Sitting of 25 May 1808

WESTMINSTER ELECTION—CASE OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir Francis Burdett, adverting to the communication which he had thought it his duty to make to the house on a former night, relative to certain proceedings in one of the courts below, which appeared to him to trench upon the Privileges of that house, informed the house that the practical consequences, for which it had been recommended to him to wait, had now taken place. He assured the house, that in bringing this question again before the house he had no interest in it, but what any other member would, and ought to feel, upon a subject affecting

545
his privilege as a member of parliament. The question was simply this, whether a member elected without his knowledge, and taking his seat in obedience to the king's writ, was or was not liable to incur any part of the expences of taking the election? He did not mean to submit any proposition to the house upon the subject, neither did he make any complaint. Having thus brought the matter under its consideration, it would be for the house to decide, whether or not the case was of such a nature as to call for its interference.
Sir A. Piggottexpressed a wish to know, what were the exact circumstances of which the hon. baronet complained?
Sir F. Burdettstated, that the practical inconvenience to which he now alluded was, an execution having been sent into his house, for what were said to have been expences incurred in taking the election for Westminster; for which he had not been a candidate, and of his nomination, or indeed election, to which he was almost a stranger till the event had taken place. The ground of the decision, too, was the fact of his having taken his seat in that house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerapprehended that his learned friend opposite, (sir A. Pigott), had not been in the house on the former night, when this case was brought forward, He had then stated, that whatever the decision might have been, the house was not in a condition to give any redress. The hon. baronet then stated, that the direction of the noble and learned judge was, that the person who appeared for sir F. Burdett and claimed seats for his clerks, should be adopted as his agent; because the hon. baronet had since taken his seat in consequence of that election. He (Mr. Perceval) then stated, as he did now, that the house was not in a condition to take advantage of this fact. Had this been the direction of the Judge, the direct and regular road of proceeding would have been to have applied by writ of error, or on the ground of misdirection on the part of the judge; if wrong or right, the ground of the decision would then have appeared on the record, and would have been seen by the house. The hon. baronet's counsel, however, not having adopted that mode, but having moved for a new trial, which had been refused, no way now remained for bringing the matter with effect before the house. It now appeared not to be a case of privilege, in which a member of that house, as such, was interested; but a common case of
546
debt, for work and labour. This circumstance did not arise from any defect in the fudge, who tried the case, but from the neglect of the counsel of the hon. baronet.
Sir A. Piggottdeclared himself to be perfectly satisfied that this was not a case in which the house could interfere. It was a proceeding in the regular course of justice. If the action in this case could have been entertained at all, it must have been on the ground that it arose out of a contract. The act which allowed the expences of erecting hustings, &c. in the case of counties, did not extend to boroughs; yet even there, candidates might agree that for their accommodation, or that of their voters, during a contest of 14 or 15 days, hustings should be erected, the expence of which could not reasonably be expected to fall on the high bailiff. The action, therefore, could only be on the contract so supposed to be entered into, and could of course have no relation to the election, so as to make it a matter of privilege to be taken up by that house. This must be a question either of fact or of law, and in either case it might have been brought before the court by demurrer, or by bill of exceptions, so as to have the ground of it appear on record. It behoved those who had the legal means of defence in their own hands to go before the judge in a regular manner. If they omitted to do so, it was not for that house to interpose. If the house should be of opinion that it would be improper that a candidate should be on any account at the expence of erecting hustings, let it be made the subject of a prospective regulation. But as that was not the case at present, this must be like any other suit, founded on a covenant, the effect of which must be construed by the jury.
Mr. Tierneysaid, it appeared to him, notwithstanding what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, and from the right hon. and learned gent. opposite, that the present was a question of privilege. He could not admit of the doctrine, that the house of commons was not entitled to interfere in the acts of omission or commission of the courts below, so far as the privileges of the members of that house were concerned. The case was this; the worthy baronet was returned without his knowledge, and without any previous consent on his part: the returning officer had no right to make a demand on any candidate for hustings; but a person whom he supposed to be the agent of sir F. Burdett having made use of

547
them when erected, he sues sir Francis for his proportion of these expences; the judge esteems the hon. baronet's taking his seat as a confirmation and approbation of the conduct of the person who appeared on his behalf, in fact as a recognition of him as his agent; he instructs the jury accordingly, and they, in compliance with this recommendation, find the worthy baronet liable. If these facts were so, he asked, was not this a grave and serious question of privilege? Or was the house, by refusing to listen to it, to sanction the idea, that in complying with an order which he was not entitled to resist, namely, taking a seat when called to it by the electors, every member of that house was to incur a penalty which he had not contemplated, and which, but for the officious and forward zeal of a person with whom probably the party had no concern, the returning officer had no right to demand? In saying this much, the right hon. gent, begged to be understood as by no means reflecting on the noble and learned lord who tried the action. He knew that there was no person less likely than he to do any thing that could seem to infer a breach of the privileges of the house. It was possible, however, that even he might be mistaken. It would be a grievous burden if a member returned to parliament without any personal interference of his own, were obliged to shew, as by law he was, not only that he possessed a qualification of 3 or 400 l. a year, but also to produce out of his pocket. 4 or 500 l. to defray the expence of the hustings. He hoped, therefore, the question would not be supposed to have been disposed of, but that it would be renewed for after-consideration; appearing, as it did to him, to be one well worthy of deliberation before a decision was come to upon it.
Mr. Leycestersaid, that the person who had been held as sir Francis's agent had called on the high bailiff, and, in the name of sir Francis, declared that he would not pay for the hustings; yet that this same person, day after day, asked, obtained, and availed himself of, the advantage of seats for the check-clerks, inspectors, &c. who were to attend to the hon. baronet's interests in the election. The learned gent, did not pretend to say what was the recommendation of the judge; but it was hardly probable, that it was such as had been represented, else a new trial, which had been moved for, would have been granted.
Mr. Bathurstthought it impossible for the house to entertain a question on which they had no authentic information, the; recommendation of the judge, which could alone form the ground of the proceeding, not having been entered upon the record.
The Speakersaid, after what had passed in allusion to himself, it was necessary for him to put the hon. baronet right as to what he had stated on a former night. What he said was, that when any practical inconvenience did arise, if the hon. baronet continued to think that it involved a question of privilege, he should in that event lose no time in applying to the house. He had no hesitation in saying, that if any judge should recommend to a jury what could be construed into a breach of the privileges of that house, it was the duty of the house to resist, and to guide their course according to circumstances. As there was no motion before the house, he should only suggest two different modes of proceeding, both of which had been adopted in the reign of Charles 2. One was in the case of judge Weston, where an impeachment was ordered; and the other in the same reign, where that measure not being deemed necessary, the matter was allowed to drop without any further discussion. Those who thought the present a case of the most serious nature, would probably be of opinion, that the former of these was the preferable mode of proceeding; while others again might be inclined to think that the latter was the most desirable way of disposing of the present question. He had stated what were the modes of proceeding; and it was for the house to say, whether in this case the more or less serious mode ought to be adopted.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, the sources from, whence he derived his information as to the recommendation of the judge, were the notes of the short-hand writer employed to take down the trial, and the information of his counsel. He esteemed these as affording him sufficient foundation for bringing the matter before the house. The only thing he had submitted to the house was the instruction of the judge; that the circumstance of his taking his seat, a thing which was incumbent on him, was such an approval and ratification of the proceedings had under the election, as must subject him to the expence of the hustings. He felt himself by no means interested in the fate of this discussion. He esteemed it to be the cause of the house; and if he had taken a bill of exceptions.

549
or adopted any other mode of setting aside the verdict than that which he now used in submitting the case to the consideration of the house, he should have conceived that he subjected himself to a severe censure for his conduct. He now left it to the house to determine as they thought proper.—Here the matter dropped.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
Mr. Sheridanpresented a petition from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the county of Wexford, praying to be relieved from the disabilities under which the Catholic body labour.—Sir John Newport presented a similar petition from the Catholic inhabitants of the city of Waterford.—Mr. Butler presented a similar petition from the Catholic inhabitants of the county and city of Kilkenny.—Mr. M. Fitzgerald presented a similar petition from the Catholic inhabitants of the county of Kerry.—Mr. Shaw presented a petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council, of the city of Dublin against the Roman-catholic Claims. All which were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Grattanthen moved, "That the Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, whose names are thereunto subscribed, on behalf of themselves, and of others his majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion, which was presented to the house upon Monday last (see p. 489) and then ordered to lie upon the table, might be again read."—The Petition was read accordingly; after which the right honourable gentleman again rose and addressed the house as follows:—"Mr. Speaker; the Petition which the house has just heard read contains the sentiments of the Catholics of Ireland. Not only that Petition, but the other petitions presented this day, speak the sense of that body. I may therefore fairly assume, in the course of what I have to say, that it does speak the sentiments of four fifths of the Irish population. The Petitions come from a considerable portion of your electors, having political power; forming a part of the United Kingdom; and applying to the constitutional organ for a legitimate object. In discussing the merits of the petitioners' claims, I should recommend to gentlemen to avoid any intemperate language, and to adopt a spirit of concord, that nothing may pass in debate which shall sharpen the public mind. Whatever decision the house may come to, upon the motion which I shall have the honour to propose, for going into
550
a Committee to take the Petitions into consideration, I should hope that the temper with which it will be met, and the manner in which it will be argued, will rather approximate the minds of gentlemen, than remove to a farther distance, the great objects of justice and of policy. With such hope, therefore, I wish gentlemen would apply the balm of oblivion; that they will not revive those topics which can only serve to irritate and inflame; that they will not go back to the battle of the Boyne, nor to the business of 1745, nor indeed to any of those afflicting periods in which, unfortunately for my country, parties contended against each other. If you go back, so will the Catholics; if you make out a law against them, they will make out a case against you; then we shall have historian against historian! men of blood against men of blood! The consequence will be, that the parties will remain unreconciled and irreconcileable—each the victim of their own prejudices, and the result will convince you that the victory remains only for the enemies of both. In the course of so many years of contest and prejudice, it is impossible not to recollect that much evil must have been engendered, national calamities must have multiplied, and much violence have passed. In the tempests to which Ireland was reduced by the two contending parties—the one fired by bigotry and intoxicated with victory—the other overpowered by misfortunes, and wrung by oppression—I say, it is impossible but that great political evils must have arisen. However, therefore, we may lament those times, we trust all agree, in settling their accounts there was much to admire in both parties, but also we must recollect that there was something to forget. Something has happened since those periods which makes it necessary to do away those religious distinctions. It is now desirable that a spirit of unanimity should prevail. When gentlemen call to mind the state of the war, and the consequent danger which menaces our empire, they must be convinced that unanimity is necessary for our existence as a state. It is this feeling which pervades my mind, and it is a feeling which I most seriously wish to impress upon the mind of this house. A cordiality in co-operation is what I strenuously recommend; and I do most sincerely hope and trust that the good sense of both nations will supply the defect of national concord. We are now arrived at that period when the cessation

551
of all party rancour, and religious animosity, is not only desirable, but fundamentally necessary. It is a sentiment which not only the Irish Catholic and the Irish Protestant should feel, but should be the guide of both nations in their intercourse with each other. With great concern, therefore, I saw scribbled on the walls of this country, these idle words, "No Popery." What could be the object or the hope of those who encouraged so wicked and abominable a cry, I cannot pretend to divine. It could not be for the purpose of promoting unanimity, nor of adding to the national strength. On the contrary, it had this effect, that it held out to the people of Ireland, and to the world, this country as a people devoted to civil commotion, as a nation of fanatics, incompetent to any other purpose but fanaticism, and incapable of acting with energy against the enemy of the British empire. The counter Petitions which were presented upon a former occasion, were the sentiments of well meaning men, who, when they fled from the shadow of the Pope, were precipitated into that gulph into which so many nations had fallen and continue to fall. It gives me great pleasure to see that the sense of public danger has recalled men's minds from those narrow principles which a ridiculous fear of Popery hail so long encouraged. Those fears are now removed, and therefore it is that you do not find upon the table of this house any one Petition against the Roman Catholics (save one presented this day). Such symptoms augur well for the security of the empire, and I congratulate the public upon it. It is an example of liberality well worth the wisdom of a great nation, of that wisdom which prompted you to form an alliance with Austria—You restored the Pope—you took Catholics into your pay—you afforded protection to the family of Portugal, you lent aid and assistance to transplant that family to South America—you planted Popery there, in so doing you acted wisely. You have shewn the innocence of the Catholic religion—that there, is nothing in it dangerous to the state, and you have thereby falsified all those idle notions of the vices which some persons attributed to that mode of faith. What then do I ask of you this night on behalf of your fellow subjects, why this: that in the same spirit of wisdom and of liberality you would extend to one-fifth of your fellow subjects those beficial principles which I say you so wisely
552
and liberally extended to your foreign connections professing the Roman Catholic faith. It therefore now remains for you to exert that wisdom on behalf of your fellow subjects—to shew them that you are not less anxious for them than you were for your foreign allies—to convince them that an alliance, a natural one I with them, is not only your anxious wish, but that it is also your indispensible interest. It is on these grounds that I shall move for the house to go into a Committee on the Petition. The Petition prays relief for certain disabilities and restrictions which the act of the 33rd of the king did not remove; that act allowed them a certain portion of political power—it gave them elective franchises, and made them a part of the constituent power, subject, however, to certain exemptions; but it did not allow them to fill all offices in the state, nor did it admit them to eligibility for seats in parliament. It admitted them to all offices civil and military, with the exception of about forty in number, it is against these exceptions they now petition, and apply to be admitted to fill all offices.—Before I proceed to offer some arguments in support of the Petitioners' case, it will be necessary for me to notice the arguments of those who oppose this admission; and first then against the exceptions. It has been objected against the Catholics, that they freely acknowledge the power of a foreign potentate, and that they are not bound by the obligation of any oath which they make with persons of a different religion; that is to say, that a portion of your subjects, composing one-fifth of the population of the whole empire, a very considerable part of your constituency, hold principles which militate against the preservation of the social compact—are destitute of all those moral principles which regulate the social system—that they are execrable and are rendered thus execrable by their religion, and consequently unworthy of participating in the rights and privileges which their fellow subjects enjoy, and which I say they are entitled to. Such a doctrine goes this length: it says that the Catholic religion is a nuisance—a religion which is professed by the greatest proportion of Europe. If such an inference be just, and if such be the true character of the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, then it follows of course that the religion of the great portion of the civilized world is worse than useless. The refutation of such a position does not

553
depend upon abstract reasoning or forced construction. It has been contradicted by the most profound professors of popery in different countries. In the year 1791 the sense of the Catholics was taken upon the subject, certain questions were put to the six principal universities on the continent, applicable to the doctrines held by the professors. The universities were those of Paris, Louvaine, Salamanca, Douay, St. Omers, and Valladolid; to these queries they answer, "That Roman Catholics do not hold themselves absolved from their allegiance to a protestant prince, and they declare that faith is to be kept with heretics—that the Pope has no temporal power in England, either as to deposing a prince or otherwise. They also declare that such principles by their religion were condemned, reprobated and stigmatized. These questions they answer with much moral indignation, and with much learning, and aver that such actions and tenets do not belong to the Catholic religion. Such is the testimony of the professors of that faith in foreign countries, and I am therefore justified in saying, that it is not the profession of Catholics in general. With respect to the Catholics of Ireland, they have furnished not less than six instruments, all refuting the imputations cast upon their religion. By these instruments they disclaim the deposing power of the Pope, and all his right of interfering in temporal matters. By the oath which they are required to take in the act of the 13th and 14th of the king, these disclaimers are recognized; and by the act of the 32d of the king, they renounce the right of the Pope as to his claim upon property; they swear to support the Protestant State and Church, and deny the infallibility of the Pope. From this I am strengthened in inferring, that there is no moral incompatibility between the two religions; but those who argue die contrary contend that there is a political incompatibility, and they ground their objections upon this principle: that it is impossible for a subject to hold allegiance to a Protestant prince, at the same time that he professes to hold a religion contrary to the established religion of the state, and recognizes a foreign power as the head of his own religion. The Catholic acknowledges the supremacy of the Pope in a spiritual sense. To prove that this admission, or the belief in transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, or the other points of Catholic doctrine, such as the celebration of mass, the
554
eucharist, are incompatible with allegiance to the house of Hanover, is to require as great a miracle as the transubstantiation itself. It then becomes this house, and it is a duty imperiously thrown upon us, to inquire whether, in the present state of the world, there does exist any motive powerful enough to call this supposed hostility of the Catholics into action. There is now no Catholic pretender on the continent—no Catholic association or confederacy in Europe. In Catholic countries all religions, without distinction, are admitted into civil and military offices, indeed there has been a silent reformation as to religious influence in the public mind, and even Popery itself has drawn much of its toleration and liberality from the progress of protestantism. In America no such principle of exclusion can or does exist; and it must be recollected, that the Protestant and the Catholic of that continent confederated, in conjunction with France, but still there was nothing in it of Catholic combination. While the Protestant religion cannot procure you one single ally on the continent, with the exception of Sweden, will you then consent to disqualify one-fifth of your subjects at home? Will you direct your strength and vigilance in array against a Catholic combination, at a moment when your danger is the result of an anti-English conspiracy among the countries of Europe, formerly your allies? Is this the moment, I would ask, to deprive yourselves of that beneficial and necessary assistance which can alone exist in the union of all ranks and descriptions. If you suffer that narrow principle to regulate your conduct, then do I contend that you do not give your country fair play; but you do give to the foreign enemy the best means of effecting his purpose, by allowing a narrow, mean, and selfish policy to govern over your better judgment. There cannot therefore be any moral incompatibility to the measure, but I think I have shewn that a very urgent political necessity exists for uniting all against the designs of a foreign enemy. It certainly has been the opinion of all political writers, that tests are the symbols of political sentiments. I do not pretend to say that there may not be cases in which it is necessary for a state to act upon the principle of exclusion. That is a proposition which, taken in a general sense, no one would dispute, and may be acted upon where the practice of any religious percept is evidence of foreign at-

555
tachment. It will not be denied me, as a general proposition too, that there are certain rights to which all subjects are entitled—that the state has a right to demand the assistance of the talents of all the subjects, and further, that it has not the right of imposing arbitrary tests. But there may be cases in which subjects lose these rights, and then the imposition of an arbitrary test is defensible. In this particular case, however, it cannot apply; for here, as I think, I have distinctly shewn, no foreign attachment is proved, or indeed can exist, for it is evident that foreign attachment has long since ceased. To justify you, therefore, I say, you must prove a probable case, and you must prove more; that it exists only with reference to the Pope. What is this cause for jealousy? In what does it consist? Why, in this—the Pope! And what is the Pope? Why the Catholics have proved to you that the Pope is nothing more than a name, for they consider him in the light, and in no other, than a spiritual power—they have abjured him in all temporal cases; they have abjured him in all mixed cases, particularly in all cases which in any way relate to the state.—Let us, however, examine the matter further. It has been objected to the Catholics that marriages, and of course inheritances, are subject to the controul of the Pope. The idea is absurd and monstrous! The house will now recollect that marriage is a civil contract; that inheritance is good only by the laws of the country; that it is so is proved by the acts passed upon the subject; that they have lost that inheritance, and acquiesce in the laws, is clear by the 9 Will. 2 Anne, 19 and 23 Geo. 2, by which marriage and inheritance are set aside, and the next of kin is only tenant for life. To tell the Catholics, therefore, that, at the present day, they consider such contracts in a spiritual light, is to insult their understanding, and to upbraid them with the disbelief of that system to which they fell victims.—The next point to be considered is with respect to excommunication. In the first place, they say that marriage is a temporal obligation—excommunication a spiritual one. They further say, that excommunication has not been urged with reference to any legal or temporal consequences, but that Catholics have enjoyed all the privileges of life, and in these cases are denied nothing but the sacrament. In some letters which I have seen annexed to a very able produc-
556
tion in the shape of a pamphlet, the work of a learned gentleman of this house, to whose labours and information his country and ours are equally indebted,* to the charges of the Catholic clergy claiming a right to tythes—that they deny the right of the Protestant clergy to tythes—that they claim legal existence for a Catholic establishment, and that they exercise the right of excommunication in all temporal cases—the most positive and unequivocal denial is given. They deny that they have ever resisted the right of the established church to claim tythes—that they have claimed an exclusive establishment for the Catholic church—they do not deny that taxation to the Protestant clergy is founded in justice, and for the truth of these denials, they appeal to their fellow-subjects in the most solemn manner, and profess their readiness to swear to the facts. As to excommunication, that they say, is confined entirely to the Bishops, and declare they have not claimed nor exercised any of these powers imputed to them by their adversaries. In one of their principal dioceses, that of Dublin, I have the authority of Dr. Troy, the titular archbishop, to say, that in the course of 19 years, the time in which he has filled that see, only two instances of excommunication have occurred; and that during the time of his predecessor, Dr. Carpenter (17 years) only the same number took place. I appeal to the good sense and judgment of the house then, whether the power of the Pope, in regard to excommunication, can be looked on as dangerous.—Now, then, with respect to the other side of the question. It has been argued, and with much force, that the power of the Pope in the nomination of bishops may be considered of a dangerous tendency. With respect to this power, the Catholics themselves nominate the Bishop; the Pope gives him a spiritual capacity. If gentlemen think this a dangerous power, why then, I have a proposition to make, a proposition which the Catholics have authorized me indeed to name—It is this: "That in the future nomination of Bishops, his majesty may interfere and exercise his royal privilege, by putting a negative upon such nomination; that is in other words to say: that no Catholic Bishop shall be appointed without the entire approbation of his majesty."
*Sir J. C. Hippisley, M. P. author of a work intituled, "Substance of Additional Observations on the Catholic Question."

557
The house will be aware of the benefit of such a proposition—of the desire of the Catholics to conform to the government of their country, for this would effectually prevent the appointment of any Catholic Bishop to the head of his church, who was not politically approved of, by the government. If it be true that Bonaparte has controul over the Pope, the Pope over the Catholic Clergy in Ireland, and the Catholic Clergy over the laity; why then it follows, that Bonaparte has controul over a very large proportion of the British army and navy. It is for this reason that I wish the house to go into a Committee on the Petitions, and to come to a resolution approving of the proposition I submit, and it is the more necessary, because it has been contended, not that the danger will arise, but that it now really exists. Here, then, is a power to be vested in his majesty which must operate to do away the danger complained of, by destroying the influence of Bonaparte, if such influence actually exists. If this be not acceded to, it will then be for those who, under such circumstances as they have charged, wish to persevere in their hostility and exclusion, to state broadly and roundly their reasons, for such perseverance—a perseverance which can only tend to make the king weak as to the Church, and the constitution weak as to the Catholic body. The proposition will make a double connection—the two churches will be as one, and the king at the head. By these means all danger will be removed, the moral and political entirety of his majesty's dominions will be established; the constitution will be invigorated and strengthened by connecting the Catholics with the parliament, and the king with the Catholic clergy, by the interference which he must of course exercise in consequence of the appointment.—Having considered this subject upon general grounds, I shall now proceed to examine it with respect to its application to Great Britain and Ireland. The Petition which has this night been presented in opposition to the prayer of the Catholics, has attempted to ground its hostility upon the principles recognized at the Revolution. Admit such a principle, and you make that glorious occurrence fatal to its own interests. It has been objected, that the claims of the Catholics are inconsistent with the Declaration of flights, and the oath prescribed by that instrument If so, why then the Revolu-
558
tion which established the liberties of this country, and from which you derive such blessings, was pregnant with illiberality to Ireland, and the Declaration of Rights was fatal to its own interests. But I deny that any fundamental law exists against the extension of every civil and political immunity to Catholic subjects, consistent with the security of the empire. If there be any such fundamental law, show me whore it is. It certainly does not exist in the assumed power of the two branches of the legislature in 1742. On that occasion it passed by a vote of both houses of parliament, an act of power assuming the legislative authority! It was afterwards sanctioned in 1761, by a resolution in a similar manner, without becoming an act of the legislature. To be sure it then had a formal act to sanction the measure, but that was an act of oppression, which could not bind the Irish legislature. The act of king William, which re-enacted this provision, was also an act of oppression, and it was not till the year 1782 that the effects of these provisions, and the oaths they enjoined, were done away by a bill introduced by an hon. friend of mine, into the Irish parliament. But I not only contend that there is no fundamental law to sanction this exclusion, I also contend that it is a violation of a constitutional principle. It is certainly true, that the succession to the crown was, at the Revolution, limited to the Protestant branches, but it is not to be thence inferred, that persons professing a different faith, are in consequence to be excluded from filling offices in the state, and rendered incapable of sitting and voting in parliament. The principle of that provision is at direct variance with the assumed inference. The principle of the provision is founded on this ground, that the executive shall be of the same religion as the majority of the people, but the inference is directly the reverse. The principle of the constitution is, that you shall have the benefit of the talents of all descriptions of subjects in the lower branch of the legislature. In one case it goes to the limitation of the crown—In the other it goes to the diminution of the subject's right. I have said that it is a violation of a constitutional principle, and I am firm in my opinion. It has been upheld as a fundamental law that the Commons form a part of the legislature, of which part the Catholics take a share, I mean in regard to their elective franchises. This was set-

559
tled by the act of 1793, and recognised by the articles of the Union; you must therefore extend the principles of your constitution, or abandon them altogether. You told us that the Union would consolidate the resources and the interests of both islands. I now call upon you to consolidate the strength and energies of both nations by fulfilling the contract. Unless you carry into effect that measure, then do I contend that it was an act of ambition quoad the parliament of Ireland, and an act of bigotry, quoad the people. If your fears for the security and permanence of your constitution be sincere, why do you not extend your attention to the source whence the real danger arises? Does the danger proceed from domestic treason, or the fixed and indefatigable hostility of your foreign enemy? In ether case, where would you look for security? Certainly in the people! why then, I say you would act wisely in agreeing to the prayer of the Petitions, by attaching to you one fifth of the whole of your population. Are you then, when you contend that danger is abroad, so foolish or so frantic as to persist in the exclusion, or do you look for security in the extravasated ambition of depriving one fifth of your subjects of their rights, and of depriving the empire of their assistance? Do you think your constitution is in most danger from the attacks of a foreign enemy, or from firing the resentment of one fifth of your people? Is your constitution safer, because four millions of your people have only to look up to the sovereign for mercy and protection? Is the church in less danger if you make it incompatible with the civil co-operation of one fifth of your people? I would ask is the state in less danger? Is a tree more firm when its roots are torn up, or a capital more secure when the base is taken away? or will you tell me what in the natural world is radical weakness, constitutes in the political world both security and strength? No! your very measures prove that you feel the insecurity of your policy. When you passed your famous Levy en Masse Act, and the Training Act, why did you not extend their provisions to Ireland? for this plain reason, because you had not extended your constitution. Why did you not call upon the energies of your fellow subjects there? The reason was, you felt the fatal effects of that exclusion upon which the Irish parliament was stranded. Such conduct will neither guard the church nor state. But it is in
560
vain to delude yourselves by a concealment of the fact. The day will arise when the act of settlement, and the Protestant establishment itself must be defended by Catholic co-operation. If you wish your Catholic subjects to shew the same zeal as their fellow subjects, give them the same privileges. It has been argued, that to have a Protestant king and Catholic councils, would be an anomaly in politics—I see no such anomaly. Look at the history of nations, when the danger was as great as it is now. Was Henry 4th less faithfully served because he happened to have the duke of Sully for his prime minister? Was Lewis 16th in greater danger from the counsel of Turenne? and yet both these great ministers were of a different religion from the established religion of the country. While your enemy employs all the talents of his state, and brings into action all the energies of his subjects, can you confidently hope for security by rendering useless a great part of your population? What do the petitioners want? not a transfer of power, or the absurd establishment of a Catholic Parliament, but they do require a restoration of their legitimate rights, an admissibility to power. They ask for nothing which invades any recognised principle of the constitution, or fundamental laws of the land. The principle upon which I say you act in constitutionally, is in making a monopoly of the state, and of the parliament, to the exclusion of a great portion of the constituency of the empire. It has been argued, that the Catholics are guilty of treason in refusing to take the oath of supremacy, (which the Dissenters do hot take,) and because they are attached to the Pope. This is not true. Equally unsupported by sound argument, and confounded, in truth, is the charge made against them, of a desire to overturn the established church; indeed, they have been insulted and stigmatized, in opposition to repeated declarations of parliament; in opposition to the 18th, and to the 33d of the king, which gives them a certain description of political powers. Such objections are founded upon the most gross errors. Those who argue against the Catholics seem to consider them as a race incapable of every virtue, and capable of any vice, an execrable race, whose hearts no mild treatment could soften. I argue, in refutation of these charges, that the Catholic pays his quota to the exigencies of the state; he also pays his proportion to

561
the church establishment; the very payment of these quotas is perverted into an argument, against their hopes. Those who have argued in this manner, and justified their arguments on the score of religion, rendered even Omnipotence subservient to their vile purposes, and as it were attempted to bolster up Omnipotence, by accommodating the Deity with a certain portion of their own vices and crimes; in place of a religion founded on those pure maxims of truth and justice, which are as unchangeable as the moral properties of God—It is then, I say, to bolster up a false and fraudulent system under the pretext of religious worship, for no other end, and having no other object in view, than to gratify the selfish interests and sordid passions of the few, by converting into an instrument of vexation and injustice, that which was ordained as the blessing and consolation of the many. It is only upon the mild and beneficent attributes of the Divine Author of our being that we should found the stability of our church and, say of it "esto perpetua." But though they overlooked the Deity and his attributes, they did not lose sight of their own emoluments. They saw in it a little profitable church establishment, which they bolstered up in some contemptible test law. How then, I would ask, are the Catholics to destroy the church establishment? It must either be by law or by force—If by law, why then it is evident, before they can hope to obtain their end, they must become the majority of the empire—that, however, no one can apprehend. But by admitting their claims, it is urged you give them a physical force. Such sort of reasoning would apply, if speaking of Turks or Pagans, but is it the language which we ought to use when speaking of our fellow Christians? of our fellow subjects? A Catholic then, according to those reasons, generally speaking, is an execrable Pagan, because he obtains some of his privileges, and then has the temerity to ask for the remainder. Now let me consider the objections with regard to Ireland. It has been asserted that the Irish Catholics are hostile to the state, and that their hostility extends to those who profess the Protestant religion—That hostility certainly cannot apply to Ireland: for do you not suppose the Irish Protestants would be actuated by the same hostility? It is not solely to Catholics that the imputation lies, for if so, the English Catholics must be equally culpable. The charge, if there is any truth
562
in it, applies neither to the Irish character nor to the principles of Catholics; but it applies to the law; the defects of which are too evident to need any further comment from me. Gentlemen will therefore take into their consideration the great and dangerous mischief resulting from these detective laws; they will estimate, properly, the material causes of their defects, and the consequences of them, and they will then find the result to be, that they engender in the bosom of the state, sentiments of hatred and hostility. I am, however, ready to admit, that certain stings may have been left behind by the long continuance of those penal laws, which ground the people, and the operation of which may still continue to harass and to perplex. It is in vain for you, then, to stigmatize my countrymen as a perverse and obstinate set of men, whom no measures of mildness and conciliation can soften. Let it not be said that their perverse and recreant spirits are not to be reconciled. If you still say so, you declare that man has done every thing to bring them to a sense of duty, but that the Deity has made them incorrigible. You charge them with crimes which they do not merit, and you forget that the roots of those crimes find their existence in the abominable code of penal laws, with which you have loaded my country. Why, then, do you not remove this great and crying evil? You have the remedy in your hands; repeal these laws and then you remove the crime. It was well observed by a noble and learned lord (Avonmore), when the test act was repealed, that the penal code had long been hovering over Ireland. The penalties inflicted by that code, received the Catholic at his birth! they stood by him at his bridal bed! and they did not leave him at rest, even in his coffin! It is true that part of these penalties have been removed, but there still remain many heavy ones, which I think the wisdom of the united parliament would do well to remove altogether. The people of Ireland have been told that there were many narrow spirits in their parliament; and certainly there were some who always wished to counteract any beneficial measure in favour of the Catholic subject; but they have also been told that an imperial parliament will legislate upon liberal, humane and enlightened principles; such was the promise held out to the people antecedent to the union—that promise I now call upon you to fulfil. If you do not, you break faith with the

563
people of Ireland, and you will do more; you will not only injure the interests of your empire, but you may ultimately endanger its security.—I will now proceed to the argument, if such it can be called, of the dangers likely to arise With respect to the settlement of property ill Ireland, in consequence of admitting the catholics to political power. I know that considerable alarm has been excited in consequence of a map which contained an account of the distribution of property among the ancient landed proprietors of Ireland. The fact was however, that this map, which is to be found in the auditor's office, was drawn up by sir William Petty, for the use of the then government, a copy of which had by some means been preserved in France a copy of that copy had been obtained by a person in the service of government, and retained as matter of history; and this was the source of that publication, which created so much unnecessary alarm. There are but few Catholics who could claim by ancient descent, if that claim were even to be allowed, but there certainly are many proprietors of land who hold by recent purchase. Now, to shew the house that the share which the Catholics have in the landed property of Ireland is not so small as is supposed, I will state that the rental of one noble earl alone, is 30,000 l. a-year; therefore it is a gross mistake to estimate the whole of lands held by Catholics at 65,000 l. per annum; their proportion is from 500,000 l. to a million, in fee simple. Is a revolution in landed property, then, to be apprehended from persons thus circumstanced?—Then it is said that danger is to be apprehended from the tenantry.—To this I reply, that they are in a situation of poverty, from which it is utterly impossible they can emerge, and cannot be formidable to the landed proprietors. They can only take possession of the land by force of arms, or by force of laws, which must be enacted for that purpose. If there be any such settlements as those which have been circulated, I beg leave to ask, where are the lawyers who drew them up? Besides, the title of the tenantry in general depends upon protestant landlords. The relief which the petition prays will not add to the physical strength of the Catholics, but will rather operate as a reason for exercising that strength in aid of the state. Before they come into parliament they must have that property—therefore, to say that the introduction of a bill for removing those disabi-
564
lities would go to alter the state of property, is a futile sort of reasoning. The absurdity of dreading as a consequence, that which must first exist as the cause of that dread, is truly ridiculous. In order to stop divisions, dangerous in the event of invasion by the enemy, now so much to be dreaded, the Protestant inhabitants of several counties, sensible that their establishment and the state could not be defended without the aid of Catholics, have presented petitions in their favour. There are not less than nine counties in all, which have shewn this noble example of liberality and sound policy. The counties of Clare and Galway have had meetings convened by their sheriffs, at which they passed resolutions expressing their ardent wishes for an admission of their Catholic brethren to the benefits of the constitution. In the counties of Tipperary, Kilkenny, Roscommon, Waterford, and Meath, and in the town of Newry, resolutions have been passed, not formally by the Protestant gentry and inhabitants, but by the great bulk of the landed proprietors; these recommendations were not owing to the influence of liberality and confidence merely—not to the absence of all suspicion of an intention to invade the landed property at a more convenient season, but to the stronger and more immediate feeling of the danger which a divided country would have to experience in case of invasion from an active and powerful enemy. A regard for their own property was the chief reason. They are not afraid of war, but they are afraid of the continuance of the disabilities, and they deprecate those terrible privileges of an extensive monopoly of constitutional right and political power. On this principle it is, that they come to offer up their monopoly, and to entreat that others may be admitted in common to defend their rights—to defend their country! without which, neither a sufficient defence for the preservation of political power, nor of landed property, can reasonably be looked to. If you accede to their recommendation, it will be the means of a greater power of defence than you can hope to derive either from your Parish Bill or from your Local Militia. What answer will you return to this recommendation? Will you say, "that although we thought you worthy to participate with your fellow subjects in election franchises, yet we think you not deserving of further concession; or, in other words, we consider you as inimical to the interests of the state?" Will

565
you go further and say, "no, we will not attend to the prayers of your Petition, but we will, in order to provide for the perpetual safety of the empire, leave the country to divisions, and the church to the Pope!" You may leave the country to division, but if you do, you will thereby endanger the empire, for the rising of rebellion will be the consequence of refusal. Is it, then, worth while, for the sake of a paltry monopoly, which at last can be but temporary, to refuse, for such an object, the recommendation of so large a portion of your Protestant subjects? Will you, I say, adopt so narrow a line of policy, when the Catholics allow you a controuling power over the nomination of bishops? If you do, why then I contend you will leave the country to its own ruin, and you will leave the church to the Pope. It has been argued that the object of the Petition is of little value, and that it is not much regarded or desired by the petitioners themselves; but, will it be contended by those who have expended so much money in obtaining seats in parliament, that seats in parliament are of no value, and that it is not matter of any moment to subject any-class of men to be excluded from them? It has been said that Catholics are not desirous of seats in parliament; and as proof of the assertion, the declaration of Connaught has been cited. But though rebellion is not announced as a consequence of the refusal, yet it does not follow, that if the boon is given, it will not be highly valued. It is not in human nature to be satisfied with being excluded from situations of honour and dignity. The exclusion of Catholics from parliament and the state, is not only degrading, but dishonourable in the highest degree. If there bean indifference to that exclusion, it is the more dishonourable to the legislature, for then it proves that the Catholics are so subdued by tyrant laws, that the spirit of attachment to the constitution is subdued among them. If so, I am sure it is highly requisite immediately to plant a soul in the body, which may animate it from the centre to the extremities. Till that is done, the exertions of the state will be crippled, and instead of sending armies to fight your battles against the enemy, you will of necessity be obliged to keep them at home to defend Ireland. In every step which the government in that case may take, they will be haunted by the penal laws. It is necessary now to place things upon such a footing, that soldiers may be
566
called upon to fight, not for their pay, but for the constitution; that constitution which you have endeavoured to conquer them with.—You have no common feeling either for their pride or their passions.—It is not parliamentary certainly to talk of the Oath of the king, for which I entertain the highest possible respect. It has been urged that the oath of the king is incompatible with the removal of the disabilities complained of. Let us examine how far it is so. It is a fit subject of parliamentary inquiry, to ascertain whether or not the representation is just. We must not allow the enemies of the Catholics to abuse, in the first place, the religion of God, and, in the next, the piety of his majesty, without contradiction or restraint. The kings of England swore to maintain the liberties of their people. They are therefore subordinate to the law; they cannot invade the liberties or religion of any man, without committing a breach of their oath. They are not sworn to maintain the penal laws, nor to restrict the legislature from making new provisions in favour of the church, If the king, according to the provisions made respecting the church, is sworn to maintain them entire and without change, why, then, the church is placed beyond the power of human interference, and is also beyond the executive and legislative power. The penal laws are included in those provisions; and what is the nature of them?—Why, one of them goes to rob a Catholic of his horse; another prevents him from educating his sons at home, and from sending them abroad for education; another goes to deprive a Catholic father of his property. If the repeal of laws of this kind are a breach of the coronation oath, why, then, every sovereign since the time of Henry 8 is perjured—William 3, when he signed the articles of Limerick, was perjured—and queen Anne, when she passed the Act of Union, was perjured—George the First and George the Second were perjured—His present gracious sovereign, when he passsed the Quebec Act, was persuaded to depart from his coronation oath—so in 1782, when the Act of Catholic Inheritance was passed—again, in 1793, when the Catholics were allowed the exercise of their elective franchises. In short, the Coronation Oath, from which so many departures has occurred, is nothing more than the oath of succession. This oath cannot be interpreted in a manner laid down by the enemies of the Catholics with-

567
out making the Rights of the church, the Wrongs of the people—by incapacitating one fifth of his majesty's subjects from contributing their best services for the benefit of the state. The church is in consequence made a confederacy against the stale, and the king a party to it. There may be cases in which the coronation oath might interfere with the penal statutes; but then it would be to repeal them. The king is sworn to protect the Protestant religion as by law established—but I will suppose a case, in which it may be necessary to enlist Catholics for the army, in order to the better defence of the empire. Will it be said that the royal oath is to stand in the way at the time when the concurrence of his majesty in requiring the assistance of all his subjects to support the Protestant establishment against all enemies, is so imperiously necessary? I should hardly think such a position would be advanced. Well then, in such case, the union of all ranks and descriptions of persons in the common defence of the empire would be necessary, and then it must be evident, that so far a repeal of the penal statutes would follow. Having, as I conceive, shewn that there does not exist any moral incompatibility between the two religions, nor any of a political nature to debar Catholics from the enjoyment of those rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and that the constitution is not against them, I shall contend, that whether it be looked to in its formation, consolidation, or preservation, the relief which they pray for, will, if granted, he of the most beneficial consequences to the empire. The property of Ireland is unanimous in their favour, with a view to the extinction of religious differences. And whether you consider it in its original institution, in its principles as recognised at the Revolution, or as to its future duration, in either view it imperiously calls for that amelioration of your policy, which was the implied condition of the Act of Union, and it is further called for, in order to your complete protection against the attacks of a foreign enemy. The state of Europe is such, that all the nations of the Continent are leagued against you; it is necessary, therefore, to oppose one compact body to the enemy's irruptions. If arguments, such as I have adverted to, are to be adduced in opposition to the credit of the church, and the defence of the empire; if we are to be haunted step by step, by the remains of
568
the penal code, why then, I say, your country is irretrievably lost, and every great principle of religion, of public defence, and of liberty, are at an end. That great and distinguished statesman (Mr. Fox) was from his earliest days the decided friend of the repeal of the penal laws. In 1778, he expressed his abhorrence of the penal code—in that abhorrence he continued to the latest moments of his life—He recommended a total repeal of those laws—Ireland will ever retain a grateful sense of the benefits she has received from that great man. When the last prayer of the Catholics was submitted by him to the United Legislature, he gave his concluding testimony against the injustice, the cruelty and impolicy of the continuance of any of the restrictions. Ireland now feels the loss she has sustained by his separation from the cares of this world, and weeps in anguish over his tomb. In estimating the qualities which so peculiarly marked his proud career, one dwells with mingled emotions of rapture and sympathy on his conscious integrity of soul—on his amiable rectitude of mind—on the complacency of his disposition—on his benevolent weaknesses—and we recollect, with sentiments of regret, the loss which the nation has sustained—In his eloquence he was commanding and convincing, and one can contemplate with satisfaction, even the negligent grandeur of his style. In presenting the former petition, the great object which Mr. Fox wished to impress upon the house was, that a compliance with its prayer would add materially to the strength of the empire. If at that time, such an object was necessary, how much more so is it at the present period, when Austria has left you; when Russia is your enemy, when Prussia is annihilated, and when nothing remains, but nations leagued against you with the common enemy, into which league, they have either been intimidated, or forced by conquest. Your danger therefore is threefold greater, for you have nothing to depend upon but your own exertions. Paralized by divisions, you will ultimately be lost in your own dangers at home—dangers, unparalleled in the history of your country—the two Islands now stand alone to contend against all mankind. Will you then, in such a crisis, foolishly and madly depend upon political divisions and religious schisms to prop a falling world? What is the idea which the enemies of the Catho-

569
lics have of this danger? why they blacken a few Catholics in this house, and then conceive that divisions are to secure a falling state, and add calumny to complete the fall. Proceed in this course of insanity until you have heaped miracle upon miracle, and folly upon folly! I know it is the reasoning of many good men, and also of many bad men, to deviate from their usual habits upon questions such as these—In astronomy they will adhere to science, but in religious matters they think themselves entitled to adopt certain privileges over reason and over morals. They disregard the suggestions of one, and disown the precepts of the other—They desert the limits of one world, and fly, but without arriving at the other which they hoped to attain. They fly from all obedience to the moral laws of the universe, and in the heat of their fancy, perverted and phrensied as it is, construct a world of their own, until, callous in the obstinacy of their infatuation, they fix permanently on conclusions which they bring back, and which are pernicious to both, and common to neither, and on these conclusions they lay the foundation of danger—To avert this danger, I propose a measure which I say will produce the desired object of all, and that measure is "mutual concord." I recommend to my own countrymen to associate with their fellow subjects, be they Catholics or not. I would recommend to all classes of British subjects, the spirit of concord and of mutual charity. Banish from your breasts that fatal principle of exclusion, and we may then indeed say, esto perpetua. Release your Catholic brother from that personal degradation which meets him in every walk, which he sees before him daily at his own door, and which he finds illustrated in the expressions, the toasts and the merriments of the upbraiding monopolist—the Catholic deeply feels all these degradations, and therefore let the country gentleman pay due attention to the recommendation which I presume to give. I appeal to another description of persons called Orange Men, to awaken them to their folly, and to recollect in time, that though there may exist such a thing as exclusive religion, there cannot he an exclusive allegiance; these men, if argued with civilly, would feel and acknowledge the difference, and forget every insult they have received. Let government be convinced, that unless they renounce this narrow jealousy, their system
570
will produce in Ireland bad subjects, but worse rebels, easy to conquer, but impossible to govern. If they attend to my suggestions, they may restore not, only good order, but harmony. I appeal also to the government, and tell them, that if they suffer themselves to be overcome by little paltry feelings of anger, which can tend only to irritate and inflame, they will bring the administration into great difficulties, and reduce the country to disorder and confusion. It will then be no justification for them to say, that the people ought not to have felt so strongly, for the blame would be on their own heads. Believe me, the best way to guard the Catholics of Ireland from foreign attachments, is by discouraging religious bigotry amongst the Protestants. The Catholic will never feel the victory, when he finds that bigotry is swept from the threshold of the government. Do not believe the idle tales which tend to calumniate my countrymen, such as their not chusing to live among Protestants, of their refusing to take Protestant servants. If you go into the Committee all these false assertions can be disproved. The battles in Egypt would never have been fought, the victory of Maida never gained, if the Catholics of Ireland had not gone hand in hand with their Protestant brethren in every duty of good subjects, and in every feeling which belongs to good citizens. The peasantry of Ireland are not slaves, nor the landlord* tyrants. Such language is calculated to. render the upper ranks odious, and the lower ranks contemptible. If you want to form a judgment of the character and capacities of Ireland, look to what she has effected in the short space of twenty-five years. In that short period, the people added one third to her commerce, increased her revenue five fold, gave an accession of one third to her population, and have besides acquired a free trade and a free constitution. These are the barbarous accomplishments of Ireland. The Catholics of Ireland have a trial by jury—are admissible to all offices, but the highest offices, in the state, and above all, are a constituent part of the country—u these are the rights which they possess, and these rights they would not surrender to the kings of England, and they will not surrender them to the enemy. These facts afford the best proof of the highly civilized and improved state of Ireland, and afford the best picture of that brave people who have been so cruelly stigmatized. I will not

571
therefore call the Petition which now lies on your table.—a Petition for emancipation; for even though the prayer of it should not be granted immediately, the Catholics will still retain the same desire of opposing the enemy—the same zeal in the cause of the empire. Every reason for proceeding with temper and conciliation is still desirable. Great Britain, with Ireland by her side, has to count upon five millions of inhabitants, ten millions of exports. She pays two millions of rental, two millions of interest, and contributes one third of her population to the army and navy. This is the stake which Ireland has in the empire, and this must convince you how very wicked and foolish it is to govern by any paltry acts, striking at the root of her liberties. There is on both sides ample ground of attachment, and let the decision this night be what it may, it will not create any division in the interests of the two countries. Suppose the navies of Europe, with their arsenals, were to sail at once from the different ports of the enemy, and proceed directly for Ireland, what measures would be most adviseable to take upon that occasion for its defence?—Would you send an especial messenger to array the corporations, and put down the Catholic hierarchy, and make them take the oath of supremacy? On the contrary, would you not rather send to incorporate them in the general defence? The argument applies at the present moment most forcibly, for if you would do this at such a moment, why do you not now, when you have time, do something which shall put an end to those death-doing divisions and to prepare for that great battle which sooner or later must be fought?—How would you blush, if it were possible for your ancestors to learn, that you lost the hereditary freedom of the land, because you were more alarmed at the edicts of Constance, the decrees of the Lateran and the councils of Trent, than you were at a foreign enemy! The Catholics do not approach this house with servile humility, (if, in the course of what I have said, I have uttered any thing which may savour of such an idea, I humbly beg their pardon) they come to support your empire, and also to share your privileges as freemen, now when Austria has turned against you, when Russia is no longer your friend, when Prussia has ceased to exist as a power—they now wish to share your glory, to share the constitution, and, in case of necessity, to go to the grave with
572
you with arms in their hands! This is their prayer, and it is on these grounds that I move to refer the Petition to a Committee of the whole house. I move it on the ground of national justice, and shall conclude with two wishes—First: That you may long preserve your liberties; next, that you may never survive the loss of them.
After Mr. Grattan had sat down, some minutes elapsed before any member rose. A cry of Question! Question! then ensued, when Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald rose. The cry still continued, and strangers were ordered to withdraw: they were shortly after re-admitted, and we found Mr. Secretary Canning on his less, endeavouriniy to address the chair, amidst loud cries of hear! order! chair!
Mr. Secretary Canningbegan by observing, that whenever a question of such magnitude as the present was brought before the house, it was in the greatest degree desirable that the deliberation upon such a question should be conducted in a manner best calculated.—Here the right hon. secretary was interrupted by a general cry of order! chair!
The Speakerrose and said, that he felt it to be his duty to answer the appeal that had been made to the chair. He did think, that until the numbers which were the result of any division had been announced from the chair, the question was open to debate.
Mr. Secretary Canningthen proceeded to enforce the necessity of moderation and good temper in the discussion of a question like the present. The right hon. mover was himself an example of the moderation he so much recommended; and he trusted that the same temperate manner which had marked the right hon. gent.'s conduct that night, would, for the remainder of it, influence all that might be said on either side of the house, during the remainder of the debate.—Here the cry of chair! order! was renewed; when
The Speakeragain rose, and said, that he had to the best of his judgment given his opinion, and that he was willing to appeal to the house; or, if he was in error, to request their instructions.
Mr. Secretary Canningthen continued, and observed, that if he and his colleagues wished to go to a silent vote on this question, it was certainly not from any want of disposition to shew respect to the right hon. gent. who had brought forward the business in so able, eloquent, and can-

573
did a manner, but rather from a perfect coincidence in some of the sentiments most particularly impressed by the right hon. gent, and a desire to give the vote he should feel it his duty to give, in the manner most consistent with the right hon. gent.'s recommendation. Whoever should come in aid of the right hon. gent. could certainly not be looked forward to as a more powerful antagonist. There were many strong reasons why the extension of this discussion should not be wished for. He did not know what sensation of triumph was felt by the noble lord opposite (earl Temple.) If the noble lord had any more eloquent speech to bring forward, he left him to enjoy the anticipation of it. Of the solidity of the triumph the house would soon have an opportunity of judging. If his majesty's ministers saw no prospect of a successful issue to the question before the house, and but mischief in the discussion, was it unreasonable that they should be willing to avoid the debate? Was that course of proceeding new to the hon. gentlemen opposite? Had they forgot, that when they themselves were in power and with the fair influence of government attempted to carry a measure somewhat connected with this subject, they did every thing in their power to prevent the agitation of this general question which they now thought it impossible to defer a year, or a month, without infinite danger to the country? If it was not the mischief of an unsuccessful agitation of the question that they deprecated, what other motive could they have except that of the meanest temporary and personal interest? If they would say that by considerations of fair and statesmanlike prudence they were induced to put off the discussion, then he should be glad to know what there was now in the state of Europe to render it a more proper period for agitating the question? Though he sought with the same anxiety as the hon. gentlemen opposite, no such favourable circumstances occurred to him.—He would now state why it was desirable to bring this question to as speedy a decision as possible. It was impossible not to agree with the right hon. mover, when he represented how desirable it would be in the present state of the world to put an end to civil dissension, and to establish perfect harmony and concord between all parties. But it was fair, at the same time, to consider the practicability of the good that was proposed; and admitting the advantages
574
that would flow from the establishment of unanimity at all times, to question whether that unanimity could in fact be attained However desirable it was, that persons professing Christianity should be all unanimous, it was a melancholy truth to which the history of all times bore testimony, that dissensions always existed, and that the greater pains were taken to reconcile them, the wider the breach became. He concurred in the wish to extinguish religious animosities, he wished they had never existed, but he could not shut his eyes to the evidence of facts, so as to indulge in the hope of a consummation so devoutly to be wished. It was not in the power even of speeches so wise, so eloquent, and so good, as that of the right hon. gent. to obtain this victory over the passions and prejudices of men. The attempt must be abortive. Thus, what in reflection was matter of justice, was to be deprecated in discussion, as likely to afford no good practical result. He wished the right hon. gent, had confined what he had to say to the last branch of his speech. If the result of the debate should not be favourable to the proposition of referring the petition to the committee, it was at least desirable that nothing should pass in the debate that could tend to inflame those animosities which every one must be anxious to see extinguished. The right hon. gent. must concur with him in thinking, that the line of conduct he pointed out, viz. an interchange of good offices, and the practice of mutual conciliation, would do more, in the first instance, to remove animosities, than any motion that could be brought forward in this house. Such instruction, enforced by the weight of the right hon. gent.'s example, must be productive of the greatest practical good. The grounds on which the right hon. gent, called for a committee were precisely the same that were urged without success on a former occasion, and they had received no addition of strength since. He could not look back to the recent decision on this point, the right hon. gent, himself could not look back to it, without being convinced that an inoffensive refusal would produce less mischief than a reluctant and forced assent. Let any body who knew the state of the public mind in this country, say, whether there was not a strong prevailing sentiment against further concessions to the catholics? If this was founded in reason, it was not easily to be overcome; but if it was even founded

575
only on prejudice, the right hon. gent, was well aware that such prejudices did not yield to repeated attacks of reason, any more than the prejudices on the other side to penal laws. It would be of little value to have a majority for the measure in the house, if there was an inflamed majority against it out of the house. If there should be a disappointment in the present instance, there would be a consolation in reflecting, that the object of the motion must ultimately, though gradually, prevail. He was unwilling to mix personal topics in this debate. The right hon. gent, had very scrupulously abstained from such topics; and with him at least, the catholic question would never be a party question. But he feared some of those who would follow the right hen. gent, would take another Course; and if there was any thing that made him regret having risen so early in the debate, it was the depriving himself thereby of the opportunity of meeting those personal charges which he certainly had no dread of encountering. The right hon. gent's speech was so happily constructed and directed, that whether his motion succeeded or failed, it must do eminent service. There was one principle of the right hon. gent, however, which must be received with some reserve. When the legislature limited by law the share of political power to be held by any class of men, and it was proposed to repeal that limitation, the legislature was to judge of the propriety of complying with the proposition; and if more disorder would arise from the repeal than from the continuance of the limitation, it was right to continue it. He again recommended the soothing and conciliating system proposed by the right hon. gent, and trusted that more benefit would be obtained by sending back the petition without any irritating language, than even by referring it to the committee, by means of a violent and contentious majority. On these grounds, he should give his vote conscientiously against the motion,—with this satisfaction, that nothing that had been hitherto said could be a bar to the claims of the petitioners in future.
Mr. Windham.—Sir; the speech of the right hon. gent, who has just sat down, strongly reminds me of what lord Chesterfield says in one of his letters, when speaking of the tragedy of Cato. That accomplished nobleman, when criticising the tragedy of Cato, remarks that there is nothing in the two beautiful lines with which the poem opens:—
576
"The dawn is overcast, the morning; lowers,
"And heavily in clouds brings on the day—."
that there is nothing in all this but what a watchman tells us when he calls out "past four o'clock, and a cloudy morning!" Just so with the right hon. gent's speech—with all its exuberant eloquence, we find nothing but an assurance, that the discussion will be extremely inconvenient to himself and his friends, and that therefore it ought to be deprecated. The right hon. gent, laments the existence of religious dissensions—so do we, and so does every one. But since it is admitted, on all hands, that they do exist, the question is, what is best to be done with them?—and, while on this subject, it appears to me a singular mode of proceding, by way of allaying those dissensions, and satisfying the large body of the people among whom they exist, to refuse what they ask, and not even to discuss their claims! This, I suppose, is one of the practical expedients of which the right hon. gent, has spoken: as that right hon. gent.'s former political opinions and conduct have always leaned to the side of the Catholics, so far as regards himself personally, this is truly an expedient that may have its practical use towards himself on the present occasion. 'The less that is said the better,' cries the right hon. gent, and I so far agree, with him, that I cannot help thinking, if he had followed his first impulse, and remained entirely silent, he would have better consulted his own character and reputation. The right hon. gent, in commending the temper and moderation evinced by my right hon. friend, has taken the opportunity of recommending a similar tone to those who succeed him in this debate. Now, it is very possible, that although the original mover of a proposition may laudably enough be moderate in his language and manner, those of his opinion, by whom he is followed, finding that moderation produced no effect, may justifiably try whether shame or reproach will be more successful. The right hon. gent. has expressed his conviction, that my right hon. friend does not wish that this boon should be wrung from an unwilling people, and a reluctant parliament. True; but who made the people unwilling, and the parliament reluctant? In reply to the right hon. gent.'s statement, that the question has been already discussed and settled, and that nothing has since happened that could change the opinion of the house on the subject, I have simply to observe, that this

577
statement is unfounded. Changes in opinion take place daily, in proportion as truth and reason become more manifest; and I hope, that, at no distant period, these changes will produce the effect so desirable. The lour millions of Catholics at present in Ireland, are as a dead weight, or an indigestible mass in the stomach of the country, poisoning and palsying all its efforts. Is it intended to pursue towards the Catholics the old system of policy, by which attempts have been made to wear them down into insignificancy? Let the truth or fallacy of this system be tried by the rule of three. If in two centuries the Irish Catholics are brought to four millions, how many centuries will it take to extirpate them entirely? I have heard of philosophers and naturalists, who pretend to ascertain the age of the world by the different decompositions of granite; but this, with respect to the Catholics, will be a much more tedious calculation. With respect to the comparison so well made by my right hon. friend, between the two kinds of danger, of which it is necessary to choose one, I should most unquestionably prefer the danger uncertain, if not chimerical, of giving to the Catholics a power, which might ultimately invest them with a considerable influence in the state, to the terrible danger which the refusal of their just claims must, in my apprehension, inevitably occasion. No man can be more willing than myself to allow the propriety of an alliance, properly understood, between Church and State; but, I wish the house to consider, that if the State cannot exist without a Church, how much less can the Church exist without a state. I repeat, sir, that I am anxious the subject should be fully discussed; convinced as I am, that the friends of Catholic emancipation will ultimately triumph over every obstacle that can be thrown in their way.
Lord Pollingtondeclared, that he never would give his concurrence to a measure, which, sooner or later, would endanger the Protestant establishment, by placing power in the hands of those, whose principal object it was to make converts to their own erroneous persuasion. He thought it most impolitic to bring forward, at such a crisis as the present, a measure which he knew to be generally obnoxious throughout the country, and should therefore vote against the motion.
Lord Milton.—Sir, I am convinced, that the more this subject is discussed, the
578
sooner will the people of England be disposed to accede to the claims of their Irish brethren. God forbid, sir, that the glorious revolution in 1688 should be identified with the proscription of the Catholics! If it were so, the admiration with which I have always regarded that transaction, has been a most mistaken admiration. If we look to the history of those times, we shall find that the laws against the Catholics, as well as against 'the Protestant dissenters, originated, not in religious, but in political motives. Previous to the Revolution, the laws passed against the Catholics were evidently intended, not so much to prevent the introduction of the Catholic religion, as to prevent the accession of James 2. This was the real cause of the Test Act—If this cause no longer exists; if by the nature of things it has passed away, then ought we to allow these restrictive regulations to pass away also. No one body of men has a right to exclude another from a fair participation in rights and privileges, unless from the apprehension of some immediate and imminent danger. To grant the Catholics their claims, will be to remove the danger by which the empire is at present threatened. It will make them contented; and, truly, it does seem to me to be a most extraordinary state of the world, to leave them in a state of discontent, if not of open rebellion.
Mr. Fitzgerald, (knight of Kerry) said: Sir, I must acknowledge that, after the manner in which this question has been opened and supported, when no argument has been used against the motion, to offer any further observations in its favour, may appear a wanton intrusion on your time. However, as an unfavourable decision is foreseen, I should consider myself insensible to the duty I owe to my own country, and to the empire, if I did not express, in the strongest manner I can command, my conviction of the necessity, not merely of discussion, but of concession, on this most important subject. The right hon. gent. compelled to acknowledge the talents, the eloquence, and the moderation of my right hon. friend, has prudently abstained from, answering him, and has preferred to reply, by anticipation, to the speeches of others, in which he prophesies, that there will not appear the same moderation. Sir, if I abstain from that warmth, which this subject naturally excites, it is, because founded in justice, reason and truth, as I conceive the cause of the petitioners to be,

579
I think it can be injured only by intemperance. Differing from the right hon. gent., I am anxious to promote discussion. Truth is promoted by discussion. The former discussion was beneficial. The intermediate discussion has been most useful; and by discussion the petitioners must prevail. To those, who desire to produce that discussion, the right hon. gent, ascribes party motives. Sir, were I desirous to make the decision of this right subservient to a party purpose, or most effectually to injure the character of his majesty's ministers, I should have acquiesced in the course they proposed, of suffering the question to have gone to a vote, without a word being offered in resistance to the prayer of the petition. I should have suffered them to send back the petition, loaded with the contumely of being considered unworthy of discussion; thus adding insult to injury. But, sir, if respect towards the petitioners, or the house, cannot extort an argument, at least decency towards those, on whose implicit support they reckon for resistance to this petition, should induce some attempt at justification for the vote they require.—By the principles of a period, to which they are fond of referring, (that of the settlement of the crown) those, who hold offices or emoluments under the crown, are excluded from sitting in the commons; and if, by a species of collusion, they are now allowed to do so, the constitution supposes it to be, for the purpose of explaining and justifying their acts as ministers, and the advice they shall give their sovereign. If, upon important occasions, they shall refuse to do so, and than the present there cannot be one more important; if, on a wanton reduction by them of the means of religious instruction to the people, as in the Maynooth grant; if, on a petition stating the just claims of four millions of our fellow subjects, they are safe in treating such subjects, and the representations of the people, with contemptuous silence; what is the inevitable inference, which the advocates of parliamentary reform will draw; "To such a State is the house of commons reduced, that, even when the interests of millions, and perhaps the security of the country, are concerned, ministers can command a majority, without condescending to offer a word of argument or explanation." But, though ministers will not speak, I suppose it is intended to imply much from their mysterious silence. We must resort to
580
other means to discover what they think. It is supposed that certain insurmountable obstacles stand in the way of this petition. As a member of parliament, I can acknowledge no such obstacles, certainly now, for which ministers are not accountable. We have also heard, at other times, a sort of general statement, that some principles of the constitution, as established at various periods, necessarily exclude the petitioners from what they ask. These eras are the Reformation, the Revolution, and the Union. With respect to the latter, we can resort to no authority so conclusive, as to the author of that measure: and on this point I am most anxious, and, in a great degree, from motives of a personal nature, that the clearest explanation should take place. Having been one of those who zealously supported the union, as a refuge from the calamities under which Ireland so long suffered from religious differences, I may be allowed to feel peculiar interest on those points, to which I looked, not only as the desirable, but as the necessary results of that compact; without which it cannot be effectual; and on the ultimate attainment of which it must depend, whether I can justify, or must curse the day, on which I voted for that union. In appealing to this house, I felt that we referred the Catholic, not only to an enlightened and more impartial and authoritative assembly, but to one, in which the uncontradicted sentiments of all parties were amicable to their claims. Certainly it was not to the extension of commerce, to improvement of manners, or any other of the speculative hopes held out to the Irish, that I looked in the union. It was to the blessing of internal harmony and peace, without which no nation can flourish. What, accordingly, were the expectations necessarily excited in the people of Ireland by the language of the late Mr. Pitt? That measures necessary to the tranquillity of Ireland, which could not, with safety, be conceded by a distinct legislature, could be conceded with safety after an union. That was not only an acknowledgment, that there was nothing in the claims of the Catholics inconsistent with the constitution; but that it was intended to look to their accomplishment. Mr. Pitt could never have intended to cajole the Catholics. Do ministers suppose he did? Yet what would it have been to tell them, your objects are attainable after the union; and when, by their concurrence, that measure is effected, which

581
without it never could, to say, 'There 'exist in the constitution, which that 'union has perfected, certain principles, 'which eternally exclude you.' It was impossible his great mind could descend to such baseness; and I am therefore desirous to extort from his majesty's ministers a distinct avowal of their opinions, to know which of them accord with the doctrine of Mr. Pitt, as laid down on the union, and repeated in the former debate on this question, that there is nothing in the claim of the petitioners essentially inadmissible; but that concession is a mere matter of time and expediency; or, in plain English, to be regulated by the convenience of ministers. It is material to know, how many there are remaining in the ministry, or in this house, who hold eternal objections to the claims of the Catholics of Ireland. The lamentable distractions and animosities of that country forced forward that union; and the practical advantages expected from it by every man, who, from any honest motive, supported it, was to attach to the government the affections of the Irish people, by extending to them the full benefits of a free constitution. The union grew out of the discontents and dangers of Ireland; and without substituting measures of redress and conciliation, was calculated rather to encrease, than diminish, those discontents and dangers. Notwithstanding the policy of every one deserving the name of a statesman in this country, nothing has hitherto been done to realize the union, or to afford any correction to the divisions and distractions of Ireland. I hold, therefore, that it follows from the entire principle and purpose of the union, that you should grant the claim of your petitioners.—With respect to another great era, the revolution of 1688, on the principles of which it is sought to perpetuate the exclusion of the Catholics, I am happy that, in my construction of that measure, I am countenanced by the authority of a noble lord, (Milton) whose hereditary attachment to the genuine principles of that great event, render his opinion upon it important. That measure was intended to improve your constitution on the principles of civil and religious liberty. Whatever incidental laws of restraint, or disqualification, were then enacted, arose only from the pressure of peculiar political causes; but formed no part of the essence, or principle of that glorious effort: they were exceptions to it. There could not be a
582
more monstrous perversion of the character of the revolution, than to associate with it, the perpetuation of laws, restrictive of conscience and liberty. To this country it brought signal benefits. It is therefore natural that Englishmen should look to its era with reverence, and enthusiastically admire the persons, by whom it was wrought. As an Irishman, I must view it with very opposite sentiments. To Ireland it operated as an infliction from Providence. Havock and proscription came in its train; and its history is written in blood. It is to justify the revolution to the Irish people, to make it a source of liberty and happiness. In tardy retribution for the oppression of former times, I wish you to commence by granting the prayer of the petition. If you wish us, as Irishmen, to respect the institutions, with which you connect the idea of liberty, you must give us a practical interest in their preservation. But nothing can be so false, as that the religion of this country was established by the aid of penal laws, or derives its security from them. The reformation, on the contrary, succeeded in defiance of the most sanguinary laws, and the most tyrannical execution of them. It sprang from the free exercise of reason; made its progress through the minds of men: and Henry the 8th, whose conversion suited his own profligate views, had only to acquiesce in the general opinion of the people. If Elizabeth exercised severity on the score of religion, it was, because religion connected itself with the political dangers which threatened her. With a rival to her throne in this very island: that rival connected by marriage with France; supported by all the zeal and the formidable power of Spain; her claims acknowledged by all the Catholics of England; with Ireland in constant rebellion. These are circumstances which would account for jealous and severe exertions of power. Yet could that wise princess, even under such provocations, distinguish, as she says in her speech to the parliament, 'the papists in conscience from 'the papists in faction.' But the laws, of which the petitioners complain, did not then exist, and cannot be justified by precedent from the success of Elizabeth. Neither can analogy exist between the present, and the time of her reign; when the power of Rome was in its plenitude, and all its force directed against England.—The reign of Charles the 2d, to which we owe the corporation and test acts,

583
however it may boast the enactment of some laws favourable to civil liberty, is a period to which those, best acquainted with its real history, will look with extreme distrust and jealousy for an example; particularly in matters connected with religion. Certainly there are no circumstances more disgraceful to the character of parliament, than those which marked the proceedings of that period. We shall pause, before we determine that the temper, the impartiality, or the wisdom of those, who declared and sanctioned the belief of that infamous imposture, "the Popish Plot," are deserving of imitation; when this house was converted into a court of injustice, to criminate, without proof, the most innocent men, or the flagrant perjuries of the most infamous; when your journals were prostituted into inflammatory pamphlets, and circulated to excite the worst passions amongst an ignorant people; when the courts of law were made the mere engines of fanaticism and the most remorseless tyranny. Such is not exactly the period to which, from an enlightened age, we should refer for lessons in legislation, or the doctrines which we should deem sacred and immutable. It may not be unprofitable to observe, that, during the religious delusion then raised, the most dangerous encroachments on liberty and the constitution were made by that worthless monarch; who, destitute himself of religion, was ready to make it, to one part of his people, an instrument of imposition, and of oppression to the other. I am ready to admit, that there did, however, exist, at that moment, circumstances of danger to the reformed religion which certainly have not at any subsequent time I mean in the bigotted zeal of the duke of York, aided, as he was, by persons of the highest rank and power in the country. Put, with the exclusion of that infatuated monarch, that danger ceased; and the restraints on liberty of conscience, since continued, have been wanton and unnecessary.—With respect to the revolution, much misrepresentation has taken place; and, enquiring into its real principle and justification, it is better to refer to those documents furnished by the great authors of it, than to trust the partial comments of modern historians.—The too great documents, in this point, are the resolutions of both houses of parliament, declaring the throne vacant, and the subsequent address to the prince and princess of Orange, embodied in the Pill of Rights.
584
What says the first? "Whereas k. James 2, having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, had abdicated the government; and the throne is thereby vacant." Not a word of religion. And it is extraordinary, considering that almost all his cabinet were either avowed, or concealed, Catholics, and that his measures against the church had been outrageous and violent, that religion should have been so much kept out of sight. The Bill of Rights likewise enumerates political grievances: 'the dispensing powers: 'the high commission: levying money; 'and raising and keeping armies in peace 'without consent of parliament: and de-'mands freedom of debate, and frequency 'of parliaments.' These were the Rights violated; to guard which the hereditary succession of the crown was changed.—But the great leaders in the revolution saw, that the danger of the country was absolute power; and however strongly the mind of James may have been influenced by bigotry, so far from serving, it counteracted his efforts to establish a despotism; and afforded his enemies a favourable means of rendering him and his cause odious to this country.—So in the resolution for a new settlement of the crown, from whence the present royal family derive their title, what are the stipulations made? Nothing, with respect to religion, but the communion of the sovereign. They are all political, and of high importance. 'That privy counsellors 'shall sign acts of council. That foreign'ers shall be incapable of holding offices. 'That England shall not be involved in 'foreign wars. That no pardon shall be 'pleadable to an impeachment. That no 'person, holding an office or pension un-'der the king, shall be capable of sitting 'in the house of commons. That the 'commissions of the judges shall be perma-'nent, and their salaries fixed.' Such is the matter of these great state transactions; and from them we can derive no sanction for laws, which were unnecessarily passed, under the influence of casual factious motives; and which deprive the state of the zeal and services of large portions of its subjects. The real security of the reformed religion was in its adoption by the majority of the state. The Catholic religion, allying itself with the exiled family, became suspected of favouring arbitrary power, and therefore an object of jealousy and precaution. But the great end and purpose of the double viola-

585
tion of the hereditary title to the throne, in 1688, and 1701, was the accomplishment and security of civil and political liberty. And certainly no man, who values freedom, can doubt, that the violations of liberty, committed by James, and his atrocious attacks on the independence of parliament, were fully sufficient to account for, and to justify the revolution. Whatever just ground there may have been in the reign of Charles 2, as to the security of the reformed religion, there now exists no doubt, that for fourteen years, a party, in the interests of the prince of Orange, was engaged in exaggerating and inflaming the alarm. And still further, throughout the whole of the reign of Anne, there was likewise a party in parliament, in the pay of, and in correspondence with the elector of Hanover; who agitated that entire reign with false panics on account of religion; for the purpose of accrediting which, the penal laws were devised.—I have been induced to trespass on the time of the house with this historical detail; because much pains has been taken, throughout the discussion of the Catholic claims, to impress a notion, from a false and superficial view of history, that exclusive laws were sanctioned and enforced by important events, favourable to general liberty and the security of the establishments of this country. Besides, when the Catholics are traduced from history, it is necessary to resort to the same source for their justification, and to refute their calumniators; and it certainly would have Lad the most beneficial effects, if the aright hon. gent. had exerted his influence to restrain that offensive and irritating language, which some of his friends, in this house, have been accustomed to hold towards the Catholics of Ireland.—For the construction I have put on these laws, I can confidently appeal to the highest legal authority. What does judge Blackstone say, in reply to Montesquieu's censure of those laws, as inconsistent with the boasted freedom of England? 'That they are 'seldom executed to the utmost rigour; 'and, indeed if they were, it would be 'very difficult to excuse them: for they 'are rather to be accounted for from their 'history, and the urgency of the times 'which produced them, than to be approv-'ed, upon a cool review, as a standing sys-'term of law.' And again: 'If ever a time 'should arrive, and perhaps it is not very 'distant, when all fears of a pretender 'shall have vanished; and the power and
586
'influence of the pope become feeble, 'ridiculous and despicable, not only in 'England, but in every kingdom in Eu-'rope; it probably would not be then 'amiss to review and soften these rigorous 'edicts; at least till the civil principles 'of the Roman Catholics called again upon 'the legislature to renew them: For it ought 'not to be left in the breast of any merciless 'bigot, to drag down the vengeance of 'these occasional laws upon inoffensive, 'though mistaken, subjects, to the destruc-'tion of every principle of toleration and 'civil liberty.' Can any man state that such time has not now arrived? Can the power of the Pope be more feeble, or less dangerous? Can any man state that the civil conduct of the Catholics does not now entitle them to that relief, which the learned judge considers, under such circumstances, to be safe and wise?—But the code of laws devised for Ireland, in the reigns of Anne and her successor, without the slightest pretext or justification, whilst Ireland was in profound tranquillity, and the Catholics had given unquestionable proofs of their loyalty, were a direct violation of the Articles of Limerick; which compact was guaranteed by king William the 3d; and in violation of all good faith, as well as sound policy and humanity. And under that unparalleled code of oppression did Ireland suffer for near a century. But not only were those laws devised in the worst spirit of persecution and tyranny; but it is notorious that, whether they were, or were not, intended to exterminate, they certainly were not intended to convert the people of Ireland, and this we have from the highest authority. Archbishop King, writing confidentially to a friend, says, that the taking any effectual measures to convert the natives, was discouraged by the principal persons in authority, and violently resisted in council. Such was the system of those, who sought to profit from the calamities of that unfortunate country.—Upon the doctrinal points of this question, having already troubled the house at such length, I shall forbear to enter. Besides, to that branch of the subject, I consider that the calmer discussion of the press is more suitable. It has moreover been, since the last debate on the subject, most satisfactorily and successfully treated in various able publications. I could particularly refer to one by an hon. baronet, a member of this house, (sir J. C. Hippesley) who, in addition to his own valuable, enlightened

587
and judicious arguments on the subject, has furnished authorities most important and conclusive; (which any man, who means to vote on this question, ought to be ashamed to have left unread) and which cannot leave a doubt remaining as to the perfect safety of admitting the Catholics to full civil privileges. Nor can I believe that any man now supposes, that the acknowledgment of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope can at all disqualify a Catholic from being a perfectly loyal and faithful subject in this state.—If, however, no sense of sound policy or justice can enforce relief to the Catholics; at least the pressing danger of the state should support the consideration, whether the physical force of Ireland is in a state to authorize us to confide in its aid. Our formidable enemy will have combined against us almost the whole strength of the continent. Our insular situation precludes our augmenting our force by an extension of territory; and we can look for it alone in bettering the condition of our people, and increasing their attachment to the state. A late measure, putting in requisition the whole active population of this country, bespeaks the sense ministers entertain of the danger. The population of this country is not adequate to the demands of industry; but in Ireland there is an immense surplus population, the most prone to war, and the most eminently qualified for it, of any in the world. To attach such a population to the state, is of incalculable importance. Procure the affections of that people; and the emperor of the French, who understands war and national character, will never invade you. With that people united and zealous, and with such a country, a descent upon Ireland would be the most desperate of all enterprises. Secure their fidelity; and that portion of your empire would not only be impregnable, but unassailable.—But, if the danger of the country, or the importance of Ireland, cannot make a due impression, I would still appeal to the feelings of this house, and say: what right have you to leave the Protestants of Ireland on that invidious and dangerous eminence, on which the penal laws place them? I call upon you to relieve them from the pitiful and pernicious superiority, derived from worshipping Cod in one place, instead of another. If the Catholics are dangerous subjects, in what predicament do we stand, who inhabit the more Catholic parts of Ireland; where none of the ordi-
588
nary operations of the law can take effect, but by their aid and co-operation? If the Catholic mind be hostile, as their enemies would represent, to what are we to look for protection in the hour of danger? when numbers are as one to an hundred, are we to arm ourselves with the penal laws? But these very penal laws are the danger. The county which I inhabit gives a practical contradiction of their utility. There, where the Catholic population so much predominates, that as an enemy, resistance to it would be vain, mutual good will and confidence, between Protestants and Catholics, have suspended the operation of the penal laws. And what was the consequence? That, during the rebellion and invasion, that county remained tranquil and loyal, and the army was withdrawn from it. But in other parts the spirit of those laws is in full operation. Perpetual jealousy and broils are the consequence, and an iniquitous proscription is exercised. These laws, whilst they exist and take effect, will extinguish toleration in private life, which that illustrious man, Mr. Burke, in his view of this question, considered one of the worst of their consequences. His great friend, Dr. Johnson, also some where distinguishes political from social toleration, and considers the latter as more important: and certainly with justice; because it mixes more with the transactions of life, and thereby has greater influence on human happiness. But history and experience tell us, that they cannot exist separately; and that, without political, we cannot have any security for social toleration. I would therefore implore you to release the Protestant from the deplorable power of tyrannising over his Catholic fellow subject. But above all, let us avoid to impeach our religion, by attributing to its spirit the continuance of these laws. Whilst we are ransacking history, to condemn an intolerant spirit in the church of Rome, let us not, at this enlightened period, justify such a reproach on that church, which sprung from resistance to intolerance. What was the language of a protestant bishop, above a hundred years ago, when Rome was powerful? Speaking on the toleration act, Burnet says: 'It 'was thought very unreasonable, whilst 'we were complaining of the cruelty of 'the church of Rome, we should fall into 'such practices amongst ourselves; chiefly 'while we were engaging in a war, in 'which we should need the united strength

589
'of the whole nation." I shall leave the application to the gentlemen opposite; and only call on the house, now that no danger from the power of the Pope can be imagined, not to suffer the remnant of those pernicious laws, any longer to disgrace your statute book.
Lord Castlereagh.—Sir; I will endeavour to detain the house as short a time as possible. But I feel that I should deserve reproach, were I to give a silent vote upon the present occasion. I deprecate and dread the effect on the public mind, of discussing a question of so delicate and important a nature. The question is no other than this: are the catholics of Ireland—four millions of his majesty's subjects—in a state of freedom or of slavery? Are they to be considered in a state of proscription? I cannot conceive a question of which the agitation is better calculated to shake our efforts in the common cause. I must, however, do justice to the candour, manliness, and moderation of the right hon. gent, who brought forward the motion; for certainly the mode in which he delivered his opinions was well calculated to produce a spirit of conciliation. But, however much I deprecate the present discussion, so far from wishing to keep this question out of my view, I shall always adhere to the principles maintained by my late right honourable friend (Mr. Pitt) on the subject, and be ready to deliver my opinion whenever it is agitated. The conduct of that great man and his colleagues was very different from that of the gentlemen opposite. He went out of place, because he found he could not procure for the Catholics what he thought they were well entitled to; but, when out of office, he never embarrassed the government by agitating the question. The principles of the gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, led them to agitate and support the question to the extreme, when out of power; and to compromise and abandon it when in power, not with any view to the safety of the country, but for the safety of their own offices. If those gentlemen wish to shew that they are desirous of defending the country against her enemies, let them not bring forward a question, the agitation of which can have only the effect of increasing the number of her enemies. In their former attempts to bring on this question, they had failed. And when they came into office, they chose to avoid the main question, and to resort to the contemptible subterfuge of
590
satisfying the Catholics by making some small and unimportant concessions. So urgent did the gentlemen opposite think the measure at the time, that they said the delay even of a few days would be dangerous, and an insult to the Catholics. But it so happened that, in a few days, notwithstanding the danger of delay, they did not hesitate entirely to abandon it, and, for reasons well known to themselves, put the bantling in their pockets. During the administration of the duke of Bedford in Ireland, the constant cry to the Catholics was: 'This is not a fit time to forward your wishes; direct all your force against the enemy only; do not now press your claims; you are premature, and will only incense.' Yet after such language, and some hopes held out when the Catholic claims were pressed upon the late ministry, what was their conduct? Why, they deserted their opposition principles altogether, and even abandoned their own contemptible little bill, which they had patched up in their support! It was strange, too, that such disinterested patriots should have abandoned it for so insignificant an object as the retention of their places! Now, what was the course of my honourable friends, always acting upon steady and consistent principles. Our conduct, as I have said, was directly the reverse of this. We wished when in office to favour the claims of the Catholics; when out of office, we abstained from agitating a question, which could not be agitated without prejudice to the public interest. With respect to any promises that were said to have been made by Mr. Pitt or myself, I deny that, during the discussion of the question of union, there were any, which could fetter the judgment of government, or of the parliament. No promise whatever of the nature of a pledge had been given; and never was there a legislature less fettered, than the legislature of that day, respecting the Catholics. No idea was even held out that the Catholics could found a claim in any principle of right. It was stated to be a question of policy, but no question or claim of right. And the only consideration in discussing the subject, was, whether most danger would arise from granting, or from denying certain indulgences to the Catholics. We always deprecated the idea of pressing these claims on any ground of right; and gave notice that we should oppose any application of that kind. The discussions that this question

591
has undergone have rendered its success more improbable. Government have regularly resisted it. There was not constitutional ground upon which these claims could stand. No new arguments could be urged in their favour. The Catholics had even promised not to bring forward their claims against the Protestant feelings. I will appeal even to the gentlemen on the other side, whether the public dangers are not now of greater magnitude than at any former period at which this question was agitated? They say that the policy of the question is varying every day, and that different measures ought to be adopted. Was not the same argument applicable when they abandoned their own bill? Thus they argue against their own conduct, and contend that other modes should be followed than those which they practised while in the ministry. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham,) has also loudly declaimed against recrimination, and yet his whole speech was a desperate attack upon my right hon. friend. The right hon. gent. however, ought to consider his own case before he attacked others: he ought to look at home before he threw stones. It is hard, that steady men, such as myself and my hon. friends, should be so treated by those who are themselves so inconsistent. I cannot now, more than formerly, reconcile it to any principle of duty or consistency, to lend my support to this measure. On the contrary, I think it my duty to discourage the entertaining this question, which can be productive of no one good object, but may occasion much mischief to the country.
Mr. Windham, in explanation, said, that the change which he referred to was, in the feelings of many of the Irish Protestants on this subject. He had not used any argument to reconcile his own conduct with respect to the question, nor had he thought any was wanted. When he and his friends attempted to keep back the subject, they had done it in a way the most conciliating to the Irish Catholics; and if the question should be pressed, they had reserved to themselves a right to speak and vote upon it, as they had ever done.
Lord Henry Petty.—Sir, I entirely concur with the right hon. gent, on the opposite side, who has recommended us to follow the temperate example of the eloquent mover of the question; but I am sorry to say, I do not t: ink his friends seem to have profited by his admonition. If he
592
meant by 'temperate' that we should allow much to the feelings of the parties now before us, that we should use towards Ireland a conciliatory tone, if we did not give her satisfactory redress, it was somewhat strange to receive her complaints not with arguments, not with reason, but by contemptuous silence. Whatever may be my opinion respecting that country, I cannot bring myself to adopt that system, actuated as I am by a feeling of public duty and of public exigency; but if I had not such powerful reasons to stimulate me, yet there is one observation, which I have heard in the course of this debate, which imperiously calls for an early refutation. The observation was directed to the supposed inconsistency of the late administration. It was asked, why they now brought forward a question which they had abandoned when in power? Why, sir, they did not bring it forward then, nor do they bring it forward now—no party or individual in this house has brought it forward—the petitions, of a whole people, now upon your table, bring it forward; and if the noble lord would be particularly gratified by it, I would tell him they neither felt nor expressed a wish that it should be brought forward. But though, looking to the probability of its progress, they could not advise its being presented, they might still consider themselves, as honourable men, bound not to fly from a principle they had once professed. I might say now, as I should have said then, to the Catholics of Ireland: 'I do not recommend your urging your petition now; but since it has been urged, I will support it strenuously by my vote, my speech, and my interest. I have told you I thought your case just: I think so still; and whenever it is discussed I will assist it.' But the noble lord asked: 'Why did you not do so when in power?' And, sir, who shall tell me we did not do so? Who shall tell me we did not implicitly guard ourselves against deserting the Roman Catholics, if their petition should be presented? And while we told them we did not think it would be prudent to present it, we. endeavoured to express towards them and towards Ireland, a conduct which might evince our sincerity, and deserve their confidence. But, you are the friends of the Catholics also, it seems; and how do you prove it? Why, by forgetting them. in toto; by forgetting the existence of one fourth of the population of the united empire; by putting their claims into your

593
pockets and your cabinets, and locking up your principles and opinions, as well as their claims and interests, until it suits your convenience to bring them once again to light! What! sir, was this treating a people with dignity, or decency, or likely to conciliate or convince them? But, the noble lord comes down again with his stale charge of inconsistency, which he is so well qualified to adduce! what was his course in similar cases? Why, at first, so strong were the scruples of his conscience, that, as a disappointed friend, and professed advocate and party to their unsuccessful claims, he quitted office at the union; he then had a taste of opposition, and shortly returned to power, without a single concession being made! Well, there he now sits, and here are the identical claimants, with the identical claims, to which he had before expressed himself so resolutely attached; and what does he say to them? 'Oh! thank you, my friends, I was dupe enough to leave office on your account once, but here I am once more, and never will I incur the same risk again, for I know by experience how mischievous it is to have an opinion about you; and never will I again express an opinion.' Such is the consistency of the noble lord! I wish, as much as any man, that the state of Ireland was such as to admit of such versatility in politics. I wish it was a picture over which a veil might be drawn at pleasure: but, alas! we have had sufficient and melancholy proofs that it is otherwise. The petition is supported on a principle of faith. At the union, a tacit promise had been given to the Catholics, that, on the completion of that event, their claims would find at least a favourable reception. The acts of the government, the language, the prospects held out to the people of Ireland, all confirmed them in this expectation. You will not deny to the Catholics of Ireland that they express the sentiments of four millions of people. You will not, you cannot deny, that, on every principle of reason, justice, and common sense, they are entitled to an equal participation of rights and privileges with their protectant fellow-subjects. If this your opinion be with them, why is the vote that declares that opinion to be against them? I will not characterize such a vote, but I will ask the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) Whether that vote may not be suspected to be the result of a mean, personal, time-serving policy? In the vote which I am about to give,
594
I feel, at least, that I am not actuated by any base motive, and upon that score can I submit myself with pride to the judgment of the nation. Well and truly has it been said, that there was no time at which the question should be allowed to be dormant. Yet we are told these claims have been finally rejected. Can the word 'final' be applied to a subject which must be necessarily viewed in a different light every day? Have there been no fluctuations in the public mind? Have no events connected with it disturbed the peace and impaired the resources of the country? Doe's nothing depend on the progressive conviction of those very Protestants who have the best means of observing, and the deepest interest in adopting, the course which true policy dictates; who now demand for their Catholic brethren a participation in the privileges of the constitution under which they live, and for which they fight? If they on the spot have seen reason to change their opinions, why may not those on this side of the water also change theirs? But, the noble lord has thought proper to descant on the deplorable state of Europe. I shall refer to it also. Look to the continent; to France, to Germany; to Spain. See there, ye friends of toleration! what the power of the Pope has done! See there the dynasties which the omnipotence of the Vatican has founded! It is doubtless under the bulls of Rome that the German empire has fallen prostrate, and mouldered in the dust of its foundation; it is by some strange caprice and ungrateful cruelty to her, that his most faithful majesty the king of Portugal is driven into exile, to make room for more pious and obedient votaries of the Papal See! Oh! introduce not this all-subduing despotism into Ireland. Alas, sir, is the humbled, sinewless, defenceless Pope, to be set up in these days as a bugbear, by which enlightened men are to be deterred from allowing to Catholics the privileges of freemen? But even that pretence is taken away. The Irish Catholics renounce the temporary supremacy of the Pope; they renounce, and that by your own admission, and in your own words, all that you state to be the subject of alarm. 'Ireland is prejudiced,' you say; and who are you to thank for it? Is it owing to the character of the people, or to your system that prejudices, relaxed in other countries, are there, and there alone, deeply and inveterately rooted? But when ministers hear that Ire-

595
land is not satisfied, and hear also that projects of relief and conciliation are in progress, is it wise, or just, or politic, to deny and to insult them? But I cannot separate the consideration of this proposition from the plans of those who oppose it. They propose to deny education and instruction to the Catholics while they remain such, and expose the mass of them to ignorance, to purchase the conversion of a few. This alone would be sufficient to determine my vote. But let them remember that a dreadful crisis is approaching. Every attempt at conversion by persecution has been made in vain. If Ireland has been in a state of progressive improvement and loyalty from a few conciliating acts; if her people have gradually become better subjects, why, do you imagine more indulgence will incline them to forget the oath you have always admitted them to take? or do you make the experiment at the very instant of danger?
'Secanda marmora
Locas sub ipsum furens, et sepulchri
Immemor, struis domos.'
In what I have said, I have not been so much actuated by the hope of producing a conviction, which, if any thing can, the speech of the right hon. member must have done; but from a desire to evince, at least the respect I feel for the wishes of a fourth part of our fellow-subjects who are still without the pale of the constitution, and the desire I have of leaving no distinction in the state, but between the friends and enemies of the country.
Sir John Cox Hippisleyobserved, that as a noble viscount near him (lord Pollington) had been the only speaker who had, as yet, in the course of the debate, expressed any apprehension of the danger of the proposed concessions, he trusted his lordship's mind would be greatly relieved by adverting to the numerous authorities which had been cited in favour of the principles of Roman Catholics; and, on a question, of this nature; he trusted that the house would be of opinion that those authorities had a claim to particular attention, which were derived from distinguished prelates of the established church. Sir J. H. then quoted a passage from the bishop of Landaff's preface to his Theological Collections: 'The ruling powers, in 'Protestant and Catholic states,' says his lordship, 'begin, at length, every where 'to perceive, that an uniformity of senti-'ments in matters of religion, is a circum-
596
'stance impossible to be obtained. They perceive too, that a diversity of religious opinions may subsist among the subjects of the same state, without endangering the commonwealth; and they begin to think it reasonable, that no man should be abridged in the exercise of natural rights, on the score of religion. Again, the same venerable prelate has said, in his publication intitled, 'A Speech intended to have been spoken in the House of Lords, on the 28th of November, 1803. 'If any 'one should contend, that this is not the 'time for government to make concessions 'to Ireland, I wish him to consider whe-'ther there is any time in which it is im-'proper for either individuals or nations to 'do justice;—any season improper for ex-'tinguishing animosity; any occasion 'more suitable than the present, for put-'ting an end to heart-burnings and inter-'nal discontent?'—The late Dr. Horsley, bishop of St. Asaph, in the debate on the Catholic Petition, in 1805, observed,* 'I do not hold that there is any thing in 'the Roman Catholic religion at variance 'with the principles of loyalty. I do not 'believe that any Roman Catholic of the 'present day thinks himself at liberty not 'to keep faith with heretics, not bound by 'his oath to a Protestant government, or 'that the Pope can release him from the 'obligation of his oath of allegiance to his 'sovereign. I had' said his lordship, 'a 'perfect knowledge of the questions pro-'posed, and the answers returned by the 'foreign universities, in which those abo-'minable principles' [the deposing and dispensing power] 'were most com-'plctely and unanimously reprobated by 'those learned bodies to which the qucs-'tions were propounded, and I am per-'suaded the Roman Catholics 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.'—Sir J. H. then adverted to a Charge delivered to the clergy of his diocese by the bishop of Norwich, in 1806, in which that learned prelate most justly and liberally observed, speaking of the Catholics, 'That 'their conduct, and the unequivocal decla-'rations made by them, in a variety of 'publications, are strongly expressive of 'their total disapprobation of compulsion 'in religion. And that it would be very 'unfair to involve in the guilt of the mis-
* See vol. iv. p. 795.

597
'guided zealots of former days, a body of men of a far different description, to whom it is our duty, and should be our inclination, to shew every mark of benevolence, both as brethren, and as deserving fellow-subjects.—Sir J. H. regretted that the impatience of the house seemed to check his proceeding to give other more enlarged quotations from that inestimable record of Christian charity and moderation, so admirably suited to inculcate the most wholesome truths at the present crisis. Sir J. H. then proceeded to state, that he had received, by that day's post, as he found many other members also had received, an anonymous circular paper reflecting on the character and conduct of Dr. Milner, who, in a former debate, had also been, and with as little foundation, attacked by a learned member of that house, on account of a work intitled, 'The Case of Conscience.'—Dr. Milner had been fully vindicated on that occasion by his hon. and learned friend below him (Dr. Laurence); and on the present occasion, sir J. H. contended, it was not less a debt of justice due to the Roman Catholic titular metropolitans of Ireland, than to Dr. Milner himself, to examine how far the facts alledged against him were intitled to credit, and, consequently, objects of censure. Dr. Milner was himself a prelate of the Roman communion, and was formally accredited to this country by those prelates, as the organ of their sentiments, to treat in their behalf, if any such treaty became necessary, and to propose or assent to such measures as might eventually be connected with the objects of the present important discussion. A proposition stated by his right hon. friend who moved the question, and certainly of the greatest importance, had been introduced to the house, on the authority of Dr. Milner,—in proportion, therefore, as censure attached to the conduct of Dr. Milner, it might be reflected on his constituents. Whatever might be the merit or demerit of Dr. Milner's recent publication, from which the passage in the circulated paper had been garbled, as on a former occasion, without any regard to the context, a reference to it, in the book itself, would afford the best defence that could be made for this respectable ecclesiastic, whose reputation was thus anonymously attacked on the subject of his representation of the mode of administering an oath in Ireland; and with respect to the 2nd charge, of his being accessary to the reprinting, by subscription, the 'Errata of
598
the Protestant Bible;' Dr. Milner was in no way privy to that publication, which had been undertaken before his arrival in Ireland, although he is charged with taking over the old edition, expressly for the purpose of publishing it. Nor was it by the authority of any of the Roman Catholic prelates that the republication had taken place, notwithstanding many of the clergy had subscribed, on the application of the bookseller who published it. At the same time, it was fair to observe, that an exposition of Catholic principles was subjoined to that publication, which might justly challenge the approbation of the warmest friends of the Establishment, as containing the most pointed abjuration of every dangerous or obnoxious tenet which had ever been ascribed to Catholics, and which no Catholic will conscientiously refuse to make. This supplementary exposition had been drawn up by Gother, an ecclesiastic of the Roman communion, and of whose writings sir J. H. related this anecdote: that the present bishop of Elphin, (the brother of a noble and learned lord) had, in one of his publications, observed, 'By far the greatest part of the popula-'tion of my diocese are Roman Catholics. 'I know, says his lordship,' 'I cannot 'make them good Protestants; I therefore 'wish to make good Catholics of them; and 'with this intention, I put into their hands 'the works of Gother, an eminent Catholic 'divine.' This was a conduct at once consistent with liberality and the soundest policy. The same respectable prelate, in the debate on the Catholic Bill in 1793, candidly admitted, that 'speculative dif-'ferences in some points of faith were of 'no account. His Roman Catholic bre-'thren and himself had but one religion, '—the religion of Christians; and that, 'without justice to the Catholics, there 'could be no security for the Protestant 'Establishment.'—Sir J. H. then made some observations on the contrasted Catechisms of the Protestant incorporated Society and the general Catechism of the Roman Catholic titular metropolitans: the one but too evidently inculcating an abhorrence of their Catholic brethren; the other, instilling the principles of christian charity, and loyalty to the established government. It was to be regretted, he observed, that those societies, established no doubt with the most laudable design, should have fallen into a course so ill adapted, on Christian principles, to promote their object. Sir J. H. then reverted to the

599
charges brought by Dr. Duigenan against Dr. Milner, on account of his publication of his 'Case of Conscience,' from which tract he had quoted an insulated passage, without reference to the context, giving it the complexion of a most offensive and dangerous doctrine with respect to the obligations of an oath: whereas a much celebrated dignitary of the established church, the late chancellor of Winchester, who was known to have been long opposed to Dr. Milner in the field of theological controversy, had expressed an opinion of the same tract very different from that of the learned gent, opposite. In a letter, sir J. H. observed that he had the gratification to receive from the late Dr. Sturges, and from which, with the permission of his hon. friend on the treasury bench, who stood in so near and tender a relation to that truly respectable divine,) he would beg to read an extract. 'Dr. Milner's 'pamphlet on the king's oath,' says Dr. Sturges, 'is able and unanswerable; the 'Catholics, I think, are obliged to me for 'calling forth his Letters to a Prebendary, 'written against me, which I see are fre-'quently referred to as a work of high au-'thority.' Sir J. H. proceeded to make some observations on the concordat between the government of France and the see of Rome, in 1801, many of the restrictions of which were, in point of fact, conceded by Leo the tenth in his concordat with Francis the first, and the subsequent regulations of the French government, as far as they respect the admission and registration of rescripts, &c. from the sec of Rome, are the same as were instituted under the old regime of the Gallican church, viz. that 'no bull, rescript, decree, 'nor other missive from the see of Rome, 'shall be received, published, or otherwise 'put in force, without the authority of the 'government.' Our government, of course, are free to institute similar restrictions, which might materially tend to quiet the apprehensions of the most scrupulous, whenever the see of Rome should be considered as acting under a hostile influence, and become an object of justifiable suspicion. Such were unquestionably the regulations from the time of Francis the first, established as guards against a foreign influence, but practically, it was seldom, if ever, found necessary to resort to that control. The ecclesiastical constitution of France also provided both a Lutheran and Calvinistical establishment, with their relative synods, &c. But with respect to
600
the Catholic communion, the address, prefacing the act of establishment, declares 'That the Catholic religion is that of a 'vast majority of the French nation; to 'abandon so powerful an engine, therefore, 'would be to desire the first ambitious 'knave, or unsuccessful demagogue, who 'wished to convulse France anew, to seize 'it, and direct it against his country.' The application to the case of Ireland was but too obvious.—Sir J. H. then observed, that he could not on this occasion forbear citing the authority of that great statesman Mr. Pitt, who decidedly admitted the general loyalty of the Catholics, and denied that the rebellion of 1798 was a Catholic rebellion; adding also, 'That 'whatever checks he had had in contem-'plation heretofore, they did not apply to 'the Catholics, as Catholics, but such tests 'as should be a security against the prin-'ciples on which the rebellion originated.'—As the house seemed to express much impatience for the question, sir J. H. begged to remind them, that although twenty years had elapsed since his first introduction to a seat in that house, he had rarely trespassed on their patience; but on the present occasion he could not reconcile himself to a silent vote, and the extracts he had adduced, he felt, were entitled to the most serious attention of those who questioned the justice and policy of the proposed concessions. He had confined the authorities quoted, to such opinions chiefly as had. been given on this subject, by distinguished prelates of the Established Church, and which indeed might have been multiplied, with undiminished force, to an, extent little suited to the present disposition of the house. He then expressed his regret that the learned doctor, who, on a former occasion, brought down so many antiquated documents in his hand, had not, on the present occasion, delivered his sentiments, as sir J. H. was fully prepared to have replied to him.—He begged also the chancellor of the exchequer, (who had on a preceding night contended that religious toleration should be excluded from any aids derived from the public purse) to recollect that we had, at this moment, both Lutheran and Calvinistical churches and preachers established within the precincts of St. James's palace, paid from the civil list, and wisely so in his opinion, although the right hon. gent. must be aware that the communion of the Lutheran, as well as the Catholic, maintained the real presence in the sacrament.

601
This speculative tenet, nevertheless, had not been considered as a bar to state provision which had been made for those professing it, and which had existed from the days of queen Anne, when it was first established. It was incumbent on the house also to recollect that Roman Catholics had sat and voted in parliament during four successive reigns since the period of the reformation.—With this observation he should conclude, giving his hearty concurrence in the question for going into a committee of the whole house, in which this important subject might be more adequately considered.
Mr. W. Elliot.—Sir; in supporting this motion, I earnestly wish to abstain from every thing like warmth or personality, in conformity with the recommendation of the right hon. gent, who, with such forcible arguments and splendid eloquence, opened this debate. I do not rise for the purpose of entering into any discussion on the general topic; but, in consequence of what has fallen from my noble friend opposite (lord Castlereagh), merely to advert to the circumstance of the Union, of which I may be supposed to have some official knowledge; and the nature of the expectation held out to the Catholics, in order to conciliate their acquiescence in that measure. My noble friend has said, that no pledge was given to the Catholics, that their full emancipation was to be the immediate consequence of this measure, in consideration of their support. It is true, indeed, that no bond was given to the Catholics on that point; but there were certainly expectations, and something like promises held out to them, which, in my mind, ought to be more binding than a bond. And so strongly was this idea felt by my noble friend, by my right hon. friend (Mr. Canning), and by a right hon. gent. now no more (Mr. Pitt), that they quitted office because they could not carry the measure; and when, upon Mr. Pitt's return to office, he opposed the going into the committee, it was not from any objection to the measure, but to the time. I therefore think, that my noble friend and my right hon. friend, must both feel themselves in an aukward situation this night, under the opposition they have given to the measure. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, when attorney general in 1805, opposed it, upon the ground that it would be an infringement of the articles of the union, by one of which it was
602
expressly stipulated, that the protestant religion should be supported in Ireland. The framers of the act must have been stupid indeed, if the language of the statute was to be construed to preclude a measure, which was expressly understood to be one of the conditions of the union. My noble and right hon. friends upon the pledge of not agitating the question, to which they had declared themselves favourable, had come into office in place of those who would not have refused the discussion, and still profess to maintain their former good wishes towards the Catholics, and their desire to conciliate them. But, I appeal to the good sense of the house, whether, the restoration of Mr. Giffard to office, the refusal of the usual grant to Maynooth college, and the appointment of a learned gentleman, whom he would not now name (Dr. Duigenan) to be a member of the Irish privy council, were symptoms of a system of conciliation towards the Catholics of Ireland. I sincerely hope the house will go into a committee and discuss the subject, and say whether the penal laws against the Catholics ought or ought not to be continued. And, although the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and the right hon. and learned gent. lately appointed to the Irish privy council, may not be favourable to the measure, I trust the wisdom of the house will see the policy of conciliating the affection and confidence of the Irish people, and thus lay up a store of strength for the empire against the hour of danger.
Mr. Wilberforce.—I entirely approve, sir, of the calmness and moderation recommended by the right hon. gent, who opened this debate, in a speech replete with the most splendid eloquence. I do not mean to attempt to follow him throughout the whole of his arguments. But, with respect to the time, I do not think the present a proper one, if there were no other reason than that it is impossible now to carry the measure. If the gentlemen opposite knew that they could carry it, I grant it would be a good time. But as they must be certain of the contrary, I think we ought not to go one step farther in this discussion. I consider it in the highest degree inexpedient, in times like these, to raise the hopes of the Catholics, when there exists not a single chance of our being enabled to gratify them. I sincerely deprecate a useless discussion, by which, in the present temper of the house, in the warmth of those party feelings which have

603
marked its debates throughout the session, and in which every question called forth personalities and mutual recriminations, no other end could be answered than that of exciting new discontents among those, whose Petition it is now proposed to discuss in a committee. The right hon. gent. who opened the debate, has not had so good an opportunity as myself of knowing the sentiments of the people of England on this subject: and, as far as my experience goes, those sentiments are not favourable, but the contrary. The people of Scotland are also, so far as I know, hostile to the measure. And the reason, I am persuaded, why petitions have not come forward from various quarters against it, is because it has been universally believed, that the temper of parliament itself is so adverse to the measure, as to leave it no chance of success. Sir, it is now time to speak out. The popular feeling in this country is decidedly against the measure; and it was on this ground that a right hon. friend of mine, now no more, declined to urge it further on a former occasion. With respect to the anomalous circumstance of a Protestant church establishment in Ireland, supported in a great degree by Catholics, I feel, and perhaps regret, the circumstance as sincerely as any man: but it is inevitable. I also feel, that to grant to the Catholics their present claims would by no means satisfy them completely; for it would be in vain to endeavour to reconcile them to the permanent support of a Protestant church establishment. Successive concessions, so far from silencing, have only stimulated them to fresh demands. Even the most zealous reformer could scarcely have supposed that so many concessions to the Catholics would have so rapidly succeeded the first granted to them. I fear that new concessions now would but occasion new demands. Measures, which tend to make a fundamental change in the political situation of a great country, should at no time be hastily adopted. It behaves the legislature cautiously to feel its way, before it consents to any great change in the principles of the constitution, lest, by a false step, mischief the most irretrievable might ensue. The language held by my right hon. friend, now no more, when talking of the measure of union, or with respect to Catholic emancipation, was, that the union would enable the legislature of this country either to grant full emancipation to the Catholics with greater safety, or with-
604
hold it with less danger. I am sure the candid mind of the right hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Grattan) will admit, that Mr. Pitt met with much more opposition in the popular mind than he had apprehended, and that this had induced him to relinquish the measure entirely. That mind is still averse to it. And for these reasons, I shall think it my duty to resist the Catholic claims, although I have a great regard for their welfare. I have every wish to promote their instruction. Before I sit down, I must observe that they had themselves promised not to bring this matter forward—(No, no, no! from the Opposition.)—However that may be, seeing that the time and circumstances are unfavourable, I must again deprecate all farther discussion on the subject.
Lord Henry Pettyin explanation.—What I stated was, that it was not the intention of myself and my friends, when in office, to bring the Catholic emancipation forward as a cabinet question. But that we reserved to ourselves the right, as members of parliament, of voting in its favour, when it should be brought forward by others.
Mr. Richard Martin.—I confess, sir, I have never felt more pungent regret than at the discussion of this evening. Notwithstanding what has been said about moderation and calmness, I have never heard more inflammatory language, uttered with a calm voice and a sermonic tone, than what has come from the gentlemen on the other side of the house. Nothing like it has been uttered for a century within these walls. I cannot congratulate one of these right hon. gentlemen (Mr. Canning) on the speech which he has made, on the sentiments he has uttered, or on the cheers which he has received. Whatever may be his feelings of triumph on this occasion, I do not envy him. From the course which he and his colleagues have chosen to take, it appears to me, however, that the present rejection of the Catholic claims may be considered as final. They will not be again brought before parliament: let them mark my prediction. The Catholics will no longer trust you with the bait of a Petition. They will no longer expose themselves to the mortification and insult of having their Petition rejected without even a discussion of their claims. Nothing can be more absurd, or more distant from truth, than the assertion that the Catholic Petition has been brought forward by a party. The Catholics

605
would disdain to have their Petition brought forward by any party. They are even jealous of my right hon. friend (Mr. Grattan). When the cry in Ireland was union or rebellion, I was in favour of the measure of union; but I have since learnt that it is very possible to have a rebellion after a union. The Catholics did certainly lend their aid to support the union, which could not be carried without their acquiescence; and they as certainly did so upon an understood pledge of emancipation. It was strictly confided in by the Catholics, and even in some degree acted upon by those who gave it. If that pledge I were now to be abandoned, the compact with the Catholics is broken, and they have a right to claim the restoration of their parliament. The consequence of this impolitic rejection will be, that the Catholics will join the Protestants, who were always averse from the union, and with others who have since become equally so, and unite their endeavours in order to procure its repeal.
Mr. G. Ponsonby.—Sir; the hon. member who spoke last but one (Mr. Wilber-force), made a declaration which gave me much satisfaction: he said, 'that it was time for him to speak out.' Nothing ever gave me more pleasure; for in hearing his speeches, I confess I have often attended to them, but could never yet attain his perfect meaning. At the same time, I must confess, that there was some part of his speech which rather surprised me. He said, that he was a prodigious friend to the education of the Catholics, while he was an enemy to their claims in the full extent in which they had preferred them. I endeavoured to discover what was the conduct of that hon. gent, upon a late occasion, as to the education of the Catholic clergy, and I find, that he voted for the smaller sum instead of the larger for that purpose. Now, this is a strange mode of shewing his wish for the encouragement of that education. He acknowledged that he refused to grant the prayer of the petition, with prodigious pain to himself, and yet he loaded the Catholics with all sorts of epithets. I never saw a request denied to a suppliant with more apparent coldness and indifference in all my life. But he told us, there were circumstances and occasions when it was very unfit to discuss questions of this sort, and that they were attended with infinite mischief, because he is convinced that the majority of the people of this country, and of Scotland, are
606
against this question. Is he convinced, too, that the majority of the people of G. Britain are to remain at all times of the same opinion with regard to it? Is he persuaded too, that the best method he can adopt, in order to induce the people of England to agree to the Irish claims, is to withdraw those claims and not permit them to be discussed? If the house be of opinion that they are reasonable claims, then ought it to encourage them to prefer them; if it be of opinion that these claims can only prove prejudicial to the country, even then there is the best reason afforded for repeated discussion, in order to shew their impropriety. For can reason conquer prejudice but by discussion; and how can improvement be introduced without debate? Does he mean to say that no part of what the Catholics require can be yielded to them? [Here Mr. Wilberforce shook his head.] I do not really know how to interpret the hon. gent, when he shakes his head, but this I am sure of, that the oftner the question is argued, the sooner will they obtain, what must in the end be yielded to them. Were they not to appeal to parliament at all, or to enlighten the people of this country, how are they to attain what they require? Does he believe the people of this country will acquiesce the more readily in their claim, if that claim be unaccompanied by discussion. The hon. gent, is a man of sense and experience, and docs he suppose that so great a part of the population of the country will ever consent to a contumelious refusal of what they think a reasonable claim? It has been said that this was to be made a party question. I never heard so much nonsense as has been said upon this particular point; I have heard many people in this country say, 'Oh! were it not for the agitation of this question in parliament, and also the motives of some individuals wishing to bring it on, and afterwards wishing it to be kept back, we should hear nothing at all of the Catholics of Ireland.' It is impossible to imagine that so stupid a notion could be encouraged. It is really the greatest degree of absurdity and fatuity that I ever witnessed in the conduct of mankind in my life, to imagine that so great a body as the Catholics of Ireland can know no good reason why they should not be admitted to those privileges which they see others enjoying, and to imagine they can be kept back from asserting their claims, merely from the interference of this or the other

607
party. A right hon. gent. has said, that the late administration wished to keep back their claims when they were in office: and when they were out of it, they wished to encourage their being brought forward. He is not right, however, in this assertion. I know of no man that either wished to keep it back when in office, nor now to bring it forward for party purposes. It is rather hard to adduce as evidence of our inclination to keep it back formerly, that we wish to bring it forward now. It is absurd to suppose, that we, who had not the power when in office of preventing that body from urging their claims, can now have the power of preventing them from doing so. But, sir, that hon. gent, has given no other reason whatever why the Catholics should not urge their claims, if temporary circumstances led them to suppose it was convenient for them to do so. They feel their own importance in the empire, and think they have a just right to urge this house to comply with their request. The noble lord opposite said, that he could disclaim any imputations of a personal nature; for, says he, I have never regarded this question as one that ought to affect a man's situation in office. Thus you may carry this question if you approve of it, but if not, you must submit it to its fate. In short, he tells you he was with one administration because they approved, and with another because they disapproved of the measure. On such grounds I do not see how he can ever be out of office, for whether such a petition be successful or unsuccessful, it forms a good reason for the noble lord always continuing in power. He farther says, there never was any pledge given to the Catholics on this subject. I do not know if there were, as I never troubled myself as to pledges, nor what were the means the government took to procure the support of the Catholics; but I recollect there were certain epistolary correspondences published, one letter representing the sentiments of lord Cornwallis, and another from the noble lord himself, representing the sentiments of the Catholics, when he held the office of secretary to the lord lieutenant of Ireland. If I recollect rightly, when Mr. Pitt went out of office in 1801, I read those letters in the hands of one Catholic gentlemen in Ireland: and, if I mistake not, there was a passage in some of them written by the noble lord himself, stating to the Catholics, the determination of many considera-
608
ble men, I believe Mr. Pitt, lord Melville, and earl Camden, advising the Catholics to remain perfectly quiet, because those persons had entered into a pledge never to take any part in his majesty's government, but upon condition of being allowed to grant the concessions which the Catholics required. It was understood at the time that this declaration was made in consequence of an engagement with the Catholics, that if they agreed to the union, their claims would be listened to. This letter was well understood in Ireland, and never received a contradiction; and therefore, I am inclined to think, that there was a complete understanding on the part of the Catholics, that their claims should be heard by the government, and that they should not endeavour to borrow aid or assistance from disaffected persons, nor do any thing to injure their cause, because those persons I have alluded to, were determined not to assume any direction in the country, except with an intention of forwarding their claims. It was said, there was no alteration of circumstances since this question was last discussed in parliament; now, I conceive that there is the greatest alteration of circumstances, that could possibly have taken place, and these circumstances could not be known to the house, nor to the people of England; the circumstance the most weighty, is the connection subsisting between the clergy and the See of Rome: for, by giving to the pope a power over the Catholic clergy, and the government no controul over them, then they would in fact be putting the superior orders of clergy under a foreign power, falling under the dominion of France. The Catholics considered amongst themselves, and they determined to give to the government every information upon the subject, and to make their superior clergy subject to the crown. When a Catholic bishop in Ireland dies, the other bishops in that province in which the diocese of the deceased is situated, meet, and conferring amongst themselves, they fix upon three persons, whom they think the most fit to succeed him—They send those names to receive the approbation of the pope; for, according to the Catholic faith, it is impossible for certain offices to be performed but by appointment from the pope, as if by the immediate delegation of Christ himself. Now, they have agreed, when the names are returned, to send them to the lord lieutenant of Ireland; and if he should object to all the three, they strike

609
them out, and send other three in their stead, until the king's approbation of some one of them be received. Even then, they send that name to Rome to receive the approbation of the pope. This, however, is giving the real and effectual nomination to the crown; and this being the case, will any man say this is cultivating through Rome an intercourse with France for traitorous purposes? How can they better evince loyalty? They desire you, too, to superintend the education of their clergy, or ask you to assist them to do it, and yet, after all this you still treat them as aliens, and disaffected persons. It is impossible there can be too much discussion of this question. The real state of it should be understood from the north to the south. If the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, who at present sits so aukwardly between those two champions of the Catholics, the noble lord (Castlereagh), and the secretary of state for foreign affairs (Mr. Canning), had taken half so much pains to comply with the reasonable desires of that portion of the people, as he took to raise the senseless cry of "No Popery," although he might not now be enjoying the sweets of office, his conscience would probably be more tranquil. But what is conscience to a great statesman? That right hon. gent. actually fancies he has become a great statesman, and has really raised great ideas in his own mind, as to his qualifications for governing such a country as England. He, no doubt, thinks he is possessed of great knowledge, reflection, and equanimity; qualities that cannot be denied, seeing it has been impossible to provoke him to a single observation. He possesses, I suppose, great knowledge in the history of his own country, and the secret springs which govern the actions of mankind—how to lead men on to victory, and how to conduct the war against France. Weak speculative men have fallen into errors, from which his much-enlightened mind had preserved him. Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Burke, all concurred in a favourable opinion respecting the Catholics of Ireland. But what are they, when compared to the right hon. gent.? Could such drivellers as these have ever found out the ingenious mode, discovered by the right hon. gent, of increasing the power of the country, and enabling her the better to carry on the struggle against France by excluding from her aid more than one fifth of her population! I
610
am told that circumstances have not changed. What has become of the power of Europe? What has become of this tremendous Pope himself? The power he once possessed, Bonaparte has swept away, and a French prefect reigns at the Vatican. Does the right hon. gent. think, that Bonaparte's tyranny over the Pope would induce the latter to befriend France, or to promote her interests? If he do so, it must be through fear, and not goodwill; because I do not presume the right hon. gent, will argue, that stripping him of his power, and robbing him of his territory, is the way to win his affections. What is now happening in Spain? Does Bonaparte make use of the Catholic religion to extend the power of France? Does he treat a Catholic state with more leniency than a Protestant one? He has overthrown Catholic powers, as well as Protestant; and his army now occupies Spain as a province of France. Whatever the right hon. gent, opposite to me may think of the disposition of the English and Scotch Protestants, in regard to Ireland, he must allow mc to say, that the Irish Protestants are as good judges as any of them. I have a letter from the late attorney general of Ireland, Mr. Plunkett, in which he states: "There is nothing new in this country, excepting, I believe I speak within bounds, when I say, that, nine in ten Protestants, even including the clergy, would poll for the Catholic emancipation."—Do not the Protestants of Ireland know better than the members of this house, what tends to their benefit and safety? They must also know better than the Protestants of England and Scotland, what would be the effects of Catholic emancipation. The Irish Protestants of eight or nine counties have signed Resolutions on this subject, and among them the most opulent gentlemen of the country. In one county I have the names of some persons, of several thousands a year, affixed to the resolutions in favour of the Catholics, and of many representatives of some of the oldest families in Ireland, whose property has been confiscated. What is the situation of the world at this moment?—and what the prospect? Do days pass over our heads, without our seeing it become worse? Gentlemen opposite to me know better than I do, and better than I can know, what, the probable views of our enemies are, and what prospects are still cherished in France, with regard to the further extension of her power. But, after all we can say upon the

611
subject, the present ruler of France is a man of profound penetration. You may call him a cruel, vindictive usurper—a betrayer of the liberties of his country. Whatever epithets we bestow upon him, as an usurper and tyrant, we cannot heap them upon him without knowing that he very well merits them. But what does our opinion of him signify, his power is what we are to regard. We cannot make him less criminal or less systematic in his pursuit. He pursues the ruin of this country, and he pursues it with profound wisdom for the purpose of attaining his object. Has he not accomplished a great part of that object already? What is your situation upon the continent at this moment? With hardly a single ally, that can count upon his own safety for an instant—shut out from almost all connection with the continent, and likely soon to be entirely so—that is your condition. This he well knows. In the beginning of the last century, and in the war of the succession, what was your situation? Compare it with the present. You then fought, not for yourselves, but for Europe, in which your magnanimity was equal to your power, and all Europe dreaded the one as it admired the other. You sacrificed both your power and your greatness, to succour the distressed part of Europe against the ravages of an. ambitious prince. That was your situation then. You are now fighting against a great power indeed, but for a very different object, not to succour the distressed, but to save yourselves from destruction, while you are shut up from all connection with any part of Europe. He has well contemplated these things, and is determined to keep you from any continental connections again, that can in any degree tend to increase your power: in short, he is determined to shut you out from the continent altogether. This was long ago his object, and he has very nearly accomplished it. He proceeds with great injustice, it is true, but, for his purpose, with profound wisdom. He will secure to himself the main purpose of his own ambition in the first instance, as he has, indeed, in a measure, done already; and in the next, he will reduce Europe to such a state, that you can derive no benefit from it, whatever may become the relative condition of its different states to each other. The Turkish empire will be the next point of his ambition, which most probably will be rendered subservient to his wishes. Then
612
your power in the East will be his object. Such most probably will be the progress of his successful ambition. Such, I am confident, are his designs. Tremendous is this prospect to you. And what have you to oppose to all this? Great Britain and Ireland: for within a few months from this moment, you will be reduced to that situation. Then I would ask, is it reasonable to reject, without argument; to pass over, without discussion, a subject of such importance as that which is now before you? You are threatened with the extremities to which war can reduce you, carried on as it is by the most implacable enemy you ever bad, and not only the most implacable, but the most profoundly skilled; and not only the most profoundly skilled, but also the most formidable, because the most powerful. How are yon to defend yourselves sufficiently, against the attacks of such a foe? By making war on him. Can you make war upon him without the assistance of the Catholics? No. But our object is not war but peace—Can you make peace without the assistance of the Catholics? I say you cannot, without the cordial co-operation of the Catholics, obtain any thing but what may be comparatively called 'an ignominious peace.' That is, peace on terms infinitely less advantageous to Great Britain, than you could obtain with the cordial co-operation of the Catholics. Why, then, it comes to this: that in order to get rid of the danger which you apprehend to Ireland, from the discussion of this subject, you will place yourselves in a condition to take worse terms and conditions of peace, than you would, if freed from the apprehension of that danger. Why should this be so, I should wish to know? Is England so fallen from her former glory, that she will now accept of comparatively ignominious terms of peace, from a sense of her own internal weakness, arising, as it cannot but arise, from her internal dissensions. Is this the way in which we are to rival our ancestors in glory? Shall we forget the glorious achievements of Great Britain on the continent in former times? Shall we forget, or, remembering, shall we pass over, the proud event of our having carried victoriously our arms to France, and had our king crowned at Paris, and reduced the power of France to that of a suppliant at your feet? No, Sir, we shall not, we cannot forget, neither can we pass over these things. Nor shall we

613
assent to ignominious terms of peace. We are assured we can have glorious terms of peace whenever we shall shew a disposition for it, as an united people. When shall we be that people? When the Irish Catholics can be won, and won they may be, and won they will be, if you treat them liberally. Tile right hon. gent. has said, that great and wise men have thought that the granting of what is now asked, would not satisfy the Catholics. He has not told us who these great and wise men were. Whoever they are, I doubt the soundness of their judgment, for I believe that what is now asked would satisfy the Catholics. But if this claim be allowed, shall we not have further claims made, and further desires expressed? Why should there not be further claims if they be just, or further desires expressed, if they be reasonable. Why should the Catholics be refused the common liberty of the rest of the inhabitants of the country. But consider the advantages arising from the grace of granting this application. The Catholics now claim certain rights and privileges; and they go to a given extent in making that claim; but if you gratify their wishes in the first instance, if you treat them well, that is, treat them as they ought to be treated, the Catholics will be satisfied with a moderate and reasonable allowance from the hand of the king. But it is very easy to foresee, that if you are determined to refuse what the Catholics reasonably request of you, the effect will be, that more will be demanded hereafter, than would have been, if you had complied with the first request. But the argument which is built upon this doctrine, 'that if you grant one thing, more will afterwards be asked of you, and therefore you should refuse in the first instance.' is, in my opinion, inconclusive, because that goes the length of saying, that a thing which is reasonable in itself, should never be granted, because it is possible that the granting it may be followed with a request which is unreasonable. And this mode of reasoning, had as it is in itself, is still worse as it applies to the affairs of Ireland at the present moment—for I would have the right hon. gent, know, that in this question is contained the peace of Ireland.—It is said, in this house, that the Catholics want many other things besides those which they have specified in the Petition now before us; so perhaps they may; but I will venture to say, that all the grievances of which they complain, arise from the
614
inequality of the situation in which they are placed. It is the interest of the monopolists of one religion, to act, as it were hostilely, towards the other; and there must always be felt a sense of insult and degradation when one class of men are placed beneath another class. Thus, as the Catholics are under the Protestants, they are to be degraded by their superiors in power, and when their interests are supposed to be hostile, so are the manners of the professors of the two religions. Those who are above, think nothing too bad for those who are below them, and those below, think they never can be emancipated too soon; that is, according to their view of it, get rid of their degradation, too soon; hence perpetual strife, and, while the cause exists, the effect must continue. But my right hon. friend, who introduced this motion, told us that he had no expectation of carrying it. I am afraid that his apprehensions on the fate of his motion this night, are too well founded. But this I will say, that whoever shall vote this night against this motion, does not vote for the proposition, 'that the Catholics shall not come into any department of the state,' but votes for the proposition' that they shall not come into any in which they are not already, although they may hold some stations at present more generally important than those which they seek.' You say, for instance, that a Catholic shall not be a director of a national bank, although he may be the greatest proprietor in that bank. You say that he shall not be a governor, or sheriff of a county, although he may be the greatest land-owner in it. You set your veto to his claims, and say, 'we have admitted you to a given extent, but we shall admit you no farther;' and this you are going to say in limine, before you have heard the evidence on which the Catholics rest their claim. If you refer the petition to a committee, you will then put the subject into a train of inquiry, and you may, afterwards, decide what shall, and what shall not be done. But if you negative this petition, you do that which is equivalent to saying, that the Catholics shall remain, for ever, in the state in which they are at present. But I have heard some persons, even in this house, say that the refusal of the present application of the Catholics will put their claims to rest for ever. Of all the presumptuous folly of the opponents of the Catholics, this is, assuredly, the greatest. Do you

615
suppose that four millions of people will, for ever, comply with your wishes, or gratify your desires? that they will, for ever, give you the whole of their loyalty—the whole of their attachment—defend you on all occasions—support you in all contests—sacrifice for you their fortunes and their lives; and shall not require, alter all, any thing from you in return? No, no; you should not expect it, for it is not in human nature that things should go on thus for ever. You may suppose that the Catholics will be more ready to submit their claims upon your justice when one set of men are in power, than when another set of men are in power; but, believe me, they will urge their claims, whatever set of men may be in power, they are fully conscious of the justice of those claims, and they will never forego them, out of compliment to those who may happen at any time to be in place. They tell you, they protest to you, upon their solemn oath, that they are as loyal as the best of you; that they are genuine friends to their country and yours; they ask you to afford them an opportunity of shewing, and of proving that loyalty, and that attachment to the true interests of their country. They desire to be allowed to contribute, in the most effective manner, to the exigency of the state. They are willing, they are eager, to spill their blood in its defence. You should therefore treat them as loyal and patriotic men; and rank them among the best subjects which you have. If you do not, do you imagine, that because you may negative this Petition, they will abstain from urging their claims in future? If you do, am confident you will be greatly deceived. The right hon. gent. opposite me says, that the late administration, what we call the duke of Bedford's administration, advised the Catholics to abstain from making this application, or from urging their claims, in any quarter, for the present, because the circumstances of the times were unpropitious for it. I had the honour to fill a situation in Ireland, in the confidence of the government to which the right hon. gent. alludes. I had the honour to be governor in one part of that country, and chancellor of the whole, and must therefore he supposed to possess a good deal of information of what were then the views of government. If I said I had not, I should be making an assertion for which I could not expect to be credited. I have not the least objec-
616
tion to state, all that came to my knowledge on that subject. The Catholics did determine to urge their claims, and the Irish government did make application in England, with a view to learn whether these claims were likely to be conceded, or otherwise. The Irish government received an answer, that it was the opinion of the then administration, that the claims of the Catholics could not be supported to the extent they wished, but that the government here had hopes of doing something for them, in the intercourse with the Catholics, on that occasion—I being a native of that country, and necessarily knowing more of them than the duke of Bedford did—much of the concern was entrusted to me, as to the manner in which these claims should be brought forward, or deferred. It occurred to me to inquire what points would satisfy them, that is, what terms would induce them to forget the right of urging all their claims upon the justice of parliament, for some time to come; perhaps for the present reign; and in the course of that inquiry, I think I discovered what points they most immediately laid a stress upon, and the granting of which would satisfy them. These points were, I believe, submitted to his majesty's government in this country; but it happened to be the opinion of that government, that even these points could not be carried to the extent which was wished; and then my noble friend (lord Howick) introduced a Bill into this house to enable Catholics, as well as other dissenters from the established church, and of all denominations, to hold commissions in the army and navy. What the fate of that Bill was, every body knows; but the government of Ireland never told the Catholics, never advised them not to urge their claims when there was any probable chance of their success. But the right hon. gent. says, that the bill introduced into this house by my noble friend (lord Howick) would not have satisfied the Catholics, if it had passed into law, in the form in which it was brought forward. I do not know where the right hon. gent, obtained his information, but I deny the truth of it, and I say, that the Catholics did consider it as a measure of great consequence; and I do say further, that if that bill had been carried through this house, it would have had a good effect on them; and that for some time afterwards—probably in the present reign—they would not have urged their claims any farther. If they should find

617
an opportunity when they were likely to succeed, they would urge them. Nobody will be so absurd as to advise them not to urge them; but I do know that the Catholics would have accepted that as a great boon; and this I state as an answer to those who say, that the Catholics were not in earnest about the passing of the Bill which was introduced into this house by my noble friend; for nothing can be more unfounded than the assumed fact, that the Catholics would not have accepted that bill as a great boon. From what I have stated, I should have hoped that the discussion of this question will do much good in this country; for instead of being afraid of discussing it, I wish it to be discussed as often as possible, and if it were not for tiring the house, with a too frequent repetion, I should wish it to be discussed once every month, until the object of the Catholics be gained; as gained, some time or other, it will be. The more the people of England understand this subject, the better; for then, the more will reason prevail over their prejudice, for prejudices, at present, they have. I am not saying that this discussion will be perfectly successful, my right hon. friend has not urged his argument with that view; but I say that the effect of the frequent discussion of this subject will be, to dispel prejudice, and that is not, it seems to me, a difficult matter with the people of England, for the people of England are a steady, sober, thinking people; a people among whom knowledge is very generally diffused, who have a natural love of justice, who always lean to what is fair and equitable, even although it may appear to be against their interest—a people who not only enjoy the blessings of a free constitution, but who wish to extend its blessings to those who enjoy them not. With a people so gifted, a people so blessed, so disposed, it is he extravagant expectation that reason should conquer prejudice; and therefore I cannot believe that the frequent discussion of this subject will have an unfavourable effect on the cause of the Catholics; on the contrary, my firm belief is, that the more this subject is discussed the more good will be done to the cause, and the sooner we shall arrive at that which is most earnestly to be desired, and most strenuously promoted, a perfect harmony between the people of England and of Ireland, without which you will never be a strong empire.—I say you will never be a strong empire until the people of Ireland become, as it were,
618
a part of the British people; then, but then alone, will you be placed in that attitude in which you may securely bid defiance to the power of France.
Lord Castlereaghin explanation, said; Nothing, in the shape of a pledge, or any sort of understanding, took place between the government and the Catholics, which, could possibly fetter the discretion of parliament on the subject of the Catholic claims prior to the union. As to the two papers which were circulated among the Catholics of Ireland, and which have been considered as proceeding from the union, it is observable, from the papers themselves, they were not intended for the public eye. One of these papers is stated to contain a declaration, that those who then, and on that occasion, retired from the public service, considered themselves as pledged not to accept any office in government, until the Catholic question was carried in favour of the Catholics. Where can the house see that paper in an authentic shape? It was never issued here in such a shape as to make any individual at party to it in any regular manner. With respect to the other paper, I did state, that although that paper was not drawn up as an official communication, my lord Cornwallis communicated it to the Catholics in Ireland, as that which was understood to be descriptive of the feelings of those who retired from office. That is to say, that paper, so communicated by my lord Cornwallis to the Catholics of Ireland, contained what were supposed to be the sentiments of certain individuals who had then recently retired from government, who had felt themselves unable to bring that subject forward with advantage, or with any prospect of success. But the house will not forget that those very gentlemen, who, retired from their situations in government, because they could not succeed in their object in favour of the Catholics, stated, most unequivocally, that if the Catholic claims should be urged, hostilely to government, those very individuals who thus retired from government, not only would not support, but would strenuously oppose the assertion of such claims. Now, as to the other point to which the right hon. gent. has alluded, as to the administration of the duke of Bedford, he has told us that he, and not the duke of Bedford, was chiefly instrumental in advising this claim to be made; and even he admits, that the answer of the government of this country was, that they did not think

619
the claim, if made, could be successful. The truth is, that even that administration, at least a great part of that administration, thought, that the bringing forward of the claim, at that time, would not only be injurious to the claim itself, but generally injurious to the country. So that we have it clearly proved, that even that application not only had not the sanction of the duke of Bedford, but was disapproved by a considerable part even of that administration. They thought it an application which could not serve either the claim itself, or the country.
Mr. Windhamcontradicted the statement of lord Castlereagh, respecting the motives which urged Mr. Pitt and his colleagues to abdicate the government in 1801.
Mr. Yorkeexpressed a particular wish to know upon what authority the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) grounded his statement relative to the disposition of the Irish clergy as to the future appointment of their Bishops; as that circumstance, if well founded, must serve to remove a principal objection to the Catholic claims?
Mr. Ponsonbyanswered, that he made the statement upon the authority of Dr. Milner, who was a Catholic Bishop in this country, and who was authorised by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland to make the proposition, in case the measure of Catholic Emancipation should be acceded to. The proposition was this, that the person to be nominated to any vacant bishopric should be submitted for the king's approbation; and, that if the approbation was refused, another person should be proposed, and so on in succession, until his majesty's approbation should be obtained, so that the appointment should finally rest with the king.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—Sir; considering the lateness of the night, and the state, of this question, as it stands upon the arguments which have been urged on either side, I think it will be unnecessary for me to detain the house any considerable length of time; I shall therefore compress what I have to say upon the subject as much as I can. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby), was indignant that this subject should be taken up by a gentleman on the ether side of the house as a party question, and he himself disclaims party feelings and party motives in the discussion of it. I can only say, that gentlemen on the other side of the house can have no reason to be surprised that some
620
of us should think, from their conduct, that many of them at least are actuated by party motives; for, however strenuous they may now appear to be in support of this application, made in the name of the Catholics, yet clear it is, that during the whole of the period in which they were in his majesty's councils, they did all they could to prevent this very subject from being brought forward at all. They thought at that time, and they thought justly, that such an application was not likely to be of use to the Catholics, or to the country; on the contrary, that it was likely to produce mischief; and therefore they, most prudently and politically, endeavoured to prevent the subject from being brought forward. They endeavoured to prevent the only person who was then desirous of bringing it forward from moving in it. They then wanted to withhold all discussion upon the subject. Why do they bring it forward now? Do they think it more likely to be carried now than it would have been then? Or, supposing it not likely to be carried now, do they think it likely to be more productive of good to the cause of the Catholics now, than it would have been then? If they thought, only a year ago, that the subject could not be brought forward to advantage the cause which they are so eager to support, what is it that has operated to create so great a change in their minds? Oh! but they tell us, that although they do not entertain a hope they shall succeed in their application, yet the discussion is most valuable, will do incalculable good: that the subject is of such a nature that it cannot be discussed too much: that the more it is discussed, not only the more it will be to the advantage of the Catholics, but the more it will be to the general advantage of the empire. Now, I wish to know what new lights have so improved their vision, as to make them so much more clear-sighted on the sudden, than they were on a former occasion, and if the case be so clear, as they say it appears to them, how comes it that the discussion of it should have been so long protracted? I know of no other circumstance of alteration in the present period, that makes it more convenient, in the views of the gentlemen on the other side, to discuss this matter now, than at the time when they declined the discussion, except that of their being in power then, and of their not being in power now. If there be any other new light, except such as they have derived from being out of power, to make

621
them see things more clearly than they did when they were in power, I am at a loss to discover it. They brought in a bill which was said by some of us, at the time, to be a measure which, if carried, would not be satisfactory to the Catholics; but we are corrected in our judgment in that particular, by the right hon. gent. who now assures us that the Catholics would have accepted it as a boon, and yet so great was the patriotism of its authors, that they consented to withdraw this boon, rather than that the country should lose the benefit of their services. It may, undoubtedly, be true, that nothing of party mixes in this business, but, under all the circumstances which attend it, those who draw that conclusion may be excused from the charge of drawing an unaccountable, or even rash, conclusion. I beg leave, however, to acquit the right hon. gent, who has brought this subject forward to night, from any desire of bringing it forward unfairly; on the contrary he has brought it forward in the most temperate and most conciliating manner possible, and I am glad of and happy in, the opportunity which is thus afforded me of bearing testimony thereto.—As to the question itself, the manner in 'Which it has been discussed to-night, and particularly by an hon. friend behind me, leaves me but little to say. The opposition which I am giving on this occasion, or which I have given to this subject, or any other, is not founded on any charge I have to make against the Irish Catholics for disloyalty, or disaffection to the state. Nor should it be supposed that I am unwilling to conciliate the people of Ireland, or unwilling to tranquillize Ireland, or to do any thing in my power that appears safe to be done, for the purpose of producing harmony among all classes of persons in that part of his majesty's dominions; but my objection has, at all times, been, when this question has come under consideration, this—that I do in my conscience believes that this measure, if adopted, although intended ever so sincerely for the purpose of tranquillizing Ireland, and putting the Roman Catholics of Ireland in a state of perfect satisfaction, will not have that effect; but that it has a tendency to the contrary way—for, in, my soul, I do believe, that nothing can be more likely to disturb Ireland, to excite in it, or, when excited, to increase religious animosity, than the adoption of the measure now re-commended to us. I may be mistaken,
622
but it is the strong conviction of my mind.—I will treat the argument of the right hon. gent. opposite to me (Mr. G. Ponsonby) as fairly as I can, and by that argument we have his testimony, that it is his opinion the granting what is now asked, would not satisfy the Catholics, and he tells us they ought not to be satisfied until you have granted to them what he calls the whole of 'their claims upon the justice of parliament:' that they will be glad to have any thing that you will give them, but they will not be satisfied with any thing short of what they call the whole of their claim upon your justice. Do I want more, in order to justify me in opposing this measure, viewing it as I do, than this very argument of the right hon. gentleman? He having insisted upon it, that if this be granted to the Catholics, they have still a right to more; that they ought to apply, and that at some favourable opportunity, they will apply, for more; that they must apply for more. Why, then, according to this argument, if your object be to tranquillize the Catholics and to conciliate them, this measure will not attain that end, for you are told before hand, that more will be applied for, and no doubt we should be told that the next claim shall be allowed in order to tranquillize the Catholics, and with no better prospect of success than we have now. Then it comes to this, that if you mean to tranquillize the Catholics, by granting what they ask, you must grant them the whole of what they think fit to ask. If it be your object to conciliate them by such means, you cannot stop short, but must go on conceding, until you have satisfied them. The right hon. gent, says, 'that if you grant to the Catholics that which they now ask they will be ready to accept it'—ready to accept it! they will be ready then to demand it: and upon the same principle they would then be desirous of possessing more in proportion to their service in the state, and they would say that the measure you adopt should comprehend the whole of their claim, and that they were entitled to every thing, because they are the great majority, and on the authority of Dr. Paley, they would have the same foundation in reason and in argument, to say that the whole establishment should be given up to them, as that which they are now asking. You cannot satisfy them until you go that length. That is to say, the granting what is now asked, would not satisfy the Catholics, but would operate as

623
a stimulus to greater demands; it would be giving them an assurance that they are right in what they are now asking, and you would be disposed yourselves immediately to feel that you were acting unjustly, according to your own principles, if you withheld from them that which is the natural consequence of your own doctrine; and therefore, upon your own principle of tranquillizing Ireland, by concession to the Catholics, if you mean to act wisely by Ireland, and wisely by the whole empire too, you should not attempt to procure your tranquillity by halves, or by short measure, but you should do the whole at once. If you mean to satisfy the Catholics by concession, you should make up your minds to establish the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, and then you will satisfy the Catholics, but short of that you never can satisfy them by concession: for, upon your own principle, they would be most unwise persons to be satisfied with what you now propose. But let us suppose, for a moment, that they should be satisfied, then it is alledged, that you will have tranquillized Ireland. I am not sure of that. There are, in Ireland, those who are not Catholics. What are we to say to all the Protestant Churchmen; and to the Protestant Dissenters? It is said, that the Protestant Dissenters are in favour of this application. We have testimony on the other side of the house to the contrary, and we have now upon your table a Petition to the contrary effect. We have the Common Council of the city of Dublin, and we have the evidence of an hon. member of this house, that we should dissatisfy the Churchmen of Ireland by adopting this measure. There certainly are many in Ireland who do not think well of this measure. As to the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland, we do not know that they are likely to be conciliated by it; at present we have no complaint from them; they do not appear to consider much about the progress of the claims of the Roman Catholics.—So much, for the present, for the dispositions of the people of Ireland. But the right hon. gent. would take very short measure indeed of the opinions, the sentiments, the dispositions and the feelings of this part of the united empire, if he supposed, that because there are no petitions against this measure, the people of England are not against it. There is but one county in England in which this subject appears to have been discussed, that is the county of Oxford.
624
There it was expressly determined not to petition; but for what reason?—Because they felt it to be unnecessary; they knew, full well, that the measure proposed would not be adopted by this house. I believe that to be the acting principle that operated upon the minds of the great mass of the Protestants of this country. They are silent, because they are satisfied, and rest secure in the confidence they repose in this house, that it will watch with care, the constitution of their country, without their interference. These are the grounds which make it, in my opinion, extremely desirable that this measure should not be countenanced by this house, at the present moment. In my conscience I do believe, that if it were adopted, it would not produce any good, but would increase the very evil which it is intended to remove. As to the articles of the union, which have been pressed into the service of this debate, it is well known that my noble friend and myself agree entirely on that subject; and we both agree that parliament is under no pledge to support this measure on that account; we also agree, that under the present circumstances, what is now asked, ought not to be granted; but, why should I not go farther, and say, because I happen to think, that the country would not come so soon into a condition in which it may be prudent to entertain measures of this kind, as my noble friend seems to imagine, or rather to entertain a hope. Be that as it may, I see nothing that makes it adviseable at the present moment. What may be the situation of the world, and perhaps, of this very religion itself hereafter, that may make such a measure as this expedient, does not belong to any human being to foretell: we can only decide according to the lights which we possess at present; and here I beg to be distinctly understood, that if there should be such an alteration in the affairs of the world, or in the nature of this religion itself, as to put this question in a different shape hereafter, then, consistently with what. I have done, and am now doing, I may assent to the propriety of adopting some measure for the purpose of granting what the Catholics may then seek. But that is an event which I do not anticipate; an event which cannot happen, to me, without a great alteration of the opinion which I hold at present, although, if I should change my opinion, I shall readily avow that change, without dreading any charge that may be brought against me

625
for inconsistency.—I shall not enter into a detail of my objections to the measure at present, but shall content myself with saying, most distinctly, that on this question, whether I consider it on the ground of the time in which it has been brought forward, or on its own merits, my vote would be the same upon all these matters, if I took any one of them separately, as it now is about to be on taking them together. I am so far from objecting to the manner in which it has been brought forward by the right hon. gent, that I think we are much indebted to him for the temperance and moderation which distinguished his address to the chair. But as to the mode in which he has proposed to proceed upon the subject, I think it would be very objectionable, even supposing there were no other objections than those which I have, stated to it; for if, with all ins general and his specific knowledge of this subject, the right hon. gent, cannot trust himself so far as to bring forward a distinct, proposition which he will recommend to the house as likely to satisfy the Roman Catholics, I do not believe that there is the least, prospect, by discussion in a committee, of devising a plan by which you are likely to produce the good intended, or any good whatever. And although the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. G. Ponsonby) observes, that this is only a motion that you should examine the subject, that observation has no weight with me; for if the friends of this measure had any proposition which they themselves thought fit to be assented to, they might have proposed that measure without reference to the supposition that it might be opposed by me, or the chance of its being supported by me, because the ground on which I resist this is, that we have, in my opinion, gone already too far in concessions to the Catholics; that is, that we have gone farther than principle requires us to go, and that we are arrived at that situation of things, in which it is our duty to make a stand, for the question is upon the principle. If, therefore, I do not find my mind ready to admit that the end which you have in view ought to be obtained, I ought not, as far as depends on me, to encourage you to proceed in the mode by which you hope to gain it.
Mr. Whitbread.—Sir; I shall not now trespass on the patience of the house, for two reasons: first, because it is much too late to expect attention; secondly, that if it were not, there are others better entitled
626
to it, and who may wish to claim it. I should, however, wish to make some observations, if gentlemen are disposed, at this period of the debate, to hear what a member has to ofler—if not, I should humbly propose that this debate be adjourned. I am aware that I have but slender claims upon your attention, but some things have been uttered in the course of this debate, upon which I could wish to make a few observations. I should suppose, from a consideration of the state of the house, and of the arguments upon this question, we can hardly expect to conclude the debate to-night; for which reasons I move you, sir, That this house do now adjourn.—A mixed cry of hear! hear! Adjourn! Adjourn? go on! go on! instantly ensued.
The Speaker accordingly put the question, and the motion for an adjournment was negatived by general acclamation.
Mr. Whitbreadthen continued:—I am not disposed, sir, to take the sense of the house upon the question of adjournment, for, to myself, individually, it is no great inconvenience to proceed, because what I have to say, is but short, and because it is chiefly in answer to what has fallen from the right hon. gent, who has just sat down, and who is the leading minister of the crown on some occasions; but, who, in connection with his colleagues, seems to have wished to have passed over in silence this question, after the eloquent, the wise, and, to my mind, convincing speech of my right hon. friend; that silence which followed it bespoke its character, which was, that it was unanswerable; the silence however, was, at last, broken; lest ministers should appear to the world incapable of giving it an answer; but it is extraordinary that such answer should come, not from the minister who is hostile, but one whom I believe to be, in his heart, friendly, to the measure. But although the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and a noble lord in the other house of parliament (lord Hawkesbury), are averse from granting any concession whatever to the Catholics, at any time whatever, yet the right hon. gent. will give me leave to tell him, that notwithstanding the present plenitude of his power, the time is coming, and it is not very distant, when the Catholic claims will be conceded, and that perhaps, unanimously; or something very near it.—But, it has been often said, and said very wisely, because truly, that governments never will learn good sense by experience; it that can be said of any government in this world, it may

627
well be said of the government of this country, this day. Good God! when we look back at the history of our own country—when we look at the reign of Elizabeth, with her great constitutional advisers—when we see that in that spirit of concession so much of her power consisted—when we see that the unfortunate Charles refused to concede in time, and although he conceded afterwards more than was asked of him, his concession coming too late, lost its value, and he lost his life—when, I say, we contemplate these things, and look at what is passing now before us, what shall we say of the obstinacy of those ministers who refuse to entertain the present application? One right hon. gent. has thought fit, to night, as well as at other times, to chastise some persons in this house for acting upon party spirit. That right hon. gent. and myself have differed a good deal in debates in this house; I have voted often, pretty uniformly, on the one side; and he as often, and as uniformly, On the other; and that, perhaps, without either of us being a party man in the reproachful sense of that word. But, whether I ought to be denominated a party man or not, I own that I have what may be called party feelings; that is, I prefer one set of men to another set of men, because I prefer the principles of one set of men, to those of another, and I have no difficulty in admitting it to be my opinion, that party feeling should exist in this country, and that we should all act as party men, in resisting the measures of others, when we are convinced that such measures are injurious to the true interests of our country; and I have, in that sense of the phrase, acted as a party man, and have voted with those whose principles appeared to me to be founded on the best maxims of our constitution; men who have filled a considerable space in the public eye, and whose talents have often been admired in this house, where they have, been strenuously and honourably exerted torso many years. Our ministers profess much earnestness for the true principles of religion, and they must know that 'the service of our Maker, is perfect freedom.' And yet they desire you not to discuss this subject! 'Do not discuss this subject,' say they, 'you should not attempt it, because you know that what you ask cannot be granted. You will disappoint the Catholics by it; and what will be the consequence of that disappointment? Rage in the breasts of the Catholics.'—Good God! how often has
628
this senseless answer been given in this house upon other occasions, and how often has the absurdity of it been exposed! How often have we heard in discussions upon the abolition of that detestable traffic, the Slave Trade, which was so long a stain upon the character of this country, but which, thank God, is no longer so; but how often, I say, has it been said in these discussions, 'you will kindle a rage in the breasts of the negroes, and if you should succeed in your object of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade, which we trust in God you will not, but if you should succeed in your object, there will be a general massacre in the islands; for the negroes will be content with nothing short of total emancipation—such will be the result of your humanity.'—We now see how senseless all that species of reasoning was; if indeed reasoning it can be called. The administration, however, in whose time that glorious measure of the Abolition of the Slave Trade was accomplished, by a virtuous perseverance in their object, gained their end. They were faithful to the cause which they espoused, nor did they remit their labours until they had finished the great and good work. But the hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Wilberforce,) who took so leading a part in that abolition, can now see, in that administration, nothing but party spirit! Thus, the very men who were allowed to be perfectly consistent in their support of him in the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and allowed to have genuine feelings of humanity towards the African negroes as their fellow creatures, if they presume to express a fellow feeling for their fellow creatures in Ireland, are now to be charged by him with agitating a dangerous question upon party spirit.—[Hear! hear!]—If that hon. gent, does not say so, all I can say is, that I am in a dream. He will give me leave to say, t firmly believe that what he did on that occasion was from the pure spirit of doing good to a large portion of the human race, and at the same time to do a great good to his country. The right hon. gent, who has moved this measure in this house to-night, did it from the same motive, and if I support that motion, from what, the hon. gent, may choose to call party spirit, what then? if it be, as I think it is, of advantage to the empire. I think it essential to the general interest of the empire that the Catholics should know there is, in this house, a party that has not deserted their cause, and that there is no recriminating or furious spirit

629
on this side the house that is hostile to their interest, by provoking an intemperate discussion of their claims, and furnishing their opponents with an excuse for denying to do them justice; for in that respect my right hon. friend who brought this subject forward to-night, set an example worthy the imitation of any gentlemen who may choose to take part in this debate; and as to the mode proposed for future proceeding, I own I differ entirely from the right hon. gent. who spoke last, and who has so strenuously objected to this measure, for, by this mode, no fetters will be fastened on the future discretion of the house as to what shall be its ulterior proceeding. Should the house go into a committee, it is perfectly obvious, that it must be open to every member of that committee, to propose whatever he may think fit. I think it essential that the Catholics of Ireland should know there is in this house a considerable body of persons seriously attached to their interests, and bent upon pursuing such interests with temperance and moderation, and at the same time with persevering firmness. But the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer says, that when the late administration were in power, they kept this subject back. This is an extraordinrry charge to make upon that administration, and the quarter whence it comes is still more extraordinary. A bill was brought in by a noble friend of mine (lord Howick, now earl Grey), it was violently opposed by the right hon. gent.—we know its fate. But what has happened in the interim between that time and this? Is it not well known that that right hon. gent. is possessed of his present power from that very incident? Is not that the seat on which he sits? Is it not the pedestal on which he stands, when he harangues us, or when he endeavours to inflame the vulgar mind with the cry of 'no popery? Was it not the platform on which he erected himself when that mischievous yell was echoed in those parts of the country which are inhabited by the constituents and connections of that right hon. gent.? And when that, furious cry is raised, should we not endeavour to answer, and to allay it? But it seems, that while our friends were in administration, and the duke of Bedford at the head of it, in Ireland, this subject was not brought forward in its present shape. The duke of Bedford is a nobleman of great abilities and virtue; his actions plead for him better than I, or any other man could
630
do, who might wish to be his advocate. The system of policy which he adopted, and pursued in Ireland, was the only one that can ever succeed there.—A system of conciliation; and the arrangement of that part of it, which more immediately related to the claims of the Catholics, naturally devolved upon my right hon. friend near me, (Mr. G. Ponsonby); his character, connections, and, above all, his commanding talents, pointed him out as an eminently fit person to whom to entrust the care of that important object. But when my noble friend brought in the bill to which I have alluded, the right hon. gent, opposite to me, considered it as a 'tub thrown out to the whale,' when offered to the Catholics, with a view of satisfying them; but mischief attended it, he said, in every other point. I say it was justice only, to the Catholics, justice which even my lord Clare himself wished them to have in the year 1793. It was then the right hon. gent. raised the cry of' no po-'pery,'—'The church is in danger,5 'The constitution is in danger,' 'The 'empire is in danger.' This the right hon. gent, did, I will not say, for time-serving purposes, but I will say, that if such had been his object, his conduct could not possibly have been better adapted for the purpose. The right hon. gent. now assumes an original independence of opinion upon this subject. Mr. Pitt was in favour of the claims of the Catholics; does the right hon. gent. mean to say that he ever differed from Mr. Pitt in any one shade of this subject? No, I am bound to suppose that he did not. I am bound, by his actions, to suppose that he did not. But the noble lord (Castlereagh), a cabinet counsellor at the time, did pledge himself to the Catholics of Ireland to obtain for them redress in the event of the union taking place; although he now maintains that there was no pledge to that effect; that the union was for political purposes only, to give us greater power for resisting the common enemy. But the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and the hon. gent. behind him, (Mr. Wilberforce,) who has no party prejudices at all, have asked what difference there is between the present time and that of 1805, so as to render the present application on behalf of the Catholics necessary? To which I answer; there is a great difference. In the first place, there is a great difference in the public opinion upon the subject. When the bill which has been so often alluded to,

631
was brought into this house by my noble friend, so little danger was apprehended from it, that if it had not been for the observations of the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, it would have wholly passed without observation. It would have passed into a law quietly, and would have quieted its objects, if it had not been for the cry which the right hon. gent, raised against it, and that has thrown the nation back a century in the scale of liberal opinion. In some places, however, thank Heaven, the object was totally disappointed. But in others, the yell became tremendous, and prejudices were rekindled into fury. Surely the right hon. gent., upon reflection, must shudder at the effect of his own work. For much of the mischief created by this cry we have the authority of a learned friend of mine, who is no longer a member of this house, but who was once an ornament to it, and whose brilliant talents and splendid eloquence, at once convinced and delighted us—I speak of Mr. Plunkett, whose speech upon that subject, in this house, will not be forgotten, while they live, by those who heard it. He told us the mischiefs produced by the restless spirit that raised that cry of 'no 'popery.' Would the right hon. gent. set down the authority of such a man as Mr. Plunkett, upon such a subject, as nothing at all? And upon this subject a gallant officer (Mr. M. Matthew) spoke also most correctly, and with very justifiable animation. The right hon. gent, may think that this cry of 'no popery,' is the genuine sentiment of the people of England; now, upon that point I will take Westminster against Northampton—At Northampton, indeed, the cry of 'no popery'—'church' and king for ever,' had their effect, no doubt—But at Westminster it had none whatever; and the right hon. gent. will hardly contend that there is more intelligence in Northampton than there is in Westminster. With the enlightened part of the community that delusion is clone away. And the discussion of this question, if it took place from day to day, would soon open the eyes of the public, and we should hear no more about 'popish plots,' or 'the church is in danger.' Mr. Fox said, that the moment of delusion from fanaticism, was passed away never to return. Mr. Fox was a man of the most transcendent talents that ever, perhaps, adorned human life, but in this he was no prophet. When he said this, he little thought that his majesty's attorney general, an officer
632
whose duty it is to check, not to create fury in any of the king's subjects, would have lent himself to the work of throwing the vulgar part of mankind into a species of fanatic phrenzy, and then avail himself of it for the purpose of obtaining political power. And therefore no wonder that Mr. Fox, from his unsuspecting nature, was not a prophet on this occasion. But the right hon. gent, has told us, that the Roman Catholics will not be satisfied with what you now propose to give to them, for that they are coming on perpetually to demand one privilege after another. It is your fault, that they are left to come to you from time to time, to demand more and more justice at your hands. But the right hon. gent. says, that if you grant, what is now asked of you, you must go on until there is nothing left to be granted. This might as well have beeen said in the year 1788, and in the year 1793, when some things were granted to the Catholics, as at this moment. It is an argument, (if, indeed, it is not dignifying it too much to give it that name,) which would have done just as well at any period, as it will do now, because it goes against granting the Catholics any thing, at any time; and if it even were true, would be a satire on the legislature for every thing it ever did for the Catholics. But it seems the mode here proposed, of going into a committee, is objectionable; that you should not go into that committee unless something-specific were pointed out to be done; that we should say, before hand, what is to be done; and thus it is that the spontaneous Petition of 30,000 persons shall be passed over, instead of being referred to a committee, because it is apprehended, by some, that you may do something too little, for the Catholics, and so displease them, or, if you please, you may, possibly, do something so far too much, as to displease others; then, I say, this is reasoning in favour of going into a committee, because there you will have an opportunity of discussing what will, or what will not satisfy the Catholics, or their opponents; otherwise you may as well say that the whole of your penal code against the Catholics should have remained entire. Upon the reasoning of the chancellor of the exchequer, you were quite wrong in what you granted to the college of Maynooth the other day—that grant, pitiful as I think it was, was yet too much, for, if he be right in his argument, it should not have been granted at all. Nay, upon his

633
reasoning you should rescind altogether the grants which the legislature has, from time to time, tirade to the Roman Catholics; for they are the source of all their discontents. All this, I say, is false reasoning, and I hope this house will view it in that light, and that you will go into a committee upon this subject, to inquire what is best to be done. We shall then see what it is the friends of the Catholics wish to do, and if you find they aim at too much, you can then oppose them. But do not say you will not hear their Petition; for that is the course now recommended to you by those who oppose it. But the right hon. gent. says, that if the Roman Catholic religion shall be changed at any time, he shall then be willing to consider whether any thing farther can be granted to its profesors. What change does he want? Does he want the Pope to become a temporal nonentity? If that be the change he wants, that change is already effected. But, 'the king should have the nomination of the Catholic bishops, in Ireland, instead of the Pope.' That again is, in substance, offered to you; for the Catholics propose that the king shall have a negative upon every one of them, and that none shall officiate as bishop who shall not have obtained the approbation of his majesty. I know not whether the right hon. gent, calls that any change in the religion of the Catholics or not, but I think it ought to quiet his apprehensions. As to the objection which has been started against the Catholics having commands at sea, lest chaplains of that persuasion should be appointed, and that they should throw the crew into confusion by endeavouring to make proselytes, I own I see nothing in it—the chaplain will hardly wade through blood and brains to settle controversial doctrines—sailors will hardly debate on board a ship, upon the question of, whether the Thirty Nine Articles ought to be agreed to or not? Nor do I apprehend that soldiers in a camp will debate the question of Whether their chaplain ought to be canonized or consecrated by the Pope or not? These are difficulties which are started for their own sake merely. But that which almost astounds me, and must, I think, astonish the house, is the profound silence to-night of a profoundly learned, and sometimes not a little confident, right hon. gent. (Dr. Duigenan); surely there is something ominous in that silence. He was introduced into the privy council of Ireland for the purpose of giving his opi-
634
nion on Irish ecclesiastical concerns; why does he now withhold that valuable opinion from this house? On former occasions he has been abundantly communicative, for we all remember that in a pamphlet of great length, as well as learning, he, some time ago, spoke of the Catholics in such a manner, that some persons considered what he said as open calumny, and among those who so considered it, were a Judge and Jury acting upon their oaths in a court of justice, for the publisher of that pamphlet has been convicted as a slanderer for language used in the pamphlet of that learned and, now, right hon. gent.—But this question seems to me to be of great importance in another point of view. I mean as to the effect of your refusal to take off the shackles of the Roman Catholics. You say that you cannot believe them upon their oaths when they swear fidelity to your constitution, and ask you to trust them to fight in its defence. They say to you, 'For God's sake let us be free, that we may fight for you.' To which you answer, 'No, you are most unreasonable men—What! do you want your hands untied! How do we know what use you will make of them if we do untie them?' To which they may subjoin, 'Take care that you do not make us break our chains ourselves, for if we do, that will take away every claim you have on us for our assistance, in the hour of peril.'—There is one thing, however, at which I am able to rejoice in the consideration of this subject, that of our having entirely got rid of a bug-bear; I mean the Coronation Oath. There is nothing whatever in the true spirit of that oath, which militates against the king's assent to any measure which the two other branches of the legislature may present to his majesty in favour of the Roman Catholics. Not one, even of the most strenuous opponents of this measure, will now talk of the Coronation Oath; they are beaten out of it; they are ashamed to mention it again. That is one of the advantages which have arisen from the discussion of this subject. But it served one admirable purpose for the right hon. gent.: the purpose of election—an insult to the good sense of the people of this country. But the insults which you have offered to the Catholics of Ireland have been still worse. What could be more galling to them than the late appointment of a privy counsellor, who is marked out for his singular hostility to them in every particular. And then again,

635
the manner in which the Petition was objected to in point of form when first offered to the house was calculated to make the most unfavourable impression upon the minds of the Catholics. Nothing could be more wounding to their pride than the indignities which have of late been studiously offered to them, in the year 1805 the Catholics petitioned parliament. The result we know. In the year 1807 they did not petition. They were advised not to petition. Why did they follow that advice? Because they confided in the party that advised them. They saw conciliation in every act of administration towards them. Relying on the faith of government, they abstained from petitioning. They found themselves again, on the sudden, disappointed, and in the year 1808 nothing is left for them but to petition again, in order to be heard. But you say that this question should be so decided to-night as that they may be discouraged from repeating their application. Do you wish to drive them from this house for ever! I entertain no such thought. I hope, and I confidently trust, that this subject will perpetually recur until it shall become successful. I do hope that the Catholics will come before us from time to time until they shall become successful in their application. Let me intreat this house to remember, that in Ireland, by I know not what fatuity, concessions have always come too late. Not too late for any good effect, but too late for the intended effect, that of satisfying those to whom it was made: neither should the house forget what dean Swift said of Ireland, which, if true, accounts for the discontents of its people: 'That it is a country which has always been pillaged and plundered.' Remember the words of Mr. Eden when he was entering on his mission: 'That the emergency was so great, the time so short, that he could not go home, but had a post chaise at the door of the house of commons.' This is an instance of the necessity of dispatch. But do you take care that you do not delay this subject so long that the Catholics may, at last, refuse to receive your messenger when he shall arrive with your concessions to them; for the time is approaching fast when you must do all they require. I see the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer appears indignant at this. I wish to know on what terms the different members of the king's government are with each other upon this
636
subject. I know that the duke of Portland, is, nominally, at the head of the present administration. He was once a strenuous friend to the Catholics. Is he true to his point? Is he 'the son of their table?' and are they 'planets that are not able, without his beams, to shine?'—But to conclude; I wish to know whether it would not be better for all parties that we should go into this committee? No, says the chancellor of the exchequer, you should not, for nothing will satisfy the Roman Catholics but the absolute formation of a new establishment in the Church of Ireland. No, says the noble lord, for this inquiry will lead to the emancipation of the Catholics. To which I say, not necessarily to either; for the committee will not be bound to adopt any one measure which may be proposed. They will only have to inquire into the subject, for which reason I shall heartily vote for going into a committee upon this important question.
Colonel Hutchinsonrose, amidst a general call for the question, and, having obtained a hearing, spoke to the following effect:—Sir, I think it not a little extraordinary, upon a subject of such vast importance to the Irish nation, and to the British empire, that gentlemen are so anxious to come to a decision upon the question, that they will not allow every one to deliver their sentiments upon it.—Sir, it is a subject which, in the present momentous crisis, calls most imperiously for the sentiments not only of the Irish members, and those of the British representation, but it does also demand at least some notice from the government. It is therefore with very great surprise, not unmixed with regret, that I have not heard from ministers any one argument against the claims of the petitioners; but what has created in my mind greater surprise, and made more impression on me, is, that not one British member has condescended to offer one single argument against the Petition. I take it for granted, therefore, that they have none to offer—if they had, an appeal for amelioration and protection from four millions and a half of your fellow subjects, would not be met with silence. Is this the way, I ask, in which you mean to pass it over? I should hope not. I should hope that you will not let it go forth to the Catholics of Ireland, that upon a petition stating disabilities and grievances, which, as subjects of the empire, they labour under; and praying that those disabilities might be removed, you dismissed those

637
claims in silence, but will give some shadow of reason for the dismissal. If ministers and the English members on their side of the house are determined to persevere in silence, and give a silent vote, I claim, on the part of those English members who wish to speak, that they may retire and meet again; perhaps the lateness of the hour [five o'clock in the morning] may have indisposed them, and prevented them from delivering their sentiments. I hope it is so, for the honour of the united parliament. It therefore must be desirable to adjourn and meet again, when the subject may undergo a full and ample discussion; for never let it be said that the house assented to so disgraceful a proceeding as treating with contempt the great majority of the Irish nation. I shall therefore move, Sir, "that the house do adjourn till this afternoon."—The question was again loudly called for.
General Montagu Matthew.—Sir, I am sorry to find this house so anxious to come to a division on the question. I am also concerned, that, notwithstanding what has been urged by the right hon. gent, who so ably, so eloquently, and so liberally brought forward the claims of the petitioners, the house is determined to meet them with a silent vote. After the very handsome manner in which that right hon. gent. has, on the part of the Catholics, stated their readiness to vest in his majesty the supreme authority of nominating their bishops, I say I should have hoped this house would have gone into a committee. Ireland, however, has nothing to expect from the liberality or justice of the united parliament. [Here lord Castlereagh smiled.] I am sorry to see the noble lord laughing. He has, I assure him, not much cause for his mirth; for there is not an Irish county, town, or borough, that has not rejected him. The Irish people disown him. I should not have said so much of the noble lord, if it had not been for that laugh of scorn which he exhibited. The question, sir, is a serious one, and I do know there are many gentlemen who think differently from the noble lord, and who wish to speak upon the subject, I hope therefore that the house will agree to adjourn the debate.
Mr. R. Martin.—I trust the house will yield to the motion of my honourable friend. I know many Irish members would speak, if the debate were adjourned; and they can throw new light upon the subject.
The question being loudly called for, the house divided, when there appeared,

For adjourning the Debate

118

Against

298

Majority against the adjournment

—180

Strangers were not re-admitted into the gallery, but we understand that, after a speech of some length from col. Hutchinson, in favour of the Petition, the question was again loudly called for, and the house divided upon Mr. Grattan's original motion for referring the Petition to a Committee; when there appeared,

For going into a Committee

128

Against it

281

Majority against the Petition

—153

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and at six o'clock on Thursday morning the house adjourned.

List of the Minority.

Aberoromby, Hon. J.

Howard, colonel

Althorpe, viscount

Howard, W.

Anstruther, sir S.

Hughes, W. L.

Bagenal, W.

Hume, W. H.

Barham, J. F.

Hurst, R.

Bligh, T.

Hutchinson, C. H.

Bradshaw, A. C.

Laing, M.

Brand, T.

Lambe, W.

Browne, A.

Lambton, R. J.

Brown, D.

Latouche, J.

Burton, F. N.

Latouche, D.

Butler, C. H.

Latouche, R.

Butler, J.

Laurence, F.

Byng, G.

Leach, J.

Calcraft, J.

Lloyd, sir E. P.

Campbell, lord J.

Lyttleton, W. H.

Cavendish, lord G. H.

Macdonald, J.

Cavendish, W.

Maddocks, W. A.

Cavendish, G. H.

Mahon, S.

Cocks, E. C.

Mahon, viscount

Combe, H. C.

Martin, H.

Creevey, T.

Martin, R.

Daly, D. B.

Mathew, M.

Daly, J.

Mawle, W. R.

Dundas, C. L.

Meade, colonel

Dundas, R. L.

Mills, W.

Ebrington, viscount

Milner, sir W.

Elliot, W.

Milton, viscount

Fitzgerald, W.

Montgomery, colonel

Fitzgerald, Lord H.

Moore, P.

Fitzpatrick, R.

Morpeth, viscount

Foley, T.

Mosely, sir O.

Folkestone, viscount

Mostyn, Sir T.

Freemantle, W. H.

Neville, R.

French, A.

Newport, sir J.

Gower, earl

North, D.

Grattan, H.

Nugent, sir G.

Greenhill, R.

G'Brien, sir E.

Greenhough, G. B.

Odell, W.

Grenfell, P.

Ord, W.

Grenville, T.

Ossulston, lord

Herbert, H. A.

Parnell, H.

Hibbert, G.

Pelham, C. A.

Hippisley, sir J. C.

Pelham, G.

Horner, F.

Petty, lord H.

639

Philipps, R. M.

Somerville, sir M.

Piggott, sir A.

Stanley, lord

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

Stanley, col.

Ponsonby, hon. F.

Talbot, col.

Power, R.

Tierney, G.

Prittie, F.

Walpole, gen.

Pym, F.

Ward, J. W.

Quin, W. H.

Warrender, sir G.

Romilly, sir S.

Western, C. C.

Russell, lord W.

Whithread, S.

St. Aubyn, sir J.

Wharton, J.

Salusbury, sir R.

Wilder, col.

Savage, F.

Windham, W.

Scudamore, R. P.

Wilmington, sir T. E.

Sharp, R.

Wynne, sir W. W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Wynne, C. W. W.

Shipley, col.

Smith, G.

Tellers

Smith, J.

Temple, earl

Smith, W.

Fitzgerald, M.

INDICTMENT BILL.
Earl Stanhopeobserved, with respect to this bill, that he should wish to move that it be read a third time this day eight months, but as that motion would not be carried, he must confine himself to fixing a day, in order that noble lords might be aware of it, and when he hoped they would attend. He therefore proposed Monday. His lordship observed, with respect to trying a man in his absence, that a jury, if they found the defendant was not present to take care of his own defence, might acquit him, and that a jury would not be subject to aft attaint for an acquittal. After quoting at length some law cases, and reading several extracts from acts of parliament, for the purpose of proving the former practice and usage of the constitution, his lordship concluded by moving, That the bill be read a third time on Monday, and that the lords be summoned; which was ordered accordingly.