Sitting of 13 May 1805

MINUTES
—A petition of several persons interested in British ships and vessels frequenting and trading to the port of London, was presented to the house, and read; taking notice of the bill to repeal two acts, passed in the 6th and 32d years of his late majesty, for the regulation of lastage and ballastage in the river Thames, and to make more effectual regulations relating thereto; and setting forth,that the same contains several clauses and provisions which, if passed into a law, would be very injurious to the petitioners; and therefore praying, that they may be heard, by counsel, against so much of the said bill as affects them, and that the same may not pass into a law as it now stands. Ordered, that the said petition be referred to the consideration of the committee to whom the said bill is committed; and
844
that the petitioners be heard, by their counsel, before the said committee, upon their petition, if they think fit. Ordered, that it be an instruction to the said committee, that they do admit counsel to be heard, at the same time, in favour of the said bill against the said petition.—On the motion of Mr. Rose, the house, in a committee, went through the bill for regulating the office of paymaster of the forces. The report was brought up and ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.—Mr. Western proposed that all gentlemen upon the corn committee should have votes, which was agreed to.—Admiral Markham gave notice, that on Wednesday he should move for the naval papers, of which he had given a previous intimation,—Ordered, that the order of the day, for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the report which was made from the committee to whom the petition of the master, wardens, freemen and commonalty, of the mystery of vintners of the city of London, under their common seal, was referred, be now read: and the same being read; it was resolved, that this house will, to-morrow, resolve itself into the said committee.—Ordered, that the order of the day, for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, upon the bill for repealing so much of an act, made in the 34th year of his present majesty, as, exempts slate, the value whereof shall not exceed twenty shillings per ton, brought coastwise within Great Britain, from the duty thereby granted, be now read: and the same being read; the house resolved itself into the said committee; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair; and Mr. Alexander reported from the committee, that they had gone through the bill, and made several amendments thereunto, which they had directed him to report, when the house will please to receive the same. Orderer, that the,report be received to-marrow.—The order of the day being read, for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, upon the bill for making more effectual provision for the supplying of cities and market towns in Ireland with water; resolved, that this house will,to-marrow, resolve itself into the said committee.—Ordered, that the order of the day, for the second reading of the bill for granting to his majesty certain additional stamp duties, for amending the laws relating to the stamp duties, and for indemnifying persons who have acted as notaries public, without being duly licensed in Ireland, be now read: and the

845
same being read; the said bill was read as a second time, and committed to a committee of the whole house, for to-morrow,—a petition of Sir T. S. M. Stanley, bart. was presented to the house, and read; taking notice of the bill for improving the passage between the town of Liverpool and the county of Chester, at the Rock Ferry, on the river Mersey, and for levying tolls on vessels using the same; and setting forth, that the petitioner and his ancestors have for time immemorial been seised of an ancient and very valuable ferry on the Cheshire side of the said river Mersey, called Eastham Ferry; and in case the piers, slips, and quays, in the said bill mentioned, are made and extended in the manner thereby proposed, the petitioner may be greatly prejudiced, and the profits of the said ferry considerably diminished; and therefore praying, that he may be heard, by his counsel, or agents, against the said bill, and that the same may not pass into a law. Ordered, that the said petition do lie upon the table, until the report be received from the committee to whom the said bill is committed; and that the petitioner be then heard, by his counsel, or agents, against the said bill, upon his petition, if he thinks fit.
[PETITION FROM CORNWALL RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.—A petition of the gentlemen, clergy, freeholders, and inhabitants, of the county of Cornwall, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that the abuses in the expenditure of the public money, which have been lately brought to light by the commissioners of naval enquiry, have filled the minds of the petitioners with alarm and indignation, and they call upon the house for the speedy remedy of such abuses, and for the exemplary punishment of the offenders; and that abuses in the expenditure of the public money (at all times matter of grievance) are peculiarly felt at this time, when so great a weight Of taxation fills upon all ranks of people; and; that a defence has been attempted of the guilt of the offenders, by the assertion that no actual mischief has been sustained by these gross breaches of trust and offences against law as if the direct violation of a statute were not a high crime and mis-demeanour without the aggravation, that the violation of which the petitioners complain was systematic, and committed by a confidential servant of the crown, himself the framer of the act which he has broken, and enjoying and increased salary under that very act, in full satisfaction of all wages and fees, and other profits and emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former treasurers; and that such
846
a defence naturally increases the fear that peculation in the expenditure of the public money is not confined to the naval department; and that the petitioners have long submitted to severe privations, in the persuasion that they were necessary to the welfare and safety of the country, and they claim, as their right, that the money which is liberally granted shall be legally applied; and that the petitioners look with a confident hope to the house, after their votes of the 8th and 10th days of April last, that, as constitutional guardians of their liberty and property, they will neither be deterred nor diverted from a full and impartial enquiry into all abuses, in whatever department they may exist; and that the enquiry now begun will not cease, until all abuses in every public board be remedied, since so only will the minds of the petitioners be satisfied, the credit of the government be upheld, and that free constitution be preserved inviolate, which is the sacred birthright of Englishmen; and that lord viscount Melville, having been declared guilty of a high misdemeanour, by the vote of the house of the 8th of April last, a civil action is inadequate to the end proposed, and in itself incapable of satisfying the demands of public justice." Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM COVENTRY RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.
—A petition of the principal inhabitants of the city and county of the city of Coventry, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that it appears to the petitioners, from the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and by the votes of the house of the 8th and 10th days of April last, decisions which have excited the highest veneration and gratitude in their breasts, that there has been the most gross and scandalous misapplication of the public money in the office of lord viscount Melville, with his privity and connivance; and the petitioners deeming it highly essential to the detection of further mal-practices, that every department of government should undergo a strict and impartial scrutiny, and that every delinquent may be brought to exemplary punishment humbly intreat that the powers so wisely and judiciously by the house intrusted to the said commissioners, and by them so able, uprightly, and indefatigably employed, may be continued, or, if thought necessary, further extended." Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM ESSEX RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.
— A petition of the noblemen, and the humble petition of the gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders, of the

847
county of Essex, convened by the high sheriff, at Chelmsford, the 28th day of May, 1805, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, that the petitioners humbly feel, that it is no less their duty than their earnest wish and desire, to offer their warmest thanks to the house for their decisions on the 8th and 10th of April last, whereby they so clearly demonstrated, and justly censured, the gross violation of law, and breach of public duty, committed by lord viscount Melville whilst he held the office of treasurer of his majesty's navy; and the petitioners further beg leave to express the satisfaction they feel in witnessing, by subsequent votes of the house, their determination of prosecuting enquiries into all other violation of law and abuses of public trust, which may have existed in any other department of the public expenditure; and that, in the present situation of the empire, engaged in a war of unparalleled expense and difficulty, the petitioners feel, that it is essentially necessary to insure the strictest application of the national resources to the great an important objects for which they are called forth; that they entertain the fullest persuasion, an it is their earnest wish and prayer, that the house will exercise that control over the management of the public money which in their wisdom may appear necessary; that they will persevere in those measures which they have already begun; and that they will establish a system of just and prudent economy in every branch of the public receipt and expenditure." Ordered to lie upon the table.

LORD MELVILLE.
—a message was delivered from the lords stating, "that the lords do give leave to the lord Harrowby to come to the select committee of the house of commons, to whom the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry (respecting the office of the treasurer of his majesty's navy) is referred, to enquire into the application of any monies issued to the treasurer of the navy for naval services to purposes not naval, and whether any, and what representations were made to the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasure, or the chancellor of the exchequer, respecting the withdrawing from the bank any sums of money so issued since the passing of the act of 25 Geo. III. c. 31; and also into the proceedings had for the recovery of the debt due to the crown by the late Adam Jellicoe; on order to be examined at that committee, of his do desire a present conference with this house, in the painted chamber, upon
848
the subject matter of their message to the lords, on Friday, the 3d day of this instant May, desiring that their lordships will give leave to lord viscount Melville to come to the select committee of this house, to whom the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry (respecting the office of the treasurer of his majesty's navy) stands referred, in order to be examined at the committee." And then the messengers withdrew.—Resolved, that this house doth agree to a conference with the lords, as is desired by their lordships. And the messengers were again called in; and Mr. Speaker acquainted them therewith. And then they again withdreq.—Ordered, that a committee be appointed to manage the said conference. And a committee was appointed accordingly. Then the names of the managers were called over; and they went to the conference, and being returned; Mr. Leycester reported, "that the managers had met the lords at the conference, which was managed on the part of the lords by the Duke of Norfolk; and that the conference was to acquaint this house; that the lords, always desirous that a good intelligence and right understanding should be maintained betwixt the two houses, and persuaded that nothing can tend more effectually thereunto than a close adherence to the ancient and regular methods of proceeding between the two houses, have desired this conference upon the subject of commons for leave for the lord viscount Melville to attend the select committee of that house in order to be examined, to communicate to the house of commons;—that it appears undeniably, by an uniform series of precedents down to the present time, that the course adopted by the lords, respecting the giving leave to the members of their lordship's house to go down to the house of commons,has been to permit the members of their lordship's house, on their own request, to defend themselves in the house of commons, if they think fit, on any points on which that house has not previously passed any accusatory or criminating resolutions against them; and also, to permit the members of their lordship's house, on the request of the house of commons, to give evidence, if they think fit, before that house, or any committee thereof, on those points only on which on matter of accusation or charge is at the time in any manner depending against them before that house, whether the same shall then have been resolved by the house of commons or not.—That the lords had also directed them to acquaint the house of com-

833*
mons, that their lordships, relying With the most perfect confidence that the house of commons are at all times as desirous to preserve the privileges of the lords as to maintain their own, have given leave to lord viscount Melville (who had also previously made it his own unqualified request) to go down to the select committee of the house of commons, to whom the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry (respecting the office of the treasurer of his majesty's navy) is referred, to enquire into the application of any monies issued to the treasurer of the navy for naval services to purposes not naval, and whether any and what representations were made to the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury, or the chancellor of the exchequer, respecting the withdrawing from the bank any sums of money so issued since the passing of the act of 25 Geo., III. c. 31 ; and also, into the proceedings had for the recovery of the debt due to the crown by the late Adam Jellicoe; in order to be examined at that committee, if he shall so think fit, his lordship, nevertheless, conforming himself in all respects to the course directed to be communicated to the commons as above."

PETITION FROM OXFORD RESPECTING THE PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.
—A petition of the mayor, bailiff's, and commonalty, of the city of Oxford, in common council assembled, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners having seen, by the votes of the house, that a petition has been introduced there from certain Roman catholics of Ireland, on behalf of themselves and others, professing the Roman catholic religion, complaining of divers restraints and incapacities to which they are subject, by the statutes now in force against them, and praying to be relieved there from; the petitioners pray the house, that the several statutes constituting and establishing those restraints and incapacities, of which the said petition complains; may be preserved inviolate, inasmuch as those statutes appear to have been devised, by the wisdom of our ancestors, as the best and surest means of giving permanency and security to the protestant government of this country in church and state, and as, in the firm belief of the petitioners, the same or equally as strong, reasons now exist for the continuance of those statutes as when they were enacted."—Ordered, than the said petition do lie upon the table.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
—The
834*
order of the day being read for taking into consideration the Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and the petition itself (see p.97) being also read by the clerk,
Mr. Foxrose and spoke as follows: Sir, at the same time that I cannot help feeling a considerable degree of anxiety at being about to bring before the house a subject which, according to my conception of it, seems, in its probable consequences, some nearer and some more remote, to be of the very highest importance; yet I confess, I feel infinitely less agitated than upon many other subjects on which I have lately had occasion to address you. It is certainly a sort of recreation, if I may be allowed so to express myself, after having been obliged to perform the harassing duties of accusation; after having promoted enquiries into circumstances, certainly not more honourable to the country at large than to the individual concerned in them; after having had my mind so harassed and occupied, to feel that I am not now the mover of accusation, but that I am pleading the cause of my fellow subjects, and that I urn endeavouring to add to the strength of the country, without taking from the credit, power, or authority of any living man in the empire. I cannot help being sensible of the contrast between the duties lately imposed upon me, and that of attempting to draw the attention of the house to a subject, which, however embarrassing the discussions of it may be to some persons, has at least this advantage, that it rests entirely on principles of general affection and good will, connected With views which every man must approve, and no man can condemn. The question, sir, that I have the honour of bringing before you, and I do feel it a great honour to have been desired to bring it before you, is no less than a petition, signed not indeed by any very great number of persons, but embracing, and I take it at the lowest calculation, when I say, one-fifth of his majesty's subjects. Nay, further, I believe I shall not be incorrect, if I state them at one-fourth of the whole of his majesty's subjects in Europe. My duty, therefore, calls upon me to plead the cause of 3 or 4 millions of the people of Ireland, without reference to the proportion they bear to the population of that part of the empire, but which must be allowed to contain the greater proportion of the catholic subjects of his majesty—a proportion amounting to nearer a fourth than a fifth of the whole population of the empire. I feel particularly fortunate, that when I am

835*
pressing the claims of the catholics of Ireland to the consideration of this house, I am not pressing them as adverse or hostile to the power or pre-eminence, much less the liberty, or privileges, of the subjects of any other part of the country. If I could persuade the house to do justice to the catholics, I should persuade them to render a most important service indeed, perhaps the most essential that remains to be done, or that ever was done, for the security, the greatness, and general weal of the empire, whether with regard to its internal policy, or external relations.—It may be somewhat difficult for me to choose on what part of the subject it is most proper to begin. The plain and simple statement of the question, and the first argument in support of it, would naturally be drawn from matter of fact, concerning which no controversy or difference of opinion ever did or can exist; I mean the number of persons who are affected by the question. If I had not heard that different opinions were entertained with respect to the policy and expediency of granting the prayer of this petition, I should hardly think it could be a question, whether a portion of his. majesty's subjects, so considerable as nearly one-fourth, should be on a footing With the remainder, or should have the enjoyment of equal laws, privileges, or advantages, and the full participation and benefit of the constitution and government of the country? Against the principle so generally stated, cause may be shown, suppositions may be urged, and facts may be referrer to, with a view to show that this, as well as any other general principle, may be liable to error. I Will not detain the house long upon this point; but it is necessary I should call its attention to a topic, which may be considered more an object of theory than any thing else. I shall trouble the house tint shortly, and only explain my opinion, that, whatever difference of sentiment and feeling may exist, that difference is purely theoretical—the question, in point of practical application, is precisely the same. What some call rights, and what others call indulgences, are precisely and exactly the same. The differences are rather differences between words than things.— There are two modes of considering this question; 1st, as it regards the rights of the subject and 2dly, as it affects the rights of the right of crown. That which was most in fashion at different periods of the last century, was the latter mode of viewing it. For my own part, I do consider the rights of the people
836*
governed to be the prominent rights. I consider, that those who compose the society of a state have a complete and unquestionable right to equality of law; but I do at the same time admit, that this principle is not to be taken generally. I admit the force of the other general maxim, that salus populi suprema est lex, and ought with propriety to be considered as an exception, Not only very able men, but men of practical knowledge, have in their closets considered it in that light. A most respectable modern writer of our own country, now living, (Dr. Paley) has stated, that the general right of government is to do whatever may be necessary for the advantage of the people: but he, and every man of sense, will tell you, that although this is undoubtedly the general right, yet whenever it is exercised by restrictions with regard to one class of the people, such exercise becomes ail abuse; or, in other words, the people have a right not to he restricted in any thing that is not adverse to the safety of the country. The people have a right to be exempted generally from unequal restriction; but when the safety of the country demands it, and history shows us that such instances are numerous, they are exceptions to the rule, and have always been so considered.—In the way in which different persons consider this subject, a difference of opinion has been produced, but the conclusion is the same. Some say they would give the catholics what they require, as a matter of favour, and a matter of policy; but not as a matter of right. Now, I say, I would give it to them as a matter of right: but we, however, shall not differ, if the practical consequence of our reasoning come to the same thing. I would give it as a right, because it is the general right of the people, and because there is no exception which ought to operate against the catholics of Ireland. Though government has a right to impose restrictions; yet, if there be no necessity for them, then comes the right of the people to enjoy the benefit of every law, provided such enjoyment is not mischievous in its consequences to the country. It was therefore, sir, I wished to say these few words, because it is so important a part of the subject, and one which, from the nature of it, cannot be a question to-day, but may recur and become a question for future consideration. I should wish that all should understand each other, and particularly that it should not be supposed there is any essential difference, when, in fact, it

837*
is a difference of words rather than of principles. Whatever differences exist with respect to the two theories, it is evident they lead to the same practical consequences. To apply this to the Roman catholics of Ireland, I do not lay down a principle too large, when I state that it is the general right of the catholics, as well as of the Protestants, to be on an equal footing, to have equal laws, privileges, and immunities, in all cases where they are not prejudicial to the welfare of the state. The only differences that could arise would be with regard to the degree in which they should enjoy those rights. Cases might be put where persons might say nothing could justify a departure from the rule of right, but expediency. Some might say, political advantages, connected with external relations, would justify it; others would require such a degree of expediency as would amount to a necessity. They would require that not only the greatness of the country, but the security of the country, should be concerned. I flatter myself we shall not go on such near shades. The Roman catholics of Ireland have undoubtedly a right to equal laws; but the government has thought fit to curtail that right, and to put them on a footing disadvantageous to them.—To enter into the question, whether the laws for restraining the catholics were originally politic, or, rather, whether, they were just; that is to say, whether the policy which dictated them was of such a nature as to render that just which was not within the general rule of justice, would be a discussion exceedingly unnecessary at this moment. At the same time, it will be necessary to attend to the particular period of history in which these restrictions were principally imposed. I think I need not state what will be the argument in reply. No man's. mind, I hope, is so framed as to imagine that the restrictions can be justified on account of the length of time they have been allowed to continue. Such an opinion would be a solicism in political reasoning; it would do away the original principle on which such slaws were founded, to contend, that though they might be unnecessary at the dine they were adopted, yet that, by a long lapse of time, they have acquired a prescriptive light. If a restrictive law is made on account of peculiar circumstances of a political nature, the moment those circumstances cease the restriction ceases to be politic, and consequently ceases to be just. I cannot conceive how any man can be justified in supposing
838*
that, where the circumstances on which A law is founded have ceased, the justice of continuing that law can be a matter for fair reasoning. It may so happen, though I think it has not so happened in this case, but it has nearly happened, that the fact of long restrictions may make it difficult afterwards to restore the objects of them to that situation in which they would have been if the restrictions had never been imposed. I think one may generally state, that all the restrictions of the catholics were laid, not on their religious but their political opinions. At the time they were made, I have doubt whether many of those who concurred in them did not disapprove of the principle; and have doubts also, whether. others did not mix sentiments of persecution and rancour with those restrictions. I would not wish to go to antient times; but in the early period of the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I. no one can suppose it was any particular religious bigotry that led to the restrictions with regard to the catholics. As far as one can learn of the character of Queen Elizabeth, her faith was not so repugnant to the catholic religion as that of many protestant ministers, who were principally concerned in the restrictions. She managed the question with a degree of prudence which proved her one of the most consummate princes of the age. She seemed to be engaged in a general war with several great catholic powers, and particularly with the King of Spain. From the connexion which the King of Spain had with catholics by the league with France, she was necessarily involved in disputes with France, as well as other powers of the continent; therefore they were political circumstances which occasioned those harsh and severe laws against the catholics which passed in her reign. Whatever other pretences might have been resorted to, it is plain the catholics were not considered as the loyal subjects of Queen Elizabeth. But I am speaking of old times, and the circumstances them do not relate to the present. Even in the reigns that followed, very few restrictions by penal law were enacted, very restrictions of disabilities took place till a much later period. This may be accounted for from the circumstance that there was no suspicion of the catholics; but afterwards, in the time of the Stuarts, and Charles I and II, suspicions had taken possession of the minds of people of this country, which made those restrictions necessary, many of which have been done away, and

839*
some are now under consideration. When we come to the revolution, it is impossible not to see that all the laws of the Catholics were political laws. It was not a catholic, but a Jacobite, you wished to restrain. When King James was driven from the country; when his enormous tyranny became so mixed with bigotry, that many persons professed to be able to unravel his conduct, and tell what to attribute to religion, what to bigotry, and what to tyranny, it was easy to suppose that the catholics should be actuated by an attachment for a king who had lost his throne in consequence of his partiality for their faith. Ireland at this time was the seat of civil war. Undoubtedly it was natural, after that war was settled by conquest, to prevent the conquered from enjoying the privileges of the conquerors. It was not against the religious faith of those who adored the Virgin Mary, or believed in the doctrine transubstantiation.—King William was unquestionably a great man; I may say the greatest that ever filled the throne of this or any other country; but whoever would wish to raise his character, by representing him as a persecutor of heresy and idolatry, materially mistake the character of that prince. I am persuaded, that be most reluctantly consented to harsh measures against the catholics of Ireland, and only did so, because it was represented to him by his ministers, that they Were absolutely necessary. That King William would have acted wiser, if he had made those restrictions less harsh, it is not now our business to consider. King William, in conceding his own to the opinion of others, acquiesced, on the ground of the difference of opinion among the Roman catholics as to the right of succession to the crown, and in conformity to that advice which his ministers gave him. The years that followed the revolution were most of them years of war; and those that were not years of war, were, with reference to the catholics, years of a suspicious nature. Endeavours were made to bring about a religious war, in which it was impossible for the enemy not to have looked with confidence to the assistance of Ireland, and therefore the catholics were disarmed. It might have been wise so to do. That there were bigoted motives actuating some I will not attempt to deny— there were many persons in this, as well as that country, who were of opinion, that by these persecution they should convert to the protestant the property of the whole kingdom of Ireland: other there were, who
840*
thought that more lenient measures were likely to be more successful. The effect proved that the measures adopted not only failed, but they were of a nature which rendered their success absolutely impossible. They were laws which, though nominally against the catholics were substantially against the jacobites. In the two next reigns the same laws continued, because the same spirit was supposed to exist, and the same danger to be apprehended from it. In the rebellions which followed, the conduct of the catholics in remaining quiet, gave them a just claim to the indulgence of the house; yet no man who considers the grounds of those rebellions, will think that any degree of trust could have been reposed in the catholics.—We come now to the period of his present majesty's reign: a period at which all danger of a pretender, and the return of the Stuart family to the throne, was extinguished. I should certainly say, that all danger of that nature had vanished in the latter end of the reign of George II., and that there was no longer any dispute as to the succession to his majesty's crown. From that period no further danger existed. During the lord-lieutenancy of the duke of Bedford, at the time of his majesty's accession, the system of relaxation towards the body of the catholics was adopted. There was a remarkable circumstance at the period to which I am referring, that proves to me more clearly than any thing else, that the causes of these restrictions were at an end. So far Was the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, during the American war, and the war with France, from pretending that there was any danger to be apprehended, that upon an alarm on the coast of Cork, arms, though contrary to law, were put into the hands of those against whom the restrictions remained, on account of the unjust suspicions that they were not worthy of being trusted. Then undoubtedly there was a good deal of difference of opinion; for although there was not much doubt in this house, yet gentlemen must know that the catholics of Ireland were the subject of much consideration. I need only refer to the letters published by the late Mr. Burke relative to the conversations in those days. I remember in 1776 or 1777, the matter being mentioned in a conversation in this house. It became a topic of discussion ring the period of the American war, when party politics ran high, and when persons felt warm, as undoubtedly they ought to feel upon occasions such public im-

841*
portance. The opinion then was, that it was a desirable thing to liberate the catholics from the disqualifications which attached to; and I rather believe that the real grounds of the motion, and the bill, moved and seconded by two celebrated names, sir George Saville and Mr. Dunning, were not so much to relieve the catholics of Ireland. I did conceive, that to bar a man of his right on account of his religious opinions, was tyranny, that the maxim of salus populi never could apply, because the safety of the people could not operate as a ground for preventing a man from enjoying his religious opinion. A great disposition was shown to follow up the system of relaxation. It was thought that what had been done might lead to a relaxation of all the laws against the catholics. All that scattered men's minds at the time was this,—an apprehension of the pope or pretender. There might have been in some persons sentiments of respect and compassion, and in others an inclination to taunt or insult; but there was not one person who had any degree of fear or terror, as one single ingredient in forming his opinion. It was said, that the restrictions in Ireland, the ferocious manners of those who were protestants, and the insults sustained by the catholics, had produced, as Mr. Burke says, a degree of desperation in that unhappy people, which made it doubtful how far they were to be trusted. The effect of the system had been that of changing, by degrees, the whole property of Ireland, and that country was brought into a state highly to be lamented. I do not mean to make any comparison between the treatment of the black slaves on the coast of Africa, and that of the people of Ireland; I mean only to state, that it was a circumstance likely to produce the general disaffection of the people, that the whole of the property was in the hands of the protestant ascendancy, while the mass of the population was catholic. Even among those whose forms of government are less free than ours, the property and power should go hand-in-hand, and there should be no other distinction except that of the proprietor and the servant. We began by enabling the catholics to acquire property. What has been the consequence? The power connected with the free trade and constitution we gave to Ireland in 1782, has produced an increase of property beyond all proportion greater than that enjoyed by the Protestants. There has been not only an increase of mercantile property among the ca-
842*
tholics of Ireland, but also of the landed property. This has been attended with they happiest effect. It has produced the effect of softening and correcting those distinctions between the catholics and the protestants, which were found so oppressive. The catholics are now possessed of a great deal of that property which was taken froth their ancestors. I mention this, because one of the apprehensions with respect to the catholics was, that they had preserved memoirs of the ancient state of property, and that, on a favourable opportunity, they were to claim of the protestants all the property that belonged to their ancestors. This objection has been completely clone away; for at this moment, if you were to reverse the act of settlement, and restore the property of those who possessed before Cromwell's time, I believe the catholics would he as great sufferers as the protestants. And what catholics? Why, the catholics who are now rich and powerful, viz. the only catholics to whom we would give an addition of power. From the time of the acquisition of property by the catholics, I have never been able to conceive on what principle their demands were not conceded to them; least of all, why particular restrictions should have been kept up, when others were abandoned. What are the restrictions now existing? The general restrictions may be comprised under these two heads: one, the incapacity under which the catholics lie with regard to the enjoyment of certain offices, civil and military; the other, the incapacity of sitting in either house of parliament. Gentlemen who have attended to all this history of the restrictions of the catholics (sorry I am to say, a large chapter in the history of Great Britain,) need not be told, that it has been useless with reference to the ends proposed, and certainly odious to those who have been affected by it. I believe it is not considered by foreigners as that part of our constitution which is most deserving of admiration. The two heads of restrictions are quite distinct. Suppose I proceed to consider, first, that with respect to offices; the restrictions under this head go either to limit the prerogative of the crown or the choice of the people. We restrain the prerogative of the crown in appointing the catholics to certain offices: let us examine on what ground. Originally the test act was for the purpose of excluding the catholics from the service of Charles II, to prevent catholics being appointed by Charles II. to executive offices: and here a very whimsical but strong

843*
observation occurs. One of the most popular arguments in favour of the test, with a view to the restraint on the prerogative, and I have heard it frequently used, was, that it was necessary to make the constitution agreeable to analogy; and that when it was insisted that the king should be of the church of England, it was necessary all his officers should be of the same persuasion. What beautiful uniformity there is in this, I own I cannot see. I apprehend that our ancestors reasoned in a very different manner. I apprehend it was not because we forced the king to be a protestant, that we found it necessary to have his officers of the same religion, but because we doubted whether the king was in reality a protestant or not, and because we suspected him of a design to overturn the constitution of the county, as in the case of James II. If we suspected him of being a catholic, it Was right we should not suffer any officers to be near him who might assist him in an infraction of the constitution. But it is the most strange reasoning I ever heard, that because the king being a protestant, and therefore not liable to suspicion, you are to prevent him from having the assistance of his catholic subjects. This test passed in the reign of Charles II., and with the approbation of a very great man (Mr. Locke), who observed, that it might have been a necessary measure. The next reign was that James II., who was a professed Catholic. If there was any virtue in other days—God knows there was little enough in his: if he had repealed the test act, it would have been for the purpose of obtaining the Means of acting against the liberty of the subject. Then how came the laws to be continued? The continuation of the test laws after the revolution, was because the dissenters being included in the test act, it was the object of the high church party to hold the dissenters to a law which they had favoured. It was a kind of compromise, on enacting it against the Roman catholics, to say, we will retain it against you. In this control of the parliament, it ought to be observed how the question stands. The test does not prevent the king from appointing a catholic to any office, civil or military; it only makes it necessary, after a certain time, for the person appointed to do certain act. With respect to the catholic dissenters, you have given it up in a great number of points, and you have maintained it in others. We come now to the distinction of those cases in which you have given
844*
up the restraint. You have given it regard to all subordinate offices in the army and navy, and in the profession of the law, but you refuse it with respect to the higher offices. Then you say to the catholics, "we have kept nothing from you as a body; you do not all expect to be chancellors, generals, staff officers, admirals, or other great officers; therefore, as you do not all expect to arrive at these distinctions, there can be no harm in forbidding any of you to obtain them!" Do you wish the Roman catholics to be actuated by a sense that they are trusted by the executive government, or not? If not, and you should, in giving them offices, appear to entertain diffidence and mistrust of them, they will be executed with that remissness and disregard of the public service which such mistrust is calculated to inspire. Suppose I send to a gentleman of the law, and I say to him, it is true you may possess talents, but do you think there is any probability of your being lord chancellor? He might probably answer, that there was not; but is there not a very material difference in having an impossibility and bar put to the advancement of a man to the honours of his profession? Suppose a person is engaged in trade, and he can gain a bare living, or perhaps save about twenty pounds a year. I say to him, "you may go on, and be as industrious as you please, but you shall never make more than 1,000,000l." He says, he is contented. Well, but does any one think that this country could have arrived at the height it has, if there had been such a restriction on the exertions of industry? It is not because a man's quality is low, that he is prevented by the exercise of his faculties from becoming wealthy; but if you limit his endeavours, you destroy the spirit of enterprise and exertion which impels him, and, by such a system finally prevent his success. Do you not think it would be the most destructive blow to the enterprise, industry, and energy of the country, and undermine the principal source of our riches, to put a restraint on the exercise of a man's genius and industry? Do we not often hear of a person, not of consequence either from birth or fortune, say, " I live, thank God, in a country, were, by industry and talents, I may arrive at the fortune of the greatest duke in the land." Is not this cheering? Is not the unlimited power of gain the great principle on which industry, enterprise, and commerces exist? What should we say if men of particular descriptions were to be restricted in

845*
their fair pursuits? They stand marked and circumscribed to the limit of their possible gain. Apply the principle to the professions—to the law particularly, the one perhaps in which it operates the most. I would ask those who are conversant with the profession, whether it would not damp the ardour of a young man, if he were to be told that he might obtain some pecuniary advantage, but that he could never rise to any office of dignity. I am not supporting the propriety of indulging sanguine hopes, but certainly one of the greatest incentives in the breast of a parent to give his son a good education, is the hope of one day seeing him till the situation Of chancellor, or some other splendid office. Take that hope away, and you destroy the greatest incentive to an aspiring mind. But when you apply the argument to a military life, how much stronger is it! Is Hot the very essence of the profession ambition, and a thirst of glory? What can you expect of a lieutenant or captain, who, after exerting himself in the service of the country, comes home, and, reflecting upon the dangers he has shared, admires the skill and ability of his commander, or perhaps thinks something might have been done better—what must he his feelings, if he is obliged to add, " But I can never expect to command an army; all my thoughts are useless; I may be a colonel, perhaps a general, but a general on the staff, that I can never be! I go to my station, because I am a man of honour; but can I do it with the same eagerness as if, after have escaped the danger, my reward was to he proportioned? Does not such a consideration as this lay an extinguisher on military enterprise? Is it not desirable that every man should look, for the purpose of exciting his activity and zeal, to future rewards of the highest sort? But put it in another way. Is it not of importance that every man entrusted with the concerns of others should feel the necessity of gaining a great character for ability and integrity? It is not only satisfactory but necessary. But if you say, there there is a plus ultra, beyond which you cannot go—you are to think only filling your coffers, quocunque modo rem, how different must be the situation of him who feels he can never rise in his profession, though endued with the most splendid talents, compared with the man whose exertions are excited by the prospect of future honours! Do you think these men the Catholics, do not believe themselves to be a marked people, separated from the rest of the community, not on account of then
846*
religious opinons, but the-political opinions connected with them? In all great concerns, the extent of the justice or injustice is of considerable importance. Who is it you are thus stigmatizing and degrading? Is it a people of a particular way of thinking? No, it is three-fourths of the people of Ireland, and one-fourth of all his majesty's subjects in Europe. Would you think, that, under these circumstances, such a thing could be, so far as to the part that relates to the control of the king's prerogative? I ought, however, first to mention the exclusion from being sheriffs; but that is more connected with the jurisdiction I shall have to mention hereafter. Can any body suppose, that government would be likely to put improper persons into the office of sheriff in Ireland? Would they nominate catholic sheriffs, to raise disturbances? I say, it is one of the occasions in which it is least possible to suspect an abuse of the King's prerogative, and where it ought not to be controlled. Now with respect to parliament, the votes of the peers in parliament subsisted during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I. Charles I. and II. till somewhere about the period of 1698. I would ask the most zealo is historian that took the side against the Stuarts, whether any mischief by the votes of the catholic peers did really occur? Here I quote Mr. Locke, who says— "and with respect to the votes of the catholic peers, I think, provided the test act is preserved, they are fit and beneficial." When did they cease? In 1698, upon discovery of the popish plot, suppose it to be true or false, when the country was thrown into a paroxysm of terror, when it was believed that the catholics were going to massacre the protestants, when it was expected they were to have the assistance of the king of Spain, and when the ridiculous story of the silver bullets was set on foot. It was at such a moment of popular fury this measure passed. No man thought of expelling the catholics from parliament till the people had been put into a paroxysm of rage and terror. Why did they do this? Because there was nothing else to be done against them: it was for no other reason they passed that intolerable law, which put an end to their sitting the house of commons—You come now that part of the case which does not affect to diminish the power of the king, but to con trol the rights of the people. You go to the elector of Ireland, and you shall not elect a catholic. Upon what principal is it you conceive, that in a Roman

847*
catholic has mischievous project in his head, it can be defeated by keeping him out of parliament? It has always been the objection to the test act, that two descriptions of protestants are in the house of commons. We know the dissenters do sit, and have become the most meritorious of any of its members. What is the objection to the catholics? That they cannot wish well to the church of England. Why, that is your argument against the dissenters. You do not deny the dissenters the privilege of sitting in parliament, though you say they do not approve the church establishment. But the practice is every thing. What would be the practical effect of the catholics having a seat in the house of commons? Does any man believe, that if there were a total repeal of these restrictive laws, there would be twenty catholic members returned from Ireland to this house? But I would take it according to the population of the country, and say, that there were four-fifths catholic. If, contrary to all the principles that govern elections, the mere population were the only thing to be considered, this would, perhaps, give about 80 members. Now the house consists of 658 members. Supposing it possible that 80 catholics were to be returned out of that number, though I do not think there would be more than twenty, could they he dangerous to the establishment of this country? If the doctrine of virtual representation be well founded, would it not add to the true virtual representation of this country, if three-fourths of the representatives were catholics? When people put the argument to extremes, and say, that this place is not represented, and that place is not represented, but that you have those in the house of commons who represent the whole community; that the trading and commercial interests, and the military, naval, and learned professions, are all duly represented; that you have the landed country gentlemen, statesmen and politicians, soldiers, sailors, merchants, lawyers—in fact, that you have a kind of virtual representation of all the people of the coutnry,—I deny it: you have not the representation of the Roman catholics—you want what you are afraid to have—you ought to desire what they pray for—you ought to have that complete virtual representation they offer you. I have been speaking for the public benefit—I now speak for the benefit of the catholics. You say to the people of Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester, it is true, you seed no members to the house of commons, but you have members of parlia-
848*
ment who fare connected with the commerce and manufactures of those places. It is true; but still it is my wish to have a more direct representation. The fact is, the virtual representation is undoubtedly a vital principle in the constitution of the country. If any particular class of men are excluded, you have not a real virtual representation, in the sense the word representation ought to he understood, implying a sympathy and fellow feeling between the representative and the persons represented. The very substance of representation is, that the members of parliament should not be able to tax their constituents without taxing themselves. Now I say that there is no feeling of this kind with respect to the catholics. Upon the same principle you deprive the electors of Ireland from electing Roman catholics—you deny the corporations the right of choosing them, for they cannot be at the head of any corporation. I want to know upon what principle it is that corporations are to be denied the privilege of appointing catholics to the office of mayor, or other superior offices? Corporations being composed chiefly of protestants, there is not much danger, as some would say, or not much hope, as others would say, of the catholics being admitted. Is not this one of those additional instances in which you keep the stigma without any practical advantages? You fix an unnecessary stigma on the catholics; and an unnecessary stigma is, of all modes of punishment, that which is most grating to the people, and destructive of the unanimity and concord necessary for the safety of the state. I shall say a very few words as to certain objections to the matter of this petition. I think the objections to the jacobites are given up; but it is said, that there is something in the nature of the Roman catholics that makes it dangerous to grant them the same privileges as protestants. Some have stated, that there is a general impropriety and incongruity in persons of different religious principles acting together. I should like to know the theory on which this argument rests. I am speaking now of religious differences;—why two men sitting in council together should, instead of inquiring how the forces of the country ought to be disposed of, and where the fleets ought to be sent, whether to Jamaica or any other part of the West Indies, fall to a discussion about transubstantiation, and dispute because one adores the Virgin Mary and the other adores the saints? Is it to be supposed that justices on the bench, when they try criminal or civil points, will quit their duty,

839
in order to commence idle controversies on religion points? There are countries where the law and religion are one and the same thing; where consequently, there would be an impropriety in separating them: but I want to know, upon what principle it is that men may not act together, who entertain strong differences on religious creeds. This stands upon theory only, for the practice is against it. Is there Europe one state or country that does not employ persons of different religious persuasions in the highest offices? In former times even this was the practice, when there was more heat and animosity. When bigotry was at its height in France, when it led Henry the Fourth to renounce the protestant and embrace the catholic religion, in order to obtain the throne of the kingdom, did ever occur to any one to suggest, that the Duke de Sully, his minister, who was a protestant, could not advise with him about public affairs? Was he ever accused of being a bad minister, because he was a protestant? No one ever objected to M. Neckar, the minister of the late king of France, because he was a prolate king France, because he was protestant. Does not the emperor of Germany employ protestant in the various important affairs of dominions? The government of Vienna is intrusted to prince Ferdinand of Wirtemberg, a protestant. It is true, the bigotry of Frederick the Great could not induce him to employ protestants as his minister or officers; but perhaps it was because he could not find any that were fit for his service. What is the case with Russia? The first employment in the service of the emperor of Russia if filled by prince Sartoriski, whose religions is that of the Greek church. With regard to the Swiss cantons, the employment of protestants has been, perhaps, less than in other places, but they have frequently filled offices of government jointly with the catholics. In the democratic canton of Uri, and some other, the catholics were more numerous; a proof that they may take an active part in the administration of a popular government, without any evil consequences resulting from the opinions they profess. In the canton of Appenzel the catholic and protestants are half and half.— The pretender being gone, and all other question of radical difficulty removed as to him, we now come to another person—the pope. I wish to know whether, during the last 200 years, the pope had been a person to be feared? If he has, it can only have, been in one way, by his oppression of the catholic. Long before the period of the revolution, all the political
840
influence of the pope, with respect to country, had ceased. His power became afterwards absolutely insignificant; and during the whole of the question between the house of Stuart and Brunswick, it was notorious that the pope could not stir one Roman catholic in Ireland. But it is stated that the persons principally concerned in the rebellion of 1798 were Roman catholics. I have no doubt that the catholic had there share in that rebellion; but were they stigated by the pope? What! by the pope, while he was in a state of servitude and humiliation? Did the pope, while he looked to this county as almost his only support, wish to overturn our government, and prevail on the Irish catholics to follow Messrs. O'Connor, Emmett, and M'Nevin? This fear of the influence of the pope, when he has no power to do us harm, and when he cannot do us good, even thought he wished it, is perfectly absurd. It is an alarm which can be accounted for on no rational principal. Has the recollection of the proconsuls, sent by the Cæsars to govern this country, left such an impression upon us, as to make us dread every thing that comes from Rome? But it is said, Buonaparté has obtained an influence over the pope, the pope governs the Irish priests, and thus Buonaparté will be able to attach to him the catholic of Ireland. Without canvassing the question of the inclination of the pope to serve the views of Buonaparté, I shall admit that the French government will willingly employ his influence so far as they can obtain it. That the great enemy of this country would be very willing to make use of such an engine to serve his purpose in Ireland, I have no doubt. But how will he use his influence? If you will repeal these laws, you will have nothing to fear from that quarter; but if, on the contrary, you persevere in your restrictions, the way in which influence so much dreaded may be exercised can only be this: The Irish catholic will be told, 'An equal participation of right was held out to you; but, instead of granting your just claims, instead of affording you relief and protection you were promised, you are still stigmatized as outcasts. You have, therefore, now only to look a catholic emperor for assistance, and through him you may expect the which had been denied you. This is the language which may be used if you are determined to persist in your present system; but, in the other alternative, what influence can the pope have? Suppose he were to direct the priests to take care that non but Roman catholic

841
member were chose for Ireland and suppose this influence were so far to succeed as to bring a considerable proportion of Roman catholics into this house among the representatives from Ireland, is it likely that Buonaparté would find many friends among these Roman catholic members? If there were eighty members Roman catholics, it would be an extravagant supposition indeed to say that even three of them would be so dead to all sense of honour and duly, so blind to the interests and happiness of their country, as to become the instruments of Buonaparté. Of the influence to be used in this way by the pope, surely no reasonable person can entertain any serious apprehension. Is it possible to look forward to any future circumstances under which that influence can become dangerous? Great men, it is said, have long views; but some views are so long, that my sight; I must confess, cannot reach them. It has been said of our system of government, esto perpetua; but I should desire no better security for the power and the constitution of this country lasting for ever, than that they should continue until either a pope or a Buonaparté could obtain a majority in this house. —I must now turn to another view of the question. It has always been maintained that the differences between the Roman catholics and the Protestants are not merely religious, but political. It is on this ground the oaths the former are required to take are defended. The oath is framed against the authority Of a foreign priest, though that authority is merely spiritual. But if it be any objection to the Roman catholics, that they deny the king's supremacy, what do you say to the opinions of the people of Scotland? The presbyterian religion, which is established in Scotland, does not admit the king to be the head of the church; and surely the presbyterian doctrine and discipline of it are at least as repugnant to the established religion of this country, as the. opinions of the Roman catholics are! Yet Scotland, with this presbyterian church, forms a part of the united kingdom. But do not the Roman catholics swear, that no temporal consequences whatever follow from the doctrine they hold on the question of Supremacy? They do swear, and yet it is said we cannot believe them. What! are they not to be believed On oath, because they are Roman catholics? To make such a declaration, is to display to my mind either great malignancy of heart, or an extraordinary deficiency of understanding: but if the declaration were made on the part of the go-
842
vernment of this country, it would be an avowal of wickedness beyond any thing I can conceive. Would you say, that you proposed and passed acts of parliament to persuade them to swear that which you would not believe when sworn? Would you own that you wished to seduce them into perjury? The moment you find that a man attends mass, he is therefore a Roman catholic, and therefore no longer to be believed. To add to the absurdity, you frame another oath, to keep out of parliament those very persons of whom it is said you must not believe that which they swear. This is really at once insulting to the understanding and the feelings of mankind. It is more than a generous and ingenuous mind can be expected patiently to bear.—I shall not pretend to enter into controversial arguments on the question of doctrine. Indeed, that is a subject respecting which I own I have neither sufficient learning nor patience to fit me for the discussion; but if I had as much of both as the lord chancellor of Ireland, I am sure his example would deter me from undertaking so arduous a task. When I consider the state of religion in Europe, of which perhaps three-fourths of the inhabitants are Roman catholics, I am astonished that such opinions respecting that religion can be maintained. Is it possible that any man can be found bold enough to say of three-fourths of the inhabitants of civilized Europe, that they are not to be believed upon oath? Such an assertion implies, that Roman catholic nations are not only incapable of the relations of peace and amity, but unfit for any of the relations of society whatever. The existence of any such maxim supposes gross ignorance and barbarism in the people among whom it prevails. Every enlightened mind, every man who wishes well to his country, must treat it with scorn and indignation. When a bill was some time ago introduced respecting the army, I objected to the oaths it contained, on the ground that it was not fit to ask any man to take them; but it will be extraordinary indeed, if those who insisted upon prescribing these oaths should now turn round, and declare, that they will not believe them when taken. When the petition I had the honour to bring into this house was first read, the clear and temperate statement of the case which it contains appeared to make a deep impression. I think I could see gentlemen say to themselves this is not the way I used to think of the Roman catholics. No, certainly not. It is not the way in which many used to

843
think, because they had received false impressions from persons who perhaps had an interest in misleading their judgment. But it has since been whispered, that the language of the petition signifies nothing, because it is subscribed only by laymen. I can assure the house, however, that there is no ground of any suspicion on this account. The reason why there are no names of priests in the petition is, because it relates only to civil rights; on this account only, clerical persons thought it would be improper in them to subscribe it. The oath, however, has been taken by all the archbishops, bishops, and most of the priests of Ireland; and if it be thought necessary that it should be taken over again, it will be taken. I, however, have always regarded the administration of the oath as improper, and I recollect having some difference of opinion with a late noble friend of mine on this subject, 1 mean lord Petre, from whom, had he sat in the house of lords, the established religion of this country would have had nothing to fear, for he would have only obtained more frequent opportunities of displaying his sincere attachment to the constitution. His lordship defended the oath, because it afforded the Roman catholics an opportunity of publicly contradicting the calumnies reported against them. I said, that that might be an object with him, but it was none with me, and that I did not wish such a law to remain on our statute-book. Having stated that I entirely disapprove of this oath, I must, however, inform the house, that I have at this moment, in my pocket, a letter from several of the archbishops and bishops, declaring that they have taken and signed the oath. They also declare, that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrines or faith of the Roman catholic religion, and that it is to be taken equally by the clergy and the laity; but foreseeing that the fact of the oath being taken might be questioned, certificates have been sent from the courts before which it was administered. It is in these courts, therefore, a matter of record, and the authority of the fact is completed. It is said, that since the Roman catholics have already got so much, they ought not to ask for more. My principle, however, is directly the reverse. It is natural that men in a state of servitude should wish to recover their rights; that they should desire to assimilate their rights with those of their fellow-citizens, in order that they may acquire a greater degree of similarity with them. It is their ambition to be
844
no longer slaves, but to become men. They ask this; and until they,obtain all they want, they have comparatively gained nothing. It would be to shut your eyes to all the evidence of history, to suppose that you could impose upon men an obligation not to look forward to the complete acquirement of their rights; from the moment they began to enjoy any of them, they must aspire to be on a parity with the rest of their fellow-citizens The better argument is, that having already conceded so much, what remains is nothing to you to give. Nothing can be more absurd than the conduct which is adopted towards the Roman catholics. You admit the lower orders into the army and navy, and you prevent the higher from rising to that rank they might expect to attain. You put arms into the hands of men, who, if the French were to land, might be, from their want of knowledge, influenced to do you mischief; and yet you will not trust lord Fingal, or his brother, with a command. You rely, however, it appears, with confidence, on the loyalty of the ignorant and the prejudiced, and you intrust them with arms. Of which class of Roman catholics are you afraid; the higher, or the lower? You do not trust those whose property gives them an interest in the country, and whose superior knowledge and information teach them to prefer the government of their country to every other; but you rely on the ignorant and uninformed. You place in the hands of the latter the means of insurrection, and you take from the former the power they would have, by their influence, to repress commotions. But though you have little to give, what they have to ask is to them immense. You have left them much power to do you mischief, and have afforded them little means of doing you good. Though they require only qualification, coporation, parliament, and offices under government, the object is of great magnitude to them. It is founded on the great principle of requiring to be placed on a footing of equality with their fellow-subjects. Equality of rights is one of the principles which is dearest to the human heart, and it is one which the laws of Great-Britain, to their immortal honour, sanction. In whatever country that principle prevails, it produce the greatest of blessings. That country is truly happy, where, in the language a great modern poet,
"Though poor the peasant's hut, his feasts though small,
"He sees his little lot the lot of all;

845
"Sees no contiguous palace rear its head,
"To shame the meanness of his humble shed"
If a people are placed in a state of humility and degradation, can it be said, that to get out of that situation is to them nothing? But the confusion which prevails on this occasion has arisen from mixing politics and religion, two things which it has always been the wish of the wisest philosophers and statesmen to keep distinct and separate. It is with great concern I have heard, that some eminent members of the established church are hostile to the proposition I have to make; but I have some consolation in reflecting, that I have with me a person who enjoys as high a reputation as any member of the church, and for whose character I had the highest veneration and respect—I mean, Dr. Paley. He observes, "it has indeed been asserted, that discordancy of religions, even supposing each religion to be free from any errors that affect the safety or the conduct of government, is enough to render men unfit to act together in public stations. But upon what argument, or upon what experience, is this assertion founded? I perceive no reason why men of different religious persuasions may not sit upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same ranks, as well as men of various or opposite opinions upon any controverted topic of natural philosophy, history, or ethics." Dr. Paley considers restraints only justifiable on account of political opinions, which may affect the safety of government. In endeavouring to state the case of exclusion, he says—"After all, it may be asked, why should not the legislator direct his test against the political principles themselves, which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them through the medium of religious tenets, the only crime and the only danger of which consist in their presumed alliance with the former? Why, for example, should a man be required to renounce transubstantiation before he be admitted to art office in the state, when it might seem to be sufficient that he abjure the pretender? There are but two answers that can be given to the objection which this question contains: first, that it is not opinions which the laws fear so much as inclinations, and that political inclinations are not so easily detected by the affirmation or denial of any abstract proposition in politics, as by the discovery of the religious creed with which they are wont to be united: secondly, that when men renounce. their religion they commonly all con-
846
nexion with the members of the church which they have left, that church no longer expecting assistance or friendship from theme; whereas particular persons might insinuate themselves into offices of trust and authority, by subscribing political assertions, and yet retain their predilection for the interests of the religious sect to which they continued to belong. By which means government would sometimes find, though it could not accuse the individual, whom it had received into its service, of disaffection to the civil establishment, yet that, through him, it had communicated the aid and influence of a powerful station to a party who were hostile to the constitution. These answers, however, we propose rather than defend. The measure certainly cannot be defended at all, except where the suspected union between certain obnoxious principles in politics, and certain tenets in religion, is nearly universal; in which case it makes little difference to the subscriber whether the test be religious or political: and the state is somewhat better secured by the one than the other." I shall only take up the time of the house a few moments in reading another passage, in which it is clearly stated, that restrictions should not be continued after the circumstances in which they have originated have ceased. "Thus, if the members of the Romish church for the most part adhere to the interests, or maintain the right, of a foreign pretender to the crown of these kingdoms, and if there he no way of distinguishing those who do from those who do not retain such dangerous prejudices, government is well warranted in fencing out the whole sect from situations of trust and power. But even in this example it is not to popery that the laws object, but to popery as the mark of jacobitism; an equivocal, indeed, and fallacious mark, but the best, and perhaps the only one that can be devised. But then it should be remembered, that as the connexion between popery and jacobitism, which is the sole cause of suspicion, and the sole justification of those severe and jealous laws which have been enacted against the professors of that religion, was accidental in its origin, so probably it will be temporary in its duration; and that these restrictions ought not to continue one day longer than some visible danger renders them necessary to the preservation of public tranquillity." Whatever then may be the opinions of certain members of the establishment, I am happy to have the opportunity of quoting one authority which

847
all who love profound learning, exalted virtue, and sound morals, must respect.—With regard to the time when these restrictions ought to have been removed, if there could be one time more proper than another, it was when the union was carried. To that measure I certainly was hostile, and I have seen nothing since which could induce me to alter my opinion; but whether that opinion be right or wrong, is nothing to my present argument. The period at which the introduction of this measure would have been most proper, doubtless, was the moment when the expectations of the Roman catholics were raised, when hopes were held out to them, or when they themselves at least conceived that the hour of their emancipation was arrived, and that they were to be placed on an equal footing with their fellow citizens. It has been said, however, that on this subject an argument may be drawn from practice which is sufficient to silence all reasoning. No one is a greater friend to the opposition of practice to theory than I am, when that opposition is justly applied. In the present case it is observed, that when the severe laws existed against the Roman catholics in Ireland, all was tranquillity, even during the rebellions of the years 1715 and 1745; but that, after the concessions had been granted, the rebellion of 1798 broke out, in which the Roman catholics joined for the purpose of subverting the monarchy and the constitution. It this argument were true, it would go only to this; that restrictions are good for keeping mankind in a state of tranquillity; and, therefore, you ought never to release them from severe laws, never restore them to their rights. This argument goes against every principle of liberty, and is only calculated to support the cruellest tyranny and most degrading slavery. Its present object is to deprive of their rights one-fourth of his majesty's subjects, and to place them in a state which must greatly embarrass the power and resources of the empire. Surely if there be a malady in our situation, this is it. But were there no circumstances besides the concessions, which rendered the situation of the Irish catholics very different in the year 1798 from what that situation was in the reign of George II? Is it supposed that the operation of the French revolution had no influence on their minds, as well as on the minds of men in other parts of Europe? The circumstances of that revolution may fairly be allowed to have tended to make them swerve from their alle-
848
giance, not as catholics, but as subject. Is there not also some allowance to be made for the connexion formed between the Roman catholics and the protestants of the north of Ireland, a people of enlightened minds, powerful from their talents and their industry? But the people of that part of Ireland, who are well known not to be much attached to the established church, considered the catholics to be like themselves, persecuted. The year 1798 opened new views, and to the union which was then formed between the protestants and the catholics ought the activity of the latter in the rebellion to be in some degree ascribed. There is also another little circumstance which ought not to be passed over, when it is attempted to he argued that nothing intervened between the concessions in the year 1793 and the rebellion. Did nothing happen during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration? Did that noble lord not conceive that he was acting the best for the peace of Ireland, by holding out to the catholics the hope of what they called their emancipation? Doubts have been entertained whether he was authorised by government to encourage such hopes: but that has nothing to do with the present question; that the expectation did exist, is a fact of the greatest importance. When that noble lord was recalled, whets a motion was. made on the subject in parliament, and negatived, the Roman catholics saw with grief the cup they had looked at with so much eagerness, suddenly dashed from their lips, at the moment they at last expected to enjoy it. Would not any man say, that if he were a catholic, this would have been to him a great cause of despondency? The history of the country showed the melancholy consequences of that disappointment; for it was not until after the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, that a connexion began to be formed between kind and France: and there is every appearance that the disappointment then experienced by the Roman catholics, drove some of them into this connexion. We have been told, that it appears from certain inquiries made by the Irish parliament, that catholic emancipation and reform were not considered by the people in some parts of Ireland as of more value than a bit of paper or a drop of ink. I believe this may be the fact; but was it not also stated by the same persons, that, had these measures been granted, they were aware that they must have given up all hope of doing what they call good, but which we

849
call mischief? All those who wished to revolutionize Ireland were greatly alarmed during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration, and were perfectly convinced, that, if the measures to be proposed were carried, their intentions would be completely defeated. I have been told, that at the time of the union no distinct promise of redress was made to the Roman catholics, and I believe it. No minister could promise that which depended upon the determination of parliament. The right hon. gent. opposite to me could have done nothing more than promise to recommend their claims: but did not the catholics believe that through the measure of the union they would obtain complete redress? Did they not rely on the promised support of the right hon. gent.? It was on that ground they gave all their weight to the proposition of the union; and I know some who have felt less kindness to the catholics on that account. The persuasion was certainly general, that the catholic claims would be fully granted after the union, and a learned gentleman (Dr. Duigenan) now hostile to these claims appears to have promoted this persuasion. In a letter written by that learned gent. to an hon. friend of mine, whom I am happy to see a member of this house (Mr. Grattan), there is a paragraph, to this purport; "if we were one people with the British nation, the preponderance of the protestant interest in the whole state would then be so great, that it would not be any longer necessary to curb the Roman catholics by any restraints whatever." Now when the Roman catholics found the opinion stated by the learned gent., who had been through the whole of his life against granting them redress, must they not have expected that the passing of the union was to be the signal for the redress of their grievances? In a printed speech, too, (printed in a way which might entitle it to be referred to as some authority) of a noble lord who once filled the chair of this house (lord Sidmouth), this passage of the learned gent.'s letter is referred to in support of the opinion, that no restraints would be necessary after the union. If, then, that noble lord drew this inference, what conclusion was it to be expected the Roman Catholics themselves should form? At that time, then, it appeared to be thought that the repeal of these laws would be a measure of safety to the British empire; and yet they remain in the same situation. I state not this as any reproach to the right hon. gent. opposite to me; but what must the
850
catholics think, when they find that those who most favoured the union, and who, on account of the measures then in contemplation, held up that event as eminently calculated to promote the well being and security of the British empire, opposed their hopes? What the circumstances were, which prevented this question being then brought forward, I shall not attempt to discuss, because I do not pretend to know them; but I must observe, that its delay might have led to the very worst consequences. The catholics, however, have shown by their conduct that they are guided by principles which merit the highest encomium. Their disappointment has not made them resort to popular clamour or tumult. They have brought forward their claims in the most constitutional manner, and they rely with confidence and respect on the justice of this house. The presenting of the present petition is a pledge of the propriety of their conduct; and though my motion should not this night be acceded to, they will still have gained something, by having an opportunity afforded them of stating their opinions. A great and respectable part of the people of the empire are now in favour of their claims. The people of England will soon be completely convinced of the propriety of granting them all they demand; and antiquated prejudices, which it is my lot to expose in 1805, and which were doubtful in 1669, will be completely done away.—Hitherto I have said nothing of a kind of mysterious objection which has been lately started. I have been asked—"Why do you bring on this question when success is impossible?" Another tells me, "I like the measure as well as you; but why press it when there is no chance of success?" Why, I know of no circumstance that should render it impossible to carry this question in this house; and there would at least be a little better chance of success, if all those gentlemen who are in favour of the measure would favour us with their votes. I have been told that the repeal of these laws is conceived to be contrary to his majesty's coronation oath. Now, sir, were I to propose any thing which would be a violation of his majesty's coronation oath, I should not only think myself a disloyal subject, but a dishonest man. But how absurd would it be to suppose that parliament, who made that oath for the king to take, should understand it to bind bins to refuse his assent to future acts which they might present to him! The oath, as framed by parliament, was admi-

851
nistered to king William, and statutes now proposed to be repealed were passed after he had taken the oath. Now, if it could be maintained that the oath has any reference at all to legislative measures, still I would ask, how can it affect acts passed after it was framed Such a doctrine appears to me calculated to produce the greatest confusion, and completely to overturn the constitution. If it were true, the government of this country would no longer be a mixed monarchy, but we should be in a mixed state of anarchy and confusion. But it is supposed that the coronation oath would be violated, because the effect of the measure now proposed would, it is said, be to overturn the church establishment of this country. These laws were, however, made against dissenters of all descriptions; and yet the church was not overturned by our union with the presbyterians of Scotland. Was the coronation oath made to bend in the one case, and not in the other? According to this new doctrine, Queen Anne must have broken her coronation oath when she consented to the union with Scotland, and his present majesty must already have violated his coronation oath more than once, when he sanctioned the acts passed in his reign for the relief of the Roman catholics. His majesty did not refuse his assent to these acts; on the contrary, he did what I am sure he always will do; he followed the advice of parliament, exercising at the same time his own judgment. While I glory in the name of an Englishman, I never can say that any thing which parliament thinks fit to be done. cannot be done. If it had been the practice that nothing was to be moved in this house, but such questions as gentlemen had a reasonable hope of carrying, the country would have been deprived of most of the laws which now constitute its greatest pride and boast; for the best measures have in general been at first strongly resisted, and have at last been rendered ultimately successful by the perseverance of those who introduced them, and the good sense of parliament. But I never can believe that any branch of of our constitution will forget its duty; and I am sorry that the report of an opinion having been given on this subject, should be circulated—said to be given, too, by one who has a legislative voice, but who has no right to pronounce any opinion on matters pending in this house. His majesty's lawful authority is one of the corner stones of the constitution; but while I shall always exert myself to support that lawful authority, I
852
cannot be silent when I see interested persons endeavouring to extend that influence beyond its due bounds. It would be a great and incalculable evil, were it to be established as a maxim in this house, than no person must move any measure, however great its benefits might be, if it were once whispered about, that it could not be successful, because another branch of the constitution was hostile to it. I could wish to see any sacrifice made for the gratification of the crown, except the sacrifice of the welfare and security of the country. The man who countenances such a sacrifice is not a loyal subject; is not one who loves his king, but one who flatters him in order to betray him.—Having now troubled the house at so much length, I shall only briefly state a few of the minor points which the subject presents. There may be some persons who would not wish to repeal the whole of the restraints upon the Roman catholics, but who would wish to do away a part: I should therefore expect, that all who view the question in this way will concur with me in voting to refer the petition to a committee, in order to discover what part of the laws it may be fit to repeal. Among these minor points will also fall to be considered the situation of the army. A catholic may serve in the king's army in Ireland; he may arrive to the rank of a general, but not a general on the staff! If, however, he comes to England, he is liable to pains and penalties on account of his religion. Surely those who would resist the question in the whole, must at least allow that this is a case in which some relief ought to be given. I am also assured that the common soldiers are restrained from the exercise of their religion sometimes in Ireland; but almost always in England. Some alteration is also necessary in the law of marriage. I mention these circumstances as forming parts of the question which ought to induce such persons as think them worthy of redress, to go into a committee, whatever their objections to the general question may be. I have stated, that the disabilities under which the catholics suffer are of two sorts; namely, those which consist of restrictions on the king's prerogative, and those which restrain the choice of the people. I think that Roman catholics ought, like all the other subjects of his majesty, to be enabled to hold places under the crown, and to sit in parliament; but I understand there are some who would consent to a proposition for rendering them accessible to offices, but who

853
would not agree to give them seats in parliament. Those who entertain this opinion, surely cannot refuse to go into the committee. I understand there are others who, on the contrary, think it advisable that Roman catholics should be excluded from offices in the executive part of government; but that, on the ground of virtual representation, which I have stated, they ought to be admitted to seats in the house of commons. I own that I think this opinion the most rational of the two; and surely those who entertain it cannot object to the motion I am about to make. —I have now stated most of the general ground on which I think the repeal of the laws complained of is advisable; and I shall now very briefly mention a few of the advantages which may be expected to result from such measure. A great proportion of the last and of the present session has been consumed in considering of the best means of recruiting the army, and of increasing our local and disposable force. Now, without disparaging the modes recommended by my right hon. friend (Mr. Windham) on this bench or the right hon. gent. opposite, for attaining this desirable object, I will venture to say, that no scheme whatever of parish recruiting, limited service, or militia volunteering, can equal the effect of this measure. All these schemes are tardy and trifling, compared to the prompt and large supply which would be afforded by Ireland, were the laws against the Roman catholic repealed. You now receive into your army Irish Roman catholic; but what might not be expected from the zeal and gratitude of a nation famed for warmth of temper and generosity, fondly exulting in a triumph obtained over illiberality and prejudice? All your other supplies would be little rivulets, compared to this great ocean of military resource. But you are not merely to consider the number, but also the nature of the circumstances under which you would obtain the recruits. Look at the situation of France, our formidable enemy; is she formidable for her finances, her naval power, her comerce, or any other resource except her population? It is from the disproportion of our population to her, that we can have any our population. Why then do we hesitate to adopt a measure which would afford us powerful a reinforcement. In this age foreign conquests have been less valued than they were in former times; but if conquests deserved to be ever so much esteemed, what
854
conquest ever could equal either the true glory or solid advantage of re-acquiring one-fourth of your population? What prospect can be more consolatory than that of thus adding to your strength that which cannot now be called a part of your strength, but may rather be named a part of your weakness? The protestant ascendancy had been compared to a garrison in Ireland. It is not in our power to add to the strength of this garrison, but I would convert the besiegers themselves into the garrison. How can you suppose that the four millions of men should feel themselves in the situation of the other twelve millions, which form the population on the British empire? They know that they furnish you with recruits, from whom you may with reluctance choose serjeants: they send you officers, but they know they can never rise to the rank of general. They supply you with sailors, who never can advance to any eminence in their profession. How different would our policy be, how different our situation in a military point of view, were the means I proposed adopted! There would be no differences, no discontents; but all the subject of the empire, enjoying equal rights, would join with one heart and one mind in its defence. I am sanguine in believing, that these equal rights and laws will be granted to the Roman catholics. I am even sanguine enough to believe, that many bad consequences which might be expected to result from a refusal of them, will not follow the rejection of this petition. I rely on the affection and loyalty of the Roman catholics of Ireland; but I would not press them too far, I would not draw the cord too tight. It is surely too much to expect that they will always fight for a constitution in the benefits of which they are not permitted to participate. No permanent advantage can arise from any measure, except that which shall restore them to the full enjoyment of equal rights with their fellow citizens. In the present situation of Europe, and when the designs of the enemy are considered, Ireland is a place where the active exertions of this country may be required; and this is one of the ground on which I am anxious that the motion I am about to propose should be acceded to. Whatever be the fate of the question, I am happy in having had this opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the longer, but to move, "that the petition be referred to the consideration of the committee of the whole house."
Doctor Duigenanthen rose, and spoke as follows: Sir; I have read the petition now before the house, and list of names subscribed to it; they amount in the whole to ninety-one persons: of these, six are peers; three are baronets, the rest untitled commoners. Of the six peers, one is an English as well as an Irish peer, who has no property in Ireland, and is an Englishman both by birth and residence. The petition is thus entitled: "A petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland, whose names are thereunto subscribed, in behalf of themselves and of others his majesty's subjects professing the Roman catholic religion." With what propriety this English peer can be styled a Roman catholic of Ireland I shall not take upon me to determine. Of the remaining five peers three may be said to have been created during his present majesty's reign. Lord Kenmare claimed a peerage under a patent of King James II. dated after the abdication of that unfortunate prince, at a time when he was no longer a king, and could not create nobility: his present majesty has been pleased to create him a peer: the ancestors of two others, the Lords Fingall and Gormanstown, were attainted for high treason and outlawries; which attainders continued for four generations. His present majesty was graciously pleased to direct his attorney general in Ireland to confess error in these outlawries, on which confession the outlawries have been reversed, and these noblemen have been restored to the rank of their ancestors. Lord Southwell's ancestors were protestants; his father some time since went to France, and there became a Roman catholic, and educated his son in that profession. Thus it appears, that the whole Roman Catholic nobility of Ireland, a few years back, did not exceed one or two at the most. I speak not this out of any disrespect to the noble personages thus mentioned, but to shew what little cause of complaint there is for the alleged degradation of the Roman catholic nobility of Ireland. Of the three baronets subscribed to the petition two have been created by his present Majesty. Ireland is divided into thirty-two counties: out of nineteen of these counties there is not one subscriber, and out of four of the remaining thirteen counties there is but one each. There is not the name of one Romish ecclesiastic subscribed to this petition. How then does it appear that these petitioners are commissioned by the Roman catholics of Ireland, or those of England and Scotland, to petition on their
866
behalf, or to express their political or moral principles? It is much to be suspected that they are self-commissioned, as well by what is already observed, as by the following circumstance: five of the subscribers have set themselves forth as delegated by the rest to procure the presentment of this petition to the two houses of parliament, and solicit its success: of these, one is Mr. Denys Scully, barrister at law, a gentleman with whose person I am totally unacquainted, but not so with his writings. He published in the year 1803, a pamphlet in Dublin, entitled, "An Irish Catholic's Advice to his Brethren how to estimate their present Situation, and repel French Invasion, civil Wars, and Slavery." This pamphlet advises the Irish romanists, in the event of an invasion by the French, rather to join the King's standard than that of Bonaparte, solely on the ground of such conduct being more for their advantage, and not at all on the ground of their allegiance due to their sovereign: and notwithstanding the specious title of the work, the whole tenour of it is, in my opinion, by the suggestions of ideal grievances, in the most horrid forms, to excite the Romish populace to the most furious acts of insurrection and revenge against their governors; so that the advice to resist Bonaparte seems to be merely an artifice to protect the author from the legal punishment due to so malignant, vindictive, and atrocious an attack on the conduct of the protestant government of Ireland for two centuries past. The pamphlet overflows with gall it will be sufficient to read a passage or two out of it to give the house a just idea of its real purpose and tendency: " It is one hundred and twelve years since the capitulation of Limerick to William III: it was the last place in Ireland or England that surrendered to him; and never was any place more gallantly and obstinately defended than Limerick had been by our loyal ancestors, who with Sarsfield at their head fought for their hereditary King James against a Dutch invader and his hired battalions."—Page 12, Dublin edition.—Writing of the gallant army which went to Ireland to punish the Irish rebels and murderers of 1641, he has the following passage: "You see what misery that army caused her: their tailors, tinkers, smiths, coblers, drummers, and trumpeters, after the slaughter of one hundred thousand persons, obtained various estates and lands amongst us." It is to be remarked, that the superior officers of this gallant army thus reviled by Mr. Scully,

867
were the chief instruments in restoring Ireland to the monarchy of England, and that their at this day compose a most considerable part of the Irish nobility and gently—In another place Mr. Scully Calls the Irish parliament a club, and the place of their meeting their club-house. In another payee he gives the following character of the person he styles the first magistrate: "That he may be liable, like the master of a family, to fits of anger and caprice, and prejudice; that he may naturally be at times obstinate, ill-humoured, improvident, or even infatuated upon some particular subjects."And adverting to the coronation oath, and to his majesty's scruples on the score of that oath, respecting the demands made by the Irish romanists, he undertakes to apologize for his majesty, and to express his hope that the king will change the opinion which it is generally understood he has entertained. "It is not," says he, "to he imagined that a quibbling crotchet in an oath will circumscribe the justice of the beneficent father of his people."—Can it therefore be imagined that Mr. Scully is a person specially commissioned by the Roman catholics of Ireland to solicit the success of a petition to the representative body of the nation, claiming a right to be put upon an equal footing, in respect to political privileges, with all other his majesty's subjects, and demanding such boon on the score of their alleged loyalty and attachment to the state?—The petition contains a long state of what the petitioners allege to be their political, moral, and religious principles, and openly asserts that such principles are not only conformable to their opinions and habits but are expressly inculcated by the religion they profess; yet this petition is not subscribed even by. one ecclesiastic of that profession. I shall state to this house what I conceive to be the reason that the Romish ecclesiastics have declined to subscribe it. There are two oaths prescribed by the Irish statutes to be administered to romanists; one, by an act of the Irish parliament in the year 1773; the other, by an act of the Irish parliament of the year 1793. Such romanists as decline to take the oath of the year 1773, which is nearly the same with the oath prescribed to be administered to the English romanist by the English act of the year 1791, are not entitled to the benefit of the several Irish laws repealing what is styled the popery code in Ireland; it is therefore incumbent on all Irish romanists to take the oath of 1773, to entitle themselves to the
868
benefit of such repeal: but they are not under an equal necessity of taking the oath of 1793; for it is merely a qualification-oath, which, if they obtain places under government, or tender their votes at elections for members of parliament, the law requires they should take; but not otherwise.—The oath of 1773 is an oath of allegiance to the king; it contains an engagement to disclose all traitorous conspiracies; abjures the pretender, and the doctrine that no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that princes excommunicated by the pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects; renounces the temporal jurisdiction of the pope, and declares that it is taken without equivocation, in the ordinary sense of the words.—The oath of 1793 goes much further, and renounces the infallibility of the pope; the power of the priest to give absolution unconditionally; the intention of subverting the present church establishment, and substituting a Romish establishment in its stead; of overturning the present arrangement of property in Ireland, and of using the power and privileges demanded by the romanists to weaken the protestant religion and protestant government in Ireland; and, so far as it relates merely to religious principles, is the same oath which was drawn up and prepared by a committee of English romanists in the year 1790, to be offered to the then English ministry as a proper oath to be tendered to all English romanists; and they taking thereof to be sanctioned by an act of parliament. This oath three out of the four apostolic vicars, the special agents and emissaries of the pope in England, reprobated and anathematized by an encyclical letter, dated London, Jan. 12, 1791, and commanded all the English romanists to reject this oath, and stated in their letter that they thus acted with the approbation of the apostolic see, and of all the romish bishops in Scotland and in Ireland. These apostolic vicars had so much influence with the English ministry in 1791, that they prevailed upon them to omit from the oath by statute prescribed to be taken by the English romanists, the abjuration of the pope's infallibility, and of the doctrine of unconditional power of absolution in the priest. It is also to be remarked, that all the professors and members of the college of Manooth in Ireland are by an Irish statute exempted from the obligation of taking the oath of 1793. This is a college founded by government for the education of Romish priests.—From what I have mentioned, I conceive;

869
that the petition's containing a declaration against the pope's infallibility, and the doctrine of unconditional power of absolution in the romish priesthood, is the reason why no romish ecclesiastic has subscribed it.—The petition prays that all statutes now in force against romanists (that is, all statutes requiring them to take tests as qualifications for offices and seats in parliament) may be repealed, and they may be restored to the full enjoyment of the benefits of the British constitution, equally and in common with their fellow-subjects throughout the British empire:—this they claim as matter of justice and public utility. It is very remarkable, that this measure thus demanded upon the grounds of justice and public utility, is the very measure which King James II. attempted to force upon the nation, and for which attempt he forfeited the crown handed down to him by a long and illustrious line of ancestors; and that the reasons given by him for his attempt are the very same reasons pleaded by the petitioners and their advocates for the justice of their demand; to wit, "that it would cause and promote a brotherhood of affections and a conciliation of religious differences;"— "to render the nation happy at home, and formidable to foreign nations."—See his declaration for general liberty of conscience, the letter left upon his table previous to his flight to France, and his speech to his pretended popish parliament in Ireland after his abdication. If his attempt was just, and the measure for the public benefit, it follows that he was unjustly dethroned; and the direct consequence of that is, that his present majesty's title to the throne is an unjust one. Let this house determine whether such doctrine is or is not consistent with loyalty.—I shall oppose the motion for submitting the consideration of this petition to a committee; and in doing so, I shall enter fully into a discussion of the broad and general question before the house, whether the prayer of this petition should be granted or rejected; as I think it is a question of the greatest magnitude which has been debated in this house since the revolution.—The petitioners have particularly stated that the principles, religious, moral, and political, set forth in their petition, are expressly inculcated by the religion they profess: it will be therefore incumbent upon me specially to examine the principles taught by their religion, as they are laid down by their own writers ancient and modern, and as they are warranted by the uninterrupted
870
practice of their church for ages. It will, however, be first necessary to examine how and in what manner they are disqualified from enjoying offices and occupying seats in parliament.—The only obstacle at present to the occupation of seats in the two houses of parliament by the members this sect, arises from the laws enjoining the taking of the oath of supremacy, and repeating and signing the declaration againt transubstantiation, &c. by all members of the two houses of parliament, previous to their taking their seats and voting in either house: with which injunction if romanists complied, they would be as capable of occupying seats in parliament as protestants. This injunction they obstinately refuse to obey, and thereby exclude themselves.—If indeed they would offer to take the oath of supremacy, there might be some plausible arguments adduced for the repeal of the parts of these acts which enjoin the repetition and subscription of the declaration against transubstantiation, &c.; because that is a declaration against certain doctrinal points held by romanists, which do not immediately tend to a disavowal of the supreme authority of the state, so far as to countenance or commanded a resistance to the civil magistrate, and is a matter of opinion only, unconnected with the government: but their rejection the oath of supremacy is an open avowal, that they do not admit the state to have any just power to compel their submission to its laws, in any point of temporal government, intimately and inseparably connected with the administration of the supreme power in spiritual matters; that is, in other words, they refuse and reject an oath of allegiance to the state, and insist that there is an extraneous power paramount to that of the state, to which their allegiance is due in all spiritual matters, or in all matters which that power shall deem spiritual; and in all temporal matters which are inseparably connected with such spiritual supremacy, which amount to nearly one half of the whole temporal power of a state; and may indeed swallow up the whole, which it has attempted in many countries: because the determination of what portion of dominion, in temporal matters, is within the vortex of spiritual supremacy, is left to a foreign ecclesiastic, and his vassal the romish priests, within this empire. The pope never did claim any temporal power, save under the pretext, that it was inseparably annexed to the supreme spiritual power, and a consequence of it. What immense temporal

871
power he claimed, and in fact exercised within this under such pretence, let our histories and statutes declare; the fourth Lateran general council shews the extent of they authority over temporal princes and their dominions claimed by the pope.—The qualifying, subjects, who hold so anarchical a doctrine as a point of faith, to become part of the supreme power, by admitting them to a share of the supreme legislative authority rein a protestant state; and that too a state, the powerful part of whose supremacy is lodged in a popular assembly, is in its own nature an absurdity, and must, if effected, be attended with the most ruinous consequences to the constitution.—Before I proceed farther, it will be necessary to put gentlemen in mind of the oath of supremacy (which we have all taken) by repeating it: I—do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed murdered by their subjects, or by any other person whatsoever; and I do declare, that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."— The oath of supremacy was originally framed in the reign of King Henry VIII. merely as an pope then becoming intolerable in England, he claiming and exercising a power over the subjects, under the mask of spiritual power, or as inseparably annexed to it, equal to the power of the crown at least, and in many cases paramount to it, and subversive of it. See preambles to the statues of the 24th Hen. VIII. ch. 12, 25; 25th Hen. VIII. ch. 21; 26th Hen. VIII. ch. 1; 32d Hen. VIII. ch. 38; and the Irish statues of the 28th Hen. VIII. ch. 13; 2d Eliz. ch. 2.—By this oath, in its original form, the king was declared to be the only supreme head on earth of the church of England and Ireland. This clause was objected against as an acknowledgement of a sacerdotal power in the king; to obviate this, he took care to declare publicly, that he claimed only a civil supremacy, that he made no pretension to any power; that his supremacy was not that purely spiritual power which is lodged in the church, but a temporal supremacy over all the spiritual power of it within his own do-
872
minions.—. All the great officers of the state, bishops, and nobility, within his realm (two excepted,—Sir Thomas More, and Fisher, bishop of Rochester), took this oath. Romanists were then better subject than they are present!— The objection, however, being still urged by the partizans of the court of Rome, queen Elizabeth, at the commencement of her reign, changed that clause in the oath, and inserted in its room, "that the king (or queen) is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastic things or causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have, &c.—To guard against any perverse interpretation of this oath, she published injunctions, wherein she declared, "that she pretended to this oath, she published injunction, wherein she declared, " that she pretended to no priestly power; that she challenged no authority, but what was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of England; that is, under-God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of person born within her dominions, of what estate, whether ecclesiastic or temporal, soever they be, so as no foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them." The romanists, however, by the anathemas of the pope, were so changed for the worse, and their obligation of fidelity to their prince and country so loosed since the reign of Henry, that they universally rejected this oath, thought simply an oath of allegiance to their natural sovereign.—On the accession of James II. a bigoted papist, he, finding himself invested by this oath with the supreme governance of the established church, was induced by his bigotry, in direct breach of his coronation oath, to use this authority for the subversion of the church, from the monarch's being invested with such power, was noticed by the sagacious patriots who conducted the revolution; and on that glorious event they determined to rescue the church from such peril, and expunged from the oath of supremacy the clause "that the king is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastic things or causes, as temporal;" so that the subject is now only bound to swear, by the oath of supremacy, to the independence of the empire on any foreign power; and it is merely and simply and oath of allegiance to the state: in fact it was always so, and such as no subject, who is not a traitor, can conscientiously refuse; it is, as it now stands, completely purged of all reasonable, or even plausible objection: it never was an oath

873
of exclusion, or even of restriction, unless of traitors; it is absolutely, strictly, and literally conformable to the ancient and acknowledged common law of the realm. That ancient common law is acknowledged, repeated, and recognised, in the preamble of statue of præmunire, enacted in the 16th of Richard II. at the time this kingdom was in communion with the Romish church: that statue recites, "that the crown of England hath ever been free, and subject to none, but immediately unto God; and the laws and statues of this realm ought not to be submitted to the bishop of Rome, to be defeated at his pleasure, to the destruction of the king, his crown, and his regalia, and of all the realm, which God defend." This was the voice of the people in open parliament at that time. See the statue, Carte's Ormod, vol. I. from page 36 to 43. See also Davis's Reports, case of Præmunire.—The romanists of day complain of the laws which enjoin the taking of this oath, declaring that they cannot in conscience take it, that it is to them an exclusive oath, as they cannot sit in Parliament without taking it; and they and their abettors (among whom in this point they muster all the jacobins in the country) desire to have these laws repealed. They plead thus: we are from conscience traitors to our country; we maintain that our country is subject to a foreign power; we are always ready to support the authority of that foreign power in every possible way, by arms or otherwise, and to bow down our country to its authority: we therefore demand the repeal of the laws which oblige us to swear allegiance to the constitutional governing power of our country; which repeal will be a national acknowledgment of the dependance of our country on, and its subjection to, a foreign tribunal. It will enable us to procure seats in the great supreme council of the nation; and confer power on us to betray the independence of our country. The pope and all our divines assure us, that we are bound in conscience to do so, when we shall procure power. Dr. Troy, our archbishop of Dublin, and eminent dignitary of our church, in his pastoral letter, published in 1793, has told us, "that it is a fundamental article of the Roman catholics faith, that the pope or bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, in that see: that he enjoys by divine right, a spiritual and ecclesiastical primacy, not only of honour and rank, but of real jurisdiction and authority in the uni-
874
versal church: that catholics cannot conscientiously abjure the ecclesiastical authority of bishop of Rome: that Henry VIII. of England was the first christian prince that assumed ecclesiastical supremacy, and command an enslaved parliament to enact it as a law of the state, and that the catholics consider it as an usurpation." Pursuant to this doctrine, we, the catholics, will endeavour, by every means in our power, to free ourselves from that usurpation; and pray, good protestant usurpers, assist us in dong so! put us into a capacity of effecting it! that is, of betraying our common country to dependance and slavery.—The patrons of this measure argue that the sentiments of romanists are changed for the better from what they were formerly. It is already shewn that if they have suffered any change since the reign of Henry VIII. the change has been for the worse, and that they now avow greater hostility to the constitutional independence of the nation (justifying that hostility upon principle) than they did at that period.—But to give a clear and explicit refutation of this argument, it will be necessary to exposed the avowed principles of the Romish religion in respect to temporal government; to inquire whether they have been ever disavowed, and whether any material change has been effected in them at any, and what period—And first, it is necessary to state, that all Romish bishop, and among the rest his majesty's subjects now resident in the British dominions, under denomination of titular archbishop and bishop (who, in direct defiance of the laws, assume the titles of most revered and right reverend, being the titles of real archbishops bishops of the realm), at their respective consecration swear an oath of allegiance to the pope, which is utterly inconsistent with their duty to his majesty and the state. Among other clause (all exceptionable) are the following: "that they will from that hour forward be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the holy church of Rome, and to their lord the pope, and his successors, canonically entering: that the papacy of Rome, the rules of the holy fathers, and the regality of St. Peter, they will keep, maintain, and defend against all men. The rights, privileges, and authorities of the church of Rome, and of the pope, and his successors, they will cause to be conserved, defended, augmented and promoted." Another clause in the oath is, "that heretics, schismatics, and rebels to the holy father and his successors, they will resist and

875
persecute to their power." This clause Dr. Troy states to be now omitted in the oath of Romish bishops, in countries not in communion with the Romish church, at the instance of the late Empress of Russia, who made that a condition of her permitting a Romish bishop to reside within her dominions. If such be the case, the oath is sufficiently hostile to a protestant government without it.—I shall next repeat an extract from the oath taken by all Romish priests at their ordination. "Fifthly, the holy catholic, apostolic, and Roman church, I acknowledge to be the mother and mistress of all churches; and to the Roman pontiff, successor of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, Vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and swear true obedience. Sixthly, all doctrines delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and by the general councils of Trent, without the smallest doubt I receive and profess; and whatsoever is contrary thereto, and all heresies condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church,I equally condemn, reject, and anathematize. Seventhly, this true catholic faith, out of which there is no salvation, which at present I freely profess and sincerely hold, I do promise, vow, and swear that I will most constantly retain and conserve, inviolate; with God's help, unto the last breath of my life; and that, as far as in me lieth,I will be careful that it be held by, taught and preached to my subjects," [All Romish priests call their parishioners subjects, in latin subditi.] "or those the care of whom shall belong to me in my function. So help me God."—The next evidence of the principal of the Romish religion, in respect to temporal governments, which it is proper to adduce, is the decrees of the fourth general Lateran council, held under pope Innocent III. in 1215, in its third chapter. This council consisted of four hundred bishops, and eight hundred other fathers. These decrees assert the power of the church (that is, of the pope) of disposing of the dominions of kings and princes, commanding temporal lords to purge their dominions of heresy under pain of excommunication, absolving their subjects from their allegiance, and exposing their dominions to the invasion of catholics; denouncing against kings, ruler, and subjects, guilty or even suspected of heresy, or inactivity in detecting and punishing heretics, the most terrible temporal punishment, such as confiscation, banishment,
876
torture and death; declaring that faith is to be kept with heretics, nor conventions nor agreements made with them; or if made, that they were nullities in themselves, and that no communication of any kind is to be held with them.—The council of Constance in 1415, the subsequent council of Basil, and the famous council of Trent, of later years in the sixteenth century, all confirmed the decrees of the Lateran council, particularly in respect to heresy. That of Constance, in conformity with the decrees of the Lateran council, compelled Sigismund, king of the Romans, to break his faith with John Huss, and deliver him up to the council contrary to his faith and safe-conduct, declaring "that no safe-conduct given to a heretic under what covenant soever, by any emperors, kings, or other secular princes, ought to exempt such heretic from the judgment of his competent ecclesiastical judge, who may punish him, though he come to the place of judgment, confiding in that safe-conduct, without which he would not have come;" and John Huss was condemned for heresy by that council in its twelfth session, and burned alive in its fifteenth.—In conformity with the decrees of the council of Lateran, Pope Pius V. excommunicated Queen Elisabeth, and absolved her subjects from their allegiance: his bull for that purpose wag afterwards renewed and confirmed by his successor Gregory XIII. Pope Clement IX. in conformity with the same decrees, issued his bull, enjoining the English romanists to do their utmost to keep out the Scotish heretic (so he styled King James I.), that he might not in any wise be admitted to the kingdom of England, unless he would reconcile himself to Rome, and hold his crown of the pope, and conform himself and all his subjects to the religion of the Roman church [See Carte's Ormond, vol. i p. 33.]—It is to be remarked, that all these bulls were issued, not from the private ambition of the popes had court of Rome, but in direct conformity with the injunctions and decision of the general council of the Romish church.—Charles VI. Emperor of Germany, executed the treaty of Alt' Radstadt, and thereby granted certain privileges to some of his protestant subjects, and entered into some convents with the protestant princes of the empire. Pope Clement XI. in a letter to that emperor, dated June 4, 1712, writes thus: "We, by these prosents, denounce to your majesty, and at the same time by the authority committed to us by

877
the most omnipotent God, declare the above-mentioned covenants of the treaty of Alt' Radstadt, and every thing contained in it which are any wise obstructive of, or hurtful to, or which may be said, esteemed, pretended, or understood to occasion or to bring, or to have brought the least prejudice to, or any ways to hurt or to have hurt the catholic faith, divine worship, the salvation of souls, the authority, jurisdiction, or any rites of the church whatsover, together with all and singular matters which have followed, or may at any time hereafter, follow from them, to be and to have been, and perpetually to remain hereafter de jure, null, vain, invalid, unjust, reprobated, and evacuated of all force from the beginning, and that no person is bound to the observation of them or any of them, although the same have been repeatedly ratified or secured by an oath; and that they neither could nor ought to have been, nor can nor ought to be observed by any person whatsoever."—The pope's legate at Brussels, in the year 1768, when an oath was in contemplation in parliament to be taken by the Roman catholics of Ireland, writes to Ireland in the following manner respecting that oath:— That the abhorrence and detestation of the doctrine, that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and that princes deprived by the pope may be deposed or murdered by the it subjects, as expressed in that proposed oath, are absolutely intolerable, because, as he states, those doctrines are defended and contended for by most catholic nations, and the holy see has frequently followed them in practice. On the whole he states, that as the Oath is in its whole extent unlawful, so in its nature it is invalid, null and of no effect, insomuch that it can by no means bind or oblige consciences.—It is now time to come to authorities still more modern in this point, and those of men of the Romish persuasion in high credit with our ministers. Doctor Troy, the Romish archbishop of Dublin (who at this day openly assumes and uses the arms of that archbishopric, surmounted with a cardinal's cap, from whence I presume him to be a cardinal), in a treatise which he entitles a pastoral letter, published by him in London and Dublin so late as the year 1793., asserts, that all Roman catholics consider the express decisions of their general councils, as infallible authority in point of doctrine.". And Dr. Hussey, who informs us that Romish bishop of Waterford, appointed by the pope, in a pamphlet
878
styled a pastoral letter, published by him in London and Dublin in 1797, not only holds the same doctrine, but forbids all romanists, under pain of excommunication, to permit any of their children, under any pretence, to resort to a protestant school in the same pamphlet he addresses the Romish soldiery, and exhorts them by no means to obey their officers in any orders relating to spiritual concerns, without particularly specifying what he means by spiritual concerns, but reserving the interpretation to himself and the Romish priesthood; and stating, that if any officer should enforce obedience to his orders relating to spiritual concerns, such officer might feel the effects of such conduct in the day of battle; that is, the Romish soldier might then turn upon, and assassinate him, or desert to the enemy—It is very proper to remark here, that Doctor Hussey was, within these very few years, sent over to Ireland by the British ministry, under the protection of the English secretary of state in Ireland; and was made president of a most magnificent college, (infinitely more grand, and of more expensive foundation, than any college in his majesty's dominions) then founded and endowed for the exclusive education of Romish priests in Ireland by the government, and by express directions of the British ministry; that is, for the perpetuation of popery and disaffection in so great a limb of the British empire! and that Doctor Troy, during the lieutenancy of the Marquis Cornwallis in Ireland, was in great credit at the Irish court. An English Romish priest of the name of Milner, who as I understand is one of the four apostolic vicars in England, in a very recent publication has taken pains to inform his sovereign or future sovereigns how far he or they may be bound by the coronation oath; and states, "that every human law and every promise or other engagement, however confirmed by oath, must necessarily turn upon the cardinal virtue of prudence;" which implies that it depends as to the obligation of fulfilling it in such and such circumstances on the question of expediency. I believe the protestant subjects of this empire have no great occasion to apprehend that his present majesty will consult this casuistical Romish divine on case of conscience.—After this exposure of the present Romish religious principles, so radically hostile to the temporal government and established constitution of the British expire in church and state, of such antiquity, of such indisputable authority,

879
and of such recent avowal, let the supporters of the present measure inform the house, at what period, and by what public authority did the Romish church or it votaries renounce or disavow these principles, or any and which of them.—It is notorious they never did; their rejection of the oath of supremacy, simply an oath of allegiance avowing the independence of the state, their anxiety to have the law enjoining the taking of it repealed, amount to a full confession and avowal of the romanists, that they have not in any shape changed those principle.— It has been frequently and confidently asserted by romanists and their abettors, that the doctrines held by them respecting the supreme jurisdiction in spiritual matters, and its residence in a foreign tribunal, can never affect the temporal authority and jurisdiction in this, or in any other country.—What has been already advanced is sufficient to refute this assertion; but it is proper to add, that the supreme jurisdiction in spiritual matters does draw into its vortex a very large share of temporal power, as inseparably annexed to it, and incorporated with it, even though we exclude a vast portion of temporal jurisdiction claimed by the romanists as adhering to the supreme jurisdiction in spirituals, which in fact does not belong to it, nor is incorporated with it. in proof of this, let the preambles of the several statutes heretofore enacted in this kingdom, for abolishing the pope's usurped jurisdiction in be referred to; they particularise the vast portion a temporal authority inseparably annexed to the exercise of supreme jurisdiction in spirituals. (See the preambles of the acts of the 16th Richard II.; 24th Henry VIII. chaps. 12, 25; 25th Henry VIII. chaps. 20, 21; 26th Henry VIII. chap. 1; 32d Henry VIII. chap. 38; Irish acts of 28th Henry VIII. chaps. 13, 19; 2d Elizabeth, chap. 1.) These preambles recite the great mischief done to this empire, "by appeals made to the see of Rome in causes testamentary; causes of matrimony and divorces; right of tithes; oblations, and obventions; by intolerable exactions for bulls, delegacies, and rescripts, in causes of contention; as well as for dispensations, licenses, and faculties, in an infinite number of cases."—Matrimony is held by the Roman catholics to be a sacrament, and the cognizance of in to belong to the spiritual jurisdiction. This, in many eases, would confer a jurisdiction on the pope as surpreme head of the church, of deciding whether a man was the lawful
880
heir of his father, and entitled to his real and personal estate; and whether a woman was entitled to dower; with several other temporal concomitants. Excommunication is a matter of spiritual jurisdiction; and tyranny exercised over the property and other temporal concerns of the laity by the Romish priesthood in Ireland is terrible almost beyond description. Auricular confession and absolution, by giving them the dominion over the consciences of men, confer a mighty power in temporal matters upon them; and Buonaparté, though a fierce unprincipled tyrant and usurper, was so well convinced that the supremacy in spirituals would essentially contribute to the support and establishment of his temporal power, that he procured himself to be crowned by the pope as supreme head of the church.—In favour of the measure of investing romanists with political power in the British empire, it has been urged, that the doctrine of the supremacy of the pope in spirituals is not attended with any ill consequences at present, and affords no subject of complaint to the temporal power, in any state in Europe, popish or protestant; though in all popish states, and in many protestant, romanists are admitted into places of power and trust.—The plain answer to this is, that all the popish states in Europe, previous to the anarchical progress of the recent French revolution, were either despotic monarchies, or equally despotic oligarchies, and that the people at large had no political power in theme. The despot, or aristocratic rulers, insignificant in number when compared with the population of the state, possessed the whole political power; and no person, professing a different religion from that of the state, was permitted to enjoy any political power. The great mass of the people, being excluded from all manner of power or influence in the state, were, what Englishmen term, slaves: and every question which could arise from the claim of papal supremacy in such states, was decided by the despots and the court of Rome.—As these despots were themselves of the Romish persuasion, no controversy could happen between the temporal and spiritual jurisdications, on the score of heresy or difference in religious opinions: the spiritualty could never have occasion to put in execution the tyrannical decrees of the lateran council against the despots themselves; and these despots actually became the executioners of the judgments of the spiritualty, on such of their enslaved subjects as presumed to question any tenet or the Romish superstition:

881
or they permitted the spiritualty themselves to execute them: in respect to any other points of temporal jurisdiction claimed by the spiritualty, as annexed to the supreme Jurisdiction in spirituals, it became the interest of the despots to acquiesce in part in theme, and thereby to attach the interest of the clergy to their own domination, well knowing that superstition can give strong support to despotic power, by inclining the people to submit to slavery; and the temporal and ecclesiastical powers found it their mutual interest to unite themselves, to ensure and continue the submission of the people.—In protestant despotic states it is not of great moment to the despot, what religious opinions are held by a part of his subjects: the people have no power in the state, and it is little consequence to the despot whether the men he employs as his servants are of one religious persuasion or the other, they being merely his creatures, and extinguishable at his pleasure. But in protestant states, in which the people, or their elective representatives, have some share in the government, romanists were excluded, before the baneful progress the French revolution, from all share of political power. The Swiss confederacy, composed of a league of small protestant and Romish states for their mutual security, is a strong instance of this: in the protestant cantons no romanists were admitted members of the senates, or even to any places of trust or confidence in the state a similar regulation took place in the Romish cantons with respect to protestants. In the United Provinces, so often cited as models of toleration, though all sects were tolerated, yet civil offices were only enjoyed by professors of the established religion: "It was not there considered as a punishment on men to be excluded as a punishment on men to be exclude from public offices, and to live peaceably on their own revenues and industry." (See Hume's history, vol. Viii. Page 274.) Romanists were also exclude in Holland from seats in the assembly of the states general.— If therefore the British empire is to be influenced by the practice of every popular protestant state in Europe, romanists should not only be excluded from all places of trust and power, but from all situations which would invest them with any share of political power; and above all from seats in the supreme legislative assemblies, the house of lords and commons.—But the very constitution of Britain is such, as renders the exclusion of romanists from seats in the legislative assemblies not only expedient, but of absolute imperative necessity. In the
882
British empire the supreme legislative power rests in the king, lords, and commons; the commons being the representatives of the great mass of the people, or the democracy; the peers the representatives of the richest and most dignified part of the people, or of the aristocracy. In these two assemblies, but particularly in the house of commons, vastly the most powerful of the two, is vested the greatest and most efficient part of the sovereign power of the state: and to admit the avowed enemies of the constitution in church and state, is so manifestly and absurdity in politics, that it is surprising such a measure should be supported by men of ability professing themselves to be friends of the constitution.—As it has been more than once openly and confidently asserted by an able member(Mr. Fox) of this house, that the exclusion of romanists from the houses of lords and commons is an unjust invasion of their natural rights, it is necessary here to repeat what has been already mentioned, that romanists exclude themselves, by their rejection of the oath of supremacy; an oath enjoined to be taken not by them alone, but by all members of the houses of lords and commons, not being in its own nature an oath of exclusion, but an oath of allegiance to the state, abjuring all foreign jurisdiction: and their rejection of of this oath amounts to an avowal, that they are in principle traitors to the state, in acknowledging a foreign jurisdiction. The argument by which this able senator support this opinion is, that all members of the state are by natural right entitled to an equality of political power, so far as a capability of enjoying all the honours, emoluments, and privileges of state, according to their respective abilities: that no member of the state should be curtailed of any of these privilege for any opinions he may entertain or promulge, be they ever so traitorous or hostile to the constitution, unless he attempts by some overt act to carry them into effect; for that opinion are not objects of laws, but actions only. But though it be admitted that private opinions are not properly the objects of criminal or disqualifying laws without overt acts, are not the dissemination of opinions traitorous and hostile to the constitution, and attempts to proselytize people to such opinion, overt acts, and the objects of penal and restrictive laws in the British empire? A man may keep destructive poisons in his closet, without becoming obnoxious to the operation of any penal or restrictive law;

883
but if be publicly vends or administers them, the laws restrain and punish him. It is also fact, that preventive laws in the British empire, the wisest of all laws, do make opinions their objects, and fix disqualifications, not only on the maintainers of opinions, but also on those who may be reasonably suspected of holding certain opinions. For instance, revenue-officers are by act of parliament disabled from voting elections of members of parliament; and by the place bill, certain classes of placemen and pensioners are disqualified from sitting in parliament; persons, not possessed of 300l. per annum of landed estate, are disqualified from representing a borough, and those not possessed of 600l. per annum from representing a county, in parliament: on what ground is it that so many persons are curtailed of their privileges? is it not on the suspicion, that their particular interests will inspire them with opinions adverse to the interests of the state, and that they will vote in conformity with such hostile opinions, if admitted to the enjoyment of such privileges? Romanists, whose opinions are openly and avowedly hostile to the state, are in a better condition than the already mentioned respectable classes of society: by taking the oaths administered to all the members of the legislative body, they may sit in parliament: not so with the classes mentioned; they are absolutely and irrevocably excluded.—This doctrine of natural rights, besides what is already mentioned, may receive the following full and decisive answer. Man from his very nature is a gregarious animal; there is no instance in nature of savage solitary man; society is necessary for his preservation and the continuance of the human race; therefore no right can be properly termed a natural right, which is not also a social right; or, in other words, the rights of society an natural rights: if therefore any man, or class of men, claim privileges as natural rights, utterly inconsistent with the well-being, and even existence of the society, or political state, of which he is a member such claim is to be utterly rejected, as not being properly a claim of a natural right; or if of a natural right in a solitary state of nature (such a state being supposed to exist), certainly not a claim of right to be admitted by the society of which he is a member; because it tends directly to the destruction of the society, and all claim of presume right must yield to the paramount claim of real social right, the preservation of the state. A way then with the claim of roman-
884
ists to seats in both houses of parliament as heir natural right! —It is here fit to remark, that romanists cannot derive any support to their exertions and those of their abettors, for the repeal of the acts enjoining the taking of the oath of supremacy, from this doctrine, that opinions without overt acts are not the objects of legislation; because the overt acts of our own countrymen, and others, professors of this cruel and unrelenting superstition, for the purpose of subjecting the British empire to a foreign jurisdiction, since the commencement of the reign of queen Elizabeth, have been too frequent, flagrant, and notorious to be denied. Witness the bulls of Pope Pius V. and his successors, for the dethronement and assassination of that queen and James I.; the conspiracies of her own Romish subjects, in conformity with these bulls, for her assassination, and that of her successor; the projected Spanish invasion; the gunpowder plot; the desperate Romish rebellion and horrible massacre of the protestants of Ireland in the reign of Charles I.; the obstinate and destructive rebellion of the Irish romanists in the reign of William III.; the recent atrocious rebellion in Ireland, and the unprovoked murder of thousands of Irish protestants, men, women, and children, in cold blood: in extenuation and excuse of which rebellion and massacre, all the malevolence and falsehood of the whole republican, jacobinical, Frenchified faction in England, have been ever since employed; in too many instances with a pernicious and even a fatal effect.—In justification of the present proposed measure, pleas of merit in the modern race of Romish subjects have been advanced; and first, that they have conducted themselves peaceably and loyally ever since the revolution, though under the pressure of rigorous, impoverishing, and disqualifying statutes; and a great minister of state, (the present chancellor of the exchequer) has been so far deluded by the misrepresentations and falsehoods of Romish advocates and emissaries, as to declare himself a patron of their claims, on the score of their patience and forbearance for a century past. Secondly, it has been asserted, that the Irish romanists heartily concurred in the measure of union of the two nations (though it:was opposed by the Irish protestants), and by their power, influence, and interest, not only contributed to the success of that great measure, but were the chief instruments of it.—The truth of these two pleas I will separately examine, and reply to them both.

885
The first is a plea of loyal and peaceable conduct of the romanists of the empire since the revolution. When the Romish scheme of subversion of the protestant establishment in church and state, under the conduct, patronage, and influence of the bigoted monarch who then swayed the British sceptre, was completely defeated by the spirit of the nation (raised and directed by the renowned William III.), but through the medium of a bloody civil war, from the obstinate resistance of the Irish romanists the political power and consequence of the romanists in Great Britain were annihilated, and in Ireland reduced to a very low ebb. In Great Britain their dwarfish number, compared with the gigantic multitude of protestants, ensured the political impotence of the seat; but the case was different in Ireland: the romanists exceeded the other subjects in number in that country (though not in the magnified ratio stated in their own inflated accounts), which prevented their sinking into political impotence. Yet their decisive defeat at that period reduced them to great political imbecility: though fallen to the earth in both kingdoms, their reiterated conspiracies and rebellions induced the state to guard against their acquisition of new strength after their fall, Antæus-like: hence sprung the system of what are called popery laws in both kingdoms, enacted since the revolution. These laws, by popish writers, and the abettors of popery throughout the empire, are represented as most oppressive and unjust; and as the causes of the notorious disaffection of the romanists to the state, and of their conspiracies, massacres, and rebellions; but this is gross misrepresentation; for that part of the code particularly complained of as unjust and oppressive, was enacted in the reigns of William and Anne, after their conspiracies massacres, and rebellions, had been plotted and executed, and therefore was the effect, and not the cause, of their notorious disaffection and treasons. And these laws could not have been the causes of the last rebellion and massacre in Ireland, for they were all repealed prior to that rebellion, and massacre. The popery code was nearly the same in both kingdoms.—These laws (for wise and provident they were, notwithstanding the false and their abettors against them) prohibited romanists from the acquisition of landed property, political influence, and power, in both countries; and thereby disabled them in a great measure from disturbing the state, in conformi-
886
ty with their avowed principles. Whilst these laws remained unrepealed, romanists were more peaceable subjects than they now are, because it was not in their power to be otherwise: the maniac in a straight waistcoat, or the tiger in a cage, can do no mischief, yet deserve no commendation for their gentleness. The British ministry, influenced by active and able Romish agents (particularly the late Mr. Edmund Burke), and imposed upon by the grossest falsehoods and misrepresentations (which have had a powerful effect on them, from their own absolute ignorance of the true state of Ireland) have, for these twenty years last past and upwards, exerted all their influence in the Irish parliament to procure the repeal of these laws, session after session, and have in a great measure succeeded, though they have not yet procured the repeal of the popery code in England in the same degree. In this respect they treated the Irish nation in the way that condemned malefactors have been sometimes treated, on whom dangerous experiments in physic and surgery have been tried, before their general application is sanctioned to the public. The English ministry, not content, in the year 1793, with procuring a bill to pass in the Irish parliament, for repealing all the laws which disabled romanists to vote at elections of members of parliament, prefaced the bill with an assertion I cannot admit, to wit, that the conduct of the romanists had been loyal. Whoever will take the trouble of turning to the Irish acts of the 19th of Geo. II. of the 29th of Geo. II. and to all acts passed Ireland for twenty years preceding the year 1793, for the suppression of the petty rebellions of the White Boys and Defenders, all romanists, who have from time to time infested, and desolated several parts of Ireland, committing the most atrocious acts of treason, will be clearly convinced that the Irish romanists have no good claim to the character of loyal subjects, from the time of the revolution to the era of their late rebellion. But supposing it were admitted, for argument's sake, that romanists have been generally peaceable subjects, from the revolution till a few years. before the breaking out of the late rebellion. (loyal it cannot be pretended that they were, their avowed principle of the subjection of the nation to a foreign yoke being disloyal), they can derive no merit from such peaceable demeanour: the popery code rendered their submission to the laws a matter of necessity; they were peaceable because they were

887
disabled, in a great measure from exerting their avowed hostility constitution by the efficacy of the popery code; and nothing more clearly demonstrates the truth of this conclusion than this fact, which cannot be denied, that they have advanced in their march of sedition and treason at the same rate of progression, as the English ministry proceeded in Ireland with the repeal of the popery code; and they broke out into open rebellion, and commenced a massacre of the protestants of Ireland, very shortly after a great part of that code was repealed, and they were admitted to an equality of civil privileges with protestants, the capacity of sitting in parliament, and enjoying some great civil officers, excepted.—Can any circumstance carry a more decisive proof of the wisdom of the popery code, and of the folly of repealing it, than the actual consequence of that repeal just mentioned? and can any thing be more clear than the insufficiency of the claim of merit of romanists, on the score of their peaceable and loyal conduct since the revolution? Loyalty certainly they never had the slightest claim to; their avowed religions principles are disloyal. To peaceable conduct their is also ill founded in general; and where it has any foundations, it entities them not to the gratitude of the state, because it was not the effect of choice, but of imbecility; and that the effect of the wise system of laws, the repealed popery code. It may not be here improper to quote a passage out of the the speech of the late earl of Chesterfield, at the opening of the Irish parliament in the year 1745, he being then lord lieutenant of Ireland, to shew the opinion entertained by that able statesman, and the government he then served, of the popery laws.—"The measures (said he) that have been hitherto taken to prevent the growth of popery, have I hope, had some, and will still have a greater effect; however, I leave it to your consideration, whether nothing further can be done, either by new laws, or by the more effectual execution of those in being, to secure this nation against the great number of papists, whose speculative errors would only deserve pity, if their pernicious influence on civil society did not both require and authorise restraint."—The second plea of merit of romanists, to wit, that they supported in Ireland the great measure of an union of the two kingdoms, and by their exertions effected it, is as void of foundation in fact, as the former. Every one, who has the smallest acquaintance with the history of
888
Ireland, must acknowledge, that the whole body of Irish romanists, from the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth to the present time, has directed all its exertions to the separation of Ireland from England. Such separation was and is the point to which Irish romanists have uniformly directed all their conspiracies, all their massacres, all their rebellions, all their political views and measures. The Irish protestants, on the contrary, were always firmly attached to Great Britain, and always looked to Great Britain for protection, countenance and support; being ready at all times to expend the last shilling of their property, and spill the last drop of their blood, in defence of the just rights of the British empire. The whole body of protestants till a few years back, and a very great majority of them since, were ambitious of uniting the nation indissolubly to Great Britain by an incorporating union; and by their representatives in parliament actually petitioned the crown to procure such an union in the reign of queen Anne; which petition was then, with unaccountable, haughtiness, rejected. But the Irish romanists, so late as the year 1795, proclaimed their hostility to that measure. In the spring of that year, the representatives of the whole mass of the Roman catholics of Ireland, chosen from every considerable district, city, and town in that kingdom, open, popular election, assembled at St. Francis's Romish chapel, in the city of Dublin. In this assembly the most treasonable speeches, stuffed with the most virulent invectives against the British nation, and the most lavish praises of the French revolution, stigmatizing the war against the French regicides with the epithet of an impious crusade, and exhorting the nation to a separation from Great Britain, were uttered by several of the leading and popular romanists. The assembly entered unanimously into several factious and treasonable resolutions. It was surmised at this assembly, that an union between Great Britain and Ireland was then in the contemplation of government, though no such measure had been announced; and one of the unanimous resolutions was the following: "Resolved, that we pledge ourselves, collectively and individually, to resist even our own emancipation, if proposed to be conceded on the ignominious terms of an acquiescence in the fatal measure of an union with Great Britain" By the unanimous vote of this assembly, consisting of above fifteen hundred men, re-

889
presentatives of all the romanists of Ireland, these resolutions, together with abstracts of the speeches of the principals demagogues among them, were published in most of the factious papers, both in Great Britain and Ireland. Here then is proof positive of the hostile sentiments of the whole mass of Irish romanists, not of any partial body of them, to the measure of and incorporating union of the two nations so late as the year 1795. —Their declarations against the measure did not stop there: in the year 1799, as soon as an union was proposed by government, a meeting of the romanists of the city of Dublin was convened by their leaders at the Royal Exchange; at this meeting, a very general one, they entered into violent resolutions against an union, which they published as usual in the factious papers both in England and Ireland. The same line of conduct was pursued in several other parts of Ireland, though this hostility of the Irish romanists to an union was perfectly impotent, the political imbecility of the whole sect, particularly after the suppression of their then recent rebellion, rendering them incapable either of promoting or obstructing the measure; yet the English government in Ireland condescended to negotiate with the party, and endeavoured to procure signatures of the dregs of the people of that persuasion to papers and addresses in favours of the measure. Several addresses this kind appeared in the government prints; the names of wretches who could not write their names, appeared as if they were subscribers to such addresses. The very gaols were canvassed to procure subscribers, and multitudes of names appeared, as the names of real subscribers to these addresses, though persons of such names did not exist in the places from which the addresses were stated to have been sent: in short, with all the activity and intrigue of government, no considerable body of romanists throughout the kingdom could be procured publicly to avow their approbation of the measure. It is admitted, that many honest men, and good subjects at this side of the water (utterly ignorant of the state of Ireland, and of Irish affairs) have been duped, by the grossest falsehoods and misrepresentations, into on approbation of the measure now in debate; and that there is a difference of opinion among men of that description respecting it; but among demagogues, republicans, and infidels, there is no difference of opinion of it. They are unanimous in its support; and their unanimity
890
on the point should induce all loyal subjects, who have been deluded into an opinion of its utility to the state, to re-examine the grounds of their opinion, and the authenticity of the information on which they formed it. It is fit to be remarked, that the first decisive step of the French revolutionists in their career of anarchy, was the subversion of their church establishment, which led mediately to the subversion of their civil government. The consequence of the proposed measure, if adopted, will be the same in the British empire; it therefore meets the approbation of all the Jacobins in it. To demonstrate that Irish romanists neither gave, nor could give, any assistance to the measure of an incorporating union, it is only necessary to state a known matter of fact, which is, that a great majority of the Irish parliament would never have agreed to an incorporating union with Great Britain, if any hint had been given, or had it even been suspected, that the present measure would be attempted, after an union had taken place. I call on the persons concerned on the part of government in conducting the business of the union in the Irish house of commons to deny this fact, if they can; for my own part, I can truly aver; that, instead of warmly supporting the measure of an union in the Irish commons, I would have opposed it to the utmost of my power had I suspected that measure as the precept would have been introduced into the imperial parliament, in the event of an incorporating union taking place; and I know many members of the Irish commons, supporters of the union, who would have decidedly opposed it, had they any suspicion of the present measure being one of its consequences: in short, a great majority of the Irish commons would have done so. One principal argument made use of by all the agents of government to the Irish members to induce them to agree to an union was, that all hostility of the British Cabinet to Irish protestants, and all fart her encouragement and support of Irish romanists, would for ever cease, on an union between the two countries taking place, because all inducement to such a species of policy would then for ever cease. Could any British subject ever suspect that in the reign of a prince of the house of Brunswick, a measure would be proposed in a British parliament, the attempting of which cost the unhappy James II. his crown, expatriated him and his posterity, and caused a breach in the hereditary succession of our kings, always serious

891
evil in an hereditary monarchy? Astonishing, that what our kings could not even attempt with impunity, should be, after a lapse of one century, daringly attempted; and that too under the reign of a prince, whose sole title to the crown rests on a principle, directly adverse and opposite to the principle of this measure! His title is a protestant title, and, thanks to heaven! our monarch is a protestant, a sincere one, and bound by his oath, and as strongly by his principles, to maintain the protestant religion as by law established. This measure directly tends to the sapping of his title; for if it is just and advantageous to the state, now to invest romanists with equal political privileges with protestants, it was equally so in the reign of king James II. Such a measure, now that an union between Great Britain and Ireland has taken place, is more mischievous to the British empire, than it could have been in the reign of James; because in his reign few romanists could obtain seats in the British parliament, as their sect was not then, nor is it now, very numerous in Great Britain. But Irish romanists, if this measure succeeds, will obtain seats in the imperial parliament, and in the course of a few years (as will be presently shewn) above eighty romanists, out of the hundred Irish commoners, will obtain seats in the imperial parliament:— a strong hand, indissolubly knit together, who will certainly be allies to every junto of republicans, every band of dissenters, in every opposition to government, unless they shall be gratified to the utmost extent of their wishes, by the utter subversion of the constitution church and state. Can any doctrine make more for the purposes and designs of the infidel and republican factions in our empire? Can any measure more directly tend to the subversion of our constitution in church and state, and the introduction of anarchy, democracy, and infidelity? It may be justly remarked, that this measure for the elevation and aggrandisement of popery, following so immediately on the heels of the Romish rebellion in Ireland, and the horrible massacre of the Irish protestants in the course of it, coupled with the almost general pardon of the principal traitors and murderers, actors in if it should be adopted, must, by every reasonable man, be considered as public reward conferred on Irish romanists for their rebellion and cruel murder of their protestant fellow subject blood; and that too a reward of the utmost magnitude and value: it is al-
892
ready proved, that it cannot be esteemed a reward of their merits, for merits they have none. The favourers of this measure allege, that it is calculated to produce unanimity among the European subject of the British empire, now more necessary than heretofore to the prosperity and independence of the state, from the overgrown power of France, and (echoing the words of James II. in support of the same measure) that it will render the subject of the British empire, happy and flourishing at home, and formidable abroad. But it is demonstrate that the adoption of it will produce the direct country effect, and will arm the romanists with a formidable power, which they will infallibly exercise for the destruction of the state. The religious tenets of romanists render them irreconcilable enemies to a protestant state; they must cease to be romanists before their hostility to such a state can be extinguished: they hold, as infallible doctrines, the decrees of the fourth Lateran council: they hold as a point of faith, the supremacy of the pope: they hold themselves bound by all the obligations of religion, to propagate these doctrines by every means of persuasion and force. In conformity with such doctrines they hold, that all people, differing from them in matters of faith, are heretics doomed to eternal perdition: they hold that no faith is to be kept with heretics: they hold that no oaths of allegiance to an heretical prince or government are binding, Can the members of such a sect be admitted to share in the government of a protestant state? I conceive that no honest man in his reason will answer in the affirmative. No protestant state in Europe, in the government of which the people at large had share, such as the republic of the United Provinces before the late revolution, ever admitted a romanist or any person who did not profess the religion of the state, to any portion of political power. No arguments in favour of the measure can be deduced from the employment of romanists in some department of the state by states the people at large have no political power, and the ministers must implicitly obey the orders of the prince; yet even in such despotic states, the instances of the elevation of romanists to great employments are very few, if any. It may be objected, that romanists declare themselves ready to swear allegiance in temporal matters to a protestant government; and assert, that they hold no such

893
doctrine, as that faith is not to be kept with heretics: and to shew that they look on oaths to heretics to be binding, they argue, that if they did not think themselves bound by such oaths, they would not refuse to take the oath of supremacy, the taking of which would qualify them to enjoy the privileges they are now so ardently in pursuit of. To this it is answered, that the aforesaid doctrine is contained in the decisions of the Lateran council, a very general one, and so held to be by all romanists: that the practice of the court of Rome and of all its vassals and votaries, has been always strictly conformable to such doctrine: that the recent publications of the most celebrated divines of that persuasion, and among others, of Doctors Troy and Hussey, one an archbishop, the other a bishop, and both subjects of this empire, state, "That Roman catholics consider the express decisions of their general councils, as infallible authority in points of doctrine:" that the rejection of the oath of supremacy by Romanists, notwithstanding their taking it would entitle them to great privileges, is no proof that they consider themselves bound by oaths, by which they plight their faith to an heretical government, or to heretics in general: because the oath of supremacy contains an abjuration of the supremacy of the pope, under the title of a foreign prelate; and such an oath their religion will not permit them to take. Doctor Troy, among others of the eminent divines, tells them, "That Roman catholics cannot conscientiously abjure the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome, the supreme jurisdiction of the pope in spirituals being a fundamental article of the Romish faith." But the express decisions of the council of Lateran (infallible authority with them in points of doctrine) tell them that no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that all pledges of faith given to heretics, by oaths, or otherwise, are absolutely null and void, consequently are not binding, and ought not to be observed; so that they may take such oaths, and break them at their pleasure, as absolute nullities in themselves: and such has been the constant and avowed practice of their church.—It is now time to give a general catalogue of the momentous alterations in the British constitution in church and state, which will be the inevitable consequences of this measure if it shall take place: but it is however first necessary to make a few preliminary observations.—By the union the number of Irish representatives in the commons are reduced from three hundred to one hundred;
894
of these, sixty-four are members for counties, and the remaining thirty-six for cities and great towns. All close boroughs, with the exception of one, as I recollect, and the most of the influenced boroughs, are deprived of the privilege of sending representatives to parliament. By an Irish act of parliament in the year 1793, obtained by the intrigues and influence of the British ministry, and passed in opposition to the opinions of the best informed men in Ireland, romanists became entitled to vote at the elections of members of parliament. Most of the cities and great towns, which retain the privilege of sending members to parliament since the union, such as Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Derry, Carrickfergus, and Drogheda, are counties within themselves; and a freehold of forty shillings annual value entitles the person seised of it to a vote. Newry and some other towns are pot-walloping boroughs: so that the representatives of the Irish commons are almost all returned to parliament by elections merely and purely popular. The right of voting in very few of the towns or boroughs entitled to representation in parliament is confined to the members of the corporation only; and romanists, by the aforesaid Irish act of 1793, are entitled to become members of corporations. The Irish romanists are in the proportion of about two to one to the Irish protestants general; and the proportion among the peasantry of Ireland is greater in favour of the romanists, than among the other classes of society. The landed estates in Ireland, in the possession of protestants and romanists, are in the proportion of fifty to one in favour of the protestants: but when the bill in 1793 passed, qualifying romanists to vote for representatives in parliament, the protestant lordlords almost universally changed the tenures of their popish tenants, which before were for terms of years, into freehold leases; vainly imagining, that they would always retain influence enough with their Romish tenantry to command their votes at elections. Little did they consider the all-ruling authority of Romish bigotry over its votaries, as many of them found to their great disappointment at the general election, which first succeeded the year 1793. One gentleman of large landed property, and a representative of a county, informed me, that he and his colleague had every reasonable expectation, from their great landed interest in the county, of being returned members for it Without any contest or expense: but a gentleman of very insignificant landed property in

895
the county, unexpectedly declared himself a candidate, and went round to all the Romish chapels, soliciting the votes of romanists in the county, and promising, if elected, to support all their pretensions in parliament. On this occasion the Romish tenants of the gentleman who gave me the information, made freeholders by himself, universally deserted him, and promised their votes to the new candidate; and the Romish priests through the county so effectually bestirred themselves with their votaries in support of the new candidate, that my friend and his colleague were obliged to give a large sum of money to this adventurer to induce him to abandon the canvass, and thereby to save themselves from the fatigue and expense of a contested election. Certain it is, that the whole body of the Romish peasantry, who by the folly and credulity of their landlords have been made freeholders since the year 1793, will desert their interest on every election, when told by their priests that it is for the interest of their religion that they should do so. In the last Irish rebellion, the popish peasantry pursued their landlords (most of them very indulgent to their tenants, and from their attachment to romanists entitled men of liberality) with the utmost fury and rancour, massacreing them and their families without mercy, when they fell into their hands. Such has been the frenzy of the protestant landlords of Ireland, and their ambition of surpassing each. other in county interest, that they have made almost the whole mass of. the popish peasantry forty-shilling freeholders since the year 1793; so that the Romish freeholders of that description exceed in number the protestant freeholders of every description, throughout three parts in four of Ireland: and if this measure shall take effect, romanists will be returned members of parliament for most of the counties at large, counties of towns, and pot-wallopping boroughs throughout Ireland: and the principle of representation in the British constitution, that property should be the basis of representation, will be completely reversed in Ireland, and the basis there will be numbers, not property.— But even in respect of property, the influence of popery will be daily advancing in Ireland, because, in a commercial country, land is as often at market, and changes hands, as personal property; and lauded as well as personal properly will, in a slow but certain progression, creep to that class of the population which is the most numerous. From the foregoing observations it is a just conclusion, that in a very short time, if this measure is effected,
896
eighty at least out of the hundred Irish representatives will be romanists; and it is fair to conjecture, that twenty or more romanists will obtain seats in the imperial commons for English boroughs, as the whole Romish faction throughout the empire will exert their powers to strengthen their party in parliament; and some Romish peers will sit in the upper house. The romanists will certainly act in parliament as one body; their union, cemented by religious principle, and the interest of their sect, will smother every seed of dissension among them: all allurement of individual interest will fail of effect, when put in competition with the interests of their religion; their bigotry will bind them together in adamantine bonds; and what their conduct in the supreme legislative council of the empire will be, it is not hard to divine.—The first measure they will unanimously propose, and with unremitting efforts pursue and support, will be the repeal of-so much of the Irish act of 1793, conferring on them the elective franchise, as continues the disability of romanists without taking the oaths, to fill about thirty or forty of the great offices of the state, in the departments of which is lodged the executive power of the government. By the incessant intrigues in Ireland of the English ministry, the test and corporation acts had been repealed in that part of the empire previous to the union, with the exception of the above mentioned great offices of the state: these are the offices of lord lieutenant, of lord chancellor of the twelve judges, of the commander in chief of the army, of the king's counsel, of sheriffs, and a few others. If the minister of the day, at a future critical period, should oppose, or decline to support such a measure, the whole corps will immediately join the opposition; and the opposition, to secure the assistance of such numerous auxiliaries, will heartily fraternize with them. In many cases of national distress and difficulty, the ablest minister, though adverse to their claims, will be unable to stem the torrent; and the part of the test and corporation acts, yet in force in Ireland will not survive the admission of romanists into parliament for many sessions. When the capability of romanists of filling these great offices in Ireland is once established, will it be practicable to exclude them from occupying them? Certainly it will not. Their dissatisfaction at such exclusion would be greater than at their-former disqualification. The great majority of the Irish representatives in the imperial parliament being romanists, aided by the English romanists, and indissolubly connected, would

897
wring from the minister the whole civil patronage in Ireland, and secure all the offices there for their own sect: in fact, the civil establishment in Ireland would become completely Romish.—Would the Romish representatives in parliament then contented? Would their clergy in Ireland, and the mass of their persuasion, acquiesce without murmur in the enjoyment of the ecclesiastical revenues in lands and tithes by the protestant clergy? Would they not immediately grasp at them? If the whole executive power of the state there be committed to romanists; if the lord lieutenant, the lord chancellor, the judges, sheriffs, and all the administrators of the law in that nation should be romanists; who would warrant the enjoyment of the ecclesiastical revenues there to the protestant clergy, or maintain their possession of them? The minister himself would not be able to secure the laws entitling the protestant clergy to these emoluments from alteration and repeal, if the great body of the Irish representation in parliament demanded such a sacrifice, which it would not fail to do. The utter subversion in Ireland of the church establishment would follow on the heels of the subversion of the civil, and Ireland would immediately become a popish country—But would the ambition of the Romish faction in the imperial parliament stop here? Certainly it would not. The tenets of popery enjoin continual exertions for its propagation, support, and aggrandizement; and every romanist would beside have the additional spur of parliament interest and ambition, to stimulate him to further exertions on behalf of the sect. The test and corporation acts, being in full force in England, would oppose effectual barriers against the attainment of offices of profit and power in England by romanists. They would observe, that Scotchmen, by the weight of Scottish representation in the imperial parliament, much lighter than that of Irish and Romish representation, had obtained such offices in England, though they had almost engrossed all places of emolument or power in Scotland; they would also observe, that would also observe, that British and Irish protestants were capable of enjoying offices in Ireland; but that British and Irish romanists were excluded from all offices of emolument or power in England by the test and corporation acts: they would then loudly complain of this inequality of condition with their fellow-citizens the British empire, and state that they were excluded from such offices in four-fifth parts of the British empire, and admitted only to the full privileges of citizens in
898
the one-fifth, without having any exclusive privilege even in this one-fifth. If the minister of the day stood in need of their assistance in parliament, as he often would, he must listen to such complaints, and listen with attention and favour: circumstances might compel to join them in their efforts to repeal the test and corporation acts; and if he should determine to support these remaining bulwarks of the constitution, they would join the whole herd of republicans, who have so often reprobated these statutes, and attempted their repeal. Two attempts of this nature, one in 1789, the other in 1790, must be in the recollection of many members of this house: it required all the abilities of the able minister, who at that time principally conducted the business of the nation, to defeat them. If the party which made these attempts shall be reinforced by above one hundred members, steady and determined in their hostility to these two statutes, who can answer for their continuance as part of the law of empire for any length of time? They: will undoubtedly yield to the incessant mining and continued assaults of a determined, vigilant, and insidious enemy, constantly recruited by the venomous offspring of infidelity, republicanism, and jacobinism: the constitution, in church and state, will infallibly sink under the combined pressure of such a chaotic mass of desolating innovation.—The attempt to obtrude this measure on the nation, is, in fact, but the rehearsal of the first act of the Gallic tragedy on the British stage. The introduction of members of all sects into the Gallic national assembly was followed immediately by the subversion, or rather extinction, of their national religion; and that by the complete subversion,of their government, and the substitution of the most barbarous despotism which ever ravaged and deformed any region of the civilized world. Principils obsta: let us firmly resist all approaches of the ferocious monster, Gallic anarchy!—Britons, it is necessary to call to your recollection, and set before your eyes, the statutes, the repeal of which must precede, or inevitably follow, the adoption of. this measure; because such display will convince you, that this measure and its consequences directly tend to the complete subversion of your constitution, which has been improving from the commencement of the reign of the glorious Elizabeth, till its attainment of its present unrivalled excellence! under which you and your ancestors for two centuries have lived and flourished; and which has descended as

899
an inheritance, during that period, in succession from father to son!—The statute of the first of Elizabeth, enacting that all public officers shall take the oath of supremacy: that of the first of William and Mary, or the bill of rights, new-modelling the oath of supremacy, and extending the sphere of administration of that oath: the acts of the thirtieth of Charles II. ch. 2, and the first of George I. ch. 13, enacting, that no members shall sit or vote in either house of parliament, till he hath, in the presence of the house, taken the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and adjuration, and repeated and subscribed the declaration: the act of the thirteenth of Charles II. called the test act requiring all public officers to take the above oaths, repeat and subscribe the declaration, and receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the usage of the church of England: and the act of the twenty-fifth of Charles II. ch. 2, called the corporation act, incapacitating all persons from being elected officers of any city or corporation, without their having within a twelve month previous to their election, received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the usage of the church of England; and also requiring them to take the above-mentioned oaths:—all these acts must be repealed! all the fortifications, erected for the safety and preservation of our constitution in church and state for two centuries must be levelled with the dust.—Judge Blackstone, an able and constitutional lawyer of modern days, states, that the acts of Charles II. and George I. requiring all members of both houses to take the oaths, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, were enacted to prevent crude innovations in religion and government. The test and corporation acts he styles the bulwarks of the constitution, and states, that they were enacted to secure the established church against perils from non-conformists of all the denominations, among whom he particularly enumerates papists. (See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 158, and vol. iv. p. 57, 8vo. edit.)—It is now time to advert to the conditions of union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, which relate to the church establishment; and to enquire whether the present measure can be adopted consistently with the conditions, and the preservation of the public faith.—In the act of union of England and Scotland, the fifth of Ann, ch. 8, two acts of the respective parliaments of England and Scotland,
900
for the unalterable security of their respective church establishments, are recited: that of England being for effectually and unalterable securing the true protestant religion, professed and established by law in the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof. The English acts of uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles II. and all other acts then in force (among the rest, the thirtieth of Charles II. before-mentioned), for the preservation of the church of England are declared perpetual: and it is enacted, that every subsequent king and queen shall take an oath inviolably to maintain the same within England, Ireland, Wales, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed. And it is further enacted, that these two acts shall for ever be observed as fundamental and essential conditions of the union. On these conditions of the treaty of union judge Blackstone makes these observations: "that whatever else may be deemed fundamental and essential conditions, the preservation of the two churches of England and Scotland, in the same state they were in at the time of the union, is expressly declared so to be; and that therefore any alterations in the constitutions of either of these churches, would be an infringement of these fundamental and essential conditions." The fifth article of the union of Great-Britain and Ireland is in the following terms: "that it be the fifth article of the union, that the churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one protestant episcopal church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said united church shall be and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are now by the law established for the church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said united church, as the established church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union; and that in like manner the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland shall remain, and be preserved, as the same are now established by law, and by the act of the union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland."—It is clear that every measure tending to the breach of these fundamental and essential conditions of the two unions ought to be rejected by this house with indignation: the very proposal of such a measure to this house is an insult to it, as it must be found

901
ed on the presumption, that this house is capable of violating the public faith reciprocally plighted by the nations composing the British empire to each other, on their consolidation into one body. If this measure should be adopted, the act of the 30th of Charles II. requiring all members of both houses to take the oath of supremacy, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, will be repealed by its adoption, as well as the bill of rights and the, test and corporation acts: these are made perpetual by the conditions of the union of England and Scotland, being enacted for the preservation and continuance of the church of England; and as Judge Blackstone expresses it, for the prevention of crude innovations in religion and government. Exclusive of this direct breach of the conditions of the union, it is already shewn, that the whole tendency of the measure, and. its notorious consequences, are, the subversion the established church in Great-Britain and Ireland, in violation of the public faith plighted on the completion of two incorporating unions; the introduction of infidelity and atheism, by the annihilation of all the bonds of society springing from an established religion: and the consequent introduction of anarchy and democracy—the true reason (however disguised under the mask of liberality) why this desolating, faithless, Gallic measure has met the approbation, and acquired the patronage and support of all the jacobins in the British empire.—It is some consolation to reflect that the subjects of this empire, attached to the constitution, have yet one barrier left to resist that inundation of impiety, democracy, and barbarity, with which this measure is calculated to overwhelm it: that is, his majesty's coronation oath; a barrier, I am convinced, sufficient to defend us, during the precious life at least, of the pious and conscientious prince who now sways the British sceptre; a barrier raised by the wisdom, piety, and patriotism of our forefathers.—The oath enjoined by the statute of the first of William and Mary, to be taken by the king at his coronation, has the following clause: "I will to the utmost of my power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the protestant reformed religion established by law." By the act of Anne ratifying the union of England and Scotland, as is already stated, it is enacted, "that two acts of the respective parliaments of England and Scotland, for the unalterable security of their respective church establish-
902
ments therein-recited, shall be perpetual; and in both of these recited acts, an addition is made to the coronation oath; and it is enacted, "that the succeeding kings of Great-Britain shall, at their coronations, swear to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the church of England, as specified in that statute, for the unalterable security of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as in that act specified, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging." A similar oath is prescribed to be taken at the coronation by all succeeding kings, for the inviolably preservation of the then established religion in Scotland. The Coronation oath not only binds the king to refuse his assent to any alteration in the religions of England, Ireland, and Scotland, as they were established at the time of the union of England and Scotland, but he is equally bound to refuse his assent to any measure, directly tending to the subversion of the religion then established; and also to discountenance, as far as in him lies, all attempts of that nature—The patrons of this measure, sensible of this impediment, have not been wanting in their endeavours, by sophistical arguments, casuistical distinctions, misrepresentations of some facts, suppression of others, and suggestion of falsehoods, in pamphlets and newspapers, to sap the foundation of this barrier, which they were unable to surmount. One pamphlet of this nature deserves particular notice, inasmuch it is an epitome of all the arguments against the obligation of the coronation oath; and is launched into the world under the name of a gentleman, whom I understand be a person of some reputation, as a lawyer or conveyances, and of the Roman catholic persuasion. It is entitled, "A Letter to a Nobleman on the proposed Repeal of the penal Laws which now remain in force against the Irish Roman Catholics, from Charles Butler, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn, Author of the Notes and Annotations on Coke on Littleton." This pamphlet, after stating, that the author is less acquainted with the Irish popery laws than with the English (which is indeed sufficiently manifested by its contents), proceeds to give what it styles an outline of them; but in truth it is an odious, monstrous, and detestable caricatura of provisions and effects of the Irish popery acts of the 2d and 8th of Queen Aune,

903
The whole scope of these two wise and provident statutes was to prevent romanists from acquiring landed property in Ireland, their antecedent rebellions and barbarous massacres of the protestants of Ireland haying rendered such a prohibition at that time not only expedient, but absolutely necessary. The pamphlet admits, that these acts are new repealed, but the caricatura is inserted by way of ornament to the subsequent argument against the obligation of the obligation oath, the main drift of the pamphlet. The pamphlet then praises the loyalty of the Irish romanists in the course of the war; and states that five of the directors of the united Irish only one was a romanist; but it should at the same time have stated, as the truth is, that the other four were desperate jacobins and infidels, with which species of people the Irish rebels-had closely connected themselves; and that nearly the whole mass:of Irish traitors which broke out into open rebellion in the year 1798 were romanists, not one in five hundred of them being of any other religions persuasion; and that they massacred in cold blood all the protestants, men, women, and children, who fill into their hands; giving no other reason for their barbarity, than that the victims were protestants and heretics. It appears from some passages in the pamphlet, that it was written and published since the year 1798. In that year burst forth the last rebellion of the Irish romanists, and the barbarous massacre of their protestant countrymen. The reports of the committees of the English and Irish houses of commons have been some years published: the conspiracy for rebellion, and the dreadful and dangerous mutiny of the Irish romanists in the:British fleet, are fully exposed in these reports; yet the author of the pamphlet has the confidence to praise the loyalty of the Irish romanists, and to state, that in the late invasions of Ireland, none were more active in repelling the invaders, that among the men of influence and property, who were engaged the rebellion, three catholics cannot be mentioned. There was but one invasion of Ireland during the last war, and conducted by Humbert, at the head of one thousand French troops. He landed in a part of Ireland, in which the bulk of the inhabitants were romanists, who joined him in a mass on his landing; at his first encounter with the king's troops, the greater part of a regiment of Irish militia, all romanists, deserted to him; all the romanists of influence or property within the districts
904
adjacent to his quarters joined him. What then could induce the author to praise the loyalty of the Irish romanists? He states, that if the Irish romanists did not flock to the standard of Britain, frightful indeed would be the solitude of her camps and her fleets. Poor Britain! I Irish romanists, according to this pamphlet, are your only defenders! The author means to insinuate, that all the Irish serving in the British fleets and armies are romanists, whereas not one half of them are so. And it is certain, that the protestants of Great Britain and Ireland would furnish sufficient armies and fleets, if romanists were entirely excluded. Since the mutiny in the fleet;the recruiting officers for some time refused to enlist any Irish romanists for the marine service. The degree of merit of a Romish common soldier, serving under protestant officers in an army, nine-tenths of the common soldiers of which are protestants, in countries remote from his native land, removed from the baneful influence of his priests, and subject to military discipline, is so minute, that its value is not easily appreciated. He enlists for the bounty; he is paid for, and obliged to perform his allotted service. The author of the pamphlet either did or did not know of the already mentioned rebellion and mutiny, when he published his praises of the loyalty of the Irish romanists: in the first case, he seems to be deficient in candour; in the other, in. information. The pamphlet then states, that the Roman catholics acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the pope, but to man deny his right to temporal power. It can be hardly supposed, that the author, if he be a lawyer, can be ignorant, that the wisest and most sagacious statesmen and legislator cannot separate a vast portion of temporal influence, authority, and power, from the supremacy in spirituals; their adhesion is indissoluble, they must for ever accompany each other.—It is now time to advert to the principal argument in the pamphlet, that the.;king is not by his coronation oath bound to resist the adoption of the present measure: this the author rests on the clause in that oath, which binds his majesty "to govern the people according to the states in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the realm.' The author then gives a mutilated extract from the next clause, to wit, that his majesty swears "to maintain the protestant reformed religion established by law;" [for coronation oath, as settled by the act of 1st William and Mary, see Black-

905
stone's Commentaries octavo edit 1st vol. page 228, 229], and adverts only to the coronation oath as settled by the 1st of William and Mary, without at all adverting to the additions made to that oath by 5th of Anne, or the act of union between England and Scotland. He then draw, the following conclusion from these garbled premises, that the last clause can only mean the protestant reformed religion, as from time to time, under the legislation of parliament, it should be the church establishment of the country: that, as to the constitutional interpretation of the clause, it would be absurd in the extreme, unconstitutional, and perhaps even treasonable, to contend that the last clause precludes his majesty from concurring with both houses of parliament in any legislative act whatsoever; and even if it did preclude him from such a concurrence, it would be no objection to his repealing the laws remaining in force against the Irish romanists, as the repeal of them will not interfere with the legal establishment of the church, with any part of the hierarchy or spiritual rights and privileges. I have already remarked the disingenuity of the author of the pamphlet in respect to his garbled quotations of the coronation oath, and his total omission of the additions made to it, by the act of union of England and Scotland, by which the king is obliged to swear at coronation, to maintain and preserve inviolably the church of England, the act of uniformity, and all acts in force at the time of that union, for the perpetual preservation of the church of England in its doctrine, worship, discipline, and government (the act already mentioned of the 30th of Charles II. among the rest, whereby all members of both houses of parliament are bound to take the oaths previous to their sitting or voting in the houses), as it stood at the time of the union of England and Scotland, and consequently not to make or consent to the making any alteration in its doctrine, discipline and government, as it then stood. But the first deduction of the author from the clauses in the coronation oath, as partially quoted by him, that they can only mean, the protestant reformed religion, as from time to time, under the legislation of parliament, it should be the church establishment of the country, is founded on a sophism, to wit, the fraudulent assumption, that bills depending in parliament, and which have, perhaps, passed the two houses, are acts of parliament or statutes. The king, by his
906
coronation oath, is bound to govern his people according to the statutes in parliament agreed on (that is, agreed on by king, lords, and commons, the king in his legislative capacity being an integral part of the parliament), but not according to bills depending in parliament, and which may perhaps have been agreed on by a majority of the members of the two houses of parliament; for such bills are not laws nor statutes, nor in any manner binding on prince or people, till they have been agreed to by the monarch, and received the royal assent, without which they become waste paper.—It is sincerely to be hoped, that there will be such harmony always subsisting between the king and both houses of parliament, that no bill will be ever offered to his majesty for his assent, which he shall deem it expedient to reject; especially such bills, as he is bound by his coronation oath, and by the express conditions of the two unions consolidating the British empire, to reject. But I cannot agree with the doctrine of some bold innovators on the British constitution, who have asserted, that the king is bound to assent every bill which has passed through the two houses of parliament. Such doctrine is, in my opinion (to use the words of the author of the pamphlet), absurd in the extreme, unconstitutional, and perhaps even treasonable; as it teaches, that the king in his legislative capacity is a mere cypher. If (which God forbid!) the two houses of parliament should pass a bill containing clauses in direct contradiction to his majesty's coronation oath, and in violation of the articles of the two incorporating unions of England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Ireland, and tender such a bill to his majesty for the royal assent, who will assert that his majesty is bound to give that assent in violation of his coronation oath, and the public faith? Such a crisis I have the firmest hope never happen; if it should, I have no difficulty in asserting, that the king is bound by every principle of religion, and by every true principle of the constitution, to refuse his assent; though by such assertion, I incur the guilt of treason in the opinion of the Annotator on Coke on Littleton! I acknowledge no power, in either or both houses of parliament, of dispensing with the obligation of lawful, positive, solemn oaths. I will not admit, that any man, or body of men, on the face of the earth, is invested with such a power. King James II. was chased from his throne for attempting to dispense with the laws of the land;

907
what punishment is too great for those who would attempt to dispense with the laws of God? Leave such doctrine to romanists and the court of Rome! it is not a protestant doctrine!—It may not be improper to observe here, that in the purest æra of the constitution in the reign of William III. the royal assent to bills which had passed both houses of parliament has been more than once refused by the sovereign. In 1693, that king refused his assent to a bill to render all members of the house of commons incapable of places of trust and profit: the commons, in their resolution on that occasion, state that the royal assent had been refused to several public bills, and by that king in particular. [Harris's Life of William III. page 398.—William refused his assent, in 1695, to another bill for the further regulation of elections of members to serve in parliament, Ibid. p. 437.—See also Commons' Journals.]—The author of the pamphlet asserts, that the repeal of all the laws complained of by romanists would not interfere with the church establishment, or with any of its temporal rights and privileges. I trust it has been already proved, that though the present measure, if adopted, would not be immediately attended by the subversion of the present church establishment, yet the subversion of that, as well as the civil establishment, would be the certain, and not very remote consequence of such adoption—The author of the pamphlet then puts the following query: "What system of casuistry made it lawful for his majesty to assent to the repeal of the large proportion of penal laws, repealed by the acts of 1782, 1788, and 1793, and now makes it unlawful for him to assent to the repeal of the small proportion of those laws yet remaining unrepealed; or, that made it lawful for him to sanction a partial repeal of the test act in 1782, and makes it unlawful for him to sanction a total repeal of it in 1801? To this question it is answered, that the repeal of the parts of the popery code (which the pamphlet styles penal laws, but which are, in fact, remedial laws only) at the periods mentioned, does not confer any very considerable portion of political power on the Romish sect even in Ireland; and the repeal cannot be followed by consequences subversive of the constitution in church and state; and therefore his majesty might give the royal assent to such repeal consistently with the obligations of his coronation oath. The partial repeal of the test act exempts romanists in Ireland from the
908
necessity of taking the oath of supremacy, and receiving the sacrament, on their appointment to places, and becoming members of corporations; but all places in the department of which the executive power and authority of the state are lodged, and all offices in corporations, are yet reserved and excepted from their grasp, unless they perform the usual requisites of all others his majesty's subjects on their attainment of such places and offices. The author of the pamphlet is desirous that these reservations and exceptions should be repealed, and styles them a small proportion of the popery code yet remaining: it may be admitted, that they are small in bulk, but very great, indeed, they are in importance. On the continuance and perpetuity of them depend the continuance and perpetuity of the constitution in church and state. Are these matters of trifling moment? What commandant of a strong and important fortress, the chief defence of a kingdom, would be justified in the surrender of it to a cruel, merciless, and unrelenting enemy, because it was deemed advisable, for the better defence of the place, to slight some weak and unimportant outwork, and permit the foe to possess themselves of it?—The author, after the preceding train of reasoning, seems to abandon at all for the purpose of introducing one conclusive argument against the obligation of the coronation oath, which he deems irrefragable. "All this discussion," says he, is superfluous;—the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the first of William and Mary; at that time Roman catholic peers had their seats, and voted in the hose of lords; Roman catholic commoners were eligible to the house of commons; and all civil and military offices were open to Roman catholics: they were deprived of these rights by the acts of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the 1st and 2d of queen Anne. Now the coronation oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the act which prescribed if was passed; but the Irish laws meant to be repealed are subsequent to that act; to these laws therefore, or to any similar laws; the coronation oath cannot be referred."—Before I expose the absolute errors in fact in the premises from which the author deduces his conclusion, I will examine the justice of the conclusion, supposing the premises to be true. The coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary binds the king "to the utmost of his power to maintain the laws of God the true profes-

909
sion of the Gospel, and the protestant reformed religion established by law." Shortly after the accession of William and Mary, it was deemed necessary to add further fortifications to the established religion by statute in Ireland. The test and corporation acts passed in England in the reign of Charles II. And in the 30th year of the same king's reign, the act passed enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy, and repeating and subscribing the declaration, by all members of both houses of parliament, previous to their sitting or voting in either house: by the coronation oath, as settled by the 1st of William and Mary, the king swears, that he will to the utmost of his power maintain the protestant reformed religion established by law; the obligation, of this oath extends to Ireland, so that he is bound to the utmost of his power to maintain it in Ireland, as well As in England, as then established in England by law; and all the barriers for its support erected in England previous to the 1st of William and Mary. The English parliament in the 3d and 4th of William and Mary passed an act, enjoining all members of both houses of parliament in Ireland to take the oath of supremacy, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, the parliament of England at that time exercising the power of binding Ireland by its acts; not for the purpose of making any addition to, or alteration in the protestant religion established by law in that kingdom, but to give that establishment an additional security. How then does it follow from the premises laid down by the author of the pamphlet, that his present majesty or future king of Great Britain and Ireland, having taken the aforesaid coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary, can, consistently with that oath, consent to the repeal of the aforesaid English statute of the 30th of Charles II. or the above mentioned statute of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary? His present majesty swore to maintain to the utmost of his power the church established by law in England and Ireland, as he found it established by law, at the time of his accession, and not as it was established by law in the 1st of William and Mary; though in fact it is the very same church, which was established by law in England and Ireland that time, and which has received an additional barrier in Ireland since, by the enaction of the said English statute of the 3d and 4th of, William and Mary for that country. I apprehend I have taken up too much time in refuting this absurd argument, and shall only further observe, that is not cre-
910
ditable to an Annotator on Coke on Littleton to support the cause of his party by the quibbling of special pleading.—It is necessary however to make a few remarks on what the author has adduced as facts to support his argument. He states that the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the 1st of William and Mary; true it is, it was fixed as well for England as Ireland, by the English statute of the 1st. of William and Mary; but the author has totally omitted to state the additions to the coronation oath introduced by the act of union of England and Scotland, the 5th of Anne. By this act the king is obliged at his coronation to "swear (as is already noticed) to maintain and preserve invoilably the settlement of the church of England; as specified in that statute, for the unalterable security of that church, and the, doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as in that statute specified, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed." The statute particularly specifies, that the act uniformity, and all other acts for the perpetual preservation of the church of England (among which are the aforesaid English act of the 30th of Charles II. enacted for Ireland it the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the test and corporation acts), shall be unalterable and perpetual. The author was either ignorant of these additions to the coronation oath, or designedly omitted them: if inserted, they would have completely overturned his quibbling argument, the king is not bound by his coronation oath, to resist the repeal of any law for the support of the established church, which was not law at the time the coronation oath was fixed; for the aforesaid additions were made to the coronation oath by the 5th of Anne, many years subsequent to the 3d and 4th of Wm. and Mary, and also subsequent to the 1st and 2d of Anne; by which acts, he states that romanists were deprived of their rights seats and votes in the houses of lords and commons in Ireland. He admits also, that the coronation oath refers to that system of law which was in force, when the acts which prescribed it were passed; that is, that the king cannot conscientiously, consent to the repeal of any of the acts for the perpetual security of the established church which had passed previously to the fixing of the coronation oath: that oath was ultimately fixed by the of 5th of Anne; and therefore of the author's own shewing, the king cannot conscientiously to the repeal of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, or to that

911
of the 1st and 2d of Anne, so far as they enjoin the taking of the oath of supremacy and the repetition and subscription of the declaration by all members previous to their sitting and voting in either of the houses.—The author states, that at the accession of William and Mary, Roman catholic peers had their seats, and voted in the house of lords; Roman catholic commoners were eligible to the house of commons; and all civil and military offices were open to Roman catholics. In respect to Roman catholic peers, I am not sufficiently conversant in the journals of the Irish house of lords to ascertain, whether Romish peers were, or were not, excluded from seats or votes in that house, unless they took the oath of supremacy, previous to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary; they certainly were not so excluded by any Irish statute: but very few such Irish peers could have sat in parliament in Ireland, from the restoration to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary (excepting in the Romish mob assembled in Dublin by king James II. after his abdication, and by him and themselves styled a parliament); for the Romish peerage in Ireland was not numerous previous to the year 1641; and almost the whole of them were attainted as traitors, having joined in that wicked Romish rebellion, and massacre of the Irish protestants, which broke out and commenced in the year 1641; and the remainder for their rebellion in 1689, 1690, and 1691. The author displays much artifice in his assertion respecting Romish commoners he states that previous to the accession of William and Mary, and till the 3d and 4th years of their reign, they were eligible to seats in parliament; they certainly were so, and are so still, and may occupy these seats, and vote in the house of commons, provided they will take the oaths prescribed to be taken, not by them particularly, but by all his majesty's subjects sitting and voting in the house of commons: but the idea the author means to convey to his readers is, that romanists, antecedent to the 1st of William and Mary, were capable of occupying seats in the Irish house of commons, and did sit therein, without taking any oaths whatsoever, particularly the oath of supremacy. This is a gross mistatement. By a resolution of the Irish house of commons in the year 1642, [see the Journals of the Irish house of commons, vol i. page 434, page 568. Vol ii. page 443.] all the members were obliged to take the oath of supremacy, or to vacate their seats.
912
By another resolution of the Irish house of commons in the year 1661, all the members were obliged to take the oath of supremacy and the oath of allegiance of the 3d of James I. and receive the sacrament according to the usage of the church established, or to vacate their seats. The commons in the first parliament assembled in Ireland after the accession of William and Mary, in the 3d and 4th year of their reign, immediately on their meeting, and before they proceeded to any business whatsoever, took the oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and repeated and subscribed the declaration, deeming the resolutions of the commons before mentioned, and the English act of the 30th of Charles II. imperative upon them: so that the idea that any member could sit in the Irish house of commons at all times previous to the accession of William and Mary, or to the third and fourth years of their reign, without taking the oath of supremacy; or that Irish romanists were for the first time, abridged of that alleged right, by the English act of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, is erroneous; they were, long before that period, abridged of it by the resolutions of the house of commons, warranted by the law of parliament, part of the law of the land, under which that house has claimed and exercised the power of judging of the qualifications of its own members —The author's assertion, that all civil and military offices in Ireland were open to Roman catholics, previous to the accession of William and Mary, smells of the same artifice with his former assertion respecting the eligibility of romanists to be members of the house of commons: it is true that such offices were then open to romanists (as they now are), if they performed the acts required to be performed by all his majesty's subjects appointed to such offices; but what he means to insinuate is, that romanists, till the accession of William and Mary, and till the third and fourth years of their reign, might enjoy all such offices in Ireland, without taking the oaths, &c.; this assertion, in such sense is as groundless as any other in the pamphlet; for no person in Ireland could enjoy any such offices, without taking the oath of supremacy, as enjoined to be taken by the Irish act of the second of Elizabeth; by the universal rejection of which oath romanists disable themselves to hold or enjoy such offices. The cautious artificial manner in which the pamphlet attempts to convey to the reader, the period of Romish exclusion

913
from the houses of parliament, induces a belief, that the author, at the time of writing the pamphlet, was not ignorant of the resolution of the Irish house of commons just mentioned, not of the Irish act of the 2d of Elizabeth; and if he was not, what opinion must the public entertain of his candour!—The author cannot resort to the unlawful and riotous assembly convoked at Dublin, in the year 1689, by king James II. after his abdication, and by him honoured with the title of a parliament, in proof of his assertions; it consisted almost entirely of romanists, unlawful elected, after he had destroyed all the corporations, and driven out of the country, or into the protestant armies, almost the whole of the protestant nobility and gentry; and after he had himself ceased to be a king, and had therefore no power to convoke a parliament. By act of parliament in the reign of William and Mary, this mock parliament was declared to be unlawful assembly, and all its acts and proceedings were condemned to the flames, and were publicly burned and destroyed accordingly.—I trust l have demonstrated to the house, that the doctrines, political, moral, and religious, contained in the petition, and stated to be the principles inculcated by the Roman catholic religion, are diametrically opposite to the principles taught and inculcated by the canons, decrees of general councils, by all writers, lay and cleric, of the greatest authority amongst the romanists, and adopted, by the universal practice of their church from the date of the council of Lateran to the present day; and that their modern writers, such as Dr. Troy and Mr. Plowden assert, "that the religious principles of Roman catholics being unchangeable, they are applicable to all times; and that if any one says, or pretends to insinuate, that the modern Roman catholics differ in one iota from their ancestors, he either deceives himself or wishes to deceive others; and that semper endem is emphatically descriptive of their religion."—It has been urged in this debate, that the establishment by the British government of the Roman catholic religion in Canada, furnishes a reason for establishing it in the remainder of the British empire, because it has not been productive of any bad effects there. It is rather premature to form any decided opinion of what effects may hereafter flow from such establishment; but even supposing that the effects of such establishment may hereafter be found to be pre-
914
judicial to the British government there, yet the establishment of it in Canada was a matter of necessity and not of choice; for Canada surrendered to the British arms upon express stipulated conditions; one of which was, that the Roman catholic religion, which was professed by that country before the conquest by the British arms, should be for ever preserved inviolate; and Britain ever faithful to her treaties, was thus obliged to establish the Roman catholic religion in that province. As to the fidelity of the Canadians during the American war, it may be accounted for also by necessity on their side: their communication with Europe is by the river St. Lawrence, which is open to navigation for six months in the year only; for the other six months it is blockaded by ice. Britain, in case of rebellion of the Canadians, could cut off all communication with Europe by a few ships stationed in the river St. Lawrence; and the Canadians cannot at present subsist without European commodities, and with these they could not be furnished from the United States without great difficulty and intolerable expense, besides infinite risk and hazard.—The hon. member who has introduced this motion, has argued in favour of the motion from the number of romanists in Ireland; and, to strengthen his argument, he has represented them, in the course of his speech, sometimes to amount to four millions, sometimes to three millions; but in the whole course of his reasoning he has never mentioned the Irish protestants, but has endeavoured to impress on the members of this house, unacquainted with Ireland, that all its inhabitants, with a few trifling exceptions, are romanists. To expose the errors of the hon. gentleman in this particular, it is necessary to state, that a calculation of the number of the inhabitants of Ireland was made in the year 1692, after the revolution war, and that they then amounted to one million two hundred thousand only. Another calculation was made in the year 1731, as Dr. Burke, Romish titular bishop of Ossory, has informed as, in his Hibernia Dominicana; and he states, that there were then found to be in Ireland seven hundred thousand four hundred and fifty-three protestants, and one million three hundred and nine thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight romanists; so that 1731 the romanists of Ireland did hot exceed the protestants in the proportion of two one. Dr. Burke published his book in 1762, and he makes bitter complaints, that the proportion of

915
the inhabitants of Ireland had increased greatly on the protestant side in the interval between 1731 and 1762: it may from hence be fairly deduced, that the romanists of Ireland are not, at this day, in the proportion of two to one to the protestants of Ireland. From the best calculations lately made, it appears that the whole inhabitants of Ireland do not now exceed three millions; and it may be fairly deduced, that one million two hundred thousand of these are protestants, the persons so much contemned by the hon. mover, that when speaking of the inhabitants of Ireland, he does not even condescend to mention them; and if all the inhabitants of the British islands amount to sixteen millions, then the romanists do not exceed one-eighth part of that population. It is notorious, that the Romish inhabitants of Ireland do not possess one-fortieth part of the real and personal property of that country, nor one-thousandth part of the property of the united kingdom in fact they compose the mo' and the beggary of Ireland, and are not consequence enough, either in numbers, wealth, or power, to demand (as this petition does) the subversion of the constitution in church and state, and the the destruction of the protestants of Ireland, for their gratification—There is an argument advanced in the petition for the grant of the representative franchise to romanists, from the elective franchise being conceded to them in Ireland. I trust that I have already shewn to this house, that the grant of the representative franchise to romanists would be attended by the subversion of the constitution in church and state; and that therefore their enjoyment of the elective franchise is so far from being an argument for conceding to them the representative franchise, that demand of the representative franchise, grounded upon their enjoyment of the elective franchise, is a strong and powerful argument for depriving them of the elective franchise: because, by their mode of argument, the enjoyment of the elective franchise entitles them to a privilege which would be subversive of the constitution in church and state—It is much safer for a Romish government; even a popular one, to admit protestants into places of trust and power, than for a protestant government to admit romanists; because protestants hold no doctrine as a point of faith hostile to the independence of the state of which they are subjects; but romanists do—The plea that the measure is
916
necessary to reconcile a considerable share of our population to the government is absurd; for people who maintain, as a point of faith, that the state is subject to a foreign jurisdiction, and is not independent, can never be reconciled to the state till they renounce so anarchical and degrading a tenet; they must be always enemies to it; and giving them political power, is furnishing them with the means of overturning the constitution.—The mob, and the indigent part of the population of a state (as the romanists of Ireland), ought not to be gratified at the expense of the ruin of the loyal, opulent, and respectable part of the state. If the contrary conduct shall be pursued, agrarian laws and the system of equality must be adopted in every state; because the indigent in every state compose the bulk of the population, and are desirous of degrading and plundering the great and rich in every state, as well as in Ireland.—To sum up the arguments against this measure, the laws enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy are not restrictive nor exclusive laws, in respect to any class of people in the community except to traitors, because it is merely an oath of allegiance to the state. No subject, refusing it, should be admitted to the functions of a legislator, or or to any place of trust and power in the state. To use the words of a great minister of state, (Mr, Pitt) in debate in 1790, on-the attempt to repeal the test and corporation acts, "persons professing modes of belief which endanger the welfare of the society of which they are members, should be excluded from possessing the authority of the state; and here such line of exclusion should be drawn." The romanists in the British empire (but particularly in Ireland) enjoy a complete toleration and liberty of conscience. To use the. words of the same great minister again on the same occasion; "Toleration consists in a free exercise of religion according to the tenets of the professors of that religion, and in the enjoyment of the protection of the laws; not in a communication of an equality of political power." And in combating the arguments made use of on that occasion he used the;e following expressions: " even papists, acknowledging the supremacy of a foreign ecclesiastical prince, must, by such arguments, be admitted to offices of power and trust." Indeed every argument he made use of that occasion, can be used with signal strength and effect against the present measure—The present measure, if

917
adopted, would directly lead to the subversion of the constitution in church and state, and let in an universal deluge of atheism, infidelity, democracy, and anarchy. The repeal of the laws enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy, will be a constructive admission of the justice of the claim of the supremacy of the pope.—The adoption of this measure would be a violation of the conditions of the two unions of England and Scotland, and of two unions of England and Scotland, and of Great-Britain and Ireland, and a notorious breach of the public faith.—The adoption of the measure would tend to a violation of the coronation oath; it cannot therefore be supposed that his majesty will ever agree to it: the tendering a bill to him for the royal assent, to carry this measure into effect, would be an insult to him.—For all reasons I shall give my hearty negative to the motion.
Mr. Grattanrose and spoke as follows:—Sir, in offering to the house my sentiments upon this most important subject, I shall endeavour to avoid the example set me by the learned member who has just sat down. I shall deprecate all animosity on the one side or on the other. As the causes have ceased, I think all animosity arising out of those causes should also cease; and instead, therefore, of calumniating either party, I rise to defend both. I do not wish to revive in detail the memory of those rebellions to which the learned member has alluded.—The past troubles of Ireland, the rebellion or 1641, and the wars which followed, (said the hon. gent.) I do not wholly forget; but I only remember them to deprecate the example, and renounce the animosity. The penal code which went before, and followed those times, I remember also, but only enough to know that the cause and reasons for that code have totally expired; and as on one side the protestant should relinquish his animosity on account of the rebellion, so the catholics should relinquish their animosity on account of the laws. The question is not stated by member: it is not whether you will keep in a state of disqualification a few Irish catholics, but whether you will keep in a state of langour and neutrality a fifth of your empire. Before you impose such a sentence on yourself, you will require better arguments than those which the member has advanced. He has substantially told you that the Irish catholic church, which is more independent than the catholic church here, is the worst in Europe; that the Irish catholics, our own kindred, conforming to our own terms, are the worst of papists; that the
918
distinction, a distinction made by the law, propounded by ourselves, and essential to the state, between temporal and spiritual power, is a vain discrimination, that the Irish people, to be good catholics, must be bad subjects; and finally he has emphatically said, "that an Irish catholic never is, never was, or will be, a faithful subject to a British protestant king—they hate all protestants and all Englishmen." Thus has he pronounced against his country three curses: eternal war with one another, eternal war with England, and eternal peace with France; so strongly does he inculcate this, that if a catholic printer were in the time of invasion to publish his speech, that printer might be indicted for treason as the publisher of a composition administering to the catholics a stimulative to rise, and advancing the authority of their religion for rebellion. His speech consists of four parts, 1st, invective uttered against the religion of the catholics; 2dly, invective uttered against the present generation; 3dly, invective against the past, and 4thly, invective against the future: here the limits of creation interposed, and stopped the member. It is to defend those different generations and their religion, I rise; to rescue the catholics from his attack, and the protestants from his defence—The civil interference of the pope, his assumed power of deposition, together with the supposed doctrine that no faith was to be kept with heretics, were the great objections to the claims of the catholics; to convict them the learned doctor has gone forth with a sinister zeal to collect his rueful materials; and behold! he returns laden with much comment, much doubtful text, much of executive decrees, and of such things as are become obsolete, because useless, and are little attended to, because very dull and very uninteresting, and wherein the learned gent. may for that reason take many little liberties in the way of misquotation, or the way of suppression. All these, the fruits of his unprofitable industry, he lays before you: very kindly and liberally he does it; but of this huge and tremendous collection you must reject a principal part, as having nothing to say to the question, namely, al that matter which belongs to the court of Rome, as distinct from the church; 2dly, of the remnant after that objection you must remove every thing that belongs to the church of Rome which is not doctrine, regarding which is not confined to doctrine, regarding faith and moral, exclusive of, and

919
unmixed with, any temporal matter whatever. After this correction you will have reduced this gentleman of the 15th century to two miserable canons, the only rewards of his labour, and result of his toil, both centuries before the reformation, and therefore not bearing on the protestants or the reformers. The first is a canon excommunicating persons who do not abide by a profession of faith contained in a preceding canon, which notably concludes with the following observation, that virgins and married women may make themselves agreeable to God. Now I cannot think such a canon can excite any grave impression or alarm in this house; passed 600 years ago, 300 years before the birth of the reformation, made by lay princes as well as ecclesiastics, and never acknowledged or noticed in these islands even in times of their popery. The other canon, that of Constance, goes to deny the force of a free passport or safe conduct to heretics, given by temporal princes in bar of the proceedings of the church. Without going farther into that canon, it is sufficient to say that it is positively affirmed by the catholics, that this does not go farther than to assert the power of the church to enquire into heresy, notwithstanding any impediments from lay princes; and, farther, there is an authority for that interpretation, and in contradiction to the member's interpretation, not merely above his authority, by any that it is in his studies to produce; I mean that of Grotius, who mentions that the imputation cast on the catholics on account of that canon is unfounded. Here I stop, and submit that the member is in the state of a plaintiff, who cannot make out his case, notwithstanding his two canons: that he has failed most egregiously, and has no right to throw the other party on their defence: however, the catholics have gone, as far as relates to him, gratuitously into their case, and have not availed themselves of the imbecility of their opponents; and they have been enabled to produce on the subject of the above charges, the opinion of six universities, to whom those charges, in the shape of queries, have been submitted: Paris, Louvaine, Salamanca, Douay, Valladolid, Alcala. The universities have all answered, and have in their answers not only disclaimed them with abhorrence. The catholics have not stopped here: they have drawn up a declaration of nine articles, together with other doctrines or
920
views objected to them. They have gone further, they have desired the protestants to name their own terms of abjuration; the protestants have done so, and here is the instrument of their compact; it is an oath framed by a protestant parliament, principally manufactured by the hon. member himself, in which the Irish catholics not only abjure the imputed doctrine, but are sworn to the state, and to the present establishment of the protestant church in Ireland, and to the present state of protestant property. This oath has been universally taken, and by this oath both parties are concluded, the catholics from resorting to the abjured doctrines, and the protestants from resorting to the abjured charge. Therefore, when the member imputes, as he has done, to the catholic the principles hereby abjured, it is not the catholic who breaks faith with him, but it is he who breaks faith with the catholic. He acts in violation of the instrument he himself formed, and is put down by his own authority. But the Catholics have not only thus obtained a special acquittal from the charges made against them in this debate, they have obtained a general acquittal also—The most powerful of their opponents, the late earl of Clare, writes as follows: "they who adhere to the church of Rome are good catholics, they who adhere to the court of Rome are traitors;" and he them quotes Lord Somers as his authority, in which he entirely acquiesces, and acknowledges their innocence in their adherence to the church Rome as distinct from the court—A test, such as I have already mentioned, is formed, abjuring the doctrine of the court of Rome, and reducing their religion to the church of Rome. This test together with a number of other articles, is reduced to an oath, and this-oath is introduced into an act of parliament, and this oath is taken universally. Here again are the opponents to the catholics concluded by their own concessions. By tendering an oath to catholics, they allow oath to be test of sincerity; by framing that oath under the circumstances, they make it a test of pure catholicism; and by their own arguments, they pronounce pure catholicism to be innoxious. But the hon. member has gone a little further than pronouncing the innocence of the catholics, he has pronounced the mischievous consequences of the laws that proscribe them; he has said in so many words that an Irish catholic never is, and never will be faithful to a British protestant

921
king, he does not say every catholic, for then he would include the English catholics and those of Canada; nor does he say every Irishman must hate the king, for then he would include every protestant in Ireland. The cause of the hatred is not then in the religion nor in the soil—it mut be then in the laws, in something which the protestant does not experience in Ireland, nor the catholics in any country but in Ireland; that is to say, in the penal code. That code then, according to him, has made the catholics enemies to the king: thus has he acquitted the catholics, and convicted the laws. This is not extraordinary, it is the natural progress of a blind and a great polemic. Such characters begin with a fatal candour, and then precipitate to a fatal extravagance, and are at once undermined by their candour, and exposed by their extravagance: so with the member, he hurries on he knows not where, utters he cares not what, and is equally negligent of the grounds of his assertions, and their necessary inferences. Thus, when he thinks he is establishing his errors, unconsciously and unintentionally he promulgates truth; or rather, in the very tempest of his speech, Providence seems to govern his lips, so that they shall prove false to his purposes, and bear witness to his refutations. Interpret the gentleman, literally, what blasphemies has he uttered? He said that the catholic religion, abstracted as it is at present in Ireland from popery, and reduced as it is to mere catholicism, inconsistent with the duties of morality and allegiance, as to be a very great evil. Now, that religion is the christianity of two thirds of all Christendom; it follows then, according to the learned doctor, that the christian religion is in general a curse. He has added, that his own countrymen are not only depraved by religion, but rendered perverse by nativity; that is to say, according to him, blasted by their Creator, and damned by their Redeemer. In order, therefore, restore the member to the character of a christian, we must renounce him as art advocate, and acknowledge that he has acquitted the catholics which meant to condemn, and convicted the laws which he meant to defend. But though the truth may be eviscerated from the whole of the member's statement, it is not to be discerned in the particular parts; and therefore it is not sufficient to refute his arguments, 'tis necessary to controvert his facts. The catholics of Ireland, he says, hate the protestants, hate the English, and hate the
922
king. I must protest against the truth of this position; the laws, virulent as they were, and mitigated as for the last seventeen years they have been, the people better than the laws, never could have produced that mischief; against such a position I appeal to the conscious persuasion of every Irishman. We will put it to an issue: the present chief governor of Ireland is both an Englishman and the representative of English government; I will ask the hon. gentleman whether the Irish hate him? If I could believe this position, what could I think of the protestant ascendancy, and what must I think of the British connection and government, who have been for six hundred years in possession of the country with no other effect, according to this logic, than to make its inhabitants abhor you and your generation? But this position contains something more than a departure from fact; it says, "strike France; strike, Spain; the great body of the Irish are with you:" it does much more, it attempts to give them a provocation; it teaches you to hate them, and them to think so; and thus falsehood takes its chance of generating into fatal and treasonable truth. The hon. gentleman having misrepresented the present generation, mistates the conduct of their ancestors, and sets forth the past rebellions as proceeding entirely from religion. I will follow him to those rebellions, and shew, beyond his power of contradiction, that religion was not, and that proscription was, the leading cause of those rebellions. The rebellion of 1641, or let me be controverted by any historian of authority, did not proceed from religion; it did proceed from the extermination of the inhabitants of eight countries in Ulster, and from the foreign and bigoted education of the catholic clergy, and not from religion. The rebellion of the pale (for it was totally distinct in period or cause from the other) did not proceed from religion; loss of the graces; they resembled your petition of right, except that they embraced articles for the security of property; disarmament of the catholics, expulsion of them in that disarmed state from Dublin; many other causes,—order for the execution of certain priests. You will not forget there was an order to banish their priests in James the First's time, and to shut up their chapels in Charles the First's. These were the causes. There was another cause: you were in rebellion, Scotland was in rebellion! These was another cause, the Irish government was in rebellion; they had taken their part with the republicans, and wished to

923
draw into treason the Irish freeholders, that with the forfeiture of another's rebellion they might supply their own. I go back with concern to those times: I see much blood, no glory; but I have the consolation to find that the causes are not lodged in the religion or the soil, and that all of them but the proscriptive cause have vanished. I follow the member to another rebellion, the which should properly be called a civil war, not a rebellion; it proceeded from a combination of causes which exist no longer, and one of those causes was the abdicating king at the head of the catholics, and another cause was the violent proscription carried on against the catholics by the opposite and then prevailing party. These causes are now no more; or will the member say there is now an abdicating prince, or now a popish plot, or now a pretender? There are causes, most certainly, sufficient to alarm you, but very different, and such as can only be combated by a conviction that, as destinies are now disposed of, it is not the power of the catholics which can destroy, or the exclusion of the catholics which can save you. The conclusion I draw from the history above alluded to, is very different from that drawn by the member, and far more healing; conclusions to shew the evils arising from foreign connections on one side, and from domestic proscription on the other. If all the blood shed on these occasions; if the many fights in the first, and the signal battles in the second period, and the consequences of those battles to the defeated and the triumphant, to the slave that fled, and the slave that followed, shall teach our country the wisdom of conciliation, I congratulate her on those deluges of blood: if not, I submit, and lament her fate, and deplore her understanding, which would render not only the blessings of Providence, but its visitations fruitless, and transmit what was the curse of our fathers as the inheritance of our children.—The learned gentleman proceeds to mistate a period of 100 years, namely, the century that followed the revolution, and this he makes a period of open or concealed rebellions. The sources of his darkness and misinformation are to be found in history and revelation. Of his charges against that period he brings no proof; none of those on the same side with him can bring any. They heard from such a one, who heard from such a one: I neither believe them nor such a one, and I desire so many generations may not be convicted on evidence that-would not be- admitted against the vilest caitiff; and
924
that against evidence by which that vilest caitiff would be acquitted, again the authority of four acts of parliament; the act of 1778, which declares their loyalty for a long series of years, that of 1782, that of 1792, and that of 1793; and farther against the declared sense of government, who, in the year 1762, proposed to raise four catholic regiments, because the catholics had proved their allegiance; and against the authority of the then Irish primate, who supported that measure, and in his speech on that subject, assigns as his reason, that, after his perusal of Mr. Murray's papers, nothing appeared against the Irish catholics of any connection whatsoever with the rebellion of that period. The member proceeds to the rebellion of 1798, and this he charges to the catholics; and against his charge I appeal to the committee of the Irish house of commons in 1797, in which it sets forth the rebel muster, containing 99,000 northerns enrolled in rebellion, and all the northern counties organised. At the time in which the committee of the house of commons states the rebellion of the north; the dispatches of government acknowledged the allegiance of the south. To those dispatches I appeal, written at the time of Hoche's projected invasion, and applauding the attachment and loyalty of the southern counties, and their exertions to assist the army on its march to Cork to oppose the landing of the French. If you ask how the rebellion spread, and involved the catholics, I will answer and tell you, that as long as the proscriptive system continues, there will be in our country a staminal weakness, rendering the distempers to which society is obnoxious, not only dangerous, but deadly. Every epidemic disease will bring the chronic distemper into action. It is the grapestone in the hand of death, which strikes with the force of a thunderbolt. If you have any apprehension on this account, the error is to be found in yourselves; in human policy, not in religion; in the fallibility of man, not of God. If you wish to strip rebellion of its hopes, France of her expectations, reform that policy; you will gain a victory over the enemy when you gain a conquest over yourselves. But I will for a moment accede to the member's statement against facts and history: what is his inference? during one hundred years of the proscriptive system, this state has been in imminent danger: therefore, adds he, continue the system; here is the regimen under which you have declined—persevere. But the member proceeds to ob-

925
serve, that you cannot hope to reconcile whom you cannot hope to satisfy; and he instances the repeal of the penal code. I deny the instances: the repeal in 1778 and 1782 did reconcile and did satisfy; and according you will find that the Irish catholics in 1779, 1780, 1781, and 1782, were active and unanimous to repel the invasion threatened at that time, when the French rode in the Channel, and Ireland was left to the care 6000 regulars, and was only defended from invasion by the spirit and loyalty of the catholics, in harmony and in arms with their protestant brethren. The repeal of a principal part of the penal code, in 1793, did not reconcile, and did not satisfy: it was because the Irish government of that time was an enemy to the repeal and to the catholics, and prevented the good effects of that measure. That government, in the summer of 1792, had sent instructions (I know the fact to be so) to the grand juries, to enter into resolutions against the claims of the catholics. Their leading minister opposed himself at one of the county meetings, and took a memorable post of hostility and publicity. When the petition of the catholics was recommended in the king's speech 1793, the Irish minister answered the king, and with unmeasured severity attacked the petitioners. When the bill introduced in consequence of his majesty's recommendation was in progress, the same minister, with as unmeasured severity, attacked the bill, and repeated his severity against the catholics. When the some bill a of reconciliation, in consequence of the recommendation and reference of the petition, was on its passage, the Irish government attempted to hang the leading men among the petitioners, and accordingly Mr. Bird and, Mr. Hamil were by these orders indicted for a capital offence, I think it was defenderism; and so little ground was there for the charge that those men were triumphantly acquitted, and the witnesses of the crown so flagrantly perjured, that the judge, I have heard, recommended a prosecution. These were the causes why the repeal of 1793 did not satisfy; and in addition to these, because the government took care that the catholics should receive no benefit; therefore opposing these with their known partisans and dependents in the corporation of Dublin, when they sought for the freedom of the city, seldom giving any office (there are very few instances in which they got any) in consequence of the act of parliament, and always attacking their cha-
926
racters from a court press; so that the aversion of the Irish government stood in the place of disqualification by law, and the hostility of the Irish minister succeeded to the hostility of statute. The catholics, some of them I know, thought so, and there are gentlemen now in parliament to whom they communicated their sentiments, that they would prefer their situation before the repeal of 1793, to the situation which followed; inasmuch as they experienced in the then Irish government a more deadly and more active enemy than before they had experienced in the law. I refer to the speeches delivered and published at the time by the ministers and servants of the Irish government, and persisted in and delivered since. There you will see an attack on all the proceedings of the Irish from the time of their address for free trade, such as were glorious as well as those that were intemperate; without discrimination or moderation: there you will see the Irish ministry engaged in a wretched squabble with the catholic committee, and that catholic committee replying on that ministry, and degrading it more than it had degraded itself; and you will further perceive the members of that ministry urging their charges against the members of that committee, to disqualify other catholic who were not of the committee, but opposed it: so that by their measures against the one part of the catholics, and their invective against the other, they take care to alienate, as far as in them lay, the whole body. The fact is, the project of conciliation in 1793, recommendation in the speech from the throne, was defeated by the Irish cabinet, which was at that time on that subject in opposition, and being incensed at the British cabinet for the countenance afforded to the catholics, punished the latter, and sowed those seeds which afterwards, in conjunction with other causes, produced the rebellion—I leave the member, and proceed to discuss the differences now remaining that discriminate his majesty's subjects of the protestant and catholic persuasion. Before we consider how far we differ, it is necessary to examine how far we agree. We acknowledge the same God, the same Redeemer, the same consequences of redemption, same Bible, and the same Testament. Agreeing in this, we cannot, as far as respects religion, quarrel about the remainder, because their merits as christians must in our opinion outweigh their demerits as catholics, and reduce our religious distinctions to a difference about the eucharist, the mass, and

927
the Virgin Mary, matters which may form a difference of opinion, but not a division of interests.—The infidel under these circumstances would consider us as the same religionists, just as the French would consider you, and cut you down, as the same community. See whether we are not agreed a little farther, and united by statute, as well as religion. The preambles of three acts declare the catholics to be loyal subjects; the act of 1778 declares that they have been so for a series of years; the same act declares that they should be admitted into the blessing of the constitution; the act of 1793 goes farther, and admits them into a participation of those blessings. Thus is the principle of identification established by the law of the land, and thus are the catholics by that law proclaimed to be innocent, and the calumniators of the catholics guilty. Let us consider their situation under these laws, professedly and in principle admitted to every thing except seats in parliament, and certain offices of state; they are, in fact, excluded from every thing under the circumstances of paying for every thing; the few places they enjoy make no exception; they pay their proportion to the navy, and contribute one-third to its numbers, and have not a commission: they contribute to the expenses of the army, and to one-third of its numbers, and have not a commission: and shall I now be asked how are the catholics affected by this, or be told that the catholic body would not be served by the removal of this? How would the protestant body be affected, if only removed from the state, the parliament, the navy, and the army? In addition to this I am to add the many minor injuries done to the catholics in ways that must be felt, and cannot be calculated; the inestimable injury done to the catholic mind by precluding it from the objects of ambition, and to the catholic spirit by exposing it to the taunts and insults, (you cannot be at a loss for an instance), such as are uttered by the vilest of the protestants against the first of the catholics. I am to add the mischief done to the morals of the country by setting up a false standard of merit, by which men without religion, moral or public integrity, shall obtain, by an abhorrence of their fellow subjects, credit and consequence, and acquire an impunity for selling the whole community, because they detest a part of it. You see it is impossible for any one part of the society to afflict the other without paying the penalty, and feel-
928
ing the consequences of its own policy in the re-action of its own bad passions on itself. I am to add the mischief done to the peace of the country, when the spirit of religious discord descends to the lower order of people, and the holiday becomes a riot: and when the petty magistrate turns chapman and dealer in politics, turns theologian and robber, makes for himself a situation in the country formed out of the monstrous lies he tells of his catholic neighbours, fabricates false panics of insurrection and invasion, then walks forth the man of blood, his creditors tremble, the French do not; and atrocities, which he dare not commit in his own name, perpetrates for the honour of his king, and in the name of his Maker. I have heard of the incivilisation of Ireland: too much has been said on that subject. I deny the fact; a country exporting above five millions, even at your official value, near about half a million of corn, three millions of linen, paying eight millions to the state, cannot be barbarous; a nation connected with you for six hundred years, what do you say? cannot be barbarous. If France should say so, you would contradict her, because it is not on Ireland, but on you, the reflection must fall. But if anything, however, delays the perfect and extensive civilization of Ireland, it is principally her religious animosity. Examine all the causes of human misery, the tragic machinery of the globe, and the instruments of civil rage and domestic murder, and you find no demon is like it, because it privileges all the rest, and amalgamates with infidelity as well as murder, and conscience, which restrains other vices, becomes a prompter here. To restrain this waste, and this conquest exercised over your understanding, your morals, and your fortune, my hon. friend makes his motion. The present lord lieutenant of Ireland has done much to reconcile, but his mild integrity and good sense must be aided by parliament. Come, let us hear the objectors. The catholics, they say, should not have power. Why, they have it already: they got it when you gave them landed property, and they got it when yen gave them the elective franchise: "Be it enacted, that the catholics shall be capable of holding all offices, civil and military, except;"(and then the act excludes a certain numeration.) This is the act of 1793, and is not this political power allowed by act of parliament? so that the objection goes not so much against the petition, as against the law, and the

929
law is the answer to it. The reasons they give for objecting to the law are, first, that the catholics do not acknowledge the king to be the head of their church. To require a person of the catholic faith to acknowledge a person of another religion, who makes no very encouraging declarations towards them, to be the head of the catholic church, is going very far; but to make the withholding such acknowledgment the test of disaffection is much farther; farther than reason, and farther than the law, which does not require such test, but is satisfied with a negative oath: and therefore, the presbyterian, who makes no such acknowledgement, may sit in parliament. So that here the objector is answered again by the law, and the reason he gives in opposition to the law shows, that the legislature is wiser than he is; the reason alleged is, that he who allows his majesty to be the head of his church, has more allegiance, because he acknowledges the king in more capacities. According to this, the Turk has more allegiance than either, for he acknowledges the grand seignior in all capacities; and the Englishman has allegiance than any other subject in Europe, because, whereas other European subjects acknowledge their king in a legislative, as well as an executive capacity, the English acknowledge their king in the latter capacity only. But such men know not how to estimate allegiance, which is not measured by the powers which you allow, but by the privileges which you keep; thus your allegiance is of an higher order, because it is rendered for the proud circumstances belonging to an Englishman; to the peer who has his rank, the commoner who has his rank, the commoner who has his privileges, and the peasant who has magna charta; the catholic too, he has an interest in his allegiance; increase that interest, that is, increase this privilege, you increase the force of the obligation, and with it your own security. But here, again, the objector interposes, and alleges that the catholic does not only acknowledge the king to be the head of their church, but acknowledges a foreign power. Whom? I cannot find him; there was, indeed, a power which you set up in the last war, and guarded with your troops. Is that the memory at which gentlemen tremble? a sort of president or chair, in whose name the business of the catholic church is conducted; for whom no catholic would fight, and against whom the Irish catholic would fight, if he came into their country would fight, if he came into their country at the head of an invading army—they have said
930
so. You will recollect how little you yourselves feared that name, when you encompassed and preserved it at the very time of the Irish rebellion; and now do gentlemen set it up, and bring it back again into the world as a principle to influence the action of the Irish? But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics. But here the objector interposes again, and tells us it is in vain to look for harmony with the catholics, inasmuch as they deliver the protestants to damnation. Gravely they say this, soberly they say this in a morning; and, according to this, you must not only repeal your laws of toleration, but you must disband part of your army and your navy, and disqualify your electors. The catholic who hears this, produces a protestant creed which does the same thing, and damns his sect likewise. The infidel who listens agrees with both, and triumphs; and suggests that it were better not to cast off your people, but to shake off your religion. So Volney makes all sects contend and all conquer, and religion the common victim. The truth is, exclusive salvation was the common frenzy of all sects, and is the religion of none; and is now not only rejected by all, but laughed at: so burning one another, as well as damning one another. You can produce instances—they can produce instances: it was the habit of the early christians to anathematise all sects but their own. No religion can stand, if me, without regard to their God, and with regard only to controversy, shall rake out of the rubbish of antiquity, the obsolete and quaint follies of the sectarians, and affront the majesty of the Almighty with the impudent catalogue of their devices; and it is a strong argument against the proscriptive system, that it helps to continue this shocking contest—theologian against theologian—polemic against polemic, until the two made men defame their common parent, and expose their common religion. With argu-

931
ments such as those, it is urged, the the the laws were in error which gave the catholic political power; and it is farther added, that he will use that political power to destroy the church. I do not think they have now said he will destroy the present state of property; bigotry has retired from that part, and has found out at last that the catholics cannot repeal the act of settlement in Ireland, by which the property of the country was ascertained, until they become the parliament; nor become the parliament till they get the landed property of the country; and that when they get that property, that they will not pass an act to set aside their titles. Further, it is now understood, that the protestant title is by time; that there are few old catholic proprietors—a multitude of new ones; that the catholic tenantry hold under protestant titles, and therefore that there is, in support of the present state of property in Ireland, not only the strength of the protestant interest, but the physical force of the catholics; therefore the objectors have judiciously retired from that ground, and now object to catholic power as certain to destroy the protestant church—how? They must do it by act of legislation, or by act of force: by act of legislation they cannot, and by force they will not. They will not by act of force, because the measures proposed, which do not go to increase that force, do go decisively to remove the animosity. Or will you say, when you give them every temporal motive to allegiance, they will become rebels? that when indeed they had rights of religion, rights of property, rights of election, they were loyal; but when you gratified their ambition likewise, they then became disaffected, and ready to sacrifice all their temporal rights and political gratifications—in order to do what? To get a larger income for their clergy; that is, that their bishops should drink more claret, wear finer clothes, and with whose assistance should they do this? With the aid of the French, who starve their clergy. The ordinary principles of action, the human motives that direct other men, according to these reasoners, are not to be found in the catholic. Nature is in him reversed: he is not influenced by the love of family, of property, of privileges, of power, or any human passions, according to his antagonists, no more than his antagonists are influenced by human reason, and therefore it is these reasoners deal mostly in the prophetic strain, with a prophets fury and his blindness—with much zeal, and no religion. I would ask then, what authority have they
932
for, thus introducing the church as an obstacle to the advantages of the state? Is it political, or is it moral, to deprive the catholic of the franchises of the constitution, because they contribute to the church, lest, on obtaining those franchises, they should pass laws with-holding that contribution? as if you had any right to make that supposition, or any right to insist on that perilous monopoly, which should exclude them at once from church and state, that they might pay for both without compensation. The great preachers of our capital have not said so, Mr. Dunn, that meek spirit of the Gospel—he has not said so. Mr. Douglas, in his strain of piety, morals, and eloquence—he has not said so. Nor the great luminary himself—he who has wrung from his own breast, as it were, near 60,000l. by preaching for public charities, and has stopped the mouth of hunger with its own bread—he has not said so. I ask not what politicians may instil and may whisper; what have the labouring clergymen preached and practised?—But the revolution, it seems, is an eternal bar: they find the principles of slavery in the revolution, as they lane found those of darkness in the revelation. If they mean to measure the privileges of the empire by the model existing at the revolution, they must impose on Ireland eternal proscription, for at that time she was deprived of the rights of trade and constitution, and the catholics of all rights whatsoever; and they must impose on the empire two opposite principles of action, the free system for England, and the proscriptive principle for the rest. They are then to make Ireland fight for British liberty and Irish exclusion. Their argument is therefore not only a wicked wish, but a vain one, Nor is this the practice of other countries; those countries do not require the religion of the public officer to be the religion of the state; their practice has been notoriously otherwise: they who said the contrary labour under a glaring error. Nor will you be able to encounter France and the other nations of Europe, if they should avail themselves of the talents of all their people, and you will oppose them by only a part of yours, and while you deprive yourself of the full strength of those talents, expose yourself to their animosity. It follows then, whether you look principles of liberty or empire, that you cannot make the proscriptive system existing at the revolution the measure of the other parts of your empire; you must then make the principles of the revolution that measure. What are those principles? Civil

933
and religious liberty. They existed at that time in full force for you, they existed as seminal principles for us, they were extended to the protestant part of Ireland a century after, they remain now to be extended to the catholics. Then will your revolution be completed, not overthrown; then will you extend the principles of your empire on those of your constitution, and have secured an uniformity of action by creating an identity of interest; thus will you have simplified the imperial and constitutional motions to the one and the same principle of action, moving you in your home and in your imperial orbit, informing the body of your laws, and vivifying the mass of your empire.—The petition of the county of Oxford states the catholics have been ever enemies to freedom, just as the controversialists have said the catholics must be enemies to the king. The revolution, from whose benefits you are to exclude the catholics, was founded on a model formed and moulded by catholics, the declaration of right being almost entirely declaratory of rights and privileges secured by your catholic ancestors. One of your great merits at the revolution was not to have exceeded that models, but on the contrary you restrained popular victory, and restored establishments, and with them kindled a modest spirit, which has outlasted the French conflagration, a vital heat, which then cheered you, which now should cheer the catholic, and,giving light and life to both, I hope will be eternal—The great objects, church, state, and property, I adopt With the controversialist, and beg to rescue them from his wisdom, and to give them for their support the physical force of the catholic body, inasmuch as our danger does not arise from the possible abuse of his constitutional power, but from the possible abuse of his physical thoughts to obtain that constitutional power. In all this debate you will observe we argue as if we had but one enemy, the catholic, and we forget the French: and here what I said to the Irish parliament, on the catholic question, I will repeat to you. I said to them, "the post you take is unfavourable,—in dependency of the British parliament, exclusion of the Irish catholics, a post to be kept against the power of one country, and the freedom of the other." I now say to you, the post you would take is unfavourable, a position that would keep France in check and Ireland in thraldom, to be held against the power of one country and the freedom of the other. There are
934
three systems for Ireland: one such as primate Boulton has disclosed, a system to set the people at variance on account of religion, that the government might be strong and the country weak; a system, such an one as prevailed when I broke her chain, which made the minister too strong for the constitution and the country, too weak for the enemy; a system which one of its advocates has described, when he said the protestants of Ireland were a garrison in an enemy's country, and which another gentleman has described when he considered Inland as a caput mortuum. This system has failed; it ought to have failed; it was a party government and a party god.—There is another, extermination, that will not do—the extermination of three millions of, men would be no easy task in execution, no every charitable measure in conception. The justices of 1641 had dreamed of it, Cromwell had attempted, Harrington had talked of it. I hold the extermination of the people, and even of their hierarchy, to be such experiment as will not be proposed by any gentleman who is perfectly in his senses. Extermination,, then, will not do; what is left? The partial adoption of the catholics has failed, the eradication of the catholics cannot be attempted, the absolute incorporation remains alone; there is no other; or did you think it necessary to unite with the Irish parliament, and do hesitate to identify with the people? See whether you can conduct your empire on any other principle. The better to illustrate this, and in order to ascertain the principles of your empire, survey its comprehension, computing your West Indies, and your eastern dominions. England has now, with all deference to her moderation, a very great proportion of the globe. On what principle will she govern that proportion? On the principles on which Providence governs that and the remainder. When yon make your dominions commensurate with a great portion of her works, you should make your laws analogous to her dispensations. As there is no such thing as exclusive Providence, so neither, considering the extent of your, empire, should there be such a thing as an exclusive empire, but such an one as accommodates to peculiar habits, religious prejudices; prepossessions, &c. &c. You do not, in your dispatches to your generals, send the thirty-nine articles: you know the bigot and conqueror are incompatible; Lewis XIV found it so. You know that no nation is long indulged in the exercise of the two qualities—

935
bigotry to proscribe at home, ambition to disturb abroad. Such. was your opinion when you established popery in Canada; I do not speak of Corsica— such your opinion when you recruited for the foot in Ireland. It was in the American war this practice began: then you found that the principle of exclusive empire would not answer, and that her test was not who should say her prayers, but who should fight her battles. On the same principle the Irish militia, which must be in a great proportion catholic, stands; and on the same principle the Irish yeomanry, who must be in a considerable proportion catholic, stands; and on the same principle you have recruited for the navy in Ireland, and have committed your sea thunder to catholic hands. Suppose in Egypt the general had ordered the catholics to go out of the ranks; or if, in one of your sea-fights, the admiral had ordered all the catholics on shore, what had been the consequence? It is an argument against the proscriptive system, that if adopted practically, in navy or army, the navy and army and empire would evaporate. And shall we now proclaim these men, or hold such language as the member, language, which, if he held on the day of battle, he must be shot; language for which, if a catholic, he must be hanged; such as you despised in the case of Corsica and of Canada, in the choice of your allies, in the recruiting your army and your navy, whenever your convenience; whenever your ambition, whenever your interest required. Or let us turn from the magnitude of your empire to the magnitude of its danger, and you will observe, that whereas Europe was heretofore divided in many small nations of various religions making part of their civil policy, and with alliances influenced in some degree and directed by those religious distinctions, where civil and religious freedom were supposed to be drawn up on one side, and on the other popery and arbitrary power, so now the globe has been divided anew. England and France, you have taken a first situation among mankind; you are, of course, excluded from a second: Austria may have a second situation, Prussia may have a second, but England seems to have linked her being to her glory, and when she ceases to be of the first she is nothing. According to this supposition, and it is a supposition which I do not frame, but find in the country, the day may not be very remote when you will have to fight for being, and far what you value more than being,
936
the ancient renown of your island. You have said it yourselves, and you have added, that Ireland is your vulnerable part: why vulnerable? Vulnerable because you have misgoverned her. It may then happen that on Irish ground, and by an Irish hand, the destinies of this ancient monarchy called Great Britain, may be decided. Accordingly, you have voted your army, but you have forgot to vote your people; you must vote their passions likewise. Their horrors at the French proceedings will do much, but it is miserable to rely on the crimes of your enemies always, on your own wisdom never. Besides, those horrors did not prevent Prussia from leaving your alliance, nor Austria from making peace, nor the united Irishmen from making war. Loyalty will do much, but you require more—patience under taxes, such as are increased far beyond what we have been accustomed to, from one million and a half to 8,000,000; nor patience only, but ardour—the strong qualities, not such as the scolding dialect of certain gentlemen would excite—the fire, a spirit that in the case of an invasion will not sit as a spy on the doubt of the day and calculate, but, though the first battle should be unsuccessful, would come out with a desperate fidelity, and embody with the destinies of England. It is a wretched thing to ask, how would they act in such a case? What, after a connexion of six hundred years, to thank your admiral for your safety, or the wind, or any thing but your own wisdom! and therefore the question is not whether the catholics shall get so many seats, but whether you shall get so many millions; I in such a case you live all people. What is it that constitutes the strength and health of England but this sort of vitality, that her privileges, like her money, circulate every where, and center no where? This it was which equality would have given, but did not give, France; this it was which the plain sense of your ancestors, without equality, did give the English; a something which limited her kings, drove her enemies, and made a handful of men fill the world with their name.—Will you, in your union with Ireland, with-hold the regimen which has made you strong, and continue the regimen which has made her feeble? You will further recollect, that you have invited her to your patrimony, and hitherto you have given her taxes and additional debt, I believe it is of 26,000,000. The other part of your patrimony, I should be glad to see that, Talk plainly and honestly to the Irish

937
—'tis true your taxes are increased, and your debts multiplied, but here are our privileges, great burthens and great privileges: this is the patrimony of England, and with this does she assess, recruit, inspire, consolidate. But the protestant ascendancy, it is said, alone can keep the country, namely, the gentry, clergy, and nobility, against the French, and without the people. It may be so. But, in 1641, above ten thousand troops were sent from England to assist that party; in 1789, twenty-three regiments were raised in England to assist them; in 1798, the English militia were sent over to assist them. What can be done by spirit will be done by them; but would the city of London, on such assurance, risk a guinea? The parliament of Ireland did risk every thing, and are now nothing; and in their extinction left this instruction, not to their posterity, for they have none, but to you, who come in the place of their posterity, not to depend on a sect of religion, nor trust the final issue,of your fortunes to any thing less than the:whole of your people.—The parliament of Ireland—of that assembly I have a parental recollection. I sat by her cradle, I followed her hearse.—In fourteen years she acquired for Ireland what you did not acquire for England in a century—freedom of trade, independency of the legislature, independency of the judges, restoration of the final judicature, repeal of a perpetual mutiny bill, habeas corpus act, nullum tempos act. A great work! you will exceed it, and I shall rejoice. I call my countrymen to witness if, in that business, I compromised the claims of my country, or temporised with the power of England. But there was one thing which baffled the effort of the patriot, and defeated the wisdom of the senate; it was the folly of the theologian. When the parliament of Ireland rejected the catholic petition, and assented to the calumnies then uttered against the catholic body, on that day she voted the union. If you should adopt a similar conduct, on that day you will vote the separation. Many good and pious reasons you may give, many good and pious reasons she gave, and she lies there with her many good and her pious reasons. That the parliament of Ireland should have entertained prejudices, I am not astonished; but that you—that you who have as individuals and as conquerors visited a great part of the globe, and have seen men in all their modifications, and Providence in all her ways—that you, now at this time of the day, should throw dykes against the pope
938
and barriers against the catholic, instead uniting with that catholic to throw up barriers against that French—this surprises; and, in addition to this, that you should have set up the pope in Italy to,tremble at him in Ireland; and further, that you should have professed to have placed yourself at the head of a christian not a protestant league, to defend the civil and religious liberty of Europe, and should deprive of civil liberty one fifth of yourselves, on account of,their religion—this surprises me; and also, that you should prefer to buy allies by subsidies rather than fellow subjects by privileges; and that you should now stand, drawn out as it were in battalion, 16,000,000 against 36,000,000, and should at the same time paralize a fifth of your own numbers, by excluding them from some of the principal benefits of your constitution, at the very time you say all your numbers are inadequate, unless inspired by those very privileges. As I recommended to you to give the privileges, so I should recommend the catholics to wait cheerfully and dutifully. The temper with which they bear the privation of power and privilege is evidence of their qualification. They will recollect the strength of their case, which sets them above impatience; they will recollect the growth of their case, from the time it was first agitated to the present moment, and in that growth perceive the perishable nature of the objections, and the immortal quality of the principle they contend for; they will further recollect what they have gotten already, rights of religion, rights of property, and, above all, the elective franchise, which is in itself the seminal principle of every thing else. With vessel so laden they will be too wise to leave the harbour, and trust the fallacy of any wind. Nothing can prevent the ultimate success of the catholics but intemperance; for this they will be too wise. The charges uttered against them they will answer by their allegiance. So should I speak to the catholics. To the protestant I would say—You have gotten the land and powers of the country, and it now remains to make those acquisitions eternal. Do not you see, according to the present state and temper of England and France, that your country must ultimately be the seat of war; do not you see that your children must stand in the front of the battle, with uncertainty and treachery in the rear of it? If then, by ten or twelve seats in parliament, given to catholics, you could prevent such a day, would not the compromise be every thing? What is your wretch-

939
ed monopoly, the shadow of your present, the memory of your past power, compared to the safety of your families, the security of your estates, and the solid peace and repose of your island? Besides, you have an account to settle with the empire. Might not the empire accost you thus? "For one hundred years you have been in possession of the country, and very loyally have you taken to yourselves the power and profit thereof. I am now to receive at your hands the fruits of all this, and the unanimous support of the people; where is it, now when I am beset with enemies, and in my day of trial?". Let the protestant ascendancy answer that question, for I cannot. Above twenty millions have been wasted on your shocking contest, and a great proportion of troops of the line locked up in your island, that you may enjoy the ascendancy of the country and the empire, not receive the strength of it. Such a system cannot last; your destinies must be changed and exalted. The catholic no longer your inferior, nor you inferior to every one, save only the catholic; both must be free, and both must fight—the enemy, and not one another. Thus the sects of religion, renouncing, the one all foreign connection, and the other all domestic proscription, shall form a strong country; and thus the two islands, renouncing all national prejudices, shall form a strong empire, a phalanx in the west, to check, perhaps ultimately to confound, the ambition of the enemy. I know the ground on which I stand, and the truths which I utter; and I appeal to the objections you urge against me, which I constitute my judges, to the spirit of your own religion, and to the genius of your own revolution; and I consent to have the principle which I maintain tried by any test; and equally sound, I contend, it will be found, whether you apply it to constitution where it is freedom, or to empire where it is strength, or to religion where it is light.—Turn to the opposite principle, proscription and discord. It has made in Ireland not only war but even peace calamitous: witness the one that followed the victories of King William, to the catholics a sad servitude, to the protestants a drunken triumph, and to both a peace without trade and without constitution. You have seen, in 1798, rebellion break out again, the enemy masking her expeditions in consequence of the state of Ireland, twenty millions lost, one farthing of which did not tell, in empire and blood, barbarously, boyishly, and most ingloriously expended! These things are in
940
your recollection. One of the causes of these things, whether efficient or instrumental, as aggravating the proscriptive system, I mean you may now remove. It is a great work. Or has ambition not enlarged your mind, or only enlarged the sphere of its action? What the best men in Ireland wished to do, but could not do, the patriot courtier and the patriot oppositionist, you may accomplish: what Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Langrishe, men who had no views of popularity or interest, or. any but the public good; what Mr. Daly, Mr. Burgh, men whom shall not pronounce to be dead if their genius live in this measure; what Mr. Forbes, every man that loved Ireland; what Lord Puy, the wisest man in Ireland ever produced; what Mr. Hutchinson, an able, accomplished, and enlightened servant of the crown; what Lord Charlemont, superior to his early prejudices, bending under years, and experience, and public affection; what that dying nobleman, what our Burke, what the most profound divines, Doctor Newcome, for instance, our late primate, his mitre stood in the front of that measure; what these men supported, and against whom? Against men who had no opinion at that time on the subject, except that which the minister ordered, or men whose opinions were so extravagant, that even bigotry must blush for them; and yet those men had not before them considerations which should make you wise—that the pope has evaporated, and that France has covered the best part of Europe. That terrible sight is nerve before you: it is a gulph that has swallowed up a great portion of your treasure; it yawns for your being. Were it not wise, therefore, to come to a good understanding with the Irish now? It will be miserable, if any thing untoward should happen hereafter, to say, we did not foresee this danger; against other dangers, against the pope we were impregnable. But if, instead of guarding against dangers which are not, we should provide against dangers which are, the remedy is in your hands,—the franchises of the constitution. Your ancestors of the petitioners were less fortunate; the posterity of both, born to new and strange dangers; let them agree to renounce jealousies and proscriptions, in order to oppose what, without that agreement, will overpower both. Half Europe is in battalion against us, and we are damning one another on account of mysteries, when we should form against the enemy, and march.—But I am exhausted.
The Attorney General.—I am as anxious to concur in any measure, which has for its object the consolidation of the strength and interest of the empire, as either of the two hon. gentlemen who have supported this motion; but the proposition of the hon. Member who opened this debate does not appear to me in any way calculated to meet that end. The hon. gentleman has stated the abstract question of right, with his usual precision, but certainly not so strong as he might have done, nor can I agree with him in the inferences he has endeavoured to deduce from it. The hon. mover of the question has argued, that no danger is to be apprehended at present in admitting catholics to the representative privilege. Possibly not. Great numbers may not come in at first, but parliament is to look prospectively to the effect of the measure, and the probable line of conduct that would be pursued by the catholics when they shall obtain a share in the representation. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to recall and replace upon the throne a branch of a family which had been formally excluded. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to take away all the tithes from the protestant clergy for the purpose of giving them to their own; but if a proposition were made to take away part of the tithes from the protestant clergy, for the purpose of conferring them on the catholic clergy, I am not sure that many worthy men may not be found in this house to entertain it; and, in the event of a division, I am sure the catholic representation would be as a dead weight in the scale, I shall not take up the time of the house in considering all the objections to which, in that particular respect, the motion is liable. I will content myself with proving that it is repugnant to solemn stipulation between Ireland and Great Britain, and in doing that, I shall furnish, I trust, sufficient matter for rejecting it. The stipulation to which I allude is that contained in the fifth article of the act of union, which expressly mentions, that the protestant church is to be the established church of the state. It is said that the measure would put an end to all disaffection, and yet, in the very same breath, gentlemen assert that none exists. I would agree with them it, praises which they have bestowed upon the loyalty of the catholics, and admit that the rebellion in Ireland was not a rebellion of catholics; and that no greater number of that persuasion were to be found in it than might be expected in a country whose population was in so
942
great a proportion catholic. The conciliation of Ireland is the ostensible reason for bringing forward the measure, but if that be really the question, gentlemen will do well to consider the effect of it, not only upon the catholics, but upon the protestants also. They should consider what would be the alienating operation of the repeal of the fifth article of the union, upon the protestant population of Ireland. I fear the effect of it would be to destroy that tranquillity which the honourable mover of the question seems so anxious to maintain. Even that morality and conscientious regard of their oaths, which is said to be so strongly inculcated by the tenets of the catholic religion, should convince gentlemen, that in a regular, orderly way, they would omit no opportunities of procuring for their religion all possible advantages. It is true that the petitioners have abjured any intention to subvert the protestant religion for the purpose of introducing their own: but do they profess for the whole catholic body? do they profess for the clergy as well as the laity; or do they only profess for themselves? I have looked at the petition, and I cannot find the hand of single clergyman of the catholic persuasion affixed to it; and the reason assigned, as I understand, is, that it is a petition for civil rights, in which they could not participate. The catholic clergy have not abjured the expectation of being restored to all the dignities which were possessed by them previous to the reformation; and if they had, I should not have thought so well of them as I do. Have they not their bishoprics, their deaneries, and all the gradations which are to be found in the established church? And knowing this, who can say that they have relinquished all hopes of enjoying the emoluments appertaining to those dignities? One of their tenets is, and of which any member who goes into a bookseller's shop may convince himself, that they are bound to pay tithes only to their lawful pastors. Nay, some persons have carried the principle much further. A Mr. M'Kenna, a very able man I will acknowledge, has proposed in a treatise of much learning and ingenuity that thirty or forty acres of land should be purchased in every parish in Ireland, and a house should be built on it for the catholic clergyman. Is not this a plain indication of the extent of their hopes and prospects? No man can entertain a doubt that it is their inclination to propagate their religion by every means in their power. This is a principle inseparable from the character of every reli-

943
gion. Were I in a catholic country, professing the religion I do, I should feel an inclination to advance that religion; and so it is natural to expect the catholics would do, whenever they had an opportunity. I am not so sanguine as the hon. mover, in his expectations of the advantages that are to result from the measure proposed. I no not think it would produce conciliation in Ireland, or give that satisfaction to the catholic body that is asserted. On the contrary, the effect of it, in my opinion, would be, to bring the two sects nearer to each other, and consequently to increase that spirit of rivalship and jealousy which has unfortunately subsisted between them. (Murmurs of impatience.) I claim the indulgence of the house for a few moments longer. I see there is no great disposition to listen to me; and after the manner in which the attention of the house has been gratified by the eloquent and able member who has just addressed it for the first time, I am aware that any thing which falls from me must appear flat and uninteresting. I think that no alternative can exist between keeping the establishment we have, and putting a Roman catholic establishment in its place. If gentlemen can make up their minds to that, they may conciliate Ireland, but not otherwise; or perhaps they may enter into a treaty with Buonaparté to allow the pope to grant them another concordat. This appears to me to be the only true way of stating the question. The immunities which have been already granted to the catholics, I think, are sufficient; and there is one of them, I mean the elective franchise, which, had I been a member of the legislature, I should have felt an inclination to oppose, and also the Roman catholic college. What privilege is there which the catholics do not enjoy, with the exception of sitting in parliament, and the capacity of being appointed to a few great offices, in as full and complete a manner as those who profess the established religion? They have nothing to desire on the score of toleration, that they and every other dissenter from the established church do not enjoy as fully as they could wish. Anxious as I am to conciliate so important a member of the empire, I cannot bring myself to approve of the measure proposed by the hon. mover. If the demands of the petitioners were conceded to their numbers, and their majority, no possibility would remain of refusing to comply with any future demands they may think proper to make. What their numbers and majority
944

shall have once obtained, will only tend to stimulate them to fresh demands, until nothing remains for them to require, and they become not merely a prevailing party in the state, but exclusively the state for itself. For those reasons I will vote against the motion for referring this petition to a committee.
Mr. Alexander.—Sir, unwilling as I am at all times to obtrude myself upon the attention of the house, yet I feel too deeply interested upon the present occasion to be awed from expressing my sentiments. When the right hon. gent. who has just sat down feels so much embarrassed under the impression created by the very eloquent speeches of both the hon. members who have preceded him in support of the petition, I cannot deny that I too have my feelings under that impression; but I should ill perform the duty I owe to my conscience, to the crown and my country, if I gave way to them. I own my national pride is certainly gratified by the attention paid to the talents of the hon. gent. who spoke last but one; but I can never forget, that I have witnessed those talents employed successfully in beating down the laws and constitution of his country: (Loud cries. of no! no!) I do not accuse the hon. gent. of design; but he has amplified so much on the strength of the physical numbers of what he has called the Irish people, has asserted and painted their imaginary grievances in such high colouring, that there grew in the minds of an influenced and infatuated peasantry, a conviction that they had just motives for rebellion, and strength to accomplish their object. What admits of no doubt, and which I cannot forget, is, that the honourable member's conduct and sentiments prevented his taking any share in putting down that rebellion;prevented him from manifesting active loyalty, or exposing himself with other gentlemen to common exertions, common inconveniences, and common dangers. With such recollections I feel it a duty to withstand all impressions made upon my mind by the talents and reputation of the honourable member, and to recall the attention of the house to the arguments of the gentleman who has opened the debate. That hon. gent. has stated truly from archdeacon Paley, that tests were introduced when religions sentiments and religious interests were so universally connected and diffused through certain classes in the community, as to be a proof of a determined purpose of action, and that public necessity justified a general

945
law of exclusion, sacrificing the pretension of the few, who might feel differently from the mass of their own sect, to public tranquillity and security. He has admitted that the Roman catholic were in general so strongly attached to the house of Stuart, as to have justified the legislature in enforcing the oath of supremacy, and other tests, to the exclusion of Roman catholics from political power. He has debated much upon that subject, and has justified our ancestors for their precaution. And I ask no other grounds of reason than those upon which that hon. gent. has relied, to justify parliament in the rejection of the present catholic claims. If attachment to the house of Stuart has justified suspicion, and restrictions from power, how much more strongly does from power, how much more strongly does the general aversion of the lower order of catholics and of their priests, to Britain and British connexion, justify all our precaution! I do not hesitate to assert, that with the middling and lower orders of Roman catholics, and the generality of their clergy, under every change of governors or government, proposed or attempted, separation from England has been the object invariably aimed at. Every passion, religious and temporal, all their traditions, all their prejudices, unite to excite such feelings, and to render this sentiment predominant in their minds; and this house is deceived most fatally, if it suffer itself to be persuaded that they have changed those sentiments. The best historians agree that the Irish catholics of king James's day used him but as an instrument of separation; they rendered him desperate with England to ensure success to their design—a separation—by forcing him to confiscate all the protestant and British property in Ireland. The hon. gent. has disclaimed, with great levity, all knowledge of councils, and of the former opinions of the catholics, and has entered into abstract discussions of rights, and first principles, for his purposes—in my mind with great judgement; but an application of men's minds to the situation of the day, and to existing circumstances, would prove fatal to his arguments, and to his object. Without a knowledge of the catholic doctrines, and of the influence of those doctrines, the question cannot be fairly understood, and that wilful or assumed ignorance of their opinions is unjustifiable in a gentleman agitating such a question. I repeat, that the influence of the Roman catholic clergy in Ireland is now most formidably great; that in that country, an hierarchy exists unconnected with the
946
crown, but immediately dependant upon the pope; that there exists in Ireland at this day a most numerous body of Roman catholic clergy devoted to the doctrinal opinions of the church of Rome, and maintaining the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that court. In fact, the papistry is in many points of view more formidable in the present state of Ireland, from the objects on which state of Ireland, from the objects on which it attaches, and the persons it influences, and produces a more uncontrolable power over their people, than even before the reformation. The objects of the first reformers were two-fold: the remedying the avarice, voluptuousness, and power of the clergy; the abolition of their separate courts of jurisdiction, and all those privileges, exemptions, and distinctions, they claimed or proposed, and which enabled the clergy to cope with princes, and to oppress and insult the people. Princes and people had feelings in common, that led them rapidly to concur in those points with the reformers; and countries the most catholic, and the most devoted to the see of Rome, limited and curtailed its power and possessions, and wrested from it the supremacy in temporal matters. But matters of doctrine being blended with matters of, faith, and being admitted to be above the comprehension of the lower and middling classes of the people, not being equally apparent upon the qualities of the mind, and the ostensible conduct of those who governed or were governed by them, were not an object of jealousy to princes, or of painful and degrading contrast to the people. The catholic clergy, unequal, therefore, to combat the feelings excited by their luxury and power, seldom attempted to punish, or indeed bring into question, offences against their temporal interests, but accused their antagonists of offences against the fundamental articles of faith, and, with consent of prince and people, inflicted punishments to any extent to which their passions and vengeance led them. The Roman catholic church, now, in Ireland, has all those sources of doctrinal influence over the faith of a bigoted people; their clergy frequently (as I admit), in the transactions between man and man, exercise them for good purposes; but they also have the power of giving a direction to the popular mind, with an effect which is inconsistent with the general safety; and, in corroboration of my opinion, I appeal to their conduct in the late and in former rebellions. In Ireland the British government seems, hitherto, to feel no apparent interest in op-

947
posing the power and encroachments of the Roman catholic clergy; the people are left totally in their hands; and from that inattention, their great, and, in this debate, much-boasted influence has arisen: the Roman catholic clergy are now interwoven with the people in all their common transactions of life; true it is, they cannot punish criminals; but criminals bear no proportion to the number in any state. But I call upon gentlemen to consider, what is the effect of excommunication among the lower orders Irish papists?—It excludes a man from his family, and renders him hateful to it; drives him from his little tenement, nay, precludes him from earning his livelihood, if dependent upon his labour; a power possibly greater than any possessed by the state, from its general diffusion, unsuspected influence, and extensive consequences: add to these considerations, the recollection of confiscated property, the long series of injuries alleged to have been committed by the English against the Irish, the remembrance of which has been constantly kept alive by tradition, and by recent exaggerated statements; and the well-known historical fact, that claims to property cannot fail for want of hereditary succession, as, by the Brehon law, it,exists not in individuals, but in the name and Sept; and the house will see the reasons and motives for that dislike to British connexion, which ever has, and still continues to influence the lower and more numerous part of the catholics of Ireland, a peasantry directed by a clergy generally ignorant in every point but their school-divinity, all influenced by common motives of action, irreconcileable to British connexion at present; under such circumstances, though we cannot anticipate what growing wealth and more diffused intercourse may hereafter effect, we must still be on our guard. For these reasons I consider a knowledge of the doctrines of the see of Rome, and their actual influence upon the Irish clergy and the Irish catholics, as a most serious subject of consideration upon this occasion. As long as these prejudices and habits continue to influence their people, I am convinced no good effect can result from concessions. I am equally convinced that the better informed, the nobility and gentry, feel too many advantages resulting from their present situation, not to act with the utmost loyalty, and many, I admit, have already distinguished themselves by their conduct. But it would be reasoning like novelists, and not like statesmen, to make the great fundamental principles of a con-
948
stitution like that of this mighty empire, bend so far, as to sacrifice its bulwarks in exchange for the strength expected to be derived from the gratification of the feelings of a few individuals; those new doctrines which teach a man to forget all he owes to the laws, the constitution, and the king; all that he owes to his family, his property, and his honour, if checked or controled in the pursuit of objects which he may be taught to over-value; and I lament that such loyalty is represented as only to be of retained and secured by the sacrifice of our constitution! The numbers of the Irish catholics have been stated with a double object, to describe them as a source of strength, if conciliated, and of terror, if not gratified in their demands. If the higher classes of the catholics have influence, and have not hitherto exerted it, they can have no claims upon the confidence or gratitude f the legislature; but if (as I believe the case to be) they possess no power when opposed to the passions of the inferior people and the interested exertions of their clergy, I consider the yielding to their claims, a sacrifice of the constitution for a most trivial consideration. On more general grounds, the introduction into parliament and the cabinet of a certain number of the catholics, heading and acting as the organ of the catholic people, might be productive of the most fatal consequences; divisions might arise among the protestants, and a misguided monarch might attempt to obtain powers incompatible with the safety of our church and state, by the aid and: support of that catholic party or interest. Such views were imputed to Charles the First; such conduct was certainly adopted by James the Second; and of that misguided effort we only escaped the fatal consequences, by placing the present royal family on the throne. The concessions now sought might also prove fatal to the catholics themselves, and tempt them (as it has hitherto done) into struggles for ascendancy, which might prove fatal to the privileges they now enjoy. Their advocates boast much of their wealth, fairly and honourably acquired under our mild and equal laws; honours have been conferred by the crown, or restored to their most distinguished families; the absence of jealousy, and the consciousness of our superior constitutional strength, justified our monarch in conferring these favours, and the protestant people in rejoicing at their attainment. But great states are distinguished by the wisdom of their precautionary measures; the wisdom of Bri-

949
tish policy has led its councils to protect the crown from temptation, and to guard the conduct of the monarch against the effects of his passions and his wishes, by with-holding the instruments by which our constitution in church and state might be assailed and subverted. Should a British monarch entertain such views, the manufacturing and preparing instruments would alarm the jealousy, and enable the wealth and independence of the empire to rise in defence of its civil and religious liberties. As far as the feelings of the crown itself may be concerned, we must consider how cruel it would be to render the exclusion of such a description of subjects from his councils and the higher offices of state a matter of personal objection, and consequently of personal odium against the monarch himself.—The catholics surely expect that the capability which they now wish to obtain should be productive of its effects. At present no individual can feel, in his exclusion from power, a personal degradation; he must attribute it to existing laws, and to the existing constitution. Give them capability, and then do not confer upon a great proportion that share in the cabinet and the councils of the crown which they fancy their boasted numbers and wealth entitle them to, and will you conciliate a single individual? Will not discontent be more formidable than it is at present? On the other hand, what would be the sentiments and the sensation of the people of this empire, were they to see a protestant monarch, whose tenure to his throne depends upon his fidelity to his religion, surrounded by catholic counsellors? Could any circumstances reconcile them to such a choice in the monarch himself? And should the strength of parties (as it is sometimes supposed to have done) force such ministers, and such counsellors upon the throne, how miserable, how degraded must be the situation of our monarch, and how precarious the state of our religion and of our civil liberties! Such appear to me to be the inevitable evils of concession to the present claims; and if we are to be reduced to a choice of evils, and must consider catholic numbers (as the hon. members have held out) a source of intimidation, our ancestors have held Ireland in times infinitely more unfavourable, and against numbers infinitely more disproportioned; and I entertain no doubt that we should do so again. Let England but understand her true interest; let her justly appreciate the spirit, zeal,
950
and loyalty of the protestants Ireland let her be convinced, they feel their properties, their honours, and their lives, dependent upon British connexion: but if England unfortunately forgets what is to, as brave and as zealous allies as any nation ever possessed, her protestant subjects of Ireland, she will have the most fatal reasons to lament her acquiescence in their and her own destruction. Let England be firm in her adherence to her laws and constitution. No catholic can be oppressed by the laws in Ireland; his property and his person are protected by the same code and juries that protect the protestant. If, notwithstanding these advantages, any of them should appeal to numbers, and be rashly tempted into rebellion, arms and the law must punish the rebels! With such impressions upon my mind, I should have felt myself unworthy of being the representative of my protestant countrymen, had I not borne testimony to their zeal and, their loyalty, but had shrunk from the weight and talents of the hon. gent. I trust in God, and in the courage of the nation, that we are able to defend our laws, religion, and property; to maintain our faith, and to uphold the throne.
Mr. William Smithproposed that the debate be adjourned. He was perfectly prepared to deliver his sentiments at the moment, if the house were willing to hear him, and other gentlemen who might wish to speak on the important question before them. It would, however, be unbecoming the character of the house, and the importance of the subject, if they came: to any hasty decision.—The question of adjournment being loudly called for,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed a wish that the discussion could have been terminated at that sitting. As, however, it seemed to be the wish of other gentlemen to deliver their Sentiments, he thought it would be better to adjourn than to state them at a more advanced hour.—The debate was accordingly adjourned till the following day.—The other orders of the day were also postponed, and, at 3 o'clock on Tuesday morning, the house adjourned.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
The order of the day having been read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Roman Catholic Petition,
The Earl of Suffolkrose.—The emancipation of the Irish; Roman catholics was a measure, his lordship was of opinion, which must sooner or later be adopted, and therefore he wished their lordships at once generously and nobly to grant the prayer of the petition. Objections had been made to this as a proper time for such a measure; but no time, his lordship contended, could be more proper than the present. It was indeed a critical time, a time when they knew not how soon the enemy might land on their shores; but it was only for that reason the more necessary that the whole strength and population of the empire should be united, and no means could be more effectual for this purpose, he thought, than to conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland by a just, a wise, and moderate policy. The concessions that had already been made them, it had been argued, had only been productive of evil, and had led to the present high de-

743
mands; but those concessions, on the contrary, he contended, had done good, and from the present, therefore, as necessary to complete the good effects of the former, the greatest advantages might be expected. His lordship then made some animadversions on the speech of the noble secretary (lord Hawkesbury) on the former night, and vindicated the conduct of the noble baron who was the author of the motion. If ever he had heard a great constitutional question argued with that cool and temperate moderation which became its importance, it was on that occasion by the noble baron. If the noble lord had said that such a measure as that prayed for in the petition would ultimately prevail, he could only mean that reason and an enlightened policy, would ultimately triumph over those little prejudices that were the greatest obstacles to the measure; a sentiment he thought which could not easily have been misunderstood, and in which he readily and sincerely concurred. The noble early farther contended that they owed the Roman catholics of Ireland the prayer of their petition, as a matter of justice as well as of expediency, because it had been held out to them as an inducement to their union with this country, and the expectation of which had contributed in so great a degree, to the accomplishment of that object, that it was probable that, without such expectation, that event would not have taken place. a noble lord (lord Hawkesbury) had laid it down as a principle that this petition ought never to be granted. He thought this very imprudent declaration, as well as highly degrading to the Irish character, particularly as our army and navy were so much indebted to Ireland for their supply. The noble lord had declared, that he had no confidence in their principles, and was afraid of the bad consequences that would ensue from the hostility of their religion to the civil rights of the country. But he wished noble lords to recollect, that many of out best rights had originated under Roman catholics, and when that religion was the religion of the country; and as a proof that difference in religion was not so incompatible with the duties and relations of citizens, he could not help reminding their lordships, that even in Roman catholic countries, protestants were sometimes employed by the government and permitted to hold offices of trust. The ablest minister and the greatest soldier that France could ever boast of were both protestants, and no bad consequences were found to ensue from that circumstance. He denied that the late rebel-
744
lions were at all connected with the grounds of the present petition, and urged the advantages that might be derived from making magistrates of the country gentlemen, whose religion being the same as that of the people would give them greater weight and influence, and reconcile the people to their authority. The noble earl concluded by urging the propriety of receiving the Roman Catholics to a participation of the rights of the constitution, as a measure of both justice and expediency
The Earl of Oxfordsupported the petition, and disclaimed all connection with a certain person who had been alluded to on the former night (Arthur O'Connor) since he had heard that he had joined the enemy.
The Earl of Buckinghamshireperceiving a noble and learned friend near him. (lord Carleton) anxious to deliver his sentiments upon the important subject then under their lordships' consideration, was extremely unwilling to prevent the house from hearing the noble lord; but having resided for so many years in Ireland, having during a considerable portion of that time held a high official situation in that country, and having been the individual who introduced the bill of 1793, he was absolutely precluded from giving a silent vote. In offering his sentiments against the motion of the noble baron, however they might militate against the prayer of the petition, he was under no apprehension of being charged with prejudice or intolerance; to such an imputation he would answer by a reference to the bill of 1793, and it would be unnecessary for him to desire a more effectual justification than would be found in the provisions of that bill. It had given to the Roman Catholics of Ireland the full enjoyment of a perfect equality of civil rights with the rest of his majesty's subjects, with an exemption from certain political obligations which are with-held from all except the protestant dissenters of that country. Under the impression of every thing that had been already conceded, he was never more surprised, than that the noble baron, whilst deprecating inflammatory language in others, should himself resort to so extraordinary a position, as that the refusing to grant what the Roman catholics had sought for in their petition could be justified only upon the principle of their being deemed traitors, and unfit even to be permitted to take the oath of allegiance, and if that were the, case, severe and oppressive as the penal code had been, it ought to be re-enacted,—Such an argument from the lips of the noble baron could not fail to ex-

745
cite considerable astonishment; and more especially with those who are disposed to resist the repeal of the test and corporation acts in Great Britain; and were it just, it must equally apply. What effect such a declaration might have upon the persons affected by those acts, he would not undertake to anticipate; but he did not think it Consistent with that moderation which the noble lord had so strongly recommended. So far from agreeing with the noble lord, the earl of Buckinghamshire was decidedly of opinion, that considering the tenets of the Roman catholics, the indulgencies they had received from their sovereign and the legislature could only have been the result of a confidence in their loyalty; but so long as they acknowledged a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the united kingdom, it was impossible to entrust them with any large share of political power. Doctor Troy, a man of ability and unexceptionable character, in his pastoral letter of 1793, expresses himself in the following manner:— "That catholics are obliged to believe as an article of their faith, that the pope or bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, is the supreme visible head of the church on earth, and the centre of catholic unity, with a primacy by divine right, of real authority and jurisdiction in the universal church, and that all catholics owe him canonical respect and obedience on that account; and that the supremacy of the pope is one of those points on which all catholics are agreed as an immutable article of their faith." His lordship then put it to the house, whether persons professing such a doctrine could safely be admitted to the higher offices of state or to seats in parliament. His lordship then proceeded to State that the noble baron having appealed to those peers who had held official situations in Ireland for their sentiments respecting the loyalty of the catholics, he should declare his without any reserve. He was satisfied it was better for him to answer distinctly to that appeal, lest an interpretation should be put upon his silence which was not conformable to his real opinion. He had no hesitation in saying, that the Conduct of the persons of high rank and the gentlemen of the old catholic uniformly ,been distinguished by loyalty to their sovereign and attachment to the government of the country; but he was concerned to be under the necessity of adding, that those persons had ceased to have any influence upon the catholic body: that the influence formerly exercised by them
746
had been vested in other hands; in the hands of men of whom he was not disposed to speak with severity—but when he observed that they (he meant the catholic committee) employed as their agent Mr. Theobald Wolfe Tone, a man, not even of their own persuasion who was the founder of the society of united Irishmen, who was at the very time employed in an attempt to form a traiterous conspiracy for the purpose of effecting a separation between Cheat Britain and Ireland, and who was engaged in a correspondence With the French government with a view to the procuring their assistance to further his designs, the noble lord would not say, that connection with such a man was proof of disloyalty, however obliged he might be to admit that it was calculated to excite suspicion. The noble lord then read, from the publication (subsequent to the bill of 1793) of the proceedings of the Roman catholic committee, the following resolution: "Resolved, that the, sum of fifteen hundred pounds, together With a gold medal, of the value of thirty guineas, bearing a suitable inscription, be presented to Theobald Wolfe Tone, esq. agent to the committee, as a testimony of his services and our gratitude." His lordship then adverted to what had fallen from the noble baron respecting the expectations the Catholics might have been induced to entertain at the time the union was under discussion. The noble baron had fairly admitted that no pledge was given, whatever hopes might have been encouraged from an assurance that the situation of the catholics would receive an impartial consideration in the parliament of the united kingdom. The noble lord said, as fir as the observation could have reference to his sentiments upon the subjects, having been one of the persons called upon to assist in preparing the articles, he must confirm the declaration of the noble baron, that no pledge had been given; but to what extent the catholics might have been justified in indulging a sanguine expectation from a discussion of their situation in the imperial parliament he could not attempt to form a conjecture. He certainly could not charge himself with having contributed to their disappointment. In the house as well as out of it he had always stated the principle upon which he acceded to the union; a principle that must preclude him from acquiescing in their being admitted to seats in parliament. The noble baron had felt, that whilst Ireland remained a separate kingdom, the objections to catholics being eligible to seats in

747
the house of commons were almost insuperable. The earl of Buckinghamshire was of opinion, though not exactly upon the same grounds, that the arguments against their sitting in the imperial parliament were equally forcible. In their (the catholics) situation, however, he could perceive a material difference. From being a majority in a separate, as they would become a minority in the united kingdom, their pride would naturally be less affected at the continuance of the disability. They might a more unbiassed consideration of their interests, when in their opinion local prejudices and partialities are less likely to prevail. The irritation that had been produced from a variety of circumstances, had a direct tendency to lead to such a conclusion, and his lordship saw no prospect of permanent tranquillity in Ireland, except by means of legislative union with Great Britain. With every disposition upon these grounds to give his support to that measure, his lordship expressly declared, that it would have met with his most strenuous opposition, if he could have anticipated the probability of an acquiescence in the prayer of the petition upon the table. It went, in the view he took of it, to the total annihilation of the protestant interest in Ireland. The system of representation, as settled at the union, had been so formed by the abolition of the boroughs, which had been catholics, and by throwing the whole weight of the representation into the counties, that the share the protestants would be able to retain, after the catholics sat in parliament, would be sufficient to leave them any influence in the country; and although the noble baron had treated such an idea with no small baron had treated such an idea with no small degree of contempt, saying, that nothing but bigotry could induce any man to entertain it, the noble earl was ready to acknowledge himself a bigot upon that subject; having the most perfect conviction, that if such a step was unfortunately taken as to admit the catholics into the house of commons, in the course of a very few years there would scarcely be a representative from Connaught, Leinster, and Munster, that was not of that persuasion. In those provinces the number of catholics to protestants are computed as six to one, and the freeholders in nearly the same proportion. The protestant landlords would depopulate their estates if they attempted to dispossess their catholic tenants; a measure at all events difficult to accomplish, as, from the practice in Ireland of letting the
748
lands for lives, a great proportion of the peasantry have freehold tenures. His lordship then asked, if any person who was conversant in the character and disposition of the Irish Catholic, would venture to state, that in an electioneering contest between a protestant and a catholic, the influence of the protestant landlord would stand a competition with that of the popish Priest. The arguments deduced from the interests of the popish religion, the possible, or rather certain relief from the payment of tithes, with the variety of inducements which the ingenuity of the priest would suggest, could leave no doubt of his ultimate success. The mischief that must arise during the few years that such a contest would continue, the manner in which it would be conducted, and the animosities that it would create, his lordship said, might be better understood by a recital from the history of Ireland, than by any representation that he could make. He then quoted a passage from Leland, who, in describing the struggle for power which took place in Ireland in the time of James the First, says: "Agents were dispatched from the pale into every province to support the election of their friends, and to entreat the assistance of every man of quality or interest in this time of danger. The clergy preached the cause of religion, and denounced their excommunications on those who should presume to vote against the friends of the holy Roman church." Having endeavoured to convince the house, that, in three provinces out of the four, Connaught, Leinster, and Munster, the representation, with scarcely an exception, would be catholic, his lordship proceeded to state, that in Ulster the catholic, with the protestant dissenters, constituted a great proportion of the population; and said he would leave to the house seriously to consider the effects that such a weight of dissenting interest thrown into the house of commons might have with respect to the security of the church establishment. How soon the common object of all the dissenters might be accomplished, must depend upon circumstances; but that that object would be the destruction of the property of the church, no doubt could be entertained. His lordship then adverted to the evidence of Doctor Macnevin, a catholic and a rebel, in his examination before the committee of the Irish house of commons, in 1798.—Q, "Have you seen a resolution of the Leinster provincial committee of the 19th February, 1798. viz. that they would not be

749
diverted from their purpose by any thing which could be done in parliament, as nothing short of the total emancipation of their country would satisfy them? A. "I have."—Q. "Do you think the mass of the people in the provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, care the value of this pen, or the dip ink which it contains, for parliamentary reform or catholic emancipation?" A. "I am sure they do not—but they wish much to be relieved from the payment of tithes." His lordship then said it was extraordinary to observe how much even the language of the protestant dissenter in England accorded with that of the catholic dissenter in Ireland. In the debate upon a motion for repealing the test and corporation acts in the year 1790, Mr. Burke, in the course of a most able speech opposing that motion, produced a letter written by Mr. Fletcher, a dissenter, stating, that the principles held at a meeting of dissenting ministers, at Bolton in Lancashire, were so violent that he would not stay; it described, that one member, on being asked what was their object, and whether they meant to seek for any thing more than the repeal of the language of our Saviour, "We know those things which we are not yet able to bear." And, on another member's saying, "give them a little light into what we intend," informed him, "that they did not care the nip of a straw for the repeal of the test and corporation acts, but that they designed to try for the abolition of the tithes and the liturgy."—The noble baron had adverted to the apprehensions entertained from the introduction of forty-five members of the presbyterian church into the house of commons, at the time of the union with Scotland, and had asked how far the predictions of that day had been realized. The noble earl admitted that they had not. But he would ask, whether the day might not yet come, if the prayer of the catholic petition was complied with, when the fate of the church of England might depend upon the Scotch representation—when a question might arise whether the revenues of the church should not be made applicable to the exigencies of the state? The sentiments of the Irish and England dissenter had been already expressed. The church of Scotland has been emphatically described "as being built upon a rock of poverty;" and when a great object was to be obtained, who would be responsible that the Scotch members might not be disposed to place the
750
church of England upon a similar foundation? The noble lord considered the experiment too desperate to be hazarded, and trusted their lordships would not make it. The principles established at the revolution were the landmarks by which he would advise their lordships to direct their conduct. The blessings they had enjoyed, by the operation of those principles, had not been equalled by the people of any country that had ever existed. The British constitution had stood firm amidst those storms by which Europe bad been convulsed during the critical times in Which it had been their lordships destiny to live. The interests of the church were so interwoven with those of the state, that the one could not be shaken without endangering the other. No substantial reason for the proposed innovation had been adduced, whilst much cause for remaining as we were was felt by every man. The people of England, he said, looked to the decisions of their lordships with an anxious expectation, and he trusted they would not be disappointed. Feeling as he did, that the prayer of the petition might be fatal to the title of the house of Brunswick to the throne of the united kingdom, his lordship would not place the noble lord upon the woolsack in the distressing predicament of presenting a bill to his majesty for his assent, which, exclusive of other important considerations, was calculated to destroy the permanent interests of his family. His lordship would be no party to such a proposition. By leaving the petition upon the table for so many weeks, the noble baron who introduced it, had given that time for deliberation that was due to the importance of the subject. He was persuaded, it had been fully, impartially, and most seriously considered. The result, in his mind, was a determination to vote against going into the committee.
Lord Carletonsaid, that the measure proposed would affect the whole empire, but more particularly Ireland; therefore, several of the observations which he meant to make would specially relate to the measure, as it might peculiarly affect that country. The main object of the petition is power. In his opinion the Roman catholics already have as much power as they ought to possess under a protestant government, and therefore he would oppose the petition.—The concessions in 1793, as to removing penalties, were wise, but, as to every thing beyond that, doubts might be entertained as to the wisdom of the measure. However,

751
it is to be observed, that the parliament of Ireland only gave the right to possess inferior offices, but did not transfer the power of the state. The concessions already made to Roman catholics have extended their influence, increased their demands, and multiplied their discontents. Nothing hitherto conceded has given them content; what probability is there that any thing short of all will satisfy them? To guard against their being superior in power, care must be used to prevent them being equal. The petition claims every thing; refusing to commit it is: an answer to the claim of every thing. If there are minor concessions which might be safely granted, when the Roman catholics think fit to ask them distinctly as matters of favour, they may call for a distinct consideration. Catholics are not eo nomine excluded from holding any offices of the state, or from sitting in parliament. The obstacles which stand in their way are certain oaths, a declaration, and the sacrament of the Lord's supper, according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England, Which are to be taken by persons of every persuasion upon taking possession of office, and the same oaths and declaration to be taken on coming into parliament. Roman Catholics are less restrained in Ireland than here; there the Roman catholic oath qualifies for all offices civil and military, save a few, Which are specially excepted. Not so here; though the English Roman Catholic oath is more forcible than the Irish, and binds the Roman catholic to support the protestant succession, whilst the Irish does not. He agreed entirely with the noble lord Who immediately preceded him, in the well-merited eu logium which he had pronounced on the character and conduct of the Roman catholic noblemen and gentry of Ireland; they were men of great integrity, honour, and loyalty, and Many, of them had fought very gallantly in quelling the rebellion of 1798. They had disclaimed the obnoxious doctrines contained in the decree of the fourth council of Lateran. That disavowal was consistent with Morality, social duty, and good Sense. He gave credit to their assertion, and he did not rest his opposition to the petition upon those objectionable tenets; Other tenets, which greatly influenced his opinion, were such as their religion bound them, as good catholics, to enforce. They were not such as reflected disgrace on the Roman catholics, though they might expose the constitution in church and state to some hazard. To tolerate is wise, to invest with the powers of
752
the state, is the reverse. An exclusion from holding certain situations, deemed necessary to the safety of the state, neither stigmatizes nor enslaves. An equal diffusion of political power amongst all the different sectaries would, in their union against the established religion, denounce its downfall by the systematic, persevering, deliberate, though slow conjunct exertions of religious zeal, political ambition, and inordinate thirst for power. To bestow such power on Roman catholics, and to with-hold it from other sectaries not belonging to the established religion, would prefer Roman catholics to some whose motives of action were less objection able than those of Roman catholics. There is no foreign Ulterior supreme authority which the tenets of other religions bind their professors to maintain as superior to the established legal government of the empire; but if Roman catholics were in possession of political authority, their religions principles would bind them to use it in an endeavour to render the constitutional authority of the empire subservient to a foreign dominion. By Statutes passed in both countries in the reigns of Henry the Eighth and Elizabeth, in unison with various more ancient statutes, the king is declared supreme head of the Church, and the pope's authority, spiritual and temporal, is, to all legal effect, declared void. The king in virtue of this authority, convenes, prorogues, dissolves, regulates, and restrains synods or convocations, appoints or recommends to bishoprics and certain other ecclesiastical preferments, and has the dernier decision and appellant judicature over all ecclesiastical causes. That the authority of the state is not supreme in the countries subjected to its dominion is a most dangerous doctrine; any interposition in these dominions by a foreign judicature, governed by the laws of a foreign prince, laws tending to the subversion of the protestant religion, leads to ruinous consequences. Roman catholics acknowledge and pay obedience to a foreign, final, ecclesiastical authority, which can make laws upon spiritual subjects, and in violations of the laws of these countries, enforce them (without the aid of any temporal process) by ecclesiastical coercion and punishment. That foreign ecclesiastical authority is under the influence of the ruler of France. Before the French revolution, if any potentate had attempted to enslave the pope, all other Roman catholic countries would have interposed in his behalf; such interposition against France cannot at this day be expect-

753
ed. The influence of the pope over Irish Roman catholics is now as great as it ever was, and the government of France guides its direction. The Roman catholic bishops oath is, "to defend the royalties of St. Peter, and to maintain, promote, and augment the authority of the see of Rome." It embraces the supremacy of the pope's jurisdiction over all spiritual matters, and over all temporal consequences flowing from that spiritual authority, and Calls for unceasing efforts to increase the power of the see of Rome. The Roman catholic bishops are bound to influence all persons who are under their superintendence to assist in fulfilling their oath. The Roman catholics hold that the state cannot bind them over to passive obedience in spiritual affairs, and that the sole power of making and interpreting laws respecting spiritual affairs is vested in the pope or their church, consequently (as they think) our laws cannot bind them, as to temporal matters inseparably connected with spiritual matters.—Their opinion on this subject derives additional weight from their considering Ireland as a fief derived under a grant from the pope. Dr. Troy's pastoral letter, published only thirteen years ago, strongly supports those positions. It distinctly asserts the pope's supremacy, even in matters of appeal, treats that of the king as an usurpation, and inveighs not very decorously against the legislature for having declared the king supreme head of the church. In Ireland, the Roman Catholics hold regular ecclesiastical courts, whose decisions are completely enforced by ecclesiastical influence, lay submission, and the all-powerful effect of excommunication, prohibiting all intercourse with persons excommunicated. Their spiritual jurisdiction draws to it temporal power and influence; it involves dispensations, licenses to marry, legitimacy, and the right of succession, as dependent on the validity of marriage; pre-contract, former Marriage; affinity and consanguinity, as incapacities; maintenance and liability to debts as consequences resulting from marriage, divorces as dissolving the bond of marriage, and the validity of wills of personal estate. In all those instances the exercise of spiritual authority, influences temporal rights. The extent of that influence is liable to be greatly increased, as Roman catholic ecclesiastics claim the right of deciding what are spiritual matters within their cognizance, and by an undue exercise of that claim of power, they may greatly extend their influence over temporal
754
objects. Were Roman catholics possessed of temporal power, they must (acting conformably with the principles of their sect) use it to legally enforce Roman catholic ecclesiastical decrees; to give increased importance to their religion; to depress the protestant religion; to legalize a foreign supremacy, that of the pope, with all its claimed temporal consequences; to overthrow the constitutional supremacy of his majesty, with all its now enjoyed temporal consequences; and to obstruct the execution or procure the repeal of all our laws which relate to spiritual affairs, howsoever extensively affecting temporal rights. It would be highly dangerous to afford the means of futurely weakening in effect that supremacy of the king which is already openly denied in theory. A participation of equal power must take all pre-eminence from the established religion; in such case how is the king's supremacy to be maintained? What is to become of those acts of parliament which render it penal to deny that supremacy? Is every attempt to invade it to be rendered legal? Is a right to be conferred of denying it without control, and of obstructing it with impunity, and perhaps success? The ulterior views of the Irish Roman catholics may be strongly collected from the caution used in framing their oath, in the 13th and 14th of George III. cap. 35. in which they have adopted the expressions, "the succession of the crown in his majesty's family," declining to adopt the expressions which the English Roman catholics had no hesitation to make use of, in the 31st George III. cap. 32d, "which succession is limited to the princess Sophia, &c. and the heirs of our body, being protestants." In the one case the oath binds to the support of a protestant succession; in the other case it leaves an opening for the possibility of a Roman catholic succession. Can it be supposed that the Roman catholics, if possessed of considerable political influence and power, would not seek an exemption from contributing to the support of the protestant clergy; a church establishment for the Roman catholic clergy equally splendid, permanent and independent as that of the laws of the Roman catholic church, and of the competence of the authority of their courts? Thus tithes must be annihilated, or divided between the protestant and Roman catholic clergy, and the supremacy of the pope, or, in other words, of the ruler of France, must be completely established.—A number of acres

755
almost equal to the full contents of Ireland was forfeited by the rebellions of Desmond and Tyrone in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I and by the rebellions In 1641 and 1689. Most of the protestant titles in that country are derived under those forfeitures,and grants from Elizabeth, and James; the Irish acts, of settlement and explanation in the reign of Charles II. and grants by William, and Mary, and the English statutes of their reign, and that of Queen Anne. Roman catholics still settle those estates as if they were in possession of them, to perpetuate, to those who are to succeed them, the idea that those estates had once belonged to their families, and might be again enjoyed by their descendants, if the claim to them were persevered in, thus to stimulate to keeping up the claim. In 1644, the confederate Irish Roman catholics demanded, "that there should be a revision of all forfeitures, &c. and grants from the crown from 1588, (eighty-six years) by a free parliament."—1689, a bill passed the parliament of Ireland to repeal the acts of settlement and explanation. Not many years ago maps of the Irish forfeited estates were industriously circulated on the continent, an indication that some important object was looked for attainment, and that it was desirable to conciliate foreign catholic potentates, with a view to the success of that project. Since the union it has been openly avowed, "that the revolution was an usurpation, the exclusion of Roman catholics from seats in parliament an excess of the power of the legislature, that the old Roman catholic proprietors never had offended, that the confiscations were unjust, and that the present possessors held by usurpation, and ought to be dispossessed. Why? Truly to produce unanimity, cordiality, and affection between the several sectaries in Ireland. Thus no length of time and enjoyment can sanctify title, no concurrence of circumstances can preclude re-assumption; attainders, acts of parliament, purchases, settlements, long possession, prescription are to be inefficient in giving title. The most solemn acts of the legislature, and of courts of justice, done whilst the transactions were recent, and the evidence existing, which have been, acted upon and enforced during successive ages; titles created under those acts, and infinitely branched out and diversified for most valuable considerations, are now, when the evidence is lost or mislaid, to be presumed unfounded, contrary to the light of history and to that con-
756
viction which has, during ages, influenced the conduct of the parliaments of England and Ireland, and has guided the actions of the most eminent men of those countries, and of the mass of the people. For what purpose? To uproot every thing which has been deemed solemnly sanctified and settled; to unsettle the church, the influence and property of the protestants, and to elevate the members of the Roman catholic persuasion upon the depression of those of the protestant. It is supposed, by some persons, that the length of time Which has elapsed since making the grants of the forfeited estates, imposes insuperable difficulties in the way of Roman catholics establishing their titles; and that since the relaxing laws of 1778 and 1781, Roman catholics have acquired so much property under the titles to the forfeited estates, that, in maintaining their own rights, they must defend the titles to the forfeited estates, and that the Roman catholics have solemnly disclaimed all title to the forfeited estates. The repeal of the Irish acts of settlement and explanation, and of the English acts of William III. and Anne, relating to forfeited estates, would annul all the protestant titles founded on them, and expose the possessors to all the hazard, uncertainty, litigation, and expense which might be brought upon them by opposite claims, whether maintained by true or by false evidence. Dispossession and ruin would be the consequence to individuals; to the public, the result would be unsettling the property and power of the country. he estates of inheritance acquired by Roman catholics since the relaxing laws are as yet inconsiderable. The religious zeal of Roman catholics holding leases under the forfeited titles, would induce them to think that if the inheritances were restored to the families of the ancient proprietors, Roman catholic tenants, assuming the merit of having aided the restitution, might be Sure of having their leases confirmed by landlords of their own persuasion. Thus neither the inheritance nor the derivative interests would protect the protestant titles against the various them. The present laws, aided by a protestant government and protestant constitution, do protect them. Any other protection would be ineffectual. Of what avail would the disclaiming of Roman catholics be if they acquired power to enforce their claims, when they have already, since their supposed disclaimer, though not yet possessed of sufficient power to establish their de-

757
mands, revived their claims to the forfeited estates? How have their stating specific objects, as exclusive of all others, in various transactions of the year 1792, prevented unqualified demands in 1794, and down to the present period? If the Roman catholics were to obtain restitution of the forfeited estates, the country would be ruined. If they failed as to that their main object, conciliation would not be the result of concession. This country never can, consistently with any principle of policy or common sense, give way to the claim of restitution. That is a great object looked at as the result of power. Separation then of Ireland from Great-Britain would, whilst any expectation was entertained of procuring restitution, be the only means of obtaining an object otherwise unattainable. That expectation must be repressed by a prompt and decided resistance, demonstrating the determination of the state to direct the whole of its force in opposition to the attempt. It has been said that "the measure, if adopted, would secure the country against future rebellions, conciliate the Roman catholics, and inseparably unite them and the protestants." To judge of this reasoning it is necessary to advert to the objects which the rebellion of 1798, and its off-shoot, that of 1803, looked at. And here, my lords, I shall briefly take a review of some leading facts, and of the motives which led to the rebellion of 1798, as they have been disclosed by those who best knew them, the leaders of that insurrection. In 1791 the society of united Irishmen was established; its objects were evidently rebellious; it aimed at the entire overthrow, not merely any imagined improvement, of the existing constitution. This is demonstrated by a letter from Tone directed to a person in Belfast, and containing the, resolutions which Were afterwards (with a small variation) adopted in the public declaration of the Dublin society of united Irishmen, upon the 9th November 1791; in that year and 1792 the foundation of the rebellion of 1798 was laid. In 1792 Tone published in favour of independence, and separation of Ireland from England. In the same year, Edward Byrne, an eminent Roman catholic priest, issued letters to the several parish priests of Ireland, directing that delegates should be elected by their several parishes to sit in a Roman catholic convention; his letters Stated, that "serving on juries and tine elective franchise were the objects to be discussed by the convention." The conven-
758
tion accordingly assembled in that year; there never was any doubt that it sat as a Roman catholic convention, and it most certainly was the organ for expressing the then real objects of the Roman catholics. It resolved that "the objects of their pursuit were merely admission to the bar, county magistracies, serving on juries, and voting for members of parliament out of freeholds of 20l. per annum." The claims made by the convention extended, in the instances of admission to the bar and country magistracies, beyond the objects pointed out by Byrne's letters of summons; but neither his letter nor the resolution of the convention in any respect related to the avowed or real objects of the conspiracy at that time formed for the rebellion which took place in 1798; nor did they include any claim to the great offices of the state, or parliamentary representation. The equivocal expression of "catholic emancipation" was not adopted therein. Those could not have been real ingredients in the plan of insurrection then formed, nor where they in any respect consistent with the nature of that plan, which proposed not merely to alter the constitution, but to form an entirely new one. In 1792, Sweetman, with some other traitors, was a member of the convention; he took a distinguished lead in defending the defenders of that day; but such of the members of the convention as were loyal looked only to such objects as were within the reach of possible attainment, and such as were traitors had separation and independence, not catholic concessions, in contemplation. In the same year a petition from the inhabitants of Belfast to the house of commons of Ireland was preferred, praying a repeal of all the penal and restrictive statutes against Roman catholics; but it did not state that "the petitioners were Roman catholics." Afterwards, in the same year, a petition was presented from Roman catholics, praying "a removal of some of the civil incapacities under which they laboured, and a restoration to some share in the elective franchise." Before the convention broke up, it appointed a permanent committee. In 1793 petitions from the Roman catholics were presented to the house of commons of Ireland, referring generally to a variety of severe and oppressive laws inflicting disqualifications. In the same year more was granted by the parliament of Ireland than the Roman catholic resolutions of 1792 had claimed, and the liberality of parliament exceeded the full extent of those claims. In

759
1794 Tone traitorously corresponded With the government of France, and in the month of April in that year, the traiterous consultation in Newgate took place,an invasion of Ireland was then planned, and the reasons for it, and to induce the French to invade, were digested. Neither catholic representation,nor the capacity to fill the great offices of the state were objects alluded to, though Tone, who was one of the conspirators at that meeting, was an accredited agent of the Roman catholics: nor was the establishment of the pope's supremacy, though Dr, Troy's pastoral letter had been published before that time. In December 1794, an address to a nobleman who speedily afterwards was sworn in chief governor of Ireland was signed by several Roman catholics, and amongst others by Sweetman, M'Nevin, and M'Cormuck, desiring in substance the repeal of all laws which restrained Roman catholics from the possession of power; thus laying aside the limited claims contained in Byrne's letters of summons in the resolutions of the convention in 1792, and in the Roman catholic petition of the same year, and claiming equality in every respect with the protestants. In April 1795, the convention passed its resolution in favour of Tone: Lewins and M'Nevin were at that time members of it. The speeches in the convention (as communicated to the public) breathed separation of Ireland from Great Britain. At that period those rebels, who had taken the lead in the Convention, marked its proceedings as embracing real objects of the plan which had been formed for the destruction of the monarchy; however, this observation does not include the Roman catholics in general, nor indeed all of the delegates. Between June 1795 and January 1796 a traiterous correspondence was carried on between the society of united Irishmen and the executive directory of France, to procure an invasion of Ireland; and upon the 21st of December 1796 the invasion, was attempted by Hocho. On the 12th of May 1797 a report was made by the secret committee of the house of lords of Ireland, which states, that "parliamentary reform and Roman catholic emancipation Were held out by the united Irishmen as a pretence, and to seduce persons not apprised of their intentions." Upon the 23d of May 1798, the first rebellion broke out; neither the proclamation which had been prepared by the Sheares's to be issued upon the breaking out of the rebellion, nor the other transactions preceding or accompany-
760
ing that event, point out the want of Roman catholic representation, or of the right to hold every species of office as grievances which the rebellion was calculated to redress. Thus at the first formation of the plan of rebellion, the Roman catholics had not made the claims which are now brought forward, and at the final execution of that plan the Roman catholic claims were not in the contemplation of the conspirators; the intermediate steps they were used merely as pretexts. In the month of August 1798, a report of the committee of the house of lords of Ireland stated, that M'Nevin on his examination said, "It was not intended to have any religious establishment, and that the mass of the people in Leinster Munster, and Connaught did not care for reform or catholic representation." Those were the principal Roman catholic provinces. On the 23d of July 1803 the last rebellion broke out; it was formed on the same principles as the former rebellion.—Adverting to the before-mentioned chain of facts, and to the several reports made by the committees of the houses of parliament in Ireland in 1793, 1797, and 1798, it appears, that the real objects which the two rebellions sought to attain, were the annihilation of tithes; the lowering of rents; an equal distribution of property; the levelling all the ranks and orders of the state; separation of Ireland from England; the destruction of the monarchy; and the establishment of a democracy on the principles of the late French republic. The Roman catholic claims were not objects sought by the two rebellions: had those claims been formerly ceded, they would not have prevented those rebellions; were they to be now conceded, every motive which led to those rebellions would still exist to conduce to further rebellion. Few of those who were embarked in these rebellions had any interest in establishing the Roman catholic claims. A pamphlet published by a late respectable Roman catholic nobleman suggested that the mass of the people could be little benefited by the adoption of such measure as that which is now proposed, they, being already capable of every thing which their situations could entitle them to, and that probably not more than ten on the part of Ireland could sit in the house of commons of the united empire, nor more than one in the house of peers, nor more than forty, or fifty be candidates for offices of rank, trust, or emolument. Thus the numbers to be gratified by an immediate gift are so few, that the conciliation to be

761
attained must be equally circumscribed; there being few capacitated to be candidates, the with-holding the objects claimed is felt by few; there are few to complain of injury, few to acknowledge and be thankful for favours conferred. Hence a concession productive at this day of small conciliation of the Roman catholics, of great dissatisfaction on the part of the protestants, Might lay a foundation, when the political importance of the Roman catholic body became more considerable, for hazarding the safety of the state, and exposing it to the persevering efforts of unremitted zeal, guided by one common principle, and one allruling influence. It may be imagined by some, that though the mass of the Roman catholics have no interest in the objects claimed, it may be proper to concede them, in order to win over those persons of rank and property who have the power of influencing the great body of the Roman catholics. The lower orders have been influenced, not by the respectable and loyal members of the same religious persuasion (who have an interest in the claims now set pup), but by factious demagogues of various persuasions, who aimed at rebellion, not at reform, or catholic claims, and would have been equally active in disseminating rebellion, if any concession had been made short of annihilating the monarchy. It cannot he expected that the mass of the lower orders of the Roman catholics Should cease to be actuated by those interested motives which have heretofore influenced their conduct, because of a concession being made to some of the higher orders, of privileges not to be enjoyed by the mass of the people; in which they have no interest, and by which their conduct has not heretofore been guided. It has been argued, that the influence which the measure under consideration would confer, at present must be small, probably never can be great, and therefore there cannot be any danger; or if any, it must be remote. In the reign of James II both houses of parliament were protestant, yet the other branch of the legislature was succeeding against them both, in the establishment of popery. James II professed to intend for the Roman catholics "only an equality of privilege;" that equality would have occasioned the downfall of the protestant religion: it was therefore resisted. The resistance was ultimately successful; but the danger having approached too near, the success of the resistance was attended with difficulty and ha-
762
zard. The fluctuation of property in a commercial country, and of the relative numbers of persons composing the several sects, connected with the known perseverance of the Roman catholic body, renders it unsafe to trust to their not being able futurely to do injury because at the present day they are unable, not being possessed at present of sufficient political weight and influence. Their unremitting zeal in pursuit of political influence and authority, their implicit submission on ruling and foreign power to the exclusion of the supreme authority of the state, their being all governed by one common principle, and firmly linked together by one general rule of action, render it not wise to intrust them with power upon a supposition that, because it might at the commencement be inconsiderable, it could not hereafter be rendered dangerously great. Sixty-four of the Irish members of the house of commons sit for counties, and many of the other thirty-six for open boroughs. The priests must have considerable weight in influencing the elections, as between protestant and Roman catholic candidates; and were Roman catholics eligible to parliament, probably at a period not very remote the representation on the part of Ireland would be completely Roman catholic. That body of men would enjoy a great part of the Irish patronage. Who can measure the influence of a body of men so constituted? who can foretel what they might effect by a junction at a critical moment with other bodies of men, standing in need of their assistance, and ready to make them a proportionate return of favour and support? To conciliation and unanimity there must be two parties—the Roman catholics, and all the protestants of the entire empire; and their mutual concurrence will scarcely be obtained by holding out to the Roman catholics the possibility that, by unremitting perseverance on their part, the laity may be restored to the forfeited lay property, their ecclesiastics to the church lands, the supremacy of the pope be established, and a Roman catholic ascendancy be substituted in the place of the protestant ascendancy, and by conveying to the protestants the idea that what so ever the Roman catholics gain, the protestants must lose. The number of Roman catholics is to be considered in relation to the whole empire. In ascertaining the class of persons in whom the power of the state is to be vested, property, rank, respectability, talent, knowledge, judgment, and congeniality of principles which those of the state, are more to

763
be attended to than numbers. If numbers and physics force, unaccompanied by political Weight and influence, whilst they can be brought into action only in opposition to, and under the controul of the laws, and of the systematic authority of the state, are to excite apprehension, how much more serious cause of alarm would there be, if the same physical strength were aided by political Weight and influence, moulding and shaping the laws so as to give a free and uncontrouled course to such conjoined force? Let it be understood that political power to unsettle the state is unattainable, and the dangerous consequences of pursuing projects of innovation in violation of the law, and in opposition to the protestants of the empire, and all the honest and loyal men of the Roman catholic persuasion, will not be risked. The church and the state are necessarily connected, each giving support to the other. Roman catholics hostile to the one, cannot have the same attachment to the other as protestants have, whose tenets are not hostile to either. Notwithstanding that the monarch must not only be but must always have been protestant,were his advisers (upon whose judgment he is to act) to possess principles not congenial with those of the state, the constitution must gradually (and the pore dangerously, because perhaps imperceptibly) be impaired. In this country tests were adopted gradually, and in succession, with great and progressive caution—first as to corporation offices, then as to offices held under the state, then as to both houses of parliament, and then as to the throne, each successive regulation being adopted from conviction that it was a necessary addition to the then existing regulations. To annul all those regulations would be a Most hazardous experiment. Are Roman catholics to be admitted into the English share of representation? If not, upon what principle can they be excluded from thence, if not also excluded from the Irish Share? Are any other sectaries to be excluded, though they do not uphold a foreign dominion, and nevertheless Irish Roman catholics, who maintain the supreme jurisdiction of a foreign spiritual authority, to be admitted. In Roman catholic countries the general tenor of the laws is conformable to the Roman catholic religion. The power of the government is somewhat despotic; to support that there is a strict alliance between the church and state there can be no such alliance between a protestant government and a Roman ca-
764
tholic clergy. Their notions as to the power of legislation are directly opposed to each other, and here the most efficient part of the legislature is popular, and elective; hence a way might be opened by admitting Roman catholics into parliament, and the great offices of the state, towards investing them with a dangerous influence. The possession of inferior offices gives some influence, but does not transfer the sovereignty of the state. It is true that Scotch presbyterians sit in parliament, but they take the same oaths, and sign the same declaration as protestants; they give the same tests of fidelity and allegiance, and submission to the supreme authority of the state, as protestants of the established church. As to the Scotch noblemen and gentlemen who in the course of the debate have been described as having held some of the great offices of the state with honour to themselves and benefit to the public, they were protestants, and had taken the usual oaths, signed the declaration, and received the sacrament according to the usage of the church of England. The adoption of the innovation now proposed would new-model the constitution, would violate the principles of the reformation, the revolution, the act of settlement of the crown, and the two acts of union; might substitute the pope's supremacy in the place of his majesty's, might discontent the loyal protestants, who have preserved and strengthened the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, without Contenting the Roman catholics; might unsettle the lay and ecclesiastical property of Ireland, might revive all those, mischiefs which the revolution was calculated to redress, and might destroy the present establishment in church and state
Lord Hutchinson.—My lords: in the course of this debate, the catholic hierarchy, the priests, the Catholic religion, have been treated with the most unqualified censure, and with an asperity which I little expected to find in this enlightened assembly. It is one of the misfortunes of the catholic cause, that, composing as they do the great mass of the indigent population of Ireland, they are liable to every misrepresentation; the crime of the individual becomes the offence of the sect; the highest man in the community is made answerable for the conduct of the lowest: the religion itself is censured for the commission of those very acts which it reprobates and condemns—Many allusions have been made to the late Whatever that rebellion might have been, it

765
certainly was not in its origin a catholic war; the principal leaders were not catholics, Whose object it was to depress one religion, in order to elevate another. On the contrary, they aimed to destroy. every thing that had been established, every thing that had been held sacred. They declared themselves to be alike enemies to the purity of the protestant worship, and to what they called the superstition of the catholic faith; their intention was to extinguish the monarchy, to put an end to the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, and in their room to erect a republic without a king, a priest, or a noble. The leaders of that rebellion were certainly too able not to have taken advantage of any circumstance which might have led in the most remote degree to weaken the government, and to render their cause triumphant. They consequently appealed to every bad passion, to every malignant feeling of the human heart. It is impossible that any contest can take place in Ireland, into which, the bitterness and poison of religious and sectarian prejudices will not enter: all men who entertain views inimical to the public peace, would naturally seize every occasion to increase those dissensions. It is to be lamented that these arts sometimes operate on the minds of the low, ignorant, and vulgar part of the catholic community; but One, cannot be at all surprised when we reflect that the protestant, though generally of a higher class, and much better educated and informed, was too often the dupe of these artifices, and suffered his mind to be biassed, his understanding controuled and his generous feelings warped by the existence of those very prejudices of Which he so loudly complained.—It is impossible to pass over in silence many things which have fallen from noble lords in this debate, without an endeavour to rescue the character of my country and my countrymen from aspersions which, had they been Uttered in any other place,I should not have hesitated to have called most unfounded calumnies. As long as there was a resident parliament in Ireland, it was the ignoble policy, the wretched practice of the representatives of the people to libel and malign their constituents. I am sorry to see such conduct imitated here. It was the strongest argument in favour of the union, that an appeal was made from. the passions and prejudices of a little country to the temper, the moderation, the cool and deliberate wisdom of a great nation. Miserable indeed is the situation of Ireland, hopeless and without
766
relief are her circumstance, if this her found expectation, her last, her only remaining refuge is to be disappointed; if by so many sacrifices she has only obtained the dearly bought permission of displaying her miseries on a more extended theatre, where the errors, the misfortunes, the crimes of Ireland are to be re-echoed from one house of parliament to the other, in order to give them publicity to Europe, and that, in future, no foreigner should doubt how weak and vulnerable the empire is in that quarter! Do not, I beseech you, my lords, believe that the Irish are a nation of degraded beings, insensible to the blessings of law, order, and government. There is neither candour nor justice in estimating the character of a whole people by the standard of the conduct of a few atrocious criminals, by excesses committed in moments of heat, irritation, and civil war. By this mode of reasoning, the whole of the French nation would be made answerable for the infuriate and sanguinary spirit which governed and disgraced for years of the revolution the populace of Paris. The virtues of the inhabitants of Ireland, and they do possess virtues, belong at least to themselves, and are peculiarly their own: their faults are the faults of their situation, and of the calamities which have too often distracted and oppressed their unhappy country. The frequent changes of property during the seventeenth century, the persecuting code of the eighteenth, the marked line of separation between the old inhabitants and the new, have established distinctions which nor time, nor circumstances, nor christian charity, nor political necessity have yet been able to remove. It appeared to be the wish of the legislature to create two distinct and separate nations, possessing separate and distinct interests. Unhappily they succeeded but too well—violence will beget violence—oppression will create resistance. When one part of the community enjoys a free constitution, and the other is in chains, the natural consequences must be, that the governors will acquire a spirit of domination incompatible with every degree of equal liberty; and the governed a spirit of licentiousness and resistance, little reconcileable to law and subordination. This has been the state of Ireland; it is not however the ordinance of the Almighty, but the policy of man. None of those libellers of their country will maintain that it was preordained that man in Ireland was to be indolent, ferocious and savage, and in England civilized and industrious. Seek for the effects ari-

767
sing from human conduct, in human cause. Persecution may have been driven from the walls of parliament, but it has entered into the privacies of domestic life, poisoning the sources of social enjoyment, diffusing dissension and not union, discord and not charity, widening instead of closing the breach between the protestant who conceded with regret, and the catholic who consequently received without gratitude. The legislature appeared to have advanced in vain, the public mind was retrograde, liberality, was in the mouths of all, but persecution and rancour were in the hearts of many; the effects of the abominable code of popery laws, survived the code itself; the extent of mischief it had occasioned was not discovered till those laws had ceased in a great measure to exist. What now remains to be granted only insults the catholic without securing the protestant. How the state would be endangered because a catholic peer might sit in parliament, or a catholic gentleman enjoy any office or represent any county in which he had a large property, I am at a loss to imagine, particularly when the peerage who have the choice, the government who have the disposal of office, the property who have the influence in elections, would still continue protestant. The virtues of men, or the effects arising from their virtues, are transitory and perishable, why therefore should their follies and their, prejudices be immortal? Why should religious hatred last for ever? It is certainly a created and not a natural cause of difference. He who believes in transubstantiation and he who rejects it, may certainly think alike on other subjects, and be governed by motives equally pure and honourable as men, as citizens, as Christians. The protestant may rejoice in the superior purity of his religion, and lament the darkness which overshadows the mind of his catholic brother: but surely it is not necessary that matters of conscience or of speculative belief should interfere with the active conduct of either. Every relaxation of the penal code has been opposed by the same Arguments, which have been again and again answered and refuted. I beg pardon—truth and candour oblige me to confess that in the list of charges and accusations, the pretender has lately been omitted; but the power of the pope, whether he be the prisoner of the directory, or the slave of Buonaparté, whether he vegetate at Rome or be in chains at Paris, is still alike formidable and portentous. The protestant property is still in danger, though that property has been in
768
their hands for five generations; the families of the original claimants are generally extinct, or resident in foreign countries and a considerable number of catholics have purchased and hold their property under the act of settlement and explanation.—A noble viscount has thought it right to assert, that registry of the forfeited property was in the possession of the families of the ancient proprietors. In all the heat and agitation of debate which has taken place in the Irish parliament on this subject, I never before heard the accusation seriously maintained. If such a record there be, I challenge the noble viscount to produce it—where is it kept? in what families does it exist? The noble viscount also made an implied panegyric on the penal code, when he asserted that during its existence in full force, Ireland enjoyed an uninterrupted state of tranquillity and peace. At this auspicious and vaunted period all the rights of Ireland were invaded, her commerce could hardly be said to exist, her principal manufacture was annihilated, her constitution was subverted, her population was reduced to twelve hundred thousand. This might be peace, but it was the repose of desolation, the tranquillity of a jail, undisturbed by any sounds but the rattling of chains. The protestant was a despot, the catholic was a slave; the protestant surrendered his liberty that he might enjoy his tyranny, the catholic abandoned his country to seek for bread, and found renown in every service of Europe.—I must complain of the want of candour, I must lament the infatuation which prevails on this delicate subject. I am sorry to see the belief of the catholics estimated, not by their own professions and declarations, but by the charges and accusations of their enemies, whom no denial will silence, no test will satisfy. The catholics of the nineteenth century are to be judged and doomed to perpetual exclusion for doctrines and opinions which they renounce, abjure, and abhor, but which Were formerly held in remote ages by, the bigoted zealots of popery before the dawn of reason, truth, or philosophy had purified religion, and broken through the clouds of superstition. The fate of those who profess the catholic religion in these kingdoms has been rather singular; in the last century, they were proscribed for holding opinions subversive of liberty, and for loving monarchy too much—in this they have been accused of loving it too little, and of changing their doctrines of high prerogative, passive, obedience, and divine, inde-

769
feasible, hereditary right, for wild fantastic, mischievous notions of republican liberty and equality. These contradictory charges against the religion of the most numerous body of the Christians of Europe are neither wise, liberal, or founded. Catholicity has been the faith of some of the most illustrious nations, and the belief of many individuals who have done honour to the name of man. Notwithstanding this acknowledged truth which bigotry itself will not venture to deny, how often has it been insinuated that they cannot be good subjects to a protestant king, because they are not bound by oaths? This mischievous opinion has been sustained with vulgar and mischievous asperity. If it were true, why are the petitioners at your bar? Nothing but their regard for the sanctity of an oath, nothing but the restraints imposed upon them by conscience, obliges them to submit to the various disabilities of which they complain. I certainly despair of carrying this question now, but at the same time I am convinced, that it will hereafter be found absolutely necessary to comply with the prayer of the petitioners; for believe me there is discontent: danger does exist in Ireland, the amount or extent no man can tell. Suffer not therefore the majority of the inhabitants to remain longer under any disabilities; take away every pretence for disaffection, and try a system of conciliation and concession. Procrastination is the fool's resource: policy, state necessity, the situation of Ireland, the willing or unwilling submission of the continent of Europe to the power of France, all demand this measure. What must be done sooner or later had better be done now: what will assuredly be granted, had better be given with the best possible grace, I am sure it is necessary to repeal those laws in order to lay the basis of the future tranquillity of Ireland. After so many ages of wretchedness, confusion and blood, of degradation without, and smothered war within, a final settlement and peace is required; a real, solid, founded, substantial peace, not an empty, hollow, treacherous truce, a settlement which would give security at home, and respectability abroad, which would be the commencement of a new æra in Ireland, when every man might forget the prejudices of a sectarian, and recollect the duties of a citizen. All the power, all energy, all the exertion of a happy and united people might be brought to the assistance of your threatened empire. That which constitutes your present weakness, would become your future strength;
770
where you are now vulnerable you would hereafter be invincible, Six centuries have elapsed since the English first appeared in Ireland. Whether that country was or was not conquered, I shall not stop to enquire; to be informed, it is not necessary to open the page of history. All the rugged shapeless features of conquest are too visible everywhere. A mile from a great town every shape and semblance of England vanishes. Religion, language, manners, habits, not only distinct, but opposite; the great charter of liberty suspended; the law inoperative party violence tearing asunder every Christian charity, every endearing connexion the protestant in his wrath seeking for his lately emancipated slave; and too many of the lower class of men, in their despair, willing to trample on their allegiance: such is the faint outline of a most disgusting picture, such the state of a country inhabited by a brave, active, intelligent race of men, blessed with some of the power, population, wealth, and strength, amidst the bitterness of religious acrimony, popular delusion, and lurking rebellion. No stronger proof can be given of the natural and inherent energies of a country which has still flourished and prospered, notwithstanding the miserable system which has been pursued, and the vicious administration of the government. Ireland is the only country in the world, where it was thought necessary to proscribe by law a great majority of the inhabitants, where the parliament legislated not for the people, but against the people. I voted for the union with a firm conviction, with an assured hope, that it would for if the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, heal the wounds of a distracted country, and ensure the future adoption of the catholic body. I voted with that doubt, hesitation, and reluctance, which every man must experience, who, in the triumph of duties over affections, ventures to shock the feelings, the passions, the honest prejudices of his country. I know that I adopted a hazardous experiment. I know that I differed from some of the best and wisest men in Ireland. I am sure, at the time, it was my honest, genuine, unbiassed sentiment. Possibly I might have despaired too soon; oppressed by a sense of present evil, I fondly, perhaps vainly imagined, that nothing would tend so much to stifle jealousies, to allay the restless, ferocious, sanguinary spirit of intolerance, to subdue the fears or the loyal, and the hopes of the disaffected. I may have been mistaken; if such has been

771
my misfortune, I have much to lament, and something to atone for; but the act is done I was one of those who surrendered for ever the legislative independence of my Country. During the discussion of the question, many persons of the best intentions, who had before opposed the claims of the catholics, declared that, after the adoption of that measure, they could see no objection to the repeal of every remaining disability. I therefore entertained a sanguine hope that tardy justice would at length have been rendered to this numerous and deserving body of men, and that the adoption of the catholic body would have consummated and confirmed the union. If, on the contrary, you are only corrupted by our example, and adopt the same prejudices which have so long agitated and distracted Ireland, the union will be no relief to her misfortunes: it may be an union by act of parliament, but it is not an union of interests and affections; it is a settlement which has given dissatisfaction to great bodies of men, without having hitherto afforded contentment to any. The noble lord concluded by reading several extracts from lord Redesdale's speech of the night before; he contradicted many of the assertions of that noble lord, and called upon the Irish peers to rise in their places and vindicate the Irish nation from aspersions highly injurious to their honour, and which tended to degrade that country from the rank of civilized nations.
Lord Redesdalefelt himself so peculiarly called upon, in consequence of some observations which had been made by the noble lord, that he trusted their lordships would indulge him with a hearing for a few moments. He was not induced by what had fallen from the noble lord to retract an assertion which he had made on the former evening of debate. He asserted, in confirmation of what he then stated, that, from the prejudices of the catholics in Ireland, it was extremely difficult to put protestant children out to service. (A cry of no! no!) He knew the fact, he said, from his official situation in Ireland, where being a trustee for several charitable institutions he knew that the greatest embarrassment arose from the extreme difficulty Which existed of putting out protestant children from those institutions to service. It was also equally true that the greatest prejudice existed in catholic families against protestant servants, and that every means were used to render their situation uncomfortable (A cry of no! no! from some noble lords, and of order! from others.) He was not, he said, to be driven from any
772
of his assertions by any contradiction of that nature; he repeated that his assertions were correct, and referred in still further support of them to Mr. M'Kenna's pamphlet, an authority which he did not think would be disputed. On the former evening he had likewise referred to the catholic hierarchy of Ireland, and he now maintained that that hierarchy existed in defiance of the law of the land, the persons who now bald the dignities of that hierarchy being the successors of those whose offices the law had declared should be abolished.
The Earl of Ormond—My lords; I trust I shall not be contradicted by any man who really knows any thing of Ireland, when I say the noble and learned lord has stated that which is not a fact, at least in the opinion of any man but himself; and there fore I cannot sit silent and hear the country to which I have the honour to belong, so foully traduced, without rising in my place, to contradict such unfounded aspersions upon the national character of Ireland. The noble lord has asserted, that protestants dare not live in the same families with catholic servants; and that the catholic servants, from their hatred to those of the protestant religion, combine against them, My lords, I know not what may be the state of the noble lord's household, I never was in his house, I never wish it, and I never will be in it; but, my lords, I do know. that in my own house, in the houses of the protestant gentlemen around it, intermixed and surrounded by Catholics, and in one of the most catholic counties in Ireland (Kilkenny) catholic and protestant servants live together like brothers. The noble lord has, stated, that in Dublin-a protestant servant cannot get employment in a protestant family, on account of the combination formed against him by catholic servants. In all my intercourse in Dublin, during a very long residence there, much longer indeed than that of the noble lord, I never once Beard any such thing. The only complaint I ever recollect to have heard on this point was, that protestant servants enough could not be had to supply protestant families who had a predilection for such servants—that class of the people in Ireland being by much the greater part catholic. From the tenor of the speech spoken by that noble and learned lord on a former night, and the weight with which every statement respecting the country where he presides in a situation so eminent, must fall under the sanction of his grave authority,I own I did expect this motion would have met, this night, the most viru-

773
lent opposition from the right revered bench opposite to me. But, unlike the noble lord, nothing has fallen from that quarter but the most calm, decorous, and moderate arguments so truly characteristic of the tolerant spirit and charitable principles of that established religion over which they so worthily preside. But from the noble lord, instead of a most legal, liberal, enlightened, and argumentative speech, becoming the gravity of his character, what have we heard? A collection of old womens' stories, which I do verily believe not even the most prejudiced protestant in Ireland this day would accredit. I have been in Ireland the greater part of my life. I have repeatedly travelled through, and had intercourse with the protestant gentlemen from every quarter of it, and never, in the course of my life, did I hear such statements as those made by the noble lord; and not one of them which will, I am sure, be avouched by any independent man in this house. I hope when the noble and learned lord returns to that bench, on which he presides over the public justice of Ireland, he will divest himself of that violent antipathy towards one sect of the people, and that obvious partiality for another, which he has so conspicuously evinced in this house. My lords, I most cheerfully support the motion before you, convinced as I am of its sound policy, its wisdom, and its justice.
Lord Boringdonsaid, he had no scruple in giving it as his opinion that the existence and full security of the established church was in no way involved in this measure, that whenever it was adopted there could be no possible ground for thinking of repealing any part of the act of settlement, or, as had been mentioned, the 5th article of the act of union; that he fully approved of the terms of the petition on the table; that he saw with satisfaction the reasonable and moderate principles entertained by those on whose part it had been presented; and that he had no doubt that in due time and at a fit opportunity their claims would have their proper weight with all who valued the principles the British constitution, and who in consequence wished that its blessings should be perpetuated and extended. He argued that though vulgar outcry and popular clamour should never influence the conduct of that house, yet it could not be maintained that their lordships, in their decisions, were to be deaf or insensible to what they be, lieved to be the general sentiment and opinion of the large body of the public. He believed that that sentiment was at present de-
774
cidedly hostile to the measure; he did not rely merely upon the adverse petitions upon the table, but upon the notoriety of the fact he believed that if the motion was adopted, a degree of uneasiness and discontent would arise to which no one could be able to look without apprehension and anxiety as to the consequence. He did not, however, look to the continued duration of such sentiments, but spoke only as to their present existence. He objected further to the motion of the noble lord, as its object was single and separate: it went merely to take into consideration the subject matter of the petition, with the avowed view of granting the concessions in question. Those concessions ought at no time to be made without connecting other matters with them. A noble and learned Lord (Redesdale), who had just spoken in explanation, had stated that the Irish Roman catholic hierarchy existed contrary to the law: if that was the case, he inferred that the law not being enforced resulted from prudential considerations, and that it might possibly be found upon a general settlement that the catholics might also have concessions to make. How absurd therefore would it be in their lordships thus immediately and hastily to make these concessions, and thereby limit the means and increase the difficulties of a final arrangement and settlement at a future opportunity? He thought that the Irish Roman catholics publicly and ordinarily calling themselves by titles and appellations which by the law of the land belonged to others was very offensive to the law. Perhaps, in any attempt to come to an amicable settlement of existing differences, they might agree to discontinue or moderate such practice; perhaps. in such an arrangement they would consent to have their bishops nominated by his majesty, a measure in his mind eminently calculated to connect the catholic body with the government; and to give to each a common interest and a common feeling, and to remedy many existing evils. This, however, would be a concession on the part of the catholics, and, one perhaps which they might not be disposed to make, if we should thus in the first instance have inconsiderately granted all that they require us to concede to them. He doubted much whether the great body of the Irish Roman catholics had really wished this question now to have been brought on. Mr. M'Kenna, an Irish Roman catholic writer of much celebrity, whose opinions could not but have much weight with his brethren, unequivocally expressed in a recent publication his wish that

775
the matter should have been entirely left to parliament. He had also intimated an idea that conscientious doubts and difficulties prevailed upon this subject in the mind of the first authority in the state; and had expressed himself with great sensibility upon that point. He would not pretend to say how far such doubts and difficulties might or might not be founded: but if such feeling and such sensibility could pervade the breasts of Irishmen (who were more distant from the seat of government) and catholics, they could not be strange to the minds of Englishmen and protestants; and if their lordships should experience them, they could not but afford an additional inducement for pausing in the present proceeding. Having always felt an ardent desire that this question should receive an impartial and a favourable discussion, he could not but lament what he felt to be its premature introduction. He feared that it might give a check to opinion, and betray individuals into an hasty expression of a hostile sentiment, to which at a future time, for the sake of consistency, they might think it necessary to adhere. It was a matter of satisfaction to him to think that he had been preceded nearly in the same line of opinion and conduct by two of his Majesty's ministers (Camden and Mulgrave).— He was aware that such a line of conduct might he liable to observation in debate, but he nevertheless flattered himself that it might not be unattended with advantage. He thought that it would be a matter of satisfaction to the respectable body from whom the petition came to know that they had friends on both sides of the division, and that the numbers who divided for the motion of the noble lord did not constitute the whole of their strength; but he hoped that knowledge would not lead them hastily and prematurely to reintroduce the subject; and that the dignified and temperate discussion which the question had received, and particularly the temper and moderation of the reverend bench, would operate as an inducement to such forbearance.
The Archbishop of Canterburystated that before their that lordships consented to resolve themselves into a committee for the purpose of considering in what manner they could best carry into execution the prayer of the petition, entitled the petition of the Roman catholics whose names were subscribed, it would surely be matter of prudence to enquire, whether the principle upon which the petition rested, was such as their lordships could with safety admit. If, in
776
this enquiry, it Should appear, that under no possible modification could the principle and substance of the petition be conceded, without danger to the establishment in church and state, their lordships hardly be disposed to employ their time and talents in devising, the best possible means for the downfal of both. What then was the history, and what the substance of the petition? The archbishop could not help considering the petition as the consequence, and natural consequence, of a long series of concessions, obtained by the Roman catholics of Ireland, during the present reign: of which series, the subject matter of the petition, if granted, would assuredly not constitute the ultimate term. His grace begged to be distinctly understood as in no degree calling into question the wisdom of those concessions. Many of them, in his judgment, were absolutely necessary, most of them extremely reasonable, and perhaps all of them in policy expedient. The archbishop, adverting to them, wished only to discover the causes that had led to the petition in its present form. The Roman catholics had obtained all that belonged to toleration; and it was not to be wondered at, that, they should desire, at least, the acquisition of power.—After the 18th of his majesty, which removed from the Roman catholics the restraints that affected the grant and acceptance of leases, and provided against the consequences of the conformity of the son with the established church, so far as those consequences concerned the estates of the Roman catholic parent; blotting for ever from the Irish statute books, that corrupt and unhallowed motive of conversion: after the 22d of his majesty, which enabled the Roman catholic, on taking the oath of allegiance, to purchase and dispose of lands in like manner as his majesty's protestant subjects; and on the same terms, freed the ecclesiastic of that persuasion from the pains, and penalties of former acts: after the statute of the same year, authorising Roman catholics to teach schools, and giving new facilities to the guardianship of Roman catholic children: after the 32d of his majesty, which removed disqualifications from lawyers and attornies of that persuasion, sanctioned the intermarriages of protestants with Roman catholics, and repealed laws that prohibited foreign, and embarrassed domestic education: after the 33d of his majesty, which was said to have left the Roman catholic nothing to ask (and well might the assertion be credited); after the 33d of his majesty, which swept from the Irish statute

777
book almost all the disqualifications of that description of his majesty's subjects, modelled the oath of allegiance to the taste and scruples of the Roman catholics put down the oath of abjuration, the declaration, the sacramental test, and enabled the Roman catholics to vote at elections, to hold commissions of the peace, to execute offices civil and military, and to enjoy all manner of places of trust and emolument, except such as relate to the established church, and such as are expressly specified in the body of the act: after this long string of statutes, each of which, in its turn, was supposed to comprehend and redress all that was of grievance among them, followed, and in his grace's view of the question naturally followed, the petition which was then on their lordships' table. It was for their lordships to determine, in their characters of statesmen and legislators, to what extent these concessions could with safety be carried; but it was idle to complain of the eagerness with which they were pursued.—The substance of the petition was compressed, for their lordships' use and convenience, into one short, but pregnant sentence: "an equal participation on equal terms of the full benefits of the British laws and constitution." If the archbishop had been at liberty to understand the sentence according to the ordinary acceptation of the words, he might have answered that such participation was already possessed: but the framers of the petition, who were doubtless the best commentators of their own Work, would not suffer him so to interpret them. Equal participation on equal terms, in their language, signified, admission to places of power and trust, without giving that security for the due discharge of them, which was demanded and given of their lordships, And every other subject of the realm. The object of the petition, couched in very decent and moderate terms, was, nevertheless, of great size and importance. It was no less than a request on the part of the Roman catholic, to legislate for a protestant country; to dispense the laws, to command the armies and navies, and to take share in the executive councils of a protestant kingdom: a request that struck at the principles of the revolution, and by plain, broad, and inevitable consequence called into question the justice and policy of the act of settlement. Such, in the archbishop's view of it, was the history, and such the substance, of the petition on their lordships' table.—The noble baron who, on a former might, moved the question, and who never rose in that house without making
778
deep impression upon it; the effect of great talents, profound information, and singular perspicuity; had endeavoured to connect and implicate the substance of the petition with the general principles of toleration.—The archbishop insisted that he was as sincerely attached to the genuine principles of toleration as any one of their lordships. He considered it as the brightest ornament and fairest grace of that reformed church which is established in this kingdom: but that he could not prevail upon himself to confound toleration with equality, much less with power and eventual superiority. It was not a figure of rhetoric, but a plain fact, resting on historical evidence, that toleration is a virtue that grows naturally out of a sense of security, and cannot exist for a moment, where danger is apprehended. If their lordships should determine to destroy those fences which the wisdom and experience of their ancestors had, with so much deliberation and care, erected around the established church, they would do unintentionally, without doubt, but in the archbishop's judgment effectually, all that was in their power to excite and provoke that bad spirit of animosity and religious intolerance that marked and disgraced the worst pages of their history subsequent to the reformation. On these grounds the archbishop felt it his duty to resist the motion of going into a committee to consider the substance of the petition.
The Earl of Albemarle.—My lords, it is not my purpose to go any great length into argument upon the question before you. I rise principally with a view to offer some observations in answer to a noble and learned lord who holds a high situation in Ireland, and whose speech in this debate, I own, creates in my mind no small share of astonishment. It has been well observed by other noble lords, that whatever comes from his elevated authority on a subject wherein it ought to be presumed, at least, he is well informed, must have much weight in this house. Looking to his grave character, and that liberality of sentiment which I expected would have raised his mind far above the vulgar prejudices and idle tales that have filled narrow minds upon this topic, I hoped from him, that whatever might be his sentiments upon the motion before you, they would at least have been delivered with that calmness, moderation, and sound argument, that one would expect to characterise the expanded mind, extensive knowledge, just discernment, and strict impartiality benefiting his high judicial situation, in a coun-

779
try where he forms so important a member of the government, and presides over the administration of justice. But, my lords, how great was my astonishment to find the noble lord, not only opposing the motion with a degree of heat and acrimony little becoming his gravity, but conjuring up the most abominable arguments to support his opposition. Where the noble and learned lord has found his authority for such arguments, and so totally opposite to those sentiments by which lie has heretofore been actuated, I am at a loss to account. Upon a former occasion, that noble lord manifested the most liberal zeal in favour of the catholics of this country, and used such exertions to obtain a relaxation of the penal laws, in their favour, as to procure for himself the warmest thanks of those whose cause he has espoused. But such seems the strange bias, I will not call it the prejudice, of his mind against the catholics of another country, that, in order to mark still stronger his dispraise towards those of Ireland, he is lavish in his encomiums upon those of England, and tells us, that the only distinctive characteristics between the protestants and catholics of his acquaintance or neighbourhood in this country, was, that the latter were always the most exemplary, and best conducted men in the parish where they lived. But what is the noble and learned lord's chief accusation against the catholics of Ireland? Why, that they have bishops, by whose guidance their conduct is influenced; and that those bishops have gone the length of calling the right reverend prelate of Armagh, plain Dr. Stuart. But though the noble and learned lord arraigns with so, much stress the contumacy of this circumstance, I hardly think the right reverend prelate himself would lay so much stress upon it, or consider it as any infraction of his archiepiscopal rank or diocesan authority. The noble and learned lord has said, that no protestant dares appear in certain parts of Ireland. This, I am afraid, was too much the case in some parts of that country during the furor of the late rebellion. I have heard much the same thing stated by another gentleman; but he said, it was no matter of what religion a man was,if he was but known to the rebels to be a loyal Man; for that was the criterion upon which their fury was directed, against men of all sects. This, however, is no argument against the catholics as such, but merely a proof of the barbarism of the lower orders, which I lament, and only blame the government which has presided in the country, not having taken more pains to educate
780
and civilize them. The noble lord next goes to domestic affairs; and he complains of religious antipathies borne by catholic to protestant servants. Some remedy we are told is necessary; but what does the noble lord propose? Not to re-enact the penal laws; not to accede to the petition; but to abolish the catholic hierarchy! and this is the remedy which the noble and learned lord supposes would strike at the root of the evil. I confess, my lords, the expedient does not carry the same weight in my estimation. But those things, which to the minds of other men appear insurmountable difficulties, to the enlightened understanding, and profound discernment of the noble lord, are no difficulties at all. Three hundred years have elapsed since the reformation, which, aided by all the rigours of the penal code, has yet been so unsuccessful in Ireland, that still above three-fourths of the population continues catholic. The Irish papists, it seems, according to the noble lord, do not understand English; but, from the nature of their education, they are better acquainted with Latin; therefore, says the noble lord, you have nothing to do but translate the bible and church liturgy into Irish, and preach the reformed religion in that language, as has been done in Wales, and you at once convert the whole country into protestants. Here again, I own, that I much doubt the success of the noble lord's project; for, though you might find an Irish congregation to understand, I fancy you would find it rather difficult to find protestant clergymen to preach or pray in that tongue. But it is said, if you grant this measure to the catholics, you will have the presbyterians and all the different sects of dissenters claiming similar indulgence. My lords, if it be just and politic to grant the claims of the catholics, I cannot see why you should refuse, them, because others may claim something else afterwards. If the catholics are quiet, it is said, give them nothing, they do not ask for any thing; and if they do ask, it is said, give them nothing, for they are turbulent. It is always too soon or too late to hearken to their petitions. The periods of peace or war are equally unpropitious to their hopes. Some noble lords emphatically resist this petition because it is brought forward at this time; who tell us, in the same breath, that they think it proper at no time, and will resist it at any But, my lords, own I am utterly at a loss for arguments to meet such contradictory objections as these. But then comes the grand objection Of all:—Not satisfied with

781
the loyal conduct and peaceful demeanour of the catholic body in Ireland, you still question their sincerity. You propose to them test after test, and oath after oath, to prove their loyaly and attachment to the state; and after they have taken those tests, and given the most solemn assurances you could demand, it is then said, they are not to be believed upon their oaths, as it is a fundamental article of their religion, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; and that the pope may absolve them from allegiance to a protestant king. Now, my lords, if this were really the case, how can we account for the reluctance of the catholics to take the only oath that stands between them and all they wish? Is it fair to admit such a charge against them from their enemies, which they have repeatedly, and in the most solemn manner disavowed and abjured? But, my lords, I will refer to better authority than the assertions of their enemies; namely, to the authority of the most eminent catholic universities in Europe, for their opinions upon those points, obtained at the special instance of a right honourable gentleman at the head of his majesty's councils in the year 1789. I speak of the universities of the Sorbonne, Louvain, Doway, Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca; all of whom solemnly deny such doctrines, and complain of nothing more bitterly than the calumnies of their opponents upon this head. My lords, the question propounded for the answers of those several universities, were three, which I shall read to your lordships:—Has the pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individuals of the church of Rome, any civil or political authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? Can the pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any Individuals of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? Is there any principle in the catholic faith by which catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions of a public or private nature?—My lords, these several queries have been answered by those several universities at considerable length, and decidedly its the negative—The faculty of divinity at Louvain answer, that they are struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body, by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives." The
782
first and second queries they answer unanimously in the negative; and they do not feel it incumbent on them to enter upon the proofs of the opinions which they hold, supported by the Holy Scriptures and the most eminent writers of their religion, ancient and modern, against the doctrines of Bellarmine, Du Perron, and many others, which they deeply lament, were favourably heard by the court of Rome in the dark ages, and even found its way into the councils of kings, to the production of infinite detriment to the church and republic of christianity, and the deluging of Europe with blood; they totally and utterly deny that any such power whatever exists in the catholic church, or its members, individually or collectively, pope, cardinal, council, or general assembly, to deprive any sovereign power of its temporal right, possession, government, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, or subject it to any restraints or modifications; and that this opinion they hold, as founded in the doctrine of truth, of the apostles, and of the church,delivered down from the fathers and prelates; and though defaced and obscured by the filth heaped upon it in the middle ages, yet not obliterated. They state that this opinion is not peculiar to themselves, but that there is no society or learned body, nor any one learned man in the whole catholic world, who is not ready to subscribe to it with both hands: and, with respect to the third point, the faculty, after professing equal astonishment that such a question should be propounded, do most positively and unequivocally answer, that there is not and that there never has been, amongst the catholics, or in the doctrines of the church of Rome, any law, principle, or tenet which makes it lawful for catholics to break their faith with heretics, or others of a different persuasion from themselves in matters of religion, either in public or private concerns; and they quote the authority of an illustrious member of their faculty two centuries ago, that such a doctrine is most impious and pestilential, ascribed to the catholics by those men who, rather than peace should be made with them wished to throw every thing into confusion, and thus no harmony, no articles of peace, of equity, or honesty might be received by persons differing from them in religious matters.—To the same questions the answers of all the other five universities I have named, are, in effect, precisely the same; all solemnly and utterly denying and abjuring such abominable tenets. Considering, therefore, the authority of those universities, as to what are or are not the

783
tenets and doctrines of their own religion, infinitely better than of those who ignorantly assert the contrary, unsupported by any authentic proof, I own I cannot feel with those who are for rejecting the claims of the catholics to those eligibilities which, it is even alleged, can gain them nothing. In this advanced stage of the Christian religion and of social civilization, I hold it to be highly essential to the happiness, the security, and the prosperity of this united empire, to do away all differences between his majesty's subjects, founded on distinctions in religion; and, notwithstanding what has fallen from the right reverend prelate who spoke last, and to whose authority I certainly feel disposed to pay every respect, yet I cannot feel with him that there is any danger to the protestant establishment from the vote I shall this night give, in favour of the motion for going into the committee.
The Lord Chancellorrose to discuss the subject with temperance and moderation. The noble lord who introduced the subject, had said it was one highly fit to be entertained. If it was so fit to be entertained upon constitutional principles, he sincerely prayed God that it might be entertained; but if its tendency, as had been ably argued, was to subvert those blessings under that constitution, which not only the protestants of this country, but every other class of his Majesty's subjects in the country enjoy, both civil and religious, he hoped it would not be entertained. To say the measure never shall pass, would be a language not fit for any man to use who was fit to have a seat in that house. But at present, and in his view of the subject, it was a question inconsistent with the principles of the constitution which had been introduced into this country upon protestant principles; and, therefore, feeling as he did, that it is a question opposed to what he conceived to be the true principles of that constitution, and the law as it stands, he should feel that he was not doing his duty of he did not oppose it; and in so doing, he conceived himself acting consistently with that zeal and sense of duty which he hoped would actuate the majority of their lordships, to transmit to out posterity that constitution in as much purity as we had received it from our ancestors. It had been said that the petition was couched in respectful language. He would admit it was. But the question was not, whether the language of the petition was respectful to the house? but, whether it was wise, just, or expedient to comply with the prayer of that petition?
784
It was said also, that the petition was on behalf of four millions of his Majesty's catholic subjects; but it was not the numbers who signed a petition, but the object of the petition itself, and the reasonableness and justice of complying with that object, that should rule the consideration of the house. The noble lord then, at very considerable length, and with this wonted ability, went over the whole ground of principle upon which the subject had been already debated, and contended that every thing which religious toleration demanded, had been already conceded to the catholics; and that they had now no political grievances whatever to complain of, that do not equally affect most other descriptions of his Majesty's protestant subjects. The constitution demands oaths, tests, and qualifications from those who are to be entrusted with parliamentary representation or official power: our liberties were sustained by a system of checks. The elective franchise was limited; the representative must prove the qualification of his required; the dissenter must conform to the oaths presented for the protestant. The eldest sons of the peers of Scotland could not be returned as representatives in parliament for that part of the Kingdom; and, in short, no prohibition now remained upon Roman catholics that did not attach equally upon many other descriptions of his Majesty's protestant subjects. Nay, the Roman catholics of Ireland had more license in the oath they were required to take than protestant dissenters in England; for the former were only required to swear allegiance to the king and his family; but in England the oath was to the king and his family—being protestants. The basis of the British constitution was not founded upon the principle of equal rights to all men indiscriminately; but to all men conforming and complying with the tests which the constitution demanded for its security. The noble and learned lord argued at much length the danger that must arise to the act of settlement and the bill of rights, if a protestant king in this country were to have a catholic cabinet; and he quoted the expressions of the celebrated lord Sommers on the 11th and 12th of William and Mary, containing the coronation oath, that ought to be reverenced as the Magna Charta of the British constitution. The noble and learned lord alluded, in the course of his speech, to the observations made by lord Redesdale upon the contumacious conduct of the Irish catholic bishops, in not only assuming, contrary to law, the high titular dignities, but

785
all the ecclesiastical functions attached to that rank in the established church; and said it would have belonged to the character and firmness of his noble and learned friend the moment he discovered those men assuming the titular dignities of the established episcopacy, or discharging their functions in ecclesiastical polity, in open rebellion against the laws, to have directly conveyed a formal complaint to his Majesty, and to have commenced legal proceedings against them.
The Duke of Norfolk.The Duke of Norfolk.—My lords, not withstanding what has been held out to the catholics of Ireland at the period of the union, to grant, as a condition of that measure, the final emancipation their petition now claims, I have had very strong grounds to rely that at least such an understanding was forcibly entertained; and I am therefore for going into the committee, if it were only to investigate the terms upon which the union was negotiated, in order to discover the truth. The noble person, under whose administration that measure was negotiated (Marquis Cornwallis) has rendered many signal and important services to the British empire; and none more important than the acquisition of that measure. I have been very credibly informed, that under that administration, assurances were held out to the catholics of Ireland, from the highest ceded, as a condition for their acquiescence to that measure for, otherwise, the union could not have been carried. The refusal now will be to them, therefore, a bitter disappointment: they will conceive themselves the dupes of false promise and deception, and their minds will feel all the irritation natural to men of any sensibility under such circumstances. A reverend prelate has talked of toleration in the mild and beneficent principle of the church of England. In the spirit of that principle, therefore, I wish your lordships to act on the present occasion, and not to persist in a principle of excluding British subjects from their natural and political rights, merely on account of their religious opinion. It is the church of Rome which withholds from its votaries the right of exercising their own judgment upon religious topics, and to dictate to men's minds the points of faith, from which it allows no man to hold a different opinion, even in a single io ta. But to the energies of our ancestors we owe that resistance to such despotism over men's minds and consciences which produced the reformation,
786
and with it the freedom of religious opinion. It becomes, therefore, the enlightened liberality of a British senate, enjoying themselves that freedom of opinion to allow to all men the right of thinking as they please in matters of religion. How can a belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any other speculative tenet in religious faith, influence any man's conduct on political subjects? or the difference between a belief of seven sacraments or two, render a man peculiarly fit or unfit for political confidence or parliamentary representation, who has the same government, and holds the opinions in common with other subjects in this realm upon political topics? or, where is the ground of apprehension that men who have received all their opinions under a British constitution, will, when they are admitted to participate in all the blessings of that constitution, which they now anxiously pray, endeavour to excite anarchy for the purpose of subverting it, and of erecting in its place a foreign tyranny, and restoring the despotism of the Romish church? If any thing could excite a disposition to anarchy, it would be the perpetual refusal of admitting the catholics to the blessings of a constitution, in which, once affiliated, every disposition to anarchy or even discontent must cease, and a real union of interests and attachments follow. A noble and learned lord on a former night (lord Redesdale) has complained much of the influence of the Roman catholic bishops, and their contumacy in assuming episcopal functions; but in a religious point of view, I conceive them to be as much bishops, and to have as good a right to exercise episcopal functions for the spiritual direction of their own sect, as any right reverend prelate on that bench. If they abuse those functions by any tyrannical exertion of them, they are indeed highly reprehensible, and would really deserve punishment. But the noble and learned lord, at the same time that he complained of the influence of the catholic hierarchy, the slow progress the reformation bad made in Ireland, and the unwillingness of protestants to reside in some districts, owing to that influence, stated also another cause, to which I am much more inclined to attribute those circumstances, namely, the state of the protestant churches in Ireland, of which the noble and learned lord had drawn so deplorable a picture. How is it reasonable to expect that protestants, having any sense of their religion, would reside in parishes,

787
above one thousand of which, and many of them good livings, the noble and learned lord has stated there are in Ireland, where there is neither protestant church nor protestant clergyman—and which parishes, as he states, are anxiously sought for as sinecures by protestant clergymen, whose duty it is to preach the Gospel, and to propagate the reformed religion? or how can it be expected that Roman catholics are to be converted to that religion in those extensive quarters of the country where it is never preached? I earnestly hope that this subject will seriously occupy the attention of parliament, and that some means will be contrived to remedy so glaring an evil. But, my lords, feeling no apprehension of the slightest danger from granting the prayer of this petition, I shall vote for going into the committee.
Lord Harrowbycould not agree that it was a fir moment to agitate the question,l if their lordships were not prepared to think it a fit moment to concede what was asked.
The Earl of Westmorland.—My lords, having been one of his majesty's servants at the time the union was framed, having been in some degree alluded to in the course of the debate, and the importance of the measure, will be my excuse, however ably the subject has been debated, for stating the grounds of the vote I shall give this night. Having, whilst I had the honour of serving his majesty in Ireland, twice given his majesty's sanction to important favours to the Roman catholics of that kingdom; having been twice thanked by that body, and assured that the period of my administration would ever be remembered width gratitude by the catholics of Ireland, I trust, in giving my decided negative to the motion of the noble lord for a committee, it is unnecessary for me to relieve myself of any suspicions of being actuated by superstition or bigotry, or a want of principles of liberality or toleration. To toleration in the exercise of his religion and enjoyment of property, every subject, except under imminent circumstances, has a right; beyond this the exercise of political power is a question not of right but of expediency; a right which every state has exercised, which every state will exercise, in defiance of all the new theories, in defiance of the doctrines of the rights of man, and the bleeding example of the French republic.—Before I enter into the discussion of this question, I will preface two observations: first, notwithstanding the new opinion, that in this country the ecclesiastical establishment is inseparably
788
connected with the state; with it the country has grown to greatness, and whatever has a tendency to weaken or destroy the establishment of the church, tends to the destruction of our monarchy, our liberty; and our political existence: secondly, that all the examples that have been produced of persons of different religions being allowed to serve the state in other countries, in no degree apply to this kingdom, as those countries are subject to arbitrary government; and I will venture to say, that no instance can be shewn of a free state, with a free parliament, in which persons professing a faith distinct from that establishment have obtained much weight and consequence. In discussing this question, it should be considered what is asked, haw what is asked is to be attained, and what is to be substituted in the place of that you take away.—What is asked is catholic emancipation, a term unfitting for this question, or for this assembly. Emancipate the catholics! Do they require the praetor's wand to be released from servitude to hold property,to be protected in their persons and property? They are as free as any subjects in the world. Do you talk of emancipating copy-holders, custom-house officers, excise officers? The term, as it. was first intended, applies to emancipate Ireland, that,is,to separate Ireland from the government of, connexion with England.—But what is asked? to abolish all distinctions between protestant and papist, to place the papist upon an equality with the protestant; whilst any distinction remains, however high or special, the grievance remains. This is as it is asked, as it has been argued. For this purpose you cannot move a step without the repeal of the test and corporation acts. In the opinion of many, and to the extent which the arguments lead, you must also repeal the act of supremacy and uniformity, the bill of rights, the act of settlement, the act of union with Scotland, and alter the king's coronation oath. There perhaps will arise a question between original compact and the supremacy of parliament. Unquestionably our laws are not like those of the Medes and Persians, that alter not; unquestionably no parliament has greater power than the succeeding one; but to this only I argue this question, that, considering the solemnity attendant upon these most unwise to raise doubts, and agitate the minds of men upon points which,even in the opinion of many, strike at the settlement of, and right to the crown itself, without

789
urgent and pressing necessity, without being convinced, first, that you will do no harm; next, that you will do essential benefit; and, lastly, that have a plan to establish, for that you mean to take away. Now, what are the reasons assigned for this measure?—that it will tend to the settlement and tranquillity of Ireland. Serious as I consider many other parts of the subject, if I thought it would have that effect, I would enter into a consideration of it: but it is because I am if a diametrically opposite opinion; because I am convinced that, at this period, it would plunge that country into confusion, I am decidedly against it. I should be glad to ask, if it is likely to tend to the tranquillity of a country composed of two descriptions of inhabitants, the one possessed of the property and the magistracy, few in number, contending and protecting themselves against the more numerous class, to open every situation as a scene of contest? I consider the first operation of this measure to be, to make this country a scene of confusion, corruption, and riot, not only for parliament, but for magistracy, and situations in all the towns, as described by Lucan,
Lethe lisque ambitus urbis Annua venali referens certainina campo.
The priest at the head of his flock, leading them to every outrage, and religious bigotry carried to the utmost extent. The power of the protestant landlords would have no effect against a religious combination—Next, what are the causes of the discontents in Ireland? high rents, heavy taxes, tithes, the property possessed by persons speaking a different language, of different manners and habits from the peasantry, a double clergy, the protestant clergy in affluence, the catholic in poverty. May i ask, which of the grievances will this act touch? will it lower rents or taxes? will it alter the state of property? will it teach the landlords Irish, or the peasants English? will it lower tithes? will it make the protestant clergy low, and raise the catholic priest? perhaps it may, and here is the difficulty. If this operates lightly and gently, as possibly it may, it would not affect the mass of the country; if it operates to affect the mass, it may operate to an extent that may be fatal to the British connexion. I have long entertained an opinion, that the discontents of Ireland have arisen from other causes, and not from religious disabilities. Let us examine history; i shall not go into the discarded code, except to ask if so much was
790
said upon it for the sake of tranquillity? First, I look to the year 1782; then all the grievances of the nation were brought forth by the patriots of that period, various,— simple repeal, independent parliament, free trade; not a word of religious grievances. I proceed to 1789; grievances enough, wrongs enough of a noble marquis, wrongs that will never be forgiven by those who wished to risk the separation of the countries for the sake of party, nor forgotten by those who know that, by his ability and firmness, he preserved that kingdom to his sovereign, and the connexion between the countries. The parties in parliament, and the Whig Club, stating all the grievances; not a word of religious grievances. It is to be believed, that the great patriots of the day should not have mentioned religious grievances, if any such oppressed the people? I proceed farther to the year 1791; relaxation was given to the catholics in England; the Irish catholics naturally applied; what happened? the Irish house of commons would not grant the claims; no— they threw the petition off the table, twenty-three only objecting.—Now i argue not the right or the wrong on this subject; but this I contend, that the great patriots of that time would not have rejected these petitions if the state of the laws had been an oppression to the country. When, then, was the discovery made? why as soon as it was discovered that the government of England wished to do every thing that was proper for the catholics, then the grievance was made out, then the patriots began to cry out; and whatever was given, the determination was to ask for more, so the more we give, the more we shall be asked, till your lordships have nothing more to surrender. May it be asked what has been the effect of the concessions of 1793? The catholics were relieved from every law affecting the mass of the people. The profession of the law was opened, the magistracy, right of voting, freedom of corporations, trades, &c. What happened immediately? universal instruction, devastation, and cruelty. May i venture to ask then, if it is probable that those who returned treason for kindness, and murder for favour, upon points that directly affected them, are likely to become mild and grateful subjects for favours that affect them only distantly and collaterally? Upon this point of the argument I beg to be distinctly understood. I do not bring this argument against the measure; if it is

791
right with a view to the catholics of Ireland, let it be done; if it is right with a view to the catholics of England, if it is right upon general policy, let it be done; but let no man's mind be influenced in deciding upon this question by the opinion that concessions of this nature are likely to tranquillize Ireland. We are told it arises out of the union: how? was it promised? certainly not. Did the catholics carry the union? certainly not. was the question tried at the union? why, it was previously rejected by both parliaments before the union, and at the time of the union itself, it was a strange sort of expectation that what both parliaments rejected before and at the union, should be done as soon as they were united. But is it not well known that the measure could not have been carried if this proposition had been clogged to it? It is not well known that the most zealous friends of that measure would have opposed the union if this had made a part, considering it as leading to the separation of the countries? "But it will please the people of Ireland." Are you to learn that there are two descriptions of persons in the kingdom? will it please the protestants of Ireland; those who carried that great measure, those who preserved that country to this? It seems as if noble lords had forgotten such people existed; I have not heard mention of them from any one of them; a people by whose loyalty and courage, in a situation unparalleled, that kingdom was secure; whose conduct was never equalled by any description of men in any country. Why, then, what must be done? I say, "let the union alone," let that great measure alone, let it work, as it has begun, the settlement of that country, and let not the operations of that great measure be impeded by bringing the catholics forward at an unfit season, to be made the tool and sport of British factions.—In considering the petition several observations might be made, but I shall confine myself merely to two; the first is, an insinuation that the catholics have not the benefit of equal justice. Now, for one, I beg have to observe on the unfairness of this insinuation, and to defy any man to shew that equal justice in that country is not done to every man of whatever religion or description he may be. Secondly, that the petition is signed by no priest. From this three observations may be made; first, that the priests disapprove of the tenets and declarations contained in the petition, and do not choose to give it their
792
countenance; secondly, the one which surprised me, and which the noble lord secured to countenance, that, as its requests did not affect their order, they did not choose to sign it; that it did not go far enough, and therefore did not deserve their application. To neither of these observations shall I give any weight, but I will give one more fitting the conduct and character of that reverend body, the superior clergy of whom, from everything I experienced, I shall always speak with respect. The reason that I conceive why the priests did not sign the petition is, that they disapproved of the season; that they who knew the state and temper of their own people, the state and temper of the protestants, knew that the time was unfitting for the discussion; that neither party had forgiven the sufferings and injuries of the late rebellion, and that to revive the consideration of this question would only be to revive the horrors of the rebellion. They therefore, in which i concur with them, wished to postpone the consideration of their situation to a more favourable moment; and when, as was ably observed, so very few persons have signed this petition from several parts of Ireland, it may be argued that a large portion of the catholics concur in this opinion with the priesthood.—Having looked at this question as it related to Ireland, let us extend our view to its general effect. What is the state of England, of Scotland? perfectly quiet; no religious jealousy, every man worshipping the Deity according to the form he approves. Will the noble lord ensure the continuance of such a state if this motion is complied with? And here an observation should be made; the Irish parliaments, taunted as they have been as bigots and oppressors, in 1793 gave considerable privileges to the catholics; have the English done so to their catholics, whose loyalty and good conduct has been unimpeached, and against whom suspicion never broached a whisper in their disfavour? The argument of the dangers attending the measures in Ireland not applying in England, why did not the noble lords propose relaxations to the some extent? because the state and temper of the country would not bear the proposition. What is the case of Scotland? why even the laws of 1791 were not extended to that country. What is to be argued from this? that those who had the management of Scotland knew the state and temper of that country would not bear the discussion; that it would be injurious to the catholics, injurious to the protestants,

793
May I then ask, what has happened to induce you to throw this measure wild upon the country? Does any man wish to renew the horrors of the year 1780? Is any man sure that the cry may not be raised that the church is din danger, and may there not be some ground for this alarm?—It was very ably shewn, and I shall not again go go over the ground, that this question might throw the one hundred Irish members and the whole power of Ireland into the hand of the catholics. Calculate what the dissenters of this country are; add to these those of no religion, those willing to sacrifice the establishment to free themselves from tithes and taxes; consider the tempting state of the possessions of the church as a source of taxation; contemplate the effects of an union of these bodies acting systematically, forming subscriptions; recollect that parties may be in this country who would go all lengths to attain and maintain power, and nobody can calmly say very serious attacks might not be made on the establishment of the church. We are told this is not a time to exclude men from the service of the state for religious opinions. In the first place, in Ireland the catholics are not generally excluded; and secondly, it is not on account of religious opinion, but because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the king, and come, in a general way of considering the subject, within the provisions of the 24th of Henry the Eighth. We are likewise told, that the fears of the pope and pretender are gone by; of the latter certainly, except by arguments there seem some attempts to set up his title. But the pope has no power. It is not the power of the pope, but the power of those over whom the pope has influence, that is to be considered; and if that unfortunate person, having disgraced his reverend hand by anointing an usurper, is a prisoner in his capital, and under his authority has a communication with Ireland, and spiritual mixed with civil authority appointing the hierarchy of the country, who can deny this is a solecism in politics, and cannot be contemplated without apprehension?—But what I most disapprove is the manner in which this question is brought forward. Whoever proposes a change of so important a nature as this is, whoever proposes to alter laws,ought to explain the whole plan and the whole project.—It was said that, in consideration of restrictive laws, all that excluded persons from equal power, the onus lay upon those to shew cause who
794
wished for their continuance. Is it so? I know not how the people of England will like to hear that they are to shew cause for the protection of the corporations and their franchises against universal suffrage of freeholders against copyholders; but for one, I am ready to take the onus. "What, have you gained by the war?" was frequently asked; what was the noble lord's answer? "that I have survived the shock under which other nations have sunk," quod spéro tuum est. I listened with considerable attention to hear what was to be proposed. The first noble lord was all general, and seemed to profess only a compliance with the petition in aid of this favoured sect, forgetting all others upon equal claims, though his argument went to the full extent to them; but not guard, no declaration of what was to be put in the place. I attended with great anxiety to the next, in the blue ribbon; fully convinced, by his mature judgment and discretion, that he had some distinct plan to produce, which, whilst it gave liberty in one instance, would set up some substitute and guard on the other. Not a word.—As to the third noble lord, from the extent of his arguments, I heard at least nothing in favour of any religious establishment. We ought to see the whole plan and the whole project, that we may be sure, when we come into this committee, any two of the proposers any agree upon what they would wish to have done. I shall be glad to see this new work of Vauban, and to know if I cannot proceed against it by sap or storm with more prospect of success than against this ancient castle, which has been fortified at every point where danger has threatened.—We have been told that this proposal is to strengthen the church establishment, to produce the tranquillity of Ireland, and secure the settlement of union; but I must look not at the professions of the proposer,but at the tendency of the project; and as i am convinced that its discussion at this improper and unfitting period will, instead of strengthening, shake the establishment of the church; instead of tranquillizing, will convulse the kingdom of Ireland, and instead of cementing the union, will risk the separation; I must beg the noble lords not at such a moment to hazard the horrors and the miseries of religious contests.
The Bishop of St. Asaph.—My lords, in delivering my sentiments upon this subject, I hope I shall be able to maintain that temper of cool discussion, which a question affecting so numerous and so respectable a de-

795
scription of his majesty's subjects, a question so important and momentous in its bearings and consequences, demands.—My lords, it I should feel it to be my duty to resist the prayer of this petition, my vote will not be founded upon any uncharitable sentiments, entertained by me, of that branch of the christian family, which holds communion with the church of Rome. I shall easily find credit with your lordships for this assertion; I shall easily find credit for it with the country; I shall easily find credit for it with the Roman catholics themselves. For of every measure that has been brought forward; during the time that I have had a seat in this house, for the relief of the Roman catholics from the old penal laws, it is well known I have been a strenuous supporter; some measures of a contrary tendency, I have strenuously and successfully resisted.—My lords, I do not hold, that there is anything in the Roman catholic religion at variance with the principles of loyalty. I impute not actual disloyalty, far from it, to the Roman catholics of this kingdom at the present day. I do not believe that any Roman catholic of this country at the present day, thinks himself at liberty hot to keep faith With heretics, nor bound by his oaths to a protestant government, or that the pope can release him from the obligation of his oath of allegiance to his sovereign. The questions upon these points, which were some years since proposed to foreign universities, and to the faculties of divinity abroad, and the answers that were returned, which a noble earl this evening read in his place, were no news to me. I had a perfect knowledge of the questions proposed, and the answers returned; in which these abominable principles were most explicitly and unanimously reprobated by the learned bodies to which the questions were propounded. And I am persuaded, that the Roman catholics of this country are sincere in their disavowal and abjuration of those pernicious maxims. I hold, that the Roman catholics of this country are dutiful and loyal subjects of his majesty, and I think them as well entitled to every thing that can be properly called toleration, and to every indulgence which can be extended to them with safety to the principles of our constitution, as many of those who do us the honour to tall themselves our protestant brethren; the Roman catholics indeed differing less from us, in essential points of doctrine and in church discipline, than many of them. But my mind is so unfashionably constructed that it cannot quit
796
hold of the distinction between to toleration and admission to political power and authority in the state. The object of toleration is conscientious scruples. I conceive that the Roman catholics already enjoy a perfect toleration. The statutes, which exclude them from offices of high trust and authority in the state, are not penal. Such exclusion are not penalties, and the relaxation of those statutes would not be toleration. It would be an indulgence of a very different kind. And although I wish the Roman catholics should enjoy toleration in its full extent, that they should be subject to no penalties for any religious opinions which may be peculiar to them, to no restraint in the use of their own forms of worship among themselves; yet I could not, without anxiety and apprehension, see a Roman catholic upon that woolsack, where -my noble and learned friend now sits, or on the bench of justice so worthily occupied by a noble and learned lord at my right hand. My lords, this petition goes this length. It prays, that a Roman catholic my be invested with the capacity of being any thing in the state, but king. Now, if there would be no danger the constitution, to admit a Roman catholic to be any thing but king, if this would be a safe thing to do, I confess it is beyond the powers of my mind to imagine upon what principle the act of settlement can be defended.— My lords, my mind is not yet brought to that modern liberality of sentiment, which holds it to be a matter of indifference to the state, of what religion the persons may be, who fill its highest offices. I hold, that there is danger to the state, When persons are admitted to high offices Who are not of the religion of the state, be it what it may. And I am ready to argue this very fairly; I think in my conscience, that I myself, being a protestant, should have been a very unfit person to have held any high office under the old French government. My lords, the noble secretary of State, in the former night's debate, argued this point of the inexpediency of admitting persons differing in religious persuasion front the state; he argued it from the practice of antiquity, and he, argued justly. It certainly was the policy of all the states of antiquity, to require that persons in office in the state, should be of the established religion of the country I shall argue from the sad experience, which modern times afford, of the mischief of giving away to the contrary principle. Having said that I will argue from modern times, I may seem to be going somewhat back, if I mention the

797
French Hugonots. But they are an instance in,point. I will say, that the Hugonots were very bad subjects Roman catholic France. They became bad subjects in consequence of the extravagant indulgences, which, for a long series of years they were permitted to enjoy. They became at last so bad, that the French government was provoked to revoke those indulgences; and the cruel persecution took place, which drove them from their country. The persecution was cruel, but it was the natural effect of impolitic indulgence; and such indulgence may always be expected to terminate in such cruelty. Bat I rely chiefly on the events of much later times;—of our own times. I ask, what was the real beginning and radical cause of that dreadful convulsion, which, at this moment, shakes all Europe? What was the real beginning and first cause of the subversion of the ancient French government, and of the overthrow of the venerable Gallican Church? Was it not the placing of Neckar, that protestant republican, at the head of the counsels of monarchical Roman catholic France?—Now, my lords, if there be danger in admitting a protestant to any high part in a Roman catholic government, the danger certainly must be rather greater of admitting a Roman catholic to any high part in a protestant government. And for this reason; that the Roman catholic pledges his obedience, within a certain limit, to a foreign power, which is not the case of the protestant. I say, within a certain limit. For I am aware of the distinction, between the spiritual supremacy of the pope, which is all which our Roman catholics acknowledge, and, his authority in civil matters, which they renounce; and I believe them to be perfectly sincere in that renunciation. But, there is such a connexion between authority in spiritual matters and in civil, that I apprehend some degree of civil authority may indirectly arise out of the spiritual supremacy; insomuch, that the conscientious Roman catholic may sometimes find himself hampered between his acknowledgment and his renunciation. It is true, however, that the Roman catholics of this part of the united kingdom, explicitly renounce even that indirect authority of the pope in civil matters. For the English Roman catholic swears, that "he does not believe, that the pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate,state, potentate, hath, or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm." I very
798
well remember (and I have reason to remember it, for, I had a great share in that business,) that when the oath to be imposed upon the Roman catholics was under consideration in this house, there was some hesitation about the word "indirectly." Some of us thought, that it would be pressing too hard upon the conscience of the Roman catholic to make him abjure that which might seem to be an appendage only of what he was permitted to acknowledge. The word however was after some debate inserted. It stands in the oath, and the English Roman catholic abjures even that indirect authority of the pope in temporal and civil matters. Still I fear, the line of demarcation between spiritual and temporal, it may not always be easy to define. And I must observe, that the Irish oath is not drawn with the same precision. The word "indirectly" is omitted. And there is another important omission. The Irish Roman catholic does not, so explicitly as the English, bind himself to maintain the protestant succession.—My lords, having mentioned these oaths, I must take occasion, in justice to the Roman catholic clergy of England, to set right a matter, which I think was inaccurately stated by a noble and learned lord, in the former night's debate. That noble and learned lord seemed to think, that the Roman catholic clergy of this country scrupled to make those abjurations, which their laity have made. And he told your lordships that, when the bill for the relief of the Roman catholics was brought in to parliament, the apostolical vicars put forth an encyclical letter forbidding the people of their communion to take the oath prepared for them. Now, it is very true, that the apostolical vicars for bad the taking of that oath, which stood in the bill originally brought into the house of commons,which actually passed that house. But their objection to the oath was not,that they were unwilling that their people should swear to the maintenance of the protestant succession,or to the renunciation of the pope's indirect as well as direct authority in temporals; but the oath, as it was framed in the lower house, contained some theological dogmata, which they deemed, and in my judgment rightly deemed, impious and heretical. The dogmata, to which I allude, amounted to an abjuration of the legitimate authority,of the priesthood, in the administration of what we churchmen call the power a the keys. Abjurations, which I, a protestant bishops, would not make and I should impute great

799
blame to any priest of mine, who should condescend to make them. It was on account of these abjuration, that the apostolical vicars reprobated the oath as it stood in the first bill; and when the oath was amended in that part, as it was in this house, the vicars apostolic made no further objection. On the contrary, when the bill had passed, they exhorted their people, clergy as well as laity, to take the oath as it now stands, and they have I believe themselves taken it.—My lords, at the beginning of this debate, although I never thought of consenting to the prayer of the petition in the extent to which it goes; yet, I confess, the inclination of my mind was not to oppose the motion of going into a committee. i thought it might best become the gravity of your lordships' proceedings, to consider the subject in detail, to examine the petition, article by article. For, I hold not with those, who think that because the whole, or any thing like the whole, cannot be granted, nothing be conceded. And it was not till the debate had made a considerable progress, that my mind was changed. But I must declare, that it is now completely changes, by the representation that has been made to us by very high authority, of the actual state of the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland. My lords, I have long understood, that the Roman catholic clergy in Ireland were upon a different footing from their brethren here. Here the Roman catholic clergy appear in the unassuming character of mere missionaries. There are no diocesan bishops, no parish priests. England is divided into four districts, which are superintended in spirituals by four bishops in partibus, a bishop of Centuriæ, a bishop of Acanthos, &c. who take the titles of vicars apostolic, and exercise their spiritual authority with great modesty and decorum, and in a manner perfectly inoffensive to the established church and to the state. I knew that, in Ireland, each province has its titular archbishop, each diocese its titular bishop, and each parish its titular priest. But I had no conception, till a noble and learned lord informed us of it, that these titular prelates and priests claim to be the rightful possessors of the respective sees and parishes, and treat the prelates and priests of the established church as usurpers and intruders. I had no conception, that the titular archbishop of Armagh would publicly take to himself the stile of Armachens, and designate the lord primate by the simple appellation of Dr. Stuart. The withholding from the lord primate the title which be-
800
longs to him,in itself is no great matter. But the claim to jurisdiction, in exclusion of the established prelacy and priesthood, is another thing. A noble duke on the opposite bench has said, in exculpation of them that these Roman catholic prelates are really "bishops." Most undoubtedly, they are bishops as truly as any here. They are of the episcopal order; and men, I dare say, in their individual character, highly worthy of that pre-eminence in the church. But, I am sure the noble duke knows enough of our ecclesiastical matters, to be apprised of the distinction between "the poser of order" and the "power of jurisdiction." The "power of order" these Roman catholic prelates possess. But the "power of jurisdiction" does not of necessity attach upon the "power of order." A man may be a bishop, and yet it follows not of necessity that he is bishop of a diocese. The two powers, that of order and that of jurisdiction, are quite distinct, and of distinct origin. The power of order is properly a capacity of exercising the power of jurisdiction conferred by a competent authority. And this power of order is conveyed through the hierarchy itself, and no other authority but that of the hierarchy can give it. The only competent authority to give the power of episcopal jurisdiction, in this kingdom, is the crown. It is true, that, in this part of the united kingdom, that power may seem in some degree to flow from the hierarchy; because we have the form of an election of a person to be a bishop of a vacant see, by the clergy of the cathedral. But this is a mere form—the chapter cannot proceed to elect, without the king's licence. The king's licence to elect, is always accompanied with his majesty's letter missive, recommending a fit person to their choice; and it always to falls out, that the chapter agree with the king in their opinion of the fitness of the person. In substance, therefore, the collation of the diocesan jurisdiction is from the crown. In Ireland, the collation of the power of jurisdiction is, both in form and in substance, from the crown solely; for the prelates of that part of the kingdom are appointed to their respective sees without any congé d élire, or any form of an election by letters patent under the great seal. In neither part therefore of this kingdom can there be any legitimate power of jurisdiction, but what is conferred by the crown; and the claim of such a power, independent of the crown, is a most outrageous violation of the very first principles of our ancient constitu-

801
tion.—But, my lords, unwarrantable as this claim of the Roman catholic prelates in Ireland appears to be, I am still more alarmed by the manner, in which, as we have been informed by the noble and learned lord, they exercise, their spiritual authority. When the noble and learned lord entered upon this topic, with a remark, that we here in England have no idea what excommunication is in Ireland—that it is really a dreadful thing—and seemed to make this the ground of some charge he had to bring against the Roman catholic clergy of Ireland; my mind, I confess, was all puzzle and amazement. I could not imagine, what this might be; and surmises arose the very contrary of that which I now understand to be the case. Excommunication in Ireland a dreadful thing! why, I said to myself, to a christian, to one who really believes, how should excommunication, in the true meaning of the word, in Ireland, or any where else, not be a dreadful thing? Excommunication, in the true meaning of the word, is the separation of a christian, leading a disorderly life, disgracing his profession, from the christian congregation; a banishment of him from the church. And this separation every christian must consider as a state of great danger and peril: for as the promises of the Gospel are all made to the church in its corporate capacity, and extend to the individual only as a member of that elect society, (none but fanatics hold the contrary,) to be severed from that society, is to be excluded from all share in the blessings and promises of christianity. This is excommunication, and this is certainly a dreadful thing. Excommunication, as it is practised here in England, I know very well in itself is no dreadful thing. It carries no terror with if, but in its secular consequences. But this is, because what we call excommunication is not really what the word means. And I have always considered the manner, in which it is used among us, as little better than a profanation of a most sacred rite if discipline It is used with us, merely as an engine to support the authority of the ecclesiastical courts. If a man disobeys a citation, and persists in his neglect of it, excommunication is denounced.; though the object of the citation should he in some of these secular matters, which, by our laws, are submitted to the cognizance of these courts. The sentence is pronounced by a layman, without any thing striking in the manner of it; and, if the offender still persists, at the expiration of certain days, comes indeed a dreadful thing;
802
he is committed to prison, by virtue of the writ de excommunication capiendo, a writ issuing from a secular court, and there he must remain, till in the language of Doctors Commons, he has made "his peace with the church," i.e. till he has made his submission to the court. The person on whom the sentence falls, all the while finds not the burthen of any thing properly to be called a sin upon his conscience. He is not aware, that he has offended the church—for his imagination cannot identify the ecclesiastical court, in which a layman sits as judge, taking cognizance perhaps of matters of a secular nature, with the church—and he perceives not, that religion has any thing to do in the business. Such excommunication has certainly nothing dreadful in itself, but in the imprisonment only, which follows. Such was not the primitive excommunication. The objects of that dreadful sentence were none but notorious sinners: fornicators, usurers, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners. It was pronounces with awful solemnity, in the full assembly of the church, by the bishop himself, or some person specially delegated by him. It produced the greatest consternation in the conscience of the sinner, and generally brought him to a sense of his guilt, and produced a reformation, which nothing short of this severity could have effected. When the noble and learned lord said, that excommunication in Ireland was a dreadful thing, the surmise, that naturally rose in my mind, was, that the excommunications of the Irish prelates were something more resembling the primitive excommunications, than that is which our courts call excommunication; and I wondered how this was to be turned to the reproach of the Roman catholic bishops. But when the noble and learned lord went on, he soon made me understand, that their excommunication is no less a profanation, though in a different way, but no less, if not more a profanation of the rite, than our practice. It is indeed a dreadful thing: but not dreadful simply by the alarm of the excommunicated person's conscience, but by the worldly distress it brings upon him. It is not simply a separation from the body of the faithful, but it is, to all intents and purposes, an interdiction ab aquâ et igne. No Roman catholic dares to administer a crust of dry bread or a cup of cold water to the person under this interdiction. And the offence, which draws down this horrible sentence, is any friendly intercourse which a Roman catholic may be found to hold with protestants.

803
My lords, this is an abominable abuse of the power which Christ has placed in the hands of the governors of his church, not to destroy the worldly comforts of men, but for the salvation of their souls. No precedent is to be found for such tyranny in the conduct of the apostles. The first instance of an excommunication upon record took place in a very early period, in the church of Corinth. A member of that church was leading a most flagitious life; and the process of the excommunication was this. The apostle St. Paul, not being able to attend in person, issues his peremptory mandate to the church of Corinth to assemble; and in full congregation, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver the offender unto Satan, "that is, to expel him from the church, by which he would be deprived of those assistances which the church affords to resist Satan, "for the destruction of the flesh"—not that the man was to be starved—driven from civil society, and reduced to perish with cold, and hunger and thirst; but for the mortification of the carnal appetites; for the flesh here evidently signifies the appetites of the flesh. And this flesh was to be thus destroyed, to this intent and purpose, "that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." And the spirit in that day will be saved. For the man was brought to repentance; and, upon his repentance, the apostle writes to the church again, to receive the penitent again into their communion, and to "confirm their love to him." And it appears, that offenders under this dreadful sentence were still treated with great charity and commiseration. For thus the same apostle writes to the church of Thessalonica. "We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." Very different this, for, the despotism which we are told is exercised by the titular bishops in Ireland, over persons of their own communion.—My lords, in this state of the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland, it would be in vain to go into a committee to take this petition into consideration. For certainly nothing of political power and influence can be conceded to the Roman catholics in Ireland, beyond what they already enjoy, miles their hierarchy can be reduced to a less offensive
804
form, and checked in the monstrous abuse of their spiritual authority. I should hope that neither of these things is impracticable; that both may be effected, by the influence of persons of rank of that persuasion with their pastors, concurring with government in mild measures for the attainment of these ends. But if these ends cannot be attained by the concurrence of the Roman catholics themselves with government, I confess, we seem to be reduced to this dilemma, either this hierarchy must be crushed by the strong arm of power (God forbid the dreadful necessity should arise), or the Roman catholic church must be the established church of Ireland. My lords, if the thing were resintegra, if we had now to form a constitution for Ireland ab initio, I have no hesitation in saying, that it might be matter of grave deliberation, which of the two measures should be adopted. But this is not the case. The Irish constitution is settled; settled long since upon the basis of protestantism: and that constitution, so settled, has been recently confirmed by the pacta conventa of the union. When I speak however of crushing the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland, i mean not that the Roman catholics of that country should be deprived of the superintendence of bishops; but their bishops should not be allowed to assume diocesan jurisdiction, in exclusion of our own prelacy, or even co-ordinate with it, nor should they be suffered to domineer, in the manner we are told they do.—My lords, if these difficulties stood not in the way, I should be ready to go into a committee; still I should oppose the prayer of the petition, in the extent to which it goes, for this among other reasons, that I think a compliance with it would be the worst thing that could befal the Roman catholics, as well as ourselves. The immediate effect of it I think would be, to revive that detestable rancour between protestants and Roman catholics, which for so many years has been the disgrace of the western church, but it church, but is dying away if we only let alone what is well.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the anxiety and alarm which, during the long suspended agitation of this important question, had been excited in his mind as to its probable effect on the peace and tranquillity of the country, had from various indications of the public sentiment respecting it, in a great measure subsided, before the immediate discussion of the question in that house; and, from the circumstances immediately attending the discussion itself, which (except

805
during a short and painful in the course of that evening)had been uniformly temperate and decorous, and such as became the wisdom and gravity parliament, his alarm and anxiety had now wholly ceased. That he was convinced that the debates on this momentuous subject would, when known, be as satisfactory in the result to those whose rights and interests were the object of the debates, as they were honourable to those by whom they were conducted. If the question were to be brought forward at all,which he once regretted, but now rejoiced had been the case, he was happy that the claims of the Roman catholics had been put under the protection of the eminent person by whom they had been so ably and strenuously contended for in that house. That the Roman catholics must be convinced that they had a sincere and zealous, as the house was witness that they had a most powerful and consummate, advocate in the person of the noble lord. With a view to the quieting of the question at present, and the preventing its recurrence at any future period, it was well that the defence of the Roman catholic claims had been entrusted upon this occasion to no feebler arm; what had failed now was not likely to be advanced with equal energy and effect, and with better hopes of success, at any future period. He then said that, in the vote he was about to give upon the question then under consideration, and in the reasons he was about to offer to their lordships' for that vote, he trusted that no person would be so uncandid as to suppose that he was either an enemy to the full and free toleration of the religious opinions and Worship of his Roman catholic brethren in Ireland in the most extended sense of that word, or averse to those indulgence, in respect of civil rights, which had in a large and liberal measure been afforded them by parliament during the last twenty or twenty-five years of the present reign; although perhaps he might at the time have paused ta little upon the prudence and expediency of granting some of the particulars that had been granted; viz. the elective franchise, and a capacity of being included in the commission of the peace; that he did not repine however at any thing which had been hitherto done in their favour, much less wished that any part should now be recalled or withdrawn. I believe indeed, said his lordship, that no such wish exists in the minds of any of your lordships. I am sure it does not in the minds of my noble friends Against whom an insinuation of this kind
806
was directed in the heat and eagerness of debate on a former night. What our Roman catholic brethren have acquired by the liberal grant of a bestowing and confiding parliament, let them, under the solemn faith of parliament pledged to them for its continuance, still enjoy. I will not anticipate a possibility that a breach of the implied condition which is annexed to every legislative provision for the benefit of individuals, should draw the expediency of its allowed continuance into question at any the remotest period of our future history. The question now before us on this petition, is not a question of toleration in the enjoyment and exercise of civil and religious rights, but of the grant of political power. All that toleration can require in respect to civil and religious immunity, has been long ago satisfied in its most enlarged extent. At the commencement of the gracious and beneficent reign of his present Majesty, the Roman catholics of both parts of the united kingdom, especially of Ireland, were incumbered and weighed down by the grievous pressure of many rigorous restraints, penalties and disabilities. It become the wisdom of parliament (for on such subjects generosity and wisdom are the same,)to emancipate them from these burthens; and by several successive statutes in the space of about fifteen years they have been accordingly so emancipated. They are in respect of property capable inheriting and taking by devise for their own benefit, and of alienating and disposing of property in all such ways as it is competent to any other of his Majesty's to subjects to take and dispose of the same The education of their children, and the choice of their marriages are equally unrestrained to them. The enjoyment of their religious worships is equally free and public. The avenues to emolument and eminence in the practice and profession of the law are equally open to them with their protestant fellow subjects. The right of serving on grand and petit juries, and upon all inquests civil and criminal, is the same to them as to others. The right of voting in counties for members of parliament has been conferred on them; a capacity to become justice of the peace is capable of being communicated to them by his Majesty's commission of the peace in the same manner as it is to other subjects; that is, of course, under the check and control of a sound discretion to be exercised on the part of the person holding the great seal, as to the objects to which it should be granted.

807
All military and naval commissions, except those of principal command, and all offices except a very few of the great offices of state, and the higher judicial offices, are attainable by them. If, in the beginning of the year 1778, any person had ventured to predict to them, that such would in the course of a very few years be the condition of a people then labouring under the restraints, penalties, and disabilities, I have alluded to, he would have been regarded as a rash and hardly utterer of a vain prophecy, which had not the remotest chance of ever being accomplished. However, in the compass of fifteen years, by the gradual removal of civil and religious, and of some political restraints, they have attained the accomplishment of all which, in their relative situation to the establishments of the country, they can consistently ask, or we can, with due regard to our situation as trustees for them and others, consistently bestow. Their emancipation from civil and religious restraint as affecting themselves, and the rights to be enjoyed by them individually, is entire and complete; if it be not so, let it be shewn wherein it is in any instance defective, that the defect may be, if practicable, instantly supplied and remedied. Of the condition of the catholics as his Majesty found it al the commencement of his reign, loaded with the sufferings and the fears of former times had cast upon them, and as he will hand it over to succeeding times, it may be truly said "Lateritiam invenit, marmoream reliquit." Catholicemancipation, as it is improperly called, if that term is meant to denote and designate any slavish subjection as still subsisting on their part profession of religious faith, or the exercise of religious worship has been fully attained. The only remaining emancipation which they are capable of receiving must be acquired by an act of their own, be redeeming themselves from the foreign bondage and thraldom under which they and their ancestors have long unworthily groaned, and from which the state, as it has neither imposed nor continued it, has no adequate means of relieving them consistently with the duty of self-preservation which it owes to itself. Every state claiming and exercising independent powers of sovereignty, has incidentally belonging to it, as such, the power of binding its subjects by laws of its own, not only paramount to, but exclusive of any authority or control to be exercised by any other state whatsoever. In so fat as any other state or person is al-
808
lowed to exercise an authority breaking in upon this exclusive nd independent power of legislation and enforcement of authority in one state, to that extent such state so intrenched upon is not sovereign and independent, but admits itself to be subordinate to, and dependent upon the other. The declaration contained in the oath of supremacy, which expresses a denial and renunciation of the existence of any power and authority in respect of ecclesiastical and spiritual matters in any foreign state, potentate, or person whatsoever, is but the affirmance of a preposition which is logically and politically true as an essential principle not to this government only, but to every other government under the sun which claims to possess and exercise the powers of independent sovereignty. It is not only true as a maxim of government, but essentially necessary to be insisted and acted upon, also, in all cases in obedience may become questionable, in order to give the state that assurance and test which it has a right to require and receive from its subjects, of their entire submission and fidelity in all matters to which the power and authority of the state can extend. But, it is said, that what is prayed by this petition is not a matter which impugns the authority of the state in matters to which its authority extends. That the reserve made by our Roman catholic brethren is only in favour of matters which concern God and their own consciences; matters of mere abstract faith, and mental persuasion. That however is not so; the pope, in virtue of his general spiritual authority, claims anthority in matters of mere faith; he claims and habitually exercises on some subjects a power of dispensing with oaths, and in that respect of nullifying all human sanctions whatsoever, as far as they affect the conscience through the medium of oaths; he claims and exercises by himself, and delegates to others, and effectual, or supposed effectual, power of absolution. What fatal effects the power, as exercised by the Roman catholic priesthood and applied to a credulous multitude, is capable of producing upon the civil and political condition of that community in which it is allowed to prevail, let the recent experience of Ireland during the late rebellion attest, where wretches, reeking with the blood of their murdered countrymen, have been purified from the guilt of past atrocities, and prepared for the com-

809
mission of new, by the all-atoning virtues of popish absolution; such a power as this over the conscience, engrosses and directs more than half the faculties and energy of the entire man, &c.—But, besides the spiritual power thus capable of being, and thus being in fact abused, the ecclesiastical power of the church of Rome over its obedient sons is enormous. It establishes and sustains in the instance of Ireland, an hierarchy dependant on the see of Rome as to the original nomination and subsequent control of its bishops and pastors, through the medium of which it enforces an obedience not in matters of faith only, but in temporal acts and concerns immediately connected with the duties and habits of ordinary life; not only in the payment of money for the maintenance of the local ecclesiastical establishment, or for such other purposes connected with their political economy as may be thought fit by the same authority to be enjoined, but in the performance also of rites and ceremonies, particularly that of marriage, form which all civil rites originate, and which they enjoin to be performed by their own ministers exclusively, thereby ousting the law of the land, and endangering or destroying the legitimacy of its subjects, and all rights of descent, inheritance, and representation founded thereon. The power of excommunication is, in the hands of their clergy, a most powerful and dangerous engine, not of spiritual and ecclesiastical only, but of temporal power. it acts at once upon all the comforts of domestic and social life in this world, and upon all the hopes and expectations of happiness in that which is to come. With what harshness and rigour, and with what daring defiance of the established law of the land, this most operative power of interdiction has been recently applied, not to a few individuals only, but to large multitudes of people, a noble and learned lord detailed to us on a former evening. Why such an enormous conspiracy in the several parties concerned, against the established laws and government of their country, has, if fully known, been suffered to pass unpunished, I am at a loss to conceive. I can only account for it on a supposition that some insurmountable difficulties may have occurred in the obtaining of witnesses who would venture to come forward and state such facts upon oath in the face of their spiritual directors, or that a distrust of the disposition in local juries to convict under such circumstances has prevented the institution of such prosecutions as would
810
otherwise be proper for the correction of such crimes. Certainly these or some other adequate reasons must have operated to produce a temporary impunity, in cases where the safety of the state and the protection of its subjects from the enormous excesses of illegal authority seem to have so much required the application of immediate and exemplary punishment. I am persuaded it could not proceed from a want either of zeal or courage in those whose immediate duty it is to call forth and apply the energies of the law on such important occasions; for I am well assured and know that the public spirit and manliness which hereto fore distinguished the profession of the law in that country, has by no means expired in the person of lord Clare. These are a few and but a few of the practical civil inconveniences which might be instanced as derived to the state and its subjects from the authority of the see of Rome, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as it is exercised over the sons of its church; producing as it does a distracted allegiance in the same person, acknowledging and living under the temporal power of one sovereign, and bound in faith and morals by the authority of another, claiming to be his spirtual guide and governor, his ecclesiastical sovereign, and in effect, in all matters of supreme conscientious concernment, God's vicegerent and representative on earth. it is denied that the effect of this authority was at all mischievously felt during the late troubles in Ireland; and, on the contrary, it is asserted that the rebellion in 1798 was the mere effect of revolutionary principles, fostered, matured, and brought into action by republican leaders, and brought into action by republican leaders, who were not members of the church of Rome.—I admit that the leaders of that rebellion, the Emmetts and O'Connors, were men of elevated views and conceptions, minds too highly raised above the groveling regards and credulity of the vulgar, to be subject to the weakness of this, or indeed of any other description of religious faith whatever.—I will grant, if it shall be so required, that they were superior to all infirmities of this kind, that they were graduates of the highest class in the schools of republican philosophy, by which i mean "pure, genuine, unadulterated atheism;" but the ranks of that army which their treasons brought into the field were not so filled up. The Roman catholic population furnished, as it must, the means, and the priests in many instances, in their own persons, both the inducement and the example of rebellion, by standing

811
forward as officers amongst them in the day of battle, and imposing for some time upon their superstitions and enthusiastic followers the most extravagant fables of their own miraculous exemption from the perils of fire and sword. I admit that their atheist leaders wished at first to give the mischief a republican direction; but the religious frenzy of the multitude and of their immediate directors soon give it another, as some of the sanguinary and ferocious tragedies which were acted at that period too truly and too fatally testifies. Any person who will take the trouble of referring to the history of that calamitous period, and will afterwards recur to the history of the rebellions of Tyrone and O'Neil, will find the genuine counterparts of each other, and too disgusting a resemblance prevailing between them both, as well in cause as effect. Both followed a period of extreme liberality to the catholics, took place in a season of unsuspecting calm and security, and involved the country in more than the miseries and massacre which are usually attendant upon civil war. We were taught to expect that far other consequences would have followed upon the liberal grants I have already alluded to. We were to have reposed with confidence upon the eternal gratitude of the whole Roman catholic population of Ireland. Nothing, however, of this kind that I recollect, was exhibited in fact, beyond what appeared in a few public addresses of the day; a small return of mouth honour; but neither the king or parliament which conferred, nor the immediate patrons of their cause, who induced parliament to consent to confer these benefits upon them, were very long or gratefully remembered. Two of their first and most active patrons in 1778, had afterwards the unmerited misfortune to fall in the field by the hands of catholic rebels.—Before we proceed to grant more, if more we could grant without a direct surrender of all securities of our protestant church and government, it would well become us to consider how our past liberality and confidence have been requited. But we cannot grant more, particularly the boon which is asked of the admission of catholic members into parliament, without putting in peril the whole protestant church and its rights as by law established.—The act of settlement has provided for the protestant succession to the crown of England; it has made the being a protestant the indispensable condition upon which the crown is to be worn by any prince
812
claiming under the limitation in favour of the heirs of the body of princess Sophia, "being protestants."—It has not only required the king to be a protestant generally, but to be of that class of protestants which joins in communion with the church of England; and it has excluded papists by industrious description: for it provides and enacts (section 2) that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said crown by virtue of the limitation of the present act, and it or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the see or church or Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the recited act (i.e. of W. and M.) enacted and established. —So peremptory is the tenor of these provisions in exclusion of popish prince from the throne of these kingdoms, that if (a case which is scarce within the extreme limits of actual possibility) his majesty himself should become reconciled to the see of Rome, or profess the popish religion, the crown would in that case, by the instantaneous effect and operation of law, fall from his august and revered brows, and he would stand amongst us a mere unprivileged individual, as wholly divested of the rights, functions, name and character of sovereignty, as the meanest peasant of the land: and can it then be supposed that when such industrious pains have been taken by our ancestors to secure to the kingdom a protestant prince, that it should be left at large whether his parliament should be protestant or papist? But this was already provided for by the test acts in the reign of Charles II. which shut the doors of parliament in both houses on persons who do not take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe the declaration against popery.—There restrictions on the parliamentary function and character it is now proposed to repeal; and thus the king may be surrounded, not only by ministers of opposite and conflicting religious, but may find in the same persons a divided and distracted allegiance between his rights as their temporal sovereign, land the rights spiritual and ecclesiastical of the Roman pontiff.—It is obvious to the most careless observer, that the measures of government would be enormously clogged and impeded by the close junction and mutual adherence of the catholic members, amounting in the aggregate to a number in England and Ireland sufficiently large to inforce from a minister a degree of con-

813
descension and deference to their demands in favour of the Roman catholic religion, by which the protestant religion might be undermined and endangered.—But if the Roman catholic members are to have seats in parliament, there must be also vested in them a capacity of becoming, as well as others, the king's minsters. I f the king's ministers are to be taken out of the body of catholics, of what avail will it be that we have secured to us, by the act of settlement and the coronation oath, the solitary individual protestanism of his majesty? So that at the last the whole substance of the provision made with so much anxiety and solemnity by our protestant ancestors will be come entirely futile and elusory; for the test acts which preceded the act of settlement, and were the foundation on which alone it could practically rest, must of course be done away before the catholic members can take their seats in either house; the removal of which tests will certainly on principle, and by probable if not necessary influence in point of fact, effectuate a total subversion of the protestant church, as established by law within these realms. I think, my lords, it will scarce be denied by any of those upon the credit of whose assertions your lordships would be disposed to place reliance, that the so strenuously contend for conferring a representative capacity on Roman catholics, is, through the means of such representatives, to procure for the body at large some further advantages in the way of a recognised church establishment, under the immediate authority of parliament. Upon this head, waving for the present all objections whatever to the religious faith and doctrines of that church, and supposing, what I by no means admit, that the points of faith and doctrine in which our church differ from theirs, are of less essential practical importance moral conduct than they appear to me to be; allowing them to entertain, and as publicly as they please, to profess a belief in transubstantiation and in purgatory, to practice the invocation of saints, and to believe and inculcate the belief of(what protestants consider) a legendary chronicle of unauthentic miracles; giving them all facilities of public and private worship and profession of faith on these worship and profession of faith on these and every other subject, if there be any yet wanting and required on their behalf; still an establishment for their church, concurrent with that of the united church of England and Ireland, exceeds
814
even the competence of parliament itself constituted as it is, to bestow. By the 5th article of the union, it is declared, that "the continuance and preservation of the said united church as the established church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union." By fundamental is meant, with reference to the subject matter, such an integral part of the compact of union formed between the two kingdoms, as is absolutely necessary to the support and sustaining of the whole fabric and superstructure of the union raised and built thereupon: and such as being removed, would produce the ruin and overthrow of the political union founded upon this article as its immediate basis. The words "the established church" import that there shall be only one church of that description, and which shall alone have the privileges character, and denomination of an established church annexed to it. These terms necessarily exclude any other co-ordinate and concurrent establishment; every other church which has any thing beyond what we commonly understand by the word toleration allowed to it, may be considered as so far established within the meaning of this article; and the union of course, in virtue of such allowed establishment, not only to a degree impugned and violated, but by the express letter of the precise and peremptory provision referred to, absolutely deprived of its very essence and foundation; words, substantially destroyed and subverted. I will hope, therefore that on further consideration the utter impracticability of such project, consistently with the good faith of the two kingdoms solemnly pledged to all who are at the period and by the compact of the union, will be so apparent to all who are at present striving for its adoption, as to dissuade them from the furter prosecution of a measure which, as it must commence in a violation public faith and political rights, must also terminate and dishonour—I am one of those, my lords, who labour under an unfortunate persuasion that even if this could legally be, and, in fact, were granted to them; that if the Roman catholic religion were already established in Ireland in some degree of communion and participation of privileges with the united church, that even this grant and indulgence, large as it might now appear to us, would be followed by fresh demands and increased importunity. What assurance is there that they would

815
rest contented with this boon? or would not the broad banners of papal supremacy be immediately unfurled, and the exclusive domination of the Romish church in Ireland be authoritatively claimed on the ground of this very concession, and of that majority in the population of that country, which alone confers the right (as they contend) of establishing the protestant religion as the religion of the state in this country? Compared with the value of this ultimate prize, the objects hitherto obtained in the struggle would be vile and worthless in their estimation.
Jam tenet Italiam, tamen ultra pergere tendit Actum inquit nihil est, nisi pœno milite portas Frangimus et media vexillum pone suburrâ.
Before it is yet too late, I for one am disposed to rally round the standards, and to preserve the altars, of my country. The palladium of our protestant, and, indeed, of our political security, consists principally in the oath of supremacy, and the tests connected therewith and (as more particularly concerns Ireland) in the provisions contained in the 5th article of our recent union with that country, against every attempt to weaken these safeguards of the constitution. I, as long as I live, and am furnished with faculties either of body or mind enabling me to struggle with effect, will manfully struggle, and, as far as in me lies, will avert the mischief which must result from the admission of persons (owning and yielding, as they do, an imperfect and defalcated allegiance to the state,) into the entire and perfect rights of completely affianced subjects.—Not being able, my lords, to feel any material degree of evil in the present state of political restraint, as it is necessarily for their good as well as ours, and in the prevention of common calamities affecting us all, applied; and seeing a sure prospect of enormous and incalculable mischiefs before me, which must immediately result from a change:—as a subject interested in the safety of the crown and kingdom; as a protestant interested in maintaining the possession of that pure and reformed religion, which having been in times past preserved and sanctified to us by the blood of our ancestors, has been by God's providence long and firmly established in these realms, and which is inseparably knit together in one system, with all our civil rights and liberties, with our best means of happiness here and our best hopes of happiness hereafter; I feel it my duty, my lords,now and for ever, as long as the catholic religion shall maintain
816
its ecclesiastical and spiritual union with and dependence upon the see of Rome, to resist to the utmost of my power this and every other proposition which is calculated to produce the undoing and overthrow of all that our fathers have regarded, and ourselves have felt and know to be most venerable and useful in our establishments both in church and state.
The Earl of Moiraexpressed a wish that the question should be relieved from a great deal of extraneous matter with which it had been encumbered, and that it should be brought to the test of that plain good sense on which he conceived it to rest. He thought the complexion of the present times demanded that every exertion should be made to procure an unanimity of heart and mind in the cause of the country. It was very true that to give the catholics the privilege of admission to the few offices from which they were excluded, would be giving them little; but the gift would shew a disposition to conciliate and to win their affection; which would be in that point of view important. He was surprised to have heard it said, that the petition tended to throw the torch of discord into the country; on the contrary, he was of opinion that the object of it, if properly attended to, would tend to establish that harmony which was most essential to the country at the present moment. At the same time that he made these observations, he wished to speak with the utmost respect of the established church; but which he did not think would be endangered of injured by granting the catholic claims. He wished, therefore, that the petition should be referred to a committee, for the purpose of considering whether any danger could really arise from conceding those claims; and if it should be deemed not prudent to grant the whole, whether any part to those claims might be safety admitted; as he wished it to be understood, that in the committee he should certainly be desirous of weighing well each object which the catholics had in view, and investigating in that manner it would operate with respect to the church establishment, before he gave his consent to the admission of the claim which it involved.
Earl Darnley.—My lords; I am ready to confess my disposition to assent to the opinion of some noble lords on the other side of the house as to the time in which this question is agitated. Had I been consulted by the catholics of Ireland, I certainly should have recommended to them to abstain from press-

817
ing their claims at a period which is generally known to be peculiarly unfavourable, for many reasons; into some of which I do not feel myself at all called upon to enter, but which are very generally known. I certainly think the present disposition of the country in general adverse to the proposition, however i may be convinced that it is founded in reason and justice, and must therefore, sooner or later, ultimately prevail. Since, however, the question is come to be agitated in parliament, your lordships will agree with me, that it could not have been placed in better hands; and that the propriety and moderation have been as conspicuous as the ability with which it has been introduced by my noble friend. And here I cannot avoid animadverting on the unfair and groundless imputations which have been cast upon the introduction of this proposition by some noble lords who have spoken in the debate, as if it could have been introduced as a party question, or in any respect to answer party purposes. My noble friend who has opened the debate, most solemnly disclaimed such an intention; and is fully entitled to credit for his assertion. But a better proof than the assertion of any man, is the manifest absurdity of such a proposition. The party with whom I have the honour to act, which has been sometimes honoured with the appellation of a faction, is a faction, be it observed, composed of almost every thing in the country respectable for wealth, birth, and talents, and who certainly enjoy, in a great measure, the confidence and good opinion of the people of England, which their opponents have forfeited. At such a period the introduction of a measure known to be unpopular, and in opposition to very general, however unfounded, prejudices, can never be fairly states as intended to promote party views. In adverting to the different arguments which have been used by other lords on the other side of the house, I have some satisfaction in speaking so late, inasmuch as the ask has thereby fallen to others of replying to the speech of the noble and learned lord (the chancellor or Ireland) which I cannot but consider as one of the most extraordinary speeches that has ever been uttered in parliament. Considering both the arguments used and the person who has used them, it certainly merits all the reprobation which it has receive. I have, how ever, the greatest satisfaction in congratulating the house on the very different tone which has in general prevailed, and espe-
818
cially in the two last speeches on the other side (the bishop of St. Asaph and lord Ellenborough). the reverend and learned prelate, in particular, had expressed himself in a manner, which does him the highest honour; and the only ground of surprise is, the circumstance of the reverend prelate's appearing to be influenced by those extraordinary arguments and assertions which have been contradicted as unfounded, by noble lords best acquainted with the state of Ireland. The reverend prelate appears to have received from that learned lord some new lights with respect to the catholic religion, which have induced him to change his opinion as to the propriety of removing the political disabilities, according to the prayer of the petition, which he at first imagined might be granted without endangering the established church or the protestant succession. For myself, I can assure the house, that if I could be persuaded either the one or the other would be in any degree affected by the concessions prayed for I would be the first man in the house to oppose them; but, according to my view of the subject, so far from having this fear, I am firmly persuaded that this measure of conciliation would produce a directly contrary effect, and, by uniting all the hearts of his majesty's subjects, would afford the firmest security to our establishment both in church and state: not indeed, if these remaining concessions are made in the same spirit, and in the same ungracious manner as those which have formerly taken place in Ireland; but if they are granted (as I trust and ampersuaded they sooner or later will) in the true spirit of conciliation and peace. And this leads me to advert to the history of Ireland with reference to this question, which has been dwelt on with so much self-complacency by a noble earl opposite to me (Westmorland) who administered the affairs of that country at the period of the last concessions to the catholics. The period of the revolution has been dwelt on by many who have spoken in the debate with satisfaction; and I am as ready any man to do ample justice to that great æra of the establishment of the civil and religious liberties which we now enjoy—the catholics or Ireland must, however, date from thence the extinction of their liberties, and the commencement of those sufferings which they have borne with such exemplary patience, and repaid with such distinguished loyalty. Till the auspicious reign or his present majesty, their situation was that or

819
the most abject slavery; and they were a proscribed race in their native land, compelled to submit to the most harsh and degrading system of laws that perhaps ever was framed. The policy of this system I do not arraign, severe and cruel as it was; it might, in some degree, perhaps, have been justified by political necessity; and I mention it only with a view to do justice to the exemplary conduct of the catholics under such circumstances. During the rebellion of 1745, when lord Chesterfield was lord lieutenant, their loyalty and attachment were conspicuously manifested in favour of the protestant king on the throne, against the popish successor of him who had been expelled on account of his attachment to their cause. Again, in 1759, when a French armament was ready to invade Ireland, for the express purpose of restoring the exiled family, and when a partial invasion had actually taken place, their attachment to the establishment, under which they suffered so much, was again most conspicuous. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of their loyalty and good conduct, as was expressly stated, his present majesty was advised to remove some of their chains. In 1774, the oath of allegiance which they now take was enacted. In 1778, some the most galling and degrading parts of the code of polpery lawa was abrogated. In 1782, they were admitted to the rights of property; and finally, in 1793, every thing that remained, including many important civil rights, was granted. with the exception only of those privileges for which they now petition. Undoubtedly, the catholics of Ireland have received great and important advantages during the present reign; but I cannot agree with those who are so forward to tax them with ingratitude, when I consider the manner in which these concessions have been made, especially the last and most important ones in 1793. Indeed, the concessions have all appeared to proceed rather from the fear of irritation in times of public difficulty, then from any thing like an enlarged and liberal system of policy. But this observation applies particularly to the last concessions. Your lordships all recollect the manner in which the French revolution had unsettled men's minds, and the wild theories of liberty and equality which were generally entertained. The Irish catholics, as might reasonable be expected, thought the moment favourable for urging their claims; and in consequence, they petitioned the parliament of that country in
820
the year 1792, to grant the remaining privileges which they now enjoy. The Irish parliament rejected their application with scorn, by a division of two hundred and twenty-eight to twenty-three. During the next recess, all the protestant gentlemen throughout the country, corporations, and grand juries, backed by the authority of government, pledged themselves to support this vote of parliament; and yet, in the very beginning of the following year, the same parliament and the same government almost unanimously and tamely conceded what they had a few months before so contumeliously rejected. No circumstance having intervened, except an increase of public difficulties, increased boldness of the catholics, and this inconsistent change in the conduct of government, can it be expected that they should feel any very lively sentiments of gratitude for favours so refused and so granted? When the union was in agitation, I stated this instance of maladministration in the government, and profligate inconsistency in the parliament of Ireland, as sufficient alone to justify that great measure; and I now again state it, to prove how little reason the catholics have for very warm gratitude to those who so conferred the favours they have received. Was it to be expected that, under such circumstances, the catholics body should rest contented, or that they should not be tempted to expect that what remained would also be conceded, or, indeed, could not be refused by the Irish parliament? This was another argument for the union; for it was truly stated, that whenever the two legislatures were united, the catholic claims might be discussed with every possible advantage; and that they might be safely trusted to the temper and moderation of the imperial legislature. The catholics certainly might reasonably entertain the best hopes that they would be granted; for they must have felt, that the united parliament would be without those prejudices, and that intolerant spirit which they had fatally experienced in the protestants of Ireland. I wish not to dwell upon the unhappy rebellion of 1798, which has been more than once adverted to in the course of this debate, except to give my most decided opinion, that it ought not to be deemed a catholic rebellion: most of the leaders happened to be protestants, it originated in the jacobin principles of the united Irishmen, to whom religion was a very subordinate, if any, consideration; and although it is true that a majority of

821
those concerned in these sanguinary scenes were catholics, and though the greatest atrocities were undoubtedly perpetrated by some catholic priests, it would be very extraordinary if both these circumstances had not taken place in the country where four-fifths of the inhabitants are catholics, and where there was also necessarily a large number of ignorant and bigoted priests. That there were equal faults on the other side, I am persuaded. That the zeal of the Irish protestants has been productive of consequences as fatal, I cannot doubt; but on this subject I forbear to dwell, because I know it would sound harsh to some of my hearers, to whose loyalty and merits I am ready to do ample justice. My lords, it has been said that the catholic body in general is not interested in this question, which only regards a few of the higher ranks; but I can never agree, that the whole body is not degraded and insulted by this mark which is set upon them, in excluding any of its members from the change of ever being highly useful to their country. "But," say their opposers, "we have given every thing else; we never will concede to them power. They have all the civil advantages under the state; but they shall not become the state itself." Now let us consider to what extent this power would go, supposing it granted to catholics disposed to abuse it. The few seats they could obtain in this house, could never be considered of consequence. Indeed, exclusive of the five or six English peers, who would afterwards have an irresistible claim, as it regarded Ireland only, not one single member, according to the present mode of election, could be admitted, unless nominated by the minister. The argument, with respect to the other house, deserves more consideration. That some catholic members would be elected is unquestionable; but I am inclined to think the number would be very small indeed. Some noble lords who have spoken, have maintained the extravagant supposition of the whole number of one hundred being catholics. Others have maintained, with some degree of plausibility, that in those counties where the majority of freeholders were catholics, the members would of necessity be so likewise, grounding the supposition on the assertion that they would all be rather guided by their priests than by their landlords. I profess myself of contrary opinion, even if you suppose that, after these concessions, the old invidious distinctions of civil and religious animosity com-
822
bined, will necessarily be kept up. Much will depend on the manner in which the boon is granted. That it will, that it must be granted,sooner or later, I am prepared to maintain; for although I am not sanguine enough to expect a majority in favour of this motion, I never can doubt that what I consider the course of justice, of sound policy, what I will even call the cause of the protestant establishment, must and will finally prevail. Remove with a liberal hand, and with an enlarged system of policy, all civil disabilities on account of religion, and I am persuaded, that in a very few years, all sects of christians will become equally good subjects; and it will never enter into any man's head to enquire, whether a candidate for parliament or for office is of the established religion or not? But we must not confine our views to the simple adoption of the measures prayed for in the petition before the house, indispensable necessary as I may think them for the welfare of the British empire in general, and of Ireland in particular. The abolition of the catholic hierarchy in Ireland has been called for, as necessary to the tranquillity of that country; but I so totally differ from the noble and learned lord, that instead of abolishing it, I would render it the means of reconciling to the state and to the constitution the great mass of catholic population. I see no reason why the bishops should not be placed under the protection of government, and why king, and paid by the public. By such means, and not by the absurd proposition of converting the Irish catholics to the established religion, by translating the bible into Irish, may we hope to see them good and loyal subjects, especially if the whole system of policy by which tat unhappy country has been governed, should be reversed; and that, instead of keeping the people in ignorance and barbarism, a liberal and well-digested system of instruction should be adopted, and encouragement afforded to habits of industry, and respect for the laws.
Lord Auckland.—My lords; having expressed a decided opinion respecting the petition of the Irish Roman catholics on its first introduction into this house, I have purposely waited to this late period of the debate, that I might learn the sentiments of other noble lords. The discussion is now so exhausted, that I can compress what I have to submit to your lordships within narrower limits than I should have thought right if I had spoken earlier. My noble

823
friend who presented the petition, has stated, that it involves the interests and happiness of four millions of people:—my noble friend might have said, that it involves the interests and happiness of the whole British empire. In agitating a question of such extent and magnitude, I am desirous to use a guarded and conciliatory language; but I must not be expected to sacrifice truth and fair argument at the shrine of flattery; not will I be induced to withhold or extenuate any just reasonings that may present themselves to my mind. I see nothing improper or disrespectful in the style and temper of the petition; nor, indeed,was it to be supposed that individuals making a great request, would express themselves in repulsive and offensive terms. I have not, however, adverted to the wording of the petition so much as to its purport and objects; and it is well worthy of remark, that the whole bears a strong resemblance to the memorable declaration of James the Second, in 1687, for the liberty of conscience. The are in both instruments the same plausible professions of anxiety to conciliate and unite all religious persuasions, the same gracious promises to respect the property of the established church, the same appeals from the interests of trade, which always vibrate forcibly on a British ear, the same display of a generous earnestness to open every avenue of legalized ambition,— and all this as a prologue to the demand of a full and equal participation of power, and of the means of acquiring power. Your lordships will recollect,that this declaration was soon followed by another, which notified that papists had been appointed to all the principal offices of the state; and recommended to the people to send papist representatives to the new parliament.—From the epoch of that inauspicious precedent in 1687, to the æra of French fraternity and Irish rebellion in 1798, the notions of an equality of political power had been suffered to lie dormant. During the greater part of that long period, the Irish catholics had been subjected to a system of intolerance and restraints much too severe to be defended, except on ground of a real or mistaken necessity; and even so lately as the the 12th of his present majesty, an act was passed "to enable papists to take not above fifty acres of unprofitable bog, with half an aere of arable adjoining, for not above sixty-one years." —The first measure of any extent in favour of the Irish catholics was in 1778; they were them empowered to take long leases, and were re-
824
lieved from various incapacities affecting both their properties and persons. The next material act for their benefit was in 1781; when I was chief secretary, and a member of the Irish house of commons. It is well known that I gave no discouragement to that act, which in addition to various indulgences contained in it, enables papists to purchase and to hold estates, with the exception of advowsons. I have greatly contributed to give to the Irish catholics an interest in the soil, and consequently a more immediate attachment to the welfare of the community; but it never entered into my mind to allow them any share of the powers of government and of legislature. The jargon of emancipation was then unknown, the æra of modern illumination was not yet arrived,— that æ when it could be thought safe and practicable to maintain the limited monarchy and established church of England without test-laws, and without any restraint or incapacities affecting any description of sectarists.—The next and last concessions of any importance, were those which took place in 1792 and 1793. My noble friend who opened this debate, had been pleased to say, that all the framers and supporters of those measures must reflect on them with pride and satisfaction. My near relation (lord Buckinghamshire) has expressed a similar sentiment this evening; and certainly it is an amiable and natural weakness in parents to speak with rapture and admiration even of depraved and very ugly children. I have always contemplated the abrupt and improvident concessions of 1793 with dissent and regret; I have done so in common with two very respectable friends of mine, the late lord Clare, and the present chancellor of the Irish exchequer. Those concessions placed the protestants of Ireland in a relative situation, which impressed on every observing mind the urgent necessity of legislative union of the two kingdoms; and yet they tended to increase the difficulties of a measure which thus became essential to the peace and safety of the empire. But great as those concessions were, they only serve to stimulate the appetite of the Irish catholics for further claims; and, in 1795, the lord lieutenant (earl Fitzwilliam) shewed a strong disposition to gratify them to the full extent of their wishes. Happily he was not supported by the composed of the same individuals who now urge the same measure for which they recalled the noble earl from his vice-royalty. The career of concessions

825
to the catholics was soon afterwards interrupted by that rebellion, over the horrors of which I wish to throw a veil, and afterwards by the discussions and arrangements which eventually accomplished the union of the two kingdoms. In the result, a period of comparative tranquillity has now been attained; and the Roman catholics and their advisers have thought it eligible for the present application.—What then is the purport of that application? Nothing less than a full participation of all corporate franchises within the empire, and of all official, judicial, and legislative powers! In examining the tendency of this gigantic grant (which, in truth, is of small moment to the bulk and general population of the catholics) we must presume that it would be efficient; for if its operation were to be as insignificant as some noble lords seem to expect, there would be either a fallacy in the demand or a dupery in the concession.—Perhaps it would not be difficult to shew that such a grant would be an infringement of a fundamental article of the union with Scotland, and also of the fifth article of the Irish union. But I wish to negative the petition on a broader ground. My noble friend, whose eloquence and argumentative powers have introduced the application with every possible advantage to it, has admitted, that it could not be stated as a claim of right. Certainly it could not. Every legislature has the inherent power of qualifying and restricting the possession and exercise of civil privileges for the benefit of the whole community. It is that power which regulates the qualification of the electors and of the elected, the rights of succession, minorities, marriages, and all the limitations of property; it pervades the whole system of our laws; a denial of it would tend to individual representation, to an Agrarian distribution, to universal equality, and to general confusion.—Still less can the petition rest itself on the ground of toleration. The petitioners indeed allege, that they are "entitled to a toleration not merely partial, but complete;" and yet they well know that they already possess what they describe, and that, ex vi termini, those who are tolerated cannot share the power of those who tolerate. In the benevolent temper of our toleration we do not restrain the exercise of any religions persuasion; but we feel and know that our reformed religion is most congenial to the spirit of our free constitution; that the protection of the one is the protection of the other; and, above all things that it would not be safe to admit
826
within the pale of our government and legislature, a sect which professes a religion essentially adverse our own. The tests prescribed by the wisdom of our ancestors for the exclusion of that sect, have nothing to do with toleration; they were framed on the plain and evident presumption of law, that he who receives the sacrament of the church is of the church.—I have been glad to hear it avowed by the noble mover of the question, that the petition cannot rest on any assurances given or compact made at the time of the union. In truth, it was impossible to make such a compact without the concurrence of parliament; and if such a consequence of the union had existed in the mind of any individual employed to frame the articles, it should have been stated at the time, both in good faith to the Irish protestants, and in the honest discharge of duty to the respective parliaments of the two kingdoms. It will ever be a consideration of just pride to me, that I have borne no small share in adjusting all the details of that transaction; and I do not hesitate to declare, that if the concessions now proposed were in the contemplation of those with whom I acted at that time, their views were industriously concealed from me, and from others of their associates. It is indeed true, that, soon after the union, there was, apparently, a sudden change in the opinions of some leading persons respecting the subject now in discussion. I do not impute any blame to that change, or doubt its sincerity, though I must deplore it. That change has given an irreparable shock to the confidence of public men in each other; and to it, perhaps, are owing many of the distractions and difficulties under which the empire has since laboured.—It is admitted, that the petition is not grounded on any claim of right, of toleration, or any compact, expressed or implied, at the time of the union, but merely on a question of expediency. In arguing the question, i will not cling with a bind attachment to the acts and systems of former ages, though sanctioned by the settlement in favour of the house of Brunswick, and by the blessings resulting from it. I am well aware, that the objects and principles of legislation must change with the times, interests, and exigencies of the day; but no doubt æises in my mind that the exclusion of the Roman catholics from political power, contributed essentially to our free and happy constitution, and ought still to be maintained for its security. Nothing has happened to di-

827
minish my anxieties for the stability of that mild and true religion, which, by its precepts and influence, is so incorporated with our constitution, that they must stand and fall together. If you admit the catholics to a participation of power, you admit the enemy within your camp. All men have a natural desire to extend the predominance of a religion they believe; nay more, it is the sacred and prescribed duty of the papist, if he be sincere in his creed, to undermine our church; for he believes it to be fatal to souls of his professors, and must feel that, in demolishing it, he is rendering a service to his fellow-creatures and to God. It is a fundamental principle of the church of Rome to exercise spiritual dominion over the christian world. The titular bishops, at their ordination, swear " to defend, enlarge, and extend the authority of the Roman church, and of their lard the pope." Their metropolitans in Ireland avow the same obligation, and proclaim, at this hour, in their publications, that the spiritual power of the pope is the same as ever. These doctrines are enforced by the priests. Religion is not similar to the ordinances of human institution, and capable of being qualified and restrained in its energies by law. The Roman catholics love their religion; its principles are irreconcileable to other persuasions, and its hierarchy is incessantly and indefatigably active, and subject also to the occasional influence of foreign states.—lf this sect should become co-ordinate in power with the reformed religion of the British empire; if we once admit the theoretical solecism of a protestant monarch and papist councils, we shall find ourselves involved in a religious anarchy.—The petitioners are pleased to assure us that they "do no seek to encroach upon the revenues of our bishops and clergy." Nothing is so false, in principle or in practice, as the notion of giving much, that nothing more may be asked—
"The cruel something unpossess'd, "Leavens and poisons all the rest."
And though the dangers thus described are not imminent, still they are not so chimerical as to induce as to abandon the bulwarks we possess. The bars and bolts of a house may be removed, and yet the house not pillaged; but every prudent man will keep his bars and bolts. It would be a breach of our parliamentary trust to destroy or abandon the great outwork of that constitution under which we have so long enjoyed such unparalleled blessings.—the petitioners, by a sort of implied menæe, have expressed
828
"their anxious desire to extinguish all motives of disunion, and all means of exciting discontent." If there by any eventual responsibility in this business, it must fall on the heads of those who first agitate a question, of which they must have foreseen the result, if the had only duly adverted to the known opinions of the several branches of the legislature, of the whole body of the Irish protestants, and of the general mass of the British people. I will be guided, and, I trust, a large majority of your lordships also, by a due estimate of the opposite responsibilities.—I cannot mean any disrespect towards the supporters of the petition; I know they are as adverse as I can be to the equalizing doctrines that have taken root in the minds of many; but I must pause before I can accede to that levelling liberality which would consider the episcopal protestant church, that of Scotland, that of Rome, and all the sectarists in the empire, as entitles in justice and expediency to the same political privileges, powers, and functions.—My lords, as we have seen, within a few years, many awful warnings of Providence in the fall of states and kingdoms, and in the vicissitudes of human affairs; chiefly owing to innovations in civil government and indifference respecting religious establishments, have we not good cause to adhere to a system of which we had a long and beneficial experience? We have more to risk than any nation under heaven. The present long and perilous war is directed against the spirit of innovation, to which so large a part of Europe has fallen a victim. Did it not commence for the safety of our civil and religious constitution? So long as the ancient barriers of that constitution shall be preserved, I am confident that we have nothing essential to fear; and yet I am not blind to the increasing dangers and protracted difficulties which still press upon us.—I will not contest prophecies with some of my noble friends, who are pleased to say, that the day cannot be distant when the demands of the petitioners will be complied with. I see no such probability, even with the assistance (which I will readily transfer to them) of a few noble persons who vote now against the petition, merely because they think "the present is not the proper moment."—On the contrary, I hope and rely that the will-meaning catholics of Ireland will see and be convinced, that the sense of parliament is pronounced against their application, upon grounds of immutable truth and reason,and at the same time

829
with all that good-will mist affection which ought to prevail between subjects of the same sovereign.
Lord Kinglamented that there should be any serious difference at this crisis between the English protestants and the Roman catholics in Ireland; he wished all differences to cease, and supported the motion as a measure of wisdom.
Lord Boltonhaving formerly held an high official situation in Ireland (chief secretary to the lord lieutenant) felt it his duty to express the opinion on this subject which he had formed upon much reflexion. He conceived it extremely dangerous to grant to the catholics political power, except under a control, which was by no means proposed, and which it would be difficult to devise: and he thought such an experiment the more hazardous, as a language of constructive menace had been held by many noble lords of great weight, in course of this discussion, who had said that, what is asked must be granted, to preserve the country from imminent peril of fatal discord and disunion that must follow a refusal. This was a language of direct intimidation, which could not be listened to for many reasons; for nothing could tend more to remove all limits to future demand until the very superiority of power, might be claimed or assumed. The house too was exhorted and warned to concessions, not merely for the sake of interest, but of self-preservation. But on the contrary, he feared much more from the concession than the refusal. Some noble lords went so far as to insinuate pretty plainly that the house, was encouraged to venture on rejecting the petition, from a reliance on the loyalty and patience the depressed and ill-treated catholics. He would not hesitate to acknowledge his own reliance on the continued loyalty of these catholics who had hitherto maintained it; but that reliance would not be increased by increasing to the catholics political power. These oppressive restraints no longer exist; and he would so far accredit their good sense, as to think that, with all the drawbacks on their privileges so strongly enumerated, they would yet prefer the station they now hold in the empire to any risk under any change to which they might look from the interference of any foreign power. They could be no friends to the catholics who argued their cause inconsistently, as at one moment to menace the country with the privation of all aid from them without submission to their claims; and the
830
next, to rebuke the legislature for its want of implicit reliance on their invariable attachment. Was it wished by those who so urgently argued the necessity of uniting those four millions of catholics cordially in the national defence, that they should be considered as actuated to such a purpose, at such a crisis, by motives of self-interest only, after all the favours they have received, and all the declarations they have made? But surely a much more generous and persuasive argument would be the manifestation of precedent efforts and exertions, from genuine patriotism, instead of conditional stipulations: but nothing could be more clearly necessary than that every species of menace or alarm, of unsteadiness or apprehension, should be completely extinguished on both sides, before an arrangement so important and delicate in its permanence. Quitting the course of general reasoning, he adverted to the period of 1783–4, when the Irish capital was in a manner in possession of the self-organised Irish volunteers. The voluntary readiness to take up arms on that occasion, which was urged particularly by the catholics as a peculiar merit, was followed by an extreme reluctance to lay them down again, after the restoration of peace. Occasional votes of thanks to those volunteers had been moved, and too readily assented to, by the Irish parliament, as, in fact, the object was to prolong the continuance of an institution not regularly acknowledged, which, in a different period, might well become a subject of great political uneasiness. This was accompanied with serious symptoms of internal disgust. But by a decisive vote of ultimate thanks to the volunteers, with a recommendation to disembody and return to the occupations of peace, in which government had the good fortune to be supported by the manly and powerful eloquence of a distinguished character (Mr. Grattan); at this moment, perhaps, supporting, with his powerful energies, in another place, the prayer of this petition, which many fear, if granted, would be more dangerous to the established constitution than were the unauthorised parades of some catholic corps of volunteers. It was about this time, too that the first bill for an Irish militia was brought forward, at the desire of government, by the late Lord Mountjoy, (who since, gallantly fell in defending his country against the fury of civil commotion); and who, though the first to bring forward the catholic petition in parliament, afterwards fell

831
the first victim of a rebellion, in a great degree catholic. The noble lord stated these circumstances, as well to develop the real state of the catholic body, and the origination of those indulgences which have since so rapidly succeeded each other, as to mark the objects and designs which have actuated the movements of the different members of that body. It was a great error to suppose that the idea of complete catholic emancipation from all restrictions was only hinted for the first time in 1788 or 1789. The noble lord (Grenville)who brought forward this petition, had appealed to the experience of those who had resided, in official situation, in Ireland, to speak to the catholic character and conduct. Other noble lords had ably and honourable done so; and he would now add such testimony as occurred to his own experience.—The great change effected in the political situation of Ireland in 1782 continued unfortunately to have a lasting effect on the catholics of all descriptions, ever afterward. From these might be dated the systematic restlessness, disorder, nay, absolute disloyalty, in a large portion of the lower orders, and the growing eagerness in the higher classes for place and power. Both adopted measures but ill chosen for success; but they decidedly marked the fast hold those objects had taken on the catholic mind. They formed great expectation of advantage from the new-born independency of Ireland upon England; but shortly after, those hopes were changed to doubt, and them to despair; murmurs and complaints ensued at their meetings, and demagogues, and priests chosen from the lowest orders, educated abroad, and fraught with seditious principles, laboured to work up the minds of the people. They were taught to rely for every thing on the superiority of their numbers, and a separation from England. Relief from tithes and rents, and gain of property and provision without labour, were all to arise from this separation; and it soon become a cant word, and the bond of a dangerous union. White Boys, and other predatory associations arose, which, though soon suppressed by the vigour of government, still left behind them those germs of their principles, that never since have been quite extinguished. The weight and influence of their higher orders, and particularly of their clergy, were considerably diminished; and have never since been regained. Their lassitude and tardiness in aiding to suppress the disorders alluded to, were observable to government; and there appeared but too much cause to sus-
832
pect that such aid was reserved for conditional compensation. In the beginning of 1786, Dr. Butler, the titular archbishop of Cashel, and man of considerable talents and high family connexion, and then considered the great organ of the catholic cause, addressed a remonstrance to government, upon the disappointment felt by the catholics at the lapse of a whole session of parliament, without any mark of favour to them. Long sufferings, merits, and expectations were urged, and much mortification and discontent were expressed, especially as parliament was not engaged in the consideration of any foreign war, or other business of difficulty or embarrassment; and after expatiating much on their zeal in the volunteer cause, and their uniformly inoffensive and loyal conduct, the remonstrance concluded by saying, they would be satisfied for the present with some introductory privileges, such as the professions and honours of the bar and army, as preludes to the attainment of every thing else. The answer to this remonstrance expressed surprise at the matter, manner, and time of it; and at the same time reminded Dr. Butler, and through him, his community of the internal disorders and commotions them existing, excited by and confined to catholics, and most prevalent where catholic influence was the most powerful. It therefore denied the propriety of any remonstrance, expectation, or requisition for favours, while there was no mark of auxiliary exertion from the higher catholics to support the tranquillity and good order disturbed lately by their own community. Several conferences followed, which ended in an offer on the part of government to submit the claims of the catholics to parliament; but not without conditional professions of active gratitude. The hazard of such a reference was thought much greater than the probability of its success: but there was an end, for the time, to petition, and remonstrance, and soon afterwards, to the appearance of open and predatory disaffection. This was in the administration of the Duke of Rutland; and the noble lord by no means meant to charge any temptation or feeling of disloyalty in the principal catholics, but, on the contrary, to acknowledge and vindicate their loyal principles, and the many proofs of which they had shewn. But he must observe, that their unchangeable views to their great object of final emancipation from all restrictions, and even under their partial and temporary indulgences from time to time, was an obvious check upon

833
the voluntary and disinterested vigour of any zealous co-operation with government. The truth then seems to be, that, allowing them to be good and loyal subjects in their present situation, they have an insatiable thirst for power; and, how that might change their nature, there's the question.
"Grant power, And then I grant we put a sting into them That at their will they may do danger with."
I cannot therefore, said the noble lord, help doubting at least, whether I should have been disposed, under such impression of still increasing claims upon every accession of favour, to have gone so far in removal of all disabilities as was done in 1793, especially in the instance of the elective franchise. It could not well be doubted by any man, who had a reasonable knowledge of human nature, and Was aware of the position and views of this particular sect, that the concession here stated would be chiefly valued as a step to the right of representation. And who can pretend to be answerable for restrictive moderation even there? Temptation, &c. may be incited by the impulse of seeming means and opportunity, and then, in course, a dormant spirit of uneasy ambition might be roused into dangerous action.
"Then last it may—prevent! And if the quarrel will bear no colour for the things they are, fashion it thus; that what they are, augmented, May run to these and these extremities, &c.&c."
I will not apprehend a mistaken suspicion, from such allusions, that I would entertain an unfriendly, much less an illiberal estimation of the catholic character, or would be found in adverse attack upon their comforts and immunities. If the limit is drawn, where it is, I would readily agree in the opinion of the noble secretary of state (lord Hawkesbury) that we should regard without regret the concessions already made; and I would, cordially rejoice in being able to see a period of safe allowance for the grant of yet more. If I was to speak of individuals, there are many, for whom personal respect would lead me to desire the fullest gratification of their wishes. But I confine not my go thoughts within such a narrow circle: to all who by no prohibited excess or deviation from their loyalty in thought or deed are justly, entitled to the rank of fellow-subjects, I Would studiously endeavour to mark an attentive consideration and concern.—A noble lord (Spencer) has said, that whilst any incapacities remain, there will be re-
834
maining restlessness and complaint. That noble lord had not surely well reflected upon the more than possible danger to arise from admission of this argument as a ground for concession. What is to be a limit or restraint upon this source of disturbance and risk to our own establishment? Incapacities are not unknown to protestants, and cannot be wholly withdrawn from catholics without surrender of even equality. But I am really inclined to think, that sufficient reflection has not been bestowed on the value of what is now in possession or enjoyed by connivance. They are not friends to the catholics, who speak of their being driven to despair, and of their groaning under long and endless oppression. Imagination often creates more sense of suffering than does reality of cause; and we are frequently led to suppose ourselves objects of pity or disregard by the mistaken or officious suggestions of pretended sympathy. If we for a moment appreciate the real case as it is, and as it is pretended it ought to be, we shall find that no penalties or restrictions remain which can be felt by the great mass of that people, and that not the grant of all which is required, would add a grain to their real wants or wishes; and in respect of the few who might be objects of supposed benefit by the further indulgences, they are excluded only from certain situations by necessary regard for our constitutional establishment, and from which, in fact, they exclude themselves by refusal to aspire to them upon equal conditions with their protestant fellow subjects.—In justice to the liberality of the legislature, let us estimate the value of the last concession, that of the elective franchise! I cannot conceive that a more powerful incentive to habits of industry, and thereby to acquisition of property, could have been conferred; and it must be evident, that the competition was thus made more than equal in favour of the catholics. It ought also to be observed that a protestant legislature, part of it against its own immediate interests and convenience, made this in some degree at least, a sacrifice of the comparative superiority and even independence of the protestants, by the necessity imposed upon future candidates for parliament solicit the favour of even the lower orders of the catholic freeholders. At all events, the token of wish for harmony and good fellowship was manifested beyond a doubt. It is not imputable to the protestant legislature in depreciation of the real boon, that all the benefit to which it was

835
unquestionably conducive, was not derived from it by the objects of its participation.—Long as there shall exist the uncontrouled dominion of factious demagogues of what ever class, but especially that of the monkish priesthood over the minds of these wretched people, they will not be suffered to exert their resources with uniform and steady attention to any pursuit best calculated for their own advantage, and for the peace and prosperity of the country. And here we may reflect perhaps with regret upon the change (to which I before alluded) in the influence of the higher over the lower orders of the catholic community, which not only weakens the constant channel of communication with government, but disables those, who are in reality time most, if not the only petitioners immediately interested on this occasion, from strengthening their pretensions by the pledge of sure responsibility for the political conduct of the whole body.—I will not attempt to discuss the question of present relation in point of authority or subordination between the several branches of this catholic community in abstract matters of religion. This has been largely considered by other noble lords, with sufficient examination of the imperium in imperio, the catholic hierarchy. I would simply remark, that here assuredly is an instance of connivance beyond the usual cases of to legation; and I had ventured to regard it as an ever striking proof, admitted by the catholics, of the liberal forbearance of the protestant establishment. What may be the degree of danger which, in case of an allowance of catholic power, may be incurred from temptation and resources in this quarter also to assume a more independent condition and unfettered acknowledgment, is a subject worthy of very serious reflection.—I will confess that I had persuaded myself of a remedy to all causes of uneasiness and alarm in the last great measure of an union of the kingdoms; I did expect from its accomplishment the removal of those baneful hopes of separation, which had sprung from the independence, and were, perhaps, in reality more adverse to the happiness and welfare of those. who entertained them, than essentially dangerous to those against whom they prevailed. In whatever light, therefore, of unfavourable opinion, for the sake of all parties, I had from reflection and experience regarded the measure and the effect of independence, I certainly it as itself the great demonstrative cause by evident ne-
836
cessity of a successful call for the resource of an union.—The confusion and uncertainty, the speculations and excesses, in short, the total derangement (I will not use the word disorganization) consequent upon the one could not be, after such a trial, so effectually composed and harmonized by any other intervention than that of the other. It is certainly to be acknowledged, that all the good expected has not yet been experienced from this measure, especially its effect upon the quiet and industrious demeanour of the lower catholics, The peace which ensued was of too short a duration wholly to erase all idle speculation, and to fix a well regulated content; and the, recommencement of hostilities may have facilitated again the approaches of mischievous instigators, to revive the decaying embers of that miserable hope of a fallacious good, in separation from England by the help of foreign aid and maintenance —Still, however, I venture to encourage the confident expectation, that from the union will ultimately arise a state of order and industrious exertion, which will produce more real and lasting welfare to this people, than all the imaginary promises of every good from the wildest emancipation. Neither time then, or circumstances, are now favourable to the entertainment of this petition. But it has been exclaimed, what, then! is all hope of more fortunate conjuncture, and of more auspicious situations of affairs to be extinguished, and this oppressed people to he driven to comfortless despair?—I would answer with conscientious sincerity, that true belief, indeed, would induce me to place the measure of satisfaction best calculated for their real happiness in a supposed extinction of all views beyond the present means of comfort and prosperity. Let them be fairly estimated, cherished, and enjoyed; they wilt produce a harvest of blessings. I dare not at present presume to dream of more, which may,be good for them, or safe for us but God forbid that we should venture to circumscribe the ways of his Divine Providence, which may remove obstacles at present too strong for our attempt to clear away or pass by. There may (and I wish there may) be future reasons, however unexpected now, to prove the security with which the protestants may grant the competency of the catholics to be entrusted with the fullest participation of rights and privileges: they may, by habits of industry, good order, harmonious concord, social intercourse, mutual good-will,

837
and reciprocal good offices, and by zealous patriotism and loyalty. (all indeed having tendency to their own, immediate benefit, and therefore the most gratifying to the liberal spirit of the legislature) give encouragement for unrestricted confidence. They may find cause unequivocally to withdraw that barrier(insuperable, whilst it remains in force) of divided allegiance the obligation to papal supremacy, which a noble lord has most forcibly and most eloquently demonstrated to render vain all pretensions to equal rights by the want of equal conditions. I will not shut out the wish or the hope for such alteration of circumstances; but with our limited power of searching into future chance and change, we can, I think, retain this possible expectation, as the only prevention to a positive declaration, that here, even here, must Be all and the End all. We are, I am afraid, yet only on our own necessary defence. We are obliged in conscience, honour, and duty to ourselves, and to our constitution in church and state, to throw our shield of self-preservation before us, and on it to exhibit the warning motto of "ne plus ultra."
The Earl of Longfordsaid a few words in favour of the motion; after which,
Lord Grenvillerose to reply, and spoke in substance as follows: My lords; nothing but the duty I owe to the question and to myself, would have induced me to trouble your lordships with any observations at this late hour, In the course of what has fallen from noble lords during this debate, it has been thrown out by way of reproach, that to this petition is affixed none of the names of the catholic clergy of Ireland, and this most unjust and most unwarrantable interference has been drawn, that because they have not put their names to the petition, therefore they are not willing to subscribe to the sentiments of loyalty and attachment expressed in the petition. Now, my lords, I assert it again, and again, and am willing to lose all consideration with your lordships if I do not prove, that the contrary is the fact; if I do not prove, that they have signed the declaration themselves, and as an hierarchy have,recommended it to others. I have the means of proving before a committee of lordships, if you will let me go into committee, that the catholic clergy of Ireland are not only willing, but anxious and desirous to take the oaths prescribed by law,and that they exert themselves to persuade others to take them. This I can prove by certificates from courts of justice
838
in Ireland, and other concurrent testimonies. The reason alleged by the catholic clergy for not signing the present petition, and a correct and rational reason it is, is that it prays merely for the enjoyment of civil rights. Those, therefore, who are abusing and vilifying this respectable body are not judging from facts, nor can they be well-wishers to the peace and prosperity of Ireland.ȄMy lords, a noble lord has made a distinction between the oath of the catholics of Ireland and the oath of the catholics of England. He says the difference is, that the catholics of Ireland are not willing to take the same oath as the catholics of England, and lie argues as if the catholics of England were willing to give some pledge of their loyalty which the catholics of Ireland were not willing to take. My lords, I maintain that the oath is equally binding on the catholic of Ireland as it is on the catholic of England.—I shall now make a few short observations on what fell from a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) who spoke at considerable length the other evening. The noble and learned lord told you, that there was in the catholic church of Ireland an establishment of bishops. This, my loads, is no information to any person Who knows that the church of Ireland is episcopal, and that if you put down Roman catholic bishops, you put down the religion itself.— But the noble and learned lord asserts, "that they consider themselves as the only lawful successors of the ancient clergy of Ireland, assuming all the powers, and claiming all the revenues, of that clergy, treating the clergy of the reformed religion as usurpers; refusing obedience to all laws framed to curb the encroachments of the papacy on the sovereign power, and denying to the legislature of the country all power over the ranks, dignities, and authorities, and even the revenues of the church." My lords, I entreat your lordships to go into this committee to see whether this be true. If their own declaration is true, and that it is so I most firmly believe, they declare quite the contrary. I hope .on a point of so much importance, your lordships will afford the petitioners some opportunity of proof. The next point, as to excommunication: the noble and learned lord says, "the authority of the Roman catholic clergy deer their flock is enforced by the most dreadful of all means; by the power of excommunication, a power very different from that possessed by the established church." I appeal to the right reverend bench opposite, whether it be pos-

839
sible that any church can subsist, unless it possess the power of shutting those out of to who break the the church, and act contrary to them.—The noble and learned lord has also stigmatized the Roman catholic clergy of Ireland, "as an unauthorised hierarchy, lifting themselves up in defiance of the law, and of all constitutional authority." He says, that "reigning uncontroled, their ecclesiastical courts govern the whole people; that they dissolve marriages for causes not allowed by law—procontract consanguinity, or affinity, in degrees beyond those prescribed by the legislature; that they license marriages within those,degrees; that the evidence of marriage is wholly in their power; and that the legitimacy of children, and the succession to property, is under their control." My lords, let the noble and learned lord bring forth his proofs. If he can produce them, sure I am, that every person who hears me will cordially and anxiously join with him in finding the remedy. And if, in the course of your enquiry, you should discover four or five ignorant parish priests who have exceeded the limits of their duty, I will say then also, apply the remedy, go into the committee, and do not impute that to a whole body of men, which proceeds only from a few ignorant individuals. My lords, that such expressions should go forth to the world as proceeding from such a quarter is, in my mind, the greatest evil that can possibly arise from the present discussion. I will venture to say, that if you will turn your attention to the means of rendering the condition of Ireland more conducive to the happiness of the people, instead of vilifying and degrading the hierarchy, you, must begin by respecting that hierarchy, and to make that useful and respectable class of men respected by those over whom they are to exercise their authority, you must secure to it an influence over those whom by law yon cannot change, but to whom they will look, as their spiritual directors. Those who endeavour to effect this are practically the greatest benefactors to the empire, of which Ireland now forms so essential a part.—To the rest of the noble and learned lord's speech, I must decline offering any reply. Sorry I am to have heard that speech in this house; but more sorry, that it should go out to the world, that a person holding such opinions still continues in a situation of such great importance to the peace and tranquillity of the united empire! The noble and learned lord has also said, and, in which sentiment I perfectly agree with him,
840
that if the claims of this petition are granted something further must also be done. I was told on a former night, that I had left something unexplained; that there was something more in my mind than what is expressed in the prayer of the petition. My lords, there is something more in my mind. I was not so weak as to suppose, that the placing a few persons in offices would have the effect of calming the minds of the people of Ireland. I Well know that much must be done; and my opinion is, that many provisions and regulations must necessarily accompany the granting the prayer of your it petitioners. But, I know of no manner in which it can be done so effectually, as by making this committee the ground work of those proceedings. One noble lord told us, that there had been no county meetings, nothing to convince us that the measure proposed is loudly called by the majority of the people. Surely, my lords, it is much to the credit of the petitioners, that there has been no clamour on this occasion. The pride of the petitioners has been, that they have exerted themselves to prevent that clamour, and to bring their petition before your lordships in that decent and respectful manner, which I conceive they have done.—Another objection, is, that it has been brought forward in a time of war. My lords, if there be danger, let us look that danger in the face. If this measure is ultimately right to be adopted, what time can be more proper than the present moment, when we are encompassed by dangers on every side, and when you are obliged to give up a part of your militia for the sake of increasing your disposeable force? I, therefore, call upon your lordships to lay aside all vain pretence, and if it be a good thing to do, do it in that moment when, of all others, it will be most serviceable to the country, and most welcome to your petitioners.—To those who think that the measure is so radically bad, that it never can be adopted, I would just say a few words. They talk of the bill of rights, the reformation, the title of the crown, and all that. But does any man living believe, that if we were to adopt the proposal of suffering Irish catholics to sit in parliament, it would in any shape whatever tend to destroy the reformed religion of this country? Surely, there must be great want of argument, when you are obliged to resort to such sophisms as this against the proposed measure! No blessing can light upon counsels conducted upon such principles.—Now, my lords, I come to the question, is it safe to give the catholics that which they ask?

841
And, what is the danger that could possibly arise from so doing? We are told that the catholics differ from all other sects. You may endure dissenters, you may endure men of no religion, but you may not endure the catholics, because they do not acknowledge the king's supremacy. Great stress has been laid upon the objection on the part of the petitioners to take this oath; and this very circumstance, did no other consideration apply, would abundantly and clearly expose the falsity, inconsistency, and absurdity of the assertion, that the petitioners hold as an article of their creed, "that no faith is to be kept with heretics." Nothing now, it has been observed, in the course of this debate, remains to exclude the catholics from a full participation of the benefits of the constitution, but their sanctimonious regard for the dictates of an oath! And yet, up to this very hour, we have been told, that catholics consider themselves as not obliged to keep faith with heretics, and, consequently, pay no regard to the oaths they take with them. But this is not all. Let your lordships consider what this much talked of oath is in reality and in fact. Perhaps, many who talk so loudly of it, are far from understanding it. In point of fact, the oath of supremacy, as it now stands is not positive but negative. It does not assert that the king is the supreme head of the church, but that no foreign prince is so to be considered. It has been repeatedly argued and demonstrated, that the sense in which the Roman catholics regard the pope as supreme head of the church, is a theological, not a political consideration.—I shall not detain your lordships at this late hour with any further observations. If no other service is derived from the agitation of this question, this good will undoubtedly arise from it: that after all the letters and pamphlets which have been written against the catholics, it will be clear to the conviction of your lordships, that, from all their professions and all their declarations, doctrines have been insisted upon, which were never entertained by the persons to whom they have been attributed. The catholics will go from your bar acquitted by the most enlightened assembly The question of actual attachment will never enter into. But this I must say, that with very little exception, there has been an almost unanimous agreement, as to the loyalty and attachment of that body. The argument of one noble lord, who spoke early in the debate of this night (the earl of Buckinghamshire) is inconsistent and absurd in the extreme. The noble earl said, that "his Majesty had not in his
842
dominions a set of men more sincerely attached, or better affected to his person and government, than the noblemen and gentlemen who represent the catholic body in Ireland; but," added the noble earl, "these noblemen and gentlemen have long ceased to have any influence over the great mass of the Roman catholics in Ireland." Why then, I would ask, should we hesitate to grant the prayer of the petition, which goes to affect a comparatively small number of persons, and who are described as loyal and faithful subjects, and yet grant to the lower orders of the great body of the Irish catholics, reputedly a contaminated mass, ever thing they can reasonably enjoy under the constitution? The argument of the noble earl involves this farther inconsistency. He entertains fears that great catholic proprietors would soon exclusively be returned for the counties, by a great majority of the catholic freeholders; and yet, almost in the same breath, he asserts, that persons of that description have ceased to have any influence over the great body of the Roman catholics! Yet, entertaining so high an opinion of these noblemen and gentlemen, these are they on whom and on whom alone, you are desirous of placing these restraints. To presbyterians you give a full participation in the blessings of your constitution. From them yon withhold nothing. Yet, from the catholic noblemen and gentlemen of Ireland you withhold every thing. My Lords, how can this be reconciled with any principle of reason or of justice? How can you withhold these blessings from men who have risked their lives in defence of their country, and in defence of those laws in which they earnestly pray to be made joint partakers? You owe much to the zeal, the loyalty, and the active exertions of the protestants of Ireland, but to no set of men do you owe more than to the catholic noblemen and gentry from whom you withhold these privileges. I hope I have proved, that you have nothing to fear from granting the prayer of this petition. If you have any thing to fear, the way is to give up those distinctions which .at present exist. The true way to meet that danger is by doing away those distinctions, and firmly untiring those two bodies into one trust, I have also proved, that there is throughout your empire, no outpost so vulnerable as Ireland. It is an old citadel, whose superstructure you yourselves have demolished; but as for shelter, at present it affords you none! My lords, I have no more to say, I am ashamed at this late hour to have trespassed so long upon your time. I do entertain a belief,

843
that the force of reason, like the rays of the sun, breaking in upon us, and that the day is not far distant, when she will triumph over all prejudices, and will produce a decision favourable to the cause of your petitioners. I am persuaded, that the agitation of this question will be of service, that an impression will be made on the minds of the catholics that there is a growing desire to examine their case, and that whatever degree of prejudice may still prevail amongst us, there is nevertheless, so much liberality, that the catholics will retire from your bar confident of ultimate success.
Lord Sidmouthrose to say a few words by way of explanation. It was his idea, as well as his wish, that all remaining restrictions on the relgion of the catholics of Ireland, if any did remain, should be removed. He would also allow them a full community of civil rights with the rest of his-majesty's subjects; but never would he agree to put into their bands powers sufficient to subvert the constitution.
The house then divided, when the numbers were,

For the motion.

Contents

37

Proxies

12

49

Against the motion.

Contents

133

Proxies

45

178

Majority against the motion

129

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