Roman Catholic Relief Bill.

HL Deb 17 May 1825 vol 13 cc662-768

The Earl of Donoughmore, in moving the order of the day for the Second reading of the Roman Catholic Relief bill, commenced his observations in a very low tone of voice. If Roman Catholics, he observed, were, on account of their religious opinions, to be deprived of those privileges which were enjoyed by other subjects of the state, then there was an end to the freedom of the British Constitution. Englishmen talked of liberty and freedom, and so forth, more than any other country of Europe, while they deprived six millions of Catholics of their liberty of conscience. On their behalf he now moved the second reading of this bill, reserving those observations which he had to make upon it to a future opportunity.

Lord Colchester

rose and said:—My Lords: My view of this important measure is so different from that of the noble earl who has opened this debate, that although he has abstained from offering any arguments in support of his motion, I am, nevertheless, desirous of taking the earliest opportunity of stating the particular grounds of my opposition to it.

It is true, that the circumstances under which we have to enter upon this discussion are, in some degree, novel; but the original ground and character of the measure itself remain unaltered.

Of those occurrences which are new, the first and most prominent has been the systematic intimidation with which the Roman Catholic demands were proposed in Ireland before the commencement of the present session by the Roman Catholic Association in Dublin; but that manufactory of sedition and possible insurrection has been put down by the wisdom and firmness of parliament. Another new occurrence is, the extraordinary tranquillity which at present pervades the whole of Ireland; but this very tranquillity is not less alarming than the disturbances which preceded it, if it should appear, that both have been produced and maintained alike by an authority which the state does not acknowledge, and over which it has no control. And another new occurrence is, the parliamentary inquiry in which both Houses have been so deeply engaged respecting the general state of Ireland and its grievances; but the result of that inquiry, so far as it has proceeded, however important and beneficial in many points of view, has by no means removed the fundamental objections to the present measure; and the flood of petitions which has poured in upon us, plainly proves that such a measure is adverse to the general feelings of the nation.

Throughout the last twenty years, we, who are opposed to the Roman Catholic claims, have, nevertheless, shown at the same time a perfect readiness to admit our Roman Catholic fellow subjects to a full participation in all the employments, emoluments, and honours of our common country, short of political power, but that concession we have always resisted. And after all we have yet heard, and all that we have yet seen, I say that we must resist it again to day; and here make our determined stand.

To demonstrate this necessity, it will be sufficient for us to consider—what is the present position which the Roman Catholics occupy; what are the further privileges which they demand; what are the dangers which must result from conceding those demands; and what are the means which such concessions would place in their hands for the destruction of our Protestant constitution in church and state.

In their present position, the Roman Catholics have—the full protection of the law for the free and unrestricted exercise of their religion; and if they require more complete protection, as has been surmised, they have only to point out the defect, and parliament has shown no unwillingness to afford such redress,^*

^* See O'Connell's evidence before committee of House of Commons, 1825, p. 112.—For extending English act respecting places of worship, 31 Geo. 3. to Ireland. In the possession of property, they are as free and secure as any other subjects of the British empire, notwithstanding all their tragic declamations against penal laws respecting property, which have been repealed for more than half a century: or again; if it can be shown that they are not so secure as the ends of justice require, with regard to the registering of oaths, or any such requisites, they ought to be made secure, and have their titles quieted.^*

As to civil employments, they have already free admission into all the various departments of the revenue; and at the bar, these is no impediment whatever to prevent their obtaining, by patent, that precedency of rank to which their relative pretensions may entitle them, for their own emolument, the convenience of their competitors, or the benefit of their clients.

The army and navy have been long since thrown open to them, with the whole career of military service and honours.

But what they ask now, and ask of your lordships this day,is to open for them a broad and direct path to political power, for admission to the two Houses of parliament; secondly, to all the high judicial offices, the highest alone excepted; and thirdly, to the Privy council of the sovereign, which in other terms designates all the ruling power of the state at home and abroad; the whole domestic government, the lord lieutenancy of Ireland alone excepted; and all the governments whatever throughout all the foreign possessions of the empire: and to all these high offices and privileges, they demand of us at once by this bill, without any of the pretended securities contained in their former bills, an entire, complete, and unconditional, admission. Truly, my lords, we may say of them who so approach us, Hi ad nos gladiatorio animo affectant viam.

Against these pretensions, they challenge us to show what are the dangers of such concessions, and how the existence of any such dangers can be established by proof. We answer, that the danger is manifest, and the proofs abundant, and the amount of the danger in no degree See as to marriage laws, O'Connell's evidence, ut supra, p. 106, 107; and as to registration of oaths, ibid. p. 109–111. abated by any of the projects hitherto devised for that purpose.

The danger is itself nothing less than what their own leaders proclaim; it is the plain drift and end of all their language and endeavours; and if they do not so intend, they would not be zealous and sincere Roman Catholics; namely, to begin with the destruction of our church property and its endowed establishment. Equality of rights they cry, but domination they mean. And nothing less can result, whatever they may profess to begin with, than the gradual re-establishment of their own church in Ireland; practically destroying that fundamental article of the union, which has established one Protestant Episcopal church for England and Ireland; and finally dissolving in both countries the whole connexion of a Protestant church and Protestant state, which forms an essential principle of the British constitution.

The proofs of this spirit are abundant. Other persons more learned may draw them from other times; but I shall be content to take those chiefly of a later date, and such as are open to the observation of us all. Proofs of Roman Catholic hostility to our established church and its clergy, of their imperfect allegiance to the state, and of their intolerance to all, even to those who now blindly concur in supporting them.

Mark the language of their leaders, ecclesiastical and political. The boldest and most prominent of their churchmen, whose learning, talents, and views are all equally remarkable, I mean Dr. Doyle, the titular bishop of Kildare, in a publication addressed last year to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and adopted by the leaders of the late Roman Catholic Association as the full vindication and true statement of their principles, expressly denies the justice of those laws by which the established church of Ireland hold its property, * opinions which he has again maintained in his evidence on oath: all this, if not to be blamed in him, is not very encouraging to us.

In the same spirit, the same ecclesiastical authority, and adopted again by the same Roman Catholic Association in a ^* See "Vindication," &c. p. 38. "Proceedings of Irish Roman Catholic Association," 8vo. p. 63. 69; and Dr. Doyle's evidence before the Commons, p. 216; and before thy, lords, p. 376. publication, dated Carlow, 13th May last year, expressly declares that "The ministers of the establishment as it exists at present, are and will be detested by those who differ from them in religion." See, my lords, how long this detestation is to endure,—and he adds, "the more their resistance is enforced and their numbers multiplied, the more odious they will become."^*

So much for their disclaimer of hostility to the Established church and its clergy.

Upon the question of allegiance, and let it always be remembered that this bill extends equally to Great Britain and Ireland, observe first, That the king's Protestant subject swears, that he will disclose all traitorous conspiracies whatever, which shall come to his knowledge; the Roman Catholic priest excepts, out of that disclosure all that knowledge, probably the most important to the state, which come to him by confession; and the Roman Catholic bishop takes an express oath that he will not disclose the counsels of his foreign sovereign to any man; "consilium Domini Papæ nemini pandam;" shewing the plain traces of a foreign jurisdiction in spirituals producing temporal effects.†

In the next place, consider well how the English Roman Catholics deal with the oath of abjuration, and how the Irish treat it, as to the Protestant succession. Doctor Milner, vicar apostolic of the holy See, for the midland district of England, in the year 1813, put forth a publication against the oath proposed by the bill of that date, and asserted, that, "no conscientious Roman Catholic could swear to do more than submit to the Protestant succession to the Crown; but could not swear to maintain, support, and defend it." Dr. Doyle, the organ of the Roman Catholic church of Ireland, and the adopted champion of the Roman Catholic laity, denies this distinction, and pledges himself and his church to an active allegiance; are we, then, to have one oath of allegiance for Ireland, and another for England? Or rather, to measure ^*See Letter to—Robertson, esq. M. P. signed James Doyle, dated Carlow, 13 May 1824. See also, proceedings of Irish Roman Catholic Association, p. 345. and 393. † See Dr.Doyle's evidence, Lords' Rep. p. 500, and Dr. Murray's, ibid. p. 412. them in both cases, by the rule laid down long ago, and again by pope Pius 7th, so late as 1809, "that no oaths are binding in such cases, if taken to the prejudice of the church and religion." But doctor Doyle does not leave us finally in doubt, for in the same publication, approved by the same Roman Catholic association, he puts the supposed case of a rebellion in Ireland; which we find by his evidence is a just cause for excommunication.* And he tells us that "if a rebellion were raging from Carrickfergus to Cape Clear, no sentence of excommunication would ever be fulminated by a Roman Catholic prelate."

So much for the perfect allegiance, and the active loyalty of the Roman Catholic church to a Protestant government, for conscience sake.

And as to the unalterable spirit of intolerance of the Roman Catholic church towards all others; the highest authority in that church, and acknowledged by them to be such at this day,† Bossuet, the celebrated bishop of Meaux, has declared, that "The church of Rome is the most intolerant of all Christian sects. It is her holy and inflexible incompatibility which renders her severe, unconciliatory, and odious to all sects separated from her. They desire to be tolerated by her, but her holy severity forbids such indulgence. The exercise of the power of the sword, in matters of religion and conscience, is not to be questioned."‡ What that sword means, is exemplified in the famous revocation of the edict of Nantes; and his illustration of it may be read amongst those splendid models of modern eloquence, in one of his " Oraisons Fumèbres," where he praises Louis 14th, for his piety in commending that persecution, and praises the chancellor of France, Le Tallier, by whom that ordinance was sealed, and carried into full effect, for the extermination of heretics.

In the same never-changing spirit, the late pope so recently, in 1808, proclaimed to all Europe, that the See of Rome refused toleration to other modes of worship; the same spirit has since restored the order of Jesuits, and re-established ^* See Dr. Doyle's evidence before the Lords, p. 506. † See Lords' Rep. p, 329. and 429. ‡ See Hist. des Variations Sixième Avertissement, and Livre X. And his Oraison Funèbre on the chancellor Le Tallier. the Inquisition, and the present aspect of religious affairs in France must naturally increase all our alarms.

So much for the unchanged, and unchangeable intolerance of the church of Rome, wherever she can extend her empire.

My lords, to obviate and reduce the amount of these dangers, I am well aware that several collateral arrangements have been proposed; and with respect to Ireland, a project for what is called a state provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, which it is suggested, may help to disconnect the Roman Catholic clergy from their flocks, by endowing each parish and diocese with some fixed stipend, for the incumbent; a sort of regium donum, settled by law, in consideration of which, we are to incorporate the Roman Catholic laity with ourselves, and render them our harmless associates in the ruling powers of a Protestant state.

To-day is not the time for arguing the details of such a question; no such bill has yet reached us; nor does it appear that any minister of the Crown has declared himself to have received the king's commands to recommend any grant for such a purpose. But as this possible project has been used as an auxiliary argument for supporting Roman Catholic emancipation, as it is called, I must take leave to say thus much upon it.

I object to it per se, as erecting an endowed and perpetual Roman Catholic church within this realm; a thing unheard of since the days of the Reformation.

And I object to it, that it will increase the power of the hierarchy, and also the mischievous influence of the priests over their flocks; for they are to have the money of the state given to them in one hand, and with the other they are to take also from their flock a portion of their present fees, which fees their clergy tell you, they would not give up, and which they tell you, moreover, "it is incompetent to your legislature to prohibit them from taking."^*

Another collateral measure is, the domestic nomination of the Roman Catholic bishops, which this very bill seeks to establish, a nomination by their deans and chapters; for though some of your lordships may not be apprized of it, they have the ready-made frame of an established ^* See Dr. Doyle's evidence, Com. Rep. p. 180. 184. Roman Catholic church in Ireland, in full array and full force against the first favourable opportunity of ousting their Protestant rivals. Their bishops are to be named by their respective deans and chapters; unless, indeed, the pope should choose to exercise his own right of appointment; for the highest authority amongst theta allows, that the pope may appoint them even at this day, and may even appoint an alien, if he so please. But be they named by whom they may, they are to be nominated at all events, without allowing to the king of this country any control, direct or indirect, in their appointment a power,* more or less enjoyed by every other non-Catholic sovereign in Europe. Nor will they allow to the king of this country, even with the consent of the pope himself, that very control, which the same sovereign does exercise as king of Hanover, over his Roman Catholic subjects in Germany.

This very bill also provides a commissioner, or commissioners for regulating the intercourse of his majesty's subjects with the See of Rome; under the pretext of a security against the exercise of foreign jurisdiction. But it excludes the king from having any control whatever by the intervention of any Protestant servant of the Crown, over the publication of any papal bulls, rescripts, or pastoral letters; even through like that of the present pontiff, published by the Irish Roman Catholic prelates last year, they should threaten us with foreign interference, bidding the king's Roman Catholic subjects take courage, and expect the aid of temporal princes.†

Such, my lords, is the conciliatory disposition of the Roman Catholic church of Ireland; and such are the boasted means by which all jarring interests are to be reconciled, and all the danger of their hostility is to be neutralized.

Now, as to England separately, in what spirit the same ambitious views are entertained and acted upon at this day, your lordships may perhaps hear from some of the right reverend prelates now present, under whose immediate observation these views are announced in language which their followers cannot misunderstand. And all of us may have seen the same in ^* See Lords' Rep. p. 364. † See Encyclical letter of Leo 12th 1824; and Dr. Murray's evidence, Lords' Rep. p. 429. the mischievous publication entitled, an Address of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, to the Roman Catholics of England, now circulating through the heart of this country, pointing out our abbeys, cathedrals, and churches, as the possessions which once belonged to their Roman Catholic ancestors, but wrongfully wrested from them by those who departed from the ancient faith, and bidding them turn their eyes to foreign arms for their future deliverance.

My lords, add to these reflections, what should never be forgotten, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, both in England and Ireland holds an alliance of no mean importance with all the monastic orders which have settled among us; a worse than useless burthen, upon the impoverished population of Ireland, unless we are to pension them also, as has been surmised. Each of these orders, it has been stated in evidence to your lordships, maintains a constant intercourse with its own separate college at Rome; and besides those of older date in Ireland, others of more rècent arrival, are now spreading over England. And, strange to say, institutions which the policy of Roman Catholic states excludes as noxious even for Roman Catholic countries, and mainly, that learned, but powerful and dangerous society, the Jesuits, are now suffered to take root in this realm, and hold large possessions and ostentatious establishments of modern date, without law, and against law. It has been proposed, indeed, to pass laws which may allow such institutions to be endowed and perpetuated, if not already legal. But I say, my lords, rather remove them all out of the land excepting such only as may afford a refuge to aged and helpless women, as charitable homes for those who may have no other.^*

My lords, I have now stated to your lordships, the extent of power which the Roman Catholics seek to obtain by this bill. I have stated also the danger of allowing them to possess that power, from the unchangeable nature of their principles in hostility to the established religion of this kingdom; and that the mischievous operation of such principles will, in no degree, be counteracted by the grant of a ^* See returns by Roman Catholic archbishops for the Provinces of Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, in the Appendix to the Lords' Report of evidence 1825. perpetual endowment of their priesthood, out of the public purse, or by any other of their collateral arrangements.

But it remains for me to answer those who tell us that our fears are visionary; that whatever may be the hostile disposition, the means are wanting to give it effect. That we should imitate the policy of other states, which, with perfect safety to themselves, allow equal political power to all religious denominations of their subjects; and that, if we look at home, no means exist by which any mischief to the state could be accomplished, because the mere eligibility, the admissibility, the capacity, to attain political power, will not give them the power itself, in a country like ours, where the Roman Catholics are so far out-numbered by their Protestant fellow subjects, both in and out of parliament. This difference, however, between the admissibility to political power, and the possession of it, will be found at last to be but a shadowy distinction, and indeed an actual fraud, if it is really meant to withhold in practice, what it professes to give in theory.

Upon each of these points, a few words may suffice. Let us come closer to the cases stated, and examine how such measures do, or must work.

With respect to the policy of these nations which comprise a mixed population, holding different modes of faith, when we are told that all but ours, or that any, have, under like circumstances, imparted equal civil rights and privileges to every description of their subjects, I answer that there is no case parallel or similar to our own.

Despotic sovereigns, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, can displace at their will any minister of the Crown, whose views or measures appear to be inconsistent with the fundamental institutions of their empire; and they may therefore, upon that tenure, safely employ them all indifferently. But no example exists in this or in any other country, of this equal participation of rights, certainly none sanctioned by any length of historical experience, where a popular and representative form of government has been established like ours, in which (as we all know to have happened in other times and in other reigns) any individual of high character and distinguished talents, sustained by popular favour, may, I will not say, " force" but "command" for himself an entrance into the councils of his sovereign, and take into his hands the chief direction of that state.

And where the ruling powers of the state may be thus aspired to by all, and attained to by any, it is vitally important to the safety of such a state, that none should be admitted to the possibility of wielding such power, whose principles are necessarily and essentially hostile to those fundamental institutions of the country, which it is his sacred duty t o uphold.

As to the means of accomplishing any great internal change in our constitution, in a country like ours, I believe it will be found that the capacity of exercising political power will soon acquire also the power itself, and at no great distance of time, if steadily pursued, whatever be the present disparity of numbers; and you should not count for nothing even the intermediate mischief of such a conflict.

If a minister should arise, not even himself a Roman Catholic, but one who favours their pretensions, or who stands in need of their support, after this bill shall have passed, the road is short, so far as concerns the peerage; and a simple gazette may, as it has done for other purposes, and in other times, turn the scale of parties in this House, and introduce amongst us persons of the highest honour and highest respectability, but at the same time most decidedly hostile to our church establishment.

In the other House of Parliament, besides the large and immediate admission of Roman Catholic members, that number will most certainly grow with that parliamentary influence over elections, which their growing property and the urgent persuasions of their clergy will naturally incline them, and enable them to increase. And he knows little of the practice of parliaments, or of public life, who does not foresee, that in every conflict of parties, such a body of men acting uniformly together will be courted on both sides, and their particular interests will be advanced by all in their turn. No man will say, that if this bill were to pass to-day, these consequences would take place tomorrow; but every body must agree, that the same persons and principles, if let in to-day, will open the way for all the rest within that very short period of time which may be accounted as "immediate" in the history of nations.

My lords, to prevent the dangers to arise from letting them in, the best of all securities is to keep them, out; but you must be prepared, if you do let them in, to alter at once the coronation oath, a project which has been already started elsewhere, and recommended. You must proceed also to repeal the corporation and test acts, and lay open the highest offices of the state to nonconformists of every description; and such a termination of the British constitution, few of us, I believe, would desire to behold.

If, then, these claims of emancipation, as it is called, are to be for ever refused, is there no ray of hope left for misgoverned Ireland? Yes, much hope; and, if we are not remiss in our duty, immediate hope; but, as I think, emancipation must be of a very different sort.

The emancipation most necessary for the people of Ireland, is an emancipation from ignorance, from that poverty which proceeds from want of employment, and truth compels me to say also, from that domestic Oppression and misery under which that peasantry is in too many instances suffering, from the excessive underletting and subdivision of the landed property. And this emancipation it is the duty of a paternal government and a protecting parliament to provide.

The evils of Ireland, it is evident, spring mainly from the state and habits of the population. Enable the labourer to derive profit from his industry, be it manufacturing or agricultural, and the labourer who can by his industry gain something of his own worth saving, will be slow to risk it in outrage and rebellion. And it cannot be too often repeated, that all the evidence concurs in ascribing the origin,* at least of these outrages which frighten away British capital and British enterprise, not to religious differences, however much artful and designing men may have brought them forward to inflame the people, but to some specific and local grievance in respect of property and the distressed state of the occupiers and tenants of the soil. And in confirmation of this, it is to be remarked, that in the northern parts of Ireland, where the Roman Catholics and Protestants are most nearly balanced, and where such conflict might be more looked for if originating in religious feelings, such outrages prevail much less, because no such grievances ^*See particularly O'Sullivan's Evidence before Committee of House of Commons, 1825, p. 432. And Lords' Rep. 26, 332. affecting property exist, or at least not in an equal degree.

To remedy evils of this magnitude, laws may do much; but much also lies beyond the reach of law, and must be managed by measures of slower growth.

By laws you may regulate and place on a better footing the relations of landlord and tenant; by laws you may provide some resource and refuge for those amongst the poor who are disabled from work by age or infirmity; by laws you may more effectually repress vagrancy and mendicity; by laws you may reform the modes of executing the process of courts of justice by their subordinate officers; and by laws you should root out those habits of perjury and servility which disgrace alike the upper and the lower ranks of life, by suppressing the present fraudulent description of 40s. freeholders; and this last great evil is in my view a matter wholly separate and distinct from the concession of political power, whatever be the fate of those claims.

What laws cannot do must be accomplished chiefly by spreading an improved system of sound, sober, and useful education every where; instructing the poorer classes in just principles of religion and morality, and such as may fit them not to become the passive instruments of bigotry and tyranny, but such as may render them the virtuous, enlightened and active subjects of a free government; and such a system we have yet too look for in the labours of those commissioners whose reports are not yet completed. ^*

These, my lords, are amongst the blessings which you may yet bestow upon Ireland, and which her condition imperiously demands at your hands. But none of these you could effect whilst that rival parliament existed which your wisdom and firmness have put down; nor can any such blessings be hoped far hereafter, if that monstrous and portentous power should again lift up its head; and I speak it with sorrow, but with a well-grounded belief, when I state, that even now that power is not dead, but sleepeth.

My lords, to close the whole of these remarks, with which I have too long trespassed upon your attention, I would say, upon a bill of this importance, which embraces the whole of the United Kingdom, ^*See Appendix to Evidence before Lords committee, 1825, as to Irish Reman Catholic and Protestant Population. and is not confined to Ireland alone; which embraces England, although we have had no information whatever before us respecting her Roman Catholic authorities or establishments; which embraces Scotland, although such a bill cannot touch it without violating the act of union; I would say,—Surrender not your actual and known state and condition for prospective, contingent, untried, and unknown advantages;—Discontent not the large majority of the Protestants of the United Kingdom, to gratify the less numerous body of Roman Catholics;—and yield not to intimidation, past or to come; for you must not think that those whose declarations have been all but insurrectionary within the last few months, have changed their purpose because they have changed their language;—but act upon the wise exhortation of the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, which he pressed upon your consideration four years ago, when a measure of the like sort was before you, namely "to remove no landmarks, but keep all bodies of his majesty's subjects in their proper places, as they now stand."

Let this House, my lords, adhering to the wisdom of its former decision, and seeing how nearly the opinions of the other House of parliament are balanced, firmly resolve to keep the settled constitution of the country upon its existing basis; and declare once more, by its decision this night, that it refuses, as I hope and trust it ever will refuse, to grant to his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects any further political power.

Therefore, my lords, I shall beg leave to move an amendment to the original motion, by leaving out the word "now," for the purpose of adding "this clay six months."

The Marquis of Anglesea, in seconding the amendment of his noble friend, begged to offer a few words in explanation of the causes which induced him on the present occasion to adopt a course so different from that which he had formerly pursued. In approaching this very perplexing question, he had always been influenced by two very powerful considerations; the one, the importance of conceding to the Catholics every right to which they were justly entitled; the other, the necessity of taking care, that in supporting their claims, he did not break down any of the important barriers of the Protestant Establishment. He had supported all the former concessions to the Catholics, because he had hoped that those concessions would have been followed by a corresponding spirit of kindness and conciliation on the part of the Catholics towards their Protestant brethren. He had hoped that the Catholics would have received in a good spirit that which had been granted them, and that they would have testified a proper degree of patience and forbearance under the comparatively minor privations to which they were still subject. In all these expectations he regretted to say that he had been disappointed. Every concession that had been made to the Catholics had been followed by increased restlessness and irritation. The conduct of that body, and the language which they bad adopted, were such as to show that emancipation alone would not satisfy them, and that they would be content with nothing short of Catholic ascendancy. Such being the state of things, he would go no further in the course of concession, there he would take his stand. Now, if it must be a trial of strength between the Catholic and the Protestant interests,—and something like that was implied in the intemperate language of the Catholics, when they talked of six millions of people who could be repressed of only by force,—if it must be a struggle, he thought that the present time and the present position were the best that could be chosen for bringing the matter to issue. He was sincerely friendly in his disposition towards the Catholics; he would give them every thing that he thought they had a right to expect; but he would not give them any thing at the Expense of the Protestant establishment. Until, therefore, he was persuaded that no danger existed to that establishment by such a concession, he would not consent to increase the political power of the Catholics. With respect to the two minor propositions which it appeared were to accompany this larger measure, if he understood them rightly, he entertained no objection towards them. He did not think that the raising of the qualifications for the elective franchise would trench on any real and legitimate rights and the payment of the Catholic clergy by the state might be a matter of wise policy. But while the appointment or the Catholic bishops was still denied to the king of this country, and foreign interference was thus distinctly allowed, he could not consent to the bill under their lordships' consider- ation. Instead of that mutual concession which ought to take place, the sacrifices were all demanded to be made on one side. Unaccustomed as he was to deliver his opinions in that House, he did not feel himself competent to enforce them by such arguments as might have weight with their lordships. It was enough for him, however, as he was alone responsible for his own conduct, that the reasons which induced him to vote against the bill were satisfactory to his own mind; and all that he regretted was, the imperfect manner in which he had described those reasons to their lordships.

Marquis Camden observed, that he did not rise as his noble and gallant friend had done, to express any change in his opinions on this great and important measure, which had so long agitated the country, but to express his confirmed opinion of its necessity. From his having been misheard on a former occasion, in presenting a petition, it appeared that he had been supposed only to have lately adopted the opinions he had long entertained; and, therefore, in order to set their lordships and the public right on his conduct, and for the purpose not only of shewing the progress of this question generally, but of explaining his own connexion with it, he should, before he entered upon the bill before the House, explain some circumstances which he conceived necessary for himself and apposite to the question.

It was well known to their lordships that when he was recommended by the king to repair to Ireland, it was for the purpose of counteracting a measure which, in the then separate position of Ireland, he himself, and those with whom he acted, thought dangerous and impolitic. He succeeded in counteracting that intended measure, and having so done, as soon as the disappointment of the Catholics had worn off, he felt it his duty, going to Ireland to prevent their political power at that period, to endeavour to reconcile the feeling of that body as far as he individually could do so, having been always persuaded that the utmost attention and confidence should be shewn them at that period, consistent with the not admitting them to political power before the Union. He thought it his duty as well as policy,to endeavour to meet some of the feelings which they might reasonably entertain, and although it might bear the imputation of egotism, he would venture to state his own conduct upon occasions connected with them. He had laid the first stone of the college of Maynooth, a seminary felt by the Catholics to be essential, and consented to, and carried into execution, by the English government, as a measure of conciliation. He had thought it so then, though he was not quite confident it had worked well.

Their lordships might not know, that the only two Catholic Peers which have been created by his late majesty had been recommended by him; that he had recommended Catholics to be baronets, and had employed them officially, as far as the law allowed him; and he was not afraid to say, at this distance of time, that although sent to counteract a favourite measure of theirs, he became, by his conduct, even popular with them. He acted upon the conviction, that the loyalty and good conduct of the Catholics deserved every consideration, which the then state of things enabled them to receive.

He thought it due to the Catholics also to say, that during the troubles, and particularly at the time of Hoche's attempted invasion, the persons of that persuasion showed the utmost spirit and loyalty, and aided, in every possible manner, the government and the country. In proof of this opinion entertained at the time, he would read Extracts of a Letter from himself, as lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the duke of Portland then Secretary of state;— January 10th, 1797—At the time the army was ordered to March the weather was unusually severe, I therefore ordered them a proportion of spirits on their route, and I directed an allowance of 4d. per day to their wives until their return. During their march, the utmost attention was paid to them by the inhabitants of the towns and villages through which they passed, so that, in many places, the meat provided by the commissariat was unconsumed, and the poor people shared their potatoes with the army, and dressed their meat. The roads, which had in many places become unpassable by the snow, were cleared by the peasants. In short, the good disposition in the south and south west was so prevalent, that have no doubt, had the enemy landed, their hopes of assistance from the inhabitants would have been totally disappointed. Many prominent examples of individual loyalty have appeared, and an useful impression was made upon the minds of the lower Catholics, by a judicious address from Dr. Moylan, the titular bishop of Cork, and I cannot but notice the exertions of lord Kenmare, who spared no expense or exertion in giving assistance to the commanding officers in his neighbourhood, and took into his demesne a great quantity of cattle which had been drawn from the coast.

Not that he confined his praises to the Catholics alone, Dissenters and all descriptions vied with each other in demonstrations of devotion to the country, and loyalty of spirit, and their lordships had little idea of the universal good feeling on that occasion.

The noble marquis proceeded to state his own decided opinion to be, that the concessions to the Catholics could not take place whilst the countries were separate; but, as a confirmation of what were his opinions as to Catholic emancipation before the Union, he would read to their lordships an extract of a Letter, which he had written to Mr. Pitt on June 1st, 1797:— With regard to Ireland, a part of the empire which will give you, and whoever may succeed you, more trouble and anxiety than any other portion of it, believe me, there is, at present, no system to be pursued but that of endeavouring to crush the rebellion which subsists in it. The Dissenters of the north are Republicans, and seriously and systematically are pursuing that object. The Catholics are jealous of English influence, and no concessions ought to be made to them whilst the kingdoms are separate. There is a measure which can alone render this country and Ireland so united, that it should be an advantage to it, instead of a point dreadfully vulnerable in all future wars:I mean a Union.—Never suffer Catholic emancipation to be conceded in a hurry, or as an expedient to procure temporary relief. The other concessions were so made to the Catholics; but after an Union, such concession may be made a measure of general conciliation. I cannot conclude this letter without giving you my opinion upon our actual situation in Ireland. I have great confidence in the army, a change is taking place in the minds of the gentry, who are in sonic degree relieved from the system of terror which had been infused, and the rebels in their turn, are becoming alarmed.

Their lordships must see by the letters he had read, how decidedly adverse he was before the Union, to concessions to the Catholics, and that his opinion was recorded as to the policy of granting such concessions after it.

When he returned from Ireland his majesty directed that he should be called to his councils, and he was amongst the very few now alive, who resigned office in 1801. The six persons who left the king's service then were Mr. Pitt, lord Grenville, lord Spencer, Mr. Dundas, Mr, Windham, and lord Camden. He felt this was a subject of the utmost delicacy to touch upon, but if he was not correct, his noble friend and connexion (Spencer) now present would correct him.

At the period of that great and momentous measure, "The Union with Ireland," it most undoubtedly entered into the minds of those who had considered it, that civil disabilities, as respecting the Catholics, should be removed. He distinctly stated there was no pledge given. He would state there was more than expectation excited amongst the Catholics [hear from lord Spencer]. But, even before the measure could be matured; even before it could be brought forward and stated by him who was to carry it through—fears and alarms were entertained in that quarter where, more especially, favour was desirable and necessary; and, without entering into further particulars it became the duty of those persons who resigned in 1801, of whom he (marquis Camden) was one, to retire from the king's service. If, in retiring, they, or a part of them, determined not to agitate the question, or to concur in carrying it forward, the expectations of the Catholics might have been disappointed. He (marquis Camden) could not prevent that feeling, but he was determined not to harass a conscientious mind, and, during the life of his late majesty, he always voted that the question should not be then put.

Since that time, it had been carried in the House of Commons, and it had been decided by a majority of 139 in 1822, that the question should be taken into consideration in the succeeding session of parliament. It had been lost in the House of Lords; but, in the last instance, only by a majority of one: in the other instance by a considerable majority.

Was it surprising that, under all these circumstances, the Catholics should have shewn impatience? Was it not to be forgiven, if some imprudence had taken place? Indeed, very lately they had been most imprudent, not to use a stronger word; and he assured their lordships, that he was one of the most strenuous in advising the measure of putting down the late Association. He had even entertained doubts whether, so soon after the language uttered in that Association, he would support the present bill; but, upon reflection he would not suffer the ebullitions which imprudently then escaped the lips of ardent minds, to prevent his doing what he conceived to be his duty. He therefore, had determined to support the present bill.

With respect to the bill itself, the noble marquis (lord Camden) stated, that taking it altogether, he approved it, through there were circumstances which he wished otherwise; but, he supported it as drawn, as he wished to see mutual confidence, if possible, established.

In the common and daily occurrences of life there was, in the present state of things, coldness and jealousy between Protestants and Catholics; and even in the concerns of every parish, they would hardly meet to join in the acts of charity so essential, not only to the comfort but to the existence of the poorer classes. The noble marquis protested, that he looked only to any of the Catholic opinions as till could affect the state. If a man believed in transubstantiation was he a worse civil subject? If he invoked saints, was he less to be trusted? If he believed in the doctrines of purgatory, did that opinion influence his conduct as a good subject? The influence of a foreign power was alone the objection; but, the best informed of the Catholics said, they fell that they owe the pope only spiritual authority. They are ready to swear to act loyally and faithfully to the king, and in temporal matters do not conceive that they owe any allegiance to papal authority.

Under these circumstances, the bill should have his support. He looked to it as a measure to heal differences and to restore confidence, without it he thought other measures would prove defective, and the real strength of Ireland be crippled and weakened.

He had a real and genuine affection towards the Irish people. They had treated him with the utmost confidence and kindness, He had passed, when abstracted from the cares which the mo mentous times allowed him, some of the happiest hours of his life in Ireland. He looked with intense interest to the improvement of that country; he thought this measure would have that end; and he therefore heartily supported the bill.

The Earl of Darnley said, he cordially agreed with most of what had fallen from the noble marquis who had just sat down; and more especially in his opinion, that the present was peculiarly the time at which their lordships were called upon to grant to the Roman Catholics the full enjoyment of their civil rights. With regard to what had fallen from the noble and gallant marquis behind him, he was sure he should have the unanimous concurrence of their lordships, that whatever might be their opinion of the noble marquis's sentiments, there could be no difference of opinion with respect to the temperate manner in which he had expressed them. The noble marquis was, however, the last man whose conduct should be influenced, as it appeared to be, by the fear of being thought afraid; for the menacing courage attributed by him to the Roman Catholics of Ireland was the only reason he could urge for the change of opinion he had adopted with regard to them, and for taking up at once a hostile position against them. He regretted that his noble friend had brought his military ideas to bear upon this question; but he had better consider, whether whatever skill he may take at this position he may not ultimately be turned and compelled to retreat. The loyalty of the Roman Catholics of Ireland was undoubted; and whatever intemperance of language they might occasionally have indulged in, ought in justice to them, to be ascribed to the irritation which the denial of their rights had excited. Were he himself a Catholic, he should probably express himself in warm terms on the subject.—During the whole of his parliamentary life he had supported the claims of the Catholics; he had never heard an argument that appeared to him to be of the least cogency against those claims; and he sincerely regretted that the noble and gallant marquis had employed his talents in opposition to a cause which was one of justice, humanity, and policy. There might have been something in the language of a portion of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which one would wish not to have heard; but when the circumstances under which that body were situated were taken into consideration, every allowance ought to be made. It was not to be forgotten what irritating language was expressed against them. Yet when the legislature had decided that the Catholic Association should be suppressed, with an immediate forbearance—a forbearance which was the characteristic of the Irish Roman Catholics, under all their sufferings—they at once submitted to the decree of the legislature, and in so doing gave an additional proof of their loyalty and attachment to the Constitution.

His noble and gallant friend had in his speech commented upon the want of gratitude which the Irish Roman Catholics had manifested, subsequently to every act of legislative concession. He had heard such an imputation with surprise; and he was at a loss to discover on what facts such a charge rested. He defied his noble and gallant friend to cite an instance of such conduct. Nay, more; he would venture to assert, that legislative favours were uniformly received by the Catholic body with unqualified gratitude. He did not see at that moment in his place the lord Privy Seal, otherwise he should appeal to him to give a most conclusive answer to the imputation of his noble and gallant friend. The noble earl (Westmorland) was lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1793. And here he must be allowed to state, in answer to that imputation, the history and character of those concessions which were granted to the Catholics in the subsequent years. In 1792, the prayer of the Catholics was refused; but in the year after, when the country was engaged in a war with France—when dangers from without presented themselves in a threatening form, those concessions, refused the year before, were recommended to the Irish parliament in a speech from the Throne, and passed by a great majority. Such was the history of the concessions of that period; and again he would repeat that they were received with the unqualified gratitude of the Irish Catholics [hear, head!]. But he begged the House to bear in mind that they were now called upon to act under peculiarly favourable circumstances, and he would consequently recommend on principles of mere policy, to extend those concessions at a period not of war, but of peace, when the country stood happily prominent in character and glory, in the enjoyment of political and maritime strength, and not to wait to do that which, a season of calamity would undoubtedly demand [hear, hear!]. The question now stood an different grounds from any other period. It presented itself in a different attitude; inasmuch as they had now before them a mass of information on which he would take upon himself to say, their lordships, and the people of England stood much in need; for on all subjects connected with Ireland the ignorance of all classes in this country was very remarkable. He had the honour originally, to move for the appointment of the committee. It was then refused, but subsequently agreed to, and no man would venture to deny that the greatest benefit had resulted from the investigation. Their lordships had now before them the unimpeachable testimony of numerous witnesses on their oaths, acquainted with the precise and local circumstances, stated fairly and honestly in the face the world. When, therefore, the noble lord (Colchester) asserted that the whole of the declarations and efforts of the Roman Catholics was a mere pretence to assist them in obtaining the powerand property of the established church, he met that assertion by referring the noble lord to the undoubted testimony of respectable men of that persuasion, who on their oaths declared the contrary. It was not necessary for him to bear testimony to the character of Mr.O' Connell and Dr. Doyle; but, most persuaded he was, that if the latter had the good fortune to have been bred in that pure faith of the Protestant church which their lordships professed, he would not, from his piety and learning, disgrace the right reverend bench, which he (lord Darnley) saw before him [hear, hear!].

The evidence of these two distinguished individuals had, however, been objected to, because it was stated to be at variance with speeches addressed to a popular assembly by the one, an opinion given in writing by the other. But admitting the fairness of this objection, and looking only to their evidence on oath which he could not doubt, he would pass by their testimony, and call their lordships attention to a passage in the evidence of a legal Catholic gentleman, examined before the committee—he meant Mr. Blake, whose testimony could not, on any grounds, be called in question; who possessed the full confidence of the marquis of Wellesley; and who, in his evidence as to the effect of the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, declared, that it was his conviction that instead of weakening, it would strengthen the Protestant establishment of Ireland. If that effect was not to follow, he, as a Roman Catholic, would never wish to see it effected; because, he did believe, that the security of that Protestant establishment was great link in the chain that secured the connexion of Great Britain and Ireland; and that connexion he considered as one of the best guarantees of the happiness and prosperity of the latter country [hear, hear!]. To the obsolete and often refuted charges against Roman Catholics, he (lord Darnley) offered the plain, unequivocal testimony of living witnesses. Would their lordships feel satisfied to legislate on arguments, drawn from the councils of the Lateran and Trent, and shut their eyes to such evidence as was had from the most respectable sources before them. It would be most monstrous to legislate on apprehensions of such a nature, in opposition to such evidence, unless they were prepared to go the length of disbelieving a Roman Catholic or his oath, which was professed by some persons. To those he had nothing to say; but he would appeal from them to the great and enlightened portion of the British community [hear, hear!]

The noble lord (Colchester) had drawn an exaggerated picture of the amount of power which the removal of these disabilities would confer upon the Roman Catholics supposing, notwithstanding they solemnly disclaimed it themselves, and in spite of the utter and manifest improbability of so hopeless an attempt, they should be disposed to abuse it. But supposing that the admission to the privileges of the constitution should make them anxious to attempt its subversion, how were they to effect their purpose? To begin with this House, to which the noble lord adverted. The effect of passing the bill would undoubtedly be to admit the captain the duke of Norfolk, and his colleague the earl of Shrewsbury, and about half a dozen brother conspirators to sit and vote there. If any thing should be proposed or attempted, hostile to the Protestant establishment, that compact body heavily armedin lawn hesaw opposite to him which would be alone sufficient to overthrow them; but there was, besides, the main body beaded by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, to say nothing of the small but active corps de reserve of honest men with the noble duke (of Newcastle) at their head. In tie House of Commons the relative numbers would be nearly in the same proportion, for as long as property was the basis of representation—and he trusted it would long continue so—the proportion of Roman Catholics, even from Ireland, would be very small; besides which if you pass the present bill at this auspicious moment, in the true spirit of conciliation, it will soon cease to be a question to what religion a man belongs in either House of Parliament. With regard to eligibility to high office, what possible danger to the Protestant establishment could ever arise from the rare occurrence of the merits of some Roman Catholic, recommending him to the favour of an essentially Protestant king, with his conscience in the keeping of an essentially Protestant chancellor.

Much stress had been laid on the number of petitions presented to that House; he was ready to admit their number and their strength, but he begged to call the attention of their lordships to the petitions in favour of the measure. They had before them the petitions of the Catholics of Ireland, a body in possession of that property which was, and he trusted ever would be, the basis of political power in this country. There were next the petitions of a considerable body of the Protestant proprietory of Ireland, who demanded the accomplishment of that great measure of union as the great foundation of the growing prosperity and permanent security of Ireland. But then, opposed to those petitions in favour, were the counter-petitions got up by that great parliamentary reformer, the noble lord on the Woolsack, who seemed disposed to appeal from their representations in the House of Commons to the people; and if not got up, which they had disclaimed, at least influenced by the example of the clergy. Of these latter petitions he should say, that though they were numerous, there were not many from Scotland, and scarcely one from any convened public meeting in England. Indeed, wherever a public meeting was assembled, the decision counteracted the objects of those who called it together. It was true that a very voluminous petition had been that evening presented from the cities of London and Westminster, against further concessions to the Catholics; but he would ask, where was the occasion or the question on which a petition could not be procured numerously signed by sonic portion of those populous cities? Indeed, he believed, that if a petition was got up, praying to remove even the noble lord on the Woolsack from his office, a very large part of that population would be procured to give their signatures [hear, hear and a laugh]. From Ireland, where the prejudices against the question might be supposed to prevail, and where the effects, if the measure was passed, would be most powerfully felt, no great number of anti-Catholic petitions had been presented. Thank God, a very different spirit was springing up in Ireland. The Protestants of that country felt justly, that things could not go on in their present state. It was with pleasure and pride that he saw a person connected with him by the nearest and dearest ties taking the lead on this occasion (Mr. Brownlow), and possessing great influence in Ireland, act upon that impression, giving up former prepossessions, and with such effect affording his support to the present bill [hear, hear!]

It was impossible that the question should remain as it now presented itself. There was not, he believed, a single individual who knew any thing of Ireland who could lay his hand upon his heart and declare that he believed it possible that things could continue there in their present state—what then will you do? Will you recede? and will you, as advised by a witness who has been examined by the committee re-enact some part of the penal code that has been relaxed? If not, you must go on. But by acceding to the present demand of policy and justice the empire would acquire a tower of strength in the undivided affections of the people of Ireland. The power of England was now great; her position in the world most imposing; her character, undoubtedly, most high. That was the time, above all others, for conciliating Ireland. Was it not more consonant with that power and character to rule that country by the affections of the people than by an army of 25,000 men? Such a force would, no doubt, preserve Ireland at present. But at a period when peace had been preserved for a considerable time, would it not be wise to prepare for future contention by placing a just reliance in the warm hearts and strong arms of the Irish people? If their lordships were disposed to trifle with those feelings at the present moment, a time would probably arrive, when they would be unable to keep that country as an integral, at least as an useful member of the empire. Circumstances at present recommended most strongly the adoption of that just and salutary measure. Circumstances had recently occurred to which he would not now particularly allude, which rendered the immediate adoption of the measure most desirable, and others might unhappily arise when those favourable recommendations might change their character, and difficulties interpose. He, therefore, sincerely hoped, that their lordships would accomplish at present that great consummation which the Commons of the United Kingdom solicited at their bar.

The Earl of Longford

observed, that living constantly among a Roman Catholic population, regarding them highly as individuals, and respecting them as a body collectively, it would be readily imagined that he was most anxious to meet the views of the Roman Catholics of Ireland with as much favour as any man. But after very mature consideration, he could not bring himself to think that this bill would answer the sanguine expectations of those by whom it had been introduced into parliament, or that it was a measure that could be put into execution without manifest danger to the constitution. In giving his most decided opposition to this measure, he begged at the same time distinctly to state, that he was actuated by no spirit of hostility to the Roman Catholics. But, while he repeated that he held them in very high regard, he must take leave to say, that he could not at all see why they were to be admitted to a participation with Protestants of certain civil rights and political power in a free Protestant country. It had been rather imputed to those who, like himself, were unfriendly to such admission, that they wished to visit with penal consequences their peculiar doctrines: but he desired to observe, that they did not in any degree wish to interfere with the religious opinions, nor did they at all presume to measure the speculative tenets, or to regulate the doctrines of the Roman Catholics; but they were determined that the Roman Catholics should not interfere with theirs. The reason of their refusal of such admission was founded upon the political consequences that would follow upon their assent—political consequences that always had ensued, and that in his conscience he believed always would ensue, upon conceding those privileges to Roman Catholics which were now claimed by them. Those consequences led to the perpetual interference of the papal au- thority and influence, nominally in spiritual affairs alone, but actually in the general transactions and ordinary business of life. It had been deposed, indeed, by witnesses examined before their lordships, and by others, that that interference was strictly confined to spiritual matters and doctrine; but, how and by whom was the line to be drawn that was to separate—in the judgment of a Roman Catholic for example—spiritual from temporal affairs? How could it be supposed that he who exercised an undoubted and unresisted influence in the one would not exert it in the other? Or that the power which guided a man's conduct in regard to spiritual things would abstain from directing it in respect to temporal ones? He was of opinion that the Roman Catholic priesthood were able to lead the people with great facility; and their own constitution was well calculated ever to respect the supremacy of Rome. The commands of the superior to the inferior admitted of no dispute; while the principle of subjection in the inferior was as clearly defined as the right of the superior to his obedience. If they were to be emancipated, therefore, from the acknowledgment of that control recognized by our constitution, while they continued subject to the papal orders transmitted through their own clergy, to admit to a participation of civil. and political privileges those who still refused so to acknowledge a control which was submitted to by our own church, would be to put the Roman Catholic clergy on a higher footing than our own; and more especially when, if he was rightly informed, that control had been submitted to in other countries and cases. Under these circumstances, he could not think that the preamble of this bill was fairly worded: it contained a part of the truth, but not the whole truth. It was entitled "A bill for the removal of the disqualifications under which his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour—' Whereas the Protestant succession to the imperial crown of this united kingdom and its dependencies, is, by the act for the further limitation of the crown,,and the better securing the liberties of the subject, established permanently and inviolably.'" But, there should have been added something to this effect:— "An act to admit and invest certain dignitaries and others of the Roman Catholic persuasion to and with political and civil privileges, which all experience had with- drawn from Protestant dignitaries and others of the same station, except on submission to a certain control; from all obedience to which, such Roman Catholics are hereby exempted." In short, to grant them those privileges while they continued to deny our control, would be virtually, to put them in a better situation than the members of our own church. He also excepted to the bill, on account of the power which the Catholic priesthood would exercise and did exercise over their flocks, to an extent greatly beyond direction in matters affecting their spiritual welfare. He knew, indeed, that among the Catholic clergy there were many honourable exceptions to this description of them. He had nothing to oppose to the praises which had been bestowed upon them by noble lords who had spoken before him. But they were not to eulogise individuals: their business was legislation. He would ask, if they were to admit the Roman Catholic body to the highest places in the constitution, what was to guarantee the Protestant establishment? By the law none were admissible to offices of political trust, but those whose allegiance was perfected. Of all the dissenters from the establishment, he knew of none whose allegiance was of necessity imperfect, except the Roman Catholics. Standing in the peculiar relation to us which they did, in what light must they regard us? What must be the feeling of a really conscientious Roman Catholic (for it was useless to take notice of any other) towards the national church establishment? They were to consider in this question what had been done by the Protestants Were not these dissenters from their faith usurpers of the authority of their creed; despoilers of the property of their church? In what other light could they look upon us? We were voluntary seceders from them, as the other dissenters were from the national establishment. They did not willingly nor without considerable struggles separate from our corps. There was nothing in principle, in Christian-like feeling, in policy or expediency, which required them to make those concessions, or for-bad their refusal of them., A noble lord who had preceded him, had said, it was time for them to divest themselves of their prejudices; but surely that noble lord must feel that on questions of this kind, upon which men had been accustomed to hear particular opinions stated from their earliest infancy, it was impossible they should be altogether free from prejudice and bias. He was far indeed from speaking of those men who entertained those prejudices with a feeling of censure; they were frequently the bond of parental, filial, and conjugal connections, and every other tie that bound man to man in relationship and friendship; and those feelings reflected the highest honour on men in private life, and rendered them the most amiable and estimable men in society. But, let it be remembered, that those prejudices were not all on one side. Much might be said about the eradicating of prejudices; but he thought it would be a dangerous experiment. You might extinguish a particular religion, but were you sure you could extirpate prejudice? As to what were called the just rights of the Catholics, he could not understand it; for he denied that the interests of the many should ever be sacrificed to the few. Expediency was sometimes talked of as a ground for conceding this measure; but that word had latterly been supplanted by another —necessity, which had been defined to be nothing short of a general threatening. This appeared to him to be unfounded in fact. If he thought it had the least foundation, it would be with him an additional reason for resisting any thing like concession; but, as he had no such impression, he should be sorry to attribute such an opinion to the Catholics. But, when this necessity was talked of, it reminded one of the tone adopted by the old Irish chieftains, a form of expression less lengthy and more expressive certainly than we heard now: "you owe me a tribute, and if you don't"—[a laugh]. But, setting those considerations aside, the question for them was, since the restrictions were imposed, had the country advanced or gone back? Was it not at a pitch of prosperity, wealth, and glory, which were never equalled in ancient or modern history? Let them consider the power, capabilities, and resources, which had developed themselves in this little contracted spot of the earth's surface—not the fruits of extraordinary individual talents; but the slow and gradual growth of ages, during which the oppressed Catholics, as they were called, had enjoyed, in common with their Protestant brethren, the fruits of those councils from which, for their own advantage as well as ours; they had been excluded. With this fact of the constant progressive improvement of the country under a Protestant establishment and constitution, he was very averse to any thing like innovation; and it required the strongest force of reasoning to convince him that a change in any degree was desirable. Until some more striking facts or arguments were brought forward, he would stand by that system under which all our greatness and prosperity had been made. Indeed, he doubted whether any circumstances could change his opinion; but he was unwilling to give such a pledge, particularly when they saw the strange things that were passing around them every day; but; he could not anticipate any change of circumstances which would justify the constitution of a free state in admitting the Catholics to the participation of political power. When he heard the recommendations of noble peers to make an innovation in the constitution, he was reminded of what he once saw upon a tombstone, "I was well; I would be better—and here I am" He would say, that there was no principle which ought to be more adhered to than the union of church and state. They had gone on strengthening and supporting each other; but the measure proposed was calculated to produce a schism in them. He believed that those who recommended this measure were sincere in their opinions of its necessity; and without attributing any want of sincerity to them, he must say, that he could not contemplate it in the same light that they did. An argument had been put forth that evening, namely,that the measure had come recommended to them by the decision of the House of Commons. He was far from saying that this was not a strong recommendation; but amongst the valuable privileges of the House of Peers, none was more important on the one hand, than to assist in the accomplishment of any measure which would be beneficial to the country, and on the other, when a measure was not beneficial, to arrest it in its progress. He thought it would become the House manfully to declare that this bill ought not to pass, and that they would therefore reject it. But, in support of the bill in the other House, they had a mere trifling hesitating majority—not the fair decision of that great council of the nation, nor the unequivocal declaration of their opinion. And would their lordships be jus- tified in passing a measure which did not appear to be the sense of the country, and barely the sense of the House of Commons? It had been also said this was an auspicious time. It appeared to him quite the reverse. The attention of the country from the highest to the lowest, had been engrossed with the consideration of this question; and whatever might be the decision of that night, it was impossible to suppose that it would not occupy their deep attention for some time to come. According to the provisions of the constitution, the time could not be far distant when the sense of the country might be taken in the most direct manner upon this subject. They would then know with tolerable exactness how to appreciate that increase of converts, as they had been called, to the Catholic cause. They would then see if they were justified in taking the sense of that boasted majority for the sense of the country. He thought not. Protestant security required Protestant ascendancy. Concessions to the Roman Catholics could not follow, because the right to them did not exist—justice did not exact them—expediency lid not require them—the public prosperity could not be increased by granting them—and they were quite incompatible with that Protestant ascendancy, which was necessary for the well-being of the empire.

The Bishop of Llandaffrose

and said:—^*

My lords;—It is not without considerable reluctance that I rise to address your lordships on the present occasion. I am well aware of the animadversions to be expected by any one who ventures to oppose such a measure as that which is now under our consideration; a measure, in many respect, plausible and attractive; a measure, calculated to make impression not only on unwary and inconsiderate minds, but on some of the best feelings of our nature; a measure also, which comes to us under the sanction of the other House of Parliament, and advocated by persons of the highest talent and consideration. But, my lords, these very circumstances powerfully operate upon my mind, not to shrink from declaring my sentiments, on a matter in which the interests of our religious as well as our civil establishments appear to me to be so deeply involved. I shall endeavour, how- ^* From the original edition printed for C. and J. Rivington. ever, to be as brief as possible in my observations, that I may not detain your lordships longer than I can well avoid from listening to those who may have a stronger claim to your attention.

My lords, if this were a question merely of expediency, a question solely as to the balance of advantages and disadvantages, of conveniences and inconveniences, likely to result from the proposed measure, I might be less disposed to take a part in the discussion. But if the benefits to be expected from it cannot be obtained without the sacrifice of some essential principles of our Protestant constitution and government; then, however desirable those benefits may appear (to me, I own, they appear exceedingly dubious and problematical), I must consider the proposal as one which it becomes not the legislature to adopt.

Now, with respect to the principles to be maintained in this discussion, I conceive, my lords, that I have a right to assume them as points not to be called in question. They have, in fact, been conceded by the advocates of the measure, in former debates; and they are moreover distinctly and expressly recognized in the very preamble of the bill. The preamble sets forth, that the Protestant succession, and the Protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland are established permanently and inviolably. Here is a direct acknowledgment, not only that some religious establishment is essential to the constitution, but also that it shall be Protestant and episcopal.

Assuming this, therefore, as the basis of the whole inquiry, we come to the main question, on what grounds are Roman Catholics excluded from certain privileges and favours granted to other members of the community?

To this question, my lords, I answer, that they are not excluded merely on account of their theological tenets; they are not excluded for holding the doctrines of transubstantiation, of the invocation of saints, the worship of images, or any other points in their creed or ritual, which we deem to be errors and corruptions of Christianity. These are not, properly speaking, the disqualifications under which they labour, nor the true ground of those disabilities which the legislature has thought fit to impose upon them. The real and only ground of their exclusion is this;— that they are (what they do not choose to call themselves), Papists. My lords, I beg it may be distinctly understood, that I do not mean to use this term as a term of reproach, nor with the slightest intention to give offence. I have too high a respect for the general body of the Roman Catholics, to intend any such thing. But it is necessary, it is unavoidable, in the course of argument I have to pursue, that this their fixed and (I believe) unalterable characteristic should be kept in view. If, therefore, I should happen to use the terms popery and papist more frequently than I may wish to do, or than may be acceptable to many who hear me, I trust it will be excused. I certainly will endeavour to abstain from them as far as circumstances will permit.

What then, is the distinguishing feature of the real papist? It is, my lords, the acknowledgment of the pope's supremacy,—the acknowledgment, that, in certain respects, the pope has an authority over the whole Christian world; and, consequently, that in whatever country, or under whatever government, the members of the church of Rome are placed, they owe to him, as their supreme head, a special allegiance, and are bound, by an obligation paramount to all others, to render him homage and obedience.

To what extent this authority takes place, is another question. There have been times when it was claimed and exercised, as extending both to spiritual and temporal concerns. The power, however, which the popes formerly asserted over temporal concerns, it may be said, has long since died away, and ought not now to be taken into the account. It is true, indeed, that no direct assumption of this power has of late been attempted; and, hence, it is often alleged, that the pretended right is become obsolete, if not extinct. Nor am I unwilling, my lords, to argue as if it were so. Only let me be allowed to observe, that, even to this day, it has never been formally repealed, never authoritatively disclaimed. So long as the decrees of the Council of Trent continue to be the standard of papal pretensions, and that council recognises the authority of anterior councils, this asserted prerogative remains virtually in force. However dormant, it is not absolutely extinct; and were times and circumstances to permit its revival, the authority would still not be wanting to give it effect.

But, my lords, setting aside this part of the pretensions of the papal see, it will suffice for my present purpose to confine our attention to its alleged supremacy in spiritual matters. This is, perhaps, the most important part of the inquiry, attempts being continually made to represent this spiritual supremacy as not involving any temporal interests, and, consequently, not interfering in any degree with the legitimate powers of the state.

My lords, of all fallacies none appears to me more palpable, more egregious, than that which regards spiritual authority as altogether unconnected with temporal, Theoretically, indeed, they are distinct; but practically, in most cases, it is hardly possible to disunite them. Like the soul and body (I am using Bellarmine's illustration, my lords, not my own);—like the soul and body, though each have special qualities and special interests of its own, yet they act one upon the other by mutual co-operation, and affect each other by mutual influence. It may be easy to say, this is a spiritual right, and that a temporal right; this is an exercise of civil power, and that of ecclesiastical:—but when you come to apply these to individual cases, they will be found so blended together, as to render their separation always difficult, sometimes impracticable. And this is in reality the main foundation of that alliance between church and state, which exists in almost every well-constituted government, and which sustains the fabric of the British constitution.

I contend, then, my lords, that if the spiritual authority be exercised, to its full extent, by a power distinct from that of the state, and assuming to itself a supremacy in that respect, it must, so far, become a direct infringement upon the temporal authority of the Sovereign. But if it be said, that, even in this respect, the supremacy arrogated by the pope over individuals of other states than his own, is become so mitigated, or so diminished, as no longer to give just cause of alarm or offence; then it will be necessary, in order to judge rightly of this, that we examine somewhat more particularly in what this spiritual supremacy actually consists.

Spiritual power, my lords, is twofold; and the two parts of which it is composed have been clearly defined by one of the most distinguished ornaments of our episcopal bench, whom many of your lordships must have often heard in this House with admiration and delight;—I mean, bishop Horsley. In a speech on the subject we are now discussing, that eminent prelate remarked the just and proper distinction between the "Power of Order" and the "Power of Jurisdiction;" both appertaining to spiritual authority, but "quite distinct, and of distinct origin." The power of order, my lords, is simply and purely spiritual, and can emanate from none but a spiritual authority. It is that power which confers the capability of exercising spiritual functions; or, in other words, qualifies a person to minister in sacred things. This power the sovereign, the temporal ruler of the state, being a layman, cannot possibly confer. He has it not himself, and therefore cannot communicate it to others. It originates in another and a higher source. And this is all that properly belongs to the power of order. The power of jurisdiction goes much further than this. It extends to the entire government of the ecclesiastical body, to the appointment of particular persons to exercise spiritual functions throughout the state, to the rules and regulations by which they shall be directed, to their respective remunerations according to the stations they hold in the ministry, in short, to every thing which, in ecclesiastical, no less than in civil polity, it is the duty of the legislative and executive government of the country to provide, for the general benefit of the community.

Now, it is manifest, my lords, that this latter power, though spiritual in its purpose and effect, cannot be exercised by any other authority than that of the state, much less by any foreign power, without a palpable interference with that authority; neither can it be carried into effect without a perceptible and powerful influence upon men's temporal interests.

It is, however, asserted, that the power claimed in modern times, by the see of Rome, is nothing more than that which belongs to the church only, and which has been expressly disclaimed by the sovereigns of this country, as a part of their prerogative. Let us examine into the accuracy of this assertion.

The true line of distinction I apprehend, my lords, to be this:—spiritual functions belong exclusively to the church; spiritual jurisdiction belongs to the state, as allied to the church, and although exercised by the church, is derived from the state. Nowhere, perhaps, has this distinction been more clearly or strongly marked, than in the 37th article of our church, and in queen Elizabeth's injunctions, which may be considered as decisive upon the point. The Puritans, it is well known, took offence at the assertion of the regal supremacy in spiritual concerns; misconceiving, as it appears, or misrepresenting, its real intent and meaning. To quiet such scruples, and at the same time to re-assert the doctrine in its full and proper sense, the 37th article declares as follows:— The queen's majesty bath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes, doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.—Where we attribute to the queen's majesty the chief government (by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended), we give not to our princes ministering either of God's word, or of the sacraments: the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth, our queen, do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes, in holy scriptures, by God himself, i. e. that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.—The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

Here, my lords, nothing is disclaimed, on the part of the sovereign, but that which, it is manifest, cannot appertain to any temporal power, the right of exercising spiritual functions. And what are those functions? "The ministering either of God's word, or of the sacraments." The sovereign, though supreme head both of church and state, cannot take upon himself to preach, to baptize, to administer the Eucharist, to ordain, to confirm, or to consecrate. These are offices purely and exclusively spiritual: and queen Elizabeth rejects the very supposition of their belonging to the sovereign as a slanderous construction of her asserted claim to supremacy. But she still maintains, and abates nothing of her title to supreme jurisdiction; nor will allow any states of the realm, whether ecclesiastical or civil, to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. Her authority is declared (as had been more fully set forth in her injunctions, twelve years before), to extend to " all manner of persons born within these her realms, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or tem- poral, soever they be; so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them." Thus do the injunctions and articles agree together; and from both is drawn the conclusion, that '' That the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England:"— no jurisdiction, my lords, of any kind.

My lords, I think it clearly follows from hence, that, according to the fundamental principles of our Protestant constitution, no subject can be considered as paying full and undivided allegiance to the sovereign, whose notions of the regal supremacy do not come up to this standard. If spiritual jurisdiction or authority, in whatever degree, be acknowledged as the right of some other potentate, that, whether it be more or less, is so much subtracted from the supreme authority claimed, and justly claimed, by the head of the state; and the subject who is placed in such a predicament can pay only a divided allegiance to his rightful sovereign; an allegiance, which, however sincere and faithful as far as it extends, is avowedly imperfect in this respect; and, consequently, curtails his right to the same favour and privileges, the same degree of trust and power, which others may enjoy who submit to the state without any such reservations or restrictions.

That the Roman Catholics actually stand in this predicament, cannot surely be denied. I have already adverted to Bellarmine's opinion on this subject, and which he states to have been the commonly received opinion in his day: and your lordships will recollect that Bellarmine was not in the best odour with the see of Rome, his notions of the papal prerogatives not being sufficiently high to reach the views there entertained of the pope's supremacy. His doctrine, my lords, (and he gives it as a moderated opinion between two extremes) is this:— That the Pope, as Pope, has not directly and immediately any temporal, but only a spiritual power; nevertheless, that by reason of the spiritual, he has, at least, indirectly, a certain power, and that supreme, in temporals:"—" That the power of the Pope is indeed properly, in itself, and directly, spiritual; but that by it he can dispose of the temporal things of all christians, when that is required for the end of the spiritual power, to which the ends of all temporal powers are subordinate; for though he has no merely temporal power, yet he has, in ordine ad bonum spirituale, the highest power over temporals." Again;— "The spiritual power does not mix itself in temporal concerns, but suffers all things to proceed, as before the union, so long as they do not oppose the spiritual end, or be not necessary to obtain it. But if any thing of this sort occurs, the spiritual can, and ought to coerce the temporal, by any way or means which shall seem necessary for its purpose."*—This exposition needs no comment.

But, my lords, how stands this matter in the present day? Will the Roman Catholic subjects of these realms be content to acknowledge the king's supremacy "in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil?" Will they allow that the Pope has no spiritual jurisdiction within these realms? Will the Pope himself relinquish his claim to appoint the clergy, and to rule them? Will he forego his superintendance over them in their respective diocesan or pastoral characters, or surrender such points as may interfere with the jurisprudence of this country? My lords, I hardly need say, that hitherto no symptom of a disposition to do this has appeared, either in the Pope himself, or in those who are ^* "Tertia sententia media, et Catholicorum Theologorum communis, pontificem, ut pontificem, non habere directè et immediatè ullam temporalem potestatem, sed solùm spiritualem; tamen ratione spiritualis habere saltem indirectè potestatem quandam, eamque summam, in temporalibus."—Bellarmin de Potest. Pontif. 1. 5, c.1.—" Potestatem summipontificis propriè, per se, et directè spiritualem esse, sed per eam disponere posse de rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum, cum id requiritur all finem spiritualis potestatis, cui subordinantur fines temporalium omnium potestatum."—Ibid, c. 5.— "Etsi non habeat ullam merè temporalem potestatem, tamen habere inordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianornm."—Ibid. c. 6.—" "Itaque spiritualis [sc. potestas] non se miscet temporalibus negotiis, sed sinit omnia procedere, sicut antequam essent conjunctæ, dummodo non obsint fini spirituali, ant non sint necessaria ad eum consequendum. Si autem tale quid accidat, spiritualis potestas potest et debet coercere temporalem, omni ratione ac via, quæ ad id necessaria esse videbitur"—Ibid. c. 6. bound in allegiance to him. Again, therefore, I must insist, that theirs can only be a divided allegiance; and that, therefore, they are disqualified for such an extension of privilege, and favours, as may be fairly expected by their fellow-subjects who labour not under similar disqualifications.

I am anxious, however, to fortify myself in these representations by authorities which your lordships may deem unexceptionable. Among those who are commonly reputed to have been what are called high-churchmen, I might name Laud, Stillingfleet, Jeremy Taylor, Leslie the non-juror, Hickes, Atterbury, the two Sherlocks, and bishop Horsley; not to mention a living prelate now near me, who has treated this subject with his wonted learning and ability. All these have (I believe) touched upon the papal supremacy as among the most dangerous errors of the church of Rome.

But these notions, my lords, are not confined to high —church writers; and on the present occasion, I would rather resort to authorities more likely to be well received by the advocates of the proposed concessions to the Roman Catholics; writers, well known to have been zealously attached to the principles of the Revolution, and friendly to the extension of religious liberty. Among these,I would first mention archbishop Wake, whom I remember to have had the gratification of hearing warmly eulogised in this House; an eulogy in which I can, most cordially join. That excellent prelate laboured with great earnestness to effect an union between the English and Gallician Churches; and after a long and patient perseverance in the attempt, had the mortification, to find his endeavours frustrated, and the whole scheme abandoned, in consequence of the interference of the See of Rome, and the impracticability of coming to a right understanding upon this point of the Pope's spiritual authority. Other prelates of the same class were Tillotson, Burnet, and Gibson, all strenuous opposers to Popery, yet sincere advocates of toleration. But I pass over these to call the attention of your lordships to those great writers, Locke and Headley, on whom I have more than once heard the highest encomiums bestowed in this House: and the point, my lords, to which I request your attention, is the sort of estimation in which the Roman Catholics themselves appear to hold these admired friends of religious freedom. For this purpose, we can hardly resort to higher authority than that of Dr, Milner, the oracle of the present day among the English members of the Romish church. These, my lords, are Dr. Milner's sentiments concerning Locke and Hoadley. —"The Socinian Locke, who will not allow of Catholics being tolerated, on the demonstrated false pretext that they cannot tolerate other Christians."—"Bishop Hoadley, who had no religion at all of his own, would not allow the Catholics to enjoy theirs, because he says, no oaths and solemn assurances, no regard to truth, justice, or honour can restrain them. This is the hypocritical plea for the intolerance of a man who was in the constant habit of violating all his oaths and engagements to a church which had raised him to rank and fortune, and who systematically pursued its degradation into his own anti-Christian Socinianism, by professed deceit and treachery." So much, my lords, for the good-will which Papists bear towards writers whom, of all others, their Protestant friends are continually holding up as models of liberality of sentiment.

Together with bishop Hoadley, I might also mention Dr. Sykes and others who distinguished themselves in the Bangorian Controversy, as advocates of bishop Hoadley's sentiments on spiritual and ecclesiastical authority. Dr. Sykes, in particular, wrote a tract with this title;" Enquiry how far Papists ought to be treated here as good subjects: and how far they are chargeable with the tenets commonly imputed to them." It is true, that this and other similar publications came forth at or near the time when the Pretender had raised a rebellion in this country, and much of their weight and influence may be supposed to have been derived from that circumstance. But what I particularly wish to impress upon your lordships is this:—that, to whatever occurrences they might owe their origin, the arguments and mode of reasoning contained in them have little reference to any particular crisis; but turn chiefly, if not entirely, on those fixed and unalterable tenets of Popery, which then bound, and still continues to bind, all Papists in obedience to the holy see. It is, in short, their professing a divided allegiance between the Pope and their Sovereign, that renders them, in the opinion of these writers, absolutely disqualified for places of trust and power in the state.

Descending now to our own times, what do we find to be the present state of Popery, with reference to these points in particular, as well as to other tenets which distinguish it from the Popish church?

My lords, there can hardly, I conceive, be a greater cause of offence to a Roman Catholic, than to question the immutability of his faith. It has ever been the boast of the church of Rome, that its creed is unchangeable, and its authority infallible. Its tenets are, at least, in the present day considered to be conformable with the decrees of the Council of Trent; and consequently may fairly be tried by that standard. And while the catechism of that Council, and the creed of pope Pius the 5th are received as accredited authorities by which the Roman Catholics still abide, we can hardly be accused of misrepresentation in bringing their statements to that test.

In what respect, then, isPoperychanged? It is continually assumed by those who advocate the Roman Catholic claims, that their peculiar tenets are no longer maintained to the same extent, or in the same acceptation as heretofore; but have undergone certain modifications and interpretations, which render them comparatively harmless. Nay, great efforts have been recently made, both by Romish writers and their friends, to show that their doctrines approximate much more towards those of the church of England than is generally supposed to be the case, and have at length approached so nearly to our own, as to present but a shade of difference between them.

My lords, there is nothing new in these attempts. The very same efforts were made long since by Bossuet, and were successfully encountered and overthrown by archbishop Wake. It has often been the policy of the church of Rome to resort to this expedient, both for the purpose of its own vindication, and to facilitate the work of proselytism among Protestants. A fresh instance of this policy has also been brought before us in the examination of certain Roman Catholic prelates before the committees of the two Houses of Parliament on the state of Ireland. A very favourable opportunity then presented itself to them for such a purpose, of which they availed themselves with no inconsiderable skill and ability. Several of the questions put to them appear to have been of that kind which are technically called "leading questions;" such as almost suggested the answers sought for, and such as those who were to furnish the answers might be supposed most willing to give. In this way, nothing was easier than to frame a plausible representation of several articles of the Romish faith, and to give them such a colouring as might readily satisfy those who were possessed of no other information on the subject. Half an hour's cross-examination might greatly have altered the aspect of such evidence, and have placed it in a very different light.

But, my lords, taking this evidence in the most favourable point of view, what is the result? Is any point of the Pope's spiritual supremacy abandoned? Does not Papal infallibility (so far as concerns an absolute submission to the Papal see in matters of faith) remain the same? Is its principle of intolerance renounced? Is it less intent than heretofore upon proselytism? Is its dominion over the consciences of men less absolute than in former times? If in these respects it still presents to us the same features, there is no need to extend the inquiry to other doctrines less immediately affecting the question before us.

To say nothing more on the subject of papal supremacy, let it be remembered, my lords, that the spiritual authority of the church of Rome extends to matters of practice as well as of faith. Such also is the spirit of proselytism she cherishes, that her clergy are bound to it by the most solemn engagements at their ordination; an obligation never imposed upon our own clergy. Above all, my lords, look at the absolute dominion exercised by the Romish bishops and pastors over every individual of their flocks; to which, perhaps, there is nothing parallel in any other Christian community. To instance only in the use of auricular confession, as it is termed; a duty, exacted from every member of their church, and made imperative as to every though, word, and deed, under penalties the most appalling. My lords, it is frightful to think upon the state of subjection in which the whale body of the laity are thus enthralled; and of the unbounded influence thus obtained over them by the priesthood; more especially when connected wish the inviolable secresy imposed on the priest himself, in the discharge of this part of his duty. Of the possible effect of this upon the interests, nay, the very existence of government, we may form some conception, from the evidence given by Dr. Doyle, in. his last examination before your lordships' committee. Being interrogated with respect to the effect of this obligation to secresy, upon that part of the oath of allegiance which requires the subject to disclose to the government any treasonable designs or practices which may come to his knowledge, Dr. Doyle replies, "The secrets communicated in confession, are such as we are supposed to become acquainted with as ministers of the Sacrament of penance; and in that capacity we do not consider ourselves bound, by the oath of allegiance which we take, to reveal secrets committed to us in that way; and as our rite of confession is known to the laws, and oar doctrines with regard to it universally acknowledged to exist in our church, the oath which binds us to discover any treason against the state, or against his majesty, which may come to our knowledge, does not oblige us to reveal any thing with which we may become acquainted in sacramental confession; that is the manner in which we understand the clause of the oath."

This is, indeed, an extraordinary instance of ingenuity in the interpretation of an oath; and I might comment on the insecurity to the state, in allowing such a restriction of its meaning as must render it almost nugatory; since it might totally annul its operation in the very case where the danger would be most instant and inevitable. But, my lords, I advert to it chiefly for the purpose of making an observation, which has frequently occurred to me, in reflecting on this subject. It has often been cast as a reproach upon Roman Catholics, that they are not to be bound by the obligations of an oath, because they admit of certain mental reservations incompatible with its strict and full observance. My lords, I have always felt this to be an unworthy and offensive insinuation, unjustly affecting the characters of a body of men whom I cannot persuade myself to regard as deserving of such an opprobrium. I believe the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry to be as incapable of thus tampering with an oath, as any of the Protestant nobility and gentry of the realm. I believe them to be as incapable of mental reservation; and, therefore, in their mode of reconciling the allegiance they swear to the Sovereign in temporals, with that which they conscientiously hold to be due to the Pope in spirituals, I have always imagined that they satisfied their minds by some such con- structive interpretation, as that which Dr. Doyle has here distinctly avowed with regard to the secresy of confession. I have conceived they might reason thus:— The state knows our obligations to the Pope; it knows that we owe him obedience, implicit obedience, on certain points; it knows that we regard this as an obligation paramount to all others; and therefore it can. not accuse us of mental or secret reservation, in taking the oath under such a restriction. The reservation is not mental, is not insidious, is not delusive: it is open and avowed; and if the legislature think fit to accept these our conditional protestations and fidelity and submission, there can be no misunderstanding on either side.—if this, my lords, be a correct notion, that I have formed, Dr. Doyle may fairly be considered, in this instance, as virtually speaking the general sentiments both of the clergy and laity of his communion, on every point. of duty relative to the state, as well as this: and the state has only to view the matter in this light, and act accordingly. But can it be doubtful, what,in prudence and due regard to the public safety, ought to be the conduct of the legislature towards persons whose upright, honourable, and conscientious adherence to their principles (for upright, honourable, and conscientious I most willingly presume it to be), makes it impossible for them to render more than such a conditional and imperfect submission to the government under which they live?

My lords, there are several other points on which I had intended to make some observations: but I refrain, from an unwillingness to trespass further on your at, tention. Much might be said on the effects of penance, absolution, and indulgences, as maintained by the Romish church; on the acknowledged difficulties respecting marriage, as stated also by Dr. Doyle; on excommunication; on the Pope's power in nominating to episcopal sees; and on the general principle, still so pertinaciously maintained, of the entire independence of the church of Rome, in its spiritual capacity, on any temporal authority, rule or governance. While these continue to be the avowed tenets of the Roman Catholics, again I ask, are they not really Papists? and can their admissibility to the same power and trust with other subjects be reasonably claimed, or safely granted?

My lords, in making these observations, let me once more disclaim any sentiments of ill will, any hostile or unchristian feelings towards those who are the objects of them. My lords, if I know myself, I am not of an intolerant spirit; and it is painful to me to seem opposed to a body of men whom I know how to respect and to esteem. In the early part of my professional life, I lived in habits of social and friendly intercourse with persons of distinction among them, for whom I entertained a sincere regard. With others of the same description I have since cultivated acquaintance, and hope still to continue doing so. I can honour a papist, who is a papist indeed; and I can honour dissenters of other denominations, who are dissenters indeed. But I cannot equally honour those who affect an approximation of sentiment to ourselves in matters even of essential importance where there can be no real agreement. The best foundation of unaffected good-will between parties thus differing in religion, is, in my opinion, an honest and ingenuous avowal of such difference, without compromising our own principles or being intolerant of those of others.

One more observation, my lords, I cannot forbear to offer. The declared object of the proposed measure is to conciliate the Roman Catholics. But has it been sufficiently considered, what may be the result, with respect to the great mass of the Protestant community? The effect, even in removing dissatisfaction from the lower orders, at least, of the Roman Catholics, appears to me exceedingly doubtful, if not hopeless. But supposing it to have that effect, what are likely to be the feelings of our Protestant fellow subjects What can he expected but a revival of those protracted and acrimonious controversies which, from the Restoration to the Revolution, so vehemently agitated the public mind? A struggle might probably ensue; and not only would it, under such circumstances, be the natural inclination of the clergy of our establishment, but it would become their bounden duty to press forward in vindication of their own spiritual rights and liberties, and those of the laity committed to their charge. I have no fear, my lords, of the issue of such a struggle. When I look around me, and see the daily increasing phalanx of able and learned defenders of our church, I cannot doubt of a favourable result: and having now passed the meridian of life myself, it gives me increased satisfaction to contemplate such a prospect. Neverthe- less, my lords, I cannot but deprecate any course of proceeding that may render such a conflict necessary. I am too conversant with polemics (perhaps have been too much of a polemic myself), not to know that these contests unavoidably engender strife, and enmity, and bitterness, of which no one can foresee the termination.

My lords, for these reasons, among many others, I cannot but view the present bill as most objectionable in its principles, and ill-calculated to produce any such effects as would justify your lordships in suffering it to pass into a law. I must therefore meet it with my decided negative.

The Bishop of Norwich

rose and said:—

My lords, the learned prelate has gone somewhat out of his way to allude to expressions of mine on a former occasion respecting civil and religious liberty, for which I had the authority of two of the greatest men whom this or any other country ever produced—I mean Locke and Hoadley. It is not my intention to trouble your lordships by repeating what I then said; but I most certainly see no occasion to retract a single syllable of what I asserted.

If the learned prelate, and those of the clergy who agree with him in thinking that it is expedient to withhold from good and loyal civil subjects the civil privileges of the government under which they live, on account of innocent, though (in our judgment) erroneous religious opinions, would be content to state their own sentiments, without intimating that all true friends to our excellent ecclesiastical establishment must entertain the same sentiments, I should feel very little disposed, "in life's last stage," to obtrude myself upon your lordships' attention upon the present occasion; but it is quite impossible for a person in my situation to sit silent under the most distant suspicion of being deficient in zeal for the welfare of that church of which he is a minister, because he feels strongly, and expresses plainly what he feels, whenever the wrongs, the insults,-the unprovoked and cruel wrongs, which, year after year, are heaped. upon more than five millions of as loyal subjects, and as conscientious Christians, as any in his majesty's dominions, become the topic of public discussion; and because he presumes to doubt, whether an obstinate perseverance in this narrow wretched system of exclusion, be the best method of promoting the real interest of the united church of England and Ireland.

This, my lords, is the point at issue, between myself and my clerical brethren, whose petitions crowd your lordships' table, I will not say exclusively crowd it; but I may be permitted to say, that (with the much-to-be-lamented exception of the clergy) the education and property of the kingdom are most decidedly in favour of the bill now under your lordships' consideration. If it be not so, why are there no county petitions; why no petitions from the city of London; none from Westminster; none from Southwark; none, or not more than one or two, from any of our numerous, flourishing, and populous commercial towns? All are silent; "sed dum tacent, clemant." They cry aloud that public opinion is unquestionably friendly to the claims of the Catholics.

But the Cetholics, it is said, are intolerant; and to justify this charge, recourse is had to the transactions of ages long since past—ages, when toleration was neither practised or understood by Christians of any denomination: for Knox, and Calvin, and even Cramer, were persecutors as well as Bonner and the duke of Alva. Can it, then, answer any good purpose, to revive the memory of facts, equally disgraceful to both parties—facts, which every wise and good man would wish, for the honour of human nature, to bury (if it were possible) in eternal oblivion?

An appeal s next made to modern history, by a noble lord on the crossbenches (Colchester): let us see with what justice. I call upon him to show me a single country in the whole of Europe, so degraded by persecuting laws as England is: I call upon him to show me a single country, the inhabitants of which are treated with so much harshness and injustice as the Catholic inhabitants of unhappy Ireland. "But," says the noblelord, " the oppressive laws so much complained of have been repeated for half a century." A very able writer, and a very honest patriot—I mean sir Parnell,—in his accurate history of the penal laws of Ireland, tells us a very different story. I will not, however, dwell upon the sad detail; as it is not my intention to aggravate, but to heal.

I have to detain your lordships only a few minutes more. If it could be proved—but I think it never will—that the worldly advantage of any particular ecclesiastical establishment of Christianity cannot be maintained without an obvious violation, on the part of its members, of the leading principles of the Christian religion; such, for instance, as that most excellent precept "to do unto others, in all cases, as we would they should do unto us;" and that "new commandment to love one another" —new, both in degree and extent, which our Divine Master bequeathed to his followers, as his last and best legacy; if, say, even the church of England cannot stand, unless its members be called upon to act in direct opposition to these distinguishing precepts of our holy religion, I, for one, should say, without the smallest hesitation, let it fall: for, my lords, it must never be forgotten, that an ecclesiastical establishment is no part of Christianity, but the mode only of propagating its doctrines; as has been accurately and justly remarked by archdeacon Paley. It seems, then, to follow, as a legitimate consequence, that the outward building, the mere fabric of the temple, would hardly be worth:preserving, if that charity, which is the guardian angel of the inner temple, had taken its flight, and "the glory was departed."

I shall, perhaps, be asked—indeed, I have been asked more than once—if i feel prepared to abide by the result of my opinions; a result which, in the judgment of some, must be attended with the entire loss of those pecuniary advantages, and of the honour of a seat in this House, which I derive from my present situation in the established church? To this question, my lords, my answer is very short, and very sincere. Worldly advantages, of whatever description, which can only be secured by the oppression of five millions of loyal fellow-subjects, and conscientiousfellow-christians, have no charms for me: they are poor and valueless; I do not wish to hold them by so bad a tenure: on the contrary, I would gladly relinquish them to-morrow, and "eat my bread in peace and privacy" if by so doing, the cause which I have at heart could be effectually promoted.

These, my lords, are my genuine sentiments: they have been the same for more than half a century, and I am now much too old to change them. I dare not, however, rashly say, as has been said, that whatever alteration of circumstances may occur in this ever-shifting scene of human life, these sentiments will remain unaltered: but I will say, that, reflecting seriously upon what has passed, and is still passing before my eyes, there is very little probability of my thinking differently from what I now do.

With respect to the political part of the subject, now under your lordships' consideration, it is not in my province; and, if it were, I should be unwilling to weary your lordships' attention, by a repetition of those unanswered and unanswerable arguments, which have been so often urged, in behalf of the Catholics, by many of the best and wisest men of the age in which we live:—I must, notwithstanding, venture to observe, that your lordships have, once more, an opportunity of doing tardy justice to a large portion of his majesty's subjects—an opportunity which, if neglected, is likely to be followed, and at no very distant period, by events which neither the wisdom nor the power of government may be able to control.

Lord Carberry

referred to the evidence of Dr. Doyle, and expressed his warm desire that his majesty's government would take up this great question as a measure of state, and see how far the policy of the British constitution, and the principles of the church of Rome, were reconcileable. Of this he was quite convinced, that there could be no permanent peace in Ireland, as long as the subject was left unsettled.

The Bishop of Chester

rose and said:

My Lords;—I rise under considerable embarrassment to the discussion of this question; an embarrassment proceeding, not only from the unspeakable importance of the question itself, which, under whatever point of view I contemplate it, presents me only with a choice of evils—but an embarrassment arising from finding myself opposed in opinion to many of those, whose virtues I revere and love; whose friendship I hold to be amongst the most honourable distinctions of my life; whose wisdom I have great reason to respect; and to whose political experience I am sensible that 1 ought to bow. But there are acts of duty, my lords, the faithful performance of which costs us a pang, to be compensated only by the consciousness that they are acts of duty. Whatever my conviction may be on this momentous question, I have at least the satisfaction of knowing that it is a deliberate conviction; the result of much painful research and inquiry; and, in justice to myself, I ought to add, that it is in opposition to my early opinions. The change, indeed, is not of recent date; but I do remember the time, when my mind—imbuedwith those principles of civil and religious liberty which are interwoven with the very rudiments of education in this country, and disgusted with the severity of the penal code in some of its more hideous features-was inclined to regard the claims of the Roman Catholics with favour. But when I became more thoroughly acquainted with the doctrines and constitution of the Romish Church, and their absolute incompatibility with those very principles which had led me to favour its pretensions—when I understood, not only the importance of an established church, but the impossibility of having any establishment without certain privileges and co-ordinate disabilities—when I reflected upon the evils which Popery, at least, if not the Roman Catholic religion, had inflicted on this country, on Europe, on the world—and when I was thoroughly convinced, as convinced I have long been, that the genius of that ecclesiastical despotism remains essentially unchanged; that if it couches, it slumbers not, but waits the opportunity of re-asserting its energies and grasping at its prey—then, my lords, my opinion was changed: and if aught had been wanting to the fulness of that demonstration by which this change was wrought, I should have found it in the evidence lately laid before your lordships; nay, in those very parts of that evidence, by which, as I understand, some persons have been led to an opposite conclusion, dazzled by a marvellous brightness, outshining the light of history, experience, and common sense. But it may be said, my lords—it has been for the tenth time this very night, if not asserted, yet insinuated—that I come to the decision of this momentous question an interested, and a prejudiced judge: that I come into court with my eyes blinded, but not for the ends of justice; and with a preponderating weight already cast into one scale. But, my lords, I ask with confidence—I ask this House, and let the question be repeated to the country-what right has any noble lord, to impute to the Protestant bishops of England, motives of base and sordid interest, as the main-springs of their opposition to this measure? I ask, my lords, what right? I mean, what grounds are there of history or of observation to justify the charge? Were they motives of personal interest, which led the seven bishops to resist the arbitrary measures of a Popish king, to whose person they were zealously attached; and to embrace imprisonment and persecution, rather than deviate from their duty to the Protestant faith? Ambition, my lords, it may have been; that just and laudable ambition, which I trust has not ceased to burn in the breasts of their less illustrious successors, the ambition of proving themselves vigilant sentinels and intrepid champions of the Church; and, if need be, martyrs in-her cause.

With equal justice might interested motives be imputed to your lordships, the proprietors of vast hereditary domains, when you are sitting in deliberation on the laws, which have been devised and enacted by yourselves, for the protection of what is called " the landed interest." With equal justice might it be said that some of the supporters of this bill are swayed by the apprehension of danger to their own possessions. But I pass by such imputations, as unworthy of further notice, and as doing no good service to the cause in which they are employed.

We have heard, my lords—not indeed this evening, although it has been alluded to—but in the previous discussions of this important question we have heard a great deal of the injustice and cruelty of debarring four or five millions of our fellow subjects from the enjoyment of their natural and indefeasible rights. Now, as to the principle, it makes no difference, whether it be four millions of men or four, that are deprived of what is said to be every man's birthright. I say there is no difference in point of principle, whatever there may be as to political expediency. If, therefore, we are to argue the question on abstract principle, let the consideration of numbers he put aside, as an element which does not enter into the solution of the problem. If the concessions be just and politic, grant them, were it but to forty: if otherwise, refuse them, even.to four mill ons of claimants.

But let us examine the meaning of those words, "debarred of their civil," or as some have said, "their natural rights?" Is there any civil right, which, individual citizens may not be called upon to forego, if public expediency demands the sacrifice? Is not this a principle, which, in some shape or other, must be recognized under every imaginable form of civil government? In our own constitution, favourable as it is to liberty, it is recognized and acted upon, in a degree, which seems to have been forgotten by those persons who so loudly denounce the injustice of withholding from any class of men a direct share in the actual government of the country: for this, simply this, is the civil right which is the present object of contention. It seems to me, I confess, to be as unjust, in the abstract, to exclude a man from the legislature for want of a certain amount of property, as it is, to hold him disqualified, on account of certain opinions which affect the integrity and security of the commonwealth. I really am unable, in this view of the subject, to discriminate between the shades of injustice in the two cases. I know of only one answer which can be given to this argument, which is, that in the one case we have a certain test of qualification; in the other, an uncertain; an answer, which does not hold good with respect to the Roman Catholics, whose principles, if they are Roman Catholics indeed, are fixed, certain, and notorious. The fact is, that in both cases, a civil right is concluded and foreclosed, because public expediency requires it.

But further, my lords, this principle is recognized by the supporters of the present bill, and in a manner somewhat extraordinary. The right of electing those who are to legislate for us, is certainly not less sacred than that of having a direct share in legislation. To take away this privilege, is confessedly a greater violation of natural justice, a more daring inroad into the pale of civil right, than a mere exclusion from the legislature. Yet this is the very injustice, for so, arguing on their own principles, I must call it, which the advocates of civil right now propose to commit upon a gigantic scale—by a sort of compensation, which, to my apprehension, throws into the shade the minor solecisms of the penal code. To admit with safety a few favoured persons to the privilege of legislation, you disfranchise three or four hundred thousand, and deprive them of a much more sacred and inalienable right. I give no opinion as to the expediency of that measure, I am only arguing, that the ablest advocates of civil right are compelled to admit in practice, that it is limitable, and may be restricted, or withholder altogether. Nay more, my lords, in the very measure which now awaits your decision, is this principle acknowledged and embodied; for it proposes to continue and perpetuate the exclusion of Roman Catholics from certain offices of trust and power, to which they have as fair a right to aspire, as to a share in your legislative deliberations. Of all judicial situations, that of the Lord High Chancellor may well be the highest object of ambition to a Roman Catholic, and his exclusion from it the greatest grievance; inasmuch as in the decisions of a judge, who is not confined by the trammels of the statute law, but proceeds upon a discretionary equity, there is the greater scope for partiality and prejudice. Yet from this office, my lords, we are told by one of their own clergy, Mr. Collins, the Roman Catholics would consent to be excluded, on account of the great state necessity which requires such exclusion. And this great state necessity he interprets to mean, the general persuasion of the English people that Roman Catholics should be excluded from that high office.

I maintain, therefore, my lords, that upon the plainest principles which regulate civil society, upon the ground of universal and invariable usage, by the admission and enactment of the framers of this bill, civil rights are limitable by expediency; and that a capacity to serve the state in offices of trust and power, which is not limitable by the constitution, where there are just grounds for limitation, is such a capacity as is inconsistent with all forms of government in the world. I think, then, my lords that we have now disposed of the question of right; the next point of inquiry is, whether any opinions can form a just ground of disqualification for civil office.

It has been remarked elsewhere (with what truth I will not now stay to inquire), that a man is no more answerable for his opinions, than he is for the colour of his hair, or his constitutional peculiarities. Admitting, for the sake of argument, the justice of this observation, I need hardly remind your lordships, that there are constitutional peculiarities and personal defects, which do in fact disqualify a man from holding certain offices. They are his misfortune, not his fault. He is not morally responsible for them: but he must patiently submit to the privation, which, under the existing order of things, they unavoidably bring upon him.

The question then is, my lords, are the opinions held by Roman Catholics of such a nature, as to unfit them for holding offices of trust and.power, and more espe- cially for being legislators in a Protestant state?—that is one question, Another is, whether the exigency of the present case be such, as should induce us, for the sake of avoiding probable dangers, to venture upon a great violation of constitutional principle? A third question is, whether the measure now before your lordships will answer the purpose for which it is intended?—that of pacification. I am not about to dwell at any length. upon these three points, the last of which seems to me just now to be the most important. If there be one fact:, my lords, which the evidence lately put into your lordships' hands more deal:, establishes than another, it is this; that up to a very recent date, the disturbance:, in Ireland have had nothing to do with Roman Catholic disabilities. The calamities of that unhappy country have a far different origin. She labours under the malignant influence of a more deeply-seated, a more inveterate, but, I trust in God, not an incurable disease. It was stated in evidence, by a distinguished member of another House, that the proximate cause of disturbance in Ireland, is the extreme misery of the peasantry: the remote is to be found in what he justly designated a radically vicious state of society—a state, which, if your lordships will condescend to hear the opinion of one so inexperienced in political question, I should say, requires the most prompt and vigorous measures of statistic legislation. It is, indeed, such a state of society as exists in no other Christian country; where the chief proprietors of the soil are absent; and their places supplied by persons of inferior education, and, what is worse, of immoral habits; a system of tenancy engrafted upon tenancy, which, by an almost inconceivable climax of extortion, wrings at length from the miserable cultivator of the soil more than the soil itself produces; where whole provinces obstinately adhere to absurd and obsolete usages, in direct opposition to the common and statute law of the realm. Such a state of society as this, my lords, is to be corrected, not by such measures as that which is now before the House, but by other measures of a more comprehensive and efficacious kind; by the adoption of a more equitable system of tenure; by a purer administration of justice in its inferior departments; by an alteration in the revenue laws; by the establishment of manufactures and the extension of com- merce; by the introduction of an effective system of education; and last, but not least, because it would lead the way to all the rest, by the return of the proprietors of the soil.

Relief from the evils of such a system, my lords, is the emancipation of which Ireland stands in need: this is the emancipation which would raise her from her degraded state, by rescuing her sons, first from sloth and reckless poverty, and then from ignorance, superstition, and insubordination. When this comprehensive act of justice shall have been done; when these effectual remedies have been applied, and their effects perceived in the civil and moral improvement of her population, then, my lords, it will be time enough to talk of further concessions of political power.

It appears, that, until the year 1823, the great body of the Roman Catholics cared but little about what is called emancipation; and even now, their notion of it is, according to one witness, the restoration of their church to its ancient supremacy; according to another, the recovery of the forfeited estates. Which-soever of these expectations they may entertain, and I think it probable that they entertain them both, it becomes this House to consider, whether, if this bill be passed into a law, it will satisfy the great mass of the Roman Catholic peasantry, when they find that it confers upon them neither of those boons; although in effect it carries one of them in its train? To what length their feelings of disappointment may drive them, if the measures should.lot be carried, I pretend not to foresee: I confess I am not altogether free from apprehension. But be those feelings what they may, this I will venture to assert, that they owe their existence to the artifices of a few political agitators—I use the term, my lords, advisedly and deliberately, for one of the most conspicuous of their leaders not long ago thanked his God that he was an agitator—a knot of men, who have thrown this leaven into the mass, predisposed from other causes to ferment, in order that while the vast body heaves and swells under the process, they may themselves be lifted to the surface. This view of the subject, my lords, is amply justified by the evidence before your lordships' committe?. It was not till the Catholic Association commenced its operations, that the great body of the Roman Catholics in Ireland began to think much of emancipation, as it is called; a question, which, as it directly affected only a few, was not likely to trouble the repose of the many; who, if they had been permitted to enjoy, in any fair proportion, the produce of their honest labour, would have cared but little for the exclusion of a few of their richer brethren from parliament. That it has not hitherto been to them a cause of discontent, is proved by the fact, that their propensity to outrage and lawless violence has not diminished in proportion to the successive relaxations of the penal code. In fact, they hardly know that such relaxation has taken place; a plain, an undeniable proof that former concessions, far exceeding in number and importance those which remain to be made, have had no effect whatever on their conduct or their comfort. It is also a proof, my lords, that those persons, on whom the Roman Catholic peasantry depend for information and instruction, have thought fit to withhold from them that knowledge, which, if imparted, would have been a persuasive to loyalty and contentedness, and a sedative, at least, to feelings of insubordination. The motives of that class of persons, who have kept the people in ignorance of those benefits, which were represented to be of vital importance to them, I pretend not to assign. But this I will say, that it is precisely the line of conduct which would have been pursued by those, who, having a far greater and more perilous object of enterprize in view, would treat as insignificant and trivial all the preliminary points of conquest. It is consistent with the policy of skilful engineers, who regard the successive removal of barriers and outworks only as opening the way for an assault, upon the citadel. Such would be the policy of these, who value even the admission of their lay brethren into parliament, only as facilitating the accomplishment of their grand scheme, the establishment of the Roman Catholic upon the ruins of the Protestant church:

Actum, inquit, nihil est, nisi Poeno milite portas Frangimus, et media vexillum pono suburra.

Most truly, my lords, was it observed of Popery, in the remonstrance of the Commons to king James the first: "It bath a restless spirit, and will strive by these gradations. If it once get but a connivance, it will press for a toleration; if that be obtained, they must have an equality; from thence they will aspire to a superiority; and will never rest till they have got a subversion of the true religion" That this, my lords, is the object which the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood of Ireland have in view, is, to my mind, as clear as the sun at noon-day. Nothing short of this will satisfy them; although I hope we may live to see the time, when, under the divine blessing, wiser and more effectual measures of relief shall render the lower orders in that country an educated, an industrious, a contented people; and shall wrest a formidable engine of disturbance from the bands of those who now wield it at their will. Depend upon it, my lords, if the Roman Catholic population of Ireland suffer religious feelings to mix themselves with the causes of disturbance, they are feelings which extend themselves far beyond the narrow limits of the present bill, which therefore we cannot reasonably regard as a measure of pacification. And surely it is somewhat suspicious, when we are told by some of its warmest advocates, by those who are best acquainted with the feelings and habits of the people, that we must not expect complete pacification in less than twenty years, and even then, only from the combined operation of this measure with others of a very different kind. A very competent witness, Mr. M'Carthy, has said, that if employment were provided for the peasantry, and other measures devised for their benefit, Ireland might be quiet, without these concessions; but he fears they would still be made a handle of. A handle, my lords? Is there a noble lord that hears me, who does not think, that if the bill before us is passed, there will not be abundance of such handles, in the remaining points of exclusion, in the political inferiority of the Roman Catholic church, and in the materials which it will supply for electioneering intrigues and cabals?

I maintain, therefore, my lords, that in applying this remedial measure as an anodyne to the spasms by which Ireland is convulsed, your lordships will commit a great practical error in the diagnosis of her complaint. You will administer a remedy for one disease, while all the symptoms indicate the presence of another. Persuaded as I am of the ultimate objects of the Roman Catholic priesthood (and I impute to them no blame, as sincere Roman Catholics, for entertaining such views), believing that they aim at the sub- version of the Protestant church, and the erection of their own upon its ruins—can you blame me, as a minister end guardian of that Protestant church, if I give my decided opposition to a measure which will give them unspeakable facilities in the attainment of that object? We all know what novel and dangerous notions are afloat respecting church property. I need hardly remind you of that iniquitous resolution of the Irish House of Commons relative to the tithe of agistment, which passed into a law at the Union. And have we no reason to apprehend still more daring attempts upon the property of the Church, when twenty or thirty Roman Catholic members shall have found their way into the other House, pledged to support every measure against the tithe system, and sure of being cashiered by the priests at the next election, if they be lukewarm and inactive.in the cause. I confess, my lords, I cannot contemplate without alarm, the probable influence of such a compact body of voters, moving perhaps in the train of one of those portentous comets, which from their horrid hair Shake pestilence and,war— against all that protects the religious establishments of the country.

Such, my lords, are the opinions which I have been led to form, by a careful perusal of the evidence on the state of Ireland. We have been repeatedly told, my reverend brethren and myself, not to look at this question in a merely religious point of view, but to regard it as a great political measure. I have, therefore, thought it my duty to enter somewhat at large, into its probable results. In so doing, I am not insensible of my presumption, in offering advice to your lordships, whose experience in these questions so greatly surpasses my own; and in taking upon myself a character, of which it has always been my endeavour to steer clear —that of a politician. My opinion, such as it is, is sincere; and I am open to conviction, if it can be proved to be false.

I come now, my lords, to that question, on which I may be considered more competent to form an opinion; I mean the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. But before I touch upon dogmas of a more speculative kind, let me call your lordships' attention to a point which affects us more nearly and directly; I mean the sentiments and feelings entertained by the Roman Catholic body towards the Pro- testant church. One distinguished witness, a member of that. communion, declared, that were he not convinced that the present measure would tend to strengthen the Protestant interest, he would not support it; of course this expression is to be taken with that latitude of meaning, which, I believe, is usually allowed to speakers from the other side of St. George's Channel; but certainly it savours of the indiscreet warmth of a witness, who, in his anxiety to serve the cause in hand, proves rather too much. However, I have no right to question the sincerity of that very able and distinguished person, as far as his own feelings are concerned. But if you consider him to be the representative, in that respect, of the Roman Catholic body, no idea can be more fallacious. That such are not the sentiments of that body appears from the general tenor of the evidence before your lordships. And now, with regard to that evidence, I must take the liberty of making one remark. As far as facts are concerned, and the opinion of the individual witnesses, I am disposed to receive their testimony without hesitation or doubt. But, as to the views and wishes of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I hope your lordships did not expect, through the medium of your committee (for no tribunal so constituted could reasonably expect), to arrive at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is a. result, my lords, which depends quite as much upon those who question, as upon those who answer; a position most remarkably exemplified in the evidence before us, as I could easily show, were time and space allowed me. What I say,, my lords, is that as to the wishes and hopes of the Roman Catholics, you cannot form a correct estimate of them from the cautious and guarded statements of a few able men, whose answers would go no further than the questions put to them; who stood before you, armed at all points upon the objects of your inquiry, and declaring, net the views and purposes of the whole Roman Catholic body, for they had no authority so to do, but their own individual opinion of what those views and purposes ought to be. No, my lords; if you would learn the sentiments and hopes which pervade the great mass of the Roman Catholic population, attend their public meetings; hear their favourite orators, not unskilled in human nature, select those topics which are most conge- nial with the feelings of their audience; hear them denounce the Protestant church as an intolerable nuisance, a baneful pest, an incubus upon the prosperity of the country; listen to the applause with which these declarations are received, and then judge of the views which the Roman Catholics entertain. In a very remarkable speech of Dr. Dromgoole, which was received by a crowded assembly with acclamations of applause, and which was afterwards declared by a priest of his communion to be "Catholic, purely, precisely Catholic," he thus speaks of the Protestant church—"It shall fall, and nothing but the memory of the mischiefs it has created shall survive. It has had its time upon earth; and when the time arrives, shall Catholics be bound by an oath to uphold a system, which they believe will one day be rejected by the whole earth?" So spoke the Popish layman. Now hear the priest (Mr. Gandolphy)—and they are his words taken from a book, which, although it was rejected by the moderation or the policy of the Vicar Apostolic of his district, was carried to the foot of the Papal throne, received the sanction of the highest authority, and was declared "worthy of being cased in cedar and gold, and highly advantageous to the Catholic church" He says of the English church, that "she is the eldest of her heretical sisterhood—a rebellious child—with a hateful eye he views the sickly sprouts which issue from its broken branches—they shall gather it up and cast it into the fire, and it shall burn."

—teda lucebit in illa Qua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fumant.

Such, my lords, are the sentiments at this day avowed by some, and applauded by many more, of that great body to whom we are required to make further concessions of political power.

As to the property of our church, I once thought that the Roman Catholic. priesthood cast a longing eye on. her tithes. On that point I have been undeceived. They now tell us that they have no desire whatever to appropriate the tithes to themselves; they only intend to take them away from the Protestant church. Surely, my lords, there cannot be a more effectual method of destroying an adversary, than to deprive him of the means of subsistence. And that this is the full purpose and intention of the Roman Catholics, I prove by the most authentic—testimony. I prove it, my lords, by their own petition, presented to the House of Commons on the 31st of May, 1824. In that petition, and it is a document well worthy your lordships' most serious attention, they plainly insinuate that, in order to satisfy them, three things are absolutely necessary. And what are these three things? 1st, the repeal of the union; 2nd, the abolition of tithes; and 3rd, the annulling of all corporate privileges. Upon this remarkable petition I will not dwell at length, but request your lordships' attention to a not less important testimony. In one of the letters published under the signature of J. K. L., and generally attributed to Dr. Doyle, a very different person from the Dr. Doyle who appeared before your lordships' committee—it is said, that "the Catholics, as Catholics, have no designs hostile to the church; but, as a body of men chiefly employed in agricultural pursuits, they object not to the church, but to the establishment." My lords, I think that a pretty convincing mark of hostility to the church, would be to take away the immunities and property which it enjoys as an establishment. The distinction which is taken by Dr. Doyle, is about as valid, as if a disappointed suitor in the court of Chancery were to approach the noble and learned lord on the woolsack (I beg that noble lord's pardon, but I am sure he will not be offended at my introducing his name, to illustrate my argument)—and were to say to him, "My lord, I beg to assure you, that I, as A. B., entertain no personal animosity towards your lordship, as earl of Eldon; but, as a disappointed suitor in your court, I must beg leave to administer to you, as Lord High Chancellor, a knock on the head." Exactly such, my lords, is the miserable sophistry of Dr. Doyle. He is kindly disposed towards the church, as a church, but as an establishment he would starve her to death.

This same Dr. Doyle (I beg his pardon, this same J. K. L.) declares that the Protestant clergy are, and will be detested: he asserts, that all the efforts of legislators to improve and enrich Ireland have been marred by the Protestant clergy; and that the murders and atrocities which stain the character of the nation, harden its heart, and brutalize its feeling, have been occasioned or committed by the agents of the Protestant clergy —that clergy, my lords, to whose zeal and usefulness, and in most cases to their forbearance, your witnesses have borne their almost concurrent testimony: that clergy, who, in the great moral destitution and desolation of Ireland remained as oases in the desert; the only class of resident gentry, to whom the peasantry looked up with respect and gratitude; whose houses, in the midst of nocturnal plunder and conflagration, remained unprotected, and uninjured.

My lords, I trust that I am not moved to anger by these calumnious imputations upon my brethren, I hope, at least, that I shall not be thought disposed to say a word by way of retaliation; I would not speak with harshness of one who is placed in the same spiritual order with myself; but, there are emergencies, lords, when justice requires the truth to be plainly spoken; and the present is one of them. It is my duty to call upon your lordships seriously to consider, what degree of weight, as to matters of opinion, ought to be attached to the testimony of a man, who, from the covert of his half-concealment, hurls firebrands into the sanctuary of the Protestant faith, and darts his poisoned arrows abroad; who engrafts upon the intolerant bigotry of the Romish church, the levelling doctrines of jacobinism, and then comes behre your lordships, to soften down, with glozing words, the asperities of his recorded calumny; and hints his disavowal, and hesitates his dislike, of doctrines which stand emblazoned in every official document of the church to which he belongs.

I now pass, my lords, by a natural transition, from Dr. Doyle to the Pope. It is easy to show, that the distinction which is attempted to be drawn between the papal supremacy in things spiritual and things temporal, is a distinction which exists only in theory. Before it can be admitted as practical, the religionists of the Romish church must provide themselves with two distinct sets of principles and feelings, the one relating purely and solely to the things of this world, the other to things eternal. I had intended to quote the sentiments of their own divines on this question, but the subject has been so ably discussed by my right reverend friend, the bishop of Llandaff, that it is needless for me to dwell upon it. The Pope's supremacy is at least ecclesiastical; and an ecclesiastical supremacy necessarily involves some temporal jurisdiction. In point of fact, does not the Pope appoint all the titular bishops of Ireland, with incomes of from five hundred to two thousand pounds a year? And have not these bishops the nomination of all the parish priest:, the minimum of whose total income is already 150,000l? Is this no interference in temporals? Is it nothing, my lords, that a foreign potentate, the mortal foe of your church, should have in the very precincts of that church a well-disciplined army of 3000 men, sworn to pay implicit obedience to his commands; whose generals he appointed, and, be it remembered, has appointed, if not the creatures and partizans, yet the nominees of a popish pretender to the throne? It is said, indeed, that a titular bishop appointed by the Pope, at the recommendation of the Pretender, might have retained unimpaired his allegiance to the Protestant monarch on the throne. It is possible, no doubt. But what do your lordships imagine would have been his conduct, had the Pretender appeared at any time with an imposing force on the shores of Ireland? He would have been perplexed; but. he would probably have been relieved from his perplexity by the exercise of what is called the Altum Dominium; that ratio ultima paparum, the specific reserved for emergencies of conscience.. He would have been released from his oath of allegiance, as the subjects of the Bourbons, by a bull of Pius 7th, were released from theirs.

I come now, my lords, to the deposing power of the Pope, which Dr. Doyle tells us is obsolete; a well-chosen word; not abrogated; not annulled; not disavowed; but obsolete. Not to mention a long list of instances which occurred before the 17th century, I would remind your lordships that Pope Urban 8th pretended to depose Charles 1st in Ireland, in 1643. That Benedict 13th issued a deposing bull against. George 2nd in 1729, and that Pius 7th deposed Louis 18th and absolved all Frenchmen from their oaths of allegiance, when he crowned his dear son Napoleon. I acknowledge, my lords, that these were empty displays of authority. But although they were empty displays, as far as regards the actual power of the Pope, they were not without their effect upon the minds of Faithful Roman Catholics, as we should have found to our cost, had circumstances favoured their operation. But Dr. Doyle says, this doctrine is obsolete; that is, out of use. Why, my lords, in 1805, Pope Pius 7th instructs his nuncio at Vienna, that the church had decreed, as a punishment of heresy, the confiscation of heretical property, but unfortunately she cannot now exercise her right of deposing heretics from their principalities. This, then, my lords, is the obsolete power of deposing princes—obsolete, as the strength of a tiger is obsolete, when his claws are pared and his limbs manacled. These offensive tenets are still embraced by the Romish church: individuals there may be, and doubtless are, who either disavow them, or retain them in a qualified and mitigated sense: but they are still the doctrines of their church: and it is not competent to any one or more of its members to disclaim them, in the name and on the behalf of the church. Dr. Doyle knows, that he has no authority so to do: for he himself has told us, that the decisions even of Roman Catholic universities on such matters are not conclusive. Neither Dr. Doyle nor any Roman Catholic university in Christendom will dare to say, that a single canon of the council of Trent is to be rejected or contemned: and I maintain, that a church, whose profession of faith and rule of discipline are to be found in the acts of that council, is unfit to be admitted to any considerable share of power or authority in a Protestant state.

In imputing to that church the doctrines which she solemnly professes to maintain, I hope I shall not be considered as casting any blame upon the individuals of her communion. If they are consistent in their religious creed, if they are true Roman Catholics, they must believe whatever their church has declared necessary to be believed. My lords, I had prepared myself to enter more at length into this part of the subject, and to show by documentary evidence, that not one of these offensive doctrines has in point of fact been relinquished by the Romish church. But having already trespassed upon your lordships attention much longer than I had intended I shall draw my observations to a close.

At the same time, my lords, I think it right to state that some of these doctrines are asserted or insinuated both in the class books at Maynooth, and in the elementary books of religious instruction, which are in common use in Ireland. To mention only one; the sanctity of an oath. It is perfectly notorious, that the Irish peasantry in general pay no regard at all to this most sacred of all obligations. They are taught in Dr. James Butler's Roman Catholic catechism, a work in very general use, that an unjust oath is not binding: and to the question, what is an unjust oath? the answer is, that which is injurious to God, our neighbour, or ourselves. As to the first part of the definition, we know what interpretation may be put upon it by the Romish church; as to the last, it is very inconsistent with the description given in a book of unquestionable authority, where it is said of the righteous man, that " he sweareth to his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance."

These are some of the arguments, my lords, which I have to urge against the adoption of the present measure. There are others, with which, at this hour of the night I must forbear to trouble your lordships. Upon the whole, I contend that the bill now before us, is not an effectual measure of pacification; on the contrary, I regard it, as containing within itself the materials of dissension and civil commotion. That it is an inroad upon the constitution as by law established, and a violation of the principles of that constitution, is not to be denied. It proposes to admit a powerful and active body of foes into the very citadel of our Protestant faith. It is but a stepping stone to those, who are bent upon scaling the walls of our establishment, and depriving us of our immunities and rights. Once more I beg leave to declare, that I impute no blame to the Roman Catholics for desiring that consummation; and I think it but an act of justice to say, that as far as my personal acquaintance has extended amongst the higher orders of Roman Catholics in this country, I have seen nothing which led me to believe, that they were under the influence of the more obnoxious doctrines of their church. The few whom I have known, have had reason to value and esteem. One gentleman in my own diocese, possessing large landed property, has, in a spirit of liberality (may I be permitted, without offence, to say) worthy of a purer faith, supported nearly at his own expense, a national school.

I must also, my lords, freely admit, that I may be mistaken, as to the consequences which in my conscience I believe this bill, passed into a law, will produce. We live in an age, which has taught us by experience not to speculate too confidently upon the results of any great political measure. And I have, besides, a firm confidence in the continuance of that providential care, which has hitherto wonderfully protected the church of these realms, and which, while she continues to answer the great ends of her existence, will not, I am persuaded, be withdrawn from her. But it is our part and duty, my lords, to act according o the dictates of human wisdom; and I cannot consent, for the sake of avoiding a possible and contingent danger, to make a great inroad upon the constitution, nor sacrifice our certain securities for the uncertain chance of conciliation; injuring out selves without conferring an adequate benefit upon others. These, my lords, are some of the reasons which will induce me to give my vote in the negative this evening; not, certainly, a satisfactory but a conscientious vote—and I wish they may be such as to turn your lordships' serious attention to the nature of those dangers, with which the Protestant interest is threatened by the present bill.

The Earl of Limerick said, he rose to support the bill, and to defend the Catholic clergy and gentry of Ireland from the sweeping charges brought against them by the right reverend prelate who had just sat down. The right reverend prelate had stated, that the peasantry were miserable; it was perfectly true, they were miserable. The right reverend lord had also said, that the principal landlords of Ireland did not reside there. He (lord L.) agreed that it was desirable that all landlords should reside on their respective properties, although he admitted that he was an absentee himself. But, why had the right reverend prelate omitted to state, that the clergy were not all resident?— And surely the right reverend lord would admit that the non-residence of the proprietors of allodial estate was not calculated to produce worse effects than the non-residence of those who were charged with the moral and religious instruction of the people. The former would be slaves, were they compelled always to reside on their estates; but the latter were bound to reside upon their livings because they received payment from the state on condition of doing so. The right reverend prelate, in the course of his speech, had used language which could not fail to irritate all classes of people in Ireland. It was almost an equal censure on the Catholics, the Protestants, the landowners and the peasantry. He seemed to say to the Catholics," Do what you will—say what you will—we will net believe you;" and had an but advised the making of interminable war on at least one-third of the people of Ireland. The right reverend prelate's speech had been full of intolerance; he should have cast his eye upon a right reverend brother who sat near him, and who had given him a noble example to imitate. That right reverend personage, in a speech full of eloquence and wisdom and piety, had pointed out to him the duties of Christian benevolence. Instead, however, of following his venerable bother, the right reverend prelate had started off in the opposite direction; and had directed all the force of his talent against the claims of his Catholic countrymen. He had said, that the Catholic bishops of Ireland were nominated by the Pope. This was not the case. Three persons were nominated by the Irish bishops, and the Pope was obliged to select one of them. There was no Catholic bishop in Ireland with a revenue of 3,000l. a-year. Whence was such a revenue to he derived? Not from see lands; not from fines; but from the parish in which the bishop resided. And, how was his revenue collected? From the poor under his care, in sixpences, and shillings, and half-crowns—paltry sums which the right reverend prelate opposite would not like to have his income meted out to him in. The duty, too, of the Irish bishops was admirably performed. None of them were to be found in Bath—none in Cheltenham—none in London. They were present with their flocks, in health and in sickness, and were at all times ready to afford them that spiritual consolation they might require After ridiculing the idea that such men were not to be believed upon their oaths, the noble earl apologized to the House for the unpremeditated sentiments. which he had offered to its notice; but he should have considered himself wanting in duty to his country as an Irishman, if he had allowed the assertions of the right reverend prelate to go forth to the world without contradiction.

The Bishop of Chester

explained. He said, that nothing was further from his intention than to have cast an imputation on the landed proprietors of Ireland. He merely meant to say, that it might with as much propriety be cast upon them as upon the clergy.

The Earl of Harrowby

here moved for an adjournment; but the general feeling of their lordships not appearing favourable thereto, it was not pressed.

The Marquis of Lansdown

began by observing, that on this momentous occasion he felt bound to state to their lordships his reasons for giving his earnest support to the present bill; but, before he entered on the general merits of the question, he would say a few words upon the arguments urged on the other side by the right reverend prelate (the bishop of Chester). The right reverend prelate had laid it down, that the enjoyment of every civil right ought to be regulated by expediency; and here he must observe, that if the right reverend prelate rested his objections on the ground of expediency, he was, in all the other arguments which he had used, combatting with a shadow; for if the ground of political expediency existed, the discussion on the theological grounds was not necessary; but if; as he had often contended, and was again prepared to contend that night, the expediency of excluding six millions of people from their civil rights had long ago ceased to exist, it must follow that they ought to be admitted to the enjoyment of those rights which were theirs in common with all other British subjects. He would contend, that the expediency of exclusion, if it were even well founded, had long since ceased, and that a regard for the security of property, for the peace of the country, and for the stability of the church itself; dictated the propriety of putting an end to the system of exclusion, which had proved one of the greatest evils that Ireland ever experienced. The right reverend prelate had said, that in the course of his recent studies, he had found reason to change his opinions on this question, in consequence of evils existing, connected with the state of Ireland: but, he had not informed their lordships how many of those evils had arisen out of the nature of the Catholic disabilities, nor how the great statistical remedy (a word which the right reverend prelate seemed to have borrowed from sir John Sinclair) should be applied, without removing those disabilities:—he had not stated how they were to acquire in Ireland a Catholic gentry and yeomanry without a system by which the one and the other might be protected and conciliated. The right reverend prelate, in enumerating the causes which produced the disturbed state of Ireland, had overlooked one circumstance which he might have remembered; namely, that in that country there was the singular anomaly of a church establishment which was not the religion of the great body of the people. How would he apply any remedy which would secure the stability of that church, without embracing a measure that would have the effect of conciliating the great body of the people? He would tell the right reverend prelate, that if they wished to preserve the church establishment in that country, that if they wished to ensure stability to the government of that country, their measures must be bottomed on the affections of the great mass of the people. The right reverend prelate, while he deprecated any attacks on the motives of individuals, had himself indulged to a very great latitude in that way, and had made a serious charge on the great body of the Irish Catholics. The right reverend prelate charged them with a desire to overturn the church establishment, and to regain possession of the forfeited estates. But, on what authority did he make that charge? On the authority of a Protestant! and that, too, in opposition to every tittle of evidence which had been given on the subject by Catholic bishops and priests, as well as every member of the Catholic laity who was examined before their lordships' committee. Surely the right reverend prelate could not have read the evidence; for if he had he would have found that every Catholic who was examined had most fully and distinctly disclaimed any such intention, and in this they were supported by every Protestant of intelligence who had stated his opinions before the committee. Protestants and Catholics concurred in stating, that the forfeited estates were considered as secure as any property in the country; and indeed, in one respect they were considered more valuable, inasmuch as the title to them could more readily be made out. If any fact were necessary in support of the solemn declaration on oath of the Catholics on this subject, it would be found in their own practice; for it was a fact, that those Catholics whose wealth had enabled them to purchase property, had, to a great extent, become the purchasers of those very forfeited estates. After this, could it be said that they were not disposed to respect the titles to such.property? Could it be supposed that they were anxious to invalidate the rights of those from whom they derived their own by purchase? Yet it was on such grounds that the right reverend prelate had rested his tender apprehensions for the security of those Protestants who now held forfeited estates. He hoped the right reverend prelate's better recollection, or more attentive observation, might teach him a little more as to the real state of Ireland, with respect to the security of church and other property in Ireland. It was true that one of the grounds on which he should support the present bill, was the insecurity to which property would be exposed in Ireland from its refusal; but that insecurity rested on very different grounds from those which the right reverend prelate had taken. The insecurity which he dreaded was that which must ever exist where discontent prevailed among the great body of the people. The right reverend prelate, in his remarks on the conduct of certain individuals in Ireland, had spoken of the Catholic Association, and observed, that no feeling of discontent prevailed in the country until that association was formed. Did the right reverend prelate for a moment take into consideration the cause which produced that association? Why were none such formed in this country? Because no ground for similar discontent existed; because no feeling of such injustice to the great body of the people prevailed—a feeling which, while it was suffered to remain, would be daily breaking out into new phantasmas, that it would be impossible ever to get rid of, until the great question which produced them was set at rest.—The right reverend prelate had quoted many violent opinion with respect to the church of England, which he had commented upon, and condemned, as the opinions of the great body of the Catholics. But many of those opinions could be traced, as the right reverend prelate himself admitted, to a speech delivered by a Dr. Dromgoole some tea or fifteen, or perhaps twenty years ago; for he really did not recollect. Upon these the right reverend prelate had fastened, and taking them as articles of the Roman Catholic faith, had urged them as arguments against the bill before the House. Was this, he would ask, fair? Was it treating the Catholics with common justice, to fasten upon them doctrines which they disavowed, merely because they happened to be used by one if their body? Their lordships had heard of the writings of a reverend baronet—he meant the rev. sir Harcourt Lees—would the right reverend prelate approve or the language contained in those writing? Would he subscribe to all the opinions. they embra- ced? Would he even approve of the principles contained in some of the petitions presented on this subject? Would he be disposed to sanction all those principles as doctrines taught by the church of England? Undoubtedly he would not. Why, then, infairness should he use a mode of reasoning towards others which he would think it unjust to have applied to himself? Was it not most unjust to condemn men by attributing to them opinions and doctrines which they wholly disavowed? —He:had heard from the right reverend prelate, that he was disposed to argue this question on the ground of expediency. If he took that ground, it would be getting rid of more than half the objections which had been urged against it, in and out of that House. If the question was allowed to rest on expediency, then there was an end of the objection respecting transubstantiation, and the several other doctrinal points which were urged—there was an end to the objection resting on the belief of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, beyond this —how far that belief was calculated to operate on six millions of people so as justly to disqualify them from the enjoyment of their civil rights as British subjects. Leaving those points out of the question, he would readily consent to view this measure as one of expediency; and taking advantage of an admission made by a right reverend prelate, that the spirit of.Protestantism was never more prevalent in the country, since the Reformation, than it was at present, he would ask, if that. were true, what need had it of the crutches of the penal code to support it?. He would rather look at this question as a Protestant than as a Catholic question. He would consider it rather as it affected the security of the church establishment, the security of property in Ireland, and the general safety of that country. Upon these grounds he might confidently rest it, without reference to the justice or the claim on the part of the Catholics (though on that ground alone a strong claim might be made)—a claim strengthened by the recollection of their fidelity to the state in times of danger; but, waving those, he would ask the opponents of this bill, what had the Protestant church to apprehend, if it were passed; or what had it to gain by its being rejected? He had expected, that when the right reverend prelate spoke of his recent studies on this subject, he would have stated to their lordships facts connected with the present condition of the Catholics of Ireland, with their present opinions and conduct. Instead of this, however, he had stated, that bulls had been sent over by one of the popes to depose George 2nd. True, the right reverend prelate admitted that these bulls had had no effect—that they formed no part of the history of the country; yet, he added, they affected the minds of the Catholics, though they did not arm their hands. Now, he was prepared to contend, that those very bulls, and the reception they met in this country, were the strongest proof of the truth of what Dr. Doyle had given in evidence; namely, that there was a line drawn by Catholics between the ecclesiastical and temporal power of the Pope—a line which a noble baron (Colchester) could not see—a line beyond which, if the Pope attempted any act of temporal power in this country, the obedience of the Roman Catholic ceased.— The noble marquis, after again adverting to the unfairness of selecting tenets which the Catholics disavowed, and putting forced constructions on others which they admitted, observed that when their allegations of their own doctrines and opinions were not allowed, it was right to put in their conduct in this country, where their rights were limited, and in others where they were not restricted, in order to show, that their allegations were borne out by their practice. For his own part, he would not suppose that the Catholic religion was so dark and hidden, so lost in the obscurity of past ages, as to be traced out only by the research of the diligent antiquarian. It was, he should imagine, well known; its present tenets of doctrine and discipline well defined and understood. Why, then, was it necessary to go for objections to the Catholic religion as it now existed, back to the tenets which might have been in operation centuries ago? Suppose some public lecturer on electricity or astronomy, for instance, were to say to his hearers—" You must not attend to the state of the atmosphere, or the appearance of the Heavens, but you must look to the principles adopted by the ancient founders of these lectures—go to the 'Philosophical Transactions,' vol. 1, and there you will find what you must take to be the true present state of the science." Would not such doc rine be most deservedly held up to contempt? would it not argue in the lecturer an utter ignorance of the present improved state of science. He contended, that it would be equally unjust to argue the question before their lordships, without reference to the actual state and opinions of the Catholics as they existed at the present day. The principle on which a true statesman should act, would be in all measures of importance to adapt himself to the altered condition of society. True philosophy, as Bacon said, was the art of interpreting nature. The business of a wise legislator should be to direct his measure so as to adapt them to the condition of men as they then existed, and not to that in which they might have been at a former period. Let their lordships look at what was the conduct of Catholics in the different states of Europe and in America, and see whether it bore out the allegation, that they were hostile to a free constitution, or were found to be disloyal subjects when in the service of Protestant princes.—The noble marquis then proceeded to contend, at considerable length, that the Catholics were found faithful subjects to Protestant princes; that this had been proved in every Protestant state in Europe; that their attachment to a free constitution was proved by the conduct of the Catholics in America, by their disposition to admit religious liberty, and by the readiness with which the state of Maryland, originally composed principally of Catholics, admitted the most tolerant regulations with respect to religious worship. The noble marquis concluded this part of his remarks with an appeal to the learned lord on the woolsack; in which he asked, whether, in the course of his official experience, he had ever known of any Catholic minister or general who bad betrayed the secrets of a Protestant prince, or swerved in any manner from his allegiance or duty in consequence of his obedience to the Pope?—The noble marquis then went on to point out the manifest impolicy of paralyzing the energies of a large portion of the subjects of the empire, by political disabilities en the score of religion, and to show that those who wished to unite the exertions of every class in support of the general welfare of the state, were the true friends of that church establishment, which he admitted was so closely allied to it. He was, he added, fully aware of the sensitive fears of those who apprehended that the Protestant church would be endangered if Catholics were allowed a seat in the legislative bodies, where subjects connected with the welfare of that church might be decided. The conscientious opinions from which such feelings and alarms arose, he duly respected; but, he was convinced that the apprehensions were unfounded. He was the legs inclined to be influenced by such alarms, when he considered what had already occurred with respect to cases in which similar fears were expressed. It was matter of history, that, when the union of Scotland with England was proposed, part of the plan, which was to introduce sixteen representative peers of that country to seats in the English House of Lords, was warmly opposed by some right reverend prelates of that day. They imagined that if sixteen Presbyterian lords were allowed to sit and vote on all subjects in that House, it might be attended with consequences the most dangerous to the church of England. One right reverend prelate in particular, in the warmth of his zeal for the security of the Protestant establishment, went so far as to predict, that the most imminent d anger to the church would be the necessary consequence. He compared the introduction of sixteen Presbyterians into the upper House to the mixture of so many foreign ingredients in the cauldron, which would have the certain effect of making it boil over until it burst. Notwithstanding those grave predictions, the measure was carried into effect: the sixteen Presbyterian lords were admitted into parliament, and what happened? not that the cauldron had boiled over until it burst, that no danger whatever had accrued to the church; and, on looking at the divisions which had since then taken place, it would appear, by a very corious coincidence, that these sixteen Presbyterians were generally found voting on the same side with the bishops who had been so much alarmed at their approach; nor did it appear that there was at the present time one single Presbyterian more than there was on the day the measure was carried. Another instance that he would quote was the circumstance of the repeal of the sacramental test in Ireland about a century ago. On that occasion, a man whose wit, talent, and intellect could not be doubted—he meant Dean Swift—had been so far led away by the prevailing opinion on that head, that he had ventured to prophecy, that if that test was once repealed in Ireland the religion of that country would be entirely changed, and. the whole of the inhabitants would become Presbyterians. After some years had elapsed, the sacramental test was repealed—and, what was the effect produced by that repeal? Their lordships very well knew that there followed no attempt to introduce the Presbyterian religion; and they likewise knew, that the followers of that religion had not increased in number; but that the Catholics bad augmented their proportion. He would only trouble their lordships with one instance more of this false spirit of prophecy. In the early part of his late majesty's reign, a bill was passed for the relief of his Catholic subjects living et Canada. The introduction of the measure caused a great clamour; and an eminent divine published his opinion in the same vein of happy prophecy to which he had already alluded. In that publication he had declared, that it must be the infallible effect of that measure to introduce the supremacy of the pope and the power of his bulls into Canada, to the great disturbance of his majesty's government, and to the final throwing off their allegiance altogether, so that the French court would be able, through the assistance of the Pope, to separate them from the other states of America. Let their lordships look at what really was the result. The intrigues of the French king were indeed employed to detach the States from the allegiance that they then owed to the sovereign of these realms, but, where was it that those intrigues had succeeded? It was the other Stages, professing the Presbyterian faith, who had yielded to those persuasions; while Popish Canada, about which there had been so much alarm, remained true a id loyal to the dominion of king George 3rd. Yet now their lordships were to be told, that no trust could be put in the Roman Catholics. He wished to address himself in particular to those opposers of the measure, who, confounding the ends of government, which were always the same, with the means which always differed, and who upon that occasion thought that they were standing still, while, in fact, they were tottering beneath the influence of their prejudices; such opponents as these he would entreat to consider, that there never had existed a proposition more novel in its cause and in its effect then the one, that in England, the only place in the world, a vast pro portion or her inhabitants should be found deprived of the greatest of their rights on account of their religious tenets. The cause, however, was visibly advancing, and he was sure that every thing affecting the Catholic body could not fail, year after year, to introduce them to the House as more and more powerful petitioners, so that their lordships would at length be absolutely forced into the deliberation of the real question, which was—whether parliament would choose to return to the old system of governing the Roman Catholics by coercion, or whether it would complete that system of conciliation which had already been so fortunately undertaken? That system had in part been tried, and had in part flourished in proportion; and he would assert, though it was in opposition to the declaration which had fallen from the reverend prelate who had just spoken, that the people of Ireland were essentially improved in their moral and religious education, and that conciliation. already had produced the. happiest and most beneficial effects. It now remained for the church of England to assist in making these concessions which the Catholics claimed; and he thought that it would be more becoming the state of the church of England to be a little more confident in her own strength, and that it would be well to consider, whether, in giving privileges and in ceding rights to another religion, they were in any way diminishing the privileges, or taking away from the rights of the religion of the state; or, whether it would not probably be the means of gaining for that church new friends, open to feelings of high respect, and to that admiration which it was a part of his pride to believe other religions entertained for the church of England. It had been said by some noble lords, that the Irish people could not be expected to enter into the feelings of Englishmen, and it was therefore necessary to exclude them from the situations that Englishmen were allowed to hold. He would conclude what he had to say by reading the opinion of some of the greatest men that England had ever produced. The persons whose opinions he was about to give were, lord Somers, lord Peterborough, the bishop of Salisbury, and the duke of Devonshire of a former day. Those great and accomplished persons had laid it down as their opinion, that an Englishman could not be reduced. to a more unhappy condition than that of being put by the law in an incapacity of serving his king and country; and therefore nothing but a crime of the most detestable nature ought to put him in such a situation. In giving his support to the present measure, he wished to be most thoroughly understood, that he was not conniving at any other measure that had been passed during the present session, but that his support was given to it on its own merits. He did not, he would confess, look at it as a sovereign panacea for all the evils of Ireland; but he regarded it with a favourable eye, for he thought that it would lead to other steps as important, and as likely to be the means of promoting conciliation between the Catholics and Protestants, and at the same time of uniting all the subjects of his majesty, of whatever denomination they might be. Such being his firm persuasion, he should support the bill in all its bearings; being convinced, that the rights of citizens ought not to be withheld from men on the ground of difference of religious persuasion.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, that, late as the hour was, he could not suffer the speech of the noble marquis who had just sat down, to pass without troubling the House, and he feared at some length, with some observations in reply to it. He was ready, for himself, at once to meet the question as a question of expediency —to look fairly at the advantages which were expected from it, and at the evils to which it might give rise. But, he could not do this without first calling the attention of their lordships to the situation in which the House stood with respect to the question—a situation which, in his judgment, was equally novel and inconvenient. In consequence of events in Ireland which had transpired prior to the assembling of parliament, parliament had found it necessary to pass an act putting down the body called the Catholic Association, and also to institute an inquiry, by both branches of the legislature, into the state of the sister kingdom generally. Now, even if he had been favourable to the concession of the Cathodic claims, he should certainly, under such circumstances, have thought it right to await the result of the inquiry so instituted, and at all events to legislate only upon a full investigation of the subject. No such course, however, it seemed, was to be adopted by the promoters of the present measure. The bill was brought in without one moment waiting for intelli- gence; nor was it the mere bill before the House that was to be brought forward; but two others were devised, got up with equal haste and equal want of consideration; some of the provisions of which might go, perhaps, to alleviate the evils belonging to the main mats but others there were, which seemed no less likely to increase it. Why, then, it was not one measure of change that was proposed but three; and where were they—on what was each to depend—and what was their connexion? This course might answer the purpose of the advocates of the Catholics; it might serve—as it was meant to do—to catch a few stray votes on the right or the left; but, in what sort of situation was the House of Lords, he asked, placed by such a proceeding? He desired to know what it was expected the House of Lords should do. The House of Commons had put them in this condition—it had sent them up a bill which they knew not how to act by; having purchased a majority for that bill, by the introduction of other measures. He did protest again, that he had never known any public body placed in so disgraceful a situation as the Lords were by this conduct of the other House. Surely, at least, they ought to know what it was they had to decide upon—whether it was the measure submitted to them alone, or that measure as joined and Connected with two others? For himself as far as his opinion went, perhaps the question, however, was one of slight consideration; for he detested, from the very bottom of his heart, the bill already in the House A great part of it he took to be nonsense; some of it was even still worse. The least objectionable part of the bill, as he thought, was the concessions which it proposed making to the Catholics; for upon that subject he would be content to put one short question to the House—would they relieve the Catholic from the disabilities under which he laboured, or would they not?—and if they replied in the affirmative, then he would engage to draw up a bill for the purpose in half an hour, which should not be liable to a tenth part of the objections which applied to that now upon the table. In short, the simple question as to the great measure seemed to him to be—would the House, or would it not, remove the Catholic disabilities? And that question—perhaps one of the most important that parliament bad ever been called upon to decide—could not too soon be treated in such a manner as to place it on a firm and solid basis. The noble lords opposite maintained, that it was fitting to grant the concessions demanded; because the Catholics of this country and Ireland ought, and were entitled, to enjoy equal civil rights and immunities at all points with their Protestant brethren. Now, this was the plain proposition of the advocates for emancipation; and he would deal plainly with it. He met it with a decided negative. He said, that the Catholics were not entitled to equal rights in a Protestant country, and that opinion he would sustain. Upon some points he had been favourable to the Catholics; he did not know but there were others upon which he might still be so: but, upon that broad principle—that they were entitled to equal rights with their Protestant fellow-subjects—he and their friends were at direct issue. He admitted—no man could dream of denying it—that ill subjects in a free state were entitled to the enjoyment of equal rights upon equal conditions; but, then the qualification of that principle in the case of the Catholics was clear—the Catholics, who demanded these equal rights, did not afford equal conditions. The difference was this—it was stated in a moment—the Protestant gave an entire allegiance to his sovereign; the Catholic a divided one. The service of the former was complete; that of the latter only qualified; and, unless it could be proved to him, that the man who worked for half a day, was entitled to as much wages as the man who worked the whole day, or, in other words, that the half was equal to the whole, he could not adroit that the Roman Catholic, whose allegiance was divided between a spiritual and a temporal master, was entitled to the enjoyment of the same civil rights and privileges as the Protestant, whose allegiance was, undivided, and who acknowledged but one ruler.

Thus much he had thought it necessary to premise, before he went into the question of expediency; because, great as might be the arguments drawn from expediency, it was necessary in the first instance, to found those arguments upon the solid and immutable principles of justice and although he had attended the discussion of this subject for twenty years, he thought it could be placed upon no other intelligible footing. He should not now enter into any theological discussions. We had nothing now to do with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic church, with the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the invocation of saints. He should, therefore, confine himself to the power which, notwithstanding all that had been said upon the subject, he maintained the Pope still held over the great body of the Roman Catholics. He knew that it had been the policy of the advocates of the Catholics to maintain that this power was extinct; but he needed only to refer to the evidence before their lordships—evidence which must strike with surprise every man who was not acquainted with it—to prove the extraordinary influence which was even at that day exercised by-the Pope of Rome. It was, my lords, incontestibly proved, by the evidence of Dr. Doyle, Dr. Ryan, and other dignitaries of the Roman Catholic church, that the presentation to vacant sees in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland was vested in the Pope at that moment—that he exercised an absolute and uncontrolled power of appointing whom he pleased to vacant bishopricks. He might, perhaps (the evidence stated), yield occasionally to the recommendation of others, but the strict right of nomination he reserved to himself. That he had occasionally yielded to the representation of others had been fully proved by the evidence of Dr. Doyle, who had stated before their lordships' committee, that James the Second, his son, and grandson, had, for a succession of years, recommended to the vacant Irish bishopricks, and that the Pope had invariably attended to their recommendations. If, therefore, the king of France, or the king of Spain, or any of the members of that bugbear of the noble lords opposite, the Holy Alliance, were now to recommend to the Pope, who could say that he would not listen to their recommendation? Would any one then say, that a people so circumstanced were entitled to a community of civil rights and privileges with the Protestants? He knew it had been said, that the progress of education, and the march of civilization, had wrought wonders amongst the Catholics; and, looking to the present aspect of the times, it might, perhaps, appear to superficial observers, that little danger was to be apprehended. But he would remind their lordships, that the horizon was often the clearest and most serene when the tempest was nearest. And here he would appeal to history, and ask their lordships, at what period did the established church appear to be in a more flourishing condition than at the Restoration of Charles 2nd? And yet in twenty years afterwards it was, that the greatest revolution took place in the condition of that church, and it was next to a miracle that, by the machinations of a popish prince, it was not overwhelmed in one common ruin with the state and constitution of this country. This, then, was a subject which ought not to be passed over. It was not to the Pope, as Pope, that he objected; it was to the principle of the existence of such a power as that in the Pope. It was to the doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic church that he objected. His objections were not to the doctrine of transubstantiation or purgatory, but to the power, the temporal, the practical power of its priesthood over all the relations of private life.

The noble marquis

had stated, that the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy had nothing to do with the practical discussion of this question. He could not agree with the noble marquis in that opinion; as he thought that the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy mainly influenced that of the Roman Catholic body; and this necessarily arose from the nature of the relations existing between them. With respect to the duty of confession, for example—it had been asserted by some noble lords, that we Protestants also recognised the duty of confession. He admitted that we did, but mark the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. We did not require the performance of it as an indispensable duty. We did not even invite, much less require its performance; and, although we believed that absolution, or forgiveness of sins was the result of sincere repentance and reformation of life, we did not, as the Roman Catholics did, insist upon an annual confession, nor maintain that what was called the absolution of the priest, amounted to a sort of white-washing of the sinner [hear]. He had not, however, done with the evils of this system of confession, as practised by the Roman Catholic. And here he must again request their lordships' attention to the evidence given before their committee. From parts of that evidence it appeared that if the person who confessed were to disclose the commission of the most enormous crime, the priest was bound to secrecy [hear]. Neither was this bond of secrecy confined to crimes which had been committed; it extended to those which were intended to be committed, and not only by the person who made the confession, but by any of his acquaintances. So that if the priest were to become cognizant of the most atrocious conspiracy—of one, for example, to blow up both Houses of parliament—and here he was putting no imaginary case—it would not be in his power to disclose the secret. He would go further and say, that if the priest were to meet a person at a place where two roads met, and if, under the seal of confession, he had been informed that a murderer was waiting for that person at some distance on the right, he would not be justified in saying to him, "Go to the left, and you will escape the fate which is preparing for you." What description of religion, then, was this, whose professors we were called on to invest with civil rights? Was it too much to say, that they were under the exclusive dominion of their priests?

He next came to the question of education. And here he had no hesitation in saying, that he saw insurmountable difficulties in case this measure was passed—difficulties which applied to no other class of Dissenters; and the reason was obvious. In the case of other Dissenters, they all acknowledged one common foundation for instruction—the Bible; but, from the indiscriminate use of this sacred book, the Roman Catholic was debarred by his priest.—He came next to a subject of great importance, as connected with the influence of the priests and the difficulty of reconciling the two religions. He alluded to the subject of marriage. The Roman Catholic priest disallowed the validity of marriages which had been contracted within certain degrees of kindred which were not recognised by his church, although they were by the jaw of the land. Thus, the priest and the law were at issue: for, while the one acknowledged the validity of the contract, the other told those by whom it was entered into, that they were living in a state of sin. There were other instances of interference upon this subject, to which he thought it necessary now to advert. He had himself known instances in which the Roman Catholic priest had refused to marry a Roman Catholic gentleman to a Protestant lady, unless he engaged that all his children should be educated as Catholics. He hadbeen desirous to know whether this was the case in Ireland, as well as in this country, and the evidence of Dr. Murray had satisfied him that it was so. How, then, he asked, could the professors of such opposite systems of faith and practice be ever united and knit together in the bonds of social harmony? And, if they could not be so united and knit together, whose fault was it? It was not the fault of the laws—it was not the fault of the Protestants—it was not the fault of England—[hear].—It was owing to themselves, and to the bigotted and intolerant conduct of their clergy; the natural effect of which was, to create disunion and perpetuate distrust [hear, hear].

He repeated that it was his wish to look at the question not theologically, but as one of convenience; but, a part of that very question of convenience must depend upon the degree of influence exercised by the Catholic priesthood, and on the species of influence which the tenets of the Catholic faith put into their hands. Now, with respect to another part of their church discipline, he meant excommunication, what a fearful engine was this in the hands of the priest. He knew he should be told that it was frequently evaded. He granted that it was, but the very severity of the punishment was that which prevented its execution; at least, in instances where the priest had not the unanimous voice of his congregation with him. But, suppose the congregation were unanimous, and the priest bent upon the punishment of some obnoxious delinquent! He did not say this from any wish to impute unworthy motives to the Catholio priesthood generally, or from any supposition that there was in that body any disposition to the abuse of their power—he said, however, that in the hands of the political priest, there could be no more fearful or dangerous engine than this power of excommunication, with all its train of horrors. Was not this proved by the power which it was upon hands acknowledged that the priest possessed? Did not Protestants and Roman Catholics, however differing on other matters, unite in this, that in the various counties in Ireland, the power of the landlord was nothing to that which the priest possessed in cases of contested elections, and upon other important occasions, when he wished to make his political influence available.

His peculiar objection to the Roman Catholic religion was, that it penetrated into every domestic scene, and inculcated a system of tyrany never before known. Now, what were the evils which they had to apprehend? He might in fairness require the supporters of this measure to prove, before they allowed this alteration, that there would be no evil attending it. He would not ask so much from them. He only required them to show him the benefit of conceding. If all the evils which he had pointed out were really to be expected, then the advantages promised by the noble lord were out of the question. He held—their lordships held—the bill held—that a Protestant succession was the foundation of our constitutional system. He would say, that if this measure should pass, the Protestant succession would not be worth a farthing. Much had been said of rights—indefeasible and natural rights. The state was Protestant essentially, the Crown was to be Protestant, and the successors to the throne must take to the same faith. But, were they to be the only persons so limited? He would speak of a king's rights here in the same sense, and no other, as that in which he would argue the rights of a peasant. Was it not hard upon the king and the heir to the throne, that they must be bound to the Protestant faith, while the chief justice, the ministers, and the secretaries of state, might be Roman Catholics? Why was this? Where was the danger in having a popish king or a popish chancellor; if all the other executive offices might acknowledge the Pope? He thought there was less danger in a popish chancellor, who might be removed at pleasure, than in a popish chief justice, who would hold the administration of the criminal law in his control, and could only be removed by a peculiar process of law in case of his dereliction.

It was said that the privy council might be increased by the admission of Roman Catholics, and that it was unjust and cruel to exclude Catholics from such an appointment of trust and honour; in short, that a Catholic might be prime minister, and have the whole patronage of the church and state at his disposal. As long, however, as the system of the constitution was Protestant, it was essential to maintain a Protestant throne, and a Protestant administration of the public affairs. The House ought at once to meet this bill fully and unequivocally, and not to deceive the people. They ought at once to declare, that if the bill were to pass, Great Britain would be no longer a Protestant state. The evil he apprehended from the passing of such a bill would not be immediate; but it would be inevitable, and would come upon the country in a manner little expected. It was not the immediate object of the Catholics to possess themselves of the property of the established church. They were too wary to proceed openly and directly in any such design. No: their object was, in the first instance, merely to diminish the property of the church. What was the language held by one of their great authorities, Dr. Doyle, upon this very point: That he did wish to decrease the magnitude of the possessions of the church; but he wished it, not as a priest, but as an Irishman. Was any man so blind—was any man so deaf—was any man so lost to all the benefits of experience, as not to know what such language really meant? Was any man so thoroughly ignorant of the course of human actions, as not to know, that when once the property of the church was violated under any such a pretence, it would soon be seized upon, and that such was the real object of Catholic cupidity? The most insidious way in which the Catholics could possibly set about their work was to say,"Take the property of the established church, and give it to the public for the general benefit of the country." For when once the property of the Protestant hierarchy was invaded and impaired by such an artful attack, it required but little wisdom to foretel what would befal the remainder of its rights and possessions. The grand maxim of the Catholics was, "If one church sinks, the other must swim; destroy or depress the Protestant establishment, and that of the Catholics would flourish" There was nothing inconsistent in the evidence before the House; for the Catholics thought, that if they could destroy the church by what they called legislative means, it was no destruction in the sense of their professions. To destroy that church was, in fact, their grand object. It was their duty, their religion, their oath, their every thing, to effect its downfal. Circumstances might or might not favour their designs; but, if the object was effected, what did it signify whether the mischief were produced by open attacks, or by the more insidious method of impairing the church proper- ty? Noble lords seemed to view this measure solely as a means or communicating to the Catholics all the enjoyments of government patronage and employments, and of knitting together till his majesty's faithful subjects into one nation, to the utter oblivion of all former dissentions and discord: but he had already shown that the difficulty of obtaining any such object arose out of the very spirit of their church. Noble lords really appeared to think, that by education, and by removing the disabilities which were laid on the Catholics, all dissentions between the two churches would cease: but, the question was, whether the effect of this bill would not be to increase those dissentions? The bill would leave the two contending parties where they now were; but, by giving new powers to the Roman Catholics, or at least new capabilities of enjoying power, it would bring them more into contact with their Protestant fellow subjects, place them on a nearer footing of equality, and by thus exciting desires which could not perhaps be gratified, fresh occasions would arise of dissention and dissatisfaction. If it were possible to unite the Catholics and Protestants in one friendly mass, by any common system of education, he should applaud the effort to obtain so desirable a result; but, separated as they now were, and actuated by the spirit by which it was well known that so many on both sides were actuated, such a project was absolutely impossible. The very hope was visionary; and those who had the object at heart, and had introduced the present measure as a means of effecting that object, would find themselves entirely disappointed, and most egregiously deceived, if they were to carry it into a law.

What, then, was the good which could result from this bill? Would it tranquillize, or would it tend to tranquillize Ireland? He was sorry that so much delusion existed throughout the country upon a point so important. Great mistakes had arisen from the belief entertained by many members of both Houses, that because Ireland had beer, in a very disturbed state, and because very objectionable measures had been resorted to for keeping that country in peace, that therefore all the disturbances had grown out of the Catholic disqualifications. It had been, therefore, the general, or at least a very common, impression, that, if the disabilities were removed, the foundations of peace would be at once established. But it was a proposition of the clearest demonstration, that the disturbed state of Ireland for the last twenty years, had nothing whatever to do with the Catholic question. This point was most satisfactorily proved by the evidence lying on their lordships' table. For the space of twenty five years the Insurrection act had never been once put in force in any part of the province of Ulster; and yet that province was the great seat of religious animosities, and of religious violence, the two parties being there so nearly upon an equality. The insurrection act, on the contrary, had been carried into effect in the south of Ireland, where no religious dissentions whatever bad existed, or, at least, to the extent of disturbing the public peace. Absentee-ship, combined. with the great subdivision of property, had occasioned an increase of population to a most enormous extent; this had brought the country into a state of beggary, and hence had sprung all the disorders of the state. This great evil, he was happy to say, was now correcting itself. Dr. Doyle states in his letters, that the population of Ireland was now positively decreasing. He perfectly agreed with the right reverend prelate who spoke in the course of the debate, that, whether the Catholic amounted to one, two, or three millions, made no difference, or ought to male no difference, in the decision of this question. It was a great question that ought not to be decided otherwise than upon general principles, and upon extended views. But, with respect to the number of Catholic subjects, the greatest exaggeration had, he was convinced, been resorted to. A noble duke had that night stated the Catholics of Ireland to outnumber the Protestants in at proportion of at least five to one. This, he had good reason for believing, was an exaggeration. At the very utmost, he did not believe they were more than in the proportion of three to one; and the returns proved, that they were as nearly as possible in the same ratio to each other as in the time of sir William Petty, with a corresponding increase in both.

Their lordships were told upon all occasions when this question was debated, that. the Catholic subjects of foreign states enjoyed many advantages which were not enjoyed by the Catholic subjects of the English Crown. He begged their lordships to consider, that there were circumstances in the English constitution, growing out of the very advantages of that constitution, which might make restrictions upon the Catholics more necessary than in absolute monarchies. Noble lords opposite argued, as if the Roman Catholics in this country were deprived of all share in the advantages of our free constitution. But, even after excluding them from all which this bill asked, they would still enjoy more civil and political liberty than the Protestants residing in any Catholic state in Europe. When the elective franchise was granted to the Roman Catholics, it was hailed as a great boon. Was it not most curious then, that those very persons who talked so much of natural rights, and of their great importance to the subject, were prepared by this measure, which at the utmost could affect only thirty or forty persons, to sacrifice the rights of five hundred thousand electors? Whatever might be the case in other nations, or in a country circumstanced like Maryland, all he would say was, that it was not in the constitution of this country to admit Catholics to those situations to which the bill would render them eligible. There was, therefore, no parity of argument between the two countries. The religious freedom desirable and proper in the one, might be far from desirable or proper in the other.

There was one very material point upon which he must offer a few observations. In the House of Commons, a resolution had been come to, on the 29th of April, "That it is expedient that provision should be made by law for the maintenance of the secular clergy of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland;" not, be it observed, in the way of a regium donum, but a provision by law. Now, what was this but to establish, to all intents and purposes, the Roman Catholic hierarchy in its full pride and power? This was going at once to the very object of Catholic triumph. Why, those who had been the most alarmed, and had thought that such a state of things would grow out of the present bill, had never imagined that it would have been done so openly. Was such a measure constitutional? Was it consistent with the rights and privileges of Protestants? He could not consider the coronation oath as any obstacle to the removal of the civil and political disabilities of the Catholics. The oath was an oath to protect the established church and clergy of the realm. The removal of the disabilities might possibly affect that church, but it could only do so consequentially. Many wise and good men were of opinion, that it would strengthen the church; and if parliament presented a bill to the king for his acceptance, grounded upon this assumption, he did not see how the king could be advised to consider it as at variance with the obligations of the oath which he had taken. But, the question, as to the establishment of the Catholic religion by law, was of a very different nature. The Catholic church in Ireland professes to be a national, and not a missionary church. The bishoprics and parishes were the same, or nearly so, as the bishoprics and parishes of the established church. The Catholic bishops claim a parity of spiritual jurisdiction with the bishops of the establishment. Their parish priests claim a parity of spiritual rights and duties with the parochial clergy of the establishment. It was for parliament, therefore, seriously to consider, whether the king could consent to establish by law such a church as that now claiming to exist in Ireland, under the designation of the Irish Roman Catholic church, consistently with the obligation—" to 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."

He had argued the question upon a narrow principle, in order to convince their lordships, that the present bill was totally incompatible with the first principles of the constitution; that it would produce the most serious evils throughout the country; and that it would fail to achieve any of those objects which its promoters flattered themselves it would produce. Neither could he bring himself to view it as a measure of peace and conciliation. Whatever it might do in this respect in the first instance, he was persuaded that its natural tendency would be to increase dissentions, and to create discord, even where discord did not previously exist. He intreated their lordships to consider the aspect of the times in which they lived. It was their fate to bear doctrines openly promulgated, which were as novel as they were mischievous. The people were now taught in publications to consider queen Mary as having been a wise and virtuous queen, and that the world had gained nothing whatever by the Reformation. Nay, more than this—it was now promulgated, that James 2nd was a wise and virtuous prince; and that he fell in the glorious,cause of religious toleration. Could the House be aware of these facts, and not see that a great and powerful engine was at work to effect the object of re-establishing the Catholic religion throughout these kingdoms? And, if once established, should we not revert to a state of ignorance, with all its barbarous and direful consequences? Let the House consider what had been the result of those laws—what had been the effects of that fundamental principle of the British constitution—which they were now called upon to alter with such an unsparing hand. For the last hundred and thirty years, the country had enjoyed a state of religious peace, a blessing that had arisen out of the wisdom of our laws. But, what had been the state of the country for the hundred and thirty years immediately preceding that period? England had been in a state of the most sanguinary religious contentions. The blessings of the latter period were to be attributed solely to the nature of those laws, which granted toleration to all religious creeds, at the same time that they maintained a just, a reasonable, and a moderate superiority in favour of the established church. Their lordships were now called upon to put Protestants and Catholics on the same footing; and if they consented to do this, certain he was, that the consequence would be religious dissention, and not religious peace. The present system had the experience of its good results to recommend it; and he preferred it, therefore, to the experiment proposed in the present bill, or to any other that he had yet heard suggested [loud cheers].

The Earl of Harrowby

began by saying, that he did not rise at so late an hour, in order to enter into a full discussion of a subject so frequently debated, or to repeat arguments which had so often been better brought forward, but because it was impossible for him to give a silent vote upon this question, after the speech of his noble friend and colleague. Continuing to differ from him as widely as ever, more widely indeed, than he thought they had differed, he owed it both to him and to himself, however painful to his feelings, to express the ground for the continuance of that difference, and to attempt at least to reply to his arguments, not because they had made any impression upon his own mind, but lest, however inconclusive and foreign to the question they might appear to him; they should make any impression upon the minds of others.

He had rejoiced to bear from the right rev. prelate,,who spoke early in the debate. that he disclaimed all intention of arguing this question upon a religious basis. What, then,was his disappointment to find that many of that right rev. prelate's arguments, and more those of his noble friend, rested entirely upon those tenets, which the Roman Catholics considered as an essential part of their religion? The main objection of both those noble lords was the divided allegiance of the Roman Catholics. Now he, for one, had not only admitted, but contended, that the allegiance of no dissenter whatever could be so complete and. cordial as that of a member of our own church, who was equally attached to the altar and the throne—but though not equal, it was proved, both by argument and experience, that it was amply sufficient to qualify them for the full enjoyment of all civil and political rights.—If the argument proved anything, it proved too much; for it proved that no Roman Catholic could be a loyal subject, even of a Roman Catholic prince. His allegiance was equally divided, whatever be the religion of his sovereign. But the whole history of Europe would prove that, for centuries. the Roman Catholics had not acted upon such principles. What was the instance in modern history of the Pope having attempted to avail himself of this power?

He would not go back to all the ancient creeds, and the declarations of ancient Councils, of which so much had been said on former occasions and so little on the present evening. He was as little disposed to deny as to defend them. It had been said, however, that the doctrines professed in those creeds, and promulgated by those councils had never been distinctly disclaimed by the same authority. True, they never had, and probably never would: if the legislature were to wait, and postpone their crofts to tranquillize Ireland till the publication of such a disclaimer, they might wait to all eternity. It always has been and always must be the policy of Rome not to fly directly in the face of its own infallibility: although it will not directly abjure any power which it has once claimed, it prudently refrains from its exercise, because it knows it would,not be obeyed. But, if the legislature takes into its account, what in a practical view is far more important, the many circumstances which have taken place, operating as so many disclaimers of those doctrines, they would feel, that the obstacle which they opposed to the claims of the Roman Catholics, if not altogether removed, had been greatly diminished. Was it nothing that the most obnoxious of those doctrines had been disclaimed by the highest authorities in point of learning and character in their communion? Was the declaration of the Church of Rome in 1802, with Bossuet at their head, nothing? Was it nothing, that when questions respecting those doctrines were put to all the chief universities of Europe by Mr. Pitt, thirty years ago, they expressed their surprise and indignation at the imputation involved in the supposition that they could really believe them? Was it nothing that, in the face of the public, all the leaders of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland had abhorrently disclaimed such tenets? No instance could be produced in modern history in which the conduct of Roman Catholics had afforded the slightest ground for distrusting the sincerity of this disclaimer. Why, then, recur to opinions formed in the darkest ages, and consigned to oblivion by those whose actions they are supposed to regulate; and shut your eyes to the uniform evidence of their practice? When you have proved to your own satisfaction, that they ought to be rebels, according to their own doctrines, and that they cannot be good subjects unless they are bad logicians; surely this is a luctuosa victoria!

His noble friend had proceeded to state other Roman Catholic doctrines, from which he attempted to prove, that they could not be good subjects in a Protestant state. Here again, too much, if any thing, was proved, as they operated equally, if at all, to prove that they could not be good subjects in any state. Amongst these was the doctrine of the secresy of confession. Pushed to the extent to which it was carried, he had felt as much shocked as his noble friend at the monstrous consequences of such a doctrine. But, in what way did it affect the security of the state? In the first place, confession was an acknowledgement of sins committed by the penitent: it could rarely happen that he would confess an intended sin of his own; still less the intended sin of another. The case could not be of frequent occurrence. His noble friend, however, ascribed danger to the secresy imposed upon the priest. But this secresy, although it might render the priest guilty of misprision of a crime, made no difference as to the security of the state. The laity now confessed to their priests, because their priests were not at liberty to reveal their confessions. If the priests were at liberty to reveal their confessions, the laity would no longer confess. But, did this make any difference as to the probable existence or discovery of treason, or of any other crime? It amounted only to this—that the government does not possess, through the means of confession to the priest, an additional security for the loyalty and innocence of the Roman Catholic, which it has not and cannot have for that of the Protestant,

The opposition of the Church of Rome to the circulation of the Bible without note or comment is also brought forward as a charge; and, it seems, as one of the grounds upon which the laity are to be excluded from an equality of political rights. He disapproved, as much as his noble friend, of this opposition. But surely it should be remembered, that this was the opinion of no small portion of our own church, and that if it were to be held as such a detraction from their civil worth as to exclude them from political trust, this House would lose the advantage of the assistance of some of those who now adorned it. An erroneous doctrine it appeared to him to be—but, was it to be held, that because the Roman Catholic church maintained such a doctrine, it was not fitting that its lay professors should enjoy equal privileges with their Protestant fellow subjects, many of whom, even in the highest stations in the church, more or less agreed with them? After all, be the opinion false or true, what connexion could it possibly have with their allegiance or loyalty?

It was the same with respect to their doctrines as to marriage, and other sacraments of their church. There are marriages which we allow, and which they disallow. They cannot prevent these marriages from having their legal effect; but, as they consider them as unlawful, they may endeavour to disquiet the consciences of the parties. What was this to the state?. What had it to do with the question? They may disturb the peace of domestic life now; so they might, and no more, if all their claims were granted. He was quite at a loss to conceive what there could be in any of these doctrines so menacing to the safety of the country, as to justify us in incurring dangers so much more menacing, by refusing to those who entertained them a full participation in the British constitution. If they were of a nature to warrant us in excluding them from further privileges, why had they net operated to prevent them from attaining those which they now enjoyed? Besides, what class of the community might be supposed to be most attached to the most objectionable doctrines and superstitions of the Romish church? the peasantry. Who were most. under the influence of the priests, by whom these doctrines were said to be preached? the peasantry. Who next? The class immediately above them. To these classes every privilege had been granted. The class above them attached still less to these objectionable tenets; and that class was most free from them which moved in the highest rank of all. Were we then proceeding wisely, or rationally, or safely, in granting every privilege to the classes most subject to the influence which we feared, while we withheld them from that part of the Roman Catholic body which was most disposed to resist it? if, therefore, the arguments were worth any thing, the legislature had gone too far already; and, what was worse, it had begun at the wrong end. It granted extensive civil power to met who might be biassed by their clergy, if they were so disposed, to use it for civil purposes—it denied it to the higher and more enlightened classes, who, by mixing with their fellow subjects in all the functions of the state, must soon lost, if they ever had it, all inclination to disturb a power, of which they would themselves be partakers.

But, do we really believe that Roman Catholics would abuse this power? Do we really believe that their spiritual allegiance to the Pope would clash with their temporal allegiance to the king? If so, what insanity prompted the law, by which they are admitted to the highest ranks in the army and navy! If any danger were really to be apprehended., surely there it would be to be found.

His noble friend had also adverted to the influence of the Pope, which was undoubtedly greater in the nomination of Bishops in Ireland, than in any other country in Europe. But, did not the Pope exercise that influence now? If dangerous, was it not dangerous at present? This was an evil which, by an injudicious course, we might increase, but which we could not diminish by a continuance of disabilities. We cannot prevent the Roman Catholic from adhering to the doctrines and discipline of his church, and cherishing those feelings which he has been taught from his youth to prize. We cannot loose the bonds of spiritual obedience to the Pope. What then can we do? We can draw more closely the ties of political obedience to the state. Here are strong links, which bind men on one side— we cannot break them—we must, then, strengthen our links on the other, by kindness and conciliation, by every thing which can bind man to man, and the citizen to his country. What had been already done had not, it was true, acted as a panacea—That what was proposed to be done might not so act, he was willing to admit. Ireland was a country distracted by too many evils, to be cured by a single remedy. But, though he was not prepared to say, that time proposed measure alone would tranquillize Ireland, he was fully convinced, that Ireland would never be tranquil without it. Without it, all the benefits you may confer will fall upon a barren, and, perhaps, ungrateful soil. With it, they will fall upon good land, kindly prepared, and will producean abundant harvest.

His lordship next complained, that neither in this or in any former debate had any distinct statement been made of the quarter from whence danger was to arise, or of the manner in which it was to operate. It was not pretended, that the introduction of a few Roman Catholic peers into this House could overturn the constitution: but, in the other House it was said, that danger might arise, and that, in critical moments, a body of Roman Catholics might contrive to purchase, by the support of a minister, some further concessions in their favour. Such a combination would most certainly defeat its own object; and a minister who should attempt to sustain his tottering power by such a prop would only accelerate his fall. As the law now stands, Protestant members in.great numbers are elected by Roman Catholics. They would go as far, perhaps further in the furtherance of their objects, than members who were themselves of that religion. Such members being less suspected by their constituents, would, in fact, be more independent of them, and could venture with less danger to their seats, to oppose their wishes. Besides, a combinations of Protestants, brought in upon a Roman Catholic interest, was less open to observation, and therefore more dangerous, than a combination of Roman Catholics, which would immediately excite the most powerful re-action.

One argument of his noble friend he must notice, though somewhat out of its place, for fear he should omit it. His noble friend had said, that if the present bill were passed, we must repeal the law which limits the succession to the Crown to a Protestant; for that if it were unjust to say to a Roman Catholic, that he should not be lord chief justice, it would be still more unjust to say to the king of the country, that he should not be a Catholic —and that it would be the height of injustice to impose restrictions and penalties upon the sovereign, which did not attach upon any one of his subjects. If this be unjust, it is an injustice of which we are guilty at this moment. The king cannot marry a Roman Catholic without losing his crown. All his subjects are at perfect liberty in this respect. By the act of settlement, the king must be in communion with the church of England. This is what the law, under the operation of the annual act of indemnity, requires from no other person in his dominions. In truth, there was no injustice now, there would be no injustice then. You would take off the restrictions upon other offices, because, neither political expediency, nor the safety of the church and state require them. You would preserve them, as they respect the Crown, because they are so required.

But, suppose it to be proved that there can be no danger to the state from the admission of Roman Catholics to an equality of civil rights, still there might be danger to the church. It was unnecessary for him to make any profession of his attachment to it—but, thus much he would say, that if there were any rational ground for this apprehension, any "metus, qui in fortem et constantem virum cadere debet," he would encounter all the inconveniences to be feared from the rejection of this measure. But from whence was this danger to proceed, or how was it to be increased by its adoption? From the exertion of physical force to subvert the church? That force was in existence now, as it would be then. The inclination to use it hostilely might, indeed, be diminished by benefits; but it was preposterous to suppose that it could be augmented. From the bulls of the Pope, putting that force into action? That the Pope might do now. The question was, in which case they would most readily be obeyed, if indeed any man could possibly believe they would be issued or obeyed in either. From legislative measures? There would be six or eight Roman Catholic peers in that House—and what minister would dare to advise a material increase of their number? In the other House of parliament, he heard from some quarters, that there might possibly be only three; from others, fifteen or sixteen; but let us suppose, beyond all probability, that there might be fifty Roman Catholic members—What could they effect? What had the forty-five Presbyterian members ever attempted? The apprehension was only of a remote, unknown, undefined, contingent danger—Could that be said of the danger which might arise from the rejection of this measure? To attack the church and its property in Ireland would be to attack the church and its property in England; and with it, to attack a large portion of the property of the land-holders in both countries. It would be to attack that which, in this country at least, has a firm hold on the affection of the people, and in that was daily growing in their esteem. Such an enterprise could never be undertaken with any rational hope of success. If the mere suspicion of distant and possible danger has excited, as we see, such numerous, and as we are told, such unexcited petitions, what would they be, if these suspicions were converted into certainty by the actual proposal of any measure hostile to the church?

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that dangers may arise, we need only look to our own history for the means of averting them. Recollect the circumstances of the latter years of Charles 2nd. A concealed papist on the throne, backed by the purse of Louis 14th; by whom he was then suspected, and has been since known, to have been bribed. A professed and bigotted papist next in succession. Yet; under all these appalling circumstances, our ancestors guarded the Protestant church from the dangers by which it was then constantly menaced. Why should we distrust ourselves? why should we distrust our posterity? why should we doubt their inclination or their power to guard against similar perils, if ever, contrary to all human probability, they should again present themselves. Our task would be comparatively easy. If Roman Catholics were found dangerous in office, no new measure of doubtful expediency and complicated detail need be proposed. Their expulsion would be at once accomplished by the simple rejection, or non-proposition of the annual act of indemnity; a measure which would not even require the concurrence of both Houses, but might be carried separately by either.

His noble friend had said, that this measure, if passed, would not allay, but create disturbances in Ireland. Now, creation implied giving existence to that which had none before. Was this true of disturbances in Ireland? Did the history of centuries present any thing but a succession of disturbances? But, how was it to create disturbance;, and of what nature? Would it be at contests for elections? Must not, was not, that the case now? Was not the Roman Catholics at least as anxious and as earnest to secure the election of a Protestant member who would vote in their support, as they could be for the election of a Roman Catholic? Perhaps even more so, as now they had a claim to enforce, which would then have been conceded. We had been told that the people of Ireland, generally speaking, had no interest in this question; and that they either cared not for it, or misunderstood it. He thought they had an interest, and felt it; foe every man had an interest in removing a stigma of degradation from the caste to which he belongs. But, in the same breath, we are told, that the people are under the absolute dominion of their priests. Now, no man can deny that they are told by their priests that they have a deep interest in the question, and have taxed their poverty to support it. Whether, therefore, they have an interest or not, whether they understand the question or not, the practical effect upon their minds and conduct was the same. As circumstances now existed, it was, or appeared to be, the interest of the leading minds in Ireland to continue and promote these feelings of discontent and disturbance If to the higher class of the Roman Catholics the door to the fair objects or their ambition were opened, what temptation would they then have to keep up the agitation of the country? Did any man really believe, that when they stood upon an equal footing with their Protestant fellow-subjects, they would, merely in order to transfer the payment of tithes from the incumbent to the priest, or in order to substitute the cope of the Roman Catho- lic for the lawn-sleeves of the Protestant bishop, expose themselves to wage desperate war against the whole strength of this country? Such a thing was not to be expected; and if it were, that strength would be sufficient to beat it down.

He was not, he said, prepared to go the length of those who announced rebellion or insurrection as the immediate or certain consequence of the rejection of this measure. He had too much confidence in the loyalty of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, as well as too much reliance upon their prudence. They must know, that, under present circumstances, such, a step would render their situation whose instead of better; and they must feel, that, although the boon now prayed for. be not granted, they are still in possession of too large a proportion of the blessings of a free constitution, to risk them in a desperate struggle. But, can any man answer for what may, under other circumstances, be the result of their disappointment? What venom, that "hope deferred, which maketh the heartsick," may infuse into the wholesome juices of their now sound constitution? Could any man say what might be the result, if we were engaged in a foreign war against any temporal power which possessed both the means and the inclination to seduce the loyalty of Ireland, with the assistance (in such case, and in such alone not impossible) of that very spiritual power, which we affect so much to dread? The mere apprehension of such an attempt, however improbable its occurrence might be, could never leave us at our ease; it must necessarily cripple our exertions against the foreign enemy, by employing a large proportion of our disposable force in guarding what must be considered as the most vulnerable part of our empire. It was the astonishment of all Europe—and he had frequently been himself galled and taunted by the observation—that we seemed not to think it worth our while, by following the system of nearly the whole continent in this respect, to guard against the possibility of dangers so great and extensive, to add so much to our own positive strength, and to deprive our enemies of such tempting means annoyance. The decision of their lordships that night, if it were such as he feared he must anticipate, would, he could positively assure them, be hailed wish triumph by those, whom he would not invidiously call enemies, but who certainly were the rivals of our country. They would see in it the seeds of future weakness—

Hoc Ithacus velit et magni mercentur Atridæ.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that, at that late hour he would not enlarge in his observations to the House, and he would altogether pass by the merits of what was called the Catholic question. But there were one or two circumstances which he felt it to be his duty to himself and to the country.not to overlook. He confessed himself at a loss to understand how the bill came before their lordships in its present shape and form. From the votes of the House of Commons it appeared, that another bill had been brought into that House to disfranchise a great number of freeholders in Ireland; and also that a resolution had been agreed to, that it was expedient that a provision should be made for the Roman Catholic clergy by the state. Now there was no man but must see that there was an intimate connexion between these propositions and the bill under their lordships' consideration. Yet their lordships were called upon to pass the measure under their consideration, without having any means of anticipating what would be the fate of the other two propositions. That, he would say, was not a proper mode of legislating; and if he had no other reason for opposing the bill now before their lordships but the single circumstance to which he had adverted, he would make his stand on that ground; for it was impossible for him to satisfy his mind as to the probable effect of the bill on the interests of the Protestant establishment, without knowing what would be done with those other propositions. He would not now allude to what had taken place at the Union. He was, nevertheless, glad to hear a noble marquis say, that there was no pledge given at the period of the Union that the Catholic claims would be granted,although there was an understanding to that effect. He had never heard the great man, of whose administration he formed a part at the period, speak of the Catholic claims, without declaring that they could not be agreed to without complete securities for the Protestant establishment. His duty personally to that great man, and many other considerations, induced him frequently to endeavour to ascertain what those contemplated securities were; but, notwithstanding all his inquiries, lie could never learn. At one time the Veto was proposed. He need not tell their lordships what had become of the Veto. Although there was a degree of ingenuity displayed in the manner in which this bill was drawn up, which lie had hardly ever seen before in the composition of an act of parliament, there was no variation in the preamble of this from former bills. That preamble contained; first, a solemn acknowledgment that the Protestant establishment of this realm in church and state must be inviolably and permanently secured. Then came an allegation, that they were inviolably and permanently secured. He allowed that they were secure, provided the acts which rendered them so were permitted to continue in force; but, if their lordships took away the substance of those acts, where then, was the inviolability of their security, or their security at all? Next came a statement that it was just to unite the hearts of all his majesty's subjects in one and the same interest; but parliament, it seemed, was to be an exception, for the bill set them all by the ears. But, the present bill contained a provision which went to regulate the intercourse with the See of Rome. And, who were to be the instruments in superintending that intercourse? Three Roman Catholic commissioners, who refused to give a pledge on their own parts to the supremacy of the Crown. He had taken a positive oath, by which he bound himself to deny the spiritual or temporal jurisdiction of any foreign prince, potentate, or prelate within these realms; which, so help him God, he would not violate. It was true, that somewhere an interpretation had, he understood, been put on that spiritual jurisdiction by two eminent lawyers, one English the other Irish, which he undoubtedly did not understand. As a privy counsellor he had also taken an oath to defend and maintain entire and inviolate the supremacy of his sovereign. He had also taken the oath of allegiance. He knew it might be said that his mind was fettered by the trammels of a lawyer; but he had the authority of lord Hale to state, that the oath of allegiance was erected to dissipate the different constructions that were put on the oath of abjuration, which, though not created, was restored by that enactment. Under the sense of these obligations he was prepared to give his opposition to any measure which derogated from the supremacy of his sovereign. He could not bring his mind to understand what a jurisdiction merely spiritual meant. If, by a spiritual jurisdiction, the marriage of a Protestant with a Catholic was set aside, though the courts of civil law of this country compelled the parties to continue in wedlock, he would ask, was that a spiritual or temporal jurisdiction The discussion of the present measure required a much larger field than its advocates gave it. It must be considered in connexion with the other measures which their lordships had understood, from the votes of the House of Commons, were in contemplation. It must be taken with the disfranchisement of the freeholders, and with the provision for the Catholic clergy of Ireland. He asked, therefore, whether the English Catholics were to be placed on an equal footing with those of Ireland? The authority of Mr. Burke had been alluded to—that Mr. Burke, who had stated, that it was essential to the constitution that we should have a Protestant king, a Protestant government, and a Protestant parliament. Now, he wished to know, whether under a system so essentially Protestant, the Protestant Dissenters were not also to be put on a footing with the Roman Catholics of both countries. On What principle could their lordships refuse the stipends to the Protestant Dissenters after they had secured them by an act of parliament to a Popish hierarchy? He would go further, and say, that after such a provision had been made for the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, it was impossible to refuse something more than a regium donum to the clergy of the Dissenters. They had heard much of the constitution of the States of America. He trusted that the experiment that had been made in that country of a government without a religious establishment, might, for the peace of its people, succeed; but, it was not because such an experiment was on trial, that he would agree to surrender the right and security, of that church establishment in this country, which had contributed so essentially to its glory, prosperity, and happiness. —With respect to the other measure which it appeared was to accompany the accomplishment of the present bill he meant the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, he should pronounce no opinion upon it then. He would not say whether it was wise or unwise; but, he would say, that they were called upon to decide on the main measure. Yet, if it. were true that a measure which went to disfranchise thousands of the king's subjects was brought forward with a view to catch a vote on the one and the other side of the House for another bill which went to obtain an extension of civil rights for a few, it did in that light appear to him a most objectionable measure. Some noble lords had termed him a parliamentary reformer. He would say, in answer, that he had lived too long in the world to attach much respect for the character of what was understood to be a reformer. He most certainly saw reformer, revolutionists, and other persons, all united together to carry forward the present measure; those other persons being some of the very best persons in the country. But, he was stated to be a reformer because he had ventured to declare his belief that the great majority of the people of this country was hostile to the present measure. In that opinion he persevered. He did believe that an infinite majority of the English people were averse to it—that they were disquieted by the apprehension of its accomplishment—and that if it did pass, it would give great pain and dissatisfaction. But then it was said, it had passed the House of Commons. He did not wish to give any cause of dissatisfaction to noble lords near him; but he well recollected the East India bill —a bill which passed the House of Commons, and against which numerous petitions had been presented. It was, however, then, as it was now, contended that the people approved of the measure. There, however, unluckily for that assertion, came on a general election. The House of Commons, after that election was differently constituted; and the result proved, that what was alleged to be the decision of the people of this country turned out to be a perfect delusion. He felt that, in the few observations he had made, he had not, at that advanced hour of the morning, expressed himself as clearly as he could have wished; but he should conclude with assuring their lordships, that after twenty-five years deep consideration of the subject, he could not, conscientiously with his sense of duty, and the station which he held under the Crown, give his support to the present bill.

Earl Fitzwilliam

said, that he could not let the question go to a vote without declaring, that from deliberate conviction and much experience, he was the firm advocate of admitting the Roman Catholics to a full participation of the blessings of the constitution: convinced as he was, that such a measure was essential to the peace of Ireland, and the security of the united kingdom.

The House then divided; when the numbers were: Contents, present 84. proxies 16–130. Not Contents, present 113. proxies 65–178. Majority against the bill 48. Adjourned at half-past-five in the morning.

List of the Majority and Minority.
MAJORITY.—PRESENT.
Duke of York	Charleville
Lord Chancellor	Clanbrassill(Earl Roden
Lord Privy Seal
Duke of Beaufort	Colchester
	Dorset	Combermere
	Newcastle	Dalhousie (Earl)
	Richmond	De Clifford
	Rutland	De La Zouch
	Wellington	Delamere
Marg. of Anglesea	Dufferin
	Aylesbury	Dynevor
	Exeter	Falmouth
	Hertford	Gambier
	Lothian	Gifford
	Northampton	Grantley
	Salisbury	Grey
	Thomond	Harewood
	Winchester	Hawke
Earl of Abergavenny	Kenyon
	Abingdon	Kinnoul
	Aylesford	Lonsdale
	Bathurst	Mansfield
	Rigby	Meldrum (Earl Aboyne)
	Enniskillen
	Home	Middleton
	Liverpool	Montagu
	Longford	Northwick
	Macclesfield	Orford
	Mayo	Penshurst
	O'Neil	Powis
	Pembroke	Ravensworth
	Pomfret	Redesdale
	Radnor	Rodney
	Rochford	Rolle
	Scarborough	Saltersford (Earl Courtoun)
	Shaftesbury
	Stamford	Sheffield
	Strange	Stanhope
Viscount Beresford	Stuart (Earl Moray
	Exmouth
	Lake	Teynham
	Lorton	Verulam
	Sidmouth	Walsingham
	Sydney	Willoughby de Broke
Lord Arden
	Beauchamp	Archbp. of Armagh
	Bexley	Canterbury
	Bolton	York
	Boston	Bp. of Bath and Wells
	Brownlow	Bristol
	Carbery	Chester
	Cathcart	Chichester

	Down	Oxford
	Elphin	Peterborough
	Ely	St. Asaph
	Exeter	St. David's
	Gloucester	Worcester Lichfield
	Lichfield
	Lincoln	PAIRED OFF.
	Llandaff	Lord Bayning
	London	Braybrooke

PROXIES.
Duke of Clarence	Coventry
	Cumberland	Dormer
	Manchester	Douglas
	Marlborough	Douglas (Earl Morton)
Marquis of Cholmondelay	Fisherwick(MarDonegal)
Earl of Cardigan
	Carrick	Forbes
	Chatham	Forrester
	Chichester	Glenlyon
	Clancarty	Gordon (M. of Huntley)
	Craven
	Egremont	Gort
	Errol	Harris
	Ferrers	Le Despencer
Graham (D. of Montrose)	Loftus (Marquis of Ely)
	Harcourt	Manners
	Howe	Newburgh
	Kellie	Oriel
Malmesbury	Ribblesdale
	Manvers	Rivers
	Mount-Edgecumbe	Ross (Earl Glasgow)
Nelson	Saltoun
	Norwich (D. of Gordon)	St. Helena
		Stowell
	Paulett	Tyrone (Marq. Of Waterford)
	Plymouth
	Romney	Vernon
	Stradbroke	Wodehouse
	Talbot	Bishop of Bangor
	Wemyss	Carlisle
	Winchelsea	Durham
Viscount Arbuthnot	Hereford
	Carleton	Waterford
Lord Bagot Brodrick(Midleton)	Winchester

MINORITY.—PRESENT.
Duke of Sussex	Earl of Aberdeen
Lord President	Albemarle
Duke of Argyll	Breadalbane
	Buckingham	Bristol
	Devonshire	Caledon
	Grafton	Carnarvon
	Leinster	Charlemont
	Portland	Clare
Marq. of Bute	Clar end on
	Camden	Cork
	Conyngham	Cowper
	Downshire	Darlington
	Lansdown	Darnley
	Londonderry	Donoughmore
	Queensberry	Essex

	Fitzwilliam	Hereford
	Fortescue	Maynard
	Gosford	Melville
	Grey	Torrington
	Grosvenor	Lord Abercromby
	Hardwicke	Auckland
	Ilchester	Calthorpe
	Jersey	Cawdor
	Kingston	Dacre
Lauderdale	Dundas
	Limerick	Ellenborough
	Minto	Foley
	Morley	Gage
	Ormond	Grantham
	Oxford	Holland
	Rosebery	Howard of Effingham
	Rosslyn
	Somers	Howard of Walden
	Spencer
	St. Germain's	King
	Suffolk	Lilford
	Tankerville	Lynedoch
	Wicklow	Montford
	Wilton	Napier
Vis. Clifden	Selsey
	Down	Suffield
	Dudley and Ward	Yarborough
	Duncan	Bishop of Norwich

PROXIES.
Duke of Bedford	Lucan
	Hamilton	Mulgrave
	Somerset	Waldegrave
Marquis of Headfort	Viscount Anson
	Sligo	Granville
	Stafford	Melbourne
	Tweeddale	Lord Alvanley
	Wellesley	Amherst
Earl of Belmore	Belhaven
	Besborough	Carrington
	Blesington	Churchill
	Buckinghamshire	Clinton
		Crewe
	Carlisle	Ducie
	Carysfort	Erskine
	Cassilis	Grenville
	Cornwallis	Gwydyr
	De La Warr	Hill
	Derby	Hutchinson
	Egremont	Maryborough
	Elgin	Saye and Sele
	Garnard	Sondes
	Harrington	Bishop of Rochester
	Hopetoun