Sitting of 10 May 1805

MINUTES.
A petition of the mayor, aldermen, recorder, freemen, and inhabitants, of the borough of Saint Alban, in the county of Hertford, was presented to the house by Mr. Poyntz, and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners beg leave to congratulate the house, and express their heartfelt satisfaction, at the resolutions which passed on the 8th and 10th of April last, respecting the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and pray the house to pursue such measures as they may think just for effectually exposing, and bringing to punishment all public peculators and delinquents, and for securing in future the treasure of the nation from similar depredations: and although the petitioners most sincerely deplore the complicated difficulties of the present conjuncture, yet they confidently rely on the wisdom of parliament for relief."—Mr. F. Fane moved, that sir William Rawlins and Robert Albion Cox, Esq. should be brought to the bar for the purpose of being reprimanded and discharged. They Were accordingly put to the bar; whereupon Mr. Speaker addressed them as follows: "Sir William Rawlins and Robert Albion Cox; your conduct having undergone the severe but just animadversion of this house, followed by a sentence of ignominious imprisonment, it is fit to be understood by
730
you, and by all men, what this house has considered to be the character of your offence, and upon what grounds you are this day to be liberated. The sum of your offence is this: that you, being the sheriff and returning officer, did, at an election for the county of Middlesex, for the purpose of giving a colourable majority to one candidate in prejudice of another, wilfully, knowingly, and corruptly admit fictitious votes upon the poll; that your inconsistent and contradictory practices afforded the greatest encouragement to perjury; and that you refused to examine the validity of votes by reference to the land-tax assessments, in defiance of the laws of your country.—Graver offences than these cannot be laid to the charge of any men holding the high office with which you were then invested; an office to which you were raised by the free choice of your fellow citizens in the metropolis of this empire, and of which office you betrayed the most important duties; violating at once the freedom of elections, the privileges of this house, and the just constitution of parliaments.—Upon these charges, established by ample and conclusive evidence, you were committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate, the common receptacle of malefactors, there to remain prisoners, amongst those over whom you had been magistrates; a signal proof of the power and the justice of this house, an indelible disgrace upon you, and a memorable example to others.—Nevertheless, it appearing now, by your petition, that your minds have been humbled to a due sense of your misconduct, and that your errors may be in some degree imputed to the ignorant or criminal advice under which you unfortunately acted, this house is willing to believe that the ends of justice are at length satisfied; it has therefore consented that you be now discharged. And you are discharged accordingly; paying your fees."—Ordered, on the motion of Lord Marsham, that Mr. Speaker's reprimand be entered on the journals.—Mr. Leycester informed the house, that the house of lords had been waited on with its message, requiring the attendance of lord Harrowby to give evidence before the select committee, to which their lordships replied, they would send an answer by messengers of their own.—The house then proceeded to ballot for a select committee, to enquire into the several papers presented to the house respecting the repairs of the Romney and La Sensible, whilst under command of sir Home Popham in the Red Sea

731
—A committee was appointed to examine on whom the ballot had fallen, according to the lists put in the glasses.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
Mr. Jefferysaid, he rose in pursuance of the notice had given, to have the honour of submitting to the house a motion for the production several accounts relating to the naval department of the country, during the administration of earl St. Vincent. Having read the motions on a former night to the house, and being of opinion that some time should be taken to deliberate on their contents, he now rose to submit his motions to the consideration of parliament. He was persuaded when the accounts were laid upon the table, and perused by the members, that he would be borne out in the view which he had taken of the subject, and the intention for which the accounts were brought forward. He would not trouble the house with any further observations until he heard whether his motions were opposed, or met with the approbation of the house. He therefore should move, "That there be laid before the house an account, shewing the number of line-of-battle ships and frigates built between the 1st January, 1783, and 31st December, 1792, distinguishing the number of ships launched from the merchants' yards, from those launched from the king's yards."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had no objection to the motion now offered; but as those which were to follow were very voluminous, he wished to have it understood, that he must oppose the production of any papers tending to show the state and condition of the ships in 1804, as it might afford improper information to the enemy. He should also object to the production of any correspondence explaining the state of British and foreign timber, as it might disclose the foreign resources of the navy, and thereby perhaps enable the enemy to embarrass them.
Sir John Sinclairentertained great doubts with respect to the propriety of bringing forward the long list of motions which the hon. gent. stated on a former night, as they embraced almost every branch of the naval service of the country. He submitted if at this late period of the session, it were adviseable; and he would be glad to know from any gentleman conversant with the official business of the board of admiralty, if these accounts could be prepared without distracting its attention from the other important concerns, in which, at this con-
732
juncture, they are engaged. He understood, if these motions were agreed to, the friends of earl St. Vincent would move for other papers, which would still embarrass the public business. He was desirous to be informed, if, at any crisis like the present, the lords of the admiralty could peruse the voluminous accounts moved for by the hon. member, without material injury to the public service in the present state of the country? He was of opinion, that the preparing the accounts would be attended with manifest inconvenience, and would answer no good purpose whatever.
Mr. Jefferyconsidered the observations of the hon. baronet premature, as he could not know whether the accounts would lead to enquiry or not. He would not contend, if any thing criminal occurred in the administration of lord St. Vincent, it should be passed over, and that an enquiry into his conduct ought not to be instituted. He declared, on his honour, that he did not act through party motives, he was an unconnected individual, not belonging to any man or set of men; his conduct arose from his feelings for the situation of the country, and his knowledge where the faults were imputable, with respect to the administration of earl St. Vincent. The reduced state of the navy he attributed to the noble lord, and if enquiry was to be dispensed with the present session, he knew the difficulty of obtaining enquiry hereafter. He knew he had undertaken an herculean task in the first instance, but he had cogent, ample, and sufficient reasons for bringing the measure before the house. He trusted that no member would object to his motions, that parliament might decide whether enquiry was or was not necessary. He moreover trusted that no gentleman would be against the production of the papers, until they knew what they contained. They were neither as voluminous nor as intricate as some members might imagine; and he pledged himself that they could be produced in a week or ten days, without giving any extraordinary trouble to the lords of the admiralty in perusing their contents. He thought them absolutely necessary to be produced as he would take upon him to prove, that lord St. Vincent had disgraced the British navy, and was the greatest enemy to the country and the navy of Great-Britain that the country ever knew.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he was far from opposing the motion now before the house, especially as the hon. gent. had put it out of his power

733
to do so, by declaring that the noble and gallant earl had disgraced the British navy, and was the greatest enemy to the country that the country that the country ever knew. If the hon. gent. said all this from his own suggestion, it was a pity that he was not a lord of the admiralty, by which he might have obtained greater information than he probably now possessed. The lights, however, which he professed to have obtained, and the decisive line of conduct he had adopted, were rather strange in an independent country gentleman, professing himself to be unconnected with any party. It was equally strange too, that no attack whatever had been made against earl St. Vincent until he adopted measures which tended to attack others. The proceedings of this day were certainly a good warning to any man to be very careful how he ventured to attack abuses. If the hon. gent. had indeed been a party man, instead of an unconnected gentleman, as he described himself, he might have been suspected of having taken a very dexterous way to divert the attention of the house from the other enquiries already going forward; but he could not consider it altogether fair in this unconnected man to assert that he could prove earl St. Vincent to have disgraced the navy, and have been an enemy to his country. After he had heard the minister himself object to some of those pipers which might turn out to be the most necessary for the noble earl's defence; let the fair and full enquiry be granted; and if any of the papers required should appear of too delicate a nature to be made public, let the enquiry be a secret one. At the present moment, indeed, the friends of the earl St. Vincent did not appear to be very numerous in that house; nor were they much wanting to a man who might safely rest his character on the sentiments of a grateful and affectionate people. Whatever that unconnected gentleman might think himself, he fancied he would not find it an easy task to convince the people of England that the earl St. Vincent was the enemy of his country. He thought he had a right to expect, that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) himself would have given some favourable opinion of at least the professional merits of the noble earl, when he heard his character arraigned in such a manner, by this unconnected individual. When he heard so illustrious a character reviled, without any appeal to former friendship, to extend towards it the protection of his own opinion, was no more than what was due from one great man in a high
734
situation to another. They differed indeed in their opinions, on the best means of naval administration; but he should not have thought that a reason why he should so abandon him in every other respect. A fair and manly hostility to the noble earl, like that of the unconnected individual, would, in his opinion, be more becoming in the right hon. gent. than the grant of papers, professing to brand the noble earl in the manner expressed by his present adversary. This was not a charge that respected any particular expedition, or partial failure, but a broad accusation, which ought either to be sifted to the bottom, or all documents be refused upon it. When the hon. accuser seemed to doubt whether these papers might in the result, tend to an enquiry, he must have had a most extravagant opinion of his own motion, to think it would he sufficient of itself for condemnation. For his own part, be was of a very different opinion, and wished, in conclusion, distinctly to state on the part of earl St. Vincent, that all his lordship looked for was a full and fair enquiry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not see why the right hon. gent. should rest his observations particularly on him, as he, no more than any other member, could judge whether the papers might endure an enquiry, until he could examine the nature of them all. When this motion was first noticed, it seemed to be the general wish, on all sides, that the papers should be granted, and he alone wished for a delay, which led him, as he stated before, to object to two of them, as inconsistent with the public safety; but, he could not foresee effect of the remainder. If the house exmined the speech of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney), they would observe it to consist of alternate sentences: the one tending to court, and the other to suppress enquiry. As to what had been alluded to of protection, he had only to say, that he should be always ready to protect earl St. Vincent, or any other man, against injustice. The remembrance he had of the great professional services of the noble earl would a sufficient restraint against any hostility on his part towards him; but, he had long since expressed his opinion of his conduct in the admiralty, and he had not yet seen any reason to retract it. The past professional merits of the noble earl, however great, were not sufficient grounds to defend the faults in his administration. For his own part, he declared that he had no wish for, nor did he intend to submit, any enquiry into the con-

735
duct of noble earl; but, when that enquiry was challenged by his friends, he should not be doing his duty either to himself or to the country, were he to take any measures to suppress it.
Mr. Jefferydeclared that his conduct did not spring from any party connection, but, from the impulse of the moment. He had no communication on the subject of his motions with the minister, or any other person; and, when the right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney) asked him this day in private whether they were to be carried, he candidly answered him that he did not know.
Mr. Greyreprobated, in the most forcible language, the mode in which this subject was brought forward. An hon. member moved for the production of a number of papers, which he said possibly might not authorise enquiry, and yet in the introduction to his motion he made use of the strangest language which could be applied to any case, even after a charge of improper conduct was established upon proof before the house. All that he could understand by the expression of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), by the word "protection" was, that it meant to signify fairness, though in fact, he was sorry the word had been used at all. Thee fairness he claimed on the part of the earl St. Vincent was, that whatever objections there might be in point of convenience, all the papers should be produced which might be necessary for the enquiry. The hon. gent. (Mr. Jeffery) seemed surprised, that any gentleman should oppose the papers, without knowing what they were; but he forgot, that when the papers should be produced, it would be too late to oppose them. He acted, in this respect, like the judge, who was reported to have told a barrister from the bench—"I will not allow you to open your mouth, until you tell me what you have to say." As to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt), he must do him the justice to say, that he acted consistently, and he had uniformly expressed himself hostile to the naval administration of the earl St. Vincent.
Mr. Tierneyexplained. He said, what he meant by protection was, that ministers should not, at this late period of the session, suffer such motions to be brought forward, and had no reference in his observation to the particular friends of the noble earl.
Mr. Wilberforceagreed with the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, that the gratitude due to earl St. Vincent's professional character, should not be a bar to
736
the consideration of his official conduct. The accounts should comprise the administration of lord Chatham, when the navy was placed in the condition which laid the foundation of its future glory; and even the administration of lord Sandwich, when it had received a great addition. He thought the motion could not be considered as hostile to earl St. Vincent, but rather as directed to obtain information highly material to the public interest. He condemned the contemptuous language with which a right hon gent. (Mr. Tierney) had spoken of individuals connected with no party. He was jealous on this point, as he was aware he himself would be frequently classed with this description of members. If it appeared that the ships were not so numerous in lord St. Vincent's administration as those before it, and that the short and feverish peace we had enjoyed was not employed to prepare for a war that must have been easily foreseen, it was fit the blame should be cast where it ought to be; he alluded also to the chief of interfering with the authority of captains of ships, as the depreciation of the respect paid to them might lead to the alarming state of things in the navy which every one remembered with so much pain. He then pronounced the highest panegyric on the virtues, talents, and other excellent qualifications of lord Barham, the present first lord of the admirality. It was, he understood, the fashion of some gentlemen, to represent his great qualities as chilled by the influence of years; but from the opportunities he had of judging, he must declare him to be, in his opinion, the man of all others, the best qualified for his situation.
Mr Pytcheshere called the hon. gent to order: thinking such high panegyrics on the new first lord of the admiralty, were by no means relevant to the present motion.
Mr. Wilberforcethought himself perfectly in order, when it was considered that lord Barham was comptroller of the navy under two of the administrations to which these motions referred.
Mr. Curwenthought, that after earl St. Vincent had been acquitted charges in the last session, when the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) moved for papers to criminate him, it would, at least, have been decent to abstain from any harsh expression towards him, until the paper now moved for should be properly examined. The language used by the hon mover appeared to him much too strong to be lightly applied to so good and exalted a character; and he thought the

737
panegyric on Lord Barham the more unnecessary in this debate, as not a single reflexion had been cast upon him. He made no doubt, but when the enquiry should be made, the noble earl would appear in as exalted a sphere of character as he had always done before; and, until the trial, he conceived that great character entitled to every degree of approbation.
Mr. Bastardwas of opinion, that the enquiry, which ought rather now to extend itself to the dominion of the sea, ought not to be confined to limits of earl St. Vincent's administration. Instead of party motions of this kind, it would more become the house to enquire into the disorders in the West Indies, and the circumstance of the dominion of the sea being now in the hands of the French, who dared not shew their faces on the ocean during the administration of the gallant earl St. Vincent. During that vigourous and active administration, the French could presume to shew themselves only in be defeated, and how shameful was now the reverse, when the British squadrons were obliged to fly before them. The hon. gentleman concluded with observing that the great object of our enquiry should at present be, by what means we might be able again to put ourselves into the same situation in which earl St. Vincent had left us?
Mr. R. Wardsaid, he must absolutely and distinctly deny that the enemy were now in possession of the dominion of the sea, or were able to cope with our fleets in any part of the world.
Admiral Markhamsaid, if the right. hon. gent, (Mr. Pitt) already objected to two of the motions while he was willing to grant the remainder, it must also follow, that he should have to object to many others which he should think it right to submit respecting the supply of foreign timber, which would be so necessary to the earl St. Vincent's justification, though he should be sorry, on any other account, to propose the disclosure of any thing might be supposed embarrasing to government. When the same right hon. gent. last year moved for an account of the foreign timber imported, he objected to it as a disclosure which he thought at that time improper, but being now out of office, he was not capable of judging whether a similar communication would not be equally injurious at the present time. All he should think of asking for would be such papers as were barely necessary for the vindication of the
738
noble earl, who wanted no other protection but what he could hope to derive from the justice of his country. The gentlemen opposite him would never think on such papers as might be sufficient for a vote of one night; for, if the enquiry respecting lord Melville required to be referred to a committee, though comparatively it lay in a nut-shell, how much more necessary would it be on a subject which embraced the conduct of a whole administration? He must once more observe, that all he should require was, that the case should be fairly, fully, equally, and impartially tried. This he was peculiarly anxious for, because, as he loved his country much more dearly than he did earl St. Vincent, he considered a just and full enquiry to be the best means of securing it. If a committee should be appointed on it, he wished it to consist not of party men, as on the late occasion, but of proper people (order! order!)—He did not mean to say that any set of gentlemen would be actually partial.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhere interrupted the hon. admiral, as being disorderly in anticipating what sort of committee the papers might be referred to, before they were produced.
The Speakersaid, that in fairness he must acquit the hon. admiral of being more out of order, in that instance, than others who preceded him; but, he must at the same time inform the hon. admiral, that it was highly disrespectful to speak of committees appointed by the house, as if they were the nomination of any individual.
Admiral Markham,after apologising, went on to proceed in nearly the same way, when he was again called to order by Mr. Dent. The hon. admiral said, he did not conceive himself irregular in adverting to what he meant to be the objects of his own motions; when, the Speaker said, he must now imperatively interfere, and acquaint the hon. member, that he was not at liberty to pass by the subject of discussion, or refer to his own motions, till the present was disposed of. After some further conversation, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Jefferythen moved a long string of motions, for "the number of line-of-battle ships and frigates in commission, in 1793, distinguishing their rates, &c. ditto, in 1794, and from thence to the 18th of February, 1801-2-3-4, and 5, distinguish their rates, and whether in the king's or merchants' docks; also the ships of the same

739
description out of commission; the numbers building during these periods; when launched, or likely to be launched; ships laid down, and meant to be built; the timber in store; the quality of the articles, &c; all of which were agreed to.
Mr. Dentthen, in pursuance of a former notice, in order to probe things to the bottom, and draw a comparison between the administration of earl Spencer and the earl St. Vincent, moved, "that there be laid before the house, a list of all persons raised to the rank of lieutenants in the navy, from lieutenants to captains and commanders, and from captains and, commanders to post captains, from the 1st of Jan. 1795, to the 1st of Jan. 1804." He said, that if the papers were agreed to, he should follow them up with a specific motion.
Admiral Markhamthought it invidious to draw this comparison, as he, together with all the friends of earl St. Vincent, had ever spoken and thought in the highest manner of the purity and zeal of earl Spencer's administration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerproposed an amendment, for bringing the account to the latest period, which would include the administration of viscount Melville.
Sir J. Sinclairrenewed his former objection to the multiplication of enquiries at this late period of the session.
Mr. Kinnairdsaid, that, to do away the invidious distinction between the administration of earls Spencer and St. Vincent, he should propose as an amendment to the motion, that it should begin at the year 1793, instead of 1795, which would include also the administration of the earl of Chatham.
Admiral Markhamsaid, that, as the object was to shew that earl St. Vincent employed a greater number of officers than any of his predecessors, it would be right to shew the reason of the promotions which were made at the end of the late war, for the reward of naval services, and to amend the motion, by going back to a comparative estimate with the promotions made under the administration of earl Sandwich, at the close of the American war. However, as he did not wish to crowd the table of the house with too many papers, he should not persist in the amendment.—The amended motion was then agreed to, commencing with the year 1793.

CORN REGULATION BILL.
Lord A. Hamiltoncalled the attention of the house to the numerous petitions against the corn law of the last session. He argued that the
740
great advance in the price of grain since the introduction of that measure into the house, was in a great degree attributable to it. He complained particularly that Irish grain, when warehoused here, might be exported as foreign, and he believed that much of this Irish grain had in this manner found its way to enemies ports. He concluded with moving, that a committee be appointed to enquire into the matter of the petitions.
Colonel Stanleyrepresented the extent of the complaints against the bill, in the manufacturing parts of Lancashire.
The Secretary at Warobserved, that the petitioners acted upon misapprehension or misrepresentation, as, in fact, the bill never came into operation. As to the injurious effect upon Scotland, it was to be ascribed to the alteration in the usual average, proposed by the noble lord himself, and to obviate which, he was now suing for redress.
Mr. Coke(of Norfolk) was against the bill going into a committee, or any further discussion being had upon it. It had produced the most beneficial effects already, by encouraging the importation of wheat, which now throughout England kept down the price of the markets.
Mr. Westernwas against all discussion of the subject, now when corn, was ever, where falling in price, on account of the great quantities imported, from the contemplation of what might have been the effects of the late act. Its provisions had not yet taken effect; and the ports had never been shut by it, as the prices were not low enough to produce that consequence. Even in Scotland, as well as Ireland, the surplus produce was, this year, so great, that large quantities of wheat were imported from these countries into England. Even in Lanarkshire, the petitions from which were so much rested upon, the average prices were lower than on the corn exchange in London; and, he believed, upon the whole, lower than the average prices of England. When the bill was passed the price of corn was 1Os. a quarter dearer than if was now throughout the country. It was a great object to throw off the dependance which Great Britain heretofore was under, for its supplies to foreign countries, which in the present state of Europe, might, without any strain of probability, be, in a short time, converted into enemies. The effect of the continuance of this act would be, that the man who employed his capital in agriculture might safely conclude in deriving adequate profit from it, and in this manner

741
be put upon a fair footing with the manufacturer.
Sir Robert Peeleargued, that the manufacturing interest should be supported against foreign competition, by supplying the necessities of workmen at a reasonable rate. A temporary depression of the farmer's profits ought not to be made the cause of a permanent burthen on the consumer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he approved of the general principle of the act of last year, and was convinced that it had no share in the high price of grain, which was solely to be attributed to the deficiency of the crops throughout the country. It did much good from the encouragement it gave to importation, and he contended it to be impossible, that the interest of the agriculturist and manufacturer should ever be at variance with each other. If the house was once to discourage the grower for the present interest of the consumer, it must follow that the latter must ever afterwards be a sufferer by it; and, at times, subjected to such aggravated prices as would be most severely and intolerably felt. He deprecated any farther discussion on the subject at present, but did not object to the committee, as he thought it the most effectual mode, in its report, of counteracting all erroneous opinions with regard to it.
Mr. Fosterstated, that he had supported this bill when brought forward last session, and saw no reason why it should now be altered or repealed. No corn had been exported from Great Britain in consequence of it, nor had it prevented any from being imported; it had done no harm; and he, therefore, did not wish any investigation to take place.
Mr. Macdowallobserved on the average prices, Which, he said, were against Scotland, and thought, if the committee, in this instance, was refused, a bill should be brought in specifically to regulate them.
Mr. Francismaintained that when the bill passed, the price of bread was not more than eightpence or ninepence the quartern loaf, and, in about a mouth after, it rose to about sixteen or seventeen pence, for no other reason but because the bill was in force. He would, therefore, give his assent to the motion.
Mr. H. Lascellesthought it better to go into the committee, and if it should be found that the bill had no effect, it might easily be altered.
Mr. W. Smithdid not think the bill was the cause, of the rise of bread, and was sure,
742
if any gentleman would take the trouble of enquiring, he would find that it was the frost which came on in June. He thought it, however, desirable that the house should go into a committee.
Mr. Barhamspoke in favour of the committee, and thought that, as the people had doubts, it was necessary that an investigation should take place.
Sir C. Pricethought the interference of parliament in these matters had a bad effect on the market.
Sir J. Newportopposed the motion for a committee, as he thought, whenever this subject was discussed, speculations took place, which were injurious, and, no doubt, would be enlarged, if the present motion were carried. Sir W. Curtis and Alderman Coombe thought the average too high, and agreed that the Louse should go into a committee. Lord Archibald Hamilton concluded the debate with asserting his design to be not to alter the bill if it were advantageous, but only to permit the committee to enquire into its merits; so much he considered to be due to the petitioners and to the country. The house then divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 40. Majority for the committee 23.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Mr. Leycester,chairman of the select committee of the house of commons on the tenth naval report, attended by several members, presented at the bar a message from that house, requesting that lord Harrowby might be permitted to attend the said committee. The lord chancellor, having previously put the question, desired the messengers to be called in, and informed them, that their lordships would send an answer to the house of commons, by messengers of their own.—Mr. Alexander brought up from the commons the Irish Loan bill, the Irish Bank, and the Irish Post Roads bills, which were severally read a first time.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
Lord Grenvillemoved the order of the day for taking into consideration the petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The petition was then read by the clerk, and will be found in p. 97 of the present volume. After the petition had been read,
Lord Grenvillerose, and addressed the house as follows:—My lords, I was anxious that your lordships should hear this petition read through previous to my offering any observations on the subject of it, both on account of the many weighty arguments which it contains in favour of that which the petitioners humbly pray your lordships for, as well as for the strain of loyalty which pervades it, and the respectful, moderate, and temperate language in which those arguments and that prayer are couched. When the petition was first presented, I expressed an earnest hope, and such seemed to be the wish of all your lordships, that whatever opinions individual peers may entertain upon the subject, that the matter of the petition should be temperately, dispassionately, and impartially discussed. I was then happy to perceive such a temper and such an understanding, prevail; and I now beg leave again to express my most anxious wish, that this night the important subject and
652
considerations to which I shall have the honour to call your lordships' most serious attention, may be temperately, dispassionately, and impartially discussed. Such, my lords, is my anxious wish, and such, I am persuaded, is the earnest wish and prayer of the petitioners themselves. They have felt the operation of party violence and party heat. They know, that from party violence and party heat they have much to fear, and certainly nothing to hope; and if, on this occasion, they look with confidence to better hopes and brighter prospects, it is because they are confident they address a body of men in whose minds party heat and party violence will not be suffered to have the smallest influence.—With respect to myself, allow me, my lords, to assure you, that I know myself to be utterly incapable of the wickedness (for wickedness it would be) of speaking with party views or feelings, while discussing the interests, nay, the rights of millions of British subjects, and on a topic on which the peace and unanimity of the empire may eventually depend. I might venture to appeal to your lordships, and to every man who hears me, whether, if this were a question likely to conduce to views of such a nature, or if the individual who is addressing you could suffer party views to influence his conduct, all those motives which usually operate on men's minds, would not lead to a line of conduct precisely different. The person who undertakes to bring this great question before you, is well aware that he has to encounter numerous and powerful enemies; that he must subject himself to much prejudice, much clamour, and much misrepresentation; and that he must incur the imputation of indifference, perhaps of hostility, to the civil and religious establishments of the country; establishments, the security and perpetuation of which are the dearest objects of his heart. All these difficulties he must encounter; and in return what has he to expect? The satisfaction of having discharged a great public duty, namely, that of bringing before your lordships a great and national question, and the consciousness that, whatever may happen hereafter, he will not have to reproach himself with any of the evils which may result from the rejection of the petition, if rejection should be its fate.—This, my lords, is not all that I have to remark upon this part of the subject. I consider that it will be a great evil and misfortune

653
to the empire if the prayer of this petition is not granted; but that misfortune I hold as bearing no comparison in extent with the mischiefs which inevitably must have ensued, if no opportunity had been allowed for a fair and full discussion of this momentous question. It will, I am sure, be respectfully entertained and deliberately discussed. The question will be placed on such grounds, that, whatever the decision of this night may be, no man will go away without the fullest conviction that the day cannot be far distant when the great and important objects of the petition will be attained. But, my lords, if instead of laying it before parliament, those who brought it forward had gone back and told those from whom they had received it, that there could not be found one individual ready and willing to present their petition; that not only the voice of parliament was against them, but that the doors of parliament were shut to their complaints—if such had unhappily been the case, I ask every considerate and temperate man, what must have been the impression on the minds of that body on whose behalf I am addressing you—what other impression could there possibly have been, but that of absolute despair? What would it have been short of shewing the great majority of the people of Ireland, that all the expectations which were held out to them by the union were to be completely frustrated? The effect which has been produced on their minds by receiving their petition is, that they are convinced they will have an impartial parliament, worked upon by no local prejudices, to consider their wishes with all the attention due to so numerous and respectable a class of our fellow-subjects. I have said thus much in order to vindicate myself, and explain the reasons why I am clearly of opinion, that this petition, if rejected, would have been attended with the most fatal consequences; and also to vindicate the petitioners themselves, for the solicitude they have expressed, that their petition may be respectfully submitted to your lordships' consideration.—And now, my lords, how shall I begin to lay before you this grave, extensive, and most important question? My lords, I would begin with that which is the system, the fact, and foundation of the whole proceeding, but which, simply and plainly, appears to me hardly to have made the least impression on the minds of those who are averse to the petition; I
654
mean the fact, that you have, in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a population consisting of 3 million according to the lowest, and of 5 million according to the highest computation, of fellow subjects, who have been brought up and educated in the catholic religion, who profess that religion, who are attached to it, and whom therefore you must consider, for every purpose of government, as persons to be treated as Roman catholics. When this question is brought before you, you are not to consider it as we in this country are apt to look at the Roman catholics, as a body of men, however respectable, small in number, and forming only an exception to the general mass of population; but you are to consider, that in that part of the united kingdom called Ireland, three-fourths of the population are of the description of Roman catholics; that it is impossible for you, in taking any one single step towards providing for the exigencies of government, the happiness of the people, or the various matters committed to the legislature, ever to lose sight of the fact that three-fourths of the people of Ireland are Roman catholics, and must be provided for as Roman catholics. If I am asked, whether, supposing a man could regulate the thing by a wish, it would be desirable that the unity which we have established in government should prevail in matters of faith? I have no hesitation in saying, that it would be a happy thing indeed it we were all united in our religious as well as in our political and constitutional opinions. But we are to consider the question not as we wish it, but as it is, as it has been since the revolution, and as it is likely to continue beyond any period of legislation we can contemplate. This being the case, I hope there is no man who, merely because he wishes there was not this body, flatters himself that he may shut his eyes to the population of three-fourths of the country, and content himself with saying, "I will provide for that which belongs to the protestants, but I will take no cognizance of the other larger proportion of the population." I hope no man entertains such an opinion. If he does, I wish him to cast his eyes back to any period of the history of this country, and to point out what moment there was in which the distinction of religious faith, as it regarded the concerns of the large population of catholics, did not form, I will not say a leading circumstance, but the leading circumstance in the situation of the country; and

655
I would ask him, whether he thinks it would be possible to carry on the legislation of the country, if parliament should shut its eyes to that which constitutes the leading circumstance and feature of the country. That parliament has always acted upon this distinction of religious faith, is a fact which I will not detail by long historical narration, because I take it for granted that your lordships have a full knowledge of the subject. It will be abundantly sufficient if I refer your lordships to what, since the revolution down to the present reign, and from the present reign to the present moment, has been the system. At the period of the revolution,this great mass of the population of Ireland was unhappily connected with political opinions adverse to the principles of the revolution. I believe I may state, without any deviation from the truth of history, that from the concurrence of circumstances familiar to all your lordships, the catholic opinions were at that time intimately blended with political opinions adverse to the government of the protestant interest. A great difficulty arose out of this fact to those who wished to maintain the relations between Great Britain and Ireland. It was not to punish religious opinions, not to put down religious opinions, not even because the catholic religion, as such, implied particular civil opinions in church and state, but it was because those opinions were connected with opinions favourable to the exiled family, that it was found expedient to exclude the catholics from certain objects of participation in the constitution and government of the country. I conceive it is not necessary for me to arraign the policy of the measure. Whether it was expedient, depended on local circumstances, of which it would be difficult to judge at this distance of time; but this at least we know, that the situation of that day, is not the situation of this day. In justice to the memory of one of the greatest princes that ever existed on the face of the globe, and one of the warmest friends of liberty and toleration, let me say, that it is not to the memory of king William that we must attribute the measures that were taken afterwards. We may confidently say, they were measures forming no part of any system that could have obtained his approbation or concurrence. In a subsequent reign the system was this: an opinion was maintained that the catholics of Ireland, merely because they were catholics, must con-
656
tinue the irreconcileable enemies of the protestant establishment of Ireland, and the protestant government of England. That no kindness, no protection, no lapse of time, no community of interest, no intercourse, nothing could reconcile the eternal hostility of the catholics to the government of this country. Upon that assumption, incapable of proof by argument, the next principle adopted was this, that it was therefore necessary, not only to exclude Roman catholics from all participation in the government, and from all share in the constitution, but that they were not to be allowed even any influence, because influence led to power; not to be allowed to acquire any property, because property led to influence; not to enjoy the free toleration of religion, or the ordinary rights of marriage; not to be permitted to have the least intercourse with one set of the king's subjects. Means were devised by penalties, proscriptions, and disabilities, to drive the whole catholic population from the island, or to reduce them to the state of a poor, ignorant, illiterate peasantry. Such was the principle; and, as it has been said by a great man, never was a system more admirably calculated to produce the object it had in view. The effect of it was, that those who were deprived of the benefit of education were kept in entire ignorance; those who were excluded from acquiring property were left to languish in extreme poverty; those who were persecuted, oppressed, and excluded from intercourse with their fellow-subjects, became altogether alienated from society; and, in proportion, their minds were exasperated against their oppressors. If I could entertain the smallest question as to the impression on your lordships' minds by this statement; if I had the least doubt of the detestation with which every individual in the country considers such a system, I should perhaps have avoided stating the fact. I state it for this reason, because it enables me to exhibit the pleasing contrast of the measures adopted during the period of his present majesty's reign. I speak now of the period in which his majesty found 3 or 4 millions of his subjects in the state I have described. I desire your lordships to consider what has been the conduct of his majesty's government, what has been the object, and what has been the consequence it has produced. I would desire you to consider the striking contrast afforded by the better system of

657
policy during the present day; a system of gradual amelioration, by measures which have been the more effectual because they have been gradual; measures which, by their mildness, have reversed the whole of the former system. It is perhaps hardly to be credited, that it was necessary, in the reign of the sovereign under whom we live, to pass an act to enable the Roman catholics to intermarry with the rest of his majesty's subjects. You have given them a full toleration, and the benefits of education; you have taken away those odious measures which produced the disunion, of families; you have restored the industry of the country, by granting to the people a participation in the soil, and by allowing them to share in its benefits; you have extended to them all the advantages they are entitled to, except one, the most important of any you have given them, the exercise of the elective franchise and a share in the executive administration. You have done this, and the result has taken place which the measures were calculated to produce. By degrees the wealth of Ireland has extended itself. Few countries, if we except the calamitous period of the rebellion, ever in so short a time made such improvement in agriculture, commerce, wealth, and general civilization. When you gave this encouragement to agriculture in Ireland, and adopted measures to increase the prosperity of the country, you were aware that the augmentation of wealth would first shew itself in the lower and middling classes of society. As the country advanced in wealth the people derived a greater share of influence, and you found it necessary to give them some share in the constitution. By the magnanimity of Great Britain, you acknowledged the right of an independent government. This state of things brought you to the year 1792, when, by a measure which every one will reflect on with pride and satisfaction, you at last extended to the catholics of Ireland a participation of all the privileges of British subjects, with the exception of those referred to in the petition. You gave them the privilege of voting at elections for members of parliament; you allowed them to be appointed to all offices, except the small number mentioned it the act of the Irish parliament. Here then was the fact of a system gradually pursued up to this period; and here, for a time, a stand was made, not, I hope, on the opinion of those who made it, that it was right to take a
658
fixed stand, and say, we will admit you to these privileges, but from all beyond them we must exclude you. The reason, I apprehend, was entirely different; it was because the system of amelioration had not been sudden but gradual; because experience had shewn you, that denying a privilege at one period did not infer the expediency of denying it at another; because, when adopting measures of such extent, and operating so much on the passions of men, it was necessary to know what you could give without interruption to that harmony, which it was your wish to maintain, in order that it might appear that what was given, large as it was, was granted with a liberal hand, and that the manner of the gift might tend to conciliate the minds of those to whom it was given. Independently of these considerations, there are others of great, I may say, almost decisive weight. I have no difficulty in stating, that they are considerations which make it doubtful whether these privileges could have-been given in the Irish parliament, without the risk of something like a convulsion. In the first place, the parliament of Ireland, particularly the popular part, was constituted, not as ours is, rising up by a concurrence of accidental causes, and producing a just expression of the sense of the country, but it was constituted with the precise object of making the legislature a protestant one, to the exclusion of three-fourths of the population. You know, that when a large addition was made to the representation in the house of commons in Ireland, it was for the purpose, and with a view of rendering it as exclusively protestant as possible. It was a question much agitated, whether, if the right of sitting in the parliament of Ireland was conceded to the catholics, a grant of that nature could be made without leading to consequences which no man would venture to foresee. Another difficulty arose of great moment, which was, that supposing the objections were not so well founded as they were judged to be, or, being well founded, measures had been proposed to remove them without danger or mischief, and that the parliament of Ireland could have been open to the catholic population of the country, it might have probably occurred to enquire, whether such a measure would have been consistent with the interests of Ireland, with reference to this country. I ask not your lordships whether these difficulties ought to

659
have existed; no man can deny that they did present themselves, and were considered of great weight. It happily is the case at the moment I am addressing you, that by a measure; which, I trust, has rendered the most lasting benefits to the British empire, these difficulties are removed. By the operation of that great measure, the union of the two kingdoms, the objection that arose to the forms of the Irish parliament have no bearing on the representation of the united parliament. The other objection is also removed; because, whatever influence and weight you would have given to the proportion of the catholics over the parliament of Ireland, exactly the same must be given to the proportion of the protestants of the parliament of the united kingdom; therefore you come to the question unfettered by the difficulties which prevented the adoption of the measure before, and, in the opinion of many, would have made it impossible to have carried it into effect in the Irish parliament: however, not only did the union remove these great and important difficulties, but it did two things more, which I trust you will not omit to bear in mind, on considering the motion with which I shall trouble your lordships. It did, in the first place, excite great hopes in the minds of the catholics of Ireland,that, by the operation of the union, they would be relieved from their disabilities. No authorized assurance was ever given; no promise was ever made to the catholics, that such a measure would be the consequence of the union; but, it is no less true, that by the arguments of those who supported the union, by the course of reasoning, in doors and out of doors, hopes were given, that the subject of catholic emancipation would be more favourably considered here than it was ever likely to be in the parliament of Ireland. Those who wished well to the union could not so far betray their trust as not to state, that one of the recommendations of the measure was, that it did seem to afford the only practicable mode of preventing the renewal of the disputes which had produced such calamities in Ireland. It was not, therefore, either from persons authorized, or not authorized to make assurances as to the effect of the union, that the hopes of the catholics were raised; it was from the nature of the subject itself that they entertained, and were justified in entertaining, great and sanguine expectations that the
660
measure would lead to the consequences so anxiously desired. This assurance was given to the catholics upon the authority of every man who spoke in parliament, whether in or out of office, that if the united parliament was assembled, they would undoubtedly be permitted to present their petition at the bar: that their petition would not only be received, but it would be deliberately considered, and that whatever difficulties had before stood in the way of the accomplishment of their object, it was impossible that the united parliament could refuse to give their utmost attention to the subject, to enter minutely into it, to examine it fully, not by one sweeping vote, but to pursue it in detail, and to investigate all the circumstances respecting the interests, state, and condition of that important part of the population of Ireland. It is this pledge which I now call upon you to renew. It is not now that I am going to call on you to adopt any measure. I shall state what is the measure you ought to take. All I have to propose is, that having now, for the first time since the union, this great body of men coming before you with their petition, you will consider it with temper, and with a sincere desire to do all that lies in your power to compose the animosities of that part of the kingdom, and to render all the subjects of the kingdom happy in the enjoyment of equal privileges, equal rights, and an equal participation of that constitution so justly entitled to universal admiration and respect. The question, therefore, which you will consider, and I shall conclude by moving, is, that the house will resolve itself into a committee, to consider the petition which has been read: and I hope it will not be forgotten, that the motion cannot be negatived, except by those who are ready to say, not only that they are not prepared to go to the full extent, but that they will not enter into the consideration of the question. For my own part, I have no hesitation in saying, that in my opinion, it is highly expedient the whole of what is asked in this petition should be conceded. What the union has imposed upon you is, the duty of providing in the most effectual manner for the real essential union of all the inhabitants of this kingdom, not in government, and policy, and law only, but in interests, in affections, in devotion to the maintenance of the constitution, and in that resolution with which we ought to inspire each other, a resolution to defend the

661
country against all its enemies. The question is, in my view of the subject, a question of expediency to a certain degree; that is, I do unquestionably hold it to be for the benefit and safety of the whole country, that it should be adopted in cases where the safety of the whole empire requires it: it is incidental to the rights of all legislatures to impose restrictions and disabilities; I have no doubt that such is the fundamental principle of all governments. It was so when the question was agitated in the reign of king William. The question that ought to have been considered in the reign of queen Anne, is the same that now engages your lordships' attention. It is this: Is there any expediency in continuing these restraints by which 4,000,000 of British subjects are deprived of the benefits of the constitution? Now, in this part of the subject I should state what I conceive to be a principle of eternal right and eternal justice, so evident that it is for those who maintain the propriety and expediency of the restrictions, to shew that the necessity exists. The first principle of the British constitution is, that we shall enjoy equal laws; that there shall be no man, however low his situation, who shall not, in point of political liberty, feel himself on a footing with the highest in the country. I repeat, that those who contend for the continuance of any restraint, are bound to shew, not only that it was expedient at the time, but that the expediency continues to exist. This principle I had occasion to state upon a much less important subject, and there was a disposition manifested on the part of some of your lordships to contest it, but it was with infinite pleasure I perceived, when persons of the highest authority rose, that it was impossible for them to state an argument worthy of the slightest attention by those who had the common use of their understanding; in favour of the continuance of restraints on any other ground than that of expediency. If there are persons in this house who are disposed to contend against placing the Roman catholics upon the footing of other subjects, I hope they will tell your lordships what the necessity is for debarring them of their just rights. I should feel warranted in making the motion I mean to conclude with, without any other observation than this; that to my understanding no such necessity or expediency does or can exist; none such has been stated. But I am willing to take the proof upon myself, not that I think it ought to
662
be imposed upon me, but because I feel such complete conviction, not only that the cause is right, but that it is so manifestly and palpably so, that it is almost unnecessary for me to anticipate the objections which I expect may be urged against it. The principle I take to be, that the British constitution is founded on the basis of equal laws. I admit that there should be some distinctions with regard to privileges enjoyed by different parts of his majesty's subjects; but that such distinctions are to impose restraints on four or five millions of people, and to have the effect of debarring them of their rights, is what I cannot assent to for a moment, without the existence of some strong, manifest, and palpable expediency. The catholics come before you, restricted from the enjoyments of seats in parliament; from the highest offices in the executive government; from the superior offices in the civil, military, and naval professions; from the office of sheriff, and by qualified restraint from offices in corporations. The question is, what is the expediency, the necessity, which should induce you to continue these restraints? The first ground I have heard stated is one which I should be unwilling to attribute to any man; which I should hope could not be entertained by any member, but which I mention, in order to exhaust all the various objections I, have heard or can collect. It has been stated, and I believe written somewhere, that the nature of the catholic religion is such, that no catholic subject can, because he is a catholic, be a loyal subject. If that be true, it will follow, that those persons who profess a religion which makes them traitors are not fit to be admitted into the legislature, or into the highest civil and military offices of the country. I might go further, and ask, whether they were fit to have been admitted to civil offices, with the exception of not more than twenty? Were they fit to have been admitted to the army, to the whole administration of the revenue, with the exception of four or five offices, professing a religion which disqualifies them from their allegiance. Are they fit to come to the table of a court of justice, and swear allegiance to the sovereign? No man who conceives the catholics really disloyal, can agree that they ought to be permitted to come to a country justice to swear to their loyalty. But I have been told, and I know that endeavours are made to circulate the opinion, that it is impos-

663
sible for any man, who professes the catholic religion, to be a true and loyal subject. Upon this point, one is disposed to look a little beyond mere assertion. I wish to look to the proof. I find it in something that somebody has brushed up from some old musty record, or some old decree of the church. I find arguments drawn against the declarations of individuals now existing, against their whole course of life, not from any thing they profess, not from any thing they believe they profess, but because persons chase to say, "If you are a Roman catholic, it is in vain for you to call yourself loyal; I know your religion better than you do yourself; you think you do not hold it your duty not to keep peace with heretics, but I know you do; you think too, that you do not hold the doctrine of the dispensing power of the Pope; but it is in vain you tell me so, I know such is your opinion." I should hope. my lords, that for any purpose of legislation, you would think it incumbent on you to take the religion of these persons from their own construction, and not from the construction of their enemies—that you would take then own conduct as the proof of their loyalty and not condemn them by the tenets, or doctrines, or conduct of some individuals at some remote period. I know not where the duty of persecution is to end. If you are not content to judge men by their conduct, you at least ought not to judge them for acts of which they are not guilty. If it is true that no catholic can be a loyal subject because of the council of Lateran of Constance, or some decretal order of the church—if it be true, that every man professing himself a catholic wishes to dethrone the monarch who governs him, in that case I desire you to consider what that goes to. It goes to this, that you not only cannot make the concession demanded of you now, but that you cannot at any time hereafter. Nay more, you must recal every concession you have made, unless you are ready to begin a crusade, to drive out of the country every one of those persons you think its irreconcileable enemies. Against such a principle, one knows not how to argue. If it was possible to bring forward any thing like argument, I should think myself pretty well warranted in opposing it with what was actual practice Is it true, that, in any country professing the Roman Catholic Religion, even at Rome, a man is bound by his religion to prosecute heretics? If it was true that
664
catholics were actuated by any such sentiments, sure I am, that none of your lordships could have visited the capital of arts on the continent, or have set foot on the southern countries of Europe.—The next point on which I shall address a few observations is, that the mass of the people of Ireland are disloyal. If that could be proved to the extent the fact existed in king William's reign, I should allow that the same reasons for imposing the restraints would justify their continuance. How shall I argue that the mass of the people of Ireland are not disloyal? One way I can argue, is by desiring you to turn to the state of Ireland—to the acts of the legislature, consisting of protestants. See what they say of the catholics, of whom it is asserted that they are at this moment irreconcileably disloyal I could desire the clerk to read, not one or two, but repeated declarations by the parliament of Ireland, that the concessions of government were granted to the uniform good conduct and loyalty of the people of Ireland. I know I may be told that this was true up to the last rebellion in Ireland, and that the mass of the people continue tainted with the principles of that rebellion. That is only an assertion. It can continue only as such; for there is no demonstration that the rebellion in Ireland was more or less of a catholic rebellion. There never was any thing more unjust, or unjustifiable, than to attribute the rebellion in Ireland to the catholic body. In the first place, down to the year of the rebellion, what had beer their conduct? Before that time there had not been any thing of open rebellion it Ireland, but there had been in the empire two separate rebellions for placing the exiled family on the throne. Look to history—look to the acts of your government at the time, and you will be told, that, during both these rebellions, the demeanour of the Roman catholics of Ireland though the object was to create a Roman catholic king, was as loyal as possible During the American war there were periods when the enemy triumphed in the channel, possessed a superior force, and threatened the invasion of the kingdom; at that time the catholics were not only loyal, but they were esteemed as such, and trusted with arm for the purpose of repelling the common enemy. I speak it the hearing of persons who have successively filled the office of lord lieutenant of Ireland, and secretary to the lord lieute-

665
nant. I ask any of them to rise and declare at what period of our history it was, when the catholic body, as a body, appeared disaffected, either to the established government or the constitution. If down to the period of the last rebellion they were uniformly loyal, it is no slight circumstance that the rebellion in Ireland arose not from religion, but other circumstances. What is notorious to every man is, that in the whole of the conspiracy we see the arrangement of the leaders was composed, not of catholics exclusively, but of men called united Irishmen, which was a name given to mark an union of different sects. The next fact is, that among the leaders of the rebellion it is notorious, that though there were many catholics, there were also many protestants. In the insurrection, the principal leaders were not catholics, but protestants. It will not be thought, that because I told you there were protestant persons in the rebellion, it was therefore a protestant rebellion. I mentioned it to shew you, that the rebellion took its rise from causes different from religion—that it pointed at a different object—that if it had succeeded, the catholic religion would have been overthrown equally with the protestant religion. The object was not the overthrow of either, but of the monarchical government of England. Many striking instances may be found of protestants who embarked in that rebellion with as much zeal and personal hazard as any catholic. If, then, there is no ground for the imputation of the late rebellion—if the circumstances since, instead of furnishing grounds of charge against the catholics, furnish a refutation of them—if we are told, that in Ireland three-fourths of the catholics are more quiet, tranquil, and loyally disposed towards the monarch of this throne, than they have been for years past, surely it is as fair to give the catholics all the advantage of their present character for loyalty, as to charge them with the guilt of rebels. Upon both these points, how does the question stand? You have the disclaimer of the catholics of those odious principles. You have the strongest of all evidence, their own positive, public, repeated declarations. I know that there has been a fashion to have recourse to the old exploded doctrines, that there is something in the catholics, that, let them say what they will, they are not to be believed on their oaths, because there is a power acknowledged in
666
their religion capable of dispensing with that sacred obligation, and of relieving them from the guilt of perjury. It would be useless to shew to what length this argument would go. If it is true that 4,000,000 of persons cannot be bound by any oath, the consequence must be, that the civil government of Ireland cannot longer exist—the people are disqualified from enjoying any civil government. One need not go to extremes to prove that this is not a very happy argument on the part of those who assert the proposition of the necessity of enforcing the restrictions. The restrictions are enforced by an oath—the catholics are excluded because they will not take the oath of supremacy.—What! if they are not worthy of being believed on oath—if that solemnity can be dispensed with by the Pope, is it to be supposed that they would hesitate to take an oath to qualify themselves for situations which will enable them to subvert the government of the country, and make the Pope lord paramount? The argument is conclusive—if they are not fit to be believed on oath, the test is worth nothing. I am endeavouring to anticipate every objection. It has been mentioned to me, that although this petition contains a disclaimer of all the doctrines attributed to the catholics, yet that the petitioners are all laymen, and that you are to infer, because no clergyman has signed, that the doctrines protested against are held by the priests. The argument would not be good for anything if it was true; but I am desired to state, that the only reason why no clerical person has subscribed his name to the petition is, because it refers to civil rights only; they judged that their interference would be an intrusion. Not only are they willing to join in the disclaimer, but I have it by the records of the country, by the certificates of courts of law, that these respectable men have all of them taken the oaths, and subscribed the declaration.—One other only argument on this point of the subject. It is a prospective argument. If it is not true that every catholic is a traitor, yet it is said that the time is coming when every catholic must be a traitor, because the Pope has gone to Paris to crown Bonaparté. It is supposed, that if the Pope has gone to Paris, and Bonaparté has received the crown from him, it must follow that the catholics of Ireland are subjects of the Pope, and are transferred to France. Such trivial arguments would be unworthy

667
of a grave,assembly, if it was not that, by such absurdities, attempts were made to revive the animosities of the two religions, to extend them to this country, and, as if this was not mischief enough, to make the cry of popery the means of disposing the foolish and ignorant to deny the claims of justice to their fellow-subjects. Can any man believe that the Pope is more connected with France now than at the time of the Bourbons, or when the pretender was at Rome? Is it believed that he is more actuated by a wish to extend the power of France than at any former period? Quite the contrary. I hope there is no man who has not viewed with pity the humiliating and degraded situation in which that person is placed. If he possesses feelings, they must be the feelings of deep mortification, and of disgust at those who imposed the disgraceful task upon him. What is the inference, but that the power of the Pope is less—that his respect is less—that he is more degraded, and less to be feared, than any person who ever filled the chair of Rome, supposing it possible to impute to him any hostile intention towards this country? So far from feeling apprehensions at the Pope's journey to Paris, it is a transaction that exhibits him no longer as a priest, but as a person forced to expose himself and his religion, in performing a disgraceful ceremony. There have been periods when the Pope of Rome favoured the interests of France; but you never found it excited rebellion in Ireland. You find the pretender supported by Rome, and yet that was the very time when the interest of his family in Ireland declined. In the present state of the affairs of Europe the influence of the Pope never can be attended with any serious consequences. If, instead of all this, every one of the propositions I have contradicted was true—if the catholic religion had a tendency to make its professors disloyal—if they were disloyal, and in connection with the French, I should then say the necessity that existed for repealing the restrictions was only the stronger—that it would the more become you to exert yourselves to contract that disposition by every measure of conciliation and harmony that could be devised. I should say, that the true allies of Bonaparté in Ireland would not be the catholic religion, but those who were endeavouring, and had endeavoured to excite and revive animosities, which had composed themselves and would gradually
668
compose themselves, and leave the country in a tranquil state. To argue the question with regard to the dissenters, I cannot on this occasion. It is said, that if the restrictions are taken off the catholics, it will be necessary to repeal the test act. It would be a most absurd thing to say, because you grant a right to the catholics, you are therefore bound to grant an indulgence to the dissenters. Whether the dissenters have a right to the indulgence, I cannot say, but I am sure that nothing can be more unjust than that the catholics should be deprived of their rights, because others are judged by you not entitled to any indulgence. There never was a proposition more shocking, or unfit to be argued. If, instead of having shewn you that there is no foundation for the dangers apprehended, the fact was otherwise, let me ask you whether the present system would not augment them? I will admit that the catholics are as radically disloyal as they are represented, and then I come to the question,—What is the line of conduct to be adopted? Shall 4,000,000 of persons entertain an irreconcileable hatred to your establishment? There are two different lines of conduct to be adopted; the one is that which was pursued by Queen Anne—the other the line which has distinguished the present reign. If their dispositions are such that you know they will exercise power to your destruction, your conduct must be like that of Queen Anne— you must take the power from them—you must take from them property, and the means of acquiring it: but I conceive that the wiser system would be endeavours to conciliate them. Has the system of restraint any tendency to ameliorate their condition? Can any thing have a worse tendency than to tell them that you distrust their loyalty? If such a system will neither conciliate the higher or the lower orders, can it have the effect you wish? If there be any force in the opinion that you ought to refuse to enter into the consideration of this petition, it can arise from this circumstance only, that we are arrived at the point where it is necessary to make a stand, and concede no more. I doubt whether it would be prudent for the legislature to say, we will now tie up our hands. Whatever system is adopted by the legislature, ought to be on principles immutable, and containing lines of distinction so clearly marked, that no man can mistake their tendency or operation.

669
Now, let me ask, whether the point on which these laws stand is of this description? You have conceded to the catholics all the civil rights necessary to fill all offices, with the exception of seats in parliament, and the heads of professions. If there is any disaffection among the catholics, it is among the lowest orders; and your remedy is, to exclude those persons from that share of respect which you could give them. I should think that sound policy ought to be the reverse. If you confide in the higher orders, you ought to give them power and consideration; and if,you are obliged to impose restraints, impose them on those whose dispositions you distrust. Does any man believe that there would be less practical advantages from not excluding three or four peers, of whom we may state that we do not distrust their loyalty, but also that they have given as signal proofs as any men in his majesty's dominion, of their zeal and good conduct? If they came into this house, do you believe they would persuade you to abolish the hierarchy of this country? Would you be afraid of their influence going into the house of commons? Few can be so ignorant as not to perceive what little benefit the cause of the Catholics would derive there. Supposing even 50 catholics obtain seats in the house of commons, could they persuade them to overturn the protestant government? The same sort of observations were urged at the time of the union between Scotland and England. There were not wanting persons who told you, that by admitting the Scotch members you would overturn the hierarchy of the church of England. You have had for a century sixteen peers, and forty-five commoners in the house of commons, and I ask your lordships, not whether they have overturned the church of England, nor whether they have overturned the monarchy, but whether you can point out a single instance of a Scotch peer or commoner, who ever dreamt of such a thing as Putting the church of Scotland, so adverse to bishops, in place of the episcopalian establishment of the English church? Surely, then, we ought not, on such grounds, to adopt a measure tending to throw so humiliating a stigma on a respectable class of subjects. I have seen every one of the offices of government filled by persons who may be presumed to have had a presbyterian education. I have seen your predecessor on the woolsack, the chief justice of the king's bench and common
670
pleas, the chief baron of the exchequer, a master of the rolls, the president of the council, besides generals and admirals, all of whom have been presbyterians, and yet have filled their offices with advantage to the country. I have seen every one of these offices, so filled, and yet I have never observed, on the part of the persons filling hem, the least disposition to change the form of the existing government. It has been said in this house that the consequence of entertaining the petition of the catholics would be, that you would have a protestant king in England, and a popish judge in Ireland. It has also been said, that, admitting it to be true that the catholics cannot overturn the established government, why are they so pertinaciously desirous of obtaining offices of public trust and confidence? I answer, that it is, because there is no proposition of more force than this; that although between individual and individual, the argument does not apply, yet between nation and nation, or between a nation and an individual, it is not true that what the one gains, the other loses. It is not true, with reference to this question, that what the subject gains, the government loses. Though the thing granted is of no value to you, it is of infinite advantage to those on whom it is bestowed. It is worth nothing to you to keep, but it is of the utmost importance to them to acquire. Let me desire your lordships to consider, what is the course of every,liberal profession of life. Is any one at a loss to know, how much importance the student of law derives from the exalted, situation of the noble lord on the woolsack? Is there any man in the navy, who does not look forward to the probable attainment of the ranks, and honours, bestowed, on a Howe or a Nelson? The condition of every man, who is a free inhabitant of this country, is exalted by the consideration, that there is no one who walks the streets, whatever his situation may be, who, with the exception of those to whom these restraints apply, may not arrive by industry, talent, and perseverance, to the highest ranks in society. To these who are so excepted, we can never say
—I pede fausto Grandia laturus fortunæ præmia.
It is this principle, which teaches the people of this country, to feel a sympathy is the dignities bestowed on those above them. They are sensible, that however low their own condition may be, they are entitled to

671
aspire to the same advantages. But I should like to know, a law was to pass that the students of the. Middle Temple should be eligible to the office of lord chancellor, and that those of the Inner Temple should be excluded, whether their condition and consequence would be the same Go into the army, and the argument is precisely similar. Look at an equal number of subalterns. To one it shall be said, shew courage, discipline, steadiness, every thing that can animate a soldier, yet there is one thing attached to your situation, you never can rise to that rank in the army, which, will enable you to make yourself a name to posterity; you never can obtain that which is the greatest incentive to the display of valour. The loss is not in the equal privation of an advantage; for it may happen that no subaltern officer may become a general, no student become a chancellor. The degradation consists in the deprivation; and therefore this, which is little for you to give, is much for the catholics to obtain. If your desire is, that there should exist an idea of equal law in Ireland, how can it exist so long as the people say, "It is not myself, but the law, that imposes this disqualification; because the law says I am a person whose loyalty cannot be trusted." Then I ask you, what hope there is for a country, whose religious animosities are thus excited? The memory of former contests can never be extinguished, so long as you continue a degrading system of exclusion, pointed at one class of subjects. These, my lords, are the reasons why I wish you to give way. I am perfectly persuaded, that, trifling as the privation appears in your eyes, it is not inconsiderable in theirs. I conceive, that not a little advantage would result in this and other parliaments, from having representatives known to be of their own persuasion. If they had such persons to represent them, however few they might be, they would feel, that whatever their complaints were, whether real or unfounded, they would be attended to. They would feel more confidence, than when they are told, that you have shut your doors against every person of their community; and that you will not suffer any person of their description to enter the threshold of the legislature, because he holds religious opinions injurious to the safety of the state. What other conclusions can they draw, but that their religious and civil opinions are deemed injurious to the state? And if they feel that they are so distrusted by you, what
672
can follow but suspicion and distrust on their side also? This, my lords, is the great and leading principle, which actuated my mind in the resolution to submit these observations to your better judgment; and it will ever be my happiness to reflect on the attention with which you have heard me. The object of the motion I mean to conclude with, is that which must be the object of every man who hears me, of every good citizen,—the uniting and knitting together the hearts and minds of all descriptions of men—that for which you daily entreat a blessing from Heaven on your councils. It is in that persuasion I ask of you no immediate, or specific grant, because I am not prepared to say what other measures, healing, and salutary, ought to accompany the adoption of my motion. Many there are, but this is not the fit occasion for stating them; all I now ask of you is, not to shut your eyes, but to go into a committee, to consider that which never has been considered as one united subject in parliament, I mean the state and condition of Ireland, the leading feature of which is the religious restrictions of its people. It has long been my wish, to have an opportunity of stating their grievances to your lordships. When I found that the people of Ireland grew impatient at your neglect—when I found that no step was taken to redeem the pledge given them by the union, I was decidedly of opinion, that all the best interests of the British Empire required that the subject should be brought into discussion. It was their desire it should now be brought forward. I think the season, highly favourable. There is every motive for endeavouring to preserve that necessary part of the empire: you are called upon by every principle of self-defence, to close your ranks, and unite your whole force in order to oppose an enemy, whose power you have so much reason to contemplate with awe. There is this further argument in favour of the question—that it is not called for by tumult, but by the good conduct of the catholics. I was not sorry,for the opportunity of stating my own sentiments. I felt honoured by being desired to put myself forward, and I can only add, that I should feel happy if, in the manner of discharging my duty towards them, I have done their cause no prejudice. I conclude by moving, "that the house do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take this petition into consideration."
Lord Hawkesbury.—My lords; after the determination expressed by the noble baron who has just spoken, to treat the subject with all the temper and moderation which properly belonged to it; I can only regret that he seemed, so early in his speech, to forget the recommendation with which he set out. The question, he said, would and must be carried, if not on this night, at least at no very distant period. This was holding out something like a menace to the house, calculated to defeat that temper and moderation, which the noble lord himself had begun by recommending.
Lord Grenvillespoke to order. He said it was impossible for him to remain silent, when he was so grossly misrepresented. He would appeal to every noble lord, to every honest man who heard him, whether he had uttered a sentiment or a word that could be considered as the language of menace; when he said it must ultimately succeed, he only meant that sooner or later truth and reason must triumph over the prejudice of any party.
Lord Hawkesburythen proceeded: I certainly understood the noble lord to have used those terms in the sense which I have affixed to them: but if the noble baron only means that his cause must ultimately triumph by the force of reason and argument, I am equally ready to meet him upon that ground. In opening the business, the noble baron has not thought proper to explain to us distinctly the object of his motion for referring the petition to a committee. From the whole train of his reasoning, however, we cannot be at a loss to perceive that he does not propose to confine himself to the partial measure of remedying the complaints of the petitioners; but that his argument goes to the full extent of repealing and abrogating all the tests at present subsisting in every part of the empire. I trust your lordships are fully sensible of the magnitude and importance of such a proposition; I trust you will pause before you give any countenance to the first step of a proceeding which may lead to loch alarming consequences. whatever difference of opinion I may entertain as to the merits of this petition, I have deprecated its being brought forward at the present moment: and I have great satisfaction in feeling, that, differing as I do, on this part of the subject, from some persons, whose vote this will be dictated by the some general principles as my own, no efforts have been omitted by me to prevent this question from being
674
agitated under the present circumstances. Similar exertions for the same purpose have been made by my noble friend who is at the head of the government of Ireland: but as all our exertions have proved ineffectual, as the Catholics have been advised to press forward their claims on the attention of parliament at this particular period contrary to their own interests, and, as I think, to a just consideration of what is due to the tranquillity of the empire; I feel it to be a duty to have no reserve upon the subject. I owe it to the country, to this house, to the petitioners, and to myself, to state distinctly my opinion on every part of this question; an opinion not hastily formed, but the result of some years' consideration; an opinion founded on the most accurate observation, and the most diligent enquiry I have been able to make upon the subject: and though I certainly think the present time peculiarly unfavourable for its agitation; though I am of opinion that the circumstances growing out of that time, would of themselves furnish a sufficient ground for resisting the proposition of the noble lord; yet my objection rests not on the time only, but is applicable to any time and to any circumstances under which this subject can be brought forward.—In stating this opinion to your lordships, it would be contrary to all the feelings I have ever entertained, and all the sentiments I have ever expressed, if I could be supposed to be influenced by any motives of passion or prejudice towards the individuals who are principally the subject of this night's debate. In this view, many of the principles laid down by the noble lord would not he applicable to me, or to any of those who act under similar impressions. It has ever been my opinion, that toleration should be extended to all classes of religionists, and to all sectaries. It was a question much agitated about a century ago, by certain speculative writers, whether the evils which would result from the prevalence of infidelity, or from the influence of religious superstition and enthusiasm, would be likely to be the most destructive of the happiness of society? This question, if ever it was a problem, has been solved within our own experience, We have lived to see a republic of atheists established, for a time, in the very heart of Europe: we have witnessed the desolation which they have occasioned, and experienced, in part, the evils which they have produced. We must he sensible that the bigo ry, intolerance, persecution, and cruelty

675
of the Most condemned systems of superstition and enthusiasm, are as clemency, moderation, and mercy, when compared with the same qualities in the atheists of France. With such an example before our eyes, we can no longer hesitate in believing that those who possess any religion, be it what it may, are to be preferred, both as men and subjects, to those who have none. Every class of religious persons, in this view, deserves the support, the toleration, and protection of a rational government; and of the different descriptions of christians, the catholics are not those in whom I have the least confidence; nor can I agree in any of the suspicions which may have been entertained, that the catholics are incapable of becoming loyal and dutiful subjects. I am convinced that many of the odious tenets ascribed to them have never been substantially, and, in fact, believed by them. I know by experience, both by their conduct in this country during the most critical times, by their conduct in Canada and in many other parts of the world, that they have proved themselves on many occasions most loyal and excellent subjects even to a protestant sovereign. But the question we have this night to consider, does not relate to their it situation as subjects; we are deliberating upon a claim to political power. Civil liberty should be denied to no man, except upon the strongest reasons; civil rights ought not to be abridged, except upon the most urgent necessity: but the principle which ought to influence the distribution of political power, is not only not the same, but is in some respects the very reverse of that which ought to operate upon civil liberty. With regard to the one, the presumption is always against all restraint; with regard to the other, however wise it may be to extend it, it should always be extended with that degree of jealousy and circumspection which may enable us to guard against the abuse of it, and which may prevent its being made the instrument to destroy the support it was alone created.—I am ready to admit, that no laws can be considered as perpetual, and that there must exist in every sate a power somewhere, to revise, to modify, and even to abrogate the laws of the state, according as circumstances may render it necessary: but it has been the practice of every wise government to adopt certain elementary and fundamental laws, which might become a kind of landmark between the governors
676
and the governed, and which though they be made the subject of revision and even of alteration, should not be changed, except on the strongest grounds, and on the most urgent necessity. The principles of the revolution, as established by the bill of right and act of settlement, have always been considered as of this description. It is one of the fundamental principles of these laws, that the king must the church of England. The conduct of our ancestors at the revolution, has been a subject of admiration to all wise men and true patriots. The persons who brought about that glorious event, were sensible all the advantages of hereditary monarchy; they determined to depart no further from the strict line of succession, than the necessity of the case and the nature of the circumstances rendered indispensible: but in their prospective settlement of the constitution, as well as in their remedy of existing grievances, they had the courage and fortitude to consider the situation of the country in all its different contingencies; they put the question to themselves, whether the inconvenience arising from having a king of a religion different from that which was established in the country, or the evil of breaking in upon the order of succession, were the greater: and, with all their attachment to hereditary monarchy, they determined that it was more expedient to break in upon the line of consequences which might result from having a sovereign of a religion different from having a sovereign of a religion different from that of the country. This law was not founded upon speculative principles, nor decreed from any idea of imaginary grievances; but was the result of experience, and grew out of the evils which had been actually felt under a king who was of a religion hostile to that which was established in the state. Now, I say, it follows as a necessary consequence of the limitation of the crown to persons of the established religion, that the same principle should apply to the immediate advisers, counsellors, and officers of the crown,—to those who are in some instances actually the delegates of the crown, and who must act in its name and by its authority. There may be shades of opinion as to the extent to which it may be expedient to apply this principle; but that it is true to a certain extent, and in a certain degree, must appear incontrovertible: for what could be more preposterous than, in a government of

677
law, where the law is above the crown, to compel the king, under the pain of forfelture, to be of the established church, and to allow the ministers, the chancellor, the judges of the land, to be of any religion the most hostile to the establishment? If we were reasoning ab initio, the converse of this doctrine, I could conceive, might be maintained with much plausibility; I could understand its being contended, that any infringement upon the line of succession in an hereditary government was so serious an evil, and might be productive of such calamitous consequences, that it might be more expedient to incur the inconvenience of a king of a different religion from the religion of the country, rather than expose ourselves to all the evils which might arise from the possibility of a disputed succession; and that our security ought therefore to depend not upon the limitation of the crown in this respect, but upon a limitation against all those who hold the principal situations of trust and power under the crown: but it is impossible to conceive how the idea can be ever be entertained, that were the hereditary principle is in question, you will actually violate it, rather than suffer a prince to sit upon the throne, who is of a religion different from that of the state; and yet, where the hereditary principle does not interfere, nor any other principle which can in any degree be at variance with what is due to the security of the establishment, that you will suffer the servants of the crown to be of a religion the most hostile to that of the state, though their being so must be productive of as many and even more practical inconveniences than could arise from the king himself being in the same situation. The limitation of the crown, therefore, with regard to religion, would seem necessarily to lead to the limitation of the advisers and counsellors of the crown; and the principle with respect to the first could never be maintained, unless it were likewise extended to the latter.—In point of fact, the history of our constitution establishes the truth of this very course of reasoning. When, at the restoration, apprehensions and jealousies were entertained both of the presbyterians and catholics, parliament began by passing against the corporation act, principally directed against the former. They afterwards passed the test act, principally directed against the latter; no limitation then existing or being adopted with respect to the crown itself: and when the Duke of York publicly avowed his conversion to the roman catholic religion,
678
and a bill was in consequence introduced into parliament with a view of excluding him from the throne; it was professed by those who successfully opposed that bill, that they would agree to any limitation on the exercise of the power of the crown, though they would not consent to break in on the course of succession. The king made a declaration conformable to the same principles, the exclusion bill was rejected by this house, and it was not till after the country had the experience of the evils arising from a catholic king, that, in the future settlement of the constitution and the throne, the same limitation was extended to the crown with regard to religion, which had been previously imposed on the great officers of the crown, and on the members of the both houses of parliament.—The adoption, therefore, of this principle with respect to the latter, was antecedent, in point of time, to the adoption of it with respect to the former; the importance of the limitation, in this instance, for the security of our establishment, appears to have been judged to be at the least natural and essential as in the case of the crown itself; and the objections which were felt to apply to such a limitation on the crown were considered truly as in no degree applying to a limitation on the offices of the crown.—I come now to consider what might be practical effects of a removal of all these limitations and restrictions which our ancestors have adopted for the security of the constitution. These restrictions apply both to the diss ters and the catholics, but to the latter in a much more extensive degree than to the former. It may be material, therefore, in this distinction. There are certainly some classes of protestant dissenters who differ from the church of England, on matters of doctrine, as widely as the roman catholic; there are some who differ even more widely on the subject of hierarchy and church government: but there is this important distinction between protestant dissenters of every description and roman catholics; the former admit that all ecclesiastical matters may be the subject of internal regulation; they acknowledge no foreign jurisdiction, they pay no foreign allegiance: the catholics, on the contrary, acknowledge a jurisdiction in a foreign power. I am aware that this jurisdiction is stated to be confined to spiritual and ecclesiastical matters: but it must be obvious to every person who has

679
considered, the subject that it is impossible, in many cases, to separate civil from ecclesiastical power. In the catholic religion, above all others, the jurisdiction and authority of the priesthood interfere in a great part of the civil and domestic, concerns of life. Let any person reflect how large a proportion of the property and civil rights of individuals must depend on the legality and validity of marriage; yet on this subject the opinions and practice of the catholics differ essentially from those of the established church. They consider marriage as contract to be entered upon, in many cases, under different conditions and in different circumstances from those which are prescribed: by the laws of the country, and, when completed, to be incapable of dissolution, on any account, by. any human authority. The power to whom they appeal, on all those subjects where there is ground for doubt, is a foreign power, wholly unconnected with, and in a greater or less degree necessarily hostile to, the state. Can there then be any doubt of the importance and solidity of the distinction between the roman catholics and all other classes of christians? Their obedience to a foreign jurisdiction forms an additional feature in their dissent, from the establishment to that of all other christians, and renders additional guards ,against them indispensable: but I say with respect to all descriptions of dissenters; would you intrust the patron age of the church, in its most important branches, to persons who consder your establishment heretical or idolatrous? Are you desirous of seeing the administration of justice in the hands of those whose religious opinions are in the most essential particulars, directly at variance with the law of the land? Would you be satisfied, that the office holden by my noble and learned friend on the woolsack should be conferred on a person of a religion hostile to that of the state? Remember, that, if religion does really operate upon the mind of man, it must operate far beyond all human considerations; that no pious man will prefer his temporal to: his spiritual concerns; that, it the religion and the state are distinct and at variance, and he is compelled to decide between theme, he must decide for his religion, and against the state. It is not because I believe the catholics to be bad men, it is because I believe them to be honest and sincere, that I would exclude them from that power, which they might use for our: own destruction. It cannot too often be repeated that the question before us is not whether the catholics may be loyal subjects; not
680
whether they should enjoy toleration; or obtain civil rights or civil liberty; but whether you will grant to them political power of every description, at the time when they refuse to acknowledge the complete authority of the state. Whenever this question has been discussed without doors, the only answer have ever heard made to it is that, as long as we had a protestant king, there could be no probability of any of the offices in question being filled by any except protestants: but, I ask, where is the security for this? where, but in the laws which it is proposed to abrogate? And if this were the case, what is the boon sought for; and why is there any eagerness to attain it? It would be to deceive both catholics and dissenters, if we should repeal these laws as a favour, and then refuse them the advantages which they have sought for and expected in their. repeal. If the safety of the state requires a barrier; let that barrier be the law, and let us have courage and firmness enough both to avow it and to maintain it.—The question relative to the admission of catholics parliament, stands, admit, in some respects, upon different grounds from that of their admission into the great offices of state. The members of the legislature are not compelled by the law to hold communion with the church of England: and, powerful as each branch of the legislature is in itself, the personal power of the individuals who compose it is very different from the personal power of those who hold the great offices of state, or who belong to the council of the sovereign. But though the legislature has not enacted the same tests for the members of the legislature, as for the officers of state; it has enacted some tests, and those of a nature very important. It has enacted for this purpose, an oath of abjuration of the pretender; a test which at this time of day may not be considered as very essential, but which no class of christians has any objection to take. It has enacted a declartion against transubstantiation, and other popish articles of faith; a declaration most necessary at the time it was adopted, but which might be stated, perhaps with some degree of plausibility, to be a mere doctrinal test, and, though applicable to doctrines which are at variance with the religious opinions of the established church, not more so than many of the sentiments of certain classes of dissenters: but it has enacted the oath of supremacy and I appeal to all considerate men, whether, as long as the catholics refuse to take that oath, it oath, it could be safe

681
to admit there into the two houses of parliament. I desire it may be considered, what is the purport of the oath of supremacy: it does not call upon individuals even to declare his majesty head of the church, as he is by law; It calls upon them only to abjure all foreign dominion and jurisdiction; and as long as the catholics decline taking this oath, could it be consistent with the security of the state, to consider them as competent members of the legislature of a protestant and independent country? But in addition to these considerations, arising out of the importance of the tests themselves, particularly the latter, I am convinced it would be highly inexpedient for the interest of Ireland to repeal these tests, and thereby enable Roman catholics to become members of the legislature. In the first place, it would not satify them; and I should consider, that to add to their political power by means which would not satisfy them, would be the greatest degree of imprudence. In the second place, though it might benefit a few individuals; instead of being advantageous, it would be highly injurious the great mass of the population of Ireland. In the year 1793, the elective franchise in the counties was granted to the Roman catholics of Ireland. This was considered at the time to be a great boon to them, not so much on account of the political power which it bestowed upon them, as because it placed the catholic tenantry upon the same footing with the protestant tenantry, and afforded therefore to landlords the same inducements to favour and conciliate the one as the other. The practical effect of it has, however, been to produce in the counties of Ireland something approaching very near to universal suffrage; as the law stands at present. No great inconvenience is, however, felt from this circumstance; they can vote only for a protestant candidate; and, the great mass of property being in the hands of the protestants, the tenantry, according to the natural order of society, will generally follow their landlords. But I know it is the opinion of some of the persons best informed of the internal state of Ireland, that, if the doors of parliament were once thrown open to catholics, if catholics could once declare themselves as candidates in the different counties, the influence of the priests would be exerted in favour of the catholic candidates as such, and certainly against the protestants. The result would be, that the influence of property would be operating on
682
one side, and that of religion on the other. Such a state of things would not only produce much internal confusion find disorder, but it would operate most injuriously with respect to the lower orders of the people, who would unavoidably, in many instances and on many occasions, become the victims of these conflicting interests. I am therefore clearly of opinion than, upon general principles, it is to the highest degree inexpedient to relax any of those laws which have been enacted for the security of the establishments of the country. The noble lord has stated, that he could not see any thing in the present times which could render it inexpedient to grant the prayer of the petition. As to this point, my lords, I view the subject very differently from the noble lord; I consider the circumstances to be so materially changed since the years 1800 and 1801, as to absolve from inconsistency any person who might have been disposed to support the measure at that period, and who may nevertheless be determined to oppose it in the present instance. The French revolution, as I have already stated to you, was founded in part on atheism; It was calculated to occasion new and great dangers to Europe; the cause of civil society was at that time naturally and justly considered to be the cause of all religions, against those who had none. The circumstances of the moment induced many persons to feel an indifference respecting he subject of all former contests. To a certain degree, this change in our policy might be not only natural, but wise:—but, as it repeatedly happens, in our exertions to avert the present danger, we were not at all times sufficiently considerate of the past, nor so attentive we ought to have been to the future. However this may be, we have witnessed a greet change in Europe within the last four years;—the extreme of democracy has given place, as in the end it naturally must, to the most arbitrary power which was ever erected in any country; and the person possessing that power, has judged it prudent to reconcile himself to the pope, and to the church of Rome, as a support and assistance to his authority. Whoever considers the extent of the power of France at the present moment; whoever reflects, that almost all catholic Europe, with the exception of the dominions of Austria, is in subjection to France; whoever contemplates the absolute dependence of the pope on the will of France, and, what never happened in any former period, that there is at pre-

683
sent no counter balance whatever at Rome to the influence of that power; whoever gives due weight to the considerations arising out of the nature of the connection subsisting between the catholics of Ireland and the pope, and will attend to the circumstance that the catholic church of Ireland is under the controul and superintendance of a college of cardinals at Rome; must be convinced, that there never was a moment more unfavourable for augmenting their political power. On every sound principle of reasoning, this could not be considered as a proper time for bringing forward such a claim. Those who do not agree with me in objection to the measure on principle, should nevertheless wait for the result of the contest in which we are engaged; they should feel that this was the time, of all others, when it would be peculiarly hazardous to part with any share of that power which, once parted with, it might never be possible to resume, and which, if abused, it might be beyond our own power to remedy. I come now to the consideration of the practical advantages which would be likely to arise from these measures; and I cannot but feel, that we are called upon to sacrifice our laws for a benefit to a few individuals, but which would be likely to afford no advantage whatever to the great mass of the catholic population of Ireland. Every thing in that country has already been conceded to the catholics, which can interest the great body of the people. They enjoy the right of admission into all offices, civil and military; the right of franchise in their respective countries; and, in short, every right and privilege enjoyed by their fellow-subjects, with the exception of about thirty-eight of the first offices of state, and the administration into the two houses of parliament. Can we, then, really believe that they feel much anxiety on the subject of what remains to be given? I am fortunately in possession of the sentiments of the some important authorities on this part of the subject. In the year 1798, several of the persons who were under the accusation of high treason, were examined before a committee of the lords and commons of the parliament of Ireland, and were permitted to banish themselves at the time of the peace, on condition of making a full disclosure of all the circumstances within their knowledge, relative to the rebellion. I shall not allude to the evidence of that person, who but a few weeks before had been described to be most virtuous and enlightened of patriots; but who proved himself on that occasion by his own confession to be the
684
greatest of traitors; I mean Mr. Arthur O'Connor. I am desirous of referring you to the evidence very much his superiours. The 1 st is, Dr. M'Nevin, a physician and a catholic; the 2d, Thomas Addis Emmett, a professed protestant, and a lawyer. My lords; the following question were proposed to Dr. M'Nevin, by the secret committee of the Irish house of lords:—Was any ecclesiastical establishment intended by the new government? A. No: I conceive that a revolution would of church establishment, and of course a relief of the poor from tithes.—Q. Do you think the mass of the people in the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, care the value of this pen, or the drop of ink which it contains, for parliamentary reform or catholic emancipation? A. I am sure they do not: but they wish much to be relieved from the payment of tithes.—To Mr. Emmett, the questions, though not so pointedly expressed, were of a similar nature, and the answers are not less deserving attention. Q. Do you think the mass of the people care for catholic emancipation, or parliamentary reform? A. I believe the mass of the people do not care a feather for catholic emancipation; neither did they care for parliamentary reform, till it was explained to them as leading to other object which they looked to, principally the abolition of tithes. They were also taught to consider that, when they became members of a democracy, their condition would be bettered. Q. Was any ecclesiastical government? A. None, certainly.—Why then I have a right to infer as well from these authorities, as from the presumption of the thing itself, that, circumstanced as the great body of the Catholics is at this time, they would not consider what you are called upon to grant, as any desirable boon or material concession to them. The noble baron has said that, inacceding to his propositions, we should part with but little, and grant much. My view of the question is totally different; I am of opinion that we should surrender that which would not "enrichen them, but might might make us poor indeed." I believe that what remains to be given is all because if given it might make the catholics the state. I am ready to give them the every thing under the state, but I am not prepared and, I trust, your lordships neither are nor ever will be prepared, to surrender the state

685
itself into their hands. I have heard it said, since you have given so much, why not relinguish the remainder? I answer, you have hitherto only given them that which, however advantageous and beneficial it may be to them, is little taken from you, whilst you preserve what remains. The objection to your former concessions has been, not to the concessions themselves, but to the future advantage which would be taken of them; and that, were those once granted, they would tend infallibly to the conclusion which is now attempted to be drawn from them. Recollect, that you still hold in your hands the great offices of state and the two houses of parliament, and that therin are vested the power, jurisdiction, and sovereignty of the empire. Be firm in your present situation, and your establishments are safe: but every additional step you take may lead to the vital prejudice of the country. I would now ask, whether, if this measure were conceded, we really believe the Roman catholics would be satisfied, and whether we have any ground of confidence from past experience, that nothing further would be demanded, which it might be indispensible to refuse, and yet which must considerable difficulty and disadvantage. I admit that the petition on your table is drawn up, in general, in moderate terms: but the catholics even there insinuate that they are not very well satisfied with the substituted tests which they are now obliged to take; and when all the remaining restrictions are repealed, I should not be surprised if they demanded a repeal of the very tests, on the condition of taking which they have been hitherto relieved. But is this all? Let me appeal to the history of Ireland within the last few years.—In the year 1793, when a noble friend of mine was lord lieutenant of Ireland, the catholics presented a petition, in which they professed specifically to state all their greivances. Some opposition was made to the prayer of this petition by persons of great weight and respectability in Ireland: but, in the end, all that they prayed for was granted. It was not till this had been done, that they stated, in an address of thanks presented to the lord lieutenant, in which they profess their gratitude for what had been accorded to them, that they considered it as a first step only to further favours, and expressed a hope that it would be followed by additional concessions. Is it not important, therefore, to know, by what the pre-
686
sent concession, if granted, may be followed? Are there no questions behind this which may be brought forward as soon as it is conceded? Attend to the evidence of Dr. M' Nevin and Mr. Emmett. Do they not tell you that, little as the Irish people feel interested in the abolition of tithes? It has been a doctrine advanced within these few years by several persons dissenting from the church establishment, that no person ought to be bound to pay to the church of which he is not a member. This doctrine was adopted by many of the chiefs of the Irish rebellion: and I would ask the house, whether the argument of the noble baron, in favour of the concessions now proposed in consequence of the catholics being so great a majority of the people, might not be afterwards applied, with at least equal plausibility, to the question of their contributing to your church establishment?—What would be the consequence? Why; that, in making this concession, you would only change the ground of the contest, and, instead of contending with them on a question on which the great mass of the population cannot have, and have not in point of fact, any material interest whatever, you would have to contend with them upon a point on which all the passions, the prejudices, and the interest of the people would be naturally and easily embarked against you. Believe me, the laws you are desired to repeal, are the outworks of your church establishment. As long as they are preserved, the establishment itself cannot and will not be assailed. Struggle, therefore, for them to the last; and remember that if you are there defeated, the contest is not at an end; you will only change the scene of action, and have to resists the enemy in a situation where his power of attack will be more formidable, and your means of defence much more difficult. The expectation that concessions, as such should lead to peace, is unfortunately contrary to the experience we have had in the history of Ireland. No man can lament, in itself, more than I do, the greater part of the penal code which was enacted against the catholics in the reign of queen Anne: but there is one singular circumstance attendant upon the enactment of that code, and which deserves peculiar attention,—Though Ireland, from its first conquest to that period, had, with very small interuptions, been the theatre of rebellion and insurrection, yet from the time of the adoption of that code to the period of its repeal,

687
during a long series of years, notwithstanding there was a new family upon the throne, possessing a disputed title to the crown; notwithstanding two formidable rebellions in Great-Britain, Ireland remained in a state of repose and tranquillity; it was not till after the policy of concession had been adopted, that disaffection, insurrection, and, ultimately, rebellion, made again their appearance that country. As I never could have approved of the principle of that code, I rejoice at its repeal: but though I approve of the repeal in substance, I doubt very much the wisdom and policy of the mode in which many parts of that repeal were effect; it does not appear to have been effected on any great and consistent system of policy by which the whole state of Ireland was brought under the consideration of government, and future dangers thereby foreseen and provided against, at the time that ancient grievances were removed: but concession seems to have been too often made to clamour, for the purpose of averting the danger of the moment; such concession, led naturally to new demands; such demands, have on some occasions been precipitately complied with; and the consequence has been, that discontent has been fostered and encouraged, and some inconsistencies have be a introduced into the laws of that country, which it is impossible not to regret. Viewing the subject in this light, I cannot agree with the noble baron in attributing so much political wisdom to the gradual manner in which, this instance, these concessions have been made: on the contrary, I discover no small inconvenience and mischief in the very circumstance which is the object of his commendation; I believe that the tranquillity of Ireland would have been better consulted, if, instead of the temporary expedients just described, a mature and steady view had been taken of the whole of its condition; if it had been deliberately enquired, what concessions might have been made without much hazard, and what ought to have been for ever refused: this being ascertained, it would have been the part of a liberal and enlightened policy to grant whatever the safety of the state would have permitted: and there would have been this convenience in such a proceeding, the deliberation with which the concessions would have been made, would have sanctioned the concession themselves. At the same time it would have been a bar to further demands, and we should have been equally, tranquil and equally safe in what we refused and what
688
we granted. My,lords, the conduct of myself, and of those with Whom I have acted, will prove that we have been at all times friends to a mild and conciliatory exercise of the laws in Ireland: but whilst I state this to have been our opinion and our practice, I must be allowed to say that I have formed a very erroneous judgment of the character of the people of Ireland, if have not learned that that policy which in my judgment is most compatable with mild laws, namely, a steady system of government, is the best chance you can have for the internal peace and tranquility of that country. The maxims which I have adduced in support of our established laws, are neither new in themselves, nor confined to the country in which we have the blessing of being born; they are the maxims and principles which have been hitherto adopted by every free community of Europe, as well in ancient as in modern times. It has been till within these few years a principle uniformly recognized, that the state and the established religion of a country must be connected; and that those who possess political power in the former, owe a certain degree of obedience and homage to the latter. If look to the ancients, I find that, in the republic of Athens, no citizen could take a share in the civil administration, or enter upon any public office before he had taken an oath that he would defend and protect his country and its religion, and that he would conform to then national worship. In the republic of Rome, the great civil and military officers could only be appointed through the concurrent sanction of the established rights;—without the due performance of these, the appointments were not good, the parties were said to be vitio creati, and they lost their situations. If I look to modern times, I find that, in the republic of Holland, the principal offices of the state could only be holden by those who professed the established religion of the country. In the government of Poland, (a limited monarchy in principle, however vicious it might be in practice,) the same maxim was entertained and acted upon. Similar principles will be found to have pervaded almost all the free governments of and I know not how I can better sum up what was understood to be the system and practice of Europe in this respect, than in the words of our glorious deliverer, king William; who, when applied to by king James, on the subject of indulgence to the catholics; made, through Mr. Fagel, the following answer: "Their

689
highnesses ever had a profound submission to his majesty; but since the matter that was then in hand, related not to the making of new laws, but to the total abrogation of those already made both by king and parliament, their highnesses did not see how it could be expected of them, that they should consent to such an abrogation, to which they had so just an aversion; as being a thing contrary to all the laws and customs of all Christian states, whether protestants or papists, who admitted none to a share in the government or public employments, but those who professed the public and established religion, and endeavoured to secure it against all attempts whatsoever." There are, I know, two most important exceptions, in recent times, to this policy: the first is to be found in the conduct of the national assembly of France, who proclaimed the equality of all religions; which was only a prelude to the destruction of every description of religion in that country. The second exception to this principle, is the system of the United States of America. I desire that any person who is disposed to hold out this system as a subject for imitation, would inform himself of the situation of that country; I desire that he would read the accounts of the different persons who have visited it within these few years: What will he learn from these accounts? why; that one of the circumstances that attracts the attention of every stranger who passes through this country, is the apparent indifference, in many parts of it, to all religion; that the public worship appears to be neglected; that the churches are suffered to be in ruin. Can such a state of things exist, and have no effect on the morals, temper, and dispositions of a people? should, then, America in this respect be an example even for a new community? but can she be an example to a country like Great Britain whose pride and glory it has been whose pride and glory, I trust, it ever will be, to exist under a different system, and to have been fostered and supported under different principles. I know that the proposition of the noble baron has the approbation of some of the best and most virtuous of men; I know, however, that some of its most active friends will be found amongst those who have, on the subject of religion, no small degree of insensibility. If religion he necessary for the happiness of mankind, states must be in in earnest about it, as well as individuals. The people of every country will look, and have
690
a right hon to look, to what their civil governors think, and how their civil governors act If they are zealous, if they are united, it will have a considerable effect in producing the same qualities in the community over which they are placed; if they are lukewarm, if they are divided, what can be expected from the people?—It has been said that the laws of Ireland, with regard to the different tests, are not in all respects similar to those of Great Britain; they certainly are not so: in some particulars, the difference arises out of the different circumstances of the two countries, and it may be wise and expedient to have established it in others. However, my own opinion is, that the principal difference has arisen from a want of a due consideration at the time in the parliament of Ireland: but whatever the difference may be, we must take Ireland as we found her at the union. If the independent parliament of Ireland has removed some few restraints which it would have been more prudent on British principles to have continued, we are nevertheless bound in justice and good faith not to re-enact them, unless some strong practical necessity should indispensably require it: but on the same principle I assert, that, if the independent parliament of Ireland antecedent to the union, judged it expedient to continue certain restraints as necessary for the safety of that part of the empire, we are bound likewise in justice and good faith not to repeal them, unless some unforeseen circumstances and great necessity should compel us to have recourse to such a repeal.—I have already stated, in a former part of that with which I have troubled you, that I was ready to admit that no laws could be perpetual; but there are certain laws so incorporated with the very existence of a state, that to attempt materially to affect them, may be replete with the greatest danger.— I consider the connection which has subsisted between the church establishment and the constitution of this country to be of that nature; let us remember that if the church owes its existence to the protection of the state, the constitution owes not less its existence to the support it has occasionlly, met with from the church. In the reign of Charles the First, the party who meditated and ultimately accomplished the ruin of the monarchy, meditated at the same time, and equa1ly accomplished, the ruin of the church establishment they fell together, and at the restoration they rose again together. In the beginning of the reign to

691
Charles the Second when the tide ran high in favour of monarchy, the only resistance which was made to that prince for some years, was made by the church party; and to their opposition at that time, we were indebted for the preservation of any part of our political liberties. I come then to the revolution: and let me ask any person acquainted with the history of that period, whether the zeal of the whigs for liberty could have effected it, if they had not been aided, seconded, and abetted by the zeal of the tories for the established church?—I call not therefore upon any one of the great parties into which this country has been divided; I call upon them all, for support this night; I call upon the whigs, who have ever gloried in the lead which they took in the revolution of 1688, who have ever considered themselves as the principal promoters of the bill of rights and act of settlement; I call upon them to support the system of King Williams, and the laws enacted under his auspices; I call upon the tories, the firm, steady, and persevering supporters of the monarchy and the established church; I call upon them to maintain those laws which are the bulwarks of these establishments. The question between me and the noble baron, is shortly this;—he desires you, for the reasons which he has stated, to repeal your test laws; to repeal your corporation acts; nay, to repeal the bill of rights, and act of settlement, in some of its most important stipulations. I implore you to cherish the laws under which you have lived and prospered, to cling to that policy which, in my conscience I believe, has made you what you are, and under which you have, enjoyed liberty, toleration, wealth, tranquillity beyond whatever was enjoyed by any country on the face of the earth. Avoid rash innovations shun new experiments: the future destiny of our country is not in own hands; kingdoms may rise and fall, flourish or decay; but let us not be ourselves the instruments of that blow which may occasion our destruction; let us not despise the wisdom of our ancestors, nor forget the dangers which they have averted! Let us reflect that all past experience and all authority is in favour of our laws, and that it is only by a steady adherence to that system which we have received from our forefathers, and a firm determination to transmit it to our descendants, that we can hope to exist with credit, or to fall (if we must fall) with honour. Impressed with these considerations; fully convinced that the propo-
692
sition of the noble lord leads to the repeal of those laws which are the foundation all our happiness, security, and prosperity; satisfied that the advantages which he expects to arise from the repeal of them, would not be gained, and that the best interests of the country would be exposed to the most serious danger; I deprecate his experiment; and I shall therefore give my negative to referring the petition to a committee.
The Duke of Cumberland.—My lords: after the very able manner in which my noble friend has explained to this house, the reasons which, I trust, will induce you to reject the proposal of the noble lord, it will not be necessary for me to enter diffusely into this question. But when I reflect on what were the circumstances which brought our family to the throne, and when I consider what is the object of the petition on your table, it is impossible for me to remain totally silent. With respect to the circumstances which brought our family to the British throne, your lordships well know that they originated in the revolution. The great object of that revolution was to secure the religion and liberties of these realms. These objects were confirmed by the act of settlement, by the declaration of rights, by the oath of supremacy and abjuration, and by the succession to the crown in the protestant line. To maintain and uphold all these, our family was called to the throne. And whatever can militate against these principles, in the remotest degree, it is my bounden duty, as a member of that family, and as a member of your lordships house, to resist. For this purpose, I must ask, what is the object of that petition? It is to enable the catholics to hold offices of trust and power in the state. Was it not to oppose such a system that the revolution originated? Was it not the very life and soul of that memorable transaction to secure the rights of church and state? Are We then, my lords, going to undo all that the revolution has done? Bear in Mind, my lords, the scenes that preceded the revolution; they are strong proofs that the participation of equal power by catholics and protestants, is a thing incompatible with the principles of both. Are you not already convinced, by facts and history, that it is impossible for protestants and catholics to agree in the administration of political power? What then will follow if the catholics be admitted to the great offices of trust? You will soon see what, thank God, till now we have only read: we shall experience the same con-

693
fusion and bloodshed which stained all the reigns from, Mary, who began with granting them a dispensing power to hold offices of state, down to James, who ended with the dispensing power in their favour. He hurled himself from the throne by conferring on them offices of trust and power, which afterwards drew down on them all the weight of penal laws: I am justified, therefore, in concluding, that there can be no boon more fraught with mischief to king and subjects conferred than that prayed for in this petition. Not only, however, the awful experience of past times, but the temper of the present times call upon us to pause, and to listen to the voice of the two great capitals of the empire, and of different counties in the united kingdom against this petition. We know, my lords, what are the feelings and sentiments of this nation with respect to the causes and consequences of the revolution. The memory of it is kept alive daily by the most solemn acts when men are called to undertake public and corporate functions. His majesty's subjects on such occasions swear to preserve his supremacy in ecclesiastical and civil matters. Does that petition acknowledge that supremacy in ecclesiastical matters? No! if then you surrender the power of the state to those who deny that supremacy, you do not maintain that supremacy, you virtually surrender it. Far be it from me, my lords, to shackle or to fetter the consciences of any men; but equally far be it from me to pull down by rash innovation any of the venerable pillars of the constitution. All that can be given with reason and conscience I am prompt to give. But the constitution I cannot, dare not, will not give. I must uphold and support, with the last effort of my nature, the establishment in church and state, as the great step by which the house of Brunswick ascended that throne.
Earl Spencersupported the motion of his noble friend, after whose most able and argumentative speech, his lordship did not feel it necessary to trouble the house at much length. If he thought for a moment that the motion of his noble friend was likely, in the remotest degree, to injure the church or state, he assured the house that there was not a man in the country who would not only more unwilling to support it, but more strenuously oppose it than himself. If he thought that it went to invalidate the principles on which the Brunswick family came to and now possessed the throne, the idea would be abhorrent to his
694
feelings; but he thought the manner in which his noble friend had opened the speech with which he prefaced it, completely obviated any such apprehension. He perfectly agreed with his noble friend, and the noble secretary of state who followed him, in the propriety of discussing this important question with perfect moderation and temper; but insisted, that this rule of conduct had been infringed by the noble secretary himself, who attributed to his noble friend, and to the petition of the catholics of Ireland, sentiments of defiance and menace, which the fact did not justify. The noble lord had endeavoured to prove, that the Roman catholics of Ireland paid allegiance to a foreign power. He wished to ask the noble lord where he discovered this? It was perfectly new to him. He knew that they considered the pope as their spiritual head, but he was pretty well assured that they did not recognise in him a civil governor. The published opinions of some of the most learned men among the Roman catholics disclaimed that on which, to give a delusive weight to his argument, the noble secretary dwelt with such emphasis. If the fact were true, however, if it were incompatible with the safety of the church and state to allow to the catholics any civil power, why did not the noble lord vote for the committee, not for the purpose of granting to the catholics additional immunities, but to repeal those which they had already received in the present reign, and which, if the arguments of the noble secretary were good for any thing, teemed with danger to the country. The noble lord asserted, that before any concessions had been made to the catholics of Ireland, they were perfectly quiet, but that concession seemed to be the signal with them of turbulence. This was not so. It had been unequivocally proved, that the late rebellions arose entirely from political causes, and had nothing Whatever to do with religious subjects. "But," says the noble lord, "if you grant this, you will be pressed to grant more." Well! it so; if the grounds of any additional grants that might be required were as good as those of the present, they ought to be allowed, and he could not admit the possibility of the noble secretary seemed to wish to insinuate, that the most remote wish would ever be expressed for the establishment of a catholic church, or for allowing the crown to be held by any but a protestant prince. These, indeed, would be infringements on the fundamental laws of the constitution,

695
which he would be as eager as the noble lord to oppose. The noble lord had laid great stress on the material change which he declared had taken place since 1801, in the consideration of this subject. What had that change been? That the French had again commenced the support of the catholic religion, and consequently that their influence over the professors of it in every nation would be considerable. For his part, he was not disposed to attribute much influence to their intrigues; but allowing them the full force with which the noble lord had clothed them, he would ask, what were the best means to avail themselves of this additional power of making an impression in Ireland? The answer was plain: it was by a well timed concession of indisputable right, to conciliate the affections of the people of Ireland, and thus to unite the whole kingdom in the determination to resist to the utmost of their power, the desperate attacks of their common enemy.
Lord Sidmouthprofessed his inclination to follow the example of the noble baron, and to discuss the important question which was before their lordships, with that temper and moderation that was necessary in considering it. Whatever sentiments he entertained respecting it, he would avow them plainly and frankly, and he would begin by saying, that though he would go as far in whatever regarded toleration as any of their lordships, he was not prepared to go to the extreme extent proposed by the noble baron. He listened to what fell from the noble baron with all the attention and respect that was due to whatever came from him; he heard him with that pleasure that he always did, but it was a pleasure mingled with astonishment and surprise. When he recollected how greatly that noble lord distinguished himself in combating doctrines which led to all the calamities under which it great portion of the people was actually suffering, and he feared would long suffer, it was not without excessive astonishment that he heard him on this night maintain doctrines, the direct tendency of which was the introduction of all those innovating principles against which he had so manfully and successfully struggled. Before he entered upon the question, he would take the opportunity of declaring, that he entirely concurred with noble friend, the secretary of slate, in giving full credit to the catholics for their loyalty and attachment both to the constitution and the beneficent sovereign
696
at the head of it. He believed their intentions to be upright and sincere; but it was idle and vain to take the sentiments of the great body of the catholics from a few individuals, who could only answer for themselves. Even these could not positively say what their sentiments and conduct might be under different circumstances. They might fairly and honestly, and with the best intentions in the world, pursue a line of conduct that might ultimately be attended. with the most calamitous consequences to the country. He would not, therefore, place them in a situation, where their conduct, though perfectly well intended on their part, might be productive of such baneful effects. To any lengths of toleration no man could be more willing to go than he was; but the great object of the petition was to procure what was called catholic emancipation. That term, however, was improperly applied. There was no slavery here from which they were to be delivered. They had already been relieved from every thing that had any appearance of this nature. The granting of the prayer of the present petition would not satisfy them. This would only interest the mass of the people so far as might serve to pave the way for further concessions, in which they conceived themselves to be more nearly concerned. The effect, therefore, of yielding to the claims now made would be nothing else than exciting an expectation of obtaining more. The noble lord (Grenville) complained of the policy of our ancestors, which had been relaxed within the last twenty years; and he now complained of the rigour and impolicy of parliament, which continued the restriction that still remained, though these were the most important. But the history of the country clearly shewed that the measures adopted by our ancestors, though rigorous and revolting in themselves, were detailed and justified by the soundest policy, and the most absolute necessity. The .noble lord then took a view of the proceedings under different reigns respecting the Roman catholics. There was no instance in the history of the country of the protestants and papists agreeing in parliament, and conducting business of government and legislation cordially together. Under the reign of Queen Mary, who, with good intentions, adopted such sanguinary measures, the popish interests gained the ascendancy in spite of the efforts of the protestants. The priests threatened those with excommunication who would not give their votes in favour of the

697
popish candidates, and by those and other means the queen procured a parliament that seconded her endeavours to establish popery in this country. Under the reign of Elizabeth the massacre of St. Bartholomew took place. A conspiracy took place in Ireland, that ended in the removal of the marquis of Ormsby, and left the melancholy proof that many members of parliament were engaged in promoting the rebellion; and no less than forty-one members were expelled on that account, principally from the house of lords. In the reign of Charles II. the royal word was given, that no attempt should be made to establish popery; but that word was broken, and the high offices of the state were filled with papists; and when the duke of York afterwards succeeded, an avowed Roman catholic, matters were carried so far, that the family lost the noblest possession that any family could possibly enjoy. After such experience as this of the temper and spirit of the Roman catholics, were not our, ancestors justified in the precautions which they adopted against the recurrence of similar scenes? Under the reign of king William, that great friend to the liberties of Europe, as well as of this country, these measures were first adopted. After these measures of rigour took place, an interval of calm and tranquillity succeeded in Ireland, which had before been almost constantly in a state of agitation, and continued even when rebellion arose in this country. The subsequent orderly conduct of the Irish led to relaxation of those laws under the present reign, as had been correctly stated by the noble lord. He was satisfied that this was a wise policy, as he was disposed to grant every thing to the Roman catholics except political power.—Under the constitution, as it stood at present, he would ask, what were the inconveniencies felt protected in their description of his majesty's subjects? He called upon any friend of the catholics to point out a single statute in our legislative code which bore hard upon the catholics. He was persuaded, if any such did exist, that it was only necessary to point it out, to induce its repeal. He acknowledged that many of the arguments which had been formerly urged against extending any indulgence to the catholics, were no longer applicable. He was free to confess, that the existence of a pretender to the throne could no longer be urged as an argument against their claims; and if he
698
thought that then effect of conceding the substance of the petition would be to unite the mass of the population of Ireland, perhaps he might have not been disposed to oppose it so decidedly as he found himself under the necessity of doing; but when he saw the catholics almost undisguisedly endeavouring not to make themselves a part of the state, but the state itself, that was an object which he could never be induced to grant them. It was not merely a civil right, but political power, in the most comprehensive signification of the term, which they sought to attain. One consequence of acceding to what they demanded in their petition would be, that their clergy would acquire an authority which they, with the peculiar tenets of their religion, and the facilities it afforded, it was much to be feared, would convert to a dangerous use. He called upon the house to think of two such dangerous powers as those of excommunication and auricular confession, and then to say whether they would open a door to all the dangers that might accrue to the national church from the employment of such engines. The catholic clergy, there was too much reason to apprehend, had never relinquished the hope of becoming the hierarchy of the country. He had the authority of lord Clare for declaring, that there existed consistorial courts in every diocese in Ireland, and that there had been a person residing at Rome charged to watch over interests of the Irish catholic church. Nay, more, there was not a dignity in the established church, which had not its counter part in the catholic church. The ostensible object, and perhaps the real object of the petitioners was plain enough; but was that object the object of the great body of catholics in Ireland? Would not that body be inclined to extend their views a little farther? Would they not naturally look to the exaltation of their clergy, and to divers other privileges, which could not be granted to them without imminent danger to the present constitution in church and state? If the house should manifest a disposition to concede to them even the limited object they demanded, it could not be done without the certain sacrifice of the act of settlement. What, he would ask, would be the consequences at an election in Ireland, if the catholics should be allowed to become members of the legislative body? In this country we had seen the tumult and inconveniences produced by the attachment of a certain description of the people to an in-

699
dividual. Whatever they were, they would be infinitely aggravated in that country, where numbers would be found contending with property. He could not bring himself to concede what was required by the petition. It seemed to him a monstrous and shocking proposition to be called to place the catholics in a different state from the rest of his majesty's subjects, owing only a limited allegiance. He called on the house to preserve their protestant king and their protestant parliament, and to recollect that it was a protestant parliament which rescued the nation from the danger of a popish king. He exhorted their lordships to follow the example of their protestant deliverer, and to resolve to die in the last dike of the constitution, both in church and state, rather than abandon one principle of either. There were two roads before their lordships: one of them was that old, venerable, and well known way, which had been struck out for them by their ancestors; in pursuing that they could encounter no dangers. The other was a way untrodden and dangerous, leading to innovations, the consequences of which no human foresight could reach. He was not prepared to rush heedlessly into a path leading to such desperate results, and would consequently oppose the motion for referring the petition to a committee.
Lord Mulgravesaid, he different from the noble viscount who had just sat down. With the best attention that he had been able to give the subject, he could not perceive the dangers asserted by his noble friends, nor could he discover what possible mischief would be likely to arise from admitting persons of property and education into a share in the legislation. Whenever restrictions were to be taken off, it was the duty of those who proposed their removal, to see that it was done with as little inconvenience as possible. As a friend to the principle of the petition, he lamented that the time for introducing it had not been more properly chosen. The introduction of it at present, he feared, would tend to excite religious distinctions, and ultimately to frustrate the great object of the petition. When those who brought it forward, did it without the least prospect of success, their conduct tended to throw it a greater distance than he, friend as he was to the measure, could wish. When he saw it brought forward improperly, and intemperately, he could not feel much inclination to give it that support that he would have done under a different situation of circumstances. Upon those principles
700
he was disposed to resist it in the first instance. The principle of the petition was not the demand of the people of Ireland. Where were the petitions in favour of it? There were none. It was brought forward by a particular set of persons, for their sole advantage. If the catholics were to be led into political power, he saw no reason why that privilege should be restricted to the catholics of Ireland alone, whose situation under the constitution was much preferable to that of the English catholic. For these reasons, though a friend to the principle of the measure, he found himself under an obligation to oppose it at present.
Lord Hollandsaid, that so much was he impressed with the importance of the subject now under discussion, that when he came into the house he felt anxious to state his speech of the noble baron who opened the debate, he conceived it would be unnecessary to trespass on the time of their lordships, as the noble baron seemed not only to have exhausted all the arguments in favour of his motion, but to have anticipated and refused all the objections that could be made. Nevertheless arguments had been used, from the other side of the house, so extraordinary, that it was impossible they could have been anticipated; he therefore felt himself called upon to make some farther remarks on the doctrines of his noble friend, the secretary of state, who spoke first. His noble friend, however, and he, had been so little in the habit of agreeing on political subjects, that he trusted that their difference on this occasion would not, more than former differences, disturb their private sentiments of friendship and esteem. Indeed, if the doctrines laid down by the noble secretary of state and another noble lord were to be sanctioned by the house, they would be pregnant with calamity to Ireland, as there would then be no prospect of the removal of those grievances under which they laboured. He hoped, however, that the purport of what he meant to state would not be so totally misapprehended by the noble lords opposite, as the object of the petition had been misunderstood. The question was not, in the first instance, whether every thing which the catholics, or any other class of men to whom be religious disqualifications applied, should be indulged with all they might claim, but whether the house would take the subject of the existing laws affecting the catholics, into consideration or not. The arguments of the noble

701
secretary of state however, led him to expect that they would vote for taking the laws into consideration for a purpose very different from that which the petitioners wished. They had indulged such panegyrics, and passed such encomiums on those severe restraining laws under which the catholics had long groaned, that it seemed as if they must, in consistency, be desirous to re-enact them when they had been modified. And would the noble lords really call the periods when those laws had been enacted and enforced, periods of tranquillity? Had they contributed to banish division and discontent from the country? Was this the state of Ireland which history would justify? On the Contrary, did we not see in those laws the cause of perpetual dissentions, and the means by which every discontent was apt to become rebellion dangerous to the state? The arguments against the motion were divided into two, those against the principle of repealing the restrictions on catholics; and those against the measure, not on its own account, but on account of the time. The noble secretary of state observed that, on a person coming into the house, and hearing the motion and the arguments in favour of it, he must imagine that it went to the repeal of the whole bill of rights, and act of settlement; and to erect the catholics into a complete ascendancy in the empire. The noble lord said too, that the repeal of the test act was a minor object compared with the claims of the catholic petition. But, was it a fair consequence to say, that because it was deemed prudent to place the catholics, in point of admission to power, on the same footing with protestant dissenters, it would be of consequence necessary to admit the protestant dissenters to some privileges they do not now enjoy? To do so might or might not be wise anti expedient, but it by no means followed as a necessary consequence of granting the catholic claim. Surely it was a strange argument to say that the Catholics must be kept under severe grievances lest some other class with which the catholics have nothing in common, should ask something else. Those then who were for negativing the motion, must either do so as considering the code as to the catholics already what it ought to be, or that this was not the proper time. The noble baron, however, contended that all nations acted ha the principle of tests. He forgot, nevertheless, that in this very house the principle of test was not pushed to the extent for which he argued, for there were
702
persons admitted to sit in it who did not concur in the religious doctrines of establishment. Those persons might be liable to tests if they accepted offices, but they were not prevented from setting and voting in parliament, which the catholics now were. Besides, did the noble lord not perceive when he distinguished between the enjoyment of civil rights, and the enjoyment of political power, that the one was often nugatory without the other, and that political power was the only security for civil rights? Here then his argument, that toleration is complete, is defective. Could the noble lord look at the situation of Ireland, and not know that for want of political power to raise them from degradation; that for want of political power to render effectual the indulgences which the law has conceded, many of those indulgences were vain and useless, and until they obtained that share of political power, the rest would he merely nominal? He (lord Holland) had not of late been in a situation to hear much of the grievances of Ireland, but he could not but conclude that the privation of political power, was of itself a great hardship. One reason why the people of this country made great sacrifices with chearfulness was, that they loved the constitution in which they shared; but could be expected that the Irish catholics, deprived of that share, could love the constitution so well, or he so zealous to sacrifice every thing in its defence? Besides, was it not perfectly well known that when the union took place the Irish catholics had the best reason to think that they in particular would be benefited in their political rights by that measure; and if their claims were rejected, by some too who had fostered those hopes, must they not be filled with indignation? Must they not feel that, they had been deluded and abused? Must they not feel that they had not received that share of the constitution which was promised to them? Privileges of importance formerly denied, had gradually been conceded, but without others those would be fruitless. The catholics were not subjects on the same footing with others. They felt this. For instance, would it make difference to the catholics to find that they were capable of being sheriffs; and was not the privation of such honours grating to the feelings and degrading to the character of whole body so disqualified? There was another grievance too which operated not only a against the catholics, but against the interest of the com-

703
munity at large. The disqualification to hold commands in the army and navy frequently drove men of talents, of courage, to serve in the forces of other nations, sometimes of our enemies. This he had an opportunity of seeing with his own eyes, and could it be doubted that this was a hardship on the catholic body, and a loss to the state? It surely was a most severe injustice that the catholics were deemed incapable of rank and distinction, in professions where rank and distinction were of such value as in the military? Was it no hardship, too, that the catholics of an inferior order were sometimes enlisted into corps, and afterwards not only deprived of the exercises of religion according to their own opinions, but obliged to attend places of protestant worship? Surely these were grievances, and severe ones, weighing down and oppressing every class of the catholics of Ireland. And was the object of the petition then one which it was fit to declare undeserving of consideration? It was surprising to hear the contrariety of objections urged to the measure.—One said that the catholics did not complain; another said they complained, too, the inference from whence was, that it would be in vain to attempt to conciliate people whom it was impossible to please. In corroboration of this, the authority of O'Connor and Dr. Mac Nevin was produced to shew that catholic emancipation would not satisfy the United Irishmen. But was the authority of those persons conclusive with the noble lords in every other part of Irish affairs? Did they believe that granting the wishes of a great part of the people of Ireland would not take out of the hands of those who wanted to separate the two countries, those instruments of misleading the people which they had used with success? It was only when they were brought to think that catholic emancipation and reform could not be obtained in a lawful manner, that many, at last, in despair, plunged fro disappointment into treason and rebellion. It was said, that the present system of laws, including the restrictions and disqualifications of the catholics, was one of the outworks of the constitution and ought to be maintained. But was not Ireland itself an outwork of this country; an outwork, too, which, if taken, would leave this country bare? Was it not then peculiarly necessary for the defence of this country to strengthen that outwork by conciliating the people by whom it is occupied? Much had been said of the share which the preservation of the church, and
704
the hatred of the catholic religion had done to promote the glorious revolution of 1688. But surely if it was merely because James II was a papist that he was driven from the throne, the pride which the country felt in that event ought to he much diminished. Surely, however, it was the arbitrary principles of that monarch, as well as his religious bigotry, which provoked the indignation of this nation, and led to the revolution. It was their civil rights as well as their religious liberties which the nation rose to assert. It was stated, too, that if the laws against the catholics were repealed, that body would acquire great and dangerous power; nay, it was said, that they would become the state itself. Now, if there was any thing in the noble baron's opening speech more particularly unanswerable, it was that on which he demonstrated that, on the most exaggerated view of the increase of the catholics, it was impossible that, by the circumstance of their restoration to political rights, they could be a majority in that house. In fact, it was exceedingly probable that the number of them in the house would always be exceedingly small. Could there then he any ground for the fears of the insecurity of property, and the resumption of ancient forfeitures, which were result from this visionary future catholic ascendancy? Besides, was it to be expected that the catholics would always act with such steadiness and uniformity in a body,as that none of them would be subject to influences, and to the temptation of a place? At the time of the union with Scotland, dangers to the state were apprehended from the circumstance of the religion of that country being popular in its nature, that the representatives of that country would be apt to fall into the extremes of popular liberty. It had seldom occurred, however that there had been any pretence to accuse he gentlemen from the north, of being inclined to run after theories of popular liberty, or stepping forward as tribunes of the people. In the most troublesome times, in the moments when the revolution of France had the greatest influence on the minds of men, our northern neighbours never distinguished themselves by falling into popular courses. In the same manner there seemed very little reason to apprehend that the catholics, from any supposed tendency of their religious opinions, would ever come to be formidable, either to church or state. What was said too, that if this were granted, something more would be asked, was an argument that

705
might be equally applied every other species of appeal for redress of grievances. But instead of refusing what the catholics now ask, it was a policy imposed on us by necessity, to conciliate them by a measure that would unite so large a portion of the empire zealously in its defence. It was stated against the petitioners, however, that they wished to be relieved from a test which only bound them to declare they were not traitors. But, surely, to call upon people to say so of themselves, was no very great compliment to them. On the contrary, it must be something very painful to their feelings, especially if such a test was imposed on them as a particular class. If all were equally obliged to such a test it would not be felt as a degradation by the catholics. As to the question of the time, it was stated, that there was no chance of the measure being carried at this moment. Upon what ground the noble lord made that assertion, he was at a loss to know. It surely could not be forgotten, that the same right hon. gent. who had retired from office, because, he could note carry the catholic question, and who had stated that he never would return to office till he could, was again in power. And if this moment of war and difficulty be unseasonable, was not the moment when Mr. Pitt left office formerly, because he could not carry this question, equally a time of war and danger? Are not the enemies fleets at sea? Was not Ireland threatened with invasion, and was it not particularly called upon at the present moment to conciliate the inhabitants of that country? If the objection that now the catholic claims should not be granted because the greatest part of catholic Europe was under the dominion of Bonaparte, were to prevail, there could be no prospect of its being removed during the continuance of the present ministry. But if it be true that Bonaparte has such an ascendancy over catholics, it would be an argument why we should do every thing in our power to conciliate our catholic fellow-subjects. The policy of king William always had been to practice toleration; and one of his strongest reasons for lamenting the severities to which catholics were made liable was, that it tended to augment the power Louis XIVth. the head of the catholic body. The noble lord here read a passage from Bishop Burnet, illustrating this trait in king William's character. The conduct of our government, however, was directly the reverse. So far from giving the catholics a real toleration, when it was re-
706
fused them, the policy of our ministers is to defeat the toleration allowed by law, and till political power was added, the catholics could never maintain what had been conceded to them, or rise above the degradation in which they had been held. Now was the time to shew the catholics that they could expect nothing nothing from catholic powers, so so satisfactory, as the liberality and justice of the British legislatures could bestow. This would effectually prevent them lending ear to any suggestions which catholics, the enemies of this country, could propose to them. Besides, it ought not to be forgotten, that the situation of the catholics was the more irksome and disgusting that they were held in inferiority by their own countrymen; a situation that outraged the feelings more than subjection to strangers. It was time to put an end to this source of Jealousy, and by admitting so important a part of the population of the empire to a full participation of the constitution, unite them sincerely in the interests of the country. In a word, if the laws against catholics were not repealed, it was impossible that things could continue in their present footing in Ireland. The history of that as well as of every other, country, shewed that those who would not concede must coerce; and was it possible that during a struggle like this, while our foreign enemy was so aggrandized, that we could spare one part of the strength of the empire to keep in subjection, another? That such was the alternative, every one who looked at the state of Ireland and of Europe must perceive. And was such a wretched and dangerous course to be preferred to the enlightened policy which would heal all discontents, and leave the whole strength and resources of the empire disposable against the common enemy?
Earl Camdenhad been extremely anxious to offer himself to the house, and had attempted it at an earlier part of the debate as he stood in a peculiar situation with respect to the question at present. under consideration, upon which, before he proceeded further, he said, he should vote against the house going into the committee moved by the noble lord (Grenville). When he received his majesty's commands to repair to Ireland in year 1795, and found the question of admitting catholics into the legislatures of Ireland, he had thought it his duty to that measure to the utmost of his power, and had great satisfaction in thinking that he resisted it with success, as

707
he conceived the measure would before the union have been attended with the greatest disadvantage and even danger. When the union between Great Britain and Ireland was happily effected, he confessed he thought he saw a moment when the same objections did not exist, and indeed was of opinion that it would have been expedient, at least, to consider whether such alterations could not be made in that code of laws which imposes disabilities on different classes of his Majesty's subjects, with a view of entering into some general plan, as might, under proper provisions, admit every person complying with those provisions into all the privileges enjoyed by his Majesty's subjects in general, without endangering the present church establishment, and he thought that such participation should have been extended to other sects as well as to the catholics. His lordship expressed his opinion that such a measure might at the above period have been introduced with advantage, steps having previously been taken to conciliate the feelings of the learned professions, the law and the church: circumstances, however, took place, which induced Lord Camden to be convinced that it would not be expedient, at the time alluded to, to take steps even to ascertain if the measure were practicable, and of course that the measure itself could not be introduced with any chance of success. Such was the opinion of those who quitted his Majesty's service in 1801, and till the present moment it has not appeared that any of those persons have felt that the question could be brought forward with propriety; he was, therefore, yet to learn what there was the present situation of affairs which could induce their lordships to consider the present an advantageous period for such a discussion. He was decidedly of opinion that in the present state of the feelings of the country, it was imprudent to agitate the question, for the sake of those very persons who are represented as desirous of having it brought forward. Although he did not see the danger in granting those privileges to the Catholics which some persons did, Yet he was fully persuaded that they could not at the present moment be granted without creating great discontent amongst other classes of dissenters as well as the members of the established church. He therefore deprecated the discussion, but if it must proceed, he had made up to oppose going into a committee, not only upon the grounds before stated, but also as objection to doing so for any of those purposes, which the speech introducing the mo-
708
tion represented as belonging to the subject, but to which the words of the motion and the general character of the noble lord's (Grenville's)speech did not appear to lean.
The Bishop of Durham.—I have made more than one attempt to address myself to your lordships' notice at an earlier period of the debate. An advantage will result from my want of success, both to your lordships and myself; that I shall not, at this late hour, from the length of what I have to offer, either trespass too long on your lordships' patience, or exhaust my own strength. I shall avoid a repetition of those arguments which have already been urged with much ability by those lords who have delivered their opinions. If ever there was a subject, the consideration of which peculiarly and imperiously called for temperate discussion and dignified moderation, it is that of the petition, which has been presented to this house by certain noblemen and gentlemen of property in Ireland, on behalf of themselves and others professing the Roman catholic religion. After a period of religious difference and civil discord it is indeed of the utmost importance, that, in agitating a question like the present, we should be influenced by an increased anxiety to guard against every unfair or unfavourable impression from recent injuries, or internal discontents. It is essential that we should resolve to preserve inviolate and sacred the principles of the establishment, and to extend that toleration, forbearance, and Christian charity, which are its distinctive marks, to their utmost practicable limit.—Religious toleration, my lords, is the primary principle and peculiar characteristic of our established church. By the practice of it, we have been habituated to respect and revere even the errors of the conscientious Christian; and we have been enabled to preserve harmony and good will, not only between protestant sects, but between every denomination of Christians. Under these impressions, my lords, I have attentively perused this petition. I have endeavoured to discover what extension of personal toleration is asked, that can be consistent with our civil and religious establishment; I have not considered what they would have given to us, but what we could with safety give to them;—not what we might in justice have refused, but what we could in kindness have good will. How far it has been our disposition to shew, not merely toleration, but real and active beneficence to persons differing from us in articles of faith,

709
may have appeared by the reception an protection which this country has recently afforded to the French priest; where to religious prejudices was superadded political danger; and when we had no security against the introduction of spies and enemies; nor any reasonable assurance that there might not be individuals among them, desirous of purchasing their returns on almost any conditions which the usurped power of the French government might think proper to dictate. In that instance we had also to encounter religious danger from the bigoted spirit of conversion, which characterizes their religion;from the unfavourable sentiments which they had nourished from their earliest infancy, with respect to English protestants; and from a peculiar species of domineering intolerance, which distinguishes the French from all other nations. And yet these considerations, my lords, did not deter us from receiving them with all the warm charity of Christians, and the liberality of Englishmen; exhibited not merely by the higher orders in the hour of plenty, but by the poor and necessitous at a period of general scarcity. If we could do so much, and do it so willingly, for foreigners and enemies, can it for a moment be supposed, that we are not prepared to show every degree of warm and affectionate kindness to our friends and fellow subjects in Ireland; can it be imagined that we shall not be ready to forget every difference of opinion, and to endeavour to promote their happiness and improvement, to the utmost of our power? In looking to the welfare of the great mass of Roman catholics in Ireland, I mean that useful body of men which in every country must compose the most numerous class of its inhabitants, it will be wise and benevolent so to use the power which the constitution has placed in us, as a part of a protestant legislature, as to do for them individually all that (were the power in their hands) they would be wise in doing for themselves. In this view, my lords, it may be a subject for our consideration, how far we can better provide for the discharge of their religious duties, and how far we may with propriety assist them that respect. We may inquire how far we can improve their temporal condition, by supplying the means and motives of industry, and by every exertion of kindness, which can promote their domestic comfort, improve their character, and meliorate their condition: and we may may endeavour to make a more ge-
710
neral provision for the education of their children; not interfering with religious tents, but attending to their instruction, to making them useful to themselves and to the community, and to giving them the unequivocal advantage of religious and moral habits. These, my lords, I looked to, as the objects of this petition. But what do I find in it? nothing in which the general mass of the Irish catholics is concerned; nothing that is connected with personal toleration; nothing that is to promote the social and domestic habits of the labouring class, or to improve their resources: nothing, my lords, that is to have a general operation in bettering the condition of our catholic fellow subjects in Ireland; or that is calculated to do more than to give certain privileges and influence to a very few opulent individuals among them. In short, my lords, this is not a petition for toleration, but a demand of power. It is a complaint, that the present system detaches from property its proportion of political weight and influence; and it asks of the legislature three things—the right of sitting in parliament; of exercising corporate offices; and of being subjected to the burthen of acting as sheriffs of counties:—The first, comprising the functions of legislation; the second, the privileges of corporate franchise; and the third, the important delegation of his Majesty's executive power, in every county of Ireland. These, my lords, are powers of no inconsiderable magnitude. But before we grant them, let us at least pause, until we have ascertained how far their effects may extend; and whether, after such a concession, we shall, or shall not, be able to obtain toleration for our protestant fellow subjects in Ireland. Let us pause, until we have well considered the guards, which the English constitution has placed over our established church; and, while we sedulously grant every reasonable indulgence to the scruples of the conscientious, let us keep inviolate the barriers of our religious and political constitution, and preserve that entire, which can only be preserved by its entirety. In the consideration of this subject, it will be necessary to advert to the superior number of papists in Ireland; to the peculiar powers which their clergy exercise over the laity; to the general connection of that clergy with a foreign power; and to the degraded and servile dependance of the head of their church, upon a state extremely inimical to this country. We must also advert to the irritation of recent hostillties; and

711
not merely to the probable consequences to the Irish protestants, but also the danger to the catholics themselves; and I may add, to the indelicacy, not to use a harsher term, of placing increased power in their hands, circumstanced and connected as they at present are. It will also be important that your lordships should consider the consequences, as to other sects; whether you can refuse to Irish protestant, what you grant to every Irish catholic; and again, on what ground you can give to the Irish catholics, that which you withhold from the catholics in England; and where, and upon What principle the line is to be drawn. All this requires serious and mature deliberation. It must again and again be considered; and every possible effect and consequence weighed with the nicest and most attentive accuracy, and with the most patient continuance of labour, before a change so fundamental and unprecedented be adopted. For, my lords, if the bulwarks of our established church are in part removed, how will the other separated and insulated parts be protected? If while it is entire and connected, it is the object of attack; if we have even now to exert ourselves in its defence, and to rally round the citudel, to avert the danger which threatens it; what hope will remain to preserve it, in its broken and mutilated state? On these grounds, my lords, I conceive this petition to be inadmissible; and I feel myself compelled to reject it, from a sense of duty to the established church; which in my conscience I believe to be the best constituted church which the Christian world ever saw; from a sense of duty to that civil form of government, under which I bless God that I was born and live; and from a sense of duty to my country.
Lord Redesdaleobserved that the motion before the house was, in point of form, that the house should resolve mover evidently, and the prayer of the petition expressly was, that the catholics should be admitted to an equal participation of constitutional rights and power on equal terms with the protestants. If this were to be complied with, the constitution of church and state could not, in his judgment, long survive. The catholics professed also their anxiety to be relieved from all tests. This was insinuated in the petition, and it was the language publicly held by the members of that body in Ireland. The house should, in considering this question, recollect, and deeply reflect upon the situation of Ireland. If the demands in the petition were acceded to, the
712
house could not suppose that the catholics would stop there. No, the catholic hierarchy looked for the domains and revenues of the established clergy, and those must follow the grant of those things for which they now applied. Nay, more, the house would feel it necessary to proceed further, the 5th article of the union must be repealed, and the catholic church established in Ireland, for without this be had no hope that the catholic would be contended, and tranquillity securely established. Until the hierarchy were in possession of that church property which they naturally and anxiously desired, they would not cease to excite discontent, and if they ever obtained that property, perhaps matters would not end there. It was, indeed, most probable that a total separation from this country would be the next object of pursuit. Apprehending such consequences from the proposed concessions, and he could assure the house that such was the prevailing apprehensions among the more intelligent protestants in Ireland, he must deprecate the proposition. The comparison made between the case of Scotland and that of Ireland, he felt to be quite unfounded—because the church of the Scotch was the establishment of the country, which remained in quiet obedience to the state of Great Britain, and in perfect harmony with this country. But that any thing like peace or quiet, or harmony, could exist in Ireland while the catholics were subject to such a hierarchy as the present, he thought utterly hopeless. Another difference arose from this, that Scotland was, even if she were hostile to the protestant establishment, by no means equal to Ireland in point of weight and importance in the empire. Besides, the comparisons made, alluded only to persons who sought for places of power and profit in England, and they, it was to be recollected, were obliged to take the sacrament to qualify themselves for such places. The Scotch, therefore, adverted to by the noble mover, became protestants before they were admitted to those high offices he had mentioned. Of course, there was this difference in the two cases—that the presbyterians of Scotland were not eligible to those high offices until they took those tests which the catholics claiming those offices refused to take. In the one case there was obviously no danger while in the other every thing was to be apprehended. He would put it to the house whether such a distinction in favour of the catholics would be consistent with commons policy or justice—to require of one class of subjects a test of qualifica-

713
tion, which another, claiming equal privileges, refused to subscribe. He would ask whether such a proceeding could be reconcileable with the principles of policy which governed our ancestors? Between the Roman catholic clergy and laity, the noble lord stated, that there was a very marked distinction. The clergy—they were to be considered in quite different points of view. The clergy formed a great compact body, standing in open defiance of the law—exercising an authority which the law did not sanction, and considering the protestant clergy as usurpers (here there were marks of disapprobation from the opposition benches). The noble lord resumed, and repeated his last assertion. In support of this assertion he would appeal to any noble lord who was acquainted with Ireland. The catholic clergy, he knew, denominated the learned prelate on the bench above him (the Archbishop of Armagh) simply Dr. Stuart. These clergy always called themselves the regular successors of the ancient bishops of the country. They took their titles, used their insignia, and assumed every thing appertaining to the prelacy that was not prohibited by law. In a petition once presented to the house of commons of Ireland, they put their signatures as regular bishops, and there was only one man in that assembly (Dr. Duigenan).who had the spirit to notice this gross and insulting violation of the law. Such was the state of the catholic hierarchy, that he must deprecate any increase of their power. They already possessed an authority of great extent—an authority too, enforced by the most dreadful means—that of excommunication. This excommunication was of such a nature that the poor victim whom it denounced, might starve in the street before any catholic would communicate with or instance where a poor person, who had been excommunication would have actually starved, if it had not been for the benevolence of a protestant divine, who supplied him with subsistence. There was another instance of the exercise of this extraordinary power which had come to his knowledge. Two catholics were married by a protestant clergyman. This being heard of by the parish priest, he reported it to the bishop. The persons who had been married were immediately summoned to appear before the catholic vicar-general of the diocese, and the protestant clergyman, consulting the peace of his parish, and perhaps his own safety, with that of the parties summoned, advised them to submit to the
714
summons. They accordingly waited on the vicar-general, expressed their contrition and readiness to make any submission in their power. But no, the vicar-general was inexorable, and this couple was excommunicated for having been married according to law. But this was not all, such as should have any communication with them, were to be excommunicated also. The man, however, being a person with whom many were in the habit of communicating, it was reported to the bishop, and above 200 persons, men and women, were from 20 miles distance summoned before the vicar-general. They accordingly obeyed, but somehow the vicar was so much appeased as not to impose the excommunication. He however inflicted a penance, which was, that each person should perform a pilgrimage of 30 miles: that is, from what are called Holy Wells, in Ireland, to another, each bearing a label, specifying the cause for which such penance was imposed. Things similar to this frequently happened in Ireland, and such was the fear they inspired, that the influence of the clergy was almost unbounded. They, in fact, assumed an authority much greater than belonged to the catholic clergy in any other country whatever; for their authority was restrained by no law. It was quite without controul. Before the reformation, the power of the catholics was not free from legislative restrictions. There was a remedy against the abuse of ecclesiastical power. But now what was the remedy? An appeal to Rome; and what kind of redress was to be obtained from such an appeal? If any persecuted catholics could or would resort to it, he would leave it to the house to judge. The catholic clergy dissolved marriages on various grounds, not recognized by our laws. They forbid marriages within certain limits of consanguinity, contrary to law. In fact, the legitimacy of children, and of course the succession to property, was made to depend in a great measure on their will. The noble lord proceeded to account for this by stating, that the reformation had never been perfect in Ireland, and that, consequently, the catholic hierarchy still retained extraordinary power. The imperfect progress of the reformation he illustrated by referring to the reigns of Elizabeth, James I. and the Protector. Until the latter period, the catholic bishops, &c retained many of the ecclesiastical domains. Thus, in consequence of the slow progress of the reformation, the catholic hierarchy still retains a power without law—nay, contrary

715
to law; and they tyrannize over the other catholics. As long as such a body remained in that country, he felt most forcibly that it would be absurd to expect tranquillity or Contentment. There was nothing more remarkable, the noble lord said, than the difference between the catholics of England and Ireland. Having lived in a part of that part of the empire where there were many catholics, he was enabled to speak to this difference. In those parts of England where catholics are resident, if one saw a farmer distinguished for temperance, cleanliness, and industry, it generally turned out that he was a catholic; in Ireland it was directly the reverse. What could be the cause of this difference? He had asked an intelligent English catholic, and the reason stated was this, that catholic clergy in this country studied to promote peace; but those of Ireland found their account in pursuing an opposite course. So, much was he persuaded of the justice of the remark, that the hierarchy was interested, and prone to excite disturbance, that he sincerely lamented that their abolition was necessary to secure peace. Nay more, he was thoroughly satisfied that such an abolition would be highly grateful to the better informed part of the catholics themselves, as it would be for the interest of the whole body. This would be the more readily admitted when he stated that peace and harmony was most to be found in the dioceses where there was no bishop, or where the bishop did not much meddle with the parish priests. That bishops were not essential, or desired by the catholic parish priests, was apparent from the case of Canada. There the priests complained of a bishop's having been sent among them, alleging that harmony prevailed among them until such an authority was placed over them. Having had communication with some intelligent, conscientious parish priests in Ireland, he had reason to know that the hierarchy in its present shape was not agreeable to the people, and was peculiarly disagreeable to the more informed part of the clergy. From those parish priests he learnt that they were afraid to be known to hold any communications with protestants, lest they should incur the censure of their bishops. Indeed this statement was confirmed by a circumstance with respect to Dr. Hussey. A few catholic servants in a protestant family were in the habit of joining in a certain prayer which involved no difference as to any doctrinal point. The practice, however, being reported to Dr. Hussey, he instantly forbid it, stating as a reason that,
716
although there was nothing intrinsically objectionable in the prayer, "its being read by a heretic was sufficient." And this learned and liberal doctor, who was afterwards connected with that union, which had in view a separation from this country, issued orders to the parish priests of his diocese to guard against such a practice in future. With respect to the character of the higher orders of the Irish catholic laity, they were of two descriptions—the one possessed of landed property and old established rank—the other were in possession of property also, but were new men. The former were interested in the permanent peace of the country, and among this description of persons, the most distinguished perhaps was a noble lord, whose name was subscribed to the petition on the table (Earl Fingal); that noble lord was a man of good sense, loyalty and extreme moderation, when left to himself. But when he submitted to the advice of the hierarchy, his conduct bore a different appearance. It might be said, that what he had said tended to shew the propriety of going into the proposed committee. But, no; and for this reason, that the changes he recommended in the state of the catholics was not to be effected by legislation; it must come from the catholics themselves. That change produced, many concessions might be made to the catholic body, that it would, under the present circumstances, be extremely unsafe to agree to. Wherever religious establishment should be thought necessary, it was indispensable for its maintenance that political power should attach to it. On the same principle that those who had no property, were excluded from political power, should those who are hostile to the church establishment be excluded from the same description of power—namely, that in either case equal power might tempt to the assumption of an unfair claim of an equal division. That the protestant religion was ways deemed essential to the maintenance of the constitution, by our ancestors, the noble lord quoted the case of the king of Sardinia, who was excluded from the throne expressly because he was a catholic. Recurring to the difference between the catholics of England and Ireland, arising from the different constitutions of the hierarchy, the noble lord cited the oath, which was notwithstanding the objection of the apostolical vicar, subscribed by the catholics of England in 1778, while the same oath—namely, a test of allegiance to a protestant succession only, was refused by the catholics of Ireland. The acceptance of this path in the one case,

717
proceeded from the superior information of the men, and the refusal of it in the other from the superior influence of the bishops. Dr. Hussey wrote a pamphlet against this oath, arguing, that it would be monstrous to call on a catholic to swear, that he would not be faithful to a British sovereign, if that
sovereign should happen to be of the same religion with himself, and this argument succeeded. The noble lord stated the means by which, in his judgment, the changes desired might be produced in Ireland. If the bible were translated into Irish, he was persuaded that very good effects would follow —that many catholics would be converted to the established church. The house would recollect the consequences that arose from the translation of the bible into the Welsh language. The protestant service being read in Ireland, in the English language, which numbers did not understand, was a great impediment to the conversion of catholics. They understood the Latin liturgy much better—having it from early education by note. The state of the church in Ireland was, besides, very bad. There were 2,400 parishes in Ireland, the benefices of which were reduced to 1,100; 500 of them only had fixed residences, the remaining 600 had no fixed residences: out of 2,400 parishes there were not many more than 1,000 churches. In many parts of Ireland there were excellent livings, very much sought after, which had neither church nor glebe-house. But if we were to set about ameliorating the condition of Ireland, the only way to do so effectually was to take proper means to propagate the doctrines of the protestant church, and if this were done, he had very little doubt that Ireland would soon wear a different appearance; provided another thing was also done—that of providing for the safety of such inhabitants as are protestants; for in a very large portion of Ireland there could hardly be said to exist such a person as a day labourer who was a protestant; no one person of that persuasion could expect to be otherwise than miserably treated by all his neighbours who were catholics. It was true he had the sanction of the law for his profession, but in Ireland the laws were not enforced as they,ought to be; there were many and deplorable defects in Ireland in that particular; and they were chiefly owing to the power and influence :of the catholic hierarchy. It was the interest of that hierarchy (and they pursued that interest) to create. a spirit of animosity in the people of Ireland against the protestants; the consequence was that there
718
existed among the mass of the people of Ireland, who were such catholics as he had stated, a general hatred against the English name; and an Englishman and an heretic, were with them synonimous terms; so that it was impossible, consistently with the safety of the protestants of Ireland, to grant the prayer of this petition. He would venture to say, that if the prayer of this petition were granted, the result would be, that except in part of the North of Ireland, and perhaps the capital of that country, no protestant would dare to live in it. This he had from information which could not be doubted; for a reverend prelate had told him that he could not keep one protestant servant, and much of this came under his own view. He knew that none of the protestant inhabitants of Dublin, who were parents, could get their children into the service of any considerable family, so that, they were obliged to apprentice them out to handicrafts. Such was was the disposition of the catholics, for whom this extraordinary indulgence was now asked, that none of the protestant children could find employment in the service of any considerable family in Dublin, and this was the case generally all over Ireland. Nor was this all, for no day-labourer could find employment, unless he was a catholic. He considered this proposed measure of what was called relief to the catholics, as a measure so far from being likely to conciliate the people of Ireland, that it would have the effect, if agreed to, of driving out of Ireland all the protestants; for until the present hierarchy of Ireland should be in possession of all the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, it was not to be supposed that they would be contented, and having gone so far in asking, if they were successful, it was not to be supposed that they would not go further. In earlier days the catholic religion of Ireland might have been put on the same footing as that of England, and then the hatred to the protestants would not have subsisted as now it does; but they had proceeded on a wrong foundation, and had erred on the system of intolerance in their principles much further than the catholics of England had ever done; they could not now, at least on the sudden, be brought back from those errors into which their hierarchy had led them. We must consider the Roman catholics of Ireland as persons who refused to submit to those laws and principles of reformation which had transformed this country from a catholic to a protestant country. They were now disposed in Ire-

719
land to resist the laws in that particular, and would continue to do every thing in their power to do so. They must, therefore, be dealt with accordingly, and under such circumstances it would be the greatest madness to put into their hands more political power than they possessed already. He admitted that this was holding out a melancholy prospect, but that he could not help, for it was truth exacted it of him; and although there was much force in the expression, that we ought to pay attention to the feelings of the great body of the people of Ireland who were catholics, yet it did not follow that we were to abandon the interest, and indeed the safety, of the protestants of Ireland, at least until the Roman catholics of Ireland shall put themselves in a different situation from that in which they are at present: until they should know how, like the catholics of England, to ask their priests and teachers, will you permit us to take the same oath as the catholics of England, they could not fairly or safely be trusted with that which the catholics of England enjoyed.—When they should be permitted by their priests to take the oaths in like manner as the catholics of England did, they might be put in the same state of independence, they might then be worthy of the benefits they now seek; but as long as they remain slaves to the power to which they are at present slaves, his lordship said, he was of opinion they are not worthy of what is now asked in their behalf. He had a great deal more to say to their lordships upon this subject, but he felt that he had already trespassed too much upon their time, and he should, therefore, say no more upon tins occasion.
The Duke of Norfolkrose to propose an adjournment.
Lord Hawkesburysaid, he had no objection, provided it was understood the house should meet again the next day time enough to dispose of this question in the course of the evening; but if the adjournment was not proposed on these terms, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
The Duke of Norfolkagain submitted to the house the propriety of adjourning, without coming to any terms of compromise as to the time the subject should take up in future discussion, or the time when that discussion should be renewed. (Here there was a great cry of go on! go on! go on!)
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the adjournment was carried, their lordships would understand that they should meet at an hour
720
sufficiently early to go through with the whole before twelve at night, or decency would require another adjournment.
Lord Hawkesburydeclared, that unless the motion for adjournment specified the hour at which the debate was to be resumed, instead of leaving that point indefinite, he should be under the necessity of opposing the adjournment.
The Duke of Norfolkthought that the regular way would be to put the question of adjournment generally in the first instance; if that was carried, it would be competent to any noble lord to move that it be resumed at any hour he might think fit.—(A great cry of go on! go on! go on!)—The question was put by the lord Chancellor for the adjournment, and from the voices, the non-contents were declared to have it, and the house was about to proceed to a division, but did not divide. The debate was then resumed, and
The Earl of Limerickrose and spoke as follows:—My lords, exhausted by the excessive heat of the house, and by the very late hour to which the debate has been protracted, I own I regret that the proposed adjournment did not take place. Your lordships, however, will derive one advantage from my wearied state of mind and body, that I am totally unable to trespass for any length of time on your patience, I protest, with the utmost sincerity, that I was desirous to reconcile it to my feelings to give my vote on the present question, without addressing your lordships. The subject under consideration is one, to a person who thinks as I do, highly unpleasant to discuss, and to an Irishman, for many reasons not necessary to allude to now, it is one of peculiar awkwardness; I could not, however, satisfy myself to remain behind the shield of silence, lest my doing so should be construed into timidity or want of decision.—From much of what has fallen from several noble lords who have spoken in this debate, I am almost led to imagine that I have passed the greater part of my life in a dream; that Ireland, where I was born, and where I resided so many years, was not the kind of country I had considered it to be, and that all that had there passed before my eyes:was merely a vision. The noble baron who opened the debate was pleased, in the beginning of his speech, to state, that the petitioners had suffered from party violence and party prejudice. I own I am at a loss to understand what the noble lord means; does he mean

721
that the petitioners have suffered such violence and prejudice from their own parliament, now no more? If he does, I, having been a member of that parliament for many years, cannot help stating that the noble lord has so far been grossly misinformed: I am persuaded, from his known can-dour, that he would not have made such an assertion, had he not been strongly assured of its truth. What, my lords, do the Irish catholics mean to say that they have suffered from party violence and party prejudice from their own parliament? Turn over the volumes of the acts of that parliament since the year 1782, and you will in them find one continued chain of indulgences, relaxations, grants of privileges, and admission of political rights, till at last little indeed was left to bestow. This assertion of suffering from party, however, explains a circumstance in the late transactions, which, I acknowledge, has considerably puzzled me. I was at a loss to conceive why Englishmen, almost unacquainted with Ireland, were selected by the Irish catholics to present their in both houses of parliament. Were there no two of them on whom they could rely, no from whose party prejudice and violence they had not suffered?—With great respect to the noble lords who have spoken, I cannot help thinking that much of what has fallen from them might well have been omitted. What was the necessity of painting the wretched and degraded state of Ireland during the long and gloomy period it suffered under the long of the penal and restricting statues? That time, thank God, has long passed away, and I think it would be more consonant to that temper and moderation which the noble baron who opened the debate made a profession of, and which the noble lord who sits near him appeared to me somewhat to depart from, had this part of the subject not been brought forward.—I will not follow the noble lord through the different objections he stated as likely to be made to his measure, because, I have not heard them made by any noble lord on this side of the house. Who has stated the principles of modern enlightened catholics to be those entertained in the times of the first councils, or in the dark and corrupt ages of the Roman church? —Who has stated the Irish catholics to be participate in the privileges and distinctions of the constitution?—I have not heard any thing of the kind fall from the lips of any noble lord; if there
722
had, I should have been one of the first to contradict it. In truth, my lords, I cannot help, thinking, with great respect be it said to the noble lord, that much of his lordship's speech was consumed in conjuring up phantoms for himself to buffet.—I will not enter into the abstract question whether it be safe to remove at once all those guards and barriers Which our ancestors thought essentially necessary for the preservation of our constitution in church and state. I do not think it necessary to declare an opinion, that the enlightened catholics of the present day do not entertain those principles of persecution of persons of a different faith, and of want of regard to oaths made to heretics, which had formerly made them objects of distrust and apprehension to protestant states; it would be idle to do so; nobody now entertains any such opinions.—I am well, acquainted with many of the subscribers to the catholic petition, and I assert with confidence, that they arc not excelled in character, in loyalty to their prince, and in attachment to the constitution, by any the most distinguished of the protestants. The noble lord (the earl of Fingall) whose name stands second on the list, is one of the best and most distinguished characters the united kingdom can boast of.𣀔I mean to confine myself merely to this part of the subject, namely, whether this be the fittest time to bring the petition before parliament? The noble baron asserts, it is, and at the same time declares, that he esteems the moments he presented it and argued on its merits as the happiest of his life. I differ here from the noble lord; our opinions are far as the poles asunder. What, my lords, this the fittest time to agitate a question which rouses every passion, and calls into action every civil and religious prejudice; this the fittest time, when the united kingdom is assailed on all sides by the most formidable enemies, and when, at the moment that I am speaking, French emissaries are traversing Ireland in every direction, announcing an immediate invasion of that island, and promising to those who shall join them the establishment of their religion, and the property of those lands which they now hold as farmers?—But the noble lord says, that any evils that may arise will be ascribable to those who reject the petition, not to those who bring it forward; that greater evils would have arisen from refusing to present the petition than any that can flow from agitating the subject; that the catholics called eagerly for its

723
presentation. I lament I must main differ from the noble baron; I have some knowledge of that country, and, from every information I have been able to obtain, I decidedly assert, that the catholics were not anxious to agitate the subject now; that they did not think the time opportune, or that they were now likely to obtain their objects. If my information is accurate, I believe it will be found that all the eagerness to agitate the subject was on this side of the water, and that the catholic; were goaded on by representations from hence to bring forward their petition. I do not accuse the noble lord of being the person that spurred on the catholics. I know his public spirit and character too well to suspect, for an instant, that he would lend his great and distinguished name to so mischievous a measure. He knows that country too well, from his former high station, to hazard such a measure at this moment. I have not, however, the same good opinion of others: I do believe that there are men so desperate as to value at nought a general convulsion, if they can worry a minister by bringing forward a subject, in the discussion of which they conceive he may he embarrassed by former declarations. Why is our country to be made the arena on which contending parties are to wage war against each other? Oh my unfortunate country! are you never to he at rest? I conjure the agitators of this measure to reflect ere it be too late: stir not a fire that is smothered, but not extinguished; the slightest spark may kindle into a blaze. Is it not sufficient that, in the short space of nine years, my poor country has been racked by conspiracies, disgraced by every crime contained in the roll of human wickedness, affrighted by invasions, and shaken to the very centre by civil and religious distractions? Is it not enough that we have sacrificed our pride as an independent nation, and our importance and influence as individuals, to procure, if possible, for our distracted land, the blessings of peace and security? We embraced an union to protect us from ourselves; make not what we considered and hoped would prove a measure of safety, make it not, I say, a measure of mischief and disquiet—But the noble baron says, that the union is no union without this measure; that without it we shall break faith with the catholics, who were induced to support the union by the expectations held out to then of the success
724
of this measure; that indeed the government made them no promises, but that all of us who supported the union, led them to entertain such hopes. I acknowledge that I did say to my catholic friends, that they would have a better chance of success hereafter from an imperial than from an Irish parliament; that an Irish parliament could never grant with safety what the united parliament might hereafter bestow. But I certainly held out to them no expectation of an early attainment of their wishes. I am not, my lords, one of those who think that in no time, under no change of circumstances, this measure ought to be granted; that the settlement of 1793 should be our ne plus ultra, that here we ought to make our stand. I profess not to understand what a ne plus ultra in politics means. Sure I am that no such principle is countenanced in the practice of our constitutions; its principle is to change as circumstances and times demand alteration. I trust and hope that a time may arrive when distrusts and animosities may die away, when the two parties may meet half way, and when religious distinctions may no longer disturb the state.—But, says the noble lord, grant the prayer of this petition and you will at once do away all pretext for disturbance, and you will at once become an united and a happy people. I have the misfortune again to differ from the noble lord. I do solemnly declare, that I do not think that, by granting the prayer of this petition to its fullest extent, you will advance one single step towards the tranquillisation of Ireland. His lordship will not, I am sure, contend that it is necessary to bribe the catholic noblemen and gentlemen into loyalty, and as to the common people, I am persuaded it would not gain over a single peasant now tainted with disloyalty, and ready, at a moment, to join a French invader. No, my lords, seats in parliament and admission to the highest offices in the state form no part of the wishes of the Irish peasantry; were you to talk to them on the subject, they would not understand you. If you wish to conciliate those now inclined to join the French, I will tell you what you must do; you are the best judges whether you are willing to pay so high a price for their allegiance. Are you ready to sacrifice the national church by giving up the means by which it is subsisted? Are you ready to sink your revenue, by giving up all taxes upon spi-

725
rituous liquors? and, last of all, are you ready to sacrifice the whole protestant and respectable catholic property of the country, by the abolition of rents, and the perpetual grant of their farms, to the present occupants? Such are the terms, I know, have been lately offered to the Irish peasantry by French emissaries, and if you mean to bid against them with any chance of success, you must not be outdone in the magnificence of your offers.—But the noble baron says, refuse the request of the petitioners, and you give a handle to the disaffected to work on the passions of the multitude. I agree with the noble baron, it will do so; and this, my lords, is the great objection to the stirring the present subject. If granted, it will not obtain your object, namely, the tranquillity of Ireland; if refused, it may and probably will do much mischief. The bringing forward the petition can do no good; it may do much harm. What is the reason of bringing forward the petition at this moment? Why did not the noble lord bring it forward in 1801? I give him credit for not doing so; the country was in danger; it was no time to agitate a question that might create divisions and animosities. Why, if essential to the well-being of the state, was it not brought forward during the interval of peace? Will it be answered that the public opinion was then against it? Has that opinion since changed? I firmly believe it still remains unaltered.—The noble lord says, the rebellion of 1798 was not a catholic rebellion, and therefore no impediment to the concession demanded. I have not heard any one state that rebellion to have been a catholic rebellion; many of its leaders were protestants, or professed to be so. The present general of division in the service of his imperial and royal majesty the emperor of France and king of Italy, was ordained a deacon of the established church of Ireland by the father of the individual who has now the honour to address you. Others, like Emmett, were professed protestants, but were real disciples of the modern French school both in religion and in politics. I had the honour to be one of the secret committee of the house of lords of Ireland, before which those gentlemen made their confessions of treason. When asked, whether the establishment of the catholic religion was one of their principal objects; they smiled and said, that such an idea never once entered into their heads; that they certainly
726
made use of the pretext of the catholic religion, and of fanatical priests, as the best fire-brands to throw among the people to rouse them to rebellion; that their objects were the establishment of a republic independent of Great-Britain, and connected with, but not dependant upon France. A great proportion of the people in three of the provinces being catholics, of course the rebel ranks were filled with men of that persuasion.—The noble lord is wrong in stating, that where the rebel armies were strongest, it was in counties altogether catholic. The county of Wexford possessed great numbers of protestants, yet it was there the rebel troops were in the greatest force; it was there the greatest enormities were committed; it was there I witnessed catholic priests bearing in their hands the sacred banner of the cross, the emblem of the mildest of religions; it was there I saw them lead the infuriated rabble to pillage, to destruction of property, and to the murder of the aged, the infirm, women, children, in short, what was most distinguished, what was lowest in the community. I will not shock your lordships' ears by the disgusting recital. But the noble lord says it arose out of the unhappy circumstances of the country. I profess I do not understand what the noble lord means; but if he wishes to convey the idea that the rebellion was produced by any oppression of the people, I must beg leave, with great respect to him, positively to deny it.—But the noble baron says, that the influence of the Pope over the priesthood can be no objection; he asks, do we think the pope is more hostile to us now than in those times in which we were at war with the Bourbon family? I certainly do not think he is. On the contrary, he cannot but wish well to any nation that opposes Gallic tyranny. But I think, nay I am certain, that the pope is the miserable poppet of the usurper of the throne of the Bourbons, that he dare not move but by Napoleon's command; and, should he order him to influence the Irish priests to rouse their flocks to rebellion, he could not refuge to obey the despot. I ground this opinion his holiness being forced to anoint the usurper of the throne of the eldest sons of the church, from whose family she had derived most of her possessions. I ground this opinion upon the unfortunate old man being obliged to call upon the very respectable French bishops in this country, who had left all

727
for conscience sake, to forget the solemn oaths they had sworn to the princes of the Bourbon race; and to take others to support tyranny and usurpation.—But the noble baron says, that if you admit catholics to seats in parliament, their numbers in both houses must ever be so small, that no danger can possibly occur to our present establishments: I agree with the noble lord, that as long as there is a protestant king on the throne, there is little danger that any danger can accrue from their numbers in this house; but I positively assert, that, in the other house, it is possible that their numbers might be considerable. The present representation of Ireland is almost altogether sent to parliament by popular elections. Since the right of voting has been granted to catholics, the manufacture of freeholders has thriven so rapidly, that there is now scarcely a peasant who does not swear himself possessed of a forty shilling freehold. The numbers of the catholics has been allowed by all sides.—It will be conceded to me, I am persuaded, that the catholics have hitherto acted in a body: why have they done so? Because they had common objects. The same causes will probably produce the same effects: if catholics get admission to seats in parliament, it is possible that, in some time hereafter, they may wish to obtain some great catholic object. What is to prevent their leaders from pressing upon the lower orders the necessity of electing catholics only, and, if they succeed to a considerable degree, it is natural to suppose that, having a common object, they will act together in parliament? I will suppose a case that certainly does not exist at present; I will suppose that, at some distant day, a struggle of parties may take place, that the parties may be pretty nearly balanced; what if then the catholic representation, acting in a mass, should offer their assistance to that party which should favour their views? Ministers may wish to cling to their situations; opposition per fas aut nefas to obtain them. I am apprehensive, as long as human nature remains unchanged, that the resistance to their wishes would not be very strong.—The noble baron (lord Holland) says, that for want of catholic sheriffs, catholics do not in many instances enjoy the benefits of the trial by jury. I never heard that juries failed in doing their duty, without distinction of party, except when they have been deterred by the terrors of assassination. That noble lord says they
728
suffer hardships from being excluded from the army. They are only excluded from the commissions of commanders in chief and generals on the staff. His lordship, however, now says that I am mistaken; that when they come into this part of the united kingdom, they are liable to penalties for serving. I beg leave to differ from his lordship. By the law passed previous to the union, they are allowed to enter into the army, and by the union all acts not then repealed are confirmed and sanctioned. But the noble lord says, that four millions of people neither can, nor will, nor ought, to submit to such restrictions. I entreat the noble lord to pause before he gives the weight of his authority to such an opinion. What, that because they are numerous they ought to resist the law? I am sure on reflection his lordship will not adhere to such an opinion.—I had nearly forgotten a principal point I had intended to press on your lordship's attention. Both sides of the house, in considering this question, seem to me to have forgotten that the catholics are not the only body to be consulted on this occasion. Are the feelings of the Irish protestants wholly to be left out of consideration? I believe they are almost entirely adverse to the concession. Respect, I entreat you, the feelings of that body, ever true to their religion, faithful to their king, and enthusiastically attached to British connexion. Descended from yourselves, in fighting valiantly their own battles, they have served your interests, and have prevented by their exertions that fair and beautiful island from being torn from the British empire. In seeking new friends, whom possibly you may fail to conciliate, neglect not your old ones, but remain firm to those who have in the worst of times remained firm to you.—I beg pardon for having so long detained your lordships, and for having, from excessive fatigue, laid my thoughts before you in a manner less connected than I wished to have done. I shall oppose the motion for going into a committee on the petition.
Lord Carysfortconsidered the question of immense magnitude and importance. He had a great deal to submit to their lordships upon it, but thought the hour too late for that purpose, and therefore suggested the propriety of an adjournment.
The Marquis of Buckinghamwas in the same predicament as the noble lord who had just spoken, having also much to say to

729
their lordships if there was a seasonable opportunity for that purpose.
Lord Grenvillesubmitted to the house the propriety of not proceeding further the present evening.
Earl Darnleywished to address the house also, but thought it too late. He appealed to noble lords opposite to him, whether there was not an understanding before the debate commenced that there was to be an adjournment?
Lord Hawkesburyexplained the terms on which he had been willing to adjourn the discussion, but the house would now judge for itself, for he would not urge any thing further on the subject, the hour being so late, and so many noble lords desirous of delivering their sentiments on this most important occasion.
The Earl of Derbythen moved, "that this house do now adjourn to Monday next;" which, after a few words in support of it, was agreed to.—Adjourned at four o'clock on Saturday morning.