punishment of the authors of the mischief, may be best postponed till the mischief itself has been allayed: 'Quos ego—sed motos præstat componere fluctus.' Other arguments there are which my hon. friend has pressed into his service, on the present occasion; but of which it is sufficient to say, as coming from him, that they did not prevent him from voting in favour of my motion last session; though, if they be of any force now, they existed in equal force at that period. He complains, among other things, that the Catholics have not amalgamated with the Protestants, by intermarriages; an expedient which he thinks might have softened the asperities of the contending sects. This may be true, but it is at least, on new charge against the Catholics, nor any new cause of ill-will between them and the Protestants since, or arising out of the last vote of the House of Commons on this question. Whatever other mischief my motion may have done, or had a tendency to do, surely there was nothing in it to interpose a barrier to connubial happiness, to check the instincts of nature, and stop the propagation of mankind. This is, at least, therefore, no ground of objection, which ought to have occurred to my hon. friend for the first time to-night; nor is it one arising out of the present state and temper of the Catholics, but rather out of the feelings and policy of times now happily gone by. If my hon. friend had considered this point a little more;—if he had looked back into the statute book,—he would have found, in severe penal laws, (laws but lately repealed) the true impediments to Protestant and Catholic intermarriages, in the penalties imposed upon the Catholic priest who should dare to celebrate such a marriage; in the inducements held out to the conforming wife to betray her non-conforming husband, in the invitations to the son, just come from the nursery, to turn Protestant, for the purpose of supplanting his Catholic father in his property, and converting him into a mere tenant for life. While such laws prevailed, it surely was not wonderful that the Catholics should not be very desirous of intermarrying with Protestants; no wonder that they should not court alliances, which might thus make domestic life one continued jar, one scene of disquietude, suspicion and treachery. But be the case as it may, there is, I say, nothing in this point to justify my hon. friend in withdrawing this night the support which he gave to my motion of last year; nothing, therefore, upon which it is necessary that I should enlarge, as peculiarly applying to his peculiar class of objections.

Of the two classes of objectors who, not being parties to the vote of last session, or who, having opposed that vole, are at perfect liberty to use their discretion on the present occasion; the one, as I have said, objects to the measure now before us on temporary, the other on permanent and unalterable grounds.

At the head of the first division stands my right hon. friend (Mr. Yorke,) who followed the right hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) on the first night of this debate. My right hon. friend hopes and believes, that the causes which prevent his present concurrence, in the proposed measure, are not likely to be lasting; and he has had the candour to specify a few of the conditions which he requires, as necessarily preliminary to his vote in favour of it. The first of these is the death of Buonaparté. On this condition enough has already been said by gentlemen, who have preceded me in the debate; a more helpless system of policy, perhaps, could not easily be devised, than one which should be contented to rest the tranquillity of this empire on the ground of no other hope than a post obit on Buonaparté's existence. The next condition stipulated for by my right honourable friend is the previous cessation of all irritation on either side; the extinction of all angry feelings; the discontinuance of all meetings, turbulent or peaceable, the silence of all complaints, petitions, and lamentations. Then, indeed, when the sense of suffering should appear to be deadened, when the expectations of relief should have been happily extinguished, when hope itself had "sickened and so died;" then, in this new millenium of contented apathy, this still sabbath of subdued desire, my right hon. friend would come cheerfully forward to allay disorders no longer prevalent, and to grant concessions no longer required. When the parties now agitated with mutual jealousy shall, of their own accord, have dropped all dispute and forgotten all resentment; when the Orange-man and the Catholic shall have abjured their animosities, and lain down together like the. leopard and the kid; then, in my right hon. friend's opinion, the period will have arrived for a legislative interference, for which he thinks the crisis does not call so long as there is any difficulty to solve, or any danger to guard against.

The only remaining condition which must, according to my right hon. friend, precede any grant of relief to the Catholic is, that he shall cease to be a Catholic. Let him renounce the tenets of his religion, not his hostility to the state (for that is renounced, disclaimed, abjured already, in all the forms and solemnities, which the most jealous suspicion can devise,) and then to this more than reformed religionist, to this Protesting Dissenter from Catholicism, my tight hon. friend will hold out the indulgences which they no longer need. Sir, the good will of my right hon. friend would undoubtedly be of great value to any body of men; but I confess, that, to me, these conditions appear to place it at a price almost beyond the reach of human nature. Continue Catholics, and you are to expect my unremitting hostility. Cease to be Catholics, and I am your friend. Pope says of Atossa, that she ——" hates you while you live, But die, and shell adore you. such or something like it, would be my right hon. friend's posthumous toleration of a religion which had ceased to exist.

My right hon. friend was followed by a right hon. and learned baronet (sir J. Stewart,) formerly in a distinguished legal situation in Ireland. That right hon. and learned gentleman, so far as I was enabled to collect the tendency of his speech, after balancing some time the arguments in favour of concession, with those for resistance to the Catholic claims, decided, in the end, for continued resistance, on the ground that nothing could be done by parliament, until you were previously assured of the good and peaceable disposition of the Catholics. Where is the agreement, he asked, between the right hon. mover of this question and the Catholic body? Where the assurance that the conditions, which it may be thought right to annex to any boon, which parliament may be disposed to grant, will be complied with? The answer to this argument surely has been given so often, that it is hardly necessary to repeat it. An arrangement must begin somewhere. Will you nut rather begin on that side which has authority to grant, and to en- force the conditions of its grant, if necessary, than with that which, being composed of persons not competent to bind each other, has no legitimate organ through which its collective sense can be spoken, or by which any engagement can be taken, in its behalf? Let parliament enact, and the Catholics must obey; but to call upon any portion of the Catholic body to answer for the rest beforehand, as to what points they will be willing to compromise, is plainly and wilfully to lead them into a difficulty, I do not say with the hope, but I must say with the almost certainty of their not being able to extricate themselves from it. How is the Catholic will to be collected? By a general meeting? Physically impossible. By delegated representation?—That you have, and properly, put down. You have no resource, therefore, but to legislate for them: and the perpetual recurrence to the question, what will the Catholics agree to? appears to me scarcely more unjustifiable, as applied to the Catholics, than mistaken as applied to the practice of the constitution.

From this topic the right hon. gentleman diverged into a history of the penal laws against the Catholics in Ireland, not without some occasional expressions which might, by an uncandid hearer, have been interpreted, if not as conveying an approbation of these laws, at least as suggesting an apology for them. Among other points, the familiar assertion, that they are coeval with the Revolution, was not forgotten; an assertion certainly not employed by the right hon. gentleman to support the conclusion, that they ought therefore to have been retained in their full vigour, yet as certainly implying and conveying a notion of unwillingness too hastily to part with any portion of them.

First, however, this system of laws (as has often been sufficiently shewn) was not altogether contemporary with the Revolution. It was the work of four successive reigns. Secondly, laws which were requisite to guard an elected and a childless monarch against a dethroned rival, a rival holding fast the affections of his former Catholic subjects; and not of his Catholic subjects only; (for were there no churchmen Jacobites?) laws, I say, which might be justifiable in such circumstances, can they be stated to be therefore necessary now?—Look at the three following reigns, during which the system grew. To that of king William, childless, as I have said, and a foreigner, succeeded queen Anne; herself childless also, and so favourable (as was supposed) to the restoration of her exiled family, that it might well be thought necessary by her parliaments to guard the succession to the crown against her own wishes, no less than against the machinations of rebellion and foreign power. George I was a stranger; and a stranger might be excused if he imbibed the jealousies, and adopted the system of that class of his subjects to whom he owed his throne, if he sanctioned and countenanced severities, which they represented as necessary, against those whom he was taught to consider as his irreconcilable enemies. The res dura, et regni novitas, might palliate, if it could not excuse such a policy, during such a reign. But if we excuse that policy, we surely do not therefore wish to perpetuate it: nor would we renew, if it were in our power, in the present times, the maxims, which guided the conduct of a monarch, who, whatever were his great or amiable qualities, had the misfortune, incident to the state of things in which he lived, of being the king of but half his people. Of the reign of George 2, it may be sufficient to say, that it witnessed one most formidable explosion of rebellion, arising not from speculative or religious differences, indeed, but from that attachment to a banished dynasty, with which the Roman Catholics of these realms were held to be particularly infected. It is not unnatural that, in the course of a reign so disturbed, laws enacted against this specific mischief should not have been repealed nor softened; should have been maintained rather, and enforced in all their rigour.

But the establishment of the Protestant succession is surely now in no danger. The tender plant might require to be fenced and protected: but it has now struck its roots deep into the soil, and its branches over-canopy the land. Such a change in the circumstances of this kingdom, and of the world, justifies and requires a corresponding change of policy. Not only are not the same dangers now in active operation; but they are extinguished, past the power, or wit, or malice of man to revive. The hand of death has crushed the political part of those dangers, the rival and banished dynasty; and therewith has dissevered, for ever, the ill-omened union of treason and religion. You enacted these laws, not on account of faith, but on account of politics. Was it against transubstantia- tion? No such thing: but transubstantiation was the symbol of a creed in politics, as well as in religion, the object of which was to overturn the established government and constitution. To continue these enactments against transubstantiation, when it is no longer the symbol of dangerous politics, is as absurd as if, having had occasion to advertise a runaway felon, and to describe him by his red hair, you should thereafter forget that it was the felony which constituted the crime, and should, in all time to come, consider red hair as a capital offence.

Among those who, without being fairly for a repeal at any time, are yet not for maintaining all things which remain in the Catholic code precisely and unalterably as they are, I was surprised, and not a little delighted, to find this night, I think for the first time, my right hon. and learned friend (sir William Scott) the member for the University of Oxford. My right hon. and learned friend, not only begs to be understood as by no means saying, that no time may come, that no possible case may occur, in which he might agree to further concessions to the Catholics; but he has gone much farther, and confessed that there are many things, in the penal code, which appear to him to be beyond the necessity of the case as it now exists, and which might even now be pared down with advantage to the country. I hail the omen of this most unexpected, this most gratifying admission. When the noble lord (Castlereagh) and other honourable members have expressed their apprehension that the going into a committee might only be productive of disappointment,—forasmuch as they despaired of being able to come out of the committee, not only with any satisfactory arrangement, but even with any approximation to a better understanding between the two conflicting parties, with any indication, however remote, of softened asperity, or growing good will,—how little did they expect that this debate would exhibit, in the person of my right hon. and learned friend, so distinguished a convert to the cause of Catholic emancipation! One who, in consistency with his own arguments this night, must be prepared, not only to consent to, but himself to propose many important relaxations; many innovations in the Catholic code, such as but a few weeks ago would have been resisted to the uttermost, if proposed by persons avowedly friendly to the Catholic cause! That learned and eminent university, of which my right hon. and learned friend is at once the representative and the ornament, will assuredly receive with the most lively satisfaction the account which my hon. and learned friend will send them tomorrow of the part which he has taken in this night's debate, and has determined to take in the committee; and, with whatever apprehensions they may hitherto have regarded the progress of the present measure, assuredly that apprehension will subside, when they find that many of the relaxations which are to be proposed, perhaps most of those, which will be finally carried, are to originate with that learned and excellent person to whose hands their interests are so properly confided.

My right hon. and learned friend stands thus about midway between the class of temporary opposers, and that of those who would never concede any thing more. According to this last class, the extension of any privileges whatever to the Catholics is incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. If this be true—how shall we excuse the rashness of which we have already been guilty, in admitting them to the bar! in allowing them to become subalterns in the army! What mischief have we not hazarded by permitting them to come thus within reach of the vital parts of the constitution,—of its legal system, and of its military force,—with no other security for their good behaviour in trusts of such delicacy and under opportunities of such temptation to do—I know not precisely what indeed—than their oaths! Oaths which, as the same persons contend, convey no security at all!

The Catholic, it seems, holds no faith with heretics: he disregards the sanctity of the most solemn obligation; or uses it only as a snare for entrapping the unwary Protestant into a reliance which he may afterwards betray. It has been asked, indeed, by persons of a less jealous and wary disposition, "What would you have the Catholics do to prove their sincerity? They die in your defence."—Aye—that's their hypocrisy!—Sir, I confess I know of no argument which can avail against rear toning like this.

Happily it is not necessary for me or for others who take the part which I take in this debate, to explain and justify the policy by which the Catholics have been admitted to the privileges which they now enjoy. That is done. That is now the constitution. Let those who quarrel with it propose to mend it in their own sense; and then we shall have their view of the subject fairly before us.

But when, in consequence of the privileges already conceded to them, the Catholics are held out as traitorous and ungrateful, because they sigh for what is still withholden, it may surely be said,—not in recommendation of the policy of granting their wish, but in justification of them for entertaining it, that they live among those who enjoy higher privileges from which they are themselves excluded;—that to consider such exclusion as the stamp of degradation, is human nature;—and that, provided the further participation in the privileges of their fellow subjects be asked in a becoming manner, we surely need not resent the request, though we may determine, as best suits our views of the just interests of the whole community, when, and in what proportion, and with what qualifications we shall grant it.

Above all things, let us avoid a harsh, insulting, irritating language: let us avoid it on our side, to discourage it on the other. Much injury is done to the cause of either party by mischievous advocates. The blame of this sort of mischief does not rest entirely with the Catholics. I would it did. But, on the other side of the controversy, there have not been wanting examples, which I wish had not been afforded, to justify—or—(justify they cannot)—to excite and keep alive the intemperance of the Catholic demagogues. Societies are formed in this metropolis for disseminating the most absurd misrepresentations with respect to the Catholics; anonymous letters from Limeric;—histories of serving maids turned off on account of their religion;—such trash and trumpery, in short, as never before was brought forward in aid of any solemn discussion, or in support of any righteous cause. Take a few specimens of these publications.—(Mr. Canning here read several extracts from the publications in question, but concluded with saying)—Sir, I am ashamed to dwell upon such stuff. I should be sorry that my citation of them in this place should prolong their ephemeral existence. Were their vigour proportioned to their venom, they might poison society for a long time to come, and render altogether incurable the differences, which unhappily exist between the different classes of the community. But we shall hear no more of them after this night's debate, and after this night's vote, which will shew, I trust, how little congenial is the temper of these publications and their inditers, to that in which the British House of Commons is proceeding to legislate for the peace and strength of the empire.

Some gentlemen have adverted, in the course of this debate, to the language of many of the petitions against the Roman Catholics, and have censured in grave terms the activity of the clergy in procuring and forwarding such petitions. I am not of their opinion, so far as relates to the clergy. Ill language, and strange and distorted reasonings, indeed cannot be defended by any authority or sanctified by any names; and the House will of course take the several petitions for what they are intrinsically worth, and for no more. But the clergy, I think, are unjustly blamed for their activity. I differ from them indeed entirely as to any apprehension of danger to the establishment, from the temperate and guarded concession of civil privileges to our Catholic fellow subjects; but I do not think the worse of them for feeling and exhibiting even exaggerated and groundless alarm, upon any thing affecting, in their conscientious opinion, the safety or well-being of the church. It is their duty to take such an alarm on the slightest indication of danger. Nothing can be more idle than to imagine that any class or description of men will see what they conceive their rights or interests invaded, or even approached, without feeling sensibly,—I might say sensitively,—the approximation of the innovating hand. Not a canal or a turnpike bill passes this House without experiencing, in its progress, the impediment of conflicting interests; and to reconcile such interests in great things and in small is one main function of this House. The constitution itself, practically perfect as it is, is one great system of checks and balances, apparently and theoretically counteracting, in effect controlling, each other. To maintain the peculiar privileges of that class to which we especially belong, is the natural impulse of passion, as well as, perhaps, the safest rule of duty. And shall we cast blame on those who are the guardians of the temple—the sworn depositaries of that vestal fire which enlightens and purifies, and consecrates the civil constitution of the state—if they manifest a more than ordinary jealousy, and rise up with more, perhaps, than a necessary zeal, against the very shadow of a danger—if they watch with trembling anxiety over a charge so precious and so holy? I acquit the clergy, then, as a body, of the blame which has been thrown upon them: but I could wish, at the same time, that they would consider with how good an effect they might set an example of mildness and charity in the controversy, in which, I am ready to admit, they may not be able to abstain altogether from engaging. They stand upon the vantage ground, and in proportion as they approach the nearest to the true and evangelical system of religion, they may, with the least hazard of sacrificing any part of its true interests, be forbearing towards those who are in error: Tuque prior, tu parce, genus qui ducis Olympo.' It is not in exception, or derogation to this general apology for the clergy, that I mention a tract which has been put into my hands this morning, in answer to a letter published by a respectable Roman Catholic gentleman, whose name and high professional character (Mr. Butler) are probably known to many gentlemen who hear me. His answerer is, I have no doubt, a gentleman of equal respectability; and, evidently, upon the face of his work, a scholar of no inconsiderable attainments, and a divine of the purest principles. I refer to his work, and to Mr. Butler's, as perhaps the two least exceptionable, on their respective sides, to shew how liable even the best men are to be run away with by the zeal of controversy, and to be betrayed into modes of reasoning, and into harshnesses of expression which, in calmer moments, they can hardly fail to regret. The answerer begins, by charging Mr. Butler with "a material suppressio veri, which," says the reverend writer, "is, as Mr. Butler knows, almost as bad as a suggestio falsi." Now here are pretty strong terms, and such as any gentleman will probably allow ought not to be used, unless they can be borne out by pretty strong facts. "Mr. Butler (says his antagonist) begins, by stating to you the resolution of the late House of Commons, passed last session, stating, that it would take into consideration the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, with a view to such final conciliatory adjustment as might be conducive to the peace and strength of the united kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's sub- jects. Now (proceeds the answerer), what Mr. Butler forgot to mention is, first, that this resolution, which was carried in the House of Commons by no very large majority, when proposed in the House of Lords, was rejected." So says the answerer. Far be it from me to apply to him, or to any other respectable man, the charge of 'suppressing truth, or 'suggesting falsehood.5 But that at the very moment when he was preferring against another the charge of suggesting falsehood,' he should himself speak of the majority, by which the resolution of last session was carried in the House of Commons, as no very large majority'—a majority of one hundred and twenty-nine,'—a majority, as every man at all observant of the proceedings of this House well knows, of very unusual magnitude;—I that at the very moment of accusing another of suppressing truth, he should state the rejection of that resolution by the House of Lords, as more than counterbalancing this majority of the House of Commons, and sink, at the same time, the material fact, that it was rejected only by the smallest of all conceivable majorities,—a majority of one proxy;—these are oversights which plainly shew that there must be something so blinding in controversial zeal, as to mislead even the most ingenuous minds into accusations and assertions very ill assorted with each other.

A little onward I find another instance of that quick perception of the error of an antagonist, and that unconsciousness of one's own, which characterizes disputatious controversy. Mr. Butler has, it seems, attempted a "set-off" of Protestant against Catholic persecutions:—an unjustifiable and unprofitable mode of argument, I admit; and to be discountenanced with all the indignation which his adversary properly expresses against it. But is it not whimsical that, in the very midst of the vehemence of that indignation, the adversary should not be able to refrain from falling into the very fault which he was reprehending? Mr. Butler states, that "Servetus was burned by Calvin." The fact, I am afraid, is true. The inference (if Mr. Butler intend such an inference) of a "set-off" would be unjustifiable. But how does the answerer treat this argument? "Would not Servetus have been burned (says he) if he had remained in Spain?" As if the fault of this horrible murder had lain, not in the cruelty of the persecutors, but in the peculiarly combustible nature of the victim! Surely it is not thus that Mr. Butler's practice of "set-offs" is to be exposed and brought to shame!

These, I say, Sir, are instances which shew how much the best and ablest of men deceive themselves, when their passions and prejudices are called into activity, by an honest, though mistaken zeal, for, what they may think, the vital interests of the establishment, to which they belong. And when I speak of interest, let me not be supposed to mean that sordid species of interest, which I have heard attributed to the clergy, in the course of this debate, as if they were alive only to the emoluments and dignities of the church, and not solicitous about its purity of doc trine, and sober excellence of discipline. I acquit them, from my heart, of motives and feelings so unworthy of their high trust and calling. I believe them to be actuated by the purest zeal: and I quarrel not with any accidental intemperance, in their expression of it, however much I may regret and would discourage that intemperance for the sake of public example, and of the public peace.

I confess, however, that I am not quite so indulgent to all classes of petitioners who have thought proper to come forward upon this occasion. Among others there is one much relied on by my right hon. and learned friend (sir W. Scott), the petition presented by the descendants of the French Protestant Refugees. This petition might, I think, have been spared: it might have been more becoming, in these persons, to have acted as if, schooled by persecution, they had learnt mercy; as if the recollection of the sufferings of their ancestors had inclined them rather to protest against the principle of civil disabilities on account of religious differences, than to come forward the warmest and most eager advocates of that exclusion and those penalties, when inflicted upon others, which their ancestors had found so degrading and intolerable, when inflicted upon themselves. My right hon. friend was led, by this petition, to allude to some former speeches of mine, in which I referred to the edict of Nantz.—The edict of Nantz he admits to have been a well-intended attempt, but a most misguided one, he seems also to think, to quiet religious animosities by political concession: and, he says that alter a short trial (a trial of near a century) it was repealed. What then did France gain by the edict of Nantz? says my right hon. friend. What did France gain, say I, by the revocation of it? She lost by that revocation upwards of 800,000 of her most industrious citizens;—she lost her most skilful artizans and mechanics—a loss, impoverishing France even almost up to our day; and turning proportionally to the advantage of every country, in which the exiles found an asylum. This country, among others, has profiled by the accession of skill and industry, which the refugees brought with them—by every tiling except their passions and their prejudices, which I wish sincerely they had left behind them. We do not grudge them, nor their descendants, the protection which this country has afforded them. Let them not grudge to us the maintenance of quiet and harmony among ourselves. Let them not revenge on this nation, by stirring up and inflaming bitter animosities here, the injuries which they have inherited from France; and the consequences of which have made them Englishmen.

There is only another petition, Sir, to which I think it necessary particularly to advert. A few evenings ago, we saw the lord mayor of Dublin, for the first time since the Union, at our bar; claiming the same privileges of audience which are enjoyed by the sheriffs of London. Properly as well as courteously, this House received him with all the ceremony, which he desired. Why did this venerable person approach us with this state and formality? Why were we, now, for the first time, honoured by his appearance, robed in all the pomp of office? On what great and glorious victory did he come to congratulate us, and to join the voice of Dublin to the acclamations of this country? What grand local improvement in the internal state and condition of the metropolis of Ireland, or of Ireland itself, did he come to announce, or to recommend? None of all these causes brought him to your bar. He comes to check the growing liberality of this House to his Catholic countrymen. He comes with a petition from the corporation of Dublin to exclude their Catholic brethren from the franchises of the constitution. But is this his only purpose? or does he approach us with one hand only full? No, Sir, while, in his right hand, he waves the prohibitory scroll which is to exorcise the Roman Catholic from the pale of the state, with the other he tenders a petition against the monopoly of the East India Company. Down with monopoly in trade; but live the monopoly of power!

Sir, it would have been most edifying to hear that debate, in the corporation of Dublin, in which these two petitions were proposed and agreed upon. It would have been curiou.5 to behold the countenances of the orators, who, in one and the same sitting, advanced and enforced claims so opposite, in their fundamental principles, to each other. I am at a loss to conceive how they could travel, with a grave face, from their animating exordium in favour of general liberty, of equal rights to citizens of the same country, and subjects of the same king; from their dissertation on the injustice of exclusion and the odiousness of monopoly, to the bi-forked inference—therefore let us petition to be admitted into a free participation of the East India company's trade, and therefore let us petition for the continued exclusion of Catholics from the state. The two petitions which were the subject of this contemporaneous decision, must have been so mixed up in the minds of the orators, that they would insensibly be led to defend their policy, on the one, by the arguments of their antagonists on the other, and to strengthen their case against the Catholics with topics borrowed from the Court of Directors. "The Catholics (they would say) are already admitted, as far as they can safely be admitted, into the commerce and intercourse of the state. Admit them farther,—allow them to penetrate into the interior of the constitution,—and there is no saying what disturbances they will excite, what ravages they will perpetrate. The corporation of Dublin is a chartered company: and charters are serious things. We will not take our charter again, if Catholics are permitted to approach our hall: and then, where will you get another Dublin corporation? There are, indeed, some, losing branches of trade, such as rates and taxes, which we will freely throw open to our Catholic brethren: but power and profit are out-exclusive privileges; emolument must be sacred from the inroads of adventurers; and office is the very China of the constitution!"

Those, Sir, who object to any alteration at any time in the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, who contend that we ought to remain precisely at the point at which we have arrived, must, in consistency, call upon us to retrace our steps, and to revert to the original policy on which these laws were framed. The miserable remnant of the system, composed as it is of shreds and patches wholly without order or relation to each other, can never satisfy those who really think effective coercion, necessary; who admire, in the wisdom of our ancestors, that active intolerance and vigorous persecution, which kept down the Catholic by keeping down the man; which checked the course of bad politics, by stunting national prosperity, and prohibiting the growth of population. They must be aware bow utterly inefficacious the present state of the laws is, compared with that from which it has degenerated; and however they may suppress the fond exclamation, they mast, in secret, sigh for the return of those times, when the brand of Catholic disability was flagrant and unmitigated; to the infinite assurance and comfort of every friend of Protestant superiority. The time is come when these wishes may be breathed aloud. The House of Commons has admitted, in the face of the country, that the present state of the Catholic laws requires examination. This examination will probably tend to establish the opinion that they cannot continue as they are. But what then? May not the remedy be to go back rather than forward? And why, therefore, do the resistera of concession throw away the chance which a committee affords them of bringing their favourite system into action? Let them agree in the present motion to fulfil the pledge of the last House of Commons by going into a committee; and who knows but we may come out of that committee with a resolution, that the ancient laws against the Ronan Catholics ought to be revived and enforced? It is true, indeed, that the resolution of the last session speaks of a "conciliatory" adjustment; but the enemies of concession may, perhaps, be able to shew, in the committee, that the course of conciliation is retrogade; and that pure and mutual contentment, are only to be arrived at through final depression on the one part, and restored and continued ascendancy on the other.

It is one of the main arguments against those who are in favour of the committee, that they are not all agreed as to the plan to be proposed in it. Probably not. But if we are agreed only on one point,—the utter absurdity of the laws in question in their present state,—we are sufficiently agreed for this first step of going into a committee to consider of them. And among all those who agree that it is expe- dient to remove the disabilities, civil and military, under which the Catholics still labour, so far as they can be removed consistently with the most perfect and entire security to the Protestant succession and Protestant establishment, there is a sufficiently plain broad ground of concurrence.

It has been asked, will you, then, in the preamble to your Bill, reenact the Bill of Rights, and the other fundamental statutes on which our Protestant establishment rests? Is that your boasted security? Sir, I do not understand the right hon. gentleman to whom this question is thus tauntingly addressed, to have said so. I understood him, in anticipation of the usual quotation from the Bill of Rights by another right hon. gentleman (Mr. Yotke) to say, that he had no objection to recite the Bill of Rights word for word from his Bill, in order to record his sense, and the sense of parliament, of the perpetuity of the Protestant establishment, if it were supposed that his measure could bring the Protestant establishment into question. Had he not declared himself ready to do this, would he not have been taunted for the omission, and would it not have been very probable that words to this very effect, of reaffirming the Bill of Rights, &c. would have been moved as an amendment?

The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grattan) as I understand him, proposes to obtain a resolution of the committee of the whole House, authorizing him to bring in a Bill. In no other way (as you, Sir, I am confident, will state, if necessary) can a Bill on such a subject properly originate. In this Bill the right hon. gentleman will state precisely the further concessions which he conceives it just and politic to extend to the Catholics, and the securities with which he deems it uecessary to accompany the grant. It will then be open for other gentlemen to suggest such alterations and amendments as they think right, either to perfect this great work in the sense of its author, or to add to, or limit, the original design. For my own part, I consider myself as technically pledged by my vote of this night no further than merely to the entering into a committee. But I can have no difficulty in declaring that I go into that committee prepared to agree to a recognition of the general principle which I have just stated, that it is expedient to remove Catholic disabilities so far as that can be done consistently with Protestant security;—I should rather say, perhaps, for the correct expression of my own particular views, to remove them for the express purpose of making the whole fabric of our establishments more secure. But I do not consider myself as in any degree pledged to particular details.

After the general principle shall have been affirmed, there will, no doubt, be many shades of difference to reconcile, even among persons who approach the nearest to each other in opinion. The right hon. mover and myself, for instance, set out with a general concurrence as to the great object, but with some difference of views as to the means of its accomplishment; he, actuated (I may say so, without offence) by prejudices of the best and most honourable kind, prejudices arising from personal acquaintance and long established reciprocal regard, in favour of those whose cause he has so strenuously and so perseveringly pleaded; I am favourable (no man more so, not the right hon. gentleman himself) to the final settlement of this important question, but not feeling nor pretending to feel for the claims of the Catholics, with the partiality of a partisan. Anxious, indeed, I am, most sincerely anxious to admit them to the franchises of the constitution, to see them take their place among their fellow-subjects without distinction, without disfavour, but thus anxious, I fairly own, not for the sake of their peculiar interests, but for the benefit of the whole community. Such differences as these are not irreconcilable where there is a cordial agreement on the fundamental point. We may differ, we may by possibility even divide against each other on points of minor detail, upon an office more or less to be excepted, upon a condition more or less to be imposed; but such accidental difference, even if pushed to the extent of a division, would not affect our general fundamental concurrence in principle; and will not afford (let them be assured) any chance of triumph to those common adversaries of the question, who ground their expectation of success on the dissension of its advocates.

My hon. friend opposite to me (Mr. Bankes) has called upon me to state, at once and in particular detail, all my views and opinions, my limits of concession, and my notions of security, on the present stage of the proceeding. With all due deference to my hon. friend, I do not think that this is the time, nor, to speak fairly, do I think that he is the person to call upon me for such a disclosure. Had my hon. friend declared his own vote to be suspended until he should hear my plan, there might be some temptation held out to me to do what would be, in other respects, imprudent and ill-limed, for the chance of obtaining his individual but powerful support. But my hon. friend has already declared his vote to be perfectly decided; and has moreover given the House to understand that he is pretty well aware of the nature of my plans. On what possible ground then does he call upon me to state them prematurely? Is it to justify his vote against myself? I do not admit that the statement which he calls for would have that effect: but as I am sure, on the other hand, that it cannot have the effect of drawing his vote back, I shall, with his permission, choose my own time for that statement.

It would be presumptuous and indiscreet to go into such details at this stage of the business: presumptuous, because till the general principle is settled, it would be an unpardonable waste of the time of the House to obtrude my particular notions upon their attention: but indiscreet in the highest degree, after the experience which we have had in the case of the Veto, which was utterly lost by premature disclosure. I have very little, doubt, that if that suggestion had been kept back until a resolution to make some concession to the Catholics had passed this House, and that the concessions, and the proposed security of the Veto, had then been offered simultaneously, the offer would have been thankfully accepted. By premature disclosure and angry discussion—angry, because unqualified by any hint or expectation of a conciliatory arrangement, the Veto was blown upon, and condemned before it was well understood: and is now become so unpopular that it would make concession itself unacceptable. Perhaps I do not regret this quite so much as the noble lord, (Castlereagh) and others seem to do, because the more I reflect upon the Veto, the less I am satisfied of its beneficial tendency; and the more I am inclined to apprehend that there would have been found to be great practical objections to it: objections not so much on the Catholic, as on the Protestant side of the question. But good or bad, it has been lost by premature discussion. And when my hon. friend calls upon me to throw out, in the same manner, whatever plans I may have in my mind,—to be censured, by some as ineffectual, by others as oppressive; to be misconceived, in short, and misrepresented in all sorts of ways, until they are rendered wholly unpalatable, and, of consequence, wholly impracticable, he invites me to err, in the very teeth of recent experience; and instead of forwarding the work of conciliation, to open new sources of disunion, and give new hold to the enemies of the settlement at which we aim.

I am called upon to state the securities which I think necessary and sufficient. I answer—do you state the dangers you apprehend. This is surely the natural order of the argument. But, when I say this, do not let me be understood as retorting the taunt of our antagonists; as meaning to defy them to state any dangers; or as intending to insinuate, that I do not really think any thing in the shape of securities requisite. I do think securities for the Protestant establishments indispensible. I also think them not difficult to be devised. But, again I say when called upon to state their nature and limits, I cannot answer you satisfactorily, because I cannot answer you intelligibly, without previously ascertaining your ideas of the nature and extent of the dangers.

Is it the power of the Pope that frightens you? Is it that he is in the hands of Buonaparté?—Is it that the spiritual power of the Roman see is to be united with the military power of France against us; and that England will be not only blockaded, but excommunicated? What then? There is one small circumstance, which robs this threat of half its terrors;—it is this,—we are excommunicated already; and have been so for some time past—I believe ever since the reign of queen Elizabeth. And as to the secular arm, I am at a loss to conceive how Buonaparté can be more fully and determinedly against us than he is, or how he can extend or aggravate his hostility. Is it that the Pope, under Buonaparté's direction, will bestir himself with the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, and will influence them against this country: In God's name, are they not equally exposed to such influence, as things now stand? and is not their influence over their flocks more formidable, in proportion to the prevalence of discontent and dissatisfaction among them?

From external we come to internal dangers. Would you admit Roman Ca- tholics into power to so unlimited a degree, as to suffer them to regulate the concerns of Protestants even in ecclesiastical matters? There is no difficulty that I see in answering this question distinctly. The answer is, "Certainly not." A clear and positive qualification to this effect, is precisely one of those which I should myself propose to introduce into the Bill, if I did not (which, however, I dare say I shall) find it there. All ecclesiastical offices, all offices connected with the ecclesiastical courts must be excepted from those which are thrown open by the Bill. Would you give a Catholic the custody of the great seal, and thereby make him keeper of the Protestant king's conscience? Again, speaking for myself, my own opinion, I answer "No." This would be another of the exemptions which I should certainly propose in the Bill. I should except also the lord lieutenancy of Ireland. I should except, perhaps, the office of commander in chief. I have no difficulty in stating these opinions now. I shall be perfectly ready to discuss them when the occasion comes.

Then says my hon. friend (Mr. Bankes), and he thinks he has me in a dilemma, "What will you do with the Test Act?" If I answer "Nothing:" then, I suppose he anticipates exclamations against my inconsistency: If I say, "Repeal it"—then what alarm for the church? But I am not daunted by either of these opposite dfficulties. I answer distinctly thus:—The temper and practice of the British constitution is to redress practical grievance, but not to run after theoretical perfection. It loves to set the subjects of the realm at ease in point of conscience, and it abhors practical oppression; but it cares little whether the theory of every part of its system squares exactly with that of every other part. Now, if a motion were made tomorrow, for the repeal of the Test Act, my first inquiry would be, "Is there any practical grievance resulting from its existence?"—my second, "Is there any considerable or certain evil to be apprehended from making the change?" And if the answer to the first of these questions should be in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative, I should not then be tempted to incur the certain hazard, for the sake—not of doing a good, but of curing an unsightliness or an anomaly. Prove to me that neither the Roman Catholic nor the state suffer any detriment from the laws now in being; and it is not their mere harsh sound, or their mere deformity; in the page of our statute book, that should induce rue to urge their repeal, against the feelings of many worthy and excellent men. Prove to me that the dissenters do practically suffer great inconvenience and injustice, and it is not the mere name of the Test Act, that should stand in the way of their relief. But I would not wantonly offend even the prejudices of the church; nor would I risk the great practical good which I think I may obtain, for the sake of doing every thing upon system. Limitation, exception, qualification, compromise, are not peculiar to this business; they enter into all the business of human life, they controul and modify all human transactions. To do the greatest possible good with the least possible harm is, after all our endeavours, the nearest approach that we can hope to make towards perfection. Let us, therefore, go into the committee, with a sincere disposition to do all in our power to conciliate our Catholic fellow-subjects, without sacrificing to their interest, the interests of other portions of the community; with a view not to partial kindness, but to public good. It would be, indeed, quite visionary to expect, that we should meet with no obstruction in our progress, from feelings in various quarters which cannot, perhaps be entirely satisfied, from conflicting opinions which can neither be wholly admitted nor wholly set aside. We must do the best we can; and I have little fear of any serious impediment from differences upon detail, provided the vote of this night shall establish the general principle of the measure.

You dread foreign influence, arising from the correspondence with the see of Rome. A grave, a real source of just solicitude. But first I ask, "does this correspondence exist now?" If it does, then there is no justice in bringing it as an argument arising from any thing now proposed to be done. On the contrary, that correspondence between the head of the Roman Catholic church and the Catholic clergy does now go on, has gone on for years, and you, the opposers of this measure, do not pretend to suggest any means of controuling it. What if I should propose, in this Bill, to place it under proper controul; would not such an arrangement strengthen instead of repairing the security of the constitution? Would it not be safer to have that intercourse carried on avowedly, but under inspection and superintendence, which is now carried on— illegally to be sure—but in fact carried on, in secret; unacknowledged indeed, but uncontrouled?

I repeat it, I do not affect to think lightly of the importance, of providing against those dangers which might be apprehended as likely or possible to arise out of a grant of new privileges to the Catholics. I respect the honest prejudices of the Protestant mind; but gentlemen must not set down to the account of the measure now in agitation, not only the dangers which they apprehend in prospect, but those which actually exist at the present moment. Far from wishing to check, or to circumscribe the examination of these slated dangers, I am anxious to explore them thoroughly; I am anxious to carry the torch of discussion into all the remotest chambers of this haunted edifice, and to pursue into its inmost recesses these phantoms of peril, till they disperse and vanish before the light.

The right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunket), to whose speech I have before alluded with the praise which it deserves, suggested a notion of passing the Bill, provisionally, or rather conditionally; of enacting that the provisions of the Bill shall take effect only on the happening of certain contingencies, I cannot say that there is no case to which I might think that proceeding properly applicable. I should certainly much prefer it to the suggestion of the noble lord Castlereagh, of deferring to legislate at all, until communication should have been previously had with the Pope, and something on the principle of a Concordat established between his holiness and this government. To that plan—to the plan of consulting the Pope at all,—of negotiating with him, with a foreign power, on behalf of a portion of the subjects of this crown, I object decidedly. Great mischiefs too, I think, would arise from now forbearing to reduce I our projects (be they what they may) into the shape of a Bill. Hope on the one side, and fear on the other side, will be busy in exaggeration during the period of uncertainty. I am therefore desirous that the measure should be as early as possible before the country, in a definite shape; that they may have some thing capable of being seen, felt, touched and handled. If the Bill cannot (for any reason) pass into a law this year, then I think that something between the propositions of the right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunket), and of the noble lord (Castlereagh), would per- haps be desirable. The Bill prepared and brought in by the right hon. mover might, after the second reading, be filled up, pro forma, in a committee, and then be permitted to be over till another session. But of these points it is hardly possible to judge, till we shall have made some progress in the work, to which we are now (I hope) approaching. Come what will, I am convinced that we shall never have occasion to regret any step which we may take in fulfilment of the promise of the last House of Commons, so much as we should the rejection of a measure, on which the attention and anxiety of the public have been suspended for so many years; which there is now no impediment to our entertaining, and which our predecessors in this House solemnly pledged themselves to entertain.

Sir, the name of Mr. Pitt having been introduced by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Tomline), who spoke early in this debate, and who is in every way entitled to the courtesy of this House, I cannot pass it over in silence. The hon. gentleman, a young member of parliament, commenced his first address to us in a manner rather extraordinary, by stating, that he rose to set the House right, in regard to a fact;—a fact certainly not within his own memory or knowledge, and upon which, therefore, he could only set us right, either by adducing some other authority in support of his version of it, or by reasoning. He quoted no other authority; and his reasoning was this,—that, as Mr. Pitt had not latterly thought it right to bring forward the Catholic question, he therefore must have changed his opinion upon it. Now this argument might possibly have weight some centuries hence, provided no records or recollection remained of any of the circumstances of Mr. Pitt's last administration; but at present, while there are so many even in this House who had the opportunity of hearing that great state man declare his own reasons for the abstinence which he undoubtedly practised in respect to the Catholic question, the conclusion of the hon. gentleman can hardly be expected to meet with an implicit acquiescence. On the 14th of May 1805, Mr. Pitt delivered, in this House, his then opinions and wishes on the subject of the admission of the Roman Catholic to the franchises of the constitution. I have once before had occasion to quote them in this House, when his authority was once before quoted against his opinion. The record is, according to the best of my recollection, pretty faithful. I am sure the substance is correct.

" I thought (said Mr. Pitt) that such concessions to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects might have been granted, by an united parliament, under such guards and securities for our civil and ecclesiastical constitution, as would entirely remove the danger which many apprehend might arise from so great a departure from the policy of former times; as would render the boon safe: to the country, effectual to those who received, innocent to those by whom it was conferred, and conducive to the strength, unanimity and prosperity of the empire. Such were my sentiments formerly; such are they now; if, from a concurrence of circumstances it were expedient now to grant those concessions; and if by a wish I could carry such a measure into effect, I am ready to confess that I see no rational objection to it."

These words, these memorable words, are not to be effaced from the minds and the hearts of those who heard them by any reasoning; nor will it be pretended I think, that between the day on which these words were uttered, the 14th of May. 1805, and the day of Mr. Pitt's lamented death, any thing had happened which could work so fundamental a change in his opinion as the hon. member assumed to have taken place in it between his first and second administration. But if such were at the period to which I have referred, if such continued to the very end of his life Mr. Pitt's opinions upon this great subject, he was (says the hon. gentleman) wholly unprovided with any means of carrying those opinions into effect. He had no plan. Here again the hon. gentleman speaks not from authority, but argumentatively; and his argument deserves particular notice for its ingenuity. Mr. Pitt it seems had no plan,—for Mr. Pitt did not communicate his plan to lord Eldon. The syllogism runs thus—Every plan for settling the Catholic question must be communicated to the Lord Chancellor; Mr. Pitt did not communicate any such plan to the Lord Chancellor; Ergo, Mr. Pitt had no such plan. I will admit the minor proposition if the hon. gentleman pleases; but negatur major. I will allow that Mr. Pitt made no such communication to lord Eldon, the avowed enemy of Mr. Pitt's known views of this question; but I utterly deny that it was incumbent on Mr. Pitt to make any such communication; or that his not making it warrants the hon. gent.'s conclusion.

In truth, Sir, every man who hears me knows—it is notorious to all the world,—what was the impediment to Mr. Pitt's pursuing his own views of this question. Whether he did right in yielding to that impediment or not, is a point which has been over and over again discussed in this House, and which I will not weary the House with re-debating at present. I think he was right in that forbearance. I have acted myself on the same principle of forbearance since his death. But the impediment is in force no longer; and I have in my own mind the most perfect conviction not only that Mr. Pitt never changed his opinion upon the subject, fundamentally, that he considered that opinion as suspended, not abandoned; and that had he been now happily alive, he would now have been pursuing the course which I think it my duty to pursue on this occasion. This, I say, is my own conviction. I do not pretend to state it as my knowledge. I ask no deference to any presumed authority of mine on this point. I stand on Mr. Pitt's recorded words, compared with his known conduct; known to all who either were contemporary with him in this House, or who have traced the history of his public and parliamentary life.

I have now, Sir, little further with which to detain the House. In voting for the committee, with a view to the calm, deliberate, and dispassionate consideration of this great question, I fulfil not only my own sense of public duty, but I verily believe the wishes of a majority of the community, even as expressed in the petitions upon your table. Of those petitions many pray that the emancipation (as it is improperly called) of the Catholics, may not be unconditional. I agree with those petitioners. Some pray for the interference of the legislature for the final settlement of the dispute. I would grant the prayer of those petitioners also. Even to those whose petitions are drawn up in hostility to the grant of fresh concessions, I say, "we must go into a committee even to execute your purpose fully and satisfactorily. It cannot be believed that any thing short of a deliberate decision after full discussion will settle a question so long in dispute."

But beside the numerous petitioners who have interfered with their prayers or their advice, consider how much larger a body of the people have not interfered at all! What must their sense of the matter be supposed to be? Obviously, that they rest satisfied with the last determination of the House of Commons. And what was that last determination? It is recorded in the resolution of June 1812. The whole church of Scotland have been quiescent on the subject, with the exception of the presbytery of Glasgow, which, after discussing the propriety of petitioning on the subject, decided not to do so. Thus, in that country, where, a century ago, king William was obliged to take an oath to extirpate the Roman Catholics, not a voice is now to be heard in hostility to their being admitted to a just participation of the constitution.

I vote therefore for going into the committee, in compliance with the prayers of the petitioners, who almost generally concur in praying for some final decision; in deference to the wishes of those whose very silence implies their expectation, their contented expectation, that we should now proceed to the consideration of this question in the manner and with the view prescribed and recorded by the last House of Commons; but neither should I be satisfied to give this vote in conformity to the inclinations of however large a majority of the people, if I were not conscientiously convinced, at the same time, that by doing so I best consult the real and permanent interests of the British empire.

After Mr. Canning had sat down, a very great uproar arose, and cries of "Question, question," resounded from every corner of the House. Mr. Bathurst remained on his legs for some time", and all his endeavours to obtain a hearing were ineffectual. A motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Ryder and seconded: but on the remonstrance of Mr. Ponsonby the motion was withdrawn, and order being restored:

Mr. Bathurst

proceeded. He reminded the House of the manner in which this question was carried in the last year;—that it was done in the confident expectation, in which he certainly had not concurred, that such an arrangement might have been made with the Catholic body, as would have enabled the promoters of the measure to bring forward in this session, a well-digested plan, mutually satisfactory, of concession, guarded by securities. The proposed Bill, which had been opened by the right hon. gentleman, contained a sweeping repeal of all restrictions; but not a word was said of the securities which were to be substituted; yet it had been admitted, by a right hon. member, (Mr. Plunket) who had eloquently supported the motion, that some regulations were necessary; particularly with respect, to the interference of the Pope, in the appointment of bishops. He would ask, what probability there was that any regulations would be submitted to by the Catholics? An hon. general (Mathew) who he believed was as likely to know the sentiments of the Catholics, had ridiculed the idea, and had claimed for them, on the ground of right, a full admission to all the offices of the state. He complained, that there was a great misconception as to the mode in which-this question was brought forward. It was certainly true, that such a question, affecting the national religion, must be considered in a committee; but he appealed to the practice of the House on former occasions, particularly when the relief from certain penal statutes was first granted to the Catholics, to shew that the petition for leave to bring in the Bill was first made, and then that motion was referred to a committee, in which the nature and object of that Bill were fully discussed and examined. Whereas, by the present mode, the House was led on in the dark to give its countenance to measures, which, if explained in detail, it would never have sanctioned. He adverted to the manner in which the interference of the clergy had been treated, and contended there was no body of men whose opinions would so naturally be expected, or to which greater deference should be paid.

Mr. Grattan

made a very brief reply. He said, that in all the speeches which had been made against his motion, the speakers had entered into a detail which was not sanctioned by the nature of the motion. The reason of which was, that they wished to go into the consideration of minute articles, in order to avoid the principle which they could not justly oppose. He had spoken with respect of the petitions, and therefore it was ridiculous to say that he had done otherwise. One argument was, that the oath which excluded Roman Catholics from parliament was a part of the Bill of Sights; and, of course, that when they should be admitted, part of that Bill would be repealed. In answer to this, he said, that the oath alluded to was provisional, and not fundamental; and to prove this he quoted the authority of parliament in the time of queen Anne.

The House divided at four o'clock on Wednesday morning.

For Mr. Grattan's Motion 264
Against it 224
Majority —140

List of the Majority.
Abercromby, hon. G. Cowper, hon. E. S.
Abercromby, hon. J. Creevey, T.
Abercromby, Rt. Croker, J. W.
Acland, Sir T. D. Daly, rt. hon. D. B.
Althorp, viscount Dillon, hon. H. A.
Anstruther, Sir J. Dundas, C.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C. Dundas, hon. L.
Astley, Sir J. Duncannon, visc.
Atherley, A. Doveton, G.
Aubrey, Sir J. Douglas, hon. F. S. N.
Babington, T. Desart, earl of
Bagwell, rt. hon. W. Douglas, W.
Barham, J. F. Douglas, W. R. K.
Baring, A. Dunlop, gen.
Barnard, lord Evelyn, L.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Elliot, rt. hon. W.
Birch, Jos. Ellis, C. R.
Blachford, B. P. Ebrington, visc.
Bowyer, Sir G. Ellison, C.
Bradshaw, hon. A. C. Fellowes, hon. N.
Brand, hon. T. Ferguson, R. C.
Bective, earl Fitzgerald, W. H.
Brooke, lord Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Brooke, C. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. W.
Browne, rt. hon. D. Fitzgerald, A.
Burrell, hon. P. R. D. Flood, Sir F.
Buller, Sir E. Fitzroy, lord C.
Buller, A. Fitzroy, lord J.
Buller, C. Foley, T.
Burdett, Sir F. Folkes, Sir M. B.
Benson, R. Forbes, viscount
Best, W. D. Fawcett, H.
Blundell, col. Foster, F. J. H.
Broadhead, H. T. Foster, A.
Bruen, H. Frankland, W.
Canning, rt. hon. G. Fremantle, W. H.
Canning, G. French, A.
Calvert, N. Findlay, K.
Calvert, C. Gaskell, B.
Carew, R. S. Gordon, R.
Colthurst, Sir N. Gower, earl
Coote, Sir E. Gower, lord G. L.
Courtenay, W. Grant, J. P.
Courtenay, T. P. Grant, C. jun.
Calcraft, J. Grattan, rt. hon. H.
Campbell, lord J. Greenhill, R.
Castlereagh, visc. Grenfell, P.
Cavendish, lord G. Grosvenor, gen.
Cavendish, H. Graham, S.
Chalouer, R. Guise, Sir W. B.
Cocks, hon. J. S. Hanbury, W.
Coke, T. W. Hammersley, H.
Coke, E. Hippesley, Sir J. C.
Combe, H. C. Harvey, G.
Heathcote, Sir G. Moore, P.
Hornby, E. Morland, L. B.
Horne, W. Morpeth, viscount
Halsey, Jos. Mostyn, Sir T.
Hamilton, lord A. Neville, hon. R.
Hamilton, Sir H. Newport, rt. hon. Sir J.
Hamilton, Hans North, D.
Harcourt, J. Nugent, lord
Holmes, R. F. W. O'Brien, Sir E.
Hart, gen. G. V. Odell, W.
Hawthorne, C. S. Ogle, H. M.
Herbert, H. A. Ord, W.
Heron, Sir R. Osbaldeston, G.
Holford, G. P. Osborne, lord F. G.
Honyman, R. B. Ossulston, lord
Huskisson, W. Owen, Sir J.
Hobhouse, Sir B. Paget, hon. R.
Howard, hon. W. Palmerston, visc.
Howarth, H. Parnell, Sir H.
Hughes, W. L. Peirse, H.
Hurst, R. Pelham, hon. G. A.
Jenkinson, C. Phillips, G.
Jolliffe, H. Phipps, hon. F.
Kemp, J. J. Piggott, Sir A.
Kensington, lord Prendergast, M. G.
Kibblewhite, J. Plunket, rt. hon. W. C
Knox, J. Prittie, hon. F.
Lambton, R. J. Pole, rt. hon. W. W.
Langton, W. G. Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Latouche, D. Ponsonby, hon. F.
Latouche, R. Portman, E. B.
Leach, J. Power, R.
Leader, W Poyntz, W. S.
Lemon, Sir W. Preston, R.
Lemon, J. Price, R.
Lester, B. L. Pringle, general
Lewis, T. F. Ramsden, J. C.
Littleton, E. J. Rashleigh, W.
Lloyd, J. M. Rancliffe, lord
Lloyd, Sir E. P. Robinson, rt. hon. F. J.
Lloyd, Hardress Robinson, G. A.
Lockhart, W. E. Rowley, Sir W.
Louvaine, lord Russell, lord W.
Law, hon. E. Russell, lord G.
Lubbock, J. W. Russell, M.
Lyttleton, hon. W. Saville, A.
Mackenzie, hon. W. F. Scudamore, R. P.
Macdonald, James Shaw, R.
Macdonald, R. G. Shipley, W.
Madocks, W. A. Shaw, B.
Mahon, hon. S. Sheldon, R.
Majoribanks, J. C. Simson, G.
Markham, adm. Smith, J.
Marryat, Jos. Smith, G.
Marsh, C. Smith, J.
Martin, J. Smith, A.
Mathew, hon. M. Smith, W.
Maule, hon. W. R. Smith, R.
Meade, hon. J. Smyth, J. H.
Meyler, R. Speirs, A.
Molineux, H. H. Somerville, Sir M.
Mildmay, sir H. S. Stanley, lord
Mills, C Stewart, hon. C.
Milton, viscount Symonds, T. P.
Melgund, viscount Talbot, R. W.
Monck, Sir C. M. L. Tavistock, marq.
Montgomery, Sir H. C. Taylor, C. W.
Thomson, T. Whitbread, S.
Thornton, H. Wilberforce, W.
Taylor, M. A. Wilkins, W.
Tighe, W. Wilson, T.
Vanderheyden, D. Winnington, Sir T. P.
Vernon, G. G. V. White, M.
Walpole, hon. G. Wise, A.
Ward, hon. J. W. Wood, T.
Warre, J. A. Wortley, J. A. Stuart
Warrender, Sir G. Wrottesley, H.
Western, C. C. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Wharton, J. Wynn, C. W. W.
Paired, off.
Browne, A. Miller, SirT.
Campbell, G. Pyne, F.
Filzpatrick, rt. hon. R. Shakespeare, A.
Graves, lord Townshend, lord J.
Hussey, T Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Martyn, H. Wellesley, R.

The following Gentlemen, favourable to the Claims of the Catholics, were kept away by illness in their families, or some accidental cause

Baring, Sir T. Pelham, hon. C. A.
Bewicke, C. Plumer, W.
Butler, hon. J. Quin, hon. W.
Crosbie, J. Romilly, Sir S.
Daly, J. Ridley, M. W.
Dawson, R. T. Sebright, Sir J.
Folkestone, visc. Simpson, hon. J. B.
Fazakerley, J. N. Vane, hon. W. J.
Holmes, Sir L. T. W. Wellesley Long, W.
Jekyll, Jos. Wilder, F. J.
Johnes, T. Williams, O.
Latouche, J.
List of the Minority.
A'Court, W Brodrick, hon. W.
Addington, rt. h. J. H. Brownlow, W.
Alexander, James Bruce, J.
Allan, col. Brydges, Sir S. E.
Andrews, M. P. Buller, James.
Apsley, lord Burrell, Sir C. M.
Archdall, M. Burrell, W.
Atkins, J. Butterworth, Jos.
Baker, J. Calvert, J.
Baker P. W. Campbell, general
Barry, rt. hon. J. Carew, rt. hon. R. P.
Bastard, E. P. Cartwright, W. R.
Bathurst, rt. h. C. B. Cawthorne, J. F.
Bathurst, hon. W. L. Chaplin, Ch.
Beach, M. H. Chute, W.
Beach, W. H. Clements, col. H. J.
Beaumont, T. R. Clerke, Sir G.
Beresford, lord G. Clinton, major-gen.
Bernard, viscount Clive, viscount
Bernard, hon. R. B. Clive, H.
Blackburn, J. Clive, W.
Blackburn, J. J. Colley, T.
Bootle, E. W. Collins, H. P.
Blomfield, col. B. Compton, earl
Boughey, Sir J. F. Congreve, gen. Sir W,.
Bouverie, C. H. Cooper, E. S.
Cottrell, Sir J. G. Long, rt. hon. C.
Crickett, R. A. Long, R. G.
Curtis, Sir W. Longfield, col. M.
Davenport, D. Lopes, Sir M. M.
Davis, R. H. Lowndes, W.
Davis, H. Lowther, viscount
Dawkins, J. Lowther, hon. H. C.
Denys, G. W Lowther, J.
Disbrowe, E. Lowther, James
Dowdeswell, J. E. Lushington, S. R.
Drake, W. T. Luttrell, J. F. jun.
Drake, T. T. Lygon, hon. W. B.
Drummond, G. H. Maginiss, R.
Drummond, J. Maitland, T.
Dugdale, S. D. Manners, R.
Duigenan, rt. h. Dr. P. Manning, W.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. Mac Naughten, E. A.
Egerton, J. Mellish, W.
Egerton, W. Methuen, P.
Eliot, hon. W. Mitford, W.
Estcourt, T. G. Moore, lord H.
Faulkner, F. Moorsom, R.
Fane, J. Morgan, Sir C.
Farquhar, James Morris, R.
Fetherston, Sir T. Muncaster, lord
Fellows, W. H. Mundy, E. M.
Ferguson, James Newark, viscount
Finch, hon. E. Nicholl, rt. hon. Sir J.
Fitzhugh, W. O'Hara, C.
Foley, hon. A. O'Neill, hon. J. R. B.
Forester, C. W. Osborne, J.
Foulkes, E. Patten, P.
Garrow, Sir W. Peel, rt. hon. R.
Gascoygne, J. Pitt, W. M.
Geary, Sir W. Pitt, Jos.
Gell, P. Plomer, sir T.
Giddy, D. Pole, Sir C. M.
Gipps, G. Porter, gen. G.
Gooch, T. S. Powell, J. K.
Goulburn, H. Protheroe, E.
Graham, Sir James Robinsort, gen.
Grant, A. C. Richardson, W.
Gunning, G. W. Rochfort, G.
Hall, B. Rose, rt. hon. G.
Heathcote, T. F. Round, J.
Henniker, lord Ryder, rt. hon. R.
Hill, rt. hon. Sir G. F. Scott, rt. hon. Sir W.
Holmes, W. Seymour, lord R.
Hood, S. Shaw, Sir James
Howard, hon. col. Shelly, Tim.
Houblon, J. A. Shiffner, G.
Innis, H. Simeon, J.
Jocelyn, viscount Simpson, G.
Keane, Sir J. Singleton, M.
Keck, G. A. L. Smith, Christ.
Kemp, T. R. Smith, T. A.
Kenrick, W. Sneyd, N.
King, Sir J. D. Somerset, lord A.
Kingston, J. Somerset, lord C.
Knatchbull, Sir E. St. Paul, H. H.
Lacon, E. K. St. Paul, H. D. C.
Lamb, T. P. Stewart, Sir James
Leigh, J. H. Stewart, Sir J.
Leigh, R. H. Stirling, Sir W.
Leslie, C. P. Strahan, A.
Lockhart, J. I. Strutt, col. Jos.
Loftus, W. Sullivan, rt. hon. J.
Sumner, G. H. Wemyss, gen. W.
Sutton, Sir Thos. Wetherall, C.
Sutton, rt. hon. C. M. Wharton, R.
Sykes, Sir M. M. Whitmore, T.
Saxton, Sir C. Wigram, R.
Shaw, B. Williams, Sir R.
Teed, J. Willoughby, H.
Tempest, Sir H. V. Wood, Sir M.
Thompson, Sir T. Wright, J. A.
Thornton, R. Wyatt, C.
Thornton, W. Wyndham, T.
Thynne, lord J. Yarmouth, earl of
Tomline, W. E. Yorke, rt. hon. C.
Tremayne, J. H. Yorke, Sir Jos.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N. TELLERS.
Vaughan, Sir R W. Bankes, H.
Vereker, col. C. Lascelles, hon. H.
Vyse, W. H. H. PAIRED OFF.
Webster, Sir G. Peel, Sir Rob.
Welby, W. E. Rose, G. H.