HL Deb 21 April 1812 vol 22 cc558-703

The natural rights of men were not intended to be weakened by the law and doctrine of Christ, but to be confirmed by them. Now, nothing is more clearly engraved on the minds of men, by the law of nature, than the principle—that all men, however differing from each other in religious tenets, are, to every intent and purpose, in a state of equality with respect to negociations, alliances, and compacts. The Spaniards, who, in point of zeal for the Catholic faith, yield to no nation under heaven, have entered into contracts both commercial and relating to peace, with the English themselves, and with other Calvinist and Lutheran states; and it would be an atrocious injury and a vile bishop of Tarbes to exercise, sovereignly, all ecclesiastical jurisdiction in that country, without the intervention or authority of the pope. The emperor Charles the Fifth, when Clement the Seventh had made a league with Francis the First, abolished the papal authority all over Spain.*

However, I cannot refrain from observing, that in no country have the ambitious views and extravagant pretensions of the pone been more strenuously resisted, than by the sovereigns and the Catholic parliaments of these realms. The religious tenets of a people will always savour of their political principles; and to them they will be ever, more or less, accommodated. Great Britain, insulated from the rest of Europe by that element which naturally inspires every islander with high notions

calumny to assert, that such contracts have been, at any time, violated under the pretence of religion. Because we are Catholics, it is not necessary that we should be actuated by a persecuting spirit against those who are averse to our religion. Meekness and charity are its grand characteristics, and the examples left us by our predecessors recommend to us a contrary conduct.—Therefore, amongst the articles of the Catholic faith, there is none which teaches, that Catholics are not bound to keep faith with heretics, or with persons of any other description, who dissent from them in matters of religion.

Given at the University of Salamanca, A. D. 1789.—Signed, in the name of the University, by the Rector and six deputed Members.

* The Pope having granted the king, the tenths of all ecclesiastical benefices in Castile, to assist him to carry on a war against the Turks, a convocation of the clergy unanimously refused to levy that sum, upon pretence that it ought never to be exacted, but at those times when Christendom was actually invaded by the infidels; and though Leo, in order to support his authority, laid the kingdom under an interdict, so little regard was paid to a censure, which was universally deemed unjust, that Charles himself applied to have it taken off. Thus the Spanish Church, besides their merit in opposing the usurpations of the Pope, and disregarding the influence of the crown, gained the exemptions which they had claimed.—Robertson's Hist, of the Reign of Charles V. 8vo. edit. p. 80 and 81.

of self-importance, has uniformly and systematically cultivated and maintained a peculiar species of both civil and religious liberty, unknown almost to any other nation in the world. It is evident by all our books and records, that our ancient laws do give unto our king only the supreme power and jurisdiction, in matters ecclesiastical, not spiritual, and that the same laws do utterly exclude the pope in all causes.

In expressing myself in these terms, I mean the old common law, and statutes made in affirmance of the common law, which have been maintained for law, from lime to time, for the space of 400 years before king Henry the Eighth was born; those judges who did expound these laws were not Protestants, or of the reformed religion, but old popish judges, which were in those days learned in the canon law, which is the only law that doth uphold and maintain the pope's supremacy.

The spiritual and civil authority are really distinguished, not by the matter, subject, or cause in which they are exercised; but by the nature of the act of power which they exert; and by the sanction or penalty wherewith they enforce it.

The civil power cannot punish with ex-communication and other spiritual censures; nor can the spiritual power punish with fines, imprisonment, or other civil penalties,—except by commission and delegation from the civil powers; and then they become temporal.‡

Already in the reign of William the

† Every Church claims to herself the power of inflicting spiritual punishment, independent of the civil magistrate, the Church of Rome, the consistories of Scotland, and all others.

When the Council of Two Hundred arrogated to themselves the power of denouncing and absolving from censures, and in consequence intended to absolve one Bertelier, Calvin ascended the pulpit, and with outstretched hands threatened to oppose force to force; exclaimed with vehemence of voice against the profanation, and forced the senate to resign their spiritual commission; Bertelier was punished in spite of the promise of the civil power.

Bertelier (Bayley, vol. 1, p. 783,) having been excommunicated in the year 1552, by the consistory of Geneva, made his complaint to the senate. The ministers were sent for to give their reasons for Conqueror,—that illustrious warrior and sovereign, acceded to pay the Peter-pence, which was levied in this country; but he

it; and both parties being heard, the senate confirmed the excommunication.

Eighteen months after Bertelier had recourse again to the senate, who after having heard Calvin's opposition, pronounced that Bertelier should be admitted to the holy Sacrament. As soon as Calvin heard this news, he desired the Syndics to assemble the senate; and when they were met, be represented his reasons, and concluded with an oath, that he would rather lose his life, than give his consent that such a man should receive the Lord's Supper. This is what Calvin wrote himself. His historian will tell us more of it. The clamour which was raised against the ministers, as if, in some respects, they had invaded the rights of the sovereignty, was the reason why the Council of Two Hundred ordered, that the final judgment of causes of ex-communication should belong to the senate; and that the senate might absolve the excommunicated as they should think fit. By virtue of this decree the senate granted letters of absolution to Bertelier, which were sealed with the seal of the republic. The sacrament was to be administered within two days. When Calvin came to hear of what had passed, he soon resolved what to do, and preached against the contempt of the Sacrament; he raised his voice, lifted up his hands, and said he would imitate St. Chrysostom; that he would not oppose force to force, but that he would rather be massacred than that his hands should present the holy mysteries to those who had been judged unworthy of them. This was a thunderbolt which confounded Bertelier's faction, so that it was not thought lit that he should present himself to the Communion.

The next day after the Sacrament, Calvin, accompanied by his consistory, desired leave of the senate, and of the Council of Two Hundred, to speak to the people about this matter, forasmuch as it concerned the abrogation of a law made by the people. This made so great an impression on the minds of the people, that it was resolved the Swiss Cantons should be consulted about it; and that the decree of the Two Hundred should be suspended; but that none should say that the ancient regulations had been in the least infringed. (Beza in vitâ Calvini ad Ann. 1553.) "In am sententiam animis non mediocriter

positively refused, by letter to pope Gregory the Seventh, his legate Hubertus's pretensions to swear allegiance to the pontiff.* His sons, William Rufus and Henry the First, continued in the same sentiments.†

The preservation of the Magna Charta, the first great bulwark of every Englishman's liberties, is solely to be attributed to the firmness of cardinal Langton, who,

immutatis itum est, ut susperiso illo diacosiorum decreto statuentur petendum esse a quatuor civitatibus Helveticis judicium nee interea præjudicium ullum fieri receptes legibus oportere."

By these means the consistory obtained a complete victory, and, in a manner, made the senate and the Council of Two Hundred buckle to. What would they have done in a democratical country? Is it possible to rule over men who tell the people from the pulpit, that they would rather suffer themselves to be killed than consent that holy things should be profaned? St. Chrysostom's example, properly alleged, is an artful way of threatening the government with an insurrection,

* The latter of William is extant in the Miscellanea of Baluzius, torn. 7, p. 127, as also in Collier's Ecclesiastical History in the collection of records, p. 713, No. 12. "Hubertus legatus tuus admonuit me quatenus tibi et successoribus tuis fidelitatem facerem, et de pecuniâ quam antecessores mei ad ecclesiam mettere solebant, melius cogitarem: unum admisi alterum non ad-misi." Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo.

† William Rufus, and Henry the First, enjoyed their prerogative in causes ecclesiastical, and bestowed bishoprics and abbeys without the Pope's leave or confirmation; and yet during their reign there were three stout bishops that succeeded one another in the see of Canterbury, (Stigand, Lanfranc, and Anselm) who did attempt to advance the authority of the Pope as far as they durst.

Thomas à Becket, in Henry the Second, (1164) who was the first to oppose the crown, subscribed to the constitution made at Clarendon, for the confirmation of the prerogatives of the crown, among which was one, that the appeals should be made from the archdeacon to the bishop of the diocese, next from the bishop of the diocese to the archbishop of the province, and from the archbishop of the province to the king,—which Should be the highest and last appeal.

supported by the barons, refused to publish the excommunication, which was issued by the pope against those who should press king John to maintain his treaty with them. From those the sovereign had sought to get himself released; and to that end, had personally applied to the court of Rome: having at the beginning of his reign freely resigned to Innocent the Third his crown and independence; and of course placed himself under the papal protection.*

* And yet the monarch (John), according to Matthew Paris, wrote to the Pope, "that he would stand for the liberties of his crown unto his death, and that if the pontiff would not yield to do him right, he had archbishops, bishops, and learned men, in his realm, by whom the Church of England should be governed, and that from henceforth his subjects should not go a begging beyond the seas, for their judgment in cases ecclesiastical."—Yet after that, the king, being oppressed by the barons' wars, the Pope deposed him, and forced him to surrender both realms to his legate, and to receive them again, tendering a rent.

† Edw. the First, (1277) returning from the holy land, restored the ancient powers and prerogatives to the crown. In his time the archbishop of York lost his temporalities during his life, for refusing to admit the king's clerk to a benefice, alledging that it was full before, by provision of the Pope.

In the 30th assizes of Edward the First, (1303) he would have been drawn and hanged who brought the Pope's excommunication against a subject; but by the intercession of the chancellor and treasurer, he was permitted only to abjure the realm.

Edward the Second made the statute of Carlisle; whereby it was provided that no alien should have any benefices in England by the provision of the Pope.

Edward the Third (1327) made sundry statutes against such as purchased benefices by provision from Rome, putting them out of the King's protection, so as every man might lawfully kill them, as enemies to the King and Commonwealth. In the 7th of Edward the Third (1334) the King alone make appropriations of the Church. In the 49th assizes the King alone make the priory of Westminster secular, which before was regular.

In the 17th it appears, in the book 22nd

The reigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second, equally manifest the

assizes, tithes, which are mere spiritual duties, are in some cases due and payable to the King; namely, out of such lands as are not within the limits of any parish.

The King also granted episcopal jurisdiction to the archdeacon of Richmond. For this cause by the ancient common law, the King is not only supreme patron of all archbishopricks, and bishopricks, in right of his crown, (which he was wont to bestow immediately 'per annulum et baculum' without any canonical election, and afterwards when he did admit election, he ever reserved a royal assent unto himself) but he is also supreme ordinary, and hath supreme cure and superintendency over all the churches within his kingdom. And, therefore, if a church become void, the patron hath six months to present a fit pastor; and in his default the ordinary of the diocese; and in his default the archbishop of the province; and in his default the king shall present, as having the highest care to provide a fit pastor for the souls of his people. Doth not this prove his authority in ecclesiastical matters?

In the 20th of Edward the Third it appears, that all spiritual and religious houses of the King's foundation, are free from episcopal jurisdiction, and visitable only by the King's commissioners.

In the 22nd of Edward the Third, (1349) the King having presented a clerk to a benefice, the clerk was disturbed by one who had a bull from the Pope for the same benefice, upon which the disturber was punished with perpetual imprisonment.

Long time before the statutes of premunire, the ancient common law was, that whoever brought a bull of excommunication against any of the King's subjects, was adjudged a traitor, and whosoever brought a bull of provision to any benefice, committed the highest contempt against the laws, and did forfeit as much as he could forfeit.

The statute of the 25th of Edward the Third recites, "whereas in the 35th of Edward the First, it was represented late in the parliament, that the Church was founded in the state of prelacy to inform the king, lords, and people the law of God, in certain possessions, lands and fees, as in advowsons, which extended to great value, even assigned to the King and Lords, same disposition to resist the encroachments of the pontiffs, which was also followed

the founders of the Church, to prelates and men, to sustain the charge, and especially to archbishops, bishops, and others, and upon voidance to presentments, and collations to the benefices, did and ought to belong to the King and others as lords and advowees. And that the kings in former times were used to have the greater part of their council of prelates and clerks so advanced, that the bishop of Rome, accroaching to him the seignories of such possession and benefices, doth grant the same to aliens who never dwell in England; Cardinals who might not dwell here; and to others as well aliens as denizens, as if he were patron and advowee of the said dignities and benefices, as by the right of the laws of England he is not; thereby causing many grievances and inconveniences recited in the act, which shall not henceforth be suffered and allowed; whereupon it is prayed that the King ought and is bound by his oath, with accord of his parliament, to make remedy and law in removing the mischiefs and damages which here of, ensue.

It proceeds to enact that the election of archbishops, bishops, and dignities elective, shall be free as originally founded; that the patron and founders shall have the presentation to benefices upon voidances, and inflict penalties, to the extent of premunire, upon those who, under colour of authority or collation from Rome, disturb the proper elections and presentations.

The like penalties were by the statute of premunire (35th Edward the First, (1377) denounced against all that purchased, or pursued in the court of Rome, or elsewhere, any translations, processes, and sentences of excommunication, bulls, instruments, or any other things touching the King, his crown, his regalia, or his realm, and against all that brought, received, notified, or any ways executed them within the realm.

In the 33rd of Edward the Third, it is said, Reges sacro oleo uncti spiritualis jurisdictionis sunt capaces.

The 3d of Richard the Second, chap. 3d, enforced by 7th Richard the Second, chap. 12, further by 10th Richard the Second, chap. 5th, recites, that benefices have been bestowed of late contrary to the will of their founders and patrons, to "livers people of a different language, and strange land and nations, and proceeds to

by Henry the Eighth.† [See the Note marked ‡ in page 563.] It is right,

detail the inconveniences arising from the practice; in which it provides remedy, by making it unlawful for any one to receive the profits of the benefices for them, or to remit, or account to them for the same.

The 16th Richard the Second, (1392) chap. 5, act of premunire for purchasing bulls, recites, that by the law of the realm persons have been used to sue in the King's courts, to recover their presentments to benefices, to which they had right to present, and upon obtaining judgment, the bishops, &c. having the institution of the benefices, have been bound to carry the judgment into effect; but of late, divers processes have been made by the bishop of Rome, and censures of ex-communication passed upon certain bishops, for carrying the said judgments into effect; to the open disherison of the crown, and destruction of the king's dignity, further recites, that a report had been raised, that the bishop of Rome was about to translate prelates in the realm, without the king's knowledge and consent, contrary to the statutes of the realm, so that the crown of England, which hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God, in all matters touching the regality of the same crown, and to none other, should be submitted to the Pope, and the laws of the realm be by him defeated.

The 2d section records a declaration of the Commons and Peers, temporal and spiritual, that the matters recited are against the right and dignity of the crown, and enacts that persons offending by suing, or purchasing at Rome any translations, processes, sentences of excommunication, bulls, or other instruments, against the king, his crown, regality, or realm, as is aforesaid, and who bring the same within the realm, and receive or make notification thereof, or any other execution thereof, within or without the realm, shall be put out of the king's protection, shall forfeit goods and chattels, lands and tenements, and be attached by their bodies, and brought before the king and his council to answer, to be otherwise proceeded against according to law, for derogation of the king's crown and dignity.

Under Henry the 4th, like pains were by several statutes to be inflicted upon such as procured from the bishop of Rome

though, to remark here, that personal motives had an additional sway, in creating

exemptions from obedience, regular or ordinary, and from payment of tythes; and these statutes against the usurpation of the see of Rome, made in the time of Roman Catholic princes, with the express assent of the bishops and prelates of the realm, were continued in force ever since; so that the acts in Henry the 8th and queen Elizabeth, against appeals to Rome, and in confirmation of the regalia and supremacy of the crown, in matters ecclesiastical, were no more than an affirmance of the common law, as it had been used and practised in the time of their royal progenitors.

By the 1st of Henry the 7th, the king alone, and none but the king, can grant to a place the privilege of a sanctuary.

9th Henry the 7th, the king alone, and none but the king, can found a spiritual corporation. And as the law adjudged them high offenders who brought in these bulls themselves, so when they were produced in any of the king's courts, they had no allowance or estimation at all. For though by the law an excommunicate person doth stand disabled, and is not to be answered in any action till he be as-solved by the bishop who pronounce the sentence of excommunication against him; yet when the Pope's excommunications, under the leaden seals, were shewn forth in any of the king's courts, they were never allowed to disable such as were plaintiffs in any action, but were ever rejected as being of no validity in these kingdoms, as is reported every where in the ancient books of the years of Edward the 3rd, Richard the 2d, Henry the 4th, Henry the 6th, and Henry the 7th; whereof no student of the law is ignorant.

By the ancient common law, a writ of prohibition was awarded against such as did sue any subject in the court of Rome; and such suits and appeals are likewise prohibited by particular statutes, enacted in this kingdom, in the time of Henry the 6th and Henry the 7th.

24th Henry the 8th, chap. 12. (1532). Appeals to Rome disallowed.

Power and right of the king's courts, spiritual and temporal, in all matters belonging to their respective jurisdictions is provided for.

25th of Henry the 8th, cap. 19. (1533.) The clergy not to enact any canons, constitutions, or ordinances, without the consent

the separation between the monarch and the holy see; for in enacting those very

of the king, under pain of fine and imprisonment.

No canons to be carried into execution which are repugnant to the King's prerogative, or laws of the realm.

No appeals to Rome allowed.

Persons appointed to review the canons.

25th of Henry the 8th, c 20. Provides for the mode of electing and consecrating archbishops and bishops; and restrains from paying first-fruits to Rome.

Chap. 21st, entitled, "An Act concerning Peter-pence dispensations."

1st Sect, recites, "Forasmuch as your Majesty is supreme head of the Church of England, as the prelates and clergy of your realm, representing the said Church in their synods and convocations, have recognized;" and proceeds to enact, that in future all pensions, censes, portions, and Peter pence, such as used to be taken by, or on behalf of the bishop of Rome, shall surcease, and never more be levied.

Section 2d. That neither his Majesty, his heirs or successors, nor any of his subjects, shall in future sue to the said bishop of Rome for licences, dispensations, faculties, or other grants of any kind whatever, for any cause or matter whatever, for which such licences, &c. have heretofore been obtained; but in future the archbishop of Canterbury is to grant such licences, &c.

5th Sect. The archbishop is not to grant licences, &c. for matters unwonted, or unaccustomary, without the consent of the king in council first obtained.

17th Sect. If the archbishop refuse or deny granting the dispensations or licences to persons reasonably entitled to have them, the lord chancellor shall, upon complaint being made to him, issue the king's writ, requiring of the archbishop the reason of his refusal, and if necessary shall issue his injunctions to the archbishop.

19th Sect. declares, That it is not intended to decline or vary from Christ's Church in any matter of the Catholic faith; but to make an ordinance by policies necessary to suppress vice, and to preserve the peace of the realm; not seeking for relief or remedy upon worldly and human laws elsewhere than in the king, who ought to have an imperial power and authority thereon.

22nd Sect. Inflicts the penalty of premunire

laws, it was positively decreed, that nothing as to the faith was to be altered.*

Queen Mary,† who repealed Henry's statutes, pzudently put this safeguard;—that the pope's bulls and briefs were merely to be confined to spirituals, without interfering either with the independence of the kingdom, or the independence of her subjects.

Queen Elizabeth,‡ her successor, who

on those who sue to the court at Rome, or obey processes from thence.

* 26th Henry the 8th, c. I. (1534.) The king is made supreme head of the Church. The oath of supremacy was enacted in the reign of this king (Henry the 8th), a furious Roman Catholic; and the oath was approved of and taken by the whole body of bishops and clergy of England in convocation, and by all ranks and orders of men throughout the kingdom, very few excepted; and was as universally received and' taken in Ireland, several years before any reformation of religion was either made or attempted in either kingdom.

† 1st of Edward the 6th, c. 12, Sect. 6th. (1547.) Enacts heavy penalties on those who affirm by words or preaching, that the king is not supreme head of the Church, or that any other is; or to compass to depose him; or to affirm that he ought not to be king. Sect. 7th. High treason to assert and preach, that the bishop of Rome is the supreme head of the Church; or by writing, word, overt act or deed, to teach or enforce that any other than the king ought to be sovereign or supreme of this country.

‡ 1st and 2nd of Philip and Mary, chap. 8th, declares the Crown, Lords, and Commons, repentant for the schism and disobedience committed in this realm, and being again received into the Church of Rome; it repeals the several acts of Henry the 8th, and also the 1st of Edward the 6th, chap. 12, in part, as to the Pope's supremacy. Sect. 42, enacts, That although the title of supreme head of the Church of England could never be justly attributed to, or claimed by any king of the realm, yet the use of such titles should not vitiate any deed or record in which such title is used. Sect. 53, enacts, That the ancient rights of the crown, existing before the statutes of Henry the 8th, are not to be considered as derogated from; and the Pope's holiness, and the apostolic see, are restored to and are to enjoy the

cancelled the acts of Philip and Mary, and re-established the supremacy over the Church of England, was as much, if not more, actuated than her father, by motives of personal security and the maintenance of her crown; to which her attention had been particularly called by Clement the Seventh's refusal to acknowledge king Henry the Eighth's divorce from Catharine of Arragon, prior to his marriage with her mother, and by an act the parliament had passed, declaring her illegitimate, although afterwards revoked.*

Still the Catholics, after Elizabeth had declared herself Protestant queen and governess of the Church, joined their sovereign in resisting the forces which Sixtus the fifth had influenced Catholic princes to employ against her; so much so, that the Spanish admiral observed, that on landing he would make no distinction between

authority and jurisdiction they had prior to those acts of Henry the 8th, by virtue of the Pope's supremacy, without diminution or enlargement.

This act is entitled, "An Act for repealing the articles and provisions made against the apostolic see of Rome, since the 20th year of king Henry the 8th; and for the establishment of all spiritual and ecclesiastical possessions and hereditaments conveyed to the laity."

* 1st Elizabeth, chap. 1st, entitled, "An act to restore to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign powers repugnant to the same;" revokes and repeals 1st and 2nd Philip and Mary, and revives statutes of Henry the 8th.

Sect. 16th, enacts, That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall have or enjoy any power, authority, jurisdiction, pre-eminence or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within the realm, but from henceforth the same shall be utterly abolished.

Sect. 19th, Directs the oath as to the supremacy.

5th Elizabeth, chap. 1st, entitled, "An act for the assurance of the Queen's royal power over all estates and subjects within her dominions."

Sect. 2. Penalty of premunire against those who extol, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority, power, or jurisdiction of the see of Rome, heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or the King's dominions.

a Catholic and a Protestant, save what the point of a sword would have made between their flesh.

As to the Papal infallibility, it is a doctrine as absurd in itself, as pernicious in its consequences;—the spurious child of arrogance, fostered by credulity, and nurtured by servile adulation. The best informed Catholic divines do not acknowledge this principle as to the person of the Pope, but merely in the sense of the general Church; and as, by their tenets, the Church can never make a new article of faith, nor command any thing against the laws of God, so it can only declare what has been revealed.

With regard to the spiritual rights of the Pope, the landmarks are erected, which cannot therefore be permitted to be removed: subordination in every society requires pre-eminence in its rulers; but his will is not their creed. Any deviation from the laws of God, the rights of nature, or the faith of the fathers of the Church, would be a fatal rock, upon which the pontiff himself would split.

These are the opinions of some Popes themselves; and history records the imprisonment and excommunication of more than one, which must act as an extinguisher on these extravagant and dangerous assumptions, which have originated in the cowardly, ignorant, and interested views of sovereigns themselves, and have afterwards been abused, and, from custom, claimed as a right by the worldly and crafty arts of ambitious and designing pontiffs.

The only other serious political objection, which has ever been violently urged against the Catholics, is the supposition of their not considering themselves obliged to keep faith with heretics. Their own especial refutation given to this charge, in the most positive terms by the oath of allegiance, which they take, is a sufficient contradiction to a stigma that has been thrown upon their character in times of religious controversies, when both parties seemed emulous which of the two should blacken the other the most*.

* I. Is the Oath and Declaration prescribed by the British parliament of the 31st of his present Majesty, and which is taken by all English Catholics.

"I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion."

"I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear

However, some opinions of Catholic divines and jurists, as to this very point, will

true allegiance to his majesty king George the third, and him will defend to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous-conspiracies which may be formed against him or them: and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown; which succession, by an act entitled, An Act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, is, and stands limited to the princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of these realms. And I do swear, that I do reject and detest as an unchristian and impious position, that it is lawful to murder or destroy any person or persons whatsoever, for or under pretence of their being heretics or infidels; and also that unchristian and impious principle, that faith is not to be kept with heretics or infidels: and I further declare, that it is not an article of my faith; and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes, excommunicated by the Pope and council, or any authority of the see of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any person whatsoever; and I do promise, that I will not hold, maintain, or abet any such opinion, or any other opinions contrary to what is expressed in this declaration: and I do declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly, or indirectly, within this realm: and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation already granted by the Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, add, if necessary, additional weight to their assertions.

or any person whatever, and without thinking that I am, or can be, acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with, or annul the same, or declare that it was null or void.——So help me God."

II. The Oaths and Declarations pre-scribed by the Acts of the Irish Parliament to Irish Roman Catholics.

The first is the oath of allegiance and declaration, prescribed by the Irish act of the 13th and 14th of his present Majesty; and is taken by all Irish Roman Catholics.

"I, A. B. do take Almighty God, and his only son Jesus Christ, my Redeemer, to witness, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to our most gracious sovereign lord king George the third, and him will defend to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his person, crown, and dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, and his heirs, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, which may be formed against him or them; and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown in his Majesty's family, against any person or persons whatsoever, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto the person taking upon himself the style and title of Prince of Wales, in the life-time of his father, and who since his death is said to have assumed the style and title of king of Great Britain and Ireland, by the name of Charles the third, and to any other person claiming, or pretending a right to the crown of these realms; and I do swear that I do reject and detest, as unchristian and impious to believe, that it is lawful to murder or destroy any person or persons whatsoever, for or under pretence of their being heretics, and also that unchristian and impious principle that no faith is to be kept with heretics: I further declare, that it is no article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure, the opinion that princes excommunicated by the Pope and council, or by any authority of the see of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by

Justinian declares, that he acts contrary to the law,—who, confining himself to

their subjects, or by any person whatsoever; and I do promise, that I will not hold, maintain, or abet, any such opinion, or any other opinion, contrary to what is expressed in this declaration: and I do declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm; and I do solemnly in the presence of God, and of his-only Son Jesus Christ, my Redeemer, pro-fess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation already granted by the Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, or any person whatever, and without thinking that I am, or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.——So help me God."

The next is the oath and declaration prescribed by the Irish act of the 33d of his present Majesty, and is taken by all Irish Roman Catholics, wishing to entitle-themselves to the benefit of that act.

"I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion."

"I, A. B. do swear that I do abjure, condemn, and detest, as unchristian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, destroy, or any ways injure any persons whatsoever, for or under the pretence of being a heretic: and I do declare solemnly before God, that I believe that no act in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified or excused, by or under pretence or colour that it was done either for the good of the Church, or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power-whatsoever. I also declare, that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible, or that I am bound to obey any order, in its own nature, immoral, though the Pope, or any ecclesiastical power, should issue or direct such order; but on the contrary, I hold that it would be sinful in, me to pay any respect the letter, acts contrary to the spirit and interest of it; and whosoever, to excuse himself, endeavours fraudulently to illude the true sense of a law, by a rigorous attachment to the word of it, shall not escape its penalties by such prevarications*.

S. Isidorus, apud Gratianum, states, whoever swears, must do it according to the intention of him to whom he swears, let the mode and form of the expression be what it will†.

In the general council of Constance, even where the conduct of that assembly towards Huss is cited by Protestants, in

or obedience thereto: I further declare, that I do not believe that any sin whatever committed by me, can be forgiven, at the mere will of any Pope, or any priest, or of any person or persons whatsoever, but that sincere sorrow for past sins, a firm and sincere resolution to avoid future guilt and to alone to God, are previous and indispensable requisites to establish a well-founded expectation of forgiveness, and that any person who receives absolution without these previous requisites, so far from obtaining thereby any remission of his sins, incurs the additional guilt of violating a sacrament: and I do swear that I will defend, to the uttermost of my power, the settlement and arrangement of property in this country, as established by the laws now in being: I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present Church establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its stead: and I do solemnly swear, that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government in this kingdom.——So help me God."

All our English Protestant colonies in America revolted and joined France, while Catholic Canada was the only place which preserved its fidelity, in which France could not get a footing, and the only peopled American colony which now belongs to us.

* "Non dubium est in lege committere eum qui verba legis amplexus contra legis nititur voluntatem: nec pænas incertas legibus evitabit, qui se contra juris sententiam, sæva prerogativa verborum fraudulenter excusat." Justinian.

† "Quacunque arte verborum quisque jurat Deus, tarnen qui conscientiæ testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille qui juratur intelligit." Isidorus apud Gratianum,

proof of the accusation, urged against Catholics, for breach of faith to Heretics,—Pope Martin the fifth declared, that it is not lawful for a man to perjure himself on any account, even for the faith; it further adds, "let the persons suspected be asked, whether he, or she, does not think that all wilful perjury, committed upon any occasion whatsoever, for the preservation of one's life, or another man's, or even for the sake of faith, is a mortal sin."

If any additional contradiction were requisite, the behaviour of the illustrious empress, Maria Theresa, towards her Protestant subjects in Hungary, must satisfy the most cavilling disposition, as to the sincerity and strictness with which a Catholic princess fulfilled her promises, made to a body of men, commonly called Heretics, in the hour of distress.

That magnanimous heroine, surrounded on all sides by numerous and powerful foes, ready to invade her dominions, and to make her captive,—armed the softer and more delicate feelings of her sex with a manly and martial firmness. She took in her arms her infant son, and shewing him to her subjects of every description, "Behold your prince," says she, "unable to guard you; defend his rights; and when he shall be able to sway the sceptre, the grateful remembrance of your services shall procure you his favour, love, and protection."

Her Protestant subjects of Hungary flocked to her banners, and, as a reward of their loyalty, she repealed the restrictive laws which former sovereigns had enacted; she made it high treason to molest them in the exercise of their religion; this toleration Maria Theresa began in her hereditary kingdoms, and Joseph the second completed the emancipation all over his dominions, by restoring his Christian subjects, of every denomination, to the freedom and rights of citizens.

How different the conduct observed by' this great princess, contrasted with the policy of our Queen Anne towards her Irish subjects. She gave the death-blow to the Catholics, for having fought in her father's cause, before they could have any notion that she would wield the sceptre, which had dropped from his feeble and enervated hands, and even riveted the chains of the dissenters, who had procured her succession, by the previous exaltation of her brother-in-law to the throne*. * 1st of Anne, stat. 11, cap. 17. "An Act for enlarging the time for taking

The Protestants, under king William, fought much, for what the Catholics now humbly solicit—Emancipation.

James* proceeded on the same plan in

the oath of abjuration; and also for re-capacitating and indemnifying such persons as have not taken the same by a time to be appointed; and for the further security of her majesty's person, and the succession of the crown in the Protestant line: and for extinguishing the hopes of the pretended prince of Wales, and all other pretenders, and their open and secret abettors."

3d Sect. High treason to attempt, by overt act or deed, to alter the succession.

The remaining clauses of the Act extend to Ireland, the provisions (enacted in England) for persons holding offices there, taking the oaths and declaration of the 13th William the third, cap.6, and 1st of Anne, stat. 1, cap. 22, and 3d of William and Mary, cap. 2.

10th Sect. No peer or commoner to sit in Irish parliament, without taking and subscribing the oath and declaration prescribed by 3d William and Mary, cap. 2.

* 2d James the first, cap. 4, (1604) entitled, "An Act for the due execution of the statutes against Jesuits, seminary priests, and such like other priests, and recusants."

1st Sect. All the statutes of Elizabeth on this subject are to be strictly obeyed and enforced.

2d Sect. A recusant conforming himself to the Church is discharged from penalties.

3d Sect. His heir not being a recusant and conforming to the Church, and taking the oaths, is discharged from the penalties arising from his ancestor's recusancy.

6th Sect. Persons sending a child, or other person, abroad for the purpose of instruction and education in the Popish religion, to for felt £. 100. for each offence; and the child or person so sent, made liable to the various disabilities.

7th Sect. Persons already abroad for this purpose, to return within twelve months, or to be subject to various disabilities. A provision made for those who do return.

8th Sect. No woman or child under twenty-one years of age, except sailors or ship boys or apprentices, or factors of some merchant, that be permitted to pass over the seas without a licence from the

England, as has been unfortunately too much the system observed in Ireland afterwards, in spite of the treaty, or rather armistice of Limerick. This dreadful code of oppression was manifestly the effect of national hatred against the conquered nation, whom the victors were inclined to trample upon. They were not the effects of their fears, but of their security. What was done then, was not done,

king's council, upon pain that the officer of the port, who allows them to pass, shall forfeit the office and his goods and chattels; the owner of the ship which carries them forfeiting the vessel; and twelve months imprisonment to the master of the ship, and forfeiture of goods.

9th Sect. Penalty of 40s. per diem upon any one keeping a school, or being a schoolmaster out of any of the colleges or universities; unless it be some public or free grammar school, or in the house of some nobleman or gentleman, not being a recusant; or the schoolmaster being licensed by the ordinary, penalty attaches to the schoolmaster, as well as the person who maintains him.

The 3d of James the first, cap. 4. (1605) entitled "An Act for the better discovery and repressing Popish recusants," enacts divers penalties on recusants.

15th Sect. Contains the oath of obedience, which is required by all persons. Power is given to magistrates to call upon persons to declare on oath, whether they are recusants or not; and to require every one to take the oath; and heavy penalties enacted against those who refuse.

Further provisions and penalties are enacted by the statute which immediately follows, viz. 3d James the first, cap. 5.

The 7th, James the first, cap. 6. (1609,) entitled, "An Act for administering the oath of allegiance and reformation of married women recusants."

2d Sect. Every person above eighteen years of age, to take the oath set forth in 3d of James the first, cap. 4, before the persons specified in the following sections:

26th Sect. Any person refusing to take the oath, when required, according to the form set forth in the act, to be committed to prison till the assizes, or quarter sessions, when the oath is to be again tendered publicly, and on refusal, they incur the penalty of a premunire, except married women, who are to be committed to prison till they take the oath.

in the spirit of a contest between two religious factions, but between two adverse nations*.

*The 1st of William and Mary, cap. 6, (1688) appoints the coronation oath; the form of which is as follows:—The Archbishop or Bishop shall say, "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?" The King and Queen shall say, "I solemnly promise so to do." Q. "Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?" A. "I will." Q. "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? and will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them?" A. "All this I promise to do." Then the King and Queen shall say, "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

The 1st of William and Mary, cap. 8, (1688) entitled, "An Act for abrogating oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and appointing others."

3d Sect. The oaths to be taken in same manner as the former ones; and the following clauses enact penalties and disabilities in the same way as the former acts.

9th Sect. The oaths to be tendered at three different periods, and on the third refusal, the party to be deemed a Popish recusant convict; and to suffer all pains and penalties accordingly.

The 1st of William and Mary, cap. 9, immediately following, provides for removing Papists 10 miles from London, &c.

The 1st of William and Mary, cap. 15, entitled, "An Act for better securing the government, and disarming Papists, and reputed Papists."

No Papist or reputed Papist refusing to take the oaths, &c. to be allowed to keep arms; or to possess a horse above 5l. in value.

5th and 6th Sect, enacts penalty of fine and imprisonment on those who do not deliver up their arms within ten days after refusing to take the oaths; or shall

The revolution in the two countries operated in opposite ways; for, in Eng" land it was the struggle of the great body of the people for the establishment of their liberties, against the efforts of a small faction, who would have oppressed them; whilst in Ireland, it was the establishment of the power of a faction, at the sacrifice of the civil liberties and property of the far greater part of the people; and at the expence of the whole.

And here it may not be amiss to state, that it was a common saying with the nonjurors at that time, that the Pope was one of the innocent causes of the Revolution; for at the congress, in 1690, the English minister joined with the others in making a solemn declaration, in which they protested before God, that their intentions were never to make peace with Lewis the Fourteenth, until he had made reparation to the holy see, for whatever he had acted against it; and until he had annulled all his infamous proceedings against the holy father, Innocent the Twelfth"

hinder or disturb the persons who come to search for their crms.

1st of William and Mary, cap. 26. "Act to vest in the two Universities the presentations of benefices belonging to Papists."

1st of William and Mary (2d session) cap. 2. "Act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown."

3d Sect, appoints the new oaths of allegiance and supremacy.

9th Sect. Papists are debarred the crown.

3d William and Mary, cap. 2. (1691) "Act for abrogating the oath or supremacy in Ireland; and appointing other oaths." This extends the provisions of the several former acts, as to oaths, penalties, and disabilities, to Ireland, as well as England.

11th and 12th William the third, cap. 4. (1700) "Act for preventing the further growth, of Popery."

1st Sect. 100l. reward for apprehending and convicting any Popish bishop or priest, saying mass.

3d Sect, Inflicts perpetual imprisonment on the priest so convicted.

4th Sect. Papists not taking the oaths (30th Charles the second, cap. 2.) within six months after eighteen years of age, to be incapable of taking or inheriting lands.

5th Sect. Act not to extend to saying mass in a foreign minister's house, so as he be not a natural born subject.

When government subsisted, as it formerly did, in an estate of its own, with large personal property, and inconsiderable revenues drawn from the industry of the subject, then the offices which existed in such an establishment were fairly and justly at the disposal of the state. Of course no exclusive predilection could then be called a proscription; as it was justified by the salaries being paid out of the territorial revenues of the sovereign, and that almost the whole produce of a man's diligent and honest exertions, remained in his pocket, for the maintenance and support of his family. But times alter; and now that the whole establishment, by a variety of causes not necessary to be examined at present, is from private contribution, the relative position between the government and the subject also changes.

If a great portion of the labours of individuals goes to the commonwealth, and is again by the state refunded to its members through the medium of places and employments; in this revolving and renovating principle, from the private to the public, and from the public fund back again to the private purse, the families who contribute to the exigencies of government are indemnified, and a fair balance struck between them.

Should, therefore, a large body of the people, more numerous than many foreign independant nations, be excluded from the returning share of their labours, the withholding this circulation from them is oppressive in the extreme; and amounts in effect to nothing less than a triple or quadruple taxation, which cannot fail, unless compensated for in another way, such as by an exoneration from imposts, to be most keenly felt by them.

This I fear ministers will not be willing to admit, as I am perfectly satisfied that in spite of their religious scruples, provided the millions come into the treasury, they will not feel inclined to make any nice distinction, still less an objection, upon the score of their being the produce, either of an industrious Catholic, or an active Protestant.

In drawing a parallel betwixt the opinions professed in the reign of queen Elizabeth and the present times, a celebrated historian remarks, that the Commons made a sacrifice to the queen more difficult to obtain than that of any articles of faith; they voted a subsidy of four shillings in the pound on land; and two shillings and eight-pence on moveables, together with two fifteenths.

Now, it appears, that upon the principles ministers are at present proceeding, they are equally disposed to put the good will of the people to the test on the latter point, whilst they seem fully determined to shut the door of toleration on the other.

However I may deplore the narrow policy of the country, which has so long forced Catholics who are anxious to distinguish themselves in a more eminent degree, and to gain a livelihood in more exalted situations than is allowed them in their native land, to seek a home abroad where a similarity of religion made their residence more acceptable to them—still this negative consolation was afforded them.

At present, indeed, the actual state of Europe, and the necessary changes which the revolution in France has produced, have deprived them even of this malancholy resource. For as loyal subjects, which I have always found Catholics to be, they must ever abhor serving a tyrant, and a people, whose sole object is the annihilation and ruin of their mother-country: besides, if any one should be inconsiderate enough to make the attempt, the laws, upon the discovery, would declare him treasonable.

Now to deprive a man of the power and liberty of acquiring a fortune or existence by honest means, is robbing him of the rights of nature, more valuable even than life itself; and, therefore, to him who suffers, whether it be by the hand of justice, or by the hand of oppression, it is equally the same, and neither gilds the pill, nor sweetens the bitterness of the draught.

Our constitution is not made for great, general, and proscriptive exclusions: sooner or later it will and must destroy them; or they will destroy the constitution. Immodicis brevis est ætas, et rara senectus.

In the Magna Charta it is provided, that no man shall be disseized of his liberties and free customs, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land; meaning clearly for some proved crime tried and adjudged.

Neither heaven nor man has granted a power to punish any one but malefactors, and no one is less open to such an accusation, than he who follows the dictates of his conscience. To him it is the oracle of the Divinity; in abiding by its prescription he imagines to please his Creator; mistaken, perhaps he may be, but a mistake is not a crime.

The magistrate who punishes an honest peaceable man for following the religion of his education, and the dictates of his conscience; and the legislators who authorise him to do so, both forget themselves, and the rights of mankind.

We are men, and must live among men, and must make and claim merciful allowances for the errors of fallible and peccable beings, and for that renitency of our nature against coercion, which, if well disciplined, and well directed, is in fact the origin of all liberty.

Magna Charta regards the civil rights and liberties of the subject, as much a fundamental part of the constitution, as the establishment of the Church of England was thought; either in the act of king William or queen Anne.

It was not a fundamental part of the Act of Settlement, at the Revolution, that the state should be Protestant without any qualification.

In no other country in the world, is the religion so peculiarly defined as in this; for till within these few years, a signature of thirty-seven out of thirty-nine articles was absolutely necessary for the toleration of any other Protestant sect.

Now the power that could remove the tests from dissenting Protestants, was not authorised to exercise it more for the one sect than for the other; and, therefore, the Catholics ought to have been equally included in this relief; for the legislature did not, beyond a doubt, mean to guard the Church in one part only, and to leave her defenceless and exposed in every other.

There is no disability that affects any other class of dissenters which affects not equally the Roman Catholics, whilst there are several disabilities to which the latter are liable, but do not in any respect affect the former.

I should hare gone into more particulars, my lords, had I not wished to confine myself most strictly to the question, in as far as it relates to the security of the state, and which, I think, I have pretty nearly explained; for as to the other parts of the Oath of Allegiance, the family of the Stuarts being extinct, renders it in fact a dead letter of the law.

Unwilling as I am to oppress any individual, and still less to stir up the ashes of an illustrious and unfortunate family, which is now no more; this reflection, however, presses itself so forcibly upon my mind, that I cannot refrain expressing it:—

That the Catholics did every thing for the Stuarts upon the principles of hereditary and indefeasible right; and that they did nothing for the Catholics except oppressing them, and more particularly the Irish of that persuasion.

In the reigns of both the Charles, the Roman Catholics of England are allowed to have been loyal, and sometimes suffered for their loyalty; yet it was in the latter of these reigns, without any insurrection or plot on the side of the Catholics, that new laws were passed against them, and the Test and Corporation Acts made a test of their fidelity.* This persecution was

* By the 3d Charles I, c. 2, entitled "An Act to restrain the passing or sending any to be possibly bred beyond the seas." Whoever goes himself, or sends another beyond the seas, to be trained up in Popery, shall be disabled from suing, &c. shall lose all his goods, and forfeit all his lands, &c. for life.

By the 25th Charles 2, c. 2,(1672) entitled "An Act to prevent danger which may arise from Popish recusants."

All persons, as well peers as commoners, who have any office, civil or military, or receive pay, salary, or wages, under any grant or patent from the king—or shall have command, or place of trust, from or under the king, or by his authority, or authority derived from him, within the realm—or shall be in the household—or shall be in the service or employ of his majesty, or his royal highness the duke of York, and residing in London, or within thirty miles distance, shall appear within a certain time in the court of Chancery, or King's-bench, and there take the several oaths of supremacy and allegiance; or the oaths may be taken at the quarter sessions: and the respective officers aforesaid shall, within a certain time, take the sacrament according to the forms of the Established Church.

Sect. 2d. Provides for taking these oaths, and receiving the sacrament, by persons who may thenceforth be appointed to any office, &c.

Sect. 4th. All persons refusing or neglecting to take the oaths, and receiving the sacrament, rendered and declared incapable of holding any office.

systematically carried on from the reign of king James down to that of queen Anne included.

Sect. 5th. Any person continuing to hold and execute his office, after neglect or refusal to take the oaths and the sacrament, is rendered incapable of suing in courts of law or equity, of being a guardian to a child, executor or administrator of any person, or taking any legacy or deed of gift; and shall forfeit 500l.

Sect. 8. If any person not bred up from infancy by his parents in the Popish religion, and professes himself a Popish recusant, shall educate his child in the Popish religion, he shall, upon conviction, be thenceforth disabled from bearing any office of trust or profit, in church or stale, until he shall be reconciled to the Church of England, shall lake the oaths aforesaid, and receive the sacrament.

Sect. 9. Provides that persons taking the oaths shall, at the same time, sign a declaration that they do not believe the doctrine of transubstantiation.

"I, A. B. do declare that I do believe there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever." But there is this proviso—"that neither this act, nor any thing therein contained, shall extend, be judged or interpreted, any ways to hurt or prejudice the peerage of any peer of this realm, or to take away any right, power, privilege, or profit, which any person (being a peer of this realm) hath or ought to enjoy by reason of his peerage, either in time of parliament or otherwise; or to take away creation-money or bills of impost; nor to take away, or make void, any pension or salary, granted by his majesty to any person for valuable and sufficient consideration for life, lives or years, other than such as relate to any office or to any place of trust under his majesty, and other than pensions of bounty or voluntary pensions; nor to take away, or make void, any estate of inheritance, granted by his Majesty, or any of his predecessors, to any person or persons, of or in any lands, rents, tithes and hereditaments, not being offices; nor to take away, or make void, any pension or salary already granted by his majesty to any person who was instrumental in the happy preservation of his sacred majesty, after the battle of Worcester in the year 1651, until his Majesty's arrival

Therefore all attachment must have ceased; besides, the sovereign who in the hour of danger deserts his throne through

beyond the seas; nor to take away, or make void, the grant of any office or offices of inheritance, or any fee, salary, or reward, for executing such office or offices, or thereto any way belonging, granted by his majesty, or any his predecessors, to, or enjoyed, or which shall hereafter be enjoyed by any person or persons who shall refuse or neglect to take the said oaths, or either of them, or to receive the sacrament, or to subscribe the declaration mentioned in this act, in manner therein expressed: nevertheless so as such person or persons, having or enjoying any such office or offices of inheritance, do, and shall substitute and appoint his or their sufficient deputy or deputies (which such officer or officers, respectively, are hereby empowered from time to time to make or change, any former law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding) to exercise the said office or offices, until such time as the person or persons, having such office or offices, shall voluntarily, in the court of Chancery, before the lord chancellor or lord keeper for the time being, or in the court of King's-bench, take the said oaths, and receive the sacrament, and subscribe the said declaration, from time to time, as they shall happen to be so appointed, in manner as by this act such officers, whose deputies they be, are appointed to do; and so as such deputies be, from time to time, approved of by the king's majesty under the privy signet: but that all and every the peers of this realm shall have, hold, and enjoy what is provided for as aforesaid; and all and every other person or persons before mentioned, denoted, or intended within this proviso, shall have, hold, and enjoy, what is provided for as aforesaid, notwithstanding any incapacity or disability mentioned in this act."

30th Charles the second, cap. 2, entitled, "An Act for more effectually preserving the king's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament."

Sect. 1 and 2, provide no peer or commoner shall sit in parliament, or vote therein, until he has taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, in manner pointed out by the act, and subscribed a declaration.

3d Sect. Contains the declaration prescribed for this purpose.

fear, and flies for safety to a foreign country, leaving his subjects to shift for themselves, thus depriving them of their head when he is most wanted, virtually abdicates the crown, dissolves all ties of allegiance, and consequently sanctions any act they may adopt for making a new election, by breaking his faith and forfeiting their confidence.

It is a maxim of prudence, if not of

"I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, and in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose, by the Pope or any other authority, or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation, from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null or void from the beginning."

5th Sect. No peer or member of parliament, who has not taken the oaths, and subscribed the declaration, and no Popish recusant shall come into the royal presence.

6th Sect. Persons offending, to be considered Popish recusants convict, and subjected to the penalties and disabilities attending the same.

7th Sect. Either House of Parliament may cause any of their members to make the preceding subscription and declaration on oath.

10th Sect. Contains a provision, allowing the queen to retain eighteen Popish servants.

law, that no man should direct, what he has neither the power, capability, or inclination, to defend or protect. Where no reasonable obstacle exists; that is to say, where no encroachment can be feared, as we have always the means of creating preventative laws, to secure the bulwark of our own Church, upon which point I am most strenuous, and with which qualifications I wish clearly to be understood as giving my assent, I cannot see any danger as liable to ensue in acceding to the prayer contained in the Petition; especially when the greatest part of the tenets, and most of the ceremonies of both Churches, are so nearly allied, as to be considered by other Protestant sects as sisters of the same family; and ought, therefore, to be in constant harmony with each other.

It is impossible for the legislators, who devise laws, to read in the minds of other men the doubts which may arise concerning the force and sense of some expressions. Hence new acts are constantly made, amending and explaining former ones.

Though we have not the same number of sacraments, yet, except one, we observe the forms of all the others; and although auricular confession is not enjoined, it is strongly recommended.

And even in our service of the visitation of the sick, the complete absolution of the Catholic priests, copied word for word from their ritual, is to be found.—This same remark holds equally good with the greatest part of our liturgy.*

* The Visitation of the Sick.

Then shall the minister examine whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with all the world; exhorting him to forgive from the bottom of his heart all persons that have offended him, and if he hath offended any other, to ask them forgiveness; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any man, that he make amends to the uttermost of his power.

Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent, and believe in him; of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences;

Their canon law is still, in a great measure, the rule of our judications; we have our spiritual consistorial courts, decrees, and ceremonies from them.

We have our subordinate church governments; our primates, prelates, archbishops and bishops, deans, prebendaries, canons, and other dignities; provinces, dioceses, parishes; cathedrals and common churches; benefices, tithes, perquisites, Easter-dues, and free-will offerings.

I am certainly not one of those, who can admit that discordance of religion is enough to render men unfit to act together in public stations.

The legislators had better direct their tests against the political principles which they wish to exclude, than to encounter them through the medium of religious tenets.

Montesquieu says, penal laws ought to be avoided in respect to religion; they imprint fear, it is true; but as religion has also penal laws which inspire fear, the one is effaced by the other; and between these two different kinds of fear, the mind becomes hardened.

Political disabilities, founded on a difference of opinion in matters of religious belief, are ready instruments in the hands of the factious and disaffected; and such invidious and unjust distinctions must ever, more or less, keep up animosities destructive of social happiness and social peace; it is, therefore, just, expedient, and necessary, to remove them.

Every day confirms this statement; and shews as well the impolicy, as the inconsistency of our system. Did we not send

and by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

The Absolution of the Roman Catholic Priest is as fellows:

"Miseriatur tui omnipotens Deus et dimissis pecctis tuis perducat té ad vitam æternam. Amen."

"Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem peccatorum tuorom tribnat tibi omnipotens, et misericors Dominus. Amen."

"Dominus Noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; e ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis (suspensionis) et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indices, Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris È et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen."

our troops to prop up in Italy what we constantly wish to extirpate, oppress, and coerce here? Did we not succour the Pope with our fleet and armies? Do we not act with, and assist the Portuguese and Spanish Catholics, endeavouring to protect them against the grasping ambition of France, which has aspired to monopolize all other powers in the world; or, at least, to make them subservient to her own political views? What are we fighting for? The maintenance and defence of Catholic religion and property all over Europe. Why then, my lords, at the very moment we are making these protestations and exertions, in the same breath our acts at home belie the sincerity of them.

My lords, I may be warm on the subject, but I am pleading the cause of some millions of people, who are deprived of many rights of citizens, and of course the greatest part of their interests in the constitution, to which they were born; which is certainly not conformable to the declared principles of the Revolution.

I have heard it stated by some that this was not the moment for granting what they ask; my answer to those persons is, that without limitations, which can only be taken into consideration when we go into a committee—certainly not. But if it be either a matter of prudence or right, the sooner this act of justice or grace is done the better.

Others object that the moment is not favourable, on account of the turbulence and disaffection of many; to them it may be remarked,—that a man may possibly be mutinous and seditious without any grievance; but no one will seriously assert, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with real cause of complaint.

The Catholics being by far the most numerous body of men in Ireland, the offences against the laws must be most frequently found amongst them; but the punishment for such offences cannot warrant any inference against that description of religion, or its influence upon politics. It is the crime, not the religion, of the criminal, which disturbs the peace of the state, and is punishable by law.

My lords, I fear I have trespassed much upon your indulgence; but I could not resist stating my opinions, which are the result of long reflection, and the warm interest I must constantly feel for every class of my fellow subjects, and for none more particularly than for a respectable and numerous body of men, whom, where-ever I have met them, I have constantly found warmly and truly attached to their sovereign and country, in spite of their disabilities; and no one can deny that civil incapacity is accompanied with disgrace during life, without even posthumous renown.

Whenever I knew of an English, Scotch, or Irish seminary, existing on any part of the continent I happened to pass through, I made it a point constantly to visit them; when the most unfeigned marks of devotion and attachment to my family, and to their countrymen, were, at all times, most unequivocally evinced. In many I have observed, and particularly at Rome, the pictures of their Majesties exhibited in their public halls, as an incontrovertible testimony of their loyalty and allegiance. These sentiments are the consequence of diligent, constant, and serious enquiry, and have been greatly influenced by deep and religious meditation.

Since the last time I ventured to intrude myself upon the attention of this House, domestic calamities and serious indisposition have almost constantly visited me; it is in such moments as those, my lords, when it appeared a few instants would separate me for ever from this mortal life, and the hopes of a better consoled me in the hour of anguish and sorrow, that all prejudices cease, and that man views human events, unbiassed by prepossession, in their true light, inspired with Christian charity, and calmed by a confident resignation on the mercy of the Omnipotent: at these times, when one may be almost said to stand face to face with one's Creator, I have frequently asked myself, what preference I could urge in my favour, to my Redeemer, over my fellow-creatures, in whose sight all well-intentioned and well-inclined men have an equal claim to his mercy? The answer of my conscience always was: Follow the directions of your Divine Master; love one another, and do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you: and upon this doctrine I am acting.

The present life cannot be the boundary of our destination; it is but the first stage, the infancy of our existence; it is a minority, during which we are to prepare for more noble occupations; and the more faithfully we discharge our duties here be-low, the more exalted will be the degree of protection and felicity we may hope to attain hereafter.

How should I feel if I were excluded from these civil rights, which are denied my fellow creatures?

This is a question that in my opinion can be answered but in one way; especially convinced as I am that civil immunities, guarded by mild and secure boundaries, cannot endanger either church or state.

Lost, indeed, must that Church be, whose only existence could depend upon depriving any body of men, from a faithful and firm adherence to their own conscientious and religious opinions; of their liberties and free customs, and reduce them to a state of civil servitude.

Should the safety of the Church be utterly inconsistent with all the civil rights of the far larger part of the inhabitants of a country, that Church would be, not only in the most deplorable state, but likewise in the most imminent danger.

Such are not, however, my fears, I confess; and I trust that the time is not far distant, when the good sense and moderation of all parties will mutually yield; then, all exclusive systems will be blotted out from our civil code; and the union of the two countries will not be found merely to exist in an act of parliament, but to dwell in the hearts of every Englishman and Irishman, under whatever civil or religious denomination it may be at present.

Much, certainly, depend upon the Irish themselves. It is the duty of their enlightened nobility and gentry, to impress on the minds of the rest of their brethren, that it is by their own moderation and obedience, even for a time under their present difficulties and inconveniences; that they will acquire additional claims to the confidence of the legislature I will not say, as that they have sufficiently merited; but to their further kindness and consideration.* The clergy should, after the declarations

* Sir John Davis, the Attorney General of James the First, speaking of the Irish says: "The Irish are more fearful to offend the law than the English, or any nation whatsoever; in the condition of subjects they will gladly continue without desertion, or adhering to any other lord or king as long as they may be protected and justly governed, without oppression on the one side, or impunity on the other, for there is no nation of people under the sun, that doth love equal and indifferent justice better than the Irish, or will be better satisfied with the execution thereof, although it be against themselves, so as they may have the protection and benefit of the law, when upon just cause they do deserve it."

which they have published and circulated, instruct and encourage their flocks in the duties of Christian submission, for which they have an additional stimulus from motives of personal pride; for as far back as the year 1414, their hierarchy was considered one of the first and most independent.

At the council of Constance, the British ambassadors owed their rank and precedence to the king of England, only as king of Ireland; which was considered as one of the four empires in Europe, that had not been conquered.

Those mentioned were the Roman—the Constantinopolitan—the Irish—and the Spanish.* As long as they proceed constitutionally,

* The ambassadors of England owed their rank and precedence in the Council of Constance (1414, Henry the Fifth) to the title which, the Popes conferred on their sovereigns as lords of Ireland, they would not be allowed to take place or rank as ambassadors of a nation, the advocates of France insisting, that as being conquered by the Romans, again subdued by the Saxons, who were tributaries of the German empire, and never governed by native sovereigns, they should take place as a branch of the empire only; not as a free nation: for they added, it is evident from Albertus Magnus, and Bartholomew Glanville, that the world is divided into three parts, Europe, Asia, and Africa, (for America was not then discovered) Europe was divided into four parts, the Roman, the Constantinopolitan, the Irish, and the Spanish. But the English advocates admitting the force of these allegations, claimed their precedence from Henry's being monarch of Ireland only, and it was accordingly granted."

"At a very early period Christianity made a rapid progress in Ireland; and on the arrival of Magonius, or (as he is generally called) Patrick, he found an hierarchy, which for a time seemed very unwilling to acknowledge his superiority. By Asiatic or African missionaries, or through them by Spanish ones, were the Irish, probably first instructed in Christianity, because their connections by trade were greater with these than the Romans: and because they rigidly adhered to their customs, as to the tonsure, and the time of celebrating of Easter. It is at least evident, that in these customs they differed from Rome, and that for more than two centuries after the death of St. Patrick;

and lay their representations respectfully before their sovereign and parliament, I shall feel myself bound

though in matters of doctrine and faith, both were in the most perfect unison. Add to this, the Irish Church preserved privileges and immunities peculiar to itself. Archbishops and bishops were appointed without consulting Rome; bishops were multiplied at the wills of the metropolitans; they consecrated bishops for foreign missions, and these missionaries, in many instances of discipline, opposed the mandates of Rome; as Columba in Scotland, Finian and Colman in England, Collumbanus in France, St. Gall in Germany, &c. "For more than five centuries after the death of St. Patrick, scarcely any vestiges of a correspondence between Rome and Ireland can be traced; and in this interval, in many instances, Rome looked upon several of the Irish missionaries with a jealous eye. Though these great immunities of the Irish Church were of the utmost importance to the cause of Christianity, and contributed to spread its doctrines in "a most rapid manner, particularly in North Britain, amongst the British Saxons, the Gauls, and the Germans; yet in the 11th century, when paganism was totally abolished, these powers seemed too great, and to endanger the peace of the Church. The Irish themselves were highly sensible of this, and councils and synods were held from time to time, in order to bring the Church of Ireland to the same subordination to Rome as those of every other part of Europe. In the beginning of the 12th century, the Irish archbishops made a surrender of their exclusive privileges to Rome, and measures were token to prevail on princes and nobility to give up their right and nomination to archbishoprics and bishoprics."—See O'Halloran's History of Ireland.

"At a very early period was Christianity preached in Ireland. The constant enmity between this country and ancient Rome prevented any friendly intercourse. Doctrine came not immediately from thence to Ireland; but from the churches of Asia. The venerable Bede tells, that in defence of the Irish time of celebrating the feast of Easter, in opposition to that of Rome, Colman, the Irish bishop of Lindisfarn, amongst other reasons declared, that he had received it from his forefathers, who had sent him to Northumberland as their bishop: and that it was the same

steadily to support them; but from the hour I perceive another system to be Adopted, as a friend of order and a faithful subject, I shall then reluctantly withdraw myself from a cause in which I cannot

custom, which John, Christ's especially beloved disciple, with all the Churches under him, observed.

"Afterwards (in the 4th and 5th centuries) amongst the other causes of St. Patrick's great influence over the Irish people, one was, his attention to avoid whatever could alarm the national pride, or alter the established police of the country. As to the first, we find no hint at a foreign supremacy, during the whole of his mission; nor any dispute whatever about the tonsure, and time of celebrating the feast of Easter; though it is most certain that before, during, and for two centuries after his death, the Irish Church adhered most strictly to the Asiatic Churches in these modes of discipline.

"From the remarkable attachment of the Irish to this custom we have still stronger proofs of the uncommon wisdom of Patrick. He probably endeavoured to reconcile the Irish clergy to the practice of the universal Church, and very likely laboured also to make them acknowledge the supremacy of Rome, after his establishment of Christianity here. He laid before the consistory the dangers that he apprehended from insisting on these heads, and we must conclude, had the Pope's approbation of his conduct; since we see that upon his return, the Pope presented him with a pallium, and that he observed the tame prudent silence on these matters as he did before.

"We have seen, in the 3d and 4th centuries, no differences whatever between the Church of Rome and the Asiatic Churches, save about discipline, and this was confined to the tonsure, and the celebration of Easter. The Irish, from political interest, and their dread of a foreign yoke, were the eternal and avowed enemies of Rome. Their hatred was as conspicuous in the days of Christianity, as in the days of Paganism; and it will not be now controverted, that they owed not the seeds of Christianity to Roman missionaries; yet, and indeed it is wonderful to be told, we plainly see that in the 5th century, in articles of faith, the Churches of Rome and Ireland were in perfect unison, though it was the first time they met! We see the same miraculous conformity in the

not conceal my heart most deeply interested, from motives of the general welfare and good of the country.

Let the Roman Catholic laity and priesthood warn their fellow subjects that if

beginning, and beyond the middle, of the 7th century; when for the second time they met, and not in a friendly manner. The question about Easter was agitated at this time, both in England and France, with great warmth. The Irish are charged with pervcrseness and wilful obstinacy, in this matter of discipline; but not the least hint at holding heterodox opinions, either themselves or their ancestors.

"For a long time after the Irish Church had submitted to the supremacy of Rome, the Popes, though they got the power of approving of future Irish bishops, had not yet that of nominating them."—See O'Halloran's History.

"Although this nation kept up a correspondence with Rome, by whose missionaries it was converted, yet our episcopal clergy never applied to that see for bulls of ratification, provisions, or exemptions. The whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction resided in the see of Ardmacha, and there Rome generally left it, as it was originally grimed to St. Patrick. In process of time, 1 owever, the remote situation of this country, and the intervening distractions of Europe, cut off all communication between the two Churches. After a long interval of 150 years, it was again opened. A schism ensued. It was found that the Scots (Irish) either failed in the due time of keeping Easter, or knew nothing of the synodal decrees of Rome, in the observation of the paschal festival."—Vide O'Conner's Dissertations on the History of Ireland.

"It must be allowed that St. Patrick, who succeeded Palladius, was the person that had the good fortune to convert the body of that nation (Ireland) to Christianity; but he was so far from bringing them to Popery, that they owned no jurisdiction the Pope had over them, but differed from the usage at Rome, both in ton-sure and in celebrating the feast of Easter; and were therefore counted schismatics by the Romanists; 'and although at this day, their religion,' as my lord of Orrery words it, 'is something that pins them upon the Pope's sleeve; yet in the be-ginning it was not so; but their religion was pure and orthodox.' "—See Cox's History of Ireland—Introduction, they, unfortunately, should get irritable, and endeavour to separate from us, they would be working their own downfall, as well as the ruin of their sister-kingdom; and that if, in the midst of such a confusion, a foreign enemy were to invade them, their cause would be weakened, and their total destruction follow; as relief would not be the object of the foe, but the possession of all their property, whether Catholic or Protestant.

God forbid that such a calamity should visit us! But at the same time that I give this caution to my Catholic, let me equally impress upon my Protestant friends, that our cause would more firmly succeed by promoting the happiness of the people,—by preaching and practising love and union; than in widening the breach, and encreasing a division by persecution; which is a principle of injustice, and not a mistaken conscience, begetting fanaticism, and propagating, instead of suppressing, opinions of discordance.*

* Ganganelli's Thoughts on Toleration. Lett. 5. 4.

"The great misfortune in this case is that some people confound religion with her ministers, and make her responsible for their faults. It never was religion, but false zeal pretending to imitate her, that seized fire and sword to compel heretics to abjure their errors, and Jews to become Christians. There were formerly in the bosom of the Church false zealots, who contended for things not interesting to the faith, of whom ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples, sufficient to make us tremble. For what is more dreadful than to see good men fall victims to a zeal, displeasing in the sight of God, and condemned by the Church, as equally hateful to religion and the rights of society. The practice of Jesus Christ, who, during his residence on earth, bore patiently with the. Sadducees and Samaritans, the infidels and schismatics of those times, obliges us to support our brethren of whatever communion they be, to live peaceably with them, and not to torment them on account of any system of belief they have adopted. If we forcibly enlist men into the Church, we shall only make them prevaricators and hypocrites. The power of the Church is purely spiritual; and this is so true, that the first Christians suffered themselves to be butchered, rather than rebel against the edicts of the heathen emperors; and our blessed Redeemer himself,

If we are united among ourselves, by the consciousness that we have all equal rights in the constitution, we need dread neither foreign nor domestic foe; and the interest every man will then take in the welfare of the empire, must give an additional stimulus to his industry and to his exertions. These are ray sentiments.

I have, for particular reasons, studiously avoided touching upon the Coronation Oath, not from want of having formed my opinion upon that subject; but from motives of personal respect and delicacy.

But one remark I cannot refrain from making; and if I am out of order, I beg the learned lord to signify it to me, when I shall instantly desist.

Much has been said relative to the repugnance shown to the measure in a certain quarter. Should this repugnance have proceeded from considerations of religious and prudential motives warring together, may not the indisposition which most deeply affects us all, and none more particularly than myself, have been occasioned by them? By removing these obstacles, might we not pave the way and open a gleam for a perfect recovery?

This is a mystery which can only be known by the Great Disposer of all human events, who alone has a right and a power to take away that life which he has given us; and therefore to his will we must patiently submit, but with pious resignation hope for the best. I could not, however, have brought my mind to have concluded, without mentioning this consideration.

And now, having fulfilled conscientiously my duty towards my country, I shall in my turn listen to the further discussion of this important question, with the same patience and attention with which

when he prayed for his executioners, taught us how his cause is to be avenged. Had the ministers of the Gospel been always careful to follow that divine model, the enemies of Christianity had not been able to bring against it the unjust reproach of being a persecutor. The Church always disavowed those impetuous men, who, stirred up by indiscreet zeal, treat those who go astray with asperity: and its most holy bishops, in all times, solicited the pardon of apostates, desiring only their conversion. Men therefore ought not to impute to the Church those excesses of which history has preserved the memory, and which are repugnant to the maxims of the Gospel."

your lordships have favoured me; and for which I return you my thanks.

Lord Redesdale.

—In the view which the noble mover has taken on this subject, and that entertained by myself, the principal difference is, that while the noble earl thinks that every restraint should be removed which affects the Roman Catholics, I, on the contrary, am of opinion that those restraints and securities formed by the law should remain in force; nor am I disposed to regret the result of experience on the benefit derived from them. The great objection, which is the foundation of every other, to the measure of Catholic Emancipation, is the usurpation of temporal power by spiritual persons. It is this which first shook the foundation of Popish supremacy, and finally led to the Reformation, aided by co-operating causes. It is this subordination of civil to spiritual power, which I must always consider as the great and fundamental objection, considered with relation to the question. It is to be considered, that the Protestant religion is the establishment of the country, and that this should be supported and maintained, for the peace and quiet of the whole community. I can assure the noble earl, that I am not actuated by any species of that enmity to which he has alluded, or by any dislike to the Roman Catholics, as such, or bigoted attachment to the Protestants. I only consider the safety of the constitution of the country, of which the Protestant Church forms a part. When it was the policy of James 2, to favour the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic Church, he wished to give to persons professing that religion places of trust under the crown. For what purpose, but to destroy the superiority of the Protestants? Had Roman Catholics been placed in such situations, would it not have been a breach of those laws which were deemed essential to the security of the Protestant establishment? Then, until I am assured that securities equally firm are provided, I can never accede to a total removal of the disqualifications of which the Roman Catholics complain. After the abdication of king James, the Prince of Orange was called to the throne of these realms by the Convention Act; and the Declaration of Rights enumerates a variety of acts, contrary to the laws of the realm, for a sovereign to perform. After the accession of king William and queen Mary, this Declaration of Rights was converted into a statute. This act I will quote, to shew that it was held to be inconsistent with the safety of the kingdom, that the sovereign of those realms should profess the Roman Catholic religion, or marry a Roman Catholic, and that by so doing, he would be excluded from the crown.—(Here the noble lord read different extracts from the Bill of Rights.)—The exclusion of the Catholics from political power was acknowledged by James the 2d himself afterwards, with an express concession, that no Catholic should sit in the Commons House of Parliament, and the succession was at that time provided for in the Protestant line, excluding all branches which were not Protestants. It seems, however, that all those precautions and restrictions, which your ancestors deemed wise and just, are now to be considered as unjust. Your lordships all know, that an oath was taken by the King at his coronation, binding him to maintain the Protestant succession; and that oath was imposed on the sovereign, to prevent him from committing any act which might endanger the constitution.—(Here the noble and learned lord read several passages of the Coronation Oath.)—All these precautions would be unnecessary, unless they were intended to impose on the conscience of the sovereign an obligation not to consent to any act which he might deem injurious to the security of the constitution, or the interests of the state. The question then is simply this, whether the proposed act is likely to be injurious or not? And when I find that the guards which are now in existence to protect the constitution have been found sufficient for the purpose during so long a period, I shall not be induced to depart from their security by any speculative notions or opinions. It is impossible to divest a religious sect of the character of a political party; in this view, not only the Catholics, but those of the established religion, and the Scots, which dissented from it, are to be considered as political parties. The question then is, whether these political parties, distinct from the establishment, are to be admitted into a share of political power, with safety to the state. In an absolute government, the prince, having the complete controul over all the parties in the state, might admit any set of men into power, and he could as easily exclude them, if he saw any occasion for doing so; but in a government like this, such a mode of conduct is absolutely impossible, If the Catholics were admitted to all the places of trust and power under the crown, the consequences would be the ascendancy of a hostile political party; for it was impossible to be a true Roman Catholic with' out a hostile feeling towards Protestants. Men will be men—the desire of obtaining authority, power, and emolument will naturally influence them; and, besides this, there is another influence likely to operate as strongly, namely, the belief that the Catholic Church is the only true one.—That this unfortunate persuasion existed there was the highest authority to prove; men of the first intellectual powers, Mr. Locke, and others, had admitted that the Catholics denied salvation to any persons out of the pale of their Church. The page of history shewed the unfortunate conflicts which had existed in Ireland upon the subject of religion, and there had also been struggles in this country, which had produced much bloodshed. In early life, I had conceived that some concession might be safely granted to the Catholics, and their lord-ships would do me the justice to say, that I have gone the length which I thought consistent with the safety of the state; but further than that, my mind is not satisfied by any thing I have heard upon the subject, that it is right to proceed. I have heard it urged, that we support the cause of Roman Catholics in Spain and Portugal; but I cannot see any force in that argument, for I have no objection to the Roman Catholic religion being exercised, if it did not tend to disturb the established order of things in this country. The existence of that religion is no injury, provided it does not interfere with the government and the constitution; and therefore there exists no reason against the alliance of this country with Spain and Portugal. Besides, the tone of the Catholics now was very different from what it had been at the commencement of the concessions to them, which were received in the spirit of amity and good-will; but the moment they gained a standing-place, they assumed the language of menace and intimidation.

The noble and learned lord then adverted to the publications which were circulated by the Catholics, which he maintained to be full of falshoods and misrepresentations, and he censured the disposition manifested to rake up those half-buried writings which had formerly tended to inflame the passions of the people. Among others, he alluded to a work entitled "Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible," a work particularly suited to that purpose. You are told that the way to prevent the separation of the two kingdoms (so much to be dreaded) is to grant the boon demanded by the Catholics; but could that prevent it? Is it by increasing the political power of a body who have shewn themselves disposed to agitate the country? Would they by increasing the means, diminish the disposition? On the contrary, I think they would greatly increase it; and that a concession on that ground would be as unwise in the con' sequences which were likely to ensue from it, as the conduct of the Saxons was in buying off the Danes as often as they invaded their territories. It has been suggested by the royal duke (Sussex) that as every guard and security are provided, it is therefore proper to go into a committee. But there is no ground for supposing this, for nothing less than unconditional concession would satisfy the Catholics, and this they have declared on various occasions in the most positive terms. It is not a little singular that those who would not make the slightest concession on their part, desire to be put in possession of situations which would give them the patronage of the Protestant Church. They desire to be raised to places of trust under the crown, and yet will not grant the crown the most contracted negative. Do they not condemn themselves by refusing to concede the Veto? Do they not declare by the refusal that they would not place the highest dignitaries of the Church from under a foreign controul hostile to this country? And do they, notwithstanding, demand an admission to power which would give them a controul over the Protestant Church? I maintain that it would answer no good purpose to go into a committee; for, if the object of such a measure is to conciliate the Catholics, it would not be effected by any thing short of entire and absolute concession, and for the truth of this assertion, I need only refer your lordships to the Resolutions passed at Galway, at a meeting where lord French presided.—(Here the noble lord read over some of the Resolutions, which pledged the Catholics not to vote for any candidate who would not support the entire concession of the Catholic Claims, &c.) For what purpose, then, would their lordships go into a committee? What have you to consider there? What to debate upon? The simple and naked question is, whether you are prepared to give all they ask, for less than all would not satisfy them? If this were done, I could not but see great insecurity in it; for if there exists a religious sect bound by implicit obedience to their priests, that obedience did not leave them free agents. How is it possible that a set of persons holding together in such a manner, and possessed of the power they aspire to, should not greatly influence the government of the country? Was it likely that the Roman Catholic clergy would be satisfied without their share of the emoluments of the Church; and, if so, would not the establishment follow? If then, you are prepared to vote for the motion, you must be prepared to abandon that establishment—(Hear, from the ministerial side.)—Nay, you would be bound to do so. In the year 1793, the late lord Clare prophetically said, that if the legislature yielded one point, they should go on step by step, until they conceded the whole; for that nothing short of that would satisfy the Roman Catholics. For these reasons, and under the impression that entire concession was dangerous to the establishment, he felt it his duty to resist the motion.

[When lord Redesdale sat down, the marquis Wellesley and the earl of Selkirk rising at the same moment, some confusion ensued as to the right of precedency; when, after some observations from the earl of Lauderdale, the Lord Chancellor, and the duke of Norfolk; the point was decided by the Lord Chancellor declaring, "upon his honour," that the earl of Selkirk first caught the eye.]

The Earl of Selkirk.

—My lords, I feel extreme regret in for a moment retarding the speech of the noble marquis; but I was anxious to declare, as briefly as possible, the grounds on which I shall give my vote this night. And, first of all, I must object to the doctrine just laid down by the noble and learned lord who has preceded me, that if you make the proposed concessions to the Roman Catholics, you will, as a necessary consequence, surrender to them all the power of the state. But, my lords, for the test of this doctrine, I refer you to the case of the Scotch Dissenters, and I ask you, has any such consequences followed from the arrangements in their favour, and even the establishment of their religion, as the national Church of their country? The noble and learned lord has said, that every religious sect is a political party, and that will always continue to act together for their own particular interest: this, I admit, will be the case, so long as by any peculiar exclusions attaching on that sect, they are debarred from enjoying the benefits of the constitution, because, such exclusion interests them in a separate interest, and forms a common bond of union for their mutual support. But, I ask, is the Church of Scotland, now that is delivered from such exclusions, a political party, with interests or feelings hostile to the state? Now, if the Roman Catholics were admitted, as I sincerely think they ought to be, to an equal participation in the benefits of the constitution, what inducement can they have to form separate or distinct interests from the rest of their fellow-subjects? Depend on it, if you place them on the same footing with the rest of their fellow-subjects, you will hear no more of them as a separate body, with different feelings or interests.—But to suppose, as a necessary consequence, if the proposed concessions to the Catholic laity, that the ecclesiastical establishment of the country would pass into the hands of the Catholic priesthood, is a sort of paradox which I know not how any rational man can entertain for a moment.

Is it a probable supposition, that when the Catholic laity have placed before them and within their reach, personal objects of interest and ambition, that they will risk the sacrifice of those objects merely for the aggrandizement of their priests? Do away those restrictions which at present unite the clergy and laity in common cause, and you destroy the bond of union from which you affect to apprehend so much danger; for it would be opposite to any thing known in the history of the nation, to suppose that the laity would sacrifice advantages once obtained, and which they so highly estimate, merely for the aggrandizement of their clergy. The noble and learned lords apprehend that, if these concessions were granted, it would place a Catholic party in parliament, who would not fail to excite all their influence in hostility to the Protestant establishment. But, my lords, let us suppose that all the hundred members returned to parliament for Ireland, were exclusively Catholic, how would their weight counteract the five hundred and fifty Protestant members for England, upon any question important to the general interests of the latter? Can any thing, then, be more absurd than to apprehend that any practical injury to the Protestant establishment could arise on that ground.

On these grounds, my lords, I think the civil disabilities of the Catholics ought to be repealed,—at the same lime that I am far from entertaining the same sanguine expectations with the noble earl who brought forward the motion, that the effects he predicted would immediately follows. The noble earl says, you would immediately attach to the state the decided support of four millions of your Catholic fellow subjects, (including the whole of the Catholic population of Ireland.) But I own, I much doubt that such an effect of concession would be so sudden: for, I fear, however lamentable the fact, it is yet not to be denied, that there is a wide-spread spirit of disaffection amongst the lower orders in Ireland, to the British government, which it must be a work of considerable time to eradicate, and which is not owing to the few remaining disabilities under the penal laws, as they do not, in fact, operate on the lower order, and, consequently, cannot be so suddenly removed by the repeal of those disabilities. This spirit is not owing to the intolerance of one minister or another, or is it of recent growth. We must all admit the disaffection exists, nor is to be ascribed to the effects of the French Revolution, or the cry of Parliamentary Reform. The evil appears to me, my lords, to grow out of much deeper causes, and to have its roots in historical events; and it is, therefore, impossible to remove it by any immediate remedy you can apply. I do not, however, urge this as an argument against the present question; on the contrary, I feel the necessity of complying with it, and of doing away as speedily, and as far as possible, all causes of national discontents between the two countries. The disaffection of the lower orders in Ireland towards the British government, appears to me no more than the national consequences of that antipathy which a conquered nation always feels against the conqueror. This is a feeling natural to the human mind, and must continue until all distrusts are removed, and friendly confidence cultivated. In my mind, therefore, my lords, our policy should be to do away every thing that can revive the memory of former conflicts; but I believe it has been, unfortunately, too much the policy of those who have governed Ireland, to keep up distinctions in the country, and divide one party against the other. To eradicate the old and long cherished distinctions between Irishman and Englishman, must be a work of time and conciliation. Had those distinctions been done away with at the time of the Revolution, we should not at this day have to regret the misfortunes which have since occurred in that country, and the disaffections in the minds of the lower Irish towards this, which are still un" abated; and though I am convinced, my lords, that the concessions proposed will form one great step towards a consequence so desirable, and though I am equally persuaded that time and measures of lenity and conciliation will ultimately crown the work, yet I am not sanguine enough to expect such immediate and effectual advantages from this measure as the noble earl so confidently predicts.

Marquis Wellesley.

—My lords; before I proceed to address your lordships on the general principles of the great question before us, I cannot refrain from expressing my astonishment at some part of the speech of the noble and learned lord who spoke last but one; and particularly at that part in which he has alluded to a test which, he says, has been imposed in an Irish county, I think Galway, in which the Catholic electors have entered into Resolutions never to vote for any parliamentary candidate who should not pledge himself not only to support Catholic Emancipation, but also not to accept or solicit for himself or any other person, any office, power, or emolument, under the present, administration, or any other, until that question be conceded. It seems, indeed, rather ludicrous, that in the noble lord's zeal to prevent the consideration of this question, he should have put a topic of this sort as it were in the very front of his argument; just as if the county of Galway possessed a political influence so formidable over the rest of Ireland, that it was necessary to relieve his Majesty's ministers from its pressure, by putting an end at once to this great topic. As I entertain no such apprehensions, as those of the noble and learned lord, from the circumstance he has stated, I cannot agree with him, in the necessity of dismissing the great question of this night.

My lords; the question before your lordships at this moment is, whether, under all the circumstances of the times, and of the country, and with all' the Petitions that now load your table, all the representations and solicitations which have been made to you year after year, all the agitations which this subject has created, and still continues to create in Ireland, and all the intreaties of the great majority of the wealth and population in that country, Catholic and Protestant, now pressing on you in favour of this measure;—with opinions, I believe, in most parts of this country, favourable to the question; at least with no manifest resistance or objection to it; whether, I say, with all these considerations before you, your lordships have made up your minds to negative the proposition this night submitted to you by the noble lord who opened this debate. I wish, my lords, to put the question briefly, and I ask you this, "Whether there is any of you who think that this concession ought not to be made, or that without it, the Protestant establishment would not be endangered; and whether the measure of itself, would not be a formidable bulwark to the Protestant establishment? I ask, whether there is one amongst those who oppose this question,—(and God forbid I should cast imputations upon the honour or integrity of their motives as public men, for I know that there are not in the world more honourable men than many of them), yet I ask whether they can face their country and the world, after refusing to enter into the discussion of this great question? For my own part, I should be the last man to suggest or to support any measure which I conceived injurious to the Protestant establishment. I feel it unnecessary for me to repeat my own conviction, that the maintenance of the Established Church is essential to the safety and to the morals of the community; and I consider some established religion as necessary to maintain the liberty of the country, and the power, the glory, and the strength of the kingdom.—But, if it is our great duty to preserve a religious establishment, it is a primary duty to preserve that of the Church of England; but still, this is not our sole duty in our relations to God and man, but as it is connected with other duties; which is in fact the case with all the duties of civilized society. I take it then as a first principle, from which no man will attempt to depart, that the first great object to be considered in this case is the general tranquillity, safety, happiness, honour, and interest of the whole community. I am convinced of the great fundamental axiom that our public duty must be placed on the broad and strong foundation of the general felicity and security of our empire; and any power exerted against this principle, would not be vigour, but violence. Violence, in my opinion, is not vigour, but above all, not vigour in support of a religious establishment. In looking to the foundation of such an establishment as this, and in maintaining it afterwards, I must see that it is congenial with the happiness of the people. All these political duties are connected with each other: for what would become of liberty, without submission to the law? Or what of religion, without charity to man? and what would become of the duty of man to his country, if he did not maintain and support, as his first duty, its established religion? Above all, it is our immediate duty to support the Church of England, and, in doing this, it should be our first object to fix its roots in the happiness and attachment of the people, in order that they should be able to contemplate it as perfect in its discipline; arrayed in dignity; adorned by learning; pure and correct in its doctrines; an object of affection as well as of veneration; connected with their civil rights; ameliorating their condition; and containing nothing hostile to the security and the glory of the empire.

My lords; I will venture to say, there is not one of those venerable prelates who sit opposite to me, (and I am acquainted with many of them) who will say, that the safety of the Church consists in a disposition to refuse relief to the oppressions of any part of the people, or that that safety ought not to be maintained with the least of all possible encroachments upon the civil rights and enjoyments of the subject.

My lords; I was anxious to clear the view of the main question by stating these few preliminary and fundamental principles, in which all persons and parties are agreed, before the House comes to their peculiar application to the whole of this question; in order to relieve the House by the refutation of some principles which had been held out, and which stood as obstacles in their way.

I know, my lords, there are different opinions held respecting civil rights, as connected or unconnected with political power; but few will hesitate to acknowledge that there is a difference between political rights and civil power. I know, too, that it is held by some to be of the very essence of persecution to prohibit any particular form of religious worship. To suppose that persecution exists exclusively in respect to religious worship, is an erroneous doctrine. Such prohibitions, however, have been carried into effect in different ages, and in states of very different characters, and though it may appear paradoxical, I hesitate not to declare my belief, that certain species of religious worship may be prohibited in many instances, in a manner perfectly consonant with the welfare of the state, and consistent with its political interests. I, however, am far from inculcating persecution although I venture to say that there might be a state of religion in a country, which it might be the duty of the state to prohibit. Religion is not a mere matter of commerce between man and his Creator, but a lively motive of public action, and however it may become matter of conscience, it must become also, like other things, a motive of human conduct, and of necessity, a subject of human laws. A great many crimes have been frequently committed under the pretence of religious feeling; and sometimes, undoubtedly, with a full, (however misguided) persuasion of fulfilling a conscientious duty; and when such principles become thus embodied with human actions, it surely becomes the duty of the state to interfere. I state these extremities with a view to probe this question to the quick; for when I hear it argued, that persecution consists in prohibiting religious worship, I say, that the rule is, that a state has a right to prohibit that of which the prohibition is essential to its security. This is matter of necessity; for, to use the words of a learned lord, "necessity creates the right—necessity limits it, and the very instant you pass the bounds of that necessity, you act unjustly;" and if, after the moment when that necessity has ceased to exist, the same measures of exclusion which gave it birth, are still persisted in, from that very hour, there will revert to those, on whom the exclusion operates, not an absolute right; for this I cannot admit, because there could be no such positive right, without the fair means of enforcing it; but there does, in my judgment, revert to them, the strongest possible claims for relief from that exclusion. And, on the other hand, it is a strong stretch of state justice to say, that persons professing a tolerated religious faith, and whose loyalty and known principles are unimpeachable, should still be designated as unfit to be trusted in public offices.

I shall now, my lords, trouble your lordships with a few of those detailed considerations which this question naturally suggests; and here I must beg leave to lead your lordship's attention back to all the laws of which the Catholics complain; to the true causes of such laws; and to in-treat of you to consider attentively the times and circumstances in which they were enacted; and then to reflect dispassionately, in an impartial review of the subject. Knowing, as I do, my lords, the origin, the cause, and the state of the laws, I have no hesitation in saying, that so far "from what the noble and learned lord opposite to me has slated being true, namely, that they are inseparable and immutable parts of our constitution, I think it will require very little elocution to shew to your lordships, not only that they are not of the description which that noble lord has given, but that of all the codes of laws that ever appeared in the world, they are the most perfectly reversable in all their circumstances, and may, with the most perfect safety, be overthrown totally under particular times and occasions, and are not fundamental in any part of their character. They were founded on temporary expediency, springing out of transient events, justified by immediate necessity, and by that necessity alone. I desire your lordships to look at the alterations which those laws have successively undergone, as the changes of times or of circumstances have prescribed; and therefore, if the facts are as I have described them, the question comes to a plain short issue. All are agreed, that the Protestant Established Church roust be maintained, and that in this maintenance, if necessary, it is the duty of every loyal subject of this realm, to shed his blood; not for its maintenance in name only, but in fact, in all its dignity, in all its doctrine and discipline, in the exercise of all its grave and venerable functions, in all majesty, reverence, and honour. But it is now to be considered, whether it is essential to do this, by a system of exclusion and restraint, upon many millions of our loyal fellow subjects, within these realms; in preference to the milder and more Christian policy of liberality and conciliation. This is the real question for your lordships' consideration this night; and looking at it with reference to the present period, and all its concomitant circumstances, I declare upon my honour and conscience, that not only the advancement of our best interests, but the prosperity—the honour—the name, and even the very existence of the empire, depend upon the just consideration of this question. I wish to put it to your lordships distinctly, as an argument upon which I shall rest what I have to address to you this night,—whether your lordships are sincerely of opinion' that a system of exclusion and restraint—of disqualification and proscription, either continued or extended, or whether a system of conciliation, benevolence, harmony and peace, would be the better security for our established religion, and for promoting the welfare—the safety—and the glory of the British empire.

Thus far, my lords, I conceive that I have carried with me, the general assent and acquiescence of the House. [The noble marquis had been repeatedly and loudly cheered through every argument he had hitherto urged.] I think with the noble lord who made the motion this night, that our deliberations should terminate in concession; but I would ask those who differ from this opinion, is it their meaning for ever to close your lordships' doors against these Roman Catholic petitioners? But do I call upon your lordships to make these concessions which I think necessary—previous to all guards and arrangements?—No! All I ask is, that the Petitions and claims of your Catholic fellow-subjects, which are now upon your table, supported as they are by those of the Protestant population, and wealth of Ireland, may be now taken into your consideration. True it is, that I, as well as the noble earl who made the motion, are decidedly favourable to ultimate concession; but is this disposition on our parts to operate as an insurmountable objection to the calm and impartial investigation and discussion of the petitioners' claims? It has been said, that this is a moment when the expectations of the Catholics have been greatly excited, and therefore that concession would seem as if the legislature were to yield to turbulence and clamour. Upon this point, whatever I know, I shall be, silent at present; but it cannot be too much to ask of your lordships, that if you are pre-determined to pass sentence upon the hopes and prayers of your Catholic fellow-subjects, you will, at least, mitigate the severity of that sentence—at least sanction your decision under the name and authority of a full parliamentary enquiry; (Repeated cheers from both sides of the House) and instead of appearing to make this a question of triumph and victory, you will make it a question of truth; and not one merely for the purpose of filling up an administration to procure the confidence of the sovereign.

A noble earl near me (earl Grey) on a recent occasion, in a speech which was not less eminently distinguished for glowing eloquence—for vigorous reasoning, and classic taste, than for honest sincerity and manly candour, has said,—" You talk to me of security against the Catholics! I ask you to point me out the danger." I will even go farther and say, "Shew me the present security in withholding what the Catholics claim? (Cheer* of approbation.) Nearly the whole of the Irish nation are aggrieved on account of their religion, under the supposition that that religion contains doctrines and tenets which are dangerous to the state, but which doctrines and tenets the Catholics themselves deny and abjure. They are, however, on this ground excluded in a certain degree from enjoying promotion in the army, from seats in parliament, from the situation of magistrates; and I ask, is this not a state more likely to excite the dangers apprehended, than any concession claimed by the petitioners? The Catholics of England, whose pacific demeanour no man ever attempted to suspect, and who had not at least the argument of numbers against them, are in a condition of still greater privations; and yet they are precluded even with greater severity by the same proscriptive sentence. In all the discussions upon this subject, amongst the many extraordinary propositions I have heard in defence of this system, it has been urged that these restrictions arose out of a general rule of state, universal in its operation, not acting by favour or partiality, but without exception; and it is therefore asked why the Catholics in particular should complain of hardships? But it happens, unfortunately for those who thus agree, that when the case is examined, the tests referred to are such as the larger part of the people have no objection to be tried by; but it is found that those who would seek for seats in parliament, and eligibility to certain offices, are debarred by oaths, which some of them cannot take, consistently, with their religious faith, their principles, or their honour. The Roman Catholics have made a public declaration of their religious sentiments, and published it to the world; but still the barrier is opposed to them, unless they do that which amounts to an abandonment of their religious creed, and the point repeatedly insisted on is, that they have no right to complain, because the test is imposed upon all subjects.

Such then is this equality of operation! Here we find exemplified this boasted absence of all partiality! The noble earl opposite to me shakes his head; but I will endeavour to satisfy his doubts of my argument, by putting a case,—

Suppose for instance, the office of President of the Council were vacant, as it was a short time since, and that the test proposed to those who were chosen to fill it ran thus——

" I do highly approve the Copenhagen expedition, as a measure perfectly consistent with the law of nations, and equally necessary to the safety, good faith, and honourable character of the country."

The noble earl (Camden) who lately resigned, would, without any reluctance or hesitation, accept this test, because it was agreeable to his former opinions, as the principal adviser of that measure; while another President, a noble friend of mine, (lord Sidmouth) who I am happy to see now in that situation, would rather have expired than attempt to take it. He indeed had wished to restore every old plank, and rusty nail, taken on that occasion, to their original owners. Here, then, is a case by which, I hope, I have proved that one man may swear to an opinion with a safe conscience, from which another may recoil with horror and disgust, and yet this difference not disqualifying either from an office of the highest trust in the state, much less subject the recusant to the suspicion of disloyalty. So much then for the perfect equality and justice of such tests; and will it after this be urged that a Roman Catholic gentleman, of whose morality, of whose loyalty, and scrupulous regard of oaths you do not—you cannot entertain any doubts, ought to be called on to declare, in opposition to his conscience, in opposition to his religious faith, principles not essential either to his loyalty, or to your security, before you will admit him to political confidence in any place of power or trust?

My lords, as to the distinctions which have been drawn between political power and civil rights, and, I hope, I shall not be suspected of fantastical notions on this subject, I can recognize no such distinction. In a free state it never can exist; they are adjunct attributes, and no man can have political power without the eligibility to enjoy it; and it is this eligibility, and not the power, that the Catholics now ask. But to be disqualified from power, by a fictitious ineligibility, founded on opinions purely religious, and not practically hostile to the state, is a most cruel disqualification. Many of your lordships have passed through various honours, if not to the advantage, at least with the approbation of the country; and I can see few indeed, when I look around me, who have not themselves, or whose ancestors before them, have not been invested with the dignities, honours, and emoluments of the state. It is easy then for such men to turn round to the Catholic and tell him, "You are quite mistaken in the objects of your pursuit: we have tasted of greatness and power; we, who have mixed for the good of the state in all the conflicts of parliamentary contests, and encountered all the horrors of party, tell you, misguided as you are, that you are totally mistaken in your ideas of the pleasures of office. Trust to us when we assure you, that it is all vanity and vexation of spirit. The true happiness of the state itself depends upon your exclusion; and yours will consist only in a dignified obscurity, in the mens sibi conscia recti, in a quiescent state of life, in liberty of person, and security of property, and this is as much as reasonable men can desire;" these however were the sun and air of the constitution, and to whom in this country dare you deny them?

But I ask, notwithstanding the philosophy of this kind of counsel, are these the only rights and privileges to be enjoyed by the British constitution?—No! for there are other rights and privileges which by that constitution I must beg leave to say cannot justly be denied to any man, however miserable and weak, unless he has forfeited them by crime. I have always thought it to be the greatest glory, and the noblest species of ambition in the members of a free state, to be able to aspire to the high and distinguished offices of that state, to aim at rising in its public service, to be engaged in discussing its policy, in amending its laws, or improving its institutions, in leading its armies, or conducting its wars abroad, and afterwards to be rewarded by their sovereign, and to feel conscious that their services have elevated them through the forms, and to the ranks which the constitution opens to them. These sentiments have been at all periods the highest impulses of human nature. These are the grateful fruits of the inheritance of freedom, and of those exertions which freedom alone can inspire. Despicereundequeasalios, passimque videre Errare, atque viam palantes quærere vitæ, Cercare ingenio, contendere nobilitate, Noctes atque dies niti preestante labore Adsummas emergere opes, rerumque potiri. My lords, you are well acquainted with the expression of one of the greatest masters in policy and legislation of whom history can boast. The great Demosthenes, when accused by a rival adversary, and when the terror of exile or death hung upon his mind, scrupled not to declare, that if his adversary gained his point, he should lose all that he valued. What was that? The favour of the state! for as he valued the good opinion and distinctions which he had acquired by his conduct in the state, and the security he enjoyed under the laws, above all other good; so the loss of that favour, and the loss of that security, would have wounded his mind above all other calamities.

The petitioners, then, my lords, have lost the favour of the state, and in that they have suffered a loss which no human mind can calculate but those who feel it; but the severest and hardest feature of this system is, that the spirit of the law is in effect more cruel than the letter; for it not only excludes the Catholics from the paths of honour, and the privileges of the constitution, but it stigmatizes and degrades them in their own country, before the situation of the rest of their countrymen, and places them in the light, if not of criminals, at least of suspected persons. Whatever credit I give the noble duke now at the head of the Irish government, who I believe to be actuated by a sincere disposition to conduct the administration of public affairs, with the utmost liberality and generosity towards the Catholics, it is impossible for him to cure the vices of that system, which has grown out of those laws, by the abolition only of which it can be destroyed; I ask then, is this a circumstance of no danger to the establishment? It is said to be inflicted for the security of the established Church: but I have long held those to be the worst enemies of the Church who argue that test laws and preclusions are the best means of upholding it. I see opposite to me a right reverend prelate, most justly respected as the representative of the mild character of the Church over which he presides; and I would venture to ask him, whether he doe" not think the Church would be stronger without the test laws, if it could be shewn that these laws are not necessary? What effect have those laws in the army but to foment discord, to infuse hatred and suspicion, instead of animating a common spirit of enthusiasm; by acting as an ingenious contrivance to bring subalterns into the service, and then stop their promotion, whatever might be their merits, and thereby to foment and inflame a sense of ignominy amongst those upon whom so much of the energy of your armies, and of the safety of the country depends. The effect is the same in other professions.—The profession of the bar.—These are suffered to adopt the profession of the law, but whatever their talents or character, the test law opposed an insurmountable barrier to their promotion. Could there be a more ingenious project than this to embody discontent and excite jealousy, just where they are most dangerous? From the magistracy, as well as from all public functions in their respective counties, even the Catholics who possessed the elective franchise are excluded. I ask, then, what is there opposed to all this which ran bear you out in such a system of preclusion? I suppose a vigorous Church establishment, sufficiently strong and able to defend itself? I deny the fact; for although I do not wish to speak with disrespect of that Protestant establishment in Ireland, whose security is so readily believed in this country, nor to cast any reflections upon those who preside over that Church establishment, yet I know that the true state of the Church in Ireland, in a very great degree, consists of bishops without clergy, churches without clergymen, and clergymen without churches, parishes of considerable extent without clergymen, church, or glebe; many parishes frequently consolidated into one, with a common church too remote for the parishioners to resort to. Such then is the state of that Protestant Church in Ireland, whose security and influence are said to be founded on a rock! But I ask, are not such circumstances reproachful to a state? Can a Church so circumstanced possess such internal strength for its own defence against the mass of opposition, excited against it? and is not that strength less likely to be increased by arming itself with violence against the mass of discontent set in array by the intolerance of the laws enacted for its support? but instead of strengthening her for security, have you not rather encumbered her by the weight of the armour you have given for her protection? My lords, I ask, is it to be conceived that such a state of things can possibly last? Do you think that no advantages might arise from alteration? Those classes, not of the Established Church, are now all cemented together, by what touches their religion, because they know they are excluded for the sake of the establishment; remove then the obstacles, and the danger will vanish; for the question here is between the real and the alleged danger, and my astonishment is, that men are not appalled at the real danger which is most glaring, but direct all their apprehensions of the danger which is but imaginary.

My lords; I think I should not do justice to this part of the subject, if I were not to say a word or two to your lord-ships upon what I conceive to be the advantages that would directly result from the concession of these claims. These persons who are now kept in a state of discontent by reason of the laws against them, are, it is said, rendered ineligible to hold the advantages they claim. I ask, what is it that prevents them? The answer is, nothing prevents them but their religion. It is this Roman Catholic religion that they profess; and it is for the support of the present establishment that they are excluded. Why then, I say, if you wish to do away all danger to that establishment, introduce amongst them an individual interest for its support; and when you have done that, I do not imagine that the slightest danger can follow.

That religion is one of the primary motives of human actions, I will not deny: but will any man say, that it is the sole motive? will any man say that there are no other motives in human society, or will dispute that there will be individual motives excited, when an individual interest is held out? Will any man say that a priesthood can have the same influence over a body that is connected with society in all the common and ordinary relations and advantages that the state holds out? or that such a body will unite with any priesthood so disposed, for the subversion of that state? This I take to be impossible; and here let me add one of the nicest points of the whole. The Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, I know, it is said, are ready not only to admit, but ready to assert, the spiritual power of the Court of Rome, in a fuller extent than any other Catholic country in Europe. But it must also be remembered, that the cause of this is, that the Catholics of Ireland never received from their own government the protection afforded by every other state in Europe, to separate them from the usurpation of the Pope, and hence the greater dependence of the Irish Catholic Church upon the see of Rome. I know that in all other Protestant states of Europe, the Catholics have been admitted to much greater privileges than this: and I do in my conscience think that to be the reason why the danger which is apprehended in Ireland is greater? It is because the Catholic Church in Ireland is not more under the protection of the state; and if we had made any arrangement for the purpose of supporting the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, the concessions to whose laity now are supposed to be dangerous, we should restore to the country a greater increase of safety to its establishments. But by keeping them from the common benefits of the country, you risk that security for which you now are alarmed. It is, therefore, my firm opinion, that if you would have real security against spirituals in the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, you must give them temporals. Believe me, it is through temporals that you will secure yourself against the mischief of spiritual usurpation. Here then, I present to your lordships the ground upon which I think the Catholics are entitled to their claims, and I do believe, that in this statement alone consists the whole of the danger. I now ask you, therefore, will you not take these claims under your consideration? Will you not do it, when you consider the present state of this country and of Europe? I call upon you, my lords, as you value your duty towards yourselves and your country, to embrace the proposition now before you. And if you refuse to take it under your consideration, with such a body of danger as this existing in the very bosom of your country, it is not for me to anticipate, but for succeeding events to shew, the impolicy and imprudence of such conduct.

The next question which I would put to your lordships is the danger that is apprehended from the removal of these restrictions upon the Catholics. A great deal has been stated this night by a noble friend of mine upon this subject. But the duty of your lordships will be to compare the real danger, which I have staled, with the alleged danger, which has been slated by the noble lord. And, in the first place, I must commence by asking again, what is our present security against all that danger? Our present security, as I understand it to be stated on the other night, results from oaths, some of which the Roman Catholics refuse to take: (and therefore we are influenced against them on account of this refusal,) and some other oaths which you tendered them, and which they have taken. So that it seems the principal body of our security now is, a reliance upon that very point which will be used as the argument the other way, to be the point of danger. The point of danger is, that we cannot rely upon any oath that these men may take as pledges for their conduct; because they can be absolved from those oaths by the dispensing power of that Church of which they are members, end from any oath which they may think inconsistent with their tenets, or with any of those doctrines that have been imputed to them. This is the danger we are taught to apprehend; the security is, that these people will not take these oaths; without them they cannot enter into any office, and on that we rely. And yet, if we examine the argument on the other side, I mean the argument of the danger that may result from these concessions, the very first thing that stares us in the face is, "you must substitute some peculiar oath." I would ask then, if their oath cannot be relied upon in one instance, how can you rely upon them in another? especially as there is a supreme power existing (God knows where) of dispensing with their adherence to these oaths, and that the tenets of their religion are such, that however they may desire so to do, yet that you cannot rely upon any one of them.

Why then, my lords, I wish to enquire into that point. Upon what is it that we rest our belief, that if the Roman Catholics were admitted into office, or into parliament, that their first object must be the demolition of the Protestant establishment? It will not be denied, I think, that if the danger does really exist, you are now, at this moment, suffering from it. But what is this danger that is apprehended? Why, it is said that the first desire of these persons, on coming into power, will be to demolish the present establishment. Do you really suppose, that the principles of human nature are different in a. Catholic from what they are in a Protestant? or that being once fixed in places of trust and honour, they will immediately proceed to destroy the establishment: and that in proportion as you increase the desire of office, you in that ratio increase the desire of destroying that very system which affords an opportunity of gratifying such desire! If any danger actually exists to the establishment, it is in that system which excludes the Catholics from all those advantages. Surely, therefore, it will not be contended that the danger will be increased, by admitting them to those advantages. The natural consequence must be to increase their allegiance, and rivet their affections to the state.

I think, my lords, I have already shewn that this step would not only increase their wishes to serve their king and country, but diminish any principle of resistance that might exist in their minds; because when you throw widely open the door of promotion and advancement, you do it to the whole body: so that in fact, by the individual interest you excite, you unite the whole body in the pursuit of the same views and objects with yourselves. You not only excite in them the desire and laudable ambition to attain possession of those honours and distinctions, which their fellow-subjects enjoy; but you absolutely diminish the number of mal-contents. The very danger which you now apprehend exists entirely in these very distinctions. And if I could suppose a country where there was no religion, but where a portion of the subjects were precluded by law from following their objects in all the ordinary ways of human life, the same discontent must necessarily exist. Now, the dangerous disposition of the Catholics has been supposed to be contained in their tenets. But, I contend, that you have no right to suppose any danger, from the examination of those tenets; but to rely upon the ordinary and accepted compacts of the society in which we live. Now, in that point of view, I would ask, what is the security that is offered to you by these people? they give you their oaths, they give you their protestations, as far as they will go, and they give you their past conduct, and the pledges of their future conduct, for the sincerity of their intentions. They give you the example of Catholic conduct in every other Protestant state of Europe, they give you the declaration of all the learned Catholic Universities upon the continent; and they give you the solemn declaration of the last free Pope, who has alleged the same thing, and who has abjured them from all those dreadful tenets that you hold to be so fatal to your state establishments. But still you will not be satisfied. Why? because the council of Lateran, Pope Martin 5, the emperor Sigismund, Joseph Hess, and others, have held opinions different to what the Catholics now profess; and yet the parliament of Great Britain would, in their wisdom and liberality, oppose the prejudiced opinions and musty doctrines of ancient times, against the practice of all Catholic Europe—against the loyalty, the integrity, and virtue of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and above all, against the declaration of six great Catholic Universities, and that of the last free Pope. Really, my lords, with such incredulity, I do not know how it is possible to meet such arguments. But it is maintained that those circumstances of Catholic conduct, and Catholic professions, are no rule to go by now, against the Catholic tenets of former times. But I have always thought this a very gross and slavish perversion of terms. Suppose I were to say that parliament was omnipotent.

Suppose I was to assert that the King is immortal, is all perfect, and can do no wrong: it is certainly a maxim of our constitution that the King can do no wrong; and parliament, in its legislative character, has obtained the imputation of omnipotence. But to go into fantastical notions upon the subject, however plausible they may appear in theory, would be very unworthy the dignity of parliament, because, when they are reduced to practice, they are perfectly inconsistent with the spirit of liberality: and yet will a wise parliament propose an impediment to the claims of the Catholics, by a decision exactly of the same nature—the immaculacy of former councils, whose doctrines are long abjured and exploded. It can never be argued with any degree of gravity, I apprehend, that the Catholics of this day would revive any exploded doctrines, when once-they should come into a participation of power. What, I ask, is the reasonable test by which you-may judge of their tenets at the present day? The only fair and just criterion is the established practice of the whole body of the Roman Catholics in-all the states where that is the religion. Suppose I wished to enquire, for my own private satisfaction, what were the doctrines of the Catholic religion, and what the practice of their Church? Would not common sense direct me to the countries where that was the religion? Would I judge of the doctrines of this day, and content myself with forming an opinion upon them, by the practice of former times? Would I not rather look to the formulœ and practice of the Church as it now exists? My lords, it is upon that principle I will form my judgment on this night; and I desire that you, in common justice and liberality, will ex-tend the same principle to the Roman Catholics at your bar: that you will try them upon the principles which they themselves profess, and not by any exploded doctrines that may foe found in controversial pamphlets or polemical disputes.

What, in the name of God, is there in the nature of their tenets, dangerous to the liberty of the people, or the security of the state.' What do you fear from the power of the Pope? Has Buonaparté, who is, in fact, the present proprietor of his holiness, been able to wield his influence to any purpose? Perhaps some of my noble friends may have attended to what has been passing for these few last years in Spain and Portugal. Has Buonaparté been enabled, by any use of his property in the Pope; to produce any influence in his favour there? Has he been able to establish a new dynasty, under a person of his own family on the throne of Spain, or to shake the foundation of that monarchy? Has Buonaparté, with the aid of the Pope, been able to shake any of these principles of liberty burning in the bosoms of the Spanish people. What has been the great focus of liberty there? The Roman Catholic clergy;—it is an incontestable fact, that the Roman Catholic clergy of Spain have been the means of exciting the fire of that zeal which has so nobly distinguished their country men against Buonaparté and with the Pope in Buonaparté's hands, what have they done? Why, they have established the succession to the crown in the line of their own monarch, now a prisoner in the hands of Buonaparté; and they have accompanied it with various constitutional revisions, to which no man will object on the ground of their being favourable to popular power. And yet they have done this while the Spanish monarch is a captive in the hands of Buonaparté, while the Pope was the unwilling property of that tyrant; and they have done this in the very face of a nuncio of the Pope then residing at Cadiz.

What!—can it be said that the power of the Pope is such, and that the principles of the Roman Catholic religion are so necessarily connected with arbitrary power But I must use one other argument on the subject, which relates to the danger that those subjects would lead me to apprehend. My lords, I confess upon my view of the conduct of that great event, the Revolution, we are to consider what were the springs of its promotion; James 2 is strongly charged with an attachment to the Popish religion: certainly, I confess, although it formed a great and main feature of his character, and was one of those causes assigned for the Revolution, yet Popery was rather the symbol than the instrument of that arbitrary power which he attempted to establish. To enter now into a discussion as to which of these two objects most occupied his thoughts, is rather a point for historical antiquarians to ascertain, than a matter necessary to enquire here. Whether his attachment to Popery, or arbitrary power, was predominant, which of these he loved best, I will not pretend to say: but, I think, I might safely say, that he loved each for the sake of the other, and both for the sake of each. If we may take the opinion of Bolingbroke upon the subject, we may, perhaps, have some clue to find the truth. From him we learn that the education of that unhappy monarch was tainted with certain principles of arbitrary power. He said, that he drank the cup of arbitrary power to the very dregs. It is also stated that in the course of his residence in France, and other parts abroad, he became deeply tainted with the principles of arbitrary power; and certainly James 2 conceived that the Pope would be extremely useful to him in the establishment of arbitrary power; but I would ask, was the Revolution effected against him merely as a Papist? Let us put that question—Suppose now we were reviewing the transactions previous to that period, and were endeavouring to discover bow that assertion is founded In the first place he expelled the Jesuits: he recalled the dispensation of the tests: and he would no doubt have been perfectly ready to have committed a higher vice than that; but I ask whether he could have done what he did, seriously and essentially, as a Papist? And as there were many concerned in that transaction, do you think any of those great heroes and statesmen, who established the Revolution, would bare said, after he had performed these anti-papistical acts, "Now we will restore him."

My lords, when I ask you to consider of this transaction, I desire you to remember the Bill of Rights. What were the words of that great act? Do you recollect on what it turned? "The constitution and privileges of parliament.—The limitation of the King's prerogative—The rights of applying to courts of justice for redress—The right of petitioning the king in parliament, and various other most important rights: and above all it states "that excessive bails shall not be levied: that no excessive fines shall be exacted." Who, I would ask, inflicted these excessive fines? I answer, judges that had taken the tests before the Revolution—Jefferies and Scroggs. Jefferies took the test. He was an ardent and vehement Protestant. He was with the king in 16S7, and until the very last hour was ardent in the profession and practice of the Protestant religion. But although the king's conscience was in the keeping of a Protestant chancellor, his ear was open to a Jesuit. Did he at that time rely upon the tests, in which so much stress has now been laid, for protection? The point cannot be denied, that he had no such reliance upon the tests. Why, my lords, in that glorious transaction which your ancestors achieved, not knowing any thing of religious tests or of what description they were, but educated in the original principles of that liberty which were violated by Laud and Strafford, and various other Protestants, they were induced to renounce all opposite opinions, and embody the whole mass of our civil and religious liberties in that great act.

This was the protection that our ancestors gave you for your rights and immunities. It was not merely upon this test or that test they fortified you; although I do not mean to deny that it was a part of the system. The main part of it was the spirit of your constitution, calling forth all its powers at once, to expel one who had degraded the kingly office, and make a bulwark to the end of time for your liberties. What did they do with respect to the crown? They fixed upon the throne a Protestant successor; but was that all they gave you? That was only the symbol of what they did, and like the Roman Catholics' belief of transubstantiation, we mistake the symbol for the substance. They embodied the liberties of your constitution upon that basis There it was that they rested the throne upon which they placed William and Mary; they placed those princes upon the basis of your liberties and privileges: they excluded a Papist succession, because a Papist succession at that time was intimately and inseparably connected with the violation of your civil rights and liberties: they fortified you with a double security, not merely one arising out of the circumstances of the moment, to be continued only during the existence of the dangers, but calculated to endure for all times, and applicable to all seasons, by the Bill of Rights.

How then is it that we wish to depart from the principles of that which is immutable and eternal? How is it that you wish to sacrifice what is permanent, in order to prop up that which was only a casual and temporary precaution—which was but the creature of an hour; and the danger of which has now long vanished, and can never return?

This is my doctrine; my view; and my opinion of the Revolution. These opinions cannot be controverted, and if they were, the whole fabric of your constitution would be shaken.

Now, my lords, I know not what further remarks to make, except one or two general ones, upon the danger of granting concessions: not merely of granting concessions to the Catholics, but of admitting into the state persons not of the established religion. A noble friend of mine, I understand, used an argument upon a former occasion on this subject, but which I had not the satisfaction of hearing; but in the course of that argument, according to the report I received, he cited a great authority, I mean that of the Prince of Orange, afterwards William the 3d, in his Answer to James the second's theory to M. Fayel, on the subject of a repeal of the Test Laws. My noble friend omitted, however, (I am sure not intentionally) the latter part of the Answer which he quoted, by which it appears, that military commands in Holland were sometimes possessed by Catholics; but as they were granted with caution, and still under the controul of magistrates, they could give no just reason for not employing them. Now let us compare this fact; and, under such circumstances, let us see how the whole bears to the general character and disposition of that monarch.

Your lordships are well aware, that immediately after the Revolution, he would have felt a great interest in the repeal of the tests. One would have imagined that he would not have taken such a step, when it is recollected, that the Protestant establishment was not then in full vigour, and when the liberties of the empire were just recently founded upon that establishment; and he would have been anxious by a contrary course, to improve his own credit and character among the Protestants of England, to whom he owed, in a great measure, his exalted station, and to whom, also, was due the attainment of the liberties of this country, and the rest of the empire. But I will conceive that he might have been disposed to concede the points to which I have alluded, under a conviction that they would be attended with benefit to the empire at large, and improve his own interests in the country; that these were not the real sentiments which were prevailing at that time, is pretty manifest; because, immediately after his accession, he himself proposed the repeal of those tests: and it was only in consequence of the opposition he experienced, that he found himself under the necessity of giving way to the general voice. But I take this as it stands, it is stated to you by this authority, that in Holland military commands were conferred during a considerable period, upon Roman Catholics, but with great precaution; and that there would be no danger in giving these commands, because they were under the controul of magistrates. Now, what was the situation of affairs at that time, in the States General of the united provinces? Why, not only that they were a military power, but that their liberty depended upon the preservation of their military power, in defence of which those very persons signalized themselves in an eminent degree, against Charles 2 of Spain, and Louis H, both Catholic monarchs. Why then, I say, that if king William went so far as this, at that period, invaded as that country then was, by these two powerful monarchs; if he thought it safe at that time to confer military commands upon his Roman Catholic subjects in Holland opposed to these two great Catholic powers, and if he thought the danger of giving these commissions to Catholics sufficiently guarded against by the controul of the magistrates, I do not think this doctrine of king William will apply against the Catholics of Ireland. And I cannot help saying, when I hear the authority of king William quoted for the continuance of these unjust disabilities, or the deprivation of any human being of his liberty, that it reminds me of quoting the Scriptures in justification of the African Slave Trade.

Then, all I ask of your lordships is, to compare the alleged dangers with the real dangers, and upon the balance of them to enter into the consideration of the Petitions upon your lordships' table, and make these concessions, with such securities as the wisdom of the House shall resolve upon. I do not ask of you to subscribe to any declaration of right on their part, or surrender any claims which may be thought ill-founded, as against them: but I ask you, most solemnly and seriously, after a reference to all the impending dangers which surround you, to enter merely into the consideration of this subject. Because, until we enter into its consideration, I cannot see how we can be able to lay before you any guard or security to which it may be necessary for us to lay claim, as the foundation of our boon. It is impossible that the question can come to an issue unless you hear what it is the Catholics have to say. As I slated on a former occasion, I still say, that until the temper upon this subject is abated on both sides, we have no chance of a wise and permanent decision. For how is it possible to bring both parties to a temperate consideration, if we refuse to deliberate upon the question. I have heard, on a former occasion, from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, when a Petition was presented to this House, that the only way to give full and fair consideration to the prayer of the petitioners, was to refer the Petition to a committee. Why then, my lords, I cite the authority of that noble and learned lord, in aid of my present object. To go to a committee means to give consideration. Why then if you do not go to a committee, there is no possibility of giving it a fair consideration. The committee is the place where you may first examine what has been the system Upon which those laws respecting Ireland were founded; there you may examine what laws have been enacted; bow those laws have been altered, or mitigated: ultimately you may enquire, what is the present state of them; and when you have the whole question before you, you may examine this great fundamental and important doctrine, whether the Protestant establishment is best supported by civil restraints, penalties, and exclusions, or, by a system of peace and of charity, consistent with the mildness of our religion, with the true spirit and principle of the Revolution, with the character of our liberty, and the parental spirit of this great state.

The Earl of Liverpool.

—My lords; my noble friend has commenced his speech, by calling on your lordships, whatever may be the ultimate decision of this question, to go into a committee upon the subject. My lords, my view of the subject is so different from that of my noble friend in every point, that I have no difficulty in saying, that upon every view which I could take of the question, the motion of the noble lord opposite would have my decided negative.

My lords, I certainly do not wish nor desire any person, who may be of opinion that out of such a Committee benefit would arise, to withhold any wish of their" upon that subject, But, my lords, I do say, as my own confident opinion, that from a motion such as this, under all the circumstances of the case, in the present state of the country, and in the present temper of the Catholics, no benefit whatever is likely to arise; but on the contrary, and it is in that view that I oppose this question, taking into consideration the temper and disposition of the parties, the adoption of this motion would be only calculated to alarm the established Church, and ultimately to disappoint the Catholics: and therefore I shall agree in the proposition for giving this question a decided negative.

My noble friend has gone into a long and laborious detail upon this subject; but I confess, that if his argument was true, if his view of the question was right, I would think he had less reason for voting to go into a Committee than almost any person; because, if his view was true, if the danger of refusing these concessions was as great as he represents, and the danger of granting was so little, the true mode would be to resolve at once into a measure for repealing of these tests and disabilities, and put an end to all deliberation that might be necessary upon the subject.

The view which my noble friend had taken of this subject is certainly a very extended one, and, my lords, I will endeavour to follow him through the different grounds which he has taken; and if I misrepresent any opinion of his, or do not state it correctly, he will dome the justice to believe that I have not done it wilfully. I am extremely anxious that any point I which is at issue between us should be ascertained with care; but on any point where no difference does exist, I shall be willing to concur with my noble friend.

My lords, without going at present into that part of the subject which formed the commencement of his speech—without entering into any detail of how far religious establishments are, or are not, necessary to 8 state—how far they constitute the main object of a state, compared with other essential objects, I do not feel it necessary now to discuss, because I believe we shall all agree that religious establishments do form a most essential and important part of the government and interest of every civilized stale. My lords, I do subscribe to the principle which the noble lord, both on the present occasion, and upon various other occasions, has laid down as the foundation of his reasoning upon this subject, namely, that every restraint, civil, political, or religious, is to be considered as an evil in itself, and justified only by necessity. We, therefore, have only' to consider, whether the balance of advantages resulting from the continuance of a system of restraint and exclusion, would be the same if it was removed, and decided accordingly: this, therefore, brings the question immediately to its fair and natural issue. But there is another principle connected with this to which the noble lord has alluded, but upon which he will give me leave to say, he has fallen into some mistake. I mean that the tests that are imposed, by bearing harder on some particular classes of his Majesty's subjects, are, as the noble lord contends, to be considered as an evil. Now, I think it material to say, that in any view in which I have understood that argument, it has not been stated, and never was understood in the sense wherein the noble lord puts it. It was understood, in the consideration of this question, rather as controuling the general principle to which he referred, namely, that there was not in the constitution of this country, any exact and direct principle of exclusion turned entirely upon the tests, which the legislature had imposed. I admit that an indirect exclusion may be as urgent under certain circumstances as a direct exclusion; but, I think, it is material, with a view of unravelling the argument, that it should be understood that it is not upon any principle of direct expulsion that the Catholics are excluded, but the indirect operation of tests. And the question for your lordships now to determine is, whether these tests are not indispensible to the security of your establishment in church and state; and whether they do, or do not boar with greater severity upon particular classes of his Majesty's subjects? upon this question it may be necessary to descend lo soma particularity.

Undoubtedly, the first consideration that presents itself to our minds is the difference between the tests in different parts of the kingdom. In England we have tests in corporations, and tests taken by persons holding offices, civil or military, according to act of parliament, and certainty any difference that may exist between the test imposed upon the Catholics in England and those of Ireland, I have no difficulty in declaring my readiness, under circumstances, to give my vote for the repeal of that difference, whatever it may be. But, in Ireland, whatever may be the merits of those tests which affect that country, the whole question of civil disabilities stands upon a fooling entirely different to what it does in England. In Ireland you have no test and corporation acts, as such, you have no law in force in Ireland, which obliges Dissenters, generally, to conform in the way that the Church of England obliges the people of this country to its views and policy. Ill Ireland your tests apply directly to the Catholics exclusively. They apply to their doctrines only, and they do not bear upon all other Dissenters within that part of the United Kingdom. I admit, therefore, that in Ireland, the question stands upon a different foundation from what it does in England; and I am prepared to say, and I wish that it may be distinctly understood, that if the difference between the Catholic and the Established Church, were differences barely religious, if they were confined to doctrines purely of a religious nature, such as transubstantiation—the invocation of the saints—the adoration of the Virgin Mary—if they were confined to doctrines of that description, in my opinion, I should say that there was no reason for putting the Roman Catholics upon a worse fooling than any other class of Dissenters in the British empire: but that is not the main difference between us. The point which we are to consider, whether right or wrong, is, that there are other tests applied to their opinions that do not relate to points purely religious—that do relate to points connected with the civil and religious government of the state, and which we contend are necessary for the security of the country; but which the Roman Catholics cannot get over. Your lordships will see, that if we look at the Oath of Supremacy, that is one of the tests to which they make objection; but of which, it appears to me, they have taken a false and erroneous view; because your lordships are aware that that oath does not call upon a person to say that the King is the head of the Church. It is an oath simply of abjuration—it is an oath that only calls upon a person to say, that no foreign prince, or foreign potentate hath, or ought to have, any power or pre-eminence, or supremacy in these kingdoms. The question then, I say, arises out of the principle already stated, namely, how far this principle is necessary to be maintained, for the security of your civil and religious liberties. As to the case itself, certainly if there could be found any person who never heard of the differences between Protestant and Papist, and to whom it was stated that there was a power in Europe which claimed a general jurisdiction in all countries; that there were certain countries that denied that jurisdiction; and the question was put to him, as to the reasonableness or expediency of that independent country so denying that supremacy, that they should put a test to all persons who wished to possess all civil situations, and who claimed civil power and certain other rights, I think, that were such a proposition put to a person—ignorant of the dispute between Catholics and Protestants, the answer would be, that such a proposition was so reasonable, so just, and carried along with it the principle of an independent government and country, that no persons in the state ought to refuse to take it; or if they did refuse, they ought not to complain of exclusion: because the question here stands upon the same footing. The principle of a Protestant state, feeling that it is independent, that it has full power within itself, and that no power out of it has any authority to interfere in its state policy.

It does, therefore, appear to me, that those who claim a right to exercise power in it, should acknowledge the supremacy of its power, and should take an oath to bind them thereto. But then, we hear it now stated in argument, that the Roman Catholics are ready to disclaim all civil and temporal power in any foreign potentate or authority, and that they only wish a spiritual authority in the Pope, to be recognized, exclusively. Now the question is, how far it is possible to separate spiritual from temporal power? I am not disposed to discuss in the abstract, how far it may be possible to separate them; but of this I am certain, that it is impossible to separate spiritual and temporal power in any country, in which there is the larger proportion of the population Roman Catholics. This I state as founded upon the system of that Church itself, and I never heard, and I should be glad to hear, something like an answer to this argument. It has been stated, that the spiritual power of the Pope, according to the Roman Catholic notion of it, is supreme. But then, is it not evident, that it applies not only to the most sacred of institutions, upon which, in, fact, depends the whole form of civil society; but that it applies to the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of all civil society, whether it be of the Christian, Mahometan, or any other religion whatever; it forms the basis of society, of all the charities of life, and is an institution upon which depends nine out of ten of all the questions affecting property. And yet every one knows that the law of the Roman Catholic religion, upon this subject, is different from the Protestant. The Roman Catholic thinks that it is a question not tit for the decision of temporal courts, while the Protestant thinks it is. But that which is material on this subject is, that the Roman Catholic does not apply to the ordinary tribunals of the country for jurisdiction in this question, conceiving that the spiritual court, alone, has controul in matters of this nature, and that in the dernier resort, appeal only lies to the court of Rome itself.

Now with respect to the charges exhibited against the Roman Catholics, in a moral point of view, I cannot believe them. I do not believe they hold the doctrine of not keeping the faith with heretics; and I verily believe as far as any moral principle, not connected with the Established Church, their institutions are as pure as our own. All I say is, that with regard to their ecclesiastical opinions, as contrasted with our own, they are different with those of his Majesty's Protestant subjects: and when I apply this to the institution in question, can it be safe in a Protestant country, to place upon your bench of justice, judges to decide upon the state of property, who hold the laws of the country conscientiously to be directly at variance with that of their own religion, who believe that the law of the country to be adverse to the law of God.

Now, my lords, follow this principle through other points of view—Theirs is not an elective Church. It is an hierarchy. It has the same gradation of rank with the Established Church, from the highest to the lowest. It has also the same principle of ambition and desire for the same temporal power as the Established Church, But in whom is that mass of patronage to be placed to which such an institution would naturally give rise?—Why, in the Pope himself;—a foreign power—a foreign potentate. Why then, the question is, whether a jurisdiction of the kind in all the appointments, in all the ecclesiastical gradations of the Catholic hierarchy,—a power which has the same influence in the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, as the King of England has over the Protestant, with the same means and temptations laid open to them in common with all men: will any man say that an establishment of that kind, under the influence of a foreign power, may not be made a formidable instrument of danger in such hands? And may it not be a fair subject of jealousy in a Protestant country? Then, my lords, apply this further to other principles: apply it even to what may appear purely spiritual: namely, to excommunication and all its consequences. Are noble lords aware of the consequences of excommunication to individuals who incur the penalty of that sentence: They may see in their courts of law, one trial which has taken place, where the most important temporal effects have arisen out of offences, if they were offences—but offences which, in a fair sense of the word, were of a mere spiritual nature, and which became subject to that punishment? It gives the power of personal confinement, and corporal punishment, to the persons exercising it; and, therefore, no man will say that is not a temporal power? I will next call your lordships' attention to the important powers of absolution and auricular confession:—I do not direct your lordships' attention to that power as it is understood in its spiritual effects—but to the temporal power with which it invests the priesthood of Ireland; and it gives more temporal power and authority to those persons amongst the populace than can be claimed by the state My noble friend has alluded to the doctrine respecting the Pope, at this day. He believes that the tenets of the Catholic religion are different from what they were formerly. I believe the statement of my noble friend was not made without foundation: but, I think, it goes to this effect, that you are the more seriously called-upon, before you make these concessions, to know what is the state of these opinions, and whether any, and what securities can be obtained from the Roman Catholics? But I have stated generally what are my sentiments upon this subject; and in putting an interpretation upon the principles of the Roman Catholics, I do not wish to refer you to opinions of a remote period, or to ancient authorities; but the authority to which I wish to refer you, is the Roman Catholic authority of an Irishman and a priest at the present day; a person of most respectable character, of great learning, in a synod of February 1810, the doctrine to which I will now allude, was recognized and published through the pamphlet of that learned man. And if that doctrine be truly stated, it will follow that the resolution in which it is recognized, expresses the sentiments of the Catholics themselves at this day. That learned man states that there is a great deal of flesh and blood in this spiritual power; that the bishops claim the power of imprisoning in episcopal matters, of whipping and other tortures, of settling the fees of the inferior clergy on baptism, &c. And will any man say that these are not powers of a temporal nature?

These, my lords, are not the opinions of any prejudiced Protestant, nor the opinions of an authority of any remote time but they are the opinions of a man learned in the knowledge of the subject, a pastor of the Roman Catholic religion, and now in existence; and if the opinions of the Catholics of former times were different from what they are now, these are, however, the sentiments and opinions of persons most anxious for the furtherance of this great object. But until the opinions of Catholics are further explained more at large by themselves, and we are to judge of this question with reference to-present times and sentiments, we must act upon the information we have,

I now wish to know what is the effect of these doctrines, and the difficulties, and, I may say, almost the impossibilities of drawing any distinction between spiritual and temporal power. I wish noble lords, who support the motion, to say how a conscientious Roman Catholic can act with respect to those disputed points of authority? In a thousand questions of daily occurrence, the Roman Catholics may be placed in a situation where there are two conflicting authorities. Is it not natural, therefore, for him to prefer the higher duties to the lesser? May not a Homan Catholic who considers himself thus in allegiance to two authorities, in a matter of doubt, consider his spiritual duties first, and his temporal duties afterwards. Therefore, my lords, I cannot see that there is any possible principle by which you can act with safety to your-selves, if you make the proposed concessions.

As long as this country is a Protestant country—as long as you maintain its government by Protestant laws, I do profess myself that I am at a loss to see how it could be safe, to put persons who entertain such opinions as these, into the possession of places or power of any considerable importance.

My noble friend says, that the danger now is not so great, when compared with the circumstances of the present day, as it was formerly. I certainly am disposed to admit that these opinions might, indeed, according to different times and circumstances, be more or less dangerous; but if ever there were circumstances in the history of the world where they were more dangerous than ever, now is that time. Formerly, when the question discussed was between Protestant and Papist, Catholic Europe was divided. There was a balance of power between the different states of Europe: and the very circumstances arising out of that balance made the Pope an independent power: but now, circumstances are quite different, because all the continental nations are under the influence of France. My noble friend has alluded to the present situation of the Pope, and he has stated that his holiness, acting upon the dictates of his own conscience, rather than forego the maintenance of his own opinions, has submitted himself to the degradation and humiliating situation of a prisoner to the French authority. Now, if that Pope should in the course of nature be taken off, we have no security for his successor. Who has the power of deciding as to his being canonically elected? Do we not recollect the present circumstances of the times?—Do we not know that the greater part, I may say the whole of Catholic Europe is under the dominion of France? Do we not know that Rome is at this moment considered the second town in the French empire? Under these circumstances, then, who is to decide what dangers may not arise; and what new and dangerous increase of power may not be added to the Papal authority? Therefore, my lords, I cannot see any circumstance" which make the danger less now than it ever was. The dangers may have diminished in some respects, but then my noble friend puts an argument which he admits, after all, must, even in the most fanciful judgment of every man in the country, be allowed; namely, the danger of making these concessions before the consequences of these dangers are discussed. But I will fairly state, that upon the fairest view I could take of this subject, the result, in my mind, has been this, that the danger of granting the concessions at this moment is, upon the whole, greater than that of withholding them; and, therefore, if the danger in the former case appears much greater, upon the comparison, I should rather be inclined to risk the latter than run the chance of the former.

I think it my duty here to consider what the danger of concession is, as far as it respects the security of the government. My noble friend does not see how this is to form a part of the question. Now, the question which we ask of those who conceive the Catholic claims should be conceded upon the general grounds that are stated, is, if this was granted would there be a complete barrier against all further demands? What security, I would ask, have we, if we granted all they now ask, that they would stop here? I would beg to say one or two words upon this subject, and refer your lordships to the conduct of the Catholics, at a former period. In the year 1792 the elective franchise was demanded upon very different conditions from those on which it was held by the Protestants. It was not at all demanded upon equal terms with them; but in the year 1793 that privilege was conceded to them upon the same terms as the Protestants, in virtue of the reasons then assigned. How long did those concessions keep them contented? I do not mean to cast any injurious reflections upon them; but your lordships are aware that in the year 1795 they applied again to parliament for the purpose of removing all their religious disabilities. I have already slated that I completely acquit the Roman Catholics of all those immoral tenets that have been laid to their charge; and I believe most sincerely they have no foundation in fact; but we cannot forget that they consider that theirs is the only legitimate Church in the world; we cannot forget (hat they are adverse to our ideas upon this subject, not by doctrine only, but they consider that their Church has an universal jurisdiction, not in one particular country, but in all countries; and that this forms an essential and vital part of the Roman Catholic religion. Now, is it in the course of human nature to suppose, that were you to make these concessions of political power, they would rest satisfied, or that they would not look forward to the furtherance of their own religion, and the establishment of that religion in these countries? What temptation, my noble friend asks, have they, more than any other man, to injure the present establishment? When you come to the question, you will find what motives they would have; you would find a very powerful interest created, prejudicial to the Protestant establishment. With regard to the present question, however, and I wish not to be misunderstood, my sincere opinion is, that the immediate effect of this measure would be merely to benefit a small proportion of your Roman Catholic subjects directly and immediately; but at last it would begin to be considered by them, with respect to their Church establishment, whether they shall pay for the maintenance of two Churches or one? Your lordships will see the consequence of that. The question would be then, whether they shall pay their own clergy instead of the Protestant clergy? And, I would ask, is there a man in Ireland of any rank or description who is not directly and intimately interested in that question? Therefore, out of this, arises as soon as this question is disposed of, a second question—namely, as to the policy of this proceeding. By this measure there is no doubt you will directly benefit a few; but the instant you would pass such a measure as this, you would have all ranks and sects of the people laying claim to that privilege to which I have alluded.

My lords; in considering the interests of the parties who would be affected by this measure, you would not lose sight of the interests of those whose very circumstances from the nature of their situations, would, above all others, be most affected by the measure—the great body of the clergy of Ireland—who would feel a direct and immediate interest in the question; whereas the Roman Catholics have only an indirect interest in it. But my noble friend, I really think, was a little misled in this part of his argument, and departed not a little from his premises; for in the beginning of his speech, he said he was a friend to the Protestant establishment in Ireland; whereas, in fact, the whole of his arguments went to this—that there would be no safety for that establishment until the Roman Catholic clergy were established in Ireland: and I do maintain, from the opinion of the noble baron opposite, and I do say, that the very inference of all the arguments and views that have been urged on that side of the House goes to this—that Ireland should be made a Roman Catholic country, and that the establishment of Ireland should be Roman Catholic.

It has been suggested that it would be right to divide the whole of the temporal emoluments of the Church of Ireland between the Catholic and Protestant clergy. I shall expect then, when the subject is more matured, to hear that the Irish Protestant bishops, having first generously-made over a portion of their endowments, for the peace and maintenance of their Catholic brethren, are ready to make a further proposition, as in some of the German states, to subject all his Majesty'" dominions, by law, to a division of the produce of ecclesiastical dues between the two Churches. That this is an opinion entertained it is not irrational to suppose; but that it is one of the consequences that will follow the concession of the Catholic claims, I most sincerely believe.

My lords; we are not without authorities upon this part of the subject in foreign: countries; and I should be glad to know where you would find a preventive of that spirit of partiality to which the confliction of these different interests must necessarily lead? I believe I may safely say that there is no free state in Europe, in which it has been found practicable for Catholics and Protestants, for any long continuance, to administer government under the same system together.

In Switzerland we find it was not the case, nor in Holland; and in Poland the attempt was made, but it terminated in the exclusive domination of the Catholic religion. I know that it has been the case in arbitrary monarchies, where they have coalesced; but so, I say, the question stands with regard to Ireland. My noble friend says, take away the interest that is hostile to the establishment, and you are secure. For my own part, I believe that if in Ireland you could establish the Roman Catholic religion, still you could not preserve a Protestant king; because the Roman Catholic clergy would look up to the crown for their temporalities, and the laws of the Church must be Roman Catholic instead of those of the religious establishment of this country. But the question is this—whether in a Protestant country, whilst it remains Protestant, you can introduce a Roman Catholic Church power without an insurrection, or at least the most hostile prejudices against them? I say it is inconsistent with the principles of government, and at variance with every example of history.

What do the Roman Catholics say themselves? I do not wish to go now into the question of the Veto. The Roman Catholics have some of them recommended what their advocates have held out; but they profess exclusive submission to a foreign Catholic Church, and then they call upon you to admit them to all the benefits of your Protestant establishment. This goes most materially and most essentially to the most important consideration under which this question is presented to you. My lords, if I am to consider the effect that this measure may have upon the constitution of this state: If I am to consider of the effect it may have upon the political and civil establishment of Ireland, I do believe whatever convenience may arise, from acceding to these claims, the inconvenience would be infinitely greater than the danger of refusing them at once.

When I speak of the opinions of the Roman Catholics, as they maintain them at present, I do not shut out the hope that some serious and essential changes may take place. If they do the question may come, under new circumstances, before parliament. Then will be the proper time to entertain the consideration of the question. But until we have these changes, or until we have sufficient security against that foreign power of which I have spoken, I do consider it to be utterly inconsistent with the principles of our constitution to admit the Catholics without them.

My noble friend concluded his speech with a reference to the constitution as established at the Revolution; but I will not go into the consideration of that question. 'My noble friend seems, however, very much to under-value the security which the intimate connection between the Protestant establishment and the government gives to the constitution. My own view of that point of history called the Revolution of 1688 is this—that the Church establishment of the country, as it now exists, has always been an object of affection to the government, and that the Revolution was as much founded upon the principle that the state should be Protestant as that the monarchy should be limited. The object sought by that great event was the maintenance of our religious, civil and political liberties together. I maintain that civil power and religious liberty were united in that great event. They were both considered as essential to the liberties of the country and the establishment of the Protestant religion.

In viewing this question, let me intreat noble lords to consider upon what principle you can justify the limitation of the crown to a Protestant succession, if this question, as of right, can be admitted? You have done away all restrictions upon the Catholics short of political power, and now it is desired to surrender that. If this is a question of expediency I can understand it; because expediency says you may go to a certain length. But if it is argued as a question of right, I maintain, as the result of my opinion, that you have no alternative, and you can do nothing else. That they will not stop at the point that we may think expedient is pretty evident—the prayer of this Petition is for every thing. You are not desired to consider their case with a view to give them any particular privilege, or a part of what they ask; but you are called upon not only to give every thing, but to consider their demand upon the ground of right. My lords, then, if it is an essential principle of your Protestant constitution, that your king is to be a Protestant, I ask upon what principle of justice it is you can exclude the Catholics from having a Catholic prince in possession of the crown? If you surrender what they now claim, then I would ask you, would you put a Roman Catholic family on the throne under these notorious circumstances that I have stated? and if you would not, how could you exclude the Roman Catholics, if it be their right, from the benefit of having a Catholic monarch? I do therefore maintain, that the very essence and principle of the Revolution was that you should have a limited monarchy; and that the state should be Protestant: to extend toleration and religious freedom to the farthest point they could go that no principle of exclusion ought to be found, unless you are thoroughly convinced that the dangers arising from exclusion are greater than those from concession. I am thoroughly satisfied that in the present state of things, no benefit can arise from the discussion of this subject. You are called upon to make—not a particular concession,—but to concede the whole; and upon grounds, as I think, inconsistent with the general security of the establishment of your country; and upon that ground I give my opposition to this motion.

The Marquis of Downshire.

—My lords; I rise to say a very few words upon the motion before you, in support of the vote, which I feel it my duty to give on this question. The Petition before you speaks the sentiments of the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, praying for final Emancipation from the penal restrictions under which they labour, merely on account of their religious sentiments. It is signed by very great numbers of the Protestant population of the country, eminent for their characters, for their loyalty, for their attachment to their king, country and constitution—for their great landed property, and consequently for the great stake they possess in every thing which can interest them in the security of the constitution, in the maintenance of the state, and the permanent tranquillity and happiness of their country; which happiness they firmly believe to be vitally and insuperably connected with the complete Emancipation of their Roman Catholic brethren; who labour under political grievances, in the removal of which, I believe in my conscience, there would not be the least danger to this Protestant state; while, on the contrary, I do most sincerely think, that removal would be equally beneficial to every description of his Majesty's subjects—that it is essential to the maintaining the security, and the existence of the British empire; and to the union of all hearts and bands within that empire, for its defence against the clangers by which we are surrounded. In presenting to your lordships the particular Petition which I had the honour of laying on your table, I only complied with the solicitations of a very numerous body of the, Protestant and Catholic gentlemen residing in that part of Ireland where I am more immediately interested, and I sincerely wish that I may prove a successful instrument of obtaining for the Catholics of Ireland, the object of their claims shall not longer detain your lordships by referring to arguments which have already been so much more ably and eloquently urged ill favour of those claims, than I could do, and I shall conclude by giving my decided vote in favour of the motion.

Lord Byron.

—My lords; the question before the House has been so frequently, fully and ably discussed, and never perhaps more ably than on this night; that it would be difficult to adduce new arguments for or against it. But with each discussion, difficulties have been removed, objections have been canvassed and refuted, and some of the former opponents of Catholic Emancipation have at length conceded to the expediency of relieving the petitioners. In conceding thus much however, a new objection is started; it is not the time, say they, or it is an improper time, or there is time enough yet. It" some degree I concur with those who say, it is not the time exactly; that time is past; better had it been for the country, that the Catholics possessed at this moment their proportion of our privileges, that their nobles held their due weight in our councils, than that we should be assembled to discuss their claims. It bad indeed been better Non tempore tali Cogere concilium cum muros obsidet hosts. The enemy is without, and distress with" in. It is too late to cavil on doctrinal points, when we must unite in defence of things more important than the mere ceremonies of religion. It is indeed singular, that we are called together to deliberate, not on the God we adore, for in that we are agreed; not about the King we obey, for to him we are loyal; but how far a difference in the ceremonials of worship, how far believing not too little, but too much, (the worst that can be imputed to the Catholics,) how far too much devotion to their God, may incapacitate our fellow-subjects from effectually serving their King.

Much has been said, within and without doors, of Church and Slate, and although those venerable words have been too often prostituted to the most despicable of party purposes, we cannot hear them too often; all, I presume, are the advocates of Church and State, the Church of Christ, and the state of Great Britain; but not a state of exclusion and of despotism, not an intolerant Church, not a Church militant, which renders itself liable to the very objection urged against the Romish communion, and in a greater degree, for the Catholic merely withholds its spiritual benediction, (and even that is doubtful,) but our Church, or rather out churchmen, not only refuse to the Catholic their spiritual grace, but all temporal blessings whatsoever. It was an observation of the great lord Peterborough, made within these wails, or within the walls where the Lords then assembled, that he was for a "Parliamentary king and a parliamentary constitution, but not a parliamentary God and a parliamentary religion." The interval of a century has not weakened the force of the remark. It is indeed time that we should leave off these petty cavils on frivolous points, these Lilliputian sophistries, whether our eggs are best broken at the broad or narrow end."

The opponents of the Catholics may be divided into two classes; those who assert that the Catholics have too much already, and those who allege that the lower orders, at least, have nothing more to require. We are told by the former, that the Catholics never will be contented: by the latter, that they are already too happy. The last paradox is sufficiently refuted by the present as by all past Petitions; it might as well be said, that the negroes did not desire t" be emancipated, but this is an unfortunate comparison, for you have already delivered them out of the house of bondage without any Petition on their part, but many from their task-masters to a contrary effect; and for myself, when I consider this, I pity the Catholic peasantry for not having the good fortune to be born black. But the Catholics are contented, or at least ought to be, as we are told; I shall therefore proceed to touch on a few of those circumstances which so marvellously contribute to their exceeding contentment. They are not allowed the free exercise of their religion in the regular army; the Catholic soldier cannot absent himself from the service of the Protestant clergyman, and unless he is quartered in Ireland or in Spain, where can he find eligible opportunities of attending his own. The permission of Catholic chaplains to the Irish militia regiments was conceded as a special favour, and not till after years of remonstrance, although an Act, passed in 1793, established it as a right. But are the Catholics properly protected in Ireland Can the Church purchase a rood of land whereon to erect a chapel? No! all the places of worship are built on leases of trust or sufferance from the laity, easily broken and often betrayed. The moment any irregular wish, any casual caprice of the benevolent landlord meets with opposition, the doors are barred against the congregation. This has happened continually, but in no instance more glaringly, than at the town of Newton Barry in the county of Wexford. The Catholics enjoying no regular chapel, as a temporary expedient, hired two barns; which being thrown into one, served for public worship. At this time, there was quartered opposite to the spot, an officer whose mind appears to have been deeply imbued with those prejudices which the Protestant Petitions now on the table, prove to have been fortunately eradicated from the more rational portion of the people; and when the Catholics were assembled on the Sabbath as usual, in peace and goodwill towards men, for the worship of their God and yours, they found the chapel door closed, and were told that if they did not immediately retire, (and they were told this by a Yeoman officer and a magistrate,) the Riot Act should be read, and the assembly dispersed at the point of the bayonet! This was complained of to the middle man of government, the Secretary at the Castle in 1806, and the answer was, (in lieu of redress,) that he would cause a letter to be written to the colonel, to prevent, if possible, the recurrence of similar disturbances. Upon this fact no very great stress need be laid; but it tends to prove that while the Catholic Church has not power to purchase land for its chapels to stand upon, the laws for its protection are of no avail. In the mean time, the Catholics are at the mercy of every "pelting petty officer," who may choose to play his "fantastic tricks before high heaven," to insult his God, and injure his fellow creatures.

Every school-boy, any foot-boy, (such have held commissions in our service) any foot-boy who can exchange his shoulder-knot for an epaulet, may perform all this and more against the Catholic, by virtue of that very authority delegated to him by his sovereign, for the express purpose of defending his fellow subjects to the last drop of his blood, without discrimination or distinction between Catholic and Protestant.

Have the Irish Catholics the full benefit of trial by jury? They have not; they never can have until they are permitted to share the privilege of serving as sheriffs and under-sheriffs. Of this a striking example occurred at the last Enniskillen assizes.—A yeoman was arraigned for the murder of a Catholic named Macvournagh; three respectable uncontradicted witnesses deposed that they saw the prisoner load, take aim, fire at, and kill the said Macvournagh. This was properly commented on by the judge; but to the astonishment of the bar, and indignation of the court, the Protestant jury acquitted the accused. So glaring was the partiality, that Mr. Justice Osborne felt it his duty to bind over the acquitted, but not absolved assassin in large recognizances; thus for a time taking away his licence to kill Catholics.

Are the very laws passed in their favour observed? They are rendered nugatory in trivial as in serious cases. By a late act. Catholic chaplains are permitted in jails, but in Fermanagh county the grand jury lately persisted in presenting a suspended clergyman for the office, thereby evading the statute, notwithstanding the most pressing remonstrances of a most respectable magistrate named Fletcher to the contrary. Such is law, such is justice, for the happy, free, contented Catholic!

It has been asked in another place, why do not the rich Catholics endow foundations for the education of the priesthood? Why do you not permit them to do so? Why are all such bequests subject to the interference, the vexatious, arbitrary, peculating interference of the Orange commissioners for charitable donations?

As to Maynooth college, in no instance except at the time of its foundation, when a noble lord, (Camden) at the head of the Irish administration, did appear to interest himself in its advancement; and during the government of a noble duke, (Bedford) who, like his ancestors, has ever been the friend of freedom and mankind, and who has not so far adopted the selfish policy of the day as to exclude the Catholics from the number of his fellow-creatures; with these exceptions, in no instance has that institution been properly encouraged. There was indeed a time when the Catholic clergy were conciliated, while the Union was pending, that Union which could not be carried without them, while their assistance was requisite in procuring addresses from the Catholic counties then they were cajoled and caressed, feared and flattered, and given to understand that "the Union would do every thing;" but the moment it was passed, they were driven back with contempt into their former obscurity.

In the conduct pursued towards Maynooth college, every thing is done to irritate and perplex—every thing is done to efface the slightest impression of gratitude from the Catholic mind; the very hay made upon the lawn, the fat and tallow of the beef and mutton allowed must be paid for and accounted upon oath. It is true, this economy in miniature cannot sufficiently be commended, particularly at a time when only the insect defaulters of the Treasury, your Hunts and your Chinnerys, when only those "gilded bugs" can escape the microscopic eye of ministers. But when you come forward session after session, as your paltry pittance is wrong from you with wrangling and reluctance, to boast of your liberality, well might the Catholic exclaim in the words of Prior— To John I owe some obligation, But John unluckily thinks fit To publish it to all the nation, So John and I are more than quit. Some persons have compared the Catholics to the beggar in Gil Blas: Who made them beggars? Who are enriched with the spoils of their ancestors.' And cannot you relieve the beggar when your fathers have made him such? If you are disposed to relieve him at all, cannot you do it without flinging your farthings in his face?—As a contrast, however, to this beggarly benevolence, let us look at the Protestant Charter Schools; to them you have lately granted 41,000l.: thus are they supported, and how are they recruited? Montesquieu observes on the English constitution, that the model may be found in Tacitus, where the historian describes the policy of the Germans, and adds—" this beautiful system was taken from the woods "so in speaking of the charter schools it may be observed, that this beautiful system was taken from the gypsies. These schools are recruited in the same manner as the janissaries at the time of their enrolment under Amurath, and the gypsies of the present day with stolen children, with children decoyed and kidnapped from their Catholic connections by their rich and powerful Protestant neighbours: this is notorious, and one instance may suffice to shew in what manner. —The sister of a Mr. Carthy, (a Catholic gentleman of very considerable property,) (lied, leaving two girls, who were immediately marked out as proselytes, and conveyed to the charter school of Coolgreny; their uncle, on being apprized of the fact, which took place during his absence, applied for the restitution of his nieces, offering to settle an independence on these his relations; his request was refused, and not till after five years struggle, and the interference of very high authority, could this Catholic gentleman obtain back his nearest of kindred from a charity charter school. In this manner are proselytes obtained, and mingled with the offspring of such Protestants as may avail themselves of the institution. And how are they taught? A catechism is put into their hands, consisting of, I believe, 45 pages, in which are three questions relative to the Protestant religion; one of these queries is, where was the Protestant religion before Luther?" Answer, "in the Gospel." The remaining forty-four pages and a half, regard the damnable idolatry of Papists!

Allow me to ask our spiritual pastors and masters, is this training up a child in the way which he should go?—is this the religion of the Gospel before the time of Luther? that religion which preaches "Peace on earth and glory to God?" Is it bringing up infants to be men or devils? Better would it be to send them any where than teach them such doctrines; better send them to those islands in the South Seas, where they might more humanely learn to become cannibals; it would be less disgusting that they were brought up to devour the dead, than persecute the living. Schools do you call them? call them rather dunghills, where the viper of intolerance deposits her young, that when their teeth are cut and their poison is mature, they may issue forth, filthy and venomous, to sting the Catholic. But are these the doctrines of the Church of England, or of Churchmen? No, the most enlightened Churchmen are of a different opinion. What says Paley? I perceive no reason why men of different religious persuasions should not sit upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same ranks, as well as men of various religious opinions, upon any controverted topic of natural history, philosophy, or ethics!" It may be answered, that Paley was not strictly orthodox; I know nothing of his orthodoxy, but who will deny that he was an ornament to the Church, to human nature, to Christianity?

I shall not dwell upon the grievance of tythes, so severely felt by the peasantry, but it may be proper to observe, that there is an addition to the burthen, a per centage to the gatherer, whose interest it thus becomes to rate them as highly as possible, and we know that in many large livings in Ireland, the only resident Protestants are the tythe proctor and his family.

Amongst many causes of irritation, too numerous for recapitulation, there is one in the militia not to be passed over, I mean the existence of Orange lodges amongst the privates; can the officers deny this? and if such lodges do exist, do they, can they tend to promote harmony amongst the men, who are thus individually separated in society, although mingled in the ranks? And is this general system of persecution to be permitted, or is it to be believed that with such a system the Catholics can or ought to be contented? If they are, they belie human nature; they are then, indeed, unworthy to be any thing but the slaves you have made them. The fact" staled are from most respectable authority, or I should not have dared in this place, or any place, to hazard this avowal. If exaggerated, there are plenty as willing, as I believe them to be unable, to disprove them. Should it be objected that I never was in Ireland, I beg leave to observe, that it is as easy to know something of Ireland without having been there, as it appears with some to have been born, bred, and cherished there, and yet remain ignorant of its best interests.

But there are, who assert that the Catholics have already been too much indulged; see (cry they) what has been done, we have given them one entire college, we allow them food and raiment, the full enjoyment of the elements, and leave to fight for us as long as they have limbs and lives to offer, and yet they are never to be satisfied! Generous and just declaimers to this, and to this only, amount the whole of your arguments, when stripped of their sophistry. Those personages remind me of a story of a certain drummer, who being called upon in the course of duty to administer punishment to a friend tied to the halberts, was requested to flog high, he did—to flog low-, he did—to flog in the middle, he did—high, low, down the middle, and up again, but all in vain, the patient continued his complaints with the most provoking pertinacity, until the drummer, exhausted and angry, flung down his scourge, exclaiming "the devil burn yon, there's no pleasing you, flog where one will!" Thus it is, you have flogged the Catholic high, low, here, there, and every where, and then you wonder he is not pleased. It is true, that time, experience, and that weariness which attends even the exercise of barbarity, have taught you to flog a little more gently, but still you continue to lay on the lash, and will so continue, the perhaps the rod may be wrested from your hands and applied to the backs of your-selves and your posterity.

It was said by somebody in a former debate, (I forget by whom, and am not very anxious to remember) if the Catholics are emancipated, why not the Jews? If this sentiment was dictated by compassion for the Jews, it might deserve attention, but as a sneer against the Catholic, what is it but the language of Shylock transferred from his daughter's marriage to Catholic emancipation— Would any of the tribe of Barrabbas Should have it rather than a Christian. I presume a Catholic is a Christian, even in the opinion of him whose taste only can be called in question for his preference of the Jews.

It is a remark often quoted of Dr. Johnson, (whom I take to be almost as good authority as the gentle apostle of intolerance, Dr. Duigenan) that he who could entertain serious apprehensions of danger to the Church in these times, would have "cried fire in the deluge." This is more than a metaphor, for a remnant of these antedeluvians appear actually to have come down to us, with fire in their mouths and water in their brains, to disturb and perplex mankind with their whimsical outcries. And as it is an infallible symptom of that distressing malady with which I conceive them to be afflicted, (so any doctor will inform your lordships) for the unhappy invalids to perceive a flame perpetually flashing before their eyes, particularly when their eyes are shut, (as those of the persons to whom I allude have long been) it is impossible to convince these poor creatures, that the fire against which they are perpetually warning us and themselves, is nothing but an Ignis fatuus of their own drivelling imaginations. What rhubarb, senna, or what purgative drug can scour that fancy thence?—it is impossible, they are given over, theirs is the true Caput insanabile tribus Anticyris. These are your true Protestants. Like Bayle, who protested against all sects whatsoever, so do they protest against Catholic Petitions, Protestant Petitions, all redress, all that reason, humanity, policy, justice, and common-sense, can urge against the delusions of their absurd delirium. These are the persons who re verse the fable of the mountain that brought forth a mouse, they are the mice who conceive themselves in labour with mountains. To return to the Catholics. Suppose the Irish were actually contented under their disabilities, suppose them capable of such a bull as not to desire deliverance, ought we not to wish it for ourselves? Have we nothing to gain by their emancipation? What resources have been wasted? what talents have been lost by the selfish system of exclusion? You already know the value of Irish and; at this moment the defence of England is entrusted to the Irish militia; at this moment, while the starving people are rising in the fierceness of despair, the Irish are faithful to their trust. But till equal energy is imparted through out by the extension of freedom, you cannot enjoy the full benefit of the strength which you are glad to interpose between you and destruction. Ireland has done much, but will do more. At this moment, the only triumph obtained through long years of continental disaster has been achieved by an Irish general; it is true he is not a Catholic, had he been so, we should have been deprived of his exertions, but I presume no one will assert that his religion would have impaired his talents or diminished his patriotism, though in that case he must have conquered in the ranks, for he never could have commanded an army. But he is fighting the battles of the Catholics abroad, his noble brother has this night advocated their cause, with an eloquence which I shall not depreciate by the humble tribute of my panegyric, whilst a third of his kindred, as unlike as unequal, has been combating against his Catholic brethren in Dublin, with circular letters, edicts, proclamations, arrests and dispersions—all the vexatious implements of petty warfare that could be wielded by the mercenary guerillas of government, clad in the rusty armour of their obsolete statutes. Your lordships will, doubtless, divide new honours between the Saviour of Portugal, and the Disperser of Delegates. It is singular, indeed, to observe the difference between our foreign and domestic policy; if Catholic Spain, faithful Portugal, or the no less Catholic and faithful king of the one Sicily (of which, by the bye, you have lately deprived him) stand in need of succour, away goes a fleet and an army, an ambassador and a subsidy, sometimes to fight pretty hardly, generally to negociate very badly, and always to pay very dearly for our Popish allies. But let four millions of fellow subjects pray for relief, who fight and pay and labour in your behalf, they must be treated as aliens, and although their father's house has many mansions" there is no resting place for them. Allow me to ask, are you not fighting for the emancipation of Ferdinand 7, who certainly is a fool, and consequently, in all probability, a bigot; and have you more regard for a foreign sovereign than your own fellow subjects, who are not fools, for they know your interest better than you know your own; who are not bigots, for they return you good for evil, but who are in worse durance than the prison of an usurper, inasmuch as the fetters of the mind are more galling than those of the body.

Upon the consequences of your not acceding to the claims of the Petitioners, I shall not expatiate, you know them, you will feel them, and your children's children when you are passed away. Adieu lo that Union so called as Lucus a non lucendo," an Union from never uniting, which in its first operation gave a deathblow to the independence of Ireland, and in its last may be the cause of her eternal separation from this country. If it must be called an Union, it is the union of the shark with his prey, the spoiler swallows up his victim, and thus they become one and indivisible. Thus has Great Britain swallowed up the parliament, the constitution, the independence of Ireland, and refuses to disgorge even a single privilege, although for the relief of her swollen and distempered body politic.

And now, my lords, before I sit down, will his Majesty's ministers permit me to say a few words, not on their merits, for that would be superfluous, but on the degree of estimation in which they are held by the people of these realms. The esteem in which they are held has been boasted of in a triumphant tone on a late occasion within these walls, and a comparison instituted between their conduct, and that of noble lords on this side of the House.

What portion of popularity may have fallen to the share of my noble friends (if such I may presume to call them) I shall not pretend to ascertain; but that of his Majesty's ministers it were vain to deny. It is, to be sure, a little like the wind, no one knows whence it cometh or whither it goeth," but they feel it, they enjoy it, they boast of it. Indeed, modest and unostentatious as they are, to what part of the kingdom, even the most remote, can they flee to avoid the triumph which pursues them. If they plunge into the midland counties, there will they be greeted by the manufacturers, with spurned petitions in their hands, and those halters round their necks recently voted in their behalf, imploring blessings on the heads of those who so simply, yet ingeniously, contrived to remove them from their miseries in this to a better world. If they journey on to Scotland, from Glasgow to Johnny Groat's, every where will they receive similar marks of approbation? If they take a trip from Portpatrick to Do-naghadee, there will they rush at once into the embraces of four Catholic millions, to whom their vote of this night is about to endear them for ever. When they return to the metropolis, if they can pass under Temple Bar without unpleasant sensations at the sight of the greedy niches over that ominous gateway, they cannot escape the acclamations of the livery, and the more tremulous, but not less sincere, applause, the blessings "not loud but deep" of bankrupt merchants and doubting stock-holders. If they look to the army, what wreaths, not of laurel, but of night-shade, are preparing, for the heroes of Walcheren. It is true there are few living deponents left to testify to their merits on that occasion; but a 'cloud of 'witnesses' are gone above from that gallant army which they so generously and piously dispatched, to recruit the "noble army of martyrs."

What if in the course of this triumphal career, (in which they will gather as many pebbles as Caligula's army did on a similar triumph, the prototype of their own) they do not perceive any of those memorials which a grateful people erect in honour of their benefactors; what although not even a sign-post will condescend to depose the Saracen's head in favour of the likeness of the conquerors of Walcheren, they will not want a picture who can always have a caricature; or regret the omission of a statue who will so often see themselves exalted in effigy. But their popularity is not limited to the narrow bounds of an island; there are other countries where their measures, and above all, their conduct to the Catholics mast render them preeminently popular. It" they are beloved here, in France they must be adored. There is no measure more repugnant to I the designs and feelings of Buonaparté than Catholic Emancipation; no line of conduct more propitious to his projects than that which has been pursued, is pursuing, and, I fear, will be pursued, towards Ireland. What is England without Ireland, and what is Ireland without the Catholics? It is on the basis of your tyranny Napoleon hopes to build his own. So grateful must oppression of the Catholics be to his mind, that doubtless (as he has lately permitted some renewal of intercourse) the next cartel will convey to this country cargoes of seve-china, and blue ribbands (things in great request, and of equal value at this moment) blue ribbands of the Legion of Honour for Dr. Duigenan and his ministerial disciples. Such is that well-earned popularity, the result of those extraordinary expeditions, so expensive to ourselves and so useless to our allies; of those singular enquiries, so exculpatory to the accused and so dissatisfactory to the people; of those paradoxical victories, so honourable, as we are told, to the British name, and so destructive to the best interests of the British nation: above all, such is the reward of the conduct pursued by ministers towards the Catholics.

I have to apologise to the House, who will, I trust, pardon one, not often in the habit of intruding upon their indulgence, for so long attempting to engage their attention. My most decided opinion is, as my vote will be, in favour of the motion.

The Earl of Moira.

—My lords; all the considerations which recommend your concurrence with the prayer of this Petition, have been urged with such force and eloquence by the noble lord near me (marquis Wellesley) and remain so completely unanswered, that I should feel myself without excuse if I now trespassed on your time with any detailed exposition of the subject. I could only repeat in less impressive language the same arguments. Still, some objections have been advanced on the other side which I should not be satisfied with leaving unnoticed. When the noble secretary (the earl of Liverpool) rose, my curiosity was strongly excited as to what kind of answer he would endeavour to apply to a statement so clear, and so apparently irrefragable, that any impeachment of it seemed almost impossible. I need not say how much I was disappointed. The noble earl resorted to the policy, perhaps it was his wisest procedure, of not encountering the arguments at all. Passing aloof from all the powerful pleas which constitute the essence of the question, he has seized one minor point; he has distorted it by an arbitrary construction; and he has thence run into a deduction which is necessarily tainted with all the fallacy of the original incorrect assumptions. He has said that the Roman Catholics desire to be admitted to qualification without taking the oath of supremacy, because that supremacy refers to matters spiritual; whereas the relieving the Catholics from the necessity of that engagement, would in truth, involve in that emancipation from pledge, matter" purely temporal. If that difficulty can exist, with whom is the fault? The Catholics have, over and over again, pointed out the discrimination which strikes them as definable between the spiritual and the temporal points to which the term supremacy may be supposed to apply. They have professed their readiness to come under any obligation as to the temporal concerns. If the distinction be not made with sufficient accuracy, let the noble lord offer a suggestion of his own, that it may be taken fairly into consideration. In the mean time it is enough to say, that in repelling the sense which the noble earl would put upon the objection of the Catholics to the oath of supremacy, one entirely does away the conclusion (even supposing it to have a logical connection with the premises) that any person who votes for the present question must have made up his mind to vote also, the dissolution of the existing Church establishment in Ireland. Such a deduction is not merely incomprehensible. It is most unjust, as having a reference toward"; the Catholics, because it indirectly imputes to them ulterior views of that sort, when they have in the clearest language and with the strongest asseverations rested their application to you upon the; specific condition of their respecting that very establishment.

Let me repeat, my lords, that this is a; question which presents itself upon very different ground from any prayer for toleration. A great body of your fellow subjects, debarred of a just participation in those advantages of the community which equally with yourselves, they maintain by their personal efforts and the contribution of their wealth, ought to be held intitled to know why a distinction so injurious to them should exist. It is as free-born men that they approach you with their solicitations; and it is not by reference to what may have been the tenets of persons attached to the Church of Rome in other times and other countries, that you can decide upon this claim. The plea of British citizens must be judged (if it be equitably judged) by the validity of their pledges of attachment to the state. The noble and learned lord has declared his conscientious conviction, that persons honestly professing adherence to the Romish Church can never be cordial supporters of a Protestant government; nay he has gone further, and asserts that their religious principles must necessarily bind them to labour at the subversion of any such government. I am sincerely satisfied that the noble and learned lord would not have expressed that sentiment but upon conscientious conviction. I only venture to question whether the noble and learned lord has sufficiently examined the ground on which he has adopted that persuasion. All the lamentable instances of communities ruined by senseless differences within themselves, have exhibited conscientious conviction as the motive of the majority of the actors. There is not one of the many examples which have most excited our disgust at the absurdity of mankind, or our indignation at the incorrigible virulence of individuals in the support of party objects, which has not in its turn been vindicated as arising out of conscientious conviction. Time and reason have spurned the excuse. Might it not then be a wholesome doubt in the breast of the noble and learned lord if he admitted the possibility, the bare possibility that his conscientious conviction might be as erroneous as that of any one of the persons whose conduct he had viewed with the deepest censure in the annals of other periods. Let not the noble and learned lord seek to justify his opinion by quoting barbarous outrages in barbarous days. Religion is a ready drapery for cloaking all the malignant passions of corrupted minds. No other veil has therefore been so frequently abused; and I fear that an impartial examination of history would not How us to pronounce the Protestant Church free from the shame of having on some occasions perverted the beneficent precepts of the Gospel to purposes of party and oppression. But such immoral laxity was never the profession of any set of men. It ought not lightly to be imputed to any creed; much less to that of the Catholics of the present day, who have been loud in reprobating such atrocities.

A noble and learned lord has descanted on the censurable want of equity shewn by the Roman Catholics, when they demand of you every thing, and refuse to you on the other hand the first security which had been desired from them. In illustration of the temper thus ascribed to them, the noble lord has instanced what is called the Veto; the check proposed to be lodged in the crown upon the nomination to Catholic bishoprics. The objections made to that arrangement appear to me quite wide of the present discussion. It is an erroneous view of the question now before you to regard it as referring to this or that communion. But even were the noble and learned lord right in mingling an advertence to religious tenets with the question, what advantage could his argument draw from the point which he has started? What title have you to interfere with the appointment of the Catholic bishops any more than with that of the Scotch episcopalians, who proceed upon the same pretension of apostolical devolution in their chain of consecration? As long as these appointments are unacknowledged by the state, government can have nothing to do with them. Were the Catholic clergy to request stipendiary provision from you, or were you to invite them to such an arrangement, you would be entitled to propose the conditions. But without such a ground you have no colour, nay no justification, for interference with the Catholic priesthood.

An allusion was made by the noble lord who brought forward this motion, of a sort most difficult to be noticed in reply without a breach of respect and delicacy. It is impossible for me to pass it altogether by. The anguish which I felt from it, and the deep sense I have of calamities that might arise from any misconstruction on that point, impel me to give it some advertence, though that advertence must be somewhat indistinct if I keep within any bounds of order. The disappointment of cherished hopes, and the blight of encouraged reliance, have been forcibly and eloquently depicted to you. The natural effect of such a portraiture would be a dissuasion from future confidence in the same quarter. Against this most fatal and most erroneous conclusion I wish to plead: and if my humble voice can be heard, I implore this country and Ireland to repel so injurious, so ruinous a supposition. There must be many circumstances on which it would be the greatest presumption for any of us to judge, without the knowledge requisite for forming a complete estimate. In such cases, general principles are entitled to demand a candid and liberal trust. If any expectations beneficial to the public have not been realized, I will boldly assert, it must have happened from some perplexities which have thwarted the most upright and benevolent intentions. I ground my assertion on my intimate knowledge of that heart. I aver that more genuine reverence for the constitution, a more exalted veneration for the principles of civil and religious freedom, or a more unceasing solicitude to promote the welfare and happiness of every description of British subjects, than what reign in the breast of that high personage, never did rule the mind of any man. You know I cannot be deceived in this: you know I dare not deceive you. Excuse me, my lords, if I have transgressed instating this. It is the consideration of the influence such an explanation may have upon public concerns that has alone induced me to trench upon the subject. I feel how nearly I have been bordering on irregularity, and I quit the topic.

I then return to the argument of the noble and learned lord. He desires you to observe that there is no limit to the claims of the Catholics. Why should there be any Not conscious of any inferiority in their devotion to the interests of the state, and knowing themselves free from any insidious purposes against other descriptions of their fellow subjects, they cannot suppose any deficiency in their title to the amplest enjoyment of British immunities. Should any one assert that such an unrestricted admission would affect the security of existing establishments, it is for him to make out his proposition. The burthen of shewing the danger must equitably rest upon him. Let him state his case, connecting his indication of the peril, with some fact or probability capable of being seized and fairly discussed. Loose and general imputations drawn from the extravagant supposition that the Irish Catholics of the present day are just what Catholics were a century and a half ago, can never be the ground of any profitable deliberation. As little can you rationally argue to the principles of the Catholic body from doctrines which any absurd and unauthorised advocate may have happened to publish. Take the distinct unambiguous declaration made by the leading men of that communion in Ireland, as speaking for the whole body, and supported by the subsequent concurrence of that body. Refer to that, and see if it leave room for the impeachment which the Catholics are desired, by a limitation of their claims, to put upon their loyalty to their sovereign and their fidelity to their fellow subjects. Do not tax their ingenuity to devise against themselves flaws foreign to their natures. It is enough if you undertake that office: their minds are not cast in a mould that fits them for comprehending such suspicions.

" I would grant them every indulgence" says the noble and learned lord (a sentiment re-echoed by a noble earl) that did not invest them with political power." I should like much to hear political power defined. At present I take it to be just as loose an expression as Catholic Emancipation on the other side, expressing nothing but a sort of confused imagination that there may be inconvenience in admitting the Catholics to all the right* of citizenship. Is it meant that in parliament, or in the active offices of the state, the Catholics would obtain a preponderance formidable for the Protestant establishment. No, we may assert that not an individual could be found so visionary as to avow that notion. Then the apprehensions must be some floating conception that advancement to higher stations than they can now hold would give to the leading members of that communion an-influence over the body of Catholics in Ireland which they do not now possess.

Consult your own knowledge of human nature, my lords, and determine upon the quality of this apprehension. What the giving to the Catholic of rank an interest unconnected with the objects of the majority of persons of his communion—the withdrawing him from confraternity with them in privations and neglect, is to furnish him with a more powerful title to their confidence and sympathy! The supposition needs only to be slated to be repelled by-the judgment of every man. Is it not clear that the Catholic of birth, or of property, if he be commixed with the active pursuits of high life, must have less leisure and less excitement than at present to address himself to the passions of his sect. Then, admitting that, contrary to all probability, no jealousy should arise in their minds respecting an individual whom they see identified by office or profession with that Protestant government represented as the mark for their unremitting hostility, are his practices likely to make most impression upon minds soured with insult, or upon minds soothed by obliteration of invidious distinctions? Can the artifices of a demagogue in elevated employment be more commodiously exerted upon a multitude blended with the rest of their fellow citizens, than when a state of segregation gives them a character of individuality? It is quite wonderful that you do not perceive it to be your own erroneous policy, in discriminating the Catholics as a body, which renders them as a body formidable either in power or disposition to your present establishments. This, I allow, will not fully meet the notions of the noble and learned lord. It matters not in his contemplation, what are the feelings, or the wishes, or the occupation, of the Catholics. The Pope may at any time intervene; his instructions must be obeyed by the clergy; and the instigations of the priests will instantly pervert the multitude. I repeat that all this may equally happen in the present state of things; and that the interference would be attended with augmented danger from being applied to minds fermenting with irritation and disgust. But let US leave these speculations, and resort to something which ought to be more decisive on the question.

You have here on your table a Petition in favour of the claims of the Catholics, from most of the principal Protestant possessors of landed or other property in Ireland: from men whose conduct through life is sufficient pledge that in this step they are following no hasty suggestion, and whose connections are irrefragable proof of their attachment to existing establishments in Church and State. What is the inference you ought to draw from such a document? That men so circumstanced, and who must be the immediate sufferers, if the measure to which they solicit you be a wrong one, cannot but be convinced that the tranquillity of Ireland, and the consequent security of the British empire, re-qjuires the uniting the Catholics with their Protestant brethren in one common bond of amity, which can only result from purity of interest. Are these Protestant proprietors deceived? Their eyes have been upon these Catholics for years past. They speak to you from experience and long continued observation of their own neighbours. And will you oppose to that the gratuitous assumptions of the noble and learned lord? Here I must observe upon a very mischievous mistake which appears to pervade the reasoning of all those I have heard argue against granting the prayer of the Catholics. They seem to think that you have only to reject this Petition, and that the matter will then be at rest. At worst, in their conception, you will only have to be teazed with a similar application next year. My lords, you are not in a situation in which you can afford to benumb the zeal and palsy the exertions of so large a proportion of the population of this empire. All the energies that your best policy can call forth will not be more than you will find necessary in the sequel of our difficulties. I speak now as if your rejection of the Petition was only to damp the ardour of the Catholics as to your cause. That would be the sole effect with the considerate among them, but the considerate are few in any mass of people. Your wisdom ought to calculate the probable operation of a disappointment, now attended with peculiarities which might, seem to bar all future hope from appeals to your justice and your liberality. Recollect that a vigilant and insidious enemy must have been busily watching the course of these dissatisfactions; and assure yourselves that he has emissaries who will not neglect the moment, if they see the discontents ripe enough to be fomented to extremes. What a juncture it must be for them should you, with an expectation no less preposterous than your decision would be injudicious, desire the Catholics to retire from your bar, and sit down quiet under not only wrong but contumely. I say contumely, because it has unhappily been slated in this debate, that the pledge which the Catholics advance upon their solemn oaths, that they will never employ towards the subversion of your existing establishments any power or advantages which they may derive from your bounty, is a security not to be relied upon. What to tell them that the most awful appeal they can make to their Creator is not to be trusted! Can you express to them such an opinion of their principles, and flatter yourselves it is not to more their in dignation? But it is not the estrangement of the Irish Catholic alone that you have to dread. This Petition of the Protestants makes it the prayer of all Ireland; for the dissentient voices in the question are too few and insignificant to be regarded as forming an exception. And is this a discontent that can be safely allowed to fester? Think you the Protestant proprietors will make no reflection on the indifference you shew to their safety, or on the insult of your pretending to judge better for their interests than they themselves on the spot are able to do? I have said that you cannot forego the exertions of any part of your population. You cannot, without sinking in the contest, incur merely the inertness of Ireland. What, then, must be its avowed discontent! My mind shrinks from the consequence. You have been moved to reject the proposal for going into a committee. Were you even predetermined in essence to spurn the Petition, at least you ought to observe the forms of decency. You should put on some shew of attention. In a case so vital to the public interest, it is due to this country no less than to Ireland, that an air of respect should be maintained; that the semblance of consideration should be adopted. Should you, unfortunately, follow the advice of refusing to go into a committee for the discussion of this subject, you testify that you reject the Petition upon grounds and in a temper that set at defiance the impression which so harsh a procedure is calculated to produce. I do, therefore, most anxiously deprecate a resolution so impolitic in itself, so unbecoming the dignity of this House, so ill sorted to the importance which the petitioners bear in the scale of the British empire.

None of the lords on the side of government attempting to rise, after some pause, the Question was called for, upon which

Lord Grenville

rose and said:—My lords; I am not surprized at the silence of our opponents. It requires no excuse. Its cause is sufficiently obvious. The eloquence with which this motion has been introduced and supported must have produced upon them, as upon all its hearers, a powerful and indelible impression. We may easily conceive how painful it must now be to any man to avow himself the adversary of these Petitions.

Much rather ought I to apologise to your lordships for rising at this hour to maintain opinions already so triumphantly established. But you will pardon me if in this great crisis of the question now before us, I feel it impossible to be wholly silent. The cause of your petitioners is too near my heart. It would grieve me to appear indifferent to its success. It has occupied too large a portion of my thoughts, has formed too principal a feature in my public life; and is at this hour too deeply interesting to the justice, the honour, and the independence of my country, not to call for every exertion which I can make in its behalf. I can add nothing to the powerful support it has this night received.; but I shall at least have the satisfaction of once more declaring my unshaken adherence to those opinions which I have invariably maintained.

I have seen, indeed, with no less surprize than regret, the persevering opposition which these Petitions still experience, under circumstances which led to better hopes. I ask myself, when the transactions of this eventful period shall be reviewed by our descendants, what will be their judgment of our present conduct? With what astonishment, what indignation and contempt will they not consider the deliberation of this night? They will have learnt with what a cloud of dangers we are now surrounded. Time and history will have unveiled to them all that we now feel, and all that we fear; all that our government is concealing from us, and all that we are labouring to disguise from ourselves. They will then ask, what was, in such a moment, the employment of the British parliament? Did we then, if not before, apply ourselves to unite in combined and vigorous resistance, all who participate in the common danger? Did we in such an hour determine, however late, to reward loyalty by confidence, and conciliate attachment by justice? Did we at last resolve to consolidate all the interests of our empire, and to blend all its subjects into one undistinguished community, enjoying equal rights, governed by equal laws, and animated by the sense of equal benefits to the defence of their common country? None of all these. We are deliberating, not whether we shall grant, but whether we shall consider these Petitions. We are debating, not on the provisions which should accompany, or the measures which should follow this act of tardy justice, but whether tried loyalty, unshaken patriotism and long forbearance have even yet entitled our fellow subjects to have their case considered by the legislature of their country.

Our table is covered, our floor encumbered with these Petitions. They proceed from little less than one quarter of your whole people; they express the sense of the great majority both of the population and the property of Ireland; and they are backed by those very persons for whose safety, it is said these disabilities affecting four millions of their fellow-subjects, are established and maintained. The Protestants of Ireland pray you to break down the barriers with which you have surrounded them. They have found in your safeguards, a source not of protection, but of danger; not of strength, but of increased debility. They solicit, therefore, that you will suffer them to renounce their exclusive advantages, to restore to their country the blessings of equal laws, and to share with every class of its inhabitants, all the rights and all the duties of freemen.

These are the petitioners whose request you refuse to consider, whose prayers are judged unworthy even to be referred to a committee of this House. Yet we sit here as the legislators of an united empire, not administering the interests of England only, but charged alike with the especial duty of consulting the wants and wishes of another kingdom. Her independent parliament was yielded up to a belief in our integrity; and wisely was it yielded up, had but the justice of Great Britain equalled the confidence of Ireland. The whole people of that kingdom are now before you, lamenting with one voice the mischiefs of a long cherished intolerance, and beseeching you for their sakes and for your own, to restore peace and union to their distracted country. The Catholic enumerating his unmerited sufferings: the Protestant disclaiming his pernicious privileges; the loyalist of every class entreating you to remember that laws of disqualification and disfranchisement are justified only by uncontroulable necessity. That the evils which these provisions were intended to avert, have long since passed away, while those which they produce and aggravate, are immediate and urgent, affecting daily all the dearest interests of Ireland, and endangering the existence of the empire. To these representations are now joined the Petitions of Englishmen, the exhortations of the best and wisest among yourselves, and the recollection of those councils of which the authors unhappily are no longer present with us. Those men whose memory we cherish, those whose wisdom and virtues we have witnessed and lamented, they warn you, even from the tomb, to abolish the partial privileges, to do away these degrading exclusions. They tell you, in that glowing eloquence which still lives in our remembrance, that such distinctions are alike repugnant to the genius of your own constitution, and dangerous to the safety of every government; condemned by the first principles of justice; and proved by all experience to be the most fruitful source of those dissentions by which the greatest empires have finally been subverted.

I ask not what in this case will be your ultimate decision. It is easily anticipated. We know, and it has been amply shewn in former instances, the cases both of America and of Ireland, have but too well proved it, how precipitately necessity extorts what power has pertinaciously refused. We shall finally yield to these Petitions. No man doubts it. Let us not delay the concession, until it can neither be graced by spontaneous kindness, nor limited by deliberative wisdom.

To accelerate that moment, would be the greatest service which your ministers could render to their country. What, on the contrary, is now their answer to such a body of petitioners; so numerous, so respectable, so strong in justice, so powerful in reason "We will not lend ourselves" they say, "to the consideration of your request. We will not enquire into the circumstances of your case. We will not examine whether the grievances which you feel are real, whether the dangers which we apprehend, can be obviated by legislative wisdom. Once again, the people of Ireland must retire from this bar, unredressed, unheard, and unheeded."

Is it possible that such infatuation can still actuate our councils? In the moment of unimpaired prosperity, in the pride and madness of unresisted power, a more cold and contemptuous indifference was never shewn by any government to the complaints of the most inconsiderable of its subjects. But you in this hour of calamity and peril, but you, whose whole hope of safety now rests upon the defence of Ireland; you, who if that country falls by your impolicy, must share her ruin, must perhaps partake in her subjection, will you now harden yourselves against the prayers of her whole population? Are you in a situation to prolong the divisions of her people; to detach, perhaps irrecoverably to alienate her affections from Great Britain, and to aggravate by her destruction, all the calamities which are rapidly accumulating on yourselves?

If, on the contrary, the character of these Petitioners would at any time entitle them to your respect, and if your present circumstances be such that you can safely disregard no just representation from any part of your community, let me then ask what is the nature of this request which you refuse to entertain? What is this prayer which you tell us cannot even be considered without danger to the British monarchy? This it is, that as we profess to live under equal laws, we may conform the practice of our constitution to this its greatest boast, that those who share its burthens may partake in its advantages. That those whose loyalty you have recognized, and by whose service you daily profit, may receive its due reward in the removal of injurious and degrading disqualifications. They ask not the grant of power or emolument, but the capacity to receive them when earned by their ability, industry, and valour. They solicit "10 privilege, no preference over others, but that equality of rights, under which the meanest subject in this country knows that neither birth nor poverty disqualify him for the public service; they demand from you that encouragement to industry and virtue even in the lowest stations, which arises from the possibility of attaining to the highest. And this they claim not to gratify the honourable ambition of a few, but to secure the dearest interests of all; to diffuse amongst their whole community that confidence and security of private life, that daily protection of property and person, that inward sense of legal and inviolable independence which equal laws can alone afford to Irishmen, as equal laws have alone conferred the same blessings on the poorest classes of the inhabitants of Great Britain.

For your own sake, if not for theirs, they ask from you this act of justice. They intreat you to enable them, without the galling sense of inferiority, to risk their lives in your defence: they implore you to rescue yourselves from the basest of all imputations, that of receiving obligations which you possess the means but want the disposition to reward. They pray you to reflect on the situation of Europe, on the exigencies of the British empire, and on the duties of all its subjects. Let us also, they exclaim, let us also be seen in this great crisis of the world, bearing our just part in those exertions on which our safety, no less than yours depends; sharing, not the dangers only, but also the glory of the contest; leading as well as following our fellow-subjects to the field of victory; partaking with them in the administration of our common interests, and deliberating by the same right as yourselves in the free assemblies of our common country.

These are the Petitions which your lordships are advised to cast from you, neglected and unheard. These, the just claims of freemen, but tendered to you in the spirit of loyaly', and the language of supplication; these, recommending themselves alike to your feelings and your interests, appealing irresistibly to your good faith, your justice, your wisdom, and your honour, yet never once admitted to be the subject of your deliberative consideration.

How shall we justify this conduct? What defence of it has been attempted by the Secretary of State, (the Earl of Liverpool) who almost alone, in this debate, has argued for its continuance? All that he has this night offered to you, has served only to furnish fresh inducements for referring these Petitions to a committee of the House, that they may there, at last, be temperately and deliberately considered.

For in what did his speech consist? He has enumerated all the various questions which such an inquiry would naturally embrace: questions, which if they were as difficult as he maintains, important, complicated, and at the same lime essential to the decision of this cause, would prove only with increased conviction the necessity of its immediate and deliberate examination. He distinguishes, how accurately I need not ask, between direct and indirect exclusion; the one improper, the other fit to be maintained. To common understandings, the grounds and limits of this distinction are not extremely obvious. Could he establish it, the consequence to which it inevitably leads, is decisive against his own argument. Does he admit that direct exclusions are unjust Examine then the case of these petitioners; try it by history; look into the statutes now existing, and see if it be possible to deny that the Catholics are shut out from your constitution by a direct and positive exclusion, applying to them alone, and attaching expressly on their religious creed. Their disqualification falls within the very lines and limits of his own description. Its circumstances are precisely those which he himself considers as affording incontestible evidence of its injustice.

What he adds is yet more conclusive, for differences purely religious, he says, he would not impose on any men the hardship of disabling tests. To what then do these tests apply? The oath against transubstantiation for instance? To what but to an opinion, erroneous, as the noble earl and I believe, but so exclusively spiritual that no ingenuity can distort it into any thing but a matter of religious faith. Why then does not the noble earl himself propose the abolition of this oath? Why does he refuse to examine by his own principles, the other tests for which he argues? Can he maintain that they are governed by this distinction between religious and civil tenets? Are they confined to temporal concerns? Let him consider the oath of supremacy itself. The Catholics disclaim all difference between their allegiance and your own, as far as relates to the civil authority of the state. They profess to pay to their sovereign and his lawful government, the same temporal obedience with yourselves. The supremacy which they deny is that only which relates to questions of faith, to matters purely spiritual. A supremacy which the Church of Scotland no more acknowledges than that of Rome; recognized in our own Church, and as we believe rightfully inherent in our state; but no less stiffly denied at Edinburgh than at Maynooth.

Here then, the Catholics are at issue with the noble earl. Does he believe their assertion, that their difference from us in this point is confined to matters purely religious? He is bound, on his own principles, to repeal their civil disabilities. Does he discredit it? Let him examine and ascertain the fact.

But he is determined to resist conviction, and he therefore refuses to enquire. He contents himself with assuming the matter in dispute, and pertinaciously maintains that to believe in purgatory, and to pay civil obedience to the state, are things plainly inconsistent with each other. The noble earl asserts it, the Catholics deny it. How shall we decide between them? The old objections against the testimony of Catholics as to their own religious tenets, the noble earl has this night explicitly disclaimed; he rejects with indignation the obsolete and scandalous calumnies on their moral character, the charges of equivocation and perjury, the imputed belief that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and the pretence that even the obligations of an oath may be dispensed with by ecclesiastical authority. I am glad that he has learnt at last to treat such slanders as they deserve. He knows in what quarters these wretched pleas for persecution were recently revived, by what means and what purposes they were re-echoed through this country. We shall henceforth, I hope, have his assistance in stigmatizing that base hypocrisy which labours to excite by falsehood, our fellow subjects against each other; and disguises under the sacred cover of religion, the foulest purposes of avarice or ambition.

It is therefore no longer pretended that the Catholics wilfully misrepresent their tenets. The noble earl admits that they believe it to be their opinion that all temporal obedience is exclusively due to the authority of the stale. But he is better acquainted with what passes in their minds than they themselves. He is more deeply versed in the doctrines of their religion than those who profess, or those who teach it; and while he renders all justice to their sincerity, he condescends to instruct them, that when they think they mean a spiritual supremacy, they really mean a supremacy both spiritual and temporal.

Such are the refinements by which the noble earl justifies the exclusion of millions from the constitution of their country! Such are his arguments for continuing to subject a whole people to degradation and punishment! Such have always been the reasonings of every persecutor. It is the inveterate habit of intolerance to impute to the followers of every rival sect, opinions which they disclaim, and to deduce from their tenets conclusions which they utterly deny. Justice and charity on the contrary, give to others the same liberty which we claim for ourselves; the liberty to form our opinions by the light of our own reason, to adopt, to investigate, to interpret for ourselves the tenets which we embrace, and to be credited in our exposition of them until our own practice shall have proved its insincerity.

Your Roman Catholic countrymen are therefore well entitled to belief, when they assure you on their oaths, that they attribute to Popes or councils no temporal authority, that they acknowledge no supremacy in either, except in cases purely spiritual. The noble earl himself admits it, but he objects that this discrimination between spiritual and temporal authority may in practice sometimes be difficult. Legislative provisions, he says, alone define its limits, direct its application, enforce its observance. Be it so. What stronger reasons, I ask you, could he have assigned for acceding to the proposed enquiry?

He puts the cases of excommunication and of marriage. Some dark and unexplained connection he supposes to exist between the right of every sect to exclude from its communion, those who depart from its religious institutions, and the legal authority of the magistrate to punish crimes by disabilities and penalties. Some strange and perilous conflict he foresees, between the religious sanctions of marriage, considered as a sacrament in the Roman Church, and its judicial consequences on the rights and duties of the subject, and on the security and descent of property. In both cases, I believe, his fears have long since been amply refuted by experience. But to discuss these questions here, would be to anticipate the very enquiry which we solicit, and which, for that purpose, as for so many others, the noble earl himself has proved it to be the duty of parliament to institute.

One remark only let me make on these points, and it equally applies to both. It is for those who apprehend danger from them, to shew the extent and nature of the evil, and to search out his remedy. For the danger, if it be real, exists at this hour, and cannot be augmented by a compliance with these Petitions. Four millions of your subjects are already Catholics; will these disabilities convert them? You do not hope it. In their case, as in every other, persecution has served only to counteract its own evil purposes. What security, then, has the noble earl found in these laws against the dangers which he fears from their repeal? As Catholics, your fellow subjects attribute to their own Church, the power to exclude them from her communion. As Catholics, they require for their marriage, those sanctions which their faith demands. I know not what the state has to apprehend in either case; but if there be cause or fear, how is it averted by excluding this great population from your civil constitution? Yet here again I call upon your lordships to examine and enquire. Try whether it be true that there appears in the practice of the Catholics, or lurks in their intention, any desire to extend the interference of their Church one inch beyond the true limits of religious faith. Prove the purpose, open or covert, direct or indirect, to withdraw from the state any portion of its temporal supremacy, and no man shall be found more forward in resistance than myself. What I ask for my fellow-subjects is religious freedom, the liberty to serve God in the way in which they have been trained up, to worship him according to the dictates of their own conscience, to adhere to that form of Christianity which they profess, without incurring any legal penalty, or being stigmatized by any civil disability. I trust they have no wish to withdraw their allegiance from the state; I am sure they have no interest to weaken its authority. They solemnly disclaim the intention. And were they so far misled as to deviate in their practice front these their pledged opinions and principles of loyal and dutiful obedience, they would find in me not an advocate in this House, but an impartial legislator, ready to concur in every measure of necessary restraint upon them, not as Catholics but as subject?, not for their errors in religion, but for their offences against the state.

These are the grounds on which we recommend the deliberate examination of these Petitions. The King's ministers advise a more summary proceeding. To examine into the grievances of Ireland would be troublesome, to redress them might be embarrassing; the enquiry tedious, the remedy complicated. Their conclusion, therefore, is to leave the matter where it stands. The inconvenience affects not them. There are only four millions of our fellow-subjects who complain: and why should their Petitions be considered now, which have always hitherto been rejected without examination

Two other arguments, indeed, the noble earl has urged, not so much for resisting enquiry, as for inducing you finally to refuse what these petitioners solicit. He tells you first, and he has learned it from high and grave authority, in a Petition this night presented to us, that the dangers of Popery were never so alarming as at present! The power of the Pope never so formidable! More to be dreaded now than at any antecedent period!

Shall I apply myself seriously to examine this assertion? Shall I remind your lordships of the history of your own country and of Europe? Whole nations armed against each other, kings and emperors deposed, and crowns distributed by that authority? Shall I ask you, it might appear an insult to unmerited suffering, where the object of these fears is at this hour existing? In what corner of Europe, in what solitude, in what prison we are to look, for the possessor of this inordinate and overwhelming power, now so much augmented beyond all its former greatness?

Well may we judge from such vain imaginations what is the true character of the counsels which they inspire. Another spirit, a very different temper this great question demands. In the contemplation of reason, in the balance of justice, in the sobriety and wisdom of an enlightened legislature, what are all these passionate assertions, these visionary dangers, these exaggerated or simulated alarms? They are trifles light as air, in themselves contemptible, but unworthy even to be weighed in the scale against the happiness and freedom of a nation the union and safety of an empire.

That the noble earl should adopt these idle declamations was indeed surprizing. It was scarcely to be expected that one of your ministers should, in such an hour as this, fear nothing from the increasing discontents of Ireland, fear every thing from die growing influence of the Pope? Does he identify that influence with the power of your enemy? He himself had but a few minutes before, commended the firmness of a persecuted man, whom terror had not yet succeeded in rendering subservient to injustice. But then, he tells us, if the present Pope should die who knows what successor may follow? My lords, I know not, nor can any man predict. But if there be danger in that uncertainty, avail yourselves of the interval. Do you think the mischief will be obviated by waiting for it in listless inactivity? By deferring, till that very exigency shall arise, this long expected act of conciliation which might best provide, against it? Never can you believe, that by irritating your people against their own government, that by teaching them to despair of justice from Great Britain, you will detach them from foreign influence. Treat them as brothers, not as aliens, and they will cling to the constitution which protects them. Persuade yourselves, it is the surest method of persuading them, that the duties of a good Catholic and a good subject are perfectly compatible. Respect they will respect themselves; secure to them under their own government, the full enjoyment of religious freedom, and you may then hope that they will reject with scorn, the claims of any Pontiff imposed upon their Church by the public enemy of their country.

But if you delay all healing measures, the wound may rankle till it becomes incurable. The danger which you fear is remote; that which you incur is imminent. This protracted intolerance weakens all our measures of defence; it paves the way for the long meditated enter prize of our enemy against that quarter of our empire, where all men know we are most vulnerable. Should he be successful there, be will not, even then, I hope, deprive us of the spirit to defend ourselves, but he will render that defence extremely problematical.

The noble earl then flies to his last resource, the hacknied plea of every oppressor, the stale apology for all injustice. If you yield to these Petitions, he says, will the Catholics engage to ask from you nothing more? Take your stand here; if you once give way, where will you find the limits of concession? I answer, you will find them wherever truth and justice have established them. If this request be fit to be conceded, concede it if more can with equal justice be demanded, give it with equal alacrity; if the principle of the concession stops here, here also let your stand be taken.

I had hoped indeed, that by the lessons of the last twenty years this sorry argument had for ever been exploded. In that short period we have reaped the experience of centuries, but it has all been lost upon us, if we have not yet learnt to distinguish between the improvidence of extorted submission and the wisdom of timely conciliation.

The noble earl enquires from us the limits of the concession which we recommend: I ask him in return, where would the mischief of his principle be limited? He advises you to deny justice through the fear of farther importunity; to refuse a rightful claim lest it should encourage a groundless pretension. My lords, this is to sap the very foundations of all government. It is to violate the original compact of the British constitution. You have no right to require, none even to receive from the subjects of this realm, a promise to withhold their wishes or their interests from your consideration parliament must important functions before it can thus stipulate with any class of the community. For what purposes are you invested with the powers of legislation? Is this a right to be exercised for your advantage, or a trust to be discharged for the benefit of your country? But to your lordships, all illustration of this principle is superfluous; I well know that if the Catholics of Ireland were now tendering at your bar the very pledge which the noble earl demands from them, you would reject it with indignation. No such compact, you would tell them, can be made either on our part or on theirs. It is our duty to exercise an unceasing attention to their prosperity; it is theirs to look to us alone for the removal of every successive grievance, which either in present or in future circumstances shall cramp their industry, or dis-spirit their exertions, shall obstruct the improvement, disturb the harmony, or prejudice the liberties of their country.

But the noble earl pursues this reasoning farther, and assigns a motive such as I think was never before alleged for the rejection of such Petitions. He not only apprehends a farther demand, but he anticipates its nature, and almost admits its justice. Dismiss this claim, he says; seek not to remedy this grievance; it occupies the attention of the Catholics. Relieved from this pressure, their complaints will next be directed to another question which we may find it more difficult to argue with them." What a consideration to be offered to a just and wise legislature! what a picture has the noble earl exhibited of the principies on which our government is conducted! what an instructive lesson to the subjects both of this country and of Ireland! These tests, these disabilities, these penal disqualifications, are retained it now appears, not as being in themselves either just, or politic, or reasonable, but as the outworks of some other, and in the noble earl's judgment, some weaker cause. What then were all the alarms, disseminated throughout your country? The reiterated appeals to the blindest prejudices and the worst passions of the people? What were all the dreadful apprehensions this night so solemnly repeated? The fears of Popery, the dangers which threaten the Protestant establishment, the Hanover succession, the principles of the Revolution, the Toleration act itself; pretences, put forward only to cloak and veil the truth, artifices to distract the attention, disguises to cover something which is still behind, and which the noble earl even now seems afraid to name.

Need I characterize this wretched system? Its liberality, its wisdom, its honesty? To stave off the pressure of one difficulty, your ministers interpose another; to pro" long one cause of discontent, they seek to perpetuate a thousand; to delay the dreaded statement of a grievance which they fear to meet, and know not how to remedy, they pertinaciously insist on the causeless degradation of a whole community. And now, in the close of all, conies the noble Secretary of Slate himself, unveils the hidden mysteries of this crooked policy, and thus provokes that very discussion which he is most anxious to avert.

Was any government ever yet administered upon such principles? Are these the councils upon which the existence of my country must depend? I wish not to disguise the difficulties of the subject to which the noble earl alludes. I know, and have repeatedly considered them; never once believing that by shutting my eyes against any public evil I could prevent its occurrence, or lessen its embarrassment. Instead of shrinking from those difficulties behind the cover of another question, your interest requires you to face them boldly, and to provide against them by mature and temperate deliberation unmixed with prejudice, uninfluenced by clamour. As much as foresight is preferable to blind security, as much as prudence and resolution are superior to negligence and fear, so much is the policy of full and early and deliberate enquiry into, these important questions, to be preferred to the fine-spun artifices of your government, studious only to procrastinate the consideration of all our real dangers, and to fix the attention both of parliament and the country on apprehensions which are wholly visionary.

One glaring fallacy, indeed, pervades alt their speeches. They lore to dwell on these fancied mischiefs; they enlarge with redundant eloquence on the dangerous principles and pernicious designs of their fellow subjects. Bat they forget to tell us how these evils, were they real, can be controuled by the continuance of the present system, or increased by its abandonment. The contrary is manifest. Every circumstance of future peril which the noble earl anticipates from conciliatory measures, is at this moment existing in full vigour and unrestricted operation. Does he distrust the loyalty of the Catholics? That apprehension applies at least with equal force to their present situation. Even he cannot imagine that discontent will increase with increasing liberality, and that men will be more alienated from their government by a fuller ad mission to its protection and confidence. Does he dread their means of giving effect to any evil purpose? Those means are not diminished: Diminished, shall I say? They are multiplied beyond all power of calculation by the provisions of the existing laws. What you have already conceded to that great and valuable portion of your people is too little for the just claims of affectionate and faithful subjects, but it is far too much to have been entrusted to the blind instruments or willing adherents of your inveterate enemy. No terms can describe the folly, no language exaggerate the dangers of that perverse and inconsistent policy, which under the prevalence of such apprehensions, has equally deprived you of the power of coercion and the influence of kindness: abandoning all that in your former systems of exclusion could be useful for security, and retaining so much of them alone as may fetter the exertions of the loyal, and stimulate the passions of the multitude.

I am arguing these apprehensions as if they could possibly have any foundation in reason. Let me, however, once more protest that I can hardly bring myself, even for a moment, to admit such a supposition; and least of all, when I consider those particular instances of danger which have been this night alleged. The noble earl puts the case of a Catholic judge, and Asks how such a magistrate is to determine causes connected with the validity of some marriage good in law, but null by the canons of his Church What a perversion of all moral principle does the question itself imply! what is the oath of ft judge? What is his office? What do your own courts of law, what do you yourselves declare when you pronounce on causes of this description? That the marriage is good in conscience? That it is agreeable to Scripture? That it is consonant to the doctrines of our own church? No, not one of these. But that it is valid in the contemplation of our laws; sanctioned by that code of civil jurisprudence which is the sole admissible authority in a court of civil judicature. Could then a judge be embarrassed by such a difficulty as this? A man of learning and moral character fit for a judicial office, a man deeply impressed by his religion, as the noble earl admits, with the sanctity of an oath, could he be doubtful whether, when he has solemnly sworn to administer justice according to the law, he is not bound to administer it on some principle directly adverse to the law? Is this a point of dubious obligation, hard to be solved, and requiring the assistance of a casuist r Or is it even a question fit to be argued in an assembly of just and pious, grave and enlightened legislators?

A noble and learned lord (Redesdale) states his apprehensions on a different ground. He seems alarmed, not for your law, but for your Church. Repeal these tests, he says, and a Catholic may be a cabinet minister; may have a share in advising the nomination of a bishop! And then, how dreadful the consequences, if a person not of your own communion, participated officially in the appointment of the prelates of your Church!

My lords; if I have rightly read the history of my country, our pure and reformed episcopal establishment never experienced from the most bigoted Popery a more rancorous and inveterate hostility, that from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. And yet it has happened to myself to sit ten years in the cabinet with one noble person, and for a period not much shorter with another; the one, secretary of state, (lord Melville) the other, lord chancellor of England (lord Loughborough); both natives of the country where that Church is established; both educated in its tenets; both, as far as I have ever heard, continuing in its communion to the latest hours of their lives.

The noble and learned lord must certainly suppose that the consciences of those respected persons were grievously offended by the rags of Popery, which were daily in their view. The Catholic of this day is judged by the worst examples, drawn from the darkest ages: to the present Church of Scotland, therefore, we must, in all consistency, attribute the persecuting fury of Knox and his disciples. How much, then, must it surprize you to be assured that no motion was ever mad by either of these noble lords in cabinet for superseding the King's supremacy: none for suppressing our liturgy; none even for abolishing that greatest of all scandals to a Presbyterian eye, the name and office of our bishops. What is still more astonishing, and may possibly quiet even the learned lord's alarms, both of I them have exercised that very power which is now so grievously apprehended; both have officially concurred in the nomination of our prelates of men at this hour, ornaments of our legislature and pillars of our Church. Among those right reverend persons who have this night so pathetically been entreated to protect our establishment against this formidable danger, one half, perhaps, would find the instruments of their own appointment, actually countersigned by the one, or sealed by the other of these distinguished members of a rival Church.

How has it happened, that this influence, so formidable in theory, has, in practice, been found so innocent? The reason is obvious. "The oppressor has ceased, and therefore the earth is at rest and is quiet." The spirit of persecution, the zeal for compulsory conversion, are extinguished, and with them have expired every sentiment of inveteracy, all desire and all temptation to reeiprocal injustice. The obligations of civil allegiance and religious faith no longer contradict each other. Duties which reason and revelation have inseparably connected, and which are placed by bigotry alone in this unnatural and mutually destructive opposition.

The noble Secretary of State indeed appears to think, that in practice they are found incompatible. He tells us, that in no monarchy in Europe, except those governed by military despotism, have the Catholic and Protestant ever exercised in common the higher functions of magistracy and government. Were the fact unquestioned, what conclusion could it authorize. How few are the limited monarchies which have existed in Europe since the Reformation? But the assertion is as groundless as the argument is weak. Let him look to Hungary: there he may learn a lesson, pregnant with instruction to the bigots of every age, memorable to the rulers of every country, but invaluable in its application to our interests, could we but consent to profit by example. That country was once, like Ireland, the seat of discontent, cherished by intolerance and fermented by persecution. There, by the wisdom of a government, in that instance at least, how far more enlightened than our own, all religious incapacities have been finally repealed: Catholics and Protestants in that kingdom judge on the same bench, command in the same armies, deliberate in the same free assemblies. From this blessed union, which, to the noble earl and to his colleagues, appears impossible, but of which better and more liberal councils perceived the facility, and anticipated the benefit, which consequence has practically ensued? The emperor of Austria owes to it the existence of his throne. Hungary, the weakness of his ancestors, is become the main strength and reliance of their descendant. There are now the chief sources of his power, there the foundations of his hope. To the loyalty and patriotism of a people thus united with each other, thus connected with their government, he now looks with confidence for support in the last trial of this dreadful contest, in that awful hour, whenever it shall arrive for come infallibly it must, when the unanimity of his subjects can alone uphold the just rights of their sovereign, and the independence of their own country.

But let us reverse the picture. Grant to the noble earl that this policy, which Europe has witnessed and applauded, is visionary and impracticable. Concede to him that what has saved Austria, must ruin England. Admit, if you can, for argument, admit so monstrous a proposition admit to him against all reason and all history, that every throne must be shaken to its centre which permits its subjects to hold communion with a foreign Church; to reverence its spiritual functions, or recognize its ecclesiastical supremacy. What follows? That this danger is now existing. Four millions of your countrymen have been born and educated in this religious faith, and not even our ministers themselves have yet proposed to us the forcible conversion of that great community.

They, indeed, the Catholics of Ireland, the objects of your jealousy, the victims of your fears, propose to you, as your best security for their conduct, to identify their interests with your own. As pledges of their attachment they offer to you themselves, their families, their country, all the pursuits of life, all the blessings of freedom, all that they ask from your justice, and seek to enjoy under the protection of your laws. They know and feel that your apprehensions are groundless; the noble earl insists that the danger is real, the ruin imminent. And what does he advise? To leave the matter as it is: the mischief foreseen, but not averted; the discontent inflamed, the separation daily widened. This is the sum of all his policy, the result, as he describes it, of the collected wisdom of ages. To your real dangers he is blind. For those which he imagines, he provides no remedy. Perpetual exclusion, unmodified intolerance, the persecution of millions, the eternal separation of a whole people by religious animosity, which no lime shall soften, no merit reconcile: Quam nec longa dies, pietas nee mitigat ulla! All these things he judges safe and pleasant, practicable and easy. But conciliation and justice, mutual benevolence and reciprocal affection, the confidence of a just government in the administration of equal laws, and the attachment of a free community in the enjoyment of equal benefits; these he deems visionary speculations, in theory inconsistent, in practice impossible!

But let me appeal to your own conviction. Is it possible to comply with the noble earl's advice? Can this matter continue in its present state? You know it cannot. With the growth of nations their constitution changes. The claims and the necessities of their maturity have no re-semblance to the imbecility of their infancy, or the dependence of their childhood. The situation of the Catholics of Ireland has never yet been stationary: it can still less be so in the circumstances of their present strength. The alternative is now before us. An uncontroulable necessity now compels us no longer to delay our ultimate decision. We must either receive that people into the bosom of their country as friends and fellow-citizens, faithful and trust-worthy; or if we really believe them irreconcilable enemies to our government, we must resolve, I can hardly bring myself to pronounce the word, yet the wickedness of such an attempt would not exceed its folly, we must resolve to exterminate the great body of the Irish nation. Persecution, says a prelate of our own Church (Burnet,) if it be allowed at all, must be extreme; it must go to the extermination of all Dissenters from the established religion. Such is the language of Burnet in those admirable reflections which close his history. The grounds of this opinion are there detailed; his expressions are coarse, the sentiment itself is harsh, but it is consonant to reason. I grieve to think how closely we ourselves have followed it in our former conduct to the Catholics of Ireland hold in my hand a picture of complete security established in that kingdom, on the principles of that noble earl a faithful portrait of that tranquillizing system, to which his policy must inevitably compel you to revert. It is drawn by the hand of a master; one who knows that country well; who describes what he saw, and applauds what he describes; a zealous advocate for all religious tests and disabilities; and who, while he exults in the consequences of persecution, is pleading earnestly for its continuance and extension. "We look upon the Papists of this kingdom," says Swift, (Letter on the Sacramental Test,) "to be altogether as inconsiderable, as the women and children. Their lands are almost entirely taken from them, and they are rendered incapable of purchasing any more; and for the little that remains, provision is made by the late act against Popery, that it will daily crumble away; to prevent which, some of the most considerable among them are already turned Protestants, and so, in all probability, will many more. Then, the Popish priests are all registered, and without permission, (which I hope will not be granted) they can have no successors; so that the Protestant clergy will find it, perhaps, no difficult matter to bring great numbers over to the Church; and in the mean time the common people, without leaders, without discipline, or natural courage, being little better than hewers of wood, and drawers of water, are out of all capacity of doing any mischief, if they were ever so well inclined."

Observe, my lords, in this passage, all the genuine features of these disabling laws: compare their objects, their means, and their results: see with what hopes they are proposed, what consequences they have uniformly produced. Need I ask the prelates of the Irish Church how far the mild course of religious instruction, recommended by this pious divine, has corresponded with his expectation of general conversion? Need I enquire of any British statesman what effects have resulted to the political interests of the empire from the depression and ignorance, the degradation and misery, of so large a portion of its inhabitants. Yet to this policy the noble earl's advice mast inevitably compel you to revert. To remain as you are, is manifestly impossible. If you listen to the advocates of civil and religious freedom, if you believe that in liberality and justice will invariably be found the best securities against discontent and disaffection, complete the work of emancipation, which you have already successfully commenced. If, on the contrary, you resign yourselves to the guidance of the noble earl, and of his colleagues, resolve to act consistently with the principles of their advice. Guard yourselves by new securities against a people whom they pronounce irreconcilably hostile to your government: recall those improvident concessions which have placed these your eternal enemies nearly on a level with your peaceful and loyal subjects. Arm yourselves with fresh severity against them; aggravate your former tyranny in Ireland, and re-duce, if you can once more reduce, that flourishing portion of your empire to helpless dependence and irremediable oppression.

This great question can no longer be evaded: the period of procrastination, the hour of delusion, is past. It is to you that this much injured people must now look: you must decide between these two conflicting systems. If not from sentiment or reason, judge them by experience. Review the past history of Ireland, and examine her actual condition. It is now about thirty years since she began, slowly wise, and hesitatingly just, to mitigate her code of persecution: and every step in that direction has led her on to national independence and public prosperity. Of the earlier relaxations of her penal laws it is enough to say, that their benefit, not to her only, but also to yourselves, was more than commensurate with their extent. In 1793, concessions were made in a more enlightened spirit, and with a more liberal hand. It was then that the Catholics of Ireland were first admitted, however imperfectly, to your political constitution: and it is one of the most gratifying recollections of my mind, one of the proudest distinctions of my life, to have contributed largely to the adoption of that auspicious resolution in the British cabinet. We owe to it, (I am not afraid to assert it broadly) we owe to it the means of our resistance to that yoke, under which all else in Europe has been compelled to bow. The noble earl, while he condemns the principle of those concessions, and laments their extent, yet with admirable consistency has blamed their authors for not having rendered them more uniform and systematical. I appeal to those who remember the transactions of that day, and the spirit which ruled in Ireland. Greater concession I should then willingly have advised, had greater concessions then been practicable. To have insisted on more would have endangered the whole.

But I admit that the last and most important privilege, the share in legislative power, could be granted only in an united parliament. Of the Union it was the natural and inevitable consequence: a consequence always foreseen by me, and which I have invariably considered as one of the greatest recommendations of that salutary measure.

Would to heaven we had availed ourselves of that best and most auspicious opportunity! When the long wished for Union of these kingdoms, then recently established by law, might in the same moment have been cemented by mutual affection, and made indissoluble by reciprocal advantage. When the Protestant might have been taught to regard it as the main bulwark of his establishment, the Catholic as the sole charter of his emancipation. Ireland had then newly surrendered to you her independant legislature. She trusted in return, that her people would thenceforth be considered as our own; admitted to share, not our dangers only, but also their rewards, leading, as well as following their fellow subjects to the field of glory; partaking with us in the administration of our common interests, and deliberating by the same right as ourselves in the free assemblies of our common country. Then it was, that the British government acting with good faith and liberality, might have reconciled all the long cherished animosities of a divided people, have mitigated instead of inflaming their religious differences, have given to the Protestant that security which two centuries of intolerance have not procured for him, and have restored to the Catholic his civil rights, so formidable to a separate legislature, so harmless in an united parliament. Then was the moment to have established whatever could be desired for mutual security, whatever could contribute to reciprocal affection. Then had already-been obtained from the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland a ready consent to those very stipulations from which your improvidence, disappointing their just expectations and violating your own engagements, has taught them also to shrink back with reciprocal distrust and jealousy; those very stipulations, the want of which forms, as is now pretended, principal obstacle to mutual conciliation.

That opportunity has passed away, and its advantages are irrecoverable. Others have since occurred, less favourable certainly than the first, for such is the condition of human affairs, but still such as might have enabled us to accomplish every wish that could be formed by any' true friend to our civil and religious establishments, by any good citizen of the United Kingdom.

All have been equally rejected; at the Union our gift would have been voluntary, the free will offering of affection, the first fruits of fraternal kindness. How it would have been received, let those say who best know the character of that generous and warm-hearted nation, always conciliated by kindness, always wounded by distrust, but never to be finally alienated except by long continued injustice and oppression. The same boon which we might then have been the first to offer, they have since repeatedly asked from us: and so often has it again been in our power to have poured balm into the wounded spirit of our fellow subjects; so often have we driven them from our door, repulsed, humiliated, I would add disgraced, if disgrace did not more properly attach to him who offers than to him who sustains an injury. Had we even then, in their earliest intercourse with the British parliament, had we since, when they so often courted our affection, displayed to them a generous and confiding spirit, how easy would then have been the arrangement of every stipulation which fear itself could have annexed to the concession. How ready, how sincere, how complete might have been the union of these sister kingdoms! How different are now the results of the opposite policy! How different both our own situation and the disposition of our fellow subjects! How gradual, how regular, has been the growth of that distrust and jealousy which we have planted in their hearts!

Why do I recount these things? Is it only to reproach the authors of all this evil, with the calamities consequent on their misgovernment? That were a poor consolation. My purpose is to remind your lordships, and to impress it on my country, that we have now this last opportunity, not, indeed, of retrieving what we have already lost, that were too much to hope, but of preventing the further accumulation of mischief; and of averting that dreadful situation, God knows how soon it may otherwise arrive, in which no art can save, no wisdom can recover us.

But the noble lords are unconvinced; and tauntingly enquire of us, the advocates of a better policy, whether we still believe that this great work can be accomplished with the same facilities as formerly for mutual conciliation; with the same securities as might have once been obtained against every real, against every imaginary danger? What are the expectations of others, I know not. For myself, I answer, as the truth is. No; I have no such hope. Their impolicy has deprived me of it. My country must, I know, pay the penalty of their misconduct; she must reap what they have sown, and exhaust, even to the dregs, the bitter draught with which they have poisoned the sources of her prosperity.

Much, however, it is still in your power to achieve for the peace and union of the empire. I forbear to dwell longer on the benefits which must result from such a resolution. You are now asked only to consider these Petitions. And let it not be forgotten, that if the noble earl had proved to you all that he has asserted, if he had established the necessity of excluding British subjects from the legislature and government of their country, there would yet remain behind, in these disqualifying laws, provisions imperiously requiring the interference of parliament. Those laws have done much more than even the noble earl requires. They have marked and stigmatised this people, as incapable of eminence in any honourable course of life. Such is their condition in all the ordinary relations of society. Traders shut out from the corporations of their native towns, merchants excluded from the direction of their national bank, barristers proscribed from the bench, officers to whom all prospects of military glory are denied, country gentlemen prohibited by law from executing the office of sheriff. Reflect, too, on the avowed reason of this last exclusion. It is because with the sheriff rests the nomination of those juries who decide on their property, honour, and life, that they are held unfit to discharge that trust. To the Protestant alone it is confined. The appointment itself is exclusively vested in the crown; and we know what are the dispositions, and what the conduct of the Castle, towards the Catholics. But even this is not deemed sufficient security, without superadding to it; by law, a provision equally dishonourable in its motive, and unjust in its operation.

I might also enlarge on that spirit, which these laws alone have kept alive in the Protestant corporations of Ireland. I might remind you of the recent conduct of the corporation of Dublin, if, indeed, that conduct be such (I am reluctant to believe it,) as I have read in the public accounts of their proceedings.

Would you learn the temper of that body, which decided to stand alone in petitioning your lordships against the claims of their countrymen? It was proposed to them, to recognize the services of one of the thousands of Irishmen who are daily fighting the battles of their country To this gallant individual, returning covered with wounds from the field of his exploits to the bosom of his admiring country, they were content to express their thanks. But he is a Catholic. The freedom of their city, therefore, they would not grant him. His conduct they applauded; the advantage, the honour, resulting from it to his country, they acknowledged; they would, without difficulty, vote to him a sword. Arms they would put into his hands, that he might again use them as the soldier of a free country; again hazard his own life, again maintain their interests, acquire fresh laurels for himself, achieve fresh victories for Ireland, but that on his return he might again be told, that a Catholic is unworthy to be admitted to the rights of her citizens, or to participate in the freedom of her metropolis!

Such conduct, my lords, can only excite our scorn. What follows is of a more serious nature. It affects the authority of the legislature, and the impartial administration of justice. We are told, that, on the same day, this Protestant corporation proceeded to elect their sheriffs; those officers who, in the capital of Ireland, are to name the juries to serve on every trial between Protestant and Catholic, between the King and his subjects of all religions. And we learn that a test was required by this body from the candidates for such an office; a test unknown to your laws, and inconsistent with the supremacy of parliament; an engagement of perpetual adherence to the system of these exclusive laws, in defiance of the authority even of the legislature itself. I speak from the public papers. I request the ministers to contradict the statement, if it be groundless. This is necessary to vindicate, not so much the character of the corporation of Dublin, as their own. Let them-, if they can, assure your lordships that they have not connived at this open insult to the legislature, that they have not permitted this outrage on the constitution of your judicatures to pass with impunity. Above all, let them satisfy you that this has not happened in the same city, where they have so lately prosecuted men, the first in rank, and character, and honour, for acts which, if they are illegal in Ireland, are illegal in England also; but which are daily practised here under the eye of your government, and with the full cognizance of the legislature.

My lords, this subject is inexhaustible, and my own anxiety upon it knows no bounds. But I am trespassing too long upon your patience. Yet to one point more I must advert; it relates to the military disqualifications. Catholic officers are disabled from holding the same commissions in England, which they may lawfully hold in Ireland. Five years ago, the removal of this monstrous contradiction in your laws, and the extension of equal privileges to officers of every rank, was separately proposed to parliament. What followed? You all remember the clamour that was excited, from what quarters it proceeded, and by whom it was encouraged. You remember the countenance given to it by prelates and statesmen, by persons whose station and whose functions, should, at least, have deterred them from the guilt of disseminating groundless alarms and grossly injurious calumnies. The people of England were then assured, that inevitable ruin must accrue both to their Church and to their state, if any Irish Catholic should ever exercise military command in any corner of this Protestant island. I say Irish Catholic, because the very authors of these alarms had themselves (such is the consistency of faction,) not three years before, authorized the crown, by law, to employ foreign Catholic officers in England, without any limitation of number, or any test of allegiance. What is now your situation? Those who deprecated this danger have incurred it; those who declaimed against any alteration of the law have altered it. Those who entreated you to take your stand on that untenable ground, have themselves abandoned it. The ink was scarcely dry with which their inflammatory advertisements were penned, the sound of their senseless and wicked clamours against Popery was still ringing in your ears, when they themselves brought over to this country' whole regiments of Irish Catholics. All their fears subsided, all danger from entrusting military command to their fellow subjects, vanished from their minds; and if the disturbances which their wretched commercial policy has, at this hour, excited in the interior of our country, should happen to extend themselves to Northampton, it will probably be on the Catholic militia of Ireland, that even this sanctuary of Protestantism must rely for protection against the consequences of their misgovernment.

Such is the reality of the dangers with which you are threatened on these subjects; such the sincerity with which they are urged! Let it not be supposed that I condemn the measure of bringing these regiments to England; far otherwise. I know no better remedy for the prejudices which have been thus wickedly excited in this country, than that the people of England should see and know their fellow subjects; should judge how little their dispositions, their character, or their conduct, accord with the representations of their enemies.

My lords, I have much to add; many points highly important to this great question I have left unnoticed; many unanswerable arguments I have forborne to urge; but, at so late an hour, I can venture to trouble you no longer. I have answered, I trust conclusively, every particle of objection suggested by the noble earl against the general object of this motion. I have adverted, though very shortly, to some points untouched by him, and in themselves of smaller comparative importance; but such as prove, beyond the possibility of denial, that these laws must of necessity be revised.

Suffer me, in the conclusion of my statement, once more to remind you, that it is to the examination, not to the decision, of these questions, that you are now invited; and that to this you cannot refuse yourselves, without a violation of the public faith plighted to the Catholics at the Union, and a manifest dereliction of your own duty.

But let me not, in thus assigning the real limits of this question, disguise to you my own opinion of the conduct which it behoves us to pursue. I am satisfied there is but one result of this examination which can be honourable to yourselves or useful to the empire. We must repeal these disabilities without delay: repeal them not partially but wholly. We must admit our fellow subjects to the full and equal enjoyment of that constitution, which is our inheritance and our boast, the strength of our government, and the security of our people. Do this, my lords, and we may defy the world in arms. This will be our best protection against danger from abroad, and discontent at home; the strongest bulwark of our establishments, the surest of all safeguards for our Church itself. Let us, at the same time, omit no other article of our public duty; let us watch with unceasing vigilance over the maintenance of our reformed Church; protect its rights, uphold its establishments. They are rooted in our affections, and interwoven with our liberties. But let not the councils of Great Britain be polluted by the principles of intolerance, nor her legislature rest her safety on persecution. Disunion is our only real danger. To that object, all the efforts of our enemies are unceasingly directed. It is for us to cherish, in both countries, the seeds of conciliation, the growth of mutual affection; proving, by our own example to them and to the world, how much above all other policy is the wisdom of liberality and justice.

The Lord Chancellor.

—My lords; in consequence of what has fallen from the noble baron, who has just sat down, I feel myself called upon, if on no other account but that of the very numerous and respectable body, with whom I am most intimately connected, (university of Oxford) not to suffer this question to pass with my silent vote.

I feel that I should not do my duty by them, if I did not rise, and, on their parts, disclaim that conclusion which has been formed of the motives which induced them to present that Petition to your lordships on this occasion, which now lies on your table; and which I do say, is the result of fair and full deliberation; and not actuated by any motives of illiberality, of bigotry, or intolerance, towards his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; but founded on that well-grounded and loyal attachment, ever evinced by that learned body towards the constitution of this country; with a just reference to the principles upon which that constitution was settled at the time of the Revolution.

My lords, I disclaim, on my own part too, that I have ever voted on this subject upon any principle of intolerance. I never did, nor ever will give any vote against the extending the religious, or civil liberties, of any class of his Majesty's subjects, when I think I can give that vote for such extension consistently with the security of our own establishments; but I shall always be guided in my decisions on such subjects, by what I conceive necessary to maintain the constitution, as by law established; for the happiness and security of the great whole. This, my lords, was the principle which has uniformly governed my conduct, and which shall do so on this subject.

My lords, it has been imputed to me, that on a former occasion, I eluded this question, by the noble lord who has just now, with so much eloquence, addressed you; and who now calls upon you to go into this committee; but, my lords, although I gave a silent vote on that occation, my vote was not governed by prejudice; but because I conceived the tendency of the motion was against the Protestant establishment of these countries; and that it had a tendency to alarm the Protestants of Ireland; and to foment those jealousies which might take place on such an occasion.

Will your lordships give me leave to call your attention to what the motion is now before you? It is, that you will go into a committee to enquire what are the laws which now operate to prevent the Roman Catholics of Ireland from being admitted into all the advantage's of place and power in the state, equally with the members of the Protestant Church, in order to devise the means of abrogating those laws; and, my lords, through the whole tenor of this debate it has been warmly asserted, that the Protestants, as well as Catholics of Ireland, are equally desirous of this change.

But, my lords, if you have any regard to the Protestant Church of Ireland, which docs not now exist as a separate establishment; but is united for ever by the Union with the Protestant Church of England, I would ask, how you can go into such a question, and with such views, without affecting the Protestant establishment in both countries; And I will be glad also to know how you can exclude from such a consideration his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Scotland? Their number, it is true, may be fewer than those in Ireland; but the principle of justice is the same; and the question, therefore, must be one, which not only affects the Established Church of England and Ireland, but also that of Scotland, where it must tend to do away the Test Acts, established by the laws of that country, and settled by compact at the Union; and however easy it may seem to the noble lord to dispense with the laws of England and Ireland, upon this subject, I believe he will not find it so easy to deal with the test of the law of Scotland.

I cannot consent to the measure of going into a committee, for the purpose of doing away laws which we deem necessary for the safety of the Established Church, until it can be clearly shewn to me, that there is a necessity for going into a question which is directly to affect that security, and to excite disquiet amongst all classes of his Majesty's Protestant subjects in both kingdoms. But, I say, ray lords, if you should be of opinion, that it is right to give up what the Catholics claim; and that such a surrender is indispensible, as it is alleged, to procure their tranquillity and your safety, you should give it at once, without the delay of a committee, and bring in a Bill for the purpose.

My lords, agreeing as I do with the noble lord in respect of the principles which preceded the Revolution in this country, he will allow me to say, that the result of that event was not only to provide for the security of our civil, but our religious liberty! and that king William was called to the throne of these realms to protect our Protestant religion, as well as our civil liberty. Have noble lords read the Bill of Rights? I have read it over and over again; and I say, it not only complains of the civil tyranny to which it alludes, and against the recurrence of which it expressly purposes to protect us for ever; but it also complains of the religious tyranny, with which that civil tyranny was so intimately connected. Upon what ground, then, was it that this Bill of Rights was founded, unless upon the establishment of a government purely Protestant in Church and State? My lords, have I forgotten all that I have been reading upon this subject; or have I misunderstood the doctrines expressly laid down by the great authorities, who lived nearest the Revolution, and who were leading actors in all the great transactions which took place at that period? Look at the language of Somers and Hardwicke on that subject; for, if I err, I have been misled by the writings of those great characters; and, my lords, to the doctrines and opinions laid down by those men, as to the principles on which your constitution was founded; notwithstanding all that your lordships have heard upon this and former occasions, in direct deviation from those principles, you ought to cling to them with the most scrupulous caution, as principles upon which depend, and to which we must look for the security of our property, and our protection from the recurrences of all tyranny, civil or religious. My lord Hardwicke has said, that Protestantism was the very key-stone of your constitution; and you are now called upon to wrest that key-stone from this memorable fabric; and expose it to the dangers of falling to ruin.

My lords, I have been told, that it is less dangerous now to yield to the claims of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, than it would have been, while there was an independent parliament in that part of the empire, however perilous the measure might have been then, it was not so after the Union; because, when the Catholics came to vote in an English parliament, there would be no danger from their numbers. But, my lords, what am I to think now, when I am told that the principal danger exists in Ireland, upon the consideration of the comparative number of Protestants and Catholies. The argument of comparative numbers was never brought forward by the Catholics or their advocates, previous lo the year 1805, when the Catholics presented their Petition for liberty to have seats in parliament; but now that the Union has passed, when we were told that all dangers on the score of numbers would vanish, we are referred again to the argument of numbers, in order to impress us with the danger of refusal.

But, my lords, I did not think that the noble baron who spoke last, would call upon me to abandon my apprehensions, or would impute to me principles of intolerance, or unfounded timidity, upon this subject; when I recollect what has been urged by the noble baron himself, both within and without these walls, as to the dangers which he thinks it necessary to obviate; and as to the securities which he would think it indispensable for the Catholics to give him, before he would consent to any farther relaxation in their favour.

Can we approve the sentiments expressed by the noble baron, upon the subject of what is called the Veto? And has not the noble baron stated somewhere outside these walls, sentiments, in my mind, directly contradictory to the arguments which he has urged this night? I hold in my hand some extracts from a letter which the noble lord has given to the world as his own; in which he has declared it to be indispensible, that before the Roman Catholics can be allowed to enjoy exemption from those restrictions, it is absolutely necessary that they should disclaim and renounce certain tenets and principles, incompatible with the removal of those restrictions which we have thought necessary-, before he can consent to any further concession. But the noble baron has not told us that the Catholics have offered those securities that will satisfy his doubts: nor that he has any plan to offer which shall satisfy yours.

When, on a former occasion, the noble lord and his friends, arguing on this question, took upon them to state, that the Catholics were ready lo concede the Veto; the assertion was publicly contradicted by a Roman Catholic bishop, the accredited agent of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland; and upon which authority we were told the proposition was avowed by the advocates of the Roman Catholics in this, and the other House of Parliament; and therefore, if the noble baron answers my objections on this occasion, by referring me to the opinions of Mr. Pitt, I fancy he will find it easier, as Mr. Pitt did, to laugh at them, than answer them. (Here the noble lord read some quotations from the celebrated Letter of lord Grenville to lord Fingal, and continued.) I think if the noble baron had recollected his own doctrine upon this occasion, he would not have laughed at any apprehensions of Popery, nor what he is pleased to call the exclusive principle which I maintain in common with those two learned universities, to whose Petitions he has alluded.

With respect to some principles which have been quoted from the publications of some Roman Catholic writers, this night, I agree, that what a particular individual might say, could not be considered as binding on a whole body; but from an extract which I hold in my hand from a pamphlet, avowedly published by Dr. Milner, a Catholic bishop, and the avowed agent here, of the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, I think I am warranted in saying, that the Veto which the noble lord holds to be an indispensable preliminary to any further step of relaxation, never can be conceded by the Catholics, consistently with the fundamental principles of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland: for he tells you, that he would rather suffer martyrdom, than consent to such a surrender.

The noble lord upon the former occasion said, he did not know that the Veto would not be received by the Catholics; but that he was authorised to say it would: but Dr. Milner afterwards unequivocally declared that it could not; and denied his having authorised such a proposition.

My lords, I do not impute sentiments to any other individual upon earth, which he himself so tamely chuses to disavow; but here are letters addressed from Dr. Milner to the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland; and to Dr. Troy, the titular archbishop of Dublin, which I must take to be conclusive on this point; and therefore, as I am warranted to assume, that Catholics are decidedly averse to concede the very first principle, upon which it is admitted on all sides, we could alone consent to any further steps of concession: I cannot see the use of going into an enquiry to discover that which we know already.

I do not undertake to controvert the opinion of Dr. Milner; I must receive it as that of a learned man, and a leading authority in the Roman Catholic Church: but founded as I am, on this opinion, I hope I may be excused from answering to any thing of what is proposed, without receiving on the part of the Catholics ample security for the maintenance of our Protestant establishment in Church and State, under an arrangement, which I hold to be totally inconsistent with the principle laid down at the Revolution; namely, that of a Protestant prince on the throne, and Roman Catholics sitting in parliament. I will not say that such an arrangement never can, by any possibility, be accomplished; but those who propose it must tell me how it can be done with safety to a Protestant state, or I never can consent.

But, ray lords, let the measures proposed to be ceded, be fairly examined one by one; and let us see if they are fit to be granted: and if not, let them be rejected at once.

As to the tenets imputed to Roman Catholics, I do not think that any man of charity or sense would wish to impute to them sentiments which they do not hold; and, therefore, I give them full credit when they solemnly disavow such sentiments, with regard to their not keeping faith with heretics, as have been by some imputed to them; and which they have solemnly denied, upon the highest authorities of their Church.

But then we are to consider what are the difficulties of admitting Roman Catholics into the legislature; or giving them places of high trust and authority in the state.

Will it be said, my lords, that it is of no moment to have Roman Catholics in a parliament which is to legislate for the government of a Protestant Established Church? or that it is a matter of light consideration, that Catholics should compose the councils of the crown, which gives away so many Protestant bishoprics? A privilege, in which if they were indulged, we should be at no loss to guess whom they would send to Canterbury, in return for some speeches published in the newspapers. Yet they were resolved to allow no controul whatever in disposing of Catholic bishoprics; with such differences existing between both Churches, touching the subject of the king's supremacy.

The noble marquis said this night, that every thing, not essential to the security of the state, ought to be conceded to the Catholics; because he says, every liberty of conscience should be given: and yet, my lords, he "thinks this matter of the king's supremacy is of light consideration; because, he says, the Catholics deny the king's supremacy only in matters ecclesiastical.

But, ray lords, can it be denied on fair grounds, that the Catholic Church undertakes to decide matters, both civil and ecclesiastical? Any body that knows any thing of the Roman Catholic Church, must know that they do make very important decisions, even on civil points, which are held binding amongst their own community: but which, if they were to attempt in a Protestant community, I think I should impeach some of them; and yet, my lords, it is proposed, that those men who refuse the established jurisdiction of the Protestant Church, shall be admitted into a parliament which is to regulate that Protestant Church. But this is an anomaly, so totally inconsistent with the established institutions of the land, that I do not see how it ever can be admissible, so long as those men feel that they cannot join in any act which is to promote the power and the interest of the Established Church.

Now, by the way, it is the very principle of the constitution, as continued and recognized by every act of the state, down to the present hour, that the king should be head of the Church. It is clear from every historical authority, that our ancestors, at the Revolution, so meant that it should be both then and always; but it is now proposed by the supporters of this motion, that the advisers of his Majesty may be Catholics who deny him that supremacy.

My lords, I, for one, disclaim any such sentiments; and I never will agree to the prayer of any Catholic Petition, having for its object a purpose, in my mind, so directly subversive to the very principles of your constitution.

My lords, I should not trouble your lordships on this occasion, if I did not think it my bounden duty emphatically to avow and repeat the sentiments I have so often expressed on this subject. I beg to say again, that in the part I take, I am not actuated by any feeling of intolerance to the religious opinions, or civil rights of any man, or class of men, so far as I think them-consistent with the security of the state: and maintaining that principle, I trust that every man, from the highest to the lowest, will do what he conscientiously thinks will be for the good of the whole people; and upon this principle it is that I cannot agree to the measure now proposed.

Lord Grenville.

—My lords; I have no intention of making, under the plea of explanation, a reply to the learned lord's speech.' The temptation no doubt is great, but I will not yield to it. I rise solely to vindicate my own character against his unjust aspersions; and a few minutes will suffice for this purpose. The learned lord accuses me of inconsistency on this subject. I have formerly, he says, considered some conditions as indispensable from which 'I now advise you to depart. Were the fact true, I should admit it without reluctance. I have never desired the praise of that consistency which adheres to error in spite of conviction. Nor can I exclude from my views of the present question all reference to the increasing pressure of the times, and to the fast accumulating distresses and necessities of the empire. But the charge is wholly groundless. Neither my opinions on this great question, nor therefore my language or my conduct, have ever varied for a moment. The learned lord refers you to a printed letter of mine to lord Fingall, and following the early example and daily practice of his colleagues, he quotes it in unfair and garbled extracts. In one thing, however, he differs from them, and I thank him for it; he has at least the manliness to make his personal attacks upon me in a place where they can be answered.

My lords, I adhere to that letter, to every phrase which it contains, to every sentiment which it expresses; nor have I this night uttered a single word which does not perfectly accord with it. I desire you only to read it before you judge, to take your impression of its contents from the paper itself, and not from such misrepresentations as the learned lord is pleased to make of it. When you have so done, I will gladly appeal to yourselves whether it be true, that I have in any part of that letter, spoken of the king's negative upon the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland as an indispensable condition, without which the disabilities now attaching on that body can never be repealed? The learned lord asserts it, but he has read to you no such passage. None such is to be found. You will find there on the contrary my recorded opinion, that to insist on such points "in opposition even to groundless prejudice, would be the reverse of legislative wisdom." You will find my humble but earnest exhortations that no such partial and precipitate decisions "should prejudge any of the separate branches of this great question, or limit its unreserved discussion." You will perceive, I trust, in every paragraph and line of that publication the general and pervading spirit of the whole; the same wish which I have this night expressed for national conciliation above all other things: the same deep sense which I have ever entertained of the importance of this great cause, the same unwearied solicitude for its success; the same earnest recommendation to sacrifice to it all minor considerations, all petty jealousies, all groundless fears, and to confide without reserve in the wisdom and patriotism of the legislature as our best securities for the interests of every member of the empire, and for the safety of the whole. Are these the sentiments I am now called upon to disavow? Is this the opinion which I can be afraid of comparing with any language ever held upon the subject by the learned lord himself Or can any man point out in any part of these suggestions the smallest variation from my present conduct?

The learned lord has entertained himself with a long history about Dr. Milner and the Veto. For what purpose? would he insinuate that I deceived you on the subject? He knows the contrary. If he had read the letter which he quotes, he must have learnt from it that I spoke in the presence of those whom he supposes to have contradicted me, and that I received from them on the contrary their immediate and full acknowledgments of "satisfaction in all that I had stated."

An impression hostile to that measure has since prevailed in Ireland. Am I accountable for this? The impression was produced by the unjust and irritating conduct of the British government. To them, therefore, if any evil (which I expect not) shall follow from the rejection of the Veto, to them that evil is solely to be ascribed. But, however raised, such feelings do certainly exist. That proposal, which at the period of the Union was sanctioned by the most considerable of their bishops, is now considered by a large proportion of that people as subversive of their Church. Is it wisdom utterly to disregard such feelings? Is it justice to trample on the opinions of a whole community? Does consistency require that he who advises a measure when approved by both, the parties whom he wishes to conciliate, shall pertinaciously insist on it when decidedly opposed by one of them? Or does the learned lord in the consideration of any question in the British parliament, regard it as indifferent whether it tends to the union or the separation of our empire?

The learned lord then read to you a paragraph, in which I speak of extensive and complicated arrangements," as necessary to be made on the subject of Ireland. These he would wish you to believe must have reference to the same measure of the Veto, or to some other connected with it; and he calls upon me, in consistency with my opinion, to detail all these arrangements to your lordships in this debate; and this he does in the very moment when he is exhorting you to refuse yourselves to all consideration of the subject! You will judge which of us is most consistent with himself. But he has, in truth, misrepresented the purpose of this passage. Look at the context which he supposes, and you will see that I am there speaking, not merely of the inviolable maintenance of our religious and civil establishments, (though this is a duty which I never will abandon,) but that I use the words in a sense still more enlarged. I am there combating an opinion falsely, sometimes maliciously, ascribed to the supporters of this cause, that the repeal of these disabilities is of itself sufficient for the good government and happiness of Ireland. And I declare my own conviction, that much more is wanting for that purpose. Do the King's ministers doubt it? Ill, indeed, are they informed of the condition of that country, if they are ignorant that it demands from the British government a different attention from any which they have hitherto bestowed upon it. I will not accept his invitation to enter on that subject now. Let him ask the noble Secretary of State, his colleague, what that question is which the noble earl fears to encounter, and staves off by the notable expedient of interposing another grievance? I believe the answer will alone be sufficient to satisfy him that there are, indeed, extensive and complicated questions to be considered by any men who wish to perform their duty to that portion of the empire in a different manner from that in which the learned lord and his colleagues have hitherto discharged it. I speak not of occasional and temporary attention to occasional and temporary difficulties; of such attention as the noble lords themselves have sometimes been compelled to give to the concerns of Ireland: I speak of a uniform and consistent policy, of a vigilant and anxious solicitude for her welfare, such as is due from every government and legislature to those whose interest it professes to administer.

I will detain you no longer. There is no colour for the learned lord's charges of inconsistency against me. The policy which I now advise I have always advised. The neglect which I now condemn I have always condemned. Its consequences are at this hour pressing on all our resources, weighing down all our exertions; aggravating every difficulty of the empire, alarming all its friends, and encouraging all its enemies. And it would much better become the authors of all this evil to acknowledge and lament the effects of their own misconduct, than to bring groundless accusations against those who have laboured, but laboured in vain, to arrest the progress of those infatuated counsels, and to save their country from the calamities, by which such impolicy is inevitably attended.

Lord Holland.

—My lords; I do not rise at this late hour of the night, to enter into any argument, but to explain one point; or, indeed, I may say, to apologize to the noble and learned lord for interrupting him when addressing your lordships. The nature and motive of that interruption he has indeed, mistaken; but apology is due to him for any thing bordering on inattention; and I can assure him that ray remark, which was made too loudly, was owing first to the circumstance to which he has himself adverted, the part of the House from which he speaks: and 2dly, to the great good humour with which he generally receives every thing of the sort; but when I so irregularly exclaimed to the noble lord to read the Bill of Rights, I did not mean to imply, (God forbid I should) that he had not read, nor did not understand, the Bill of which he was speaking; I did not mean to recommend him to read an act of parliament, with which I was, and am well convinced, that he is perfectly familiar; but I called upon him, irregularly, I admit, but not disrespectfully, to have the Bill of Rights read at the table, in order to enable the House to judge of the practice of that observation, on which he has this night laid such a stress. The noble and learned lord maintains, that the exclusion of Roman Catholics from parliament and offices, is part of the fundamental law of our constitution, as declared by the Bill of Rights. It is that point I wished to be explained; and it is that point which, I think, the reading of the Bill of Rights would completely clear up; and set not only in a different, but in an opposite light, to that in which the noble and learned lord has presented it to your lordships. It would detain the House to have the Bill read at length; but if any there be on whom this part of the noble and learned lord's statement has made an impression unfavourable to the repeal of the exclusive laws, I trust they will refer to the Bill itself; and in it I contend they will find nothing which precludes them from repealing the laws of exclusion; nothing which enacts or implies, that those laws are fundamental in our constitution, or absolutely and permanently essential to its security.

There are, indeed, two distinct parts of the Bill of Rights; that which, after reciting the illegal and unexceptionable endeavours of king James 2, proceeds to declare, re-enact, and confirm the ancient and undoubted rights of Englishmen: the other, which enacts what was necessary to the object of the time, the establishment of king William on the throne. The first part, which contains thirteen articles, declared to be the ancient and undoubted rights of Englishmen, may be called fundamental (if, indeed, any law is fundamental in a state, which has a supreme legislature in it like ours) but in these thirteen articles, declaratory of our ancient and undoubted rights," the words Protestant, or Catholic, never once occur, except in stating that Protestants shall not be deprived of their arms: with that exception, there is not one of the thirteen declarations that might not be equally maintained as the rights of the people of this country, if the Roman Catholic, or even the Mahometan religion, were established throughout it to-morrow.

Unquestionably, the violation of some of these exclusive laws, that is, the dispensing with the tests required by law, formed part of the charge against James 2, and was one of the motives to the glorious resistance made against that misguided monarch; but that very circumstance makes the omission of any mention of these laws in the declaratory part of the Bill of Rights, the more remarkable; and proves the more forcibly, that though the statute law of the land, such test laws were not in the contemplation of the great men who effected the Revolution, any part of the ancient necessary and unalterable constitution of the country. For though James 2 had broken those laws, though contrary to their letter and their spirit, he had admitted Catholics and Dissenters to places of trust and profit, and dispensed with those oaths which the law exacted from them. Yet, in vindicating the rights of the people, the Bill of Rights does not declare that the Test Act must be perpetual, that it can never be repealed, that places of trust and profit, that seats in parliament, that political power is essentially Protestant, and so forth. No: not one word of all this in the declaratory part of the Bill: it confines itself to the simple declaration in these two articles: 1st. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2dly. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been affirmed and exercised of late, is illegal.

It lays no stress on the particular character of the laws, suspended or dispensed, but simply denies the power in the king of suspending, or dispensing with laws, in as much as they are laws.

Formerly, though not to-night, I have heard the noble and learned lord say, those laws were felt to be fundamental at the Union with Scotland; and yet then a notion was made to render them so; and was rejected by a large majority of this House. The fact is, these very laws, and many others, to which my noble friend's motion is directed, were not in force in that part of the united kingdom, on which they have since most severely pressed, when the Bill of Rights was passed; and since that period they have been varied, added to, repealed, and altered, in both countries, in a manner quite inconsistent with the notion of their being so sacred and fundamental as the learned lord wish-"d to represent them.

In England, from Henry 8 till late in Charles 2's reign, that is, during the period in which the Reformation prevailed over the old establishments, no such laws have existed. Catholics might, Catholics did, sit in parliament; Catholics might. Catholics did, hold offices of trust and profit; and the Protestant Church grew into an establishment, without these fundamental Jaws which are now, forsooth, held to be absolutely interwoven with her existence. Nay, the laws on this subject, either existing, or made at the time of the Revolution, are not the same as are now in force: some been have added since; others have been repealed: all have been altered, varied, or applied, either by law, or usage, in a way incompatible with the character of sacred, unalterable, and fundamental laws of our constitution.

In Ireland they were known at that time; and the Test Act now exists there no longer. So far from forming part of the settlement of that kingdom, the capitulation of Limerick, by which the kingdom was recovered and secured, contained a solemn stipulation that these laws, which are now called fundamental, (but which have been varied and altered perpetually since) should never be enacted; even as to the absurdity of Catholic ministers recommending to Protestant benefices. If there were time to go into detail?, I could, I think, prove, that if it is unreasonable, it is at least not unexampled in our history; that such an anomaly has happened, and happened without injury to our Church. That some of our best and ablest divines have owed their elevation to the recommendation of Catholic trearurers, or Catholic chancellors: but this will lead me far. I will not go into this part of the question, though nothing, as I contend, has been more artfully misrepresented, or more grossly misconceived throughout the country, than this part of the history of the Revolution.

A noble marquis in the blue rib band has, indeed, admirably exposed the delusion in his eloquent speech of this night. The connection of the Catholic religion and King James's cause was, I maintain, purely accidental; and our ancient and unprecedented rights (to use the words of the Bill itself) vindicated at the Revolution, were as much the rights of our Catholic ancestors, as they are ours; and would be as much our rights to-morrow, if we were reconciled to the errors of the Church of Rome, as they are to-day', when we abjure and renounce those errors. It is thus read the Bill of Rights, and I defy the noble and learned lord to prove from the statute book that I read it wrong. The Protestant monopoly of seats in parliament, and offices of trust and profit, is not there declared to be a fundamental law, or an undoubted right of the people of England. Thirteen rights are there proclaimed to be ancient and undoubted: those thirteen are vindicated, declared, enacted, and confirmed; but in the thirteen the noble lord will not find one word in favour of the laws which my noble friend wishes to be referred to a committee of your honourable House.

My lords; in the general question I wil now say nothing. My opinion remains not only unaltered, but strengthened. Justice calls upon us to restore the birthrights of our countrymen. Policy recommends, I should rather say, necessity enjoins us to conciliate the affections of a third of our fellow subjects. I have only to repeat my apologies for intruding, at this late hour, though for so short a time, to protest against the existence of any fundamental law, or any essential principle in our constitution, standing in the way of a measure, which justice demands, and necessity dictates. Such is the measure, this night recommended by my noble friend, commonly known by the name of Catholic Emancipation, and consisting, in my view of it, of a complete removal of all civil disabilities whatever, on account of religious opinions.

At five o'clock in the morning of Wednesday, the 22nd of April, the House divided.

Present. Proxies. Total.
Non-Contents 103 71 = 174
Contents 67 35 = 102
Majority 36 36 72
List of the Minority.
PRESENT.
DUKES. Donoughmore
Sussex VISCOUNTS.
Norfolk Hereford
Grafton Bolingbroke
Bedford LORDS.
Devonshire Say and Sele
MARQUISSES. Hastings (Moira)
Londowne St. John
Stafford Clifton (earl of Darnley)
Wellesley
Headfort Byron
EARLS. Dutton (m. Douglas)
Derby Boyle (earl of Cork)
Suffolk King
Essex Ponsonby (Besboro')
Albemarle Montford
Plymouth Grantham
Jersey Holland
Oxford Ducie
Cowper Sundridge (d. of Argyll)
Stanhope
Waldegrave Foley
Fitzwilliam Grantley
Hardwicke Bulkeley
Darlington Somers
Kingston Boringdon
Conyngham Braybrooke
Spencer Amherst
Hillsborough (marquis of Downshire) Grenville
Bradford
Grosvenor Yarborough
Fortescue Cawdor
Caernarvon Erskine
Rosslyn Ponsonby.
Grey Alisa (earl of Cassilis)
Lauderdale BISHOPS.
Ossory Norwich
Lucan Kildare
PROXIES.
DUKES. VISCOUNTS.
Somerset Duncan
St. Albans Anson
MARQUISSES. LORDS.
Buckingham Spencer (m. Bland-ford)
Bute
EARLS. Hawke
Thanet Ashburton
Carlisle Thurlow
Tankerville Berwick
Bristol Auckland
Guilford Mendip (v. Clifden)
Portsmouth Dundas
Ilchester Carrington
St. Vincent Glastonbury
Lilford Breadalbane (earl of)
Carysfort (earl of) Ardrossan (e. Eglington)
Alvanley
Hutchinson Butler (e. Ormond)
Granard (earl of) Monteagle (m. Sligo)
Crewe Charlemont (earl of)
Present 67
Proxies 35
Paired off 2
Lost 1
In all —105

Lord Keith and the Earl of Selkirk paired off, and the proxy of the Bishop of Rochester was sent, but too late to be entered before prayers.