Commons Sitting of 16 March 1821

PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Mr. Wilberforce 1266
presented a petition from certain Roman Catholics of Staffordshire and Warwickshire, against the bills now in progress for the relief of the Catholics. He did not concur in the prayer of the petition; but as it had been forwarded to him, he had thought it his duty to present it.
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, that from the sentiments expressed by these petitioners, he would call upon the House to pause before they proceeded further with the bills now in the House, one of which went to give the Catholics what they wanted—the other to impose restraints upon them, to which they were not subjected at present. What reason could they have for thinking that these measures would satisfy the Catholics, when a petition like this was presented from them, with the name of Dr. Milner attached to it? If the bill, which the Catholics wished to pass into a law, were passed, the Protestants, he was sure, could not be satisfied, unless another bill were passed to impose such restrictions as could not be other than unpalatable to the Catholics. He could see no reason for two bills being brought in, unless he assumed that the one which the Catholics desired should be passed, was intended to be permanent, while the repeal of the other, at no distant period, was in contemplation. He had no doubt, that if these measures were passed, they would in a few years find the Catholics coming again to parliament to petition for the repeal of one of them. The loyalty and merit of the petitioners he would be the last man to deny. He had a great respect for the Catholics both of this country and of Ireland; but still he had ever thought it his duty to oppose their claims, and he would continue to do so. Granting all they desired would, in his opinion, be likely to subject the country to the same disasters which had unhappily been experienced at a former period of our history, and from which we had only relieved ourselves by means of laws—not like those now in force against the Roman Catholics, but by such as were in force fifty or sixty years ago. Of the repeal of those Taws which were no longer in force, be did not complain, but he hoped the House would not take a course that would be likely to reproduce the misery formerly experienced.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, the hon. baronet had thought proper, in some degree, to anticipate the discussion of the subject, to which the attention of the House would

1267
shortly be directed, and he felt it necessary, therefore, to make one or two observations in reply to what had fallen from him. With respect to the signature of Dr. Milner, from which the hon. baronet appeared to derive so much satisfaction, he could not help saying that in that individual it was only an act of undeviating, consistent bigotry. If he had felt some exultation in his mind that a measure of the highest possible public good was now apparently on the point of attainment, it was with the deepest regret that lie witnessed an attempt to darken the prospect of happiness and security. The same evil spirit which in 1813 came forward to blast the hopes of the Catholics, was once more at work. The name of Dr. Milner was not at the head of this petition, but he was persuaded that he was the prime instigator of it—he was satisfied that he was at the bottom of a measure, the object of which was, to destroy once more the hopes of his Catholic fellow-subjects. He had a right to say, that the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of this country could not fairly be collected from this petition. The petition of the Roman Catholics of England, which was laid before the House a few nights ago, was signed by seven apostolic vicars. Now there were eight apostolic vicars in this country, and the eighth apostolic vicar, whose name was not annexed to that petition, who disavowed that spirit of conciliation which animated his brethren, was the same upon whose intervention the hon. baronet had that night thought proper to congratulate the House. That gentleman was the same person, who, in 1813, came forward on the eve of the adoption of a measure for the relief of the Catholics, and by whose interference that measure had been abandoned, he had been censured and disowned by the Catholic board; and the House would judge of the bigoted spirit of a man, who could publicly declare that the day on which Catholic emancipation was granted, would be a day of downfall of the Catholic religion in this country. What was the object of this man? What, but to prevent the possibility of Roman Catholic emancipation—to destroy all hopes of conciliation—to keep alive religious dissention—and render discord and dissatisfaction interminable, by perpetuating the distinctions between Protestants and Catholics. He had never expected a general concurrence; for it
1268
was visionary to expect the concurrence of bigotry. Bigotry was unchangeable; he cared not whether it was Roman Catholic bigotry or Protestant bigotry—its character was the same—its pursuits were the same—true to its aim, though besotted in its expectations—steady to its purpose, though blind to its interests, for bigotry time flowed in vain. It was abandoned by the tides of knowledge—it was left stranded by the waters of reason, and worshipped the figures imprinted on the sand, which were soon to be washed away. It was inaccessible to reason—it was irreclaimable by experience.
Mr. Brightwas satisfied that this question could never be set completely at rest, unless the House conceded all the Catholics required, or resolutely took their stand where they now were. All who approved the Catholic claims, were either directly, or by inference, accused of bigotry. Let the Protestant Dissenter be first raised to his proper rank in the state; and then it would be time enough to consider what ought to be done for the Catholic Dissenter.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that the petition did not come before the House with that authority which might have been concluded from its title. There were in Staffordshire many ancient Catholic families, and yet none of those illustrious families, had put their names to the petition. He would ask, whether the omission of the names of the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Stourton, the Fitzherberts, the Cliffords, the Jerninghams, and others, who formed the ornament of the Catholic body, was no objection? He would have considered the authority of such names even superior to that of the right-reverend-vicar-apostolic. He would not apply the term bigotry to the Catholic, who on the one hand fanned the flame of dissention; or to the Protestant on the other, who laboured in the same unfortunate cause; but he was glad to find, that to a petition which was opposed to liberality, good sense, and the spirit of conciliation, there was not the name of a single Catholic gentleman of known respectability. The sole and undivided honour should be given to Dr. Milner, whom he believed to be the irreconcileable enemy of all union and mutual good-will between Protestant and Catholic, and it was not strange that such an enemy should be hailed by all Protestants, who, on the other side, held in alarm and detestation

1269
the union and sincere coalition of every class of his majesty's subjects.
After some further conversation, the Petition, together with several others, both for and against the claims of the Catholics, were ordered to lie on the table.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. Plunkettrose. He said, it was not then his intention to trespass long on the time of the House; indeed, after the indulgence which he had so largely experienced on a former night, it would furnish but a bad specimen of taste to go a second time into a general consideration of the question. When he took the liberty of opening his views on the question, he had described the measure as having for its primary object a great end of public justice. He had expressed a hope that it would be favourably regarded by all those whose interests it was designed to promote; and he had received great pleasure in finding, from all that had passed in the country with which he was most nearly connected, that his hopes had been more than realized; for he must take leave to say, that he never entertained the chimerical notion of being able to conciliate the approbation of all persons on such a subject. There were persons by whom that general satisfaction would be felt as a grievous calamity, who prized the religious hostility which they bore to other Christian sects and denominations as a valuable inheritance descended to them from their ancestors, and which it was incumbent on them to leave as a legacy to their children. With such persons he would not argue; they lived in a territory of their own, wholly inaccessible to any reasoning which he could employ. It was however some consolation to know that the measure, if carried, could not interrupt their happiness, but that they would rise the next morning in possession of as much comfort and security as they had ever before enjoyed, and, as he hoped,—for they were very worthy and respectable persons—they would long continue to enjoy. He must take that opportunity also of remarking, that he had never applied the term "bigotry" to the great body of Protestants with whom he had the misfortune to differ on this subject. Nothing could be more foreign from his disposition; and in truth, he felt the ut-
1270
most degree of deference for sentiments, which, although they appeared to him to originate in prejudice and error, might be so regarded by him through his own prejudices and errors. Those errors, if they were such, he was ready to yield to tire force of argument, and to a proof of actual danger arising to the establishments so justly dear to us, from admitting the Roman Catholics to share in the full advantages of the constitution.
It had been his endeavour, and that of the distinguished individuals who were associated with him in the preparation of this bill, to proceed with the greatest caution, and to evince a deference for the opinions of those classes to whom he was now alluding. Their object was not only to give security against danger, but to satisfy every reasonable apprehension. They had felt it to be their duty also to defer to the apprehensions and jealousies of the Roman Catholics. It was their wish to reconcile both Protestants and Catholics, by not yielding on the one hand what was necessary to the security of the establishment, nor demanding on the other what must violate the religious scruples of the Roman Catholics. The present state of public affairs, and the state also of the public mind, seemed to him peculiarly favourable to the success of this important measure. He considered that the indifference and apathy spoken of by an hon. member, as characteristic of the public mind, proved only that the people willingly left the decision of this question to the wisdom of their representatives. They were satisfied that nothing would be done by parliament to endanger the constitution, and they suppressed their own feelings from their confidence in the legislature. The time, therefore, was most favourable to a full consideration of those claims which had been so often and hitherto so unsuccessfully urged on behalf of the Roman Catholics—Without further preamble, he should proceed to state the substance of the bill, endeavouring only to set himself right with the House, as to what had fallen from him in the former discussion. He had then asserted, that admission to the franchises and offices of the state was the right of every Roman Catholic liege subject, and that exclusion from eligibility was inconsistent with the first principles of the constitution. In the sense in which he had stated, and in which alone he could be supposed to have stated it, he now re-as-

1271
erted that proposition; The right of the Roman catholic was precisely the same as that of the Protestant; but he never was so absurd as to maintain that that right could not be controlled by the exigencies or Necessities of the state. If ever a clear case were made but to him of expediency arising from danger serious enough to countervail a general principle, he would say at once that the Roman Catholic must yield to the imperious rule which that expediency would dictate. But whence did the Protestant derive his claim to vote at elections, or to hold himself eligible to sit in parliament? Not from any written law or charter that he had ever met with; but from the first elements, from the essence and the stamina, of the constitution. The Roman Catholic complained that since the reign of Charles 2nd he had been subjected to certain disabilities. He did not deny the right of parliament to impose them, but stated that they were originally designed to be temporary, and were enacted in consequence of a suspicion that the reigning monarch was not a Protestant. The Roman Catholic added, that those circumstances had gone by; that there no longer existed any danger of a Popish king, or of a Popish successor. Therefore, he submitted, as the danger had ceased, so ought the restrictions which that danger alone had justified. If the Protestant could show no over-ruling necessity for the exclusion of the Catholic, could he show any principle by which it was made an essential or fundamental part of the constitution? The Catholic denied it: he challenged discussion; he contended that such a proposition was at war with the first principles on which that constitution was founded.
He was the more anxious to set himself right upon this point, because he had been supposed to argue the case of the Protestant dissenter, as well as of the Roman Catholic But the truth was, that each question stood on its own special grounds; that of the Protestant dissenter was altogether distinct. As regarded the Roman Catholic, it was a question of danger between letting him in. and shutting him out; but the situation of the dissenter was extremely different. Perhaps the House would allow him to explain the actual state of the Protestant dissenter in Ireland, as he believed the public was in general ignorant of it. The protestant dissenter was not then subject to any test in Ireland nor had he been
1272
for the last forty years. An act passed in the year 1780, exempted him from the operation of the Test act; the exclusion of the Roman Catholic did not, therefore, involve the Protestant dissenter. As he was now on this subject, he could wish to put the House in possession of a curious fact. The act of 1780 relieved, the Protestants from the sacramental test: the words were distinct and positive, that from and after the passing of the act the Protestants should not be bound by the sacramental test. In 1793, an act passed to relieve the Roman Catholics; and it went on to state, that the Roman Catholics should be subject to no other disqualification or disability in this respect than those to which the Protestants were liable. Some persons, however, thought that the Protestants of the established church were not included, and that the act exempting from the sacramental test did not apply to them; and as some doubts and difficulties arose in consequence with regard to the Catholics, a statute passed the Irish House of Commons to explain the act of 1780, and to exempt the Protestants of the established church. It was sent up to the House of Lords, and there, on consulting the Journals, it appeared that it had been read with unexampled celerity three times in one day; that an amendment by the insertion of the simple word not was introduced, in fact negativing the whole object of the measure; and that being returned to the Commons, it passed in that shape unanimously. Under the operation of the law thus explained, the Roman Catholic in Ireland was therefore still liable to the sacramental test. He had thought it right to put the House in possession of this fact, to show how what had been meant here as a piece of justice, grace, and favour to the Catholics was marred in Ireland, by trick, artifice, and management.
He would now proceed to state particularly the nature of the bill, as framed by the committee on the resolutions of the House. The bill for removing disqualifications comprised two distinct objects. First, the disqualification by reason of the oath of supremacy; and secondly, the disqualification by reason of the declaration of transubstantiation. As to the last, he need not long occupy the time of the House; for he had never heard any roan, whether clerical or lay, contend for the propriety of that declaration; it was

1273
justly considered injurious to the best interests of Christianity, and incapable of affording any real benefit or security. Though it contained several points besides transubstantiation, such as the invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass, yet it formed but a small portion of the faith of the Roman Catholics; and if in the progress of investigation, or in the course of time, those points were to be changed, there would still remain the doctrines of purgatory, the sacraments, and auricular confession. It was also imperfect in this respect; for if the object were to exclude the Roman Catholics, it did not effect that object. A man might subscribe this declaration for his convenience, and yet continue a Papist; and therefore it was not the sort of security the House ought to have. A Roman Catholic might say, "I choose to sacrifice to my interest the strictness of my religion, and become a member of parliament. If this were discovered, it would be the duty of the House to expel such an individual. And why? Because he had sacrificed his religion, because he had complied with the strictness of the penal laws of the Protestants, which tempted men to set the desire of the honours of the state above the clear dictates of conscience. On this account he stated, that the law carried on the face of it the marks of haste and imperfection.
He would now pass without further remark to that part of the bill that related to the oath of supremacy. It had struck him to-night with some degree of surprise to find that the right rev. gentleman who presided over the Catholics in the midland district of this country had taken upon himself to say that the explanation or modification of the oath of supremacy in the intended bill, was inconsistent with the doctrines of the Roman Catholics; because, if any point could be established by undeniable documents anterior to the Reformation itself, it was, that the condition of the complete and absolute dominion of the king of these realms, as to all civil and religious rights, was perfectly reconcileable with the doctrines of Catholicism. He would state one or two facts upon this subject. Before the Reformation, the great body of the acts was passed by a Roman Catholic parliament, and the exclusion of the See of Rome from interfering with the political concerns of the kingdom was perfect before one of the doctrines was changed in it.
1274
In the time of Henry 8th, any one who would have been hanged as a traitor for decrying the authority of the King, would have been burned as a heretic for the pugning the doctrine of transubstantiation. When the statute of Philip and Mary, which restored ail the Roman Catholic doctrines, passed, it: contained in itself an express saving of all the acts prior to the 28th Henry 8th. He next came to the proceedings of queen Elizabeth; and he had already noticed her admonition published, at the beginning of her reign, and the accompanying admonition and injunction afterwards incorporated in the act passed in her fifth year. He begged to recall the attention of the House to the precise words of the queen's admonition: they were these:—"For certainly her majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any authority other than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry 8th and king Edward 6th, which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm; that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons, born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or civil, so ever they be; so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them. And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the said oath, shall accept the same oath with this interpretation, sense, and meaning, her majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said act, against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same oath." Thus, what the vicar of the midland district denied was expressly stated—The hon. gentleman, in further confirmation, read the opinion and explanation given by bishop Burnet upon the subject, which showed the policy of the queen, and the obstacles that stood in the way of what she desired to accomplish. The only other point on which he would trouble the House was that of supremacy, which was fully explained in the 37th article of our church:—"The king's majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other his dominions; unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor ought to

1275
be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction." There was not a word in the whole of it which the Catholics were not ready to adopt. It proceeded "Where we attribute to the king's majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word, or of the sacraments; the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself—that is, that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers." Such were the terms of the articles—such the terms of the admonition—and such the terms of the act of parliament in which it was incorporated: and after all this, it was really too much to say, that in putting this interpretation on the word, the framers of the bill were at war with the principles of the Reformation.
He now begged permission to read the terms in which the explanation of this oath had been framed in the bill upon the table. They were the following:—
"And whereas by certain acts, passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland, the oaths of abjuration, allegiance, and supremacy, therein provided, are required to be taken for certain purposes therein mentioned; and the said oath of supremacy is expressed in the following terms:— I, A. B. do swear, that I do from my heart detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Home, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever; and I do declare that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.so help, me God.'
"And whereas his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland have been at all times ready and desirous to take the said oath of allegiance in common with his majesty's other subjects; but entertain scruples with respect
1276
to taking the oath of supremacy, so far as the same might be construed to import a disclaimer of the spiritual authority of the pope or church of Rome, in matters of religious belief.
"And whereas it appears, from the admonition annexed to the injunctions of her majesty queen Elizabeth, published in the first year of her majesty's reign, and sanctioned by the act passed in the fifth year of her reign, entitled, An Act for the assurance of the Queen's regal powers over all estates and subjects within her dominions,' that such disclaimer was originally meant only to extend to any such acknowledgment of foreign jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, as is or could be incompatible with the civil duty and allegiance which is due to his majesty and successors from all his subjects."
Here he proposed to introduce an amendment by the insertion of the following words:—"or with the civil duty and obedience which are due to his courts, civil and ecclesiastical, in all matters affecting the legal rights of his majesty's subjects." He had added these words to meet the doubts and accommodate the fears of all parties. Neither he nor the hon. friends whose assistance he had had in framing the bill, were tenacious of words. All he entreated was this—that no gentleman would look at this bill with the eye of a metaphysician, a casuist, or a critic; but with the plain good sense that the subject demanded, in order to see whether the distinction was not plainly marked between what was merely conscientious and what was an interference with the rights and powers of the King. Coming to the clause relating to the declaration against transubstantiation, he proposed to strike out the words "and may, therefore, properly and safely be abrogated," and insert the following—"as a qualification to enable his majesty's subject to take, hold, or enjoy, any civil right, office, or franchise." The House was aware that, by the disabling code, the Catholics were shut out from the inheritance of landed property, but certain relaxing statutes removed the disability on the taking of the prescribed oaths of abjuration, allegiance, and supremacy. If the words as they now stood were adopted, they could succeed without any such oaths; and if he were to act according to his own views, he should abolish all distinctions between the Catholic and pro-

1277
testants, but still he thought that so important a change of the law ought not to be effected indirectly. He did not know that all the Roman Catholics would adopt the construction put in the bill upon the oath of supremacy; the greater number were unquestionably ready to do so, but he could not answer for the scrupulousness of some nice consciences. A few might complain that they had received an injury from this bill—that at present they could succeed to landed property on taking certain oaths, with a certain interpretation which they could allow; but that their conscience would not permit them to take the oaths with the interpretation now annexed. To avoid this objection, he had framed a separate clause which gave the Roman Catholic the opportunity, at the time the oaths were administered, of stating the interpretation he gave to the oath of supremacy. It appeared to him most desirable that there should be no division or separation of oaths; nothing to make the Catholic separation distinct from the Protestant, but that as much uniformity as possible should be introduced. It might be desirable not to part with oaths, to the continuance of which the great body of Catholics had no objection. With reference to this part of the subject, he must say that he thought the oath a question of theoretical discussion. It could be considered and discussed in the committee, and it would be very easy if then there should appear an imperative necessity for continuing this oath, to engraft it upon the bill.
Having stated what was the general scope of his bill, he now came to the exceptions which it contained. It provided, in the way of exception, as follows:—"That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to enable any person, being a Roman Catholic, to hold and enjoy the office of lord high chancellor, lord keeper, or lord commissioner of the great seal of Great Britain, or of lord lieutenant or lord deputy, or other the chief governor or governors of Ireland." The exceptions in the bill went no farther than these offices. It would be open for any hon. member to propose other exceptions if he thought proper; but the reason he felt these enough was, because he was quite satisfied with the propriety of admitting the Catholics to possess eligibility to all other offices. These offices were essentially vested in the choice of the Crown, and he
1278
saw little, necessity for apprehending that the Catholics would ever look up to them. He was aware that a right hon. gentleman opposite (sir W. Scott), and others who thought with him, were decidedly hostile to admitting Catholics to an eligibility to seats upon the bench. He felt peculiar respect for those who conscientiously differed from him, but he really thought the right hon. gentleman's argument in support of his objection quite insufficient. The right hon. gentleman candidly admitted that, if Catholics were elevated to the bench, he did not mean to insinuate that, in their general administration of justice, they would act unbecomingly but his apprehension was, that if a question arose upon any subject connected with religious feeling between a Protestant and a Catholic, the Catholic judge must necessarily lean to the interest of his own religious persuasion, and against that of the Protestant. He begged the right hon. gentleman to consider the consequences of his argument, and to what a dangerous extent it might be carried. If the Protestant were justified in raising this inference on account of the naturally religious partiality of the judge, what must be the feeling of the Catholic when his rights are at stake, from the Protestant judge sitting alone, without the assistance of a judge of another religious community? But this inference could never be maintained: the apprehension was perfectly groundless. Away with such unworthy distrust! It went at once to dash the cup of conciliation from the lips of the Catholic, and to bereave him of his just hopes. He was satisfied no Catholic had the least idea that he did not receive the fullest justice from the judges on the bench. The Catholics had the most perfect confidence in them; and he intreated that Protestants would view with the same just and liberal feeling the acts of their Catholic fellow-subjects in whatever situations they might happen to be placed. With respect to the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the bill provided that all their existing institutions should remain in exactly the same situation in which they stood at present. The test laws were left as they stood, and liable only to the operation of the annual indemnity bill.
He would now come to the second bill, the title of which was, "To regulate the intercourse between persons in holy orders, professing the Roman Catholic re-

1279
ligion, with the see of Rome." It set out with stating, that it is fit to regulate the intercourse and correspondence between the subjects of this realm and the see of Home. It states, that "whereas it is expedient that such precautions should be taken in respect to persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion, who may at any time hereafter be elected, nominated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties, or functions of a dean, in the said church, within any part of the United Kingdom, as that no such person shall at any time hereafter assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions within the United Kingdom or any part thereof, whose loyalty and peaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascertained to the satisfaction of his majesty, his heirs, or successors." On the subject of the intercourse between the Catholic clergy and the see of Rome, he was entitled to assert, that it had long been carried on merely for spiritual purposes, and that in no single instance was it found to have been carried on for any factious or party purposes. With respect to the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops by the Pope, the nomination was formally made in that manner; but to all intents and purposes not practically. In no instance did the Pope, in point of fact, practically exercise this right: so that in making any provision respecting the appointment of the Catholic bishops by the pope, he was providing a theoretical remedy against a theoretical danger. Although there was no practical evil to be guarded against, there was yet that sort of apprehension upon which the Protestant mind had a right to be satisfied. As to the actual nomination of the Catholic bishops in Ireland, there had been a series of disputes and a variety of claims. It was first among the Catholics contended, that the bishops of the province should elect one to fill the vacant see; then, that the dean and chapter should; and, lastly, the parish priests put in a claim to the right of election. But, in all these instances, the nomination by the pope was practically excluded. The pope had, therefore, practically, as little to do with originating the nomination of the Catholic bishops in Ireland, as he had with the nomination of the Protestant bishops in England. But to give satisfaction to particular scruples, he had introduced this proviso into his bill, however practically unnecessary; and
1280
it stipulated that an oath in the following terms should be taken by every Roman-Catholic individual, who was initiated as a clergyman into holy orders, for the purpose of satisfying the state that their intercourse with the see of Rome should be confined exclusively to ecclesiastical matters. The proposed oath was as follows:—
"I, A. B. do swear that I will never concur in or consent to the appointment or consecration of any Roman Catholic bishop, or dean, or vicar apostolic, in the Roman Catholic church in the united kingdom, but such as I shall conscientiously deem to be of unimpeachable loyalty and peaceable conduct; and I do swear that I have not and will not have any correspondence or communication with the pope or see of Rome, or with any court or tribunal established or to be established by the pope or see of Rome, or by the authority of the same, or with any person or persons authorized or pretending to be authorized by the pope or see of Rome, tending directly or indirectly to overthrow or disturb the Protestant government, or the Protestant church of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Protestant church of Scotland, as by law established; and that I will not correspond or communicate with the pope or see of Rome, or with any tribunal established or to be established by the pope or see of Rome, or by the authority of the same, or with any person or persons authorized or pretending to be authorized by the pope or see of Rome, or with any other foreign ecclesiastical authority, on any matter or thing which may interfere with or affect the civil duty and allegiance which is due to his majesty, his heirs and successors, from all his subjects."
He would not say that this bill was likely to receive the unqualified assent of the Roman Catholics at large; that it would be at once received as a popular or favourable measure; but he did think and expect, that it would be gratefully received by the great majority of the Catholic clergy and laity. He begged to assure the right hon. gent. (Mr. Peel) that if he referred to the resolutions of the Catholic clergy in 1813, as indicative of their permanent opinion or wishes upon the subject of a legislative measure for their relief, he greatly deceived himself. Their declaration in 1813 was not that the bishops would not give the Crown a voice, in the nomination of their body, but that they could not then grant it without in-

1281
curring schism until they received the consent of the pope. So far only went the resolutions of the Catholic prelates in 1813. The case was altered since r for the Catholic clergy of Ireland had had an opportunity of communicating upon the subject with the pope, who had given his consent to the arrangement, and had declared that he saw nothing in it inconsistent with the principles of his church. The Catholic prelates had received this opinion of the pope: they had pronounced no expression of disapprobation thereon. The right hon. gentleman did not put the point fairly, when he declared, that he wanted the bishops approval of the bill of 1813. To expect this public expression of approbation was neither just to the Catholic clergy nor respectful to the legislature. Was it right that the legislature, before it enacted a measure which it conceived founded in justice and necessity, should canvas about for the opinions of particular individuals upon the specific measure? If any measure were in its accomplishment calculated to sow discord among a large portion of the people, it would be wrong to press it. But, was it right to call upon the bishops, in the first instance, for a public avowal of their sentiments, where no reason existed for supposing that they entertained a contrary opinion? It had been said, that although the pope was desirous for the veto, the great majority of Catholics were against it. This certainly showed how groundless were the fears of those who apprehended so much mischief from the direct influence of the pope upon the Catholics; for they, it seemed, were generally determined to have an opinion of their own, notwithstanding the power of the pope. For his own part, he believed the measure would be very palatable, and that the people would gladly receive what parliament was, he trusted, disposed liberally to grant. When the measure was before parliament, he had expressed his opinion in favour of domestic nomination. But, in framing the bill, he knew not how to arrange it for domestic nomination; for he could not find that the Catholics had any definitively fixed system of domestic nomination among themselves. It was therefore impossible to fix one upon them without unjustifiably obtruding upon them laws for the internal regulation of their own ecclesiastical regulations.
He owed it also to the House to state the reason why he did not, as in the bill
1282
of 1813, consolidate the ecclesiastical and civil arrangements of the question, and why he preferred that they should he kept distinct, and made the subject of two specific bills. The one bill did not necessarily arise out of the other, as cause and effect; for the Catholic layman was entitled to his civil rights, without any connexion with the ecclesiastical rules of his communion. When he drew this distinction, he admitted the propriety of their legislating upon both points at the same time. They were now, he hoped, going to put his majesty's Roman Catholics upon the same footing as the rest of the people, and to put an end for ever to these impolitic and jealous distinctions. When performing this great work, he thought it expedient to embrace the whole of the question in one comprehensive view, and to legislate for it at once. They were in doing so justified in guarding against the possible abuse of the control of a foreign potentate over a clergy in the dominions of another sovereign who had naturally considerable influence over the subjects of that prince1. He still thought it right that the ecclesiastical parts of the measure should be separated from those which were purely belonging to the laity. He had also another reason. The clergy might feel disposed to assist in carrying the ecclesiastical arrangements in effect, and yet might not wish to do so at the actual time when the particular question of the laity was at issue;—that is, they might have some delicacy in seeing the two matters mixed up together, lest the one should appear like a compromise or a barter for the other. When he stated this necessity for keeping the bills separate, he claimed credit from the House when he said, that both he and the gentlemen who had assisted him in preparing the bill, were" perfectly ready to admit that, if the first bill were passed, the second must go on. Indeed, if the first bill went in its present shape through a committee he was ready to say that there might arise no objection to the consolidation of the two bill in the committee. Of course he made this observation with reference to the event of the main principles of the first bill being adopted. The bill he proposed consisted of various parts: it might be granted in toto, or in part. It might be either in a small or in a great part conceded. If only in a trifling part (which he could not possibly anticipate), the concession might

1283
not justify them in calling upon the Catholics for these ecclesiastical arrangements. A case might arise—he hoped it was very unlikely—that the first bill should pass in such a shape as to be stripped of those inducements upon which the concessions were grounded and justified. Suppose, for instance, the House should decide upon merely granting the English Catholics the same privileges which the Irish had long enjoyed that consession to the English would be no boon to the Irish Catholic, and would not. justify the legislature in exacting conditions from him, where it conferred no advantage. The Irish Catholic would gain nothing by the alteration, and ought certainly, in such an event, not to be called upon for any alteration of ecclesiastical arrangements. It was therefore desirable, that the House should, in the first instance, proceed with two bills, and when in the committee it would be time enough to consider how far it would be proper to consolidate their principles.
An hon. gentleman (Mr. Croker) had suggested that it would be right to propose a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. He could not concur with the hon. gentleman in the expediency of pressing his suggestion at the present moment. When the principles of the present bills were admitted and acted upon, then such a suggestion might be made with propriety, and he doubted not with success. The present time was, however quite unsuitable for its introduction. The clergy would look at it as if it were a treaty into which they were called upon to enter as a condition for securing to the laity their civil rights. Indeed, he doubted the competency of any member to bring it forward without the concurrence of his majesty's advisers. The moment was favourable for enabling the Crown to derive whatever popularity might attach from a boon to the clergy. When queen Elizabeth manifested a desire to extend the liberality of her toleration, she was thwarted by the foreign measures in which she was compelled to embark. Such was the state of things up to the time of the Revolution; and, unfortunately, after that event, the measures of the Pretender continued to assume such a character, as prevented liberal sovereigns from acting upon their own feelings towards the Catholics. Ireland, during the same length of time, was still more unfavourably circum-
1284
stanced; for, before the English possessed Ireland, a pure religion, considering the state of the times, was professed in that country, and popery was introduced there by the English, and made to supplant the form of religion which had preceded it. Ireland, he repeated, became essentially popish, by the act and effort of England. It was not till the Revolution that the Catholics of Ireland were in a settled state in the country. In England there had been two rebellions and one insurrection since that period, and yet the Catholics of Ireland had been uniformly tranquil; and upon that proof of their allegiance they grounded their claim for a removal of those disabilities which were now prolonged against them. It was the uniform tenor of this conduct which justified the proviso of the bill. He had trespassed longer upon the time of the House than he had intended, in submitting to them the details of the two bills. He implored the House to adopt them to conciliate that kind-hearted, enthusiastic, loyal and suffering people;—to enable the throne, at the moment when it might do so with safety to confer the high and noble privileges which belonged to the free subjects of a free government, upon the Roman Catholics of this realm—to enable the monarch to enjoy the gratification of seeing the hearts of his subjects throb with gratitude for his gracious acts, and approach his throne ready to shed the last drop of their blood and spend the last shilling of their treasure in support of the laws and constitution, in the whole benefits of which they were allowed to participate.
Sir William Scottsaid, that the bill which his right hon. friend had introduced had been printed and in circulation for a fortnight, so that the minds of members must have been made up, and they were prepared to come to a discussion upon it. But now his right hon. friend had introduced a number of alterations, of such variety and extent, that he appealed to any member who had heard the statement whether he could fully understand the bearing of it, and which at any rate they had had no opportunity of considering. He appealed with confidence to the House whether they could know in what state the bill would be after these alterations had been made? He therefore submitted to his right hon. friend's candour, whether some method should not be taken to put the House in possession of the alterations

1285
proposed before the discussion. The alterations were of that magnitude that they amounted to a declaration that the bill in its present state could not be supported. In that case, what course was to be taken? Were they to proceed to the discussion of a bill which had been in a great degree, abandoned? This would be to waste the time of the House. He should therefore be obliged to his right hon. friend if he would submit any course which could put them in possession of the bill now to be proposed.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, he was not sensible that he had proposed any alteration in the principle of the bill. He might have reserved himself for the committee to propose his amendments, but he thought it fair and candid to apprise the House of what he intended to do. He was not aware that there was any complexity in his proposed amendments.
Mr. Bankessaid, that the principle of the bill which they were now assembled to discuss, was intended to be carried to a degree which could not be approved of by those whose views of this subject, though liberal, were moderate. The principle of the measure conceded the right of admissibility to every office in the country as belonging to every person of every sect. This was a principle somewhat similar to that which was held by individuals who contended for the radical doctrines of universal suffrage and annual parliaments—doctrines which he was convinced his right hon. friend held in utter detestation. Now, he knew no state that would admit to its dearest privileges, persons who, to be consistent with themselves, must desire the destruction of an important portion of that state. The Catholic church would allow no communion with any other church: it held, that no toleration should be granted to any other church; it declared that there could be no salvation out of the pale of that church. As to a communion with a different church, it would be considered, as the pope himself had said, "like the communion between Christ and Belial." Persons professing this belief could, in his opinion, have no other desire than that the Protestant establishment should not be suffered to remain as it at present stood. The hon. gentleman who supported this bill, though their fears did not go so far as his, seemed, however, to apprehend some danger of this sort. If they did not, why were these particular
1286
securities required? Or Why did they recur to securities at all? Why did the right hon. gentleman contract the general right, which, in the first instance, he had laid down so broadly? Why did he propose to exclude the Roman Catholic from any office whatsoever? If they had this sort of inherent right, why attempt to bar it in any degree? Why interfere with the Roman Catholics, by any restriction, if they were, as the right hon. gentleman had called them, liege and loyal subjects? But, he would ask, was this doctrine of inherent right, thus laid down, fair to the sovereign himself? If it was improper to exclude from certain situations an individual professing the Roman Catholic religion, what right had they to demand of the sovereign on the throne that he should profess particular tenets? There was something so revolting in the doctrine, that though the principle was laid down very widely at first, yet it was immediately after narrowed; for the purpose of showing that those who supported this measure were willing, in some degree, to provide against danger. But those gentlemen argued, not only from the innocence of the Roman Catholics, with respect to any attack on the Protestant church, but also from the impracticability of their effecting any sinister designs, even if they entertained such an intention, that the most perfect safety and security might be relied on. That safety and security, however, he wished to establish on a firmer basis. "What danger," demanded the friends of the bill, "can be apprehended from the small number of peers who, if the bill passes, will sit in parliament; or, from the few Roman Catholic members who will obtain scats in the House of Commons?" It was said, that the number of commoners who would obtain seats in parliament, in all probability would not exceed 100; and that, from so small a body, no danger could reasonably be apprehended. The number, however, did not at all affect the principle of the measure. But he would go further, and contend, that even so small a number as 100 members—nay, less than that number—when leagued together in that House for any specific purpose, might, within no very long time, have an opportunity of causing themselves to be effectually heard in parliament. Divided as that House might be, such a body, acting in. unison, would ultimately possess the power of

1287
effecting any object they might take in hand. And might it not, under such circumstances as he had alluded to, become the object, and the attainable object, of men, powerful with respect to their connexion, and powerful also with respect to money, to bring forward, in any one parliament, a vastly greater number of persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion than the usual average amounted to? What had they to oppose to this evident danger? They were told that the succession of the Crown was "permanently and inviolably established in the Protestant church." This was their security. But what was the meaning of the words "permanent and inviolable"? Let the House consider, when they were legislating, how weak and feeble any such clause must be, when opposed to new circumstances, and advanced against all those occurrences which time might roll on them. There was nothing so foolish as to think of legislating for futurity. How was it possible to contend, that, against such danger as he had described, and against instruments so powerful, to carry it into effect, they would find safety in those miserable securities of permanency and inviolability? The right hon. gentleman had 6tated that the question was to be done with for ever—that the present measure was to close the door against any future agitation of this subject. Was it really possible that a gentleman of his acuteness could suppose, that what was originally possessed by the Roman Catholics could not again be sought for? While any thing remained, unconceded, they would be anxious to grasp and to possess it. When parliament granted concessions, they were only building up steps by which the Catholics would endeavour to reach at greater immunities. Could the right hon. gentleman imagine, that the exclusion from honours, distinctions, and offices, in which only a few of the Catholic population could hope to participate, would have the effect of inflaming all Ireland, from one end to the other, and yet, that a system which touched their property—which affected that, the slightest interference with which every man was alive to—would create no irritation of feeling? Would they take no steps to remove what they must necessarily look on as a material grievance? Would they not consider it a great injury to be subjected to the maintenance of a church which they held in
1288
abhorrence? If they did not, they must be men of a different description from those born in any other country. Did the right hon. gentleman believe that this settlement could be fixed permanently—that it could be made to last for ever? When Roman Catholic members got into that House—be their numbers greater or fewer—would they not, when possessed of the privilege of being heard within those walls immediately set about freeing themselves from that which they must feel to be a most vexatious grievance? There were others, also, who felt this tax on their property to be a grievance; who looked with jealousy on the Protestant, as the dominant Church, and who would, therefore, lend their assistance to the Catholic, to remove the burden. An hon. gentleman had given notice that, if this bill were read a second time, he would move that a provision should be made by government for the Catholic clergy. The right hon. gentleman deprecated this measure as premature; but he allowed that the time would come when it would be proper to make such a provision. He, however, would tell the two honourable members that they need not give themselves any trouble on the subject; because, if they once put the power into the hands of the Catholic church, they would be able and willing to help themselves. That they would suffer the ascendancy of the Protestant establishment, after this measure had passed, appeared to him to be a tiling as impossible as it would be for the most common cause not to produce its natural and necessary effect. If the bill were carried, he knew not how the Protestant church in Ireland could remain in its present state. He supposed the business would go on in this way:—First of all some under-rate Catholic establishment would be asked for; and afterwards, by the means he had stated, a farther establishment would be demanded and granted. But, if it were found that such an establishment swallowed up the revenue, and that the credit of the country was sinking in consequence—would not politicians, such as he had described, endeavour to defray the expense from the church establishment? and would not this naturally lead to an alteration in benefices and clerical appointments? The course now pursued appeared to him to be more objectionable than that proposed in 1813, when the admission to certain privileges, and the consequent securities,

1289
were blended in the same bill. In this instance, two measures were introduced. The one gave up every privilege to the Roman Catholics, particularly that of sitting in parliament, which was the greatest of all. The other had reference to the securities. Now, it was possible that the first bill might pass, and the second be rejected: in which case, the Catholic would be placed in possession of most important privileges, without giving any security at all. But, supposing the two bills to pass. In that case, perhaps the measure relating to the ecclesiastical establishment would be not only rejected, but anathematized by the Catholic clergy of Ireland. The Roman Catholic laity would thus be put in possession of every privilege, even the privilege of sitting in that House, while the Roman Catholic clergy would be at liberty to reject any measure relating to their intercourse with the see of Rome. His right hon. friend had declared, on a former occasion, that things were in such a situation as rendered it impossible for them so to remain, and therefore something might be done. Now, it could not be denied that much had been done. And, with regard to granting the elective franchise originally, he would say, that it was a concession in contradiction to all sound policy. It should have been granted, either in a more full latitude, or else those who proposed it, should have stopped short. But it might be said, why not repeal it if it be so absurd? There were many things which, if once passed into a law, could not be repealed. Of this he had no doubt, that the concession in question would appear ere long to be fraught with the greatest danger, and that many gentlemen who now heard him would live to see the evils which he was predicting. To repeal the elective franchise granted to the Irish Catholics was impossible; that measure was in this respect similar to the Union, of which he at the time expressed his disapprobation, and with regard to which he had stated, that it was an experiment that if once made could never be undone, whatever might be its consequences. Since, therefore, what had been done, could not be recalled, it became the House to be the more careful and jealous in granting any further concessions of the same dangerous nature: "quod datum est, non volui; quod reliquum est, non dabo."
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that it were true
1290
that the stopping short with the concession of the elective franchise to the Irish Catholics was a gross error in policy and a violation of justice, did it follow that the British parliament was to go no farther in future? No; there was the greatest danger in remaining in the present situation; while, in advancing farther, and pursuing the course recommended in this bill, there would be not only the greatest expediency, but the greatest security. Undoubtedly one of the discoveries reserved for late times, and to be made by those who were little respected for their worldly wisdom, was, that persecution for religious opinions was not only one of the wickedest, but one of the most foolish things in the world. It had been said by an author who was more to be admired for the extent of his erudition and the brilliance of his style than for the candour of his sentiments, that if you could extirpate all new opinions by opposing them, there might be some sense in persecution; but that if it only tended to show your own weakness, it was the height of folly. The treatment which Ireland had experienced, was enough to wake every generous sympathy of the human mind. At the time when Ireland was called "the mother of the saints," and possessed more pure religion than any other country in Europe, she was made a prey to lawless oppression. At a subsequent period, when the liberties of this country were established by the glorious Revolution, she was still oppressed; and those who governed England acted the part of a step-mother to Ireland. During the reign of queen Anne, and up to that of George 3rd, she had been treated in the same manner. Could it therefore be matter of wonder, that she had struggled to shake off the yoke of her oppressors? At length we began to awake from our dream of delusion, and to be ashamed of our conduct. The Irish parliament, for a long period previous to its dissolution, had no independent voice of its own, but was directed in all things by the government of this country. As a proof of the indifference evinced to its purity and independence, he needed only state, that is any individual was too profligate to be provided for in this country, it had been the custom to send him over to Ireland. At length, the Irish parliament became incorporated with the British by the act of Union; and undoubtedly the claims of the Catholics ought to have been settled

1291
at that time. That Mr. Pitt, who brought about the Union, looked to that event as the most likely means of procuring the restoration of their rights, was well known. He recollected that that enlightened statesman, in speaking on this subject, had expressed himself to this effect—that inasmuch as the parliaments of England and Ireland were then incorporated into one, the rights of the Catholics might be granted with more safety, or refused with less danger. The hon. gentleman proceeded to declare that he did not know any thing more calculated to keep the people of Ireland in a state of insurrection than such a speech as that of his hon. friend. Parliament ought to provide for those circumstances in which they were likely to be placed, and to know that, sooner or later, whether safely or not, the Catholics must become the depositories of political power. Political privileges must always be granted to those who were possessed of a large proportion of the landed property of the kingdom. With regard also to an individual in the profession of the bar, who was the artificer of his own fortune, he must feel indignant at the prejudices which denied to him the chance of those professional honours which were open to others. His hon. friend had stated it to be his conviction that no Catholic would be satisfied with any concession short of a seat in parliament; and, what evil was to be apprehended from this concession in the fullest extent? If there was any Catholic who had bad feelings towards that House, he (Mr. W.) would the rather on that account bring him into the House, and thus give him an opportunity of correcting his errors. The Catholics had not known the constitution in its dignifying, enlarging, and liberalizing influence; but in that House they would be enlightened in the principles and practical influence of the British constitution. If they owed any servile obedience to the dictates of their spiritual pastors, in that House they would have an opportunity of removing such prejudices. They would thus come to learn the true dignity of their situation, and would no longer be the narrow-minded bigots which they had been represented to be. It should also be recollected, that the benefits of education, which was spreading over Ireland, would open and expand their minds, and make them look with horror on the system of coercion and exclusion to which they had
1292
been subjected. And when he saw Roman Catholics possessed of intelligence, rank, and property, and every thing that entitled them to political weight and power, he was not for withholding from them those privileges, the concession of which would tend materially to our own peace and security. The Roman Catholic religion had been professed by men whose characters reflected honour on mankind. He might instance Pascal and Fenelon; of the latter of whom, he would say, that he had been sent from Heaven to bless mankind by the mildness of his wisdom and the efficacy of his example. Parliament would be overlooking the interests of the country, if they continued restrictions that had necessarily a powerful effect in alienating the affections of the people. These disabilities were the relics of a long course of oppression; and to continue them was like making those on whom they were imposed wear the prison suit after they were set at large. Was it in the order of human events, that when a generous high-minded people were treated well, they should proceed to revolt and insurrection? If there was any feature more remarkable in the character of the people of this country than another, it was the willingness of every individual to submit his conduct to the law of the country. This was the peculiar characteristic of the people of this land. But when he regarded Ireland, the characteristic was directly the reverse—a natural impatience at the restraints of the law. From what could that difference spring, but their being denied the enjoyment of the British constitution? If their present claims were granted, they would be soothed, their dispositions dulcified, as it were, and the legislature would have the satisfaction of seeing a smile over the general countenance of the land. Therefore, notwithstanding all the caution with which he approached the question, he felt quite confident that the course now proposed was the true road to the security of the country. It would strengthen instead of weaken the religion and institutions of the country, and would restore to their just rights a brave and generous people, to whom we owed a debt of gratitude weightier than we could ever repay.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that the question for the consideration of the House was, whether the claims of the Catholics could be granted without endangering the existing constitution. His hon. friend had

1293
said, that their refusal would almost justify the greatest discontent among the Catholics. He appeared, however, to have confounded their civil and religious rights, and to think that the continuance of the restrictions was an act of injustice. The Catholics of Ireland enjoyed the elective franchise; that could not, therefore, be ground for dissatisfaction. He was at a loss to see how it could be declared to be unjust, to prevent their admission to the high offices of the state, when it was recollected that that state was Protestant in its nature and substance. The Catholics formed a great proportion of the inhabitants of one part of the kingdom, but a very small portion of the entire population of the empire. It was reasonable, therefore, that the greatest jealousy should be exercised, when it was proposed to grant to that body an introduction to the senate, by which the established religion might be exposed to danger. Their civil rights were not neglected. Were not those interests as well protected by Protestant members as they could be by representatives chosen from the Catholic body? Surely they could not wish to provoke discussion upon religious subjects in an assembly purely Protestant, and upon which the sovereign himself could not interfere. It seemed admitted on all hands, that in granting these privileges there was a point at which we might stop. The right hon. mover had laid it down that the highest place in the law should not be within the reach of the Catholic. He therefore admitted that it was not a question of right, but of expediency. It was agreed that they should stop somewhere, and if there was danger of going too far, it was better to stop where they were. One consideration should be constantly kept in view, namely, that whatever was granted, could not be withdrawn. Let the House look at the changes that might be apprehended, if the present claims were granted. It was possible that the House might be filled with Catholics, that there might be a Catholic privy council, and that although an avowed Catholic sovereign could not sit upon the throne, still we might have one who was a Catholic in his heart. The evils that must attend such a state of things, he would not attempt to depict. They might be alarming, or they might not; but, whilst his hon. friend took into his view the favourable parts of the question, those of a contrary nature should
1294
not be lost sight of. And this became the more necessary, if, as the hon. gentleman had stated, the power and numbers and opulence of the Catholics were increasing. It would have been much better in his estimation, and more satisfactory to the House, if the two bills had been put into one, and argued at the same time. He concluded by moving as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that his motive in addressing the House was, to call their attention to a new crisis in the state of the country, to a change in the laws of the country as they affected Catholics, which had occurred within the last four years, and which, as it appeared to him, left the House no alternative between at once adopting the measure proposed to them, and rejecting, in toto, every fundamental principle upon which their ancestors had relied for constitutional government, and every common sense precaution which they had taken against the constantly recurring danger of a military despotism. By the act of the 57th of the late king, cap. 92, all previous oaths and declarations were abrogated as to commissions held in the array or navy; and the Annual Indemnity bill, which, as it had been regularly passed during upwards of a hundred years, might be taken to be part of the legislation of the country, placed Catholic subjects, with respect to the army, in the same situation with Protestant dissenters. In what a state did the country stand when it was remembered that the immense army and navy which it was compelled to maintain might be entirely officered by Catholics—by a set of men who at the same time stood excluded even from the lowest civil offices in the kingdom? The duke of Norfolk could not become a justice of the peace, but a Catholic adventurer might command a mighty army! Catholics were allowed to manage a military force for the security of those Houses of Parliament the doors of which they were for ever forbidden to enter! Was this the policy upon which the British constitution had been framed? No: the principle upon which our ancestors had endeavoured to secure themselves against the encroachment of an armed force had been by opening the doors of both Houses of Parliament to military officers, by combining, as far as possible, in their persons civil importance with military trust, and

1295
by giving to those who held the disposal of the army, an interest in maintaining the constitution of their country. He Sid not think that the course to which he had adverted, or that any system short of Utopian, could fully secure a country against the danger arising from the maintenance of an armed force; because he took an armed force to be a monster, in its nature perpetually hostile to free or even to civil government: but a system so dangerous as the present could scarcely be conceived—for it placed the whole disposable force of the kingdom in the hands of a sort of political outlaws, exasperated against the government which it was their business to maintain; and having every interest in the destruction, not only of the existing law, but of the liberties of their country. Such measures were ten times more absurd than those proposed by James 2nd, who, when he contemplated the officering his army with Catholics, intended to admit those Catholics to both Houses of Parliament. It had been frequently objected, that military officers should, under any circumstances, hold seats in that House; and he, in answer, had constantly declared that it would be madness to exclude them; that their professional knowledge was most valuable in the House; and that the true principle was for the House to draw into itself the great and powerful of every class of persons. His argument was at an end, if the House thought fit to oppose the bill before them; but he did contend, that the present condition of things was utterly inconsistent with the maxims of our ancestors, and with the principle and practice of every well conducted state.—The right hon. gentleman opposite said that the constitution of England was essentially protestant. Now, that remarkable clause in the Bill of Rights which precluded the profession of popery by a sovereign had no application whatever to any other species of dissent from the church of England; there was no exclusion of Quaker, Anabaptist, or follower of any particular sect. The right hon. gentleman said, that the constitution was essentially Protestant—would it not be more true to say that it was essentially anti-popish? that it consisted essentially in a disavowal of popery, trot that it was open to any of the thousand sects which Had appeared in Europe since the Reformation? But the right hon. gentleman called the exclusion of the Catholics from the Houses of parlia-
1296
ment the British constitution. Wiry, that exclusion arose out of the acts of Charles 2nd; and those acts, the acts of such a government, were to be held up as part of a constitution which had existed for centuries before the infamous statutes had existence. According to the right hon. gentleman the British constitution owed its excellence to Titus Oates. He must be permitted to have his doubts upon that point. The right hon. gentleman said, that it was not the policy of any state to give political power to men who were likely to be prompted to abolish existing institutions. Why, this was a principle upon which edicts of proscription and persecution might be raised against the Protestants in any and every country of Europe. According to this abstract principle, the right hon. gentleman might go to France and alter the religious regulations there: he might complain of the conduct of the congress of Vienna, which had enacted equality of religion in the Netherlands: he might attack Austria; Prussia, and Russia, all of whom, whatever the respective faults of their governments, admitted all sects and parties to political offices. Really, after all, the error of the right hon. gentleman was rather chronological than logical: he came only 200 years too late with his proposition. Such a principle might have done very well in a day when liberty and religious toleration were alike unknown, and when each sect fought for the liberty of oppressing every other. It was a little strange, however, that the right hon. gentleman, who in general cried up practice in opposition to theory, should all at once set up theoritical principles of his own in opposition to the practice of Europe during three centuries—two of those centuries having been passed in perpetual struggle to carry that principle into effect, and the other in a state of peace arising out of the total neglect of it. In such an assembly as that in which he stood it was necessary for him to vindicate the memory of Mr. Pitt, or he certainly should vindicate the act of 1793 from the attack which had been made upon it by the hon. member for Corfe-castle. The security of every religious establishment must depend, as it appeared to him, upon two causes; first, the attachment of the people, and next, the stability of the government. Now, the first of these causes was, in Ireland, out of the question: the churches of Scotland and of England

1297
might, perhaps, have such root in the affections of the people as should enable them to survive political convulsion; but in Ireland that was out of the question: the stability of the government then, was the only ground of reliance; the stability of government depended chiefly upon the union and the general satisfaction of the people: there could be little doubt that the measure proposed did tend to the union and to the satisfaction of the people; and therefore it was in truth likely to be a stay to the religious establishment of Ireland. If we wanted an example from history of the good effects of putting an end to the distractions arising from religious disqualifications, we might take it from that of Henry 4th of France. That excellent monarch, after a civil war which had disturbed the country for forty years, had shown himself truly the father of his people by issuing the memorable edict of Nantes. By that edict it was declared, that, in order to unite all classes of his subjects in affection to the state, every person of the reformed religion was eligible to hold public offices in France, notwithstanding any thing which had been decreed to the contrary. It was by this wise method that that good monarch had united the attachment of all parties in support of his government. It was con tended, at that time, and such counsel was given to Henry 4th, that if that privilege were granted, the Protestants would not rest there, but would demand other privileges; but Henry wisely rejected such counsels, and declared, that the interest of the state ought to be made the interest of all parties in it. The right hon. gentleman, however, held a doctrine different from that of Henry 4th—a doc trine which served to continue those differences that divided the interests of the state. The right hon. gentleman no doubt, would not wish that any great body should continue as slaves in the state: he would, no doubt, be unwilling that the Catholics should be in that situation: he would only exclude them from political power. Did he mean to say that such men as the duke of Norfolk ought to have no political power in the country? That he should not sit in that House to which so many of his ancestors had been ornaments and supporters? That the earl of Shrews bury, the descendant of the hero of Agincourt, should not be placed beside the hero of Waterloo? that we should pot unite our past glory with our pre-
1298
sent greatness? Yet, to such an extent would the opponents of this measure go. The hon. and learned gentleman, adverting to what had passed in the early part of the evening respecting the opinions of Dr. Milner, proceeded to contend that the Irish bishops ought in no manner to be identified with those opinions. The hon. member for Somersetshire had expressed his surprise that a person of the talent and character of his right hon. friend should have brought forward this bill. He would not say a word against those who opposed the measure: they might have their conscientious feelings, and no doubt they had; but, if he were to select any great question which had been remarkable for the rank, the character, the talent, and situation of those who had supported it, it would be, with perhaps the exception of the slave trade, that one which was now before the House. Never had there been such a preponderance of talent and intelligence, of rank and station, as had been exhibited in advocating this question. A continuation of the support of such men, from the first introduction of the first bill—front the days of Savile and Burke down to the present time—might, if the measure were erroneous, be looked upon as a miracle. It would at least be extraordinary. He did not wonder, then, that his right hon. friend had ranked himself with kindred spirits: his wonder would be if he had differed from all the great men of his age.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from places of civil trust and power, after having given them rank in the army and navy, was an anomaly unparalleled in the civilized world. Now, he thought, he could cite a parallel to such a case. The same arguments used by the hon. and learned gentleman had been used to William 3rd, on the subject of his exclusion of the Catholics from civil offices in the United Provinces, while at the same time they were eligible to fill the highest rank in the army. To those arguments William answered, that he admitted the anomaly, but that he thought it unfair to exclude them from offices in the army, in which they had so honourably fought; but that no danger could accrue to the state from thence so long as the government was in the hands of Protestants. But it was said, that by, concessions given in the act of 1817,

1299
grounds had been established for further claims. It was true, that parliament had granted those concessions, not foreseeing at the time that such grant would ever be made a ground for a charge of inconsistency in not granting more. He contended, that there was no such understanding at the time when Catholics were made eligible to offices of high rank in the army and navy: no such principle was recognised when that measure was first brought forward in 1807; and this was the understanding in which it was supported by lord Howick, now earl Grey. That noble lord then stated, that he trusted the limited measure proposed might be brought forward without the objections which were made to the general question; and that, considering what had been previously said on the subject by the chancellor and secretary for Ireland, we had a right to pass such a measure. Now, if the House had granted those privileges, as far as the army and navy were concerned, on grounds wholly different from those which were urged in support of the general question, was it fair to urge such concessions at the present moment as a reason why we should grant more? As to any argument founded on the opinions of the Irish bishops, he meant to take no unfair advantage of it; but if it were said that they were silent for seven years on this subject, he would observe, that the bill had not been printed seven days, and that, therefore, they could not have had time to declare their sentiments upon it.—With respect to what had been said of the principle of exclusion fixing a brand and stigma on the Catholics, he would repeat what he had formerly said, that there was a grand distinction between exclusion and punishment; and, though the principle of exclusion might be continued, it did not follow that we meant to disbelieve the oaths of the Catholics, or to fix a brand upon their brows. He would admit that political exclusion was in itself an evil—that it was an evil to be obliged to refuse the services of a great portion of the people, and to debar their access to power—and that it was not the mere possession of office, but the hope of possession, and the laudable ambition to which that hope gave rise, which were to be considered in the question of exclusion. Nor would he admit, because our ancestors had acted upon that principle, that it was less an evil; but what he would maintain was
1300
this, that it would be a greater evil to do away the exclusion than to continue it. He hoped he had stated this ground of argument fairly as it applied to the question before the House. He would not now go into the question as it applied particularly to England: he thought himself bound to consider rather its application to Ireland. In viewing the question as it applied to that country, the right hon. gentleman would not deny that an important and essential ingredient in it was, the maintenance and support of the Protestant church in that country. The right hon. gentleman had asked, what danger remained to the Protestant church in Ireland? and he had answered himself by stating, that all the danger which had existed would still remain if this bill were not carried; but that by the passing of this bill securities would be granted to the established church. Now, the security which he offered was, the conferring on the Catholic equal power with his fellow-subject. There were three sorts of power which it was intended to confer on the Roman Catholics: the first was, that which the common law annexed to the possession of property, and from which certain acts had hitherto debarred the Roman Catholics, but which by this bill were to be restored to them: this was, the power of voting at parish vestries, the power of voting for the repair and building of churches, the election of churchwardens, and the payment of subordinate officers. He would ask whether in a country where there were five Roman Catholics to one Protestant, this power ought to be given to them? Here, without imputing any opinions to Roman Catholics which they would themselves be ashamed to avow, he would ask, whether it was consistent with the safety of the established church to confer such a power? And upon whom was it to be conferred? Upon persons who had to provide also for the support of their own religious establishment. If this bill should pass into a law, the executive would be bound to carry it doná fide into effect. If, then, it was true that the Roman Catholics were great in point of numbers and in point of wealth, it followed that this bill would give them great power. The same reasoning applied to their admission into corporations and into parliament. Why exclude Roman Catholics from the office of ecclesiastical judge, and now for the first time; for that provision had not been

1301
introduced in any former bill? This showed that the feeling of jealousy on his part was not quite unaccountable—that his fears were not chimerical. Catholic members of that House would naturally he anxious to extend to the Catholic clergy the privileges which were now withheld from them; and he declared solemnly that he believed, if this measure were to pass into a law, that the regulations would not remain in force for five years. Irish members in that House had a distinct interest. He did not know if it was constitutional, but it was human nature to combine for the interest of the land of our birth. In questions affecting the Protestant church in Ireland, he did, therefore, expect combinations. He was aware that it was a choice of difficulties; but in his opinion the arguments for continuing the exclusion overbalanced the other arguments. If once agreed on the principle, he thought there could be no valid objection founded on the details. Yet he saw objections to affixing an interpretation to an oath, adverse to its plain and obvious meaning. Why, again, did they not relieve the Crown from the declaration against transubstantiation, if members of that House were to be relieved? Protestantism was so interwoven with the constitution, that it would meet them at every turn. Governors of colonies, for instance, would find it made penal to appoint to offices under them upon principles which were only consistent with their duty. What proof could they have of, who was a Roman Catholic, if this measure passed? Mr. Grattan's bill had left the declaration against transubstantiation which this bill removed. But, whatever decision the House might come to, he would give it his best acquiescence; and if the measure should be carried, he would use his earnest endeavours to reconcile the Protestants to it.
Mr. Canningsaid, that, often as it had fallen to him during the time that he had been a member of that House to take part in the discussion of that most important matter, which was this night the subject of their deliberation, he had never risen to discharge his duty under greater anxiety than he felt on the present occasion. That anxiety arose, in part, from the intense conviction which he felt of the great and growing expediency of the measure then proposed to the House It arose in part also from the peculiar circumstances under which the determina-
1302
tion of the House was then to be taken. Those circumstances did not consist in an augmentation of the difficulties by which the question had been surrounded—for difficulties had been, in some degree, removed, nor did they arise from an exaggeration of the objections which were opposed to the measure—for objections heretofore insisted upon, appeared to have been in some measure abated, neither did they consist in any irritation of the public mind—for never, on any former occasion, had the public mind been in such a state—he would not say with his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel)—of apathy, but of complete resignation to the wisdom of parliament. They did not consist in any acerbity of temper with which the discussion had been carried on within the walls of that House; for eminently on that night, and also, as he had been informed, in the former stage of this discussion, had it been carried on with a candour, a temper, and a propriety, that did high honour to the right hon. and learned gentleman who had brought in the present measure, and to his right hon. friend, the member for Oxford, who had opposed it.
Having as warm a feeling of esteem for his right hon. friend as it was possible for one man to entertain for another—concurring with him upon most subjects of public policy as much as it was possible for one public man to concur with another—yet, differing with him as he did conscientiously upon the present question, of his right hon. friend he must say, that he had discharged a painful duty upon the present occasion, in a manner which reflected the highest credit on his public character and conduct, and which must afford him sat is faction in the retrospect, to the latest I hour of his life.
In return, he (Mr. C.) hoped he might be allowed in the outset, to assure his right hon. friend, and the House, that he came to this debate in the same temper of mind as his right hon. friend, and to say, that if, in the warmth of argument, he should fall into any expression which might be supposed to convey disrespect to those from whose opinions he differed, he trusted he should be acquitted of any intention to give pain, and that for any such accidental intemperance, the interesting nature of the cause would plead his apology., It was from the very improvements in the position of the great

1303
question about to be decided, it was from the diminution of the difficulties with which it had been hitherto surrounded, from the abated tone of the objections with which it had been heretofore assailed, from the acquiescence without doors, and the calmness within, that, deriving unusual hope, he also derived a more than common share of anxiety. In proportion as those external causes which, on former occasions, had contributed to the ill-reception and defeat of this question, were removed, in proportion as it was left more freely to the operation of its own intrinsic merits, the responsibility for a favourable result appeared to weigh more heavily upon its advocates. And when, in addition to the facilities which he had already enumerated, he considered the advantage of an unpledged parliament, and the auspiciousness of a new reign, he could not help avowing, that if in a state of things so highly encouraging, the issue of this night's discussion should prove—as he trusted it would not prove—unfavourable, he should almost be led to despair of final success.
Under these circumstances, it was rather the magnitude of the issue than the difficulty of the argument which filled him with apprehension, and occasioned him to approach the question that night, with a trepidation such as he had never before experienced.
What, then, was the question which they were called upon to decide? It was whether they should allow the laws that affected the Roman Catholics to remain in their present state;—or should reform them by further mitigations;—or should restore them to that standard from which, during the whole of the late reign, parliament had been employed in gradually bringing them down? It was idle to say that this division of the subject was invidious. It was impossible to look to the laws as they at present stood, without adverting to the origin of those laws, and to the state in which they had stood when in their mature and undiminished vigour, in order to obtain a complete view of their moral operation and effect. It was most true, as had been stated by his honourable friend the member for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce}, in his delightful speech a few hours ago, that it was not merely the existing state of those laws, nor the temper in which they were now administered that was to be considered, when you were about to determine upon their con-
1304
tinuance or repeal;—thetemperHn which they were originally enacted—the accusations of which they were now the memorial—the imputations which, if true, warranted, more than any other, the efficacy with which they were formerly administered—must all form part of the consideration.
These laws, be it remembered, had never been stationary: for two centuries had they been growing; for half a century had they been in their decline. At the summit of the hill there was a plain of only twenty years; on one side was an ascent of two hundred years, and, on the other, a descent of about sixty. Was it possible to contemplate singly the point to which sixty years of gradual declension had brought them, without taking into view the point of cruel perfection from which they began to decline, and the degrees by which they had previously been raised to it?
Was it possible to consider the propriety and policy of what remains of the code, without reference to the cause in which it had originated; to the reasons or the pretexts by which it had been justified; to the effect, good or evil, to which it had operated while in force; to the recollections with which it was associated; to the severities which it had inflicted; and to the resentments which it had engendered; to the character of the times in which it had grown and flourished; and to that of those in which it was now proposed to abrogate it altogether?
And, first, as to its origin and causes: At what period in the history of this empire were the laws against the Roman Catholics justified otherwise than by the supposed political as well as spiritual connexion of the Roman Catholic with a foreign power?
The argument was now taken as if that connexion had been nothing else but spiritual: but that was not so; it had always been made ground of charge against the Roman Catholic, that he had also entertained a political predilection, or acknowledged the obligation of political obedience, towards a foreign power. That foreign power, in the earliest times of the Reformation, was the Pope; then formidable in temporal as well as in spiritual preponderance; and arrogating a supremacy over the temporal concerns of princes, which those who admitted, could be but imperfect in their allegiance to their lawful sovereigns. In later times,

1305
an exiled family,—exiled on account of political as well as religious bigotry,—became the rival of the reigning dynasty of England, and divided, or assumed to divide with it, the allegiance of British subjects. Concurring in the religion of the exiled family, the Roman Catholic subjects of the British Crown were held also to be devoted to their political claims. The Roman Catholic was presumed to be essentially a traitor; but as treason was naturally concealed as much as possible, while religion was more readily avowed, or ascertained the test of the suspected politics was sought in the professed creed. It was necessary to discover the Papist who was ready to restore the exiled family to the throne. It was devised to detect him by the oath of transubstantiation. Was his creed his guilt? No, But his creed designated the man, and his guilt consisted in his foreign attachment. Would any man pretend to assert that that attachment existed at present? No, it was gone; the object of his attachment was no more. But he who maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation was still to be made the subject of penal laws! This was to mistake a rule for a reason. It was as if a magistrate, having received information that a murder had been committed by a man who wore spectacles and a wig, and having apprehended an individual distinguished by those appendages, should, upon its being afterwards ascertained that no murder had been committed at all, still refuse to relinquish his man, persisting that the spectacles and wig were conclusive evidence of the murder. The Roman Catholic believing in transubstantiation, had been formerly the object of penal laws, because attached to an exiled family; that family no longer existing, he was now punished for believing in transubstantiation.
The earliest dawn of the Reformation, to which mankind, and this country above all, were indebted for so many invaluable blessings, would be found, like all great mutations in the affairs of the world, to have been tainted with many acts of violence, injustice, and mutual persecution. Out of that conflict, the Reformed Church of England had happily come triumphant, But, was it now to be assumed that criminality attached, not only to all who resisted, but to all who professed the creed of those who had resisted its establishment? No man would contend for so unjust a proposition.
1306
He thanked God that the Church of England had come prosperously but he that arduous struggle; but he could not bring himself to say that those who had adhered to the old religion, as the mild Melancthon had advised his aged mother to adhere, rather than distract herself with controversy, were, on that account, fit- objects of punishment. Restrict them if they connected their religion with politics hostile to the peace of their native country; but, happy as was the consummation which had rendered this a Protestant state, he could not consent to judge harshly of those who had opposed the change, when he considered under what circumstances, and by what instruments it had been brought about. Look to the character of the first royal promoter of Protestantism in England, and to the mixed motives by which he was actuated; and whether you attribute his conduct to policy or to passion, to avarice or to vanity; whether you agree with the historian who describes him as a tyrant, by whose arbitrary laws whoever was for the Pope was hanged, and whoever was against him was burned; or with the poet, who attributes his conversion to a softer passion—
"When love could teach a monarch to be wise,
"And gospel-light first dawn'd from Boleyn's eyes;"
in any case, surely it was not a substantive crime, and worthy an inheritable punishiment, to have opposed an innovation, in which, whatever might be the governing motive, it was, at least, pretty clear that simple piety had no considerable share. The reign of queen Elizabeth was glorious both in its foreign and domestic policy but it was, undoubtedly, not the reign either of civil or religious liberty. In that reign was laid the foundation of the penal code against the Catholics; but laid expressly on the ground of political disaffection, not of religious differences. Then, indeed, were papists excluded from the House of Commons: but they were expressly allowed to continue to sit in the House of Lords. And why? because a, popish lord was less was less papist than a commoner? No:—bot because', of the fidelity—the political fidelity of her peers, the queen said she had other means of assuring herself. During the reign of James 1st, the Roman Catholic was stripped of his privileges as a citizen, denuded of his rights as a social man,

1307
deprived of the common connexions of country, rendered liable to a prœmunire if he stepped five miles from his own threshold, and to the penalties of treason if he so transgressed a second time; but was it necessary to remind the House of Fawkes's plot, as a proof that treason, not faith, was the cause and the object of these terrible enactments? Terrible, as those enactments were, it must be allowed that there was some justification for them, while the safety of the state, and the succession to the throne were threatened by the conflict of the hostile religions. But with the reign of James 1st, that apology seemed to end. In the reigns subsequent to that of James 1st, was there any thing in the conduct of the Roman Catholics to induce the belief that their religion was hostile to the security of the state? In the reign of Charles 1st, was it the old religion that overturned the monarchy? Did the Roman Catholics bring that monarch to the block? Was it a papist who struck the fatal blow?
It had been asserted indeed, in that debate that it was impossible for a Roman Catholic to enter into full enjoyment of political rights, without feeling it to be his bounden duty to employ them in an attempt to overturn the Protestant ecclesiastical establishments of the country, and it had even been said, that no harm was intended in imputing this doctrine to the Catholics—that it charged them with nothing which they who made the charge would be ashamed of doing, had it been their fortune to live under an adverse ecclesiastical establishment. Now, he thought this was taking an unfair advantage. Any man who chose to throw away his own character was master of that of another; and the hon. gentlemen thought that by thus impartially accusing themselves, they acquired the right of inculpating the Catholics. He was, therefore, obliged to vindicate his right honourable friend from his own admission, in order to protect the Catholic from the inference deduced from it. He entirely disbelieved his right hon. friend's self-accusation; he was sure that if the lot of-his- fight hon. friend had been cast in another country, of which the established religion was different from his own—and if he had there been allowed nevertheless to take his Beat in the senate, and to exhibit himself, as he did at present, to the admiration of all who heard him,—he was sure that no suggestion of priestcraft,
1308
that no motive of conscience would ever lead him to attempt the overturn of the establishment of that country which had placed him in so distinguished a situation.
But in what manner did the history of England bear out the theory of his right hon. friend? What, as he had already observed, was the conduct of the Catholics of England throughout the trying struggle of the reign of Charles 1st? A continual tenor of adherence to the government amidst domestic faction and civil war, and at the risk of their property and their lives. Had they no temptation to shrink from a faithful discharge of their duty? and yet in what instance had they failed?
He had said that Catholics, though excluded by law from the House of Commons, still retained their seats in the House of Peers. What was their conduct in that House? and how was it requited? In 1641, a bill was brought in to exclude the bishops from sitting in parliament. In the House of Lords it was lost upon a division, and in the majority were to be found many Catholic peers. Thirty years after, a bill was sent up to the Lords for the exclusion of Catholic peers from seats in parliament. It was passed by a great majority; and in that majority were included the Protestant bishops. He meant nothing disparaging to the bishops of that day. Undoubtedly, they thought that they were doing their duty. But he should like to know—supposing the Catholics to have voted for the expulsion of the bishops, as the bishops did for theirs—what would now have been said of the conduct of the Catholics? Would not the House have rung with the triumphant inference that now, as in 1641, the admission of the Catholics into parliament must be the destruction of the Protestant hierarchy? The only inference he would draw was, that as one good turn deserved another, the passing of this bill would afford to the bishops of the present day an opportunity of returning the obligation of 1641.
But some gentlemen had a still more ingenious theory. For two centuries it was urged, had the Catholics been brooding patiently over their wrongs, and, like the Brutus of history, disguising, under the appearance of insensibility, the deep sense which they entertained of them—they were only waiting for the passing of this bill to wreak the vengeance which

1309
had so long been smothered in their breasts. Indeed! And had this and former debates so far exhausted all reasonable objections, and all rational fears, that we were now to be daunted from doing what was right, by the apprehension that the present race of Catholics would throw off a mask worn by successive generations of their ancestors, and revenge themselves in the first delirium of new-gotten freedom, for ages of suppressed feeling, and hypocritical fidelity? Surely to believe in such a danger required a more than Roman Catholic credulity!
He had hitherto spoken of the Roman Catholic religion generally, and addressed himself to its operation in England. He now came to speak more particularly of that part of the united Kingdom which was more peculiarly interested in the present question—of Ireland.
During the earlier of the reigns which he had shortly reviewed, the Reformation, which, in England, had made such rapid strides, had not only mounted the throne, but almost monopolized the legislature, it had made no progress whatever in Ireland. And why? And whose the fault? No pains had been taken to advance it. On the contrary, to judge from facts, it was the policy of Elizabeth to keep it back. Neglect alone hardly furnished a sufficient solution of such total apathy in one kingdom, contrasted with so stirring and anxious an activity in the advancement of Protestantism in the other. But such was the fact. What wonder, then, that the rebellion in the time of Charles 1st assumed in Ireland a popish character, when the whole population were papists? What wonder if politics and religion were mixed up in a country where the Reformation never entered at all; and the reformed religion never, but in arms and as a conqueror? Such was its entry, first under Cromwell, and last under king William. The penal code against the Catholics of Ireland dated from the conquest of that kingdom by William 3rd. The popish parliament had enacted severe laws against Protestants; the Protestant parliament had retaliated most severely. No single individual would have dared to take upon himself the odium attendant on such retaliation. From that parliament emanated a series of laws such as had not previously existed in the records of legislation—laws the framers of which seemed to have taxed their imagination to find out the sore points of
1310
human nature to which they might apply them as corrosives—laws which counteracted all the feelings of nature destroyed all the comforts of families, so long as they existed; and exist they did, until the 14th year of the reign of George 3rd, all in full force and undiminished vigour. By them the conforming son could seize upon the property of the unconforming father; by them the unprincipled and heartless Protestant wife could array herself in the riches of her betrayed Catholic husband; by them the orphan heretic might be robbed by any anti-papist plunderer of his patrimony; through their operation there was no faith in kindred, no social intercourse of friendship, no security in any of the relations of domestic life. In 1774 came the first relaxation of this accursed system, the first breathing of a mighty thaw upon that accumulated mass of cold and chilling enactments, which till then had congealed and benumbed a nation. What was the first symptom of this genial spirit? It was a symptom sufficiently indicative of the degraded state to which the Catholic had been reduced, and of the difficulty which benevolent repentance found in breaking up the frost which so long had bound him. The first relaxation, that omen of returning spring, enabled the papist, notwithstanding his belief in transubstantiation, to rent—oh, mighty indulgence!—fifty acres of bog! This relaxation was found to succeed so well, the Protestant establishment continued so firm under the shock of it, that parliament allowed them afterwards to take a lease for 60 years. From that time the system was progressively mitigated, until the year 1792, which crowned and consummated the gift of civil liberty, and left only political concession imperfect,—imperfect in actual deed—but in principle acknowledged and anticipated.
When, in the year 1792, the elective franchise was conceded to the Catholics of Ireland, that acknowledgment and anticipation which he called upon the House that evening formally to ratifiy and realize was, in point of fact, irrevocably pronounced. To give the Catholic the elective franchise was to admit him to political power. To make him an elector, and at the same time render him incapable of being elected—was to attract to your side the lowest orders of the community at the same time that you repelled from it the highest orders of the gentry. This was not

1311
the surest or safest way to bind Ireland to the rest of the empire in ties of affection. What was there to prevent our union from being drawn more closely? Was there any moral, was there any physical obstacle? Opposuit natura? No such tiling. We had already bridged the channel. Ireland now sat with us in; the representative assembly of the empire; and when she was allowed to come there, why was she not also allowed to bring with her some of her Catholic children? For many years we had been erecting a mound, not to assist or improve, but to thwart nature. We had raised it high above the waters; and it had stood there frowning hostility, and effecting separation. In the course of time, however, chance and design, the necessities of man and the silent workings of nature, had conspired to break down this mighty structure,—till there remained of it only a narrow isthmus, standing
—"Between two kindred seas,
"Which, mounting, view'd each other from a far,
"And long'd to meet." —
What then shall be our conduct? Shall we attempt to repair the breaches, and fortify the ruins?—a hopeless and ungracious undertaking!—or shall we leave them to moulder away by time and accident?—a sure but distant, and thankless consummation! Or shall we not rather cut away at once the isthmus that remains, allow free course to the current which our artificial impediments have obstructed, and float upon the mingling waves the ark of our common constitution?
The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to reply to various detached objections which had been offered in the course of the debate by different speakers. Some gentlemen were afraid, that when the final concessions were granted, those persons who had stood by the constitution when they only enjoyed its benefits partially, would rise up against it, after being admitted to the full participation of its blessings. This was not likely. As yet the constitution was to them negative and repulsive. Then, it would be positive and full pf advantage. We had frequently been assailed by the prayers of the Roman Catholics, but we had as often treated them, with scorn, professing at the same time, to do it for their own good. Indeed, he thought that the Catholics might address us in pretty much the same language as a certain lover had addressed his mistress—
1312
"When late I attempted your pity to move, Oh; why were you deal to my prayers?
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love But why did you kick me down stairs?"
Others apprehended that they would still be discontented because all offices could not be opened to them indiscriminately—not those, for instance, which had, by the nature, of their functions any connexion with ecclesiastical interests. Surely the distinction, was plain enough. With the established religion of the country the Roman Catholics would of course have nothing to do. This must be a first and fundamental principle, both of all that was yielded and all that was retained. None but those who professed the established religion of the state could pretend to the exercise of any functions immediately connected with that religion, or with the ecclesiastical system in which it was embodied. They had already provided liberally for diffusing the benefits of education in Ireland; and God forbid that any sect of Christians should, on account of their faith, be deprived of the means of obtaining knowledge; but God forbid, he would also say at the same time, that the means of education should not, wherever it was possible, be conferred under the auspices of our national church! The provisions of the bill excluded Roman Catholics from the universities, and from the spiritual courts. He could perceive no difficulty, no injustice, in carrying those provisions into effect, and in considering them as conditions of this final adjustment. This exclusion must undoubtedly he a perpetual, indispensable article of the new compact, which, he trusted, they were on the point of ratifying. He relied for the observance of that article on the nature of the thing itself, as well as on the millions of hands and hearts which were ready to defend it in case of an attempt to abrogate or repeal it. Such an apprehension therefore could afford no legitimate ground for refusing to share with our fellow-subjects the blessings which we enjoyed. Nor could he join in the opinion that the passing of I this bill would divorce the union of the national church and state. He could I not think that the Crown would be desecrated and the monarchy rendered unholy, any more than insecure; when every Christian creed should be admitted to the franchises of the constitution, and when thanksgivings for a community of benefits

1313
were breathed alike in every diversity of Christian prayer.
He next adverted to the fears which had been expressed of a combination of Roman Catholic members of parliament to carry points favourable to their separate interests and persuasion. First the number of members that would be returned from Ireland—how infinitely small would it be in comparison with the whole representation? But let them for a moment suppose the case of any considerable number of these much-dreaded Catholics possessing seats in that House—what was it that they could combine to accomplish or to repeal? What objects could they have in view? They must necessarily be objects of private or local interest; for with regard to political designs—with regard to all that appertained to the advancement of their faith or spiritual interests—suspicion was alive, and the attempt must be defeated as soon as it was made. Such a combination, if directed to general purposes, must be as notorious as the sun at noon, and must be defeated as soon as known. Others again, dreaded not the operation of numbers, but the danger to arise from the return of demagogues to parliament. He should only answer that in parliament he wished to see them. He had never known a demagogue who, when elected to a seat in that House, did not in the course of six months shrink to his proper dimensions. In the event of a parliamentary reform, it would be his wish to see a little nest of boroughs reserved for their separate use, and he should not be alarmed at their introduction, even although they had been qualified in palace-yard. "Here," he would say, "let the demagogue appear; and let him do his worst."
To return, however, to the main question. He was aware that he had exercised too long the patience of the House: he felt the importance of the subject most deeply: he was convinced that this bill, or (as he did not mean to affirm that it was perfect of its kind,) a bill of this nature was necessary, and was most expedient at the present season. The moment was peculiarly favourable for discussion, and singularly free from any hazard with which the measure might otherwise be attended. We were now in the enjoyment of a peace achieved by the common efforts of both religions, by Catholic as well as Protestant arms, and cemented by Catholic as Well as Protest-
1314
ant blood—a peace which, notwithstanding the threatening aspect of affairs in some quarters of Europe, he hoped and believed was destined to be permanent. But it became us, with a view to political contingencies, to fortify ourselves by adopting all those means of strength which were offered to our hands; and never did a more auspicious period occur for such a purpose. How beneficial to extinguish a question that never could be discussed without agitating, large classes of the community! How desirable to avoid the inconvenience which must follow the loss' of that question at this time—its revival from year to year with increasing and more hopeless agitation ! How delightful to convert the murmur of national discontent into the voice of national gratitude! The expression of national gratitude was hot always conveyed by the proud column or the triumphal arch; but let this grand effort of legislation be consummated, and he had not the shadow of a doubt, but that the sentiment would be effectually inspired and unequivocally displayed. It was indifferent to him, provided the result was concord, on which side the work of conciliation began. He cared not whether the boon was plucked from Protestant acknowledgment, by the patience, the long suffering, and the supplications of the Catholic; or was tendered in generous confidence, as a voluntary gift. It would, in either case, like "the gentle dew from Heaven," bless both the giver and the receiver—resembling those silent operations of nature which pervade and vivify the universe, receiving and repaying mutual benefits, whether they rose in the grateful exhalation, or descended in the fertilizing shower. To conclude, he conjured the House to adopt a measure, from which he entertained a conviction approaching to prescience, that far from having cause to repent of its result, they would long reap a rich harvest of national strength, and happiness, and renown.—[The right hon. gentleman sat down amidst fervent and general cheering.]
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided;

Ayes

254

Noes

243

Majority

11

The bill was then read a second time; and at half after three in the morning, the House adjourned.