ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.

HL Deb 13 May 1805 vol 4 cc743-843

The order of the day having been read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Roman Catholic Petition,

The Earl of Suffolk

rose.—The emancipation of the Irish; Roman catholics was a measure, his lordship was of opinion, which must sooner or later be adopted, and therefore he wished their lordships at once generously and nobly to grant the prayer of the petition. Objections had been made to this as a proper time for such a measure; but no time, his lordship contended, could be more proper than the present. It was indeed a critical time, a time when they knew not how soon the enemy might land on their shores; but it was only for that reason the more necessary that the whole strength and population of the empire should be united, and no means could be more effectual for this purpose, he thought, than to conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland by a just, a wise, and moderate policy. The concessions that had already been made them, it had been argued, had only been productive of evil, and had led to the present high de- mands; but those concessions, on the contrary, he contended, had done good, and from the present, therefore, as necessary to complete the good effects of the former, the greatest advantages might be expected. His lordship then made some animadversions on the speech of the noble secretary (lord Hawkesbury) on the former night, and vindicated the conduct of the noble baron who was the author of the motion. If ever he had heard a great constitutional question argued with that cool and temperate moderation which became its importance, it was on that occasion by the noble baron. If the noble lord had said that such a measure as that prayed for in the petition would ultimately prevail, he could only mean that reason and an enlightened policy, would ultimately triumph over those little prejudices that were the greatest obstacles to the measure; a sentiment he thought which could not easily have been misunderstood, and in which he readily and sincerely concurred. The noble early farther contended that they owed the Roman catholics of Ireland the prayer of their petition, as a matter of justice as well as of expediency, because it had been held out to them as an inducement to their union with this country, and the expectation of which had contributed in so great a degree, to the accomplishment of that object, that it was probable that, without such expectation, that event would not have taken place. a noble lord (lord Hawkesbury) had laid it down as a principle that this petition ought never to be granted. He thought this very imprudent declaration, as well as highly degrading to the Irish character, particularly as our army and navy were so much indebted to Ireland for their supply. The noble lord had declared, that he had no confidence in their principles, and was afraid of the bad consequences that would ensue from the hostility of their religion to the civil rights of the country. But he wished noble lords to recollect, that many of out best rights had originated under Roman catholics, and when that religion was the religion of the country; and as a proof that difference in religion was not so incompatible with the duties and relations of citizens, he could not help reminding their lordships, that even in Roman catholic countries, protestants were sometimes employed by the government and permitted to hold offices of trust. The ablest minister and the greatest soldier that France could ever boast of were both protestants, and no bad consequences were found to ensue from that circumstance. He denied that the late rebel- lions were at all connected with the grounds of the present petition, and urged the advantages that might be derived from making magistrates of the country gentlemen, whose religion being the same as that of the people would give them greater weight and influence, and reconcile the people to their authority. The noble earl concluded by urging the propriety of receiving the Roman Catholics to a participation of the rights of the constitution, as a measure of both justice and expediency

The Earl of Oxford

supported the petition, and disclaimed all connection with a certain person who had been alluded to on the former night (Arthur O'Connor) since he had heard that he had joined the enemy.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire ,

perceiving a noble and learned friend near him. (lord Carleton) anxious to deliver his sentiments upon the important subject then under their lordships' consideration, was extremely unwilling to prevent the house from hearing the noble lord; but having resided for so many years in Ireland, having during a considerable portion of that time held a high official situation in that country, and having been the individual who introduced the bill of 1793, he was absolutely precluded from giving a silent vote. In offering his sentiments against the motion of the noble baron, however they might militate against the prayer of the petition, he was under no apprehension of being charged with prejudice or intolerance; to such an imputation he would answer by a reference to the bill of 1793, and it would be unnecessary for him to desire a more effectual justification than would be found in the provisions of that bill. It had given to the Roman Catholics of Ireland the full enjoyment of a perfect equality of civil rights with the rest of his majesty's subjects, with an exemption from certain political obligations which are with-held from all except the protestant dissenters of that country. Under the impression of every thing that had been already conceded, he was never more surprised, than that the noble baron, whilst deprecating inflammatory language in others, should himself resort to so extraordinary a position, as that the refusing to grant what the Roman catholics had sought for in their petition could be justified only upon the principle of their being deemed traitors, and unfit even to be permitted to take the oath of allegiance, and if that were the, case, severe and oppressive as the penal code had been, it ought to be re-enacted,—Such an argument from the lips of the noble baron could not fail to ex- cite considerable astonishment; and more especially with those who are disposed to resist the repeal of the test and corporation acts in Great Britain; and were it just, it must equally apply. What effect such a declaration might have upon the persons affected by those acts, he would not undertake to anticipate; but he did not think it Consistent with that moderation which the noble lord had so strongly recommended. So far from agreeing with the noble lord, the earl of Buckinghamshire was decidedly of opinion, that considering the tenets of the Roman catholics, the indulgencies they had received from their sovereign and the legislature could only have been the result of a confidence in their loyalty; but so long as they acknowledged a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the united kingdom, it was impossible to entrust them with any large share of political power. Doctor Troy, a man of ability and unexceptionable character, in his pastoral letter of 1793, expresses himself in the following manner:— "That catholics are obliged to believe as an article of their faith, that the pope or bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, is the supreme visible head of the church on earth, and the centre of catholic unity, with a primacy by divine right, of real authority and jurisdiction in the universal church, and that all catholics owe him canonical respect and obedience on that account; and that the supremacy of the pope is one of those points on which all catholics are agreed as an immutable article of their faith." His lordship then put it to the house, whether persons professing such a doctrine could safely be admitted to the higher offices of state or to seats in parliament. His lordship then proceeded to State that the noble baron having appealed to those peers who had held official situations in Ireland for their sentiments respecting the loyalty of the catholics, he should declare his without any reserve. He was satisfied it was better for him to answer distinctly to that appeal, lest an interpretation should be put upon his silence which was not conformable to his real opinion. He had no hesitation in saying, that the Conduct of the persons of high rank and the gentlemen of the old catholic uniformly ,been distinguished by loyalty to their sovereign and attachment to the government of the country; but he was concerned to be under the necessity of adding, that those persons had ceased to have any influence upon the catholic body: that the influence formerly exercised by them had been vested in other hands; in the hands of men of whom he was not disposed to speak with severity—but when he observed that they (he meant the catholic committee) employed as their agent Mr. Theobald Wolfe Tone, a man, not even of their own persuasion who was the founder of the society of united Irishmen, who was at the very time employed in an attempt to form a traiterous conspiracy for the purpose of effecting a separation between Cheat Britain and Ireland, and who was engaged in a correspondence With the French government with a view to the procuring their assistance to further his designs, the noble lord would not say, that connection with such a man was proof of disloyalty, however obliged he might be to admit that it was calculated to excite suspicion. The noble lord then read, from the publication (subsequent to the bill of 1793) of the proceedings of the Roman catholic committee, the following resolution: "Resolved, that the, sum of fifteen hundred pounds, together With a gold medal, of the value of thirty guineas, bearing a suitable inscription, be presented to Theobald Wolfe Tone, esq. agent to the committee, as a testimony of his services and our gratitude." His lordship then adverted to what had fallen from the noble baron respecting the expectations the Catholics might have been induced to entertain at the time the union was under discussion. The noble baron had fairly admitted that no pledge was given, whatever hopes might have been encouraged from an assurance that the situation of the catholics would receive an impartial consideration in the parliament of the united kingdom. The noble lord said, as fir as the observation could have reference to his sentiments upon the subjects, having been one of the persons called upon to assist in preparing the articles, he must confirm the declaration of the noble baron, that no pledge had been given; but to what extent the catholics might have been justified in indulging a sanguine expectation from a discussion of their situation in the imperial parliament he could not attempt to form a conjecture. He certainly could not charge himself with having contributed to their disappointment. In the house as well as out of it he had always stated the principle upon which he acceded to the union; a principle that must preclude him from acquiescing in their being admitted to seats in parliament. The noble baron had felt, that whilst Ireland remained a separate kingdom, the objections to catholics being eligible to seats in the house of commons were almost insuperable. The earl of Buckinghamshire was of opinion, though not exactly upon the same grounds, that the arguments against their sitting in the imperial parliament were equally forcible. In their (the catholics) situation, however, he could perceive a material difference. From being a majority in a separate, as they would become a minority in the united kingdom, their pride would naturally be less affected at the continuance of the disability. They might a more unbiassed consideration of their interests, when in their opinion local prejudices and partialities are less likely to prevail. The irritation that had been produced from a variety of circumstances, had a direct tendency to lead to such a conclusion, and his lordship saw no prospect of permanent tranquillity in Ireland, except by means of legislative union with Great Britain. With every disposition upon these grounds to give his support to that measure, his lordship expressly declared, that it would have met with his most strenuous opposition, if he could have anticipated the probability of an acquiescence in the prayer of the petition upon the table. It went, in the view he took of it, to the total annihilation of the protestant interest in Ireland. The system of representation, as settled at the union, had been so formed by the abolition of the boroughs, which had been catholics, and by throwing the whole weight of the representation into the counties, that the share the protestants would be able to retain, after the catholics sat in parliament, would be sufficient to leave them any influence in the country; and although the noble baron had treated such an idea with no small baron had treated such an idea with no small degree of contempt, saying, that nothing but bigotry could induce any man to entertain it, the noble earl was ready to acknowledge himself a bigot upon that subject; having the most perfect conviction, that if such a step was unfortunately taken as to admit the catholics into the house of commons, in the course of a very few years there would scarcely be a representative from Connaught, Leinster, and Munster, that was not of that persuasion. In those provinces the number of catholics to protestants are computed as six to one, and the freeholders in nearly the same proportion. The protestant landlords would depopulate their estates if they attempted to dispossess their catholic tenants; a measure at all events difficult to accomplish, as, from the practice in Ireland of letting the lands for lives, a great proportion of the peasantry have freehold tenures. His lordship then asked, if any person who was conversant in the character and disposition of the Irish Catholic, would venture to state, that in an electioneering contest between a protestant and a catholic, the influence of the protestant landlord would stand a competition with that of the popish Priest. The arguments deduced from the interests of the popish religion, the possible, or rather certain relief from the payment of tithes, with the variety of inducements which the ingenuity of the priest would suggest, could leave no doubt of his ultimate success. The mischief that must arise during the few years that such a contest would continue, the manner in which it would be conducted, and the animosities that it would create, his lordship said, might be better understood by a recital from the history of Ireland, than by any representation that he could make. He then quoted a passage from Leland, who, in describing the struggle for power which took place in Ireland in the time of James the First, says: "Agents were dispatched from the pale into every province to support the election of their friends, and to entreat the assistance of every man of quality or interest in this time of danger. The clergy preached the cause of religion, and denounced their excommunications on those who should presume to vote against the friends of the holy Roman church." Having endeavoured to convince the house, that, in three provinces out of the four, Connaught, Leinster, and Munster, the representation, with scarcely an exception, would be catholic, his lordship proceeded to state, that in Ulster the catholic, with the protestant dissenters, constituted a great proportion of the population; and said he would leave to the house seriously to consider the effects that such a weight of dissenting interest thrown into the house of commons might have with respect to the security of the church establishment. How soon the common object of all the dissenters might be accomplished, must depend upon circumstances; but that that object would be the destruction of the property of the church, no doubt could be entertained. His lordship then adverted to the evidence of Doctor Macnevin, a catholic and a rebel, in his examination before the committee of the Irish house of commons, in 1798.—Q, "Have you seen a resolution of the Leinster provincial committee of the 19th February, 1798. viz. that they would not be diverted from their purpose by any thing which could be done in parliament, as nothing short of the total emancipation of their country would satisfy them? A. "I have."—Q. "Do you think the mass of the people in the provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, care the value of this pen, or the dip ink which it contains, for parliamentary reform or catholic emancipation?" A. "I am sure they do not—but they wish much to be relieved from the payment of tithes." His lordship then said it was extraordinary to observe how much even the language of the protestant dissenter in England accorded with that of the catholic dissenter in Ireland. In the debate upon a motion for repealing the test and corporation acts in the year 1790, Mr. Burke, in the course of a most able speech opposing that motion, produced a letter written by Mr. Fletcher, a dissenter, stating, that the principles held at a meeting of dissenting ministers, at Bolton in Lancashire, were so violent that he would not stay; it described, that one member, on being asked what was their object, and whether they meant to seek for any thing more than the repeal of the language of our Saviour, "We know those things which we are not yet able to bear." And, on another member's saying, "give them a little light into what we intend," informed him, "that they did not care the nip of a straw for the repeal of the test and corporation acts, but that they designed to try for the abolition of the tithes and the liturgy."—The noble baron had adverted to the apprehensions entertained from the introduction of forty-five members of the presbyterian church into the house of commons, at the time of the union with Scotland, and had asked how far the predictions of that day had been realized. The noble earl admitted that they had not. But he would ask, whether the day might not yet come, if the prayer of the catholic petition was complied with, when the fate of the church of England might depend upon the Scotch representation—when a question might arise whether the revenues of the church should not be made applicable to the exigencies of the state? The sentiments of the Irish and England dissenter had been already expressed. The church of Scotland has been emphatically described "as being built upon a rock of poverty;" and when a great object was to be obtained, who would be responsible that the Scotch members might not be disposed to place the church of England upon a similar foundation? The noble lord considered the experiment too desperate to be hazarded, and trusted their lordships would not make it. The principles established at the revolution were the landmarks by which he would advise their lordships to direct their conduct. The blessings they had enjoyed, by the operation of those principles, had not been equalled by the people of any country that had ever existed. The British constitution had stood firm amidst those storms by which Europe bad been convulsed during the critical times in Which it had been their lordships destiny to live. The interests of the church were so interwoven with those of the state, that the one could not be shaken without endangering the other. No substantial reason for the proposed innovation had been adduced, whilst much cause for remaining as we were was felt by every man. The people of England, he said, looked to the decisions of their lordships with an anxious expectation, and he trusted they would not be disappointed. Feeling as he did, that the prayer of the petition might be fatal to the title of the house of Brunswick to the throne of the united kingdom, his lordship would not place the noble lord upon the woolsack in the distressing predicament of presenting a bill to his majesty for his assent, which, exclusive of other important considerations, was calculated to destroy the permanent interests of his family. His lordship would be no party to such a proposition. By leaving the petition upon the table for so many weeks, the noble baron who introduced it, had given that time for deliberation that was due to the importance of the subject. He was persuaded, it had been fully, impartially, and most seriously considered. The result, in his mind, was a determination to vote against going into the committee.

Lord Carleton

said, that the measure proposed would affect the whole empire, but more particularly Ireland; therefore, several of the observations which he meant to make would specially relate to the measure, as it might peculiarly affect that country. The main object of the petition is power. In his opinion the Roman catholics already have as much power as they ought to possess under a protestant government, and therefore he would oppose the petition.—The concessions in 1793, as to removing penalties, were wise, but, as to every thing beyond that, doubts might be entertained as to the wisdom of the measure. However, it is to be observed, that the parliament of Ireland only gave the right to possess inferior offices, but did not transfer the power of the state. The concessions already made to Roman catholics have extended their influence, increased their demands, and multiplied their discontents. Nothing hitherto conceded has given them content; what probability is there that any thing short of all will satisfy them? To guard against their being superior in power, care must be used to prevent them being equal. The petition claims every thing; refusing to commit it is: an answer to the claim of every thing. If there are minor concessions which might be safely granted, when the Roman catholics think fit to ask them distinctly as matters of favour, they may call for a distinct consideration. Catholics are not eo nomine excluded from holding any offices of the state, or from sitting in parliament. The obstacles which stand in their way are certain oaths, a declaration, and the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England, Which are to be taken by persons of every persuasion upon taking possession of office, and the same oaths and declaration to be taken on coming into parliament. Roman Catholics are less restrained in Ireland than here; there the Roman catholic oath qualifies for all offices civil and military, save a few, Which are specially excepted. Not so here; though the English Roman Catholic oath is more forcible than the Irish, and binds the Roman catholic to support the protestant succession, whilst the Irish does not. He agreed entirely with the noble lord Who immediately preceded him, in the well-merited eu[...]logium which he had pronounced on the character and conduct of the Roman catholic noblemen and gentry of Ireland; they were men of great integrity, honour, and loyalty, and Many, of them had fought very gallantly in quelling the rebellion of 1798. They had disclaimed the obnoxious doctrines contained in the decree of the fourth council of Lateran. That disavowal was consistent with Morality, social duty, and good Sense. He gave credit to their assertion, and he did not rest his opposition to the petition upon those objectionable tenets; Other tenets, which greatly influenced his opinion, were such as their religion bound them, as good catholics, to enforce. They were not such as reflected disgrace on the Roman catholics, though they might expose the constitution in church and state to some hazard. To tolerate is wise, to invest with the powers of the state, is the reverse. An exclusion from holding certain situations, deemed necessary to the safety of the state, neither stigmatizes nor enslaves. An equal diffusion of political power amongst all the different sectaries would, in their union against the established religion, denounce its downfall by the systematic, persevering, deliberate, though slow conjunct exertions of religious zeal, political ambition, and inordinate thirst for power. To bestow such power on Roman catholics, and to with-hold it from other sectaries not belonging to the established religion, would prefer Roman catholics to some whose motives of action were less objection able than those of Roman catholics. There is no foreign Ulterior supreme authority which the tenets of other religions bind their professors to maintain as superior to the established legal government of the empire; but if Roman catholics were in possession of political authority, their religions principles would bind them to use it in an endeavour to render the constitutional authority of the empire subservient to a foreign dominion. By Statutes passed in both countries in the reigns of Henry the Eighth and Elizabeth, in unison with various more ancient statutes, the king is declared supreme head of the Church, and the pope's authority, spiritual and temporal, is, to all legal effect, declared void. The king in virtue of this authority, convenes, prorogues, dissolves, regulates, and restrains synods or convocations, appoints or recommends to bishoprics and certain other ecclesiastical preferments, and has the dernier decision and appellant judicature over all ecclesiastical causes. That the authority of the state is not supreme in the countries subjected to its dominion is a most dangerous doctrine; any interposition in these dominions by a foreign judicature, governed by the laws of a foreign prince, laws tending to the subversion of the protestant religion, leads to ruinous consequences. Roman catholics acknowledge and pay obedience to a foreign, final, ecclesiastical authority, which can make laws upon spiritual subjects, and in violations of the laws of these countries, enforce them (without the aid of any temporal process) by ecclesiastical coercion and punishment. That foreign ecclesiastical authority is under the influence of the ruler of France. Before the French revolution, if any potentate had attempted to enslave the pope, all other Roman catholic countries would have interposed in his behalf; such interposition against France cannot at this day be expect- ed. The influence of the pope over Irish Roman catholics is now as great as it ever was, and the government of France guides its direction. The Roman catholic bishops oath is, "to defend the royalties of St. Peter, and to maintain, promote, and augment the authority of the see of Rome." It embraces the supremacy of the pope's jurisdiction over all spiritual matters, and over all temporal consequences flowing from that spiritual authority, and Calls for unceasing efforts to increase the power of the see of Rome. The Roman catholic bishops are bound to influence all persons who are under their superintendence to assist in fulfilling their oath. The Roman catholics hold that the state cannot bind them over to passive obedience in spiritual affairs, and that the sole power of making and interpreting laws respecting spiritual affairs is vested in the pope or their church, consequently (as they think) our laws cannot bind them, as to temporal matters inseparably connected with spiritual matters.—Their opinion on this subject derives additional weight from their considering Ireland as a fief derived under a grant from the pope. Dr. Troy's pastoral letter, published only thirteen years ago, strongly supports those positions. It distinctly asserts the pope's supremacy, even in matters of appeal, treats that of the king as an usurpation, and inveighs not very decorously against the legislature for having declared the king supreme head of the church. In Ireland, the Roman Catholics hold regular ecclesiastical courts, whose decisions are completely enforced by ecclesiastical influence, lay submission, and the all-powerful effect of excommunication, prohibiting all intercourse with persons excommunicated. Their spiritual jurisdiction draws to it temporal power and influence; it involves dispensations, licenses to marry, legitimacy, and the right of succession, as dependent on the validity of marriage; pre-contract, former Marriage; affinity and consanguinity, as incapacities; maintenance and liability to debts as consequences resulting from marriage, divorces as dissolving the bond of marriage, and the validity of wills of personal estate. In all those instances the exercise of spiritual authority, influences temporal rights. The extent of that influence is liable to be greatly increased, as Roman catholic ecclesiastics claim the right of deciding what are spiritual matters within their cognizance, and by an undue exercise of that claim of power, they may greatly extend their influence over temporal objects. Were Roman catholics possessed of temporal power, they must (acting conformably with the principles of their sect) use it to legally enforce Roman catholic ecclesiastical decrees; to give increased importance to their religion; to depress the protestant religion; to legalize a foreign supremacy, that of the pope, with all its claimed temporal consequences; to overthrow the constitutional supremacy of his majesty, with all its now enjoyed temporal consequences; and to obstruct the execution or procure the repeal of all our laws which relate to spiritual affairs, howsoever extensively affecting temporal rights. It would be highly dangerous to afford the means of futurely weakening in effect that supremacy of the king which is already openly denied in theory. A participation of equal power must take all pre-eminence from the established religion; in such case how is the king's supremacy to be maintained? What is to become of those acts of parliament which render it penal to deny that supremacy? Is every attempt to invade it to be rendered legal? Is a right to be conferred of denying it without control, and of obstructing it with impunity, and perhaps success? The ulterior views of the Irish Roman catholics may be strongly collected from the caution used in framing their oath, in the 13th and 14th of George III. cap. 35. in which they have adopted the expressions, "the succession of the crown in his majesty's family," declining to adopt the expressions which the English Roman catholics had no hesitation to make use of, in the 31st George III. cap. 32d, "which succession is limited to the princess Sophia, &c. and the heirs of our body, being protestants." In the one case the oath binds to the support of a protestant succession; in the other case it leaves an opening for the possibility of a Roman catholic succession. Can it be supposed that the Roman catholics, if possessed of considerable political influence and power, would not seek an exemption from contributing to the support of the protestant clergy; a church establishment for the Roman catholic clergy equally splendid, permanent and independent as that of the laws of the Roman catholic church, and of the competence of the authority of their courts? Thus tithes must be annihilated, or divided between the protestant and Roman catholic clergy, and the supremacy of the pope, or, in other words, of the ruler of France, must be completely established.—A number of acres almost equal to the full contents of Ireland was forfeited by the rebellions of Desmond and Tyrone in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I and by the rebellions In 1641 and 1689. Most of the protestant titles in that country are derived under those forfeitures,and grants from Elizabeth, and James; the Irish acts, of settlement and explanation in the reign of Charles II. and grants by William, and Mary, and the English statutes of their reign, and that of Queen Anne. Roman catholics still settle those estates as if they were in possession of them, to perpetuate, to those who are to succeed them, the idea that those estates had once belonged to their families, and might be again enjoyed by their descendants, if the claim to them were persevered in, thus to stimulate to keeping up the claim. In 1644, the confederate Irish Roman catholics demanded, "that there should be a revision of all forfeitures, &c. and grants from the crown from 1588, (eighty-six years) by a free parliament."—1689, a bill passed the parliament of Ireland to repeal the acts of settlement and explanation. Not many years ago maps of the Irish forfeited estates were industriously circulated on the continent, an indication that some important object was looked for attainment, and that it was desirable to conciliate foreign catholic potentates, with a view to the success of that project. Since the union it has been openly avowed, "that the revolution was an usurpation, the exclusion of Roman catholics from seats in parliament an excess of the power of the legislature, that the old Roman catholic proprietors never had offended, that the confiscations were unjust, and that the present possessors held by usurpation, and ought to be dispossessed. Why? Truly to produce unanimity, cordiality, and affection between the several sectaries in Ireland. Thus no length of time and enjoyment can sanctify title, no concurrence of circumstances can preclude re-assumption; attainders, acts of parliament, purchases, settlements, long possession, prescription are to be inefficient in giving title. The most solemn acts of the legislature, and of courts of justice, done whilst the transactions were recent, and the evidence existing, which have been, acted upon and enforced during successive ages; titles created under those acts, and infinitely branched out and diversified for most valuable considerations, are now, when the evidence is lost or mislaid, to be presumed unfounded, contrary to the light of history and to that con- viction which has, during ages, influenced the conduct of the parliaments of England and Ireland, and has guided the actions of the most eminent men of those countries, and of the mass of the people. For what purpose? To uproot every thing which has been deemed solemnly sanctified and settled; to unsettle the church, the influence and property of the protestants, and to elevate the members of the Roman catholic persuasion upon the depression of those of the protestant. It is supposed, by some persons, that the length of time Which has elapsed since making the grants of the forfeited estates, imposes insuperable difficulties in the way of Roman catholics establishing their titles; and that since the relaxing laws of 1778 and 1781, Roman catholics have acquired so much property under the titles to the forfeited estates, that, in maintaining their own rights, they must defend the titles to the forfeited estates, and that the Roman catholics have solemnly disclaimed all title to the forfeited estates. The repeal of the Irish acts of settlement and explanation, and of the English acts of William III. and Anne, relating to forfeited estates, would annul all the protestant titles founded on them, and expose the possessors to all the hazard, uncertainty, litigation, and expense which might be brought upon them by opposite claims, whether maintained by true or by false evidence. Dispossession and ruin would be the consequence to individuals; to the public, the result would be unsettling the property and power of the country. he estates of inheritance acquired by Roman catholics since the relaxing laws are as yet inconsiderable. The religious zeal of Roman catholics holding leases under the forfeited titles, would induce them to think that if the inheritances were restored to the families of the ancient proprietors, Roman catholic tenants, assuming the merit of having aided the restitution, might be Sure of having their leases confirmed by landlords of their own persuasion. Thus neither the inheritance nor the derivative interests would protect the protestant titles against the various them. The present laws, aided by a protestant government and protestant constitution, do protect them. Any other protection would be ineffectual. Of what avail would the disclaiming of Roman catholics be if they acquired power to enforce their claims, when they have already, since their supposed disclaimer, though not yet possessed of sufficient power to establish their de- mands, revived their claims to the forfeited estates? How have their stating specific objects, as exclusive of all others, in various transactions of the year 1792, prevented unqualified demands in 1794, and down to the present period? If the Roman catholics were to obtain restitution of the forfeited estates, the country would be ruined. If they failed as to that their main object, conciliation would not be the result of concession. This country never can, consistently with any principle of policy or common sense, give way to the claim of restitution. That is a great object looked at as the result of power. Separation then of Ireland from Great-Britain would, whilst any expectation was entertained of procuring restitution, be the only means of obtaining an object otherwise unattainable. That expectation must be repressed by a prompt and decided resistance, demonstrating the determination of the state to direct the whole of its force in opposition to the attempt. It has been said that "the measure, if adopted, would secure the country against future rebellions, conciliate the Roman catholics, and inseparably unite them and the protestants." To judge of this reasoning it is necessary to advert to the objects which the rebellion of 1798, and its off-shoot, that of 1803, looked at. And here, my lords, I shall briefly take a review of some leading facts, and of the motives which led to the rebellion of 1798, as they have been disclosed by those who best knew them, the leaders of that insurrection. In 1791 the society of united Irishmen was established; its objects were evidently rebellious; it aimed at the entire overthrow, not merely any imagined improvement, of the existing constitution. This is demonstrated by a letter from Tone directed to a person in Belfast, and containing the, resolutions which Were afterwards (with a small variation) adopted in the public declaration of the Dublin society of united Irishmen, upon the 9th November 1791; in that year and 1792 the foundation of the rebellion of 1798 was laid. In 1792 Tone published in favour of independence, and separation of Ireland from England. In the same year, Edward Byrne, an eminent Roman catholic priest, issued letters to the several parish priests of Ireland, directing that delegates should be elected by their several parishes to sit in a Roman catholic convention; his letters Stated, that "serving on juries and tine elective franchise were the objects to be discussed by the convention." The conven- tion accordingly assembled in that year; there never was any doubt that it sat as a Roman catholic convention, and it most certainly was the organ for expressing the then real objects of the Roman catholics. It resolved that "the objects of their pursuit were merely admission to the bar, county magistracies, serving on juries, and voting for members of parliament out of freeholds of 20l. per annum." The claims made by the convention extended, in the instances of admission to the bar and country magistracies, beyond the objects pointed out by Byrne's letters of summons; but neither his letter nor the resolution of the convention in any respect related to the avowed or real objects of the conspiracy at that time formed for the rebellion which took place in 1798; nor did they include any claim to the great offices of the state, or parliamentary representation. The equivocal expression of "catholic emancipation" was not adopted therein. Those could not have been real ingredients in the plan of insurrection then formed, nor where they in any respect consistent with the nature of that plan, which proposed not merely to alter the constitution, but to form an entirely new one. In 1792, Sweetman, with some other traitors, was a member of the convention; he took a distinguished lead in defending the defenders of that day; but such of the members of the convention as were loyal looked only to such objects as were within the reach of possible attainment, and such as were traitors had separation and independence, not catholic concessions, in contemplation. In the same year a petition from the inhabitants of Belfast to the house of commons of Ireland was preferred, praying a repeal of all the penal and restrictive statutes against Roman catholics; but it did not state that "the petitioners were Roman catholics." Afterwards, in the same year, a petition was presented from Roman catholics, praying "a removal of some of the civil incapacities under which they laboured, and a restoration to some share in the elective franchise." Before the convention broke up, it appointed a permanent committee. In 1793 petitions from the Roman catholics were presented to the house of commons of Ireland, referring generally to a variety of severe and oppressive laws inflicting disqualifications. In the same year more was granted by the parliament of Ireland than the Roman catholic resolutions of 1792 had claimed, and the liberality of parliament exceeded the full extent of those claims. In 1794 Tone traitorously corresponded With the government of France, and in the month of April in that year, the traiterous consultation in Newgate took place,an invasion of Ireland was then planned, and the reasons for it, and to induce the French to invade, were digested. Neither catholic representation,nor the capacity to fill the great offices of the state were objects alluded to, though Tone, who was one of the conspirators at that meeting, was an accredited agent of the Roman catholics: nor was the establishment of the pope's supremacy, though Dr, Troy's pastoral letter had been published before that time. In December 1794, an address to a nobleman who speedily afterwards was sworn in chief governor of Ireland was signed by several Roman catholics, and amongst others by Sweetman, M'Nevin, and M'Cormuck, desiring in substance the repeal of all laws which restrained Roman catholics from the possession of power; thus laying aside the limited claims contained in Byrne's letters of summons in the resolutions of the convention in 1792, and in the Roman catholic petition of the same year, and claiming equality in every respect with the protestants. In April 1795, the convention passed its resolution in favour of Tone: Lewins and M'Nevin were at that time members of it. The speeches in the convention (as communicated to the public) breathed separation of Ireland from Great Britain. At that period those rebels, who had taken the lead in the Convention, marked its proceedings as embracing real objects of the plan which had been formed for the destruction of the monarchy; however, this observation does not include the Roman catholics in general, nor indeed all of the delegates. Between June 1795 and January 1796 a traiterous correspondence was carried on between the society of united Irishmen and the executive directory of France, to procure an invasion of Ireland; and upon the 21st of December 1796 the invasion, was attempted by Hocho. On the 12th of May 1797 a report was made by the secret committee of the house of lords of Ireland, which states, that "parliamentary reform and Roman catholic emancipation Were held out by the united Irishmen as a pretence, and to seduce persons not apprised of their intentions." Upon the 23d of May 1798, the first rebellion broke out; neither the proclamation which had been prepared by the Sheares's to be issued upon the breaking out of the rebellion, nor the other transactions preceding or accompany- ing that event, point out the want of Roman catholic representation, or of the right to hold every species of office as grievances which the rebellion was calculated to redress. Thus at the first formation of the plan of rebellion, the Roman catholics had not made the claims which are now brought forward, and at the final execution of that plan the Roman catholic claims were not in the contemplation of the conspirators; the intermediate steps they were used merely as pretexts. In the month of August 1798, a report of the committee of the house of lords of Ireland stated, that M'Nevin on his examination said, "It was not intended to have any religious establishment, and that the mass of the people in Leinster Munster, and Connaught did not care for reform or catholic representation." Those were the principal Roman catholic provinces. On the 23d of July 1803 the last rebellion broke out; it was formed on the same principles as the former rebellion.—Adverting to the before-mentioned chain of facts, and to the several reports made by the committees of the houses of parliament in Ireland in 1793, 1797, and 1798, it appears, that the real objects which the two rebellions sought to attain, were the annihilation of tithes; the lowering of rents; an equal distribution of property; the levelling all the ranks and orders of the state; separation of Ireland from England; the destruction of the monarchy; and the establishment of a democracy on the principles of the late French republic. The Roman catholic claims were not objects sought by the two rebellions: had those claims been formerly ceded, they would not have prevented those rebellions; were they to be now conceded, every motive which led to those rebellions would still exist to conduce to further rebellion. Few of those who were embarked in these rebellions had any interest in establishing the Roman catholic claims. A pamphlet published by a late respectable Roman catholic nobleman suggested that the mass of the people could be little benefited by the adoption of such measure as that which is now proposed, they, being already capable of every thing which their situations could entitle them to, and that probably not more than ten on the part of Ireland could sit in the house of commons of the united empire, nor more than one in the house of peers, nor more than forty, or fifty be candidates for offices of rank, trust, or emolument. Thus the numbers to be gratified by an immediate gift are so few, that the conciliation to be attained must be equally circumscribed; there being few capacitated to be candidates, the with-holding the objects claimed is felt by few; there are few to complain of injury, few to acknowledge and be thankful for favours conferred. Hence a concession productive at this day of small conciliation of the Roman catholics, of great dissatisfaction on the part of the protestants, Might lay a foundation, when the political importance of the Roman catholic body became more considerable, for hazarding the safety of the state, and exposing it to the persevering efforts of unremitted zeal, guided by one common principle, and one allruling influence. It may be imagined by some, that though the mass of the Roman catholics have no interest in the objects claimed, it may be proper to concede them, in order to win over those persons of rank and property who have the power of influencing the great body of the Roman catholics. The lower orders have been influenced, not by the respectable and loyal members of the same religious persuasion (who have an interest in the claims now set pup), but by factious demagogues of various persuasions, who aimed at rebellion, not at reform, or catholic claims, and would have been equally active in disseminating rebellion, if any concession had been made short of annihilating the monarchy. It cannot he expected that the mass of the lower orders of the Roman catholics Should cease to be actuated by those interested motives which have heretofore influenced their conduct, because of a concession being made to some of the higher orders, of privileges not to be enjoyed by the mass of the people; in which they have no interest, and by which their conduct has not heretofore been guided. It has been argued, that the influence which the measure under consideration would confer, at present must be small, probably never can be great, and therefore there cannot be any danger; or if any, it must be remote. In the reign of James II both houses of parliament were protestant, yet the other branch of the legislature was succeeding against them both, in the establishment of popery. James II professed to intend for the Roman catholics "only an equality of privilege;" that equality would have occasioned the downfall of the protestant religion: it was therefore resisted. The resistance was ultimately successful; but the danger having approached too near, the success of the resistance was attended with difficulty and ha- zard. The fluctuation of property in a commercial country, and of the relative numbers of persons composing the several sects, connected with the known perseverance of the Roman catholic body, renders it unsafe to trust to their not being able futurely to do injury because at the present day they are unable, not being possessed at present of sufficient political weight and influence. Their unremitting zeal in pursuit of political influence and authority, their implicit submission on ruling and foreign power to the exclusion of the supreme authority of the state, their being all governed by one common principle, and firmly linked together by one general rule of action, render it not wise to intrust them with power upon a supposition that, because it might at the commencement be inconsiderable, it could not hereafter be rendered dangerously great. Sixty-four of the Irish members of the house of commons sit for counties, and many of the other thirty-six for open boroughs. The priests must have considerable weight in influencing the elections, as between protestant and Roman catholic candidates; and were Roman catholics eligible to parliament, probably at a period not very remote the representation on the part of Ireland would be completely Roman catholic. That body of men would enjoy a great part of the Irish patronage. Who can measure the influence of a body of men so constituted? who can foretel what they might effect by a junction at a critical moment with other bodies of men, standing in need of their assistance, and ready to make them a proportionate return of favour and support? To conciliation and unanimity there must be two parties—the Roman catholics, and all the protestants of the entire empire; and their mutual concurrence will scarcely be obtained by holding out to the Roman catholics the possibility that, by unremitting perseverance on their part, the laity may be restored to the forfeited lay property, their ecclesiastics to the church lands, the supremacy of the pope be established, and a Roman catholic ascendancy be substituted in the place of the protestant ascendancy, and by conveying to the protestants the idea that what so ever the Roman catholics gain, the protestants must lose. The number of Roman catholics is to be considered in relation to the whole empire. In ascertaining the class of persons in whom the power of the state is to be vested, property, rank, respectability, talent, knowledge, judgment, and congeniality of principles which those of the state, are more to be attended to than numbers. If numbers and physics force, unaccompanied by political Weight and influence, whilst they can be brought into action only in opposition to, and under the controul of the laws, and of the systematic authority of the state, are to excite apprehension, how much more serious cause of alarm would there be, if the same physical strength were aided by political Weight and influence, moulding and shaping the laws so as to give a free and uncontrouled course to such conjoined force? Let it be understood that political power to unsettle the state is unattainable, and the dangerous consequences of pursuing projects of innovation in violation of the law, and in opposition to the protestants of the empire, and all the honest and loyal men of the Roman catholic persuasion, will not be risked. The church and the state are necessarily connected, each giving support to the other. Roman catholics hostile to the one, cannot have the same attachment to the other as protestants have, whose tenets are not hostile to either. Notwithstanding that the monarch must not only be but must always have been protestant,were his advisers (upon whose judgment he is to act) to possess principles not congenial with those of the state, the constitution must gradually (and the pore dangerously, because perhaps imperceptibly) be impaired. In this country tests were adopted gradually, and in succession, with great and progressive caution—first as to corporation offices, then as to offices held under the state, then as to both houses of parliament, and then as to the throne, each successive regulation being adopted from conviction that it was a necessary addition to the then existing regulations. To annul all those regulations would be a Most hazardous experiment. Are Roman catholics to be admitted into the English share of representation? If not, upon what principle can they be excluded from thence, if not also excluded from the Irish Share? Are any other sectaries to be excluded, though they do not uphold a foreign dominion, and nevertheless Irish Roman catholics, who maintain the supreme jurisdiction of a foreign spiritual authority, to be admitted. In Roman catholic countries the general tenor of the laws is conformable to the Roman catholic religion. The power of the government is somewhat despotic; to support that there is a strict alliance between the church and state there can be no such alliance between a protestant government and a Roman ca- tholic clergy. Their notions as to the power of legislation are directly opposed to each other, and here the most efficient part of the legislature is popular, and elective; hence a way might be opened by admitting Roman catholics into parliament, and the great offices of the state, towards investing them with a dangerous influence. The possession of inferior offices gives some influence, but does not transfer the sovereignty of the state. It is true that Scotch presbyterians sit in parliament, but they take the same oaths, and sign the same declaration as protestants; they give the same tests of fidelity and allegiance, and submission to the supreme authority of the state, as protestants of the established church. As to the Scotch noblemen and gentlemen who in the course of the debate have been described as having held some of the great offices of the state with honour to themselves and benefit to the public, they were protestants, and had taken the usual oaths, signed the declaration, and received the sacrament according to the usage of the church of England. The adoption of the innovation now proposed would new-model the constitution, would violate the principles of the reformation, the revolution, the act of settlement of the crown, and the two acts of union; might substitute the pope's supremacy in the place of his majesty's, might discontent the loyal protestants, who have preserved and strengthened the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, without Contenting the Roman catholics; might unsettle the lay and ecclesiastical property of Ireland, might revive all those, mischiefs which the revolution was calculated to redress, and might destroy the present establishment in church and state

Lord Hutchinson.

—My lords: in the course of this debate, the catholic hierarchy, the priests, the Catholic religion, have been treated with the most unqualified censure, and with an asperity which I little expected to find in this enlightened assembly. It is one of the misfortunes of the catholic cause, that, composing as they do the great mass of the indigent population of Ireland, they are liable to every misrepresentation; the crime of the individual becomes the offence of the sect; the highest man in the community is made answerable for the conduct of the lowest: the religion itself is censured for the commission of those very acts which it reprobates and condemns—Many allusions have been made to the late Whatever that rebellion might have been, it certainly was not in its origin a catholic war; the principal leaders were not catholics, Whose object it was to depress one religion, in order to elevate another. On the contrary, they aimed to destroy. every thing that had been established, every thing that had been held sacred. They declared themselves to be alike enemies to the purity of the protestant worship, and to what they called the superstition of the catholic faith; their intention was to extinguish the monarchy, to put an end to the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, and in their room to erect a republic without a king, a priest, or a noble. The leaders of that rebellion were certainly too able not to have taken advantage of any circumstance which might have led in the most remote degree to weaken the government, and to render their cause triumphant. They consequently appealed to every bad passion, to every malignant feeling of the human heart. It is impossible that any contest can take place in Ireland, into which, the bitterness and poison of religious and sectarian prejudices will not enter: all men who entertain views inimical to the public peace, would naturally seize every occasion to increase those dissensions. It is to be lamented that these arts sometimes operate on the minds of the low, ignorant, and vulgar part of the catholic community; but One, cannot be at all surprised when we reflect that the protestant, though generally of a higher class, and much better educated and informed, was too often the dupe of these artifices, and suffered his mind to be biassed, his understanding controuled and his generous feelings warped by the existence of those very prejudices of Which he so loudly complained.—It is impossible to pass over in silence many things which have fallen from noble lords in this debate, without an endeavour to rescue the character of my country and my countrymen from aspersions which, had they been Uttered in any other place,I should not have hesitated to have called most unfounded calumnies. As long as there was a resident parliament in Ireland, it was the ignoble policy, the wretched practice of the representatives of the people to libel and malign their constituents. I am sorry to see such conduct imitated here. It was the strongest argument in favour of the union, that an appeal was made from. the passions and prejudices of a little country to the temper, the moderation, the cool and deliberate wisdom of a great nation. Miserable indeed is the situation of Ireland, hopeless and without relief are her circumstance, if this her found expectation, her last, her only remaining refuge is to be disappointed; if by so many sacrifices she has only obtained the dearly bought permission of displaying her miseries on a more extended theatre, where the errors, the misfortunes, the crimes of Ireland are to be re-echoed from one house of parliament to the other, in order to give them publicity to Europe, and that, in future, no foreigner should doubt how weak and vulnerable the empire is in that quarter! Do not, I beseech you, my lords, believe that the Irish are a nation of degraded beings, insensible to the blessings of law, order, and government. There is neither candour nor justice in estimating the character of a whole people by the standard of the conduct of a few atrocious criminals, by excesses committed in moments of heat, irritation, and civil war. By this mode of reasoning, the whole of the French nation would be made answerable for the infuriate and sanguinary spirit which governed and disgraced for years of the revolution the populace of Paris. The virtues of the inhabitants of Ireland, and they do possess virtues, belong at least to themselves, and are peculiarly their own: their faults are the faults of their situation, and of the calamities which have too often distracted and oppressed their unhappy country. The frequent changes of property during the seventeenth century, the persecuting code of the eighteenth, the marked line of separation between the old inhabitants and the new, have established distinctions which nor time, nor circumstances, nor christian charity, nor political necessity have yet been able to remove. It appeared to be the wish of the legislature to create two distinct and separate nations, possessing separate and distinct interests. Unhappily they succeeded but too well—violence will beget violence—oppression will create resistance. When one part of the community enjoys a free constitution, and the other is in chains, the natural consequences must be, that the governors will acquire a spirit of domination incompatible with every degree of equal liberty; and the governed a spirit of licentiousness and resistance, little reconcileable to law and subordination. This has been the state of Ireland; it is not however the ordinance of the Almighty, but the policy of man. None of those libellers of their country will maintain that it was preordained that man in Ireland was to be indolent, ferocious and savage, and in England civilized and industrious. Seek for the effects ari- sing from human conduct, in human cause. Persecution may have been driven from the walls of parliament, but it has entered into the privacies of domestic life, poisoning the sources of social enjoyment, diffusing dissension and not union, discord and not charity, widening instead of closing the breach between the protestant who conceded with regret, and the catholic who consequently received without gratitude. The legislature appeared to have advanced in vain, the public mind was retrograde, liberality, was in the mouths of all, but persecution and rancour were in the hearts of many; the effects of the abominable code of popery laws, survived the code itself; the extent of mischief it had occasioned was not discovered till those laws had ceased in a great measure to exist. What now remains to be granted only insults the catholic without securing the protestant. How the state would be endangered because a catholic peer might sit in parliament, or a catholic gentleman enjoy any office or represent any county in which he had a large property, I am at a loss to imagine, particularly when the peerage who have the choice, the government who have the disposal of office, the property who have the influence in elections, would still continue protestant. The virtues of men, or the effects arising from their virtues, are transitory and perishable, why therefore should their follies and their, prejudices be immortal? Why should religious hatred last for ever? It is certainly a created and not a natural cause of difference. He who believes in transubstantiation and he who rejects it, may certainly think alike on other subjects, and be governed by motives equally pure and honourable as men, as citizens, as Christians. The protestant may rejoice in the superior purity of his religion, and lament the darkness which overshadows the mind of his catholic brother: but surely it is not necessary that matters of conscience or of speculative belief should interfere with the active conduct of either. Every relaxation of the penal code has been opposed by the same Arguments, which have been again and again answered and refuted. I beg pardon—truth and candour oblige me to confess that in the list of charges and accusations, the pretender has lately been omitted; but the power of the pope, whether he be the prisoner of the directory, or the slave of Buonaparté, whether he vegetate at Rome or be in chains at Paris, is still alike formidable and portentous. The protestant property is still in danger, though that property has been in their hands for five generations; the families of the original claimants are generally extinct, or resident in foreign countries and a considerable number of catholics have purchased and hold their property under the act of settlement and explanation.—A noble viscount has thought it right to assert, that registry of the forfeited property was in the possession of the families of the ancient proprietors. In all the heat and agitation of debate which has taken place in the Irish parliament on this subject, I never before heard the accusation seriously maintained. If such a record there be, I challenge the noble viscount to produce it—where is it kept? in what families does it exist? The noble viscount also made an implied panegyric on the penal code, when he asserted that during its existence in full force, Ireland enjoyed an uninterrupted state of tranquillity and peace. At this auspicious and vaunted period all the rights of Ireland were invaded, her commerce could hardly be said to exist, her principal manufacture was annihilated, her constitution was subverted, her population was reduced to twelve hundred thousand. This might be peace, but it was the repose of desolation, the tranquillity of a jail, undisturbed by any sounds but the rattling of chains. The protestant was a despot, the catholic was a slave; the protestant surrendered his liberty that he might enjoy his tyranny, the catholic abandoned his country to seek for bread, and found renown in every service of Europe.—I must complain of the want of candour, I must lament the infatuation which prevails on this delicate subject. I am sorry to see the belief of the catholics estimated, not by their own professions and declarations, but by the charges and accusations of their enemies, whom no denial will silence, no test will satisfy. The catholics of the nineteenth century are to be judged and doomed to perpetual exclusion for doctrines and opinions which they renounce, abjure, and abhor, but which Were formerly held in remote ages by, the bigoted zealots of popery before the dawn of reason, truth, or philosophy had purified religion, and broken through the clouds of superstition. The fate of those who profess the catholic religion in these kingdoms has been rather singular; in the last century, they were proscribed for holding opinions subversive of liberty, and for loving monarchy too much—in this they have been accused of loving it too little, and of changing their doctrines of high prerogative, passive, obedience, and divine, inde- feasible, hereditary right, for wild fantastic, mischievous notions of republican liberty and equality. These contradictory charges against the religion of the most numerous body of the Christians of Europe are neither wise, liberal, or founded. Catholicity has been the faith of some of the most illustrious nations, and the belief of many individuals who have done honour to the name of man. Notwithstanding this acknowledged truth which bigotry itself will not venture to deny, how often has it been insinuated that they cannot be good subjects to a protestant king, because they are not bound by oaths? This mischievous opinion has been sustained with vulgar and mischievous asperity. If it were true, why are the petitioners at your bar? Nothing but their regard for the sanctity of an oath, nothing but the restraints imposed upon them by conscience, obliges them to submit to the various disabilities of which they complain. I certainly despair of carrying this question now, but at the same time I am convinced, that it will hereafter be found absolutely necessary to comply with the prayer of the petitioners; for believe me there is discontent: danger does exist in Ireland, the amount or extent no man can tell. Suffer not therefore the majority of the inhabitants to remain longer under any disabilities; take away every pretence for disaffection, and try a system of conciliation and concession. Procrastination is the fool's resource: policy, state necessity, the situation of Ireland, the willing or unwilling submission of the continent of Europe to the power of France, all demand this measure. What must be done sooner or later had better be done now: what will assuredly be granted, had better be given with the best possible grace, I am sure it is necessary to repeal those laws in order to lay the basis of the future tranquillity of Ireland. After so many ages of wretchedness, confusion and blood, of degradation without, and smothered war within, a final settlement and peace is required; a real, solid, founded, substantial peace, not an empty, hollow, treacherous truce[...], a settlement which would give security at home, and respectability abroad, which would be the commencement of a new æra in Ireland, when every man might forget the prejudices of a sectarian, and recollect the duties of a citizen. All the power, all energy, all the exertion of a happy and united people might be brought to the assistance of your threatened empire. That which constitutes your present weakness, would become your future strength; where you are now vulnerable you would hereafter be invincible, Six centuries have elapsed since the English first appeared in Ireland. Whether that country was or was not conquered, I shall not stop to enquire; to be informed, it is not necessary to open the page of history. All the rugged shapeless features of conquest are too visible everywhere. A mile from a great town every shape and semblance of England vanishes. Religion, language, manners, habits, not only distinct, but opposite; the great charter of liberty suspended; the law inoperative party violence tearing asunder every Christian charity, every endearing connexion the protestant in his wrath seeking for his lately emancipated slave; and too many of the lower class of men, in their despair, willing to trample on their allegiance: such is the faint outline of a most disgusting picture, such the state of a country inhabited by a brave, active, intelligent race of men, blessed with some of the power, population, wealth, and strength, amidst the bitterness of religious acrimony, popular delusion, and lurking rebellion. No stronger proof can be given of the natural and inherent energies of a country which has still flourished and prospered, notwithstanding the miserable system which has been pursued, and the vicious administration of the government. Ireland is the only country in the world, where it was thought necessary to proscribe by law a great majority of the inhabitants, where the parliament legislated not for the people, but against the people. I voted for the union with a firm conviction, with an assured hope, that it would for[...]if the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, heal the wounds of a distracted country, and ensure the future adoption of the catholic body. I voted with that doubt, hesitation, and reluctance, which every man must experience, who, in the triumph of duties over affections, ventures to shock the feelings, the passions, the honest prejudices of his country. I know that I adopted a hazardous experiment. I know that I differed from some of the best and wisest men in Ireland. I am sure, at the time, it was my honest, genuine, unbiassed sentiment. Possibly I might have despaired too soon; oppressed by a sense of present evil, I fondly, perhaps vainly imagined, that nothing would tend so much to stifle jealousies, to allay the restless, ferocious, sanguinary spirit of intolerance, to subdue the fears or the loyal, and the hopes of the disaffected. I may have been mistaken; if such has been my misfortune, I have much to lament, and something to atone for; but the act is done I was one of those who surrendered for ever the legislative independence of my Country. During the discussion of the question, many persons of the best intentions, who had before opposed the claims of the catholics, declared that, after the adoption of that measure, they could see no objection to the repeal of every remaining disability. I therefore entertained a sanguine hope that tardy justice would at length have been rendered to this numerous and deserving body of men, and that the adoption of the catholic body would have consummated and confirmed the union. If, on the contrary, you are only corrupted by our example, and adopt the same prejudices which have so long agitated and distracted Ireland, the union will be no relief to her misfortunes: it may be an union by act of parliament, but it is not an union of interests and affections; it is a settlement which has given dissatisfaction to great bodies of men, without having hitherto afforded contentment to any. The noble lord concluded by reading several extracts from lord Redesdale's speech of the night before; he contradicted many of the assertions of that noble lord, and called upon the Irish peers to rise in their places and vindicate the Irish nation from aspersions highly injurious to their honour, and which tended to degrade that country from the rank of civilized nations.

Lord Redesdale

felt himself so peculiarly called upon, in consequence of some observations which had been made by the noble lord, that he trusted their lordships would indulge him with a hearing for a few moments. He was not induced by what had fallen from the noble lord to retract an assertion which he had made on the former evening of debate. He asserted, in confirmation of what he then stated, that, from the prejudices of the catholics in Ireland, it was extremely difficult to put protestant children out to service. (A cry of no! no!) He knew the fact, he said, from his official situation in Ireland, where being a trustee for several charitable institutions he knew that the greatest embarrassment arose from the extreme difficulty Which existed of putting out protestant children from those institutions to service. It was also equally true that the greatest prejudice existed in catholic families against protestant servants, and that every means were used to render their situation uncomfortable (A cry of no! no! from some noble lords, and of order! from others.) He was not, he said, to be driven from any of his assertions by any contradiction of that nature; he repeated that his assertions were correct, and referred in still further support of them to Mr. M'Kenna's pamphlet, an authority which he did not think would be disputed. On the former evening he had likewise referred to the catholic hierarchy of Ireland, and he now maintained that that hierarchy existed in defiance of the law of the land, the persons who now bald the dignities of that hierarchy being the successors of those whose offices the law had declared should be abolished.

The Earl of Ormond

—My lords; I trust I shall not be contradicted by any man who really knows any thing of Ireland, when I say the noble and learned lord has stated that which is not a fact, at least in the opinion of any man but himself; and there fore I cannot sit silent and hear the country to which I have the honour to belong, so foully traduced, without rising in my place, to contradict such unfounded aspersions upon the national character of Ireland. The noble lord has asserted, that protestants dare not live in the same families with catholic servants; and that the catholic servants, from their hatred to those of the protestant religion, combine against them, My lords, I know not what may be the state of the noble lord's household, I never was in his house, I never wish it, and I never will be in it; but, my lords, I do know. that in my own house, in the houses of the protestant gentlemen around it, intermixed and surrounded by Catholics, and in one of the most catholic counties in Ireland (Kilkenny) catholic and protestant servants live together like brothers. The noble lord has, stated, that in Dublin-a protestant servant cannot get employment in a protestant family, on account of the combination formed against him by catholic servants. In all my intercourse in Dublin, during a very long residence there, much longer indeed than that of the noble lord, I never once Beard any such thing. The only complaint I ever recollect to have heard on this point was, that protestant servants enough could not be had to supply protestant families who had a predilection for such servants—that class of the people in Ireland being by much the greater part catholic. From the tenor of the speech spoken by that noble and learned lord on a former night, and the weight with which every statement respecting the country where he presides in a situation so eminent, must fall under the sanction of his grave authority,I own I did expect this motion would have met, this night, the most viru- lent opposition from the right revered bench opposite to me. But, unlike the noble lord, nothing has fallen from that quarter but the most calm, decorous, and moderate arguments so truly characteristic of the tolerant spirit and charitable principles of that established religion over which they so worthily preside. But from the noble lord, instead of a most legal, liberal, enlightened, and argumentative speech, becoming the gravity of his character, what have we heard? A collection of old womens' stories, which I do verily believe not even the most prejudiced protestant in Ireland this day would accredit. I have been in Ireland the greater part of my life. I have repeatedly travelled through, and had intercourse with the protestant gentlemen from every quarter of it, and never, in the course of my life, did I hear such statements as those made by the noble lord; and not one of them which will, I am sure, be avouched by any independent man in this house. I hope when the noble and learned lord returns to that bench, on which he presides over the public justice of Ireland, he will divest himself of that violent antipathy towards one sect of the people, and that obvious partiality for another, which he has so conspicuously evinced in this house. My lords, I most cheerfully support the motion before you, convinced as I am of its sound policy, its wisdom, and its justice.

Lord Boringdon

said, he had no scruple in giving it as his opinion that the existence and full security of the established church was in no way involved in this measure, that whenever it was adopted there could be no possible ground for thinking of repealing any part of the act of settlement, or, as had been mentioned, the 5th article of the act of union; that he fully approved of the terms of the petition on the table; that he saw with satisfaction the reasonable and moderate principles entertained by those on whose part it had been presented; and that he had no doubt that in due time and at a fit opportunity their claims would have their proper weight with all who valued the principles the British constitution, and who in consequence wished that its blessings should be perpetuated and extended. He argued that though vulgar outcry and popular clamour should never influence the conduct of that house, yet it could not be maintained that their lordships, in their decisions, were to be deaf or insensible to what they be, lieved to be the general sentiment and opinion of the large body of the public. He believed that that sentiment was at present de- cidedly hostile to the measure; he did not rely merely upon the adverse petitions upon the table, but upon the notoriety of the fact he believed that if the motion was adopted, a degree of uneasiness and discontent would arise to which no one could be able to look without apprehension and anxiety as to the consequence. He did not, however, look to the continued duration of such sentiments, but spoke only as to their present existence. He objected further to the motion of the noble lord, as its object was single and separate: it went merely to take into consideration the subject matter of the petition, with the avowed view of granting the concessions in question. Those concessions ought at no time to be made without connecting other matters with them. A noble and learned Lord (Redesdale), who had just spoken in explanation, had stated that the Irish Roman catholic hierarchy existed contrary to the law: if that was the case, he inferred that the law not being enforced resulted from prudential considerations, and that it might possibly be found upon a general settlement that the catholics might also have concessions to make. How absurd therefore would it be in their lordships thus immediately and hastily to make these concessions, and thereby limit the means and increase the difficulties of a final arrangement and settlement at a future opportunity? He thought that the Irish Roman catholics publicly and ordinarily calling themselves by titles and appellations which by the law of the land belonged to others was very offensive to the law. Perhaps, in any attempt to come to an amicable settlement of existing differences, they might agree to discontinue or moderate such practice; perhaps. in such an arrangement they would consent to have their bishops nominated by his majesty, a measure in his mind eminently calculated to connect the catholic body with the government; and to give to each a common interest and a common feeling, and to remedy many existing evils. This, however, would be a concession on the part of the catholics, and, one perhaps which they might not be disposed to make, if we should thus in the first instance have inconsiderately granted all that they require us to concede to them. He doubted much whether the great body of the Irish Roman catholics had really wished this question now to have been brought on. Mr. M'Kenna, an Irish Roman catholic writer of much celebrity, whose opinions could not but have much weight with his brethren, unequivocally expressed in a recent publication his wish that the matter should have been entirely left to parliament. He had also intimated an idea that conscientious doubts and difficulties prevailed upon this subject in the mind of the first authority in the state; and had expressed himself with great sensibility upon that point. He would not pretend to say how far such doubts and difficulties might or might not be founded: but if such feeling and such sensibility could pervade the breasts of Irishmen (who were more distant from the seat of government) and catholics, they could not be strange to the minds of Englishmen and protestants; and if their lordships should experience them, they could not but afford an additional inducement for pausing in the present proceeding. Having always felt an ardent desire that this question should receive an impartial and a favourable discussion, he could not but lament what he felt to be its premature introduction. He feared that it might give a check to opinion, and betray individuals into an hasty expression of a hostile sentiment, to which at a future time, for the sake of consistency, they might think it necessary to adhere. It was a matter of satisfaction to him to think that he had been preceded nearly in the same line of opinion and conduct by two of his Majesty's ministers (Camden and Mulgrave).— He was aware that such a line of conduct might he liable to observation in debate, but he nevertheless flattered himself that it might not be unattended with advantage. He thought that it would be a matter of satisfaction to the respectable body from whom the petition came to know that they had friends on both sides of the division, and that the numbers who divided for the motion of the noble lord did not constitute the whole of their strength; but he hoped that knowledge would not lead them hastily and prematurely to reintroduce the subject; and that the dignified and temperate discussion which the question had received, and particularly the temper and moderation of the reverend bench, would operate as an inducement to such forbearance.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

stated that before their that lordships consented to resolve themselves into a committee for the purpose of considering in what manner they could best carry into execution the prayer of the petition, entitled the petition of the Roman catholics whose names were subscribed, it would surely be matter of prudence to enquire, whether the principle upon which the petition rested, was such as their lordships could with safety admit. If, in this enquiry, it Should appear, that under no possible modification could the principle and substance of the petition be conceded, without danger to the establishment in church and state, their lordships hardly be disposed to employ their time and talents in devising, the best possible means for the downfal of both. What then was the history, and what the substance of the petition? The archbishop could not help considering the petition as the consequence, and natural consequence, of a long series of concessions, obtained by the Roman catholics of Ireland, during the present reign: of which series, the subject matter of the petition, if granted, would assuredly not constitute the ultimate term. His grace begged to be distinctly understood as in no degree calling into question the wisdom of those concessions. Many of them, in his judgment, were absolutely necessary, most of them extremely reasonable, and perhaps all of them in policy expedient. The archbishop, adverting to them, wished only to discover the causes that had led to the petition in its present form. The Roman catholics had obtained all that belonged to toleration; and it was not to be wondered at, that, they should desire, at least, the acquisition of power.—After the 18th of his majesty, which removed from the Roman catholics the restraints that affected the grant and acceptance of leases, and provided against the consequences of the conformity of the son with the established church, so far as those consequences concerned the estates of the Roman catholic parent; blotting for ever from the Irish statute books, that corrupt and unhallowed motive of conversion: after the 22d of his majesty, which enabled the Roman catholic, on taking the oath of allegiance, to purchase and dispose of lands in like manner as his majesty's protestant subjects; and on the same terms, freed the ecclesiastic of that persuasion from the pains, and penalties of former acts: after the statute of the same year, authorising Roman catholics to teach schools, and giving new facilities to the guardianship of Roman catholic children: after the 32d of his majesty, which removed disqualifications from lawyers and attornies of that persuasion, sanctioned the intermarriages of protestants with Roman catholics, and repealed laws that prohibited foreign, and embarrassed domestic education: after the 33d of his majesty, which was said to have left the Roman catholic nothing to ask (and well might the assertion be credited); after the 33d of his majesty, which swept from the Irish statute book almost all the disqualifications of that description of his majesty's subjects, modelled the oath of allegiance to the taste and scruples of the Roman catholics put down the oath of abjuration, the declaration, the sacramental test, and enabled the Roman catholics to vote at elections, to hold commissions of the peace, to execute offices civil and military, and to enjoy all manner of places of trust and emolument, except such as relate to the established church, and such as are expressly specified in the body of the act: after this long string of statutes, each of which, in its turn, was supposed to comprehend and redress all that was of grievance among them, followed, and in his grace's view of the question naturally followed, the petition which was then on their lordships' table. It was for their lordships to determine, in their characters of statesmen and legislators, to what extent these concessions could with safety be carried; but it was idle to complain of the eagerness with which they were pursued.—The substance of the petition was compressed, for their lordships' use and convenience, into one short, but pregnant sentence: "an equal participation on equal terms of the full benefits of the British laws and constitution." If the archbishop had been at liberty to understand the sentence according to the ordinary acceptation of the words, he might have answered that such participation was already possessed: but the framers of the petition, who were doubtless the best commentators of their own Work, would not suffer him so to interpret them. Equal participation on equal terms, in their language, signified, admission to places of power and trust, without giving that security for the due discharge of them, which was demanded and given of their lordships, And every other subject of the realm. The object of the petition, couched in very decent and moderate terms, was, nevertheless, of great size and importance. It was no less than a request on the part of the Roman catholic, to legislate for a protestant country; to dispense the laws, to command the armies and navies, and to take share in the executive councils of a protestant kingdom: a request that struck at the principles of the revolution, and by plain, broad, and inevitable consequence called into question the justice and policy of the act of settlement. Such, in the archbishop's view of it, was the history, and such the substance, of the petition on their lordships' table.—The noble baron who, on a former might, moved the question, and who never rose in that house without making deep impression upon it; the effect of great talents, profound information, and singular perspicuity; had endeavoured to connect and implicate the substance of the petition with the general principles of toleration.—The archbishop insisted that he was as sincerely attached to the genuine principles of toleration as any one of their lordships. He considered it as the brightest ornament and fairest grace of that reformed church which is established in this kingdom: but that he could not prevail upon himself to confound toleration with equality, much less with power and eventual superiority. It was not a figure of rhetoric, but a plain fact, resting on historical evidence, that toleration is a virtue that grows naturally out of a sense of security, and cannot exist for a moment, where danger is apprehended. If their lordships should determine to destroy those fences which the wisdom and experience of their ancestors had, with so much deliberation and care, erected around the established church, they would do unintentionally, without doubt, but in the archbishop's judgment effectually, all that was in their power to excite and provoke that bad spirit of animosity and religious intolerance that marked and disgraced the worst pages of their history subsequent to the reformation. On these grounds the archbishop felt it his duty to resist the motion of going into a committee to consider the substance of the petition.

The Earl of Albemarle.

—My lords, it is not my purpose to go any great length into argument upon the question before you. I rise principally with a view to offer some observations in answer to a noble and learned lord who holds a high situation in Ireland, and whose speech in this debate, I own, creates in my mind no small share of astonishment. It has been well observed by other noble lords, that whatever comes from his elevated authority on a subject wherein it ought to be presumed, at least, he is well informed, must have much weight in this house. Looking to his grave character, and that liberality of sentiment which I expected would have raised his mind far above the vulgar prejudices and idle tales that have filled narrow minds upon this topic, I hoped from him, that whatever might be his sentiments upon the motion before you, they would at least have been delivered with that calmness, moderation, and sound argument, that one would expect to characterise the expanded mind, extensive knowledge, just discernment, and strict impartiality benefiting his high judicial situation, in a coun- try where he forms so important a member of the government, and presides over the administration of justice. But, my lords, how great was my astonishment to find the noble lord, not only opposing the motion with a degree of heat and acrimony little becoming his gravity, but conjuring up the most abominable arguments to support his opposition. Where the noble and learned lord has found his authority for such arguments, and so totally opposite to those sentiments by which lie has heretofore been actuated, I am at a loss to account. Upon a former occasion, that noble lord manifested the most liberal zeal in favour of the catholics of this country, and used such exertions to obtain a relaxation of the penal laws, in their favour, as to procure for himself the warmest thanks of those whose cause he has espoused. But such seems the strange bias, I will not call it the prejudice, of his mind against the catholics of another country, that, in order to mark still stronger his dispraise towards those of Ireland, he is lavish in his encomiums upon those of England, and tells us, that the only distinctive characteristics between the protestants and catholics of his acquaintance or neighbourhood in this country, was, that the latter were always the most exemplary, and best conducted men in the parish where they lived. But what is the noble and learned lord's chief accusation against the catholics of Ireland? Why, that they have bishops, by whose guidance their conduct is influenced; and that those bishops have gone the length of calling the right reverend prelate of Armagh, plain Dr. Stuart. But though the noble and learned lord arraigns with so, much stress the contumacy of this circumstance, I hardly think the right reverend prelate himself would lay so much stress upon it, or consider it as any infraction of his archiepiscopal rank or diocesan authority. The noble and learned lord has said, that no protestant dares appear in certain parts of Ireland. This, I am afraid, was too much the case in some parts of that country during the furor of the late rebellion. I have heard much the same thing stated by another gentleman; but he said, it was no matter of what religion a man was,if he was but known to the rebels to be a loyal Man; for that was the criterion upon which their fury was directed, against men of all sects. This, however, is no argument against the catholics as such, but merely a proof of the barbarism of the lower orders, which I lament, and only blame the government which has presided in the country, not having taken more pains to educate and civilize them. The noble lord next goes to domestic affairs; and he complains of religious antipathies borne by catholic to protestant servants. Some remedy we are told is necessary; but what does the noble lord propose? Not to re-enact the penal laws; not to accede to the petition; but to abolish the catholic hierarchy! and this is the remedy which the noble and learned lord supposes would strike at the root of the evil. I confess, my lords, the expedient does not carry the same weight in my estimation. But those things, which to the minds of other men appear insurmountable difficulties, to the enlightened understanding, and profound discernment of the noble lord, are no difficulties at all. Three hundred years have elapsed since the reformation, which, aided by all the rigours of the penal code, has yet been so unsuccessful in Ireland, that still above three-fourths of the population continues catholic. The Irish papists, it seems, according to the noble lord, do not understand English; but, from the nature of their education, they are better acquainted with Latin; therefore, says the noble lord, you have nothing to do but translate the bible and church liturgy into Irish, and preach the reformed religion in that language, as has been done in Wales, and you at once convert the whole country into protestants. Here again, I own, that I much doubt the success of the noble lord's project; for, though you might find an Irish congregation to understand, I fancy you would find it rather difficult to find protestant clergymen to preach or pray in that tongue. But it is said, if you grant this measure to the catholics, you will have the presbyterians and all the different sects of dissenters claiming similar indulgence. My lords, if it be just and politic to grant the claims of the catholics, I cannot see why you should refuse, them, because others may claim something else afterwards. If the catholics are quiet, it is said, give them nothing, they do not ask for any thing; and if they do ask, it is said, give them nothing, for they are turbulent. It is always too soon or too late to hearken to their petitions. The periods of peace or war are equally unpropitious to their hopes. Some noble lords emphatically resist this petition because it is brought forward at this time; who tell us, in the same breath, that they think it proper at no time, and will resist it at any But, my lords, own I am utterly at a loss for arguments to meet such contradictory objections as these. But then comes the grand objection Of all:—Not satisfied with the loyal conduct and peaceful demeanour of the catholic body in Ireland, you still question their sincerity. You propose to them test after test, and oath after oath, to prove their loyaly and attachment to the state; and after they have taken those tests, and given the most solemn assurances you could demand, it is then said, they are not to be believed upon their oaths, as it is a fundamental article of their religion, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; and that the pope may absolve them from allegiance to a protestant king. Now, my lords, if this were really the case, how can we account for the reluctance of the catholics to take the only oath that stands between them and all they wish? Is it fair to admit such a charge against them from their enemies, which they have repeatedly, and in the most solemn manner disavowed and abjured? But, my lords, I will refer to better authority than the assertions of their enemies; namely, to the authority of the most eminent catholic universities in Europe, for their opinions upon those points, obtained at the special instance of a right honourable gentleman at the head of his majesty's councils in the year 1789. I speak of the universities of the Sorbonne, Louvain, Doway, Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca; all of whom solemnly deny such doctrines, and complain of nothing more bitterly than the calumnies of their opponents upon this head. My lords, the question propounded for the answers of those several universities, were three, which I shall read to your lordships:—Has the pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individuals of the church of Rome, any civil or political authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? Can the pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any Individuals of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? Is there any principle in the catholic faith by which catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions of a public or private nature?—My lords, these several queries have been answered by those several universities at considerable length, and decidedly its the negative—The faculty of divinity at Louvain answer, that they are struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body, by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives." The first and second queries they answer unanimously in the negative; and they do not feel it incumbent on them to enter upon the proofs of the opinions which they hold, supported by the Holy Scriptures and the most eminent writers of their religion, ancient and modern, against the doctrines of Bellarmine, Du Perron, and many others, which they deeply lament, were favourably heard by the court of Rome in the dark ages, and even found its way into the councils of kings, to the production of infinite detriment to the church and republic of christianity, and the deluging of Europe with blood; they totally and utterly deny that any such power whatever exists in the catholic church, or its members, individually or collectively, pope, cardinal, council, or general assembly, to deprive any sovereign power of its temporal right, possession, government, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, or subject it to any restraints or modifications; and that this opinion they hold, as founded in the doctrine of truth, of the apostles, and of the church,delivered down from the fathers and prelates; and though defaced and obscured by the filth heaped upon it in the middle ages, yet not obliterated. They state that this opinion is not peculiar to themselves, but that there is no society or learned body, nor any one learned man in the whole catholic world, who is not ready to subscribe to it with both hands: and, with respect to the third point, the faculty, after professing equal astonishment that such a question should be propounded, do most positively and unequivocally answer, that there is not and that there never has been, amongst the catholics, or in the doctrines of the church of Rome, any law, principle, or tenet which makes it lawful for catholics to break their faith with heretics, or others of a different persuasion from themselves in matters of religion, either in public or private concerns; and they quote the authority of an illustrious member of their faculty two centuries ago, that such a doctrine is most impious and pestilential, ascribed to the catholics by those men who, rather than peace should be made with them wished to throw every thing into confusion, and thus no harmony, no articles of peace, of equity, or honesty might be received by persons differing from them in religious matters.—To the same questions the answers of all the other five universities I have named, are, in effect, precisely the same; all solemnly and utterly denying and abjuring such abominable tenets. Considering, therefore, the authority of those universities, as to what are or are not the tenets and doctrines of their own religion, infinitely better than of those who ignorantly assert the contrary, unsupported by any authentic proof, I own I cannot feel with those who are for rejecting the claims of the catholics to those eligibilities which, it is even alleged, can gain them nothing. In this advanced stage of the Christian religion and of social civilization, I hold it to be highly essential to the happiness, the security, and the prosperity of this united empire, to do away all differences between his majesty's subjects, founded on distinctions in religion; and, notwithstanding what has fallen from the right reverend prelate who spoke last, and to whose authority I certainly feel disposed to pay every respect, yet I cannot feel with him that there is any danger to the protestant establishment from the vote I shall this night give, in favour of the motion for going into the committee.

The Lord Chancellor

rose to discuss the subject with temperance and moderation. The noble lord who introduced the subject, had said it was one highly fit to be entertained. If it was so fit to be entertained upon constitutional principles, he sincerely prayed God that it might be entertained; but if its tendency, as had been ably argued, was to subvert those blessings under that constitution, which not only the protestants of this country, but every other class of his Majesty's subjects in the country enjoy, both civil and religious, he hoped it would not be entertained. To say the measure never shall pass, would be a language not fit for any man to use who was fit to have a seat in that house. But at present, and in his view of the subject, it was a question inconsistent with the principles of the constitution which had been introduced into this country upon protestant principles; and, therefore, feeling as he did, that it is a question opposed to what he conceived to be the true principles of that constitution, and the law as it stands, he should feel that he was not doing his duty of he did not oppose it; and in so doing, he conceived himself acting consistently with that zeal and sense of duty which he hoped would actuate the majority of their lordships, to transmit to out posterity that constitution in as much purity as we had received it from our ancestors. It had been said that the petition was couched in respectful language. He would admit it was. But the question was not, whether the language of the petition was respectful to the house? but, whether it was wise, just, or expedient to comply with the prayer of that petition? It was said also, that the petition was on behalf of four millions of his Majesty's catholic subjects; but it was not the numbers who signed a petition, but the object of the petition itself, and the reasonableness and justice of complying with that object, that should rule the consideration of the house. The noble lord then, at very considerable length, and with this wonted ability, went over the whole ground of principle upon which the subject had been already debated, and contended that every thing which religious toleration demanded, had been already conceded to the catholics; and that they had now no political grievances whatever to complain of, that do not equally affect most other descriptions of his Majesty's protestant subjects. The constitution demands oaths, tests, and qualifications from those who are to be entrusted with parliamentary representation or official power: our liberties were sustained by a system of checks. The elective franchise was limited; the representative must prove the qualification of his required; the dissenter must conform to the oaths presented for the protestant. The eldest sons of the peers of Scotland could not be returned as representatives in parliament for that part of the Kingdom; and, in short, no prohibition now remained upon Roman catholics that did not attach equally upon many other descriptions of his Majesty's protestant subjects. Nay, the Roman catholics of Ireland had more license in the oath they were required to take than protestant dissenters in England; for the former were only required to swear allegiance to the king and his family; but in England the oath was to the king and his family—being protestants. The basis of the British constitution was not founded upon the principle of equal rights to all men indiscriminately; but to all men conforming and complying with the tests which the constitution demanded for its security. The noble and learned lord argued at much length the danger that must arise to the act of settlement and the bill of rights, if a protestant king in this country were to have a catholic cabinet; and he quoted the expressions of the celebrated lord Sommers on the 11th and 12th of William and Mary, containing the coronation oath, that ought to be reverenced as the Magna Charta of the British constitution. The noble and learned lord alluded, in the course of his speech, to the observations made by lord Redesdale upon the contumacious conduct of the Irish catholic bishops, in not only assuming, contrary to law, the high titular dignities, but all the ecclesiastical functions attached to that rank in the established church; and said it would have belonged to the character and firmness of his noble and learned friend the moment he discovered those men assuming the titular dignities of the established episcopacy, or discharging their functions in ecclesiastical polity, in open rebellion against the laws, to have directly conveyed a formal complaint to his Majesty, and to have commenced legal proceedings against them.

The Duke of Norfolk.—My lords, not withstanding what has been held out to the catholics of Ireland at the period of the union, to grant, as a condition of that measure, the final emancipation their petition now claims, I have had very strong grounds to rely that at least such an understanding was forcibly entertained; and I am therefore for going into the committee, if it were only to investigate the terms upon which the union was negotiated, in order to discover the truth. The noble person, under whose administration that measure was negotiated (Marquis Cornwallis) has rendered many signal and important services to the British empire; and none more important than the acquisition of that measure. I have been very credibly informed, that under that administration, assurances were held out to the catholics of Ireland, from the highest ceded, as a condition for their acquiescence to that measure for, otherwise, the union could not have been carried. The refusal now will be to them, therefore, a bitter disappointment: they will conceive themselves the dupes of false promise and deception, and their minds will feel all the irritation natural to men of any sensibility under such circumstances. A reverend prelate has talked of toleration in the mild and beneficent principle of the church of England. In the spirit of that principle, therefore, I wish your lordships to act on the present occasion, and not to persist in a principle of excluding British subjects from their natural and political rights, merely on account of their religious opinion. It is the church of Rome which withholds from its votaries the right of exercising their own judgment upon religious topics, and to dictate to men's minds the points of faith, from which it allows no man to hold a different opinion, even in a single io[...]ta. But to the energies of our ancestors we owe that resistance to such despotism over men's minds and consciences which produced the reformation, and with it the freedom of religious opinion. It becomes, therefore, the enlightened liberality of a British senate, enjoying themselves that freedom of opinion to allow [...]to all men the right of thinking as they please in matters of religion. How can a belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any other speculative tenet in religious faith, influence any man's conduct on political subjects? or the difference between a belief of seven sacraments or two, render a man peculiarly fit or unfit for political confidence or parliamentary representation, who has the same government, and holds the opinions in common with other subjects in this realm upon political topics? or, where is the ground of apprehension that men who have received all their opinions under a British constitution, will, when they are admitted to participate in all the blessings of that constitution, which they now anxiously pray, endeavour to excite anarchy for the purpose of subverting it, and of erecting in its place a foreign tyranny, and restoring the despotism of the Romish church? If any thing could excite a disposition to anarchy, it would be the perpetual refusal of admitting the catholics to the blessings of a constitution, in which, once affiliated, every disposition to anarchy or even discontent must cease, and a real union of interests and attachments follow. A noble and learned lord on a former night (lord Redesdale) has complained much of the influence of the Roman catholic bishops, and their contumacy in assuming episcopal functions; but in a religious point of view, I conceive them to be as much bishops, and to have as good a right to exercise episcopal functions for the spiritual direction of their own sect, as any right reverend prelate on that bench. If they abuse those functions by any tyrannical exertion of them, they are indeed highly reprehensible, and would really deserve punishment. But the noble and learned lord, at the same time that he complained of the influence of the catholic hierarchy, the slow progress the reformation bad made in Ireland, and the unwillingness of protestants to reside in some districts, owing to that influence, stated also another cause, to which I am much more inclined to attribute those circumstances, namely, the state of the protestant churches in Ireland, of which the noble and learned lord had drawn so deplorable a picture. How is it reasonable to expect that protestants, having any sense of their religion, would reside in parishes, above one thousand of which, and many of them good livings, the noble and learned lord has stated there are in Ireland, where there is neither protestant church nor protestant clergyman—and which parishes, as he states, are anxiously sought for as sinecures by protestant clergymen, whose duty it is to preach the Gospel, and to propagate the reformed religion? or how can it be expected that Roman catholics are to be converted to that religion in those extensive quarters of the country where it is never preached? I earnestly hope that this subject will seriously occupy the attention of parliament, and that some means will be contrived to remedy so glaring an evil. But, my lords, feeling no apprehension of the slightest danger from granting the prayer of this petition, I shall vote for going into the committee.

Lord Harrowby

could not agree that it was a fir moment to agitate the question,l if their lordships were not prepared to think it a fit moment to concede what was asked.

The Earl of Westmorland.

—My lords, having been one of his majesty's servants at the time the union was framed, having been in some degree alluded to in the course of the debate, and the importance of the measure, will be my excuse, however ably the subject has been debated, for stating the grounds of the vote I shall give this night. Having, whilst I had the honour of serving his majesty in Ireland, twice given his majesty's sanction to important favours to the Roman catholics of that kingdom; having been twice thanked by that body, and assured that the period of my administration would ever be remembered width gratitude by the catholics of Ireland, I trust, in giving my decided negative to the motion of the noble lord for a committee, it is unnecessary for me to relieve myself of any suspicions of being actuated by superstition or bigotry, or a want of principles of liberality or toleration. To toleration in the exercise of his religion and enjoyment of property, every subject, except under imminent circumstances, has a right; beyond this the exercise of political power is a question not of right but of expediency; a right which every state has exercised, which every state will exercise, in defiance of all the new theories, in defiance of the doctrines of the rights of man, and the bleeding example of the French republic.—Before I enter into the discussion of this question, I will preface two observations: first, notwithstanding the new opinion, that in this country the ecclesiastical establishment is inseparably connected with the state; with it the country has grown to greatness, and whatever has a tendency to weaken or destroy the establishment of the church, tends to the destruction of our monarchy, our liberty; and our political existence: secondly, that all the examples that have been produced of persons of different religions being allowed to serve the state in other countries, in no degree apply to this kingdom, as those countries are subject to arbitrary government; and I will venture to say, that no instance can be shewn of a free state, with a free parliament, in which persons professing a faith distinct from that establishment have obtained much weight and consequence. In discussing this question, it should be considered what is asked, haw what is asked is to be attained, and what is to be substituted in the place of that you take away.—What is asked is catholic emancipation, a term unfitting for this question, or for this assembly. Emancipate the catholics! Do they require the praetor's wand to be released from servitude to hold property,to be protected in their persons and property? They are as free as any subjects in the world. Do you talk of emancipating copy-holders, custom-house officers, excise officers? The term, as it. was first intended, applies to emancipate Ireland, that,is,to separate Ireland from the government of, connexion with England.—But what is asked? to abolish all distinctions between protestant and papist, to place the papist upon an equality with the protestant; whilst any distinction remains, however high or special, the grievance remains. This is as it is asked, as it has been argued. For this purpose you cannot move a step without the repeal of the test and corporation acts. In the opinion of many, and to the extent which the arguments lead, you must also repeal the act of supremacy and uniformity, the bill of rights, the act of settlement, the act of union with Scotland, and alter the king's coronation oath. There perhaps will arise a question between original compact and the supremacy of parliament. Unquestionably our laws are not like those of the Medes and Persians, that alter not; unquestionably no parliament has greater power than the succeeding one; but to this only I argue this question, that, considering the solemnity attendant upon these most unwise to raise doubts, and agitate the minds of men upon points which,even in the opinion of many, strike at the settlement of, and right to the crown itself, without urgent and pressing necessity, without being convinced, first, that you will do no harm; next, that you will do essential benefit; and, lastly, that have a plan to establish, for that you mean to take away. Now, what are the reasons assigned for this measure?—that it will tend to the settlement and tranquillity of Ireland. Serious as I consider many other parts of the subject, if I thought it would have that effect, I would enter into a consideration of it: but it is because I am if a diametrically opposite opinion; because I am convinced that, at this period, it would plunge that country into confusion, I am decidedly against it. I should be glad to ask, if it is likely to tend to the tranquillity of a country composed of two descriptions of inhabitants, the one possessed of the property and the magistracy, few in number, contending and protecting themselves against the more numerous class, to open every situation as a scene of contest? I consider the first operation of this measure to be, to make this country a scene of confusion, corruption, and riot, not only for parliament, but for magistracy, and situations in all the towns, as described by Lucan, Lethe lisque ambitus urbis Annua venali referens certainina campo. The priest at the head of his flock, leading them to every outrage, and religious bigotry carried to the utmost extent. The power of the protestant landlords would have no effect against a religious combination—Next, what are the causes of the discontents in Ireland? high rents, heavy taxes, tithes, the property possessed by persons speaking a different language, of different manners and habits from the peasantry, a double clergy, the protestant clergy in affluence, the catholic in poverty. May i ask, which of the grievances will this act touch? will it lower rents or taxes? will it alter the state of property? will it teach the landlords Irish, or the peasants English? will it lower tithes? will it make the protestant clergy low, and raise the catholic priest? perhaps it may, and here is the difficulty. If this operates lightly and gently, as possibly it may, it would not affect the mass of the country; if it operates to affect the mass, it may operate to an extent that may be fatal to the British connexion. I have long entertained an opinion, that the discontents of Ireland have arisen from other causes, and not from religious disabilities. Let us examine history; i shall not go into the discarded code, except to ask if so much was said upon it for the sake of tranquillity? First, I look to the year 1782; then all the grievances of the nation were brought forth by the patriots of that period, various,— simple repeal, independent parliament, free trade; not a word of religious grievances. I proceed to 1789; grievances enough, wrongs enough of a noble marquis, wrongs that will never be forgiven by those who wished to risk the separation of the countries for the sake of party, nor forgotten by those who know that, by his ability and firmness, he preserved that kingdom to his sovereign, and the connexion between the countries. The parties in parliament, and the Whig Club, stating all the grievances; not a word of religious grievances. It is to be believed, that the great patriots of the day should not have mentioned religious grievances, if any such oppressed the people? I proceed farther to the year 1791; relaxation was given to the catholics in England; the Irish catholics naturally applied; what happened? the Irish house of commons would not grant the claims; no— they threw the petition off the table, twenty-three only objecting.—Now i argue not the right or the wrong on this subject; but this I contend, that the great patriots of that time would not have rejected these petitions if the state of the laws had been an oppression to the country. When, then, was the discovery made? why as soon as it was discovered that the government of England wished to do every thing that was proper for the catholics, then the grievance was made out, then the patriots began to cry out; and whatever was given, the determination was to ask for more, so the more we give, the more we shall be asked, till your lordships have nothing more to surrender. May it be asked what has been the effect of the concessions of 1793? The catholics were relieved from every law affecting the mass of the people. The profession of the law was opened, the magistracy, right of voting, freedom of corporations, trades, &c. What happened immediately? universal instruction, devastation, and cruelty. May i venture to ask then, if it is probable that those who returned treason for kindness, and murder for favour, upon points that directly affected them, are likely to become mild and grateful subjects for favours that affect them only distantly and collaterally? Upon this point of the argument I beg to be distinctly understood. I do not bring this argument against the measure; if it is right with a view to the catholics of Ireland, let it be done; if it is right with a view to the catholics of England, if it is right upon general policy, let it be done; but let no man's mind be influenced in deciding upon this question by the opinion that concessions of this nature are likely to tranquillize Ireland. We are told it arises out of the union: how? was it promised? certainly not. Did the catholics carry the union? certainly not. was the question tried at the union? why, it was previously rejected by both parliaments before the union, and at the time of the union itself, it was a strange sort of expectation that what both parliaments rejected before and at the union, should be done as soon as they were united. But is it not well known that the measure could not have been carried if this proposition had been clogged to it? It is not well known that the most zealous friends of that measure would have opposed the union if this had made a part, considering it as leading to the separation of the countries? "But it will please the people of Ireland." Are you to learn that there are two descriptions of persons in the kingdom? will it please the protestants of Ireland; those who carried that great measure, those who preserved that country to this? It seems as if noble lords had forgotten such people existed; I have not heard mention of them from any one of them; a people by whose loyalty and courage, in a situation unparalleled, that kingdom was secure; whose conduct was never equalled by any description of men in any country. Why, then, what must be done? I say, "let the union alone," let that great measure alone, let it work, as it has begun, the settlement of that country, and let not the operations of that great measure be impeded by bringing the catholics forward at an unfit season, to be made the tool and sport of British factions.—In considering the petition several observations might be made, but I shall confine myself merely to two; the first is, an insinuation that the catholics have not the benefit of equal justice. Now, for one, I beg have to observe on the unfairness of this insinuation, and to defy any man to shew that equal justice in that country is not done to every man of whatever religion or description he may be. Secondly, that the petition is signed by no priest. From this three observations may be made; first, that the priests disapprove of the tenets and declarations contained in the petition, and do not choose to give it their countenance; secondly, the one which surprised me, and which the noble lord secured to countenance, that, as its requests did not affect their order, they did not choose to sign it; that it did not go far enough, and therefore did not deserve their application. To neither of these observations shall I give any weight, but I will give one more fitting the conduct and character of that reverend body, the superior clergy of whom, from everything I experienced, I shall always speak with respect. The reason that I conceive why the priests did not sign the petition is, that they disapproved of the season; that they who knew the state and temper of their own people, the state and temper of the protestants, knew that the time was unfitting for the discussion; that neither party had forgiven the sufferings and injuries of the late rebellion, and that to revive the consideration of this question would only be to revive the horrors of the rebellion. They therefore, in which i concur with them, wished to postpone the consideration of their situation to a more favourable moment; and when, as was ably observed, so very few persons have signed this petition from several parts of Ireland, it may be argued that a large portion of the catholics concur in this opinion with the priesthood.—Having looked at this question as it related to Ireland, let us extend our view to its general effect. What is the state of England, of Scotland? perfectly quiet; no religious jealousy, every man worshipping the Deity according to the form he approves. Will the noble lord ensure the continuance of such a state if this motion is complied with? And here an observation should be made; the Irish parliaments, taunted as they have been as bigots and oppressors, in 1793 gave considerable privileges to the catholics; have the English done so to their catholics, whose loyalty and good conduct has been unimpeached, and against whom suspicion never broached a whisper in their disfavour? The argument of the dangers attending the measures in Ireland not applying in England, why did not the noble lords propose relaxations to the some extent? because the state and temper of the country would not bear the proposition. What is the case of Scotland? why even the laws of 1791 were not extended to that country. What is to be argued from this? that those who had the management of Scotland knew the state and temper of that country would not bear the discussion; that it would be injurious to the catholics, injurious to the protestants, May I then ask, what has happened to induce you to throw this measure wild upon the country? Does any man wish to renew the horrors of the year 1780? Is any man sure that the cry may not be raised that the church is din danger, and may there not be some ground for this alarm?—It was very ably shewn, and I shall not again go go over the ground, that this question might throw the one hundred Irish members and the whole power of Ireland into the hand of the catholics. Calculate what the dissenters of this country are; add to these those of no religion, those willing to sacrifice the establishment to free themselves from tithes and taxes; consider the tempting state of the possessions of the church as a source of taxation; contemplate the effects of an union of these bodies acting systematically, forming subscriptions; recollect that parties may be in this country who would go all lengths to attain and maintain power, and nobody can calmly say very serious attacks might not be made on the establishment of the church. We are told this is not a time to exclude men from the service of the state for religious opinions. In the first place, in Ireland the catholics are not generally excluded; and secondly, it is not on account of religious opinion, but because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the king, and come, in a general way of considering the subject, within the provisions of the 24th of Henry the Eighth. We are likewise told, that the fears of the pope and pretender are gone by; of the latter certainly, except by arguments there seem some attempts to set up his title. But the pope has no power. It is not the power of the pope, but the power of those over whom the pope has influence, that is to be considered; and if that unfortunate person, having disgraced his reverend hand by anointing an usurper, is a prisoner in his capital, and under his authority has a communication with Ireland, and spiritual mixed with civil authority appointing the hierarchy of the country, who can deny this is a solecism in politics, and cannot be contemplated without apprehension?—But what I most disapprove is the manner in which this question is brought forward. Whoever proposes a change of so important a nature as this is, whoever proposes to alter laws,ought to explain the whole plan and the whole project.—It was said that, in consideration of restrictive laws, all that excluded persons from equal power, the onus lay upon those to shew cause who wished for their continuance. Is it so? I know not how the people of England will like to hear that they are to shew cause for the protection of the corporations and their franchises against universal suffrage of freeholders against copyholders; but for one, I am ready to take the onus. "What, have you gained by the war?" was frequently asked; what was the noble lord's answer? "that I have survived the shock under which other nations have sunk," quod spéro tuum est. I listened with considerable attention to hear what was to be proposed. The first noble lord was all general, and seemed to profess only a compliance with the petition in aid of this favoured sect, forgetting all others upon equal claims, though his argument went to the full extent to them; but not guard, no declaration of what was to be put in the place. I attended with great anxiety to the next, in the blue ribbon; fully convinced, by his mature judgment and discretion, that he had some distinct plan to produce, which, whilst it gave liberty in one instance, would set up some substitute and guard on the other. Not a word.—As to the third noble lord, from the extent of his arguments, I heard at least nothing in favour of any religious establishment. We ought to see the whole plan and the whole project, that we may be sure, when we come into this committee, any two of the proposers any agree upon what they would wish to have done. I shall be glad to see this new work of Vauban, and to know if I cannot proceed against it by sap or storm with more prospect of success than against this ancient castle, which has been fortified at every point where danger has threatened.—We have been told that this proposal is to strengthen the church establishment, to produce the tranquillity of Ireland, and secure the settlement of union; but I must look not at the professions of the proposer,but at the tendency of the project; and as i am convinced that its discussion at this improper and unfitting period will, instead of strengthening, shake the establishment of the church; instead of tranquillizing, will convulse the kingdom of Ireland, and instead of cementing the union, will risk the separation; I must beg the noble lords not at such a moment to hazard the horrors and the miseries of religious contests.

The Bishop of St. Asaph.

—My lords, in delivering my sentiments upon this subject, I hope I shall be able to maintain that temper of cool discussion, which a question affecting so numerous and so respectable a de- scription of his majesty's subjects, a question so important and momentous in its bearings and consequences, demands.—My lords, it I should feel it to be my duty to resist the prayer of this petition, my vote will not be founded upon any uncharitable sentiments, entertained by me, of that branch of the christian family, which holds communion with the church of Rome. I shall easily find credit with your lordships for this assertion; I shall easily find credit for it with the country; I shall easily find credit for it with the Roman catholics themselves. For of every measure that has been brought forward; during the time that I have had a seat in this house, for the relief of the Roman catholics from the old penal laws, it is well known I have been a strenuous supporter; some measures of a contrary tendency, I have strenuously and successfully resisted.—My lords, I do not hold, that there is anything in the Roman catholic religion at variance with the principles of loyalty. I impute not actual disloyalty, far from it, to the Roman catholics of this kingdom at the present day. I do not believe that any Roman catholic of this country at the present day, thinks himself at liberty hot to keep faith With heretics, nor bound by his oaths to a protestant government, or that the pope can release him from the obligation of his oath of allegiance to his sovereign. The questions upon these points, which were some years since proposed to foreign universities, and to the faculties of divinity abroad, and the answers that were returned, which a noble earl this evening read in his place, were no news to me. I had a perfect knowledge of the questions proposed, and the answers returned; in which these abominable principles were most explicitly and unanimously reprobated by the learned bodies to which the questions were propounded. And I am persuaded, that the Roman catholics of this country are sincere in their disavowal and abjuration of those pernicious maxims. I hold, that the Roman catholics of this country are dutiful and loyal subjects of his majesty, and I think them as well entitled to every thing that can be properly called toleration, and to every indulgence which can be extended to them with safety to the principles of our constitution, as many of those who do us the honour to tall themselves our protestant brethren; the Roman catholics indeed differing less from us, in essential points of doctrine and in church discipline, than many of them. But my mind is so unfashionably constructed that it cannot quit hold of the distinction between to toleration and admission to political power and authority in the state. The object of toleration is conscientious scruples. I conceive that the Roman catholics already enjoy a perfect toleration. The statutes, which exclude them from offices of high trust and authority in the state, are not penal. Such exclusion are not penalties, and the relaxation of those statutes would not be toleration. It would be an indulgence of a very different kind. And although I wish the Roman catholics should enjoy toleration in its full extent, that they should be subject to no penalties for any religious opinions which may be peculiar to them, to no restraint in the use of their own forms of worship among themselves; yet I could not, without anxiety and apprehension, see a Roman catholic upon that woolsack, where -my noble and learned friend now sits, or on the bench of justice so worthily occupied by a noble and learned lord at my right hand. My lords, this petition goes this length. It prays, that a Roman catholic my be invested with the capacity of being any thing in the state, but king. Now, if there would be no danger the constitution, to admit a Roman catholic to be any thing but king, if this would be a safe thing to do, I confess it is beyond the powers of my mind to imagine upon what principle the act of settlement can be defended.— My lords, my mind is not yet brought to that modern liberality of sentiment, which holds it to be a matter of indifference to the state, of what religion the persons may be, who fill its highest offices. I hold, that there is danger to the state, When persons are admitted to high offices Who are not of the religion of the state, be it what it may. And I am ready to argue this very fairly; I think in my conscience, that I myself, being a protestant, should have been a very unfit person to have held any high office under the old French government. My lords, the noble secretary of State, in the former night's debate, argued this point of the inexpediency of admitting persons differing in religious persuasion front the state; he argued it from the practice of antiquity, and he, argued justly. It certainly was the policy of all the states of antiquity, to require that persons in office in the state, should be of the established religion of the country I shall argue from the sad experience, which modern times afford, of the mischief of giving away to the contrary principle. Having said that I will argue from modern times, I may seem to be going somewhat back, if I mention the French Hugonots. But they are an instance in,point. I will say, that the Hugonots were very bad subjects Roman catholic France. They became bad subjects in consequence of the extravagant indulgences, which, for a long series of years they were permitted to enjoy. They became at last so bad, that the French government was provoked to revoke those indulgences; and the cruel persecution took place, which drove them from their country. The persecution was cruel, but it was the natural effect of impolitic indulgence; and such indulgence may always be expected to terminate in such cruelty. Bat I rely chiefly on the events of much later times;—of our own times. I ask, what was the real beginning and radical cause of that dreadful convulsion, which, at this moment, shakes all Europe? What was the real beginning and first cause of the subversion of the ancient French government, and of the overthrow of the venerable Gallican Church? Was it not the placing of Neckar, that protestant republican, at the head of the counsels of monarchical Roman catholic France?—Now, my lords, if there be danger in admitting a protestant to any high part in a Roman catholic government, the danger certainly must be rather greater of admitting a Roman catholic to any high part in a protestant government. And for this reason; that the Roman catholic pledges his obedience, within a certain limit, to a foreign power, which is not the case of the protestant. I say, within a certain limit. For I am aware of the distinction, between the spiritual supremacy of the pope, which is all which our Roman catholics acknowledge, and, his authority in civil matters, which they renounce; and I believe them to be perfectly sincere in that renunciation. But, there is such a connexion between authority in spiritual matters and in civil, that I apprehend some degree of civil authority may indirectly arise out of the spiritual supremacy; insomuch, that the conscientious Roman catholic may sometimes find himself hampered between his acknowledgment and his renunciation. It is true, however, that the Roman catholics of this part of the united kingdom, explicitly renounce even that indirect authority of the pope in civil matters. For the English Roman catholic swears, that "he does not believe, that the pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate,state, potentate, hath, or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm." I very well remember (and I have reason to remember it, for, I had a great share in that business,) that when the oath to be imposed upon the Roman catholics was under consideration in this house, there was some hesitation about the word "indirectly." Some of us thought, that it would be pressing too hard upon the conscience of the Roman catholic to make him abjure that which might seem to be an appendage only of what he was permitted to acknowledge. The word however was after some debate inserted. It stands in the oath, and the English Roman catholic abjures even that indirect authority of the pope in temporal and civil matters. Still I fear, the line of demarcation between spiritual and temporal, it may not always be easy to define. And I must observe, that the Irish oath is not drawn with the same precision. The word "indirectly" is omitted. And there is another important omission. The Irish Roman catholic does not, so explicitly as the English, bind himself to maintain the protestant succession.—My lords, having mentioned these oaths, I must take occasion, in justice to the Roman catholic clergy of England, to set right a matter, which I think was inaccurately stated by a noble and learned lord, in the former night's debate. That noble and learned lord seemed to think, that the Roman catholic clergy of this country scrupled to make those abjurations, which their laity have made. And he told your lordships that, when the bill for the relief of the Roman catholics was brought in to parliament, the apostolical vicars put forth an encyclical letter forbidding the people of their communion to take the oath prepared for them. Now, it is very true, that the apostolical vicars for bad the taking of that oath, which stood in the bill originally brought into the house of commons,which actually passed that house. But their objection to the oath was not,that they were unwilling that their people should swear to the maintenance of the protestant succession,or to the renunciation of the pope's indirect as well as direct authority in temporals; but the oath, as it was framed in the lower house, contained some theological dogmata, which they deemed, and in my judgment rightly deemed, impious and heretical. The dogmata, to which I allude, amounted to an abjuration of the legitimate authority,of the priesthood, in the administration of what we churchmen call the power a the keys. Abjurations, which I, a protestant bishops, would not make and I should impute great blame to any priest of mine, who should condescend to make them. It was on account of these abjuration, that the apostolical vicars reprobated the oath as it stood in the first bill; and when the oath was amended in that part, as it was in this house, the vicars apostolic made no further objection. On the contrary, when the bill had passed, they exhorted their people, clergy as well as laity, to take the oath as it now stands, and they have I believe themselves taken it.—My lords, at the beginning of this debate, although I never thought of consenting to the prayer of the petition in the extent to which it goes; yet, I confess, the inclination of my mind was not to oppose the motion of going into a committee. i thought it might best become the gravity of your lordships' proceedings, to consider the subject in detail, to examine the petition, article by article. For, I hold not with those, who think that because the whole, or any thing like the whole, cannot be granted, nothing be conceded. And it was not till the debate had made a considerable progress, that my mind was changed. But I must declare, that it is now completely changes, by the representation that has been made to us by very high authority, of the actual state of the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland. My lords, I have long understood, that the Roman catholic clergy in Ireland were upon a different footing from their brethren here. Here the Roman catholic clergy appear in the unassuming character of mere missionaries. There are no diocesan bishops, no parish priests. England is divided into four districts, which are superintended in spirituals by four bishops in partibus, a bishop of Centuriæ, a bishop of Acanthos, &c. who take the titles of vicars apostolic, and exercise their spiritual authority with great modesty and decorum, and in a manner perfectly inoffensive to the established church and to the state. I knew that, in Ireland, each province has its titular archbishop, each diocese its titular bishop, and each parish its titular priest. But I had no conception, till a noble and learned lord informed us of it, that these titular prelates and priests claim to be the rightful possessors of the respective sees and parishes, and treat the prelates and priests of the established church as usurpers and intruders. I had no conception, that the titular archbishop of Armagh would publicly take to himself the stile of Armachens, and designate the lord primate by the simple appellation of Dr. Stuart. The withholding from the lord primate the title which be- longs to him,in itself is no great matter. But the claim to jurisdiction, in exclusion of the established prelacy and priesthood, is another thing. A noble duke on the opposite bench has said, in exculpation of them that these Roman catholic prelates are really "bishops." Most undoubtedly, they are bishops as truly as any here. They are of the episcopal order; and men, I dare say, in their individual character, highly worthy of that pre-eminence in the church. But, I am sure the noble duke knows enough of our ecclesiastical matters, to be apprised of the distinction between "the poser of order" and the "power of jurisdiction." The "power of order" these Roman catholic prelates possess. But the "power of jurisdiction" does not of necessity attach upon the "power of order." A man may be a bishop, and yet it follows not of necessity that he is bishop of a diocese. The two powers, that of order and that of jurisdiction, are quite distinct, and of distinct origin. The power of order is properly a capacity of exercising the power of jurisdiction conferred by a competent authority. And this power of order is conveyed through the hierarchy itself, and no other authority but that of the hierarchy can give it. The only competent authority to give the power of episcopal jurisdiction, in this kingdom, is the crown. It is true, that, in this part of the united kingdom, that power may seem in some degree to flow from the hierarchy; because we have the form of an election of a person to be a bishop of a vacant see, by the clergy of the cathedral. But this is a mere form—the chapter cannot proceed to elect, without the king's licence. The king's licence to elect, is always accompanied with his majesty's letter missive, recommending a fit person to their choice; and it always to falls out, that the chapter agree with the king in their opinion of the fitness of the person. In substance, therefore, the collation of the diocesan jurisdiction is from the crown. In Ireland, the collation of the power of jurisdiction is, both in form and in substance, from the crown solely; for the prelates of that part of the kingdom are appointed to their respective sees without any congé d élire, or any form of an election by letters patent under the great seal. In neither part therefore of this kingdom can there be any legitimate power of jurisdiction, but what is conferred by the crown; and the claim of such a power, independent of the crown, is a most outrageous violation of the very first principles of our ancient constitu- tion.—But, my lords, unwarrantable as this claim of the Roman catholic prelates in Ireland appears to be, I am still more alarmed by the manner, in which, as we have been informed by the noble and learned lord, they exercise, their spiritual authority. When the noble and learned lord entered upon this topic, with a remark, that we here in England have no idea what excommunication is in Ireland—that it is really a dreadful thing—and seemed to make this the ground of some charge he had to bring against the Roman catholic clergy of Ireland; my mind, I confess, was all puzzle and amazement. I could not imagine, what this might be; and surmises arose the very contrary of that which I now understand to be the case. Excommunication in Ireland a dreadful thing! why, I said to myself, to a christian, to one who really believes, how should excommunication, in the true meaning of the word, in Ireland, or any where else, not be a dreadful thing? Excommunication, in the true meaning of the word, is the separation of a christian, leading a disorderly life, disgracing his profession, from the christian congregation; a banishment of him from the church. And this separation every christian must consider as a state of great danger and peril: for as the promises of the Gospel are all made to the church in its corporate capacity, and extend to the individual only as a member of that elect society, (none but fanatics hold the contrary,) to be severed from that society, is to be excluded from all share in the blessings and promises of christianity. This is excommunication, and this is certainly a dreadful thing. Excommunication, as it is practised here in England, I know very well in itself is no dreadful thing. It carries no terror with if, but in its secular consequences. But this is, because what we call excommunication is not really what the word means. And I have always considered the manner, in which it is used among us, as little better than a profanation of a most sacred rite if discipline It is used with us, merely as an engine to support the authority of the ecclesiastical courts. If a man disobeys a citation, and persists in his neglect of it, excommunication is denounced.; though the object of the citation should he in some of these secular matters, which, by our laws, are submitted to the cognizance of these courts. The sentence is pronounced by a layman, without any thing striking in the manner of it; and, if the offender still persists, at the expiration of certain days, comes indeed a dreadful thing; he is committed to prison, by virtue of the writ de excommunication capiendo, a writ issuing from a secular court, and there he must remain, till in the language of Doctors Commons, he has made "his peace with the church," i.e. till he has made his submission to the court. The person on whom the sentence falls, all the while finds not the burthen of any thing properly to be called a sin upon his conscience. He is not aware, that he has offended the church—for his imagination cannot identify the ecclesiastical court, in which a layman sits as judge, taking cognizance perhaps of matters of a secular nature, with the church—and he perceives not, that religion has any thing to do in the business. Such excommunication has certainly nothing dreadful in itself, but in the imprisonment only, which follows. Such was not the primitive excommunication. The objects of that dreadful sentence were none but notorious sinners: fornicators, usurers, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners. It was pronounces with awful solemnity, in the full assembly of the church, by the bishop himself, or some person specially delegated by him. It produced the greatest consternation in the conscience of the sinner, and generally brought him to a sense of his guilt, and produced a reformation, which nothing short of this severity could have effected. When the noble and learned lord said, that excommunication in Ireland was a dreadful thing, the surmise, that naturally rose in my mind, was, that the excommunications of the Irish prelates were something more resembling the primitive excommunications, than that is which our courts call excommunication; and I wondered how this was to be turned to the reproach of the Roman catholic bishops. But when the noble and learned lord went on, he soon made me understand, that their excommunication is no less a profanation, though in a different way, but no less, if not more a profanation of the rite, than our practice. It is indeed a dreadful thing: but not dreadful simply by the alarm of the excommunicated person's conscience, but by the worldly distress it brings upon him. It is not simply a separation from the body of the faithful, but it is, to all intents and purposes, an interdiction ab aquâ et igne. No Roman catholic dares to administer a crust of dry bread or a cup of cold water to the person under this interdiction. And the offence, which draws down this horrible sentence, is any friendly intercourse which a Roman catholic may be found to hold with protestants. My lords, this is an abominable abuse of the power which Christ has placed in the hands of the governors of his church, not to destroy the worldly comforts of men, but for the salvation of their souls. No precedent is to be found for such tyranny in the conduct of the apostles. The first instance of an excommunication upon record took place in a very early period, in the church of Corinth. A member of that church was leading a most flagitious life; and the process of the excommunication was this. The apostle St. Paul, not being able to attend in person, issues his peremptory mandate to the church of Corinth to assemble; and in full congregation, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver the offender unto Satan, "that is, to expel him from the church, by which he would be deprived of those assistances which the church affords to resist Satan, "for the destruction of the flesh"—not that the man was to be starved—driven from civil society, and reduced to perish with cold, and hunger and thirst; but for the mortification of the carnal appetites; for the flesh here evidently signifies the appetites of the flesh. And this flesh was to be thus destroyed, to this intent and purpose, "that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." And the spirit in that day will be saved. For the man was brought to repentance; and, upon his repentance, the apostle writes to the church again, to receive the penitent again into their communion, and to "confirm their love to him." And it appears, that offenders under this dreadful sentence were still treated with great charity and commiseration. For thus the same apostle writes to the church of Thessalonica. "We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." Very different this, for, the despotism which we are told is exercised by the titular bishops in Ireland, over persons of their own communion.—My lords, in this state of the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland, it would be in vain to go into a committee to take this petition into consideration. For certainly nothing of political power and influence can be conceded to the Roman catholics in Ireland, beyond what they already enjoy, miles their hierarchy can be reduced to a less offensive form, and checked in the monstrous abuse of their spiritual authority. I should hope that neither of these things is impracticable; that both may be effected, by the influence of persons of rank of that persuasion with their pastors, concurring with government in mild measures for the attainment of these ends. But if these ends cannot be attained by the concurrence of the Roman catholics themselves with government, I confess, we seem to be reduced to this dilemma, either this hierarchy must be crushed by the strong arm of power (God forbid the dreadful necessity should arise), or the Roman catholic church must be the established church of Ireland. My lords, if the thing were resintegra, if we had now to form a constitution for Ireland ab initio, I have no hesitation in saying, that it might be matter of grave deliberation, which of the two measures should be adopted. But this is not the case. The Irish constitution is settled; settled long since upon the basis of protestantism: and that constitution, so settled, has been recently confirmed by the pacta conventa of the union. When I speak however of crushing the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland, i mean not that the Roman catholics of that country should be deprived of the superintendence of bishops; but their bishops should not be allowed to assume diocesan jurisdiction, in exclusion of our own prelacy, or even co-ordinate with it, nor should they be suffered to domineer, in the manner we are told they do.—My lords, if these difficulties stood not in the way, I should be ready to go into a committee; still I should oppose the prayer of the petition, in the extent to which it goes, for this among other reasons, that I think a compliance with it would be the worst thing that could befal the Roman catholics, as well as ourselves. The immediate effect of it I think would be, to revive that detestable rancour between protestants and Roman catholics, which for so many years has been the disgrace of the western church, but it church, but is dying away if we only let alone what is well.

Lord Ellenborough

said, the anxiety and alarm which, during the long suspended agitation of this important question, had been excited in his mind as to its probable effect on the peace and tranquillity of the country, had from various indications of the public sentiment respecting it, in a great measure subsided, before the immediate discussion of the question in that house; and, from the circumstances immediately attending the discussion itself, which (except during a short and painful in the course of that evening)had been uniformly temperate and decorous, and such as became the wisdom and gravity parliament, his alarm and anxiety had now wholly ceased. That he was convinced that the debates on this momentuous subject would, when known, be as satisfactory in the result to those whose rights and interests were the object of the debates, as they were honourable to those by whom they were conducted. If the question were to be brought forward at all,which he once regretted, but now rejoiced had been the case, he was happy that the claims of the Roman catholics had been put under the protection of the eminent person by whom they had been so ably and strenuously contended for in that house. That the Roman catholics must be convinced that they had a sincere and zealous, as the house was witness that they had a most powerful and consummate, advocate in the person of the noble lord. With a view to the quieting of the question at present, and the preventing its recurrence at any future period, it was well that the defence of the Roman catholic claims had been entrusted upon this occasion to no feebler arm; what had failed now was not likely to be advanced with equal energy and effect, and with better hopes of success, at any future period. He then said that, in the vote he was about to give upon the question then under consideration, and in the reasons he was about to offer to their lordships' for that vote, he trusted that no person would be so uncandid as to suppose that he was either an enemy to the full and free toleration of the religious opinions and Worship of his Roman catholic brethren in Ireland in the most extended sense of that word, or averse to those indulgence, in respect of civil rights, which had in a large and liberal measure been afforded them by parliament during the last twenty or twenty-five years of the present reign; although perhaps he might at the time have paused ta little upon the prudence and expediency of granting some of the particulars that had been granted; viz. the elective franchise, and a capacity of being included in the commission of the peace; that he did not repine however at any thing which had been hitherto done in their favour, much less wished that any part should now be recalled or withdrawn. I believe indeed, said his lordship, that no such wish exists in the minds of any of your lordships. I am sure it does not in the minds of my noble friends Against whom an insinuation of this kind was directed in the heat and eagerness of debate on a former night. What our Roman catholic brethren have acquired by the liberal grant of a bestowing and confiding parliament, let them, under the solemn faith of parliament pledged to them for its continuance, still enjoy. I will not anticipate a possibility that a breach of the implied condition which is annexed to every legislative provision for the benefit of individuals, should draw the expediency of its allowed continuance into question at any the remotest period of our future history. The question now before us on this petition, is not a question of toleration in the enjoyment and exercise of civil and religious rights, but of the grant of political power. All that toleration can require in respect to civil and religious immunity, has been long ago satisfied in its most enlarged extent. At the commencement of the gracious and beneficent reign of his present Majesty, the Roman catholics of both parts of the united kingdom, especially of Ireland, were incumbered and weighed down by the grievous pressure of many rigorous restraints, penalties and disabilities. It become the wisdom of parliament (for on such subjects generosity and wisdom are the same,)to emancipate them from these burthens; and by several successive statutes in the space of about fifteen years they have been accordingly so emancipated. They are in respect of property capable inheriting and taking by devise for their own benefit, and of alienating and disposing of property in all such ways as it is competent to any other of his Majesty's to subjects to take and dispose of the same The education of their children, and the choice of their marriages are equally unrestrained to them. The enjoyment of their religious worships is equally free and public. The avenues to emolument and eminence in the practice and profession of the law are equally open to them with their protestant fellow subjects. The right of serving on grand and petit juries, and upon all inquests civil and criminal, is the same to them as to others. The right of voting in counties for members of parliament has been conferred on them; a capacity to become justice of the peace is capable of being communicated to them by his Majesty's commission of the peace in the same manner as it is to other subjects; that is, of course, under the check and control of a sound discretion to be exercised on the part of the person holding the great seal, as to the objects to which it should be granted. All military and naval commissions, except those of principal command, and all offices except a very few of the great offices of state, and the higher judicial offices, are attainable by them. If, in the beginning of the year 1778, any person had ventured to predict to them, that such would in the course of a very few years be the condition of a people then labouring under the restraints, penalties, and disabilities, I have alluded to, he would have been regarded as a rash and hardly utterer of a vain prophecy, which had not the remotest chance of ever being accomplished. However, in the compass of fifteen years, by the gradual removal of civil and religious, and of some political restraints, they have attained the accomplishment of all which, in their relative situation to the establishments of the country, they can consistently ask, or we can, with due regard to our situation as trustees for them and others, consistently bestow. Their emancipation from civil and religious restraint as affecting themselves, and the rights to be enjoyed by them individually, is entire and complete; if it be not so, let it be shewn wherein it is in any instance defective, that the defect may be, if practicable, instantly supplied and remedied. Of the condition of the catholics as his Majesty found it al the commencement of his reign, loaded with the sufferings and the fears of former times had cast upon them, and as he will hand it over to succeeding times, it may be truly said "Lateritiam invenit, marmoream reliquit." Catholicemancipation, as it is improperly called, if that term is meant to denote and designate any slavish subjection as still subsisting on their part profession of religious faith, or the exercise of religious worship has been fully attained. The only remaining emancipation which they are capable of receiving must be acquired by an act of their own, be redeeming themselves from the foreign bondage and thraldom under which they and their ancestors have long unworthily groaned, and from which the state, as it has neither imposed nor continued it, has no adequate means of relieving them consistently with the duty of self-preservation which it owes to itself. Every state claiming and exercising independent powers of sovereignty, has incidentally belonging to it, as such, the power of binding its subjects by laws of its own, not only paramount to, but exclusive of any authority or control to be exercised by any other state whatsoever. In so fat as any other state or person is al- lowed to exercise an authority breaking in upon this exclusive nd independent power of legislation and enforcement of authority in one state, to that extent such state so intrenched upon is not sovereign and independent, but admits itself to be subordinate to, and dependent upon the other. The declaration contained in the oath of supremacy, which expresses a denial and renunciation of the existence of any power and authority in respect of ecclesiastical and spiritual matters in any foreign state, potentate, or person whatsoever, is but the affirmance of a preposition which is logically and politically true as an essential principle not to this government only, but to every other government under the sun which claims to possess and exercise the powers of independent sovereignty. It is not only true as a maxim of government, but essentially necessary to be insisted and acted upon, also, in all cases in obedience may become questionable, in order to give the state that assurance and test which it has a right to require and receive from its subjects, of their entire submission and fidelity in all matters to which the power and authority of the state can extend. But, it is said, that what is prayed by this petition is not a matter which impugns the authority of the state in matters to which its authority extends. That the reserve made by our Roman catholic brethren is only in favour of matters which concern God and their own consciences; matters of mere abstract faith, and mental persuasion. That however is not so; the pope, in virtue of his general spiritual authority, claims anthority in matters of mere faith; he claims and habitually exercises on some subjects a power of dispensing with oaths, and in that respect of nullifying all human sanctions whatsoever, as far as they affect the conscience through the medium of oaths; he claims and exercises by himself, and delegates to others, and effectual, or supposed effectual, power of absolution. What fatal effects the power, as exercised by the Roman catholic priesthood and applied to a credulous multitude, is capable of producing upon the civil and political condition of that community in which it is allowed to prevail, let the recent experience of Ireland during the late rebellion attest, where wretches, reeking with the blood of their murdered countrymen, have been purified from the guilt of past atrocities, and prepared for the com- mission of new, by the all-atoning virtues of popish absolution; such a power as this over the conscience, engrosses and directs more than half the faculties and energy of the entire man, &c.—But, besides the spiritual power thus capable of being, and thus being in fact abused, the ecclesiastical power of the church of Rome over its obedient sons is enormous. It establishes and sustains in the instance of Ireland, an hierarchy dependant on the see of Rome as to the original nomination and subsequent control of its bishops and pastors, through the medium of which it enforces an obedience not in matters of faith only, but in temporal acts and concerns immediately connected with the duties and habits of ordinary life; not only in the payment of money for the maintenance of the local ecclesiastical establishment, or for such other purposes connected with their political economy as may be thought fit by the same authority to be enjoined, but in the performance also of rites and ceremonies, particularly that of marriage, form which all civil rites originate, and which they enjoin to be performed by their own ministers exclusively, thereby ousting the law of the land, and endangering or destroying the legitimacy of its subjects, and all rights of descent, inheritance, and representation founded thereon. The power of excommunication is, in the hands of their clergy, a most powerful and dangerous engine, not of spiritual and ecclesiastical only, but of temporal power. it acts at once upon all the comforts of domestic and social life in this world, and upon all the hopes and expectations of happiness in that which is to come. With what harshness and rigour, and with what daring defiance of the established law of the land, this most operative power of interdiction has been recently applied, not to a few individuals only, but to large multitudes of people, a noble and learned lord detailed to us on a former evening. Why such an enormous conspiracy in the several parties concerned, against the established laws and government of their country, has, if fully known, been suffered to pass unpunished, I am at a loss to conceive. I can only account for it on a supposition that some insurmountable difficulties may have occurred in the obtaining of witnesses who would venture to come forward and state such facts upon oath in the face of their spiritual directors, or that a distrust of the disposition in local juries to convict under such circumstances has prevented the institution of such prosecutions as would otherwise be proper for the correction of such crimes. Certainly these or some other adequate reasons must have operated to produce a temporary impunity, in cases where the safety of the state and the protection of its subjects from the enormous excesses of illegal authority seem to have so much required the application of immediate and exemplary punishment. I am persuaded it could not proceed from a want either of zeal or courage in those whose immediate duty it is to call forth and apply the energies of the law on such important occasions; for I am well assured and know that the public spirit and manliness which hereto fore distinguished the profession of the law in that country, has by no means expired in the person of lord Clare. These are a few and but a few of the practical civil inconveniences which might be instanced as derived to the state and its subjects from the authority of the see of Rome, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as it is exercised over the sons of its church; producing as it does a distracted allegiance in the same person, acknowledging and living under the temporal power of one sovereign, and bound in faith and morals by the authority of another, claiming to be his spirtual guide and governor, his ecclesiastical sovereign, and in effect, in all matters of supreme conscientious concernment, God's vicegerent and representative on earth. it is denied that the effect of this authority was at all mischievously felt during the late troubles in Ireland; and, on the contrary, it is asserted that the rebellion in 1798 was the mere effect of revolutionary principles, fostered, matured, and brought into action by republican leaders, and brought into action by republican leaders, who were not members of the church of Rome.—I admit that the leaders of that rebellion, the Emmetts and O'Connors, were men of elevated views and conceptions, minds too highly raised above the groveling regards and credulity of the vulgar, to be subject to the weakness of this, or indeed of any other description of religious faith whatever.—I will grant, if it shall be so required, that they were superior to all infirmities of this kind, that they were graduates of the highest class in the schools of republican philosophy, by which i mean "pure, genuine, unadulterated atheism;" but the ranks of that army which their treasons brought into the field were not so filled up. The Roman catholic population furnished, as it must, the means, and the priests in many instances, in their own persons, both the inducement and the example of rebellion, by standing forward as officers amongst them in the day of battle, and imposing for some time upon their superstitions and enthusiastic followers the most extravagant fables of their own miraculous exemption from the perils of fire and sword. I admit that their atheist leaders wished at first to give the mischief a republican direction; but the religious frenzy of the multitude and of their immediate directors soon give it another, as some of the sanguinary and ferocious tragedies which were acted at that period too truly and too fatally testifies. Any person who will take the trouble of referring to the history of that calamitous period, and will afterwards recur to the history of the rebellions of Tyrone and O'Neil, will find the genuine counterparts of each other, and too disgusting a resemblance prevailing between them both, as well in cause as effect. Both followed a period of extreme liberality to the catholics, took place in a season of unsuspecting calm and security, and involved the country in more than the miseries and massacre which are usually attendant upon civil war. We were taught to expect that far other consequences would have followed upon the liberal grants I have already alluded to. We were to have reposed with confidence upon the eternal gratitude of the whole Roman catholic population of Ireland. Nothing, however, of this kind that I recollect, was exhibited in fact, beyond what appeared in a few public addresses of the day; a small return of mouth honour; but neither the king or parliament which conferred, nor the immediate patrons of their cause, who induced parliament to consent to confer these benefits upon them, were very long or gratefully remembered. Two of their first and most active patrons in 1778, had afterwards the unmerited misfortune to fall in the field by the hands of catholic rebels.—Before we proceed to grant more, if more we could grant without a direct surrender of all securities of our protestant church and government, it would well become us to consider how our past liberality and confidence have been requited. But we cannot grant more, particularly the boon which is asked of the admission of catholic members into parliament, without putting in peril the whole protestant church and its rights as by law established.—The act of settlement has provided for the protestant succession to the crown of England; it has made the being a protestant the indispensable condition upon which the crown is to be worn by any prince claiming under the limitation in favour of the heirs of the body of princess Sophia, "being protestants."—It has not only required the king to be a protestant generally, but to be of that class of protestants which joins in communion with the church of England; and it has excluded papists by industrious description: for it provides and enacts (section 2) that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said crown by virtue of the limitation of the present act, and it or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the see or church or Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the recited act (i.e. of [...]W. and M.) enacted and established. —So peremptory is the tenor of these provisions in exclusion of popish prince from the throne of these kingdoms, that if (a case which is scarce within the extreme limits of actual possibility) his majesty himself should become reconciled to the see of Rome, or profess the popish religion, the crown would in that case, by the instantaneous effect and operation of law, fall from his august and revered brows, and he would stand amongst us a mere unprivileged individual, as wholly divested of the rights, functions, name and character of sovereignty, as the meanest peasant of the land: and can it then be supposed that when such industrious pains have been taken by our ancestors to secure to the kingdom a protestant prince, that it should be left at large whether his parliament should be protestant or papist? But this was already provided for by the test acts in the reign of Charles II. which shut the doors of parliament in both houses on persons who do not take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe the declaration against popery.—There restrictions on the parliamentary function and character it is now proposed to repeal; and thus the king may be surrounded, not only by ministers of opposite and conflicting religious, but may find in the same persons a divided and distracted allegiance between his rights as their temporal sovereign, land the rights spiritual and ecclesiastical of the Roman pontiff.—It is obvious to the most careless observer, that the measures of government would be enormously clogged and impeded by the close junction and mutual adherence of the catholic members, amounting in the aggregate to a number in England and Ireland sufficiently large to inforce from a minister a degree of con- descension and deference to their demands in favour of the Roman catholic religion, by which the protestant religion might be undermined and endangered.—But if the Roman catholic members are to have seats in parliament, there must be also vested in them a capacity of becoming, as well as others, the king's minsters. I f the king's ministers are to be taken out of the body of catholics, of what avail will it be that we have secured to us, by the act of settlement and the coronation oath, the solitary individual protestanism of his majesty? So that at the last the whole substance of the provision made with so much anxiety and solemnity by our protestant ancestors will be come entirely futile and elusory; for the test acts which preceded the act of settlement, and were the foundation on which alone it could practically rest, must of course be done away before the catholic members can take their seats in either house; the removal of which tests will certainly on principle, and by probable if not necessary influence in point of fact, effectuate a total subversion of the protestant church, as established by law within these realms. I think, my lords, it will scarce be denied by any of those upon the credit of whose assertions your lordships would be disposed to place reliance, that the so strenuously contend for conferring a representative capacity on Roman catholics, is, through the means of such representatives, to procure for the body at large some further advantages in the way of a recognised church establishment, under the immediate authority of parliament. Upon this head, waving for the present all objections whatever to the religious faith and doctrines of that church, and supposing, what I by no means admit, that the points of faith and doctrine in which our church differ from theirs, are of less essential practical importance moral conduct than they appear to me to be; allowing them to entertain, and as publicly as they please, to profess a belief in transubstantiation and in purgatory, to practice the invocation of saints, and to believe and inculcate the belief of(what protestants consider) a legendary chronicle of unauthentic miracles; giving them all facilities of public and private worship and profession of faith on these worship and profession of faith on these and every other subject, if there be any yet wanting and required on their behalf; still an establishment for their church, concurrent with that of the united church of England and Ireland, exceeds even the competence of parliament itself constituted as it is, to bestow. By the 5th article of the union, it is declared, that "the continuance and preservation of the said united church as the established church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union." By fundamental is meant, with reference to the subject matter, such an integral part of the compact of union formed between the two kingdoms, as is absolutely necessary to the support and sustaining of the whole fabric and superstructure of the union raised and built thereupon: and such as being removed, would produce the ruin and overthrow of the political union founded upon this article as its immediate basis. The words "the established church" import that there shall be only one church of that description, and which shall alone have the privileges character, and denomination of an established church annexed to it. These terms necessarily exclude any other co-ordinate and concurrent establishment; every other church which has any thing beyond what we commonly understand by the word toleration allowed to it, may be considered as so far established within the meaning of this article; and the union of course, in virtue of such allowed establishment, not only to a degree impugned and violated, but by the express letter of the precise and peremptory provision referred to, absolutely deprived of its very essence and foundation; words, substantially destroyed and subverted. I will hope, therefore that on further consideration the utter impracticability of such project, consistently with the good faith of the two kingdoms solemnly pledged to all who are at the period and by the compact of the union, will be so apparent to all who are at present striving for its adoption, as to dissuade them from the furter prosecution of a measure which, as it must commence in a violation public faith and political rights, must also terminate and dishonour—I am one of those, my lords, who labour under an unfortunate persuasion that even if this could legally be, and, in fact, were granted to them; that if the Roman catholic religion were already established in Ireland in some degree of communion and participation of privileges with the united church, that even this grant and indulgence, large as it might now appear to us, would be followed by fresh demands and increased importunity. What assurance is there that they would rest contented with this boon? or would not the broad banners of papal supremacy be immediately unfurled, and the exclusive domination of the Romish church in Ireland be authoritatively claimed on the ground of this very concession, and of that majority in the population of that country, which alone confers the right (as they contend) of establishing the protestant religion as the religion of the state in this country? Compared with the value of this ultimate prize, the objects hitherto obtained in the struggle would be vile and worthless in their estimation. Jam tenet Italiam, tamen ultra pergere tendit Actum inquit nihil est, nisi pœno milite portas Frangimus et media vexillum pone suburrâ. Before it is yet too late, I for one am disposed to rally round the standards, and to preserve the altars, of my country. The palladium of our protestant, and, indeed, of our political security, consists principally in the oath of supremacy, and the tests connected therewith and (as more particularly concerns Ireland) in the provisions contained in the 5th article of our recent union with that country, against every attempt to weaken these safeguards of the constitution. I, as long as I live, and am furnished with faculties either of body or mind enabling me to struggle with effect, will manfully struggle, and, as far as in me lies, will avert the mischief which must result from the admission of persons (owning and yielding, as they do, an imperfect and defalcated allegiance to the state,) into the entire and perfect rights of completely affianced subjects.—Not being able, my lords, to feel any material degree of evil in the present state of political restraint, as it is necessarily for their good as well as ours, and in the prevention of common calamities affecting us all, applied; and seeing a sure prospect of enormous and incalculable mischiefs before me, which must immediately result from a change:—as a subject interested in the safety of the crown and kingdom; as a protestant interested in maintaining the possession of that pure and reformed religion, which having been in times past preserved and sanctified to us by the blood of our ancestors, has been by God's providence long and firmly established in these realms, and which is inseparably knit together in one system, with all our civil rights and liberties, with our best means of happiness here and our best hopes of happiness hereafter; I feel it my duty, my lords,now and for ever, as long as the catholic religion shall maintain its ecclesiastical and spiritual union with and dependence upon the see of Rome, to resist to the utmost of my power this and every other proposition which is calculated to produce the undoing and overthrow of all that our fathers have regarded, and ourselves have felt and know to be most venerable and useful in our establishments both in church and state.

The Earl of Moira

expressed a wish that the question should be relieved from a great deal of extraneous matter with which it had been encumbered, and that it should be brought to the test of that plain good sense on which he conceived it to rest. He thought the complexion of the present times demanded that every exertion should be made to procure an unanimity of heart and mind in the cause of the country. It was very true that to give the catholics the privilege of admission to the few offices from which they were excluded, would be giving them little; but the gift would shew a disposition to conciliate and to win their affection; which would be in that point of view important. He was surprised to have heard it said, that the petition tended to throw the torch of discord into the country; on the contrary, he was of opinion that the object of it, if properly attended to, would tend to establish that harmony which was most essential to the country at the present moment. At the same time that he made these observations, he wished to speak with the utmost respect of the established church; but which he did not think would be endangered of injured by granting the catholic claims. He wished, therefore, that the petition should be referred to a committee, for the purpose of considering whether any danger could really arise from conceding those claims; and if it should be deemed not prudent to grant the whole, whether any part to those claims might be safety admitted; as he wished it to be understood, that in the committee he should certainly be desirous of weighing well each object which the catholics had in view, and investigating in that manner it would operate with respect to the church establishment, before he gave his consent to the admission of the claim which it involved.

Earl Darnley.

—My lords; I am ready to confess my disposition to assent to the opinion of some noble lords on the other side of the house as to the time in which this question is agitated. Had I been consulted by the catholics of Ireland, I certainly should have recommended to them to abstain from press- ing their claims at a period which is generally known to be peculiarly unfavourable, for many reasons; into some of which I do not feel myself at all called upon to enter, but which are very generally known. I certainly think the present disposition of the country in general adverse to the proposition, however i may be convinced that it is founded in reason and justice, and must therefore, sooner or later, ultimately prevail. Since, however, the question is come to be agitated in parliament, your lordships will agree with me, that it could not have been placed in better hands; and that the propriety and moderation have been as conspicuous as the ability with which it has been introduced by my noble friend. And here I cannot avoid animadverting on the unfair and groundless imputations which have been cast upon the introduction of this proposition by some noble lords who have spoken in the debate, as if it could have been introduced as a party question, or in any respect to answer party purposes. My noble friend who has opened the debate, most solemnly disclaimed such an intention; and is fully entitled to credit for his assertion. But a better proof than the assertion of any man, is the manifest absurdity of such a proposition. The party with whom I have the honour to act, which has been sometimes honoured with the appellation of a faction, is a faction, be it observed, composed of almost every thing in the country respectable for wealth, birth, and talents, and who certainly enjoy, in a great measure, the confidence and good opinion of the people of England, which their opponents have forfeited. At such a period the introduction of a measure known to be unpopular, and in opposition to very general, however unfounded, prejudices, can never be fairly states as intended to promote party views. In adverting to the different arguments which have been used by other lords on the other side of the house, I have some satisfaction in speaking so late, inasmuch as the ask has thereby fallen to others of replying to the speech of the noble and learned lord (the chancellor or Ireland) which I cannot but consider as one of the most extraordinary speeches that has ever been uttered in parliament. Considering both the arguments used and the person who has used them, it certainly merits all the reprobation which it has receive. I have, how ever, the greatest satisfaction in congratulating the house on the very different tone which has in general prevailed, and espe- cially in the two last speeches on the other side (the bishop of St. Asaph and lord Ellenborough). the reverend and learned prelate, in particular, had expressed himself in a manner, which does him the highest honour; and the only ground of surprise is, the circumstance of the reverend prelate's appearing to be influenced by those extraordinary arguments and assertions which have been contradicted as unfounded, by noble lords best acquainted with the state of Ireland. The reverend prelate appears to have received from that learned lord some new lights with respect to the catholic religion, which have induced him to change his opinion as to the propriety of removing the political disabilities, according to the prayer of the petition, which he at first imagined might be granted without endangering the established church or the protestant succession. For myself, I can assure the house, that if I could be persuaded either the one or the other would be in any degree affected by the concessions prayed for I would be the first man in the house to oppose them; but, according to my view of the subject, so far from having this fear, I am firmly persuaded that this measure of conciliation would produce a directly contrary effect, and, by uniting all the hearts of his majesty's subjects, would afford the firmest security to our establishment both in church and state: not indeed, if these remaining concessions are made in the same spirit, and in the same ungracious manner as those which have formerly taken place in Ireland; but if they are granted (as I trust and ampersuaded they sooner or later will) in the true spirit of conciliation and peace. And this leads me to advert to the history of Ireland with reference to this question, which has been dwelt on with so much self-complacency by a noble earl opposite to me (Westmorland) who administered the affairs of that country at the period of the last concessions to the catholics. The period of the revolution has been dwelt on by many who have spoken in the debate with satisfaction; and I am as ready any man to do ample justice to that great æra of the establishment of the civil and religious liberties which we now enjoy—the catholics or Ireland must, however, date from thence the extinction of their liberties, and the commencement of those sufferings which they have borne with such exemplary patience, and repaid with such distinguished loyalty. Till the auspicious reign or his present majesty, their situation was that or the most abject slavery; and they were a proscribed race in their native land, compelled to submit to the most harsh and degrading system of laws that perhaps ever was framed. The policy of this system I do not arraign, severe and cruel as it was; it might, in some degree, perhaps, have been justified by political necessity; and I mention it only with a view to do justice to the exemplary conduct of the catholics under such circumstances. During the rebellion of 1745, when lord Chesterfield was lord lieutenant, their loyalty and attachment were conspicuously manifested in favour of the protestant king on the throne, against the popish successor of him who had been expelled on account of his attachment to their cause. Again, in 1759, when a French armament was ready to invade Ireland, for the express purpose of restoring the exiled family, and when a partial invasion had actually taken place, their attachment to the establishment, under which they suffered so much, was again most conspicuous. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of their loyalty and good conduct, as was expressly stated, his present majesty was advised to remove some of their chains. In 1774, the oath of allegiance which they now take was enacted. In 1778, some the most galling and degrading parts of the code of polpery lawa was abrogated. In 1782, they were admitted to the rights of property; and finally, in 1793, every thing that remained, including many important civil rights, was granted. with the exception only of those privileges for which they now petition. Undoubtedly, the catholics of Ireland have received great and important advantages during the present reign; but I cannot agree with those who are so forward to tax them with ingratitude, when I consider the manner in which these concessions have been made, especially the last and most important ones in 1793. Indeed, the concessions have all appeared to proceed rather from the fear of irritation in times of public difficulty, then from any thing like an enlarged and liberal system of policy. But this observation applies particularly to the last concessions. Your lordships all recollect the manner in which the French revolution had unsettled men's minds, and the wild theories of liberty and equality which were generally entertained. The Irish catholics, as might reasonable be expected, thought the moment favourable for urging their claims; and in consequence, they petitioned the parliament of that country in the year 1792, to grant the remaining privileges which they now enjoy. The Irish parliament rejected their application with scorn, by a division of two hundred and twenty-eight to twenty-three. During the next recess, all the protestant gentlemen throughout the country, corporations, and grand juries, backed by the authority of government, pledged themselves to support this vote of parliament; and yet, in the very beginning of the following year, the same parliament and the same government almost unanimously and tamely conceded what they had a few months before so contumeliously rejected. No circumstance having intervened, except an increase of public difficulties, increased boldness of the catholics, and this inconsistent change in the conduct of government, can it be expected that they should feel any very lively sentiments of gratitude for favours so refused and so granted? When the union was in agitation, I stated this instance of maladministration in the government, and profligate inconsistency in the parliament of Ireland, as sufficient alone to justify that great measure; and I now again state it, to prove how little reason the catholics have for very warm gratitude to those who so conferred the favours they have received. Was it to be expected that, under such circumstances, the catholics body should rest contented, or that they should not be tempted to expect that what remained would also be conceded, or, indeed, could not be refused by the Irish parliament? This was another argument for the union; for it was truly stated, that whenever the two legislatures were united, the catholic claims might be discussed with every possible advantage; and that they might be safely trusted to the temper and moderation of the imperial legislature. The catholics certainly might reasonably entertain the best hopes that they would be granted; for they must have felt, that the united parliament would be without those prejudices, and that intolerant spirit which they had fatally experienced in the protestants of Ireland. I wish not to dwell upon the unhappy rebellion of 1798, which has been more than once adverted to in the course of this debate, except to give my most decided opinion, that it ought not to be deemed a catholic rebellion: most of the leaders happened to be protestants, it originated in the jacobin principles of the united Irishmen, to whom religion was a very subordinate, if any, consideration; and although it is true that a majority of those concerned in these sanguinary scenes were catholics, and though the greatest atrocities were undoubtedly perpetrated by some catholic priests, it would be very extraordinary if both these circumstances had not taken place in the country where four-fifths of the inhabitants are catholics, and where there was also necessarily a large number of ignorant and bigoted priests. That there were equal faults on the other side, I am persuaded. That the zeal of the Irish protestants has been productive of consequences as fatal, I cannot doubt; but on this subject I forbear to dwell, because I know it would sound harsh to some of my hearers, to whose loyalty and merits I am ready to do ample justice. My lords, it has been said that the catholic body in general is not interested in this question, which only regards a few of the higher ranks; but I can never agree, that the whole body is not degraded and insulted by this mark which is set upon them, in excluding any of its members from the change of ever being highly useful to their country. "But," say their opposers, "we have given every thing else; we never will concede to them power. They have all the civil advantages under the state; but they shall not become the state itself." Now let us consider to what extent this power would go, supposing it granted to catholics disposed to abuse it. The few seats they could obtain in this house, could never be considered of consequence. Indeed, exclusive of the five or six English peers, who would afterwards have an irresistible claim, as it regarded Ireland only, not one single member, according to the present mode of election, could be admitted, unless nominated by the minister. The argument, with respect to the other house, deserves more consideration. That some catholic members would be elected is unquestionable; but I am inclined to think the number would be very small indeed. Some noble lords who have spoken, have maintained the extravagant supposition of the whole number of one hundred being catholics. Others have maintained, with some degree of plausibility, that in those counties where the majority of freeholders were catholics, the members would of necessity be so likewise, grounding the supposition on the assertion that they would all be rather guided by their priests than by their landlords. I profess myself of contrary opinion, even if you suppose that, after these concessions, the old invidious distinctions of civil and religious animosity com- bined, will necessarily be kept up. Much will depend on the manner in which the boon is granted. That it will, that it must be granted,sooner or later, I am prepared to maintain; for although I am not sanguine enough to expect a majority in favour of this motion, I never can doubt that what I consider the course of justice, of sound policy, what I will even call the cause of the protestant establishment, must and will finally prevail. Remove with a liberal hand, and with an enlarged system of policy, all civil disabilities on account of religion, and I am persuaded, that in a very few years, all sects of christians will become equally good subjects; and it will never enter into any man's head to enquire, whether a candidate for parliament or for office is of the established religion or not? But we must not confine our views to the simple adoption of the measures prayed for in the petition before the house, indispensable necessary as I may think them for the welfare of the British empire in general, and of Ireland in particular. The abolition of the catholic hierarchy in Ireland has been called for, as necessary to the tranquillity of that country; but I so totally differ from the noble and learned lord, that instead of abolishing it, I would render it the means of reconciling to the state and to the constitution the great mass of catholic population. I see no reason why the bishops should not be placed under the protection of government, and why king, and paid by the public. By such means, and not by the absurd proposition of converting the Irish catholics to the established religion, by translating the bible into Irish, may we hope to see them good and loyal subjects, especially if the whole system of policy by which tat unhappy country has been governed, should be reversed; and that, instead of keeping the people in ignorance and barbarism, a liberal and well-digested system of instruction should be adopted, and encouragement afforded to habits of industry, and respect for the laws.

Lord Auckland.

—My lords; having expressed a decided opinion respecting the petition of the Irish Roman catholics on its first introduction into this house, I have purposely waited to this late period of the debate, that I might learn the sentiments of other noble lords. The discussion is now so exhausted, that I can compress what I have to submit to your lordships within narrower limits than I should have thought right if I had spoken earlier. My noble friend who presented the petition, has stated, that it involves the interests and happiness of four millions of people:—my noble friend might have said, that it involves the interests and happiness of the whole British empire. In agitating a question of such extent and magnitude, I am desirous to use a guarded and conciliatory language; but I must not be expected to sacrifice truth and fair argument at the shrine of flattery; not will I be induced to withhold or extenuate any just reasonings that may present themselves to my mind. I see nothing improper or disrespectful in the style and temper of the petition; nor, indeed,was it to be supposed that individuals making a great request, would express themselves in repulsive and offensive terms. I have not, however, adverted to the wording of the petition so much as to its purport and objects; and it is well worthy of remark, that the whole bears a strong resemblance to the memorable declaration of James the Second, in 1687, for the liberty of conscience. The are in both instruments the same plausible professions of anxiety to conciliate and unite all religious persuasions, the same gracious promises to respect the property of the established church, the same appeals from the interests of trade, which always vibrate forcibly on a British ear, the same display of a generous earnestness to open every avenue of legalized ambition,— and all this as a prologue to the demand of a full and equal participation of power, and of the means of acquiring power. Your lordships will recollect,that this declaration was soon followed by another, which notified that papists had been appointed to all the principal offices of the state; and recommended to the people to send papist representatives to the new parliament.—From the epoch of that inauspicious precedent in 1687, to the æra of French fraternity and Irish rebellion in 1798, the notions of an equality of political power had been suffered to lie dormant. During the greater part of that long period, the Irish catholics had been subjected to a system of intolerance and restraints much too severe to be defended, except on ground of a real or mistaken necessity; and even so lately as the the 12th of his present majesty, an act was passed "to enable papists to take not above fifty acres of unprofitable bog, with half an aere of arable adjoining, for not above sixty-one years." —The first measure of any extent in favour of the Irish catholics was in 1778; they were them empowered to take long leases, and were re- lieved from various incapacities affecting both their properties and persons. The next material act for their benefit was in 1781; when I was chief secretary, and a member of the Irish house of commons. It is well known that I gave no discouragement to that act, which in addition to various indulgences contained in it, enables papists to purchase and to hold estates, with the exception of advowsons. I have greatly contributed to give to the Irish catholics an interest in the soil, and consequently a more immediate attachment to the welfare of the community; but it never entered into my mind to allow them any share of the powers of government and of legislature. The jargon of emancipation was then unknown, the æra of modern illumination was not yet arrived,— that æ when it could be thought safe and practicable to maintain the limited monarchy and established church of England without test-laws, and without any restraint or incapacities affecting any description of sectarists.—The next and last concessions of any importance, were those which took place in 1792 and 1793. My noble friend who opened this debate, had been pleased to say, that all the framers and supporters of those measures must reflect on them with pride and satisfaction. My near relation (lord Buckinghamshire) has expressed a similar sentiment this evening; and certainly it is an amiable and natural weakness in parents to speak with rapture and admiration even of depraved and very ugly children. I have always contemplated the abrupt and improvident concessions of 1793 with dissent and regret; I have done so in common with two very respectable friends of mine, the late lord Clare, and the present chancellor of the Irish exchequer. Those concessions placed the protestants of Ireland in a relative situation, which impressed on every observing mind the urgent necessity of legislative union of the two kingdoms; and yet they tended to increase the difficulties of a measure which thus became essential to the peace and safety of the empire. But great as those concessions were, they only serve to stimulate the appetite of the Irish catholics for further claims; and, in 1795, the lord lieutenant (earl Fitzwilliam) shewed a strong disposition to gratify them to the full extent of their wishes. Happily he was not supported by the composed of the same individuals who now urge the same measure for which they recalled the noble earl from his vice-royalty. The career of concessions to the catholics was soon afterwards interrupted by that rebellion, over the horrors of which I wish to throw a veil, and afterwards by the discussions and arrangements which eventually accomplished the union of the two kingdoms. In the result, a period of comparative tranquillity has now been attained; and the Roman catholics and their advisers have thought it eligible for the present application.—What then is the purport of that application? Nothing less than a full participation of all corporate franchises within the empire, and of all official, judicial, and legislative powers! In examining the tendency of this gigantic grant (which, in truth, is of small moment to the bulk and general population of the catholics) we must presume that it would be efficient; for if its operation were to be as insignificant as some noble lords seem to expect, there would be either a fallacy in the demand or a dupery in the concession.—Perhaps it would not be difficult to shew that such a grant would be an infringement of a fundamental article of the union with Scotland, and also of the fifth article of the Irish union. But I wish to negative the petition on a broader ground. My noble friend, whose eloquence and argumentative powers have introduced the application with every possible advantage to it, has admitted, that it could not be stated as a claim of right. Certainly it could not. Every legislature has the inherent power of qualifying and restricting the possession and exercise of civil privileges for the benefit of the whole community. It is that power which regulates the qualification of the electors and of the elected, the rights of succession, minorities, marriages, and all the limitations of property; it pervades the whole system of our laws; a denial of it would tend to individual representation, to an Agrarian distribution, to universal equality, and to general confusion.—Still less can the petition rest itself on the ground of toleration. The petitioners indeed allege, that they are "entitled to a toleration not merely partial, but complete;" and yet they well know that they already possess what they describe, and that, ex v[...]i termini, those who are tolerated cannot share the power of those who tolerate. In the benevolent temper of our toleration we do not restrain the exercise of any religions persuasion; but we feel and know that our reformed religion is most congenial to the spirit of our free constitution; that the protection of the one is the protection of the other; and, above all things that it would not be safe to admit within the pale of our government and legislature, a sect which professes a religion essentially adverse our own. The tests prescribed by the wisdom of our ancestors for the exclusion of that sect, have nothing to do with toleration; they were framed on the plain and evident presumption of law, that he who receives the sacrament of the church is of the church.—I have been glad to hear it avowed by the noble mover of the question, that the petition cannot rest on any assurances given or compact made at the time of the union. In truth, it was impossible to make such a compact without the concurrence of parliament; and if such a consequence of the union had existed in the mind of any individual employed to frame the articles, it should have been stated at the time, both in good faith to the Irish protestants, and in the honest discharge of duty to the respective parliaments of the two kingdoms. It will ever be a consideration of just pride to me, that I have borne no small share in adjusting all the details of that transaction; and I do not hesitate to declare, that if the concessions now proposed were in the contemplation of those with whom I acted at that time, their views were industriously concealed from me, and from others of their associates. It is indeed true, that, soon after the union, there was, apparently, a sudden change in the opinions of some leading persons respecting the subject now in discussion. I do not impute any blame to that change, or doubt its sincerity, though I must deplore it. That change has given an irreparable shock to the confidence of public men in each other; and to it, perhaps, are owing many of the distractions and difficulties under which the empire has since laboured.—It is admitted, that the petition is not grounded on any claim of right, of toleration, or any compact, expressed or implied, at the time of the union, but merely on a question of expediency. In arguing the question, i will not cling with a bind attachment to the acts and systems of former ages, though sanctioned by the settlement in favour of the house of Brunswick, and by the blessings resulting from it. I am well aware, that the objects and principles of legislation must change with the times, interests, and exigencies of the day; but no doubt [...]æises in my mind that the exclusion of the Roman catholics from political power, contributed essentially to our free and happy constitution, and ought still to be maintained for its security. Nothing has happened to di- minish my anxieties for the stability of that mild and true religion, which, by its precepts and influence, is so incorporated with our constitution, that they must stand and fall together. If you admit the catholics to a participation of power, you admit the enemy within your camp. All men have a natural desire to extend the predominance of a religion they believe; nay more, it is the sacred and prescribed duty of the papist, if he be sincere in his creed, to undermine our church; for he believes it to be fatal to souls of his professors, and must feel that, in demolishing it, he is rendering a service to his fellow-creatures and to God. It is a fundamental principle of the church of Rome to exercise spiritual dominion over the christian world. The titular bishops, at their ordination, swear " to defend, enlarge, and extend the authority of the Roman church, and of their lard the pope." Their metropolitans in Ireland avow the same obligation, and proclaim, at this hour, in their publications, that the spiritual power of the pope is the same as ever. These doctrines are enforced by the priests. Religion is not similar to the ordinances of human institution, and capable of being qualified and restrained in its energies by law. The Roman catholics love their religion; its principles are irreconcileable to other persuasions, and its hierarchy is incessantly and indefatigably active, and subject also to the occasional influence of foreign states.—lf this sect should become co-ordinate in power with the reformed religion of the British empire; if we once admit the theoretical solecism of a protestant monarch and papist councils, we shall find ourselves involved in a religious anarchy.—The petitioners are pleased to assure us that they "do no seek to encroach upon the revenues of our bishops and clergy." Nothing is so false, in principle or in practice, as the notion of giving much, that nothing more may be asked— The cruel something unpossess'd, "Leavens and poisons all the rest. And though the dangers thus described are not imminent, still they are not so chimerical as to induce as to abandon the bulwarks we possess. The bars and bolts of a house may be removed, and yet the house not pillaged; but every prudent man will keep his bars and bolts. It would be a breach of our parliamentary trust to destroy or abandon the great outwork of that constitution under which we have so long enjoyed such unparalleled blessings.—the petitioners, by a sort of implied menæe, have expressed "their anxious desire to extinguish all motives of disunion, and all means of exciting discontent." If there by any eventual responsibility in this business, it must fall on the heads of those who first agitate a question, of which they must have foreseen the result, if the had only duly adverted to the known opinions of the several branches of the legislature, of the whole body of the Irish protestants, and of the general mass of the British people. I will be guided, and, I trust, a large majority of your lordships also, by a due estimate of the opposite responsibilities.—I cannot mean any disrespect towards the supporters of the petition; I know they are as adverse as I can be to the equalizing doctrines that have taken root in the minds of many; but I must pause before I can accede to that levelling liberality which would consider the episcopal protestant church, that of Scotland, that of Rome, and all the sectarists in the empire, as entitles in justice and expediency to the same political privileges, powers, and functions.—My lords, as we have seen, within a few years, many awful warnings of Providence in the fall of states and kingdoms, and in the vicissitudes of human affairs; chiefly owing to innovations in civil government and indifference respecting religious establishments, have we not good cause to adhere to a system of which we had a long and beneficial experience? We have more to risk than any nation under heaven. The present long and perilous war is directed against the spirit of innovation, to which so large a part of Europe has fallen a victim. Did it not commence for the safety of our civil and religious constitution? So long as the ancient barriers of that constitution shall be preserved, I am confident that we have nothing essential to fear; and yet I am not blind to the increasing dangers and protracted difficulties which still press upon us.—I will not contest prophecies with some of my noble friends, who are pleased to say, that the day cannot be distant when the demands of the petitioners will be complied with. I see no such probability, even with the assistance (which I will readily transfer to them) of a few noble persons who vote now against the petition, merely because they think "the present is not the proper moment."—On the contrary, I hope and rely that the will-meaning catholics of Ireland will see and be convinced, that the sense of parliament is pronounced against their application, upon grounds of immutable truth and reason,and at the same time with all that good-will mist affection which ought to prevail between subjects of the same sovereign.

Lord King

lamented that there should be any serious difference at this crisis between the English protestants and the Roman catholics in Ireland; he wished all differences to cease, and supported the motion as a measure of wisdom.

Lord Bolton

having formerly held an high official situation in Ireland (chief secretary to the lord lieutenant) felt it his duty to express the opinion on this subject which he had formed upon much reflexion. He conceived it extremely dangerous to grant to the catholics political power, except under a control, which was by no means proposed, and which it would be difficult to devise: and he thought such an experiment the more hazardous, as a language of constructive menace had been held by many noble lords of great weight, in course of this discussion, who had said that, what is asked must be granted, to preserve the country from imminent peril of fatal discord and disunion that must follow a refusal. This was a language of direct intimidation, which could not be listened to for many reasons; for nothing could tend more to remove all limits to future demand until the very superiority of power, might be claimed or assumed. The house too was exhorted and warned to concessions, not merely for the sake of interest, but of self-preservation. But on the contrary, he feared much more from the concession than the refusal. Some noble lords went so far as to insinuate pretty plainly that the house, was encouraged to venture on rejecting the petition, from a reliance on the loyalty and patience the depressed and ill-treated catholics. He would not hesitate to acknowledge his own reliance on the continued loyalty of these catholics who had hitherto maintained it; but that reliance would not be increased by increasing to the catholics political power. These oppressive restraints no longer exist; and he would so far accredit their good sense, as to think that, with all the drawbacks on their privileges so strongly enumerated, they would yet prefer the station they now hold in the empire to any risk under any change to which they might look from the interference of any foreign power. They could be no friends to the catholics who argued their cause inconsistently, as at one moment to menace the country with the privation of all aid from them without submission to their claims; and the next, to rebuke the legislature for its want of implicit reliance on their invariable attachment. Was it wished by those who so urgently argued the necessity of uniting those four millions of catholics cordially in the national defence, that they should be considered as actuated to such a purpose, at such a crisis, by motives of self-interest only, after all the favours they have received, and all the declarations they have made? But surely a much more generous and persuasive argument would be the manifestation of precedent efforts and exertions, from genuine patriotism, instead of conditional stipulations: but nothing could be more clearly necessary than that every species of menace or alarm, of unsteadiness or apprehension, should be completely extinguished on both sides, before an arrangement so important and delicate in its permanence. Quitting the course of general reasoning, he adverted to the period of 1783–4, when the Irish capital was in a manner in possession of the self-organised Irish volunteers. The voluntary readiness to take up arms on that occasion, which was urged particularly by the catholics as a peculiar merit, was followed by an extreme reluctance to lay them down again, after the restoration of peace. Occasional votes of thanks to those volunteers had been moved, and too readily assented to, by the Irish parliament, as, in fact, the object was to prolong the continuance of an institution not regularly acknowledged, which, in a different period, might well become a subject of great political uneasiness. This was accompanied with serious symptoms of internal disgust. But by a decisive vote of ultimate thanks to the volunteers, with a recommendation to disembody and return to the occupations of peace, in which government had the good fortune to be supported by the manly and powerful eloquence of a distinguished character (Mr. Grattan); at this moment, perhaps, supporting, with his powerful energies, in another place, the prayer of this petition, which many fear, if granted, would be more dangerous to the established constitution than were the unauthorised parades of some catholic corps of volunteers. It was about this time, too that the first bill for an Irish militia was brought forward, at the desire of government, by the late Lord Mountjoy, (who since, gallantly fell in defending his country against the fury of civil commotion); and who, though the first to bring forward the catholic petition in parliament, afterwards fell the first victim of a rebellion, in a great degree catholic. The noble lord stated these circumstances, as well to develop the real state of the catholic body, and the origination of those indulgences which have since so rapidly succeeded each other, as to mark the objects and designs which have actuated the movements of the different members of that body. It was a great error to suppose that the idea of complete catholic emancipation from all restrictions was only hinted for the first time in 1788 or 1789. The noble lord (Grenville)who brought forward this petition, had appealed to the experience of those who had resided, in official situation, in Ireland, to speak to the catholic character and conduct. Other noble lords had ably and honourable done so; and he would now add such testimony as occurred to his own experience.—The great change effected in the political situation of Ireland in 1782 continued unfortunately to have a lasting effect on the catholics of all descriptions, ever afterward. From these might be dated the systematic restlessness, disorder, nay, absolute disloyalty, in a large portion of the lower orders, and the growing eagerness in the higher classes for place and power. Both adopted measures but ill chosen for success; but they decidedly marked the fast hold those objects had taken on the catholic mind. They formed great expectation of advantage from the new-born independency of Ireland upon England; but shortly after, those hopes were changed to doubt, and them to despair; murmurs and complaints ensued at their meetings, and demagogues, and priests chosen from the lowest orders, educated abroad, and fraught with seditious principles, laboured to work up the minds of the people. They were taught to rely for every thing on the superiority of their numbers, and a separation from England. Relief from tithes and rents, and gain of property and provision without labour, were all to arise from this separation; and it soon become a cant word, and the bond of a dangerous union. White Boys, and other predatory associations arose, which, though soon suppressed by the vigour of government, still left behind them those germs of their principles, that never since have been quite extinguished. The weight and influence of their higher orders, and particularly of their clergy, were considerably diminished; and have never since been regained. Their lassitude and tardiness in aiding to suppress the disorders alluded to, were observable to government; and there appeared but too much cause to sus- pect that such aid was reserved for conditional compensation. In the beginning of 1786, Dr. Butler, the titular archbishop of Cashel, and man of considerable talents and high family connexion, and then considered the great organ of the catholic cause, addressed a remonstrance to government, upon the disappointment felt by the catholics at the lapse of a whole session of parliament, without any mark of favour to them. Long sufferings, merits, and expectations were urged, and much mortification and discontent were expressed, especially as parliament was not engaged in the consideration of any foreign war, or other business of difficulty or embarrassment; and after expatiating much on their zeal in the volunteer cause, and their uniformly inoffensive and loyal conduct, the remonstrance concluded by saying, they would be satisfied for the present with some introductory privileges, such as the professions and honours of the bar and army, as preludes to the attainment of every thing else. The answer to this remonstrance expressed surprise at the matter, manner, and time of it; and at the same time reminded Dr. Butler, and through him, his community of the internal disorders and commotions them existing, excited by and confined to catholics, and most prevalent where catholic influence was the most powerful. It therefore denied the propriety of any remonstrance, expectation, or requisition for favours, while there was no mark of auxiliary exertion from the higher catholics to support the tranquillity and good order disturbed lately by their own community. Several conferences followed, which ended in an offer on the part of government to submit the claims of the catholics to parliament; but not without conditional professions of active gratitude. The hazard of such a reference was thought much greater than the probability of its success: but there was an end, for the time, to petition, and remonstrance, and soon afterwards, to the appearance of open and predatory disaffection. This was in the administration of the Duke of Rutland; and the noble lord by no means meant to charge any temptation or feeling of disloyalty in the principal catholics, but, on the contrary, to acknowledge and vindicate their loyal principles, and the many proofs of which they had shewn. But he must observe, that their unchangeable views to their great object of final emancipation from all restrictions, and even under their partial and temporary indulgences from time to time, was an obvious check upon the voluntary and disinterested vigour of any zealous co-operation with government. The truth then seems to be, that, allowing them to be good and loyal subjects in their present situation, they have an insatiable thirst for power; and, how that might change their nature, there's the question. Grant power, And then I grant we put a sting into them That at their will they may do danger with. I cannot therefore, said the noble lord, help doubting at least, whether I should have been disposed, under such impression of still increasing claims upon every accession of favour, to have gone so far in removal of all disabilities as was done in 1793, especially in the instance of the elective franchise. It could not well be doubted by any man, who had a reasonable knowledge of human nature, and Was aware of the position and views of this particular sect, that the concession here stated would be chiefly valued as a step to the right of representation. And who can pretend to be answerable for restrictive moderation even there? Temptation, &c. may be incited by the impulse of seeming means and opportunity, and then, in course, a dormant spirit of uneasy ambition might be roused into dangerous action. Then last it may—prevent! And if the quarrel will bear no colour for the things they are, fashion it thus; that what they are, augmented, May run to these and these extremities, &c.&c. I will not apprehend a mistaken suspicion, from such allusions, that I would entertain an unfriendly, much less an illiberal estimation of the catholic character, or would be found in adverse attack upon their comforts and immunities. If the limit is drawn, where it is, I would readily agree in the opinion of the noble secretary of state (lord Hawkesbury) that we should regard without regret the concessions already made; and I would, cordially rejoice in being able to see a period of safe allowance for the grant of yet more. If I was to speak of individuals, there are many, for whom personal respect would lead me to desire the fullest gratification of their wishes. But I confine not my go thoughts within such a narrow circle: to all who by no prohibited excess or deviation from their loyalty in thought or deed are justly, entitled to the rank of fellow-subjects, I Would studiously endeavour to mark an attentive consideration and concern.—A noble lord (Spencer) has said, that whilst any incapacities remain, there will be re- maining restlessness and complaint. That noble lord had not surely well reflected upon the more than possible danger to arise from admission of this argument as a ground for concession. What is to be a limit or restraint upon this source of disturbance and risk to our own establishment? Incapacities are not unknown to protestants, and cannot be wholly withdrawn from catholics without surrender of even equality. But I am really inclined to think, that sufficient reflection has not been bestowed on the value of what is now in possession or enjoyed by connivance. They are not friends to the catholics, who speak of their being driven to despair, and of their groaning under long and endless oppression. Imagination often creates more sense of suffering than does reality of cause; and we are frequently led to suppose ourselves objects of pity or disregard by the mistaken or officious suggestions of pretended sympathy. If we for a moment appreciate the real case as it is, and as it is pretended it ought to be, we shall find that no penalties or restrictions remain which can be felt by the great mass of that people, and that not the grant of all which is required, would add a grain to their real wants or wishes; and in respect of the few who might be objects of supposed benefit by the further indulgences, they are excluded only from certain situations by necessary regard for our constitutional establishment, and from which, in fact, they exclude themselves by refusal to aspire to them upon equal conditions with their protestant fellow subjects.—In justice to the liberality of the legislature, let us estimate the value of the last concession, that of the elective franchise! I cannot conceive that a more powerful incentive to habits of industry, and thereby to acquisition of property, could have been conferred; and it must be evident, that the competition was thus made more than equal in favour of the catholics. It ought also to be observed that a protestant legislature, part of it against its own immediate interests and convenience, made this in some degree at least, a sacrifice of the comparative superiority and even independence of the protestants, by the necessity imposed upon future candidates for parliament solicit the favour of even the lower orders of the catholic freeholders. At all events, the token of wish for harmony and good fellowship was manifested beyond a doubt. It is not imputable to the protestant legislature in depreciation of the real boon, that all the benefit to which it was unquestionably conducive, was not derived from it by the objects of its participation.—Long as there shall exist the uncontrouled dominion of factious demagogues of what ever class, but especially that of the monkish priesthood over the minds of these wretched people, they will not be suffered to exert their resources with uniform and steady attention to any pursuit best calculated for their own advantage, and for the peace and prosperity of the country. And here we may reflect perhaps with regret upon the change (to which I before alluded) in the influence of the higher over the lower orders of the catholic community, which not only weakens the constant channel of communication with government, but disables those, who are in reality time most, if not the only petitioners immediately interested on this occasion, from strengthening their pretensions by the pledge of sure responsibility for the political conduct of the whole body.—I will not attempt to discuss the question of present relation in point of authority or subordination between the several branches of this catholic community in abstract matters of religion. This has been largely considered by other noble lords, with sufficient examination of the imperium in imperio, the catholic hierarchy. I would simply remark, that here assuredly is an instance of connivance beyond the usual cases of to legation; and I had ventured to regard it as an ever striking proof, admitted by the catholics, of the liberal forbearance of the protestant establishment. What may be the degree of danger which, in case of an allowance of catholic power, may be incurred from temptation and resources in this quarter also to assume a more independent condition and unfettered acknowledgment, is a subject worthy of very serious reflection.—I will confess that I had persuaded myself of a remedy to all causes of uneasiness and alarm in the last great measure of an union of the kingdoms; I did expect from its accomplishment the removal of those baneful hopes of separation, which had sprung from the independence, and were, perhaps, in reality more adverse to the happiness and welfare of those. who entertained them, than essentially dangerous to those against whom they prevailed. In whatever light, therefore, of unfavourable opinion, for the sake of all parties, I had from reflection and experience regarded the measure and the effect of independence, I certainly it as itself the great demonstrative cause by evident ne- cessity of a successful call for the resource of an union.—The confusion and uncertainty, the speculations and excesses, in short, the total derangement (I will not use the word disorganization) consequent upon the one could not be, after such a trial, so effectually composed and harmonized by any other intervention than that of the other. It is certainly to be acknowledged, that all the good expected has not yet been experienced from this measure, especially its effect upon the quiet and industrious demeanour of the lower catholics, The peace which ensued was of too short a duration wholly to erase all idle speculation, and to fix a well regulated content; and the, recommencement of hostilities may have facilitated again the approaches of mischievous instigators, to revive the decaying embers of that miserable hope of a fallacious good, in separation from England by the help of foreign aid and maintenance —Still, however, I venture to encourage the confident expectation, that from the union will ultimately arise a state of order and industrious exertion, which will produce more real and lasting welfare to this people, than all the imaginary promises of every good from the wildest emancipation. Neither time then, or circumstances, are now favourable to the entertainment of this petition. But it has been exclaimed, what, then! is all hope of more fortunate conjuncture, and of more auspicious situations of affairs to be extinguished, and this oppressed people to he driven to comfortless despair?—I would answer with conscientious sincerity, that true belief, indeed, would induce me to place the measure of satisfaction best calculated for their real happiness in a supposed extinction of all views beyond the present means of comfort and prosperity. Let them be fairly estimated, cherished, and enjoyed; they wilt produce a harvest of blessings. I dare not at present presume to dream of more, which may,be good for them, or safe for us but God forbid that we should venture to circumscribe the ways of his Divine Providence, which may remove obstacles at present too strong for our attempt to clear away or pass by. There may (and I wish there may) be future reasons, however unexpected now, to prove the security with which the protestants may grant the competency of the catholics to be entrusted with the fullest participation of rights and privileges: they may, by habits of industry, good order, harmonious concord, social intercourse, mutual good-will, and reciprocal good offices, and by zealous patriotism and loyalty. (all indeed having tendency to their own, immediate benefit, and therefore the most gratifying to the liberal spirit of the legislature) give encouragement for unrestricted confidence. They may find cause unequivocally to withdraw that barrier(insuperable, whilst it remains in force) of divided allegiance the obligation to papal supremacy, which a noble lord has most forcibly and most eloquently demonstrated to render vain all pretensions to equal rights by the want of equal conditions. I will not shut out the wish or the hope for such alteration of circumstances; but with our limited power of searching into future chance and change, we can, I think, retain this possible expectation, as the only prevention to a positive declaration, that here, even here, must Be all and the End all. We are, I am afraid, yet only on our own necessary defence. We are obliged in conscience, honour, and duty to ourselves, and to our constitution in church and state, to throw our shield of self-preservation before us, and on it to exhibit the warning motto of "ne plus ultra."

The Earl of Longford

said a few words in favour of the motion; after which,

Lord Grenville

rose to reply, and spoke in substance as follows: My lords; nothing but the duty I owe to the question and to myself, would have induced me to trouble your lordships with any observations at this late hour, In the course of what has fallen from noble lords during this debate, it has been thrown out by way of reproach, that to this petition is affixed none of the names of the catholic clergy of Ireland, and this most unjust and most unwarrantable interference has been drawn, that because they have not put their names to the petition, therefore they are not willing to subscribe to the sentiments of loyalty and attachment expressed in the petition. Now, my lords, I assert it again, and again, and am willing to lose all consideration with your lordships if I do not prove, that the contrary is the fact; if I do not prove, that they have signed the declaration themselves, and as an hierarchy have,recommended it to others. I have the means of proving before a committee of lordships, if you will let me go into committee, that the catholic clergy of Ireland are not only willing, but anxious and desirous to take the oaths prescribed by law,and that they exert themselves to persuade others to take them. This I can prove by certificates from courts of justice in Ireland, and other concurrent testimonies. The reason alleged by the catholic clergy for not signing the present petition, and a correct and rational reason it is, is that it prays merely for the enjoyment of civil rights. Those, therefore, who are abusing and vilifying this respectable body are not judging from facts, nor can they be well-wishers to the peace and prosperity of Ireland.ȄMy lords, a noble lord has made a distinction between the oath of the catholics of Ireland and the oath of the catholics of England. He says the difference is, that the catholics of Ireland are not willing to take the same oath as the catholics of England, and lie argues as if the catholics of England were willing to give some pledge of their loyalty which the catholics of Ireland were not willing to take. My lords, I maintain that the oath is equally binding on the catholic of Ireland as it is on the catholic of England.—I shall now make a few short observations on what fell from a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) who spoke at considerable length the other evening. The noble and learned lord told you, that there was in the catholic church of Ireland an establishment of bishops. This, my loads, is no information to any person Who knows that the church of Ireland is episcopal, and that if you put down Roman catholic bishops, you put down the religion itself.— But the noble and learned lord asserts, "that they consider themselves as the only lawful successors of the ancient clergy of Ireland, assuming all the powers, and claiming all the revenues, of that clergy, treating the clergy of the reformed religion as usurpers; refusing obedience to all laws framed to curb the encroachments of the papacy on the sovereign power, and denying to the legislature of the country all power over the ranks, dignities, and authorities, and even the revenues of the church." My lords, I entreat your lordships to go into this committee to see whether this be true. If their own declaration is true, and that it is so I most firmly believe, they declare quite the contrary. I hope .on a point of so much importance, your lordships will afford the petitioners some opportunity of proof. The next point, as to excommunication: the noble and learned lord says, "the authority of the Roman catholic clergy deer their flock is enforced by the most dreadful of all means; by the power of excommunication, a power very different from that possessed by the established church." I appeal to the right reverend bench opposite, whether it be pos- sible that any church can subsist, unless it possess the power of shutting those out of to who break the the church, and act contrary to them.—The noble and learned lord has also stigmatized the Roman catholic clergy of Ireland, "as an unauthorised hierarchy, lifting themselves up in defiance of the law, and of all constitutional authority." He says, that "reigning uncontroled, their ecclesiastical courts govern the whole people; that they dissolve marriages for causes not allowed by law—procontract consanguinity, or affinity, in degrees beyond those prescribed by the legislature; that they license marriages within those,degrees; that the evidence of marriage is wholly in their power; and that the legitimacy of children, and the succession to property, is under their control." My lords, let the noble and learned lord bring forth his proofs. If he can produce them, sure I am, that every person who hears me will cordially and anxiously join with him in finding the remedy. And if, in the course of your enquiry, you should discover four or five ignorant parish priests who have exceeded the limits of their duty, I will say then also, apply the remedy, go into the committee, and do not impute that to a whole body of men, which proceeds only from a few ignorant individuals. My lords, that such expressions should go forth to the world as proceeding from such a quarter is, in my mind, the greatest evil that can possibly arise from the present discussion. I will venture to say, that if you will turn your attention to the means of rendering the condition of Ireland more conducive to the happiness of the people, instead of vilifying and degrading the hierarchy, you, must begin by respecting that hierarchy, and to make that useful and respectable class of men respected by those over whom they are to exercise their authority, you must secure to it an influence over those whom by law yon cannot change, but to whom they will look, as their spiritual directors. Those who endeavour to effect this are practically the greatest benefactors to the empire, of which Ireland now forms so essential a part.—To the rest of the noble and learned lord's speech, I must decline offering any reply. Sorry I am to have heard that speech in this house; but more sorry, that it should go out to the world, that a person holding such opinions still continues in a situation of such great importance to the peace and tranquillity of the united empire! The noble and learned lord has also said, and, in which sentiment I perfectly agree with him, that if the claims of this petition are granted something further must also be done. I was told on a former night, that I had left something unexplained; that there was something more in my mind than what is expressed in the prayer of the petition. My lords, there is something more in my mind. I was not so weak as to suppose, that the placing a few persons in offices would have the effect of calming the minds of the people of Ireland. I Well know that much must be done; and my opinion is, that many provisions and regulations must necessarily accompany the granting the prayer of your it petitioners. But, I know of no manner in which it can be done so effectually, as by making this committee the ground work of those proceedings. One noble lord told us, that there had been no county meetings, nothing to convince us that the measure proposed is loudly called by the majority of the people. Surely, my lords, it is much to the credit of the petitioners, that there has been no clamour on this occasion. The pride of the petitioners has been, that they have exerted themselves to prevent that clamour, and to bring their petition before your lordships in that decent and respectful manner, which I conceive they have done.—Another objection, is, that it has been brought forward in a time of war. My lords, if there be danger, let us look that danger in the face. If this measure is ultimately right to be adopted, what time can be more proper than the present moment, when we are encompassed by dangers on every side, and when you are obliged to give up a part of your militia for the sake of increasing your disposeable force? I, therefore, call upon your lordships to lay aside all vain pretence, and if it be a good thing to do, do it in that moment when, of all others, it will be most serviceable to the country, and most welcome to your petitioners.—To those who think that the measure is so radically bad, that it never can be adopted, I would just say a few words. They talk of the bill of rights, the reformation, the title of the crown, and all that. But does any man living believe, that if we were to adopt the proposal of suffering Irish catholics to sit in parliament, it would in any shape whatever tend to destroy the reformed religion of this country? Surely, there must be great want of argument, when you are obliged to resort to such sophisms as this against the proposed measure! No blessing can light upon counsels conducted upon such principles.—Now, my lords, I come to the question, is it safe to give the catholics that which they ask? And, what is the danger that could possibly arise from so doing? We are told that the catholics differ from all other sects. You may endure dissenters, you may endure men of no religion, but you may not endure the catholics, because they do not acknowledge the king's supremacy. Great stress has been laid upon the objection on the part of the petitioners to take this oath; and this very circumstance, did no other consideration apply, would abundantly and clearly expose the falsity, inconsistency, and absurdity of the assertion, that the petitioners hold as an article of their creed, "that no faith is to be kept with heretics." Nothing now, it has been observed, in the course of this debate, remains to exclude the catholics from a full participation of the benefits of the constitution, but their sanctimonious regard for the dictates of an oath! And yet, up to this very hour, we have been told, that catholics consider themselves as not obliged to keep faith with heretics, and, consequently, pay no regard to the oaths they take with them. But this is not all. Let your lordships consider what this much talked of oath is in reality and in fact. Perhaps, many who talk so loudly of it, are far from understanding it. In point of fact, the oath of supremacy, as it now stands is not positive but negative. It does not assert that the king is the supreme head of the church, but that no foreign prince is so to be considered. It has been repeatedly argued and demonstrated, that the sense in which the Roman catholics regard the pope as supreme head of the church, is a theological, not a political consideration.—I shall not detain your lordships at this late hour with any further observations. If no other service is derived from the agitation of this question, this good will undoubtedly arise from it: that after all the letters and pamphlets which have been written against the catholics, it will be clear to the conviction of your lordships, that, from all their professions and all their declarations, doctrines have been insisted upon, which were never entertained by the persons to whom they have been attributed. The catholics will go from your bar acquitted by the most enlightened assembly The question of actual attachment will never enter into. But this I must say, that with very little exception, there has been an almost unanimous agreement, as to the loyalty and attachment of that body. The argument of one noble lord, who spoke early in the debate of this night (the earl of Buckinghamshire) is inconsistent and absurd in the extreme. The noble earl said, that "his Majesty had not in his dominions a set of men more sincerely attached, or better affected to his person and government, than the noblemen and gentlemen who represent the catholic body in Ireland; but," added the noble earl, "these noblemen and gentlemen have long ceased to have any influence over the great mass of the Roman catholics in Ireland." Why then, I would ask, should we hesitate to grant the prayer of the petition, which goes to affect a comparatively small number of persons, and who are described as loyal and faithful subjects, and yet grant to the lower orders of the great body of the Irish catholics, reputedly a contaminated mass, ever thing they can reasonably enjoy under the constitution? The argument of the noble earl involves this farther inconsistency. He entertains fears that great catholic proprietors would soon exclusively be returned for the counties, by a great majority of the catholic freeholders; and yet, almost in the same breath, he asserts, that persons of that description have ceased to have any influence over the great body of the Roman catholics! Yet, entertaining so high an opinion of these noblemen and gentlemen, these are they on whom and on whom alone, you are desirous of placing these restraints. To presbyterians you give a full participation in the blessings of your constitution. From them yon withhold nothing. Yet, from the catholic noblemen and gentlemen of Ireland you withhold every thing. My Lords, how can this be reconciled with any principle of reason or of justice? How can you withhold these blessings from men who have risked their lives in defence of their country, and in defence of those laws in which they earnestly pray to be made joint partakers? You owe much to the zeal, the loyalty, and the active exertions of the protestants of Ireland, but to no set of men do you owe more than to the catholic noblemen and gentry from whom you withhold these privileges. I hope I have proved, that you have nothing to fear from granting the prayer of this petition. If you have any thing to fear, the way is to give up those distinctions which .at present exist. The true way to meet that danger is by doing away those distinctions, and firmly untiring those two bodies into one trust, I have also proved, that there is throughout your empire, no outpost so vulnerable as Ireland. It is an old citadel, whose superstructure you yourselves have demolished; but as for shelter, at present it affords you none! My lords, I have no more to say, I am ashamed at this late hour to have trespassed so long upon your time. I do entertain a belief, that the force of reason, like the rays of the sun, breaking in upon us, and that the day is not far distant, when she will triumph over all prejudices, and will produce a decision favourable to the cause of your petitioners. I am persuaded, that the agitation of this question will be of service, that an impression will be made on the minds of the catholics that there is a growing desire to examine their case, and that whatever degree of prejudice may still prevail amongst us, there is nevertheless, so much liberality, that the catholics will retire from your bar confident of ultimate success.

Lord Sidmouth

rose to say a few words by way of explanation. It was his idea, as well as his wish, that all remaining restrictions on the relgion of the catholics of Ireland, if any did remain, should be removed. He would also allow them a full community of civil rights with the rest of his-majesty's subjects; but never would he agree to put into their bands powers sufficient to subvert the constitution.

The house then divided, when the numbers were,

For the motion.	Contents	37
	Proxies	12
			49
Against the motion.	Contents	133
	Proxies	45
			178
Majority against the motion		129

At six o'clock on Tuesday morning the house adjourned.