Sitting of 8 May 1828

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Numerous petitions were this day presented for and against Catholic Emancipation. After which,
Sir Francis Burdettrose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
Before I enter upon the subject which stands for discussion this evening, I beg leave to offer a few words of apology to those gentlemen who, I understand, have been put to some inconvenience, in consequence of my having altered the day on which I intended to bring it forward.
376
It cannot, Sir, be necessary for me to assure those gentlemen, that no disrespect to them, but a consideration which ought to direct the conduct of any one charged with bringing forward a subject of this importance alone directed mine; that is, a consideration of all the circumstances most advantageous to the question itself. Many reasons must be obvious to every one, of the propriety of this postponement. One, however, I would beg leave to mention, amongst others; which was its having been suggested to me, that it was hardly fair towards the administration, under their peculiar circumstances, not to have afforded them the short delay.
I shall now proceed to state to the House the grounds upon which, in my humble opinion, the great question which stands this evening for our determination may be said to rest. I cannot but be very sensible of the great difficulty under which, upon this occasion, I labour; owing, first, to the question itself having been, for many years, as it were, exhausted by the greatest abilities the country has ever produced, and under these circumstances being deprived moreover of the support received, upon former occasions, by those splendid talents which, in this instance, I am deprived: first, by the removal to the House of Lords, of the right hon. and learned Attorney-general for Ireland, who had, as it were, consecrated his great powers to the support of the rights of his Catholic fellow-countrymen; still, however, in another place, the cause will receive the benefit of his exertions.
But, with respect to the right honourable gentleman late at the head of the Administration, his loss is altogether subject of unmitigated regret; and certain I am, that those whose rights are this evening to be advocated will feel as I do, how irreparable it is, not only on account of the eloquence of the right hon. gentleman, but of the authority also to be derived from his situation. It is a consolation to me to reflect, at this moment, that although almost invariably opposed to the late Mr. Canning, during the far greater part of my political life, constantly, indeed, and zealously opposed, upon topics of the greatest public interest, well calculated to excite the strongest and the warmest feelings, still I am able to say, that my political hostility to the right hon. gentleman was never debased by feelings of a malignant nature, nor my judgment warped by envy

377
of talents, the use of which, however much lament, never for a moment made me blind to his merits, or induced me to withhold from them that admiration they were so well calculated to excite.
It must still be a greater consolation to those who were the nearest and dearest friends of Mr. Canning to reflect, that, however deeply they may deplore his loss, at no moment could they have sustained it, attended with circumstances so calculated to alleviate their sorrow, and so honourable to himself, and in which it may, without exaggeration, be said, they are sympathized with by the whole civilized world—that at no moment could they have been deprived of him with more advantage to his own lasting fame and reputation—that at no moment could he have left behind him a memory more endeared by the fond hopes and expectations conceived of him by his own countrymen, and by the regrets of Europe, which have accompanied him to the grave. So that to him may be applied the memorable words of the great Roman historian to his illustrious father-in-law—" Tu vero felix, Agricola, non vitœ tantum claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis." Had Mr. Canning lived a thousand years, he could have never found a moment more favourable for terminating his political career with more lustre and renown; placing his reputation out of the reach of fortune and beyond the injuries of time. But, Sir, though he is dead, upon this subject "he yet speaketh;" and I avail myself of his authority upon this subject, by declaring myself actuated by the same spirit and the same feeling, with respect to it, which he professed in advocating the same cause; and I propose to end the observations which it will be my duty to offer to the House, with a Resolution, which having been enforced by that right hon. gentleman in former times, and having met, in former times, with the sanction of a large majority of the House, will, I trust, enable me to call upon the House, in point of consistency, again to adopt, and not suffer itself to be outstripped by the rest of the civilized world in the career of liberality and justice.
I contend, with the late Mr. Canning, that there is nothing in this question hostile to the well-being and the true principles of the Established Church. To that Church I belong, and as a friend to it, I urge the question of Catholic
378
Emancipation on the attention of the House; and though the accident of birth and education originally attached me to it, yet reason and principle would now lead me to adopt it. Indeed, private as well as public feeling strongly operate, no doubt, upon my mind, with respect to it. It has been my lot to have had some of my earliest and most valued friends amongst its members; nor can I refuse to myself, at this moment, the satisfaction of stating, that I have still the happiness to possess the friendship of one of its most distinguished ornaments—an individual who, however he may court retirement, can never be hid in obscurity—adorned by talents and virtues fitting him for any situation, but peculiarly adapted to that in which he is fortunately placed, as President of Magdalen College, Oxford. At the risk even of giving him offence, I cannot refrain from using the unauthorized liberty of mentioning the name of Dr. Routh—
"—quantaque nostræ,
"Pars tua sit, Cornute, animuæ tibi, dulcis amice,
"Ostendisse juvat."
All who have the happiness to be personally acquainted with him will acknowledge, that never were great abilities and deep learning accompanied with more candour and more sincere desire to investigate truth, than in the instance of the individual to whom I allude. So that still it may be said, as in former times, that no where can truth be sought after with more advantage than in
"Maudlin's learned grove."
These things I chiefly mention for the purpose of shewing to the House, that I am not standing here advocating the claims of the Roman Catholics under any hostile influence towards the Establishment, but that upon every account, private as well as public, my prepossessions and feelings are strongly in its favour.
With respect, Sir, to the question about to be discussed, it rests upon many and different grounds; all and each of which, in my mind, are conclusive in its favour. I shall first endeavour to make out, I hope to the conviction of the House, that on the ground of an existing treaty—I mean the Treaty of Limerick—the departure from which has, in my opinion, been the origin of all the ills under which the Roman Catholics of Ireland have laboured—those claims ought to be satisfied.

379
That treaty, entered into at the period of the Revolution, clearly entitled the Roman Catholics of Ireland to an equal share of all the rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of this country, at that time. The Treaty of Limerick, indeed, is the Magna Charta of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and it will not be thought unnecessarily to dwell upon this subject, when it is recollected, that the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department has placed the contingency of his vote upon the construction which that treaty would bear; for he repeatedly declared, upon former discussions of this subject, that if it could be shown, that public faith bad been violated by non-observance of the Treaty of Limerick, he would give to the Roman Catholics the advantage of his support. The right hon. gentleman has twice stated, that if my interpretation of this compact entered into under the walls of Limerick was correct, the immense advantage of his vote should be given to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It therefore becomes a matter of great importance to establish the position I maintain, that the Articles of Limeerick have been violated; which I shall, therefore, endeavour to do, and to show, that all which is now asked for the petitioners, they were entitled to, on the guarantee of the public faith of England by that treaty; and if I should be successful in making this out, I trust I shall have done enough to induce an English House of Commons, as well as the right hon. gentleman opposite, to grant the prayer of their petitions. Afterwards I shall endeavour to shew, that this prayer ought to be granted on other grounds—upon the faith also of another treaty, at the time of the Union with Ireland; but still more upon grounds of sound policy and expediency, natural right and justice.
The violation of the Treaty of Limerick is, then, the first proposition I shall attempt; to establish. In order to this I must refer to the Treaty of Limerick itself; when, I think, it will be sufficiently apparent, that my construction of its intent and meaning is correct. But before I enter upon this part of the subject, I will take the liberty of reading to the House a small portion of a declaration made by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with respect to this treaty, so recently as the year 1827, in which he re-assures us, that he will abide by a pledge previously given.
380
" I think it necessary," said the right hon. gentleman, "to state, that I will not shrink from what I said, when this question was discussed in 1825, and which was as follows—that if I could be satisfied, that any of the political privileges which were withheld from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, were withheld in violation of the Treaty of Limerick, it would very materially influence my judgment in deciding on the present question: but, after having examined into this matter, with the greatest attention, I feel a more perfect conviction, that that Treaty afforded the Roman Catholics of Ireland no claims whatever to have their disabilities removed."
Upon this point, then, we are now at issue; and in this point of view it will be allowed to be one of infinite importance. Would that it were to be argued by a more able advocate, and before a tribunal differently constituted! Would that this point were to be decided by twelve honest men in a jury-box, bound by their oaths to abide by the result of testimony and fact ! The first Article of the Treaty of Limerick is as follows:—
"The Roman Catholics of this kingdom "shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise "of their religion, as are consistent with "the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy "in the reign of Charles 2nd; and their "Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit "them to summon a parliament in this" kingdom, will endeavour to procure the "said Roman Catholics such further security "in that particular, as may preserve "them from any disturbances upon the account "of their said religion."
It consists of two distinct members, or parts. The first secures the free exercise of all the religious rights of the Roman Catholics; the second contains a promise of further security in that particular, in order to preserve the parties from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion. Can any impartial or candid man assert, that it is no disturbance on account of religion, to make the enjoyment of political rights and liberties depend upon the abandonment of religious faith; or rather is it not a great aggravation of disturbance on account of religion, to make the very religion itself the means of annoyance, and to place the Roman Catholics in the painful situation of being obliged, either to abandon their religion

381
and violate their conscience, or give up the enjoyment of their rights and liberties?
This is the predicament in which the Roman Catholics of Ireland are at this moment placed; and it appears to me impossible to conceive a situation in which it is more unjust and cruel for one set of human beings to compel another to remain in, than thus to make their liberties depend upon a compromise with their consciences, so that an honest man must abandon either one or the other.
I now come to the second Article of the Treaty of Limerick; which the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department contended, upon a former occasion, had relation merely to private rights of property and estates, and guaranteed only their enjoyment. I shall endeavour to shew, that this Article distinctly recognizes the public liberties of the Roman Catholics, and guarantees to them their possession, as they existed in the time of Charles the 2nd. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman did contend, at the outset, that this treaty applied solely to the garrison of Limerick; but, as this is a position the right hon. gentleman has already abandoned, I proceed to the consideration of the second Article; which is one extremely material. After stating, that—" all the inhabitants, "or residents of Limerick, or any other "garrison now in the possession of the "Irish, and all officers and soldiers now "in arms under any commission of king "James, or those authorized by him, to "parcel the same in the several counties "of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and "Mayo, or any of them, and all the "commissioners, officers in their Majesties' "quarters, that belong to the Irish regiments "now in being, that are treated "with, and who are not prisoners of war," or have taken protection, and who "shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and their or every of "their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy, "all and every their estates of freehold "and inheritance:"—it goes on to say, that the parties included in the treaty shall enjoy—"all their rights, titles, and interests, "privileges, and immunities, which "they and every or any of them held, "enjoyed, or were rightfully and lawfully "entitled to in the reign of king Charles "the 2nd, or at any time since, by the "laws and statutes that were in force "in the said reign of king Charles the 2nd,
382
"and shall be put in possession, by order" of the government, of such of them as "are in the king's hands, or in the hands "of his tenants, without being put to any "suit or trouble therein; and all such "estates shall be freed and discharged "from all arrears of Crown rents, quit "rents, and other public charges incurred "and become due since Michaelmas, 1688, "to the day of the date hereof; and all "persons comprehended in this article, "shall have, hold, and enjoy, all their "goods and chattels, real and personal, "to them or any of them belonging and "remaining, either in their own hands or "the hands of any persons whatsoever, in "trust for, or for the use of them, or any" of them, and all and every the said persons, "of what profession, trade or calling "soever they be, shall and may use, exercise "and practise, their several and respective "professions, trades, and callings, as freely "as they did use, exercise, and enjoy, the "same in the reign of king Charles the "2nd; provided that nothing contained be "construed to extend to or restore any "forfeiting person now out of the kingdom, "except what are hereafter comprised, "provided also, that no person whatsoever "shall have or enjoy the benefit of this "article, that shall neglect, or refuse, "to take, the Oath of Allegiance made "by act of Parliament in England, in the "first year of the reign of their present "Majesties, when thereunto required."
Now, I ask, what can be more distinct, clear, and decisive, than this? For my part, I know not how it is possible to frame words more expressly or directly stipulating for the enjoyment of all rights, public arid private, than they are stipulated for in this Article. Having first secured the enjoyment of their estates and private rights, it next declares, that the party shall enjoy all the rights, titles, privileges, and immunities, which they were entitled to in the reign of Charles the 2nd. I would ask the right hon. gentleman, if he thinks that these words can, by possibility, have reference to any thing but political and public rights. The only question, therefore, as it appears to me, which remains is, what were the rights, titles, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in the reign of Charles the 2nd?
With respect to that question, I fancy there is no dispute. I believe I am justified in stating, that, at the time referred to,

383
the Roman Catholics of Ireland possessed and enjoyed all the rights, titles, privileges, and immunities, which the constitution afforded their fellow subjects. I therefore repeat, that all such civil and political rights as they possessed in the time of Charles the 2nd, they were clearly entitled to, under the provisions of the Treaty of Limerick: and, if they are now, therefore, excluded from them, they are so excluded, in direct violation of the stipulations of that treaty.
Another part of the treaty appears to me also not a little remarkable. It seems to evince, that there existed at the time, in the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, not only a presentiment of the "disturbance" to which they were likely to be exposed, on account of their religion, but also a feeling of prophetic apprehension of the very manner in which that disturbance was to take place. For, by the ninth Article of that treaty, it is expressly stipulated, that "the Oath to be" administered to such Roman Catholics "as submit to their Majesties' government "shall be the Oath aforesaid, and no "other." Now, the oath referred to, as "the Oath aforesaid," was the oath of Allegiance, and no other. From this Article of the treaty, therefore, I infer, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had the wisdom and foresight, or feeling and presentiment, call it what you will, to perceive the means by which they were likely to be disturbed in the exercise of their religion, and excluded from the enjoyment of their rights and liberties. They accordingly provided against this special disturbance, by this special Article of the Treaty of Limerick.
Unhappily their fears were but too well verified, by the enactment of the Penal Code; with respect to which I trust there is not now a single member of this House hardy enough to justify it, or to consider it in any other light than that in which Mr. Burke placed it—as a code of tyranny, injustice, and wickedness; not less marked by impolicy than cruelty and malignity, and by every feature that could constitute a tyranny the most unmitigated and relentless. No man now, I should suppose, will deny, that this tyrannical code was a direct infringement of the Treaty of Limerick. Still less will any one be hardy enough to maintain, that it ought to be re-enacted. The right hon. gentleman opposite, indeed, has expressed
384
his satisfaction, that this odious, impolitic, and unjustifiable, system has been departed from. He, at least, has declared, that he would never concur in returning to it again.
Now, Sir, let us consider the right hon. gentleman's construction of the Treaty of Limerick, in opposition to mine; and the argument by which he has supported it. The main argument, to the best of my recollection, was this—that when sir Theobald Butler, that great, able, eloquent, and patriotic lawyer, was advocating the case of the Irish Roman Catholics, at the bar of the Irish parliament, it was said by the right hon. gentleman, that he did not insist, that the Treaty of Limerick had been violated, by depriving the Roman Catholics of Ireland, of any public rights—that he confined his argument only to private rights of property and estates. But it will not be difficult to shew, that the right hon. gentleman is wholly and entirely mistaken, both as to his construction of the treaty itself, and as to the fact, upon which he so mainly relies.
Not that I should have thought it of any great importance, had the fact been otherwise—even if sir Theobald Butler had not, upon the occasion alluded to, insisted upon the violation of the rights and liberties of the country; seeing that he was principally engaged in advocating the private rights of his countrymen, with relation to the enjoyment of their property and estates; so that if upon such an occasion, he had omitted all allusion to public matters, no reference could have been deduced from that circumstance, which could have led to any conclusion as to his opinion of the violation of the treaty, regarding public rights and liberty. What would have been so natural, as that this great and eminent lawyer, in times so full of peril and danger, should, in maintaining the cause of his clients, have carefully excluded from his consideration all extraneous circumstances, or any thing not immediately and necessarily coming under his view. It is the well known habit of skilful and prudent advocates, not to travel, as the phrase is, out of the four corners of the brief. So that had the fact been as the right hon. gentleman conceived it, that sir Theobald Butler had solely and exclusively applied his argument to the private wrongs and injuries sustained by his clients, that circumstance could not have afforded any

385
ground for asserting, that the Treaty of Limerick did not embrace public as well as private rights.
But, Sir, how does the fact stand? Sir Theobald Butler did take the opportunity afforded him, in advocating the private grievances of his countrymen, boldly to insist upon the public rights and liberties, stipulated for by the Treaty of Limerick. He embraced the opportunity of being placed at the bar of the House of Commons, on behalf of individuals, to plead the cause of the nation. He complained, with just indignation, of the public wrongs, as well as of the private injuries sustained by the people of Ireland, and appealed against its violation in this particular. He vindicated successfully; as far as eloquence, spirit, talents, and integrity could vindicate, the violated liberties of his country-men. To shew the correctness of this statement, it is only necessary to quote a passage from sir Theobald Butler's argument upon this occasion. Although contending, that the act against which he was speaking, was a faithless violation of the treaty, with respect to private rights, he proceeded to say, that," by the compact entered into at Limerick, the Roman Catholics were as rightfully entitled to all the privileges, immunities, and other advantages whatever, according to the laws then in force as any other subjects whatsoever, and which, therefore, without the highest injustice, could not be taken from them, unless they had forfeited them themselves. For, by those Articles, all therein comprised were pardoned all misdemeanors whatsoever, of which they had, in any manner or way, been guilty, and restored to all the rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities whatever, which, by the laws of the land, and customs, constitutions, and native birthright, they, any and every of them, were equally with every other of their fellow subjects entitled unto. And by the laws of nature and nations, as well as by the laws of the land, every native of any country has an undoubted right and just title to all the privileges and advantages which such their native country affords."
He went on to say, that" by the first of the Limerick Articles, the Roman Catholics of the kingdom of Ireland were to enjoy ail their rights, as they did in the reign of king Charles 2nd, and then there was no law in force that deprived any
386
Roman Catholics of that kingdom of any such their native birth-right, or any other thing which, by the laws of the land then in force, any other fellow subjects were entitled to."
He goes on to complain that the Roman Catholics of Ireland, were, by certain clauses in a bill, prohibited from various privileges, the deprivation of which was neither more nor less than a gross infringement upon public liberty and equal justice. He complained, for instance, that they were prohibited from visiting, or residing in, certain towns and places, without first finding such securities as were not required, nor could be demanded, by the law of the realm, as it had theretofore existed. Further, he complained, that they were" prohibited from voting for the election of Members of Parliament, unless they take the Oath of Abjuration, which to oblige them to is contrary to the Limerick Articles; which, as aforesaid, say, that the Oath of Allegiance, and no other, shall be imposed upon them; and, unless they abjure their religion, takes away their advowsons and right of presentation, contrary to the privilege of right, the laws of nations, and the great charter of Magna Charta, which provides that no man shall be disseized of his birth-right, without committing some crime against the known laws of the land, in which he is born or inhabits."
These passages, I trust, the right hon. gentleman opposite must admit, prove him to have been greatly mistaken in thinking, that the Treaty of Limerick did not stipulate for political liberty, as well as private rights.
Before I take leave of the eloquent argument of sir Theobald Butler, there is one circumstance so remarkable, that the mention of it ought not to be omitted; and it is the more so, as sir Theobald Butler hold a high and important situation, as well as devoted great abilities to the service of his country. From his sentiments, therefore, those of the public mind, in his time, may be fairly collected; and this celebrated speech of his affords an evidence of liberality and generosity, which perhaps to some honourable gentlemen, may cause considerable surprise—to those, certainly, who have been in the habit of forming their notions and opinions of the Irish Roman Catholics from the misrepresentations, and calumnies of their bitter and implacable ene-

387
mies. And it will afford a satisfactory answer to those remarks made the other day, satirically and ironically, as to the feeling said recently to have been evinced by the Roman Catholics, with regard to their Protestant brethren, the Dissenters; at the same time it was invidiously insinuated, that the Roman Catholics were now, for the first time, pretending a fellow-feeling for the Dissenters, with a view to their own immediate question—a feeling which was new to them, and of very late as well as questionable growth.
It is, therefore, a very agreeable and a very favourable opportunity, of drawing the attention of the House to the incorrectness of such remarks, and of proving, by a reference to indisputable evidence of former periods, that the good-feeling and liberality of the Catholics is neither insincere nor of recent date; and I will venture to say, that the more we make ourselves acquainted with, and examine into the character and conduct of, our Catholic countrymen, the more we shall find cause for trusting and esteeming them. Sir Theobald Butler, at the time before alluded to, affords abundant proof of this assertion, and a satisfactory answer to the before-mentioned apparently smart, but really ignorant, remark as to the pretended, cordiality, but actual perfidy, evinced by the Roman Catholics towards the Dissenters. Sir Theobald Butler might, indeed, have been naturally expected to have confined himself solely to complaining of the oppression under which his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen laboured; an oppression the more detestable, because exercised under the form and semblance of law. At that very moment, however, when his friends and clients were suffering under the acts of those very persons before alluded to, the Dissenters, he nevertheless embraced the opportunity of advocating their cause in the following manner:—
" Whatever we, the Irish Papists, may have done, yet surely the Dissenters did not do any thing to render them liable to the same injustice, or to deserve worse at the hands of the government than other Protestants; but, on the contrary, it is more than probable, that if they (I mean the Dissenters) had not put a stop to the career of the Irish army at Enniskillen and Londonderry, the settlement of the government both in England and Scotland might not have proved so easy as it thereby did; for if that army had got to Scotland,—as
388
there was nothing, at that time, to have divided them but the bravery of those people, who are mostly Dissenters, and chargeable with no other crimes since, unless their close adhering to and early appearing for the then government, and the many faithful services they did their country, were crimes,— I say, if they had got to Scotland, when they had boats, barks, and all things ready for their transportation, and a great many friends there in arms, waiting only for their coming to join them —it is easy to think what the consequence would have been to both these kingdoms; and these Dissenters were then thought fit for command both civil and military, and were no less instrumental in contributing to the reducing of the kingdom than any other Protestants: and to pass a bill now, to deprive them of their birth-rights (for those their good services,) would surely be a most unkind return, and the worst reward ever granted to a people so deserving. Whatever the Papists may be supposed to have deserved, the Dissenters certainly stand as clear in the face of the present government, as any other people whatever; and if this is all the return they arc like to get, it will be but a slender encouragement, if ever occasion should require, for others to pursue their examples."
Such were the sentiments of sir Theobald Butler, and the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in relation to the Protestant Dissenters at that early period. It is hardly necessary for me to observe, that none of those malignant feelings, usually attributed to the Roman Catholics were, or are, entertained by them against any men, on account of their religion. This is but one of the many instances which might be produced, of the generosity, liberality, and disinterested spirit frequently evinced by them. Thus did they exhibit a noble feeling, under the influence of which, they buried in oblivion recent animosities of the greatest magnitude—their hostile feelings subdued by one of generous indignation, at the injustice done to their bitterest and most uncompromising enemies.
I should hope, Sir, that it will not now be denied, that the Treaty of Limerick did stipulate for the political rights of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I trust I have successfully maintained that it did; and, moreover, that the mischiefs which have grown out of its non-fulfilment furnish a

389
bad example of the many evils attendant on all violations of national honour and good faith.
As to the statement of the right hon. gentleman, which he supported by a reference to a letter of king William, to support his construction of the treaty of Limerick, to that I will oppose the authority of the historian of that time, Burnet; who, in his narrative of the transactions of that day, distinctly states, that," by the Treaty of Limerick, the Roman Catholics of Ireland have guaranteed to them all the rights and privileges, civil as well as political, which they enjoyed in the reign of Charles 2nd."
Now, I beg the House to observe, that the act which excluded the Roman Catholics from sitting in parliament, was an act of the English legislature, and applied to English Catholics only; and that the breach of faith, complained of, on the part of the Irish Catholics, was the extending those disqualifications to Ireland, by a particular Act. This was done by the most pitiful shuffling and evasion; although the faith of the king stood solemnly pledged, that the people of Ireland should be restored to all their rights, on taking the Oath of Allegiance alone, and were not to be compelled to take the Oath of Supremacy. Therefore, if there is any meaning in words—if promises freely given and implicitly relied on, are entitled to weight—the Roman Catholic people of Ireland arc, by the Treaty of Limerick, entitled to a fair and equal participation in all the rights enjoyed by the rest of his majesty's subjects. By slow degrees, indeed, but grudgingly, and with an ill grace, many of those rights, of which they had been deprived—especially in the reign of queen Anne—have been granted to them. But, though much has been granted, much still remains. There is still a long arrear of injustice to be brought up.
The history of those times abundantly proves, that the treaty of Limerick was no improvident agreement. It should, moreover, never be lost sight of—though, up to this time, it seems to have been so—that when that treaty was executed, the people of Ireland had been guilty of no offence—they were charged with no crime, and were not justly liable to have inflicted upon them penalties and pains. The people of Ireland were true to their allegiance to their king—they were, at that time, fight-
390
ing under that king, for their own constitutional liberties—and not, as bigotted Papists, the blind instruments of a miserable superstition, but as men resolutely standing up for their rights, for the kings of that race, who had been their greatest benefactors; who first extended, to their country the protection of equal laws, and admitted her to the participation of the English constitution.
Nor was it in the moment of triumphant power, but in the midst of difficulties and distress, that the Irish discharged their debt of gratitude to the family then upon the throne of England. In discharging this debt faithfully and generously, they involved themselves in the same ruin to which those whom they were defending were devoted. The people of Ireland fought to the last, in defence of their sovereign, with a constancy and a courage, rendering it doubtful which party would have prevailed, had king James defended himself with the same courage which they exerted in his cause. In a word, if he had been as true to them, as they were to him, no one can say how that conflict would have terminated. But when that cowardly monarch fled—when he abandoned his own and their cause—they were left to fight their own battle, and were guilty of no crime, in seeking to secure their own liberties, by acceding to the Treaty of Limerick. This they did, like brave men, with arms in their hands, tree from all offence as soldiers or as citizens, and stipulated for that, to which they were well entitled—the full enjoyment of their religion and their liberty.
The Roman Catholics of Ireland still demand to be admitted into the English constitution; and they have proved, by their undeviating loyalty and faithful adherence to their country and to their sovereign, that they are well worthy to obtain it. This high and generous feeling, this disinterested devotion of the Irish nation, becomes a more striking feature in their history, when put in contrast with that of Scotland, upon something like a similar occasion; which was so far from being distinguished or characterized by any similar example of honourable feeling, that, on the contrary, it was characterised by a base betrayal of the king to his enemies. Since that period, too, the conduct of the two countries had been no less different—the Irish having been as faithful to their new sovereign, having once sworn their

391
allegiance, as the Scotch were the reverse, in taking up the cause of the Pretender, in 1715 and in 1745. Thus, while Scotland was in open rebellion, the allegiance of Ireland remained firm and unshaken— thus may it be said, the Roman Catholics of Ireland can be reproached with no breach of faith, but have displayed a generosity of mind, which should have rendered them objects of admiration, and uniformly pursued a conduct, which ought to have disarmed hostility. Yet, strange and unaccountable as it must appear, they have been treated as a nation of delinquents, while grace and favour have been prodigally showered on a people, whose conduct has been directly the reverse, and who, till very lately, indeed, were supposed to be hostile to the established government and liberties of the country.
I am also supported by the best historians in asserting, that at the time of signing the Treaty of Limerick, the situation of king William was critical in the extreme. So little confidence, indeed, had he himself in his own situation, that he had sent orders to general G inkle to close the Irish war upon any terms. The same historian also informs us, that the garrison of Limerick were in no way pressed or distressed; that the besieging army were daily becoming more straightened; that the cattle were dying and the men wasting away from the effects of the season—while the reinforcements of men and ships had arrived from France to strengthen the garrison; that the French fleet was in the Shannon, and the tide of battle might, easily have turned in favour of the Irish. They never, however, availed themselves of these circumstances, but manifested their good faith, by ratifying the articles they had entered into. Had they not so adhered to them, who can pretend to say, what consequences might have ensued? If, under these circumstances, Limerick had still held out, and king William's army compelled to retreat, who can pretend to say that Ireland might not have been irrecoverably lost?
Nor was this the only disaster that such a state of things might have brought along with it. It would be no great exaggeration to say, that to the Treaty of Limerick we owe the establishment of our own Revolution. So that we obtained an ample and valuable consideration, for any benefit conferred by that treaty upon the Irish, All, however, that the Roman Ca-
392
tholics of Ireland ask, is that to which they are naturally entitled—the quiet enjoyment of their religion, and to participate in the constitution of the country.
Such is the history of the Treaty of Limerick—such the consequences flowing from it—such the claims the Roman Catholics of Ireland are entitled to advance, grounded upon the public faith with which that treaty was ratified.
From this period follows a dreary, doleful, and disgraceful page, in the history of Ireland—a page I would willingly pass over, but upon which I feel it a duty shortly to comment. Under the unprincipled system pursued, in violation of the Treaty of Limerick, the people of Ireland were humbled in spirit and broken hearted; and we ourselves began to recoil from the effects of a system to which we had given existence. Men of all parties, of enlightened and liberal minds, of experience and of information, began boldly to deprecate the severities exercised upon an unoffending people. The Protestants of Ireland, too, manifested a similar spirit. When upon being threatened by a foreign invasion, arms were put into the hands of the people indiscriminately, having deterred the invader, they determined to recover their own importance, and those rights to which they were entitled, and the Irish volunteers demanded to be admitted into the pale of the constitution.
But it was not until the year 1793, in the viceroyship of lord Westmoreland, that the body of the people obtained freedom by having conferred upon them the elective franchise. Never was there a grosser mistake in policy, than to yield such a power to the Irish Catholics, if it were intended to stop short and withhold from them equal rights with the rest of their fellow countrymen. By giving them the elective franchise, we gave them that which Archimedes required—a point from which to move the world.
Still, however, disunion and distrust arose between the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland. The eternal bane of Ireland still worked with most diastrous effects; which led at last to a scene of blood and desolation from which the mind recoils with horror, and which will for ever raise a blush in the cheek of every honest Englishman. The sanguinary period of 1798 will for ever stain the page of English and Irish history—a scene of misery, unequalled, and

393
scarcely to be described, even by the language of the most impassioned poetry—
"Each new morn
New widows howled—new orphans cry'd—new sorrows
Struck Heaven on the face."
And I do implore every member of this House to recall, with those feelings of contrition with which it ought to be accompanied, the recollection of those desolating scenes, before he makes up his mind to decide against this question. Let him reflect upon the persecution, upon the tortures inflicted—when, it is scarcely exaggeration to say, as the Viceroy rode through the gates of his Castle, his horse's hoofs were stained in the blood of the people—a period that may be best described in the words of the great Roman historian, when painting the most afflicting period of the most flagitious tyrrany—"planum exiliis mare, infecti cedibus scopuli, atrocius in urbe sevitum. Nec minus præia delatorum invisa quam scelera; ferrent cuncta, odio et terrore. Corrupti in dominos servi, in patronos liberti; et quibus deerat inimicus, per amicos oppressi." It should be our business to endeavour to obliterate from the minds of all men the memory of those disastrous times. We should endeavour to compensate this long and cruel period of misrule; and, above all, to efface it from the minds of the sufferers. Nor would this be a difficult task. The Irish are a warm-hearted and a grateful people. Though quick and alive to a sense of injuries, they are no less susceptible of gratitude for benefits conferred.
This brings me to the period of the Union. The violation of the Treaty of Limerick is the first proposition which I have attempted to establish. I have now to call the attention of the House to another treaty, one of a more recent date, the obligations of which ought to have been considered not less sacred, though they have not, any more than the former, been adhered to. At the period of the Union pledges as solemn as were ever made upon any occasion were given, by supposed competent authorities, to the people of Ireland; and it is not too much to affirm that, without those understood pledges, the measure of a legislative Union could never have been effected; for no cue, I suppose, will now maintain, that had Ireland possessed an independent, separate parliament, it would have been possible that the measure of Catholic Emancipation should not long
394
since have been carried. But, indeed, had there been no grounds on account of faith plighted, upon the broad principle of policy and justice, the claims of our Roman Catholic countrymen ought to have been granted. No man will deny Mr. Pitt to have been a supporter of Catholic Emancipation; and I have a right to call upon those gentlemen who profess to be adherents of Mr. Pitt's system, who profess respect for his name and reverence for his memory, to bear in mind, that his reputation must remain tarnished, must remain exposed to a charge of insincerity, until those pledges, given by him to the Catholics of Ireland, at the time of the Union, shall be redeemed.
It will be in the recollection of all who acted with Mr. Pitt, at that period, that he looked at this question in a large and extensive point of view, and that he thought the completion of it of vital importance to the interest of the whole empire; that he had long witnessed and lamented the evils which afflicted Ireland; that he felt that such a state of things was not to be, and could not be, longer endured; that he wished, earnestly wished, to apply a remedy; and that, in his opinion, the time had then arrived, when Ireland and England ought to be firmly united. He saw that the possibility of effecting this desirable purpose depended altogether upon conciliating the Catholic population; and with these hopes held out by him, and relied on by them, he carried the Union into effect. He strongly contended, that Catholic Emancipation was the crowning measure of the Union. Without it, indeed, the very heart of that measure is plucked out—without it the rankling wounds of Ireland can never be closed. Mr. Pitt saw, that the old and long-established maxim, "divide and govern," was no longer applicable to the affairs of that country. He saw that the Parliament of Ireland, had, by its corrupt and tyrannical conduct, rendered itself hateful to the nation; and he compelled it, after a long course of injustice to others, to do at least one act of justice upon itself, and to put an end to its own existence. To effect this, he displayed to the Catholics of Ireland the advantages they would derive from an incorporated Union with this country. He, at the same time, placed in a clear point of view, the narrow-minded, bigotted, and virulent, system, under which Ireland then groaned.

395
In this state of Ireland, and with these intentions on the part of Mr. Pitt, a pamphlet was published by Mr. Cooke, the then Secretary for Ireland, holding out the most consolitary hopes and prospects to the Roman Catholics. He stated, that the objections to the emancipation of the Catholics would, by the measure of Union, be removed. Nay, even Dr. Duigenan, the most virulent opponent of Catholic Emancipation, had himself declared, in a letter addressed to Mr. Grattan, in the year 1797, that, "if we were one people with the British nation, the preponderance of the Protestant interest in the whole State would be so great, that it would not be any longer necessary to curb the Roman Catholics by any restraints whatever." Here, then, is testimony that nobody can doubt—the testimony of the most implacable political enemy the Roman Catholics of Ireland ever had.
Mr. Pitt having despatched his manifesto from the Castle of Dublin, by the hands of Mr. Cooke, and finding that the Catholics were disposed to lend a willing ear—as they always were—to the voice of conciliation, proceeded to push forward this great measure; and he authorized lord Cornwallis, then viceroy, to give to the Catholics the most solemn pledges that the measure of Catholic Emancipation should follow that of Legislative Union, and that all their disabilities, on the score of religion, should be removed. The Irish people placed the most implicit reliance on the power of Mr. Pitt and the good faith of this country. Acting from these impressions, and from this conviction, they supported the proposition for a Legislative Union between the two countries—a measure, indeed, which were it completed, would be of the utmost benefit to both.
To corroborate this statement, I will call the recollection of gentlemen to Mr. Pitt's own speech to the House, on retiring from office in 1801. Explaining the grounds of his resignation he says, "With respect to the resignation of myself and of some of my friends, I have no wish to disguise from the House, that we did feel it an incumbent duty upon us to propose a measure on the part of government, which, under the circumstances of the Union, so happily effected between the two countries, we thought of great public importance, and necessary to complete the benefits
396
likely to result from that measure: we felt this opinion so strongly, that when we met with circumstances which rendered it impossible for us to propose it as a measure of government, we equally felt it inconsistent with our duty and our honour any longer to remain a part of that government. What may be the opinion of others I know not; but I beg to have it understood to be a measure which, if I had remained in government, I must have proposed."
As a further corroboration of the admitted necessity of this measure, I may adduce the Speech of his late majesty from the throne, on the prorogation of the first session of parliament after the Union, in July 1800—" This great measure, "said his majesty," on which my wishes have been long earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as the happiest event of my reign, being persuaded that nothing could so effectually contribute to extend to my Irish subjects the full participation of the blessings derived from the British constitution, and to establish on the most solid foundation the strength, prosperity, and power, of the whole empire."
This, then, is the second case made out in favour of the justice of the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. One more complete in all its parts it seems to me impossible to imagine; and that Catholic Emancipation is as much due, on the ground of good faith pledged to them at the Union, as previously by the Treaty of Limerick. In opposition to these claims, scruples of the most extraordinary kind have been raised, and, it seems entertained, with respect to the Coronation Oath; and it has been asserted, that, consistently with that Oath, Catholic Emancipation can never be carried.
I trust, there is no member of the House who will be inclined to give much weight to such an unfounded suggestion. Should there be any, however, they must be of a description of persons who are more swayed by authority than reason. I will, therefore, adduce, for their satisfaction, an authority which, upon this subject, they will not be inclined to disregard. I mean that of lord Liverpool; who, in speaking upon this point, in the House of Lords, in 1825, said—" I cannot consider the Coronation Oath as any obstacle to the removal of the civil and political disabilities of the Roman Catholics. The Oath was an Oath to protect the Estab-

397
lished Church and the clergy of the realm. The removal of the disabilities may possibly affect that Church, but it can only do so consequentially. Many wise and good men are of opinion that it would strengthen the Church; and if parliament were to present a bill to the king for his acceptance, grounded upon this assumption, I do not see how the king could be advised to consider it to be at variance with the obligations of the Coronation Oath which he has taken." And I think it is impossible for any one to differ in opinion with the noble lord, who bestows the slightest consideration upon the subject. I therefore feel it unnecessary to occupy further the attention of the House upon this topic.
I trust, therefore, that I have made out a satisfactory case on behalf of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I hope I have made it clear—In the first place, that according to the Treaty of Limerick, the whole Catholic population of Ireland are entitled to a full participation of all the benefits of the English constitution, to the extent to which they enjoyed them, under the reign of Charles 2nd:—secondly, that the act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland was obtained through their co-operations in consequence of solemn assurances made by the Administration of the time, that they should be admitted to a full share of that constitution.
Now, Sir, I will contend, that, in both instances, the Roman Catholics of Ireland only required what, in sound policy, without being required, ought to have been bestowed. The claim of the people of Ireland, it is true, is founded in good faith and justice. But, even had the people of Ireland no claims to prefer in point of right—no pledges in point of justice—if she stood strictly in the situation of a conquered country, at the mercy of the conqueror alone—I contend it would nevertheless be sound policy—the policy of a wise conqueror—to conciliate her affections, to consolidate her interests with ours, by extending to her the benefits of our own institutions. It has, in most cases, been the policy of those who have conquered countries to endeavour to obliterate all distinctions between conquerors and conquered, and to amalgamate the interests of both. But if this has been considered a sound policy in common cases, how much more imperiously are we called upon so to act with respect to Ire-
398
land! And I do trust and hope I shall succeed in persuading the House, not to reject, in the year 1828, that which, by its vote, it conceded to the Catholics in the year 1823; lest we should give colourable pretence to the observation which has frequently been made—that the Catholics of Ireland have every thing to expect from our fears, but nothing to hope from our generosity or our justice. Let us not be the last in the race of civilization—the last to seem to appreciate the advantages to be derived from the extension of equal rights and liberties to all denominations of Christians. Let us profit at least by the examples of our own times, and the present history of the world, as it now presents itself to our view. Let us take advantage, at least, of the experience of others, and be guided, if not by theory, at least by the evidence of facts.
There are one or two arguments which have been advanced against the claims of the Catholics, to which I think it necessary briefly to advert. The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department says, that he would not stand on minor differences, were he once convinced, that the faith of treaties called on him to make good the claims of the Catholics; and yet it is upon such minor differences, that he rests principally his argument in opposition to them. And, what arc these differences? Will they bear the test of inquiry? Will they, above all, bear the test of comparison, when weighed in the balance of difficulty and danger? There are those who, with the noble earl I have, just alluded to, setting aside the suggested scruple concerning the Coronation Oath, place great stress, as he does, upon the assertion, that the professors of the Roman Catholic religion hold a divided allegiance.
In the first place, I beg leave to deny, on the part of the Roman Catholics, any such divided allegiance. I thought that this question had been set at rest, by the answers made by the different Catholic bodies throughout Europe, who were applied to by Mr. Pitt upon this subject. To take as an example that of the Catholic University at Louvain. They say—that "the Faculty of Divinity at Louvain is struck with astonishment, that such questions should, at the end of the eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body, by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talent and discernment of its natives, and declares, that no man, nor assembly

399
of men, however eminent in dignity and power, nor even the whole body of the Catholic church, though assembled in general council, can, upon any ground or pretence whatsoever, weaken the bond of union between the sovereign and the people; still less can they absolve, or free, subjects from their oath of allegiance."
The same answer in almost the same terms, was given by the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland. But what is still more singular, or rather more striking and satisfactory—the Pope himself, on the 29th of January, 1825, in answer to an application on the part of the States of Mexico, requesting his interference on their behalf, assigned as a reason for not acquiescing in their request, that "the papal see did not consider itself authorized to interfere in the civil concerns or rights of any independent State." And yet, Sir, we stand in awe of the thunder from the Vatican ! Whatever may have been its effects in former times, it is now at least evidently become perfectly harmless.
A more singular question than the former was addressed to the Catholic college of Douay; as if for the purpose of exhibiting Protestant ignorance, prejudice and illiberality; for it is scarcely to be believed, that the question was really put to this college, whether or no the Roman Catholics considered themselves bound to keep faith with heretics? The answer returned by that celebrated seminary was this—" We positively and unequivocally declare, that there is not, nor ever has been, amongst Catholics, or in the doctrine of the church of Rome, any law or principle which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith with heretics, or others of a different persuasion from themselves in matters of religion, either in public or private concerns."
Other questions of a similar nature were put to different Universities; with which 1 am really ashamed unnecessarily to trouble the House. For I am satisfied, that no member of this House, at this time of day, can entertain such false and injurious impressions as those questions imply. To enter into arguments to prove that the Roman Catholics consider an oath as binding, would only be to expose one's own illiberality, and to offer insult to them. The fact is, the Roman Catholics have been faithful to their country, loyal to the king, and devoted to the constitution. It was, indeed, to
400
the wisdom and the courage of our Catholic ancestors, of whose glorious deeds we are so justly proud, that we owe that liberty which we enjoy, and for which we now make such an ungrateful return.
But, Sir, in pleading this cause, I am not pleading the cause of the Catholics alone; for this is not a Catholic question merely. It is equally a Protestant question; and as such ought to be argued. It is a question which involves the dearest interests—the honour, the happiness, and the peace, of England, no less than of Ireland. It is whether Ireland, that important part of the English dominions, should continue in a state at once degraded and degrading, or be restored to the equal enjoyment of those rights, of which she has been so long and so unjustly deprived; no less to the disadvantage of England than of herself. Every English interest is bound up, or connected with, this great question. As a matter of Finance, it is worth while asking ourselves, whether it is policy and wisdom to exhaust the finances of England, in a worse than fruitless attempt to enforce a system of oppression upon the people of that country. There is no point of view in which we can look at it—whether with the microscopic eye of detail, or with liberal and extended views, taking in the whole horizon—without perceiving the inseparable connection between the interests of the two countries. And if there arc those who consider power oppressively acquired as a luxury, I beg of them to consider, that it is of all luxuries the most expensive, and that our finances are not in a state to afford its enjoyment. Whereas, justice is the cheapest, as well as the best of all expedients. If, then, there were no other motive for our conduct upon this occasion but a conviction of the necessity of economy, let us adopt a system which shall save us millions of money, whilst, at the same time, we are acquiring the safeguard of the affections of millions of our fellow subjects, who are as well entitled as ourselves to those rights which they claim; which at present we have it in our power to offer gracefully as a boon, but which we have it not in our power much longer to withhold.
Let us cast our eyes abroad, and take the example set us by the nations of Europe. We shall see that in those places that were, in former times, torn by dissensions, where religious persecution once raged with violence, the opposite principle

401
of religious liberty has been productive of harmony and peace. Let us look to Germany. Let us look at France. Bigotry no longer reigns over that great and enlightened nation. Nay, even Hanover, Prussia, the Netherlands, one may say nearly the whole civilized world, including the two Americas, Old and New—all with one voice proclaim—"religious freedom is the parent of peace!"
If, therefore, it is—as every one admits that it is—of importance to procure tranquillity in Ireland, this experiment is well worthy of being made. And indeed, who can be accused of rashness, in trying any experiment there? The condition, we are told, of that unhappy country is such, that every change would be an improvement. By the extension of religious liberty to that suffering land, one can have little doubt, that the same beneficial effects would be produced, which have followed the adoption of it in all countries, and under all forms of government. Republics and despotisms, monarchies and aristocracies, simple and mixed forms of government—all have, equally felt the benefits of this healing principle. Let us, therefore, apply it as a cure, at least ns probably a cure, and certainly a palliative for the agitations and misfortunes of Ireland.
The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated, in answer to an argument of the late Mr. Canning, who was advancing, in favour of these claims, the policy of France upon this subject; which he described as a wise toleration, contrasting it with that imperfect toleration which consists in abstaining from injuries towards men, on account of their differing from the religion of the Slate; and which complete toleration has been so satisfactorily shewn in a pamphlet, by Mr. Gaily Knight, who was an eyewitness to its effects. One instance of which, in passing, I beg leave to mention to the House.
In Prussia, he tells us, it is computed that there is a population of four millions of Catholics, and six millions of Lutherans; and the remainder of the population, about a million more, are Presbyterians, of which persuasion are the family on the throne. It is difficult to conceive a state of society better calculated to illustrate the blessings of religious toleration than this; for, under these very peculiar circumstances, and singularly proportioned dif-
402
ferences of religious opinion, the king being of the religion of a small minority, such is the result of religious freedom, the most perfect peace and harmony prevail. There is no jealousy between the sects; no jealousy of the reigning family, nor any thing to interrupt the general confidence, peace, and tranquillity of the country.
But, to return to the argument to which I was going to allude, in answer to the statement of the late Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning had been quoting the instances of countries, where the Roman Catholics, forming a majority, gave toleration to the minority who were Protestants. The right hon. gentleman opposite replied, upon that occasion, "it is very well for my right hon. friend to quote the instance of France or Germany, where the Roman Catholics form the majority of the community—no danger can, in those countries, be apprehended to the majority by concessions to the Protestants, who form the minority— no danger can be apprehended to the Established Church of the Catholics from admitting the Protestant minority to the exercise of their political rights. Now, my right hon. friend must shew me the similarity of these cases to that of Ireland, where the Catholics are the majority, and the Protestants, that is to say, those of the Established Church, are the minority."
Now, Sir, I take the right hon. gentleman upon his own shewing, and I affirm, that his argument equally applies to the state of Ireland, and in support of the claims of the Catholics, since the legislative Union of the two countries. It is true that, before the Union, when Ireland was an independent country, and had a separate legislature, the Catholics of Ireland were a majority, and the Established Church a small minority. But, is that the case now? The right hon. gentleman declared, upon that occasion, much to his honour, that he relied upon argument for the maintenance of his opinions, and would scorn the aid of religious bigotry or prejudice, and to raise the miserable No-Popery cry, that had been formerly resorted to. "If I am asked," said the right hon. gentleman, "whether I am afraid of the Pope and the Pretender, I distinctly answer, no: but I cannot consent to what is asked for Ireland, seeing that the state of that country is the reverse of those which have been mentioned, and the arguments arising out of their condition are inapplicable to her,

403
and cannot therefore have any weight in influencing my view of the question." I think, however, I have indisputably shewn, that the argument which Mr. Canning applied to France, is equally applicable to Ireland since the Union.
It is a great admission, on the part of the right hon. gentleman that he is not "afraid of the Pope." It is a great point gained: because, though no man could use such an argument out of doors, without being laughed at, or considered as a fit subject for Bedlam; yet, within these walls we have been called upon, year after year, to meet that argument, to find securities against this supposed danger, and to prove the incapacity, as well as the disinclination of the Pope, to injure us, or to interfere in our concerns. Thank God, however, the right hon. gentleman declares he is not "afraid of the Pope"—he is not either afraid of the Pretender. There are, however, other unsubstantial apprehensions, which seem still to haunt his imagination. The Pope and the Pretender, at any rate, have lost their terrors.
If, therefore, the right hon. gentleman's fears are at an end, with respect to the Pope and the Pretender, the inference is obvious, that no reason remains for his continuing the laws of exclusion from the constitution, of Roman Catholics; since the only grounds upon which they were ever attempted to be justified—the only grounds upon which unconstitutional enactments were attempted to be palliated, have, in his mind, ceased to exist. The whole question, therefore, as far as he is concerned, is surrendered, if these points are given up.
What, therefore, is it, that he substitutes in their place? What is it that reconciles this oppression of the Catholics to the mind of the right hon. gentleman? Has he discovered any new danger—and what is it? If any, let him propose the securities he may think calculated to meet it. But let him not continue to support these groundless measures, producing real insecurity and real danger, both to the Church and the State, when, by his own admission, the danger is past, against which they were intended to protect us.
But the argument of the right hon. gentleman, respecting the safety of religious toleration, where the majority of a people are of the Established religion, makes too much in favour of the Roman Catholic claims since the Union, not to
404
be insisted on. Mr. Pitt recommended the legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, upon those grounds; as rendering, under those circumstances, Catholic Emancipation a matter of sound policy and wisdom, and as obviating every danger which had ever been apprehended upon that score. Therefore, in consequence of the Union, the majority of the people of the united empire being Protestant, the argument of the right hon. gentleman, like Pyrrhus's elephants, which destroyed his own army, turn against himself, and support his opponents. He cannot deny, that in consequence of the Union, this argument has entirely changed sides. It is no longer the Church of Ireland, but the Church of the United Kingdom—or else it is no Union between the two countries.
This, therefore, being the only new danger, and this the only new argument still relied upon, in opposition to the claims of the Catholics—the state of the fact being reversed by the measure of the Union—both the supposed danger and the argument founded thereon, fall to the ground. It is, therefore, not too much to expect from the candour and good sense of the right hon. gentleman, as well as of his grace, the duke of Wellington, that they will see, in this new state of things, sufficient ground for altering their opinion, as to any danger arising from the admission of the Roman Catholics to the exercise of their constitutional rights. I indulge, indeed, sanguine hopes, that the manly mind of the noble duke will sec the absurdity of continuing restrictions, the more irksome, as the pretended necessity for them, real or imaginary, has passed away. I do implore ministers to support a just and righteous cause. They have already done much. They have repealed the Test and Corporation acts. Those "bulwarks of the Church," as the bigotted have been accustomed to denominate them, have been removed; and, that they ever existed, will soon be forgotten.
Is it too much to hope, that the noble duke, under whose administration has been obtained this victory over prejudice, bigotry, and injustice, will take the same large and statesman-like view of a much greater and more important subject of the same nature—that as his mind has never shrunk from real danger, the unsubstantial phantom of injustice will not deter him from being the noble instrument for consum-

405
mating a nation's happiness. To his other titles will then be added that of the pacificator of Ireland, the consolidator of the power of the English empire, the rewarder of those brave Catholics who fought under his banner, and toiled in the acquiring his renown. This will be adding another wreath to the laurel of victory, and will obtain for him a more transcendant and over-during glory; as brilliant as unenvied, accompanied as it will be, by the well-earned and everlasting gratitude of his country.
There is an argument supposed to be unanswerable, relied upon by many of the opponents of this question, and which, in their opinion, seems to preclude all possibility of reply. It puts me in mind of the famous answer of the Clown, in the play, who calls it the courtier's answer, and says, it is fitted to every question, and seems to be about as significant. The answer of Touchstone to every question is, "Oh! Lord, Sir." The answer of those to whom I allude is—Really, at this moment, it escapes my memory. I beg pardon for my forget-fulness; but my excuse must be found in the silly nature of the objection itself—which now, however, occurs to me. It is this—that the Catholics hold a divided allegiance between the King and the Pope—that they owe the same allegiance to a foreign Catholic sovereign, the Pope, as to the Protestant king at home. Now, this is so far from being a peculiar objection against the admission of Catholics to office in a Protestant state, that it applies much more forcibly to a Catholic state. This divided allegiance, I contend, is much more formidable to a Catholic than a Protestant government; because, where the bulk of the subjects are under the influence of the Pope, there the power of the Pope will be more difficult to resist. But, on the contrary, where the bulk of a nation are Protestants, there is either no divided allegiance, or the influence arising from it is impartially weaker; as, in the one case, it can only act partially, whilst, in the other, it acts universally. Therefore, as far as divided allegiance is concerned, a Catholic state is far more exposed to any danger arising from it, than a Protestant State can be. In fact, however, no danger whatever can be apprehended from this source in either. All history proves, that Roman Catholics are as true to their allegiance as Protestants—that there is no fear to be apprehended from such a cause;
406
and it is to be hoped, that no vague apprehension on account of divided allegiance will have any effect, in this House, hostile to the claims of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects.
Another most unworthy method resorted to, in order to excite the prejudices and passions of people against the claims of the Catholics is the exaggerated repetition of the tales of days long past, sophistically attributing to religion the acts of unprincipled and ambitious men in power—acts, sufficiently detestable—acts, not only not in accordance with, but contrary to, and repugnant with, all religions, and of which bad men, of every religion, have been equally guilty. Thus to visit on the heads of the present generation the crimes of the past, is sophistry of the most vulgar description. Persons indulge themselves, and attempt to mislead others, by obsolete stories of "bloody queen Mary," of "the monster, Philip 2nd," and of another monster of the same species; I mean bishop Bonner; and their crimes, which were at the time, probably, looked on by all good Catholics, with the utmost abhorrence—which they were compelled to endure and unable to prevent—to reproach the Catholics with those acts is as reasonable as it would be to reproach the Romans of the present day with the cruelties practised by, and under, Nero; or to reproach the present French nation with the horrors that were transacted in the reign of Charles 9th; and, indeed, nothing can be more unjust than to reproach a whole nation, at any time, with the atrocious acts of particular delinquents.
Upon this subject, I will mention an instance which came within my own knowledge. It is that of a petition which was sent to the House of Commons. A farmer, in a village in Leicestershire, was applied to by his clergyman to sign a petition against the claims of the Catholics. The farmer objected, saying, that he had no ill-will towards the Catholics—he knew no harm of the Catholics. The clergyman then edified him with the old stories of "bloody queen Mary," and the faggots of Smithfield, and asked him, with great apparent simplicity, if he would like to see Protestants burned again in Smithfield, as in the time of queen Mary? The honest man replied, he would by no means like to see or hear of any person being burnt; and was prevailed on to sign the petition.

407
Here, Sir, is a sample of the manner in which certain zealots go about extorting signatures for petitions against the rights of their Catholic countrymen. But whatever may be objected to the conduct of our English Catholic ancestors in the time of queen Mary, the Irish Roman Catholics stand clear from every imputation of persecution, even in those days. So far were they from being guilty of any acts of atrocity in those times towards the Protestants, that, according to the undeniable testimony of sir James Weare, the Solicitor-general to James the 2nd, that "when those that were persecuted in England fled to avoid the persecutions of Bonner and the fires of Smithfield, they took refuge in Ireland, where they were received with all that kindness and all that hospitality, for which the Irish have at all times been remarkable." Sir John Davis adds his testimony to the general character of the Irish, when he observes, that "there is no people under Heaven who more love impartial justice than the Irish;" and indeed this was the reason why they adhered, with such fidelity to the Stuarts, who had first extended to them that blessing.
I cannot help observing, for one, that such a religion, producing such fruits, cannot be bad. So far were the Irish from participating in the feelings of vengeance which actuated those who held the power in England, on the re-establishment of the Catholic faith, that they, "the savage Irish," as they are sometimes called, so far from concurring with these persecutions, instead of inflicting additional sufferings upon those victims who had fled to them for refuge, they, with characteristic kindness and generosity, stood forward as their protectors, gave them shelter, extended to them hospitality, and permitted the undisturbed exercise of their religion. Is it then becoming, is it fit, is it honest, or any ways justifiable, to reproach the Catholics of Ireland of the year 1828, with the delinquencies of our own countrymen, in the year 1500—and, in lieu of the gratitude which we owe them, hold them up as objects of reproach?
It is sufficiently clear, from all history, that violent men have commuted atrocious acts in all times and in all countries, whatever might have been their religion. Would it not be as fair and as just to reproach the people of Geneva of the present day with the crimes of Calvin
408
in burning Servetus, or the Presbyterian people of Scotland, with encouraging principles of assassination, on account of the fanaticism of former times having occasioned the assassination of archbishop Sharp? The members of that Church, once so remarkable for their fanaticism, are now universally admitted to be well-conducted, liberal, and enlightened. Nor should we now think of reproaching them for the errors committed by their party in former times; nor can we, without great injustice, prejudice the rights of the Catholics of the present day, by visiting upon them the sins committed by their forefathers. There is, in fact, no participation, no community of feeling, upon such subjects, between the times present and the times past.
Nor is it fair, as it regards religion itself, to attribute to its principles the crimes of those who profess it. All religions have been made use of for purposes of violence, oppression, and injustice. It has often been the pretence for bad men to indulge in their bad passions. It was not the religion of bishop Bonner that produced the cruelties which have loaded with execration his name; but the malignant and interested passions of his heart. It would become us rather to guard ourselves against, than to rail at, wickedness of this description. If, indeed, we could believe in transubstantiation, or had any faith in the Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, we might be induced to believe that the spirit of Bonner, which we execrate, had been transfused into some living politicians of our own age and country; for there are men now alive who seem actuated by Bonner's spirit—men who, had they lived in his time, would have done as he did, or as he would now, were he still living as they are.
We have witnessed a recent instance of pertinacity and zeal—so furious in its display, so repugnant to the spirit of the times, so unbecoming in all respects an enlightened statesman and an enlightened age—as more to resemble the awakened bigotry of that persecutor, than the temper of a mind upon which the progress of social refinement and knowledge had produced any effect. Of all infatuations it is the greatest and most melancholy to observe one reproaching others with the very spirit with which he himself is actuated. A singular phenomenon presents itself at the present moment of a person

409
so acting—one upon all other occasions I remarkable for hesitation, delay, indecision, and doubt. Is it not surprising, that an acute, legal understanding, fraught with knowledge of law, and yet so timid and doubtful upon subjects with which it is most familiar and best informed upon—carrying want of decision to an extent of weakness, receives often in its consequences, more destructive even than wrong decision, to those who are compelled to await its judgments—betraying such self-misgivings, doubts and perplexities, on all legal points on which it is most competent to judge, and yet, upon this great question of religious liberty, become at once the firm, unshaken, unhesitating, opponent. Is not this an inconsistency of mind, lamentable in its consequences, and surprising to behold—that upon this question, which has engaged the attention of all the great statesmen of the preceding century—which has been advocated by them all, and advanced by their exertions to its present position—which, as established in principles of truth and reason, all the great ornaments of this House have gloried in supporting—whose success, whenever it shall he accomplished, will have been owing to the exertion of their talents—that, on such a subject, with such advocates, and so sustained, a great lawyer should, for once, be confident in his own opinion, and without doubt or hesitation reject that of men who have enlightened the world, who have broken up the ground of ignorance, whose labours have prepared the soil and sown the seed, leaving it to their successors, under happier auspices, though with humbler hands, to reap the harvest. In this glorious band stand foremost the names of Burke, Fox, Grattan, Sheridan, Pitt, Windham—to which I may also add lord Grenville, the state of whose health alone prevents him from raising his voice in favour of the suffering Catholics, and advancing his claim to the title of a friend of religious freedom. Notwithstanding these authorities, the great legal person before alluded to, whose life has been passed in doubts and difficulties, has ceased for once to find either difficulty or doubt. The authority of these great men, Sir, upon this subject, comes with additional force: no grains of allowance are required to be taken with it; for their opinions were not rashly, but maturely formed, in the vigour of their lives, in the
410
strength of their judgments; and what is of still greater importance, their decisions were free from all suspicion of interested views. On the contrary, though every feeling of interest conspired to lead them to a different conduct, they strenuously laboured to establish this great question, from a sense of its permanent necessity. It stands, therefore, before the world, not only cloathed with eloquence and wisdom, but undeniably recommended by honest conviction. The only influence to which they have bowed upon this point, is to be found in the importance of the measure itself, and their unfeigned belief of its being essentially necessary to the peace and happiness of the country. That a person of long forensic habits should be "with darkness and with doubt encompassed round about," when all authorities are in its favour, and yet, in defiance of all authorities, of transcendent eloquence, and acknowledged wisdom, should make up his mind at once in opposition to all, is one of those strange moral phenomena, which men cannot but wonder at, and is certainly the standing miracle of our day.
Sir, to dwell upon, or to controvert the notion, of the pope's influence in Ireland, would now be idle in the extreme. The idea is become ludicrous. The Pope no longer alarms the most timid mind, by thunder from the Vatican. Like Bottom, in the play, he "roars you like any sucking dove." So little, indeed, is his authority and power with the Catholics of Ireland, that, not long ago, they refused to comply altogether with his wishes. Indeed, there was an end to the Pope altogether, if this country had not thought fit, when he was fallen, to set him up again. It is the government of England that placed him again in the Vatican. They it was who set up this idol at which they now tremble. Such fears, one would have thought, might have been dismissed, in the nineteenth century; and the same magnanimity at least, which had been displayed in the fifteenth, by the ministers of queen Elizabeth, might have been expected from the ministers of the present day. I do not, however, ask them to attempt impossibilities, or to aim at that greatness which is beyond their reach. It should, however, never be forgotten, that queen Elizabeth, encompassed with dangers of every description, the legitimacy of her birth questioned by all the Catholic states of Europe, her titles unacknow-

411
ledged, her own Catholic subjects therefore exposed more naturally to suspicion, and which would undoubtedly have attached to them by any less magnanimous prince—she, in the midst of her difficulties, little regarding what titles were or were not denied to her, content with possessing the affections of her subjects, with her parliamentary title to the throne, secured herself, by a course of liberal and enlightened policy, and infused into the whole nation a spirit of wisdom and magnanimity, which directed her whole government.
This system of policy her wisdom pointed out as the most effectual security for the Church and for the State; and she thus set at defiance the whole Catholic world arrayed against her. Undismayed she regarded the colossal power of Spain, then in the height of its glory, and directed by the bigotry and power of Philip 2nd—an empire, of which it was said in those days the sun never set—when its armies had acquired the highest renown in Europe, for military discipline; when its newly-discovered mines in the new world were supposed to be inexhaustible treasures—and when, at the same time, the power of France was wielded by the Guises, the uncle of her rival, united with Philip 2nd, and leagued with the Catholic provinces of Germany to extirpate heresy from Europe—when assassinators was deemed a justifiable part of State policy —when the dagger of an infuriated fanatic had laid low her only ally, Henry 4th—when the massacre of St. Bartholomew was a recent event—when the duke of Alva was exorcising his bigotry and cruelty uncontrolled against the Protestants in the Low Countries—in such a state of the world, and when the Reformation had but just been effected; whilst the people of England were, perhaps, for the major part, Catholic, Irish Catholic, and Scotland hostile—her magnanimity under these combined difficulties and dangers, forbad her listening to the weak suggestions of narrow-minded politicians, and her wisdom pointed out to her her proper course, in confiding to her loyal and brave Catholic subjects. When minds of an inferior cast, entertaining selfish or honest apprehensions, endeavoured to poison her ear with suspicion, she replied with characteristic wisdom and resolution, "I cannot believe in the disloyalty of my Catholic subjects. Have they not, like the Pro-
412
testants, their honour, their estates, and their country to defend; and will they be ready to sacrifice these upon any consideration, and least of all to the pope?" She trusted them; and that she wisely trusted them, their conduct sufficiently proved. They served her with a courage and devotion worthy of the noble confidence she reposed in them. Thus stood queen Elizabeth alone, in the midst of appalling difficulties; not looking to a standing army for support, but relying entirely on the native courage, and resolution, and affection of her people: and the page of history exhibits her as a rare example of sagacity and fortitude, and docs justice to the consummate ability with which she extricated herself from apparently insurmountable difficulties. It should not be forgotten, that to a Catholic nobleman was intrusted the conduct of her fleet; who, notwithstanding the anathemas of the pope upon her and all who assisted her, scrupled not to meet and conquer that invincible Armada, which had concentrated the force of Catholic Europe.
Will any one compare the dangers of the present time to those to which I have alluded? Can any one think Catholics now less worthy to be trusted, than in those times? That they would serve less faithfully and bravely now, than they did then? Or can any doubt that a similar result would flow from a similar policy? Nay, so devoted was the Catholic admiral to his queen and to his country, that when Elizabeth, with characteristic consideration for her subjects, wished, in order to spare their pockets, to lay up her fleet, as soon as she had heard of the dispersion of that of Spain, lord Howard, the Catholic admiral, ventured to remonstrate against that order, and requested to be permitted, at his own expense, to keep the fleet together until the country was secure.
Thus, Sir, did the Catholics of those days resist Catholic powers and the pope to boot, in defence of their country. Nor were the Catholics in that great cause more to be distinguished from their Protestant fellow-subjects, or less forward in their endeavours to obtain victory with their blood, than in the recent victory of Waterloo, or in the obtaining of any other glory, which they have successfully achieved together.
Bearing these circumstances in mind— reading history with the eye of reflection

413
—and considering it as the voice of past times for the instruction of the present, us apply it to the important question now under consideration, and ask ourselves, whether it may not be worth our while to take a lesson from the page of English history to apply to Ireland. Let us ask ourselves, if it be not worth while to extend the beneficial principle of religious liberty to that country, which has been found, upon all occasions, so productive of benefits to this? And whether Mr. Pitt was really mistaken, in anticipating the advantages which would flow from it? Surely those who lay claim to particular respect for the name or character of that statesman can hardly refuse their co-operation.
Whether this equal justice administered to the people of Ireland would or would not be a panacea, as some are pleased to call it, for all its various miseries, is more than I can pretend to say; and if it is true, that he would be a bold man who should assert that any single measure, or panacea, could affect a cure for all the ills incident to Ireland, yet would he be a still bolder man, in my opinion, who should assert that he can point out any single grievance to which this measure would not bring- some alleviation.
Let not gentlemen indulge in the habit of repeating what is often so thoughtlessly asserted, that the great bulk of the Irish nation care little for Emancipation—in fact, that they care nothing about it. Surely they must recollect, how sensibly alive the people of Ireland are to this grievance—that owing to this they have been kept in uninterrupted sympathetic opposition to the government of England; so that it has become so mixed up with all the affairs of Ireland, that it is impossible to separate it from any thing complained of. It is, indeed, the only point that equally affects the whole population. The poor man subscribes his mite, the rich man contributes his wealth, in order to remove it. Every thing relating to it runs through the whole nation, and, from the highest to the lowest, like an electric shock, it runs through every link of the chain of society. Indeed, it seems impossible to deny, that civil disabilities arising from difference of religious opinion, at the same time that it is an outrage upon common sense, is also a stigma front the degradation of which there is scarcely any sacrifice, that almost any. people would
414
not be willing to make to relieve themselves from. That stigma and that degradation are heavily felt by the people of Ireland. It is the iron that has entered deepest into their souls. Indeed, this is the nature of man. Steep a man in poverty to the very lips, he may have fortitude to bear it; but add insult and contumely to poverty, and the mental degradation which is inflicted becomes too great for mortal endurance. A people alive in all their feelings, as are the Irish, feel most acutely upon this score; and it betrays the grossest ignorance of the state of opinion in that country to suppose that the poorest inhabitant of the poorest cabin does not consider it as his greatest misfortune. No man can have been in Ireland, for ever so short a period, without perceiving that the whole population are feelingly alive to this degradation. From this it would be the wisdom and the policy of England to relieve them. A wise legislature will endeavour to elevate, and not to depress, to raise and not to lower, the tone of human nature—to realize the poet's boast of his country—
"Where e'en the peasant knows his rights to scan,
And learns to venerate himself as man."
If it be true, as stated by some present, that Catholic Emancipation is only regarded with anxiety by a few aspiring lawyers or ambitious noblemen, desirous of eminence and influence in the state, or, added to them, a few commoners anxious to get within these walls—if this were a true statement, how do the enemies of concession upon this point, account for the voluntary taxation and productiveness of the Catholic rents?—for the poorest inhabitant of a cabin eagerly contributing a pittance of his pittance, in the hope of removing what he considers an odious stigma, an intolerable disgrace?
But it has been said, that the granting of these claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland would do them no good—that it would be of no benefit—that it would not remove their poverty and want of employment. Yet this is asserting more than can be easily proved. It would not make the poor rich—still it would increase riches and alleviate poverty. Mr. Pitt's opinion. however, was quite the reverse. He held out, as inducements to the people of Ireland to agree to the Union with this country, that all being rendered peaceful, by the removal of religious intolerance, a

415
state of things would be produced in Ireland, that would recal the wealthy to revisit their country; would attach them to the soil; and would, moreover, offer a tempting field of speculation to English adventure, would thereby cause the introduction of English capital; which, vivyfying Irish industry, would introduce wealth, tranquillity, and peace. Mr. Pitt thought, that profitable employment of the population would be the best means of relieving abject poverty: and that even if it did not produce all these desirable effects, it would unquestionably prevent the constant drain of capital from Ireland, which the present unsatisfactory state of that country occasioned, which rendered it ineligible for any man who had any option there to reside; and that, in fact, none, excepting those connected with government, or compelled by necessity, would continue in a country, where a state of things existed, which excluded all hope of tranquillity and peace.
There is no saying, indeed, what would be a panacea for so dreadful a state of things. At all events, it is fit that something should be tried; and it would be productive of great good to try this measure, even though it should produce no more good, than those who oppose it prognosticate; ns, at all events, it would relieve the people of Ireland from being the dupe of those false—if they be false—expectations, which they now entertain. But, can any man contend, that to place all men in a country upon an exact footing—that to declare, that there should be no class marked for proscription, no class taught to look down upon every other as their inferiors—would not be gratifying to the proscribed would not tend to allay jealousies and heart-burnings, and to diffuse joy and peace?
To those who oppose this measure, on account of their attachment to the Church of England, I would say, it is the means, not of weakening but of strengthening that Church. It is, indeed, but an ill compliment to any church to proclaim, that it can only be supported by the aid of penal statutes and the bayonets of soldiers. But, considering the Church, for a moment, as these zealous supporters of it seem to consider it themselves—that is, as not capable of being maintained, except, by such aids and assistance, I will venture to affirm—even if the Church of England were such a grievance as this mode of
416
defence necessarily implies—which, however, I deny—it seems to me a necessary consequence, that if you separated from an acknowledged great grievance other grievances which are considered as contingents and as adjuncts to it—so far from endangering it, you will free it from a load of odium, from a harshness of character, which is not necessarily connected with it, and would be thereby more firmly establishing it, or at least mitigating hostility to it, in the minds of the public. But to hold up the Church of England as in itself a grievance, as its zealous supporters do—to represent it as the cause of, or excuse for, most other grievances complained of, is a line of argument in support of it, which, in any rational view, seems to me perfectly inexplicable.
I repeat what I stated at the outset of my speech, my preference of the Church of England to all others. I prefer it on various accounts, and for various reasons. First, because I was brought up in it; which is, perhaps, the best of all reasons. But I prefer it also, because I consider it as founded on more liberal and tolerant principles than any other. Indeed, so tolerant and so liberal is the Church of England, as it appears to me, that to define it precisely would be no easy task. Were I called upon so to do, I should rather be induced to attempt it by negatives than by affirmatives. For instance, I should say, that it was not Catholic—and yet that it had many points of striking similarity to it. The late bishop of Rochester, Dr. Horsley, was accustomed to declare, that the Catholics, as they were nearer, so they ought to be dearer, to us, than any other Church differing from the Establishment. I should say, that it was not Calvinistic—and yet so much is there of Calvinism in it, that Calvinists may conform to it. I should say, it is not Lutheran—and yet that there is enough of Lutheranism in it for Lutherans to conform to it. I have always understood from history, that the main principle upon which the English Church was founded was a principle of comprehension; and being liberal and tolerant and wise, it naturally was adapted to enclose all rational Christians within its pale.
Therefore, in contending for religious liberty, I am contending for that which is conformable to its principles; and in combating the principle of intolerant exclusion, I am combating that which is most

417
prejudicial to its interests. I am endeavouring to persuade the Church of England to shed the benignant influence of its principles upon unhappy Ireland; to complete the Union which Mr. Pitt commenced; and place the Church on stronger ground, by freeing it from those miserable props and supports; which should rather be called incumbrances than props, and which, instead of strengthening, undermine its foundations. If it is at all insecure, it is owing to those securities which nave been devised for preserving it. Religious tests have been recently deprecated by the heads of that Church, in the other House of Parliament. They have done honour to themselves by their candour and their charity; and by removing those bulwarks, as they have been called, the Test and Corporation Acts, and deprecating a system of exclusion and of religious tests, on account of the insincerity they necessarily engender, have secured to themselves a strength of public opinion far more efficacious and honourable, as support of the Church, than oaths and tests and penal laws.
Sir, I cannot help flattering myself, that I am entitled to the support of every man of sense and candour, upon this great question. To ensure it, it is enough to remark, that the circumstances which gave rise to that state of things which I seek to remedy, have no longer any existence—that we are now living, not in the fifteenth, but in the nineteenth century—that it is the year 1828. If it be true, as stated, that the Church is really interwoven with the State—if the Church is wound round the State, like ivy round the oak — by invigorating the one, you strengthen the other.
But if these evils complained of are great in themselves, they are aggravated by the mode of their infliction. They may be said to be twice caused; that they are a mutual annoyance to both parties—to the one who imposes, as well as to the one who endures. I will appeal to every member of the House, whether it is not a most painful circumstance, previously to taking a seat in a new parliament, to be compelled to pronounce at the table a declaration revolting to one's feelings—which, from habit indeed, he is little accustomed to reflect upon, and considers a matter of form; but on which, if he did reflect, he would be shocked at being compelled to pronounce what he must
418
consider as foul calumny upon men, with many of whom he is in the habit of living upon terms of friendship and esteem; whom he mixes with in all the ordinary transactions of life; whose virtues he frequently witnesses; and yet is obliged to impute to them sentiments, and to make assertions himself, degrading to both, which nothing but parliamentary privilege could protect him against the indignation of those injured, if pronounced in any other place, and which must be painful to his feelings as a gentleman.
It is high time to get rid of this opprobrium and shame, to relieve ourselves from this painful conflict of feeling. If there are new dangers that have arisen to the State in these times, let it be plainly stated what they are, and let new remedies be provided against them; but let us, at all events, clear away those old and useless and clumsy contrivances, the causes and reasons which gave birth to them having long ceased to exist. Were I arguing as an English lawyer upon, such a topic, I should say, that, on that plain, common-law, maxim, "cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex," these laws had themselves died a natural death, and were obsolete.
It will, perhaps, be remarked, that I have, upon this occasion, omitted all mention of that fertile topic of dispute—securities. And this I have clone, because I am firmly of opinion, that it is an interminable subject of dispute, and that they are, in fact, of no value. The great security both for Church and State is—equal laws and equal justice. "Id enim est firmissimum imperium quo obedientes gaudent:" and there are no people in the world more easily satisfied than the Irish. I call upon you to pay them a long-contracted debt. At the same time, it will be received by them with gratitude, as a boon; and with the same good feeling and good faith which have been evinced by the Irish upon former occasions, will you be repaid on this. I therefore implore the House to consolidate the feeling of the United nation, by procuring the best of all securities for a State—equal laws and equal justice. At the same time, if there are gentlemen whose minds are so differently constituted from my own, or whose heated imaginations, or long-indulged prejudices, give rise to apprehensions, which I cannot participate, or comprehend—who are still alive to the old and

419
exaggerated and now worn-out dangers of past times; or if they apprehend other dangers, and wish for other securities, they may propose them. But I own their fears appear to me as childish, and the securities as feeble and unavailing, as hanging an amulet round the neck of an infant, to protect it against agues, or nailing a horse-shoe on the threshold of a door, to protect a house against witches.
If, I say, there are those still who seek securities, it is for them to propose them. I stand upon no trifles; and, on the part of those I advocate, knowing their spirit of conciliation, I have no doubt of their willingness to acquiesce in any securities that can be proposed, consistently with their honour and their conscience. Securities which infringe upon these, they cannot grant; and such no wise government will ever exact.
I trust and hope, that in advocating this great cause, I have not unintentionally made use of any argument which, by possibility, can excite angry or unpleasant feelings on the mind of any man; but that as I have been anxiously endeavouring to harmonize the jarring spirits of all parties upon this subject, I shall prevail upon the House, with liberality, and dispassionately, to consider it; to look at it only in one point of view, as beneficial to the whole country; and that they will not retrograde from those sentiments which they formerly expressed, but will again sanction by their vote that measure of peace and justice which I am now about to propose.
I move, Sir, "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the State of the Laws affecting his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Croat Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty's subjects."
The motion being seconded by Mr. Brougham,
The Solicitor-generalsaid, that nothing would have induced him to offer himself at that early period of the debate, but his great anxiety to explain to the House and to the country the grounds on which he intended to give his present vote. He would endeavour to make that explanation with the same moderation and candour which
420
had distinguished the able, argumentative, and temperate speech of the hon. baronet. He would endeavour to adhere as closely to the subject matter of this argument, as the hon. baronet had done; though he regretted to say, that on one important branch of it, on which he had been most anxious to hear the hon. baronet, he had been completely silent. For when we found that from the Reformation downwards to the present times, it had been the anxious desire of the nation to unite the Protestant establishment with the State, he expected that some argument would have been offered, and some proof adduced, for the purpose of showing that there had been such an important change in the spirit, opinions, and reasonings, of the persons in whose favour the motion was made, as ought to induce the House to accede to it. As the proposition of the hon. baronet required no security from the Catholics, and as the Catholics were themselves unwilling to give any, our acceding to it, would, in effect, be to let six millions of Irishmen, who were completely under the dominion of their priests and bishops, remain free from any control on the part of the Crown, and would lead to the direct interposition of a foreign potentate in the affairs of this country. Now, from the earliest history, such a state of things had never existed in England. He would endeavour to follow the hon. baronet through his different arguments; and as he had placed the foundation of them all upon the Treaty of Limerick, he would offer a few observations on the wording and fair construction of it, which would convince the House that it ought to come to a very different conclusion from that of the hon. baronet upon that treaty. The hon. baronet said, that he wished to have the question argued, as if it were before a court of justice. Now, he would deal more fairly with it; for lawyers construed all instruments to the letter: he would give it a liberal construction, and would contend, that even if it were construed according to its spirit, it would not bear out the construction which the hon. baronet had put upon it. In the Treaty of Limerick it was quite evident that there were two sets of persons contemplated in two different clauses. The first article referred to all Catholics in the kingdom of Ireland; the remaining articles to those Catholics who were in Limerick, or under the control of certain officers in the neighbourhood

421
in the pay of king James. He said that this was done advisedly; for if the hon. haronet would refer to an act passed in 1695,—he meant the 7th Will. 3rd, s. 4, —he would find that it was passed with the avowed intention of disarming all the Catholics of the kingdom; all such persons as were in Limerick and in the neighbouring garrison towns were specifically excepted from its operation. Now he contended, that if a general act was passed for disarming all the Catholics of Ireland, and if an exception was made in favour of the inhabitants and garrison of Limerick, it was only fair to infer, that the prevalent construction put upon the treaty shortly after its signature was, that, excepting the first article, no article applied to all the Catholics collectively. The first article certainly applied to all the Catholics of the kingdom; but then it merely admitted them to the enjoyment of "such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were consistent with the laws of Ireland; "and surely those words could not embrace advantages which had so little to do with religion as seats in parliament. If the garrison of Limerick had intended to bargain for any such advantages, they would never have used words so foreign from their intentions; for everybody knew that sir Toby Butler was then in Limerick, and that he passed out of the gates with the army, and sir Toby was too good a lawyer and too accomplished a scholar, to have furnished his countrymen with language so different from the meaning it was intended to convey.—It was said in the 9th article of the Treaty, that the oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submitted to their majesties' government, shall be the Oath of Allegiance and no other. The meaning of those words was, that if they who were in arms against king William, and submitted to him, would swear allegiance to him, it would be considered enough. If it were said, that it was then agreed that the Oath of Allegiance should be the only oath which the Roman Catholics should take in future, he would meet that assertion by reminding hon. gentlemen, that there were at that time in existence various acts of parliament, requiring various oaths to be taken by Roman Catholics, as, for instance, the oath against the Pope's Supremacy, enacted in the reign of Elizabeth, and the last Oath of Supremacy enacted in the reign of Charles 2nd. Now, it would be a
422
very narrow construction of this treaty to say, that when king William required those who submitted to him to take no other oath than the Oath of Allegiance, he also agreed to require no other oath from all the Catholics in the kingdom. It always appeared to him, that the argument which the other side raised on this Treaty of Limerick proved, if any thing, a little too much; for if the treaty were to be construed as they insisted, it followed, that happen what might, no further yoke could be imposed on the Roman Catholics. If that were so, then was the Roman Catholic placed in a much better situation than his Protestant fellow-subject. No one would pretend to deny that parliament had not a right to limit the qualifications of persons elected to serve in it. Now, did any one suppose, that if, after that treaty, a law had been passed, declaring that no Protestant who had less than 300 l. a year should sit in parliament, the Roman Catholic would have been exempt from its operation? If, therefore, the argument of the hon. baronet meant any thing, it meant this—that the Roman Catholics were to go scot-free, whilst the Protestants were to be liable to all sorts of parliamentary restrictions. Was that, he would ask, a statesman-like argument? Was it a statesman-like way of viewing this great question, to allude in this manner to a treaty a hundred and thirty years old, to dwell upon its having been broken—if broken it was—contrary to the faith of nations, without reference to what, had since taken place, without reference to the Union with Scotland and the Union of Ireland, both of which had for ever asserted the pre-eminence of the Protestant religion, as inseparably connected with the state establishment? Why, as well might the hon. baronet select some obsolete record, passed during the contentions between the houses of York and Lancaster, and argue from it conclusively, upon any subject connected with general British history, as quote in this manner the Treaty of Limerick. Suppose the hon. baronet were to go still further back, and say that the Breton Law was the law of Ireland, because it was undoubtedly so in ancient times, and Henry 2nd had agreed to observe it, but his successor, Edward, took it away. The argument would be just as good in the one case as in the other. These arguments, drawn from remote antiquity and founded upon documents which were

423
really a dead letter, ought not, in the present day, to be raked up among deliberating men. And, after all, in what sense did the Irish themselves consider this treaty? If the House would refer to the Journals of the Irish parliament, they would find that that body in the October of the year which followed that treaty, commenced business by reading an English act of parliament, to the binding power of which over their country not the slightest objection had been made. This binding power of England over Ireland had been maintained by the ablest lawyers, from lord Coke downwards. He knew this doctrine, be it right or wrong, had been denied; still he would repeat, it had received the sanction of the ablest men. At that time there was only one Roman Catholic (the member for Tuam) in the House of Commons. Indeed, he was convinced, that nobody ever dreamt to admit the Catholics generally as a body into parliament during the reign of Charles 2nd; all that they required was, a security for the free exercise of their religion.
The hon. baronet had, in the second branch of his argument, insisted that what the Catholics were now seeking was a natural right, by the exclusion from which, he says, they are deprived of an inalienable right, which they held, as derived from God. Now, that this was not the case, any man must see who reflected upon the well-understood distinction between natural and acquired rights. Life, liberty, property, were all natural rights: all governments being instituted for the good of the governed, were bound to protect these; and any authority not exercised with that view, and opposed to their protection, must be deemed to be guilty of something like an act of suicide, and as abandoning its legal municipal functions. What the Catholics claimed were not natural rights, but privileges which, from the very earliest ages down to the present times, had been, in different states, uniformly denied to certain classes of people who professed opinions destructive of the social order which the legislature had framed for its own civil polity. These might be called scruples of conscience, but the legislature could not palter with them. Who would think of appointing a Quaker, who interpreted to the letter the passages of Scripture against resistance, to be a general? "Who would think of intrusting a man, folding the doctrines of the German Ana-
424
baptists, as to the community of property among Christians, with the office of a judge? Who would have thought of admitting the Fifth Monarchy men, in the time of Cromwell, to join in the administration of any regular government? Only those who held opinions consistent with the safety of the state could be admitted to office: those must be kept out who held opinions leading directly to its destruction. The violation of natural rights sounded well, but the abridgment of political privileges were not to be confounded with penal laws. Penal laws were those enactments which inflicted punishments on a man for worshipping the Divinity according to the dictates of his conscience. Against such laws he would ever raise his voice; but to exclude from office persons holding opinions detrimental to the State, was not a punishment; it was a matter of self-preservation.
"Sensus moresque repugnant,
Atque ipsa utilitas, justi propè mater et æqui."
When we considered what were the grounds on which the existing laws were passed, in order to knit and unite together for ever the Protestant Church with the State; when we saw the caution with which these statutes were enacted, let us ask ourselves if any thing that now appeared before us justified us in repealing them? Did it not rather appear, on the contrary, that the necessary result of throwing open the door of political power, and letting in those who, in opinion, doctrine, and acts, were under the dominion of foreign influence, would be to endanger the whole fabric of the government, in Church and State? He would follow the example and advice of the hon. baronet, and would not revive the memory of those cruel disputes in which these laws had their origin. He knew it would only tend to bring back those animosities which, in the discussion of this subject, of all others, ought to be avoided. But he would not consent to pass such a libel on the wisdom of our ancestors, who enacted these laws, with all the events of those times fresh in their minds, as he should be a party to, if he did not beg the House to remember, that these laws had been supported and upheld by some of the greatest men that adorned the history of this country. At the Revolution, were not those safeguards against the encroachments of the Roman Catholics moulded by statesmen who were ornaments of mankind.

425
He would take up the subject historically, and show that these laws which excluded Catholics from the enjoyment of high official power, had gone on regularly, with the deliberate sanction of the greatest authorities, and had been invariably introduced in the most solemn enactments of the state. Take the time of the Reformation, and it would be seen that, in the very first year of Elizabeth's reign, she began by resisting an appeal to repeal the principle of these restrictive laws. She insisted upon maintaining the policy which her father had adopted, of utterly extinguishing and putting away the influence of all foreign power within this realm. She denied and denounced all foreign interference with the ancient discipline, authority, superiority, and pre-eminence, of the Church as by law established. And in this determination she did not profess to introduce a new principle of government, but to maintain an undoubted prerogative of hereditary power vested in the crown of England. She introduced an act for "Restoring the Rights, Privileges, and Pre-eminence, of the Church of England," and repealed the 1st and 2nd of Philip and Mary, which contravened them; and the intention was clearly expressed in the preamble of the act of Repeal, which stated, that it was to abolish "for ever, all foreign power, spiritual as well as temporal, in this realm."—At the Restoration, the Test and Corporation acts were passed precisely for the same reason; namely, the security and well-being of the Established Church. He mentioned them, to show the jealous apprehension with which in those times the Church of Rome was viewed by the British government, and the firm intention to fortify, by restrictive clauses, the indissoluble connexion between Church and State. Then followed the Revolution; and there again the principle was recorded, in the most solemn manner, of the supremacy of the Church, as by law established, which had been previously endangered by the machinations of James the 2nd. It was then that the monarch was required by law to take what had since been called the Coronation Oath, and to pledge himself, "that he would to the utmost of his power maintain the laws of God, and the Protestant reformed religion, as established by law." He knew that various interpretations had been put upon the oath to which he referred; that by one party it was contended
426
that no alteration of parliament could affect so serious and solemn an obligation, and by another, that it was capable of a new construction, at the will of the legislature. Both these opinions he believed to be wrong: in his own view, the substantive meaning of the law which imposed the oath was, that the king had no power to do any act which tended to subvert or endanger the pre-eminence of the established religion of the country.
He had shown what was the feeling of parliament both at the Reformation and Revolution, and the same principle was re-asserted in still later times. The next occasion after the Revolution for any great legislative enactment connected with this principle was in 1707, at the time of the union with Scotland; and in that celebrated settlement the same solemn pledge was required and given in the most expressive and significant words, that the oath should be taken and subscribed, "for the maintenance and preservation inviolably of the constitution, discipline, and authority, of the Church of England, as by law established."—At the distance of another century came the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and the same clause, in the same words, was embodied, to give permanence to the principle which was recognized at the Reformation, the Revolution, and the Scottish Union. The faith of the nation had been, in this solemn manner, pledged over and over again, at every important epoch of British history, that the Church should be inviolably maintained, as an inseparable and integral part of the State. He knew it had been said, that this abolition of Catholic power within this realm was only intended to apply to spiritual supremacy; in fact, to ecclesiastical interference, quite unconnected with the practical business of life, merely to overthrow the spiritual domination of the Church of Rome within this realm. This he must deny: the legislature meant for ever to exclude the interference of the see of Rome with the domestic affairs and allegiance of British subjects, and thereby to maintain the policy which, from Richard 2nd downwards, the sovereigns on the British throne had jealously observed in this respect against the bishops of Rome. Was it likely that at so many different periods of our history great men would have been so scrupulous in preserving these restrictive laws, if they had not felt the evil practically against

427
which they meant to guard? Why was the statute of Premunire passed, if no real inconvenience had been felt?
But he was prepared to prove, from the authority of the Catholics themselves, that to this very hour they maintained the doctrines against which, by a uniform current of enactments, the legislature had scrupulously and inflexibly sought to guard. Here the hon. and learned gentleman referred to the pastoral letter of Dr. Troy, in the year 1793, to show that Catholics held the pope to be the vicegerent of St. Peter, to derive his authority direct from God, and to exercise it independent of human tribunals. Was it not known that the ecclesiastical tribunal of the Romish Church took cognizance of testamentary causes of marriages, and other important civil contracts, by which it, in point of fact, sought to regulate and control the most important and influential temporal concerns of life? Was he not, then, warranted in asserting, that there had been no change in the opinions of Catholics, to justify that House in throwing open the door for their admission into place and power? for that, after all, was the question winch they had to discuss—itwas admissibility to place and power, as disconnected from religious toleration. It had been contended, that the Catholics of the present day were not men harbouring the same opinions as those of the past—This he must deny: they did maintain the same opinions, and their introduction to power with them would be exactly that which it had been at various times the policy of their ancestors to prevent. There was another thing which struck him as singular; and which, indeed, added greatly to his distrust in the conduct of the Catholics of the present day. They, in point of fact, asked more of this Protestant State than they had been ever suffered to enjoy by sovereigns of their own communion. There never was a time, from Richard 2nd downwards, in which Catholic potentates had not carefully guarded themselves against the operation of the bulls and other politico-religious machinery of the see of Rome, and insisted that these documents should pass through their hands, and not be promulgated without their previous sanction. The hon. baronet had said, that, the present race of Catholics disavowed this domestic interference of the see of Rome: no such thing, the authorities to whose jurisdiction they bowed
428
maintained the direct contrary. In proof of this, he quoted the resolutions of the Irish Catholic bishops and parochial clergy of the diocess of Dublin, on the 27th of May, 1813, who, upon seeing the copy of the Roman Catholic Relief bill of that day, had resolved, "that the guards and securities therein contained were incompatible with the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church!" Now what were these guards and securities? That the Crown was to have a negative upon the appointment of the Catholic bishops, and the same, restricting the promulgation and enforcement of the papal rescripts within this realm. The Catholic clergy, however, formally declared, that "they could not admit this interference of the Crown of England; "and that" the granting of any power to an anti-Catholic government, directly or indirectly, in the appointment of the Catholic bishops, would be at all times inexpedient, and now highly detrimental to the interests of our religion." Here was a clear proof, that while they sought confidence from the legislature, they were not disposed to afford the same in return. This was one reason why he must withhold his confidence from them, and another was, that the Catholics were now asking more from this Protestant state than they had required in any other country in the world, where the subject had been agitated.—The hon. baronet had quoted the various states of Europe, in which, as he read their history, Catholic privileges were not withheld, and where they enjoyed those privileges which were denied to them in this country. Now, beginning with Austria, which is perhaps the most Catholic country of those alluded to by the hon. baronet, was not the nomination of the Catholic bishops vested in the Emperor? Was it not also vested in the crown of Sicily, and in that of Naples, which closely approximated to the territorial jurisdiction of the see of Rome. Not in one of these countries, Catholic as were their governments, could a papal bull or rescript circulate and have validity, without the royal assent, previously obtained. Even in Spain, which might be said to be the very child of Catholicism, the king exercised exactly the same control over the connexion of his subjects with the pope. There were, besides, two countries, which, though not as strictly Catholic, were yet (one of them at least, Russia) to the point. In Russia, in the year 1780, there was no

429
Catholic episcopal establishment in that empire; but the empress, when she then established a Catholic archbishop, specifically enjoined that no papal authority should be exercised within her jurisdiction, without having been previously submitted to her for her approval. In Prussia, where the majority was a Lutheran population, and the minority Catholic, Mr. Adams, who was the American plenipotentiary at the court of Berlin, had stated that the authority of the pope was a nullity in Silesia, without the previous concurrence of the king, who had the appointment of the vicar-general and bishops, the confirmation by the pope being a mere formality. Some attempt was made to resist the king's supreme authority in this matter by the synod; but it soon ceased, when he firmly held his power; and the same result would now attend similar conduct on the part of parliament, if they persevered in refusing the Catholics what they had never attempted to extort even from Catholic princes.
From every consideration which he could give this subject, he was unable to find the slightest alteration of the Catholic opinions, against, which these penal restrictions had been framed. Not a single renunciation of any obnoxious tenet had taken place—not the least attempt to qualify or restrict that power of the pope which had been felt so dangerous to the civil liberties of the country. He wished to be understood as looking at the question politically, not theologically and as alluding to the fearful connexion between popery and tyranny, an alliance too plainly demonstrated by the page of history, in which the spiritual and temporal dominion of the see of Rome went hand in hand. Well might Andrew Marvel have said, that they had risen and grown up together, and would only separate when they both perished. His objection to the Catholic church was its exclusive pretensions. They allowed the sanctity of no other sect; they, and they alone, were the true Church, and descended from God. The hon. and learned gentleman here referred to the evidence given before parliament by Dr. Doyle, who, in obvious terms, denied the validity of the ordination of a Protestant bishop, as being derived from an authority without the pale of the Catholic church; whose infallibility, though disguised with some flimsy qualifications, was yet plainly asserted. Well might a highly-gifted poet
430
exclaim of the Catholic church, that it was—"Immortal and unchanged." To say it was immortal was rather a stretch of the poet's imagination, but "unchanged" it certainly was, and would to all appearance remain. He referred again to the evidence of Dr. Anglade, to show how uncanded and unsatisfactory were his answers respecting the pope's infallibility, for, although the pope (according to the doctor) was fallible, yet with his council his decision became infallible. But when-he was asked, should the council and the pope decide so and so, (alluding to doctrines repugnant to Protestant supremacy in this realm), then would not their decision be final throughout the Catholic church?" "No," answered the bishop, "I should think the church never will decide that, and the supposition therefore never can be realized." The doctor was asked,;" Do you not hold the church in the definition of articles of faith to be infallible?" Answer—" Yes." And he then went on to admit, that there was always in these admissions an exception raised for the "rights of superiors;" and in the class-book of Maynooth college, it would be seen, upon reference to the evidence taken before the commissioners of Education, that this reservation was practically enjoined, although a qualification of its force was referred to, which, however, was found introduced in the class-book, twenty pages before the rule itself [hear]. In the year 1773 the Jesuits were suppressed, and from that moment the Catholics received greater protection in the different states of Europe. After the suppression of that order, the empress of Russia allowed a Roman Catholic archbishop to become a resident in her dominions. Indeed, from the dissolution of the order of the Jesuits might they date the rise of that good feeling towards the Catholics in those European states, where reasons of state and policy had hitherto debarred them from countenance or power. However, but three or four years had now elapsed since the pope re-established the Jesuits in all their former power, and with all their former immunities. In a bull which the pope issued in the year 1814, he says, that the Catholic world had called aloud and with one voice for the re-establishment of the order, and that by the many petitions which had been addressed to him from different countries to that effect, he had received abundant proofs of the desire

431
which existed throughout the Catholic community for the re-establishment of the Jesuits. The bull then went on to reestablish the order as it formerly existed. All those circumstances were so many proofs that the spirit of this church was only sleeping, but not extinguished; and it was on this ground that he would object to the introduction of the Roman Catholics into power [hear, hear]. While the circumstances which would warrant a measure of that description had gradually diminished since the year 1813, the demands on behalf of the Catholics had gradually increased. Was not that a suspicious circumstance in itself? He would say also that the tone in which the Catholics thought fit to make known their complaints to that House was not that of respect, but a tone of a very different description. No one could read their addresses and their petitions without being sensible that their tone of complaint was much higher and bolder than it had hitherto been. If he were told, as he had been told in that House, that he should cast aside all fears and apprehensions regarding the admission of Catholics to power, he would beg of them to pause, and to consider what took place at the last general election in Ireland. He would ask those who had seen the species of dominion which was at that period exercised by the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, in drawing the peasantry of the country from the duty which they owed to their landlords, whether it did not show that such a power, if it were allowed a greater scope, would be pregnant with the most dangerous consequences. The hon. baronet had dwelt upon the distresses of Ireland; and those distresses had been attributed by the petitioners to their political exclusion. There was no man who felt more for those distresses than he did; or who was more anxious to see a real and practical amelioration effected in the condition of that country. But he differed widely from the petitioners as to the causes of the evil, and the remedies by which it could be eradicated. Let them commence by educating the people, by diffusing amongst them a better system of instruction, by spreading throughout the land the Sacred Scriptures, and by introducing the powers of industry and wealth. By the introduction of industry and the diffusion of true religion, the population of Ireland would at length be placed in the right
432
way; and then, and not till then, would they be capable of appreciating that full portion of liberty to which it was now proposed to admit them. These were the considerations which weighed with him in opposing this motion. He had delivered his sentiments plainly, fearlessly, and openly; and believing as he did in his conscience, that the admission of the Catholics to power would be highly dangerous to the constitution of this country, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. Percevalsaid, that in rising to support the motion which had been brought forward by the hon. baronet, he felt himself bound, in duty to himself and to the House, to state the reasons which induced him to do so. The opinions which had been entertained on this subject by his lamented father were well known, and if he did not feel a reverence for that father's opinions, he should not only not be worthy of a seat in that House, but he should not be worthy to hold up his head in society. It might be well supposed, that the sentiments of his lamented parent had had a great influence in the formation of his political opinions; indeed, from his habits and education, he was naturally biassed against the question which had been that night submitted to their decision. But when he came to reflect upon the subject, he began to waver, and when he first had the honour of a seat in that House, his mind had already been pretty nearly convinced that the fears and alarms which were excited upon the subject were not the offspring of sound wisdom, and had not any foundation in fact. Impressed, however, as he then was, with those doubts, yet wishing to pay a due deference to the opinions of that parent whose name he should ever respect, and being unwilling to hazard his own judgment in opposition to them, he gave at the time a silent vote against the measure. In acting thus upon that occasion, he trusted he had done nothing which was unbecoming, or which could now be thrown in his face as inconsistent with his present line of conduct.
Having said that he had given a silent vote upon a former occasion against this measure, he was now the more anxious to state the grounds upon which he did not support the question, than those upon which he had determined to give it his support. He did not support the motion with the feeling that those who resisted it were chargeable with bigoted and intole-

433
rant motives. Such an accusation, in his opinion, was equally unjust and unfounded. He would confess, then, that he was sorry to see a charge of that nature conveyed in the speech of the hon. baronet. This great question had been for years the chief, if not the only land-mark of those divisions which separated the two great parties in the state, and their respective leaders at least might be said to stand upon one common principle. What said the advocates of the measure? What was the language of Mr. Grattan, lord Grenville, and the other illustrious men whose names had become identified with this question? All of them admitted, that if they conceived that the success of the question would endanger the Protestant establishment, they would not support it. What, on the other hand, was the language uniformly held by the opponents of the measure? "We will agree to the concessions," say they, "if we could be brought to believe that they might be granted with safety to the Protestant established church." There was no difference then of principle between the opponents and the advocates of this question; but there was a difference of judgment as to the future effect of an untried law. He wished to stand completely clear from the suspicion, that in supporting this question, he participated in the feelings of indifference which had been expressed by some, as to the immaterial nature of the differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. Such feelings he totally disclaimed. He should be sorry, indeed, if any words which he should utter went to countenance such a mischievous delusion upon the human mind respecting the most important of all subjects, as, in his conscience, he considered the Roman Catholic religion to be. That religion was, in his opinion, a foul pollution of the word of God. That sacred word was clouded and shaded by the superstitious interpolations and corruptions of that church; which, while it pretended to lead its votaries to heaven, led them astray from the pure undefiled word of God. Nor could he admit that the Roman Catholic church had undergone any change in its principles, but he differed from his hon. and learned friend, in considering that fact as any ground for resisting the present motion. He would maintain that she still remained unaltered as to principle—that, in fact, she had not retracted one jot of
434
her principles; but he would say, that she was controlled, mitigated, and subdued by all that had taken place around her. Many might suppose that the Roman Catholic religion had become changed, but he did not think so. If the Protestant mind could be deluded into the notion that the Roman Catholic religion had undergone a change, its vigilance against the growth of that religion would become relaxed. He believed that the Roman Catholic religion was controlled by Protestant light and principles; that it was diminished in the form which it presented to the eyes by the Protestant atmosphere by which it was surrounded, and by that free circulation of opinion and that spirit of inquiry which belonged to the Protestant religion. Notwithstanding the abominations and the enormities of the Roman Catholic church, he believed that by the vigilance of the Protestant mind, and by the pressure of Protestant principles, it had been reduced to a state of comparative harmlessness. But if that vigilance were relaxed, if that pressure were removed, sure he was that she would put forth her toils again—that she would stretch her limbs and fill every space of power which she formerly occupied. He was here, however, speaking of a probability of which there was no chance. If the sun by its rising did not alter the nature of the tiger, it drove him to his den, and mitigated that ferocity which it did not change. He would fearlessly maintain that the prosperity of this nation was bound up with her Christianity; and he could not help thinking that he, who had been pleased to set up the true light of religion in this country, would also be pleased to continue it here in spite of all the attacks that might be made upon it: how else were we to account for the fact, that while political storms had been harassing the rest of Europe—while every popish capital had been visited by calamity—while almost every popish royal family had by turns been banished from the land of their ancestors—England alone had been able to ride on her course secure and triumphant? As long as this Union continued, her greatness will continue; and he would rather drop down dead in his place at that moment than aid in dissolving such a Union. If the Protestant religion of England was now worth five years' purchase, we could admit the Catholics with perfect safety. There could be no danger with them, but

435
there might he danger without them. The Protestant religion was the true religion, and no danger could accrue to it from the admission of Catholics to parliament. When popery had every thing in its power—when its dominion possessed an unlimited extent—when peers, commoners, and all classes were Roman Catholics—even at that time a few men, with the truth upon their lips, dislodged popery from its strongest holds, and established that pure religion which now existed in this country. Let but the same principle be still maintained, and it would be impossible for popery to make any successful inroad upon the establishment. That principle, they should recollect, had to contend against the inveterate prejudices of all the inhabitants of this country; and had to fight its "upward and laborious way," against the various obstacles which power, place, dominion, and long-established habits, then opposed to its progress: but, in spite of these, truth became triumphant—it now possessed all the secular advantages for its maintenance which at one period belonged to popery in this country, and with "all these appurtenances to boot," he could not bring himself to think that it would give way, on account of the admission of a few Roman Catholics to parliament. He would repeat, that if it should fail under such circumstances, it could only arise from its being rotten at heart. If the Protestant principle and the Protestant religion be true and sincere, they never can fail. Me would be the last man to support this motion, if he could perceive a chance of the least danger to the Protestant religion from the admission of Roman Catholics to parliament. He would not say that the tiling would be impossible; but, when betook into consideration the increased vigilance which the admission of Roman Catholics would excite on the part of the Protestants against the Roman Catholic religion, he conceived that the measure would be productive of beneficial consequences. That vigilance would succeed, as praying, preaching, and printing, had done in former days, in preserving the truth, and in dispelling falsehood. If, then, there existed but a probability of danger on the one hand, while on the other the measure would be attended with practical good, he felt himself justified in supporting it. He would ask the opponents of this measure what were their reasons for continuing their opposi-
436
tion? There was no doubt but Ireland was at present under the dominion of the priests—would they maintain a system which produced such consequences? He deplored the miseries and misfortunes of unhappy Ireland: a set of demagogues, whose ruffian eloquence but too well answered their purposes, kept up a continual state of irritation, and divided and distracted society by their inflammatory harangues. But if unprincipled men like these were able thus to divide and disturb the country, how could they be removed, if the causes which had drawn them forth and imparted to them such undeserved importance were allowed to exist? He had spoken plainly on the subject of the Roman Catholic religion. In doing so, it was not his wish to offend the feelings of any individuals; but he could not avoid giving expression to his sentiments. He prayed that justice might be done, and that it might not be imputed to him, that he had done that which was calculated to weaken or endanger the religion or constitution of this empire. If he had been so unfortunate as to have adopted a wrong course on this occasion, he could only in conclusion say that he could not help it.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldsaid, there was one point in the speech of the hon. baronet who had introduced this motion, in reference to the Union, to which he was desirous to advert, as he had been intimately connected with that transaction. But before he did so, he could not refrain from offering some observations on what had fallen from the learned Solicitor-general. The admirable exposition of the Treaty of Limerick, which had been given by the hon. baronet, had been characterized by the learned Solicitor-general as a most unstatesman-like view of it. Now, he did imagine, that when the learned gentleman applied such an epithet to what he considered a masterly and statesman-like view of that transaction, he would have been prepared to justify his description of it, not by a point of special pleading, but by some special act of parliament which followed that treaty. He was sure the hon. and learned gentleman must feel, that he had put not alone an unstatesman-like, but an illegal, construction upon the articles of that treaty. He would beg to call his attention to the words of the second article of the Treaty of Limerick. This article, the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to think was confined exclusively

437
to the residents and inhabitants of Limerick, and to the army serving there. On reading the terms of the article, it would be impossible to give them that construction. He would beg the attention of the House to the words of the second article. "All the inhabitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the possession of the Irish, and all the officers and soldiers now in arms, tinder any commission of king James, or those authorized by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo," &c.—all these were admitted to the benefit of the treaty. Now, if the learned gentleman would wish to exclude from the benefit of the treaty his majesty's Catholic subjects in Ireland, he should be glad to know what earthly reason could induce the Crown to grant more to those who were found in actual rebellion against the government then in Ireland, and who were considered as rebels, than they would confer upon the remainder of their Roman Catholic subjects in that kingdom? The learned gentleman had manifestly put an interpretation upon this article of the treaty, which was neither supported by argument, nor warranted by the words of the treaty itself.
The next point to which the learned gentleman had applied himself consisted in a history of the statutes which formed that complete code, which he said ended in the oath imposed upon the sovereign. He would deny that that oath was the completion of the code. But if a necessity had arisen for the imposition of that oath upon the sovereign, the other laws must appear as the consequences of it. That oath was considered at the time as a perfect security against all dangers. He would ask the learned gentleman, whether he would maintain, that the dangers which formerly existed were still in existence? Was it not a fact, that the pope of Rome was now perfectly impotent and innocuous? There was a time, however, when queen Elizabeth was excommunicated by the pope of Rome, and her subjects released from their allegiance. That was then an efficacious sort of terror, and likely to be followed by the most dangerous consequences. But that magnanimous princess did not think the less of the disposition of her Roman Catholic subjects. To many of them she gave public tokens of her confidence; and in addressing her parliament, she used
438
these remarkable words: —" I agree with you in distinguishing the papist in principle from the papist in faction." That was what this House was now called upon to do. They were not called upon to grant that which would confer a factious power upon the Roman Catholics, but to consent to a measure which, by extending to the Catholics an equality of rights with their fellow-subjects, would unite them more firmly in their attachment to the State.—The learned gentleman had also read, out of a mass of controversial papers, things that appeared to have puzzled the controversialists themselves. On this subject, however, he would make one remark: if there were difficulties connected with the doctrines of the Church of Rome and of England, this was not the time to start the question as to what securities should be demanded to protect the latter; nor did he see how that which was to come afterwards was any fair ground for objecting to the appointment of a committee. The hon. baronet had very wisely confined himself to a general view of the subject, and had left it to some future stage of the business to take into consideration all those points which were calculated to settle the establishment of the proper securities. He entirely concurred with the hon. baronet, that the best security the Protestant religion could have from the Catholics, was their civil allegiance to the king. When Mr. Pitt had contemplated the relief of the Catholics, in the year 1789, he had taken the opinion of all the universities, as a preliminary step, on the question whether any doctrine was held by the Catholic Church that would tend to prevent concessions being made to them; on that head, he had received from the universities the most satisfactory answer; and, in consequence, in 1791, he introduced a legislative measure, granting certain rights to the Catholics.
The hon. baronet had alluded to the legislative union, and on that point he wished to say a few words. It had been his fate to have given a decided concurrence in that measure at the first moment that it was broached. He had afterwards, therefore, to contend against the prejudices, and, if they would, the patriotism of his countrymen, and to stand the brunt of a great deal of obloquy. But of that obloquy he was perfectly careless, as he was satisfied with the purity of his mo-

439
tives; it being his decided conviction at the time, as it was still, that in the then situation of Ireland, that measure was the only mode for preserving the connection between the two countries. The necessity of the measure was first suggested to the mind of Mr. Pitt, at the period of the collision between the two respective parliaments on the Regency question. Mr. Pitt conceived, that one of the best means of preserving the connection consisted in giving to the Roman Catholics an interest in its preservation. Accordingly, in the very year that the collision occurred between the parliaments, he had the queries put to the universities, which he afterwards followed up by the introduction of the bill into parliament, granting several concessions to the Catholics. The Union had been preceded by one of the most alarming and best-combined conspiracies that had ever been formed. He alluded to that of the united Irishmen. Ireland was then in a most alarming situation; and this conspiracy, combining as it did upwards of five hundred thousand men, was well calculated, if not arrested in its career, to overturn the government, and establish in its stead a republic, in imitation of that of France. This society commenced in the north, and was originally confined exclusively to Protestants: no Catholic was admitted, as in the opinion of the directory, the Catholics were not to be trusted; they would reveal the secret in confession to their priests, and their priests were considered too loyal to conceal it from the government.
The next circumstance which must have drawn the attention of Mr. Pitt to the necessity of a Union, consisted in the frequent attempts of the French to make a descent upon Ireland. In 1796, fifteen thousand men arrived in Bantry Bay. They consisted of some of the best troops in France, and under the command of one of the best generals. Had they landed, nothing would have prevented them from marching to Dublin, and overturning the government. Why Hoche did not reach Bantry Bay, and how he was prevented from arriving there, he would not pretend to say; though perhaps, Mr. Pitt, if he had thought, proper, might have been able to give some explanation of the circumstance. The consequence, however, was, that the rebellion, by the deprivation of this foreign aid, had not the vigour that had been expected, and
440
the authorities in Ireland had fortunately been enabled to get it under. Mr. Pitt now felt, that it was become absolutely necessary to remedy the dangers which must result from the exclusion of that vast proportion of the Irish population, who differed from the doctrines of the Established Church; and that he did intend to remedy them, by making Catholic Emancipation a measure consequent upon, if not concurrent with, the Union, is a matter which his declarations, as well as the evidence of all those who were connected with the accomplishment of that project, place beyond the slightest dispute. The marquis Cornwallis was sent to Ireland for the purpose not only of quelling the rebellion, but of putting down the system of exclusion which had so long prevailed in that country, and at the same time of extinguishing that faction which had so long ruled the government itself with the most despotic sway, and had directed and controlled all the proceedings of the parliament of Ireland in the support of their doctrines of exclusion. That system, lord Cornwallis attacked; and, with his (Mr. F.'s) perfect concurrence, he exerted his best efforts to put down that corrupt system which had so long ruled over the country. From that circumstance arose the intimacy which afterwards subsisted between him and lord Cornwallis—an intimacy which was a subject of pride to him. The course pursued by lord Cornwallis, and the hopes which are held out that a Union between the two countries would lead to Catholic Emancipation, induced him to vote for that measure. The hon. baronet had stated, that the intention of proposing a Union was first announced by a pamphlet written by Mr. Cooke, who was then under-Secretary of State in Ireland a gentleman of considerable ability, and—whose own private doctrines and feelings leaned entirely towards the Protestant monopoly. That individual drew up his pamphlet in concurrence with lord Castlereagh, and in accordance with the language of Mr. Pitt's statement. He said, "It is necessary to hold out to the sectaries of Ireland certain advantages as likely to result to them from the accomplishment of the Union." It was not necessary to state specifically what should be granted, but to raise an expectation, that if the Union were carried, those persons should derive from it all the

441
benefit they could desire. There was one short sentence in Mr. Cooke's pamphlet which he thought it necessary to quote. That gentleman stated, seriatim, the advantages which he conceived would accrue to the country from the Union; and in the seventh proposition he observed; that "an opening may be left, in any plan of Union, for the future admission of Roman Catholics to additional political privileges." Now, at that time the Roman Catholics were in possession of the elective franchise; and, therefore the passage which he had cited could only apply to the privilege of sitting in parliament. Mr. Cooke was an advocate for the Protestant monopoly, but in stating, as he had done, that it was impossible for Ireland to remain as it then was, what did he mean by the phrase "establishing a steady administration?" Was his meaning that the Protestant ascendancy should be exclusively supported, and that the claims of the Roman Catholics should be cast aside? That could not have been his meaning; for he asked, "Will the Roman Catholics allow this?" And he went on to say, "It is utterly impossible that, in the contemplated new state of things, the Roman Catholics can continue to be excluded." This was Protestant authority, and it tended to show distinctly the grounds on which the Union was founded. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas in this House, and lord Grenville and lord Minto in the other, all, as appeared by their speeches, looked forward to an United parliament, not merely for a temperate discussion of the Roman Catholic claims when they were brought forward, but for the ultimate success of those claims. Lord Castlereagh, in his place in the Irish parliament observed—
"The Protestant, so long as the Establishment remains separate, and is impeached on local grounds will feel his power, his property, and his establishment insecure, and must naturally look with distrust, and jealousy, on the Catholic. The Catholic will feel proportionate alienation and resentment, and will continually urge his claims against the establishment of the minority; and there appears no hope whatever of a termination to distrust, jealousy, and alarm. But so soon as the Church Establishment of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one Church, the Protestant will feel him-self at once identified with the population
442
and property of the empire, and the establishment will be placed upon its natural basis. The cause of distrust must vanish with the removal of weakness; strength and confidence will produce liberality, and the claims of the Catholics may be temperately discussed and impartially decided, before an imperial parliament, divested of those local circumstances which produce irritation and jealousy, and prevent a fair and reasonable decision."
Such was lord Castlereagh's language before the Irish parliament: and he spoke thus guardedly, knowing perfectly well that it was a critical acknowledgment, and that if he went further, and spoke directly of concessions to the Roman Catholics, he might risk the loss of the measure which he was endeavouring to carry. Indeed, so much apprehension was entertained at the time, that the measure would lead to the relief of the Roman Catholics, that Dr. Duigenan described the Union "to be a treacherous project to cheat the Protestants, and to admit the Roman Catholics to all the privileges of the constitution." Mr. Dundas, speaking on the subject in the House of Commons in 1799, observed—
"The Protestants would of course lay aside their jealousies and distrusts, being certain that against any attempt to endanger the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, the whole strength of the United parliament would be exerted, and, on the other hand, every Catholic who is a friend to the connexion with Great Britain, but is desirous to obtain any indulgence, and be admitted into a participation of every privilege and benefit consistent with that connection, would be confident that their cause would be candidly and impartially considered by a United Parliament, the great body of which would be free from those apprehensions, jealousies, and inveterate animosities interwoven into the frame and constitution of the separate Parliament of Ireland."
He would now call the attention of the House to the sentiments of a noble member of the other House (lord Minto) upon the subject of these consequences of the Union. So important were the expressions of that noble lord considered by the administration, and so completely did they coincide with the opinions of the ministers of the Crown, that a pamphlet containing the speech was actually circulated by their order in that king-

443
dom, and he had himself transmitted it at their request to many of the leading Catholics of Ireland. He was aware that it must be irksome to the House to listen to so many extracts from documents, but he trusted the House would forgive his attempting to bring into a connected shape that documentary evidence which went, in his opinion, to establish virtually a solemn pledge upon the part of the government of England to make the concession of the claims of the Catholics a consequence of the accomplishment, by their consent, of the Union with Great Britain. The words of lord Minto were these:—
"Ireland requires a legislature founded on a broader and more liberal basis to administer important laws to all, and reconcile security with justice. In the United parliament, right may be done unaccompanied with wrong, Irish Catholics may be invested with their political capacities without the slightest danger to Protestant establishment or property. He considered the probable admission of the Catholics as the principal recommendation of the measure of Union, when disposed to have an article to that effect, but would not hazard the measure, and would expect it as a natural consequence of the Union."
When such was the feeling of the ministers of the Crown at that period—when such were the sentiments of the greatest administration, perhaps, that this country ever saw—when such language was used in the two Houses of parliament, without calling forth a dissentient voice—when that language was echoed by the general approbation of the English parliament—when they considered of whom that parliament consisted; namely, of two parties, the one devoted to the support of that cabinet, and the other known to be friendly to emancipation—when they recollected, that those speeches to which he had referred were printed by the command of government, at the public expense, and sent from the castle of Dublin to the military commanders in different districts, and were disseminated throughout Ireland—if this series of circumstances did not contain as positive an affirmative declaration of the opinion of the ministers of that day on the subject of emancipation, as could be made, he could not conceive what ought to be denominated a positive affirmative. He had taken the liberty of making himself a witness and an
444
authority on this subject. He had supported the Union on this particular point; and he should be wanting in his duty to himself, if he did not state, that the intention of the government, which had never been denied or concealed from him, was, that the Union should be followed up by the concession of the Roman Catholic claims, and on that ground he had voted for the measure.
Now when he spoke of a pledge, he felt himself called upon to observe, that he had seen it remarked in a pamphlet—the production of an author who, he believed, published one annually, previous to the discussion of this question—that no pledge whatever was given. The author stated, that after great research he could find but one solitary passage in Mr. Pitt's speech on the subject, that afforded the slightest foundation for saying that any pledge had been given—that, in fact, no general pledge whatever was entered into; and he added this reason for coming to that conclusion; namely, that Mr. Pitt could only pledge himself. Truly, that was so. Mr. Pitt unquestionably could not bind the parliament. He said, "I cannot pledge myself to any article with respect to the parliament of Ireland;" and in answer to Mr. Sheridan, he observed that "to take such a step would be to create an embarrassment which might prevent the Union." Mr. Pitt, however, and every other minister of the Crown declared, that "the separate legislature of Ireland prevented the granting of emancipation, because that legislature feared that such a measure could not be conceded without danger to the Protestant establishment; but that when the Union of the two countries was effected, it would be followed by relief being extended to the Roman Catholics."
He had stated, that a great degree of caution was imposed on those who so spoke in favour of the Roman Catholics. It was indispensably necessary that it should be so, lest an alarm should be excited which would prevent the measure of Union from being carried. Such was the violence of feeling manifested on this subject by the Protestant parliament of Ireland with reference to this question, that when the last appeal was made there on behalf of the Roman Catholics, he had voted for the motion in a minority of fifteen against three hundred, although that motion was connected with another very desirable measure, that of parliamentary reform. He could

445
not adduce a stronger fact, to show the hopelessness of carrying Roman Catholic emancipation in the Irish parliament, under such circumstances. Was it supposed, by those who denied that any pledge was intended to be given, that Mr. Pitt meant the Union to be a final compact? Could any man imagine that Mr. Pitt, who had stated that Ireland was threatened with great danger from the exclusion from political privileges of the Dissenters from the Established Church—that body, as compared with the latter being six or seven to one—could any man say that Mr. Pitt thought the country would be relieved from that danger, by the mere measure of an Union with Great Britain? The thing was ridiculous. But every doubt on that point had been removed by the able and intelligent letter which Mr. Pitt addressed to his late majesty; in which he stated, in the most explicit manner, that he wished that great question to be set at rest; and to that letter he would appeal as the best proof of his intention.
But, on the other side, he would ask, what was the feeling and impression of the Roman Catholic mind on this subject, pending the Union? That was a most important point for consideration; because every man who reverenced good faith would feel, if hopes were held out to the Roman Catholic body which induced them to concur in this measure—and he contended that such hopes were held out to them—if they acted under an impression of that kind, that it would be utterly base and unworthy, they having performed their part of the compact, to leave them in the lurch, and deprive them of that consideration which they had been taught to expect. Now upon that point he would beg the serious consideration of the House while he read a very few lines, to show what the feeling of the Roman Catholic body was. The communication which he was about to read was made in a letter addressed to him by a Roman Catholic gentleman whom he would name; and when he had named him, he was sure it would be admitted that a man of higher character, of purer honour, or of move unimpeachable integrity, did not exist—he alluded to Mr. Howard, of Corby. Mr. Howard stated in his letter, that he had had many conversations on the subject of the Union with lord Cornwallis; and he proceeded to say:—
446
"Whatever was at first the subject of conversation, it soon turned to the impending measure of Union, and with me generally to the interest the Catholic would derive from it. He always called the exclusion of Catholics the odious monopoly, and repeatedly urged that the measure was the only means of getting rid of it. But he further, particularly on two occasions, desired me to speak to all the Catholics I knew, and which I did, to urge them to place confidence in him for success. 'If they will only place their trust in me, it will be to their best advantage.' Of course I repeated this to every Catholic I knew, and among the rest to lord Fingall, who will remember it, and to whom he had said this and more. I recollect also, that Dr. Moylan told me that lord Cornwallis had spoken to him to the same effect. I do not believe that lord Cornwallis was capable of deception; and inferred then, as I must now, that this had been assented to by both the king and the cabinet (and though this did not amount to an absolute pledge in words, yet, from a gentleman and a chief governor, it could not be interpreted otherwise), I cannot attribute the failure in any other way than to the subsequent state of the king's mind."
The next passage to which he would call the attention of the House was taken from notes made by Mr. Howard, either on the evening on which the conversation occurred, or on that which followed: —
"Speaking" observed Mr. Howard "of the inflamed state of the mind between sect and sect, I said that I thought it was owing to him that it had not come to the full extent of mutual extermination, which I conceived had been daily gaining ground. This, lord Cornwallis said, must have been the event. I trusted, however, that with respect to the Catholics, as it appeared to be the interest to conciliate them, that would be an object of the Union, and that without it, I thought the Union was nothing. He repeated that certainly without it the Union was nothing; that it was, however, impossible to bring any thing forward before, because in an Irish parliament it would not be carried. I said that, however, the silence and mystery created both uneasiness and impatience. He answered, that he believed it to be so, but that he thought the Catholics had shown a great deal of temper, more than he could have expected, by some joining for it, none appearing

447
actively against it, and not coming forward to distress him with their claims: he wished they would place confidence in him. "We had some conversation about an establishment for the clergy, which he said he had talked over with lord Fingall, whom he highly esteemed—that, depend upon it, the Catholics will be the first objects of consideration when they were able to act free from shackles. He said that he was most fully convinced that an establishment for the clergy would be most amply compensated by loyalty; that he knew priests were not their own masters. I repeated, that a loyal priest with a disloyal flock must starve. He said, he knew many were driven to silence or inaction, or to take part with their flock."
This was the language used by lord Cornwallis, one of the most honourable and prudent men that ever existed: and that honourable man expressly directed his sentiments to be circulated amongst the Roman Catholics. Could there, then, be a doubt but that declarations such as these must have biassed the minds of the Roman Catholic body on the Union question? He should only trouble the House by reading one more passage, one very short sentence, but both curious and important, which was communicated by lord Fingall to Mr. Howard. It was this —"Immediately after a conversation with lord Cornwallis, on the 13th of December, lord Fingall told me that lord Cornwallis had said to him, that, in the event of the Union being carried, he hoped lord Fingall would call on him to rise from his seat in the House of Lords, and to propose the emancipation of the Roman Catholics; that he meant so to do, and that he depended for success on the assistance given by the Roman Catholics to the measure of Union." Such was lord Cornwallis's decided and expressed opinion. He stated these facts from that which had been, at the moment, a confidential communication; but it was now no longer confidential; and he conceived that it was nothing more than justice to the parties concerned to quote that communication, for the purpose of showing what their known and avowed opinion was, to the last moment of their lives. Lord Fingall asked lord Cornwallis "if such were the feelings of ministers and of the people in England on the subject of the Catholic claims, as connected with the Union, why he did not make emancipation an integral part of the
448
measure of Union?" He said, "You know the difficulty we have to encounter in carrying the Union; and if it were attempted, in conjunction with the other measure, all the zealous Protestants would fly off, and neither measure would be carried. But what doubt have you that emancipation would not follow the measure of Union? What parties does the parliament consist of? Mr. Pitt and his cabinet on the one side, and Mr. Fox and the Opposition on the other. The measure of emancipation will be supported by that cabinet on account of the Union, and Mr. Fox and his party, from principles of devotion to religious liberty, will also support the proposition. What party then remains? None." He begged pardon. An hon. gentleman whom he had in his eye (Mr. Bankes) would have remained; for he candidly and manfully, at the time the measure was proposed, spoke against the Union. He was the only exception, the splendid exception, amongst the whole of Mr. Pitt's friends, in opposing that measure. He said, "I do not like the measure—I cannot approve of Catholic concessions." Could any man stand in a more singular situation than the hon. gentleman did at that period? And did not his notice of Catholic concessions go to confirm the fact, that the general understanding was that such concessions were to follow the Union? The hon. member for Dorsetshire opposed the Union because he feared that concessions would subsequently be made to the Roman Catholics; but Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey, while they opposed the Union, expressed their determination to support the Roman Catholics.—He had read the last extracts to show, that the government of this country, looking to the Union as essential for the security of the peace, tranquillity, and almost the existence of the empire, felt that it would be impracticable to carry that measure in Ireland, without the acquiescence of the Roman Catholic body. The opinions he held upon the subject of religious freedom, made him at that time the organ of the government in its communications with the Irish aristocracy, and to them he had repeatedly expressed his conviction that it was determined to concede all that they desired. If any evils had arisen from the failure of those promises, they owed them to themselves. If the natural control of a high-minded and honourable aristocracy over the mass

449
of the people, had been transferred to more dangerous hands? If the clergy had lost their influence over the minds of their flocks, and had become subservient to the laity? If a state of things existed, to which the best friends of the country looked with alarm? To what, he asked, was it owing? To the postponement of this question—a course which, if persevered in, would lead to a state of confusion, from which, perhaps, it would be found impossible to return. He should now lay before the House the statement sent over to lord Cornwall is by Mr. Dundas, on the resignation of Mr. Pitt's government in England. In that document, the reasons which induced them to retire, were stated in strong and emphatic language. It was there set forth that—
"The leading part of his majesty's ministers, finding insurmountable obstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body, whilst in office, have felt it impossible to continue in administration, under their inability to propose it, with the circumstances necessary to carrying the measure with all its advantages; and they have retired from his majesty's service, considering this line of conduct as most likely to contribute to its ultimate success. The Catholic body will, therefore, see how much their future hopes must depend upon strengthening their cause by good conduct in the mean time. They will prudently consider their prospects as arising from the persons who now espouse their interests, and compare them with those which they could look to from any other quarter: they may rely on the zealous support of all those who retire, and of many who remain in office, when it can be given with a prospect of success. They may be assured that Mr. Pitt will do his utmost to establish their cause in the public favour, and prepare the way to their finally attaining their objects; and the Catholics will feel, that as Mr. Pitt could not concur in a hopeless attempt to force it now, that he must at all times repress, with the same decision as if he held an adverse opinion, any unconstitutional conduct in the Catholic body. Under these circumstances, it was not to be doubted that the Catholics will take the most loyal, dutiful, and patient, line of conduct; that they will not suffer themselves to be led into measures which can, by any construction, give a handle to the opposers of their wishes, either to
450
misinterpret their principles, or to raise an argument for resisting their claims; but that, by their prudent and exemplary demeanour, they will afford additional grounds to the growing number of their advocates to enforce their claims on proper occasions until their objects can be finally and advantageously attained."
This advice was scrupulously followed: but the situation of the Roman Catholics continued the same. The message to the Irish parliament was to the same effect. In that the king declared, that he should feel it the proudest day of his reign in which, by the Union, he could consider all his people as one, confer all privileges and immunities on all classes of his subjects, and see them all participating in the fullest blessings of the British constitution. He had now brought the subject down to the accomplishment of the Union. In the king's speech in England the word "extend" was introduced. "This great measure, on which my wishes have long been earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as the happiest event of my reign, being-convinced that nothing could so effectually contribute to extend to my Irish subjects the full participation of the blessings derived from the British constitution." Now, it had been stated by some persons—with a degree of effrontery for which he was unable to account, except from their ignorance of the subject—that if Mr. Pitt were now alive, he would change his opinion and withhold any concessions to the Catholics. Communications had been made to him (Mr. Fitzgerald) by high individuals; and when he communicated them to the House, he begged it to be understood, that he was not betraying private confidence, or altering or misrepresenting the sentiments and opinions of the great authorities he cited. All he intended was fairly and honestly to state the medium by which the Union had been accomplished, and then to leave it to the good sense of the House to decide whether Mr. Pitt, or any of the other persons concerned in that measure, would have become so frivolous as to change their opinions on such grounds as it had been stated, would have had that effect upon them. He knew very well that, after the Union, Mr. Pitt entertained the same opinions and the same intention. Soon after that measure had been carried, there were frequent communications and consultations in and out of the cabinet, on the subject

451
of granting concessions to the Catholics. Mr. Pitt desired lord Castlereagh to draw up an argument in favour of those concessions, while he requested the opponents of them to draw up a similar argument in support of their opinions. For the latter argument, he had the authority of Mr. Pitt for saying", that nothing could be more inconclusive and unsatisfactory. But lord Castlereagh had given him (Mr. Fitzgerald) the argument which he drew up, and he would read an extract from it. The whole of this argument was extremely creditable to lord Castlereagh; but it was too long to trouble the House with. The right hon. member then read the following extract: —
"Should the necessary concessions be decided on, the advantages of its proceeding from government will naturally suggest themselves. Much benefit might arise from the boon being attributable to that settlement under which we are hereafter to live. It would make the Catholics in Ireland feel that their exclusion has been the necessary consequence of a separate constitution, and that their advantages have arisen out of an incorporation with Great Britain. It is idle to hope that Dissenters of any denomination or description can ever be so zealously attached subjects as those who are of the established religion; but the question is, what system, without hazarding the power of the state itself, is best calculated, if not warmly to attach, at least to disarm, the hostility of those classes in the community who cannot be got rid of, and must be governed. This latter consideration is of most pressing importance with respect to Ireland. That kingdom must in fact be considered as a country of security, and if we are to indulge an expectation that it may be redeemed from its present miseries, it must be by the adoption of some system, which, without relaxing the energy of government, shall relieve the public mind from its fundamental principles of perpetual struggle. Unless the power and stability of the united government shall afford the means in safety of adopting some principles of compromise amongst the contending factions, the difficulty of governing the country will rapidly increase, as every war adds materially to the relative importance of the dissenting interests. If the same internal struggle continues, Great Britain will derive little beyond an increasing expense from the Union. If
452
she is to govern Ireland upon a garrison principle, perhaps in abolishing the separate parliament, she has parted as well with the most effectual means, as with her most perfect justification. In uniting with Ireland, she has abdicated the colonial relation: and if that country is hereafter to prove a resource, rather than a burthen to great Britain, an effort must be made to govern it through the public mind. It is obvious that the government of Ireland has difficulties incidental to it, which will require a much greater proportion of ministerial attention than Scotland did subsequent to the Union. Scotland, at that day, was but thinly inhabited; the people poor and industrious, and of habits so peculiarly regular, that, with the exception of the rebellion which sprung from a feeling of attachment to the exiled family, it may be said to have almost governed itself. Ireland, on the contrary, is highly populous, acquires wealth more rapidly than civilization. It is inhabited by dissenters from the establishment, split into factions, and these factions committed against each other, with all the rancour of past injuries as well as present distinctions. The law is imperfectly obeyed, and very ill administered by the magistrates, who are too frequently partisans rather than judges. In short, the tranquillity of the country is alone preserved, even in the degree in which it exists, by the perpetual intervention of the hand of government, exercising the most summary powers."
He would contend, therefore, that up to the year 1805, so great was the confidence which the Catholic body derived from the hopes which had been held out to them, that it was their favourite purpose to place this measure in the hands of Mr. Pitt; and it was not till Mr. Pitt urged the delicacy of his situation, as a reason why he should not bring it forward, that they confided the advocacy of their claims to others.—But it had been stated, that although the ministers of the Crown might once have contemplated this measure, yet it was in a time of greater peace and tranquillity, and that opinions were now broached, and actions now committed, which rendered it impossible that the Catholics could be treated with at present. Now he, for one, was not insensible to the dangers which might result from the present condition of Ireland, and no one saw better than himself, that the serious attention of the House ought to be turned

453
to the state of that kingdom. At the same time, he was well convinced, that while this measure was procrastinated, the state of Ireland was not likely to be otherwise than they saw it now. He might entertain a singular opinion upon the subject, but he confessed that, if he were opposed to the Catholic claims as firmly as he was friendly to them—if he thought it dangerous to admit them, instead of believing, as he did, that danger must result if they were not speedily admitted, he should not desire to separate the Catholics from the pope. But the fact was, that they were rapidly separating themselves. It was not from events which were passing then, or which had passed lately, that he came to this conclusion, but from a calm and serious consideration of the inevitable consequences which certain measures must produce. Some years ago he had solicited an interview with lord Liverpool, for the purpose of drawing his attention to the practical state of Ireland. He told lord Liverpool then what was likely to occur. He told him that the people of Ireland were every day relaxing, and that the Catholic question was becoming more and more a national question. "What he had anticipated had taken place. Why conceal it? It was no mystery: every body saw it; and their leaders boasted that the people were organized. He knew Ireland as well as any body, and he believed that that country was organized—that they had the concurrence of the clergy, and that their leaders could wield the whole population as one man. A few years ago this was not the case. What he had prophesied to lord Liverpool would come to pass in ten years, had come to pass in four. Four years ago the Catholic leaders had no power; they could do nothing to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the country. But this state of things was now no more. And to whom was this charge to be attributed? It was the act and measure of those persons who continued to oppose the claims of the Catholics; and on them must fall the heavy responsibility of answering to parliament and to England for any fatal consequences which might result from a state of things which had been brought about by their conduct. He did not mean to say that this organization was intended for bad purposes; but he did say that it existed, and that it was an awful circumstance that a country, in such a state of disaffec-
454
tion to the government from disappointed hope, and protracted expectation, should have become so organized that the whole of its population could be wielded and directed as one man.
Such was the prospect which Ireland exhibited to their view; and yet they were told by the learned Solicitor-general, that as long as the Catholic doctrines remained the same, there could be no change. He believed that he, personally, was as likely to live uninjured in Ireland as any other person; but he would beg to ask, in what situation did they place the country gentleman of Ireland? What did they impose upon him? The country gentleman in Ireland was surrounded by myriads of people, headed by leaders who could turn them all to any purpose that they pleased; nay, even to the very destruction of property and life. He entertained no apprehension that any thing of the kind would happen; but it was enough for his case, that the people of any country could be thus wielded to any purpose. He could not see the policy or the wisdom of slurring over this fact in mystery. Such was the condition of Ireland, and it ought not to be concealed. There was now an ultra Catholic, or apostolical feeling, as it was called, throughout Europe. There was America, too, in which many Irishmen, leaving their own country from disaffection, had settled and declared that they had been driven away from the land of their fathers. They were great in number, and had already, from the zeal and ardour of their conduct, obtained such a station in the country, as to enable them to exercise considerable influence on the election of a president. Moreover, they were actuated by irreconcileable hatred towards England, and a lively recollection of the wrongs which their countrymen endured. Was it wise to urge men into this hostility? He would not pretend to say how far that hostility might lead them. He did not mean to say that they would exert what influence they might acquire in any country to induce that country to practice upon Ireland. He was aware that this was at once a dangerous and a difficult topic to touch upon. He would pursue it no further; but why, he would ask, should they seem not to know a fact, which was within the knowledge of everyone else? Why should they appear to be unacquainted with the main fact, that Ireland was disaffected to this country? The fact was

455
known, and a remedy must be applied to this notorious evil. He could not conceive that there was any other remedy but the measure which their greatest statesmen had advised and supported. He besought them not to leave Ireland, to use an expression of the late Mr. Windham, a magazine of panic and danger—-an expression, the truth of which would be calamitously realized, if they did not concede a question which at all times, he thought might have been safely conceded, but which could no longer be delayed with justice to Ireland, or with safety to the connexion between the two countries.
Mr. Mooresaid, he felt it his duty to make one observation upon what had been thrown out with respect to the Treaty of Limerick. It was not his intention to discuss that subject fully; the able manner in which the learned Solicitor-general had answered the arguments founded upon that treaty precluded the necessity of his adding any thing upon the subject. He wished, however, to call the attention of the House to a cotemporary authority, a proclamation that was issued by the Irish parliament, which, making use of the same language as the treaty, said, that they should be allowed the free exercise of their religious worship. He would ask the House whether the terms meant to imply any thing of a political nature, and whether their meaning must not be limited by the preamble of the proclamation, which was confined to religion? He would now add a word or two upon the line of argument which had been pursued by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. "With respect to Mr. Pitt, he would say, that that statesman told them that in argument, and in argument alone, the Union would give facilities, not so much to the accomplishment of the measure, as to the fair discussion of it. He would appeal to the authority of Mr. Pitt himself, not only for the correctness of the spirit of this proposition, but for carrying the proposition farther than he had stated it. Mr. Pitt, in holding out the advantages which would result from the Union, not only held out to the Catholics, but to the Protestants also, the prospect of a fair and calm discussion of their rights. Mr. Pitt, on the 13th of May, 1805, in reply to what had fallen from Mr. Fox, said "I also felt that, in no possible case, previous to the Union, could the privileges now demanded be given, consistently with a due
456
regard to the Protestant interest in Ireland, to the internal tranquillity of that kingdom, the frame and structure of our constitution, or the probability of the permanent connection of Ireland with this country. It is true, Sir, that after the Union I saw the subject in a different light; but whilst that event was in contemplation I did state, as the hon. gentleman says, that the measure would make a material difference in my opinion. But he has also stated what is very true, that I did not make a distinct pledge; on the contrary, I believe the line of argument I took was, that if it should be thought right to give what the Catholics required, it might be given after the Union with more safety to the empire; or, if it were thought proper to refuse giving it, that it might then be refused without producing those disastrous consequences which might have been apprehended before the Union." Had he not now redeemed his pledge, of adducing Mr. Pitt's authority. Had he not shown to the House that it was only fair and temperate discussion, and attention to their rights, that was held out equally to Protestants and Catholics? It appeared also, that the impression upon the royal mind was, that the Union would shut the door to any farther importunities from the Roman Catholics. He begged leave to refer to a correspondence which was now well known. In one of those letters his late majesty wrote thus—" My inclination to an Union with Ireland was principally founded on a trust, that the uniting the Established Churches of the two kingdoms would for ever shut the door against any further measures with respect to the Roman Catholics."—The hon. baronet had called their attention to the high renown acquired by their Catholic ancestors, and had passed an eulogy upon them, in which he warmly concurred. But he must be allowed to say, that he thought no renown they had ever acquired was more bright and creditable to them than that which resulted from the resistance with which they met papal encroachments, especially in the reign of Henry 8th. That resistance was most successful. All this tended, although the hon. baronet might not think so, to establish a proposition which was the fundamental characteristic of the British constitution; namely, that the power of the pope, whether spiritual or temporal, should not have the slightest interference, with the political government

457
of the country. The spirit of this proposition was embodied at the glorious Revolution, when the security of the Protestant establishment was considered as one of the greatest bulwarks of their liberties, and the firmest barrier against the encroachments of the Church of Home. Need he refer to the Speeches of the king who then filled the Throne; need he refer to the speeches of the leading members of both Houses of Parliament, to prove that the main object then was the establishment and security of the Protestant Church? He thought the House ought to be very slow to admit such arguments as had been urged by the supporters of the Catholic claims. —As to the Coronation Oath, which had been treated as a matter of ridicule, though he did not rely upon it as furnishing any argument against the legislature deliberating on the subject, yet, as long as that oath was thought necessary, and an act of parliament existed which prohibited the king from being a papist, or from marrying a papist, he did think it a strong argument against the legislature granting the claims of the Catholics. That great principle, which excluded the Catholics from the legislative body, was sought to be subverted by the present measure; and on what ground? On the ground of expediency; and that the measure proposed was in perfect consistency with Protestant security. For the first, he confessed he felt great reluctance in sacrificing a constitutional principle to the doctrine of expediency; which must generally depend, in a great measure upon opinion. The House was told that the passing of the measure was necessary to secure the tranquillity of Ireland. Now, he did not believe that it was either necessary to the tranquillity of that country, or even calculated to produce it. In his view, the disturbances which prevailed in Ireland were in no way connected with the question of emancipation: and to treat them as being so connected was to do injustice to the whole body of the people. The Protestants certainly required no such measure to induce them to use their best efforts to preserve tranquillity; and as for the Catholics, their greatest boast was, the exertions which they were making, and had been making for a long series of years, to obtain it. But the merest observation was an answer to the argument which would connect the question of Ca-
458
tholic concession with the disturbances that agitated Ireland. Among what class of the community was the spirit of turbulence found to prevail? Was it not among the peasantry; and would emancipation, if it were carried to-morrow, remove any one of the causes by which that spirit was excited? He knew the peasantry of Ireland well; he knew them in all their various relations. A braver, more hospitable, or more generous, race of people, did not exist; nor a race better disposed to do well, if they were well treated—if they received employment, and could obtain a competent reward for it. But, would the passing of Catholic emancipation give them these advantages, or could it be believed that they imagined it would? A ferment existed in Ireland upon this question; but it was a ferment engendered by the Catholic Association, and spread through the country by the inflammatory documents which that body was in the habit of circulating. This was an evil of the extent of which he was not ignorant. He had warned the House of the danger of permitting the Association to proceed in the system of excitation and organization which they were pursuing; but it was not an evil which should be mistaken for any genuine development of feeling, upon the subject of the Catholic question among the peasantry of Ireland. One word more as to the conduct and evident objects of that Association. It was said that it was the Catholic grievances which had called that Association into being, and that the removal of those grievances would put an end to it. He did not believe one word of this. If he thought the Catholic claims could be granted with safety to the constitution of the country and to the Established Church, no man would be more ready to grant them than himself; and he believed he spoke the sentiments of every Protestant in Ireland: but if the mere removal of the Catholic disabilities was the object of this self-elected junta, why did they embrace, in the wide range of their discussions, almost every measure, not only of Irish but of English policy? He did not believe the views of the Catholic Association were bounded by the carrying this question. He thought they were attempting to raise themselves into a species of independent ministry, to challenge and overawe the conduct of the legislature; and in the establishing

459
themselves in that position, they had succeeded to a considerable extent. He thought that it was by distinct and specific measures only, not by concessions to the Catholics, that that. Association would ever be put down. But be this as it might, he would again ask how was it possible that such concessions could remove distress and discontent from the mass of the Irish people? Would the carrying of emancipation increase the rental of the landed interest? Would it improve the condition of the unemployed poor? Would it bring the waste lands of the country into cultivation? Would it tempt speculation to explore her mines and open her collieries? Would it transplant manufactures from England to Ireland? Or would it raise a market for the sale of Irish manufactures? [cheers and laughter]. He understood the cheers of the hon. gentlemen; but they did not form an answer to his arguments. These were the advantages the people of Ireland wanted—the advantages which would satisfy and tranquillize them—not the measure of Catholic emancipation. It was not because Ireland was in a disturbed state, but because they saw no advantages in employing labour in that country over that of using it at home, that English speculators forbore to carry their capital thither. When he saw the enterprises in which the capitalists of England were always ready to engage, he did not believe, that if probable profit could be shown to them in Ireland, the condition of the country would deter them from endeavouring to secure it The House would remark, too, that in those years in which an ample market had existed for the general manufactures of Great Britain— in the year 1824, for instance—the troubles which distressed Ireland had not impeded the progress with English capital, of the linen-manufacture.—Upon the ground of expediency, he trusted he had shewn that there could be nothing gained by granting the measure. He would now say a few words as to the dangers likely to be consequent upon the passing of it. It was in the highest degree dangerous, as it appeared to him, to do any thing which could increase the power or influence of the Catholic church. He did not mean to enter into any discussion of the peculiar tenets of the Catholic faith; nor did he believe that, in the present altered state of society, any
460
thing could ever bring us back to the system which, in the middle ages, had characterized the Church of Rome; but he believed that the spirit and doctrines of that Church had a tendency to inflict evils and privations upon any community. The oppressive and intolerant spirit which in former times had distinguished the Romish Church still continued an integral part of its character. If it was said, that a change had taken place; he desired to know what proof existed of that change, and by what acts it had been manifested. Was it in the re-establishment of the Inquisition, that the evidence of this disposition to tolerance was to be sought? In the rescripts transmitted by the pope to he French government? In the declaration of the Belgian bishops in the year 1823? In the intolerant decrees of the Spanish Cortes; or the still more intolerant regulations of the republican governments in South America?—all forbidding-and resisting, by every course of power, the circulation of the Holy Scriptures within the limits of their rule or influence? In every one of these acts, in all the conduct of the Church of Rome, there worked a spirit foreign to the spirit of the British constitution; the first principle of which was the free allowance of thought and opinion to every being who lived under it, with the power of circulating that thought or opinion among his fellows. It was a mere quibble to assert, that, even supposing these to be the principles of the Catholic Church, the concessions now asked were not for the benefit of the Church, but of the laity. It was impossible to separate the conduct of the clergy from that of the laity, or to believe, either upon principle or from the result of experience, that the latter could cease to be governed by their spiritual guides and advisers. In all the momentous epochs of the history of that country, the Catholic clergy were found practically exerting that influence over the Catholic laity which, by the tenets of that mutual faith, it would be evident they might be presumed to do. In the reign of Elizabeth, in the reigns of James 1st, and of Charles 1st, examples of this control were perpetually occurring. In recent times every proposition tending' to accommodation or the acceptance of security, had uniformly been resisted by the exercise of the same power, and it was impossible to doubt, from every appearance that even at this hour, while

461
the House was deliberating, the conduct of the Catholic Association was connected with, if not swayed by, the voice and opinions of the Catholic priesthood. When he saw the Catholic clergy of Ireland actually joined with the laity in expressing the most decided hostility, not merely to the Protestant Church, but to every thing connected with Protestant institutions and Protestant feelings, it was impossible for him not to believe, that the granting political power to one of their orders would not be to increase the strength and consequent danger of the other. The more he thought upon the subject, the more he was convinced that these concessions had no single tenable argument in their favour; that they were no more called for by expediency than they were consistent with the security of the State. In answer to an eloquent observation of the hon. baronet who had spoke first in the debate, he fully believed the highest gratification to the noble personage to whom that hon. baronet had alluded, would be to take any course which could contribute to the happiness and tranquillity of Ireland. But the noble duke, he was confident, would never consent to attempt, even that desirable object, by an experiment which would amount to a surrender of the citadel of the British constitution.
Mr. Dohertysaid, he trusted the House would excuse in him the natural anxiety which he felt to state his sentiments on the present occasion, and the more especially, as he never before had addressed the House on this question. The anxiety he felt to be permitted to say a few words, did not arise from any expectation on his part, that he could add any thing to what had been already urged upon that important subject; that he could by any new fact, or any new argument, give the slightest additional weight to those of the speakers who, on that and on other occasions, had addressed the House. For many years he had been an attentive observer of all that had been passing in Ireland, and he trusted he had observed what had been passing on that distressful scene, with a temper which entitled him to be called impartial. He had mingled with the ardent and the violent of both parties, he hoped without having imbibed the prejudices of either, he threfore trusted that the House would bear with him, while he shortly stated the
462
conclusion at which his mind had arrived after long and attentive observation. He did not presume to state that conclusion from any arrogant idea that it possessed any value as coming from him; he merely offered it as the unbiassed and honest conviction of a man who had ever kept himself aloof from public proceedings in Ireland, and who on that, as well as on other grounds, might be allowed to call himself a dispassionate observer. True, he had not always succeeded in keeping himself unconnected with the politics of Ireland; but when forced into them, his object had uniformly been to allay, and not to excite the existing ferment. Thus, then, he thought he might be considered as at least possessing some claim to credit, on the ground of impartiality. Now, he felt that he should not be dealing fairly or honestly by the House, if he did not at once avow his full persuasion, that the time had arrived at which the question ought to be set at rest. He had heard the wish to see it set at rest expressed in almost every quarter; but of this he was assured, that it could only be set at rest in one way. It was now three and twenty years since he had first heard the subject debated in parliament; and in that first debate, as on the present evening, an hon. member who opposed the Catholics had expressed his wish that the question should be negatived by a large majority, so as to put an end to it "for ever." He well remembered the emphatic comment of the distinguished statesman who on that day supported the claims of the Catholics upon that expression—"Man, and for ever!"—and the eloquence with which the same highly-gifted orator had gone on to point out the reasons why it was impossible that such a question could by a negative be settled for ever. Twenty-three years had shown the truth of that prophecy. The majority which followed it had been sufficiently decided; it had been 212; and what had even that majority done towards crushing the question? For three and twenty years it had been brought forward, year after year, and all the exertion that could be commanded had been unavailing to put an end to it. Then, was it not high time—surely one policy had been tried long enough in vain—to change our course, and try whether some other treatment might not put an end to it; for there was no person conversant with the present state of Ireland who would not acknow-

463
ledge the necessity of dealing with it some how or other? The time, in short, was come when every statesman of any boldness would speak out, and own, that to take some definite and conclusive measure without delay was indispensable. Now, he saw but three courses by which the question could be dealt with. The first was to leave it as it stood; the second was to concede to the Catholics what they asked; and the third was to adopt a system which should enforce silence by means of stern and unrelenting coercion. To leave things as they stood, he appealed to every Irish member in the House, he was indifferent whether for or against the question, whether violent or moderate, whether any conclusion would not be preferable to this? He had heard with a full feeling of their force the lines quoted by the hon. baronet who introduced the subject, as to the condition of Ireland, and he could bear witness, in the words immediately following that quotation, that the "relation was too nice and yet too true." But, if there was a member in the House ignorant of the state of Ireland, or, being acquainted with it, who thought it advisable to perpetuate the present state of things, on the question of the Catholic claims, he could assure him that to do so was impossible. Things could not remain in the state in which they now were. They could not rest, and they had not been resting for a single year, in the same state. From year to year they bad been growing worse, and they would continue to do so.—He wished the House not to understand him as using the language of menace. He appealed, not to the fears, but to the justice, the humanity, the wisdom, of the House. He called upon them, but not in a tone of threat, to rescue Ireland from the tremendous effects of a continuance in the present system. He called upon hon. members to lay a-side—he would not say their prejudices, but their preconceived opinions, and to see what had been the result of the policy hitherto pursued. He did not wish to square his judgment by any speculative notions. He wished to investigate the subject with a reference only to its existing merits; and as if it were for the first time considered. Thus regarding the question, he had no hesitation in saying, that it was impossible that things could remain in Ireland as they were. What, then, was the remedy? He had heard
464
intimations, not exactly embodied in words, but which sufficiently indicated the opinions of those from whom they proceeded, that there were means of terminating the present condition of Ireland by the hand of power. He did trust, however, that in this age of improved knowledge, it would be felt that force was not the way to tranquillize Ireland. What, then, remained? To grant her just demands. What objections existed to this latter course? It-he had collected accurately what had fallen from the hon. member for Dublin, his principal objection was, that it would be a violation of the constitution. If it were really the fact, that to grant the Catholics seats in that House would be to violate the constitution, dear as conciliation was to him, he for one would not acquiesce in it. But he entertained no such opinion. Individuals of much higher authority entertained no such opinion. It was evident, from what had, on a former occasion, fallen from the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject, that that right hon. gentleman entertained no such opinion. He well recollected that right hon. gentleman's having said, that if he could persuade himself that to concede the Catholic question would lead to the restoration of tranquillity and harmony in Ireland, he would not resist the concession on any mere theory of the constitution. That was an admission on the part of the right hon. gentleman that the concession would not be a fundamental violation of the constitution; because, if it were so, he was persuaded the right hon. gentleman would not consider any boon, however great, a sufficient compensation for such a sacrifice.—Then came the question, whether the concession of the Catholic claims would really secure the tranquillity of Ireland. He did not say that it would do so entirely and immediately. If he were to make such an assertion, he should be as much mistaken as he was persuaded those were who declared that no advantage would result from it. This, however, he would say, that all the means of tranquillizing that country which had been recommended by the hon. member for Dublin, would be so many wasted efforts without Catholic emancipation. Why should we persevere in a course which had so utterly failed? The hon. member for Dublin had talked as if Ireland was in possession of a large British capital, and

465
as if manufactures were flourishing in that country. It was no such thing. It was impossible that such should be the case, until tranquillity was restored. Let that great object be effected, and British capital would soon find its way into Ireland. It had found its way every-where else. What was it that now prevented it from finding its way into Ireland? No natural or physical impediment, but simply the distracted state of the country, which rendered all property insecure. What danger could by possibility be incurred by allowing Catholics to sit in that House? From the moment at which the elective franchise was given to the Catholics, they possessed virtually seats in it. The Catholics were in that House in the most noxious shapes—those of passive and unreasoning instruments. Give them this measure, and they would then have active, vigilant representatives. He had witnessed what passed at the last general election, and so long as the present system was perpetuated, worse scenes would occur. He would appeal to the members around him, and who knew the facts to which he referred. The people would rush blindly forward, in search of persons to represent them, without reference to their talents and qualifications, merely because they consented to become their instruments; and it was to be feared that this would be the cause of displacing some valuable members, for no other blemish, in the eyes of the Catholics, than their giving their votes against them from sincere conviction. Such were the sentiments which he entertained upon this most important subject; and he hoped that he had stated them with moderation. He implored those who might follow him in the debate, to imitate the example which had been set in that respect by the hon. baronet. Under any circumstances moderation was desirable. If the House refused to do what he conscientiously believed it to be their duty to do, at least let them not inspire despair by the mode of their refusal.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that his only apology for obtruding himself on the House was one which he shared in common with his hon. and learned friend who had last spoken, as, since the subject had been under discussion, he had never offered his sentiments on the general question, although he had frequently done so on incidental matters connected with it.
466
He might also apologise to the members of the sister country for taking up a subject belonging to them, if it were one of a partial nature; but he looked upon it, and always had done so, as one of mighty moment, the decision upon which must affect the interests of the empire from the centre to the circumference; and although the hon. member for Dublin had endeavoured, by a curious mode of reasoning, to prove that it was one which ought not to be considered in the light of expediency, it was principally with regard to its expediency that he would confine his observations. Before, however, he said any thing of his own, he would beg to refer to the words of one of the greatest advocates of the Catholics who ever lived—of one highly admired for his extraordinary talents, and whose loss was universally lamented—he meant the late Mr. Canning. On the memorable occasion of the debate of 1812, after stating that the prima-facie case was, that all the members of a community should enjoy equal rights, Mr. Canning proceeded to say, "that it was essential to the promotion of the best interests of a community, that there should be an identity of interests among all the members of that community. Entirely assenting, as he did, to the truth of these arguments, he nevertheless doubted the universality of their application; for if there was any one thing which more affected the interests of a community than any other, it was the difference between a good and a bad government;—the difference between an arbitrary state and our own. The tendency of the one was to rule by a division of interests, that of the other to rule by a concentration of them. As Austria had been spoken of, he would give it as an instance; and one which had many of the faults which we despised. There the bond of connection was different, and as one well acquainted with that government had said, the Hungarian despised the inhabitant of Vienna; the Galician both; and the Tyrolese had views different from either; yet that was the way in which all the dominions of that monarchy were bound together: for the connection was kept up by the Hungarian being quartered at Milan, while the Italian regiments were dispersed over the fertile plains of Hungary. Far was it from him to wish to see such a system introduced into this country; for it was a fact that in this, where all possessed equal rights, that

467
equality of rights produced an equal interest for the safeguard and glory of the country, and enabled it to direct its undivided energies, wherever there was a necessity for their exercise. If, however, there was any principle which could, more than another, divide those energies, and encourage dissentions, it was that of exercising the power of imposing religious tests, as a qualification for the possession of political power. It was very easy for persons to lay the flattering unction to their souls, and say that one class of a divided community could make excellent laws for the other, and that both were flourishing under them; but that assumption was, in point of fact, false. Besides, the next question was—where were you to get a receipt for making the Catholics believe it was true. He had often heard that the evils of Ireland were theoretical. He himself thought that they were not entirely derivable from Catholic disabilities, and examples might be drawn from our triumphs in war, and our prosperity otherwise, to support this argument; but he would in answer say, that it was no doubt true that the Treasury had been filled from the coffers of Catholics, and that the blood of Catholics had watered the fields of Europe, in achieving our triumphs, as freely as the blood from Protestant or Unitarian veins.—There was another subject to which he would refer, and on which much misrepresentation prevailed. When rebellion raised its unabashed front in Ireland, it proceeded not from the Catholics, but from the Presbyterians of Ulster; and it was the Protestant Wolf Tone, who, in answer to the desire of the French minister, that the body of the people and those who influenced them should be engaged said, that he did not wish the Catholic priesthood to be at all sought after, seeing that they were the natural enemies of the French revolution. Were they, after all these considerations, to dismiss from their bar petitioners who applied to them for that to which they were so justly entitled? Was any honourable member prepared to say to those petitioners, "I know your claims upon us; but, inasmuch as you have lavished your blood and treasure in our cause—inasmuch as, under circumstances of great temptation, you have adhered faithfully and loyally to the State, so help me God I will not admit you to a participation in the privileges of the constitution." Even if any danger
468
was to be apprehended from putting an end to the present state of feeling in Ireland (which he denied), a much greater danger was to be apprehended from its continuance. Every consideration, therefore, of safety, as well as of expediency, demanded that that state of feeling should be changed. He hoped he was not weak or foolish enough to treat with contempt the arguments of many persons who were hostile to the Catholic claims; but he could not yield his reason up to theirs; he could not shrink from the duty of deliberately weighing all the circumstances of the case; he could not forego the privilege of forming and of expressing his own opinion upon them. An hon. gentleman had talked of the consequences that would result from any further concession to the Catholics, as if such a step would renew all the scenes of the times of Charles 1st. He, however, could never understand the process by which these things could be brought about by the admission of a few Catholic gentlemen into parliament; and he would merely repeat the opinion expressed by an eloquent member of that House, now transferred to the House of Peers—he meant lord Plunkett—that if the hundred members for Ireland were all imbued with the very worst principles of the Jesuits, he had no fear that the talent, the sense, and the wisdom of this country would be overborne by them. If they proved to be the enemies of the Church, let them be put front to front, with her defenders, and he would have no fear as to the result. With respect to the demand for securities, hon. gentlemen really talked as if the Pretender were on the shores of France ready to invade this country. They talked as if that little machine, the printing-press, with its gigantic powers, was not the best security against the revival and general prevalence of bigotry and superstition. In his estimation, all parchments, all oaths, all declarations, considered as securities in such a case, shrunk to nothing, as compared with that potent machine. His opinion of the Catholic religion was such, that he did not believe in his conscience, that its absurd tenets, the tenets from which so much danger was apprehended by some, could stand the test of argument and free discussion. To printing we were indebted for the hope of such a benefit; and all the efforts of the Russels and the Somerses, in the cause of human improvement, faded

469
before those of Caxton, and Wynkyn de Worde. Let the House contemplate the struggle which had, for some time, been going on in France between the friends of education and intelligence and the supporters of Jesuitism. The latter, under a government not unfavourable to it, was made by a press, even not altogether free, to reel to its very base. He did not know how long the monster of bigotry would disturb the world with its expiring troubles; but he knew that the arrow was in its vitals; he knew that the genius of education and liberty now stood erect, like the divine statue of ancient Greece, and having drawn his shaft to the head, was watching in its flight, and surveying with scorn and defiance the death-struggles of his victim. If he were, which he was not, disinclined to adopt the hon. baronet's proposition, there was one consideration which would make him reluctant to oppose it. That consideration was, the impossibility of preventing emancipation. The right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department might ask him on what grounds he made that assertion? He begged to answer, that on that point he might, perhaps, have better means of judging than the right hon. gentleman. Youth had, in some respects, an advantage over experience. If the right hon. gentleman knew better than he did the opinion of the individuals who then governed the state, probably he knew better than the right hon. gentleman did, the opinions of those who would probably one day govern the state. The annual discussion of the subject had a great effect in influencing opinion. Of that the House had had a striking instance, during the discussion of that evening. The effect of investigation was, to separate the opinions of a son from those of a father; to destroy prejudices in mature life, which had been imbibed with the milk of infancy. On these grounds it was that he asserted, that to prevent the emancipation of the Catholics was impossible. The only question, therefore, was the expediency or inexpediency of delaying it. For himself, his firm conviction was, that every hour of postponement would only add to our difficulties. The power possessed by the Catholic priesthood had been much insisted on. History instructed us, that religious power always flourished under persecution. Effectually to repress any religion, the only choice was between complete extirpation and
470
mild toleration. The former had been the effort of our ancestors; but he wished humbly to employ himself in repairing the ravages which they had committed, rather than to sit down to enjoy the inheritance, rich as it might be, of their successful guilt. He would detain the House no longer. He had partially explained some of the reasons which had brought him to the conclusion to which he had arrived. Those reasons had been often much better stated by men much abler than himself. His voice on this occasion was but the feeble echo of the voice of Pitt, of Fox, of Grattan, and of that great advocate for Catholic Emancipation, who yielded to none in zeal in the cause, Canning. But it was also the echo of sounds much deeper, of sounds much more important, than the voice of any individual. It was the echo of the voice of a whole nation, which arose like the murmur of a deep sea, and, like that sea, must in its force be irresistible. What talent was there so great that it could meet the consequences? What policy so sound that it could bear the responsibility, of not listening to that voice, or of attempting to withstand the encroachments of that sea by barriers, which common sense, reason, and justice, alike rejected. Much was said of the violence and bitterness of language in which the Catholics expressed their complaints. He confessed he did not see this in the same light: he did not think that the language was stronger than the feelings by which it had been excited justified. But even if it were so, what right had the persons who had provoked that angry language to complain that it sounded harshly upon their ears, or that the murmurs of that sea which they had so agitated should be deep and discordant as it rolled back, baffled and defeated, from the shore?
The debate was then, on the motion of sir Robert Inglis, adjourned till to-morrow.