Lords Sitting of 10 June 1828

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned debate, on the Resolution moved by the marquis of Lansdowne,
Lord Colchesterrose and said:—My Lords, although this important subject has frequently undergone discussion in parliament during the last twenty years, and although the progress of the present debate has not produced much new matter either of fact or of argument, nevertheless, in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, expressed in a resolution formally communicated to us, I am desirous of stating, briefly and plainly, the reasons which oblige me to refuse my consent to the present motion.
The form of proceeding by which this question has been introduced to our notice, has, indeed, a character of novelty; but I think that even this merit cannot contribute much to its success. Year after year, specific and detailed measures have been presented to us, with securities and without securities, and of every various kind which could be thought likely to facilitate their favourable reception; and because all these have successively failed, it seems now to be thought, by a singular process of reasoning, that this House may consistently adopt this measure as a whole, of which it had hitherto rejected every assignable part. The substantial purpose of this resolution to which our concurrence is desired, under whatever aspect it may be exhibited, is, to make a great and essential change in our constitution, and in a Protestant state to give equal political powers to the professors of another form of religion, who are bound, in conscience and duty, to endeavour to destroy our own. And, if to preserve the religious peace of the country be a state concern—as it unquestionably is—this object surely cannot be attained by putting equal arms into the hands of the defenders of its established constitution, and also of its assailants.
Of such a change, however, as that

1215
which is now contemplated, let us examine more distinctly, and by the standard of political expediency, what are the probabilities of advantage which it holds out to the Protestant portion of the United Kingdom; what would be its advantage specially to Ireland; and what benefits would be derived from adopting the policy of foreign states placed in a similar situation. To the Protestant portion of the United Kingdom, how can such a change be beneficial or even indifferent? Is it to the Established Church? Is it to the Protestant Dissenters? Can those of the Established Church desire to see a rival hierarchy introduced with equal authority, and exercising a legalized jurisdiction over the different classes of inhabitants in each diocese?—or to see a new principle of religious difference introduced into every corporate election?—or to introduce into the formation of parliament, and the conduct of parliamentary affairs, a new combination of persons hovering and shifting from side to side, as the contending parties of the day may happen to court their alliance, and purchase their occasional aid by increasing their lasting preponderance?
In the next place, can such a change be desired by the Protestants who dissent from the Established Church, after that casual bond is dissolved, which recently united them with the Roman Catholics, in pursuit of an object, which, so far as regards the Dissenters, no longer exists?
The Protestant Dissenters are an intelligent and well-informed class of men; and they well know, that, of all Christian sects, they and their tenets arc most obnoxious to the Church of Rome. They well know the spirit of encroachment which actuates that church in the pursuit of power once placed within its reach. They well know the formidable character of that power over the minds and actions of those whom it governs; that the priest, armed with the tyranny of confession, and the terrors of excommunication, appears to his servile followers as their God; and that, in prostrate subjection to the priest, no Roman Catholic can (in the ordinary phrase) say that his soul is his own. It is impossible that Protestant Dissenters can desire to see such a domination re-established, of which they must be the first victims.
Much has been said in this debate, of the antiquated state of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and the mitigation
1216
of their rigors by those who profess them in modern times. But, my lords, all Europe has witnessed, within the scope even of the present century, and within the last twenty years, the most mischievous doctrines of the Church of Rome, politically mischievous, proclaimed and re-asserted by the highest Roman Catholic authorities.
The last sovereign pontiff, in his circular letter of 1808, addressed to the foreign ministers then resident in Rome, upon the subject of religious worship in France, declares, that the Church of Rome abhors toleration; and in his circulars of the same year, addressed to his cardinals and clergy throughout Italy, prohibits the taking any oaths of unqualified allegiance to any other sovereign.
In England the vicar apostolic, and Roman Catholic clergy of the midland district, in 1821, by a solemn judgment delivered upon the bills then pending in parliament, declared that no Roman Catholic could, upon oath, disavow the deposing power, nor disclaim their desires and endeavours to weaken, disturb, and overthrow the Protestant religion—not, indeed, the Protestant Church Establishment—but the one body overthrown, how long the other would survive, your lordships cannot be at a loss to decide. And the reports of your own committee, in 1825, and the report of the Commission of Education in Ireland, in 1827, clearly prove, that the dispensing power, as to oaths, is still maintained to its fullest extent, and without any practical limitation.
With respect to the distinction between spiritual and temporal power, so much relied upon by some of its advocates, the Church of Rome herself has never defined it. Every one knows that excommunication is an act of spiritual jurisdiction; and every one knows also that its effects are also temporal. Upon the latest parliamentary elections in Ireland, all such distinctions were notoriously disregarded; and electioneering exhortations, and electioneering denunciations, were delivered by the priests, in their chapels, and from their altars.
Nor, if we look to the individual character of those by whom these powers are, in our own times, exercised, and by whom it may be supposed that their rigour might be mitigated—shall we discover any guarantee for such moderation, either in those who have been imported from Coimbra or

1217
Salamanca, or among those who are educated, at the public expense, in the royal college of Maynooth—where prevarication upon oath, and treason and cabal, appear to have thriven, in recent times, most abundantly.
These, my lords, are not antiquated and by-gone opinions and doctrines; they are all promulgated and spread abroad within our own times, and under our own observation. We have the Pontifical Circular of 1808, throughout Italy—the manifesto of the priests of the midland district of England in 1821—the whole mass of recorded evidence on oath, taken before your committee on the State of Ireland in 1825—the report of the Education Commission in 1827—and the Class Book then and still in use, to this very hour, at Maynooth. These are the living doctrines of those who now ask you for more power to enforce them; these are the springs of action which animate all their exertions; and in these I certainly do not see the materials for increasing the stability of the Protestant Establishment, or the general concord and satisfaction of all classes of his majesty's subjects.
If, therefore, this projected change in our constitution holds out no expectation of probable benefit to the Protestants of the United Kingdom, whether of the Established Church, or to those who dissent from it, shall we, nevertheless, adopt it for the sake of those separate benefits and blessings so much insisted on, which it is expected to bestow upon the population of Ireland? Will it, in fact, tranquillize Ireland? For the tranquillity of Ireland, it has ever appeared to me that other measures, widely different from this project, are urgently and indispensably necessary. In the first place, let security for life and property be established by the strong arm of the law; so that neither gentleman nor householder in Ireland need to barricade his dwelling before the sun goes down, in order that he and his children may sleep in safety. For it is a national disgrace to us all, that no administration—ever since we became one nation by the Union—has ever discharged this first and paramount duty of every civilised state towards its subjects. Let this blessing, therefore, be no longer delayed; and let there be a prompt, steady, uniform, vigilant, and effectual, execution of the laws, to protect the peaceable and industrious of all classes; for "no people under the sun," it has
1218
been truly said, "love equal and indifferent justice better than the Irish." And let the illustrious person now happily at the head of his majesty's government, distinguish the era of his power, and add this to the other glories of his public life, by extending to the inhabitants of what is more peculiarly his native country, the same shield of civil protection which makes life and property secure in every other part, of the British empire.
Until life and property are secure, it is in vain to expect that British capital, so often and so earnestly invoked, but hitherto invoked in vain, will ever visit the shores of Ireland. But, when every man may be confident that he shall reap in safety the fruits of his own toil, enterprise will spring up in every direction. Let him but find the market of England open for his recompense, without a rival importation of foreign produce to undersell him, and tillage will spread itself over lands hitherto uncultivated; and it will be found better policy for our domestic wealth and independence to seek our supplies of subsistence from Ireland than from Poland, or from any other foreign country on the continent of Europe. And the surplus industry, which tillage, or the extension of manufactures, may not at first call into immediate activity, may be turned to account by employing it for a time upon the execution of public works for the agricultural and commercial improvement of the country; to be set on foot, indeed, at the outset by public aid, but that aid limited, at the same time, by the condition of a due share of local contribution; works such as have within the last five-and-twenty years, by similar means, so signally improved the northern districts of Scotland.
Employment, as was truly said by the noble duke in the late discussion upon the distressed state of Ireland, is the great desideratum for the superabundant population of Ireland; and that principle being adopted, we may be assured that the vigilance and activity of his majesty's government will embrace the earliest practicable opportunity, and the best practical means, for carrying that principle into full execution.
To accomplish the tranquillity of Ireland, what is falsely and absurdly called Roman Catholic Emancipation is not the true and appropriate remedy.
The disturbances which have so long agitated, and which still unhappily exist

1219
in, many parts of Ireland, have their root in causes widely different. They are proved, by the sworn evidence taken three years ago before your own committee, to arise out of the state of property, and the state of society, in these districts; and out of the restless endeavours of the miserable occupant to invade and control the rights of the lawful owner; to prescribe who shall, or shall not, be his tenant; whom he shall, or shall not, employ as his cotter, or his labourer; and the emancipation which is really nearest to the peasant's heart is emancipation from the payment of rent and tithes. To relieve him from their unreasonable pressure much has been done of late by the enactment of many beneficial laws, and mainly by the Tithe Composition act; but much more remains to be done by cautious, steady, and prudent, legislation, with a constant and persevering attention to the wants of the people.
And, although religious differences may, and do too frequently, exasperate the feelings of the people, and aggravate those disturbances and outrages, yet that they are not the generating cause of their existence; is demonstrably proved by the fact, that these outrages prevail more in the central and southern parts of Ireland, where the population are almost all uniformly Roman Catholics; and less in the northern counties, where the numbers of each persuasion being more equally balanced, the conflict might be more naturally expected, for I would ask from many now present who know it—Is it not in the central and southern counties that the Roman Catholic proprietor barricades his house against the Roman Catholic insurgent? and are not the habitations, the stack-yards, and the cattle of the Roman Catholic owners destroyed nightly by Roman Catholic aggressors?
Unhappily, the Roman Catholic priests will not consent to the joint education of Roman Catholics and Protestants, even in matters belonging to our common faith; a measure, which, if adopted, might gradually and greatly mitigate these evils, and perhaps ultimately extirpate them.
And, unhappily, also, these spiritual pastors, the Roman Catholic priests, have made themselves the temporal agents of that monstrous political engine of mischief the Roman Catholic Association, which, in defiance of the law—a law framed by a noble and learned lord now present
1220
amongst us, and who may explain to us the causes of its failure—has established a rival parliament in the metropolis of Ireland, uttering daily its unrestrained libels and menaces against the Church, the parliament, the government, and royalty itself; apparently with the countenance, and certainly without the reprobation, of the local government.
Beyond all this, it remains, my lords, for our most serious consideration, how far the tranquillity of Ireland would be ensured, even if all that is demanded by the Roman Catholics were granted; and whether discord of another and a more formidable character would not arise, when the Roman Catholic population, armed with new privileges, and new authorities, were urged by their priests into collision with all the rank and property of Ireland—nine-tenths of which are now vested in Protestant proprietors. May we not rather expect that terror and dismay would spring up from another source, and be spread still further and wider, and instead of arriving at the termination of your evils, whether you will hot only be opening the commencement of new and heavier disasters?—far indeed from producing "peace and strength to the United Kingdom—or concord and satisfaction to all classes of his Majesty's subjects."
With such well-founded apprehensions, and such powerful reasons for rejecting the present motion, as derived from the domestic view of this question, we are desired, however, to shake off our English prejudices, and borrow, at least, some share of wisdom from the foreign and more enlightened policy of other Protestant nations on the continent of Europe.
The solution of all our difficulties is presented to us by a recommendation to open a direct intercourse with the see of Rome, and, by that alliance, to settle matters in a manner satisfactory to all parties.
Upon this project, it is to be remarked, at once, that it is a full, free, and frank admission of the fact hitherto so strenuously denied—namely, "the divided allegiance" of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; and the sovereign of these realms is to take to his aid the sovereign pontiff of the Church of Rome, to help him in the government of his own subjects. Be it so; and then we have exhibited to us, also, the forms practised by other Protestant states for this purpose, and the example

1221
of their salutary effects in their dominions, as a torch of experience put into our hands to light us on our way.
As to form, a concordatum, it is said, can only exist between the see of Rome and Roman Catholic powers; and our proceeding is to be by sending an ambassador to request a bull—for which it will be seen that we are to pay, however, by stipulations on our part.
The leading examples set before us are, not Protestant Sweden—for there the exclusion of Roman Catholics from political power, from seats in the diet, and from all high seats in the state, is thought to be the best guarantee—but Prussia, Hanover, and the Netherlands, are the examples, and all of them are new and untried.
As to Prussia, the date of its arrangement with the see of Rome is 1821, under which the sovereign appoints to the bishoprics, a power which we have been told, long since, would be in admissible in Ireland, even though confirmed by the pope; and it is stipulated, also, that Roman Catholics are to pay no tithes to Protestants. Will this stipulation increase the stability of the Protestant Church in England or in Ireland? or will it be acceptable to the lay impropriators in either part of the United Kingdom.?
In Hanover, the date of the papal bull is 1824.—Here the Protestant sovereign has undertaken "Rex spospondit," to endow the Roman Catholic bishoprics, and deans and chapters, with lands or stipends of suitable amount; and will a British minister be prepared to bring down a similar recommendation from the Crown? or will a Protestant parliament be disposed to grant thousands upon thousands of public money, for the endowment of a Roman Catholic Church establishment? having, in the two first years of the administration of the noble marquis opposite me, cui tailed the former grants for building and repairing Protestant churches in Ireland, from 30,000 l. a-year, to 10,000 l. a-year, and finally suppressed that grant altogether, although numberless applications for new churches were then depending before the Board of First Fruits; and although it is well known, and was established in evidence before your committee, that, wherever a new church was built, a full Protestant congregation immediately flowed into it. The spiritual supremacy of the see of Rome is fully asserted in the conclusion of the bull
1222
for the kingdom of Hanover, with the customary maledictions against all who shall resist it.
The king of the Netherlands received his bull in the autumn of last year, and in: his dominions also, Roman Catholic bishoprics, and deans and chapters, are to be established and endowed at the expense of the state; and, what is worthy of remark, the Roman Catholic bishops may sit there in the Upper House of Parliament—a pretension insisted upon also by the late pope with respect to our parliament, in his Letter of 1816 to the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland, which states his expectation that they would, as a consequence of their restoration to their other rights, be restored also to their seats in this House.
Of all those examples which we are required to follow, the oldest is of seven years date—the next is four years old, and the last not yet nine months of age; and all of them are inapplicable, or adverse, to the history, laws, manners, and habits of this country. A slender foundation for such a mighty change.
These are the general grounds upon which I cannot agree to the motion of the noble marquis, as explained in his opening speech; and, moreover, I specially object—
1st. That this is a direct step towards the overthrow of the Reformation in this country, by re-establishing in it the jurisdiction of the see of Rome.
2ndly. That it is contrary to the oath of the sovereign, who is sworn to maintain, not only the Protestant Episcopal Church, but also the Protestant religion. And, although the earl of Liverpool did, in the last debate upon this subject, in 1825, state his opinion, that the concession of any particular degree of political power to the Roman Catholics might, or might not, according to the nature of the case proposed, infringe upon the obligation contained in the Coronation Oath, he did distinctly declare, that to establish and endow the Roman Catholic religion within this realm would be a direct infraction of that oath. You would have, therefore, to alter that oath before you could make such an endowment; and can you alter it as to the sovereign who has taken it? or must you postpone the effect of such alteration to the time—and distant may that be—the time of a succession to the throne?
3rdly. That, to acknowledge the supremacy stipulated for by the Roman Pontiff,

1223
as in Hanover, you must alter the Oath of Supremacy now taken by his majesty's subjects, in which they swear that no foreign prelate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority within these realms.
4thly. As to equalizing the political privileges of the Roman Catholics and Protestants throughout the British empire, I object that you cannot extend the concession of political power to the Roman Catholics of Scotland without violating the Act of Union with Scotland, which excludes all Roman Catholics from being electors, or being elected to seats in parliament.
That, to introduce the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland into parliament, whilst you exclude the Roman Catholics of Scotland, would change your relative situation with Scotland, and place it in circumstances different from those on the faith of which that compact was founded.
And that, to introduce English Roman Catholics into parliament, you must repeal a whole series of acts from 30 Car. 2nd to 9 Geo. 2nd, including some of the most solemn parts of the Bill of Rights.
Objecting, upon all these grounds, to the proposed resolution, and its consequences, I would say, as has been said before in this House, "Remove no more land-marks, but keep all bodies of his majesty's subjects in their present places and stations, as they now stand." And, when this question of concurrence shall be finally brought to the vote, I, therefore, must and shall say, most decidedly, "Not content."
The Marquis of Butesaid, he could not, with the best attention it was in his power to give the speech of his noble friend, feel himself influenced by the same reasons, or induced to arrive at a similar conclusion. He thought that, in the consideration of this question, it was incumbent upon those who were opposed to this vote, rather to show the political necessity for their opposition, than to call on those who brought it forward to show the reasons for its adoption. Still, however, its supporters had, in compliment to their opponents, stated the grounds of their support, and it was now the duty of the House to give the question their fullest consideration. Looking, therefore, only to those who were opposed to this motion, he thought they ought rather to show that there would be greater risk to the establishments of
1224
this country by making concessions to the Catholics, than by withholding what they claimed. He disputed such a conclusion, and should shortly state the reasons on which he did so. The noble lord who had just sat down had seemed to assume, that by giving a vote in favour of the proposition now before the House, their lordships would put into the hands of the Roman Catholics those arms which were now in the hands of the Protestants; in other words, that in point of power as well as right, the Roman Catholics would be made, not the equals, but the superiors of the Protestants. It was to be presumed that the noble lord thought they were at present sufficiently strong in arms, since he supposed that by this vote they would be made still stronger. Now, he came to an exactly opposite conclusion; for he believed, that the greatest danger would be in refusing any concessions to the Roman Catholics, as he had no doubt that by that refusal the strength of the Roman Catholics would be materially increased, and the power of the arms which they had in their hands would be proportionably augmented. Their lordships had been told by the noble lord, as well as by others, that the Roman Catholic religion remained unchanged. He should be glad to know who denied the proposition? It was in fact, the boast of the Roman Catholics, that their church had remained unchanged. Their lordships had, no doubt, often amused themselves with reading that avowal, in one of the first poets of the country, who had described that church as—
"A milk white hind, immortal and unchanged;"
and he should like to know what follower of any church did not make the same declaration with respect to his church. Who was it that did not say that his church was unchanged; at the same time who was it that would like to be tied down by the precedents afforded by the members of his own church, one or two hundred years before he came into existence? The doctrines of the church were unchanged, but the conduct of its members was altered by the progress of events, and kept pace with the changes of the times. He believed that neither the Church of England, nor that of Scotland, though each would wish it to be believed that it had remained unchanged, would like to have its present conduct tried, or its present rights regulated, by the

1225
test of the conduct of its first members.—One of the arguments that had been resorted to was that of a divided allegiance. Now, he must frankly confess, that he was not competent to understand distinctly what was meant by that doctrine; but speaking with the highest possible respect for those right rev. prelates who had used it, he must say, that he wished they would have explained what was meant by the word allegiance. If the doctrine which Tillotson held on allegiance did not establish a divided allegiance against the Church of England, he should like to know what the allegiance of the Church of England was. He knew that, in the opinion of no inconsiderable body of the Church of England,—he admitted that though not inconsiderable it was still a minority, but a minority which contained in its ranks archbishop Sancroft and other men equally conscientious and respectable,—he knew, he repeated, that in the time of James 2nd, Tillotson was considered by no small body of the Church of England to have supported the doctrine of a divided allegiance. Which of the two parties maintained a true allegiance he would not pretend to say; but, after all the argument which had passed upon the subject within the Church of England, he thought that the Roman Catholics throughout this realm had a fair ground to contend, that their allegiance was as full and entire as that of the Church of England. He knew, too, that instances could be found in the history of the country, in which Protestants had not been more loyal to the Crown than Roman Catholics, and that even in the reign of Charles 2nd, when many of those disqualifying statutes were passed, there were many Protestants whose allegiance to the monarch was not half so pure as that of the Catholics whom they attacked and calumniated.—It had been denied, in strong terms, on the other side of the House, that the granting of the Catholic claims would produce tranquillity in Ireland. Now, that denial was a work of supererogation, for none of the advocates of emancipation had ever contended that that measure alone would produce it. He should be doing great injustice to the arguments of the noble marquis who brought this subject before the House, if he were to repeat them for the purpose of showing, by reference to the evidence taken by the committee which inquired into the state
1226
of Ireland, that whatever matter was brought forward as a grievance to Ireland resolved itself at last into the question of Catholic emancipation. They had been told in glowing colours, of the great power which the Roman Catholic priesthood had acquired of late years over the population of Ireland, and they had heard much of the manner in which it was exerted at the last election. He did not deny either the existence or the use of that power. But, to what did it amount? To nothing more than a proof that the priesthood was in possession of influence if it chose to exert it. Let their lordships, then, consider, whether the evil arising from that influence could not in some degree be remedied; and first, how it had arisen. He believed that the influence of the priesthood arose from the distrust which was shown of them by the government of England in 1793, when a deputation of Roman Catholics was sent over from Ireland to see whether they could obtain its consent to the concession of their claims. That deputation was sent over to England to ask, that Catholic freeholders, having an income of 20 l. a year from their lands, should be admitted to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. How was that request received? Was it granted? Not exactly. The government said, "No, you shall not have that for which you ask, but you shall have something more; we will open the elective franchise to your forty-shilling freeholders." On what principle, he would ask, was this boon granted to them? We should suppose that nothing but liberality could actuate the minds of those who gave such an answer; but he was afraid that very different motives were at the bottom of their conduct. It was to enable them to make voters of a set of miserable wretches, whom they thought they could drive to the poll like pigs to the market, and could make vote as they pleased for the Protestant interest; whereas such an object would be for ever impracticable, if they made votes of none but Catholic yeomen and gentry. If, then, in the course of time, the influence over these miserable voters had fallen into the hands of the Roman Catholic priesthood, who were the persons whom they ought to thank for it? He would not point them out by name; but this he would say, that no one could have had the least regard to the liberty of his country, or to the purity of election, on

1227
which the liberty of the country depended, who could have given such advice to the government of the day, without thinking of the mischief which it was almost certain to create, if carried into execution. He saw, however, a mode of getting rid of the evil of this system, if the House would consent to enter into the consideration of this measure. Their lordships would, perhaps, recollect, that three years ago, when this proposition was submitted to their consideration, bills were brought into the other House of parliament, one of which was intended to raise the amount of the elective franchise in Ireland. Now, he never would give his consent to such a bill, unless emancipation were first granted to the Catholics; but he was prepared to say, that if emancipation were granted, the respectability of the Roman Catholic priesthood could only be protected by raising the amount of the elective franchise. Those noble lords were mistaken, who conceived the evil of the forty-shilling freeholders to be confined to Ireland; for he was sorry to say, that the example of driving miserable wretches in droves to the polling booths had, since that time, crept also into the practice of this country.—It had been argued that emancipation would be considered by the Catholics only as a step to something more, and that the establishment of a Roman Catholic church in Ireland must follow, to give them any thing like satisfaction. For his own part, he certainly had not heard any thing in the shape of argument, to convince him of the feasibility of such an assertion. He knew that the letters of Dr. Doyle were referred to, as a proof of it, and particularly his letters to lord Farnham. He was aware that in those letters such an intention was pretty plainly declared, and that it was avowed by other individuals who had adopted Dr. Doyle's particular doctrines. But what did that amount to? What man would form his opinion of the real sentiments of the people of Ireland from those expressed by any pamphleteer of the day, or by any noisy brawler at a public meeting? He might have arrived at a wrong-conclusion from reading the letters and speeches of Dr. Doyle, but it was his belief that Dr. Doyle would be very sorry if the noble marquis should obtain the concurrence of their lordships to the resolution which he had moved last night. He believed that, if the brawlers of Ireland could irritate the legislature into refusing
1228
these concessions, they would deem themselves gainers by such a result. By such a refusal they would gain the power of adding fresh irritation to their countrymen; for they would be ready with this answer for any moderate man, who ventured to reason against their intemperance,—"Look at the parliament of Great Britain, and see what it is ready to do for you."—The noble marquis then proceeded to enter into the consideration of the securities which some persons thought it expedient to demand from the Catholics. Considering the variety of opinions which existed, it appeared difficult to him to lay clown how far any securities were necessary. He did not, however, see the difficulties of obtaining them so strongly as others did. What was the fact? They had at that moment several acts of parliament calling the Presbyterian Church of Scotland the Established Church of Scotland, and yet they had also an Episcopal Church in Scotland recognized by law, and for which provision was made by the thirty-third George 3rd. They had an established church in England, and yet they had also recognised by law the existence of a body dissenting from it, when they had made legal enactments respecting the Presbyterian synod of Ulster. Why, then, should they not act upon the same principle in Ireland? Why should they not have a Roman Catholic church of Ireland paid by government, as well as an established church of Ireland? The prelates of the Established Church of Ireland often argued as if they had forgotten that they belonged to an established church. The greatest strength of the established church of Ireland was the act of Union between England and Ireland. He could see no danger to that church, until the members of it forgot, in word or in deed, their alliance with the United States of Great Britain and Ireland. No real danger could assail it, except in the shape of a dissolution of the Union between the two countries. Such an event would tend directly to the injury of the Established Church of England and of Ireland. It appeared to him, that if there was one course more than another, by which it was practicable to give strength to all the virulence which existed in some Roman Catholics, it would be by denying a favourable consideration to the claims of the Roman Catholics.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, he was anxious, upon many accounts, to place on

1229
record the opinions which he entertained on this important subject. It had been well observed, by a noble friend, that it was impossible to go at present into any society, without remarking the modified tone in which the opponents of Catholic emancipation now spoke respecting it. Their lordships had been repeatedly told, that it was impossible that things could long remain as they now were; and the course which the debate had taken, led him to hope that a similar feeling pervaded every member of that House. He had observed with satisfaction, that there was not a noble lord, with one single exception, who had not let fall a declaration, that he did not look upon these exclusive laws as irrevocable and immutable. There was another circumstance, in the debate of last night, which made him hope, that a favourable change had taken place in the minds of their lordships since this proposition was last under their discussion; and that was, the silence of many noble lords who, on previous occasions, were most eager to rush into the conflict, and to bring the debate to a sudden close. He thought it was not going too far to say, that it betrayed a disposition not to argue this question in the same point of view as that in which it had been previously argued, and some doubt whether the time was not arrived, in which the justice which had been so long delayed must at length be granted to the Catholics. The noble baron who had spoken from the cross-benches, thought there was no chance of our ever being able to concede their claims to the Roman Catholics; and for this reason that the doctrines of their church were "immortal and unchanged." On that point his noble friend had made the same confusion which had been made, over and over again, by those who advocated his side of the question, in not distinguishing between the general policy of the church, and the spirit in which it was directed at different periods. The noble baron had also argued, that, as in former times, the popes had dispensed with oaths, and as such power had been acknowledged to preside in them by general councils, and as the doctrines of popery never altered, this power of dispensing with oaths must still be considered as forming part of the tenets of the Romish Church.—The noble earl here entered into an examination of the opinion given upon this point by Dr. Doyle, in his
1230
evidence taken before the committee appointed to inquire into the State of Ireland, and proved from it, that the authority of the general council, which admitted such dispensing power to exist in the pope, had never been admitted, and never would be admitted, by the church of Ireland. Their lordships would see, from the manner in which Dr. Doyle had given his evidence, that though he was imbued with a strong Catholic spirit, he was not so much the slave of the pope as of that national Catholic spirit, which was not so much derived from the pope as from the harsh enactments of their lordships.—He next entered into an examination of the anti-Christian doctrines often imputed to the Catholics, and showed that they were so monstrous, that if any men had ever acted upon them society could not have existed. Indeed, the very impossibility of carrying such doctrines into effect, was the strongest argument against their existence. A noble friend of his had last night asked their lordships, how they would redeem the pledge they would give to the country, supposing they passed the resolution then before the House. It did not appear to him that they could have much difficulty in redeeming such a pledge. They might redeem it, either by bringing in a bill to relieve the Catholics from the disabilities under which they laboured; or by appointing a committee to examine the laws relating to Roman Catholics, and ordering it to report thereupon to the House, as had been moved, he believed, on a former occasion; or they might redeem it by voting an address of both Houses to his majesty, praying him to give orders to his ministers to bring in a bill to repeal the act which renders all privy councillors who enter into any correspondence with the pope, liable to the penalties of a prœmunire, and to enter into a concordat with the pope, for the regulation of the Roman Catholic church in these kingdoms.—He was of opinion, that if such an address were voted to his majesty by the two Houses of parliament, they would not find much difficulty in getting the object of their wishes accomplished. The noble baron who had spoken at the opening of that evening's discussion, had alluded to the inconsistency of entertaining a measure which they had discussed and dismissed two years ago. To this his short answer was, that the measure had not been discussed in detail. He main-

1231
tained, once for all, that the state of affairs in Ireland was such, that no man could expect them to go on. Was it to be supposed that six or seven millions of men, advancing in wealth, intellect, and information, could remain in a state of exclusion from all participation in the privileges of the constitution? The people of Ireland could not—nay, they would not, endure it much longer. He could not understand what was meant by the terms going back, or standing still, as applied to the great mass of the Irish people. If by going back it was meant, that all the privileges hitherto granted to the Irish Catholics ought to be taken from them, the thing was impossible; and, if it was meant that we should stop where we were, and grant them no further concessions, the impossibility was equally evident. He did not pretend to say, that, granting to the Catholics the full enjoyment of the rights which they claimed would at once remedy the evils under which Ireland laboured; but he did say, that it would sow the seeds of tranquillity and happiness.—He had hoped that the objections urged against this measure, on the ground of its being contrary to the Coronation Oath, would not be again heard of.. He had every respect and veneration for the memory of his sovereign, who entertained scruples upon that point. But they were bound to look at that Oath as men of common sense, and without any prejudice. His noble friend had told them, that he looked upon any concession of the nature proposed to be a direct violation of the Coronation Oath. Now, what was the nature of the Coronation Oath? The question to the king was—"Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion, established by the law? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realm, and to the Churches committed to their charge, all such Rights and Privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?" The answer of the king is—"All this I promise to do." But what was there in this to prevent the emancipation of the Roman Catholics. Surely no man could seriously entertain an apprehension that the emancipation of the Roman Catholics would prevent the king from having the power of protecting the Church and the rights of
1232
the clergy as at present established. If granting privileges to persons professing other religions than that of the Established Church was a violation of the Coronation Oath, then had it been already violated: it had been violated by the concessions to the Roman Catholics; it had been violated by the Regium Donum, and by many similar acts on the part of the Crown. Surely if the peace of Ireland depended upon this measure, it was too much, to say that all these objects must be frustrated because some doubts were entertained as to the meaning of the Coronation Oath. But some noble lords said, that the Coronation Oath, though not directly, was indirectly, opposed to the Roman Catholic claims, and ought therefore to be equally a bar to the granting of those claims. This he held to be very unfair. He was anxious, before he concluded, to advert to one part of the address of the right rev. prelate who spoke the third of his order last night. The right rev. prelate had commented with great severity upon the conduct of Dr. Doyle. He would take the liberty of suggesting to the right rev. prelate, that a great question like the one under consideration was not to be decided by a reference to the opinions and arguments of this or that individual. The success of a good cause was not to be retarded because one of its supporters was indiscreet enough to fulminate his wrath against all who differed in opinion with him. He had no intention of defending Dr. Doyle. Indeed, he believed that that individual had done a monstrous deal of mischief. It should, however, be recollected, that Dr. Doyle was not the only angry person who had written on the question. He was not the only member of the only church that had entered into the discussion under the influence of warm feelings. He was of opinion, that it was unwise to bring into the discussion of this question angry theological passions, and instead of endeavouring to conciliate, to go about trying to make converts of one another. Dr. Doyle, perhaps, had been engaged in some such controversy as this. Probably some eloquent and learned person might have told the doctor, that if there was a religion without, a church, there might be a church without a religion. Who would venture to say, that Dr. Doyle did not, under excited feelings, set himself down to revenge himself by the publication of inflammatory matter? But all this

1233
arose out of the existing system in Ireland. They had only to change that system, and they would at once put an end to those evils. Let them redress the grievances now complained of, and they would render Dr. Doyle powerless. Let them remove the disabilities now existing, and he cared not a fig for Dr. Doyle and his theology. But let their lordships consider the power they placed in the hands of such men, by the present system of disability and exclusion. Dr. Doyle might now write or preach about the history of his religion—he might describe how it had been broken in upon by the Reformation—he might talk of the pains and penalties inflicted upon the adherents of that religion, and he might with truth refer to his own country for the fruits of those measures. He might tell his hearers or his readers, that this was the only country in the world in which such persecutions were kept up upon the ground of religious opinions. Let their lordships but remove the grounds of complaint, and they would deprive Dr. Doyle of his sting. He submitted to their lordships that the Established Church in Ireland would not be less secure from the granting of the Catholic claims. They were bound to let the people of Ireland know that a man of character and talents was not to be barred in his pursuit of fame and fortune because he did not belong to the Established Church. It was unjust to turn upon persons of the Roman Catholic religion and say, "We know you have talents; we know the respectability of your station in life, but still we cannot trust you; we look upon you as a parcel of rogues in whom no confidence can be placed, because of your religion." Let it once be known in Ireland, t hat it was no longer considered necessary to the preservation of the Established Church that all young men of aspiring character and honourable ambition should be barred in every career of life—that they could not sit on the bench or in the legislature, or in the councils of their sovereign, although they might lead his armies to victory in the field, and that, too, on account of their religion—let but this be known, and all ideas of danger to the Establishment would vanish. Could any church which stood upon such a defence as the system of exclusion to which he had just adverted be secure? Could a church which numbered amongst its adherents only a thirteenth part of the population, be maintained in safety, whilst
1234
the rest of the people were treated as sojourners, strangers, exiles in their own land?—There was but one point more to which he would advert. A noble marquis had last night stated, that he would consent to grant the Catholics emancipation, if the appointment of the Catholic bishops were vested in the Crown. He had heard that declaration with pleasure. Another noble lord had declared that he would not act under the influence of fear. It appeared to him, that the noble lord, had attached too much importance to the vapouring of the very silly people in the Catholic Association. The people in the Catholic Association bullied, and then noble lords said they would not grant what was demanded, lest it should be supposed that they acted under the influence of fear. Now, that was in fact acknowledging the influence of the demagogues whom they affected to despise. He should be much mistaken if, in the course of a very few years, all persons did not unite in looking back with wonder at all the representations of danger which were now made.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, he could not give a silent vote on the present question, the rather as it appeared to him that the real merits of the case lay in a small compass. There were two points to be ascertained by their lordships—these were, first, whether or not the Roman Catholics had any just right or claim to what was now demanded; and next, if they had not such a right, whether we were called upon, on any principle of justice or expediency, to grant the privileges which they sought. There was a manifest difference between political and religious toleration: religious toleration had reference to the intercourse subsisting between the creature and his Creator—political toleration respected the intercourse between man and man. It would be a needless waste of their lordships' time to attempt to prove that the Roman Catholics were in possession of complete and unqualified religious toleration: suffice it to say, that Roman Catholic places of worship were recognized by the law, and every one was at liberty to worship God as his reason and his conscience might direct. But it would be said why was not political toleration equally conceded to the Catholics with that which had been extended to the exercise of their religion? And why were not the professors of different religious beliefs equally admissible

1235
to all places of civil trust, emolument, and dignity in the state? This was the question on which their lordships were now called to deliberate. If they looked back to a remote period of our history, from the first faint dawn of the Reformation up to the glorious period of the Revolution (a period at which were established the religion and liberty of the country, on a foundation which he hoped might prove a rock of ages), they would find that the Protestant Church had ever been the parent of liberty, peace, and happiness; but, on the contrary, that whenever the nation had relapsed into popery, civil contention, discord, and animosity, had invariably followed. But it might be said, "the Roman Catholics of the present day differ exceedingly from those of preceding times." He was quite ready to give all the commendation which they deserved to the high talents and acquirements of many distinguished persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion; but at the same time he must express his fixed and decided opinion, that the state of the Roman Catholic Church was the same now as it had formerly been. Of that church, it was one of the boasts that she always remained thesame—semper eadem—unaltered and unalterable. Whatever distinguished members of the Roman Catholic Church might feel inclined to do, such power did that church claim to exercise over the minds of her disciples, that they were frequently unable to effect it if it were only supposed to be in opposition to her interests. During Mr. Pitt's administration, persons were sent abroad to collect the opinions of the foreign Catholic Universities with respect to certain points connected with the supposed political influence of the pope. The answers of the universities were favourable, indeed all that a Protestant State could desire. The most distinguished Roman Catholics came forward with a protest and declaration on the same subject, in which they announced their opinion on the question, in a manner so clear and satisfactory, as to set at rest the doubts of the most timid. But at this time three Vicars Apostolic came forward and said, that the people had nothing to do with the regulations of the church, or the power of the pope; and the consequence of this declaration was, that the petition of the Roman Catholics, previously laid before parliament, was withdrawn. It had been
1236
said, that to grant Roman Catholic Emancipation was the grand remedy for all the evils of Ireland, but he was afraid that such was not the case. He was not insensible to the evils under which Ireland was groaning; but the sources of those evils were to be found in the want of employment—in the want of those established relations of society, without which no country could be great or happy—in the want of a resident respectable gentry. If the people of Ireland were at a loss to discover the source of their miseries, they would receive a complete and conclusive answer in the word "absentees." If an absentee were to inquire of him, who was the cause of the sufferings of Ireland, he would say at once to such a person as Nathan did unto David, "Thou art the man." Feeling as he did for the sufferings of that country, he would be most happy, if a committee were appointed, to take into consideration, early in the ensuing session, the state of Ireland. He for one would be most ready to devote all the energies of his mind to provide remedies for the sufferings under which that people laboured, and to remove the causes of the evils which desolated that unhappy country. One question of great delicacy had been brought forward on the present discussion. He alluded to the Coronation Oath. He fully agreed with the eminent moralist who contended, that an oath was to be received animus imponentis, and not animus suscipientis. The question entirely was as to the intention of the oath. If the eminent statesmen by whom that oath was framed could have supposed that, in a subsequent age, other eminent statesmen might doubt as to the sense in which the words were to be taken, they assuredly would have so framed it as to leave no doubt that those who stood forward to advocate what was called emancipation fell into the grossest error, with respect to the interpretation of the oath in question. Much had been said respecting the march of intellect; but if the distinguished men by whom that oath was framed could listen to the debates of that House, they would consider that the human intellect had made very little progress since their day. In the honest discharge of his duty, he had felt it necessary to declare his opinions on this question. He trusted that no noble; lords would declare them to be the result

1237
of bigotry and intolerance. No person could be more anxious than he was to promote the happiness of Ireland; but he conscientiously believed that the granting of unlimited legislative power to the Catholics would be sowing the seeds of discord, that would spread over the land for ages, and that the sun of England's glory would be set for ever [hear].
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, he believed that the feeling of the Catholic body generally was in unison with that displayed in the Catholic Association, and in direct hostility to the established church. If he had not seriously considered the question, his judgment might, perhaps, have been influenced by the eloquence of the noble marquis who had advocated their lordships' assent to the resolution. He had attended the discussions of the question in that House from 1808 to the present day, and had read most of the pamphlets written with respect to it, including the most recent by Mr. Gally Knight, and the strange proposition of Mr. Wilmot Horton. With these arguments before him, and with the passing events of the day to illustrate them, he must declare, that so far from his opinions having undergone any change, they were more rivetted and confirmed. The noble marquis who brought forward the motion had quoted the example of foreign states in which the Catholics were admitted to political power; but he had failed to show, that those examples were applicable to our peculiar constitution. With respect to the only state whose constitution bore any affinity to that of Great Britain, he had failed to prove the antiquity of the practice which he recommended the adoption of. The constitution of Holland was framed only in 1815, and was only just completed. Many of the omissions of the noble marquis had, however, been ably supplied by the noble president of the council. In most of the continental countries to which the noble marquis had referred, the governments were purely despotic, and therefore bore no analogy to that of England. There was no resemblance, in any of the constitutions of the countries alluded to by the noble marquis, to those peculiarities in the British constitution, which had heretofore been considered our greatest blessings, but which were now, it seemed, to be trod under foot by what was called the "march of intellect." The wisdom of our ancestors at the time of the
1238
Revolution—of those ancestors whom no "march of intellect" should ever teach him to believe were not amongst the wisest statesmen and lawyers that graced this country—the wisdom of our ancestors brought them to this conclusion, that so long as Roman Catholics and Protestants were joined in political power in this Country, so long could there be no security for the public peace, and the stability of the Established Church. It was not lightly that they came to that conclusion. They were guided by the experience of ages, which was written on their records in a deluge of blood. They saw that they had a great work to achieve; they determined to achieve it; and they did achieve it, wisely, cautiously, and, as they thought, irrevocably. Would their lordships now undo what their ancestors had done? That was the real question, for they could not admit the Catholics to political power without interfering with the very essence of those principles, which formed the groundwork of the glorious Revolution. Our ancestors had framed a constitution of a peculiar nature, with which, he would assert, the constitution of no foreign state could be compared. What was their reason for excluding Catholics from seats in the parliament and from political power? The reason was, that, having determined that the Crown should be Protestant, they found it impossible to provide any security for its continuing so, unless they determined that the Houses of Lords and Commons should be Protestant also. A great part of the reasoning which was advanced in favour of what were called the rights of the Catholics to political power, applied to the situation in which the Crown was placed with respect to the question. On this point he must express his extreme regret, that a royal duke, not now in his place, had last night declared his intention to support the resolution. He would take the liberty of reading some passages from a communication which he had received, in common perhaps with many others, and which professed to be copied from the "Leeds Intelligencer" of the 22nd of May last. The extracts were as follows:—
"In taking this step, the best security possible for the attainment of the great object in view—a constitution wholly Protestant—was effected: the title of the sovereign and all his future successors was made contingent upon their being Protes-

1239
tants; implying, of necessity, that they I would, to preserve a title depending on this express and sole condition, rigidly maintain the exclusive Protestantism of the two Houses of Parliament, and of all the great offices of state. Impressed with a profound conviction of this constitutional truth, the earl of Liverpool, in discussing the Roman Catholic question in 1825, declared, in the House of Lords, that if they granted the present demands of the papists, it would be impossible, because absurd, afterwards to exclude an heir apparent from the throne, if he should happen to be a Roman Catholic. And what is the natural inference from this position? That the Protestantism of the monarch, being no longer requisite, the reason for withholding the crown from the nearest heir of the Stuarts now alive is abolished! And what said sir F. Burdett in his last speech on the Catholic question, as quoting an old and acknowledged dictum of English law? "Cessante ratione cessit ipsa et lex." The principle of danger, or rather of civil war and anarchy thus inherent in conceding the claims of the papists, is one which it has always been a primary object with British lawgivers to guard against."
"It may be proper to add to the above bases of our present Protestant constitution, that, in consequence of the failure of issue, both from William and Mary, and particularly from Anne, by the death of her son, the Act of Settlement, transferring the Crown to the House of Hanover, was passed in the 12th and 13th of William 3rd. This Act of Settlement expressly recited and re-enacted the Bill of Rights, already mentioned, in every particular; pledged the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, 'in the name of all the people of this realm, most humbly and faithfully to submit themselves and their posterities' to the 'most excellent princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants;' and on this condition, further pledged themselves 'to stand, to maintain, and defend, the said princess Sophia and her heirs, against all persons whatsoever, with their lives and estates.' While, however, the Act of Settlement was in progress, a most remarkable circumstance occurred, the whole importance of which arises from the very fact of the direct descendants of James 2nd being extinct by the death of cardinal York. The following passage is
1240
from Smollett's History of England, vol. i. p. 401:—
Sec. 45. The Act of Succession gave umbrage to all the popish princes who were more nearly related to the Crown than this lady (the princess Sophia), whom the parliament had preferred to all others. The duchess of Savoy, granddaughter to king Charles 1st, by her mother, ordered her ambassador, count Maffei, to make a protestation to the parliament of England, in her name, against all resolutions and decisions contrary to her title, as sole daughter to the princess Henrietta, next in succession to the Crown of England, after king William and the princess Anne of Denmark. Two copies of this protest Maffei sent in letters to the Lord Keeper and the Speaker of the Lower House, by two of his gentlemen, and a public notary to attest the delivery; but no notice was taken of the declaration. The duke of Savoy, while his minister was thus employed in England, engaged in an alliance with the crowns of France and Spain, on condition that his Catholic majesty should espouse his youngest daughter without a dowry.
"All that we shall observe upon this protest is, that the present duchess of Modena, united by her husband with the imperial family of Austria, is the next living descendant of the above duchess of Savoy, and that, on the failure of issue from her, the present dauphin of France succeeds to all the hereditary rights of those princesses! Will any Englishman, with this frightful view of the effects of granting the popish 'claims' before his eyes, be bold enough to say that he will 'pass the Rubicon?'"
He would not trespass on the time of the House, by commenting on what he had read, but, had the royal duke been present, he would have directed his attention to the circumstance that already, upon the mere chance of what was called Catholic emancipation being granted, men's minds have begun to entertain such topics. He was quite sure that the royal duke would not suppose that he read these extracts from any feeling of disrespect to him; his attachment to the royal family was too well known to render it necessary for him to say one word more on that point. He might perhaps be ranked amongst those persons whom it was the fashion to decry as the opposers of all alterations, even though those alterations

1241
should be evident improvements. He was willing to further any improvement, but he would proceed cautiously, and would not begin by interfering with the fundamental principles of the constitution. If experiments must be tried, let them be made upon the sources of our national wealth, on agriculture, on trade, and on commerce. Let them cripple the farmer if they pleased, when they most wanted his capital and exertions to relieve them from their superabundant poor. They might do all this, encouraged by the events of 1825; and after all the bleeding and doctoring, the country might survive. But once waste the life blood of the country by violating the principles of the constitution, and she never could survive. By granting emancipation, we should only incur danger without remedying any evil. Under a moderate and wise Protestant government, under a Protestant lord-lieutenant, and a Protestant secretary, he had no doubt that Ireland might yet prosper. The advocates of emancipation said, that the benefits which they anticipated from it must be the work of time. He would say, "give us time, and we will do without emancipation." In the mean time, put down agitators; let the law be administered impartially, temperately, and firmly. If that were done, and England survived the experiments she was now undergoing, both countries would, he believed, ultimately prosper; but if the vital principles of the constitution were invaded, the decline of the empire would be as rapid as her prosperity had been progressively increasing.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, he was anxious to notice what had fallen from the noble lord who spoke last Being himself a member of the royal family, who held their situation in this country upon the principles which the noble lord had just expressed, he fully accorded in the justice of those principles; but the noble lord would allow him to say, that while he admitted them in the fullest extent, he differed from him widely as to the measures by which they were to be supported and advanced. He was anxious not to give a silent vote upon the motion, because he still entertained the same opinions upon the subject, which had always impressed his mind. He would not presume to take up the time of their lordships by proving what they would all admit, that the civil advantages of our incomparable constitution belonged equally to every
1242
member of the state. They were called the civil privileges, the birth-right of Englishmen, in those acts wherein they were recognized and secured to the subjects of this realm. In the Bill of Rights, and in the Declaration which was presented to the Prince of Orange afterwards in parliament, they were solemnly claimed on the part of the people by their representatives, and the Declaration concluded with these remarkable words—"And we claim, demand, and insist on all these, our indubitable rights," which were accordingly recognized, and acknowledged as the ancient and undoubted rights of the subject. He was well aware, from consulting history, that there were situations in which the laws of the country and the rights of the subject might be suspended, in order to provide for the security of the state, and that such suspension might be extended to whole classes from whom danger was apprehended to the constitution. But it was only in cases where their principles were hostile that the government was armed with such a. power; and it was always to be remembered, that the exclusion of whole classes was an obnoxious act, which should only be resorted to in extreme cases. They were in their very nature temporary; for, in a country like this, where civil servitude was unknown, they should cease to exist the moment that the causes from which they arose had ceased to operate. It was a maxim of law, that every unnecessary restriction upon the rights of the subject, whether it originated with the monarch or with popular assemblies, was the beginning of tyranny. Even laws, however formally passed, if enacted without due regard to the freedom and happiness of the community, were acts of oppression; and Paley himself had said, that it was not the rigour but the inexpediency of the acts and laws of men that constituted tyranny.—Looking, therefore, at the circumstances of the present times, with reference to their bearing on the cause of the Roman Catholics, he could not but feel, that the disabilities under which they laboured were unnecessarily and unjustly protracted beyond the period when it would have been possible to defend them. They might have been necessary at the time they were first imposed, but the question for their lordships to determine was, whether they were necessary now. Many of the acts which operated against

1243
the Catholics at present had been passed in Catholic times and by Catholic parliaments,—a pretty clear proof, that these Catholic peers and gentlemen were not of so bending a character as was apprehended by some, when they supposed that the constitution was in danger from the machinations of any faction. The act of prœmunire was one of them. It had been passed at a time when there was great jealousy of the pope, and of the influence of the priesthood generally in this country. Knowledge is power, and at that period knowledge was chiefly confined to the priesthood, who consisted mostly of foreigners, or of individuals who sprung from the very lowest of the people. Parliament was therefore cautious of the power that was lodged in such hands, until they found individuals of their own class sufficiently enlightened to oppose a counteracting influence to the danger. In the times of which he spoke there was not that facility of communication with the continent, which now existed, there was not the same means of interchanging thoughts by letter; trade was scarcely then in existence, or if in existence, was treated with obloquy and contempt; the power of the press was unknown, that power of which the whole world stood in awe—the dread of tyrants, the guardian of the oppressed. In those dark ages it was not to be wondered at that bigotry, which reposed on the bosom of ignorance, should assert a dominion that would be denied to her in happier times. But, had they any reason to fear Papal ascendancy at the present moment? Was there any thing in the complexion of the present hour to mislead the most timid into an apprehension of danger from the see of Rome? Some noble lords appeared panic-struck at the march of intellect. For his own part, he regarded it with pleasure and admiration. He saw nothing to dread from the diffusion of light and knowledge. On the contrary, he saw every thing to hope. If the lower orders became more intelligent, they would not become worse subjects of a good government; and the higher orders, instead of being eclipsed by the change, would go on increasing in attainments also, and still preserve their station, in the general march of knowledge and improvement. In referring to past times, he would remind their lordships of the lamentable scenes which took place during
1244
the reigns of Edward 6th, and James 1st, when the fury of different sects of Christians broke out against each other, and Anabaptists and Arians were butchered in the streets, for the honour and glory of a religion which inculcated mercy upon all men. But now there was no such spirit. A change had taken place in the minds of men which banished the apprehension of such scenes for ever. Every nation of the continent, with the exception of Spain and Portugal, had imbibed more liberal sentiments, and the seal was put to the last great act of religious liberty at the Congress of Vienna, upon which he could not help congratulating the noble duke at the head of the government,—an act, by which all classes of Christians were secured in the exercise of their religion, throughout the different nations of Europe. And would this country, the refuge of those who fled from religions persecution, refuse to follow up those principles which had made her the glory and the envy of Europe, and had placed her on an eminence, which might be considered one of those divine remunerations that sometimes rewarded virtue? He had heard many people ask, what securities are you prepared to give? He would answer that question by asking another,—are you prepared to grant the measure, before you ask me for securities? It struck him, that the Catholics were in the situation of a man who was asked by another, what he would give with his daughter. If any one asked him, what he meant to give with his daughter, he would say to him, "Tell me first if you mean to take my daughter, for if you do not, I will not tell you what I mean to give with her." Upon the same ground he would say to those who asked for securities, first tell me whether you will grant the measure. If, having granted the measure, parliament should think fit to accompany it with certain conditions in the shape of securities, he did not think it likely that the Roman Catholics would refuse to recognize them,—He would now beg leave to refer to an expression which had fallen from a right reverend prelate when the question of the Test and Corporation acts was before the House. That right rev. prelate had said, that if securities could be made effectual, he saw no reason why the Catholic question should not be granted. He hoped the right rev. prelate would give them the benefit of that observation, in the course of the present debate.

1245
Looking, the other day, to the history of one of those acts of relief passed at various times by the legislature, he saw, from the act of 1793, which was strongly opposed by Dr. Duigenan, that the oaths to be taken by Roman Catholics on their appointment to any office, were the same, with one exception, as those taken by Dissenters. If, as was sometimes asserted, they did not believe Catholics on their oaths, they had no right to impose any. And if Catholics were capable of breaking their oaths, they had only to take whatever oaths were required, and in that way get rid of the disabilities. But the charge was an unjust one, as their exclusion proved. At the period when the act of Union with Scotland was passed, there was this qualification introduced into the oath affecting Catholics—"until parliament shall devise otherwise;" a qualification which clearly recognised the power of parliament to alter the existing law. The revisal of the Coronation Oath in 1688, was another recognition of the power of parliament over such oaths. He said this, though he was aware that a different opinion was entertained by one who had been ever dear to him. Even the respect and affection which he felt for the memory of that revered relative, whose eyes he had assisted to close, could not alter his sentiments with respect to the subject. He wished to do every justice to the conscientious motives of his departed relative; but he had a duty himself to perform, a duty to his country, to himself, and to his Maker, and that duty imposed upon him the necessity of stating his opinion without hesitation or disguise. He had never discussed the question before the House but upon constitutional principles; he had never canvassed any individual on the subject, though he felt that if he found one travelling on the same road with himself, he had a right to join that traveller, and to afford him his assistance on the journey. The time would come—and he thought it was not far distant—when the House would concur in the propriety of granting what the Catholics asked. They must either go on, or go back. To go back would be destruction. A noble lord had talked of experience. They had the experience of twenty-eight years since the Union. And what kind of Union had they? a Union but in name. And what constitution had they in Ireland? a constitution but in name.—My lords (said his
1246
royal highness), I am afraid to say all that I think upon this important subject; but this I know, that if you had not thirty thousand troops, and five thousand police to keep Ireland quiet, the government of that country could not go on; and then you talk of the advantages which Ireland enjoys under the British constitution. My lords, I have felt it my duty to tell you candidly and manfully my opinion on this subject. I have a great respect for the noble lord who recommended making further experiments upon it; but I do not like the system of experiment-trying. Among the phantoms which have been conjured up in opposition to the claims of the Catholics is, that if they obtained them, they would demand the restitution of the confiscated property of their ancestors. As a proof of the fallacy of any such supposition, I need only refer to the evidence given by Mr. O'Connell before your lordships' committee, who declared that he had himself bought some of that confiscated property; which of course he should not have done, had the possibility of its ever being reclaimed ever entered his head. So, my lords, with the tithes. It is argued, that if we grant the Catholics their claims, they will demand the abolition of tithes; and this is said by those who forget that it is with tithes as with game, and that farms are taken with the full knowledge, on the part of the tenant, that the one is to be paid, and the other preserved.—I will trouble your lordships no further. I am perfectly convinced that something must soon be done. This very discussion will do great good. With the exception of one case, in which a right rev. prelate called Moses, Joshua, and Isaiah, to fight the Virgin Mary, the question has been very temperately discussed; and I feel especially bound to thank the right rev. bench for the tone which they have maintained upon it—a tone consistent with the dignity of their high stations, and calculated to confirm the feelings of respect and affection, which we cherish towards them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he wished at that early period of the debate to state the precise grounds upon which he felt himself bound to oppose the motion. He concurred with the royal duke who had just sat down, in approving of the tone and temper in which the discussion had been conducted—a tone and temper adapted as well to the dignity of that House as to the

1247
great importance of the occasion. If that had been the first time the question had been brought forward, he might, perhaps, have been disposed to vote for it. The noble marquis had proposed an inquiry, with a view to further concessions; but when he recollected that, for the last five-and-twenty years, the same subject had been agitated again and again in parliament—when he recollected that it had engaged the attention of the ablest men of the age—that propositions had been submitted successively to parliament which had successively failed, he could not make up his mind to vote for a proposition, from which he could not hope for any satisfactory result. If, as he could not but anticipate, the measure, to which an inquiry was a preparatory step, should be rejected, it would lead to a feeling of exasperation on the part of the Roman Catholics, which every consideration should induce the legislature to avoid. He knew too much of this country, and of the sentiments of its Protestant population, not to be aware, that a measure of concession to the Catholics would be received with the greatest alarm, and would probably lead to consequences the most fatal and destructive.
He would remind their lordships of the progress of that question. In 1813, a bill ad been introduced into the other House, to accomplish the objects of the noble marquis's motion. That bill had been framed by a man of great intelligence, a man well acquainted with Ireland, and was supported by his right hon. and learned friend with the whole force of his power, sagacity, and eloquence. It was also supported by the experience and knowledge of his noble and learned friend (lord Plunkett) whom he was happy to see sitting amongst them that night, and received much assistance, in its details, from the experience of a conveyancer of great legal acuteness. It was supported by the brilliant talents of Mr. Grattan, by the transcendant eloquence of his noble and learned friend to whom he had before alluded; and all these great authorities had expressed themselves so strongly while it was in progress, that if the Catholics refused to accept of the bill, they gave it to be understood that they could not feel themselves justified in supporting their cause any longer. The bill thus framed and supported, went through two stages. It was coupled with securities of such a nature as the Protestants of this country had a right to expect,
1248
But, no sooner was it known to the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood of Ireland, than they opposed it with all their influence; they pronounced it a pernicious and destructive measure, they declared that the clergy would rather be led to the scaffold than submit to the conditions with which it was accompanied; and Mr. O'Connell had stated, that if it passed, the consequence would be a destructive and bloody insurrection throughout Ireland. Why then, when he saw so much talent, so much knowledge, so much wisdom, employed in framing a particular measure of relief—a measure which they thought the best adapted to its object—a measure which they pledged their characters to support—when he saw the manner of its reception, and the history of its fate, he despaired of the power of parliament to concert any specific enactment, capable of affording satisfaction to all parties.
The next measure was brought forward by his noble and learned friend. It had passed the other House of parliament; but on its introduction into their lordships' House, though it never passed into a committee, its provisions were discussed on the second reading, every part of it was canvassed; and he well remembered the speech of his noble and learned friend (lord Eldon), who applied himself to the different clauses with the most acute and laborious particularity. He was sure that his noble and learned friend on the other side would allow, with his usual candour, that the provisions of that bill were not satisfactory.—He next came to the bill of 1825, which was brought forward by his lamented friend, Mr. Canning. No sooner was it known in Ireland, that such a bill was introduced, than the same opposition, the same indignation, the same spirit of disdainful and furious resistance was manifested against it, as had marked the career of the first bill. When that bill came up to their lordships' House, it was found to contain a show of security, but nothing substantial. After the fate of those three bills, he could expect nothing from the present motion; and if nothing was to follow from the inquiry, Ireland would again be exasperated, and great apprehension and alarm would fall upon the Protestant part of the community.
He would now allude to a question which had been put by a noble lord, respecting the Revolution of 1688. The noble lord had asked, why that question was

1249
always coupled with the period of the Revolution; and he seemed desirous of carrying the establishment of the Protestant constitution of England to an earlier and less popular period. The fact was, that before the Revolution the Catholics were held in check by the spirit of puritanism. When that passed away, on the restoration of Charles 2nd, who was justly suspected of favouring the Catholics, the Test act was passed; by which they, as well as the Dissenters, were excluded from office. They had been excluded from parliament before, by the indirect operation of other acts; but it was by the twenty-fifth of Charles 2nd that they were excluded from office, and by the thirtieth of the same reign that they were directly excluded from that House and from parliament altogether. James 2nd was known to be a Papist; and his devotion to the cause had led to the Revolution, which led to the establishment of the Protestant constitution as it now existed. The celebrated Declaration issued by William detailed the laws by which Catholics were excluded from parliament and from office, and the various provisions of the Test act; and after stating the attempts which were made to evade those laws, described the great object for which he came, to be the enforcement of the execution of those laws, the preservation of the liberties of the country, and the establishment of the Protestant faith. A meeting of the lords and commons took place; a convention was assembled, when these laws were again considered, and declared to be a part of the constitution. Up to that period it was clear, that though Catholics were excluded from parliament and from office, they were not excluded from the Crown. But then a preamble was attached to the Bill of Rights itself, declaring that, from that period, the Crown should be held only by a Protestant. Then it was, that the Protestant government was, for the first time, established. So that there never was a complete establishment and Union of a Protestant Church and a Protestant State until the Revolution.
He would next allude to the Coronation Oath, not to show that it stood in the way of any legislative provision, but to show that the constitution was strictly Protestant. Those who had framed that constitution were amongst the greatest statesmen and lawyers that this country had ever produced, Under that system we
1250
had long lived happy, illustrious, and powerful; and though he did not say that it should never be altered, he would say that it ought not to be altered without full demonstration of the necessity of change. In twelve years after, a new settlement of the Crown took place: the new settlement was of the same character—it confirmed the same acts. At the period of the Union with Scotland, there was another confirmation of the same system. Thus he had answered the questions of the noble earl, and thus he had proved to 'the House, that a Protestant Church and a Protestant government, were not completed until the period of the Revolution. What change had taken place in the position or condition of Ireland, which required that the conduct of this country should be altered towards the Catholics of Ireland? Perhaps it would be said, that they were now in the hands of persons of a temper not to suffer Ireland to be trifled with. It was too true there were persons in Ireland exercising a sway and authority which was altogether unknown to the constitution, and little relished by the Protestants of this country or of Ireland. They demanded, for the Catholics of Ireland, admission to seats in this Protestant House, they demanded admission to offices of state, rendering thereby this House no longer a Protestant House of peers, and the government itself no longer a Protestant government: but a mixed House of peers, and a mixed government, part Catholic, part Protestant. Times, however, and circumstances had changed [Cheers from the Opposition bench]. From whatever quarter those cheers proceeded, he would answer the appeal by reminding those noble lords, that when the question was first agitated Ireland had its own parliament; and it was notorious that the influence of a few, a very few, individuals returned the whole Commons of Ireland. The case was now widely different; the power had changed hands, and the elective franchise, in almost all cases, was vested in the Catholic body. Indeed, that they were aware, and even boasted, of that over-powering influence in the State, was but too obvious from the tone their orators and publications assumed. In his opinion, and exercising the best judgment he could on the subject of their demands, he did not think that making the concessions now demanded would have the effect of tranquillizing a country so circum-

1251
stanced as Ireland. He had remarked, that for the last seven years, the priesthood and the Catholic hierarchy had so increased its influence and authority, that it now exercised a more unrestricted control, than ever it had exercised in preceding periods of our history. This influence would he only confirmed and strengthened, if the concessions demanded by the Catholic body were now obtained. Such was that influence, that arbitrary control, exercised over the whole of the Catholic body even now, that no one dared to raise his voice against the sway exercised by the priesthood. Not even Mr. O'Connell, whose influence amongst that body had occasioned him to be considered the leader and demagogue of the party, could raise his voice with impunity against their fiat. If this great advocate of their cause dared to raise his voice against the sway so exercised, or trenched on the privileges or power of the Catholic priesthood, he was called to a strict account, compelled to prostrate his opinions and himself, with all his weight of popularity, before this potent body of men, and to sign an open recantation of his error. As long as this religion continued to be the religion of Ireland, it was vain to expect that any efforts of this nature could succeed in composing that agitated country. And, would it be right under such a state of things to grant to the Catholics of Ireland that species of concession which was, in fact, substantial power? Look at the situation in which the question stood! The population of Ireland was, although nearly seven millions of souls, almost altogether Catholics; these were led by a band of active, sanguine, ambitious men, exercising a sway over the public mind, and over individuals themselves, not recognised by or connected with the state, and, happily for the interests of this country, hitherto unexampled. It was an evil out of which we were bound, some how or other, to extricate ourselves; but, looking at the effect of former concessions on the innovating spirit of the Catholic leaders and the Catholic hierarchy he thought it was impossible that we could ever so extricate ourselves by adopting the measure proposed by the noble marquis.
Adverting to the state of things in Ireland, as he felt himself called upon to do, he considered her situation most alarming, and little calculated to encourage us to
1252
make concessions of this nature. Before we made such an experiment, let us have some security to look to, which might, however imperfectly, serve as a guard to our establishment, from any thing like innovation on the part of the Catholics. In the very outset of the discussion they had been assured, that no consent would be given to the principle of securities; that, in fact, neither the Catholic people nor their clergy were disposed to purchase concession at the price of securities. Abundant documents had fallen into his possession, many of which were printed, to show that both the clergy and the laity sought for and demanded no less than absolute, unqualified, and unconditional, emancipation. That such was their aim and object was clear from the manifestoes of the Catholic body, and even the petitions which had been laid on their lordships table. Such, too, was the tone and spirit which marked all the recent resolutions of the Catholic aggregate and other meetings, as well in those where the laity presided, as in those where the priesthood took the lead in their proceedings. Such being the character of written resolutions, supposed to be drawn up with deliberation, it would be unnecessary for him to allude to the inflammatory language, and tone of intimidation, which pervaded the speeches of their favourite orators, on occasions when such resolutions were passed. Out of a number of those published documents, it was sufficient to refer to one, wherein the writer, Mr. O'Connell, alluding distinctly to an unqualified, unconditional, concession, as the only one worthy of their acceptance, adds—"In our humbler fortunes, and in days happily now gone by, we were on the point of yielding in despair to the principle of securities, and it was the opinion of some of our best friends in and out of parliament, that we ought to yield it; but a total alteration has since then taken place in the posture of our affairs. To what is this to be attributed? Is it to the tone of moderation we have preserved in our debates and published appeals? or rather is not this alteration in our position wing to the threat which has been held out, and the strong language used of late, and which I feel justified in saying has at length placed us on the vantage ground?" Can they, resumed the noble lord, more distinctly tell us, they feel themselves placed in a situation to extort from the

1253
legislature, by dint of intimidation and threats, that which has so long been withheld? It was true, the sword was not drawn openly; hut were their lordships disposed, in the face of a power of this alarming and anomalous nature to admit the Catholic body, thus marshalled and organized, within the pale of the constitution? Every peer was an adviser of the Crown, and was bound to give such advice as might, in his judgment, be best calculated to uphold and maintain this Protestant government. In the same manner every privy councillor was bound to give his best counsel to his majesty on affairs of state. And they should not forget, that in the measure submitted to parliament in 1813, when it was attempted to except privy councillors, the proposition was lost by a considerable majority. They should not forget, that, on the present occasion, they had to contend with a great power, and with great talent, perhaps as splendid as ever was exhibited within those walls. In addition to this array within, those who had preceded him had set up, on their side of the question, the authority of Mr. Pitt, of Mr. Fox, and of Mr. Canning, whose talents and eloquence had shed a lustre not on this country alone, but on the human race. Giving to those great statesmen and orators every tribute of admiration, he begged to say that they were all on the side of security for the conduct of the Catholics, if admitted to all the privileges of the constitution. If he could be satisfied that there was no reason to fear any danger would result to the state from this concession, he might be content to adopt the proposition of the noble marquis; but when these advocates of the Catholics say, "We will give you no security, we will not condescend to treat with you even on the basis of securities," then their lordships must agree with him, that they were in a new and altered position altogether. It had been frequently said, that Mr. Pitt was a decided friend to Catholic emancipation; but he would remind their lordships, that in all he spoke or wrote, he only advocated the cause of concession to the Catholics, provided it were accompanied with such guards and securities as would prevent any danger to our Protestant constitution. In a letter published on the subject of the Catholic claims, and which seemed published principally to give publicity to the quotation he was
1254
now about to make, it was stated "that the Catholics would allow Ireland to be tranquillized, but it must be on their own terms:" in other words we were to be at their mercy. The letter added, "the clergy of that church might be supported by our government, and derive from it other pecuniary means, but they must be placed under no restriction in consequence;"—that is, the Catholic clergy would consent to receive its income from government, but must remain independent of the government, which was to exercise; no control over it. He would not consent to a proposition such as this: for though he would by no means contend, that they should be subject to a control which would afford a pretext for denominating it a slavish control, he would be extremely desirous that they should be placed, in this instance, beneath a whole some and salutary control. As Mr. Pitt never was the advocate of unqualified concession, so neither was the late Mr. Canning, of whose talents and judgment, he could never speak without admiration. Almost from the first period of being acquainted with that distinguished statesman, he had been honoured with his intimacy; and he had had abundant opportunities of observing how decidedly strength of character, and candid manly conduct, marked the mind of his deceased friend. Yet, although warm in advocacy as in: friendship, Mr. Canning had, neither in the agitation of this question in 1813, in 1815, or in 1821, ever stated that he would grant what the Catholics solicited without full and ample securities. Mr. Grattan also, in speaking upon the bill of 1810, admitted that securities were necessary. His noble friend, too, on the cross-bench, although he might not have expressed so strongly his opinion on this part of the subject, had decidedly acquiesced in the proposition, that securities should be given. The noble lord near him had expressed himself in distinct terms on the necessity of having the best possible securities for the maintenance of the Protestant religion in church and state. Another noble lord, the relative of the late Mr. Fox, came to nearly the same conclusion.
He must now be allowed to address himself to another topic. A contrast had been drawn between the condition of the Catholics in this country of freedom and the Catholics under other more arbitrary

1255
governments, namely, Russia, Prussia, and the Netherlands. There was no possible similitude in the condition or situation of the Catholics in those countries and in Ireland. There the monarch was comparatively arbitrary, and it was only necessary he should utter a single word, and all was acquiescence to his will. No person, even in Russia, was elevated to any church dignity, without being previously submitted to the approbation of the sovereign. Whilst in Ireland, the enforcement of such a regulation would produce the greatest disaffection; and were a bill for that purpose to pass the legislature, it would occasion a bloody insurrection. The Prussian monarch, also, had the power to restrict the nomination and appointment of the clergy; and none, in fact, were appointed without the royal sanction. With respect to the restrictions imposed on the Catholics of Canada, in these respects, they were, as lawyers would term, as stringent as they could possibly be; although there was such a disproportion in the numbers of the two religious persuasions, that there was the less reason to apprehend any danger in that part of our dominions—the condition of the Catholics in these countries, had been introduced into the discussion, to give a colouring favourable to the case of the Catholics of Ireland. He should be sorry to let any thing illiberal escape his lips whilst on this momentous subject: yet he thought no one would deny, that the Catholic body took every opportunity that presented itself to increase the influence of their own religion. It was said that the Catholic religion had undergone a great change. Were we sure of it, before we adopted that liberal sentiment as a practical axiom? Look to the experience of the last ten years. Observe the language they now held, and compare it with that of previous periods. Compare it with the language and spirit which displayed itself in the reign of James 2nd, when the legislature was perverted to the worst purposes. Never was there a tyranny more arbitrary, a proscription more dangerous. Without trial and on mere rumour three thousand persons were condemned, and their property and estates confiscated. When he recollected those times, and those acts of the Catholic Ascendancy of James's reign, and compared them with the intemperate spirit manifested at the present day, he felt
1256
anxious that their lordships should look at the proposition with circumspection and not suffer themselves to be abused by their too easy credulity.
With reference to some transactions which involved the character of the Catholic religion, as exemplified in certain persecutions that took place some twelve years ago on the continent, it was singular enough to remark, that those who were the most eager advocates for the Catholics, were those who looked on them, in those transactions, with the greatest dissatisfaction and suspicion. Without security, he could only anticipate the possibility of similar results. Yet, at some of the public meetings in Ireland, these orators, and those not of the most intemperate, had stated, that the proposition of securities was only to be met with scorn. These were amongst the reasons, why he could not accede to the proposition of the noble marquis, and why he thought it unlikely to terminate in any beneficial result. He confessed he saw the difficulties of the question; although he could not see his way out of them. The proposition now made was, to admit the Catholics without restriction into the legislature, into all and every office, and into a full participation of civil and military power. Did they believe, when they had conceded all these points, that they should be able to stop short there? Little must he know of the disposition of the Church of Rome to aggrandize itself, and obtain a supremacy in all things, and in all States, who could think so. He was not encouraged to hope even, that tranquillity would ensue, as a consequence of these important concessions. In 1778, when the Penal-laws were repealed, nothing, for some time, was heard of, but the gratitude of Ireland, and the tranquillity with which she was about to be blessed. But shortly, new demands were made, and political power was asked for. In 1792, the Catholic Board, a body similar to the present Association, which was sitting in Dublin, constituted itself a Catholic parliament, for the purpose of enforcing their new demands. If it were said, that the Catholics would be satisfied with what they now asked, he would answer—look to the past; arguing from the nature of human passions, and in particular from the character of the Roman Catholic religion, he would say, that it was quite impossible they could be satisfied; it was quite impossible they should stop.

1257
But, did they say themselves that they would be satisfied? No such thing; they avowed that they regarded these concessions merely as preliminary to something more. A right rev. prelate had referred to the declarations of the titular bishop of Kildare. Now, if he could consider Dr. Doyle as an insulated individual, speaking merely his own mind, he should entertain little apprehension upon the subject. But when he found him supported by political societies and associations in Ireland—when he found that he was looked up to as their guide and director—he must consider the sentiments he uttered to be the sentiments of the Catholic body. Dr. Doyle had predicted the downfall of the Protestant Church of Ireland, and he told us, moreover, that it would be a most desirable event. In distinct terms, he had said, that Catholic emancipation would lead only to ulterior measures, without which Ireland could know neither repose nor prosperity. His coadjutor, the titular bishop of Killala, had used terms even more decided and positive: "the barrier of the Protestant Church of Ireland must be removed, or the Union will never be complete, and the Island will never be tranquil." I should (said the noble and learned lord) disgust your lordships, were I to go through the odious task of repeating all the terms of contumely, invective, and bitter vituperation, applied by the Catholic body to the Protestant Church of Ireland. They have been used not merely by the Catholic Association, but at meetings in every part of the island; and that they entertain a rancorous enmity towards the establishment, no man who reads their expressions calmly will for a moment doubt. That they look forward eagerly to the accomplishment of something more is evident; and the change that has taken place in the mode in which they speak of their prelates deserves some remark in passing. Formerly, those prelates were merely called, with retiring modesty, titular bishops; but now they speak of the Protestant rector of such a parish and of the Protestant bishop of such a See; and the Roman Catholic archbishop of Armagh had recently coupled with his name the title of "Primate of all Ireland." I only instance this fact, to show the spirit prevailing in the Catholic body. Am I then justified in the conclusion, that if we grant what is
1258
called Catholic emancipation, we may grant it as the supposed price of tranquillity. I cannot understand the policy of those who recommend this concession, nor bring myself to think, that they have taken an accurate view of the consequences. I resist the claims, because I cannot bring myself to the conclusion, that, without danger, without destruction, perhaps, to the Protestant establishment in this country, we can agree to a Catholic establishment in Ireland. I cannot accede to the proposition of the noble marquis, unless I am prepared to grant a Catholic ascendancy in Ireland. I contend, that by agreeing to this motion, we shall not purchase tranquillity. The notion is fallacious: we shall only give new means to support further claims, which will be urged, and backed by the very power we have ourselves conferred. Are your lordships, then, prepared to bid adieu to the Protestant Church of Ireland? Are you prepared to establish the Catholic religion in its stead? We know that the population of Ireland is Catholic; that three-fourths are of that persuasion; and it may be contended, that it is as just to establish the Catholic religion in Ireland as the Protestant in England, or the Presbyterian in Scotland. Any man who comes to that conclusion, I can understand. He acts a consistent part, and may well call upon us to to take this step, in order to facilitate the object he has in view. But, because I love the Protestant Church of Ireland; because I know it has produced great and illustrious men; because I think it the bulwark of the Church of England; I am not willing to forego my support to it, and I cannot grant a Catholic ascendancy in Ireland. Therefore I cannot agree to this intermediate step, which, I think, leads to no other conclusion than the establishment of the Catholic religion in Ireland. For this reason I have uniformly voted against concession, and for this reason I shall now vote against the proposition of the noble marquis; because, let the question take what shape it will, the disguise is always to be penetrated. I have said, that I do not see my way out of the difficulty. I wish to God I did; but I am satisfied that to comply with what is required, instead of diminishing that difficulty, would greatly increase it.
Lord Plunkettsaid:—I am anxious to take the first opportunity that fairly oc-

1259
cars, of repeating my unalterable conviction upon this question. The noble and learned lord behind me (Manners) last night stated the result of his observations, after a residence of twenty years in Ireland, and I am satisfied that he uttered, with perfect truth and candour, the conclusion at which his mind had arrived. I hope that your lordships will permit me, after forty years spent in that country in active life, public and private, official and unofficial, in parliament and out of parliament, with the fullest opportunities of observing the deportment of all classes, to state my unalterable conviction, that unless this agitating question be disposed of by some conciliatory adjustment, there is no hope of prosperity, tranquillity, or even safety, for Ireland. If any person has arrived at this decision, that under no circumstances, at no time, and accompanied by no conditions, he can and ought to do any thing for the Roman Catholics—that person is entitled to vote against the proposition of to-night. Unless he has arrived at that decision, I do not see how it is possible to refuse his support to the motion of the noble marquis. I have listened with the most profound attention to the able, temperate, and dignified statement of my noble and learned friend who has just taken his seat. Part of it I heard with the most gratified feelings; because I did think—and I still hope I am not mistaken in so thinking—I saw in the resistance he felt it necessary to make to the proposition, some distant gleam of comfort, some secret hope, some latent opinion in his mind, that there were circumstances and securities, if time were given to look after them, and if the search were made at the proper season, which might render the adoption of some measure in favour of the Catholics admissible. On the other hand, I felt extreme regret and disappointment at other parts of his speech; because, if I could agree with him in believing that we can take no step for the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament and into office, without the destruction of the Protestant establishment in Ireland, I, who have supported these claims almost from the first moment I could think, would abandon my ancient and confirmed opinions, would change my side, and become as determined an opponent to concession as I have been its most anxious advocate. I look upon the Protestant establishment of Ireland as a fundamental principle of our
1260
imperial constitution: I take it to have been unalterably settled at the Union, and that to talk of changing the Protestant religion of Ireland without shaking the Protestant establishment of the empire is idle. I speak no new language, now that, for the first time, I have had an opportunity of delivering my sentiments in the presence of the right reverend bench: I utter but the opinions I have entertained and expressed in the other House of Parliament, I think a religious establishment essential to our well-being, and that, without a dignified establishment in times like these, religion itself would be degraded. I am, therefore, persuaded, not only that the establishment is necessary, but that the rank, affluence, and dignity of the hierarchy is important to our best interests. I think further, that its power and influence are and ought to be so great, that unless that hierarchy be connected with the state, it may be too powerful for the state; and hence the necessity of maintaining that connection for the benefit of the state. On these grounds, and not for any fanciful and theoretical reasons, assigned by some writers upon this subject, I never for a moment would consent to any thing which should endanger our Protestant establishment. I further feel, that the Protestant establishment of Ireland is the very cement of the Union: I find it interwoven with all the essential relations and institutions of the two kingdoms; and I have no hesitation in admitting, that if it were destroyed, the very foundations of public security would be shaken, the connection between England and Ireland dissolved, and that the annihilation of private property must follow the ruin of the property of the Church. I should be happy to suppose that I had misunderstood my noble and learned friend, in the interpretation I put upon the latter part of his argument; and I repeat, that if I thought with him, that the consequence of admitting the claims of the Roman Catholics would be such as he anticipated, I would now and for ever resist them. I am most anxious to relieve my own mind, and to state the grounds on which I apprehend I can do so satisfactorily, from this terrible alternative; and I trust your lordships will excuse me if I go a little back, and briefly call your attention to that period of our history, so much adverted to by my noble and learned friend; I mean the period of the Revolution.

1261
The general circumstances under which that glorious event occurred are so well known, that it is unnecessary for me to do more than shortly advert to them. At that date, this Protestant country took up arms in support of its civil and religious liberties against the bigotted and despotic monarch who had endangered both. She took up arms, as she had a right to do for that purpose, and she succeeded; but let me remind your lordships, that that success would probably have been more than problematical, if the energies and patriotism of the people of this country had not been sanctioned and stimulated by the strongest motives of religious duty. The union of patriotism and religion produced that success. What was then the situation of Ireland, of popish Ireland—of the unfortunate natives of that country? I do not advert to this point for the sake of reviving ungrateful recollections, but because it is necessary to my argument. When we come to sit in judgment upon the conduct of the natives of Ireland, we should do it, not with feelings of resentment against them, but of shame, remorse, and self-accusation, against ourselves. These are the assessors whom we ought to call in, to aid us in arriving at a decision, and in passing a just sentence of atonement. Ireland was once in possession of an undefined religion; free from popery and papal usurpations. You forced upon her pure Christianity your own corruptions and superstitions; and you taught her to consider herself ours, not merely by right of conquest, but by papal grant. Without reference to her habits or opinions, you compelled her to receive your corrupted religion. As knowledge advanced, we became prepared for a change; and here the Reformation was effected with the full consent and approbation of the people. They understood and appreciated the blessings of the reformed religion; but the other unfortunate portion of the empire had been left in a state of ignorance and barbarism, and in this condition she naturally turned and adhered to the corruptions and superstitions which, in the first instance, you had forced upon her. Then you forced the Reformation upon her, without any regard to the habits and opinions of the people. When, therefore, she, some time afterwards, found a Popish monarch on the throne of England, she refused to take up arms against him, because he professed the same religion, Had the Irish
1262
possessed an enlightened philosophy, they might, perhaps, have known, that it was better to sacrifice their religion to their patriotism, than their patriotism to their religion; but, in such times, that was too much to expect from human nature, and accordingly not only did they not take up arms against a popish king, but they took up arms in his behalf. They were subdued: and what were the duties, at that period, devolving upon the English government? The great men of that day had a most difficult task to accomplish. It was impossible that they should treat the Roman Catholics of Ireland as good subjects: they had been, not as against the king, but as against the English government, in a state of armed resistance, and they could not safely be admitted into parliament or into office. It therefore became requisite by an act, strictly speaking, of injustice, but injustice compelled by rigid necessity, to exclude them from parliament and from office. But let me remind your lordships, and particularly the learned earl (Eldon), who is taking notes of what I say, of what was the state of the law as it existed at that time. At the Revolution the Irish Catholics were in undoubted possession of the privilege of sitting in both Houses of Parliament. I shall presently have occasion to observe upon the application of these laws to the English; but I am now speaking only of the Irish. The 5th of Elizabeth, by which, for the first time, the Oath of Supremacy was made necessary for admission into the House of Commons, never existed in Ireland. From the Reformation down to the 2nd William and Mary, a period of a hundred and thirty years, the Irish enjoyed the undisputed privilege, not merely in point of law, but practically, of sitting in parliament; they were also, though not, perhaps, to the same degree, admitted into office. The 1st of Elizabeth was adopted by the 2nd Elizabeth in Ireland, and it required the Oath of Supremacy to be taken on accepting office; yet, among the Roman Catholics it was not, for a long time, considered a barrier to their admission. It has been truly stated by my noble and learned friend, that many Roman Catholics took the Oath of Supremacy, and I may add, they did so, both in this country and in Ireland; for the first twelve years of the reign of Elizabeth, they took it without difficulty in this country, and it was not until after the attempts of the popish priests sent over

1263
from the continent to deprive Elizabeth of her throne and life, that any difficulty of the kind arose. The act of the 2nd William and Mary was the result of stern necessity superseding the ordinary dictates of justice and even the faith of treaties. But what was the course it became necessary then to pursue? Those enlightened persons, those lovers of freedom, then at the head of affairs, saw their difficulty, and became satisfied of the truth of this proposition, that it was utterly inconsistent to shut any class of individuals out of parliament and office—to deprive them of franchise and of the privileges of the constitution, and yet to leave them in possession of wealth and power. The two principles were utterly inconsistent; if you separate wealth and knowledge from the state, wealth and knowledge must overturn the state. Therefore, those profound statesmen saw in all its bearings the proposition I am now submitting to the House; and what was the course they pursued? I am not stating it for the purpose of casting any imputation upon them; they were in a situation of great embarrassment, and I have not met with any suggestion in any writer, as to the mode in which they ought to have proceeded. Treat them as good subjects they could not; admit them to parliament and offices in the state they could not; and then began that system which was pursued for seventy years—the system of keeping the Irish Roman Catholics in the lowest extremity of poverty and ignorance. It was pursued to that limit, where the art of grinding down a people must end: and then what took place? The good sense and good feeling of this country recoiled with pain and disgust, from the termination of their own system of government. They were shocked to see one of the fairest portions of the empire reduced to so destitute a condition.
Let the House recollect, that the whole period from the Revolution was one continued scene of severe but necessary infliction; and let the House recollect also the conduct of the Irish under it. While Scotland, and even England, had been subjected to more than one insurrection in favour of the exiled family, Ireland remained resigned and patient, and never raised an arm or a voice in its behalf. The people of England were softened and subdued by the resignation and forbearance of the people of Ireland, and became satis-
1264
fied, that something ought to be done for them. A new system then began; and, for the last fifty years, you have been retracing the steps taken for the seventy or eighty years preceding, and endeavouring to replace the Irish in the situation which they originally occupied. Support, encouragement, privileges—constitutional privileges—to a great extent were given to them, and accordingly we now find them no longer in the abject and ignorant wretchedness to which we formerly reduced them. Your own acts of justice and policy have raised them to the situation of a great, powerful, and reflecting people. The English government and the Irish parliament made some mistakes in endeavouring to alter its course. Many of the provisions of the act of 1793 were most wise and salutary; but others were introduced of a decidedly objectionable tendency. By that act, all disabilities, all incapacities, either with respect to landed property, admission to office, or to other privileges of the state, were absolutely repealed, with certain exceptions, extending to a considerable number of offices, and above all, to seats in parliament—that highest privilege of civil life. You gave to Roman Catholics the right of returning members to sit in parliament; but you withheld from the Catholic aristocracy the right of filling those seats themselves; that is to say, you created a Roman Catholic constituency for Protestant representatives. It was impossible that this discordant state of things could arrive at any consistent termination; and by that error of the act of 1793 you laid the foundation of further evils. Under this new system of government, it was almost miraculous how Ireland continued to revive and to recover from her state of moral and physical degradation; so much so, that at length England became apprehensive of the growing power of Ireland, and in 1800, the Union was proposed, and took place. It was effected avowedly upon this principle—that by uniting the two countries under one religion, security might be given to the two establishments; and that, by uniting them under one constitution, happiness and freedom might be ensured to both?
Beware, my lords, how you paralyse that Union: consider how impossible it is effectually to preserve that Union by consolidating the two establishments, and yet, at the same time not to render it perfect

1265
by giving equal rights to the people of both countries. That these were the opinions of the illustrious statesmen under whose auspices the Union was commenced and concluded, will not now be disputed. I do not mean to assert, that the distinguished individual then at the head of the government held out expectations to the Roman Catholics, that they would be admitted to political power; but at that period hopes were encouraged, that the Union would be the means of facilitating the acquisition of privileges which they could otherwise never have a chance of enjoying. When the act of Union was carried I had a seat in the Irish parliament: I was then a young man, and I felt it my duty to oppose it: I am now an old man; but, under the same circumstances, were they again to occur, I should adopt the same course. As, however, the Union was carried, we ought to do our utmost to render it perfect and permanent. I thought, in the year 1800, that it was a measure of party; that it would not be acted upon fairly, and that the inferior country would be obliged to suffer without redress. I have been most happily disappointed. I know of no instance in which the interests of Ireland have been brought under the consideration of the imperial parliament, in which those interests have not been attended to with justice, with favour, and almost with partiality.
Then, I may naturally be asked, if both countries have been so prosperous under the Union—if many privileges and advantages have been given to Ireland by it—if the markets of this country have been thus opened to her produce, why is she not satisfied, and why, by making these claims, does she attempt to disturb the harmony of the empire? I answer, that the Irish Catholics, by making these claims, are evincing their gratitude for benefits conferred upon them, and that they are the necessary consequence of the situation in which they are placed. If they aspire after the honours of the state, in order that they may serve their common country with advantage, it is not only consistent with the policy but with the dictates of human nature. If, as you say, you have given the protection of the law to the Catholic—if you have admitted him into the possession of wealth and power, and yet have excluded him from office on account of his religion, which you say necessarily makes him a subject not worthy of confidence, not
1266
worthy of a seat in parliament—is he to feel himself satisfied, or rather, docs he not show his gratitude by asking for more? I should think him most base and unworthy to be free, if he were not to ask for more if he were sincere; but I should not believe in his sincerity; and should think him a base and deceitful hypocrite, I should think him a disgrace to the country, if he were not to ask for all the privileges of the rest of his countrymen.
I have been told, and it has been more than once mentioned in the course of this debate, that there is a difference between civil rights and political power. There is, in my opinion, no position more at variance with the fundamental principles of our constitution. Political power is the guardian of civil rights. The civil rights of subjects are not founded on any written law, but arose out of the essence of the constitution. Where is the law on which the rights of Protestants to seats in parliaments are founded? There may be, and there are, laws for regulating the right, but the right itself rests on the common principles of the constitution. That right, like all others, may be modified according to circumstances; but still, enjoyment is the general rule, exclusion is only the exception, and those who defend the exclusion are bound to prove its justice by making out its expediency. Our constitution is any thing but an establishment of castes. The whole of it rests and is supported on the free admission of all the people to its benefits. The Throne, the Commons, and the House of Lords, all lest on this fundamental principle of our constitution, and by this it has been preserved from the fate of other countries. We have heard of public councils in other countries, which have been changed into oligarchies, by trenching too much on the executive, or into courts of justice, by permitting the executive to intrude too far upon their privilege; but the grand principle of our constitution is, that the several orders fall back upon the people, and are, I may say, renewed by them. What is the construction of your lordships' House? Is it not gradually renewed and strengthened by an infusion from the body of the people—of those who are conspicuous for their merits in having served the country, or the power of serving it by their wealth? The basis they rest upon is that of public opinion; and their improvement is founded in popular stamina.

1267
The lowest man in the state may, by his own merits, and the exercise of his prerogative on the part of the sovereign, become a member of this House. What a proportion of your lordships have been elevated to the rank of the peerage in the late reign; and does it become those who have thus been taken from the people to talk of castes? With what face could I think of using the privilege which has been conferred upon me by putting my back to the door to shoulder out the duke of Norfolk? Shame on the ingenuity which could so construe the four corners of the great charter, as to turn it to the exclusion of the descendants of those freemen by whose wisdom and valour it was obtained! The position against which I contend, is that most erroneous one—that one set of men in a free; state should have political power, whilst others should be excluded. This is a state of things so intolerable, that it is not I in human nature to bear it. The subjects of the most absolute despot may, under a beneficent ruler, be happy; but it is impossible that men living under a free government can feel themselves otherwise than in a state of degradation, when they find they are debarred the exercise of their privileges as freemen, because they are said to believe in a religion which is superstitious and idolatrous. In such a state, every comfort and enjoyment they may have, will be smothered by indignation at the privations to which they are exposed, and the grounds on which their exclusion are defended. Can your lordships, then, be surprised that you are called upon, year after year, by the Roman Catholics, for the removal of the disabilities under which they labour? I have at all times endeavoured to moderate the zeal of my Roman Catholic countrymen, by recommending them to make their approaches, with temperance to the hostile opinions, and even to the unjust prejudices, of those who are opposed to them in this country; but I should grossly abuse any influence which I may possess amongst them, if I were to advise them to cease their applications altogether. The best advice I can give is, that they should never cease to pursue the assertion of their claims, until they obtain a full recognition of their rights. If there is any effect of their exclusion which I should view with the greatest alarm, it would be, that their voices shall be no longer heard in support of their just claims. That, indeed,
1268
would be a danger worse, not only than any which result from their exclusion, but than any which could well be imagined from their admission. What, I would ask, is the state of Irish feeling now on this subject? It is well known, that in the pursuit of this one object of emancipation an intensity of feeling pervades the whole of the Catholic population of Ireland; no matter what their rank, condition, or state in society. They all join in this pursuit with a degree of unanimity which has no parallel. Laity and clergy are alike associated in following the same object. Over a body thus united, a few individuals have acquired an influence, by which they have the power to excite them to almost any object they may think proper. I would ask your lordships whether that is a state of society which ought to continue in Ireland? Are we to hold our laws, our liberties, our safety, at the discretion of those individuals? Is it a state in which so important a part of the empire should be allowed to remain? Your lordships may complain, that a few persons should possess this power over so large a portion of the people. Why—it is not unreasonable to ask—should a few lawyers, who have only their zeal and their talents, possess this extraordinary influence? Your lordships will find, in answering the inquiry, that you yourselves are the cause. The people are united because they are aggrieved. They associate and send forth their complaints because they consider themselves injured: and your lordships may as well endeavonr to arrest the current of the blood in the human body, as to prevent those complaints, as long as you suffer the grievances out of which they spring to exist. As long as there are wrongs to be redressed, there will be public assemblies of the people to seek that redress; and, in those public assemblies there will be leaders, vying with each other in the race for vulgar popularity. If one sees that he is out-stripped by another, he will endeavour to do something to render himself more agreeable to the passions which, for that purpose, he will be disposed to excite. Do your lordships object to this state of things? These demagogues are the spawn of your own wrong. You yourselves have created it; and, instead of looking on persons thus engaged as objects of justice, you should rather consider them as victims to injuries of long standing.

1269
The question, then, to be considered is, what are we to do in this case? Are we to stand still, or go backwards, or go forwards? To stand still is impossible. We must, then, either go forward, or go backward. "Go backward!" said the noble lord,—"Go backward! re-enact the penal laws, and outlaw a large portion of the people." Excellent tyranny, if it were possible. Make war on your own resources, and tarnish the honour of the country, by weakening it in such a cause. War, my lords! and for what?—war, which, when you had carried on to a certain extent, you would have to begin again,—war, which would leave you a guilty spectacle to scoffing and exulting Europe. Do your lordships suppose, that what is passing in Ireland is an object of indifference to the continent of Europe? Do you suppose that our excellent constitution, and the unexampled prosperity of our career, has made us the love, and not the envy, of the world? There may be some foreign statesman who, taking up his glass, and viewing the dark spot in the western horizon, pregnant with the materials of the coming storm, thinks not that it will break on him but for him; but I would answer for it with my life, if there should be an invasion of Ireland, that the Irish people will be found true to the king and the constitution [hear]. But, why so? Is it by virtue of the oath of supremacy, or the oath against transubstantiation.? They may invoke all the saints in the calendar, without giving you much benefit by it; but you will be entitled to their support, by reminding them of the events of the last fifty years, during which, in measures for their improvement, you have endeavoured to counteract the blighting effects of the penalties and persecutions of the preceding eighty. You will be entitled to it, by the hope of freedom which they see yet held out, and the prospect, that their difficulties will at no distant day, be wholly removed by your liberality.
I am most anxious not to introduce any topic which has not a tendency to conciliation; but I cannot help remarking on the inconsistency of the arguments of divided allegiance, and that which is admitted on all hands; namely, that the Roman Catholics are good subjects. This admission is made within your lordships' House; but then it is notorious, that out of this House a strong feeling is excited against the assumed dispositions of the
1270
same individuals, by the recital of the persecutions and fires of Smithfield. I do not mean to state, that any of your lordships would be disposed to avail yourselves of the prejudices arising on this ground, but it cannot be overlooked, that while many of you oppose the Catholics on one ground, the only tie they have on the public voice in their support, arises from another. I cannot pass over, in this place, the use which has been made of the name of Mr. Pitt, and the manner the authority of his alleged opinions have been dealt with. This statesman, whose acts are well known—whose speeches and opinions are now recorded and matter of history,—is now held up by some of his admirers, in support of a cause which he had never advocated. The principles of that right hon. gentleman on this question are, I should have imagined, well known; they caused his retirement from the councils of a sovereign who loved him, at a time too, when the country was engaged in a war, in the issue of which his fame was committed. Yet, with all this, his name has been made the watchword of those by whom the very contrary opinions are held. I do not mean to impute blame to those noble and hon. persons who have been made, perhaps, in many cases, the unwilling sharers in those orgies; but I must say, that they are deeply responsible by whom this unfounded cry has been set up.
Lord Eldon.—I claim my share of that imputation.
Lord Plunkettassured the noble and learned lord, that all he felt it his duty to state on this subject, he said in good feeling towards him, and without meaning it in any way offensively to him, for no man had a higher respect for the character of the noble and learned lord than he entertained. His argument was, that it was extremely unfair to hold out Mr. Pitt as the enemy of Catholic emancipation, and to associate the general principles of that statesman with opposition to the measure.
Lord Eldondenied that he had so held out the opinion of Mr. Pitt.
Lord Plunkett.—That is exactly what I wanted to hear. But whoever sent forth such an erroneous opinion to the country is deeply answerable for it. Another insinuation is, that Protestant ascendancy is opposed to radicalism, and the inference sought to be obtained is, that those who support the one are opposed to the other.

1271
This also is extremely unfair; because it is well known, that many who are sincerely opposed to radicalism are as sincere in their support of emancipation. I will now call the attention of your lordships to a book which has been laid before the public, containing a number of letters which passed between the late king and one of the members of his council, relating to the conscientious scruples entertained by the sovereign, as to whether he would be justified in refusing his assent to certain measures which might be proposed by the Houses of Parliament, and whether such assent would not be a violation of his Coronation Oath. Now, it appears to me, that in the life-time either of the late king, or of the member of the council to whom the letters were addressed, their publication would not have been justifiable; and I also think, that the representatives of the noble lord in question were not justified in placing them before the public.
Lord Kenyon.—May I be permitted to say a few words? [cries of "order, order"].
Lord Plunkett.—I meant distinctly to convey to the noble lord my opinion, that the publication of those letters was not proper; but, in doing so, I never intended to convey any thing that was personally offensive. I must repeat, that the publication of letters, tending to influence a measure before parliament, by putting in opposition to it the opinion of the late king, was not a fair mode of dealing with the subject. When I say this, I mean no insinuation against the sincerity of his late majesty. They are the conscientious opinions of an honest man, and the mode in which they are put is calculated to endear his memory to the people, and prove him a worthy member of the House of Brunswick. But it is miserable to think of the use which has been made of that opinion, and how the ear of royalty may be abused in some cases; for his majesty was made to believe, that he had no right to assent to the measures to which the letters referred, and that such assent would be a violation of his Coronation Oath. The opinions of lord Kenyon were those of a sound lawyer and an honest man. What he said was, that it was not incumbent on his majesty to refuse his assent to the repeal of those acts, when the Houses of parliament, in proposing that repeal, considered it for the benefit of the country. In the same view, he mentioned that the repeal of the Test Act might take place without
1272
any breach of the Coronation Oath or the Act of Union. His lordship added "It seems to me, that the judgment of the person who takes the Coronation Oath must determine whether any particular statute proposed does destroy the government of the Established Church. It seems that the oath, couched in the general terms in which it is found, does not preclude the parties sworn from exercising a judgment whether that which he is bound to maintain will be essentially, or in any great degree, affected by the proposed measure." The noble lord thus left it as a case which might be decided by the exercise of his majesty's judgment, acting by the advice of his responsible ministers.
I now come to an act on which much stress has been laid—I mean the 30th of Charles 2nd. That act has been made to bear an overwhelming influence on this question; for it is contended, that it forms one of the fundamental principles of our constitution. If that be so, what a frightful step has been already taken; for the House of Commons has more than once passed a bill for the repeal of part of that act; and therefore has agreed to a measure contrary to the principles of the constitution. It will be necessary to relieve your lordships from such a dangerous consequence as must follow, if the principle to which I advert be true. Now, I deny that the 30th of Charles 2nd is such a measure as it has been described. It was not an act passed with reference to Ireland; for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from seats in parliament in that country did not take place till some years after. But I will prove, from legislative records, and from the history of those times, that the 30th of Charles 2nd was not then, nor afterwards, considered a fundamental principle of the constitution. It was passed at a period after the Restoration, when the sovereign was suspected, and not unjustly, of being imbued with Roman Catholic principles. Your lordships know that the first attempt made at that time, in consequence of the supposed opinions of the monarch, and those that were known of his probable successor, was the bill of Exclusion, and that having failed, the 30th of Charles 2nd was substituted. Now what does that act say? It states, that many of the mischiefs that had accrued to the country had arisen from popish recusants having access to the throne; and it declares that as a reason

1273
why the Oath of Supremacy should be taken as a qualification for seats in both Houses of Parliament. I do not deny that such an oath may have been necessary at the time; but I will ask, whether that measure has ever been declared permanent and unalterable? The first legislative measure which referred to it afterwards was the 5th of Anne, when provision was made for the demise of the Crown; in the absence of the successor, a regency was provided, and the regent was declared to be disabled from giving assent to the repeal of certain acts. The first of these was the Act of Uniformity. Mention was made of the 30th of Charles 2nd, but that was rejected. Is not this a proof that that act was not considered permanent and unalterable? The act that was considered permanent, the regent was prevented from repealing: but with respect to the other, it was left, like any ordinary act, to the discretion of the government of the day. The next act to which I shall refer is that of the Union of England and Scotland. It was by that act declared, that the Church of England and the Church of Scotland were to be considered permanent and unalterable in those countries. But no mention was then made of the 30th of Charles 2nd; and when the commissioners proposed that the oath should be taken in Scotland, it was refused, and the words were added, "until parliament shall otherwise provide." I have thus, I conceive, redeemed my pledge of proving, that that act was never considered a fundamental principle of our constitution. It was, as I have observed, passed to prevent the danger of popish recusants having access to his majesty. Now, the 31st of the late king took away recusancy, and gave to popish lords the privilege of access to the sovereign; and if that act had gone a little further, it would have repealed the whole of the 30th of Charles 2nd, and left your lordships little trouble on the subject. This act of the 31st of the late king was two years afterwards extended to Scotland. Here there was a repeal of the very ground on which the 30th of Charles 2nd was passed. The object of all these acts, and their only object, was, to exclude the temporal power of the pope; and in all the acts which have been passed relating to Ireland, there has been an express provision, that they shall continue until parliament shall otherwise provide.
I think I have now disposed of all that
1274
relates to the 30th of Charles 2nd, and redeemed the pledge which I set out by giving. The noble and learned lord who preceded me, seemed to put upon the Oath of Supremacy an interpretation different from that which I put upon it. I think it impossible to take it. My idea of the Oath of Supremacy is, I confess, that in the strict and literal sense of the words, it is impossible for it to be taken by any person; for it not merely denies that any foreign power "ought to have any authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm;" but it denies even that any foreign power "hath" any such authority. Now, if we admit that there are Roman Catholics in this country, the pope must have spiritual authority here. In the nature of things he must exercise it. We may deny his right, but we cannot deny his power, while there are Roman Catholics in the country. The intent of the oaths no doubt was, that it should be an absolute denial that any foreign power exercised any temporal or spiritual authority, as to the established religion of this country. It is perfectly correct, with reference to that church, to say, that no foreign potentate hath or ought to have any power or authority, temporal or spiritual, over it; but, as to the spiritual concerns of a sect, which was not at that time recognised by the law, we did not prevent them from submitting to foreign authority, nor could we do it. And, my lords, I will ask, does the king of England exercise any authority in the spiritual concerns of this sect, or could he do so without the sanction of parliament? Certainly not, according to the words and nature of that oath; and, as long as it continues, the pope must have that power. I only state that, according to the words of that oath, and to the nature of things, this must be; but do I mean to advance, that this oath is uncontrollable? No; on the contrary, I think it most important, that this power should be placed under the control of the state. I think it is a danger for which a remedy ought to be provided. I think it a formidable tiling that there should be an intercourse between the Roman Catholics of Ireland and a foreign power—an intercourse which, at present, maybe innocent, but for the mischievous effects of which hereafter nobody can pretend to answer. I say, that, when any specific measure comes before your lordships for discussion, I shall join most heartily in requiring that

1275
the appointment of the Catholic clergy should substantially, if not by direct form, rest with the present system of domestic nomination, under the control of the state. I agree with noble lords in believing, that danger may result from the authority now exercised by the pope in these appointments; but the noble lords feel that this furnishes them with a good argument against removing the Roman Catholic disabilities, and they had rather have the danger and the argument, than adopt a course of proceeding which would have the effect of doing away with both. For myself, my lords, I cannot conceive how any body, anxious to guard the Protestant establishment, can refuse entertaining this proposition, or joining hand in hand with me in carrying it into effect. On the subject of additional securities, I am strongly impressed with the conviction, that some arrangement ought to be made with the see of Rome, by which, in the appointment of the Roman Catholic clergy, a substantial control should be given to the government? They should be rendered respectable in the eyes of their flocks; and, for that purpose, a competent provision should be made for them by the state, not absolutely and independently, but like the Regium Donum granted to the Protestant Dissenters. To this last point some objection may be made on the score of our finances, but I can assure noble lords, that they will incur much greater expense by keeping up an army, which, in quieter times, would be wholly unnecessary, than would be necessary to support the whole of the Catholic clergy. If caution and jealousy might be thought to be unfounded on the part of the Protestant governors of the country, still that was no reason why they should not at once be conceded.
I listened with deep attention the other evening to the observations made by a right rev. prelate (the Bishop of Durham) on the subject of divided allegiance; but I have not been able to collect what is the exact danger that he apprehends, or what he thinks likely to happen inimical to the constitution of this country, through the interference of the pope. The only instance I have heard of, in which the authority of the see of Rome is at variance with the law of this country, relates to marriages. It is held by that power, that certain marriages, which, according to the law of this country, are perfectly valid, are
1276
wholly illegal, according to the canonical law as it is there professed. But this is merely an opinion which docs not interfere, in any degree, with the civil rights of parties; it does not affect the legitimacy of children, nor their right to inherit their parents' property, but only expresses the censures of the church against parties who are living in what is thought to be a state of sin. This is the single instance which has been adduced; but if there had been more, they would have added little to the weight of argument, if they had been of a similar character. They are altogether too insignificant, as well as too few, to weigh in the minds of statesmen who have an object so important to gain as the restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland.
My noble and learned friend on the woolsack has said, that the Roman Catholics decline to give any securities whatever, and that this circumstance decides him in voting against them. He says, that it entitles him to take away from the ranks of the advocates of Catholic emancipation the great names of Pitt, Fox, and others. All that I can say to this is, that they did support the measure and, although the event has not happened to which the noble lord alluded, in their lives, it does not follow that they would have refused to continue their support, because it had happened subsequently. As to one of them, my view of the matter is borne out. It was in 1813 that the securities proposed were refused by the Catholics; but Mr. Canning continued to support their cause, and this encourages me to hope, that, if they had lived, they would also have continued their support, even if the Catholics had refused the securities demanded of them. But I do not think they did refuse. It is said to be the opinion of the great body of the Catholics, that they ought not to give these securities; but the opinion of the Catholics as a body should not be taken from what is said in public meetings, or from what falls from the demagogues and leaders at those meetings, into whose hands we have thrown them. Neither ought it to be inferred from their silence when those opinions are expressed; in which, perhaps, they do not concur, although they dare not contradict them. I confess I think they ought to do so. But it is really a matter of no importance, whether they do or do not agree to the securities. It is for your lordships to

1277
do what yon feel to be right and just. If you think that the measure may be safely adopted if accompanied by securities, it is your duty to pass it, without any regard to what the Catholics may think of those securities. This, I contend, is one sound principle of legislation. Every great body ought first to ascertain what is right and expedient to do, and this being ascertained, to carry it into effect. I am as certain, as I am of my existence, that the great Catholic body would not hesitate for a moment to adopt the securities that may be proposed to them.
But we are asked, how is it to tranquillize Ireland? I answer, that if any noble lord thinks the sole object of this measure is to tranquillize Ireland, he is totally mistaken. The object of it is to do an act of justice. The tranquillity that may ensue is accessory, and not the principal object. Ireland, no doubt, will then be tranquil; but nobody can suppose that this proposition is by itself to be considered as a panacea which is to produce immediate and everlasting peace. Ireland will still be liable to be disturbed by the angry passions: but there will not be that hectic fever which makes Ireland a dead weight upon this country, instead of being, as it might be, an accession of strength and wealth. There are some other topics on which I wished to touch; but I have occupied so much of your lordships' time, that I will now conclude. I meant to have made some observations on the Catholic Association. I brought a bill into the other House of parliament for putting down that Association; but it must be remembered, that I did so in the belief that that measure would be accompanied by others of a salutary nature. It has not been accompanied by any such measures; and I am free to say, that if the bill for putting down the Catholic Association were now to be brought down to the House, I should not feel myself bound, under existing circumstances, to vote for it. I am convinced, that any measure, other than that which is intended to be founded upon the resolution before the House, will fail of accomplishing the tranquillization of Ireland. If the discontents and disturbances are stopped up in one place, they will break out in another. Nothing can repress them but expedients so rigorous, that they will be inconsistent with a free country. The only effectual method of calming and defeating dis-
1278
contents is by taking away from the discontented, that pretext which their wrongs give them.
The Earl of Eldoncomplained of the attack made upon him by the learned lord, who had represented him as a person determined never to consent to any measure of tranquillity to England and Ireland. He protested, that he had never used, towards any class of his fellow-subjects, any language which could justify that statement. The only determination he had formed upon this subject was, to investigate it, and to watch it as closely as possible; and, whatever might be the result of his deliberations, he would act upon them unhesitatingly. His motto had ever been, "Be just, and fear not." Before he entered on the subject immediately before the House, he begged permission to say one word in allusion to what had been observed respecting the late Mr. Pitt. There was no person whose memory was more dear to him. There was no charge he should feel more acutely if it could be made against him justly, than that of having offered any disrespect to the memory or the character of that great man. He was ready to plead guilty to the charge of having annually, since his death, and of intending annually, as long as he was able, until his own should happen, to celebrate Mr. Pitt's birth-day. He begged, however, to deny on his own part, and on the part of those who were equally guilty with him of this charge, that it was his purpose or theirs, to make use of that great man's name against the Roman Catholics of this country or of Ireland. He knew, and he had always acted on the knowledge, that Mr. Pitt had an earnest desire to relieve the Roman Catholics from their disabilities, both in England and in Ireland, if he could have done it consistently with his public duty, and have obtained those securities which he thought necessary to the safety of the religious establishments of the country. He would take the liberty, in addition to what appeared in the letters to which the learned lord had referred, to state, that there were certain securities or restrictions which Mr. Pitt would have insisted upon, as a preliminary condition to the concession of the claims of the Roman Catholics. Having had the opportunity, again and again, in the course of his intercourse with that great person, and being most anxious to regulate his own conduct in

1279
conformity with that of Mr. Pitt, he knew what securities he considered necessary to be retained in defence of the institutions to the country: and if any body supposed that because the words Protestant Ascendancy, which was an expression used in the commemorations to which he had alluded, were not warranted by Mr. Pitt's authority, he would state that it was perfectly in agreement with the opinions of that great man, that the relief given to the Roman Catholics should be such as would be safe to the establishments in Church and State. Having made these remarks, he would direct the attention of their lordships to the motion before the House; and he would venture to say, that this was an instance of proceeding in parliament the most extraordinary, as to the mode in which it had been treated in the debate, that he ever remembered. The single proposition in this motion was to this effect:—"That it is expedient to consider the state of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom, with a view to such a final conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and safety of the United Kingdom, the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and the general satisfaction and accordance of all his majesty's subjects." The question, therefore, to be decided was, whether their lordships were satisfied that it was expedient to enter into this large and general consideration of this subject. He begged their lordships to allow him to remind them of what their proceedings had been for the last twenty years on this subject. The constitution had practically excluded the Roman Catholics from having seats in parliament for nearly a century and a half. When, some years ago it was proposed in this House to enter upon the general consideration of the question, in consequence of a petition from the Roman Catholics, on a motion not very much unlike what was now proposed, the House thought proper to negative the proposition, on this ground expressly—that it would have the effect, perhaps, of unnecessarily alarming the Protestant part of the community, and perhaps also of raising expectations, without its being in the power of parliament to gratify the wishes of the Roman Catholics. Those who advocated the claims of the Roman Catholics should propose some specific measure, that their lordships might determine whether it was fit to be
1280
adopted. This was the opinion stated twenty-five years ago when the question was first opened. What had been the consequence of that opinion? That, from time to time, different bills had been, in various shapes, proposed; all of which that House had thought proper to negative. The House might, in fact, be fairly represented as sitting in a species of committee during the last twenty years on this question. Their lordships had given their minds to the consideration of these measures, and had honestly and fairly decided upon them; and now, at the end of twenty-five years, they were called upon to adopt a Resolution which would lead—to what? A number of different suggestions had been made in the course of the debate, and from these plans their lordships were to select as many as they thought proper, and to reject the rest. He objected to enter into the consideration of any proposition so general in its terms as the present. He was reluctant to fatigue their lordships with going over the historical detail of the acts that had been passed for the exclusion of the Roman Catholics. He had been represented somewhere or other as if he was an Almanack-maker, because he followed this course. But no less a man than lord Bacon, when he was addressing his sovereign, with respect to a Spanish, or some other war, had concluded his observations by saying, that he was afraid he should be taken for an Almanack-maker. As it was necessary for the due information of the House, that he should re-state those facts, he would hazard the risk of being again taken for an Almanack-maker, when he had lord Bacon to share the honour with him. He should now proceed to observe upon the manner in which the disabilities had been imposed, and the circumstances which gave rise to them. In the reign of Henry 8th a great many acts were passed to deprive the see of Rome of any jurisdiction in these realms. In the reign of his daughter, queen Mary, a great many acts had also been passed on the same subject, but with a different purpose, for their object was, to give the pope of Rome a temporal jurisdiction in many important matters in this country. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, a different spirit prevailed; and, by one act of the earliest part of her reign, twenty-one of the Statutes last alluded to were repealed, and the object of which was, stated, expressly to be, to relieve her

1281
majesty's subjects from the cruel bondage in which they had been placed by the acts passed in the reign of Philip and Mary. Their lordships might, when they went home, have the curiosity to look into these acts, and they would find, that, in many instances, the see of Rome was allowed by them to exercise a direct authority in spiritual matters, and in matters of a mixed spiritual and temporal nature, or, as it was then called in ordine ad spirituale. More degrading and humiliating legislative measures had never been recorded in the annals of any kingdom. It was afterwards enacted, that no member should be admitted to take his seat in the House of Commons until he had taken the Oaths not only of Allegiance but of Supremacy also. Lawyers, such as himself, whether they were considered, as a right rev. prelate had called them "book-read blockheads," or as blockheads without book-reading, were apt to take their information from such books as they were compelled to read. In one of those books, a work of lord Hale's, there was something on this point which was singularly illustrated and corroborated by what Dr. Doyle had said, in his evidence before their lordships. When asked, if, by virtue of his oath, he should feel himself obliged to disclose to his sovereign any treasons committed, or about to be committed, which had been revealed to him in confession, he said, "No: it was true that the words of his oath required him to do so, but every body knew that the Roman Catholic clergy did not think it their duty to disclose what was revealed to them in confession." So that he proved beyond question, that the words of the oath did not hurt him, but only helped to shew how much of what he swore to he was bound by. Lord Hale's observations were on the same subject. He said, the pope of Rome, in order to increase his power in this kingdom, took a subtle distinction between what was spiritual and what was temporal in ordine ad spirituale, and he added, that the Oath of Supremacy was framed in order to meet this difficulty. As this, however, was found insufficient, the Declaration against Transubstantiation was resorted to, because, until the character of an individual could be got at, it was impossible to know by how much of the oath he swore to he was bound. In the course of this debate a noble lord had alluded to the necessary rejection of the duke of Norfolk
1282
on account of his faith, should he present himself to that House to assume the right of his ancestors. With respect to himself individually, he could only say, that a more painful duty than that suggested could not by possibility have been imposed on him, while he had the honour of a seat upon the woolsack. But, if the sovereign himself should appear there without having previously taken the Oaths and the Declaration against Transubstantiation as required by law, he should be constrained to inform him, that he was ipso facto incapacitated from discharging the constitutional functions of king.—Touching the Coronation Oath, according to its form since the Revolution, a noble earl had observed, that he could not discover any thing in it which should have the effect of preventing concessions in favour of the Roman Catholics. As such were that noble lord's opinions, he was glad that there was no possibility of his ever being called to the exalted situation, where their influence would be injurious to the State. It was very easy for persons to talk of the nature of oaths which others were obliged to take; but, without going further into the subject, he would push that point no higher than this, that it was the duty of his majesty to consider whether he could give his consent to bills which had passed both Houses, consistently with the obligations which the oaths imposed upon him; and the opinions of those persons who advised him upon such a subject, would be of the utmost importance. If in this Protestant state and kingdom—for such the acts of parliament warranted him in calling it—his majesty should think that, consistently with his duty, he could not give his consent to those bills, he would be under as solemn an obligation as any man could ever be placed under, to refuse that consent. It was worthy of notice, that the act which set forth the unconstitutional attempts of James 2nd previous to his abdication, did not merely declare, that he had sought to subvert the laws and constitution of this country, but that he had endeavoured to subvert the Protestant religion, and the Protestant government of the state. When the Act of Settlement was passed, it was required that the king should be in the communion of the Church of England, and not be united in marriage to a member of the Roman Catholic religion. They had, therefore, a king upon the throne, who was obliged to be in com-

1283
munion with the Church, to make the Declaration against Transubstantiation, and to fulfil all those other duties which the parliament thought fit to impose. From that time to the present day the constitution, in all its branches, had been essentially Protestant. The Act of Union with Scotland was founded on the same principle; and the Scotch act on this subject, actually went the length of declaring, that Roman Catholics should neither be electors nor elected, in the representation of the kingdom. They had, therefore, the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights, and ail subsequent acts, the fundamental laws of the kingdom, which declared it impossible, that Catholics should be admitted to power. He did not mean to say, that it was in the power of any legislature to bind those of a future day; yet, when acts had been passed, and had been long in operation, it required considerable caution before we undertook to alter them.—In the course of the debate, a great deal had been said about securities; but they should recollect, that the proposition they had now to discuss, did not, in the remotest degree, allude to that important topic. Some proposed to give the king a veto on the nomination of bishops; some to place in his hands the nomination itself; while some said, that the nomination ought to 'be entirely a domestic matter; but he objected to the discussion of these points, as they were not distinctly before the House. Their lordships undoubtedly had authority to guard the Church in the same manner as it was at present guarded; it was competent to them to secure it with still stronger protection; but they had no authority to plunge the country into a state, into which it had never before been plunged, and in which neither Protestant nor Catholic could know what could be done.—That difficulty—the absence of ail definite proposals of security—would alone justify him in refusing his consent to the present motion. There was one other point to which he was desirous to advert: he alluded to the language and sentiments promulgated by the Catholic Association. He should pass totally over the indiscriminate virulence of their invectives, as great allowance was to be made for the feelings of persons continually speaking on such popular and inflammatory topics. In the course of their speeches it was not a little remarkable, that no one (except, perhaps, lord Eldon) was oftener made the subject
1284
of censure and abuse than the noble lord (Plunkett) who had so ably advocated their cause. What he wished particularly to notice on this occasion was, a recent proscription by their chief orator of twenty-eight county and borough members. From the tone of confidence in which the speaker calculated on removing those obnoxious representatives, it appeared that they had already sufficient elective power in their hands, and ought not to require that it should be increased. The noble earl concluded by conjuring their lordships, by what they owed to their king, their country, and to the Protestant Church, to refuse their assent to this resolution.
The Marquis Wellesleysaid, that the resolution which had been proposed for their adoption should receive his cordial support. Were he to state the grounds of his vote, he should occupy hours of the night, which had already so far advanced. He supported the claims of the Roman Catholics from solemn conviction, founded on long and studious attention to the operation in Ireland of the laws enacted for their exclusion. The result of his experience was, a thorough impression, that those laws did not tend to the security of the Church and State, as was fondly imagined, but only produced danger to what they had been designed as a safeguard. It had been his lot to watch all the bearings of the system, and he could not but consider it no less impolitic than it was unjust. In the discharge of his official duty in Ireland, he had had the most efficient assistance from the members of his majesty's government,—he felt at the time, and he now acknowledged with gratitude, their active co-operation—he had been also supported by the personal favour of his beloved sovereign; and yet, notwithstanding those advantages, his exertions for the tranquillization of that country had been too often counteracted by the dreadful influence of this code. He was surprised that the present resolution should be objected to, as it did not pledge their lordships to any particular plan, but merely set forth, that "it was expedient to consider the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as might be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty's sub-

1285
jects." Now, he would ask any poison acquainted with the condition of Ireland, whether it was in a state likely to lead to a conciliatory termination, or calculated to afford the desired stability to the Church, or to effect the re-establishment of harmony and peace? We had had, in the course of this discussion, the declared opinion of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, that the consideration of this subject was involved in great difficulty. But still he afforded us no hope, that those difficulties would be removed, and a remedy for the evil applied. Did the noble lord point out any mode—did he hold forth the least expectation, that we should, in any way, escape from those difficulties?—No; the noble and learned lord did none of those things. The difficulties laid in a code of laws which, instead of operating as securities to Church and State, were dangerous to both. Their security was now their danger. The operation of those laws which constituted their security were the sources of great positive danger—urgent and imminent, pressing and immediate. Were they not, then, to go into the consideration of such a cede of laws? The consideration of it was a positive duty. What was, then, to happen, if we neglected that duty? Would it not be, in addition, a pertinacious neglect of the recommendation of the House of Commons? Although, however, there had been what might, perhaps, be called a pertinacious resistance to the concession of those claims, and although it was not likely that at that moment their lordships would concur with the resolution of the Commons, he could not but derive sincere consolation from the temperate tone in which this discussion had been carried on. It was now nearly admitted by their lordships—it was in effect admitted by one whom he had the honour of seeing opposite to him, and who was a near relation of his, that such a state of things as the present could not long continue; and his opinion was favourable to an alteration, upon such conditions as might be adopted, and upon such as he would state. The first point the advocates of this proposition had gained, was the admission of the danger from the present state of things. The next was the proposal to receive securities to guard against any future dangers. His noble relative would require securities, and he should be among the first to concede every possible
1286
protection against danger, and to offer such securities as would satisfy the whole body of his majesty's subjects. He was far from treating with contempt the jealousy with which some noble lords watched over the safety of the Protestant interests. God forbid that he should have the presumption to state, that his noble and learned friend, who sat near him, was actuated only by prejudice, or that prejudice could have much effect upon such a mind as his. He had formed his opinion from long and intimate knowledge of the constitution of the country—between him and his noble friend there existed, on that point, an honest difference of opinion; but he should be sorry to undertake to say, that his learned friend was not more learned, on that particular state of the constitution, than any other man, from whom, whether in or out of the House, we required assistance in matters of legal opinion. He did not, therefore, impute prejudice to that noble and learned lord, and he was the less willing to do so, because he himself, when they came to a closer view of the subject, should not consent to any arrangement, without such securities being provided, as would fully satisfy his majesty's government and the people at large. He again declared his opinion, that the present laws, called securities, were positive dangers; and that the sooner we parted with them the better would it be for the empire. We were not, however, driven to the alternative of retaining them or losing all. We might have other securities; and not only that arrangement, but many others, were equally necessary for the interest of the Catholics as of the Protestants. It was essential, for the purpose of fully emancipating the Catholics, that they should give securities that would confer additional stability on the whole of the arrangements that might be made in their favour.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid:—My lords, I rise under extreme difficulty to address your lordships on this most important subject. I feel particular concern at being under the necessity of following my noble relative, and of stating that I differ in opinion from him whom I so dearly love, and for whose opinions I entertain so much respect and deference. I cannot, however, consent to the view which he has taken of this subject; but shall proceed to state my own opinions; hoping that, in the end, the views of my

1287
noble relation and myself will not be found to differ in reality from each other. I wish as much as my noble relation can do, to see this question brought to an amicable conclusion; although I do not see the means of bringing it to that conclusion by this resolution, I agree with the noble and learned earl, who has recently addressed your lordships, that we ought to see clear and distinct securities given to the State, before we give our vote in the affirmative of this question. My noble relative says, that our security will be found in the removal of the securities which now exist. I say, that the securities which we now enjoy, and which, for a length of time, we have enjoyed, are indispensable to the safety of the Church and State. I should be glad to see the disabilities of the Roman Catholics removed; but, before I can consent to their removal, I must see something in their stead which will effectually protect our institutions. I feel exceedingly happy at the good temper and moderation in which this debate has been conducted, and your lordships may rely upon it, I shall say nothing calculated to disturb that desirable feeling; but it is impossible for me to avoid referring to some observations of noble lords who have preceded me in this discussion. The noble marquis who introduced the resolution now before your lordships, took occasion to refer to some expressions of mine uttered in a debate some years ago, respecting the state of Ireland at, of course, a previous period, and with particular reference to the claims set up for the restoration of confiscated property. When I alluded to those transactions I expressed my apprehensions that concession might lead to similar events. I believe, however, that I stated then, as I do now, that I was, as I am now, extremely anxious that something might be done—some mode discovered—by which this unfortunate state of things might be remedied; but I never said otherwise, than that I wished that it might be brought to an amicable conclusion. My lords, my own opinion is, that we have never objected to the Roman Catholics on the ground that they believe in transubstantiation, or in purgatory, or in any other of those peculiar doctrines by which they are distinguished—doctrines with which a right rev. prelate conceived it his duty to find fault. But, my lords, we objected to their opinions, because upon those opinions was founded a system of political conduct.
1288
I am now to consider this question, in which the noble marquis has put it as one of expediency; and I agree with a noble and learned lord in thinking, that we are bound to respect civil power and political right; but I am sure the noble and learned lord will agree with me when I say, that if it be expedient that this question should be granted, that civil power and that political right ought not to be exercised. The question then resolves itself into one of expediency; and I ground my opposition to it, not on the peculiar doctrinal points of the Roman Catholic faith, but because of the nature of the Roman Catholic Church government. I am sure I do not wish to say any thing that will be deemed invidious, or that will tend to hurt the feelings of any man; but when we recollect the transactions that have taken place in Ireland during the last twenty-five years, and see how the Roman Catholic Church has been acting there, in a spirit of combination, in a spirit by which the laity has been governed—it is this, my lords, I confidently affirm, that is the cause of the present disturbed state of things in Ireland. The noble marquis who opened the debate has talked of the power of the people, and of a powerless aristocracy in the country to which he referred—of a people guided and governed by demagogues, and by the priesthood; but, my lords, that is the consequence, not of the state of the law, but of that combination to which I have alluded. Your lordships arc told, that the cure for all these evils is Catholic emancipation; but, in addition to emancipation, your lordships will also be obliged to give to the Roman Catholic Church the whole establishment of the Protestant Church; after which the country will still be exposed to the same evils which now prevail. My lords, we are told that there are securities, and I admit, from the first moment that this question was launched in this country—from the passing of the Union down to the present day, all those who have ever mooted this question in parliament, have always stated, that securities ought to be required; it is also perfectly true, that the right hon. gentleman, to whom the noble lord alluded, had ably stated in a letter, and I believe also in parliament, that securities must be required; but, at the same time, I believe that that right hon. gentleman never stated in the cabinet, or elsewhere, what, in his opinion, ought to be the nature of those securities, I have talked

1289
with those who were very intimately acquainted with that right hon. gentleman, and who had held frequent conversations with him on that subject, and I have never yet been able to hear what securities they were that he had in contemplation. My noble and learned friend on the woolsack has the history of all the securities which have been at different times proposed for the consideration of parliament; and he has also told your lordships, what is the fact, and which the noble marquis cannot deny, that the Roman Catholics have objected to all the securities which have been proposed. But a noble and learned lord tells us, that we ought to attend to what we hear in Ireland on this subject; but though he may know these things, I do not see how we, in this country, and in this House, are to get at them, or, indeed, how the people of England are to become acquainted with them. These things may be known to the noble and learned lord; but, I do not see what we can do but believe what we see; and he cannot therefore be surprised that we who feel strongly on this subject should wish to feel secure, as to the safety of the Church and the State, before we venture to proceed on such an experiment as this. Now, my lords, I cannot help saying, that I am very much afraid, from what has passed in the course of the debate, that it is not likely that we should come to an understanding on this subject. The Roman Catholic religion, in its nature, does not appear to be a religion adapted to the spirit of our government; and I must beg your lordships to observe, that in all the countries of Europe, the sovereigns have, at different periods, found it necessary to call upon the pope to assist them in the governance of their people. The Roman Catholic sovereigns, as much as three hundred years ago, obtained an instrument, or whatever it might be called, from the pope, by which they obtained that power which it was necessary for the civil government to have over the clergy of the country; and, besides this, these treaties all contained the means of obtaining that influence over the priests and the people together, without which it would have been impossible for the civil power to exist. The Protestant sovereigns who, subsequent to the French Revolution, obtained the possession of territories which, heretofore, had been in the possession of Catholics, found themselves obliged to obtain a bull from the pope,
1290
giving them the means of restraining the clergy of the Catholic Church; and I must, therefore, say, that we who look with something of jealousy at the Catholic subjects of the king in Ireland, have a little more to do than merely to go on with surmises; when the fact really is, that, until a concordat should be obtained, it will be found impossible to govern the Catholic subjects of that country, were any further concessions to be granted to them. That which I have been describing with respect to other countries is also the case with respect to the emperor of Russia. The Roman Catholic subjects of that potentate are governed by means of a concordat, the emperor having found it necessary, in spite of all his power, to apply to the pope for his assistance. This being the case, are we, then, to be told, that we entertain a more than necessary apprehension of the consequences we expect to arise from any alteration in Ireland? I, my lords, with many others, have recently read the ingenious publication of Mr. Gaily Knight, and I certainly was astonished to find, that that gentleman appears to support the opinion, that this course, which has been adopted by the emperor of Russia, and elsewhere on the continent, ought to be carried into effect in this free country.
But against this, I see two very sufficient reasons:—In the first place, the sovereign of England is the head of the Church; and, in the second, as that head, we are bound to him by the Oath of Supremacy; by which oath we not only acknowledge his claim to that title, but the injustice of applying it to any other power. I am very desirous, my lords, that your lordships should examine, in detail, some of these concordats; and then see how far they can agree with the particular circumstances in which this country is placed, and which, it is said, call for such a proceeding on our parts. I happen to have in my possession, a concordat of the pope, which was procured by his majesty, as king of Hanover, with respect to his Hanoverian subjects. This instrument, my lords, is neither more nor less than a bull issued by the pope. By this bull, the kingdom of Hanover is divided into two parts; the one to the right, and the other to the left of the Weser. By this bull the pope makes over to the bishops all the jurisdiction of appointments and authority; and, in short, every jurisdiction that can, by any possibility, belong to a bishop.

1291
The king, likewise, has agreed by it to pay the bishops certain salaries, to compensate them for the loss of lauds that they formerly had for their support, and to defray all the expenses of establishing parochial clergy; so that there can be no doubt, whatever construction may be put upon it, that this concordat is, in fact, neither more nor less than the introduction of the Roman Catholic religion into the kingdom of Hanover. The same thing has likewise been done by the king of the Netherlands in the Low Countries—a Catholic bishop having been admitted into the town of Amsterdam. What I want the House to advert to, now that it is in possession of these facts, is this—that it is impossible for England to make any such arrangement as this with the pope. That no other arrangement can be made, I will not take upon me to say; I will not say that an arrangement cannot take place, under which the king shall have the power to nominate the bishops, and likewise to control the intercourse with the see of Rome. But I will say, that to enable the see of Rome to appoint the bishops to the dioceses in Ireland will be impossible under the present constitution of the country. I was anxious to draw your lordships' attention to this particular part of the subject, because it will require arrangements, if it becomes necessary to enter into any further discussion on this proposition. What we do must be done by legislation; and, although legislation has not effected this hitherto, I trust, if it shall be deemed necessary, we shall do it fearlessly.—My lords, I certainly felt anxious not to have addressed your lordships at all on this subject. I have, however, now expressed my opinion on it: and I am, therefore, again anxious to impress on your lordships' attention, how desirable it is that a discussion on a question of this description should not have been entered into, as it must necessarily lead to no certain result, and tend to disturb the public mind, without our being able to come to any decided conclusion. There is also one fact respecting the state of things in Ireland, to which I should wish to call your lordships' attention. From 1781 to 1791, during which period many troublesome questions with respect to that country were discussed, the Roman Catholic question was in fact never heard of; and, so little was the question thought about, that when my noble and learned friend (lord Redesdale)
1292
brought into the House of Commons, at that period, a bill respecting the Roman Catholics of England, it is a remarkable fact, that the then lord lieutenant of Ireland was not only not consulted on the subject, but actually did not know of it until the bill was brought into parliament. So little did the Catholics of Ireland disturb the public mind at that moment, that the question was allowed to pass quietly by, almost without comment. If the public mind was now suffered to be thus tranquil—if the agitators of Ireland would only leave the public mind at rest—the people would become more satisfied, and I certainly think that it would then be possible to do something.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that the bill he had introduced into parliament had been passed in the hopes that it would prove sufficient to allay any uneasiness in this country; and he thought the measure better calculated to produce that effect than any other. The first emancipation that the Roman Catholics of Ireland stood in need of was an emancipation from the tyranny that was exercised over them by their clergy.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid:—My lords, I shall forbear troubling your lordships at any great length in reply. In what has fallen in the course of the debate, there have been many things that have encouraged me, in my view of the subject. In the first place, I collect this encouragement from the tone of the whole debate. I have also collected encouragement, not only from the supporters of the proposition, but from the suggestions furnished by the very enemies of the cause. I have even collected encouragement from the hints, cautions, and hesitations, which fell from the right reverend bench; and most of all, I have collected encouragement from that important admission from the noble lord on the woolsack, that he was aware of a great difficulty existing, and out of which he at present saw no outlet. This admission has since been confirmed by the noble duke; so that it will not now be denied, that the Catholic question has reduced this country to a state of great difficulty. This statement having been made by two noblemen so high in the confidence of the sovereign, it almost necessarily follows, that it is accompanied with their intention of looking at this difficulty, with a view to its final arrangement [cheers]. Because, when the proposition that I make,

1293
which merely calls on them to consider the best way of extricating the country from the difficulty which they themselves admit, is negatived by them, they cannot act thus without intending to bring forward some measure of their own. I therefore think that the learned lord on the woolsack, and the noble duke, must have some such intentions as I have ascribed to them; because no one knows better than they do the danger of holding out expectations which cannot be realised. What is to be the course if noble lords refuse us the privilege of considering this measure? Are we to look to the proscribed Catholic Association, to be told how we are to discharge our duties? This is a question, the difficulty of which none now attempt to dissemble; but, because this is so, are we to be deterred from it by the state of Ireland; or, in other words, are we to be deterred from it by the symptoms of the disorder itself [cheers]? I think, my lords, that we should not be deterred by such symptoms, because, I cannot flatter myself that those symptoms will be allayed, until some proposition, emanating either from government or from parliament, shall be brought forward; by which the Protestants, as well as the Catholics, of the country may be enabled to rally round, and give effect to, the passing of such a law as may be satisfactory to all parties. The noble duke has said, that there is something in the state of Ireland which will prevent her from receiving the same arrangement that has proved sufficient in other Catholic countries; but that this does not arise from the state of the law, but from the peculiar combination which existed between the Catholic laity and clergy. But, I ask what it was that originally produced this combination? And I confidently answer—the state of the law. It is the state of the law that has driven the laity into the hands of the clergy: it is the state of the law that has knitted the bonds between them: dissolve the law, and you will dissolve this union, as far as any mischievous purpose is concerned, and you will likewise obtain the cordial support of all his majesty's Catholic subjects. When we are told, that any arrangement on this subject must depend on the moderation, temper, and character of the Catholic body itself, I beg your lordships to remember, that it is not between two powers that you are called upon to legislate; yon are the legislators of an empire
1294
—Protestant and Catholic; and I, for one, will never consent to treat on this subject with the Catholics, but as an independent body. They are the king's subjects, as much as the Protestants of the realm—steady and loyal, and ready to receive the law from your hands, as soon as they shall learn that their claims are to be admitted. I trust that government will deem it wise to adopt such a course as this; and, when they shall have made up their minds as to what security they may require, consistently with the essential character of the Roman Catholic religion, and with the constitution of this country—when they shall have made up their minds on this proposition, and have fairly submitted to parliament the measure they may propose, I am persuaded that such a course of policy will speedily dissolve the strength of that fatal combination, which is nothing but an irritation; but which, at the same time, can only be remedied by that which it is within the power of parliament to administer. I implore your lordships not to cease to give your attention to this important subject. I shall certainly take the sense of the House upon the motion; feeling confident, that, though defeated now, the discussion which has taken place may be looked upon as a promise of future success.
The House then divided—Contents, present 92; Ditto, proxies 45–137.—Not-contents, present, 123; proxies, 58–181: Majority against the motion 44.

List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.

MAJORITY—PRESENT.

Dukes.

Westmorland

Cumberland

Stamford

Richmond

Winchilsea

Beaufort

Shaftesbury

Leeds

Abingdon

Manchester

Dartmouth

Dorset

Plymouth

Newcastle

Scarborough

Wellington

Aylesford

Marquisses.

Macclesfield

Winchester

Pomfret

Salisbury

Ashburnham

Bath

Guilford

Thomond

Norwich (Duke of Gordon)

Exeter

Ailesbury

Talbot

Earls.

Digby

Bathurst (lord President)

Mansfield

Longford

1295

Enniskillen

Bayning

Romney

Ribblesdale

Manvers

Dufferin

Orford

Redesdale

Chichester

Lilford

Lonsdale

Arden

Harewood

Sheffield

Verulam

Manners

Brownlow

Ross (Glasgow)

Bradford

Colchester

Beauchamp

Ker (Lothian)

Eldon

Delamere

Falmouth

Forester

Powis

Bexley

Stradbroke

Penshurst (Strangford)

Viscounts.

Ravensworth

Bolingbroke

Farnborough

Sydney

Feversham

Sidmouth

Tenterden

Lorton

Stuart of Rothesay

Lake

Heytesbury

Exmouth

Clanwilliam

Beresford

Wallace

Barons.

Skelmersdale

Lyndhurst

Archbishops.

De Clifford

York

Audley

Tuam

Willoughby de Broke

Bishops.

Teynham

London

Byron

Durham

Sinclair

Winchester

Hay

Salisbury

Colville

St. Asaph

Boston

Ely

Hawke

Bath and Wells

Dynevor

Lincoln

Bagot

Glocester

Grantley

Chichester

Walsingham

Chester

Rodney

St. David's

Carteret

Oxford

Montagu

Bristol

Kenyon

Carlisle

Fisherwick (Donegal)

Llandaff

Douglas

Ossory

Rolle

Clonfert

Northwich

PROXIES.

Earl O'Neil

Lord Farnham

Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe

Lord Middleton

Earl of Cardigan

Lord Wodehouse

Lord Saltersford (Earl Courtown)

Lord St. Helen's

Bishop of Peterborough

Earl of Home

Lord Carbery

Bishop of Bangor

Earl of Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Bishop of Hereford

Duke of Clarence

Earl of Moreton

Earl Poulett

Marquis of Cholmondeley

Lord Le Despenser

Lord Rivers

Lord Clanbrassil (Roden)

Duke of St. Alban's

Bishop of Exeter

Earl of Mountcashel

Lord Stowell

Bishop of Lichfield

Lord Gray

Lord Wemyss

Lord Wigan (Balcarras)

Earl of Malmesbury

Marquis of Hertford

1296

Earl of Rochford

Earl Strange (Duke of Athol)

Earl of Abergavenny

Earl Graham (Duke of Montrose)

Earl Cathcart

Duke of Northumberland

Lord Brodrick (Middleton)

Earl of Carrick

Earl Nelson

Earl Harcourt

Bishop of Worcester

Ld. Meldrum (Aboyne)

Viscount Strathallan

Lord Harris

Lord Saltoun

Earl Forbes

Lord Loftus

Lord Gambier

Lord Fife

Earl of Mayo

Earl Charleville

Earl of Brook and Warwick

Lord Gort

Earl of Chatham

Lord De La Zouch

Earl Stanhope

Archbishop of Canterbury

Earl of Egremont

MINORITY.—PRESENT.

Dukes.

Viscounts.

Sussex

Leinster (Duke of Leinster)

Glocester

Somerset

Maynard

Devonshire

Duncan

St. Vincent

Marquisses.

Melville

Conyngham

Anson

Queensberry

Hood

Lansdowne

Gordon (Aberdeen)

Bute

Goderich

Camden

Barons.

Bristol

Dacre

Cleveland

Clinton

Earls.

Howard de Walden

Denbigh

Saye and Sele

Chesterfield

Ellenborough (Privy Seal)

Thanet

Essex

Clifton (Darnley)

Carlisle

Gower

Jersey

Napier

Rosebery

Belhaven

Ferrers

Boyle (Cork)

Tankerville

King

Cowper

Montford

Ilchester

Grantham

De Lawar

Holland

Radnor

Foley

Hilsborough (Downshire)

Southampton

Braybrooke

Clarendon

Auckland

Grosvenor

Mendip (Clifden)

Carnarvon

Selsey

Charlemont

Dundas

Wicklow

Dawney (Downe)

Lucan

Calthorpe

Belmore

Gwydyr

Rosslyn

De Dunstanville

Wilton

Wellesley

Limerick

Fitzgibbon (Clare)

Gosford

Alvanley

Grey

Mount-Eagle (Sligo)

Harrowby

Breadalbane

Minto

Hill

Morley

Ormonde (Marquis of Ormonde)

Vane (Londonderry)

Dudley

Somerhill (Clanricarde)

Cawdor

1297

Ranfurley (Northland)

Melross (Haddington)

Warncliffe

Durham

Seaford

Bishop.

Plunket

Rochester

PROXIES.

Earl of Buckinghamshire

Earl of Erroll

Viscount Granville

Earl Fitzwilliam

Lord Erskine

Bishop of Norwich

Marquis of Stafford

Viscount Hereford

Lord Grenville

Lord Churchill

Lord Crewe

Lord Lauderdale

Earl of Kingston

Earl Spencer

Earl of Caledon

Duke of Grafton

Lord Berwick

Lord Yarborough

Duke of Buckingham

Earl of Derby

Duke of Bedford

Earl Cornwallis

Earl of Albemarle

Earl of Hardwicke

Viscount Hutchinson

Lord Suffield

Earl of Oxford

Earl Somers

Lord Sondes

Duke of Marlborough

Earl of Waldegrave

Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire

Lord Lynedoch

Lord Ponsonby (Besborough)

Lord Sherborne

Earl of St. Germain's

Lord Howard of Effingham

Lord Ducie

Earl of Elgin

Lord Hopetoun

Lord Carrington

Earl of Fortescue

PAIRED OFF.

Lord Abercromby

Lord Ailsa (Earl of Casillis)

Duke of Portland

Lord Carleton (Shannon)

Duke of Rutland