Sitting of 16 April 1821

TIMBER DUTIES BILL.
The order of the day being read for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Wallace moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that it was his intention to move as an amendment that the question should again be referred to a committee. The learned member proceeded to argue, that the duties contemplated by the bill, went to impose a tax of 600,000 l. upon the country. He contended that the principle of free trade ought to be acted upon in this trade. Independent of the protection given to Canada, the present bill rendered us tributary to Russia, for 160,000 l. a year, for no other reason than because we would not have the deals of Norway. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he refused to give up a tax like the Malt tax, pressing with the greatest severity upon the country, because the revenue must be kept up, how he could feel himself in a condition to allow a drawback to Russia of 160,000 l. and to the colonies of 450,000 l. a year. The learned member expressed his surprise at the report which the committee had made. He thought their determination must have been made under the existence of some miraculous mistake; for they bestowed industry enough in examining the question, and the principles upon which they ought to have acted were perfectly clear and intelligible. All that was said in vindication of the principles of the bill with respect to Canada was, that if the protecting duties were not afforded, machinery to the value of 150,000 l. would be destroyed. If any losses of this kind would ensue, in God's name grant compensation. His object was to refer the subject again to the committee. He should propose that 2l. 15 s. should be the duty upon Baltic timber. All deals, according to their cubical contents, should be subject to the charge of 3l. 15 s. Upon American timber he should propose 15 s. for the first year, and 5s. more for the second, and ten for the third year, which

265
would be equal to the difference in freight. The learned member concluded by moving as an amendment, "That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider further of the duties on timber."
Mr. Wallacesaid, he was glad of the opportunity of obviating a few of the objections to his proposition which had before been stated in the House, and had that night been reiterated by the hon. gentleman, who had prefaced his amendment by an outline of certain measures expedient to be adopted, but in the propriety of which he could not concur. When he had himself first brought a measure forward visibly affecting the interests of the colonies, he had naturally anticipated a great deal of opposition. As he expected, it had proceeded principally from quarters connected with those colonies; but he would candidly avow that he had not anticipated so extensive, so detailed an opposition as he had experienced. He had rather startled at the proposition which had been just insisted on by the hon. gentleman, that there was nothing in this subject which he had particularly to attend to but the interests of the British consumers. He differed greatly on this point from the hon. gentleman. He thought that he was justified in taking a much more enlarged and important range, and such a one as the magnitude of the subject seemed to him to require. As to the report of the committee on foreign trade in the other House, he was disposed to admit the general correctness of the principle there laid down, and quoted by the hon. gentleman; bat he was yet to learn that his own proposition was incompatible with that general principle. As to the various hypotheses which had been so often discussed, as arising out of this subject, a question might hereafter arise (although he sincerely hoped it never would), upon the employment of foreign bottoms in preference to English ones, on account of the cheaper freight payable to the foreigner; but surely it was not necessary for him to enter by anticipation, upon the merits of so difficult and so ungrateful a matter. And the same might be observed of an almost infinite variety of other propositions; which, although they might naturally enough present themselves in the course of the argument, he could scarcely be required to go into, unless they bore immediately upon the
266
subject to which the attention of the House was about to be called in the committee. In the preparation of the measure which he had embodied in this bill, he had had very many interests to consult and to protect; and he could assure the House, that he had endeavoured to adjust them all upon the surest and most equitable principles. The hon. gentleman had said, that in consequence of the proposed measure, we were importing an article from Russia, at the yearly loss of 160,000 l. of revenue; and that we were importing the same article from America and our colonies at a yearly loss of 450,000 l. Now with respect to Russia the hon. gentleman's calculation might be right, assuming that the granting of a drawback was, pro tanto, a loss of revenue. But this remained to be demonstrated; and there were moreover many causes which might operate, supposing that no such drawback existed, to prevent either the consumer or the seller from deriving any proportionate benefit. Then, granting for a moment the assumption of the hon. gentleman, that by drawbacks on the timber exported from America and the colonies, we sustained a yearly loss of 450,000 l. it did not follow that because the revenue settled so much loss, therefore 450,000 l. was lost to the country; for what was the case? why, that ultimately the consumers derived the benefit of this circumstance; the effect being to make timber a cheaper article to the consumer. But the hon. gentleman had thrown out of view altogether what would be the effect of a competition which now, for the first time, the timber of certain countries would be able to sustain against the Norway timber in the market. In order to prove what might be anticipated from the future sort of competition, he would read a short statement to the House. In 1802, timber was at 5l. per load, or deducting the duty of 6s. 8d. it would be 4l. 13 s. 4d. In 1820 it was 6l. the duty being 3l. 5s. left it 2l. 15 s. Here then, the difference per load would be 1l. 18 s. 4d. He ought to observe, that freights now were very low; and therefore that might produce a considerable share of the difference. But he would take the difference of freight as high as 18 s. and then the net difference would be as 1l. 0s. 4d. The hon. gentleman said, that there were expected from those places to this country about 500,000 loads per year. Taking these at 1l. per load, the amount

267
would be 500,000 l. From this there was to be deducted the duty of 10 s. per load, which on the same quantity would be 250,000 l. reducing the sum to 250,000 l. But against this must be set the new duty, computed at 1l. per load, and which, on the whole import, would amount to per year, 500,000 l.; leaving a total of 750,000 l. which gave a result of just 150,000 l. per year more than the 600,000 l. less by drawbacks, according to the statement of the hon. gentleman. These duties would necessarily have the effect of employing a great deal of shipping. The hon. gentleman had said that the interests of the colonies were of very little consequence in this question. For the sake of the argument, he would not dispute it; but it was evident that the immediate operation of this system of duties must be upon two interests, which would always be effected by them in a just and relative proportion. The benefit would alternate in this way, in proportion as the colonies had little, the shipping would have much; and when the shipping had little, the colonies would have much: therefore the proposition was as broad as it was long. These were the two important interests which had been, as he must conceive they always would be, considered to be mainly entitled to our attention and support. He meant to say that they were supported throughout the provisions of this bill, to the extent of those limits within which they could be justly and legitimately supported. As to the effect of the proposed provisions, if there was any distinction ascertained as between these interests, it was in favour of the colonies; because it was intended to introduce the article of the colonies to a competition in the market; and then as to the effect upon the consumer, it was obviously to make the article cheaper than he would otherwise have it. He had frequently stated his opinion upon the system of protecting duties generally. Generally speaking, he was adverse to that system, but he did not know how practically it could be done without. The present was a case of this nature; and here they would at least have the beneficial effects of moving a vast mass of British industry which otherwise would find no vent.—He must again advert to the frequency with which they had been told that they ought not to look to the ship-owner nor the grower, nor the seller, but only to the consumer, in the consideration of this question. Now, he
268
felt that it was necessary to protect the producer or seller, as well as the consumer. The object of his proposition had been to rescue the existing system of duties from the excessive inequality and partiality with which it had appeared to bear on some classes of the community. He had found this system in full operation; and seeing too that under it certain countries had not obtained an equal share of advantage as to the circumstances under which the article of their growth entered the market with other countries; he had felt exceedingly desirous of remodelling and reconsidering the whole of these duties. His great objection to the hon. gentleman's proposition of laying the duty according to the cubical contents of the timber was this—that the effect of such a measure would be to give to one country a complete monopoly of the trade; and to work to the other a complete loss of it. In all the numerous representations which had been forwarded to him upon the subject of his bill, the parties, however much at variance with each other in their statements, opinions, and suggestions, were all wonderfully agreed as to one point—the propriety of securing this monopoly to Norway. The effect of the hon. gentleman's suggestion would be, to raise the duty on the timber of Russia to 30 l. or something more; and to reduce it on that of Norway to somewhere about 14 l.; so that there would be a difference in the duty imposed on the article of the two countries, of 16 l. in favour of Norway. It was clear, therefore, that by the imposition of such an altered duty as that proposed, the monopoly of the trade would rest with Norway. The proposition of the hon. gentleman went to take the duty upon the sawing as well as on the cubical contents; and it was one which, in fact, went to give a protection to the saw in this country. Here then, a new system of protection was submitted to the House; a proposition to be sure, which was in admirable consistence with those principles of free trade, and the abolition of monopolies and protections, which the hon. gentleman himself had been so warmly advocating. Then, with respect to raising the duties on American timber, the hon. gentleman who had complained of that proposal must certainly labour under some error; for he would find, on looking at the evidence, that the far greater part of the witnesses who had been examined had expressed an opinion

269
that a duty of 30 s. would be by no means too much for the purposes of protection in the market; and upon the whole of their evidence, he (Mr. W.) was prepared to say that he did not think they could, consistently with a due regard for the safety of all interests concerned, impose a duty of less than 2l. per load on the Canadian timber. The House must now decide between the proposition which he had submitted, and that which the hon. gentleman desired to bring forward. They would of course elect that which should be the most conducive to the interests of the country. The House would see that it had been an object with the committee not to raise the price of American timber, nor to recommend any arrangement that should have the effect of excluding the deals of Russia. Russia was a most valuable ally, and any such arrangement as that last mentioned would appear to be adopted for the sake of the exclusion. On the other hand, he certainly was not disposed, in the present state of political science, to encourage, by means of protecting laws, any branch of this trade which was not already in active existence.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, he was inclined to vote for the amendment. All persons must admit that the shipping interest was one of the most important branches of our commercial prosperity; but it might still be a question whether it was wise to encourage it by sending ships ten times as far as was necessary for particular commodities. Could it be politic, or was it rational, to send to America, for what we might obtain at a lower price, and of a better quality, from the mouth of the Elbe? In fact, this was just as absurd, as it would be to send to the East Indies for the sugar which we could get from the West. It appeared to him to be altogether a mistaken view of policy, to aim at the advancement of our colonial interests, by purchasing from the colonies articles inferior to those which might be had nearer home. The whole capital vested in saw-mills and machinery was said to be very small in this country. But why was it so? Was it not because we had thought proper to encourage the importation of deals from Russia? As to what bad been said of the consumption he must observe, that every body was in some degree a consumer of timber. By equalizing the duties on such foreign timber as we imported, we should only
270
withdraw from Russia a preference which she had hitherto enjoyed in defiance of every principle of trade. There were Norway merchants in this country who employed as great a capital as the proprietors of saw-mills in Canada, and he could not understand what advantage was to be derived from sacrificing the former to the latter. He regretted to say, that Norway had been for a long time very hardly treated by this country.
Mr. Marryatsaid, that the principles maintained by the hon. gentleman were contrary to the whole system of our commercial policy, and if adopted would prove destructive, both of our shipping interests, and our manufactures. He now alluded particularly to that principle of buying every commodity in the nearest and cheapest market. The hon. gentleman had remarked that the effect of this measure would be to make us purchase an inferior article. But the representation was not quite accurate. The purchaser was under no compulsion: he might, if he chose to go to the additional expense, buy the article for which he had a predilection; and this was pretty much the state of things in every other department of commerce. To show the nature and tendency of monopoly in trade, reference had been made to the historical fact of the Dutch burning their spices in the East Indies; and perhaps, if the whole of our commercial marine belonged to one individual or corporate body, the charge for freight might be greatly augmented by the destruction of a part of our shipping. But this was fortunately not the case; and as, if an army were on the point of being decimated, few would be found to volunteer as objects of that decimation, so in the multitude of ship-owners he doubted whether there was one willing to destroy his own vessels for the sake of enabling others to procure better freight. Much had been said with regard to the preference manifested towards Russia over Norway, but the truth was, that Norway was very much favoured by the bill. If he saw any chance of carrying an amendment in the committee, he would support the motion of the learned gentleman, for the purpose of suggesting one directly opposite to that which the learned gentleman had in view. As he did not, however, apprehend that he should succeed in the attempt, he thought it as well to abstain from making it, and that the

271
learned gentleman had, likewise quite as good reason for despairing of success.
Mr. Ricardowas much surprised at the course of argument adopted upon this question. Norway was said to be benefitted by the new arrangement, merely because she had before suffered a still greater injustice than it was now proposed to inflict upon her. The proposition made by his learned friend went only to place Russia and Norway, as respected the importation of their timber and deals, on the same footing; yet this had been described by the right hon. gentleman, as giving a monopoly to Norway; and it had been contended that such a regulation would cause a proportionate rise in the price of Norwegian timber. Now, a slight degree of attention must convince every one, that the higher the price of Norwegian timber rose, the more able must Russia be to compete effectually with Norway. It was contended, that the interest of the producer ought to be looked to, as well as that of the consumer, in legislative principles. But the fact was, that in attending to the interest of the consumer, protection was ac the same time extended to all other classes. The true way of encouraging production was to discover and open facilities to consumption. An hon. gentleman had observed, that timber of a superior quality might be had by those who chose to pay a higher price, and that there was therefore no compulsion on the purchaser. But it was a little too much to raise the price of the best article by means of import duties, and then tell the consumer that he was not obliged to buy the cheap and inferior one. The practical effect of these duties was to raise as much compulsion as could be introduced into commercial affairs.
Mr. Keith Douglasthought an intermediate scale of duties might have been adopted, so as to arrange the matter more equitably between the Baltic powers. It was most desirable that a competition should be established in all branches of the timber trade. One great objection to the proposed regulation was, that it would not come into operation for near two years. In a further stage of the bill, he should propose what he imagined would prove a more equitable principle.
Sir W. De Crespignytrusted the House would not forget how much was due to the interests of its colonial trade in any future arrangement.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that as far as he was informed, the commercial interest generally approved of, and was satisfied with, the new arrangement. He thought it extremely unfair to describe the shipowners as a class of men favoured and enriched at the expense of the community. A good deal had been said on the subject of competition between Russia and Norway, but any preference shown to the latter would operate not so much to the loss or detriment of Russia, as to the injury of our own revenue. Nine-tenths of the importations from Norway were in the shipping of that country, whilst the trade with Russia was carried on chiefly in our own. He must oppose the amendment, because he was satisfied that it would prove ineffectual.
Mr. Bennetremarked, that the interests of the ship-owners were directly opposed to those of the public, and whilst the former were engaged in adjusting or reconciling particular interests, it was not surprising that the consumer should be entirely overlooked. A few sound principles had been embodied in this report, apparently as a foil to the bad practice which it concluded with recommending. If the latter were now adopted, and a revision should be proposed three or four years hence, after a greater portion of capital was engaged and a greater number of interests should have become dependent on it, the answer would be, that a full opportunity had been afforded for consideration, and that, although country gentlemen had neglected their duty and left the question to be decided by merchants interested in it, it was too late to unsettle what had been then established. But he would put it to the House, whether it was right at any time, and more especially at a time like the present, to tax the community to the amount of 400,000 l. a year for the advantage of the ship-owner? Indeed, the money might be rather said to be sunk and lost, expended as it was in defraying the charge of long and useless voyages. Without regard to the respective claims of Russia and Norway, why should the people of England be obliged to pay more for their deals out of compliment to a band of ship-owners? It was impossible to show that the public advantage was in any way promoted by such a regulation, or by the favour shown to Russia, or by the continuance of this Gothic system of policy. Lord Bacon had observed, with regard to

273
the law which prevailed in his time of importing no French wines except in English bottoms, that it sacrificed the consideration of profit to the consideration of power. But in the case now before them, profit was sacrificed with no other object than to enrich the ship-owners. If taxes must be raised, it was desirable to see them paid into the public treasury, and not to a few individuals for furnishing a worse commodity than might be had at a less expense. In addition to all these considerations, he must object to the proposed system, as conferring superior advantages on the canting, hypocritical, and blood-stained government of Russia.
The amendment was negatived; and the bill went through the committee.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, lord Palmerston moved, "That 10,517 l. be granted for the Allowances to the principal officers of certain Public Departments in Ireland."
Mr. Humeproposed, as an amendment, that the vote should be reduced to 7,000 l. The medical staff of Ireland was even more expensive than that of England. Many of those officers too were not liable to serve abroad.
Lord Palmerstonacknowledged that the higher order of these officers was not liable to serve abroad. He shortly hoped to introduce a further economical arrangement in this department, by consolidating the medical staff of Ireland with that of England.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the present system was excessively expensive, and that in many branches the offices on the Irish establishment were sinecures.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that if the House went on disregarding the petitions of the people, and voting such estimates as those now before it, such a House would no longer be a blessing but a curse to the country.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that no strain of inflammatory invective should prevent him from doing his best to reduce the military establishment, whenever such a reduction could be safely effected.
The committee divided: For the amendment, 45. Against it 99. Majority, 54. The resolution was then agreed to.
On the resolutions, "That 27,824 l. be granted for the medical service of the army,"
Colonel Daviessaid, that the medical expense of the army was greater now than in the time of war; and moved an amendment for reducing 5,000 l. from the estimate.
Sir R. Fergussoncalled the attention of the committee to the ninth report of the military inquiry, wherein they recommended, that the patent place of apothecary-general, held by Mr. Garnier, should be discontinued, and the medicines for the army purchased at Apothecaries Hall. He expected some explanation on that subject as well as the botanical garden.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the office of supplying the army with medicines had been held by Mr. Garnier up to his death. Two years ago Mr. Clarke who was deputy to Mr. Garnier was employed by government to buy medicines. He did buy the medicines from the merchants, from whom the Apothecaries' company bought them. He produced the medicines and his bills to the medical board, and the consequence was, that the Apothecaries' Hall lowered their prices to the public 15 per cent. Mr. Clarke was a most respectable and upright man.
Mr. Humewas surprised to hear that the reduction was so little as 15 per cent, when there was a fall in the price of all drugs of 50 per cent. He enumerated several items which required examination.
Mr. W. Smithasserted, that Mr. Garnier had in some cases charged 40 per cent more than the fair price of the drugs. He thought that a very considerable reduction might be made in the estimate, and that some postponement was necessary.
After some further discussion, the committee divided: For the postponement 59. Against it, 109. Majority against the amendment, 50. For the reduction, 58. Against it, 110. Majority, 52.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Creevey, T,

Baring, A.

Crompton, S.

Barrett, S. M.

Davies, T. H.

Beaumont, T. P.

De Crespigny, sir W.

Benett, J.

Denison, W.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Duncannon, visc.

Bernal, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Birch, J.

Ellice, E.

Bright, H.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Brougham, H.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Bury, visc.

Gordon, R.

Calcraft, J.

Graham, S.

Cavendish, C.

Grant, J. P.

Chaloner, R.

Haldimand, W.

Concannon, L.

Heathcote, G. J.

275

Hobhouse, J. C.

Ramsden, J. C.

Honeywood, W. P.

Ricardo, D.

Hume, J.

Rickford, W.

Hurst, R.

Robarts, A.

James, W.

Robarts, G.

Lambton, J. G.

Sefton, earl of

Lushington, S.

Smith, hon. R.

Maberly, W. S.

Smith, W.

Martin, J.

Smith, R.

Milton, visc.

Stuart, lord J.

Monck, J. B.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Noel, sir G.

Townshend, lord C.

Ossulston, lord

Whitmore, W. W.

Palmer, C. F.

Wilson, sir R.

Parnell, sir H.

Wood, alderman

Price, R.

Wyvill, M.

On the resolution, "That 170,000 l. be granted for the charge of volunteer corps,"
Mr. Bernalsaid, he was not prepared, in the seventh year of peace, to vote for such an increase beyond the estimate of last year, unless a sufficient reason for employing these volunteers were shown.
Mr. F. Palmerasked, why the yeomanry cavalry was tripled within the last year in the county of Bedford? Was it to afford gratification to the personal vanity of some men, who would be pleased at seeing themselves in red clothes? or was it to increase the number of dependants on government?
Sir W. De Crespignyasked, why there bad been a corps raised in the peaceable town of Southampton?
Mr. Broughamasked, why the peaceful vallies of Westmoreland were disturbed by the clang of arms? Was it to give the government the means of indulging their favourites with red coats and horses?
Mr. Humeasked, why the increase of the volunteers was so great since 1816? What was the consequence to the finance of the country? There had been 29,000 men, whose horses were not charged, and thereby the revenue was deprived of 90,000 l. or 100,000 l. The volunteers therefore cost England 270,000 l.; nearly as much as the lottery brought in.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, it was easy for members to talk of the seventh year of peace, but they should recollect that this was only in fact the first year of domestic peace. They should recollect that a part of this volunteer force was but lately engaged in active operations against bodies of their countrymen leagued against the tranquillity and the laws of the country. It was too much for the government to
276
be accused of extravagance because they have successfully had recourse to this means of preserving the public peace.
Sir Robert Wilsonconceived that ministers had set out on a wrong system, and had adopted measures, which, if persevered in, would render rebellion a duty. [Hear, hear.] Rebellion might not be an approved term—he would say resistance then.
Mr. Humeattributed all the disturbances which had taken place in Scotland to the malpractices of the emissaries of ministers, particularly the man Franklin, who was employed by parties connected with the government. The placard which, had caused the people at Glasgow to rise was written in London, and carried down to Scotland. Had they not seen that man protected at Bow-street by the magistrates, and permitted to escape? What other conclusion could be drawn, but that this individual, to whom so many hundred pounds had been advanced, was in connexion with the government? He (Mr. Hume) had been made acquainted within this day or two with another most flagrant instance of the employment of these emissaries, which he should shortly expose to the public.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, it was impossible for any member of the administration to be silent when they heard acts of treason in Scotland charged as the act of his majesty's government. The hon. member had brought forward a charge for which there was not the slightest foundation. It was a gross calumny. It was too much, at the same time, for any reasonable person to credit. The members of government knew nothing of that man Franklin. The hon. member should abstain from making charges unless he could support them by proof.
Mr. Humerecapitulated the facts respecting the apprehension of Franklin, his liberation by the magistrates of Bow-street, and the refusal of the Home-office to issue a reward for his apprehension until eight days had elapsed, which gave him time to escape. He appealed to every man of common sense for the rational conclusion which such facts warranted, and asked if it was possible that lord Sidmouth's office should be unacquainted with Franklin, and his treasonable designs.
Mr. Bathurstobserved, that all that the hon. gentleman had said amounted to mere suspicion: no charge of any thing

277
done; but a charge of non-action: of not offering rewards and not taking bail. There was no foundation for the charges so unwarrantably urged against government. Franklin was totally unknown to any responsible individual in the Home-office.
Lord Miltonalluded to the part which Oliver had taken in stirring up the people to seditious acts, and asked, whether instructions had not been sent to the magistrates of the West Riding of Yorkshire not to apprehend him? This connection between the secretary of state and Oliver gave colour to other charges of a similar nature.
Mr. Bathurstsaid that Oliver was employed by government to ascertain the designs of the disaffected, and not to foment them.
The Lord Advocatesaid, he could vouch that the placard in question was written, printed, and published at Glasgow.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that the lord advocate was never supposed to have any connexion whatever with this placard; but it did appear to him, and to all whom he had conversed with on the subject, that that placard was neither written nor printed in Scotland.
Mr. Monteithsaid, he could produce the names of the persons who wrote and the printers who printed the placard in question. He therefore thought the insinuation was most unfounded, and the House was never more abused than by the charge brought against the government.
Mr. Broughamdenied that the hon. member for Aberdeen had made such a ridiculous charge against the government, as that of sending down placards with a view to spread disaffection in the manufacturing districts. His charge was, that they employed spies clumsily and incautiously, and with an anxiety for information, and that those spies did engage in the promotion of treasonable practices. He would admit that the connexion of Franklin with the government was not proved; but it led to violent suspicion when coupled with those of Oliver and Edwards, both of whom were connected with government. He did not say that government employed them to do as they had done, but that they shewed such an over anxiety for information as suggested to these persons the expediency of making work for themselves where they did
278
not find it. The impunity of these was an encouragement to others to tread in the same steps.
Mr. Wellesley Poleentered into a defence of the administration, against the insinuations of the learned gentleman. If he intended to insinuate that they had employed such an infamous wretch as Franklin to act as he was accused of having acted, the insinuation was base, false, and foul. It was disingenuous in any man to say that he did not suspect the government, and yet endeavour to lead the country into a belief that he did. Such conduct was not candid or manly.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that as the committee had listened to the scandalous charges which the right hon. gentleman had dared to bring against him, he was sure they would permit him to reply.
Mr. F. Robinsonrose amidst repeated calls of Chair! Chair! and several other members presented themselves at the same time. The Chairman intreated the Committee to apply themselves rather to allay the inflammation which had arisen from misunderstanding, than to excite it by any violence of their own.
Mr. F. Robinsondeclared that such was his motive in presenting himself, He was sure there was a misunderstanding as to certain expressions, which a moment of reflection would be sufficient to explain.
Mr. Tierneyexpressed himself to the same effect; and added his conviction that his learned friend would cease to feel the expressions as he had naturally felt them, when they came to be properly explained.
Mr. W. Polesaid, he should be sorry to utter any thing in the warmth of debate which could hurt the feelings of any hon. member, and if he had done so he was not aware of it.
Mr. Tierneywas sure the explanation would be considered sufficient; for if the right hon. gentleman was not aware of having made use of the expressions, he could not have intended to apply them offensively.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that no person could be more unwilling than he was to take up expressions captiously which had fallen in the heat of debate. He had no right to recur to those expressions after the explanation of the right hon. gentleman, and therefore he should only say that he was not a man who was capable of insinuating what he would not state in distinct terms.
The resolution wás agreed to. The chairman then reported progress.

PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
After numerous petitions had been presented for and against the Roman Catholic Disability Removal bill,
Earl Greyrose to present two petitions. The first was from a large body of persons in this country, professing the Roman Catholic religion. The petition had been drawn up before the bill now before their lordships had passed through the other
House, and it prayed for general relief from the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured. The petitioners felt grateful for the acts passed for their relief during the benevolent reign of the late king; but they complained that they still laboured under great disadvantages, and that they were marked out as persons dangerous and unworthy of public trust. In answer to these unmerited imputations, they appeal to those persons who have had an opportunity of observing their conduct in a political as well as a moral point of view, and call upon them to declare whether they deserve the character thus attempted to be fixed on them; and whether, on the contrary, they have not always been distinguished for loyalty and attachment, and submission to the laws. The petitioners have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate the submission which is due from them to the king of this country; but this they deny, and state that they fully recognise the sovereign power of his majesty. The second petition he had to present was signed by six Roman Catholic peers—the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Arundel, lord Petre, lord Clifford, and lord Stourton. These petitioners stated, that they had read the bill which had passed through the other House of Parliament, and had been read a first time by their lordships, and that it received their full concurrence. The petitioners had hitherto been prevented from sitting in their lordships' House, in consequence of the form of the oath which they were required to take as a necessary preliminary to the enjoyment of that privilege. He felt great satisfaction in presenting these petitions, not only on account of the characters of the petitioners, but also from the feeling which he entertained of the justice of their claims, and of the temper and moderation with which they were advanced. He felt himself bound to answer the appeal which had been made by the petitioners, and to state, from the result of his own personal observation, that there did not exist men more distinguished for the exemplary discharge of their public and private duties through all the various walks of life. This would be acknowledged even by those who felt themselves under the painful necessity of opposing their claims. He remembered on a former occasion to have heard the noble earl opposite (Liverpool) say, that, for distinguished loy-

219
alty and integrity, he knew of no class of men more entitled to approbation than the Roman Catholics. It. was admitted also, that the Roman Catholic religion was no longer rendered dangerous by those tenets which formerly constituted a part of it, and which, if they existed at present, would be a reasonable ground for allowing the professors of that religion to continue in their present situation. The opposition of the noble earl, however, rested upon different grounds, which would doubtless be made evident during the discussion of that evening. He should refrain from taking any part in the approaching discussion, unless called upon so to do by some unforeseen circumstances. His opinions upon this subject were well known, and it would only be irksome to their lordships to hear them repeated. Any exertions of his were the more unnecessary, as there were those present by whom that just cause would be more effectually advocated. No one could surpass him in zeal for the success of the measure; but he would content himself with a general reference to the grounds on which he had given it his support on former occasions; and those grounds were, that the disqualifications which were imposed on the Roman Catholics could not be justified on the grounds either of policy or justice. Circumstances were more favourable for the contemplated measure than they ever had been. The head of the Roman Catholic Church, whose power might once have been deemed formidable, could no longer be an object of apprehension. It could not now be alleged that the pope was under the influence and control of the power which had been the terror of Europe. The present bill had not met with that opposition on the part of the public which former bills of a similar nature had experienced. The present bill had passed through one House of Parliament without any expression of public discontent. From this it might be argued, that, if this great measure of justice and mercy was now to receive the sanction of the House, it was probable that, while it relieved the Catholic, it would not be followed by any dissatisfaction from any part of his majesty's subjects. We were still at peace, but surrounded by warnings upon all sides. How long we could keep out of that war, which seemed to threaten Europe, it was impossible to foresee. But the storm being heard at a distance, every
220
principle of policy required that we should prepare against its approach, and provide ourselves with the means of resisting its fury. It was from divisions at home that the greatest danger was to be apprehended; and it should be remembered, that those for whose relief the present measure was introduced, had freely offered their blood in the defence of their country, even under all the disadvantages of exclusion, and had contributed by their bravery to the peace which she now enjoyed. With those feelings on his mind—with a full conviction, that every motive of justice and policy, of Christian charity and true religion, and he would add, of national gratitude, was in their favour, he could not avoid anxiously entreating the attention of the House to these petitions.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.
The order of the day being read for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Donoughmorerose. He said, it was now a long period since the Roman Catholics had been the objects of intolerance and cruelty. In the reign of his late majesty, however, a better prospect was presented to them. By the British statute of 1778, and the statute passed by the Irish parliament about the same time, the first breach was made in the system of proscription which had so long been pursued towards the Roman Catholics. This breach was still further widened by the British statute of 1791, which gave to the Roman Catholics of this country, all the privileges which they were at present capable of possessing. A spirit of liberality and just feeling had been evinced by a large portion of the public towards their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. The progress of this tolerant feeling had been particularly rapid among the higher classes. The Irish parliament of 1782, granted many more concessions to the Roman Catholics, which were still further extended by the same parliament in 1792. But, by the Irish statute of 1793, by which the elective franchise and other important privileges were restored to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they were placed in a situation of superiority to the members of the same religion m England. The preference which the Irish Roman Catholic thus possessed could not be justified on any principle of reason or expediency.

221
In this anomalous situation the Catholic body had remained from that time to the present moment, except in one instance, in which a friend of his in the naval department in the other House, under the auspices of a noble viscount, was the means of passing an act through parliament, for extending to the Catholics, in the military and naval services, the advantages to which they were entitled by the Irish statute of 1793, but which they had before but very imperfectly enjoyed. Since 1793, the spirit of concession seemed to be dead. The claims of the Catholics had scarcely been able to obtain the consideration of parliament. Though the subject had been brought under the notice of parliament, both in this country and in Ireland, over and over again, the Catholics had still been suffered to remain in their present degraded state. Except in two solitary instances, in 1812 and 1813, both of which occurred in the other House of Parliament, the Catholics never succeeded in getting their grievances considered in a parliamentary manner. Under these circumstances it was, that the present bill of Justice and Mercy, as he had called it on a former occasion, had come up to their lordships from the other House. The bill had scarcely passed the threshold of their lordships' House, when it was met by the denunciation (he might use the term) of the noble earl opposite, and the learned lord on the woolsack. This had been the proceeding of the two noble lords, without hearing a single observation either for or against the bill. The two noble lords had decided, as far as two individuals could decide, that the bill should not pass. He trusted the noble lords would give an explanation of so very unusual a line of conduct. It was not decorous thus to treat a bill which had received the sanction of the other House of Parliament. It was customary always to read a bill the first time pro forma; and to reserve all discussion till the second reading. Would not these noble lords condescend to give more consideration to a bill which had not passed through the other House in an unguarded manner, but had gone through the fiery ordeal of five weeks debate? Scarcely a paragraph or clause had passed without a division.
Many interests were connected with this important measure; and yet, in defiance of all the circumstances attending it
222
coming before this House, the two noble lords had at once decided against it, and he knew that too often those noble lords decided for the majority of their lordships. The noble earl, however, was very candid and open in his opposition on the occasion to which he alluded. The noble earl divided the bill into two parts; but it was only for the purpose of expressing his disapprobation of one part as well as the other. The first part of the bill provided for the restoration of certain privileges to the Catholics, and the second part laid down regulations for the intercourse to be maintained between the members of the Catholic religion in this country and the See of Rome. It was impossible that any person could object to the first part of this bill, who was not perfectly satisfied with the present situation in which the Roman Catholics stood, who did not wish that no amelioration of their condition should take place, and who did not desire that no inquiry should be instituted on the subject. If the noble earl entertained an unfavourable opinion of the merits and trustworthiness of the Roman Catholics, why did he reject the necessary securities for the good conduct of these dangerous subjects, which were offered by the second part of the bill? He could not conceive on what principle the noble earl founded his opposition as well to one part of the bill as to the other.
The authority of the two noble lords was, doubtless, very great, and therefore presented a considerable difficulty for him to surmount. He, however, had an authority as high as that of the noble lords in favour of the bill—he meant the decision of the other House of Parliament. He would, therefore, only ask as a boon, that their lordships would consider, in the usual parliamentary manner, the present bill of relief. He desired not to pledge their lordships to the whole, or to any part of the bill; but he wished to have a cool and temperate consideration of the measure: that was all he asked for, and nothing, he conceived, could be more just and reasonable. Who were those persons whose case the noble lords seemed to treat so lightly, as if they had already decided in their own minds that it did not deserve any consideration at all? They composed one-fourth part of the whole population of the United Kingdom, and four-fifths of the population of that part of the empire to which he had the honour

223
of belonging. Four millions of loyal Irishmen—a body no less respectable for their honourable and conscientious feelings, than for their number—now demanded justice at their lordships' bar. They petitioned their lordships to be heard; they called for an examination of their claims, and he hoped they would not be sent away from their lordships' bar, with their prayer rejected, and their application treated with contempt and insult. Had their lordships' never heard of this body before? Yes, they had: they had already granted them extensive concessions. Had not their lordships' taken the trouble of inquiring how far the Roman Catholics were worthy of the concessions which they formerly required? Undoubtedly their lordships had done as as they ought to do: they conferred no boon on the Roman Catholics, until they had the fullest proof that they were worthy of it. What course did they adopt to procure that sufficing proof? They had resorted to the mode by which trust-worthiness was proved in courts of justice, and in the different transactions between man and man; namely, by the exaction of an oath. Under the sanction of an oath, his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects had again and again been intrusted with important privileges. They had placed themselves on a level with all the other subjects of this country; and there was no imputation that malice or ill-fortune had cast on them, which they had not contradicted, and wiped away by the solemnity of an oath. They had not done this by one oath merely, but by a succession of oaths, from the year 1778 to 1793. They had repelled every thing that had been advanced against them as faithful members of the state; they had cheerfully taken all those oaths; and, therefore, he contended, they had proved themselves completely trust-worthy. He knew not what was now left for them to do. He wished any noble peer would stand up in his place, and declare, that the oaths of the Roman Catholics were not as much to be depended on as those of any other class of men in the community; or that, as far as their loyalty was concerned, the Catholics were not trustworthy; and if that body did not prove the assumption to be unfounded, then he would say that the Catholic did not deserve any farther extension of privileges. When the act of 1793 passed, though that event took place in the sister county, yet he conceived that the measure
224
had the full approbation of his majesty's ministers. That act gave the Irish Roman Catholic the liberty of exercising the elective franchise.
Now, when ministers conceived that this portion of his majesty's subjects were sufficiently trust-worthy to have the elective franchise committed to their hands, it was, he conceived, a full and complete admission that those ministers considered the Roman Catholics to be perfectly worthy of possessing political power. They had been in possession of the elective franchise for twenty-eight years, and they had exercised it with the utmost propriety. Perhaps, at that time, ministers were justified in using this language:—"We have given the Catholic the elective franchise—that is a great deal—let us pause for a while, and see what his conduct will be. Let us rest a little on our oars, and, if the Catholic does not abuse the privilege now granted to him, let us open to him more widely the door of the Constitution." He knew he should be told that this was a Protestant Constitution. He would say, equally with the most ardent admirer of the constitution, that it was so; and God forbid that he should ever be accessory to any act that would deprive the country of that constitution! He loved his own Protestant Constitution, and he revered his own Protestant establishment; and it was not for the purpose of weakening it that he wished this bill to pass. On the contrary, he was anxious to promote a unanimous accordance, in feeling, sentiment, and principle, amongst all classes of his majesty's subjects. He wished to remove every cause of jealousy and heartburning; he was desirous not to give one body of men an opportunity to triumph over another; he was anxious to leave no ground for invidious and painful comparison. These were his objects in calling on their lordships to give a second reading to the bill.
He had told their lordships who the principle parties were whom it was intended to benefit by the provisions of this bill; and he would now remind them who the other party was, whose power appeared to be so very formidable in the eyes of some of their lordships. He He alluded to the pope—that potentate, with whom, it seemed, no intercourse, consistently with the safety of the country, could take place. But an intercourse had taken place for a century past, and

225
no real injury — nay, not even an argumentative injury had resulted to the state in consequence. And yet, when they were about to open the door of the constitution to the Roman Catholic, they were called on at the same moment to affront him and his religion—to say to him, "Henceforth, we will not allow you to correspond with the pope, unless that correspondence is submitted to a tribunal of Protestants authorized to examine it by the state."—For his own part, he did not think the pope was a personage calculated to inspire so much dread. The conduct of that potentate, he conceived, was not of such a nature as to deserve harsh treatment at their lordships' hands. There was nothing which lay in his power, the performance of which tended towards conciliation, that he had neglected. He had gone every length to soothe the feelings of those who feared the influence of his power. He had met more than half way every proposition that seemed calculated to assuage the fears of their lordships, or of the other House of Parliament.
He would now read an extract from a document, not a very old but a very important one, for the purpose of pointing out the alteration that had been made in the oath of the Roman Catholic clergy. The argument which was founded on that oath, both in the Irish parliament and in this, was now entirely done away by this voluntary act of his holiness; for he understood that no application had been made to him for that purpose. The alteration was made of his own free will, to prove that he was not the person whom they ought to fear and distrust. The following were, then, the important alterations made by the college of the Propaganda Fide at Rome, in the oath appointed to be taken by the vicars Apostolic in England, and the Irish Roman Catholic bishops, according to which the following words, which have caused so much misrepresentation at all times, were omitted, viz.:— "Hæreticos, schismaticos, et rebelles eidem Domino nostro vel successoribus prædictis pro posse persequar et impugnabo." And with the addition of the following words at the conclusion of the oath:—"Hæc omnia et singula eo inviolabilius observabo, quo certior sum, nihil in iis contineri, quod juramento fidelitatis meæ erga serenissimum N. Regem, ejusque ad thronum successors, debite adversari possit."
226
Now, if their lordships wanted to frame an oath for the Roman Catholic clergy, clear, plain, and comprehensive, could they by possibility use words more strong and forcible for the purpose, than the pope, by his voluntary act, had furnished? He would now refer to another document, not so new, having been promulgated in 1744, but which went to show what the principle of the Catholic Church had been at all times. It was the preamble to the order of reference made to the bishops and superiors of the Catholic Church, when called upon to make a report of the state of their respective dioceses or districts, extracted from an order of the Propaganda, printed in 1744: —"Animadvertendum est has questiones a sacra congregatione ea tantum de causa fieri, ut regionum status spiritualis et religionis ipsi innotescat—nullo modo autem temporalis, et politicus—quippe res ejusmodi ad eam minime pertinent, nec eas scire desiderat—neque vult omnino missionarios suos eis implicari—quamobrem qui responsurus est, videat, ne respondeat ad aliud, quam ad ea, quæ spirituale divinumque ministerium respiciant." Such was the character of that potentate whom their lordships had been taught to view with the most jealous apprehension, as an individual not confining himself to matters of a spiritual nature, but, from the nature of his situation, and the habits of his life, constantly engaging in conspiracies against foreign states. This was the person against whom the bill introduced to the other House of Parliament, to prevent the intercourse of Roman Catholics with the see of Rome, was directed. He was not the person he had been described—his was not a power that ought to produce fear; on the contrary, he was worthy of the confidence of every state in Europe, whether it was Catholic or not Catholic. The sentiments of the pope were stated plainly and decisively, and from them it appeared he sought only to protect and preserve that, religion of which he was the only visible head on earth.
He had mentioned to their lordships before, that this bill was not hurried through the other House of Parliament as a matter that did not demand serious consideration. He believed no measure ever passed through parliament that was more completely considered in all its parts. And what gave greater weight to the manner in which it passed through

227
the other House was, that it was not examined in the heat of passion, but was considered with the utmost moderation and temperance. It was now necessary that he should state what this bill contained. It introduced an enabling system, by which the Roman Catholics would be brought fully within the pale of our Protestant constitution. But it would not be less a Protestant constitution, when Roman Catholics were seated as members of that or of the other House of Parliament. This general capacity to hold situations in the state, this eligibility to sit as members of parliament, was not given to the Catholic for the first time by this bill. It only restored him to that of which he had been deprived: it removed the penalty by which the Catholic had been prevented from exercising those privileges, which were his birth-right, as much as they were the birth-right of any other subject of the king. Their lordships were not granting new privileges to the Catholic body, but. restoring to them those constitutional rights of which they had been formerly deprived—a deprivation which, perhaps at the moment, might have been necessary for the safety of the state, but the continuance of which, no man could lay his hand upon his heart and declare to be called for by the circumstances of the present day. The Roman Catholics had been tried for twenty-eight years, and during that long period they had not been found wanting in their duty to the constitution.
There were, in the bill now before their lordships, certain exceptions with respect to particular offices, of which he approved. The perpetual succession of the Crown in a Protestant line was provided for, and the permanence of the church establishment in all its power, dignity, and authority, was equally preserved under this measure. Of what else, he would ask, did the Protestant establishment consist? The king might appoint his own ministers at will; and, he demanded, would not their Protestant monarch he as likely to defend himself from his Catholic subjects, if any attempt were made to press them into his councils from improper motives, as any other Protestant in the country? The king, having the choice of his ministers, would, as a matter of course, appoint men of his own religion. The privy council was open to Catholics under this bill, as he thought it ought to be. The two Houses
228
of Parliament were also open to them, and, above all things they were eligible to a seat on the bench. This was most important, because he could not conceive a circumstance more galling, or more likely to create discontent, than to admit a man within the bar—to allow him the rank of king's counsel—and then to turn round and tell him, "so far shalt thou go, and no farther." And why? "Because thou art a suspected man." Was not this the way to render him disaffected? When a man was thus insulted—when his feelings were thus deeply wounded— he never could forget it. He must feel his degradation every morning when he arose, and every night when he went to bed.
He agreed in the propriety of all the exceptions contained in the bill, comprising the situation of the two highest law officers in the Empire, and of several other officers. After these exceptions had been made, the door of the constitution was still widely opened to the Roman Catholics. The bill effected two objects of extreme importance. It took away the necessity of making that declaration which branded a man for professing that religion, which was professed by the greater portion of Europe. The re-modelling the oath of supremacy he approved of as one of the greatest beauties of the bill. This was a very great object, because it shewed, that that oath, which was the great oath of fidelity to the state, could be taken by the Roman Catholics as well as by any other subject, without violating his religious feelings.
Having shown that the Roman Catholics were, in their present situation, worthy of possessing all they asked for; and conceiving that, without any additional oath, they were sufficiently trust-worthy, under the test they had already taken, to be admitted into this Protestant constitution—this being his decided opinion, he could not think that any part of the second bill was at all necessary. He agreed in the provisions of the first bill, because he looked upon the Roman Catholic to be, in no respect whatever, a suspicious subject. He had proved himself to be any thing but a suspicious subject. Having been for twenty-eight years admitted to the exercise of the elective franchise, they ought not now to impose on him what was called an additional security, but which, in fact, was no security. He should, therefore, have no objection, if the whole

229
of the provisions of the second bill were entirely expunged. It afforded him no facility in agreeing to the first measure, when he found it was accompanied by such a measure as the second. So far from its improving the original measure, it appeared, in his view of the subject, to detract so very much from its merits, that, if he were a Roman Catholic, he would say, "Take back your securities, I will not have them, and with them also take back the proffered boon." He said this, because he felt that they wanted no additional securities; and they ought not to insult individuals whom they were about to restore to political privileges. Did they not grossly insult the Roman Catholics by demanding those securities? Did they not say, speaking to the Roman Catholic clergy, "It is on your account we have kept the laity so long out of the possession of those good things which other subjects have enjoyed?" Did they not declare to the laity, "We have taken from you all your rights and privileges, because you have a disaffected body of clergy?" He knew, and he could state, from his own personal observation, that the very reverse of this was the truth, with respect to the Roman Catholic clergy in that part of the united kingdom from which he came; and, as he believed the reflection cast on the character of that body was a most unjust one, he should be ashamed if he could for a moment amuse their lordships with a notion that any shackles ought to be fastened on the Roman Catholic clergy as the price of concessions that were to be made to the laity. He had too great a respect for the judgment of those honourable persons who drew up the bill, and of those noble lords who would vote for the securities to believe that they were introduced for their satisfaction. The honourable person who brought the bill into the other House, and some noble lords who would probably speak in favour of the securities in that House, could not have a doubt on the fact, that a more respectable body of men than the Roman Catholic clergy did not exist. They well knew that there was no intercourse which those individuals could possibly have with the sovereign pontiff, that could be injurious to a Protestant state. They must be assured, that those securities were not wanted at all; and, if he might use the expression, they were only thrown out, as a tub to the whale—as a screen between
230
those noble lords and honourable persons to whom he had alluded, and the blind intolerance of certain individuals. A great deal ought to be sacrificed to insure the success of a measure for the relief of the Roman Catholics; but it was too much to sacrifice the character of a respectable body of men, exercising clerical functions, to satisfy the idle clamour of the ignorant and the intolerant.
It would be perhaps more proper to postpone what he was now about to mention to their lordships until the bill got into a committee; and if he had any sort of intimation from the noble earl opposite (the earl of Liverpool) or from the learned lord on the woolsack, that the House was likely to go into a committee on the bill, he would avoid troubling their lordships with a detail of certain alterations which he meant to propose, and which it was necessary he should state in his own defence, because he was not an advocate for the bill in the shape in which it came from the other House of Parliament. Indeed, he would be unworthy of a seat in that House, if, after what he had stated, he could attempt to advocate a bill so constructed. Many persons, and amongst them some noble lords in that House, who were as much attached to a Protestant constitution as he was, and who contemplated no danger from throwing it open to the Roman Catholics, were of opinion, that modifications ought to take place in this bill, which would do away many of those points that were most obnoxious to the feelings of his noble friends, to his own feelings, and to the feelings of the Roman Catholics. This, they conceived, might be done, without removing the real and substantial securities contained in the bill. In the first place this bill began with imposing on the clergy a compulsory oath—an oath to be enforced under the penalty of a misdemeanor. Now, he did not like the principle of compulsory oaths. There was a compulsory oath, and also imposed on the Catholic clergy, at the commencement of the French revolution, which they were obliged to take under the pain of deportation. But, thank God, that was not the act of a regular established government. The present oath was not compulsory on those persons who were to derive benefit from the bill, but on the clergy, whose situation would not be ameliorated by it. This oath must be taken by every Roman Catholic clergy-

231
man, though he had been in orders for half a century, under the penalty of a misdemeanor. There was nothing in the oath which any man need be unwilling to swear; but he objected to it in principle, as a compulsory oath. He also objected to it for another reason, as being unnecessary to carry into effect the machinery of the measure, which was completely set in motion by the other part of the bill. They ought assuredly to believe a man when he took this oath; but by the provisions of the bill, the person who had taken the oath would not be believed, even after he had sworn, since he was referred to another tribunal. It was, therefore, proposed to omit this oath altogether.
There was another part of the bill which ought to be attended to; namely, that clause which provided, that a commission should be created in both countries, for the purpose of receiving and considering the rescripts from the see of Rome. Instead of the two commissions which the bill proposed to appoint for the discharge of the duties therein confided to them, in England and in Ireland respectively, it would be proposed that there should be but one commission only to transact the business for both countries, in this the seat of the government. That the lay members of this commission should not be appointed at the fortuitous election of the ministers of the Crown; but that they should consist permanently of certain great officers of the Crown, to be particularly named in the bill, and of no others. He was quite sure that no documents would be transmitted to the bishops which they would be unwilling to submit to the board. Indeed, he thought that, in a very short time, the bishops would forget there was any board at all; and the office would become as complete a sinecure as any in the state. The government of Ireland was exceedingly well represented in the other House, by the right hon. gentleman who filled the office of chief secretary; and he was convinced, in performing the duties of his office, he would act without partiality to one party or another. But they had known gentlemen of a different temper and feeling in the office; and as, in that case, the board might become an office of patronage and emolument, or a field for the display of party feeling, he wished it to be established in this country. And to carry these intentions into execution, he was authorised to
232
declare, in the name of those noble lords before alluded to, that the following was the provision which it was their intention to substitute in the place of those provisions which now stood in this part of the bill, viz.—"That it shall and may be lawful for his majesty, his heirs, and successors, by commission under the great seal of Great Britain, to nominate and appoint commissioners for executing the several powers and duties hereinafter appointed to be by them exercised, and that the persons to be nominated and appointed shall be the persons, being Protestants, who shall, for the time being, hold the following offices; viz. those of the lord president of the council, his majesty's principal secretaries of state, the first commissioner of his majesty's treasury, the chief secretary of the lord lieutenant, lord deputy, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland; and that there shall be joined to them in the said commission such persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion and exercising episcopal duties or functions in the Roman Catholic church within Great Britain or Ireland, as his majesty, his heirs, and successors, shall be pleased to nominate and appoint—one at the least of such persons being a person exercising such duties or functions in Great Britain, and two at the least being persons exercising the same in Ireland."
There was another part of the bill which struck him as being defective. It was, he thought, a sufficient punishment for the person whom his majesty's government thought unworthy of holding the situation of a bishop, or a dean, to be rejected, when he was proposed for either of those offices. But, by the provisions of the bill, he was not only rejected, but insulted, since his name was placed on the rolls of the court of chancery, where it would remain, from generation to generation, accompanied by the humiliating comment, that government did not think him trustworthy. Instead, therefore, of the provision directing that the name of the person disapproved of as a bishop or a dean should be enrolled or posted in his majesty's court of chancery, it was intended to be provided, that the name should be only entered on the minutes of the board. —There was only one other point which he wished to have altered. By the bill, as it now stood, all documents sent from the see of Rome were to be submitted to the board, with the exception of those

233
that related to the confession of any individual or individuals. In those cases, it was enacted, that when any person received such a document, on his taking a certain oath, namely, that it related solely to spiritual matters, he would be authorised to transmit it, not to the board at large, but to the senior ecclesiastical commissioner. This he conceived to be an unwarrantable attack on the Roman Catholic clergyman, since it implied, that, in the performance of his duty, it was possible that he would, if a severe provision were not put in force, conceal the nature of the communication he had received. There was no person to whom the Catholic clergyman could communicate what he learned in confession, except to the head of his own church, when it was necessary to ask a conscientious question; and, therefore, the operation of this clause would be to force the Roman Catholic clergyman to do that which was directly contrary to his duty.—On the subject of the confessional, it was intended to be provided that, instead of the reference of the case, as now directed by the bill, to the senior ecclesiastical commissioner of the board, the oath of the person, that the document which he had received from Rome referred exclusively to the spiritual concerns of some individual, should be final and conclusive; and the person so making oath should be discharged from all penalty whatsoever.
He had now stated what alterations would be proposed in the Bill, if it should go to a committee. He had thought it right to make this statement, for the sake of the measure itself; because he wished their lordships to know distinctly what he was desirous of having carried into effect. The Catholic clergy asked for nothing. They only requested to exercise their functions as they did at present. They desired no stipend from government; they called for no extension of privilege. All they wished for was, to be allowed to perform their duties as heretofore. Their lordships were not entering into a treaty with their Catholic fellow-subjects. It was for their lordships to decide, and it was for them to receive that decision with deference and respect. The noble earl, in conclusion, repeated, in the strongest manner, his objections to any thing like a negative, or veto, upon the appointment of the bishops. Though he was persuaded that the government would never be disturbed by the recommendation of an im-
234
proper person as a Roman Catholic bishop, and that, on the other hand, the ministers would never go out of their way to interrupt the success of any such nomination, for the indulgence of party feeling, or any, other worse motive, he still objected to any such privilege being conceded to the government, still, because it was his decided conviction, that such precaution was altogether unnecessary, and that it was justly considered as a heavy and unmerited infliction upon them by the Roman Catholic clergy. He thanked their lordships for their patient attention to him. He had endeavoured to trace the origin and merits of the bill as far as it had hitherto gone. In advocating the Catholic interests, he trusted that he had said nothing in the least injurious to the feelings of any man. He had endeavoured to adopt the tone of forbearance and moderation used in passing the bill through the other House. Perhaps no man had ever been so anxious to do his duty fully and conscientiously. He would deeply lament it, if he had, in the course of that duty, wounded the feelings of any party. He would now move, "That the bill be now read a second time."
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that in addition to the embarrassment he must always feel in addressing their lordships, he laboured in the present instance under peculiar difficulty from the conviction that he could offer nothing which had not been more ably stated by others on former occasions, and from an apprehension that, by an injudicious selection of arguments, he might injure the cause he was anxious to serve. He had no hope of making any deep impression on the House; but he felt it to be his duty to express, as concisely as the nature of the subject would admit, his sentiments, which time and reflection, and even the conduct of those whom he most respected had not been able to alter; but which on the contrary all that he had seen, and a long residence in Catholic countries, had but tended to confirm. The present bill consisted of two parts: the first part went to admit Roman Catholics to almost all offices in the state; the second, to regulate their intercourse with the see of Rome. To the latter, many Catholics strongly objected; but it was to the former part of the bill that his objections would be directed; and he would begin by moving: —"That the bill should be read a second time this day six months." This bill ap-

235
peared to give up what was necessary to be retained for the security of the Protestant church, without satisfying the Catholics. It alarmed those who were attached to the established church, while it set no limits to the demands of the Catholics. For if any one supposed that the Catholics would ever be satisfied without having their laity admitted to all offices, without exception or restriction, and without obtaining for their clergy the restoration of all benefices and property of the church, and a recognition (in principle at least) of the right of that family to reign in this country, which had been set aside by the Bill of Rights, he was much deceived. Inordinate and reprehensible as his presumption might be thought, he would venture to say, that in his judgment those who expected the Catholics would be content with less than this, shewed little foresight, little knowledge of mankind in general, and of the Roman Catholics in particular. He conceived that some might contemplate such an arrangement when they supported the present measure, and be of opinion, that as the Presbyterian church was suffered to be the established church of Scotland, in the same way the Catholic church might be allowed to become the established church of Ireland. Much as he differed from those who were of this way of thinking, he was of opinion that even this would be less dangerous than the measure now before the House, which graduated them towards the object of their wishes, and gave them political power to enable them to proceed further. By the English constitution, Roman Catholics were excluded from all political power, and it appeared to him that to alter it in this respect would be to do away with its very essence. Was it wrong or right to exclude the Catholics from political power? The advocates for the bill might say that it was originally right, but that the reasons which justified their exclusion then were no longer in existence. He could wish to examine what the reasons were which formerly justified their exclusion, and what were the circumstances which had caused these to exist no longer. Let their lordships for a moment examine what ground there was for this opinion. Was it founded on some alteration in the character of the Roman Catholics, or on some important change in the leading features of their religion? The Catholics were daily ac-
236
quiring more consideration and power, and it surely was not therefore to be concluded that the laws ought to be repealed. Were their lordships prepared to say to the Catholics—"When you were inconsiderable in numbers and property, we dreaded your influence, and we then gave no encouragement to your religion because we considered it contrary to liberty and freedom of conscience; but we afterwards found out that an exaggerated sense of danger had induced us to impose heavy restraints upon you. We then relaxed our measures of precaution and we repealed all the severe laws under the operation of which you laboured. In consequence of this conduct of ours, your population and your wealth have rapidly increased; and now that you have numbers and power sufficient to do us no harm, we rely with confidence on your moderation. Come then, and share with us all the authority, all the advantages, we possess. Some little reservation must be made for the present, merely to blind unthinking Protestants; but very soon we will yield every thing and share with you the whole." Such was the effect of the principal argument in support of the bill, and nothing could be more inconsistent. It was also contended that the influence of the pope was no longer an object of apprehension. He was convinced, however, that the church of Rome was so constituted, that to guard against it ought always to be an object of solicitude with this government. Its practice might vary somewhat, according to circumstances, or according to the character of a particular pope; but its principles and its views were still the same. The manner in which the Roman Catholic church accommodated itself to circumstances was well known. At a time when men were not disposed to become proselytes, it adopted Pagan ceremonies, and incorporated them in the body of its rites. The Pagan name was changed, but the thing remained the same as before. Points held to be most material, and which served to distinguish Catholics from Protestants, were given up to gain an object. In one country, with the view of conciliating the people, married priests had been allowed to perform the ceremonies of the church. He was astonished at this indulgence; and upon inquiring into it, learned that it was excused by the pretence that the celibacy of priests in the Catholic church was a

237
matter of discipline, but not of doctrine. Where authority could not be safely exerted, the church was very accommodating; but where the Romish superstition completely prevailed, as in Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands, every point was insisted on. In fact, it was plain, that the desire of control remained unchanged in the church of Rome, though the manner in which that control was exercised was changed according to circumstances. He was ready to believe that the present pope would not instigate a massacre of St. Bartholomew; but when had the church of Rome condemned that massacre? He perhaps would not recommend an edict of Nantes; but was that edict ever blamed by the church of Rome? The present pope, he would admit grant concessions; but rise to the head of the church, and a future pope reverse what the present did. The pope was regarded as omnipotent, and no arrangement could now be obtained which might not be afterwards subject to reversion. Catholics might at one time be directed to submit to their lawful sovereign, and afterwards be absolved from their allegiance. Another remarkable feature of the Catholic religion was the influence which its priests exercised for the purpose of acquiring property. At the close of life, when consolation was wanted, it was not their practice to breathe peace into the mind, but to create alarm, in order to make peace be purchased. Hence immense sacrifices were made by persons at the hour of death. The facility with which the priests recovered their power, after it had been lost, was exemplified by what had occurred in France. Their lordships were aware that the Roman Catholic church had been completely put down in that country and its property seized during the revolution. Something had been done for the clergy by the late government; but the present king had gone farther and restored church property. The effects of the encouragement given them were soon manifested by the influence they acquired. When the clergy showed themselves, after the restoration of the king, they were treated with the greatest contempt. It was not possible for the priests to walk the streets without being insulted; but, by perseverance and artifice, they gradually gained an ascendancy over minds disposed to superstition. The progress they have made is astonish-
238
ing. Their zeal has chiefly been exercised in procuring the restoration of national property, and that not merely from the original purchasers, but from third parties into whose hands it had passed. What had passed in France was a fresh proof of the unchangeable character of the Roman Catholic religion, and that character he contended ought to be a just subject of apprehension with a British legislature, and its existence proved the danger of passing this bill. Such was the nature of the Catholic religion, that it mattered not how long an opposing force remained in action upon it; remove the force, and the evil existed as before. Like the story of the jar in an oriental tale,—when the cover was taken off, a column of smoke issued forth, and an imprisoned giant gradually arose, until his hand reached the skies; and, as the Catholic religion would do, this monster was no sooner set free from restraint, than he inflicted pain and misery on all around him. According to the bill now under consideration, a Catholic might command the fleet or the army. He might be a member of the House of Commons, or he might sit in their lordships House; he might be one of his majesty's privy council, or even a cabinet minister. Their lordships would then consider what serious consequences might arise from such a measure as this. By the interpretation of the constitution the king could do no wrong; and that principle certainly seemed to require that no Catholic should be placed in a situation in which his influence might be exerted against the liberties or the religion of the country. Should this bill pass, the king must still by law be a Protestant; but he might have Catholic advisers. If the system was to be abandoned by which the country had hitherto been governed, would it not be better to allow the king to be a Catholic, and require his advisers to be Protestants I It appeared to him that those who supported the present bill wished to abandon the greater security of the constitution and to retain the less. Might not the advisers of the Crown, if Catholics, secretly undermine the established church? Catholics were, it was true, excluded from educating youth in the university; but he saw no provision in the bill which excluded them from being tutors of the heir-apparent or the heir presumptive of the Crown. If then, the advisers of the Crown might be Catholics, and if the heir to the throne

239
might be educated by Catholics, he would put it to their lordships to say upon what just ground the succession to the throne had been altered. The noble lord anticipated serious consequences in Ireland from this measure. The Roman Catholic could not be lord lieutenant of Ireland, but he might be chief secretary. It was the business of the chief secretary for Ireland to bring most subjects under the consideration of the lord lieutenant. If the Catholic interest continued to increase in Ireland (as he had no doubt it would do), he did not see why they were not to expect that the chief secretary for Ireland would be influenced by the wishes of the Catholics; and the consequence of this would be, that we could have no assurance that measures would not be adopted favourable to them and unfavourable to the Protestants, but the expectation that the lord lieutenant would set himself firmly against every thing that came from his confidential adviser.—He could not but lament the difference of opinion which existed on this important subject in his majesty's councils. Some men might praise that difference of opinion; he, on the contrary, felt that on great questions of state a unity of sentiment gave vigour to public councils, whilst the want of it paralysed the energies of those who presided over them. But it was said, that the influence of Catholics would not be considerable. He contended that they would have power in the other House of Parliament, while in that House, in addition to the Catholic peers, who would immediately come in, a number of Catholic peers might be created by a Catholic minister. The Catholic party would have considerable power; and any party acting in parliament with energy and perseverance must ultimately obtain success. In such a state of things, what he would ask, would prevent the Catholics from uniting with the Dissenters to oppose the church establishment, to which both parties were equally hostile?—Besides these direct and inevitable consequences from passing this measure, there was the natural though not immediate consequence of its creating an indifference amongst Protestants to that state which no longer extended to them and their establishment its full and complete protection. It was said that this measure would secure the state a real union of support from the people of Ireland. To obtain such a union would be his most earnest wish; but it was not
240
alone a union with the Catholics of Ireland he desired; were there not also the feelings of the Protestants of that country to be considered? He knew that many of the latter yielded with great liberality their real sentiments upon this question, and overlooked the historical incidents of their country, which were but too well calculated to excite apprehension. They could not forget the proceedings in Ireland, in 1689, when James the II. gave a temporary triumph to the Catholic religion: they could not forget the barbarity with which the Protestants were then persecuted, and surrendered to an unbridled and licentious soldiery. The Protestant charters were then seized upon, and every insult heaped upon the professors of the Protestant religion; and, when James himself manifested some desire to secure to the Protestants those possessions which he promised they should enjoy, the Catholics refused to obey his order to restore what the Protestants had been despoiled of, denied his authority in spiritual matters, and declared that upon such they only owed allegiance to the see of Rome. They also at that time declared Ireland independent of England in her government. That was the toleration extended by the Catholics to the Protestants of Ireland in the reign of James. For the sake, then, of the Protestants, he protested against this bill. To the securities it provided he alike objected: they went to remedy no anomaly, to reconcile no subsisting difficulty. England had long enjoyed the benefit of her present form of laws. During their operation she had made a rapid progress in all the arts of civilized life: her arms had gained her the highest renown; and her constitution had been the admiration both of Catholic and Protestant: it secured to all the fullest enjoyment of toleration and personal protection. They ought never to forget the fact, that with the existing form of government was inseparably interwoven the Protestant church: the one could not be affected without the other. Tyranny was the great characteristic of an unlimited monarchy—caprice and uncertainty, of a republic; and with the same unerring certainty could they trace in the principles of Catholicity a predilection for arbitrary power; in those of Presbyterians a democratical tendency; while in the Protestant government of this country, the great distinguishing feature had ever been a practical demonstration of all the

241
principles of rational liberty, of justice, of order, of equal laws, and steady moderation. Was the glorious bulwark which exhibited such a spectacle to an admiring world, and which their ancestors had cemented with their blood, to be now remodelled? Was that to be done, too, at a moment when the church establishment was assailed by open foes, and undermined by secret ones? Was that the moment which was to be selected for exposing that church to the desertion of its national and natural support, and with it to the sacrifice of all those pure and salutary enjoyments which were now dispensed under its sacred influence and beneficial protection? For these reasons he was bound to give the bill his decided opposition.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that on the present occasion he could not reconcile it to his feelings to pursue the same course which he had followed on former occasions when this subject was under their lordships' consideration, namely, to express his dissent by a silent vote. The question came now before them in a shape which was entitled to their most respectful attention; for it came in a legislative form from the other House of Parliament. Against such a bill, it became now his duty to state his conscientious objections. He meant to offer an opposition, not only to the principle of the measure, but also to the details as embodied in the present bill. In taking this course he begged to disclaim all hostile or illiberal feelings towards the Catholic body, for such he had never entertained; on the contrary, his feelings and principles were ever to grant to all classes of his fellow subjects the full exercise of their religion without molestation or insult, while that religion contained nothing repugnant to morals or decency. To the Catholics he was always ready to grant the unfettered enjoyment of their form of worship, the free disposition of their property, the fullest personal protection, and an equal security under the laws. Beyond these was political power, and if he could not grant that, it was from a sincere apprehension for the safety of the Protestant establishment. He was ready to admit the loyalty of the Catholics, and particularly those of England, whose peaceable disposition and order had been for a century remarkable: and if any agitation had taken place among the Catholics of Ireland, he was sensible it was often attributable to the peculiar
242
state of that country, a state which he thought no particular foresight at the time would have remedied, and for which no immediate remedy could by any measure be applied. His great objection, however, was, to the religious principle of the Catholics—to that which required, on their part, unlimited submission to a foreign authority—an authority which assumed unlimited dominion over the consciences, excluding from them all exercise of their own reason regarding all matters of religion. It was a principle of that religion to regard all dissent in spiritual matters, as rebellious contumacy, and to require of its votaries the uniform advocacy of her interest and power. That was the genuine doctrine of the Catholic church, as avowed by her orthodox sons. If such, then, was its character, it followed that no oath or contract clashing with that spirit of discipline could be deemed by a Catholic as lawful or valid; and certainly none could be understood as being taken without a reservation of the nature he had alluded to. This reservation was implied in all the oaths or obligations of Catholics, and it pervaded every part of their religious policy. The Protestant made no such reservation—his salvo was with his God, while that of the Catholic was alone with his church, as a fixed rule and imperative measure of duty. Hence it followed, not that the Catholic, as had been invidiously stated, was not to be believed upon his oath, but that, when he took the obligation, he always kept in view a reservation for the rights and interests of his church. It was this mental reservation which weighed upon his mind, and which must have equally impressed the minds of those eminent and illustrious statesmen, who, at the time of the Revolution, saw no security for the liberties of their country, but in making its government essentially Protestant, and excluding from the prominent offices therein those who professed the Catholic religion. It was in this principle that the Protestantism of the throne was secured, and that the king was bound by the law to sacrifice any choice of Catholic ministers. Indeed, the same principle was so far recognised in this bill, that, notwithstanding its concessions, it expressly excluded Catholics from eligibility to fill the offices of lord chancellor, and lord lieutenant of Ireland. It prescribed the Catholic from advising the sovereign in matters touching the religion of the state, while it per-

243
mitted him to form a part of the legislature, which was to make laws for the empire. It disallowed Catholicity to the king and his immediate representatives, while it allowed it to Catholic governors of colonies, who must necessarily have considerable control over matters calculated to affect the Protestant church. The great predominating evil of this bill vas, that it divested the established church of the friendly and direct countenance and support of a Protestant government. He hoped their lordships would never give their consent to a measure so vitally altering the controlling principle of every branch of government at home and abroad. It was said that this measure would allay the agitation which prevailed in Ireland. He thought differently, and could not concur in ascribing to it such a healing effect. On the contrary, he thought great alarm would be naturally excited among the Protestants by this sudden transfer of so much power and influence to an adverse party. There was no reason whatever for supposing that this bill would give satisfaction to the Catholics of Ireland. It would work no material alteration in the actual condition of the great body of the people; for they could receive no sensible addition of privilege by its adoption: a few alone in the higher classes were likely to be advanced by it. Of the Catholic hierarchy he wished to speak with all possible respect; but, like all other men, they must be considered liable to human passions, and he could never believe they would abandon all hopes of resuming the eminence they once enjoyed in the state; or of repossessing that power and those privileges which they must persuade themselves they had lost by an unhallowed usurpation. The laical parts of the bill were comprehensive and unrestricted; it was the clergy who were alone alarmed and offended at the view taken of their situation in this bill; and yet this hostile feeling was induced by the provisos of a bill professedly conciliatory in its intended object. Those whom the legislature meant to propitiate were by the act of propitiation rendered still more alarmed and hostile to the measure. While, on the other hand, the Protestants, for whom the securities were intended, were hardly satisfied with the reserved restrictions, and had in their turn their feelings roused against the bill.—Upon the securities contained in the bill he would beg to say
244
a few words. If they were prepared, as the bill imported, to recognise the appointment of a Catholic hierarchy, and to legalize their intercourse with the see of Rome, he thought it not unreasonable to expect that the Catholics would be ready to concede, in their turn, some power of restricting or regulating the appointment of that hierarchy, and of examining the mode of maintaining that intercourse. It should always be remembered, that the danger to be apprehended was not likely to arise in the shape of open rebellion, but in the silent and certain changes which influence would work when Catholics had a power in the legislature, and an immediate concern in the government of the country. It was influence they had to dread, and an influence of a description against which no human wisdom, if these restrictions were withdrawn, could provide an effectual bar.—He did not think that the oath provided by the bill which disclaimed undivided allegiance was a sufficient substitute for the form of oath which had been withdrawn to make room for it. He contended that the only way of clearing up this part of the projected arrangement would be for the Catholics at once to give a full explanation of what they understood, in the way of distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction. This ought to be done in the first instance; for he must altogether protest against any ambiguity in the language of the oath. The right reverend prelate then quoted the historian Clarendon, who touched upon the distinction between temporal and spiritual authority, and pointed out the imperative necessity of having it clearly and explicitly defined. He thought it quite clear that when it was proposed to their lordships to make so great an alteration in the constitution as the present bill involved, it was understood that the alteration was to be accompanied by securities as permanent as the intended duration of the privileges to be conceded. Was that the case with the bill? It conceded every thing to the laity unaccompanied with restriction, and it affixed securities to ecclesiastical regulations, which it was quite clear, from the language used by the Catholic clergy, that if carried they must eventually be compelled to abandon. This being his view of the case, it was impossible he could countenance such a bill. It furnished no adequate securities for the safety of the Protestant government, while it

245
proposed at once to withdraw from the church and the state those barriers with which their ancestors had fenced round the glorious constitution they had reared. He could not consent to sever the bonds of national security provided by their ancestors: he could not consent to remodel that structure which had been settled on the basis of a pure religion, and upon views of state policy of the soundest kind.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, that if at any time he had risen upon this great question, with a full impression of the necessity of curbing his feelings, and arguing with coolness and temper, the present was the time when he felt the fullest necessity of dispassionately considering the important subject involved in this bill. The noble earl opposite had, in his powerful speech, thrown out a hint that the effect of passing this bill might be to induce a secession among Protestants, who otherwise would remain devoted to their church. Now upon this remark he should merely say, that he yielded to no man in the necessity of inviolably maintaining the Protestant religion. He had always felt this necessity when he had on former occasions advocated this vital question, and advocated it, he believed and trusted, upon the great principles which had placed that family, of which he was an humble member upon the throne of these realms. In looking at the great question now under their lordships consideration, he thought it behoved them, before they entered into the general argument, to examine what was the origin of the penal laws against the Catholics; to see whether the cause which led to them still required their continuance, and also to investigate how far the present state of society was constituted like that which provoked those laws, and if not, what changes that state had undergone, which required their modification or abrogation. It was very material to see how far the provisions of the bill were consistent with the state of things which had sprung up since the original enactment of the restrictions, and also how far they accorded with the opinions professed by Catholics in this and other countries. Much had been said of the proportion of confidence to be given to the obligations of Catholics. On this he would say, that before any man was justified in casting suspicions upon another, he ought seriously to reflect how far those suspicions were well-founded. In referring back to the origin of these laws,
246
it would be seen that they had begun in a time of great heat and irritation, and carried in some instances beyond the length which was intended by the framers. An historical review of those laws would at once show the spirit in which they were provided and the objects to which they were directed. His royal highness then read the 37th article provided by queen Elizabeth for the government of the church, which asserted the pre-eminence of the throne in matters civil and ecclesiastical. With reference to what had been said respecting the want of proper explanation on the part of the Catholics upon the distinction between temporal and spiritual jurisdiction, he begged permission to refer to what he had heard from an eminent professor under whom he had studied at the university of Gottingen. After reading a Latin extract from the jurist in question, the royal duke proceeded to read other extracts tending to explain the supremacy which queen Elizabeth exercised in the church of England. He then said, that if he could prove that in the question of the temporalities of the church, the whole power lay in the Crown; and if he could show that in all ecclesiastical arrangements coming from abroad—and he spoke not merely of this country, but also of other nations, even of those in which the Roman Catholic religion was the established religion—no law could be promulgated without the approbation and bene placitum of the sovereign, he thought that he should convince their lordships that the danger was only visionary which some individuals apprehended from allowing the Catholic population of the British empire to possess that share of legislative power to which their property, if it had been in other hands, would have entitled them, and which he himself considered to be one of the proudest boasts of the English constitution. In reference, then, to the danger, his historical knowledge led him to form a conclusion very different from that which had been formed upon the same subject by the noble earl who had preceded him; for not only did past events prove that the pope could have no influence in this country, but also that he never had any power in any country except such as the king of that country had lent himself to support. In this country it was not likely that the king would lend himself to the support of such power; for in it the king must be a Protestant. And

247
whilst he was on that subject he begged to remind the House, that the sovereign in England was not to be considered as an individual, but as a corporate body, surrounded and attended by many high officers of state, responsible each and all for the line of conduct which he pursued. Therefore not only the sovereign himself, but all his ministers must be Catholics, before any support could be given to the pope—a circumstance so improbable, that he considered the argument founded upon it as dying away of itself, and therefore unworthy of farther attention. Their lordships would also recollect, that if the king either professed the Catholic religion himself, or married an individual of that persuasion, he would be committing a breach of the act of settlement which had placed his family upon the throne. A remedy was therefore already provided for the danger which some noble lords anticipated from such a contingency. The question of the danger arising from the indirect interference of the pope led him to the consideration of a rule which had been made at the council of Trent, and which had not been subsequently invalidated, regarding the manner in which papal bulls were promulgated. Now, the formation of a general council was a meeting of all Catholicity. A general council consisted of the patriarchs, of the different churches, of the bishops and archbishops, of the different sovereigns of the states professing Christianity, of the heads of the monastic orders, of the professors of the different universities, &c. &c.; and unless all these parties attended either in person or by deputies, it was not a general council, neither could the pope's sanction of its enactments make it one. His royal highness then read the rule as stated in the Latin minutes of the proceedings of the council, regarding the manner in which papal bulls were to be propagated, and instanced a case which occurred in the Netherlands whilst Margaret of Parma was governor of them for Philip 2nd of Spain, and which proved, as he said, the little attention which was paid to them, when they were not supported by the temporal authority of the prince in whose dominions they were published. If such were the case in Spain and the Netherlands, à fortiori would it be so in an enlightened and Protestant country like England. His royal highness then took a review of the circumstances which led to the Revolution
248
in 1688, and also of those which seated on the throne of England the family to which he had the honour to belong. At that time, the Roman Catholics were a body of men that caused great alarm and apprehension to the government; but at present the case was completely altered. The pope was reduced to that state of insignificance, or, if he had not had a reluctance to trample upon the fallen, he would have said to that feeble, ridiculous, and despicable state which sir W. Black-stone had described as the fit time for reviewing and softening those rigorous edicts against Roman Catholics, which nothing but the most apparent state necessity could for a moment justify. Feeling that to be the case, and having an earnest desire that his fellow Catholic subjects should be admitted to a full participation of the blessings of the constitution, he should give his vote in favour of the present bill, especially as he considered the securities which it demanded from the Catholics to be sufficient to preserve the country from those dangers which some noble lords feared from the passing of it. In conclusion, his royal highness conjured their lordships to recollect that what they were then doing was legislation, not concession; and implored them, if they were of opinion, as he was, that the present bill gave no more to the Catholics than what was just and expedient, to afford it their warmest and most immediate support.
The Marquis of Buckinghamobserved, that the arguments which had been used in the course of the debate referred more to the existence of certain tenets and doctrines in the Roman Catholic religion, than to the question whether the restrictions under which the Catholic population laboured were such as were just and deserving of a longer continuance. This circumstance arose from the peculiar nature of the subject then before their lordships, which, on every occasion that it was discussed, added strength to the advocates of emancipation, not so much from any increase of talent that they acquired, as from the perpetual variation of arguments to which they drove their opponents. Time after time had the defenders of the restrictions been obliged to take refuge from their old arguments behind some new intolerances; and time after time had that intolerance been proved as untenable as those which had been previously abandoned. The noble mar-

249
quis, in confirmation of this assertion, took a short review of the penal laws which had formerly existed against the Roman Catholics, of the successive arguments by which the existence of those laws had been defended, and of the circumstances under which they had been severally repealed; and inferred from that review, that up to the year 1793, the repeal of them had been caused, not so much by a sense of justice, as by the necessity of the times. It was true that in late years a more benignant and tolerant spirit had begun to display itself. He recollected that in 1806 the admission of Catholics into high command in the army and navy was looked upon as a measure calculated to subvert both the altar and the throne; but within the last year or two, an act, giving them that admission, had passed both Houses of Parliament almost without a debate, and certainly without any protest being entered against it, even by such of their lordships as had most strenuously opposed it upon a former occasion. Thus, sfter a course of two hundred and sixty years, they had almost restored the Catholic to the enjoyment of the same privileges as he had possessed in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Some privileges, however, were still withheld. He was now permitted to fight the battles of his country, and to pay his share to the burdens imposed upon it: he was not, however, allowed to sit in its senate, and to decide on the measure that was necessary to its preservation. He was allowed to till the land and to sow the seed; but he was refused any participation in the harvest, and yet he was said to be treated with a spirit of candour and toleration. Step by step had concession yet been made to him; and that concession ought to continue until he was placed within the limits of the constitution, as defined by acts of parliament and as guarded and secured by the language of the law. Their lordships had no right to exclude any person from a full participation in the blessings of that constitution, unless they could show that danger would befall it from consenting to his administration. Indeed, unless their lordships were prepared to prove that the danger of admitting the Catholics to the full rights of a British subject would be as imminent to the constitution, as it was at the time that he was excluded from it, they were not acting upon the principles of their ancestors,
250
but upon some new principles which they had fashioned for themselves; for he was ready to maintain by historical evidence, that never had the Catholic, as a Catholic, been excluded from office in England; and if their lordships excluded him for any other cause than his own demerits, they were acting with as much injustice as they would be in punishing an individual for a robbery which had been committed by one of his ancestors 250 years ago. How then did the case stand with regard to the Catholic? At the Reformation did Edward 6th exclude Catholics from his council-board? Certainly not; his first council consisted of Catholics as well as of Protestants. He was excommunicated by the pope for the share which he took in promoting the Reformation. Did he therefore exclude Catholics from offices of power and dignity? Certainly not. A rebellion broke out in the north in consequence of that excommunication. Who was sent to quell it? The lord of the marches, lord de Clifford, a Catholic. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, when the Spanish Armada was hovering around the coasts of England, who did she appoint to the command of the fleet to oppose it? Lord Howard of Effingham, a Catholic. Who did she appoint to the defence of Dover-castle, at that time the most important fortress in the country? A nobleman that was a Catholic. Who also did she intrust with the office of lord high admiral of England, an office of such power and importance, that succeeding ages have considered it dangerous to intrust it to any subject, and have therefore placed it in the hands of a commission? Lord Howard, of Effingham, a Catholic nobleman. The lion-ported daughter of Henry the 8th did indeed alter the form of the oath of supremacy as administered to the Commons; but, from a well-founded confidence in their loyalty, she did not compel the peers to submit to that alteration. She would not, as had been well-expressed by lord Bacon, place windows in a man's breast to discover what was passing within, and therefore never excluded the Catholic from power. James 1st, though the gunpowder-plot had been devised to destroy him, showed towards them the same forbearance. In the reign of the second Charles the Catholics were excluded from power. And why? Because they had been busily engaged, or were supposed to have been busily engaged, in plots to overthrow

251
the government. But did that measure of exclusion extend to the Catholics of Ireland? By no means. Their lordships were, however, now told, that if the Catholics were to be re-admitted into parliament, their numbers, though small and insignificant, would soon increase to such an extent, as would lead them to form designs subversive of the altar and the throne. The experience of history was directly opposed to this position. In the reign of Charles 2nd, when the king was secretly a Catholic, when the queen and the presumptive heir to the throne were avowedly Catholics, and when Catholics had the right of sitting in parliament, they could not prevent themselves from being excluded from it? Was the church of England weaker now than it was in that day? Were its friends now no less zealous than they were upon that occasion? If they were not, why should they fear those circumstances in the reign of George 4th, which had not been productive of harm in the reign of Charles 2nd? In the succeeding reign, James endeavoured to establish arbitrary power by the instrumentality of the Catholics, and in consequence was expelled the throne. Did William 3rd exclude the Catholics merely because they were Catholics? No: the preamble of the penal acts passed in his reign all recited some positive conspiracy in which the Catholics were engaged, and unsuccessfully engaged, to overthrow the government. It was not till after the peace of Ryswick that the attention of that monarch was particularly called to the Catholics of Ireland. He then treated with Ireland, and pacified it by the treaty of Kilkenny—a treaty in which it was stipulated that the Catholics should not be called upon to take the oath of supremacy, but only the oath of allegiance: and that, for the further conciliation between him and his Irish subjects, a free parliament should be assembled at Dublin, elected both from the Catholic and the Protestant part of the community.—The noble marquis, after stating that all that Protestants admitted in taking the oath of supremacy was, that the king was the head of the church in temporal affairs, and after denying that they admitted that he was the head in matters of conscience, proceeded to state, that with such an understanding the Catholics were ready to take the oath, to which he had heard a reverend prelate state in answer, that it was but an oath,
252
and that Catholics were not to be believed upon oath.
The Bishop of Londonrose to explain. He had never said that Catholics were not to be believed upon oath: all he had said was, that a Papist on taking an oath took it with a reservation of the duty which he owed to his church, which was a limitation that Protestants did not use.
The Marquis of Buckinghamsaid, he did not wish to misrepresent the reverend prelate; but taking the matter upon his own exposition, it amounted very nearly to the same meaning as he had put upon it. He thought, however, from what had fallen from the reverend prelate, that he had never read either the oath proposed to the Catholics in 1793, or that now proposed to them, and which had been drawn up by a gentleman, who certainly was not one of their greatest friends That reverend prelate and those noble lords who acted with him must believe either that a Catholic was to be trusted upon his oath or that he was not. If he was to be trusted upon his oath, their lordships had bound him by one—if he was not, and if he disregarded oaths altogether, what was it that prevented him from sitting among them in parliament? By his not being there, he showed that he regarded an oath; and it was too much, after their lordships had framed an oath, and he had showed that he regarded it, for them to turn round and to say that he could not be believed even upon an oath—The noble marquis then read the oath of 1793, which disclaimed all the objectionable points imputed to the Catholics, and which they had declared their readiness to take. He then asked, what had become of the fears which a noble earl had expressed for the property of Ireland, and a reverend prelate for the property of the church? He next implored the House to go into a committee, and to consider what securities would be sufficient, if those in the present bill appeared to be insufficient. This he conceived it to be the imperative duty of their lordships to do; for he did not think that there was one man among them who could lay his hand upon his heart and say that he was convinced that this measure would not ultimately pass both Houses of Parliament. The bill was recommended to their lordships by one of the Houses of Parliament; it was recommended by the petitions and pledges of the Roman Catholics; it was recommended by the ac-

253
quiescence of the Protestants. If their lordships were convinced that, sooner or later, this bill must pass—as pass it would i—where was the wisdom of putting off the passing of it? Was the political horizon so clear that there existed no motive for tranquillizing all the inhabitants of this country? Where was the statesman who could say, when he looked upon the present state of Europe, that no necessity would soon arise for calling for the united affection and support of all classes of the people? If the period should ever arrive when mutual charity and mutual concord would be required, and when the system of religious hostility and political exclusion must be abolished, in the name of God let them be prepared to meet that call, by now giving, in the calm deliberation of legislative wisdom, the rights and privileges which justice and policy at once demanded and warranted.
The Bishop of Chesterthought this a most important subject, and he therefore thought, let the result of that night's discussion be what it would, that he should not discharge his duty as a bishop and a Protestant if he gave his vote against the second reading of this bill, without stating as briefly and as clearly as he could his reasons for giving that vote. It appeared to him, that the Catholics were already in possession of complete religious toleration; and it would, he conceived, be a waste of their lordship's time to go into any arguments in proof of that opinion, as the doors of Roman Catholic places of worship were as open as the doors of Protestant churches; but the jet of the argument was, that civil immunities and privileges which were enjoyed by the Protestants were denied to the Catholics. This appeared to him to be done for the wisest of purposes, because, he was of opinion, when an invariable connexion was observed between the religious opinions and political conduct of any body of men, the legislature was called upon to interfere. But, before he said any more, he should beg leave to disclaim all reflections upon the Catholics as a body, and all insinuations against any individual Roman Catholics, and to state, that in no part of the kingdom was there a greater number of Catholics than in his Diocese, and he was proud to declare that the most friendly intercourse subsisted between them and their Protestant neighbours; but his objections lay not against
254
the individuals but against the religion. He did not doubt that the individuals were desirous of doing every thing which they should promise, but he more than doubted their ability to execute these promises. One tenet of the Roman Catholics was, that the members of churches different from the Roman Catholics were out of the pale of salvation, and this was the tenet which formed such a wide line of separation between the Catholics and Protestants. If this creed were not intended to be acted upon, why was it suffered to remain upon the statute book of the church? Another tenet of the Roman Catholics was, that all bargains made against the interest of the church were ipso facto a nullity. If this tenet were not proposed to be acted upon, why not be abrogated by the same authority which imposed it? Some had said that the doctrines of the church had nothing to do with the conduct of its members; but this appeared to him altogether illusory. It must be recollected, that human conduct was made up of civil and religous motives, and it must be allowed that these principles counteracted each other. If the Roman Catholics held the pope to be head of the church in one respect, and the king the head of the church in another, and that these interests should clash with each other, there could be little doubt to which the preference would be given. His inference from the declaration of 1793 was different from that drawn by the noble marquis. In 1793 a declaration was drawn up, signed by several hundreds of the Roman Catholic gentry of the country, containing every thing which most Protestants could require; but what was the result? Three bishops apostolic published a letter, prohibiting the laity from any further interference in point of doctrine; and the consequence was, that the oath and declaration were both with, drawn. He stated this merely to show the paramount influence which the hierarchy possessed over every true son of the church; and there was every reason to believe, that what had taken place on that occasion would, under similar circumstances, occur again. Whilst the Roman Catholic acknowledged the sovereignty of the pontiff, and believed the doctrines of that church, he for one felt justified by the tenor of his holy religion, the sound principles of morals, and looking to his own interest and preservation, in withholding these privileges until he

255
had reason to hope that the granting of them would not be attended with danger. This was the first argument which struck his mind, and he did not think it could be answered; and of this he was sure, that it never had been answered. The argument which weighed next with him, was, that the British constitution, as settled at the Revolution, was, in all its parts, Anti-Catholic; the king must be Anti-Catholic; both Houses of Parliament Anti-Catholic; almost every oath for admission to office were in their nature Anti-Catholic; every peer, and every member of parliament were obliged to take an oath which was Anti-Catholic; every clergyman before his appointment to a benefice, was obliged to declare, upon oath, that no foreign prince had any jurisdiction in this realm. If this bill should pass, how could a clergyman take that oath? The 37th article of the church said, that the bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in this realm; and to the 39 articles every clergyman subscribed; but if this bill, which appointed a different oath for the Roman Catholic, should pass, how could a clergyman subscribe to these articles? He must say, that a greater anomaly in legislation did not exist; and, in short, if this bill should pass, almost every oath must be altered. Protestantism was the foundation upon which the British constitution was raised; but if Catholic emancipation should be granted, all which had been done at the Revolution would be undone, and all for which their lordships' ancestors had sacrificed their lives would be lost to their posterity. From what had been seen during the progress of this bill there was no reason to believe that the Catholics of Ireland would remain satisfied. When it was recollected, that during the reign of our late ever to be revered monarch great concessions had been made to the Catholics, and that the concessions of 1793 were more than they had asked for, it would be seen that the demands of the Catholics had grown out of that upon which they fed. He must reluctantly declare to the House, that a large Roman Catholic college had been established at Stonyhurst, and that many Jesuits had been brought from Liege in Germany to that college, where an order of Jesuits was established, and that many Roman Catholic youths had been instructed by those Jesuits. If this bill should pass, and an intercourse with Rome be esta-
256
blished, he could not see what would prevent the establishment of a college of Jesuits in London, or in any other place throughout the kingdom; but he could hardly think that the Parliament was ready to admit that England should afford a shelter to men who had been banished from Russia, and who had ever been famed for bigotry and intolerance.—Another argument against the present measure was, that the Roman Catholic religion was the nurse of arbitrary government, and that Protestantism was the genial soil of liberty. In the Papal reigns of Mary and of James the liberties of the people were outraged, and with the dawn of the Reformation and Protestantism, liberty arose. In the Roman Catholic countries on the continent the despotism of the sovereigns was complete, while in Switzerland and Holland, and the other Protestant countries, liberty and Protestantism went hand in hand. Perhaps he attached more weight to this argument than it was entitled to; but liberty, civil and religious, was amongst those things which he prized most, and which he should be least willing to lose. He felt that he had sufficiently trespassed upon their lordships' time; and the last argument which he should use was the nature of the coronation oath. The king was sworn to preserve inviolate the Protestant church; but if this bill should pass, where would be the necessity of this oath? If the ministry and the parliament should be Catholic, of what service could this oath be? He now acted upon what had been the express conviction of the most eminent men who lived for the two last centuries. Before he sat down, he would express his hope and prayer that the vote of that night would prevent forever again the recurrence of this question; and that their lordships would not by their decision open the door to any measure dangerous to the established securities on which this Protestant empire rested.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, that he had never acted in that House as a party man. He conceived that a bishop ought not to act in that House but where religious matters were involved. He had frequently before advocated the question then under discussion, and humanly speaking, that would be the last time that he should ever have an opportunity of addressing their lordships upon it. He would then ask what was the church which it was proposed to secure by disa-

257
bilities and penalties? No one could venture to say that it was that church of which the lawgiver and head had declared that his kingdom "was not of this world." Christianity prohibited every harsh, severe, and uncharitable opinion. If no other passage of the New Testament enforced this liberality, it would be sufficient to refer to the terms in which the Divine Founder of Christianity reprimanded his disciples, who had falsely imagined that their religion was to be supported by judicial interposition even from Heaven; when he told them that they knew not what manner of spirit they were of. If any thought their church could not be maintained without disabilities and penalties on millions of men they had reason to fear, either that their church was bad, or that they were in error as to the means of supporting it. No one was more anxious than he was, for the support of the church of England; he would venture his life for the truth of its doctrines and the wisdom of its discipline. But the most Christian means of upholding it he conceived to be, not disabilities and penalties, but learning and exemplary conduct on the part of the clergy; kindness, candour, moderation, and forbearance, on the part of all its members.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the bill. He said, he could see nothing in it but a principle of contradiction. Throughout the whole, one Clause was in direct contradiction to another. Protestantism had been established in this country on a principle of exclusion, it was on that principle the throne was made hereditary in the Protestant line. This bill was inconsistent with the permanent establishment of Protestantism. Was it by the words of an act of parliament, by a mere piece of parchment that it could be secured? No, exclusion was the security, and the only security on which they could rely. It was for this reason that a Catholic or any person who married a Catholic was excluded from the throne. When, in the time of Charles 2nd a bill had been introduced to prevent James from succeeding to the throne, it was opposed on the same ground on which the present measure was supported. The arguments were the same as those now used. It was asked, whether they would exclude that monarch from the succession for entertaining conscientiously his religious belief as a Roman Catholic? The answer was, Yes; because a Catholic monarch could not
258
properly administer a Protestant government. The dangers of such policy were pointed out—and, after James came to the throne were not all these dangers realised? Parliament subsequently came to the decision that it was inconsistent with the interests of a Protestant government, that a Catholic should sit upon the throne. The establishment of this principle of exclusion was argued against by the reverend prelate as uncharitable: but he would ask, was it uncharitable to take measures for the security of the Protestant church and government? He was no personal enemy to the Roman Catholics. In opposing this measure, he could not be accused of inconsistency, because on a former occasion, he brought in a bill for their relief. He then declared how far he was ready to go, and as this measure went much beyond what he thought expedient or necessary, he felt it his duty to vote against it. This he did, not upon religious, but political grounds. Every religious sect in a state was a political party. The established church itself was such, and it was as a political party he considered the Catholic Church in this country. No person had a higher opinion than he had of the Roman Catholic peerage and gentry, but he viewed them as a political party. Whatever might be their integrity, their importance and their loyalty, experience showed that, in political matters, their sentiments were not those that must prevail with the great body of their own communion. In questions of policy it would be found that the tail governed the head. What had been the ease with the protest of the Roman Catholic prelates? It was signed by three vicars apostolic, and only one refused to subscribe to the sentiments it conveyed. His opinion, however, prevailed. It was no argument to talk of the respectability and loyalty of the Catholic gentry, for, as he said before, the tail governed the head. Another objection which weighed strongly with him was, that the Roman Catholic religion allowed no man complete possession of his own conscience. The bill professedly proceeded on the principle of giving security to a Protestant succession to the throne, and to the Protestant churches of England and Scotland, but went on to enact what would certainly undermine the only foundations on which that security rested. Among other provisions for security, was one to regulate the corres-

259
pondence between the see of Rome and the Catholic prelates—that was, to regulate what was declared illegal by law, without repealing the laws so declaring it illegal. The bill did not attempt to repeal those laws professedly, but by a side wind; it, in fact, made the Roman Catholic church an established church here, and entirely passed over two acts of parliament—one for England, the 1st of queen Elizabeth, introduced professedly for the purpose of extinguishing for ever in these realms all foreign power, temporal or spiritual. This bill proceeded on the admission of spiritual authority in the pope. If the framers of it were disposed to act openly, they would have recited the 1st of queen Elizabeth, and a similar act for Ireland, which was the 2nd of queen Elizabeth. The substance of these acts should be considered; they were in principle and substance the same as those which established the throne in the Protestant line, and excluded king James. The right rev. prelate thought it uncharitable to exclude from the succession all the descendants of James except the electress of Hanover. The only reason for the exclusion was, that they professed the Roman Catholic religion, and were they now to assert that the king occupied the throne on a false and uncharitable principle? When it was asked, what fears could be entertained from admitting Catholics to seats in parliament? he would answer, that the fears to be entertained were neither visionary nor trifling. What were the consequences of admitting the Catholics of Ireland to a share in sending members to parliament? If a bill to that effect had not passed, the present measure would never have come up to that House. Instead of conciliating, it would only irritate, for the generality of men were governed by their passions and prejudices, and not by reason. The noble earl who moved the second reading, disclaimed any wish on the part of the Catholic clergy of Ireland, or any disposition to interfere with the emoluments of the established church. He said they would rest content with the alms and free offerings of those of their communion. When he was in Ireland a very different sentiment prevailed among some of the most respectable of the Catholic body. He was invited to a house where there were present many distinguished persons; he was the only Protestant among them. The conversation turned on a provision
260
for the Roman Catholic clergy. The proposal was, he believed, 100 l. a year for parish priests, 2,000 l. for archbishops, 1,000 l. for bishops, 500 l. for deans, and so on, the whole amounting to about 290,000 l. a year. He asked how it was to be paid? and the answer was, out of the possessions of the church; that the Protestant clergy must consent to give up sufficient for that purpose; that a provision, in the shape of a regium donum, would not be accepted, as it would make the Catholic clergy dependent on the Crown, and lessen the influence they possessed over their flocks. The measure could not fail to create a desire of making the Catholic the established church of Ireland. In this country the number of Roman Catholics was so small that it would be ridiculous to think of re-establishing their religion in it. There was no hierarchy here; but such was not the case in Ireland. Let the religion be once established in Ireland, and there was a hierarchy at hand, archbishops, bishops, deans, and chapters. Considering that the bill could be productive of no good effects in either country, that on the contrary it would only lead to irritation on one side, to disappointment and to further demands on the other, he felt it his duty, as well for these as the reasons before stated to oppose it.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he could not consent to give a silent vote, both on account of the importance of the question and the part he had taken in former debates upon this subject. The tone assumed by the opponents of the measure, who did not indeed denounce its supporters as enemies to the church establishments, but insisted that the whole course of argument in its favour tended to its destruction, also induced him to press a few remarks upon the House. He would yield to no man in the sincerity and warmth of his attachment to the established church, and he declared that this measure would meet with his decided opposition, if he could be persuaded that there was any just ground for apprehending danger to the church. It was an object of no small importance to remove every galling feeling from so large a portion of the community, and to unite every man in the empire in its defence against every danger that might assail it. This was an advantage, however, which, great as it was, might be purchased too dear. The principle of the present bill

261
was, to grant to the Catholics whatever could be granted with security to the Protestants. Such was the principle of the bill; and it would be necessary so to restrain its provisions as to make them compatible with that principle. This, however, was not the stage for opposing the measure; and he thought that none of their lordships ought to vote against the second reading of the bill, who were not prepared to contend that there was nothing in the conduct of the Catholics, nothing in the advancement of knowledge which either now or at any time could warrant an alteration of the existing laws. Though little that was new could be offered on either side of the question, yet a good deal that was old had that night been omitted, or only slightly introduced. For instance, the House had heard a great deal less than formerly of the bigoted decrees of the pope, and of the various acts of usurpation and tyranny that had disgraced the history of Catholicism. But if the arguments employed on the other side proved any thing, it seemed to him that they proved a great deal too much: if they were well-founded, it was impossible not only that a Catholic should be a good legislator, but that he could be a good subject. Yet it required no very subtle arguments to show that Catholics both had been and might be good subjects, though they might now and then prove erroneous reasoners. Every doctrine of a dangerous description they had distinctly abjured in the strongest possible language. One right reverend prelate had touched upon the intolerant doctrines of the Catholics, such as that theirs was the only true church, and that out of its pale there was no salvation. But, was that the only church that entertained such doctrines? Was not the Prebyterian church of Scotland equally intolerant? In 1646, it had been seen requiring the parliament to put down and extirpate all heretics; and accordingly the parliament had passed an ordinance against heresy. He did not wish to revive unpleasant feelings against that church, but could any authentic document be produced in which this intolerance was disavowed? Nevertheless, within sixty years, on the accession of king William, an attempt was made at a union with Scotland; it was renewed in the opening of the reign of Anne, but it was not until some time
262
afterwards that it was completed. What took place during those discussions? The Kirk of Scotland solemnly warned the parliament not to concur in the toleration of episcopacy; yet with this dreadful threat and imminent danger, the parliament of England consented to take into its bosom 16 peers and 45 commoners belonging to that intolerant Kirk. The warning was not confined to the Presbyterians; for one of the most eminent peers of that day, seconded by others, prophesied the most fearful consequences from this admission of Presbyterians, and declared that if the bill for the union passed, he should have outlived all law and the very constitution itself. Notwithstanding these gloomy predictions, could any man now contend that that union had not proved one of the strongest and firmest supports of the church establishment of this country? As to the number of Catholics that could sit in parliament in consequence of this bill, he had taken measures to obtain the best information, and he found that there were only about seven peers, of the noblest families in the empire, who would become entitled to take their seats in that House; and as to the other House, he understood that possibly about fourteen or fifteen representatives might be returned, but probably not more than five or six. And was it to be supposed that the whole colour of the Protestant parliament was to be changed by this insignificant infusion of Catholicism? He was convinced, not only that the fears of some persons exaggerated the danger, but that in truth apprehensions were perfectly groundless. Their lordships bad heard of dangers to arise from a constant union of Catholic members turning the scale upon every question as to which parliament was nearly divided; but surely the object of such an union must be at once defeated, by the very defiance and opposition which its formation would excite. At all events there was as much, if not more, danger of such cabal among Protestant members returned by Catholic interest. He did entreat of their lordships not to reject, without consideration, the bill which came to them recommended by a majority in the lower House. This mark of deference was, in his opinion, due, whatever decision their lordships might be disposed ultimately to pronounce upon the measure. The time was peculiarly auspicious for the fair and full considera-

263
tion of this measure. For happily we were not at present occupied in any foreign war, or agitated by any internal disturbance, or driven to the question by any clamour or menace. No clamour or menace had indeed been raised on either side of this important question, and thus the House was left calmly and considerately to examine all its merits, and to come to a cool, dispassionate conclusion. The noble earl impressively urged the impossibility of allowing matters to stand as they did at present with respect to the Catholics. The Commons had declared in favour of their claims; and therefore, whatever might be the fate of the present motion, their lordships must expect to have the subject brought before them, session after session. Were their lordships prepared for keeping up a perpetual conflict with the Commons, and maintaining the eternal refusal of any concession to the Catholics? Would not their lordships consent even to put the English Catholics upon a footing with the Catholics of Ireland? For if they would, that was a reason for allowing this bill to go into a committee. The Catholic freeholders in Ireland were at present on a level with the Protestant freeholders; and while such political power was granted to the peasantry, why should proportionate power be refused to the rich and enlightened among the Catholic body? Or why, as it was often and impressively stated, should a perpetual retaining fee he held out to every Catholic barrister for sedition and disaffection, by placing beyond his reach the reasonable objects of his ambition? The noble earl concluded with expressing his hopes that their lordships would treat with due respect the decision of the other House after mature deliberation, and that whatever their final vote might be, they would allow the measure to go into a committee, and thus satisfy the public that they were not influenced in their decision by passion or by prejudice, or by any considerations inconsistent With those which should influence the conduct of temperate and enlightened statesmen.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that as there was no probability Of the debate being gone through that night, he thought it convenient at that time to move an adjournment until to-morrow; for, whatever might be the ultimate decision of the House, it was desirable, that no one within or without this House
264
should have any reason to conclude that the question had not been deliberately and fully discussed.
The debate was accordingly adjourned till to-morrow.