ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

HC Deb 01 March 1825 vol 12 cc764-845

Sir Francis Burdett

rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—

Sir;—Filled as my mind always is with anxiety and apprehension, whenever I am called upon to address this House, never did I feel that anxiety and that apprehension in so strong a degree as at the present moment, when a duty is imposed upon me, which I cannot help feeling I am unable adequately to perform, and which I should unquestionably have been anxious to decline, could I have done so, without the appearance of a desertion of my duty and principles—without the appearance of my not having that warm and zealous feeling in the cause of the Catholics, which I will venture to say, no gentleman in this House—no gentleman in any part of the united kingdom—entertains with more heartfelt earnestness and sincerity, than I do. When, however, I call to mind, Sir, the phalanx of splendid talent which, in times past, has been exercised in support of the present question—when I call to mind those great and eminent men, those venerable names now no more, whose eloquence and genius and intellects have been marshalled in support of it—when I call to mind, that the brightest talents of the present day have been, and will be, within a few hours, again drawn forth in the same cause—when, Sir, I consider all these things, it becomes impossible for me not to feel, in the midst of all my anxiety and apprehension, considerable consolation in the reflection, that every defect on my part will be more than compensated by the abilities of those who surround, and will support me; and that my cause—the cause of the Catholics of Ireland—of itself alone strong enough to bear up the weakest advocate—will be brought, and on the night on which I am speaking, to a favourable issue. It is, still further, a source of great consolation to me, in casting my eyes on every part of the House, to see men the most enlightened, and in possession of the best information, as anxious to promote the great cause, as I myself can possibly be; and, perhaps still more so, to know, that the brilliant talents of many right hon. and hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, which have so often been exerted against the feeble efforts that I may have been led to make, will, upon this occasion, be zealously exerted, to give strength to my arguments, and to repair any defects of which I may be guilty.

Sir, the petition which I have just had the honour of presenting to the House—large and bulky as it is in appearance, and numerously and respectably as it is signed—is but a "trifle light as air," an atom of the smallest magnitude, when considered with reference to the immense body of the people of the united empire, whose interests it represents; and of which the full figure, if signed by all those whose interests are deeply involved in its success, would have been so tall and so gigantic, that even the roof of the English House of Commons would scarcely have been lofty enough to contain it. The case, Sir, is one of the greatest magnitude. We shall form nothing like a just estimate of the importance of this question, if we merely consider it as one exclusively in- volving the interests of the Catholics—as one exclusively involving the interests of the whole population of Ireland. The question to which it applies is one which affects no partial interests, but the immediate welfare, and, I may say, the safety of the British community at large. Of such vast and momentous importance did I feel it to be, that I should almost have shrunk from undertaking the duty which now devolves upon me—and should still be inclined to do so—if I did not feel myself supported by the encouraging reflection to which I have just alluded.

Sir, the grounds upon which the petitioners come before the House, appear to me so strong and so irresistible, that I can scarcely frame to myself the nature of the objections that are to be raised up against them. Upon every principle of justice—upon every motive of sound policy—upon every ground of strict right, good faith, and honour—upon all these grounds, Sir, it appears to me, that the Catholics of Ireland stand before the House in a way which renders it utterly impossible that the prayer of their petition should be rejected.

I am extremely anxious, Sir, at the present moment, not to weary the House by a recurrence to any of those painful topics which have recently been under its consideration. And, above all things, I shall endeavour to touch upon no topic—upon no point—which can, by possibility, excite, in the mind of any person, the least angry feeling. On the contrary, it shall be my endeavour, so to advocate the claims of the petitioners, as to conciliate the minds of all men; and, earnestly do I implore those around me, of whatever side and party they may be, to merge for a moment every private and particular feeling, in their anxiety for the public interest, and to consider only by what course the great interests of the empire at large are most likely to be served, and consolidated. With this object constantly before me, I shall cautiously avoid every thing in the shape of a retrospective view. I will not, with unhallowed hand, tear open the wounds of Ireland. I shall do all that in me lies to conciliate the people on the one hand, and the persons who are opposed to them on the other; and I shall endeavour to show, that it is equally the interest of both, to put an end, at once and for ever, to a state of things, which is calculated only to perpetuate dissention.

Sir, partly from the conciliatory con- duct of the existing government, by liberalizing (as was well observed the other night, by the Attorney-general for Ireland) the old policy which was pursued in that country; and partly, perhaps, from other causes, Ireland may have attained an unusual state of tranquillity. Still, Sir, it is quite irrational to suppose, that this calm can be, for any length of time, maintained, until justice be done to those who now come with their petition before you—until full and ample justice be done to those, whose claims are alike founded in policy and in reason.

Now, Sir, with respect to this claim of justice: it should be recollected, that, at the period of the Revolution, when there really was danger to be apprehended from the Catholics—when a king had recently been expelled from the throne, because he was endeavouring to subvert the constitution, and introduce principles of arbitrary power—when the government of king William was but newly-established—it should be recollected, I say, that, even at that period, the hostility entertained in this country to the members of the Catholic persuasion, was not a religious hostility. It was the connection of that religion with principles of arbitrary power, which made the Catholics obnoxious; and a distinction was then, as at all times, taken, between the state Catholic, and the religious Catholic. The latter was always safe: whilst the former was an object of great suspicion and hostility; because he was believed to be in constant correspondence with the See of Rome, the Family which had been exiled, and the Catholic powers of Europe. Under a government newly established, with a Popish pretender supported by foreign princes abroad, it is not at all wonderful, that the hostility of our forefathers should have been roused and excited against the Catholic religion: but that hostility was excited, and naturally excited, because they were led to believe, that the religion of the Catholics was inseparably connected with arbitrary principles, with slavery, and the utter subversion of a free constitution.

Sir, in those times of difficulty and danger, after king William had made good his footing in this country, and James 2nd, expelled from the throne, had fled to Ireland—to the protection of his subjects there—those subjects did not think themselves at liberty to renounce their allegiance to him; and, being honestly of that opinion, they considered themselves bound, as loyal and faithful subjects, to defend him. They were any thing but rebels. If rebels there were, we, Sir, were the rebels—we, in England: but, I own, justified rebels—justified in defence of our rights, four religion, and our constitution. Neither were the people of Ireland rebels; as they have been unjustly designated; but loyal men, who, in defending their legitimate sovereign, were, at the same time, maintaining their own individual rights. The people of Ireland fought many battles; and shewed great courage, and invincible bravery, in his cause. The army was intrenched in a strong hold, from which it would have been difficult to dislodge them: but, at length, they lost their esteem for king James, in consequence of that monarch's desertion of them, and of himself; while, perhaps, they acquired, at the same time, some respect for the character of king William, who had distinguished himself by qualifications of a very different description. The country was, at that time, in a divided state. Louis 14th was at the head of the powers who supported the pretensions of James 2nd; and, at this critical juncture it was, that king William, in order to pacify Ireland, sent over commissioners, with full and unqualified instructions to grant her any terms, in order to put an end to so dangerous a war, and secure the peace and tranquillity of that country.

Under these circumstances of difficulty and of danger to the newly-constituted government, what, Sir, was the conduct of the Catholics of Ireland? They entered into an agreement, treaty, and covenant, that, provided liberty of conscience—that is to say, the free and unconstrained exercise of their religion; together with all the other advantages possessed by the rest of the king's subjects—were secured to them, they were ready to submit. And, upon this being solemnly guaranteed to them, in the name of king William—though it was notorious at the time, that a French fleet was advancing to their aid, and though that fleet had actually entered the Shannon before the treaty was ratified—they preserved their good faith, surrendered their arms, and put it out of their power to become ever again formidable to England. It is, too, a curious fact, that one of the conditions of this memorable treaty was, that they were not to be compelled to take the oath of supremacy. They were to be admitted to all the rights enjoyed by English subjects; and were not to be subjected to any disabilities, for adhering to the religion of their forefathers. Indeed, Sir, there were not wanting many adherents of the new establishment, who thought the terms conceded to the Catholics of Ireland too good, and who endeavoured to raise objections to them: but they could never persuade parliament to reconsider them, and the treaty of Limerick was, in consequence, fully ratified and confirmed. By this treaty king William, relieved from his embarrassments at home, was enabled to consolidate the whole force of the empire, and successfully to resist the ambition of Louis 14th.

Now, Sir, of all the infringements upon the treaty of Limerick which have since been made, experience has proved, that not one of them can be held to have been taken as a security; seeing that, in the moment of danger, the people of Ireland have never been found wanting. It was in the hour of triumph and security, that the angry passions of an interested faction were triumphant. Infractions of the treaty then followed, by degrees, one after the other: each infraction constituting an attack upon all honour and good faith; and the whole ending by imposing upon the Catholic population of Ireland, a set of laws the most sanguinary and cruel—breathing a spirit of tyranny the most detestable, and imposing a yoke the most heavy, that ever weighed down the necks of any people of any country on the face of the globe. But, Sir, unjust and cruel and unwarrantable as these laws were, they were not so unwise as they were wicked. The effect of them had been to bend the people of Ireland to the earth; and if they had been persevered in, doubtless they would soon have left England without any thing to dread, in the way of disturbance, from the Catholics; for, if followed up, they would inevitably have succeeded in extirpating the whole body; and, however wicked, and tyrannical, and murderous, such a course would have been, there would have been something like common sense and meaning in it. But, in better times, the establishments of later days had deemed such a course too revolting to be persevered in. By degrees, those severities were relaxed; and I could wish the Catholics never to forget, that, year after year, they have been receiving benefits from this country—benefits to which, no doubt, they were entitled; but which, nevertheless, they would do better to bear in mind, than the remembrance of the grievous injuries which have been inflicted on them. I could wish them to carry their views a little further, and see how certainly—how necessarily—that system of conciliation, which only commenced in the last reign, will, sooner or later, be accomplished in the present. I could wish to talk to the Catholics of Ireland, of the good done to them by their friends, and of the very mitigated rancour of those who, in former times, were their most determined enemies. I could desire to impress upon them, the absolute certainty of the final success of their claims—firmly resting, as those claims unquestionably do, on reason, sound policy, justice, and good faith. If, Sir, the Catholics of Ireland will but so far keep a restraint upon themselves, as to make the best use of all the advantages held out to them—if they will but exert themselves to forget old injuries—injuries which now bid fair to cease for ever—if they will only use common forbearance, and prudence, and discretion—I think it quite impossible, Sir, that their claims should not be successful. With only a reasonable portion of care—I repeat it—their cause, both out of doors, and in parliament, must triumph: for they may feel the most perfect assurance, that, unless the peace of the country should be disturbed, the enlightened mind of the people of England is making a rapid progress in their favour.

Therefore, Sir, in bringing forward the present question, I do not consider myself, at the present moment, as the advocate peculiarly of the people of Ireland: still less do I consider myself the advocate of the Catholic religion: but, though I am not the advocate, neither am I the adversary of that religion, nor the adversary of the various descriptions of religion, which different men according to the different notions and inclinations of the human mina have embraced. My own opinion, Sir, is, that all forms of religion are right—equally right—provided the persons professing them follow them with sincerity of heart; and provided they inculcate sound morality, and produce visible fruits, in the virtuous life and conversation of those who adhere to them. Now, that the Catholic religion can furnish as abundant proofs of good faith as any other system with which we are acquainted, I am fully persuaded. At the same time, for myself, I have no hesitation in saying, that, bred up, as I have been, in the religion of the Church of England,—(and that I consider as ample reason as any man can be called upon to give for his adherence to any particular faith)—I am attached to that Church, because I was born in it. And further, upon reflection I do think, that if I had to choose my religion again, the Church of England, of all others, is that which I should adopt. But, Sir, when I state this, I by no means mean to assert, that the Church of England is not open to objections, or that many things embraced by it, might not be altered and modified with great propriety. My opinion applies to the system, as a whole. And with respect, Sir, to the clergy of the church of England—(I may be partial, though I believe I am not)—I have no hesitation in declaring, that the conviction of my mind is, that a more enlightened, liberal, virtuous, and useful body of men does not exist, in this, or in any other country in the world [hear, hear!]. I wish, however, to be understood, as not embracing in this class the ecclesiastical corporations—which, like all other corporations, invariably exhibit, at all times and under all circumstances, the same uncharitable, narrow-minded, monopolizing spirit. If, however, I am a member of the church of England, it behoves me, Sir, to remember that my first care should be, not to forget one of her first precepts—to "do unto others, as I would that others should do unto me." And, moreover, I have further to remember what the constitution of my country teaches me; namely, that all men bearing an equality of burthens are, in a free state of society, entitled to the enjoyment of an equality of rights [hear, hear!] Upon these two grand axioms do I fortify myself. On their authority I contend, that, so far from this being a Catholic question, the Catholics themselves stand upon a Protestant principle; and that I am now maintaining their claims, upon the very principles which assured the security of England.

And, upon this subject, Sir, it is singular enough to remark the sort of change which has taken place in the views and situations of the parties. For we find, that those same men who formerly rejected Catholicism, on account of the alleged illiberality of its doctrines, are now acting upon the very principles they opposed, and refusing to proceed in conformity with their own; while the Catholics are asking for nothing more than what the Protestants first desired—namely, that we should deal out to them the principle of constitutional and religious freedom [hear, hear!].

We have heard much, Sir, of the danger to be apprehended from granting to the Catholics that which they desire. I cannot, however, but imagine, that there is some incongruity in the existence of such a feeling. What the apprehended perils are, I confess I have never been able to find out. But this, perhaps, is not very extraordinary; seeing that people are not unfrequently alarmed, without knowing very distinctly what at. The very mention of his holiness, the Pope of Rome, seems to raise, in the minds of some men, images of horror—half historical, half romantic—which have nothing to do with the world as it now exists. Their terrors have been extracted out of books, which, in early life, prejudiced their minds so deeply, as to impede their progress; and they foolishly think, because their own minds have stood still at a particular point, that the Catholics of the present day are the same persons as the Catholics of whom they read in history. Whereas, in point of fact, all those absurd notions have no more to do with the present state of the Roman Catholic religion, or the state of this world at all, than it has to do with that of the next [hear, hear!].

Sir, in discussing this question, the great difficulty we have to contend with, is that of having to encounter perverted understandings. It has been said by a favourite poet— —where Ignorance is bliss, Tis folly to be wise. And most certainly, Sir, in this instance, the grossest ignorance must be bliss, compared to the misfortune of having the mind imbued with a mass of antiquated tales and prejudices—greatly exaggerated, perhaps, at the times at which the statements were made, and which have no longer any existence, or chance of future existence, whatever.

Now, Sir, a curious example of this failing, is to be found in the fears entertained of the power of the Pope—concerning whom, a gentleman, coming up to me the other day, expressed his great alarm. It seems to me not a little extraordinary, that his majesty's government, or at least that portion of it who are hostile to the claims of the Catholics, on the ground of this apprehension of the power of the Pope—it seems to me, I say, Sir, not a little extraordinary, that they should be the very persons, who, not many years ago, expended in profusion the blood and the treasure of this country, in order to reinstate that potentate in the very place in which they now think fit to be afraid of him. He was found in a state of the lowest subjection: and, at the moment when his power was literally overturned, he was replaced in his authority, by those very servants of his majesty, who now profess to be so mightily alarmed at his shadow. Surely, Sir, it is not a little unreasonable in the right hon. gentlemen, first to raise up this phantom, and then to go out of their wits with terror at it! If, indeed, there existed now, as was the case at a former day, a league of Foreign Catholic princes abroad, caballing with a Catholic king of England at home, to subvert the liberties, through the religion, of the country—if Sir, there existed any danger of this description at the present day—then, perhaps, there might be some ground for apprehension. But, if any danger has been re-created by the re-establishment of the Pope, why then, I say, Sir, that that portion of his majesty's cabinet ministers deserve to be impeached for having created the danger, by contributing to the consolidation of the papal power. They themselves are the authors of the existing continental system. They it was, who caused English soldiers to mount guard at the Vatican, to protect and do honour to the dignitary, who is now the object of their alarm; and allowed those soldiers to receive medals from him, in token of the service they had performed. What a mass of monstrous inconsistencies is all this! What a premunire have these right hon. gentlemen drawn themselves into—if, at this time of day, we are to be told, that there is so much danger in the papal authority, that, to avoid that peril, we have no other choice but to keep six millions of people in a state of hostility against us, discontented—and justly discontented—with their condition, when we might, by a wise and liberal and generous policy, permanently secure the tranquillity and safety of the kingdom at large! The peril, forsooth, from the Pope, is so imminent, that it is better, in the eyes of these right hon. gentlemen, to meet the hostility of the six millions of the people of Ireland, than to face it! Why, Sir, this certainly is a pleasant situation to be in! And that, too, at a time, when, we had assisted in the destruction of all the secondary powers of Europe—when we had given up all those minor States which England formerly was wisely accustomed to support, and, up to a certain point, always to rely on—when every thing like the balance of power had been destroyed—and when we had distributed out Europe among two or three great powers, who may, at any moment, take offence at our conduct; and who are not unlikely to do so, as often as we refuse to keep pace with the measures of their unholy alliance. It has been avowed, Sir, by the right hon. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that one of those potentates feels already galled, that England should have consulted her own interests, by recognizing the independence of the South American States. And we have so far obliged and cringed to another, as to allow him silently to lay violent hands upon Spain—to effect the military occupation of that country—a thing which England, at no former period of our history, would have suffered, for a moment. We are surrounded, Sir, by these holy allies, whose strength we have either created or upheld, by the loss of our best blood and treasure, and at the expense of the liberties of Europe. Those powers, Sir, every one of them, are objects of alarm to us, rather than security. And, yet, in such a situation it is, that England continues to reject, and cast from her, that best of all alliances, the firm adherence of her own subjects, by keeping six millions of men, close to her own shores, in a state of constant hostility to her government. Sir, this very neglect of Ireland—or rather this contempt of Ireland—for it is worse than neglect—affords a ready opening for the first of those holy allies, who shall find it convenient to do so, to invade her. Instead of finding Ireland—as they would find her, if England did her justice—an insurmountable barrier which our enemies would be unable to pass, she will become the readiest point of all others, through which they will be enabled to wound us. Why, then, expose her to be tampered with by those states, who would appeal to her through the medium of a common religion! Why not affix a barrier round that country which would exclude all foreign influence? If England be destined to sink, Ireland is the sea in which she will be swamped. "Holy Allies," Sir! Ireland is indeed worthy of English alliance. Our "Holy Friends!" In the hour of danger we should call on them in vain. And yet we refuse—obstinately refuse—.to make the best of leagues with the brave inhabitants of the sister kingdom—desirous of the alliance—anxious to be attached to this country, by an equality of rights and of benefits.

Can any man, Sir, repress his astonishment—can he account, on any principle short of miracle, for the fact—when he reflects on the hair-breadth' scapes which England, during the late war, got out of, with regard to Ireland? Had, Sir, the French fleet which anchored in Bantry Bay been successful to a certain extent'—had it not so happened that the commander-in-chief was separated from his forces—had it so happened that the second in command had possessed enterprise enough to land—Ireland was gone; and the Sun of England would have set, I fear, in eternal night. The failure of that attempt upon Ireland can only be attributed to the extraordinary ignorance of the enemy, with regard to the temper and the spirit of the people of Ireland. They did not know how to take advantage of the opportunity which was offered to them. But, Sir, we must not presume upon our good fortune. The ignorance which then saved us exists no longer. Since that period, the powers of the continent have had an extensive intercourse with us. They have been too much upon our territories to continue ignorant. I say distinctly, that they are casting many an anxious eye at Ireland. From time to time, they are reproaching us with our conduct towards that unhappy country. Several of their Court journals appear to take a most tender interest—a most sensitive interest—in her concerns. A variety of parties, with whom we may not always be on the same friendly footing that we are at present, have, on a sudden, become most seriously desirous to promote the welfare of Ireland. They dwell on her calamities and injuries: they reproach England with hypocrisy: they laugh at her sympathy for the negroes, and her desire to get rid of the Slave Trade: and protest, that there is not, in all the world, a tyranny so odious, as that which we exercise over our Irish Catholic subjects; nor any spot on the face of the globe, where men are subjected to such intolerable injustice and oppression.

Now, Sir, these benevolent intimations, with regard to Ireland, which we are constantly seeing in the French papers, are well calculated in themselves to excite suspicion in the breasts of Englishmen; and it becomes the first duty of the government to inquire how the impending evil can best be counteracted—to see what measures can be adopted to promote that consolidation of our resources, and that conciliation of all parties in the united empire, without which no man can answer for what may be the consequences, if this country should again be involved in a war with the powers of the continent. I would therefore, Sir, address myself to the feelings of men of all parties; and, founding the question upon policy and justice, I would appeal to their good passions as well as to their bad—to their feelings of patriotism as well as to their self-interest—and, whether worshippers of God, or worshippers of Mammon, I would tell them, that it was their interest, in this case, to do justice—immediate justice to the unfortunate people of Ireland [hear, hear!]. The claims of that people rest on the broad basis of justice—on a covenant—on all which ought to be held sacred between country and country—between man and man. If, indeed, there were any danger to be apprehended from fulfilling that contract, which; upon every principle of good faith we are bound to fulfil—still, even then, I would say, it was the height of irrationality not to complete the work we have already begun, and, by refusing to give something further, to lose the benefit of all that we have already given.

And what, Sir, after all, is it that the Roman Catholics of Ireland ask at our hands? What is the mighty increase of power which, if every thing they ask were granted to them, they would obtain? Why, Sir, a few most respectable Catholic gentlemen would, probably, have seats in the House of Commons—a few Catholic noblemen would be entitled to sit in the House of Lords—and the king would have his, prerogatives so far enlarged, as to be empowered, provided he thought fit, to nominate Roman Catholic gentlemen to certain offices in the state. And, in point of fact, what substantial power would this right of eligibility confer? Does any gentleman now entertain any apprehension, that we should have a popish king using the power of popish election to overturn the liberties of the country? What, Sir, is the danger? I should like to bear it stated. For, until I hear what the danger is, I really cannot conceive what the views and the sentiments are, of those who set themselves up against the claims of the petitioners.

The present time, Sir, appears to me most peculiarly auspicious for taking the step, which the Roman Catholics of Ireland implore us to take. The public mind of this country is decidedly in favour of granting their claims. The larger as well as the better part of the Protestant population of Ireland, anxious for the prosperity and happiness of their country, have petitioned to have their Catholic fellow subjects admitted to the privileges of the constitution. There is only one small faction in Ireland which opposes itself to this wise and liberal policy; and that opposition arises from an unwillingness, on their part, to be deprived of the power which they have, for so long a series of years, been accustomed to exercise over their unfortunate Catholic countrymen.

And here, Sir, I must be allowed to do justice to those who, in Ireland, are called Orangemen. It was my good fortune, when in Ireland, to have had frequent opportunities of witnessing the conduct of Orangemen as well as Catholics. Both of them I have always found equally disposed to be kind and bounteous to their inferiors; and fulfilling alike the duties of good citizens. And it is a great mistake to suppose, that the gentlemen of Ireland are worse landlords or worse neighbours, than those of any other country. There may, certainly, be a low, pettifogging, ignorant class hanging about the system; but, Sir, the result of my observation is, that, with this single exception, a more liberal, a more kind, and a more excellent set of men does not exist than the Orangemen of Ireland. I speak of them, of course, subject to the exception of that unfortunate error in their education, and the right which they fancy they have, even by birth, to trample upon their Catholic fellow subjects: but, with this exception, I found them as kind in manner, if not more so; and at least as kind in the essential, as the gentlemen of England, or of any other country. But, it is high time for them to get rid of this exclusive spirit, which they have too much cherished—it is high time for them to consider only of the means by which the prosperity and the happiness of their native country can be best promoted—a prosperity m which they cannot fail largely to share. They should consider, that, by shaking hands with their Catholic brethren, instead of living in a society constantly tumultuous and distressed, they would behold wealth and tranquillity rising up around them, and superseding those measures of severity and coercion, which are at once the shame and the misery of every state in which they are called into operation [hear, hear!].

I beg also to address myself to the people of England, and to remind them how much and how deeply they are interested in the adjustment of this question,—Independently of the security of the country against foreign danger, and taking the question as a matter of economy, I would ask them to consider what it costs them to support this system in Ireland. I would ask those who pay the taxes to examine the expense attendant upon the present state of things. They talk of the necessity of taking off taxes: and the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement last night, took credit for removing a portion of the taxes—a small portion, I admit, but still an important portion—because the collection of them was a source of vexation to the people. But here, Sir, you have an opportunity of effecting a much larger measure of economy. In Ireland—instead of thousands—millions may at once be saved by a change of system; to say nothing of the wealth which would necessarily flow into this country from Ireland, if the present mischievous, mistaken, narrow-minded, bigotted system, were exchanged for a more liberal and more enlightened policy [hear, hear!]. If tyranny, Sir, be a luxury, it certainly is a most expensive one. Of all the forms of government under Heaven, the most grinding and oppressive is that which is founded upon religions exclusive—and I will add, too, the most burthensome and costly. And all this expense, be it recollected by the House, comes out of the pockets of the people of England; who pay for the luxury of keeping Ireland enchained and miserable. How much more wisely, then, would the people of this country act—though, perhaps, they may not think so—in crowding the table of this House with petitions in favour of Catholic emancipation, than in praying for the repeal of a few hundreds of thou sands of pounds, in the shape of Assessed taxes!

On the ground, therefore, of justice— on the ground of good faith and sound policy—and on the ground of the pledge given by solemn treaty—for I never will abandon the treaty of Limerick—we are imperatively called on to grant the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The title to a free exercise of their religion, conveyed to them by that memorable treaty, has, moreover, Sir, been strengthened and confirmed, by the engagements entered into at the period of the Union. Those engagements, it is true, were not formally reduced to the shape of a treaty—they were not signed, and are not producible, like the former—but, at the period of the Union, the people of Ireland were induced to acquiesce in that measure; and all they have got in return is a mere parchment Union, one which, in point of fact, has left the disunion between the two countries even more wide and more open than ever. At the period of the Union the understanding was complete and distinct, that the Catholics of Ireland might expect from an Imperial parliament that justice, which they were sensible they could never look for from the narrow and corporate spirit of their own. Without this understanding, the measure of an incorporate Union would never have been carried. The people of Ireland were led to hope, that tranquillity, wealth, and prosperity, would follow in the train of that measure; and such, I am persuaded would have been the case, if good faith had been kept with the people of that country. The Catholics of Ireland, much to their honour, placed confidence in the promises then held out. Although constantly deceived, and, I am ashamed to say it, basely and treacherously dealt with, they still confided. Their hopes, however, have hitherto been blasted: but, until the promises then held out shall be fulfilled, by a yielding up to the Catholics of that which has been so long and so unjustly withheld from them, it will be idle to look for the benefits which were expected to flow from the Union of the two countries.

Sir; the right hon. the Attorney-general for Ireland has told us—and the assertion is quite in conformity with my own opinion—that the liberalized policy of the government of the marquis Wellesley, as far as it has gone, has produced the happiest effects in that country. Sir, when that noble lord was first appointed to the government of Ireland, I ventured to anticipate, that such would be the result of the appointment; and I am quite prepared to give the noble marquis full credit for the best intention to carry his measures of conciliation into effect; and that with his true, warm-hearted, Irish feelings, and his enlightened mind, he has endeavoured to change the policy of the government of Ireland, and directed his best efforts to amalgamate the dispositions, and unite the sentiments of the two nations, so as to make the people of Ireland feel, that the interests of an Irish province are regarded in the same light as those of Yorkshire or Lancashire; and which, in fact, is the only sound and true light in which the interests of that part of the United empire can and ought to be, considered: seeing that that which, heretofore, has been looked upon as the greatest obstacle to such a state of things, has, by the recent improvements of modern science, been almost, if not altogether removed.

Having, therefore, Sir, given the noble marquis credit for all those large and generous views and feelings of policy at the period to which I have alluded, I am, of course, now ready to give him credit for those acts of his government which the right hon. the Attorney-general for Ireland has referred to, and am disposed to believe, that his endeavours to liberalize the system hitherto acted upon have, in many instances, been crowned with success. The right hon. and learned gentleman has told us, that when the noble marquis undertook the government of Ireland, he found the vessel of the state a wreck upon the breakers, and that he enabled her to float upon the tide of prosperity that has since flowed in upon her. Let me then hope, Sir, that the government will not stop there—but that they will trim the rigging, set every thing to rights, and, above all, see that she be well manned, for any future contingency [hear, hear!]. I can readily believe, Sir, that great advantages have already resulted to Ireland from the government of the noble marquis—and that, whatever inconveniences the right hon. and learned gentleman may have been exposed to, in consequence of his accepting office-whatever sarcasms may have been directed against him on that account—though the inconvenience may have been his, the benefit has belonged to the people of Ireland. I trust the right hon. and learned gentleman will persevere; and I hope he will be able to make a convert of a right hon. gentleman, who continues, unfortunately, opposed to the claims of the Catholics of Ireland. I trust, I say, Sir, that he will be able to make a convert of the only cabinet minister in this House, who has not been converted to my side of the question. For, in looking at the array of right hon. gentlemen opposite, I see, by the expression of their countenances, that four out of five of the cabinet ministers in this House are friendly to the principle of my motion. And, Sir, when see this, and recollect that one of those right hon. gentlemen—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is one of the heartiest friends of the measure, was originally hostile to the claims of the Catholics—when I recollect this, Sir, I cannot despair of seeing the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department the advocate of this great measure of conciliation. As the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is himself a convert, I hope he will endeavour to work the conversion of his only remaining colleague in this House in opposition to those claims; and that, by their united efforts, they will be able to give to Ireland the benefits of this all-important measure, and thereby establish the security of this country, restore tranquillity to Ireland, and consolidate the strength of the United empire [hear, hear!].

Sir, when we look back and see, that since the system of the relaxation of the penal code has commenced in Ireland, the benefits which that relaxation has conferred upon them have been received by the people of that country with the most ardent expressions of gratitude, we have every encouragement to proceed, and to anticipate the best fruits from a concession to them of the remainder of their just claims. Yet, Sir, though the Catholics of Ireland are grateful to you for the enactments which have been already carried in their favour, it is, at the same time, impossible for them to shut their eyes to the injustice of withholding the rights which so clearly and justly belong to them. Those rights, Sir, they claim as their due: but, while they are anxious to obtain them, I hope that the gratitude of the Catholics of Ireland for the benefits they have already received, will be made manifest by their continuing to pursue that line of conduct, which shall enable the friends of their cause in this House—where only it can be advo- cated with effect—to bring it to a successful issue. That the question in which they are so deeply interested—founded, as it is, in common reason and sound sense—will triumph, I can have no doubt; and, earnestly do I trust that that triumph may not be impeded by any indiscretion on the part of the Catholics themselves. The tranquillity in Ireland—a state of things so unusual in that country as to be almost deemed a phenomenon—is at this moment universally admitted. To what cause, more immediately, that tranquillity is to be attributed, it is not necessary for me to stop to inquire. But, so it is. Ireland, by the admission of all parties, is peaceful. That state of tranquillity I consider to be the result of the expectation of what will be done in their favour, combined with the recollection of what has already been done for them. If, then, so much has been produced from so small a beginning, what encouragement does it not afford to proceed to the consummation of the work of justice! If the field has been so grateful to the husbandman as to yield so large a crop with such little labour, what a plentiful harvest may we not expect, when greater attention shall be paid to the soil, and greater pains shall be bestowed on its cultivation! [hear, hear!].

Sir; it has been my good fortune to have spent some time in Ireland. My knowledge of the character and habits of her people has been drawn, in a considerable degree, from my own personal observation. I visited her, not so much for the purpose of seeing the natural beauties of the county of Antrim, or the splendid scenery of the lakes of Killarney, or even of enjoying that kind hospitality which is scarcely to be equalled in any other part of the world—I had a far greater gratification in seeing the Irish character—in beholding the kind and benevolent feeling which pervades all classes of her people. And, so much, Sir, am I impressed with this feeling, that if I had now a country to choose—and if I had no ties to connect me with any other—I have no hesitation in saying, that I would select Ireland, in preference to all other countries in the world [hear, hear!]. The people of Ireland, Sir, are undoubtedly, the most docile people that ever existed. Nothing proves the fact more striking, than the state of that country at the present moment. Hold out to the population the hope of impartial justice, and their feelings are at once enlisted in your cause. The Roman Catholic priests are said to have great influence with the people of that country. They have, Sir. And a very great misfortune should I consider it to see that influence diminished. The effects of their example on the conduct of the people are most beneficial. I form my judgment of them, not from what I have seen in Dublin alone, but in those remote districts, which have so often been represented as barbarous. And I declare, Sir, before this House, that they appeared to me to be the most honest and the most innocent set of people I ever met with [hear, hear!]. The influence they possess over their flocks is certainly great: but that influence is always exerted to secure the peace and tranquillity of the country. In one of the wildest counties, and which, at that time, was declared out of the king's peace, the Protestant gentry had no idea of bolting their doors and windows—a state of things which was mainly to be attributed to the exhortations of the Roman Catholic clergy. It is true of the people of Ireland now, as it was in the time of Sir John Davies, who said, two centuries ago, that "they were the most orderly, the most ready to submit to the law, provided the law would protect them, and, he would add, the most contented with the least portion of it, of any other people in the world."

Why, then, Sir, should such a people be debarred of their just right? Why should such a soil—rich in the beneficence of nature—having a population possessing virtues such as I have described them to possess—having the advantages of such ports and harbours and rivers—and possessing the most promising views of successful intercourse with all the nations of the globe—why, I say, should such a country be stinted in its natural growth? What is it that Ireland requires to become prosperous, and powerful, and happy? She wants only that, of which, for centuries, she has been deprived—a good government. That want it is—and that alone—which has, hitherto, crippled all her energies, and rendered her population discontented, disunited, and unhappy [hear, hear!].

I do not mean to say, Sir, that the particular measure of which I am now the advocate, ought to be looked upon as a panacea for all the evils which afflict Ireland. It would be absurd to view the ques- tion in that light. I rather wish it to be considered on its own grounds. I would rather wish it to be considered as the first step, the sine qua. non, of all the other measures which it may be necessary to adopt for the relief of Ireland. I wish that the great question of Catholic emancipation should be considered, unmixed with baser metal. I sincerely believe that the granting of that measure would not only be the means of preserving the present tranquillity in Ireland, but of opening a brighter and more cheerful prospect for the future. I trust, Sir, that the House will no longer delay putting the final hand to this great work; confident as I am, that the effect of so doing will be to unite both countries in the bond of mutual affection—in the bond of mutual interest—in the bond of the constitution. The people who now seek the full benefits of that constitution are of minds not inferior to those of our own country: and, if there be any difference in the habit, arising out of difference of legal enactments, that difference would be speedily removed, by a removal of the disabilities which have produced it.

Sir, I will not trouble the House by entering into any disquisition on supposed objections to this measure, on the score of religion. I will not presume that there can be any gentleman in this House, at this time of day, whose mind is so warped by prejudice, as to assert, that religious opinion ought to be made the ground of political disability. I presume, therefore, that the only, ground of objection is to be founded on some contingent danger. Until, Sir, I hear such an objection urged—until I hear that danger stated—until it shall be presented to me in a tangible shape—it is impossible for me to grapple with it. It will be enough for me to meet the objection, when it shall be presented to me. For the present, therefore, I shall say nothing upon the subject, but shall conclude, Sir, with moving,

"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the State of the Laws by which Oaths and Declarations are required to be taken, or made, as qualifications to the enjoyment of offices, or for the exercise of civil functions, so far as the same affect his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; and whether it would be expedient, in any and what manner, to alter or modify the same, and subject to what provisions or regulations."

Mr. Croker

, rose, for the purpose of seconding the motion, and of offering one or two words on the general question. The hon. baronet had viewed this question as it affected the civil rights of the Roman Catholics, and he concurred with him in thinking, that those rights ought not to be longer deferred; but at the same time he could consent to no arrangement which did not include the Roman Catholic clergy, and embrace a provision for them. Without that he could not support the question of emancipation; and, if the hon. baronet's motion of that night were carried, which he hoped it would be, he pledged himself, that, if no individual more worthy were found, he himself would move that such a regulation should form part of the bill.

Mr. Leslie, Foster

addressed the House to the following effect:—There appears to be an impression, Sir, in the House, that no persons in Ireland but the society of Orangemen are hostile to the prayer of the present petition. This impression is most erroneous. There are many, very many individuals in that country never connected with that society, who are steadily opposed to the measure before the House. of those numerous opponents, I, Sir, am one. But haying made mention of that society, I shall take this opportunity of expressing, my regret at its existence, and my anxiety to see it put an end to. However, Sir, I must confess that I cannot see the, motion of the hon. baronet so divested of ail its dangers. All who have attended. to the advocacy of this question of late years must perceive a very great change in the tone of its supporters. Formerly they declared, that the Irish church establishment should remain inviolate; that the concession of the Catholic claims would bring no danger to it. But lately that tone has been altered: and now we hear of nothing but how unsuitable the Protestant church is to the disposition of the Irish people, and how beneficial the abolition of it would prove to their most important interests. True, the hon. mover has not uttered these sentiments in the course of his speech, but other hon. members, on other occasions, have not placed themselves under similar restraints. Nay, there is a notice, at this moment pending, of a motion on the state of the Protestant church establishment in Ireland. But, what is a more important proof on this point is, the distinct. and open avowal lately made by a Roman Catholic of high authority in their church, that the mote numerous the Protestant clergy were in Ireland, the more odious the Protestant religion became, and that that establishment was altogether inconsistent with the peace and welfare of Ireland. It has been described by a member of the Catholic Association as a gorgeous nuisance; others of that body have honoured it with less measured condemnation, and have left their excited and prejudiced auditors to draw from it any practical conclusions they may be wild enough to adopt. But, there is a still higher document indicative of the hostile spirit felt against the Protestant Establishment of Ireland; a document proceeding from the opposite side of the House, and evidently prepared in anticipation of the present debate—I mean an article in the last "Edinburgh Review," which has been put into my hands, and also into the hands of other hon. members. In that article the abolition of the Irish Protestant church establishment is laid down as the indispensable foundation-stone of the prosperity of Ireland. Now, Sir, looking at this question in reference to the British constitution, I have no hesitation to assert, that if the whole constitutional principles be kept in view, the modern doctrine of the abolition of our ecclesiastical institutions cannot hold its ground for a moment. If every sect of religion be admitted to an equal share in the government, the Protestant religion will cease to become what we have hitherto considered it—an essential portion of our glorious constitution; and in a political point of view, will possess but a mere balance of preference over its various and numerous enemies, the sectaries of the day. The question of the particular religion of a government cannot, I admit, be decided by an appeal to the unanimous consent of a people; for there is no religion from which persons will not be found to depart: it must be settled, either by an examination of its intrinsic merits, or by the strong hand of power; and, on either of those grounds, I contend for the continued ascendaney of the Protestant Establishment. That Establishment, I regret to say, has become a topic of discussion, of speculation, and censure; not among the Catholic Association alone, but in every village and cottage throughout Ireland. In short, a universal attempt has been made, in that country to throw every sort of censure, and to excite every degree of odium against the Protestant ecclesiastical institutions. I, Sir, am as unwilling as any man to ascribe to the clergy of that establishment any imaginary virtues, or to cloak any real defects. I am ready to go as far as any rational man can go, towards the institution of salutary regulations; but, when I hear the Protestant body of Ireland slandered and lowered in every social relation of life—when I hear them declared to be Orangemen in their politics, insignificant as capitalists; as landlords, but partial possessors of estates; and trifling as a population, I cannot but see danger in those calumnies, and I cannot let them pass unrefuted. The precise number of the Catholic portion of the population of Ireland is not material to the merits of their petition: it is of no consequence to them whether they be a million more or a million fewer: but it is not so with the Protestants; a million makes a great difference in their case; for if the decrease of Protestants be so great as has been stated—if Protestant pastors have indeed lost their flocks, then is it time for us to investigate the system of an establishment, which could produce such effects; and it is for the purpose of imparting such an objectionable character to our Protestant Church establishment, that so much ingenuity and labour have been used by the advocates of Catholic emancipation—to press the numerical superiority of the Roman Catholic population on the attention of the Protestant people of England. Now, Sir, this alleged excess can be best proved from statistical documents. Of the several ancient attempts to ascertain the population of Ireland, sir W. Petty has been admitted to be the most authentic; and he has stated the number of the Protestants to be 300,000; and that of the Catholics, 800,000. Now, taking that as the datum of successive calculations, we can come to a pretty certain calculation of their relative numbers at subsequent periods. The next census was not made until the time of the Independence of Ireland, when lord Charlemont, in an address to the Volunteers, said—"Never tell me that one million of Protestants can hold three millions of Catholics in subjection."—Now, lord Charlemont was wrong in that statement; but, however, the statement, though partially erroneous in itself, borrowed importance from the character of the man who made it; for, on his authority, the Catholics were not in his time more than four to one in proportion to the Protestants of Ireland. But Mr. Bushe, who assessed the population in 1788, found the entire population to consist of four millions and forty thousand, and the proportion of Catholics to Protestants to be three to one, and this has been ever considered an authentic apportionment of the numbers of the two religions at that time. Since then, no census was taken until the year 1821, when the collective population was stated to be six millions eight hundred thousand souls; but the assumption, that the intermediate accession consisted of Roman Catholics alone, has given rise to the erroneous, yet generally used phrase, of "six millions of Catholics, and but one million of Protestants." To these six millions, the hon. member for the Queen's county has added an increase of one million since the year 1821; and that addition he attributes, by an additional error, to the body of Catholics alone. Now, Sir, I am morally certain, that the population of Ireland has not increased since the year 1821. It has rather received a corrective check, from that system of dispeopling estates, which has spread so much misery through the country—a system acted on by those landlords, who, having discovered that brute cattle were more lucrative to them than crowds of idle human beings, have not scrupled to sweep thirty or forty families from their estates, and embody the former numerous divisions of their land into a few large farms. Famine has also checked the population; for, in my progress through several parts of the kingdom, I have seen those wretched outcasts from their farms scattered into itinerant mendicancy through the country, or fixed in stationary poverty in the town, and suffering such extremes of misery as would, if detailed, harrow up the feelings of the House. The population was checked by the war also, and that in no trifling degree; so that I am safe in repeating, that it has advanced in a very trifling degree, within the last three years. But, hon. members opposite have so often asserted this increase, and so often repeated the allegation contained in the Catholic petitions, that I felt myself bound to look for documentary evidence on the subject; and I am happy to inform the House, that I have found it; but it is of a nature that will not be very palatable to gentlemen on the other side of the House. And here I wish to be clearly understood, as to the names of the places which I may mention; for a few nights ago, I was reported to have spoken of Cloyne, when I really spoke of Aughnacloy, and the consequence was, that the inhabitants of Cloyne, whose esteem I should be very sorry to forfeit, presented a petition to the House, on the subject of a statement which I had never made relative to them—The hon. gentleman then proceeded to state the population and proportion of the four provinces. In Ulster the population, according to the census of 1821, was 1,998,000, of whom 1,170,000, were Protestants. In Leinster the population was 1,757,000, of whom 370,000 were Protestants. In Munster the population was 1,935,000, of whom 200,000 were Protestants. In Connaught the population was 1,100,000, of whom 120,000 were Protestants. In all Ireland there were 1,860,000 Protestants, and 4,900,000 Roman Catholics, and some odd numbers. This was nearly the same ratio as that which sir William Petty stated it to be in his time. It was asserted, that the Protestants of Ireland were almost all Presbyterians. He denied the fact. The moderator of the Presbyterian church in Ireland had reckoned the number of Presbyterians at 560,000. He believed it, however, to be nearer to 620,000. To this number he would add 45,000 as the number of other dissenters from the church, including Quakers, Anabaptists, Seceders, & c.; and there would thus be a total of 665,000 Protectant dissenters from the church of Ireland. The whole number of Protestants in Ireland he had before shown to be 1,860,000, so that it was clear that a large majority of them were members of the established church. He had not made this comparison of numbers invidiously; but he thought that he was fully justified in making it, after the manner, in which the advocates of that side of this question which he espoused, had been taunted with the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Catholics. He knew that those who opposed him were aware of the accuracy of his statement; and he believed that they would be the most unpalatable truths that had been offered for their consideration, during the whole of the stormy period of the last twenty years. He should say no more on the point of numbers: but would proceed to another point, which he considered of considerable importance. Some years ago, the House was asked, on the subject of the Catholic emancipation, "What are you afraid of? You have an enemy on the throne of France, who is an enemy of all religion; you have a pope so far divested of all power as to be absolutely a prisoner; you have got rid of the bugbear which you once found in the Jesuits; you hear no more of the infallibility of general councils; you have, indeed, a Roman Catholic religion, but of a very different character from that by which it was formerly distinguished—of what, then are you afraid?" The very mode in which this argument was put, showed that the parties who used it at that time thought that there might be just ground of alarm in a king of France who was a firm friend to the Roman Catholic creed; in a pope who was firmly established in his chair; in the existence of the Jesuits as a religious body; and in the restoration of the Catholic religion to all its old superstitions. Now, let the House consider how the case stood at present. The royal family of France could not be taunted, even by their bitterest enemies, with being indifferent Catholics. It had been said, that the head of it was casting an eye upon Ireland; if he was it was an eye of religion, and not of politics. He firmly believed that the granting an indemnity to the emigrants was the third, the upholding the principle of legitimacy the second, and the re-establishment of the Catholic religion in all parts of the world where it had once been professed, was the first and leading passion of his mind. The chair of St. Peter was at present filled with a worthy successor of the Gregories and the Clements; and he really believed that his equal had not been vested with the tiara for many centuries. It was, however, known, that he was exerting all the powers of his mind to regain the influence which had formerly belonged to his station. The Jesuits were again established, not only abroad, but also, he believed, at home—not merely in France and Spain, but also in England and Ireland. The Catholic religion was again dealing out its miracles and indigencies; and displaying a spirit of intolerance and persecution which could only be equalled by that which it had displayed in the seventeenth century. Now, when such was admitted to be the fact, he could not see the consistency of the logic, which called upon the House to make concessions which were questionable when there was no danger, under circumstances which the very advocates of emancipation admitted to be full of danger. But, overlooking that inconsistency, he would say that, even if the circumstances he had just mentioned did not exist, the present was not a time to concede any thing to the Catholics. The present was one of those epochs in which there was much religious excitement abroad, and in which religious zeal was even paramount to political ambition. This was proved by the numerous Bible societies, missionary societies, and what not, which now existed in England, and by the the proposition of a law of sacrilege in France, which one could easily suppose to have been enacted in the most intolerant period of the reign of Louis 14th. That law was the manifest progeny of religious zeal, and was so opposite to the spirit of the French nation, that if ever an attempt were made to act upon it, it would cause greater trouble to the dynasty of Bourbon than any which they had hitherto experienced. The present was, therefore, in his opinion, the very last moment when any change should be made at all affecting religious Opinions. He was hostile to such change; because he saw the Catholics mixing up politics with their religion; and because he knew, that the alliance between religion and politics was always dangerous. Gentlemen had formerly said to him, "You object to this change; but why? Do you think that things can ever revert to their old situation?" He would tell them that he did not merely think that they might revert to it, but that he knew that they had so reverted already. That single fact afforded him matter for consideration, before he gave up any of the principles of the British constitution. He had always been led to consider the compact between church and state to form one of those principles. To any measure, therefore, which tended to weaken that compact, he should always oppose the most strenuous resistance, regardless of all the reproaches which might be heaped upon him for so doing, and leaving the consequences to the Supreme Disposer of all events.

Mr. Secretary Canning

then rose to address the House. He leaned upon his stick, and appeared to be labouring under considerable indisposition. The tone of his voice, too, was so Feeble, that many of his remarks were inaudible in the gallery. He said, it was not his intention to tres- pass long upon the indulgence of the House; nor if it had been his intention, was it now in his power. He attended in his place that evening at considerable personal inconvenience to himself; and the same reason which induced him to be present at this dicussion, induced him not to give a silent vote upon it. He rose at that early period of the debate, because he was apprehensive, that if he did riot take that opportunity, he should not have strength at a later period to address them at all. He praised the moderation with which the hon. baronet had brought forward his proposition, and expressed his determination of following his example. He should, therefore, not enter into any controversy, nor touch upon any topics calculated to create an irritating discussion, as perhaps he might not be present at the conclusion of it. He confessed that his opinion on this question was the same which he had usually expressed on other occasions, when it had come before the House, and which he should always be ready to support, under any circumstances, from whatever quarter the support of it might be claimed. When he said "from whatever quarter it might be claimed," he begged the hon. baronet not to suppose that he used the words out of any disrespect to him—quite the reverse; he had often had the honour of the hon. baronet's co-operation; although, on the majority of occasions, they had usually differed. Undoubtedly, if his opinion and advice had been taken—and he by no means complained that it had not—he should have said, that he did not conceive the present to be the most favourable opportunity of bringing on this question. But, having said that, he should pursue the topic no further; because, if he gave any reasons for it, he might appear not so much to be expressing an opinion upon it, as endeavouring to throw a doubt, which he did not feel, on the justice of the cause. The question was, however, before them; and, being before them, it was their duty to consider how they would deal with it. For himself, he would deal with it now as he had upon every other occasion, and would not hesitate to give it his most cordial and most conscientious support. Although there were circumstances which made him consider the present as an unfavourable moment for the discussion of these claims, personally he was not sorry that they had been brought forward. After having recently lent his aid to restrain and suppress the irregular zeal of some of the Catholic body, he was not sorry to have an opportunity of showing, that it was only to the Zeal which had been super induced on this question that he objected, and that his opinions and feelings regarding the merits of it were, at the bottom, not only unaltered, but unalterable [hear]. The principles upon which this proposition appeared to him to be worthy of the consideration of the House were so plain and simple, that he could hardly imagine on what grounds it could be opposed. He could easily understand the reason, why any person who was called upon to vote in favour of it, might demand that many modifications should be made in it many concessions qualified, many difficulties solved, many inconveniences provided for, and many dangers—some of them, in his opinion, imaginary and others real—guarded against; but, he could not by any process of reasoning understand, why all the subjects of the same kingdom, all the inhabitants of the same soil—those who lived in the same country, mingled in the daily offices of life, and professed a common Christianity—should be excluded from the common benefits of the constitution of their country [cheers]. If it Were determined to exclude them, he thought that the onus probandi, the necessity of making out the reasons for their exclusion, was thrown upon the other side. It appeared to him, that the state in which they now stood had been justly described by his hon. friend who spoke last, for whom he felt a most sincere respect, though he now differed from him, as a state which was a century old. But, had not the hon. gentleman, in another part of his speech sufficiently answered himself? Had he not said "what is a century in the age of religion?" It was not an argument, but a fact, that by altering the present system, we restored it to that which had a still longer age in its favour. If the argument of age were of any value, why did they hesitate to restore the Catholics to that state in which they were placed before the passing of the penal laws? He contended, upon this occasion, as he should upon every other, that to stand where they then were, was to alter; and to make a change, was to return to the old system. By this simple statement he pressed into his service all those topics which arose from the abhorrence of change; he claimed them as his own unless it could be shown that the change, though new, was inveterate, was fixed in so strong a necessity, and was so irrevocably rooted by the continuance of that necessity, that it could not be abandoned without an abdication of principle, or an-abandonment of honour. He was too unwell to enter deeply into this question. One or two topics, however, had been urged by his hon. friend, which he could not bring himself to pass over in silence. His hon. friend had set out by saying; that nothing was so dangerous to the peace of society as the alliance between politics and religion; and how did his hon. friend conclude his speech? By a laboured eulogium on the alliance between church and state [hear, hear]. There was an inconsistency in this, which he could not reconcile. He could not see how the mystic words "church and state," which his hon. friend was more accustomed to hear in his convivial than in his sober moments, could be construed in any Sense which did not countenance the alliance of politics and religion. He concurred, however, up to a certain point, with the opinion of his hon. friend. He did think that the alliance of politics and religion, where it led to a divergency of sentiment, and to the doubtfulness of allegiance, was to be denounced as eminently objectionable. And here, again, he must look to his hon. friend's speech for an illustration. His hon. friend had told them, that never at any time was the feeling of religious zeal so paramount over political ambition especially among the governments of the Continent. He believed that to be the case; but, what was the inference he drew from it? Why, mankind were divided into two classes, by two distinct lines of demarcation. There was one line between the Protestant and the Catholic churches, and another between British and foreign influence. He would say, "Efface the line of separation which divides the inhabitants of the British islands into two classes, and strengthen the line of demarcation which separates British from foreign influence"[cheers]. These Were the principles on which he had always advocated this question. It Was unnecessary for him to say to his hon, friend, that with regard to the dangers which he and other hon. members anticipated to the Protestant establishment, he had lately given a pledge, which he was now ready to repeat, that he would go as fat as any man to retain it in full dignity and security. He would go even further: he would declare, that if his reason could be convinced, that they must either stand where they then were, or, by proceeding, risk that establishment which was interwoven with their happy constitution, he would stand where they then were at all hazards, and would give his strenuous opposition to the motion of the hon. baronet. It was because his reason could not be convinced of this fact, but was convinced of the contrary, that he was now determined to support, it. It was because he was convinced, that it would increase the strength of the empire at home and its respectability abroad, that he was for opening wide the vest of the constitution, and receiving into its bosom all those who lived in its allegiance, and were ready to support its government. On these grounds, he should give his vote for the hon. baronet's proposition, remarking, that in so doing, he by no means considered himself pledged to support the details of the measure which the hon. baronet might hereafter introduce, but that he did consider himself pledged not to sacrifice to the object of the measure any thing which in his conscience he thought, or in his judgment he might be persuaded to believe to be beneficial to the Protestant establishment.

The Solicitor-General

declared himself hostile to any further concessions to the Catholics, and contended that if any gentleman had, upon former occasions, made up his mind to yield them, he ought now, from their recent conduct, to alter his resolution. Claims which had been denied to reason, argument, and quiet solicitation, ought never to be yielded to menace, terror, or intimidation. He would also refuse them, because he could never find out what the Catholics proposed as their ultimatum. Former concessions were made the groundwork of future demands, and were used as arguments for conceding those demands also. Whatever adoration he might feel for the talent of his right hon. friend the Attorney-general for Ireland—however he might feel his own inferiority, and he knew that he was "impar congressus".—still he must oppose him upon this subject, and rebut the arguments which he continued to bring forward in this sanctuary of legislation. His right hon. friend had said, "You gave the Roman Catholics political power when you gave them the elective franchise; why, then, do you hesitate to give them more?" He would ask his right hon. friend to consider, that there were only three things now withheld from them—the bench, the parliament, and the high offices of state. If these were granted to the Catholics, he had no doubt but they would ask for the church also. ["Hear," and a laugh]. Gentlemen might smile; but he would give them proof that what he had just said was not mere idle assertion on his part. He would read to them a passage from the proceedings of the Catholic Association. It was proposed in that turbulent assembly, to present a petition to the House of Commons for the abolition of tithes, and to send it for presentation to the hon. member for Aberdeen, because he had taken the church into his holy keeping. He thought he might be permitted to ask, what was the holy keeping which the hon. member for Aberdeen reserved for the church? They all knew it—it was no secret. The hon. member had brought in a string of resolutions, twenty or thirty in number—he was wrong—only six or seven. If they were not numerous, they were at least strong; if they were deficient in quantity, they were not so in strength and violence. The hon. member's plan was, to slice and cut up the church of Ireland, as if it were the shares of a joint-stock company, and to spoliate, subvert, and entirety overturn it. If such were the views of the Roman Catholic laity, were those of its priesthood any better? He thought not. Indeed, he objected to concession, on account of the power of the priesthood. Since the unlawful society bill had been before the House, a priest of the name of Magee had said at Kilkenny, that if it passed into law he would still go out and collect money for the Catholic Association. "If they put down the rent," said this Catholic divine, "we, the priesthood, will make the public advance it on the altar, as the price of their redemption, and will then remit it to the most influential of our friends." Was this language to be tolerated? Were these men, whose power was to be despised? He had another objection to granting emancipation. The Catholic priesthood would enter into no compromise with the government. It had been attempted to enter into some compromise with them on three different occasions—under lord Howick's administration, again in 1813, and again under the directions of Mr. Grattan. On all these, occasions, the experiment had failed. In, looking at this question, he knew how to deal with the Catholic laity, for they had no interest separate from the state: but, not so the Catholic clergy, for they had avowed a distinct interest, which, with their great controlling influence, they were determined to work for the overthrow of the established church, and the possession of its wealth and ecclesiastical revenues. It was important to consider the argument as distinct from the laity and the clergy; for she latter yielded no spiritual allegiance to the Crown of England, but they did to the church of Rome. It had been said, that there was justice in the Catholic claims, inasmuch as the Catholics merely asked fur equal privileges with the Protestants. This was not to state the case fairly. They asked for more; for the Protestant church had not in any way the same influence as the Catholic over the minds of the Irish people: so that, if the two churches were placed upon a par in point of civil privileges, the preponderating influence in Ireland must be with the Catholics, and the overthrow of the present church establishment must follow. He then referred to the violation of the constitution which this concession to the Catholics would involve. Was not the principle of the Protestant religion in church and state, made a fundamental and inviolable part of the compact with William 3rd, after the expulsion of James 2nd, for endeavouring to overthrow the Protestant church? Would they, then, abandon that indispensable principle of the Bill of Rights? Why not, it was said, in a country where the great majority of the inhabitants were Catholics? But, they ought to recollect, that this was not an Irish, but a British question; and that in Great Britain the relative numbers of the Catholics generally was much inferior to those of the Protestants. He was surprised to see this experiment attempted so repeatedly upon the constitution. And, to do what? Not to satisfy the Catholics, for they had always said, when these changes were pending, "we will not accede to your regulations." Being, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the pretence of conciliation did not follow, but seeing that the overthrow of the Church establishment must, he should oppose the hon. baronet's motion.

Mr. Stuart Wortley

said, he was anxious to offer a few words in support of the principle which he had advocated in the year 1812—a principle of concession to the just claims of the Catholics. It was his firm belief—and being so, he felt it his duty to state his impression to the House—that no substantial peace would be established in the country, until this question was conceded, and the Catholic and Protestant population of the empire incorporated in one feeling of civil concord. The hon. and learned gentleman who had last spoken had asked the House, where they meant to stop in this range of concession? He had no hesitation in answering, that they ought to stop exactly when they had done justice to the Catholics, and not before [hear, hear]. It was no part of his inquiry to ascertain what would or would not satisfy the excited feelings of the Catholics; he would do them what he thought to be justice. As legislators, that House ought to make wise laws, and then the duty of the subject was obedience. But, the hon. and learned gentleman declared that this was not the time for making any concession, lest it should be interpreted to a wish to conciliate the Catholic Association, which they had just determined to put down. He should meet this declaration, by stating, that this was, on the contrary, exactly the time when they ought to show the Catholics, that though they would not permit them to overawe, or usurp the functions, of the constituted authorities, they would not deny them the enjoyment and exercise of those privileges which the constitution conferred upon the people of a free country. As far as time, therefore, applied to the consideration, the present was peculiarly applicable for the adjustment of this question. They had been told, that the Catholics, though a majority in Ireland, were a minority, as compared with the whole population of the country. That was no reason for excluding them from eligibility to civil privileges—that was no argument for excluding them from seats in the House;—and, to that extent, he was ready to admit them; for if it were, it applied equally to other dissenters, who were still permitted to form a part of the legislature. When the hon. and learned gentleman talked of the overwhelming power of the Catholic clergy, and their desire to overthrow the established church, he was really starting a chimerical apprehension, for his fears were absolutely vague and groundless. He entreated the House to consider the progress which this question had already made. It was virtually carried in the year 1812; from that moment he considered the ultimate decision of the consideration as irrevocably fixed. Why, then, continue these protracted discussions? When he declared his unaltered determination to vote for this question, he begged to be distinctly understood as being ready to guard the passing of the measure with the best provisions for the security of the Protestant church, and to take care that it remained as firm as it did now. Sure he was, that if they continued to refuse to the Irish people their just and natural rights, they would do more to endanger the Protestant church and state, than they could possibly do by the enactment of any measure of concession and conciliation. With respect to the public feeling upon the question generally, he thought that if the minds of the people of England were changed, they would have had petitions against it upon their table. His impression, therefore, was, that the repeated discussions within that House had mainly brought the public out of doors to a calm and temperate consideration of the subject, and that they left the decision to the deliberate judgment of the legislature. In giving the Catholics their rights, he would enter into no treaty with them. The enactment of a law would bind the Catholics and the legislature; and obedience was the duty of both.

Mr. W. J. Bankes

felt himself particularly called on to answer what had fallen from some hon. members, as to no petitions having been presented against further concession to the Catholics. This was occasioned by there not having been time for petitions to be presented. He was quite certain this was the case as to the learned body he represented. The vice-chancellor of that university had convened the senate of that body for that purpose; and, as he was a layman, the assertion that none but clergymen petitioned was refuted. When he alluded to the time when this question was brought before the House, he did not mean to complain of the little opportunity which was thereby allowed for the introduction of petitions. On the contrary, perhaps it was better that the consideration of parliament was brought calmly and dispassionately to the subject, in the absence of any irritability put of doors, which might have been the consequence of popular debates upon a measure so pregnant with excitation. With respect to the general feeling of the people of this country, which was said to be changed, it would be very strange, if it were so. By what medicine, by what charm had it been effected? Was it by the violent declamation of the Catholic Association, or by some of their edicts? Was it from those acts of theirs, which had alienated their friends, and made those who were disposed to remain neutral, hostile to the measures for giving them relief? It seemed more reasonable, if this change existed, to ascribe it to some miracle of prince Hohenlohe. The dangers which were apprehended to the church of Ireland would be increased, by the speeches of those who had spoken before him. He had seen the system of attack carried on against that church in this House. He had heard those attacks cheered, as if the benches were already occupied by Catholics. If a large body of Catholics were to be invested with extensive privileges, and a certain number of them were to obtain a footing in that House, an opportunity would then be afforded of agitating such questions as would place, at least in remote prospective, the overthrow of the Irish church before them. He could not assent to the opinion, that the Catholics, in the prosecution of their claims, looked no further than to the enjoyment of civil privileges. They had themselves most distinctly said, that they did look further. One of their leaders, Mr. O'Connell, says "it was suggested to me, if we desisted from petitioning against Church rates, and against the payment of tithes in parishes where there is no Protestant clergyman, or the building of churches where there are no Protestant inhabitants—if we would confine our views and our ambition to procuring seats for some half dozen of our peers in the House of Lords, and a few of our gentry in the House of Commons." [At the words "payment of tithes in parishes where there are no Protestant clergyman," the hon. member was interrupted by a general cry of hear, hear! a laugh, and loud cries of read! read! The hon. member betrayed an unwillingness to proceed with the quotation. On coming to the words "no Protestant inhabitants," there was another hear, hear! a laugh, and a cry of read, read!]. The. hon. member said, he had read the wrong part, and was going to put the paper in his pocket but the call of the House to read, seemed to influence the hon. member.

He then read the following extract:—"If we would content ourselves with the pursuit of these objects, we might indulge a hope of being permitted to partake of the privileges of the constitution—but my answer was, We are collecting the rent for the benefit of the people—for them we are bound to seek protection and redress. We require no favour—we want to strengthen the constitution by the heart's blood, the bone, and sinew of the country—we seek to establish a holy alliance between the English throne and the Irish people; and, so long as the mockery exists of making the people pay church-rates where there is no church, and the tithe where there is no parson'"—[When the hon. member came to the words "tithe where there is no parson," he was disposed to stop, but there was another general cry of read, read—and loud laughter. The hon. member then put away the newspaper from which he was reading. He then continued.] He had watched the progress of such things; and when he heard these insinuations, he thought he saw the progress of the attack, hair by hair, upon the church of Ireland. He had no doubt that, in the opinion of the gentlemen opposite, the pope, with a Roman Catholic hierarchy, would do quite as well as the present Protestant establishment. He did not mean to say, that such a consequence would immediately follow; but there was every reason to apprehend it, from the principle of ambition that existed in the Roman Catholic church. The event, if further concessions should be made, was not perhaps so remote as some gentlemen seemed to think. Such being his views, he would give his decided opposition to the motion.

Mr. Plunkett

said, that after the repeated discussions, year after year, which this question had undergone—after the recent protracted debates upon Irish affairs—and more particularly after it had fallen so often to himself individually to claim the indulgence of the House upon this very subject, he should have been strongly disposed, on the present occasion, to have repeated his opinion by a silent vote. There were, however, peculiar circumstances which compelled him, though reluctantly, not to allow this debate to pass without giving the reasons which still governed his vote. In doing so, he still felt that it would be bad taste to increase his trespass on their kindness by taking a wide range of observation on this occasion, or to do more than to take a few leading points, and confine himself strictly to their necessary consideration. He thought himself peculiarly called upon to deliver his sentiments, as the management of the question had been transferred from himself to the hon. baronet opposite. He trusted that no man would suppose he harboured a motive so mean or unworthy, as to suffer his sentiments to be warped by the change of hands into which the petition of the Catholics had passed. He was ready to bear testimony to the judicious and discreet manner in which the hon. baronet had introduced the motion—to the temper, the perspicuity, the reason, and the justice, with which he had recommended it to their consideration; and he should endeavour to imitate the conciliatory tone, of which the hon. baronet had set so eminent an example, and in arguing this question to keep clear of all topics of irritation on either side. As to the particular time when they were called upon to discuss the Catholic claims, he did not mean to express what would have been his opinion had he been consulted on that point: he should have found it, what he had no doubt the hon. baronet had done, a point of much embarrassment, not as relating to his own opinions, but to those of others, entitled to some degree of deference. For himself, he had long since made up his mind on this question. With deep and intense feelings for the maintenance of the best rights of the empire, his decided and unalterable conviction was, that this measure could not be too speedily carried. No time was too early for its adoption; none could arrive, when it should not have his most zealous support [cheers]. With respect to what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-general, why did he recur to the time of discussing the question—why did he call upon those who differed from him to consider that part of the consideration? He must ask his hon. and learned friend, before he assented to go into that argument with him, at what time he would be prepared to give his consent to such a motion as this? He feared that his hon. and learned friend had made up his mind to a perpetual opinion upon this question, which would render, so far as he was concerned, any argument as to the expediency of time a useless waste of words. Were the time one of perfect calmness and tranquillity, doubtless his hon. and learned friend would say, "Why agitate the topic now—nonquietamovere—nobody calls for such a discussion." Were the time one of trouble and difficulty, then the expression would be the other way—"This is no time for embarking in such matters; every thing is too unsettled." So that in calm or in storm, there would be found no time that was not quite inopportune, in his hon. and learned friend's view of the matter. He entirely agreed in the observation of the hon. and eloquent member for Yorkshire, that there was a peculiar grace and fitness in the present time, for the concession of these claims to the Catholics. Some of the friends of that body had been induced, by what they felt to be a most painful necessity, to enact a measure of restriction against certain parts of that body. It was, therefore, just the time to show the Catholics generally, that, notwithstanding what he alluded to, parliament was ready to consider the justice of their claims. He had not the same means of judging as other gentlemen had, what were the sentiments of the people of England upon the subject; but, he had of late spoken with men of various habits of thinking respecting it, and not one had he found who was pie-pared to say that this question was never to be carried [hear]. He had others to contend against, and they were the most formidable opponents of the measure, because they met it boldly upon its own merits, and disdained the paltry trick of appealing to the passions or prejudices of any classes of the people; who declared, that if they thought the accomplishment of such a motion as this would effect the tranquillity of Ireland, they would at once yield. These candid and able opponents were among the best friends of the established church, and, when he heard that declaration from their lips, must he not believe that, in the measure which he advocated, there was nothing—there could be nothing—calculated to endanger the stability of the church of Ireland? He solemnly assured the House, that, though this measure was as dear to him as it could be to any man, if he thought it could risk in any degree the security of the church of Ireland, instead of being its advocate, he should be found among the foremost ranks of its warmest opponents. He supported the question, because of its perfect reconcileableness with the stability of the Protestant church; and he supported it further, because he thought the passing of this bill would be found a measure emi- nently calculated to support that church [hear].

Some allusion had been made to former bills, and, among the rest, to one of his own, upon this subject. To show how clearly on all these occasions the security of the established church was provided for, he would beg leave to read a paragraph from his own bill of 1821, which was copied from the preceding bill of Mr. Grattan. It was as follows: "And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, as between Great Britain and Scotland, severally and respectively, permanently and inviolably in these realms." These were the recitements of the two bills. How, then, could it be said, that no adequate provision had been made for the security of the established church? His hon. and learned friend had promised to argue this question upon its constitutional bearings; but he had listened in vain for the promised argument. He had heard, indeed, from him a good deal about the Catholic Association; a good deal about the avowed intentions of the Catholic clergy; but nothing, or nearly nothing, of the constitutional grounds on which he meant to resist the question. The claim of the Roman Catholics was a claim to be admitted members of a free representative government—to be admitted to institutions, the advantages of which belonged equally to every subject of that government. He did not say that the right would admit of no exception, or control. There was nothing in the social fabric concerning which he would venture to make that assertion. Even the enjoyment of natural rights must be qualified, in a state of society, with conditions. Still more must this be connected with the artificial rights given by the mere existence of society; but these conditions ought only to be imposed in the degree which would be the most likely to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of all. Whether the rights enjoyed by individuals were of the character of natural or of chartered rights, they were liable to be withheld on the ground of general expediency. But, then, the expediency must be clearly and unquestionably made out; and this was a maxim of. the constitution, which went no less, though upon more circumspection and discrimi- nation, to affect the most obvious rights of individuals. He directed the attention of the House to the circumstances under which our ancestors had thought it necessary to limit those rights, in a very peculiar manner, with respect to Roman Catholics. At the Reformation, it. was found necessary to deal with those rights which were fully permitted before that period. The main object, then, was to protect the rights of the throne against the claims of a foreign power, and against the disaffection of those subjects who might reserve their allegiance for that foreign power, to the detriment of the throne, and of the state in general. This being the object, how did they proceed? They guarded, in the first place, against the evils existing. There were the claims of the Pope to interfere with the interest, not simply of the Roman Catholic religion, which then was the established religion of the state, but he claimed also the right of disposing of benefices, of naming the clergy, of deposing the monarch, and of absolving the people from their allegiance. The legislature accordingly provided—first, for the absolute and unconditional integrity and inviolability of the church; further, for the spiritual prerogative of the Crown, forbidding at the same time the exercise of any other than the established religion. What were the mischiefs dreaded, and what the provisions of the legislature? To prevent the claims of the Pope, or any other foreign power, to interfere with the church. Did they hear of any claim to that interference, or to the right of deposing kings, or absolving their subjects from their allegiance? Was that believed or asserted by any man in either kingdom? Dangers there were still; but of a different kind. Those enactments were, therefore, gradually done away. The law forbidding the exercise of any other religion was done away by the repeal of the act against recusancy. The only remaining one which could be at all supposed to contain that spirit, was the act of uniformity; which could not be at all affected by the proposed measure. Thus far did parliament go, down to the time of the Reformation. The wisdom of our ancestors watched the progress of time, and took their measures accordingly. In the reign of Charles the Second, they observed a new danger—a monarch careless about religion, or secretly affected to an unconstitutional one, who was to be followed by a Popish succes- sor. Here their providence was as remarkable as before. They provided a remedy, not adapted entirely to meet the evil, but the only one they could obtain; which was, to require certain oaths to be taken by those who were ready to take seats in parliament. That was found insufficient on the accession of James 2nd., who openly maintained the Roman Catholic religion against the constitution and the rights of his people. The legislature finding this resource fail, then prudently shifted their ground, and had recourse to a measure at once wise, bold, and salutary. They drove the monarch from the throne, for violating the constitution, and they resolved that the sovereign power should be held inviolable and unalterable in Protestant hands. Did he deny that the throne must be Protestant? Was he doing any thing to weaken its Protestant supremacy? No such thing. Was there any mode or device to make that supremacy surer, which the genius of any man could suggest? He was ready to incorporate it with the proposed bill, or to have it introduced as a separate, yet concomitant measure. What were the dangers which afterwards threatened the establishment? The claims of an exiled family driven from the throne, and the plots and agitations of a disaffected party retained in its interests. He admitted, freely, that the Roman Catholics of that period were suspected justly. What was the course taken by parliament? All the former measures against the papists were continued. They were held to be not good subjects, and were to be trusted neither with honour nor power in the state. They were coerced in their persons and properly—thay were deprived of their civil rights—they became sunk and degraded into that wretched state, from which they were relieved by the benignity of the last reign. This was a natural course of reasoning, though he did not conceive it to be a very wise one: but it showed, that our ancestors adapted their remedies to the evils then existing, and pressing upon their apprehensions. In 1791, a new danger, and an entirely new difficulty, presented themselves. The Roman Catholics had proved themselves truly submissive—they had been uniform in their peaceable conduct. Though rebellion had twice raged in Scotland, no movement was made in Ireland in favour of the exiled family. It had been found that the Catholics, so sunk and degraded, were in- effectual to the protection of the government—that by the depression and privations imposed upon them, the heart's blood of the state was impoverished. The landlord found that the lands could not be sufficiently cultivated. The valuable energies of labour were every where paralyzed. If the annals of that period were to be properly read and considered, the late king would be for ever illustrious in history, entitled as he was to the especial gratitude of every Roman Catholic in Ireland. That system of beneficence which he introduced had been now in practice for the space of forty years. It had raised the Roman Catholics of Ireland to a state of affluence, comfort, and respectability. It had given them a perfect equality of civil rights. It had caused them to participate in the advantages of the institutions. What was the danger which they had now to dread? Not the Pope—not the claims of foreign potentates—not the assumption of a power to dissolve the allegiance of the people—not the interests of an exiled family. The Roman Catholics had perfected the proofs of their obedience, and had been admitted to their civil rights, as good subjects who were entitled to every thing which they could, reasonably claim. The danger now to be apprehended was perfectly new, though not inferior, he admitted, to that of a dispute concerning the supremacy or the succession to the Crown. Better measures had prevailed—the state had acquired sounder health—a current of wholesome blood was felt—feelings of conciliation had been manifested—the Roman Catholic subjects, though not directly raised to power in the state, had acquired possession of the means of danger, and were on a par with themselves. The hon. member for Louth had spoken alarmingly of the six, or five, or four millions of persons in the communion of the Roman Catholic church. Now, what he feared was, to see four millions—taking them at the lowest—of subjects, having wealth, power, and respectability on their side, and awakened to a full sense of their condition, coming up, year after year, to claim the rights and privileges enjoyed by their fellow subjects, and retiring dejected and disappointed [cheers]. That was danger which the House had to cope with. Yet, the hon. member for Louth would persist in telling them, that they were not to look at the dangers of their own times, but to go back to the Reformation, to the reign of James 2nd., and to the Revolution. He would say, that the present danger was the greatest, perhaps the only one for them to consider. The other argument proved a want of acquaintance with human nature; it bespoke our ignorant use and application of the manual of history. Time, as had been said by one of the clearest observers of its effects, was the greatest innovator of all. While man would sleep or stop in his career, the course of time was rapidly changing the aspect of all human affairs. All that a wise government could do, was to keep as close as possible to the wings of time, to watch his progress, and accommodate his motion to their flight. Arrest his course they could not; but they might vary the forms and aspects of their institutions, so as to reflect his varying aspects and forms. If this were not the spirit which animated them, philosophy would be impertinent, and history no better than an old almanack. The riches of knowledge would serve them no better than the false money of a swindler, put upon them at a value which once circulated, but had long since ceased. Prudence and experience would be no better for protection than dotage and error [loud cheers.] Did he admit that the danger here was serious? He did not therefore inculcate dread. If the Catholics were to come down to the bar to claim their rights with clamour and shouts, he would laugh at them. Should they use threats and defiances, he would despise them. Parliament could subdue any force raised on their side. But if they merely claimed the rights of free constitution, he had no armour to oppose to them. He had no mode of dealing with them, but to open the arms of friendship—to admit them, as allies, as equals, to share the benefits, and join with him in the defence of the constitution; be it against foreign or domestic enemies; be it in peace, or be it in war [cheers.].

They were told, that there was a bar—that the principles of the constitution were opposed to the admission of the Roman Catholics. He had read with eagerness—he had carried on his researches with deep anxiety—he had endeavoured hard to find out where that principle could be discovered, and he solemnly declared that he could not discover it. Referring, to the distinction which had been taken between civil and political rights, was the fact so, that the constitution did not admit any to political power, however com- pletely in the possession of their civil rights, unless they subscribed the doctrines of the established church? Did not every day's experience disprove that assumption? Was not the hon. member for Norwich (Mr. W. Smith), whom they listened to day after day with satisfaction, an example of the contrary? Where was the alarm for the disjunction of the interests of church and state? Had there not been a lord-chancellor of England who was a dissenter? A man who refused to subscribe the doctrines of the church of England had, in his official capacity, issued writs of summons to the peers of Great Britain, and appended the great seal to them. He alluded to the late lord Rosslyn. Were hon. members who contend for this, ignorant of what had been doing in Ireland? The test laws had been there repealed for fifty years, and the dissenting influence had been on the decline ever since. When that repeal was talked of, there was great alarm. Dean Swift, with all his wit and talents, felt and spoke of it with horror and desperation, and prognosticated from it the immediate downfall of the state. For forty years past it had not been heard of, and was almost forgotten by the House: the dissenters had ever since declined. Had the Roman Catholic influence declined in the same period? The former had been ever since withering under the hand of liberty; the latter had been fostered and cherished by severity [cheers].

But, it was said, the Roman Catholics might have their civil rights; they must not, however, expect political power: that the constitution prohibited. Was there nothing of political power in what they possessed? They had the right of electing members to serve in parliament. Was that no exercise of political power? They acted as magistrates. Was that no exercise of political power? They served as jurors. Was not that exercising political power? This country had liberally imparted education to them. Did not that put the means of political power within their reach? Where was this line of distinction between civil and political power marked in the constitution? The warmth of discussion apart, he denounced the doctrine, as inconsistent with the principles of our free constitution, and only fitted for the meridian of a despotic government. He had once endeavoured to define civil liberty to the House; he had used the description which he found in the books—"Civil liberty consists in doing all that which the law allows a man to do." But, he went beyond that. There is a civil liberty, the enjoyment of which is given by the laws themselves. Once admit men to enjoy property, personal rights, and their usual consequences, and on what pretence could they be excluded from the institutions by which the whole of those possessions must be guarded?

It was asked, what have the Roman Catholics to complain of? they are only excluded from the parliament, the bench, and the high offices of state; which meant that they were only excluded from the making and administering of the laws, from all posts of honour and dignity in the state. These were bagatelles, for which, according to the argument, it was not worth while for the Catholics to contend—and, therefore, it was scarcely worth the while of the parliament to refuse. How would the hon. and learned gentlemen who used this argument like to be excluded from their chance of obtaining these trifles? He begged to ask, if these were not the very nothings for which Englishmen would cheerfully lay down their lives? [cheers]. Did they still talk of the danger of admitting the Catholics? He put it to the House to consider, whether they would willingly see such a body represented any where but within the walls of parliament. To shut them out from parliament, after giving them every thing which rendered them consequential short of it, was to teach them to array themselves elsewhere. Somewhere else they must go if the House could not make room for them. God forbid the recurrence of bad times! but it might happen that a bad prince might mount the throne, and then, perhaps, being refused admission where they had a right to it, they would range themselves behind the throne, and assist in the sacrifice of the public liberties. His hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-general, was satisfied as to the laity, whom he considered as sufficiently good subjects. The danger which his hon. and learned friend apprehended was from the Roman Catholic priests. He dreaded, in a country where the majority of the people differed, from the religion of the state, the uncontrollable and all-controlling influence of the priests, who were themselves detached from the state. France, it had been said, had of late shown herself particularly tenacious on the subject of religion; and, looking at what might be her views with regard to Ireland, it was said, that there might be great danger. He supposed that the bill was intended to diminish so much of the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy over their flocks, as arose out of their present grievances. Here was a danger admitted on both sides to be actually existing, and here was a measure proposed by the hon. baronet to meet that danger. Let the measure for bringing those priests within the pale of the constitution be proved to be calculated to increase their influence, and he would say something to it.

Before I go further (continued the right hon. and learned gentleman) I would ask those honourable members who admit the dangers which exist, whether they are prepared with a remedy? Some may, perhaps, tell me that I am to trust to time and to proselytism. I admit that much may be expected from proselytism, and that it is likely to be increased by the pious and exemplary lives, the kind and charitable behavour, and the religious example of the Protestant clergy; and I am of opinion that the time will come, when the religious differences between Protestants and Catholics will be much lessened, and, though we may not see it, that our children's children may be witnesses of it. But, Sir, this prospect is distant and uncertain; the dangers which surround us are pressing and imminent. So long as you continue a line of demarkation between Protestants and Catholics, so long do you hold up the latter as aliens to the state. And, while you do this, let it be considered, that your proselytism will be at a stand. For any man who should become a Protestant under such restrictions, would be considered an apostate, a wretch who changed his religion only for purposes of gain. Before I conclude, I must take the liberty of stating shortly to the House, a few of the measures which I consider calculated to remedy the existing evils. First, I would take away all grounds of grievance, by placing the Roman Catholic on an equal footing with the Protestant. I would do this, in order to prevent their union in one body against one common oppression. Next, I would, as has been recommended by an hon. friend of mine, make a suitable provision for the Roman Catholic priesthood. I have been told, that the Roman. Catholic priest would not consent to such an arrangement. Let me assure my hon. friend that he is deceived in his statement. The Roman Catholic clergy would not, it is true, purchase a permanent provision by the disgrace of having abandoned their flocks. But, if Catholic emancipation were granted—if the laity were once relieved from the disabilities under which they laboured—the Catholic priesthood would anxiously and gratefully receive a permanent provision. Honourable members are much mistaken, and know but little of Ireland, if they imagine that the Irish people, or the Irish priesthood, wish to usurp the property of the established church. The church of Ireland may be in danger of being pulled down from other causes; but, if it were pulled down to-. morrow, and the livings offered to the Roman Catholic priests, the laity would not allow them to accept them. I speak this in the hearing of many who are acquainted with Ireland, and who must know, that it is not the wish of the laity to have their priests raised to influence and authority by such means. The gentry of Ireland respect their priesthood, but I can assure the House they are not priest-ridden.

Before I sit down, Sir, I must say one word more as to the danger which I conceive to exist at the present period. If the priesthood were to express a desire to get possession of the church property, the laity would at once cry out against them; but, I would ask, are the Protestant clergy right in saying, that they are determined to resist the claims of the Roman Catholics, so long as they themselves existed? What was this but giving a form and substance to that which was before but a wild chimera? What was it but compelling the Catholics to say, we must now oppose the Protestant clergy in self-defence, for, until they shall be deprived of their property, we have no chance of obtaining our political rights? All who know me, know that I am, and ever have been, a zealous supporter of the established church; but never, even when I have been most zealous in its support, do I conceive myself to have rendered it better service than in giving it this warning, and placing its ministers on their guard [hear, hear]. Sir, I feel convinced, that if a foreign enemy were landing on our coast to-morrow, this House would not grant to the Roman Catholics any thing which it could not concede with honour and with safety to the established church. I trust to God, that no such period may arrive. I feel that if it ever does, it must be far, very far distant. But, I know, that were it to come, such would be your firm and irrevocable determination. And, Sir, it is because I know there exists no such danger—it is, because I feel that we are in a time of perfect safety and security, that I call upon You to do that now, which a sense of justice ought to compel you to do even in a time of the greatest danger [cheers], Let me not be told, Sir, that the people or the priesthood of Ireland will refuse to accept any concession which we may make to them. I say, in the language of my hon. friend the member for the county of York, that it is for us to legislate; that it is for us to do what is right; and if the Catholics of Ireland should refuse to accept what we offer them, they will be deprived of all power to do injury, because they will be deprived of all power to make just complaint [cheers]. One word more, and I have done. The alarm which exists with respect to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, is, I can assure the House, unfounded. The Roman Catholics of Ireland are not only tranquil but loyal. Nay, more, they are determined to continue loyal, no matter what may be the result of their application to parliament, because they feel satisfied, that the growing feeling of liberality towards them, and the enlightened policy of England, will not allow them to labour long under their present disqualifications. For myself, I feel perfectly convinced of the loyalty of the Roman Catholics; and, if the government of France were speculating upon their disloyalty, be assured of it, they will find themselves much mistaken; for, should the day ever come when that loyalty would be put to the test, they would be found to a man rallying round the standard of the British constitution. And why is it that such conduct is to be expected from them? It is because they have under that constitution enjoyed thirty-five years of conciliation and progressive improvement. It is because they trust to the kindness and the wisdom of the British legislature. But, Sir, we want something more from the Irish people than mere loyalty; we want their affection; we want their confidence; we want their cordiality; we want to induce them to deal with us as friends and brothers, in order to put an end to those anxieties which disturb us, and free us from that feverish state in which we have so long been placed [hear, hear]. I beg pardon, Sir, for having trespassed at such length upon the attention of the House, and conclude by giving my most cordial support to the motion of the hon. baronet.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said:—Notwithstanding, Sir, the length of time occupied by my right hon. and learned friend, I feel such confidence in the indulgence of the House, or rather in its justice, that I have no doubt it will allow me to state, as briefly as I can, the grounds upon which I dissent from the proposition of the hon. baronet, and the reasons why, after all the arguments I have heard, I do not find them sufficient to induce me to deviate from the course I have hitherto uniformly pursued upon this question. I will attempt to follow, as closely as I can, the different branches of the very able, and not less effective, because temperate and conciliatory speech of the hon. baronet. I think that he introduced this question for discussion on its true grounds, and I will apply myself to answer the questions put by him to the opponents of further concession. I apprehend that I state his case with perfect fairness, when I say that he rested his proposition upon three grounds; first, positive treaty; second, natural right; and, third, prudence and policy. All the arguments he employed may be included under those heads, and in that order I propose to consider them. If, in the first place, the hon. baronet could prove to me that there really existed a claim on the part of the Roman Catholics, established upon a solemn treaty between them and the Crown, I should be disposed to treat it with the utmost deference. The hon. baronet, and I believe the petition which he presented, demand the fulfilment of a treaty. I have, Sir, on previous occasions, considered the effect of the treaty to which they allude, and I am again prepared to deny, that the Roman Catholics can claim any privilege on the foundation of the treaty of Limerick. It is, no doubt, important for the House to consider whether, in with-holding what is now required at its hands, it is violating the terms of a solemn treaty; and I beg to ask the hon. baronet, whether he has referred to the articles of that treaty, and whether he really thinks, not that it has been infringed at any former period of our history, but whether any privilege; is re- fused in defiance of it? I will not now enter into the question whether the act passed early in the reign of queen Anne was an infringement of the treaty of Limerick. I admit very fairly, that the statute "for the prevention of the growth of Popery," was an abominable measure. Perhaps this is an unpleasant point of discussion; and as the hon. baronet very wisely abstained from entering upon it, I will follow his example; merely observing, that before we condemn the laws of the land, we are bound to consider the circumstances out of which they arose; and from those circumstances it appears, that it was an act of retaliation against the Catholics, for what they had done while in possession of political power. The hon. baronet will find, that by the first article of the treaty of Limerick, the Roman Catholics were entitled to be exempted from all molestation on account of their religious tenets: by other articles certain persons might claim the privileges of personal property, on taking no other oath but that of allegiance. Now, the hon. baronet extends this right to a claim, that the Roman Catholics shall be entitled to the enjoyment of civil office on taking the oath of allegiance only. That, Sir, I beg leave to deny; and I am content to rest my denial upon the speech of sir T. Butler, who was employed by the Roman Catholics to speak at the bar of the House of Lords against the passing of the bill against the growth of Popery. Sir T. Butler says, "the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th clauses of this bill relate to offices and employments, which the Papists of Ireland cannot hope for the enjoyment of, otherwise than by grace and favour extraordinary; and therefore do not so much affect them, as it does the Protestant Dissenters who, if this bill pass into a law, are equally with the Papists deprived of bearing any office civil or military, under the government to which by right of birth, and the laws of the land, they are as indisputably entitled as any other their Protestant brethren; and if what the Irish did in the late disorders of this kingdom made them rebels (which the presence of a king they had before been obliged to own, and swear obedience to, gave them a reasonable colour of concluding it did not), yet surely the Dissenters did not do any thing to make them so, or to deserve worse at the hands of the government than other Protestants; but, on the contrary, it is more than probable, that if they (I mean the Dissenters) had not put a stop to the career of the Irish army at Enniskillen and Londonderry, the settlement of the government, both in England and Scotland, might not have proved so easy as it thereby did; for if that army had got to Scotland (as there was nothing at that time to have hindered them, but the bravery of those people, who were mostly Dissenters, and chargeable with no other crimes since; unless their close adhering to, and easily appearing for the then government, and the many faithful services they did their country were crimes), I say if they had got to Scotland, when they had boats, barks, and all things else ready for their transportation, and a great many friends there in arms, waiting only their coming to join them, it is easy to think what the consequence would have been to both these kingdoms; and these Dissenters then were thought fit for command, both civil and military, and were no less instrumental in contributing to the reducing the kingdom, than any other Protestants: and to pass a bill now, to deprive them of their birth-rights (for those their good services) would surely be a most unkind return, and the worst reward ever granted to a people so deserving. Whatever the Papists may be supposed to have deserved, the Dissenters certainly stand as clean in the face of the present government, as any other people whatsoever: and if this is all the return they are like to get, it will be but a slender encouragement, if ever occasion should require for others to pursue their example." Sir T. Butler thus abandons all claims to civil office. Yet he was Solicitor-general to James 2nd.—was employed in drawing up the treaty of Limerick, and was engaged by the Roman Catholics against the bill in the reign of queen Anne. I therefore think that we are quite at liberty to discuss this question, without having to combat any argument founded upon a supposed breach of the faith of treaties.

Next, the hon. baronet, and my right hon. and learned friend rest this claim; upon the ground of natural right. And here again I directly join issue with them both. Indeed, this is one of the material points on which I have the misfortune to differ from some of the friends with whom I am in the habit of acting. It involves a great constitutional question, and my; right hon. and learned friend goes even-so far as to argue, that we have no more right to exclude Roman Catholics from civil office than we have to divest them of their property. He places the spoliation of property, and the exclusion from civil office, on precisely the same footing; but he admits that both may be sacrificed to considerations of paramount necessity; but then that necessity must be clearly established. I cannot allow that the subjects of this country have any such claim as an abstract right, and I do not believe that the doctrine was avowed or maintained until comparatively recent times; I mean, until the year 1790. Let us look for a moment at the great periods in the history of the constitution. Previously to the Reformation there was unanimity in religious opinion: there was no dissent, and consequently no motive to exclude, and no reason for guards or checks; for it is to be observed, that these regulations now complained of are not so much checks on the privileges of the subject, as guards that have been introduced from a reasonable jealousy. Now, what has been the practice of the constitution since the Reformation, when religious dissent first became important? I say that the last three hundred years have afforded a practical contradiction of the doctrine laid down by the supporters of the claims of the Roman Catholics. At the time of the Reformation, the oath of supremacy was administered; and from the reign of Elizabeth up to the present moment, that oath has been enforced, and has operated to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from office and from seats in this House. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, says that the law of exclusion had its origin only about a hundred and fifty years ago, but I deny the position; it had its origin with the first rise of dissent in matters of religion. What, let me inquire, has been the doctrine maintained by the most celebrated public men on the subject of exclusion from civil offices? I have had occasion before to refer to opinions entitled to the highest respect, especially from those hon. members to whom I am particularly addressing myself. A conference was held respecting the bill for Occasional Conformity, and the lords who conducted it, had objected to a measure which subjected to the penalty of perpetual forfeiture of office those who were guilty of the crime of occasional conformity. At the conference they stated this important doctrine: "The Lords look on the fixing of the qualifications for places of trust to be a thing so entirely lodged within the legislature, that, without giving any reason for it, upon any apprehension of danger, however remote, every government may put such rules, restraints, or conditions on all who serve in any place of trust, as they shall see cause for; but penalties and punishments are of another nature."* Now, can any thing be more clearly laid down than the distinction here taken between exclusion and penalty? And who were the lords that presided at the conference?—the duke of Devonshire, the earl of Peterborough, bishop Burnett, lord Halifax, and lastly, lord Somers himself [hear, hear!]. Next let me ask my right hon. and learned friend, what he says to that article in the Scotch act of Union, which permanently excludes Roman Catholics from certain offices? If there be this natural right, and if that natural right be correspondent with the right of property, is it possible to suppose that the great men who adjusted the articles of the Scotch Union would have allowed this permanent exclusion of the Roman Catholics? And yet without any of those immediate dangers from the power and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, about which my right hon. and learned friend has spoken as the only causes that could justify such a measure now, the law of exclusion was introduced into that act of Union. But he (Mr. Peel) much wished that the House would look at the debates of parliament in a more recent period of our history.

But, coming to periods nearer our own times, when the dangers from popery may be supposed to have had less influence, I would call the attention of the House to the debates which took place in 1771 and 1774, on the subject of the Quebec act: let us look at the doctrine maintained by lord Chatham and lord Camden regarding the oath of supremacy. Both these distinguished men asserted, that the oath of supremacy was as sacred and as obligatory as Magna Charta itself, or any of the most sacred acts made at any period of our history. Now, Sir, can these opinions be reconciled with the claim of natural right? I very freely admit, that, at the conference to which I have referred, the peers who managed it, allowed, that exclusion from office by law was a punishment of the severest kind.

^* Parliamentary History Vol. vi. p. 80. But, at a still more recent period of our history, in 1790, when the repeal of the Test-laws was under consideration, did Mr. Pitt admit the doctrine now contended for? Certainly not. Mr. Burke's dissent at that time was on the score of danger from the Unitarians; but Mr. Pitt, a warm supporter of the Roman Catholics, directly contradicted the position of the hon. baronet, and my right hon. friend. It should be recollected, that the Test-laws, then under discussion, were enacted with a view to the defence and preservation of the constitution; and Mr. Pitt told the House, that "he hesitated not to say, that if distrust were entertained of any one of the three branches of the constitution, it ought to be directed against the executive power. The persons excluded by the Test-laws, laboured under no kind of stigma; but it was the policy of private life not to allow any man to manage your affairs, whose principles you did not like; but the exclusion of dissenters could be looked upon as no punishment." I go further, and I maintain that if the doctrine be correct, the exclusion from parliament, and the refusal of the elective franchise, cannot be justified. It seems to me, that the power of sitting here, or of voting for members, is just as much a natural right as that for which my right hon. friend contends. Practically we know that, by an arbitrary distinction, persons who have not 300l. a-year, are not allowed to represent their fellow-subjects, and that a qualification of an inferior kind is also required from the electors. If the doctrine of natural right be correct, why are not individuals with 200l. a-year allowed to sit in the House of Commons, or why have not all the inhabitants of the kingdom a right to send them to it? The fact is, the right, such as it is, is sacrificed to state considerations. I know that the ground of exclusion in the case of the Roman Catholics is different, and I do not say that it is more mortifying because it is a personal exclusion; but I say, that the violation of right is the same.

Thus, I think, I have shewn why, on the grounds of authority and analogy, I differ from my right hon. and learned friend. If I could see any violation of natural right, and that any needless stigma was inflicted by the exclusion, I should be compelled to admit, that it was a grievance of a much more onerous nature. But I contend, that the state has a right to exclude on any apprehension of danger, and that not imminent or immediate, the onus probandi of which my right hon. friend would unfairly cast upon the opponents of the claims. My right hon. friend says, he would not convert the philosophy of history into a miserable almanack, or represent experience as a swindler, passing base money upon mankind. I agree with him; and I would look back to history for the instructive lesson it affords, and I would consult experience upon the abuses of power in all ages. If we were to follow the advice of the hon. baronet, we should neither take a retrospect of the past, nor a prospect of the future. He would neither be guided by events that have already occurred, nor look to the remoter consequences of granting what is required. This is certainly a very convenient way of arguing the question; but, for one, I beg to protest against the conclusiveness of any such arguments. I think that we are bound to consider what further measures may grow out of that which is now proposed. I ask, where is the overruling necessity for admitting these claims? For though Mr. Burke observes, that "it is a question of moral and virtuous discretion, whether, possessing a right, you will exercise it," I contend that we possess the right, that we ought to possess it, and that a sound discretion requires that we should exercise it.

With regard to the grounds on which I oppose myself to the demand now made, I have heard several imputed, upon which I do not mean at all to rely. First, I do not consider that we are obliged to take into view laws passed at an earlier period of our history, unless they are solemn national compacts—the foundation and settlement of important systems of government; but I cannot but bear in mind, that laws were passed three hundred, and one hundred and fifty years ago, guarding against what were then looked upon as dangers. I am bound, on the other hand, to admit that the time is come when we ought to consider whether there exists a necessity for maintaining them. I allow that exclusion from office is of itself an evil; I regret it, and I can only justify it as a defence against a greater evil; but, Sir, upon these grounds, I am against the motion of the hon. baronet.

The real question for the House now to determine is, whether there are sufficient reasons for retaining in their present force the existing laws against the Roman Catholics? And, having stated to the House why I cannot admit the hon. bayonet's proposition, either on the ground of the treaty of Limerick, or of the abstract right, I come now to the considerations of prudence and policy by which I have been led to a similar conclusion. The hon. baronet tells us, that he has never heard what the danger is; and he calls upon the opponents of his motion to point it out. Before I answer this call, I wish to inquire of the hon. baronet what is the object of his present proposition? I presume that the object is, to communicate power to those who are at present excluded from it—to devolve upon them a fair share in the framing, administering, and executing of the laws. Does the hon. baronet mean to give a mere barren capacity, never hereafter to be available? He can only claim upon this ground: as there is no danger, so there ought to be no disability, no distinction between the privileges of any of the subjects of the realm, but all ought to be equally eligible. If the two Houses of parliament mean to pass a measure of this kind, surely there can be nothing more unfair than to throw the odium of refusal of office elsewhere, and to create an unjust impression against the highest personage in the realm. Parliament ought not to give the claimants a ticket of admission, and when it is presented at the door of the constitution, trust to the Crown to shut that door in the face of the party claiming a right to be allowed to enter. I come then to what, in fact, is the main point, and which has reference to the circumstances of Ireland; and I ask first, whether the powers sought can safely be granted; and whether, if granted, it will conduce to tranquillity? I must own, that if I were perfectly satisfied that concession would lead to the restoration of peace and harmony; if I thought it would put an end to animosities, the existence of which all lament, I for one, would not oppose the measure on a mere theory of the constitution, when consent would secure such immense practical advantages. But, because I doubt whether the removal of disabilities on the conditions proposed, will promote tranquillity in Ireland, or lessen religious animosities; and because I think you cannot safely remove the disabilities, I am disposed to continue the exclusion. Now, let me ask, are these civil disabilities the cause of the disorders which had so long prevailed in Ireland? If you trace back these disorders as far as actual commotion is concerned, you will find that they have no such origin. How happens it otherwise, that, in the province of Ulster, where the numbers of Catholics and Protestants are nearly balanced, the Insurrection act has not been in a single instance enforced? How happens it otherwise, that the partial removal of disabilities has not been attended with any beneficial effect? In 1792, the Roman Catholics came forward, and asked to be rendered capable of holding the office of magistrates, and of enjoying the elective franchise. They wanted, they said, nothing more, and those persons grossly maligned them, who said that their wishes went further. The elective franchise was conceded even more fully than they requested it; and Roman Catholics were permitted to serve as well on grand as on petty juries. Since these concessions, has there been any diminution of party feeling and factious animosities? Do the Protestants and Catholics live upon better terms than before? I think not. But the answer of the supporters of this proposition will be "While you retain any thing, while you refuse to put both parties upon an entire equality—the evil will continue; but, as soon as they are equal, it will cease. Admitting this, for the sake of argument, for a moment, will the concession now claimed put them on an entire equality? What is claimed is a mere capacity or eligibility to office; and after you have granted that, will you be able to concede what the Roman Catholics would consider a just distribution of office? Would not the distinction thus necessarily drawn, be infinitely more galling and mortifying, since it would be reduced to a mere personal exclusion? When vacancies occurred, if a Protestant were preferred to a Catholic, would it not constantly expose the government to jealousy and reproach? Without, reviving painful recollections of past rebellions, let us consider, after the removal of the disabilities, the very anomalous situation of Ireland. It appears to me, that those persons always act unfairly, who connect these disabilities with the penal laws against the Catholics. No man holds in greater detestation than I do those penal laws; I do not mean to inquire whether they were necessary by way of retaliation; but, as I before stated, I draw a clear distinction between disability and punishment. But, look at the anomalous state of Ireland in respect to property. The respective numbers of the Catholics and the Protestants may be 4,200,000 to 1,800,000; but I do not overstate it when I say, that, notwithstanding this disproportion, the property in the hands of the Protestants is as twenty to one. Some have asserted, that it is fifty to one; but I do not think it any thing near to that amount. After equal capacity of office shall have been given to all, the religion of the great minority is to remain the religion of the state. I am told, that it is perfectly safe in Ireland to admit the professors of all religions to the enjoyment of the same privileges; and after this has been accomplished, the Protestant church is still to be retained. I know several hon. members, and among them the member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who contend, that it is impossible. On this point he agrees with me: for, over and over again, he has argued, that it is a mere mockery to suppose that the Roman Catholics will be satisfied with a Protestant church establishment. They will constantly endeavour to recover the power they have lost, by overturning a system which they view with other eyes than ours. It is not necessary for me to say, that I would disbelieve a Roman Catholic on his oath, God forbid; I do not say so; on the contrary, I will put him on the same footing with the Protestant, and admit, that, in all the relations of private life, he is as valuable a member of society But, supposing him true to his own principles, and to possess the ordinary feelings of man, he cannot look with a friendly eye upon those events which we are accustomed to reverence, and upon that system of religion which has grown out of them. Can he regard the Reformation, for instance, with the feelings of a Protestant? My right hon. and learned friend says, "You find that, I at the Revolution, the danger to be apprehended was from a Roman Catholic king. What did you do then? Why, you passed a law, that the king of England should act in conformity with the law of England." But, there was a danger of another kind in the reign of Charles 2nd. Charles 2nd was in outward appearance a Protestant; and it was not until his death that it was discovered what Charles 2nd was. My right hon. friend says, if the evils that threatened us in the reign of Charles 2nd are at an end, why not remove your restrictions in this case? Now, what would the bill proposed to be brought in do? The Catholic is to be admitted without restriction into parliament, and into office, provided the king approves of him. He is to be as perfectly free as we are ourselves, unfettered by any restrictions; and at liberty to pursue what he conceives to be the interests of his country, and the justice of his cause, with perfect freedom. You tell us, that these laws have the effect to extinguish the fervour of hearts that may be "pregnant with celestial fire," almost celestial, and to paralyse the hands that might have swayed "the rod of empire." When this man comes to be the leader of a party, has he not a right to maintain the religion to which he belongs? I speak not of the demagogue, whom my right hon. friend says, he should like to see in this House, as he would soon find his level; but I take the case of a man sincerely attached to his religion. We are told in this very petition, that the professors of the Roman Catholic faith in England and Ireland exceed in numbers, the members of the established church. Be it so. This individual, then, comes into this House sincerely attached to the religion in which he has been educated, and which is a sufficient reason for his adhering to it—he has all the influence which his personal character gives him: he is placed at the head of a party. Is the Crown to say, "although you area man of powerful abilities, yet I must shut you out?" After you have capacitated him to become Secretary of State, or first lord of the Treasury, is the Crown to turn round and say, "I cannot admit you?" Is that the way to concillale such a man as this? But, suppose, Sir, the Crown employs him in its service—in what a situation do you place him? Can he exercise a sound discretion, in regard to those measures which relate to the safety of the church of England? It appears to me, he cannot give a safe judgment; and therefore I am for excluding him; and not trusting to the Crown to refuse the ticket of admission you have given him.

Then, Sir, am I to be told, that I am insulting the professors of this faith, if I admit that I view the tenets of such a religion with distrust? I have a right to look to the influence which it possesses over the minds of men; and I do say, I view with the greatest jealousy the re-admission of the Roman Catholics to office. It is most extraordinary that we should be taunted in this way now, seeing that, up to this hour of the debate, we have not heard one single word on the subject of those securities which used to form so considerable a part of the Catholic professions. Are they content, I ask, to give us those securities which are taken by every other state in Europe? I believe there is not a state that admits their professors, that does not keep a direct control over their appointment. It is supposed that, after you have decided in favour of the prayer of this petition, if you should do so, that there will be an end of all religious animosity; and my right hon. friend asks, "are you afraid of the Pope in these days?" I am not afraid of the Pope, nor of the Pretender; but, I am afraid of a powerful internal party in this country, of whom great numbers are dissatisfied, as they must be, with our principles of religion; and I can never think they can be fit to enact laws respecting the established religion. When I hear that the nature of the Roman Catholic religion is changed, I must say, after a pretty accurate review of what has been passing in Ireland—and I say it in no unfriendly spirit—that that church would have consulted its own dignity much better, if it had avoided several publications that have lately appeared. In proof of the little alteration which the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion appears to have experienced from time, notwithstanding all the asserted illumination of the nineteenth century, I will read a passage from a little work published by one Coyle, relative to the miracles performed by prince Hohenlohe; and I contend, that, so far from the change which gentlemen speak of, having taken place, I believe the laugh with which they greeted the mention of the name of prince Hohenlohe, would have offended no set of persons so grievously as the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland. Amongst the number of cures performed by his highness in the city of Wurtzburgh, was that of the princess Matilda Von Schwartz-enburgh. She had been lame from her eighth to her seventeenth year, and had vainly expended on medical aid 80,000 florins—but was cured by the prince's intercession. The Wurtzburgh doctors who got the 80,000 florins, must have had a very fine time of it: the name of prince Hohenlohe cannot be very popular among them, at any rate. But at Bamberg the prince's success was yet more miraculous. Two sisters, who had been confined with lameness for ten years, were cured. Coun- cillor Jacob, a councillor of state, who had not stirred out of his chamber for some years, suddenly accompanied his doctor from the third story to the street-door. A beneficed clergyman was cured of the gout while passing through the streets of Bamberg, without ever getting out of his carriage; and, besides these, an upholsterer, a saddler, and a stonemason, had all been operated upon by similar miracles. The saddler could now look after his workmen, without stick or crutch [a laugh]. Honourable gentlemen may laugh, if they please, at so much credulity; but they should know, that in no part of the world are the wonder-workings of prince Hohenlohe talked of with more profound respect and faith than in Ireland [hear, hear].—I will next read an extract from a book signed J. K. L., said to be written by Dr. Doyle, being a communication to the whole Roman Catholic communion of Ireland, of the rescript of Leo XII., the present pope, addressed to the bishops, &c., complaining of the mischief effected by Bible Societies; and containing this passage, "The power of temporal princes will, we trust in the Lord, come to your assistance, whose interests, as experience shows, are always concerned when yours are in danger; for it never hath happened that the things which are Cæsar's are given unto Cæsar, if the things which are God's be not given unto God." Now, a letter of this kind, talking of the temporal power of other princes coming in to suppress Bible Associations, appears to me to hold out a doctrine as monstrous as can well be maintained. If there were any thing wanting, which would call upon me to express my decided opposition to the claims of the Catholics, it would be the admission of letters of this sort, published by the authority of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, containing passages of this description. My belief is, that, after they obtained those privileges which they seek, they would not cease in their endeavours, but would still struggle for the preeminence of their religion. That is not my opinion only. The same Dr. Doyle says, "Catholic emancipation will not remedy the evils of the tithe-system; it will not allay the fervour of religious zeal." Indeed, how can the removal of civil disabilities extinguish the fervour of religious zeal? The bishop goes on to say, "the perpetual clashing of two churches the one elevating, the other falling, both high-minded, will not check the rancorous animosities with which different sects assail each other; it will not remove the suspicion of partiality in the government; it will not create sympathy between the different orders of the state, which is mainly dependent on religion, nor produce unlimited confidence between man and man. Emancipation would only lead a passage to ulterior measures." What are the "ulterior measures" to which Dr. Doyle alludes? I do not pretend to know their object; but such language satisfies me, that if the disabilities were removed, the Catholics would not be satisfied— Still to new heights their restless wishes soar; Claim leads to claim, as power advances more. The right hon. gentleman then expressed his regret at differing from his right hon. and other friends, with whom he was accustomed to act; and at the same time his anxiety that penal laws should be abolished, together with offensive processions, and all other local causes of discontent and heart-burning. He did not deny that great evil might have been done by the policy which had been formerly pursued towards Ireland; but that was no reason why the measure which was now urged should be adopted. It was no reason why he should change the opinions he had formed upon a serious and firm conviction. It was the duty of public men to act on their own impressions, and not to defer to authority, however high it might be, while they were unconvinced by argument. He was not convinced by the arguments he had heard; and he should therefore not defer to the authority by which they were enforced. Without dwelling on the objections as to the time at which this motion was proposed, or its present expediency, he openly announced his objection to its principle. He should, therefore, pursue the course which hitherto he had uniformly persisted in, and give his decided oppostion to the measure.

Mr. Brougham

said, he could not allow the speech of the right hon. gentleman, nor the new topics which had been introduced in it, to pass unnoticed, notwithstanding the late hour of the night. The arguments which those who supported the motion had urged, remained untouched by any thing the right hon. gentleman had said. The speech of the right hon. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom he did not now see in his place, in which there was more of force and effect concentrated in a small space than in any speech which he ever remembered to have heard, remained unanswered, because he believed it was unanswerable. He had been intrusted with a petition from the Catholics, praying that the privilege of being eligible to serve in parliament might be granted to them; but he had declined to present that petition, until the motion before the House should be disposed of. If, as he fervently hoped and confidently expected, the decision of the House should be in favour of the first petition, it would preclude the necessity of his presenting the second. He would proceed to follow the right hon. gentleman in the argument into which, as he said, he had been dragged. When the right hon. gentleman supposed that the hon. baronet, in alluding to the treaty of Limerick, meant to rest upon it the strongest part of the case which he had to state, he was mistaken. The hon. baronet only touched upon it because it was alluded to in the petition, and without laying any greater stress upon it than it deserved. No one could deny, that in all the stages of the question it was a very important feature. All that the hon. baronet meant to prove by it, he thought he had fully succeeded in. For his own part, he should make short work of it. It was now one hundred and thirty years since that treaty was made. It had been violated; by whom he cared not; but the wrong done by that violation was perpetuated by the parliament of the present day, if they refused to fulfil it. One clause in the treaty promised, in express terms, that the Catholics should enjoy the same privileges which they had been in possession of in the reign of Charles 2nd. In that reign they possessed the privilege of being elected to serve in parliament. They had access to all the offices of the state, excepting corporations, which were reserved for a different class; and from these they were now wholly shut out. The hon. and learned member quoted a passage from Mr. Burke's posthumous works, in which reference was made to this treaty, and to the injustice which the Catholics suffered from its not having been carried into effect; the consequence of which was, that they were precluded from their natural rights, and from the benefits of society. Having done this, he said he would lay down the book, and quote no more from this or any other authority—a pledge to the House that he would detain them no longer than might be absolutely necessary. With the exception of one single occasion, soon after he had first sat in parliament, he had never yet had an opportunity of expressing his opinions on the important subject now before the House. It might be true, that the Catholics enjoyed their natural rights with less restriction now than had once been imposed upon them. It was unquestionably a greater hardship that a man's son should have the power of ousting him of the possession of his property, than that he should be debarred from the exercise of any civil privilege. But, civil rights, although they differed in degree from natural rights, were not the less scrupulously to be preserved, and not the less justly to be enjoyed, by every member of the community. To have the privilege of being elected, as well as that of electing, was the right of every man who was fit to exercise such a privilege; and to say that a man who was in every way fit to serve the state, who was, in point of wealth, abilities, acquired knowledge, and all the necessary requisites, most competent to discharge any of the duties which belong to the station he was to fill—to say that such a man should not be elected, because he conscientiously believed in the service of the mass, and in the doctrine of transubstantiation, was most unjustifiably to deprive that man of his political and civil rights. It might, indeed, happen,, in the case of some state necessity, some great political event, that the right of an individual to hold his own property must be abandoned, if the good of the community required it; but not in any other case. It was the practice of the House every day (perhaps it was the least creditable part of their practice) to pass private bills which invaded the rights of private property. Would any man doubt or deny that this was such an invasion? In all such cases, they gave compensation if it were possible; but if it were not, the measure was nevertheless carried. The interests of the individual were sacrificed to those of the whole; but only on condition of the necessity which demanded it. But, not to follow this argument any further, what folly was it, at this time of day, to tell us that it was only from political rights the Catholics were precluded?—to say, that the Catholics of the present day were not, like their ancestors, ousted of their property, because they worshipped God according to the dictates of their consciences?—to tell them that they were no longer hewers of wood, and drawers of water to their Protestant brethren—that they were privileged to eat, and drink, and be clothed—that they were no longer persecuted and tortured for their religion's sake—and that all the disabilities they lay under were such as they might therefore endure without repining? Were they not shut out from all that dignified and exalted the character of man in society? Was not a broad distinction drawn between them and us, which made their let as degrading as ours was splendid? Were not the portals of the temple of honours shut against them? Were not the entrances to the legislature barred? Had they any voice in making the laws which they were compelled to obey, or in the imposition of the taxes which were levied upon them? Were they not deprived of all share in the civil government of the state; and did they not endure all this because they dared to be honest, and to worship God according to the religion of their ancestors, and the religion of their own hearts? What worse than folly was it, then, to say that these were only political disabilities—that this privation of all the civil rights best worth enjoying could be justified?—It was said, that the chums which the Catholics made to a full participation in all the advantages of the constitution could not be granted to them consistently with the safety of that constitution; but the concessions which had already been made were still more inconsistent. Did they think they gave men the right to elect, and to send members to parliament for the purpose of representing their opinions, and advocating their interests, if they told them at the same time, "You have full power to choose whom you please, excepting those very men whom of all others you wish to choose?" Why, the only value of the elective right was, that it enabled men to send to parliament persons who agreed with them in political sentiments, and who were of the same sect in religion. He would suppose, for example, that the Tories, having the right to impose such terms on the Whigs, should say to them, "We look upon you all as damnable heretics; you profess political opinions which have kept you out of power for sixty years, as we Tories were kept out of power for sixty years before, in conse- quence of the opinions we entertain. We consider that, of all heresies, yours is the most detestable; you believe, that all power is held in trust for the people; and he who thinks this is 'fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils—let no such man be trusted.' If the benches on that side of this House should be filled with Whigs like you, no one could tell what might be the consequence. But, we mean to confer upon you the elective right; you shall send whom you please to parliament, but you shall select them from the body of the Tories." The members of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford would little like the application of this principle to themselves. They would feel it something like injustice to be told, "You may elect whom you will, excepting members of your own body. They are all a set of men whose minds are narrowed by prejudice, and darkened by learned ignorance. They are persons to whom history is merely an almanack, and experience a swindler—to whom knowledge is pedantry, and caution dotage. They shall not be allowed to take their places here, because they will oppose every thing which tends to the improvement of mankind, and to the diffusion of wise and liberal principles. You may choose any body else you like, but we will have none from Cambridge or Oxford. Go to the university of St. Andrew's and Aberdeen, where there are many able, liberal, and enlightened men. None of the prejudices which grow so luxuriantly on the banks of Cam or Isis, can have extended their influence to them: they will not endeavour upon all occasions to prevent the march of improvement, and the amelioration of the human mind" [hear, hear]. He did not think the members of Cambridge or Oxford would thank the House for such an elective franchise. The Catholics scarcely did so when they obtained it; although, as it was the first, it was a very important concession to them; When lord Buckinghamshire (then major Hobart), in the year 1793, brought in and carried a bill, which had been rejected in 1790, and which was only granted at last—as the history of Ireland would show every thing had been granted—because the government was in some difficulty, he was asked, whether he was instructed to say that the Catholics would be satisfied with having the elective franchise granted to them? His answer was, not only that he was not authorized to say so, but that, on the contrary, he was authorized to say, they could not be satisfied. Another bill was then brought in by Mr. Knox, to confer upon them the eligibility of serving in parliament, but it was lost by a large majority—But, leaving the history and the natural justice of the question, he came to the ground of expediency, under the existing circumstances, of emancipating the Catholics from the disabilities they had so long suffered under. There was a great fallacy in the argument of the right hon. gentleman. He (Mr. Brougham) admitted the tone of suavity which the right hon. gentleman had adopted towards all sects. It was not only making the best of a bad case, but as it imitated the conciliatory tone which his hon. friend assumed in submitting his motion to the House, it would have the effect of extending that feeling generally, and he therefore thanked him for it. But, the right hon. gentleman did as combatants were apt to do—he looked only on the side on which he fought, and forgot that the same complaint which he made of the vexation on one side, applied to the other. For example, much stress was laid upon the danger which must arise to the Protestant establishment, owing to the great disproportion of the numbers of the Catholics, and which had been stated by an hon. gentleman opposite; he did not know upon what authority. It was said there could be no safety, while so many Catholics were leagued against so few Protestants. Why, this was exactly what he (Mr. Brougham) said. He urged, that because danger existed, a remedy should be provided for it. He saw that they were surrounded by peril, and he wished them to find their way out. The right hon. gentleman saw it too, but he said, "Let us do nothing, and wait the event." But the right hon. gentleman said, "the Catholics want power.—have they not power now?" They had not that power to which they were entitled, and of which he believed they neither would nor could make any improper use. If they were admitted into that House, the stigma which rested upon them would be removed, and a general conciliation would be effected. His belief was, that if as many Catholics as could be supposed, should be returned to parliament, thirty or forty for example, not one proposition would proceed from them. The Dissenters, of whom there were as many in number out of doors as there were of the Established Church, had only four or five of their body in the House; and from them no proposals had ever been made of a nature hostile to the church establishment. He was not a little surprised to hear the statement which the right hon. gentleman had made respecting the supposed effect which the doctrines of prince Hohenlohe had produced. If he had wanted an antidote to the dread which the superstitions of those sectaries might have spread, he should have thought he had found it in the pamphlet which the right hon. gentleman had so gravely read to the House. Would any body believe that an assembly of enlightened educated men, with all their Protestant prejudices in their bosoms, could be influenced by such trumpery fanaticism? Could it be supposed that the admission of a few lords into one house, and of a few commoners into the other, would have the effect of overthrowing Dr. Middleton's "Free Inquiry," and induce a belief in the stories of the cures performed on a saddler, on a princess, and on a gouty old man? Why, if this pamphlet were the most seductive that the church of Rome ever vomited forth (and he could assure the right hon. gentleman that there were many most ingenious productions), he would pick out three of the weakest men in the House-he meant on that side of the House where the men must, of necessity, be weak, since although they had no Test act applied to them, they had been kept out of office for many years; to these three he would add six others from out of the House, and they should pore over it for a whole calendar month without any of them having his faith shaken, but, on the contrary, confirmed. The right hon. gentleman had read, too, with a triumphant air, a declaration of Pope Leo XII., in which he expressed his expectations, that Bible Societies would be put down by George 4th and other temporal princes. The Pope's only reliance, next to his miracles, was upon the assistance which he expected to derive on this subject from temporal princes. But, the Pope was not alone in his wish to prevent the dissemination of the Bible without note or comment. The same sentiments were avowed by the heads of the Universities; and he had read a very able, ill-written, injudicious pamphlet, by the Archbishop of Canterbury's chaplain, in which this Romish doctrine was laboriously enforced. So much for this argument. His hon. friend, the member for Norwich (Mr. W. Smith), who was known to be a dissenter, and who had submitted many measures to the House, had never proposed any one which related to his own peculiar religious opinions. That individual, though in public he mentioned the disqualifications under which persons of his persuasion laboured, never attempted to make converts—never attempted to wean individuals from any doctrines connected with the church, although they might be opposed to those tenets which he himself professed. He desired to know, whether there were no dissenters in that House who held offices? He desired to know whether, in certain cases, the ordinary tests, were not dispensed with by law? He would ask, whether this country had never seen a Lord Chancellor, with the patronage of the church in his hand, professing the doctrines of a Presbyterian? He would ask, whether this country had never seen a state minister, who was imbued with the heresy of Socinus, as the established church called it? Had they never heard, that, even in that House, there had been members, who were denounced, on account, of their tenets, as pernicious and damnable heretics? All these they might have had in office, some of them they certainly had in office—wielding all the power of the state—directing the monarch in all his measures—conducting the whole public treasury of the country. And, had any danger, during these periods, menaced the safety of the church? Had his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, ever made any attempt to undervalue or undermine the interests of the established church. Had any dissenter who had ever entered that House, made such an effort? No. Years had revolved—very nearly a century had passed by—since that body were permitted to enjoy those privileges which the Catholics now called for; and no such attempt had they, during that period, been charged with. No one instance had occurred of mischief done, or of danger apprehended. And yet they were now told—ay, gravely told—that right, and justice, and expediency, must, in the case of the Roman Catholics, be thrown aside, because, if they were restored to their privileges as freemen, the church would be in danger! [Hear, hear]. What could the Roman Catholics do if they were in power? He admitted that they would have additional weight and influence, if they were intrusted with political power. But, had they no power at this moment? That was his question; and he entreated the House to consider the subject in that point of view. They had much power—as great, in degree, as if they were admitted into parliament; but much worse than it could possibly be if they were received into the bosom of the constitution. It was, at present, a dangerous—it might become a mischievous, a fatal power. Let the legislature, then, convert it into a regular, constitutional, proper power; and there was an end of the danger. The door would then be effectually closed against any apprehended mischief. He would name no man; but this he would say, that greater natural abilities, more acquired talents, finer skill, and, what he would very much dread to encounter in an opponent, nicer discretion, he never saw displayed, in a more extensive degree, than he saw those qualities displayed by those who now conducted the affairs of the Roman Catholics. He repeated, that men of greater talents—men of more information—men of practised skill—men possessing greater powers of self-command—men actuated by the dictates of a more sound judgment, or distinguished by a finer sense of discretion, he had never seen [hear, hear]. He spoke not merely from public report, but also from private conviction. These were the elements of public power. Men so accomplished—so richly endowed by nature—so much improved by study-backed by their countrymen (he cared not whether six, or five, or four millions)—such men, it must be admitted, possessed power. That which he had described was power; or he knew not what power was. The power which those persons wielded was dreaded by the government. Why did he assert that it was dreaded? Because, to control that power, they broke through the principles of the constitution, and enacted mischievous and revolting laws. His (Mr. Brougham's) panacea was—"Give to those people their birthright: you thus take that power from them. Let the six millions be sixty millions; if they have no grievance, you have no cause of fear. Act thus, and all this national talent—all this acquired ability—all this practised skill—all this nicely-balanced discretion—will be exerted for your service—will no longer be wielded against you"[hear, hear]. The elements of strife and confusion were abroad. The energies which oftentimes accompanied political disappointment, and the fire which always attended religious zeal, and the discontent which a refusal of justice must ever engender, might, when combined, produce the most fearful effects. His remedy was plain and rational—"Take all those elements into your own hands—work them properly—control them, not by coercion but by kindness—attract them to you by benefits, instead of repelling them by injuries; and no longer will you lie down under the apprehension of nightly insurrection."—His hon. and learned friend, the solicitor-general, had said, that, even if he were a friend to this measure, he would not be frightened into it. This was the worst of all possible arguments. Why should any man say, "I will abstain from doing a right, because it is boldly demanded?" Why should any man say, "I know that such an act is right; but as I am importuned to perform it, I will refuse, and thereby perpetuate wrong?" For a man to submit to do that which he ought not to do through fear, was lowering him in the scale of human society; and, was it not equally degrading when a man, from a principle of obstinacy refused to do that which he ought to do? Was such a course respectable, or dignified, or intelligible, or one that could be mentioned with gravity? Why, it was saying, "Don't desire me to do a good act; for if I am so counselled, I shall certainly refuse." He knew that his hon. and learned friend was not friendly to this proposition; but he put his argument of not being threatened into compliance, to those who were well-wishers to the measure. If those individuals adopted it, they would, in effect say, "I know this is right; I wish to carry the measure; but, alas! you frighten me!" It was declaring neither more nor less than this—"We wish for the measure, and the legislature is bound to listen to the proposition; but they must also hearken to the calculation of danger. The present is a time of danger, and we will not concede this measure on compulsion." This, however, was a fallacy. No government, no legislature, need fear the attack of factious men, if justice were done to the community. There was no reason to fear assaults on the constitution; there was no reason to dread attacks on the establishments of the country. But, that which was really formidable, that which the legislator ought to listen to, was the fear of doing wrong and injustice. Such acts were criminal in themselves—such acts were formidable, for they tended to produce discontent with all its train of evils. He was a good counsellor who told them not to do that which was mean, and low, and oppressive, but who pointed out that which was noble and just, that which it was their duty to execute—one who showed them how, when the state was in danger, to take those steps by which that danger could best be removed. They stood in that place, as the trustees for others, and they ought not to waste their time by a display of their own individual feelings. Was it their own persons they were alarmed for? Did they dread personal danger? No; the danger of civil war was that which some of them seemed to apprehend. That danger ought to be prevented: and he had pointed out the sure way of setting to rest every apprehension on that head. Civil commotion was of all things the most to be dreaded; but it was their own fault if they did not, by liberal measures, dissipate any fear of danger of that description from Ireland, [hear.]—The right hon. Secretary said, that the Roman Catholics had already been favoured with concessions; and he quoted two instances. The answer to his statement was simply this—The Catholics were now asking for that which was reasonable; but, said the right hon. gentleman, "If we grant this, they will ask for something that is unreasonable."—In reply to this, he would say, Wait till they make the demand, and then refuse them; but do not reject a reasonable suit, from the fear that an unreasonable one should follow. It was feared, too, that the Roman Catholics would, if admitted to political power, interfere with the existing establishment. But, had not the fact been stated, on the most incontestable authority, that the}' did not wish to meddle with church property—that they had no desire to interfere with tithes—and that, least of all, had they any idea of transferring them to the Catholic church. Why, then, he demanded, should not the legislature grant that which was unobjectionable, when they had the power of refusing whatever appeared improper? He was astonished when he heard the right hon. gentleman state that no mention was made of securities. Since he had distinctly heard his right hon. and learned friend say, that he would vote for no bill except it was stated in the preamble, that the Protestant Church, as it now existed in Ireland and in England, should be inviolably preserved. He understood him to say, that securities were to be introduced substantially the same as those which were attached to the former bill, and that a new one, and he conceived the best, would be added; namely, a provision for the Catholic clergy. Could this be proposed now? It was impossible. They could better ask the layman to be an apostate, than the clergyman. If the latter accepted any favour until emancipation were granted, he would be lost to his flock—he would be despised as one who had preferred his own interest to their welfare. What would render this step proper in the eyes both of the clergy and the laity, would be, to give freedom to the laity; and then, and not till then, to offer to the clergy that provision which the wisdom and justice of parliament might deem expedient. They would receive it from the hands of the legislature thankfully; because, he conceived, they would then receive it honourably. But if they accepted of such a boon before emancipation, it would produce nothing but disgrace and irretrievable ruin. The course which he now advocated, he had suggested long before the Roman Catholic Association was in being. If that course were pursued, he was sure the Roman Catholics would be satisfied, and that Ireland would be placed in a state of safety. What might happen if this proposition were not agreed to, he could not say. He trusted the peace would be preserved, and the laws obeyed. He thought he might say that they would, from what he had seen of those individuals. He believed they would act like good subjects, and bow before the refusal of the legislature if their prayer was refused. But, well he knew what dire effects were produced, when those who had the power of conciliation in their hands, persisted eternally in perpetrating wrong, instead of doing justice; and when they considered the state of Ireland, and the deep anxiety which existed in that country for the accomplishment of that which their advocates had undertaken to procure—for the acquirement of that which the people knew, and that House knew, ought to be granted to them—the legislature would pause before they refused their claims. If they found that the reward granted for the peace and tranquillity which Ireland had lately enjoyed, consisted in new rejections and new oppressions, without predicting the consequences, he might be allowed to say, that the experi- ment was an exceedingly dangerous one. He fervently hoped that, by granting the boon called for by the Roman Catholics, they would place on a firm basis the peace and tranquillity of Ireland.—The time had been objected to; and he was sorry that a right hon. gentleman had expressed an opinion, that the present was not a proper period for this concession. He must say, that if there was any thing wrong in pressing these claims forward at the present moment, he was ready to take his full share of the blame. His entire belief was, that it was prudent to pursue this course; that it was the most politic line of conduct that could be taken: and he thought, that if the measure now proposed was not carried, the peace of Ireland would be placed in jeopardy. He earnestly and solemnly entreated the House to take that opportunity, while a measure of a different description was pending in another place, to adopt a line of policy which would improve the state of Ireland—would reconcile the Catholic and Protestant bodies—and would put an end to all those factions and dissentions which had so long distracted that country. That object could only be obtained by granting to the Roman Catholics their just demands; and every measure having that object in view should meet with his most cordial concurrence.

Sir C. Forbes

rose amidst cries of "Question." He said, he had for thirteen years supported the Catholic claims, while they were urged in a temperate manner, but he now felt it his duty to oppose them, when he found the Catholic Association threatening that House that if parliament did not accede to their demands they would compel them to grant them.

Sir F. Burdett

said a few words in reply. He thanked the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) for the candid manner in which he had declared, that his objection went to the principle, and not to the details of the question of Catholic emancipation. The right hon. gentleman talked of danger; but, what was the danger which he apprehended, compared with the consequences which would result from refusing to grant the just claims of the Catholics? On one side was the real danger, which arose from suffering Ireland to remain in its present state; and on the other side, that imaginary danger which filled the right hon. gentleman with so much alarm—the danger of admitting a few Catholic peers into the House of Lords, and a few Catholic gentlemen into the House of Commons, and giving the sovereign the prerogative of admitting, if he thought proper, a few Catholics to certain offices of state.

The House divided—for the motion 247; against it 234; majority 13. The announcement of the numbers was received with acclamation.

List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.	Coke, T. W.
Abercromby, hon. G. R.	Coke, T. W. jun.
	Colborne, N. R.
Acland, sir T. D.	Colthurst, sir N.
Althorp, visc.	Cooke, sir C.
Anson, sir G.	Courtnay, T. P.
Anson, hon. G.	Cradock, S.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.	Creevey, T.
Bagwell, rt. hon. W.	Croker, J. W.
Baillie, J.	Cumming, G.
Baring, sir T.	Daly, J.
Baring, A.	Dawson, G.
Barnard, visc.	Denison, W.
Barrett, S. M.	Denman, T.
Bective, earl of	Disbrowe, E. C.
Becher, W. W.	Doherty, J.
Belgrave, visc.	Don, sir A.
Benett, J.	Drummond, H. H.
Benyon, B.	Dowglas, W. R. K.
Bent, J.	Dundas, hon. T.
Bernard, T. jun.	Dunlop, J.
Binning, lord	East, sir E. H.
Birch, J.	Eastnor, visc.
Blake, sir F.	Ebrington, visc.
Bourne, rt. hon. W. S.	Edwards, hon. E.
	Ellis, hon. G. A.
Brandling, C. J.	Ellis, C. R.
Brinkman, T. H.	Ellice, E.
Brougham, H.	Ellison, C.
Browne, Dom.	Ennismore, visc.
Brown, right hon. D.	Evans, W.
Brown, J.	Evelyn, L.
Bury, visc.	Farquhar, sir R.
Byng, G.	Fergusson, sir R.
Calcraft, J.	Fitzgerald, lord W.
Calcraft, J. H.	Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.
Calthorpe, hon. F. H.	Fitzgerald, right hon. M.
Calvert, C.
Calvert, N.	Fitzroy, lord C.
Campbell, F.	Fitzroy, lord J.
Carew, R. S.	Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Caulfield, hon. H.	Folkestone, visc.
Cavendish, lord G.	Forbes, visc.
Cavendish, H.	Frankland, R.
Cavendish, C.	Fremantle, W.
Chaloner, R.	French, A.
Chichester, sir A.	Gaskell, B.
Clark, sir G.	Gladstone, J.
Clark, hon. C. B.	Glenorchy, visc.
Clifton, visc.	Gordon, R.
Cocks, J.	Gower, lord F.

Graham, S.	North, J. H.
Grant, C.	Nugent, lord
Grant, F.	Nugent, sir G.
Grant, G.	O'Brien, sir E.
Grant, J. P.	O'Grady, S.
Grattan, J.	Onley, C. S.
Grenfell, P.	Ord, W.
Grosvenor, hon. R.	Osborne, lord F.
Grosvenor, T.	Paget, sir C.
Guise, sir W.	Pakenham, hon. R.
Gurney, H.	Palmer, C.
Hamilton, lord A.	Palmer, C. F.
Hardinge, sir H.	Palmerston, visc.
Hawkins, sir C.	Pares, T.
Heathcote, sir G.	Parnell, sir H.
Heathcote, G. J.	Phillimore, J.
Heron, sir R.	Philips, G.
Hill, lord A.	Philips, G. jun.
Hobhouse, J. C.	Plunkett, rt. hon. W. C.
Holdsworth, T.
Honeywood, W. P.	Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Hornby, E.	Power, R.
Howard, hon. W.	Powlett, hon. W.
Howard, H.	Poyntz, W. S.
Hume, J.	Prendergast, M. G.
Hurst, R.	Price, R.
Huskisson, right hon. W.	Pringle, sir W.
	Prittie, hon. F.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.	Pym, F.
	Ramsbottom, J.
Hyde, J.	Ramsden, J. C.
Ingleby, sir W. A.	Rice, T. S.
Innes, sir H.	Robarts, A. W.
James, W.	Robarts, G.
Johnson, col.	Robertson, A.
Kennedy, T. F.	Robinson, right hon. F.
Kingsborough, lord
Knight, R.	Robinson, sir G.
Knox, hon. T.	Rowley, sir W.
Lamb, hon. W.	Rumbold, C.
Lamb, hon. G.	Russell, lord G. W.
Lambton, J. G.	Scarlett, J.
Lawley, F.	Scott, J.
Leader, W.	Sebright, sir J.
Lester, B. L.	Sefton, earl of
Lewis, T. F.	Shaw, sir R.
Leycester, R.	Smith, G.
Littleton, E.	Smith, J.
Lloyd, S. J.	Smith, W.
Lushington, S.	Smyth, W. M.
Maberly, J.	Somerville, sir M.
Maberly, W. L.	Stanley, lord
Macdonald, J.	Staunton, sir G.
Mackintosh, sir J.	Stewart, A.
Mahon, hon. S.	Stuart, lord J.
Marjoribanks, S.	Stuart, hon. J.
Martin, R.	Sykes, D.
Martin, J.	Talbot, R. W.
Maxwell, J.	Tennyson, C.
Milbank, M.	Tierney, right hon. G.
Mildmay, P. St. J.	Titchfield, marquis
Milton, visc.	Twiss, H.
Monck, J. B.	Upton, hon. A.
Moore, P.	Valletort, visc.
Morland, sir S. B.	Vernon, hon. G.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.	Wall, C. B.
Normanby, visc.	Warre, J. A.

Warrender, sir G.	Duncannon, visc.
Wellesley, R.	PAIRED OFF.
Wharton, J.
Whitbread, W. H.	Baring, H.
Whitbread, S. C.	Canning, rt. hon G.
White, H.	Cockburn, sir G.
White, S.	Courtenay, W.
Whitmore, T.	Crespigny, sir W.
Williams, T. P.	Crompton, S.
Wilmot, H. R. J.	Curwen, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.	Dundas, C.
Winnington, sir T.	Gurney, R.
Wodehouse, E.	Lloyd, J. M.
Wood, ald.	Markham, adm.
Wortley, J. S.	Phipps, hon. E.
Wrottesley, sir J.	Ridley, sir M.
Wynn, sir W. W.	Russell, R. S.
Wynn, C. W. W.	Smith, R.
Wyvill, M.	Tavistock, marquis
TELLERS.	Taylor, M. A.
Burdelt, sir F.	Wilkins, W.

MINORITY.
A'Court, E. H.	Clive, H.
Alexander, J.	Cole, sir C.
Apsley, lord	Cooper, R. B.
Archdale, M.	Copley, sir J. S.
Ashurst, W. H.	Corry, visc.
Astley, sir J. D.	Cotterell, sir J. G.
Atwood, M.	Cripps, J.
Baker, E.	Cuffe, J.
Bankes, H.	Curteis, J. E.
Bankes, W. T.	Curzon, hon. R.
Bastard, E.	Cust, hon. E.
Bastard, J.	Cust, hon. P.
Bathurst, hon. S.	Dalrymple, A. J.
Belfast, earl of	Davenport, D.
Bentinck, lord F.	Davies, H.
Beresford, lord G.	Dawkins, J.
Beresford, M.	Dawkins, H.
Bernard, visc.	Dawson, G. R.
Blackburne, J.	Deerhurst, visc.
Blair, J.	Dickenson, W.
Bonham, H.	Divett, T.
Bright, H.	Domville, sir C.
Brogden, J.	Douglas, J.
Brownlow, C.	Downe, R.
Brydges, sir G.	Drake, W. T.
Buchanan, J.	Drake, T. T.
Burrell, sir C.	Egerton, W.
Burrell, W.	Eliot, lord
Butterworth, J.	Ellis, T.
Buxton, J. J.	Estcourt, T. G.
Calvert, J.	Fane, J.
Cartwright, R. W.	Fane, J. T.
Cawthorne, J. F.	Fane, V.
Cecil, lord T.	Farrand, R.
Chandos, marquis	Fellowes, W. H.
Chaplin, C.	Fetherstone, sir C.
Cherry, G. H.	Fleming, J.
Chetwynd, G.	Foley, J. H. H.
Cholmeley, sir M.	Forbes, sir C.
Clements, hon. J. M.	Forde, M.
Clinton, sir W.	Forrester, F.
Clinton, H. F.	Gascoyne, I.
Clive, hon. H.	Gipps, G.
Clive, lord	Gooch, T. S.

Gordon, hon. W.	Paxton, W.
Gossett, W.	Pearse, J.
Graham, marquis	Peel, right hon. R.
Grant, A. C.	Peel, W. Y.
Green, T.	Pelham, J. C.
Greville, sir C. T.	Pellew, hon. P. B.
Handley, P.	Pennant, G. H. D.
Hart, G. V.	Penrudduck, J. H.
Harvey, sir E.	Percy, W.
Heber, R.	Pitt, W. M.
Herries, J. C.	Plumer, J.
Heygate, W.	Pole, sir P.
Hill, right hon. sir G.	Pollen, sir J.
Hill, sir R.	Pollington, visc.
Hodgson, F.	Porcher, H.
Holford, G. P.	Powell, W. E.
Holmes, W.	Price, R.
Horrocks, S.	Rae, right hon. sir W.
Hotham, lord	Raine. J.
Hulse, sir C.	Rice, hon. G. T.
Inglis, sir R. H.	Rickford, W.
Irving, J.	Roberts, W. A.
Jervoise, G. P.	Rogers, E.
Kerrison, E.	Rose, sir G.
King, hon. H.	Ross, C.
King, sir J. D.	Rowley, sir J.
Knatchbull, sir E.	Ryder, right hon. R.
Legge, hon. H.	Scott, hon. W. H. J.
Lennox, lord G.	Scourfield, W. H.
Leslie, C. P.	Seymour, H.
Lethbridge, sir T.	Shelley, sir J.
Lewis, W.	Shiffner, sir G.
Lindsay, hon. H.	Smith, S.
Lindsay, lord	Smith, A.
Lockhart, J. J.	Smith, T. A.
Long, rt. hon. sir C.	Smith, C.
Lowther, visc.	Smyth, R. (West-meath)
Lowther, sir J.
Lowther, J.	Somerset, lord E.
Lowther, hon. C.	Sotheron, F. F.
Lushington, S.	Stanton, R.
Luttrell, J. F.	Stopford, visc.
Lygon, hon. col.	Strathaven, lord
Macnaghten, A.	Strutt, J. H.
Magennis, R.	Stuart, W. (Armagh)
Manners, lord C.	Stuart, sir J.
Manners, lord R.	Sumner, G. H.
Mansfield, J.	Taylor, G. W.
Maxwell, J. W.	Thompson, J. L.
Maxwell, B.	Thompson, W.
Miles, P.	Thynne, lord J.
Mills, C.	Tindall, H. C.
Mitchell, J.	Townshend, lord C.
Monteith, H.	Townshend, lord J.
Montgomery, J.	Townshend, hon. H. G.
Morland, sir C.
Morgan, G. G.	Trant, W. H.
Mundy, F.	Tremayne, J. H.
Mundy, G.	Trench, F. W.
Musgrave, sir P.	Tudway, J. P.
Newman, R. W.	Tulk, C. A.
Nightingal, sir M.	Ure, M.
Noel, sir G.	Uxbridge, earl of
Ommanney, sir F. M.	Vivian, sir H.
O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.	Vivian, sir R.
Onslow, A.	Walker, J.
Palk, sir L.	Wallace, right hon. T.

Warren, C.	Wetherall, sir G.
Webbe, E.	PAIRED OFF.
Wells, J.	Beresford, lord
Westenra, hon. H. R.	Bouverie, hon. B.
Whitmore, T.	Brydges, sir J.
Wigram, W.	Collett, E.
Wilbraham, E. B.	Crawley, S.
Wildman, J. B.	Curtis, sir W.
William, R.	Dowdeswell, J. E.
Willoughby, H.	Farquhar, J.
Wilson, T.	Hope, sir W.
Wilson, W. C.	Hudson, H.
Wodehouse, hon. J.	Innes, J.
Worcester, marquis	Manning, W.
Wyndham, W.	Martin, sir T. B.
Wynn, O.	Nicholl, rt. hon. sir J.
Yorke, sir J.	Paget, hon. B.
TELLERS.	St. Paul, sir H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Walpole, hon. J.

The House having accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, sir Francis Burdett moved the following Resolutions:

1. 1. "That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights therein mentioned.
2. 2. "That such parts of the said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may, therefore, safely be repealed.
3. 3. "That it appears to this committee, that in several acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, a certain oath, commonly called the oath of supremacy, is required to be taken as a qualification for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights therein mentioned.
4. 4. "That in the said oath and declaration is contained, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms.
5. 5. "That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, with respect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word 'spiritual' being in- 845 serted therein; and that for the purpose of removing such scruples, it would be expedient to declare the sense in which the said word is used, according to the injunction issued by queen Elizabeth, in the first year of her reign, and recognized in the act of the fifth of her reign, and which, as explained by the thirty-seventh of the articles of the church of England, imports merely, that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doer.
6. 6. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that such act of repeal and explanation should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant succession to the Crown, according to the act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, and for maintaining inviolate the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and dicipline thereof: and the Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline thereof; as the same are by law respectively established."

The Resolutions being agreed to, were reported; and a bill was ordered to be brought in thereupon by sir F. Burdett, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Tierney, Mr. C. Grant, sir J. Mackintosh, Mr. Secretary Canning, viscount Palmerston, Mr. Wynn, sir J. Newport, sir H. Parnell, Mr. Abercromby, and Mr. Spring Rice.