THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the collection of James Collins t Dr umc ond r a , Ire land . Purchased, 1918* 2g2 Q19f> PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES IN BOTH HOUSES OF THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, IN THE SESSION OF 1805, CATHOLIC PETITION. To which are added, by way of Appendix, THE QUERIES SUBMITTED TO, AND THE ANSWERS IlECEIVED FROM, THE FACULTIES OF DIVINITV IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES OF PARIS, DOUAY, LOUVAIN, ALCALA, VALLADOLID, AND SALAMANCA, IN 1789, T0UCIIINGT:HE doctrines imputed TO CATHO- LICS, RESPECTING THE KEEPING OF FAITH WITH HERETICS, AND THE POWER OF THE POPE TO Ar>SOLVE THEM FROM ALLECilANCE TO PROTESTANT PRINCES. LONDON: PRINTED FOR CUTH ELL AND MARTIN, MIDDLE-RoW, HOLBORN ; AND GILBERT AND HODGES, DUBLIN : AND MAY EE HAD OF KEATING, DUKE-STREET, GROSVENOR-SQUA KK ; BOOKER, AND CARPENTER, BOND-STREET; AND ALL THE BOOKSELLERS. R. Taylor and Co. Primers ^ S8, SIioc-Lctk INTRODUCTION. Upon a question admitted on all hands to be of vital importance to the British Empire, it must be gratifying to every man feeling interest or anxiety for the happiness and pro- sperity of that empire, to possess a faithful record of all those arguments and opinions which the collective wisdom and eloquence of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament have been able to suggest upon this great subject, the first time it has come before them for discussion. Perhaps no question ever agitated within the walls of Parliament has excited so much debate, or so much interested the public solicitude. The publishers of this work have been peculiarly exertive to lay before their readers a faithful detail of the several speeches aciually delivered on this occasion; and though they have to regret the impossibility of detailing at full length the speeches of a very few members, to whom still they wish to pay every respect, yet they can truly as- sert, that no opinion has been intentionally misrepresented, nor an argument of any weight omitted, that could bear upon the question. The Imperial Parliament, after a full hear- ing of all sides, have come to their firsts it would be too presumptuous to say their finals ^ * . ^ . - / \^ decision iv INTRODUCTION. decision upon this subject; for thougli the CaLhoUcs have failed now of success, yet some even of their zealous opponents have admitted, that a time and circumstances may arise, when their claims may be admissible, and their success less objectionable to a Protestant Legis- lature and their Protestant Fellow-subjects. The Catholics have, liowever, derived this great advantage from the discussion — their civil and religious cliaracter has been brought to fair trial before the Grand Inquest of the Nation. Many of the odious imputations against them have been openly brought for- ward by their accusers, and as fully disproved, upon the testimony not only of their advo- cates, but of many of their most able and strenuous opponents. The whole evidence is now laid before the British Nation ; and His Majesty's Protestant subjects, at the same time that they will look up with veneration and gratitude to the Imperial Parliament for that vigilance and tenacity so eminently manifested towards their peculiar privileges, must also henceforward be taught to view their Catholic Fellow-subjects in a light very different indeed from that odious aspect in which they must have stood, under misimputed tenets and alleged principles subversive of every idea of religion and Locial order, and which must now stand solemnly abjured and disproved for ever. That deference to the opinions, and tenderness toward even the prejudices, of the Protestant people of England, in great matters of legislation, avowed in the course of the discussion by many of the Members 2 «f INTRODUCTION. T of both Houses, while they reflect the highest honour upon the characters and principles of British senators, will, it is presumed, strongly operate to the vindication of certain of those senators who have been long supposed to en- tertain quite opposite sentiments. But how- ever unripe this great measure may be now for adoption; whatever be the measure of deference due to the opinions, the prejudices^ or the jealousies of any particular class of His Majesty's subjects, on this ground ; and how- ever highly we are bound to venerate the maxim, Nohimns leges AngVue mutari ; yet surely it will be allowed, by all who view the new situation in which the British Empire now stands, however averse they may be to such a measure at this moment, that the ar- rival of that time, and those circumstances under which it may be thought wise, safe, and expedient to unite in common feelings, in- terests, and privileges, every class of His Ma- jesty's natural-born subjects, Is a consummation most devoutly to be wished/' COMPREHENSIVE DETAIL OF THE INTERESTING BEBATES, IN BOTH HOUSES OF THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, IN THE SESSION OF 1805, UPON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, March 25. Lord GRENVILLE.—" My Lords, I rise for the purpose of presenting the Petition of certain of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland, professing the Ca- thoHc Religion, which I move may now be read." The Petition was then read l^y the clerk as fol- lows: — To the Right Honourable and Honourable the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain a7id Ireland, m Parliament assembled, The humble Petition of ' the Roman Catholics of Ireland, whose Names are hereunto sub- scribed, on Behalf of themselves and of othei^s his Majesty's Subjects, professing the Roman Catholic Religion, " Shlweth, " THATyour Petitioners are stedfastly attached to the Person, Family and Government, of their most gracious Sovereign ; that they are impressed with B sentiments. 12 sentiments of affectionate gratitude for the benig- nant laws which liave been enacted for nieliorating their condition durinonds of affection and loyalty, and a resolution to defend the King and Constitutional interests of the country, against all enemies, external and internal. ^' This question is in a certain degree to be placed on the ground of expediency, and not of right. When the safety of the whole requires it, it is in the privilege of the whole to provide disabilities. But the question is, whether there is any necessity for the continuance of those restraints on four or five millions of the King^s subjects, from the benefits of the Constitution of the country? I might only state, that on the eternal principles of justice, if there be any such necessity apparent, those who would continue these restraints, ought to shew their reasons. If it be our pride and happiness to be judged by equal laws, let those who w^ould limit and curtail that equality, explain the grounds of their re- striction. This principle I ventured to state on a former occasion, and though some were incHned to dispute it, they could get no farther in their oppo- sition than to deny it: indeed it seems to be impos- sible for any man, who has the right use of his under- standing, to deny its application, in such a Consti- tution as ours. I submit mv motion now, statins; that no such necessity exists, waiting for an answer^ and ready, should it be necessary, to offer my poor thoughts in reply. But really, my Lords, I am ready even to take the proof upon myself. I take the British Constitution to be founded on equal laws. It acknowledges some distinctions and privileges, it is true; but where there is a restraint on four millions of persons, there must absolutely appear some ma- nifest and palpable ground of expediency or necessi- ty for its continuance. The Catholics come before you restrained from seats in Parliament, from vari- ous high offices in the State and in professions, from serving as sheriff's, and with some qualifications from corpo- 19 corporations. The queslion is, what should induce you to retain these restrictions? One reason that I have heard, I should be unvvilhng to impute to any person: but I have heard or read somewhere, t4iat no Cathohc can be. a good subject. Thus, let me ask your Lordships, if this be true, how can they be fit for all that mass of offices for which their eligibi- lity has been acceded to them, with the exception of about 30; to all military rank below that of generals; to all revenue offices, except four or five; or to swear allegiance at the table of a court of justice? No man should have agreed to their ad- mission, much less have proposed to admit them into - courts of justice, who held such opinions of them. But endeavours have actually been used to persuade the public, that no Catholic can be a true and loyal subject. I have heard of some old musty forgotten records, from which old doctrines have been picked out, which are drawn forth against the solemn and positive declarations of living men saying what they profess, and disclaiming what has been objected to them. In fact, saying to the Roman Catholic, * I know your religion better than yourself. If you deny the persecution of heretics, I tellyou that your religion enjoins it. If you disclaim the violation of faith with heretics, I tell you that it is a doctrine of your church. If you say you do not believe in the dis- pensing power of the Pope, I say you do believe it !' T should think, my Lords, it is enough to take a man's own sense of the obligations of his own religion, and his own test and declarations on those sub- jects which have been disputed, and not your own opinion on some obsolete opinions which they deny. I know not where persecution is to end, if you try, and condemn and punish men not for being guiity, but for opinions which they do not hold. If it be true that you have actually discovered by the Counsel of Lateran or of Constance, or by some old decretal or canon, that a Catholic canrot be trusted, it must apply to all modes, and to D £ every 20 every view of the fulure, and lead to a crusade, to drive all those irrcconcileabie enemies of the Protestant Government out of the country they in- habit. How am I to argue tlie point, that tlie whole body of the Catholics is not disloyal? By referrinc; to the repeated Acts of the Protestant Legislature of Ireland! I know of no mode to exhibit mathema- tical, or strictly logical proofs of the rebellion in Ireland not having been what is termed a Catholic rebellion. There had been two separate rebellions in the Empire before. Look at the Acts of Parliament, and you will find that the demeanour of the Catholics is characterized for the loyalty of that body, notwith- standing the convulsed state of the times. Noble Lords cannot forget the period of the American war, when the navy of the enemy triumphed in the Channel ; when Ireland was threatened with invasion; I speak in the hearing of individual witnesses, of those who have been Lords-Lieutenants, and Secretaries to Lords- Lieutenants. At that critical tim.e the Catho- lic body was not considered to be disaffected to the Protestant Government, but were thought tit to be entrusted with arms for the defence of their country. The next thing I shall notice is what is notorious to every man who has heard of the Piebellion, that the conspiracy was framed and carried on by persons naming themselves United Irishmen, a term evidently adopted to comprehend men of all descriptions in religion, an union of sects, and by no means of the Catholic persuasion only. In the coarse of the in- surrection, the principal leaders punished were ac- tually Protestants. The Rebellion took its rise in circumstances wholly foreign to religious opinions, and pointed to very different objects ; and in the event of its success, the overthrow of Catholic power was as certain as that of Protestant ascendancy. Its object w\^s, not merely to overturn the Protestant Establishment, but the Monarchy, and to atchieve the independence and separation of Ireland from Great Britain. It has been said, that in some places all all the Rebels were Catholics; but if ncarW all the inhabitants there were Catholics, it is not veiy sur- prising that nia,ny Cathohcs should he Ilebeis, But did ttiat Rebelhon display no instances of Catbolics struiiglins; for the Constitution, risking their lives against the enemies of their Sovereign, and manifest- ing as much bravery as others did in the ranks of rebellion, sharing with Protestants the dangers of the times? If at present three-fourths of Ireland are better disposed towards you than they have been for many years past, is it not as fair to give them credit, as to throw reflections upon their loyalty ? You have the strongest evidence in their favour, in their own solemn, repeated disclaimer of all that you object to them ; but you have recourse to old-fashioned ab- suid arguments. ' Aye, let them swear what they •will, they can recur to the dispensing power of the Pope, in which every Catholiq believes T If that be true, and that four millions of subjects cannot be believed on their oaths, then they are positively dis- qualified from civil government ; and tlierefore we ought to withhold from them, not merely what they now ask, but the partial concessions made to them ought to be retracted ; for, I repeat it, in such a situation they are absolutely disqualified by God and nature from the advantages of civil government. But thi& is not a very happy argument for those who use it, since the very restrictions impose an oath. You say you think the Catholic dangerous, unless he take the oath of supremacy What ! but will he not violate the oath? If he be disposed to violate his oath, what prevents his taking it ? I ex- pect to hear it observed, that no Priests have signed the Petition I have had the honour to present. But I am authorised to state as a reason for this, that the matter, relating only to civil rights, and not having any relation to any stations the Clergy can fill, they thought it more proper to abstain from putting their signatures to it. But they are perfectly willing to join in it ; and I am willing and ready to shew that the respectable Prelates of that Church (for respect- able 22 Tible I must call them) have all actually taken the oatlis, and believe theui to be quite conformable to their church. They have earnestly exhorted their Cler;[Ty to do the same, who are ready to take them as vvilHngly as the subscribers. But if all Catholics have not been traitors, all Catholic Priests, it ap- pears, must now, of necessity, be reckoned traitors, since their master, the Pope, has taken a journey to Paris to crown Bonaparte, and by this trans- action their allegiance is transferred to France. I\Jark, my Lords, the wonderful force of this species of argument ! Really it is so trifling that I should have taken no notice of it were it not attempted to make use of it, to revive heart-burnings and animosities not only in Ireland, but even Jicre also. As if we had not known enough in this very town of the mischief and danger of the absurd cry of * No Popery,' bandied about for the purpose of raising a clamour and riot, and creating an insurrec- tion to prevent the Legislature from passing an Act of substantial justice. But is the Pope really more the enemy of this country now than he was when the family of the Bourbons were on the throne of France ? Is he more hostile to us than when the claims of the pretender were declared and support- ed at Rome, and when he resided there ? Can any person imagine that the Pope has a more earnest wish to exalt the power of France more at present than in former times ? I hope there is no man but views with pity the degraded situation of the Rou^an Pontiff in the recent transaction at Paris, and the humiliating circumstances in which he is placed. Circumstances which must, one should think, inspire him with deep mortification, and with disgust at those who imposed them upon him. What inference- can be drawn by any reasonable man from the situa- tion of the Pope, but that his influence is diminish- ed, and his power much less to be feared in every respect, than any preceding Pope ? What can be better calculated to destroy his greatness than to re- present him in that degrading and dishonouable cere- 23 ceremony ? The times have been when Popes sup- ported France with all their might, without pro- ducing any dangerous consequences in Ireland. I rememberwhen the last Pope exerted himself to sup- port your Government, and just witii as much effect as when he opposed it ; his weakness in both cases was equal. In the present state of Europe the power of the Pope has no effect whatever in Ireland, If, my Lords, all these allegations were absolutely true, that the Catholic Religion does make all men who profess it disloyal, and that the new state of France has thrown the Pope entirely into her hands, then the necessity of striving to counteract that dis- position, would demand of us to take such mea- sures as are now proposed. I would say, in that case, that the allies of Bonaparte are not the Catho- lic Clergy of Ireland; but those who exasperate mens' minds by trying to excite animosities that were gra- dually composing, and might be settled and tran- quillized. But it was said, should your Lordships comply with this Petition, the consequence shortly must be, the repeal of the Test Act ; but without entering at all into the question of such a repeal, whether you may think it adviseable or not, tiiis, at least, I am sure of, that it is adviseable to listen to the Catholic Petition. Even though you should think fit to continue the disabihtics attached to the Dissenters, it would be a most unjust, unwarrant- able, and unheard-of argument, to assert that the Irish Catholics shall not be relieved, because you are unwilling to relieve the Dissenters in this country ; a body of men, in a situation totally unconnected with them^ and even more opposite to their worship than you are. I know not what scale cf comparison ought to be instituted to regulate the claims of different bo- dies of men. I trust your Lordships must see the policy and justice of concession to the Catholics. Does not the continuance of the present system tend to perpetuate and increase all the difficulties of which wc complain ? Admit all the charges against the Catholics, Catholics, and then what is the course which this country is to pursue with four millions of suhjects, inveterate in their hatred of ail your establishments? The one is that which was adopted in the reign of Queen Anne, and the other is that which has been pursued with such success in the reign of his prcj^ent Majesty. On the first system, you must begin by depriving them of their constitutional rights; then of their property, and the means of acquiring pro- perty; and lastly, reduce them to the situation of aliens in their own country. There is no stop- ping in this course. You are put between the alternatives of complete exclusion, or the posses- sion of rights with the alienations of privileges. But if the dispositions of a people are bad, the mea- sure of true wisdom is to alter and ameliorate them. If, therefore, you refuse to accede to their requests, you prevent tliem from forming an attachment to your government ; and if you perceive that your present conduct is mistaken, if you find that it fails to conciliate to your interests any one of the indivi- duals whom you should wish to have attached to you, why must this country persist in a plan so ob- noxious to others, and useless to themselves ? Your proposition, in that case, amounts but to this ; we cannot deprive the Roman Catholics of their pro- perty, that is placed by the laws beyond the reach of the government ; we cannot deprive them of their natural weight in society, and of those franchises and privileges which at present they possess ; but •we torment the more elevated ranks of that persua- sion, by restraining them from attaining the object* of their ambition, and hinder them effectually from rising to the summit of the professions to which^hey may apply themselves. If this be not the ground on which the enemies of the Catholics proceed, the only argument that is left them seems to me to be this : we are are now arrived at that particular con- juncture at which we must come to a stand. Can it ever be prudent or desirable for a Legislature to re- solve • S5 solve upon a final cessation in a measure of such a nature as this is? If it ever can be prudent or desir- able, it must be under circumstances of a very pecu- liar kind, and of a very marked, palpable, and evident description. But are such then the circumstances under which we are now situated? Your former concessions to the Catholics have been wise, just, and fitting; but now you are told that tumult ex- ists among tiie people, and by way of a remedy for so glaring an evil, you propose to take away all dis-^ tinction and hope of reward from those to whom the people are accustomed to look up, by whose influ- ence they are directed, and for whose injuries they feel. If you must place restraints upon any, let those restraints be imposed on the persons who may injure you ; but never throw obstacles in the path of those who, if you do not impede them, wiU la- bour for your good. And who, after all, are the people whom, by your present restriclions^ you txr elude? Three or four Catholic Peers, who not only are not disaffected towards you, but who have given repeated proofs of their loyalty, at the hazard" of their persons, against the foreign and domestic foes of their Sovereign ; these are excluded, even from the possibility of being placed in this House. Does this system afford you any thing like security? Sup- pose these Catholic Peers in this House, do you think they could succeed in persuading you to abolish the Hierarchy ? that they would persuade you to desert the religion fo which you have been educated, or make vyar upon the Constitution to which you are attached ? I think there is no man who imagines it. Can you be afraid of it ? On the contrary, the very circumstances under which they wo«uld be introdu- ced, must make them eager, on every occasion, to display how worthy they were of the privilege they had obtained. Go to the House' of Commons, you will see that there, too, the mischief is as little to be dreaded. How small would be the number of Ca- tholics elected ! and if to take an immoderate calcu- lation, even fifty members, one-half of the represent E tation, £6 tation, should, in a long course of years, gain ad- mission, of what possible consequence could be a party of comparatively so little importance ? If an evil disposition existed out of Parliament, indeed, you might have danger to xipprehend from men of such consequence as some of tiie Catholics in Ire- land. I will appeal to you all, if any mischief has occurred from the mixture of Members professing a dilferent religion from that of the Established Church, who have been returned from the kingdom of Scotland ! lias any man desired to introduce here the Presbyterian Governfnent? If the exclusion, then, of Catholics from Parliament be groundless, are the other restrictions you have thrust upon them more consistent with policy ? They are excluded from the Law, from the Army, and from the Navy; an unreasonable stigma is thrown upon them ; yet in the course of my life, which has not been a very long one, I have seen all the principal Offices of the Law filled by men, who, there is reason to suppose, had a Presbyterian education; among those were your Lordship's predecessor on the Woolsack, a Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, a Chief Jus- tice of the Common Pleas, a Master of the Roils, and the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer. I will venture to say, that when they were appointed to their offices, there was no one who knew or enquired what religion they might happen to pro- fess. I could enumerate, in the same way, persoiis of the highest distinction in the army and the navy. Sq vain is the argument made use of by some, thai if the Catholic claims should be granted, our King would "be a Protestant, and his principal OfEcers iu Ireland Papists. A notion has prevailed, that if one party acqun'es, another must necessarily lose ; but so far is that position from being true in domes- tic politics, that it does not always follow, even be- tween nation and nation, that if one country makes any acquisition by friendly intercourse, another must suffer a loss in proportion ; and here by granting to the Catholics what their Petition requests, you give what 27 what is of little benefit for you to withhold, but what is of the utmost importance for them to acquire. Does not every student in the law acquire some de- gree of consequence from your Lordship's situation and dignity upon the woolsack? and is he not cheer- ed by the hope that it may in future be his lot to arrive at a similar distinction ? Or what parent would subject his child to the miseries of a sea- faring life, and the hardships which, as a midship- man, he must suffer, were it not for the prospect of future successes, such as those of the Howes and the Nelsons of our day ? In The army the case will be found parellel. Suppose a numher of subaltern of- ficers assembled together, can you conceive any thing more humiliating than the situation of any one of them who could be told by the rest, whatever glories or honours we hereafter may obtain, from all those glories, and from all those honours you must be for ever excluded. To you we can never say — I pede fausto Grandia latvirus fortunse prsemia. All the subjects of this country are exalted by tlie consideration, that tliere is no man who walks the streets who may not aspire to the highest ranks of the State: and must not the Irish Catholics for ever be excluded from all participation in the dear- est object of their hopes and wishes, if those who desire to depress them shall have it in their power for ever to say, it is not we who keep you back, it is the law of the country that prevents your aggrandizement? If this must continue the case, small is the hope that we can ever entertain of seeing domestic discord and animosity buried in oblivion. Therefore it is, my Lords, that I repeat to your Lordships, that though this concession will be a small one for vou to have g-ranted, it will be a great one for them to receive ; it will remove from them a degrading bads^e. It will be some consolation to them to reflect, that they hav; Repre- sentatives in Parliament of the same persuasion with themselves; but if you persist in distrusting tlie 28 Catholics, is it not natural that they should distrust j:ou ? This has been my principal motive for bring- ing the Petition before the notice of your Lord- ships; and I must always, to the last nioaient of niy life, remember with the liveliest gratitude, the attention your Lordships have been pleased to bestow me. My object is an union of parties, of sects, of hearts; but I ask you not to grant any thing to me as yet, for I am not prepared to declare what other he iling and salutary measures, for many sucl^ there arc, I should think we ougat al present to adopt. Do not let us shut our eyes ypon the state of L^eland, but embrace the first opportunity that has been presented to us, of considering the affairs of Ireland in a connected view. This 1 consider to be a most unexceptionable opportunity. Long have I sought this opportunity to bring forward the Peti- tion, and finding that the Catholics began to grow impatient when nothing had been done towards re- deeming that pledge which had been formerly given them, I thought it expedient to bring forward the ineasure at once. It has been said, that this is not a favourable season for presenting that Petition to Par- liament; but I think this season, of all others, the most favourable. We have every external motive for union; we are menaced by foreign enemies; we should close our ranks, and present a firm phalanx to the foe. Let us grant this privilege to the Irish, not as an extorted right, but as a fiee boon. I feel myself highly honoured that the choice of the Irish Catholics has fallen upon me at so momentous a crisis; and proud shall I be if your Lordships shall conceive that I have properly executed the impor- tant charge which they have committed to me. My Lords, I move your Lordships, that this House do now resolve into a Committee of the whole House to take this Petition into consideration." Lord HAWKESBURY.— My Lords, the speech which your Lordships have just heard, I am free to own, claims no ordinary share of attention. It is, from the nature of the subject, important; and it would S9 would be to insinuate what could not be dcrmed fair, to say, that, intrinsically, it is not important. Every thinij wisiied to be conceded on the ground of the momentous nature of the question now in dis- cussio i before us, I am willing to concede: and so far, if undue heat have obtained, I do not feel that I ought to impute to the Noble Baron more than what does form the share of every advocate of a cause, denominated popular, will probably, in spite of him, incur. Yet, my Lords, it does become me to remark, that when the Noble Baron began his speech by recommending moderation, instead of that expectation which he occasioned, both in the beginning and conclusion of his speech, he appeared to me to wish for a species of investigation into-which, were we disposed to enter, all sobriety of discus-- sion, and impartiality of determination, would un- avoidably be frustrated; and nothing but the greatest latitude of unconstrained remark would satisfy, in the discussion of the Very important question agi- tated by the Noble Lord. Far from adhering to the profession of his opening, far from being moderate as the subject demands, far from conforming to the rules of legitimate investigation and enquiry, the Noble Baron has thought proper to mislead your judgment by the menace of the triumph of the cause of the Petitioners." Lord GRENVILLE.— ^' My Lords, this is too much. I appeal to your Lordships; if I miglit, I would appeal to every honest man who hears me, whether the Noble Lord be in order ^ and, above al!, whether he does not offend against the order of our proceedings. My Lords, 1 say tlie Noble Lord - has been guilty of the grossest misrepresentation. Again, I appeal to the House, I appeal to every honest man, whether I have, in any one instance, had recourse to topics of the inflammatory nature of those dwelt upon by the Noble Lord. 1 have not introduced subjects of dani;erous tendency. I have urged no menace; I have sjooken of no triumph, but that which proceeds from the operation of reason. I so have not dwelt on topics calculated to break in on the peace of the empire. On the contrary, 1 have iliewn tlie wish of my heart to be to encourage and sanction no investigation or discussion not calculated, in my judgment, to promote the welfare of the State, and the ultimate tranquillity of the empire. I wish the Catholics unfettered, but not unconnected. Take off their chains of religious tliraldom, and you will directly find that in all political views you gain subjects, and in every social view, you acquire friends." Lord GRENViLLEhad spoken with much anima- tion. Lord HAWKESBURY.— I say, my Lords, that, to my mind, the Noble Baron did convey the im- pression which I have attempted, however feebly, to represent in v/oi*ds to your Lordships. I cannot be supposed to insinuate, that I have done any thing but collected the general spirit of the observations of the Noble Baron, which, if I have not faitiifuUy developed, 3^our Lordships will judge. The Noble Baron has talked of the triumph of the cause of the Petitioners. (A cry of Hear ! Hear!) I am free to own that the Noble Baron talked of the triumph of the cause by the operation of reason ; but I cannot well imagine how a cause is to triumph, unless reason be on the side of those who call in reason emphatically to their aid. A good cause is ever supported by reason. In a good cause you need not talk about the support of reason; for to 5»uch a cause you have it. But the Noble Lord talks of the support of reason to his cause, as if he distrusted the interference of reason in a cause so bad. '* However, my Lords, the Noble Baron tells u* that he wishes this cause ultimately to triumph by reason- — by the operation of reason. I am ready to meet the question upon that ground ; and how- ever it may be treated by the Noble Lord, or by others of his turn of tliinking, who will follow hiuj, I know 31 I know how to treat it on my part with temper, and conduct the enquh'y with moderalion. The Noble Lord has not thought proper to ex- plain distinctly the object of his motion. lie has left it to general consideration, and almost infinite details. Tlie whole may be granted, or none grant- ed; for if we consent to go into a committee, it would seem as if the utmost wishes of the Noble Baron would readily be, in all other views, gratified. But to what does the motion of the Noble Barou go ? It goes not to any partial abrogation, not to any partial revision, not to any limited modification of the statutes existing, but to an entire repeal of - all law, not only against Catholic, but which in any way operate in exclusion of other persuasions, of what denomination soever, from balding the very, first offices in the State. I do not say that necessa- rily the proposition of the Noble Baron concludes that deduction, but his reasoning most unquestion-^ ably does. The arguments of the Noble Baron have_ indeed no other effect. r But ^yhatever difiference of opinion there mi,i^lit^ be indulge^ as to the present Petition, I certainly^ have deprecated the discussion now brought on, 'at the present moment, and in the present cireum-. stances. No just care is bestowed on this gr^at bu- siness by those wlio cannot distinguish what pro 7 perly belongs to one moment from wliat strictly is the concern of another. However, I may disagree from some, or agree with others ; however, I may not be of opinion that the claims of the Petitioners ought to be granted at any time, and others may think that ' they ought to be granted, but not granted now ; 1 ani free tp say, that no eflbrts have been spared by.ms to prevent the question bein^ brought forward ; and the respectable Nobleman who is in tlie lieutenancy, of Ireland, to prevent its being agitated in the^ pre- sent conjuncture. But as, after all that has beeu done to point out to the Petitioners the right line of their duty, they have thought proper to commit their interests 3e interests to a party avowedly hostile to his Majes- ty's Government. I feel it to be my duty to myself, my country, to your Lordships, and to the Petition- ers, to state what my opinion is of the Petition now before your Lordships for consideration. My Lords, my opinions are not hastily formed ; I have consjder- ed this subject some years. The investigation of the question before us to-night has occupied my mind for a very long period indeed ; yet though my opi- nion is, that the present time is improper, it is not founded on the circumstance of the impropriety as to time, but on general merits. My objections apply to any time, however peculiarly distinguished, >vhen the question is, or can, or could be, brought forward; and though well inclined to lend my sanc- tion to rational reforms, l am not apprehensive, that in opposing upon this question the weight of my dissent, to reforms of the nature of that sought by the Petition, I detract from the churacter so justly enjoyed by the British Government for moderation, fove oi* freedom, and general regard to the interests of humanity Without reserving any thing to be explained hereafter, I say that the question would meet with my opposition brought forward almost at any period. " In saying this, I "do not say, as to political oc- currences, how far events might operate to induce diflferent opinions. Yet the counUT, as to all senti- ments, all views, all feelings, all the impressions ever had of this great question, the sense of this country, and of the reflecting part of the wodd, are against the Noble Baron ; and if I should hesitate respect- ing the character of the designs, motives, and objects pf the Noble Baron, mankind could not allow me to remain indilferent to long established habits of thinking, and the consequences of principle,* which no change of times can materially alter. Very na- turally my view is not the same as that of the Noble Baron, whose views differ not only from mine, but from those of ail who have, to my knowledge, made 33 this subject particularly their study. On the other hand, if the question were the toleration of l eli- gious opinions, I must think, my Lords, tliat iny disposition to indulgence is not less comprehensive than that of the Nol)le Baron, or any other man wishing tliQ freedom of eitlier religious or political opinion. As to this feeling of toleration, something it inay, however, be requisite to remark in order to Justify myself in the vote I shall give this night, and with reference to the deductions which I shall feel it incumbent on me to infer from the arguments which I shall submit to your Lordships. As to the question of toleration, I have as strong a feeling as any Noble Lord of the importance of tolerating li- beral notions in religion; and I remember the ques- tion that has been started, tending to decide whether infidelity, or superstition and fanaticism, were less consistent with the safety of a nation and common- wealth. Without being over-friendly to toleration, 1 can safely observe, that from the example of the history of the w^orld, I am of opinion, that no greater bane to human society can arise than infidelity. We have had an example of this in our own times. The question, indeed, was reserved for these times; for in the centre df Europe an atheistical republic has been reared up, but fortunately, vanished with the season that gave it birth. That system, however, cannot have failed to make a great and lasting impression on the minds of men. It left on the mind a persua- sion, that the violence of fanaticism, in the worst ages of the world, never equalled the intolerance, intemperance, and wickedness of the French Revo- lutionists. All the deviations of other countries, and of sects in religion, from the rules and prccepts of moderation and humanity, were trivial, compared to the atrocity of the first revolutionists of France. The severities of religious bodies were clemency compared lo the conduct of the atheistical tolerants of republican France. Recollecting what occur^d in that country in the period of the. world to which F I al- 34 I allude, I will say that those who have any religion, be it what it may, arc in a better situation than if they had none. The Catholics are not the class of Christians in whom I feel the most confidence, nay, they are those in whom I feel the least, and for w^hom, as a sect, I have the least respect. Having stated this, I have no difficulty in saying, that the Roman Catholics of this country, I believe as loyal, as honest, and as meritorious as an^^men; yet, what-' ever tenets they may profess, I know their great sub- mission is not real. Still the Catholics may be and are as virtuous, loyal, and honest as men can be, in some respects, though only so in a restricted sense. *^ With this view of the subject, 1 come to the principles of the Law and Constitution, those prin- ciples which have been considered the best support of the Throne in Church and State; the bulwarks of our institutions, and guarantee of safety to our country, which I hope Noble Lords will not aban- don without stronger reasons than those urged by the Noble Baron. Yet whilst 1 submit that our laws are excellent and ought to be supported, I do not mean to say that laws, however wise, are infallible, or ought to be considered eternal. All laws are liable to revi- sion, and, if circumstances demand, that it may be even wise to abrogate great and important laws. On the other hand, I do say, that there are laws which are the land-marks of our Constitution, the compact between the governors and the governed ; and thouf^h the modification of these, on a case made out, might be expedient, yet such laws ought not to be changed without the greatest necessity. Let us look at the present question as bearing upon, or affected by, our laws. The great and first principle of the law, by the Act of Settlement, is, that the King of this country is a Protestant, and holds communion with the Church of England, as by law established. Our ancestors felt this, and departed no farther than necessity obliged them, from the spirit 35 of the law and Constitution. When they did, how- ever, interfere with the Constitution, they looked at all its other parts, and put it to themselves, whether, if a prince caine of a different religion from that established by tlie laws, they ought not to resist the innovation. They were aware of the inconvenience, and great it was, of breaking in on the line of suc- cession, yet that inconvenience they did incur, think- ing that' admitting a prince of a religion differing from the established religion, would be a greater eviL The law which settles the succession to the crown, is not founded on temporary views of convenience, or idle speculation, but on experience, and well weighed and fully matured principle. Those who framed this law, came to the conclusion, that the Prince must be of the established religion of the State, otherwise that he would forfeit the crown. In establishing this principle another grows out of it, that if it be necessary by law that the Prince should be a Protestant, it is likewise undeni- ably so that his chief Counsellors, most intimate ad- visers, and those the highest in his confidence, should likewise be of the established Protestant religion. Surely no one will contend that the Counsellors of the Sovereign should not be of the same religion with the Sovereign. I grant that even of this prin- ciple there may be some modification; yet a lawful Crown pre-supposes a lawful Constitution of govern- ment. The Monarchical Establishment at the Re- volution, was founded on the very principle for which I now contend : and I cannot conceive so absurd, so extravagant a proposition as that we are to support one and break in on another line of the succession, and are to have a Catholic Chancellor, Catholic Judges, and the whole Civil Administra- tion in the hands of Catholics Arguing, al? initio^ you might say, indeed, that, in the case of the Crown, you would remit the law ; but how unaccountable to alledge that the Crown shall be Protestant, and yet its advisers need not. F 2 " The 36 The respect for the Crown, however, has been marked in former times. The Crown was treated as the subject is now^ attempted to be treated. In point of ihct, it was w^hat was done in the time of Charles - II. for then they began against Presbyterians, Catho- lics, and Dissenters of all descriptions ; but during the whole time no Act was passed as to the Crown. Tlie subject was to be of the Established Reli- gion ; the Crown was not. When the Duke of York became a Catholic, and was coming to the Crown, it was said that the circumstance of his avowal of Catholicism was, as to the law of succes- sion, c.v post facto, but he was not excluded from the throne. " Now, in point of reasoning, and in point of fact, if the limitation of the Crown was necessary, it was more so to restrict the Counsellors of the Crown. As to political power, your Lordships w^ill, how- ever, look to it with jealousy, and will not place it in unworthy hands ; in hands in which it can be abused with the view of political supremacy. Those who dispense the favours of the Crown, should be of the religion of the Crown. The inference from the argument of the Noble Baron is, however, that he ■would dispense with tests altogether. Upon the practical effects of the motion, it is ne- cessary to state to your Lordships in what Disssenters and Catholics differ, and to shew that our English Dissenters differ more from the Church than the Ca- tholics. There are many tenets in which Catholics seem to come nearer the Church than Dissenters ; yet in one most essential point the Catholic is more at variance with the Church, and that is in regard to internal government. The Dissenter admits the rio;ht of the Church to internal government, but the Catho- lic contends for external government, and the supre- macy of the Church of Rome. This foreign jurisdic- tion is stated to be merely ecclesiastical ; but no one who reflects on the thins; will fail to consider it as political. Will Noble Lords consider that great part 37 part of the lands of another part of tlie empire is in the hands of the Catholics, and will not that give them political power ? Now the CathoHcs, honestly, I w ill suppose, think the Church of Eng- land heretical and idolatrous. And if they, by be- ing admitted to the first offices in the State, gain power, who will assure himself that they will not in- culcate the doctrine, that since they are not of the Church, they ought not to be called upon to contri- bute to the maintenance of the Church ? If the Ca- tholics he honest men, they must prefer their own tenets to any other ; and because of that they ought to be received with jealousy. But it is said, tiiat with a Protestant King no- thing can happen to give the Catholics power. Now, on their own principles, this must be sufficient to in- duce them not to be zealous, or at all desirous, to compass the ends of their present Petition : for, most assuredly they wish for power, without which rank in the State would be idle and nugatory. If^ however, with a Protestant Prince, they could gai* no ascendancy, or acquire no power, compliance with their Petition would be worth nothing to the Peti- tioners. If, on the other hand, you think there will be no danger in abro,i2;aling the laws, do it openly. The argument of the Noble Baron applies to trusting employments to Catholics, and qualifying them to sit in Parliament, I will not go deeply into this question; I think that when the. elective franchise was granted them, enough was done ; but that has not satisfied, and we are called upon to expose our security, by granting what I do believe will end iu ruin. " As to the consideration of the question, on the ground of time, I wholly ditfer in opinion from the Noble Baron ; and contend that the most dangerous time we could choose is that when the power ruling in France is closely connected as it is with the Pope of Rome. The ground of this opinion was seen in the rebellion of "l79B. But if you grant the Catho- 3S lies u'hat they ask now, will they not ask more, when we know that no sooner were the concessions made them in 17.93, than they expressed that farther concessions would ensue ? The cliaracter of the Ca- tholics, if they did acquire power, we can collect from the history of the short period when one of the Stuarts held temporary sway in Ireland ; for there were then the most diabolical laws enacted and enforced in the districts of the Catholic Govern- ment. By the Revolution of 1688, however, the accession of Catholics to power is foreclosed ; and certainly these are not times to abrogate the laws in their favour. This was done by the Whigs, who, however, could not have effected that Revolution but for the zeal of the Church, that had, on so many occasions, aided the State. For if the Church has been upheld by the State, the State has been upheld by the Churcli ; hence innovation of the Constitution of the Church ou^ht to be received with jealousy, and promptly repelled. By the Act of Settlement the Catholics cannot be admitted to un- limited, unconstrained, ecclesiastical, and political power. Why are they anxious about what will not avail them ? If we are to protect our laws, let us do so while in our power: If we are to give them up, let us do so with our eyes open, and aware of the value of what we are suFrendering. What I have said, I am conscious applies solely to the Great Officers of State ; and I am r€?ady to admit that the question with respect to th^ right of sitting in Parliament stands, in some respects, On different grounds. The Law requiring persons holding offices of trust to hold communion with the Church of England, docs not apply to Members of Parliament. All that is required is a declaration against Popery, merely of a doctrinal kind. But there are reasons against the privilege of an insurmountable nature. Some years ago the Irish Government granted to the Roman Catholics the Right of Elective Franchise, whether 39 properly or not, I shall not say. The effect of it, I beheve, was to benefit the GathoHcs, and not to injure the State. It was to the one a civil advan- tage, without proving to the other apoHtical incon- venience. But the moment you open the Repre- sentation, and extend it to Catholics, the privilege of voting, which in Catholic Counties is nearly equal to universal suffrage, will then be entirely clianged. It will, on all occasions, become a ques- tion between Catholic Priests and the tenantry; and thus, instead of bettering the situation of the mass of the people, or giving them a boon, you will have involved them iri perplexing^ difficult, and embarrassing situations. The Inference^ therefore, which I draw from this circumstance is, that though the question of a right to sit in ParHament, is, in some degree, subordinate to the claim of being ap- pointed to the highest offices of trust, the principle applies from the one to the other. I come now to consider a question which I cannot help thinking the Noble Lord treated in a very extraordinary man- ner. He said, he saw nothing in the time when the Petition was brought forward, which seemed to him at all to render it objectionable. I view this in so different a manner, I think that things are so pecu- liarly changed since the year 1801, that I should es- teem it no inconsistency in any to say, that, while he approved of the measure at that time, he disap- proved of it at the present moment. I must on this point call your Lordships' attention to a period somewhat antecedent to that which 1 have now al- luded to. The French Revolution, from the princi- ples on which it was - latterly carried on, had made it become the cause of all religions to join in oppo- sition to those who disclaimed every idea of reli- gion, and acted on a blind and headlong philosophy. Men of every persuasion preferred those who had some religion, to those who had none, and thougiuit better to bury their old animosities and to write against what they felt to be the grievances of the day. Even \ 40 Even after the circumstances which had raised this opinion ceased to operate, the. idea continued with some. — Within the three last years, however, we liave seen a wonderful change in the internal Go- vernment of that country. Sixteen years of extreme democracy have ended in suhjection to the arhitrary powers of a single individual; the Chief of . that country now seeks to prop his own power on the support of the Catholic Church; and, between him and tlie Pope of Rome, a close and intimate con- nection subsists. Whoever looks at the present state of Catholic Europe, and contemplates that every part of it, except Austria, is under the power of Prance; whoever considers the connection between Prance and the Pope of Rome, and between the Pope of Rome and Ireland; whoever does so, and reflects seriously, will confess, that there never was a time so improper for conferring additional immuni- ties on Roman Catholics. If they look at the active powers of our enemy, they will confess that this is not the time to relax the principle. I do not urge this, however, as my reason for objecting to the mo- tion. I think that it would be objectionable at any time ; but I urge those considerations on account of other Noble Lords, who may think the measure not objectionable in itself, if brought forward at a pro- per period. I shall now proceed to state some other practical effects which must be produced by the adoption of the present motion. We are called on to make a great and fundamental alteration in the laws of our country. It is therefore, surely, the duty of those who recommend that measure to us, to shew what beneficial effects will result from it. I do not believe that the measure proposed will affect the great mass of the people of Ireland in the smallest degree, even should it be carried. It would, indeed, be of advantage to a few individuals, and this we are called on to grant at the expence of the general system of our own laws. In proof of this, I cannot help referring to a circumstance which hap- pened 41 pencd some time since, when a person, who, by many men of the first talents in this country, was repre- sented as a respectable and worthy man, but who afterwards turned out to be an infamous traitor (O'Connor), and another man of consid^'rable su- perigr talents (Dr. M'Niven) were pardoned, on cj)nfessing what they knew on the subject and causes of the Rebellion. When this question was put to them, in what regard Parliamentary Reform and Ca- tholic Emancipation were held by the mass of the people of Ireland, the answer of the former was, tljat the great mass of the people ^' would not give a drop of ink;'' and, of the latter, that they did not care a feather for Parliamentary Reforhi, n*' for Catholic Emancipation, till it was explained, that sunder the latter was meant to be comprehended the abolition of tythes." The Noble Lord has said, that we, by acceding to his Motion, are par ting wi th little,' but are giving to the people of Ireland much. My opinion is exactly the reverse-. You would, in- deed,, were you to agree to the Motion, be giving them little, wlSlst you would be giving up much. — ' What, 4aot enrichmg them, would make you poor indeed.' The argument rather seems to amount to this— As you have already given them so much, 'why do you not give them the rest ? What you have given is, of little consequence, if you do not give them what re- mains. To get all which they want would be to be made the State itself In giving this, you give the whole; you give into their hands the powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Another consideration operates in my mind ; supposing all the objections I have already mentioned, w€re got rid of, woufd they be satisfied with what they are now asking? W^ould they not ask something farther? And would not you then be in a worse situation to resist "their demand ? Even in this Petition, though I confess it is temperately worded, I cannot help remarking, that they do not seem satisfied with the tests to whichlhey G at 42 at present conform. They take them, but they con- consider their doing so a hardship ; and if you give them this they are now asking, you will find they are not at the conclusion of their complaint. — It would be more manly to state the whole of their complaint at once. You would then see what you were doini^, and whether it would be ri^ht or wrong to grant it. This reminds me, however, of a little history which occurred in the year 1793, when my Noble Friend opposite (Earl Fitz -William) was Lord Lieutenanto The elective franchise, and every thing, indeed, they then asked for v,'as granted them. They came up with an Address of thanks, and at the end of that Address they let out a hope that that was only the first step towards granting them all their demands. It is important to bear this in mind, and to consider not what we grant, but what we may be called on to grant. May we not, if we this day give what is asked, be informed next day that three-fourths of the population of the country are called on to pay for a church to which they did not belong ? Would we not then have another battle to fight — not strong- er in argument, but more suited to the feelings of the people? This is the outwork of your Establishment. You are called on to fight for it as such. If you surrender it you will maintain your inposts to less advantage, when it is destroyed. If there was no reason but this for rejecting the Motion, I should feel it my duty to resist it. I admit that all concessions granted during the present reign have been properly bestowed. But this circumstance I can never forget, that from the time of their being excluded from every privilege, to the period of renewing the concessions to them, although two serious rebellions, within that period, raged in Great Britain, Ireland was uni- formly tranquil — and it is only since the concessions to the Catholics have been made that rebellion has again began to shew her head there. The Noble Lord approves the principle of granting concessions gradually. I think otherwise. Gradual concessions 43 keep mens minds in a continual state of irritation— and they think that, by pertinacity they will get more and more. I am persuaded, the best mode in any country, but more particularly in Ireland, is, to pur- sue a steady and uniform system of policy. We ought to defend the Church. When in 1660, the Monarchy was restored, the Church was a grand instrument towards the Restoration; and in I688, the Church powerfully contributed to the Revolution. With these sentiments, thinking that if we do grant the Catholics more indulgence, thinking that the speech of the Noble Baron goes to the abroga- tion, not only of the Catholic, but of the Corpora- tion, Settlement, and all the Test Laws ; not thinking that the Noble Lord has established any one position in his speech ; believing, that in the circumstances of Europe, and the world, at this time, it w^ould be peculiarly unfortunate and un propitious, if the de- mands of the Catholics ^yere yielded, I, my Lords, cannot but be most decidedly inimical.to the present motion. Some Noble Lords may differ from me as to the general policy of the measure, applied to other times ; to such I will only say, that w^iilst I must think it a measure bad for any times, yet in these times it would, I am sure, prove most ruinous to our internal repose and external tranquillity. " As the laws established by our Constitution, as the institutions in Church and Slate, as a Protestant King, Protestant Counsellors, Protestant Parliament, Protestant Judges, and Protestant Corporations, have hitherto best upheld our State, been the props and bulwarks of our Constitution and our liberties, and promise us the highest security to be derived for human conventions, establishments, and laws, from human system ; as our system of government is, as now existing, acknowledged the first in the world, I must not only oppose the motion of the Noble Baron, but I call upon your Lordships to cling to that system which has secured our safety, the perma- nency of our institutions, the purity of our laws, the G 2 prosperity 44 prospcrit}' of our nation, the libcrticij of the peoj)]c, and the prerogatives of the Sovereign. My Lords, 1 do not fear the result of your vote; I feci assured that your Lordsiiips will this night seal the triuuipli, not of disatfection and discontent, but the soljd ascendency of the principles of the most glorious Constitution of Government that has ever appeared among mankind. ^ With these impressions, my Lords, I need not add, that I will heartily oppose the Petition now before you." His Royal Highness the DUKE of CUMBER- LAND. — My Lords, I feel it in a most particular degree my bounden duty, on this occasion, to declare, in the very first instance, my opinion, and to give my most decided opposition to the motion before the House, and to urge every resistance in my power to a measure, the objects of which are directly subver- sive to all those principles which placed the House of Brunswick upon the Throne of these Reahns. 1 fully agree with the Noble Secretary of State, that the Act of Settlement, and all those Acts on which the liberties of this nation, and the title of my Fa- mily to the Throne depend, must be abrogatcfl and annulled before the Petition on your table can with any shew of reason or common sense be enter- tained. Lotus, my Lords, consider most maturely the question before us. Is it not whether we shall give to the Roman Catholics all the great places of power and trust in the State ? Was it not to oppose such a principle that caused the Revolution ? nay, my Lords, was not the opposition to that principle the very life and soui of that Revolution.^ Can it be possible then that your Lordships will for a moment so far entertain a Petition of this nature as to go into a Committee upon it, in order to deliberate on the propriety of its adoption? But I trust your Lordships will never agree to a measure which must inflict the deepest u'ound on the crown and the country, and put every tiling dear to us in immediate hazard by so rash aa 45 experiment. Let us remciril)cr, my Lords, the chief principle which caused the Revokiiion, namely, the impossibility of agreement between Protestants and Calholics in a mutual participation of political power ? Are you not convinced by the ( xpcrience, not only of this country, but of every state iu Europe, that Protestants and Catholics cannot agree in tiie joint administration of political power so divided ? The object of the Catholics now is, to obtain poli- tical power, to reverse all those laws upon which is founded the security of our Constitution in Church and State; and to renew all those scenes of confu- sion and of blood that have stained this land, at va- rious times, from the Reformation down to the reign of James II. who, for his attenipt to revive Popery, and to transfer power and influence into the hands of the Catholics, was driven from the Throne, which event led to the establishment of those principles, the viofation of which, by granting what is now demand- ed, would render it impossible for the constitutional connexion between the King and his subjects any longer to exist. Beside, my Lords, are we not lo consider that the temper of the limes, and a veiy great portion of the sentiments of the country are against it. Have you not upon your table Petitions from the Cities of London and ]3ublin, from several Counties, and highly respectable Corporations, and Communities, throughout the nation, against it? Are we not aware of the sentiments of the whole country on this subject? And will you consent in opposition to that general sense, to admit Ro- nfan Catholics to seats in Parliament, to his I\la- jesty's Counsels, to the chief command of your fleets and armies, to the highest seats of judicature, and throw open to them all the Corporations, upon tcnns much more free than to a very great portion of our Protestant fellow-subjects? But I will ask one question, my Lords, which I think will put an end to the discussion. Do the Petitioners acknow- ledge ihp supremacy of th'e King in ecclesiastical as 42 well as civil affairs, as by law established ? No. Then wliere is the safeguard to your established re- ligion ? Or, will your Lordships agree to dispense from this acknowledgment the Catholic, in claiming to enjoy all the places of power, trust, and emolu- ment in the State, to which every Protestant is in- dispensibly bound ? Are we, my Lords, to destroy, by any rash innovation, those laws and landmarks, wisely instituted by our ancestors for the permanent security of our Constitution ? My Lords, to every privilege and indulgence consistent with those laws, I am perfectly willing to admit the Catholics. But to any measure having a tendency to unhinge those principles, or risk in any degree the safety of our Constitution in Church or State, I can not, I dare not, I will not consent. I am bound to main- tain, to the last moment of my existence, the principles of that Constitution in Church and State, which placed my Family on the Throne, and without trespassing on your Lordship's attention, I shall sit down dclaring my decided negative to the motion of the Noble Baron. Earl SPENCER.—'^ My Lords, after the very able, and in my mind, irresistible arguments urged this night by my Noble Friend who 'brought for- ward this motion, I shall not think it necessary to trespass many minutes upon your Lordships atten- tion. The Noble Secretary of State who rose to reply to my Noble Friend thought proper to attri- bute to him expressions and intentions which my Noble Friend so instantly and effectually contra- dicted, that it is wholly unnecessary for me to vin- dicate him on those points. But I beg to assure your Lordships, that if I thought, either the motion brought forward by my Noble Friend, or the speech by w^iich he has so eloquently supported that mo- tion, could have in the most distant degree the ten^ dency attributed by the Noble Secretary, of injuring the safety of Church and State, as established by iaw in this realm, or shaking the Throne of the il- lustrious 47 lustrious House of Brunswick, I would have been one of the foremost and most strenuous to resist it I perfectly agree, my Lords, with the Noble Secre- tary of State in the principle he recommended, that the subject should be discussed with candour and moderation ; but having laid down a principle so very commendable, I own I was sorry to find the Noble Secretary himself the first to depart from it, to attack with so much heat and violence the speech of my Noble Friend, and to depart from that calmness and moderation which had so peculiarly characterized the whole of his speech. My Lords, for my own part, I entirely disclaim any wash to in- troduce intemperance into this discussion. The Noble Lord has arraigned the intention of the Pe- titioners of a wish to obtain power only for pur- poses subversive to the Constitution: but, my Lords, from my own knowledge of some of the persons who have signed that petition, I am convinced the Noble Secretary has gone much farther than any thing in the known respectability of their characters can be found to justify. The Noble Secretary has talked of allegiance acknowledged by the Roman Catholics to a foreign power. I know not where the Noble Secretary has found this argument, but it is entirely new to me. I know not where he has found the Catholics avowing any temporal allegiance to the Pope, or any other foreign power., They con- sider him, indeed, as their Spiritual Chief; but they acknowledge to him ho temporal superiority or alle- giance whatever. The Catholics have solemnly dis- avowed, upon oath, all those mischievous tenets charged upon them by the Noble Lord. They have pledged themselves by the most solemn oaths left to bind the veracity of man, and by every test you have required of them, in the firmest allegiance to his Majesty and the established Constitution of these realms ; and unless they are to be believed upon their oaths, I know of no security for public justice, for hfe, or property, in this, or any other state^ 4^^ "state, where tliey are snflercd to exist. Mv Lords, the Catholics have repeatedly sworn that they hear no political allet^icincc to the Pope, and the best in- formed men of their Community have disclaimed those odious doctrines so often charged upon their sect. This heing the case, I cannot conceive upon what authority the Noble Secretary founds his as sertions. But if it be true, that Catholics arc those dangerous beings they are represented to be, and that it is so unsafe for the State that they should ])03sess any civil power, T wish to know why the Noble Secretary refuses the motion of my Noble Friend for going into the Committee, not to pass a law for granting further power to the Catholics, but to consult the expediency of repealing all those laws that have obtained in their favour during the pre- sent reign. The Noble Lord has argued, that con- cession to the Catholics has only served to stimulate new demands, that indulgence had served to render them rebellious, and that they have been peaceable only in proportion to the pressure of the penal ]aws. Why not act then upon this discovery — why not go into the Committee, for the purpose of con- sulting the propriety of re-enacting all those laws, of annulling all those measures of favour to the Catholics that have been thought to grace his Ma- jesty's reign,- and reduce them to that state in which they were found at its commencement? For, my Lords, if the reasoning of the Noble Secretary, be good for any thing, it must necessarily go to that extent. My Lords, the Noble Secretary has la- boured to pi ove, that the late rebellion in Ireland was a Catholic Rebellion, for the purpo:>e of subvert- ing the Protestant Religion, and establishing Popery on its ruins ; but the proofs he has adduced directly contradict his assertion ; for the Noble Secretary has acknowledged and proved that the leading con- spirators in the late Rebellion, both Protestants and Catholics, totally denied any such object, that they were equally inimical to all religious establishments. In fact, it is notorious, that the Rebellion was en- tirely 49 lirely for jacobinlcal purposes. Equalization of pro* perty and condition, were the objects lield out to the multitude engaged in that Rebellion : demo- cracy was its main object. In fact, my Lords, there has not been the shadow of proof that reli- gion is the active spring to Rebellion amono;st Ca- tholics ; and, therefore, I cannot see how Religion is to be pleaded as a sufficient cause to justify the perpetuation of constraints. The Noble Lord has asked, if you grant the prayer of this Petition, where are you to stop ? And he directly ara;ues, not until you have repealed the Act of Settlement. If the Noble Lord, seriously means this, I know not what argument to apply to such imbecillily. In my apprehension there exists not the slig;hiest ground for such an idea. The Act of Settlement I rather think is brought now into question, not fiom any real fears, but merely for the purposes it serves to answer, namely, those of influencing timid or dubious minds by vain and groundUs? apprehen- sions. But, as my Noble Iriend has argued, the real danger exists not in abolishing, but in continuing those invidious restrictions ; for so long as such degrading disqualifications are conti- nued against so great a majority of the people of Ireland, so long will the mortifying sense of them rankle in the bosoms of that people, and constantly furnish dangerous and designing agitators with a fea- sible pretext for stirring up dissentions, and dis- posing the lower orders especially, to tumult and insun ection. But,- my Lords, I cannot think, from the experience we have had in the effects of past relaxations to the Catholics, that there really exists the smallest reason for continuinc; the remaining re- strictions, unless it can be really proved that the discontinuance is dangerous to Church and State, and I have as yet heard no proof whatever to war- rant such a conclusion. My Lords, the Noble Se- cretary has said, if you grant this you grant all — True, my Lord ; and if it is granted upon the same H ground 50 ground that all the former indulgences to the Catho- lics have been granted, namely, their unshaken loyalty and attachment to the Constitution, I see no objection to it; nor do I, in any degree, parti- cipate in those fears expressed by the Noble Secre- tary for the fundamental laws of our Constitution, from such a measure. Does the Noble Secretary really mean to insinuate that it would really tend to a repeal of the Act of Settlement r If he does, he totally mistakes the principle of that Act, as well as of this measure ; for most if not all the estate* possessed at this day by the Catholics of Ireland, and certainly all the purchases made by them within the last twenty years, are actually held upon no other titles than those founded on the Act of Set- tlement ; and it is hardly probable the Catholic gentlemen of Ireland would be desirous, if it was even in their power, to repeal an Act which is the security for their own possessions. I am convinced, my Lords, that so long as those restrictions conti- nue, they will operate on the minds of the Catholics as a constant grievance, although the Noble Lord may think that the great mass of the lower orders •will never think about the exclusion of their supe- riors from Parliament and places in the State. By your former relaxations you have, in my mind, wisely enabled the Roman Catholics to obtain opulence, and encouraged them to cultivate education, and to cherish the sanguine hope that the same loyalty and good demeanour which obtained for them past indul- gence, would speedily procure for them all that re- mained : but by the continuance of those restric- tions longer, you cast a foul stigma upon them. You have already granted to the great mass of the lower orders the elective franchise and all those privileges and immunities appropriate to their situa- tion and rank ; but you refuse to the Catholic Peer and gentleman, whose rank, education, and pro- perty, attach them to your Constitution and Go- vernment, and entitle them to your confidence, the 51 privile^gcs and immunities appropriate to their situa- tion. \ have no doubt, my Lords, that the vyisdom and sound policy of abrogating those restrictions will, ei:e long, force their way to adoption, notwith- standing the resistance they may at present expe- rience. " But I am sure that by granting the measure now, as a concession of liberal and generous policy, it would come with infinitely more grace and effect than at a future day, when it shall have the appear- ance of yielding to necessity, when the Catholics become more numerous, more wealthy, and more powerful. The Noble Secretary has said, that the time chosen to bring forward this measure is utterly improper ; but his argument on this head seems to be particularly unfortunate. He has stated, that since the year 1 801 a new order of things has sprung up in Europe : that an Atheistical Republic has reared its head in France, which, after various and dreadful changes,' has terminated in the despo- tism of a tyrant, the implacable enemy of this country, who has found it necessary for his purpose to call religion to his aid, to coalesce with the Pope, and thereby obtained additional means of gaining to his views tlie Catholics of Ireland. But surely, my Lords, if from this new state of things in Europe, any additional danger threatens these kingdoms, or any effect is to be produced upon the minds of the Catholics of L eland, this is precisely the time of all others to conciliate their affections, by casting away all symptoms of distrust and jealousy. The very ap- rehension expressed by the Noble Secretary on this ead, is, in my mind, the most convincing argument to prove that this is precisely the moment foi- us, by throwing aside our doubts and distrusts to cultivate the confidence of our Catholic fellow-subjects, and by so doing, unite and concentrate all the strength of these united Kingdoms against the me- naced attacks of the common enemy. These, my Lords, are the reasons which sway my mind in fully agreeing with the motion of my Noble Friend. I ii 2 fully 5f2- fally agree with ihc Noble Secretary in the insepa- rable union of Church and State, but I cannot think that union exposed to any risk from granting tlie prayer of this Petition." Lord SIDAIOUTII.--'' My Lords, I am fully disposed to follow the recommendation of the Noble Baron who introduced this motion, and to discuss the in)portant question before your Lordships with all the temper and moderation it so necessarily re- quires. Whatever sentiments I entertain on the subject, I will avow them plainly and frankly ; and I will begin by saying, that though I am ready to go as far as any of your Lordships in whatever re- gards a sound and wise toleration, yet I am by no means prepared to go the extreme length proposed by the Noble Baron. I have listened to what fell from that Noble Baron on this occasion, with all the attention and respect due to whatever comes from him on any subject, and I heard him with the same pleasure I always have done ; but it was a pleasure mingled with surprize and astonishment. When I recollect how greatly that Noble Lord has heretofore distinguished himself in combating doc- trines which led to all the calamities under which a great portion of the people are actually suffering, and I fear will long suffer, it is not without exces- sive astonishment that 1 heard him this night take so opposite a course, and maintain doctrines, the direct tendency of which would be the introduction of all those innovating principles against which on former occasions he has so manfully and successful- ly struggled. In the year 1790, the Petition of the Dissenters for the repeal of the Test Act was op- posed by that Noble Lord ; but I cannot agree with him in resisting the minor proposition, and grant- ing the greater. Before I enter upon this questioUj my Lords, I will take this opportunity of declaring my entire concurrence Avith my Noble Friend (the Secretary vi State) in giving full credit to the Catholics for their ^3 their loyalty and attachment to the Constitution, and that beneficent Sovereiizn {)iaccd at the head of it. Their loyalty, I will acknowledge, has been for ja series of years highly meritorious : 1 am not in- clined to withhold from them the rewards due to that loyalty and attachment ; but those rewards I have understood to have been long granted to them as fully as they could possibly require. I have no doubt that the Petitioners are njen such as they have been stated, honourable and conscientious ; but I will not argue what the sentiments of great bodies of men may be, from those of individuals, nor even what those of individuals would be under strong and peculiar circumstances. I give the Petitioners credit for their sincerity and inte- grity ; but even those qualities are subjects of alarm to me in the present case : I am anxious to avoid being accessary to the disastrous consequences which may result even from the acts of honest men obey- ing the impulse of their consciences. Much, my Lords, has been said on the subject of toleration. But, in my mind, toleration the Catholics of Ireland enjoy in a degree as aujple as can be acceded to them consistently with tlie security we owe to our Constitution and Establishment. The Noble Lord has admitted that their toleration is complete as to every exercise of their religion. ^Eut he demands for them considerably more ; — no less than a parti- cipation in political power. Their claims tlien are for something of a uiore comprehensive range ; it is for undefined privileges artfully suggested under the convenient phrase of Catholic Emancipation — a very convenient term I will confess for those who have other views to answer, bat certainly one not calculated to promote the object of the Petitioners. It is calculated to awaken the liopcs of the great bulk of the Irish Catliolics, that other ol)jects may be trained by persevering in the sanje steps which led to this. They care little for the privilege of sitting in Parliament; but they have an obiect in aettmi: 54 rid of\}\c oath of supremacy. The Noble Baron who coniDieiiced this debate, has adopted, for him at least, a novel line of argument. lie began with arraigning llie policy adopted towards the Catholics by our ancestors, and which, with little variation, has been followed until within the last twenty years, liut what, I would ask the Noble Baron, is the true object of this Petition ? Is it not to get rid of the Oath of Supremacy and the Declaration — tests which the wisdom of those who have gone before us thought indispensible to the maintenance of our Constitution ? If we dispense with the Oath of Supremacy, it will pave the way to other objects, which I cannot contemplate without alarm. " My Lords, the penal laws under which the Catholics of Ireland formerly laboured, are as re- volting to me as to any man ; but they arose out of indispensible necessity, nor was there any of them that will not appear fully justified by reference to the history of the country, from the Reformation to the Revolution. I will admit, however, that those laws were forced upon Ireland ; and, in making this declaration, I speak from my conscience, and ^vhh the regret of an honest Englishman. It can- not be denied that they Mere forced upon that country by a cruel and overbearing necessity. (The Noble Viscount here entered into an historical de- tail of the various plots and rebellions in Ireland, which he alledged to have justified the various penal restrietions upon the Catholics ). From these state- ments on facts, I aver that our ancestors were jus- tified, by such various acts of treason and rebellion, to impose those severe laws they have enacted, upon ::-uch of the population of that country as professed the Roman Catholic Religion. Some of the most severe of those statutes were passed in the reign of AV'illiam III. than whom no Prince or other man ever entertained a truer notion of, or a more sin- cere attachment to the genuine principles of tole- ration and rational liberty. (The Nobk Viscount icrc 7t vnt through the fmtoru tif the political r^- strainti 55 sframfs mposed on the Catholics hy the penal codc^ down to the commencement of the presint reUj;iL) But, my Lords, during the reign of his present Ma- jesty, nearly the whole, and certainly the most se- vere and obnoxious of those restrictions, have been done away : and under the Constitution, as it now stands, I will ask, what are the inconveniences felt by the Catholics ? Are they not as fully protected in their characters, their properties, and their li- berties, as any other description of his Majesty's subjects ? I call upon any friend of the Catholics to point out a single statute in our legislative code which, at this day, bears hard upon them, and i am persuaded, if any such statute does exist, it is only necessary to point it out in order to induce its repeal. I acknowledge, my Lords, that many ol the arguments formerly used against extending any indulgence to the Catholics, are no longer applicable. I am free, also, to confess, that the existence of a Pretender to the throne can no longer be urged as an argument against their claims ; and if I thought that tlie effect of conceding, the substance of this Petition would be to unite the mass of the popula- tion of Ireland, perhaps I might have been disposed not to oppose it so decidedly as I find myself under the necessity of doing. But when I see the Catho- lics, almost undisguisedly, endeavouring to become, not merely apart of the State, but the State itself, it is an object w hich I can never be induced to grant them. It is not merely a civil right, but political power in the most comprehensive signification of the term, which they seek to attam. I agree fully, my Lords, with the argument adduced by the illus- trious person nearmc (the Duke of Cumberland) that there is no instance of Catholics and Pro- testants dividing political power, without infinite mischief to the country. The unl»appy James II. wha ivas at once the patron and the dupe of such a pro- ject, affords us a strikino; proof of this observation, in a series of misfortunes, which terminated in the loss of his throne. We have seen^ from recent ex- perience 5S pericnce, tlie alarming consequences that liave al- ready risen from the rapid relaxation of the popery laws in Iieland, >vhich, instead of secnring a strict and orderly conduct in that community, very shortly was succeeded by an open rebellion. What, then, may be the consequence of abolishing all remaining restrictions, and admitting the Catholics to a full participation of political power ? One consequence of acceding lo the prayer of this Petition would be, that their clergy would acquire an authority, w^hich, under the peculiar tenets of their religion, and the facility it affords them of influencing the minds of their flocks, it is much to be feared they would con- vert to a dangerous use. I will put out of the question all evasion, mental reservation, and many other dangerous tenets charged upon tlie Catholics, and only ask your Lordsliips to consider of two such dangerous powers as those of excommunica- tion and auricular confession, and say, whether they will not open a door to all the dangers that may accrue to the National Church from the em-» ployment of such engines ? There is but too much reason, my Lords, to apprehend that the Catholic Clergy in Ireland have never relinquished the hope of becoming the hierarchy of the country. I have the authority of the late Lord Clare, that there continues to exist Catholic Consistorial Courts in every diocese in L^eland ; and I have that of Dr. Troy, the Catholic Bishop of Dublin, to prove, that a Cabinet of Cardinals actually sits at Rome, to superintend the ecclesiastical affairs of the Lish Catholic Church. Nay, more, my Lords, there is not a dignity in the Established Church that has not its connter-part in the Catholic. The ostensible, and, perhaps, the real object of those Noblemen and Gentlemen who signed this Petition is, I am ready to own, fiillv and fairly expressed. I am vrilling to <7ive them every credit for candour and sincerity: but is this the sole object of the great mass of tlie Cathoiics in L'eland ? Will they not be desirous of going 57 going a step further ? Will they not naturally look to the attainment of this measure as the means of re-exalting their fallen priesthood, and various other privileges, which cannot be granted to them without imminent danijer to the established Constitution in Church and State ? But even if nothing more was required tiian the objects limited in the Petition, I agree with the Noble Secretary of State, that it camtat be done without the certain sacrifice of the Act of Setdement. The admission of Catholics to corporations, we have the authority of Lord Cla- rendon to prove, caused the Rebellion of Ireland in J (54 J ; and what must be the consequence in the first instance of admitting Catholics to seats in this House, through the medium of popular election ? In this country we have frequently witnessed the scenes of riot attendant on such elections, from the attachment of parties to favourite individuals ; but "what must be the case in Ireland on such an occa- sion, where the force of numbers would be opposed to the influence of property, and religious propen- sities combined with popular fury r " My Lords, it seems to me a proposition mon- strous and shocking, to be called on to place the Catholics on a superior footing to so many other classes of his Majesty's subjects, the Protestant Dissenters ; and upon the condition of only a limited allegiance, to grant to those who refuse to admit the King's Supremacy, and withhold from those who do. I call upon your Lordships to preserve your Protestant King and Protestant Parliament, and to recollect that it was a Protestant Parliament who rescued this nation from the dangers of a Popish King. I conjure your Lordships to follow the example of your great Protestant Deliverer, Wil- liam III. ; and resolve to die in the last dyke of the Constitution, both of Church and State, rather than abandon one principle of either. There are two roads, my Lords, before us : one of them, that old, venerable, and well known way, traced out for 1 U3 58 us by the wisdom of our ancestors. In pursuing that we can encounter no dangers. Tlic other, a way untrodden and perilous, and leading to inno- vation, the consequences of whicli no liuman fore- sight can developc. I am not prepared, my Lords, to rush heedlessly into a path leading to sucii despe- rate results, and therefore I shall vote against the motion for referring this Petition to a Committee. Lord MULGRAVK. — " Feeling it my duty not to give a silent vote on this question, I shall tres- pass as shortly as possible on the patience of the House, in declaring my sentiments. On this occa-^ sion, my Lords, I must differ from both my Noble Friends who have spoke against the motion : be- cause from the best attention I have been able to give the subject, I cannot perceive those dangers w^hich they seem to apprehend to Church and State from admitting Catholics of property and educa- tion into a share of legislation ; neither can I agree with the Noble Secretary of State in disapproving of the gradual system of amelioration adopted towards the case of the Catholics : a more rapid mode of proceeding might have produced a revulsion, dan- gerous in its consequences. Whenever restrictions are to be taken off, it is the duty of those who pro- pose the removal, to take care it be done with as little risque of inconvenience as possible. With respect to the Petition on your table, my Lords, I do not hesitate to profess myself friendly to its ob- ject ; and I only lament that the time for intro- ducing it has not been more properly chosen. I apprehend the general sense of the country is not favourable to it; that it is not likely to succeed in the general approbation of either House of Parlia- ment. I fear the introduction of it at present will only tend to excite religious dissensions, that will tend ultimately to frustrate its great object. Those who have brought it forward at this time, could not but know it was without the least prospect of suc- cess, and, therefore, their conduct has tended to throw 59 throw the measure desired to a much greater dis- tance than I, who am a friend to it, could wish. I cannot, therefore, feel disposed to give it that sup- port, when thus urged forward precii)itately and in- temperately, that I otherwise should have done. My confidence in the professions of those Petition- ers is much shaken by tlicir precipitancy on this oc- casion, which will certainly teach me to observe well their measures and proceedings henceforward. Upon this ground it is that I am disposed to resist tlie Petition in the first instance. There is another ground, too, on which I am induced also to resist the Petition, namely, that it is not the claim of the mass of the people of Ireland, but that of a few interested individuals. Where, my Lords, are the other Petitions in favour of it ? There are none. li] my Lords, the Catholics are to be let into po- litical power, I see no reason why it should be re- stricted to the Catholics of Ireland alone, w^hose to- leration under the Constitution is far preferable to that of the English Catholic. For these reasons, though I profess myself friendly to the principles of the measure, I shall resist it for the present, al- though, when the time shall be safe, and the gene-, ral sentiment favourable, I shall have no objection to the removal of all restraints that may be no longer thought necessary. Lord HOLLAND.—^' My Lords, so deeply was my mind impressed with the importance of the sub- ject now under your Lordships' discussion, that, when I first entered the House this night, I was ex- tremely anxious to trouble your Lordships with my sentiments upon it. But when I heard the able and argumentative speech of the Noble Baron who opened the debate, I conceived it so wholly unne- cessary for me to trespass on your Lordships' time, as that Noble Baron, in the course of his admirable speech, seemed to me not only to have exhausted all the arguments that could be urged in favour of his motion, but to have anticipated and ^futed I 2 every 60 every argument that could be found to bear against it. But, notwithstanding this, my Lords, some ar- guments have been since oflered from that side of the House, and particularly by a Noble Secretary of State, so extraordmary, that not even the perspica- city of the Kohle Baron could liave foreseen, and therefore I shall beg leave to trouble your Lordsliips -with a few remarks on the subject before you, in answer to such arguments urged by my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State, who has been so little in the habit of agreeing with me on political subjects, that I trust our difference on this occasion will not, more than former differences, disturb our private sentiments of esteem for each other; and from the Noble Viscount (Lord Sidmoutu) whom I have lieard this night for the first time in this House, but with whom it has been as little my good fortune to agree in politics, as with my Noble Friend (the Secretary) ; and, indeed, from the strange deduc- tions the Noble Viscount has this night drawn from the occurrences that have passed since the Revolu- tion, I do not think it likely that I ever shall agree with him : but if the doctrines laid down by both the Noble Lords were to be sanctioned by this HousCj they v.ould indeed be pregnant with the most grievous calamities to Ireland, as the great mass of the people in that country would then have no prospect of ever being relieved from the griev- ances under which they labour. But if both the Noble Lords, and particqiarly the Noble Viscount, act in consistency v»'ith their own principles, if they allow themselves to be bound by their own argu- ments, they must vote for going into the Committee. When, I heard the Noble Viscount recapitulating that dreadful code of laws which barbarized the people, and disgraced the Statute Books in L eland; when 1 heard him complacently descanting upon that horrible and immoral system, and lamenting the concessions which have already been made to thq Catholics, I thought, at least, he could have no ob- <^ jectiou 61 jcctlon afTainst referring the Petition to a Committee, uere it only for the purpose of having those laws re- enacted, the repeal of which he appears so sincerely to deplore; but when Noble Lords speak with regret of the repeal of the Pa3nal Statutes against the Ca- tholics, will they seriously call the periods in which those statutes were enacted and enforced, periods of tranquillity? Have they contributed to banish divi- sion and discontent from the counti y ? — Was this the state of Ireland, as justified by history? On the contrary, my Lords, have we not seen in those laws the cause of perpetual dissensions, and the means by which every discontent was apt to become rebel- lion dangerous to the State ? The arguments that have been offered against this motion are reducible under two heads; those against the principle of re- moving the restrictions on Catholics, and those against the measure, not on its own account, but the time at wliich it is brought forward. But whatever may be the objections of the Noble Lords to the former, I camiot see the importance of their particular objec- tions against the present time, seeing they have avowed — that at any time, and always, their objec- tions to the principle must be insurmountable. The Noble Secretary has stated, that any man of plain understanding coming into the House, and hearino* the Petition read, and the arguments in favour of it, must imagine nothing less is desired than a repeal of the Bill of Ptights and the Act of Settlenunit, and to erect the Catholics into a complete ascendency in the Empire. The Noble Viscount said too, that the repeal of the Test Act is a minor object, com- pared with the claims of this Petition ; — but I ask, is it a fair inference to draw, that because it may be deemed prudent to place the Catholics, in point of eligil)ility for admission to power, on the same footing with Protestant Dissenters, thai there must be a con- sequent neccbsity for admittiniy the Protestant Dis- senters to some privileges they do not now enjoy r To do so, may or may not be a wise expedient. On thut 62 that point I shall not now argue, but it by no means follows as a necessary consequence of the Catholic claims! — And surely, niy Lords, it is a strange argu- ment, to say, that the Catholics must be still kept under severe grievances, lest, if they were relie- ved, some other class of persons, with whom the Catholics have nothing in common, should ask for something else. Those, therefore, who are inclined to vote against the motion, must do so, either on the ground that the laws, as they now exist, require no alteration — or that this is not the time for it. The Noble Secretary has argued, that all nations have acted on the principle of tests — but he has forgot, that in this very House, the principle has not been pushed to the extent for which he has argued ; for many persons have been allowed to sit in it who have not concurred in the religious doctrines of the Church Establishment. Those persons, indeed, may be liable to tests if they accept of offices, but they are not precluded from sitting and voting in Parlia- ment as Catholics are. The Noble Secretary has drawn an elaborate distinction between civil rights and political power ; but the whole of his inferences from the position may be answered by a single ques- tion — where could civil rights exist unaccompanied by political power? for the one must be nugatory with- out the other ; political power, being, in fact, the only security for civil rights. Here, then, his argu- ment, that toleration is already complete, must be obviously defective. Can the Noble Lord look at the situation of Ireland and not know that for the want of political power, to raise the great mass of the peo- ple from degradation ; tlrat for the ^\ ant of political power to render effectual those indulgences which the law has conceded, many of those indulgences are vain and uselss ? and 1 contend, that until they ob- tain a share of political power, the rest will be merely nominal. Much, my Lords, has been said by a Noble Viscount, respecting the great conces- sions made at diifercnt times to the Catholics; but will 63 will the Noble Viscount undertake to say, they are, at this moment, in possession of all the Irish Par- liament intended they should acquire. If they are not, then gross has been the deception held out to their hopes, in obtaining their acquiescence to the Union, that their wishes could only be reahzed by a Parliament in this country, and must always be frustrated in that of their own. Of late, my Lords, I have not been in the opportunity of ascertaining the internal state of Ireland ; but if it be such as stated by the Noble Viscount, is a grievous and wretched state indeed. Had the people nothing else to complain of, it was no small grievance that the Catholics should be excluded from all participa- tion in legislative power ; and all the eligibility to the offices and honours of the State — and if they are to be told that such exclusions are to be perpe- tual ; then, indeed, may they truly say, that the Le-" gislative Union with this country, was a base delu- sion, a rank imposition upon the people of Ireland ; and as to its effects, anything but an Union. What is the principal reason why the people of this country make the greatest sacrifices for the public service with cheerfulness, but because they loved that Con- stitution, in the blessiniis and advantag;es of which they all share ? But how, my Lords, can it be rea- sonably expected, that the Catholics of Ireland, de- prived of that share, can love the Constitution so well, or be so zealous to sacrifice every thing in its defence ? Is it not perfectly well understood, my Lords, that at the Union, they were taught to en- tertain the strongest reliance, that they in particu- lar would be benefited in their political rights by the measure? And if their claims are now resisted by some of those who fostered their sanguine hopes on this point, must they not be filled with indigna- tion? i\Iust they not ^^el the sensations common to the breasts of mankind under delusion and abuse of confidence? Or, are we to wonder at those discon- tents, and clamours which their enemies urge in ar- gument gnincnt against their claims ? The Catholics feef themselves degraded by disqualifications below tlie footing of other subjects; and it is not natural they should feel easy under such abasement. Not only precluded from legislative power, municipal office, and professional honours in the civil departments, but they labour under another grievance, equally galling to honest and honourable feelings, in their ciisqualifjcations to hold chief commands in the ar- my or navy. This consideration has forced number- less brave and honourable men, of high talents, into the armies of other powers, and sometimes of your enemies. j\Tany instances of this I have had op- portunities of witnessing with my own eyes. — And can it be doubted that this is a hardship on the Catholic as well as considerable loss to the State? For what can be more galling to the one or more injurious to the other, than that men attached to the military profession, and debarred by their reli- gious tenets from rising to rank in their own coun- try, should be forced to devote their services in the armies and navies of other nations, where their reli- gious tenets form no impediment ; and eventually to employ their skill, and draw their swords against their country, while they deplore the narrow and fa- tal policy which has condemned them to a duty re- pugnaHt to their feelings, and natural affections? But surely, my Lords, it is a most severe grievance that Cathohcs are deemed incapable of rank and distinction, in a profession, when they are deemed so valuable as in military life. But this is not all; for even as comu^on soldiers, the Catholics w^ho crowd the ranks of the regiments in Ireland, as the law of that country now stands, are allowed the full exer- cise of their religion. But move them across the Channel and it is no longer so ; for in this country a positive statute compels them to repair to a house of worship, with v. hose forms they are wholly unac- quainted, and debars them, under pain of the severest puniahmenc, from professing, or attending the worship cs of that relio;ion in which they have been educated : and even officers of the same religion, the moment they set foot on English ground, become not only liable to forfeiture of their commissions, but to enor- mous fines at law, if they presume to attend the wor- ship of their own church. Were it only to preserve consistency in the laws such gross contradiction should be corrected. These, surely, my Lords, are grievances that weigh oppressively on every rank and class of the Catholics in Ireland; andean it be said, that a Petition, the object of which is, to remove them, is fit to be declared unworthy of con- sideration? Is it not a little curious, my Lords, to observe the contrariety of objections urged against this measure ? One Noble Lord says, the great body of the Catholics don't complain at all — another No- ble Lord says, they complain too much ; the infer- ence from which is, that it would be in vain to at- tempt the conciliation of people wbo it is impossible to please. In corroboration to this inference, the authority of the Irish Revolutionists, Arthur O Con- 720 r and Doctor M'Nevin, is adduced to shew, that Catholic emancipation would not please the United Irishmen. But is the authority of those perons con- clusive with your Lordships in every other part of Irish affairs? Do your Lordships believe, that, granting the wishes of the people of Ireland would not take out of the hands of those who want to se- parate the two countries, those instruments for mis- leading the people which they have used with suc- cess ? It was not until the multitude were persuaded that Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Re- form could never be attained by legal means, that many, at last, in despair, plun^jed from disappointment into treason and rebellion. It is said, my Lords, that the present system of laws, in- cluding the restrictions and disqualitications of the Catholics form one of the principal outworks of the Constitution, and ought to be maintained. But, my Lords, I ask, is not Ireland itself an outwork to this country? an outwork too^ which, if taken, would K leave G6 leave this country bare, and expose her to every dan- ger. Is it not then pccuHarly tor the defence of this country to strengthen this outwork, by concihatini^ the people who occupy it. The Noble Viscount har. alluded to the Revolution of 16\S8, and the conduct of Ja]\ies IL and said much of the share which the preservation of the Church and the hatred of the Catholic Religion had in promoting that glorious Revolution. But was it on account of the religion James professed that tlie Revolution was effected? — or, had his various acts of despotism, no share in producing that event? Wamc principle it is, my Lords, that the Government of this country cannot be executed by Catholics, according to the law, which has settled that the powers of the Government are to be vested only in a Protestant Kin^ and Protestant Establishment of both Church and"'Stale. With respect to the Roman Catholics of this country, my Lords, I have had long intimacies with many most respectable families of that persuasion ; and from what I know of them, M I should 82 I should be chearfully disposed to extend to tlici/i every degree of toleration consistent with the secu- rity of a Protestant succession. Some years ago it was in contemplation, in 1778, to make i;orne con- cessions to the Catholics of England, and in order thereto an oatii was proposed to them, by way of test, binding their allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors : but the words being Pro- testantSy were objected to l>y some of their clergy, and it seemed iiard uj:)on Catholics to bind them- selves against a Catholic King, if such should ever succeed to the Throne. However, the Catholics themselves, notwithstanding the objections of their clergy, observed that the oath as it stood, witii- out the words which all Protestants were bound to, was a mere mockery, and they proposed to take the oath in its full and usual form as they would have taken on the first instance, but for the influence of their clergy, which unfortunately prevailed at the moment, and they themselves in many instances complained of the tyrannical cruelty that obliged them to refuse it. Some alterations were even proposed to them, but they said they would not abandon an iota of the oath to whicli they had pledged themselves ; and their Apostolical Vicar, to avoid creating schisms amongst his flock, agreed to it. But Dr. Hussey, whom I have before men- tioned, not only preached, but wrote a pamphlet in Ireland, against the oath, in which he argued, that it would be monstrous to call upon Catholics to swear that they would not be faithful to a. British Sovereign, if that Sovereign should happen to be of the same faith with themselves, and in conse- quence of this, the Irish Catholics refused the oath. I could, my Lords, state many other instances to shew, that a material difference exists between the political sentiments of the English Catholics, and those of Ireland, although their religious faith be one and the same, and liable to the same influence from the Pope of Rome, which, if we consider the, notorious 83 notorious influence now maintained over that person by the French Government, must be an influence highly dangerous to these countries. My Lords, the reasons why tlie great majority of Irish population is at this day Catholic, is owing, in my mind, to a defect in the measures which have eftcciually tended to promote the Reformation in this country. The service of the Established Church being always celebrated in English, and its sermons preached in that language, consequently, in much the greater part of that country, when until of late years Irish was the language universally spoken amongst the lower orders, neither that service nor those ser- mons could be understood. There was, however, a striking example of the progress of the Reformation in Wales, where scarcely a Catholic is now to be found. There the natives, not understanding English, the Bible and Common Prayer were translated into W^elch for their use, and sermons preached to them by their clergy in that language ; the consequence of which was, the whole country became speedily Protestant. But in Ireland the common people scarcely understood a word of English, but from the nature of their education were \\e\\ acquainted with Latin, in which the ser- vice of their Church is always celebrated. Perhaps if some such measure had been adopted toward Ire- land, the Bible translated into that language, and sermons preached to them in it, many tliousands would have long since been converted to Protestant- ism, who have reinained Catholics. It is my earnest M-ish, my Lord6, to conciliate, as far as possible, the community of Catholics, and to convert as many of them as possible to the United Churcli : but tlie state of that Church, I am sorry to say, is not such in Ireland as to promise any sane de- luded under the ternn of 6'o?/a7itf/i(9w to transfer the political power of the State into the hands of Ca- tholics, or to increase the power of that Hierarchy, already too great, and from which the Catholics should release themselves : But until they are put into a different situation, until they cease to be slaves to that body who made them so, you cannot think them worthy to participate fully with you the privi- leges they seek. ' The i.ORD CHANCELLOR, observing the lateness of the hour, (two o'clock) declared that he thought it would be more convenient to their Lord- ships to adjourn than to continue a debate which was likely to engage their attention several hours longer. Lord HAWKESBURY had no objection to the adjournment, provided the question was j)at specili- cally as to the time of resuming the debate. If it was put in general and indehnite terms, it should have his decided negative. Earl DARNLEY proposed that their Lordships should adjourn the Question to Monday next. A Division was then called for, but their Lord- ships did not divide. On the doors being opened for the re-admission of Strangers, The Earl of LOIERICK w.as on his legs speak- ing against the motion, which he opposed at con- siderable length, and upon the same general grounds of other Noble Lords, who argued that the conces- sions claimed by the Catholics were repugnant to the principles of the Constitution as established at the Revolution, and would be subversive of the Pro- testant establishment in Ireland, and consequently lead to a separation of the two countries. But whatever might be proper at other times, and under other circumstances, in the opinions of other Noble Lords, he had vainly hoped that on the inexpe- diency 87 (liency of bringing the measure forward at this time, there could be but one sentiment entertained. A\'itli respect the late rebcUion in Ireland, it was cer- tainly true that many of the principal persons con- cerned in that business were not Catholics. Lord Kdward Fitzserald was no C'atholic, Mr. Emmet and Mr. Tone were Protestants, and General Ar- tiiur O'Connor himself was a deacon, sworn in tlie })rcsence'of the Noble Earl's father ; but those circum- stances were not suHicient to establish with him tiie innocent intentions of the adherents of the llomish faith. Earl CARYSFORT, as soon ashis Lordship con- cluded, pointed out to their Lordships the great im- propriety of either continuing the debate to a most extraordinary late liour, or else coming to a division without hearing the sentiments of many Noble Lords who wished to deliver their opinion on the subject. In this he was supported by Lord Grenville, the Marquis of Buckingham, and Earl Darnley. Lord ^lULGRAVE was against the adjournment past this morning. The Earl of DERBY thought IMonday would be most convenient to many Noble Lords who had other duties to attend to. Lord IIAWKESBURY then agreed to the pro ^ position. The question was then put and carried nem. dhi. Adjourned to Monday. Monday, May 13. The order of the day being read for resuming the debate adjourned from Friday last, The EARL of SUFFOLK began.—^^ I rise, my Lords, to state the sentiments which occur to me, on the best consideration I have been able to give this important question; and in supj)ort of the vote which I this night mean to give. iMy Lords, if I rigluly understand ihc Petition on your table, it goes to 88 to the claim of measures which become necessary to the reh'ef of a great body of his Majesty's Catholic subjects in Ireland, from certain restrictions and disabilities under which they still labour on account of their religion. And, my Lords, I consider that claim not as of a boon, but as of a rio;ht which every British subject in this united kingdom should enjoy as his birthright, who is not dis-entitled thereto by any thing exceptionable in his principles, his charac- ter or his loyalty ! If I considered it as a boon I should still say to your Lordships — grant it to tlhem — • liberally and generously now, ratlier than at a future period, when the justice of the claim and the poli- cy of acceding to it, will force itself upon your Lordships' wisdom; and therefore, let it rather be granted now, and with the appearance of liberal concession, than at another period, when it will have that of being extorted from you. Much, my Lords, has been said with respect to the expediency or in- expediency of the time for conceding those claims. In my opinion, my Lords, this is the best possible time. We are, this moment, and for some time past, have been menaced on all sides by a vigilant, daring, implacable, and adventurous enemy. His fleets, we know, are this moment at sea, with the design of some desperate and hostile attack against the British dominions — and we knOw not the mo- ment when, or the place where, he may effect a land- ing on some of our coasts ; or, whether in L'eland or the West-Lidies. At such a moment, my Lords, four milhon of his Majesty's Ctitholic subjects are suppliants at your Bar, for a full participation in those constitutional rights, in whichit is our glory ana their anxious desire to participate,, and which they will then be thus forcibly attached to defend and join in the common cause for our common safety. Is it, or is it not, then, wise to secure their attach- ments, to unite their hearts and hands with our own against the common foe, and to maintain inviolable our common counti-}/ ? It has been said, by rxany Noble 89 Noble Lords, who have spoken on the other side of this question, that enough has been ah'eady gi antcd to the Cathohcs, that you cannot grant more with safety to the Constitution; and that you ought to ihake your stand liere. 1 do not agree with those Noble Lords, for, in my mind, if you do not grant to the full extent, you do nothing, to secure the af- fections, and the cordial attachment of the Catholics. The whole course of your measures toward the Ca- tholics, for a series of years, has been only pre- ludes to their final and complete Emancipation. If it is not to be granted now, you disappoint the anxiety and the hopes of the Catholic mind. You have taught them to expect it by the whole course of your policy, and by your successive relaxations of the pcenal code, in their favour. They have looked up with earnest expectation to the event — they have polished their education, they have enlarged their understandings : and if it is now withheld, he knows little of the human mind that cannot anticipate the most deprecable consequences from the refusal. jMy Lords, I now proceed to answer some argu- ments which fell from the Noble Secretary of State in the course of last night's discussion. My Noble Friend (Lord Grenvi'lle) who introduced this subject, very properly, in my mind, deprecated every species of warmth and intemperance, on discussing this question, and a speech more moderate, more cool and dispassionate than liis own, I never heard within these walls. But the Noble Secretary of State commenced his speech with a degree of heat and vehemence, which from him I should not have expected, and such as was but ill calculated to pro- cure attention, or give weight to his reasoning. But ;I appeal to the House, if, in the course of his speech, he stated any one argument which the Noble Baron did not anticipate and refute. A speech so fraught with justice, with truth, with sound argu- ment, as that of the Noble Baron, must, I think, have carried conviction to the minds of your Lord- N ship.^, 90 chips, and would, I should hope, induce you to ar- cede to his proposition, ' Diagna est Veritas et prc- valebit.'' The Nohle Secretary of State accused the Noble Baron vvilh using threats to intimidate this House into compliance with the measure ; but tlie Noble Baron so immediately contradicted the asser- tion, as to make it unnecessai'y for me to say anv thing on that head. My Lord, the Noble Secretary has said, that there was no pledge in terms held out to the Roman Catliolics, at the time of the Union, that this mea- sure should pass. My Lords, I beg to know, then, M'hen were those terms held out? for certainly there was a strong expectation universally entertained upon tlie subject, which must have had strong grounds some where ; and if it was not for the implicit ac- quiescence of the Irish Catholics, upon the ground of such an understanding, you could not have car- ried the Union. And, I ask, if this was not the measure held out to secure the acquiescence of the Catholics to that Union ? What other boon has been granted to the people of Leland since the LTnion? None ! that I know of, but additional taxes, and sending abroad a great part of the army that was for their defence. A Noble Lord, whom J do not now see in his place, has said the mea- sure could never be granted consistently with the safety of the Constitution; and other Noble Lords thought that some future period would be more ap- plicable. I\fy Lords, I think the properest time now, and that there should be no longer delay, because, if you refuse the measure now, what is to be said of the future strength to your navies and armies — more than a third of which are manned by Irishmen — much the greater part of whom are Ca- tholics : upon this ground then, 1 am extremely sorry to hear such arguments oftered by his Majesty's Minister, or those who support him, as that this measure is never to be granted : and the point on which I felt most sorrow at his declaration, was, wher( 91 where he said he had no confidence in the principles or professions of the Irish Cathohcs ; for it must go : to depress all ranks and classes of that people in the sister country, by holdin\ct of Parlia- ment, but not an Union of interests or attacii- nients between the countries. I ask pardon for trespassing so long on the time and attention of the House. But I cannot sit down without adverting again to the speech of a Noble and learned Lord who has thought proper to make assertions so extra- ordinary that 1 must again call upon him to explain to this House, the grounds of those imputations he ha> thrown on the Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland. The Noble Lord has said — that their influence upon their flocks has been the sole cause of turbulence and insurrection in that country; that they tyran- nize over those flocks, and that their community are anxiously desirous for their abolition ; from whence the Noble Lord has derived his authority, I am wholly at a loss to account, but T do trust there is no Noble Lord in this House, beside himself, who knows any thing of Ireland, that will believe one word of those imputations. If what the Noble Lord says, were true, then, indeed, would the Bri- tish Empire be in danger, and therefore, I do again call upon the Noble I.ord to state, specifically, upon .what he founds his assertions. The Noble Lord has said. HQ said too, lliat no child of a Protestant can get em- ployment even in the menial servitude of a Protes- tant family, and that no Protestant can hnd a safe re- sidence in the greater part of that country, except in a garrison town. I call upon the Noble Lord to retract an assertion so unfounded ; and I call upon every Noble Lord in this House, from that king- dom, to rise in his place and vindicate from the as- persions of the Noble Lord his calunmiated and in- sulted country. Lord REDESDALE.— The Noble Lord who just sat down has called on me in so pointed a manner, that I trust I nray be allowed the indul- gence of a few words in answer; and notwithstand- in£j the warmth in which the Noble Lord has com- mented upon what I have said on a former night, I am not to be intimidated from declaring my senti- ments on this or any other subject. 1 did not say, as the Noble Lord has stated, that no Protestant servant could obtain employment in Ireland ; but I do say, it is with the utmost difficulty that such a servant can obtain employment — ( No ! No ! from the opposite side of the House.) — I say, my Lords, it happens to me, from my official knowledge in the superintendance of several public charitable institu- tions in Dublin, that the children of poor Protest- ants educated under those charities, cannot be ap- prenticed as servants to Protestant families, because Catholic servants will not live in the same families witli tlicm, and they are therefore, of necessity, bound ap- prentices to handicraft trades, on account of this resistance by Popish servants, who combine against them. My Lords, I did say, that the Roman Ca- tholic Hierarchy ill L'eland was the cause of all the discontents that have arisen amongst their commu- nity, and agitated that country ; and I said it, be- cause the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is in direct and open rebellion against the law of the country, which forbids to any sect the assumption of episco- pal or other high ecclesiastical dignities, except the esta- 113 Established Church. Now the Roman Catholic Hierarchy deny and resist the authority of the Es- tablished Church ; they refuse to acknowledge the King as head of the Church; they are nominated to their authority by the Pope, and thus they presume to supersede the authority of the Bishops, legally established in all their ecclesiastical functions, al- though they can have no legal right to such autho- rity ; and therefore it was that I did assert, on a for- mer day, it was impossible while that Hierarchy was allowed to exist, for any peace to be maintained in the country; for I contended, that having the rank in ecclesiastical superiority, they would never be content until they obtained the revenues, and all the other powers and privileges attached to it in the Established Church. The Noble Lord, notwith- standing his warmth, shall not deter me from stat- ins; that which I know to be fact. The Noble Lord has certainly mistated me, when he says I asserted that no Protestant could be secure in any part of Ireland but in a garrison town. I said, There are many parts of Ireland where a Protestant day- labourer cannot exist ; but I did not say any thing of garrison towns. Now the fact I assert, is occa- sioned by the apprehensions and fears which Pro- testants in the humbler classes of life entertain of being maimed or otherwise injured by the peasantry of the country who are all Catholics ; and to such a degree do those apprehensions operate even upon my own servants, being Protestants, that they dare not reside in the interior of the country." The Earl of ORMOND.— My Lords, I trust I shall not be contradicted by any man who really knows any thing of Ireland, when I say the Noble and Learned Lord has stated that which is not a fact, at least in the opinion of any man but himself; and therefore I cannot sit silent "^and hear the coun- try to wliich I have the honour to belong, so foully traduced, without rising in njy place, to contradict such unfounded aspersions upon the national cha- Q racier 114 racter of Ireland. The Noble Lord has asserted, that Protestant servants dare not live in the same families with Catholic servants; and that the Ca- tholic servants, from their hatred to those of the Protestant rehgion, combine against them. My Lords, I know not what may be the state of the Noble Lords' household, I never was in his house, 1 never wish it, and I never shall be in it ; but, my Lords, I do know that in my own house, in the houses of all the Protestant gentlemen around it, intermixed and surrounded by Catholics, and in one of the most Catholic counties in Ireland (Kil- kenny) Catholic and Protestant servants live to- gether like brothers. The Noble Lord has stated, that in Dublin a Protestant servant cannot get employment in a Protestant family, on account of the combination formed against him by Catholic servants. In all my intercourse in Dublin, du- ring a very long residence there, much longer in- deed than that of the Noble Lord, I never once heard any such thing. The only complaint I ever recollect to have heard on this point was, that Pro- testant servants enough could not be had to supply Protestant families who had a predilection for such servants that class of the people in Ireland ; being by much the greater part Catholic. From the tenor of the speech spoken by that Noble and Learned Lord on a former night, and the weight with which every statement respecting the country where he presides in a situation so eminent, must fall under the sanction of his grave authority, 1 own I did expect this motion would have met, this night, the most virulent opposition from the Right Reverend Bench opposite to me. But, unlike the Noble Lord, nothing has fallen from that quarter but the most calm, decorous, and moderate argu- ments so truly characteristic of the tolerant spirit and charitable principles of that Established Reli- gion over which they so worthily preside. But from the Noble Lord, instead of a most legal, liberal, en- lightened 115 lightened, and argumentative speech, becoming the gravity of his cliaracter, what have we heard? A collection of old women's stories, which I do verily believe not even the most prejudiced - Protestant in Ireland this day would accredit. I have been in Ireland the greater pait of my life. I have repeatedly travelled through, and had intercourse with Protestant gentlemen from every quarter of it, and never, in the course of my life, did I hear such statements as those made by the Noble Lord ; and not one of which will, I am sure, be avouched by any independent man in this House. I hope when the Noble and Learned Lord re- turns to that Bench, on which he presides over the public justice of Ireland, he will divest himself of that violent antipathy towards one sect of the people, and that obvious partiality for another, which he has 'SO conspicuously evinced in this House. My Lords, I most cheerfully support the motion before you, convinced as I am of its sound policy, its wisdom, and its justice." Lord BORRINGDON.— My Lords, when a measure somewhat similar to that now proposed, was offered for adoption in this House on a former occasion, the Noble Baron who has brought forward this motion, did me the honour of very warmly supporting my motion on that occasion for the pre- vious question. He thought then as I did, that other times more proper for the discussion of such a measure might arrive, and when it could be granted without material objection. And if this was at that time a sufficient reason with him for postponing the measure, he ought certainly to allow others, on this occasion, to hold the like opinion, and to think that other times may come, and, perhaps, be not very re* mote, when the grant of such a measure would be much less objectionable than the present moment. It is my wislf, my Lords, to expand the pruiciples of toleration, as far as any man, with security to the State ; and I think the Church no more in danger Q 2 . from 116 from the measure now proposed, than from any other Bill in favour of Catholic relaxations that has passed this House. There are, however, strong objections in tlie minds of many against this mea- sure, to which certainly much of differential consi- deration is due; and, until those objections are satis- lied, I own I think it would not be wise or pohtic to go the lengths which the Petition on your table pro- poses. My Lords, it has been strongly stated by a Noble and Learned Lord, that a Catholic Hierarchy exists in L'eland, contrary to law ; and that they hold their ecclesiastical powers under a foreign au- thority. But why do they call upon us to surrendcF our doubts, our cautions, and our jealousies, if they are not prepared to meet us by some concessions on their parts, and remove those obstacles which princi- pally stand in the way of their objects. When they call upon us to make further concessions, it seems, they too have something to concede; and how can they expect we shall concede every thing, unless they too will agree to give up those points on which our objections and apprehensions chiefly rest. I must say, that the persons who have urged forward this business, have, in many instances, exceedingly mis- conducted themselves, not only in pushing it onward at a time when they were aware they could have no hope of success, but in not endeavouring to consult the objections of those who were avowedly opposed to then' purpose, in their present view of the subject, and how far those objections could be removed, be- fore the question came to a public discussion. If the Catholics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Hierarchy by law established, how can they ex- pect we shall recognize that of an Hierarchy esta- blished within the reahn by foreign authority, and di- rectly contrary to law? Perhaps, in some future ne- gociation, they would consent to allow that the King should nominate their bishops, properly recommend- ed by their own parochial clergy. If they would consent to this, as it would be, in soipe sort, a com- pliance 117 pliance with that principle of our Constitution which acknowledges the King to he head of the Church, I have little douht that it would remove so much anx- iety on this ground from the minds of those who now oppose the measure, as very much to smooth the way for ultimate success to their Petition. I have read a book written hy a Roman CathoHc, which says, ^' The machinery employed is not very material if the ob- " ject is obtained ; and as to the time, it will he belter left to the wisdom of the legislature than urge it *' forward against the sentiments of the country when there is no hope of success." My Lords, if such sentiments pervade the minds of Irishmen and Ca- tholics, they cannot but meet the approbation of Englishmen ahd Protestants. And 1 trust the time is not far distant when such a sentiment will have its >veight with the general uiind ; at present, ho\' ever, the bias of general opinion is against this measure, and that consideration must rule the vote I mean this night to give. But, if the Catholics were pre- pared to make the concession to which I have allu- ded, much, I am confident, would be cheerfully ce- ded of that which I thmk must be now withheld ; for the defect is on their side. And I am convinced, that, on any future opportunity when this subject may again be brought forward for discussion, the deter- mination of the Catholics upon this most important point, will ultimately decide the pubhc mind, for or against their wishes. For the present, therefore, I shall vote against the Committee; and I am glad that, in the sentiments I have expressed, I have been pre- ceded by three out of the four of his Majesty's j\Ii- nisters in this House. I do think that the Cathohcs themselves, who have urged forward this measure, feel they had no rational hope of carrying it now. They know they have friends on both sides of this House, and that those who divide this night with the Noble Baron who brought forward this motion, will not be the whole strength of the support in their fa- vour at a proper opportunity, and when they shall have, 118 liave, on their own parts, removed the principal o[)stacle 10 the attainment of their hopes and wishes. " The Archbishop of CANTERBURY.—" My Lords, after the very able manner in which this ques- tion has been discussed and many of the objections I have to the prayer of this Petition been anticipated by Noble Lords on both sides of the House, 1 shall not dwell long upon the subject on which, however, I feel it necessary to express some share of my senti- ments. My Lords, it seems to me, that before your Lordships can agree to go into the Committee on that Petition, it will be material for you to consider whether the prayer of that Petition is such as your Lordships can with prudence and safety admit. To my judgment, it is founded upon a series of conces- sions made to the Catholics, successively, from the 18th of his present Majesty until the 33d, (here the Right Reverend Prelate recapitulated the several Acts of the Irish Parliament, and the concessions made by each from the rigour of the Popery Laus.) In their Petition which preceded the last act, my Lords, they stated that it would remove all that re- mained to be removed of the restrictions of which they complained, because it would effectually relieve them from every disqualification for the full enjoy- ment of their civil rights in common with their Pro- testant fellow-subjects. And well might it remove, my Lords, all of which they had to complain, as it left no other impediment to what they now claim, but those tests to which every Protestant subject of his Majesty is bound. Cut after so long a series of concessions terminated by an act which they them- selves state to be the ultimate object of their wishes; after this long list of statutes, this continued suc- cession of boons in their favour, they now come for- ward with a Petition, in which they claim equal par- ticipation in all the privileges of the Constitution, upon equal terms with all his Majesty's Protestant subjects. My Lords, if I were to consult plain sense, 119 sense, I should think they iiad that participation al- ready, in every thing, at least, upon which their real happiness can depend ; in the free exercise of their rehgion, the full protection of their persons and property, and the right of elective franchise, and every other, in common with all his Majesty's sub- jects-; but they now tell us, all this is not sufficient, and the amelioration they now seek is admission to all the places of power and emolument in the State, and to seats in this and in the other House of Parliament. To this claim, my Lords, I cannot accede. It is a claim that strikes at the very root of our Constitu- tion. I can never consent to a measure by which Catliolics shall pass laws for Protestants. I can never consent to yield to Catholics the power of commanding the armies and navies of this country under a Protestant King. Such a measure, my Lords, appears to me to infract our Act of Set- tlemcnt. And I am utterly at a loss to con- ceive how you can adopt it. The Noble Lord who had presented this Petition, has supported it with all the force of those splendid talents he possesses (and which must in every measure which has the advantage of his support, make a deep im- pression upon this House) has attempted to connect the objects of this Petition with the principles of toleration, which form the leading characteristic of the Established Church. I am, my Lords, as much a friend as any man to the genuine spirit of reli- gious toleration ; but I cannot agree to a principle of toleration that has a direct tendency to subvert our Ecclesiastical Establishments ; and such I con- ceive the proposed measure to be. Toleration is a principle which grows out of our security; but when I consider the dangers by which we are now surrounded, 1 cannot consent to relax any more of those precau- tions upon which our security depends. But let this measure succeed, and you annul all those princi- ples upon which, it appears from the brightest pages of your history, depends your security for a Pro- • • testant no testant establishment in Church and State.. With these considerations strongly operating on uiy mind, iny J.ords, I cannot agree to the measure, and therefore 1 give my vote against going into the Com- mittee." Earl of ALBEMARLE.— My Lords, it is not my purpose to go any great length into argument upon the question before you. I rise principally with a view to oti'er some observations in answer to a Noble and Learned Lord who holds a high situa- tion in Ireland, and whose speech in tiiis debate, I own, creates in my mind no small share of astonish- ment. It has been well observed by other Noble Lords, that whatever conies from his elevated au- thority on a subject wherein it ought to be pre- sumed, at least, he is well informed, must have much weight in this House. Looking to his grave character, and that liberality of sentiment which I expected would have raised his mind far above the vulgar prejudices and idle tales that have tilled narrow minds upon this topic, I hoped from him, that whatever might be his sentiments upon the motion before you, tiiey would at least have been delivered with that calmness, moderation, and sound argument, that one would expect to characterise the expanded mind, extensive knowledge, just discern- ment, and strict impartiality befitting his high ju- dicial situation, in a country where he forms so im- portant a member of the Government, and presides over the administration of justice. But, my Lords, liow^ great was my astonishment to find the Noble Lord, not only opposing the motion with a degree of heat and acrimony little becoming his gravity, but conjuring up the most abominable arguments to support his . opposition. Where the Noble ancj Learned Lord has found his authority for such ar- guments, and so totally opposite to those senti- .ments by which he has heretofore been actuated, I am. at a loss to account. LTpon a former occa- sion that Noble Lord manifested the most liberal zeal 121 Keal in llivour of the Catholics of this country, and used sucli exertions to obtain a relaxation of the penal laws, in their favour, as to procure for him- self the warmest thanks of those whose cause he has espoused. But such seems the strange bias, I will not call it the prejudice, of his mind against the Ca- tholics of another country, that, in order to mark still stronger his dispraise towards those of Ireland, he is lavish in his encomiums upon those of England, and tells us, that the only distinctive characteristics be- tween the Protestants and Catholics of his acquain- tance or neighbourhood in this country, was, that the latter were always the most exemplary, and best conducted men in the parish where they lived. But what is the Noble and Learned Lord's chief accusation against the Catholics of Lxland ? Why, that they have Bishops, by whose guidance their conduct is influenced ; and that those Bishops have gone the length of calling the Right Reverend Prelate of Ar- magh, plain Dr. Stuart. But thougli the Noble and Learned Lord arraigns with so much stress the con- tumacy of this circumstance, I hardly think the Rio;ht Reverend Prelate himself would lav so much stress u[)on it, or consider it as any infraction of his archiepiscopal rank or diocesan authority. The Noble and Learned Lord has said that no Pro- testant dares appear in certain parts of Ireland. This I am afraid was too much the case in some parts of that country during the furor of the late rebellion. I have heard much the same thin^j; stated l>y another Gentleman; but he said it was no mat- ter of what religion a man was, if he was but known to the rebels to be a loval man : for that was the criterion upon which their fury was directed, against men of all sects. This, however, is no argument against the Catholics as such, but merely a proof of the barbarism of the lower orders, which I lament, and only blame the Government which has presided in the country, not having taken more pains to edu- cate and civilize them. The Noble Lord next goes to R domestic 1^2 domestic affairs; and be com plains of religiousantipa- thies borne by CathoHc to Protestant servants. Some remedy we arc told is necessary; but wbat does tbc Noble Lord propose ? Not to re-enact the penal laws ; not to accede to the petition ; bnt to abo- lish the Catholic Hierarchy ! and this is the re- medy which the Noble and Learned Lord supposes would strike at the root of the evil. I confess, my Lords, the expedient docs not carry the same weight in my estimation. But those things, which to tlie minds of other men appear insurmountable difficulties, to the enlightened understanding, and profound discernment of the Noble Lord, are no difficulties at all. Three hundred years have elapsed since the Reformation, which, aided by all the ri- gours of the penal code, has yet been so unsuccessful in L'eland, that still above three-fourths of the po- pulation continues Catholic. The Irish Papists, it seems, according to the Noble Lord, do not under- stand English; but, from the nature of their educa- tion, they are better acquainted with Latin; there- fore, says the Noble Lord, you have nothing to do but translate the Bible and Church Liturgy into Irish, and preach the reformed religion in that language, as has been done in Wales, and you at once convert the whole country into Protestants. Here again, I own, that I much doubt the success of the Noble Lord's project; for, though you might find an Irish congregation to understand, I fancy you would find it rather difficult to find Protestant clergymen to preach or pray in that tongue. But it is said, if you grant this measure to the Catholics, you \vill have the Presby- terians and all the different sects of Dissenters claim- ing similar indulgence. My Lords, if it be just and politic to grant the claims of the Catholics, I can't see why you- should refuse them, because others may claim something else afterwards. If the Catholics are quiet, it is said, Give them nothing, they don't ask for any thing; and if they do ask, it is said. Give them nothing, for they are turbulent. It is always too 123 I too soon or too late to hearken to their Petitions. The periods of peace or war are equally un propitious to their hopes Some Noble Lords emphatically re- sist this Petition because it is brought forward at this time; who tell us, in the same breath, that they I think it proper at no time, and will resist it at any time. But, my Lords, I own I am utterly at a loss for arguments to meet such contradictory objections as these. But then comes the grand objection of all ; — Not satisfied with the loyal conduct and peaceful demeanour of the Catholic body in Ireland, you still question their sincerity. You propose to them test after test, and oath after oath, to prove their loyalty and attachment to the State; and after they have taken those tests, and given the most solemn assur- ances you could demand, it is then said, they are not to be believed upon their oaths, as it is a fundamen- tal article of their religion, that no faitli is to be kept with Heretics ; and that the Pope may absolve them from allegiance to a Protestant King. Now, my Lords, if this were really the case, how can we account for the reluctance of the Catholics to take the only oath that stands between them and all they wish ? Is it fair to admit such a charge against them from their eneinies, which they have repeatedly, and in the most solemn manner disavowed and abjured ? But, my Lords, I will refer to better authority than the assertions of their enemies ; namely, to the au- thority of the most eminent Catholic Universities in Europe, for their opinions upon those points, ob- tained at the special instance of a Right Flonourable Gentleman at the head of his Majesty's councils in the year 1789. I speak of the Universities of the Sor- bonne, Louvain, Doway, Alcala, Valladolid, and Sa- lamanca; all of whom solemnly deny such doctrines, and complain of nothing more bitterly than the calumnies of their opponents upon this head. iMy Lords, the question propounded for the ansv;ers of Pt 2 those 124 those several Universities, were three, which I shall read to your Lordships: — Queries. Has the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individuals of the Church of Rome, any civil or political authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre- eminence whatsoever, within the realm of Kng- land? " Can the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individuals of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatso- ever? ^ Is there any principle in the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with Heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions of a public or private nature ? " My Lords, these several queries have been ans- wered by those several Universities at considerable length, and decidedly in the negative. The Faculty of Divinity at Louvain answer, " that they are struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth *^ century, be proposed to any learned body, by in- ^* habitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives" The first and second queries they answer unanimously in the nega- tive; and , they do not feel it incumbent on them to enter upon the proofs of the opinions which they hold, supported by the Holy Scriptures and the most eminent writers of their religion, ancient and Diodern, against the doctrines of Bella rmine, Du Perron, and many others, which they deeply lament, were favourably heard by the court of Rome in the dark ages, and even found its way into the councils of Kings, to the production of infinite detriment to the Church and Republic of Christianity, and the deluging deluging of Europe with blood ; they totally and ut- terly deny that any such power whatever exists in the Catholic Churcii, or its members, individually or collectively, Pope, Cardinal, Council, or General As- sembly, to deprive any sovercigu power of* its tem- poral right, possession, government, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, or subject it to any restraints or mo- difications; and that this oj)inion they hold, as founded in the doctrine of trutii, of the Apostles, and of the Church, delivered down from the lathers and Prelates ; and though defaced and obscured by the lilth heaped upon it in the middle ages, yet not obliterated. They state that this opinion is not pe- culiar to themselves, but that there is no society or learned body, nor any one learned man in the whole Catholic world, who is not ready to subscri^^e to it with both hands : and with respect to the third point, the faculty, after professing equal astonish- ment that such a question should be propounded, do most positively and unequivocally answer, That there is not, and that there never has been, amongst the Catholics, or in the doctrines of the Church of Rome, any law, principle, or tenet which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith with Heretics^ or others of a different persuasion from themselves in matters of religion, either in public or private concerns; and they quote the au- thority of an illustrious member of their faculty two centuries ago, that such a doctrine is most impious and pestilential, ascribed to the Catholics by those mon who, rather than peace should be made with them, wished to throw every thing into confusion, that thus no harmony, no articles of peace, of equity, or honesty might be received by persons differing from them in religious matters. To the same questions the answers of all the other live Universities I have named, are, in effect, precisely the same; all solemnly and utteily denying and abjuring such abomiaabie tenets. Considering, therefore, tlie authority of tiiose Universities, as to what 126 -what are or are not the tenetg and doctrines of tlicii own religion, infinitely better than that of those who igrioranily assert the contrary, unsupported by any authentic proof, 1 own I cannot feel with those who are for rejecting the claims of the Catholics to those eligibilities, which it is even alleged can gain them nothing. In this advanced stage of the Christian Keligion and of social civilization, I hold it to be highly essential to the happiness, the security, and the prosperity of this United Empire, to do away all di tie fences between his Majesty's subjects, founded on distinctions, in religion ; and, notwithstanding Avhat has fallen from the Right Reverend Prelate who spoke last, and to whose authority I certainly feel disposed to pay every respect, yet I cannot feel with him that there is any danger to the Protestant Establishment from the vote I shall this ni^jht sivc, in favour of the motion for going into the Com- mittee. The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to discuss the subject, with temperance and moderation. The Noble Lord who introduced the subject, had said it was one highly fit to be entertained. If it was so fit to be entertained upon constitutional principles, he sincerely prayed God that it might be entertain- ed ; but if its tendency, as had been ably argued, was to subvert those blessings under that Constitu- tion, which not only the Protestants of this country, but every other class of his ^Majesty's subjects in the country enjoy, both civil and religious, he hoped it would not be entertained. To say the measure never shall pass, would be a language not fit for any man to use who w as ht to have a seat in that House. But at present, and in his view of the sub- ject, it was a question inconsistent with the princi- ples of that Constitution which had been intro- duced into this country upon Protestant principles ; and, therefore, feeling as he did, that it is a ques- tion opposed to what he conceived to be the true principles of that Constitution, and the Law^ as it stands, 127 stands, he should feel that he was not doin;^ his duty if he did not oppose it ; and in so doing, he conceived liimself acting consistently with that zeal and sense of duty which he hoped would actuate the majority of their Lordships, to transmit to our pos- terity that Constitution in as much purity as we had received it from our ancestors. It had been said that the Petition was couched in respectful lan- guage. He would admit it was. But the question was not, Whether tlie language of tiie Petition was respectful to the House? but, Whether it was wise, Just, or expedient to comply with the prayer of tluit Petition ? It was said also, that the Petition was in behalf of four millions of his Majesty's Catliohc subjects ; but it was not the numbers who signed a Petition, but the object of the Petition itself, and the reasonableness and justice of complying with that object, that should rule the consideration of the House. The Noble Lord then, at very consi- derable length, and with his wonted ability, went over the whole ground of principle upon which the subject had been already debated, and contended that every thing which religious toleration demand- ed, had been already conceded to the Catholics; and that they had now no political grievance whatever to complain of, that do not equally affect most other descriptions of his Majesty's Protestant subjects. The Constitution demands oaths, tests, and qualill- cations from those who are to be entrusted witii parliamentary representation or official power : our liberties were sustained by a system of checks. Tiie elective franchise was limited; the Representative must prove the qualification of him required; the Dissenter must conform to the oaths presented for the Protestant. The eldest sons of the Peers of Scotland could not be returned as Representatives .in Parliament for that part of the kingdom; and, in short, no prohibition now remained upon Roman Catholics that did not attach equally upon many other descriptions of his Majesty's Protestant sub- jects. 128 Jccts. Nay, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had more license in tlie oalh they were required to take than Protestant Dissenters in England ; for the former were only required to swear allegiance to the King and his Family; but in England the oath was to the King and his Family, — being Protest- ants. The basis of the British Constitution was not founded u})on the principle of equal rights to all men indiscriminately ; but to all men conform- ing and complying with the tests which that Con- stitution demanded for its security. The Noble and Learned Lord argued at much length the dan- ger that must arise to the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights, if a Protestant Kin^j in this coun- try were to have a Catholic Cabinet; and he quoted the expressions of the celebrated Lord Sommers on the 1 1th and ISth of William and ]\Iary, containing the Coronation Oath, that ought to be reverenced as the Magna Charta of the British Constitution. The Noble and Learned Lord alluded, in the course of his speech, to the observations made by Lord Redesdale upon the contumacious conduct of the Irish Catholic Bishops, in not only assuming, con- trary to law, the high titular dignities, but all the ecclesiastical functions attached to that rank in the Established Church; and said it would have belong- ed to the character and firmness of his Noble and Learned Friend the moment he discovered those men assumino; the titular dignities of the F^stablish- ed Episcopacy, or discharging their functions in ec- clesiastical polity, in open rebellion against the laws, to have directly conveyed a formal complaint to his Majesty, and to have commenced legal pro- ceedings against them. The IXike of NORFOLK.—'' My Lords, not- withstandmg what has been alleged by Noble Lords, that no pledge had been held out to the Ca- tholics of L^eland at the period of the L^nion, to grant, as a condition of that measure, the final eman- cipalion their Petition now claims, 1 have had very 125 very strong grounds to rely that at least such an un- derstanding "was forcibly entertained ; and I am therefore for going into the Committee^ if it were only to investigate the terms upon which the Uni6n was neo;otiat€d, in order to discover the truth. The Noble Person, under whose Administration that measure was negotiated (Alarquis Cornwallis) has rendered many signal and important services to the British Empire; and none more important than the acquisition of that measure. I have been very cre- dibly informed, that under that Administration, as- surances were held out to the Catholics of Ireland, from the highest authority, that their final claims should be ceded, as a condition for their acquies- cence to that measure ; for, otherwise, the Union could not have been carried. The refusal now will be to them, therefore, a bitter disappointment : they will conceive themselves the dupes of false promise and deception, and their minds will feel all the irritation natural to men of any sensibility un- der such circumstances. A Reverend Prelate has talked of toleration in the mild and beneficent prin- ciple of the Church of England. In the spirit of that principle, therefore, I wish your Lordships to act on the present occasion, and not to persist in a principle of excluding British subjects from their natural and political riglits, merely on account of their religious opinion. It is the Church of Rome which withholds from its votaries the right of exer- cising their own judgment upon religious topics, and to dictate to mens' minds the points of faith ; from which it allows no man to hold a different opinion, even in a single iota. But to the energies of our ancestors w-e owe that resistance to such despotism over mens' minds and consciences which produced the Reformation, and with it the freedom of reli- gious opinion. It becomes, therefore, ttie enligkt- ened liberality of a British Senate, enjoying them- selves that freedom of opinion, to allow to all men 'the right of thinking as they please in matters. of re- S iigion. 130 ligion. How can a belief in the doctrine of Tran* substaniicition, or any olher speculative tenet in re- ligious faith, influence any man's conduct on poli- tical suhjects ? or the difference between a belief of seven sacraments or two, render a man peculi- arly fit or unfit for political confidence or Parlia- mentary Representation, who has the same educa- tion, is born and educated under the same Go- vernment, and holds the opinions in common with other subjects in this realm upon political topics ? or, where is the ground of apprehension that men who have received all their opinions under a British Constitution, will, when they are admitted to par- ticipate in all the blessings of that Constitution, which they now anxiously pray, endeavour to ex- cite anarchy for the purpose of subverting it, and of erecting in its place a foreign tyranny, and re- storing the despotism of the Romish Church ? If any thing could excite a disposition to anarchy, it would be the perpetual refusal of admitting the Catholics to the blessings of a Constitution, in which, once affiliated, every disposition to anarchy or even discontent must cease, and a real union of interests and attachments follow. A Noble and Learned Lord on a former night (Lord Redesdale) has com- plained much of the influence of the Roman Ca- tholic Bishops, and their contumacy in assuming episcopal functions ; but in a religious point of view, I conceive them to be as much bishops, and to have as good a right to exercise episcopal functions for the spiritual direction of their own sect, as any Right Reverend Prelate on that Bench. If they abuse those functions by any tyrannical exertion of them, they are indeed highly reprehensible, and would really deserve punishment. But the Noble and Learned Lord, at the same time that he com- plained of the influence of the Catholic Hierarchy, the slow progress the Reformation had made in Ire- land, and the unwiUingness of Protestants to reside in some districts^ owing to that influence, stated 131 also another cause, to which I am much more inclined to attribute those circumstances, namely, the state of the Protestant Ciiurches in Ireland, of which tlie Noble and Learned Lord had drawn so deplorable a picture. How is it reasonable to ex})ect that Protestants, having any sense of their religion, would reside in parishes, above one thousand of which, and many of them good livings, the Noble and Learned Lord had stated there are in Ire- land, where there is neither Protestant Church nor Protestant Clergyman, — and which parishes, as he states, are anxiously sought for as sinecures by Protestant Clergymen, whose duty it is to preach the Gospel, and to propagate the Reformed Reli- gion ? or how can it be expected that Roman Ca- tholics are to be converted to that religion in those extensive quarters of the country where it is never preached r I earnestly hope that this subject will seriously occupy the attention of Parliament, and that some means will be contrived to remedy so glaring an evil. But, my Lords, feeling no appre- hension of the slightest danger from granting the prayer of this Petition, I shall vote for going into the Committee. The Bishop of St. ASAPH.—" My Lords, if I shall feel it my duty to resist this night the Petition on your table, my vote will not be actuated by any principle of illiberality, of bigotry, or uncharitable- ness. My Lords, I trust I shall find credit with your Lordships, I shall find credit with the public, I shall find credit with the Roman Catholics them- selves, that I do not resist their Petition from any principle of intolerance, or from prejudiced or bi- gotted motives; for to every measure of mduigence heretofore brought forward in this House for their civil happiness and toleration, I have uniformly voted ; and as uniformly resisted every measure of an opposite tendency. My Lords, I do not hold that the Roman Catholic Religion is one which en- joins disloyalty,- I do not hold the maxim, that from S 2 tb.eir 132 their scruples about the oalh of supremacy, ihey arc a disloyal peof)le; I do not hold that ti)cy maintain any such helief as, that the Pope may depose Pro- testant Princes, or absolve Catholic subjects from al- legiance to them; or that no faith is to be kept with Jlerelics, or persons of a different religious persua- sion from themselves. I have heard the opinions this night quoted by the Noble Earl opposite to me (Earl of Albkmaule) from the faculties of the Univer- sities of Paris, of Doway, of Louvain, of Alcala, of Valladolid, and of Salamanca. I am no stranger to those opmions, nor are they at all new to me. I know they have been declared by the most learned Catholic societies in Europe, who certainly are the best au- thorities extant — as to what is or is not the faith of the religion they profess. J\ly Lords, I think the Catholics of this country a loyal people, and as ful- ly entitled to indulgence, much more so indeed than many of those sectaries who do us the honour to call us their Protestant brethren, but who are not so much assimilated to us either in faith or principles. My Lords, toleration I agree toi grant to the Catholics in the fullest extent that the exercise of their religion and the protection of their pro^ perties and persons can require ; but this Peti- tion is for political power. It is for opening to Ptoman Catholics not only the Parliamentary lie- presentation of the Empire, but for allowing them to fill the principal executive offices of the State. But though I am disposed to go the full length of toleration, I cannot consent to enlarge their political influence by extending to them such powers. They are relieved from all disabilities that were restrictive on their liberty, their happiness, and their civil rights, hey are completely emancipated on those points ; but 1 never can consent that this House sliall go into a Committee, for the purpose of con- sidering whether it is fit that a Roman Catholic may be everything but King in this country; for to that, in my plain understanding, the Petition on your table goes; and if it be so^ all the power of my intellects 133 intellects cannot find out the subtleties on which it can be defended. I cannot conform to the doctrine that the religion of the individual is of little conse- quence in the man to whom the powers of the Slate are confided. I should be sorry to see the most loyal Catholic in his Majesty's dominions sitting as Lord Chancellor on tliat wooolsack, or as Chief upon that Bench^ so ably hlled by the Noble and Learned Lord near me (Lord EUenborough, Chief Justice of the King's Bench) ; nor can I consent to such a principle as that Roman Catholics should be admitted to fill the other great offices of the Slate. Noble Lords have given some instances of Ctitiio- lies being employed in important situations by Pro- testant Governments with great advantage; but those were despotic Governments, in which the sole chief power was vested in the Prince ; and tlie officer being dismissible at the pleasure or caprice of the Monarch, held no permanent power or influence, as in our free and popular government. JJut it was afterwards well argued by another Noble Lord, that it was the ancient policy of other nations to have ail the high officers of the State, of the religion of that State. But what has been the argument in fa- vour of this measure to-night ? Why, That excessive toleration cannot be liable to abuse, but must tend to the security of the Constitution ! But what was the consequence of adopting such a principle in France ? Neckar, the Protestant Counsellor to the late King, was shortly afterward at the head of the Revolution- ary Councils in Catholic France,, while the repre- sentation of the country was afterwards thrown open to sectaries of all descriptions ; men of any faith or of none, speedily led the way to all the anarchy and sanguinary horrors that have, since scourged that country. I am perfectly awaie^ of the distinction taken between subjection to the P(^pe in his spiri- tual and in his teuiporal capacity ; but I think it scarcely possible to suppose the spiritual power so completely detached, as not to involve submission also 134 also in temporal things. The Catholics have cer- tainly gone a great way in disclaiming the authority of the Pope ; and have sworn, that neither the Pope, nor any foreign Potentate, has any right to any power, temporal or civil, directly or indirectly, within these realms. Some ohjections have been made to an indirect influence through spiritual means; but this the Catholics have solemnly dis- claimed. A Noble Lord seems to think that there is some difference between the laity and the clergy on the subject of the oath respecting the Protestant Succession ; and that some of the clergy prohibited the laity to take it. The real stand they made was this, Ttiat it contained some theological dogma, to- tally new to them ; and it was to this the apostolical vicars objected, and to which I, as a Protestant Bishop, should have enjoined my priesthood to ob- ject, in a similar case. Yet, notwithstanding the op- position of the clergy to that oath, every one of the laity have taken it. But if the Roman Catholics are relieved from the tests of which they now complain ; you cannot refuse to other sects of Dissenters the repeal of those tests of wlich they also complain; ^ind the natural consequence would be, that all the parties thus admitted to seats in Parliament, or places in power, would combine their influence and authority to overturn the Established Church ! In my mind, my Lords, the House has fairly discussed this subject with dignity and moderation, and as fully in detail as it could have been done in a Com- mittee ; and it does not appear to me to be the sense of your Lordships that what is clainied by this Petition can or ought to be ceded. It has been asked, Will you not go into the Committee for the purpose of enquiring what may be safely granted ? for though you will not grant all. Will you grant none ? My Lords, in my mind, we have already granted to the Catholics every thing which we can grant, consistently with the security of our Protest- ant Establishment, and every thing which they could 135 ftsk necessary to rational toleration and to civil liberty, in as full a degree as all other his Majesty's subjects, liable to the same tests, which they refuse. I profess myself against granting to the Roman Ca- tholics the Powers of the State which they claim by this Petition, and therefore I am against go'ng into the Committee. A Noble Duke seems to tliink there is no harm in a Roman Catholic liisliop in Ireland assuming the titular dignities of the Esta- blished CJmrch, and exercising all the functions at- tached to their titular rank. I3ut, my Lords, I can- not think that harmless which is done in direct vio- lation of those laws which the wisdom of the Le- gislature has thought it proper to enact, and still to continue. We know of no such assumption avowed in this country. We hear of no Archbishop of Can- terbury, or Bishop of Winchester, or Archbishop of York, in England. The title inded of Apostolical Vicar is assumed by some of their superintending clergy, who are considered on the footing of mis- sionaries, and as acting merely in matters spiritual, for the maintenance of order and discipline amongst their inferior clergy. But, my Lords, what a Noble Lord has told us, of the Catholic Bishops in L'e- land holding courts for the exercise of diocesan polity and jurisdiction, in cases of divorce, legi- timacy, inheritance, and the like, is a most indecent assumption, for they have no such powers; and in attempting to exercise them they fly in the face of the law, and usurp a jurisdiction over his Mbjcsty s subjects unknown to the Constitution, and which ought not to be suffered. If the Catholic Clergy will assume such powers now directly and openly against law, what are we to expect if you pass a law to confirm those powers ? Will they not then widest from the hands of the Established Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland three-fourths of the jurisdiction in that country, to the production of incalculable mischief? But, my Lords, unwarrantable as this claim of the Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland T appears 136 appears to be, I am still more alarmed by the man- ner in vvhicli, as we have been informed by the Noble and Learned Lord, they exereisc their spiri- tual authority. When the Noble and Learned Lord entered upon this topic, with a remark, That we here in England have no idea what excommuni- cation is in Ireland — that it is really a dreadful thing, and seemed to make this the ground of some charge he had to bring against the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, — my mind, I confess, was all puzzle and amazement. I could not imagine what this might be ; and surmises arose the very con- trary of tliat which I now understand to be the case. Excommunication in Ireland is a dreadful thing ! Why, I said to myself, to a Christian, to one who really believes, How should excommunication^ in the true meaning of the word in Ireland, or any- where else not be a dreadful thing r Excommunica- tion, in the true meaning of the word, is the sepa- ration of a Christian leading a disorderly life, dis- gracing his profession from, the Christian congrega- tion ; a banishment of him from the church. And this separation every Christian must consider as a state of great danger and peril; for as the promises of the gospel are all made to the church in its cor- porate capacity, and extend to the individual only as J,\ jv^.^/.berof that elect society (none but fanatics U the contrary) to be severed from that society is to be excluded from all share in the blessings and promises of Christianity. This is excommunication ; and this is certainly a dreadful thing I Excommu- nication, as it is practised here in England, I know very well in itself is no dreadful thing. It carries no terror with it, but in its secular consequences. But this is, because what we call Excommunication, is not really what the word means ; and I have al- w^ays considered the manner in which it is used among us, is little better than a profanation of a most sacred rite of discipline. It is used with us, Kierely as an engine to support the authority of the Ecclesiasticax 137 Ecclesiastical Courts, If a man disobeys a citation, and persists in his neglect of it, excommunication is denounced ; though the object of the citation should lie in some of these secular matters, which, by our laws, are submitted to the cognizance of these courts. The sentence is pronounced by a layman, without any thing striking in the manner of it ; and, if the offender still persists, at the expiration of cer- tain days, comes indeed a dreadful thing ; he is committed to prison, by virtue of the writ De ex-* communicato capiendo, a writ issuing from a secular court ; and there he must remain till, in the language of Doctors Commons, he has made " his peace with the church," i. e. till he has made his submis- sion to the court. The person on whom the sen- tence falls, all the while finds not the burthen of any thing properly to be called a sin upon his conscience. He is not aware that he has offended the church ; — for his imagination cannot identify the Ecclesiastical Court, in which a layman sits as judge, taking cog- nizance perhaps of matters of a secular nature, with the church ; — and he perceives not that religion has any thing to do in the business. Such excommuni- cation has certainly nothing dreadful in itself, but in the imprisonment only, which follows. Such was not the primitive excommunication. The objects of that dreadful sentence were none but nc . ' p'^?, sinners: fornicators, usurers, idolaters, raileiV,' drunkards, extortioners. It was pronounced with awful solemnity, in the full assembly of the churcn, by the bishop himself, or some person specially de- legated by him. It produced the greatest conster- nation in the conscience of the sinner, and general- ly brought him to a sense of his guilt, and produced a reformation, which nothing short of this seventy could have effected. When the Noble and Lean^ed Lord said, that excommunication in Ireland was a dreadful thing, the surmise that naturally robO in my mind, was, th^t the excommunicdtians of T 2 the 138 the Irish prelates were something more rcsem- bh'ng the primitive excommunications than that is •which o\]r courts call Excommunication ; and I wondered how this was to be turned to the re})roach of the Roman Catholic Bishops. But when the Noble and Learned Lord went on, he soon made me understand, that their exconniiunication is no less a profanation, though in a diftbrent way ; but no less, if not more a profanation of the rite, than our practice. It is indeed a dreadful thing : but not dreadful simply by the alarm of the excommu- nicated person's conscience, but by the worldly distress it brings upon him. It is not simply a se- paration from the body of the faithful, but it is, to all intents and purposes, an interdiction ab aqua et igne. No Roman Catholic dares to administer a crust of dry bread or a cup of cold water to the person under this interdiction : and the otFence which draws down tliis horrible sentence, is any friendly intercourse which a Roman Catholic may hold with Protestants. My Lords, this is an abomi- nable abuse of the power which Christ has placed in the hands of the governors of his church ; not to destroy the worldly comforts of men, but for the sal- vation of their souls. No precedent is to be found for such tyranny in the conduct of the apostles. The first instance of an excommunication upon record, took place in a very early period, in the church of Corinth. A member of that church was leading a most flagitious life ; and the process of the excom- munication was this : — The apostle St. Paul, not be- ing able to attend in person, issues his peremptory mandate to the church of Corinth to assemble, and in full congregation, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to DELIVER the offender unto SATAN,"that is, to expel him from the church, by which he would be deprived of those assistances which the church affords to resist Satan, for the destruction of 15.9 •of the flesh f — not that the man vras to be starved— driven from civil society, and reduced to perish with cold, and hunger, and thirst ; but for the mor- tification of the carnal appetites; for the flesh here evidently signifies the ap})etites of the flesh : and this flesh was to be thus destroyed, to this intent and purpose, " That the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." And the spi; it in that day will be saved ; for the man was brought to' re- pentance; — and, upon his repentance, the apostle writes to the church again, to receive the peniieiit again into their communion, and to " confirm their love to him." And it appears, that offenders under this dreadful sentence were still treated wiih great charity and commiseration. For thus the j^ame apostle writes to the church of Thessalonica : — *' We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from " every brother that walketh disorderly. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Ykt count him not AS AN ENEMY, BUT APMQMSH HIM AS A BROTHER." A^ery different this from the des- potism which we are told is exercised by the titular Bishops in L'eland over persons of then' own com- munion ! My Lords, in this state of the itomau Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland, it would be in vaiu to go into a Commit lee, to take this Petition into consideration; for certainly nothing of political power and influence (an be conceded to the Ro- man Catholics in Leland beyond what ihey already enjoy, unless their hierarchy can be reduced to a less oliensive form, and checked in the mon- strous abuse of thcir spiritual authority. 1 should hope that neither of tiic-e things is impracticable; that both may {)e ehecttd by the influence of per- sons cf rank of that f-ersuasion witii their pastor?, concurring with government in mild measures for the attainment of these cndo. But if these ends cannot 140 cannot be attained by the concurrence of the Roman Cathohcs themselves with Government, I confess, we seem to be reduced to this dilemma: Either tliis hierarchy must be crushed by the strong arm of power (God forbid the dreadful necessity should arise) or the Roman Catholic Church must be the established church of Ireland. My Lords, if the thing were res integra; if we had now to form a con- stitution for Ireland ab mitio, I have no hesitation in saying, that it might be matter of grave delibera- tion wiiich of the two measures should be adopted. But this is not the case. The Irish constitution is settled; settled long since upon the basis of Pro- testantism : and that constitution, so settled, has been recently confirmed by the pacta convent a of the Union. AVhen I speak however of crushing the Roman Catholic Jiierarchy in Ireland, I mean not that the Roman Catholics of that country should be deprived of the superintendence of Bishops ; but their bishops should not be allowed to assume dio- cesan jurisdiction, in exclusion of our own prelacy, or even co-ordinate with it ; nor should they be suf- fered to domineer in the manner we are told they do. " i\Iy Lords, if these difficulties stood not in the way, I should be ready to go into a Committee : still I should oppose the Prayer of the Petition, in the extent to which it goes for this among other reasons, that I think a compliance with it would be the worst thing that could befal the Roman Ca- tholics, as well as ourselves. The immediate effect of it, I think, would be, to revive that detestable rancour between Protestants and Roman Catholics, which for so many years has been the disgrace of the western church, but is dying away if we only let alone what is well." The Duke of NORFOLK explained, that in speaking of the legitimate authority of the Catholic Bishops in those countries; he meant it merely in a spiritual sense, Lor4 141 Lord ELLENBOROUGH.— ^' The anxiety and alarm which, during the long suspended agitation of this important question, have been excited in my mind, as to its probable effect on the peace and tranquillity of the country, have from various indica- tions of the public sentiment respecting it, in a great measure subsided, before the immediate dis- cussion of the question in this House; and, from the circumstances immediately attending the discus- sion itself, which (except during a short and painful interval in the course of this evening) has been uni- formly temperate and decorous, and such as became the wisdom and gravity of Parliament, my alarm and anxiety have now wholly ceased. And I am convinced that the debates on this momentous sub- ject will, when known, be as satisfactory in the result to those whose rights and interests are the object of these debates, as they are honourable to those by whom they were conducted. If the question was to be brought forward at all, which I once regretted, but now rejoice has been the case, I am happy that the claims of the Roman Catholics have been put under the protection of tho eminent person by whom they have been so ably and strenuously contended for in this House. The Ro- man Catholics must be convinced that they have had a sincere and zealous, as the House is witness that they have had a most powerful and consummate, advocate in the person of the Noble Lord. — With a view to the quieting of the question at present, and the pre- venting its recurrence at any future period, it was well that the defence of the Roman Catholic claims had been entrusted upon this occasion to no feebler arm : what has failed now is not likely to be ad- vanced with equal energy and effect, or with better hopes of success at any future period. My Lords, in the vote I am about to give upon thig question now under consideration, and in the rea- sons I am about to offer to your Lordships for that vote, I trust that no person will be so uncan- did 142 did as to suppose that I am either an enemy to the full and free tolcratio)i of the religions opinions and worship of my Roman Catholic hrethren in Ireland, in the most extended sense of that word, or averse to those indulgences in respect of civil rights, which have in a large and liberal measure been alibrded them by Parliament during the last twenty or twentv- five years of the present reign, — although, perhaps, I might at the time have paused a little upon the pru- dence and expediency of granting some of the par- ticulars that have been granted; viz. the elective franchise, and a capacity of being included in the commission of the peace. But I do not Tepine however at any thing which has been hitherto done in their favour, much less wish that any part should now be recalled or withdrawn. I believe, indeed, my Lords, that no such wish exists in the minds of any of your Lordships. I am sure it does not in the minds of my noble friends against whom an insinuation of this kind was directed in the heat and eagerness of debate on a former night. What our Roman Catholic brethren have acquired by the li-^ beral grant of a bestowing and confiding Parliament, let them, under the solemn faith of Parliament pledged to them for its continuance, still enjoy. I w ill not anticipate a possibility that a breach of the implied condition which is annexed to every legisla- tive provision for the benefit of individuals, should draw the expediency of its allowed continuance into question at any the remotest period of our future history. The question now before us on this Peti- tion, is not a question of Toleration in the enjoy- ment and exercise of civil and religious rights, but of the Grant of Political Power. All that toleration- can require, in respect to civil and religious immuni- ty, has been long ago satisfied in its most enlarged extent. At the commencement of the gracious and benefice it reign of his present Majesty, the Roman Catholics of both parts of the united kingdom, es- pecially of L-eland, were encumbered and sveighed dowa ' 143 down by the grievous pressure of many rigorous restraints, penalties, and disabilities. It became the generosity, it became the wisdom of Parliament (for on such subjects generosity and wisdom are the same) to emancipate them from these burthens; and by several successive statutes, in the spdce of about fifteen years, they have been accordingly so emancipated. They are, in respect of property, ca- pable of inheriting and taking by devise for their own benefit, and of alienating and disposing of property in all such ways as it is competent to any other of his Majesty's subjects to take and dispose of the same. The education of their children, and the choice of their marriages, are equally unrestrained to them. The enjoyment of their religious worship is equally free and public. The avenues to emolu- ment and eminence in the practice and profession of the law, are equally open to them with their Protes- tant fellow-subjects. The right of serving on grand and petit juries, and upon all inquests civil and cri- minal, is the same to them as to others. The right of voting in counties for Members of Parliament has been conferred on them; a capacity to become Justices of the Peace is capable of being comfiiuni- cated to them by his Majesty's Commission of the Peace, in the same manner as it is to other sal jects ; that is of course, under the check and control of a sound discretion to be exercised on the part of the person holding the great seal, as to the o 'jects to which it should be granted. All military aucl naval commissions, except those of principal comiUand, and all offices, except a very fev/ of the great offices of state, and the higher judicial offioes, are attain- able by them. If, in the beginning; of the year 1778, any person had ventured to predict to them, that such would in the course of a very few years be the con- dition of a people then labouring under the restraints, penalties, and disabilities I have alluded, to, he would have been regarded as a rash and hardy utter- U er 144 er of a vain prophecy, which had not the remotest chance of ever heing accoin[)Hshed. However, in the compass of fifteen years, by the gradual removal of civil and religions, and of some political re- straints, they have attained the accomplishment of all which, in tlieir relative situation to the establish- ments of the country, they can consistently ask, or we can, with due regard to our situation as trustees for them and others, consistently bestow. Their emancipation from civil and religious restraint as affecting themselves, and the rights to be enjoyed by them individually, is entire and complete ; if it be not so, let it be shewn wherein it is in any instance defective, that the defect may be, if practicable, instantly supplied and remedied. Of the condition of the Catholics as his IMajesty found it at the com- mencement of his reign, loaded with the penal re- straints and disabilities which the sufferings and the fears of former times had cast upon them, and as he will hand it over to succeeding times, it may be truly said, Lateritiam invenit, marmoream reli- quit. Catholic Em.ancipation, as it is improperly called, if that term is meant to denote and designate any slavish subjection as still subsisting on their part either in respect of person, property, or the pro- fession of religious faith, or the exercise of religious worship, has been fully attained. The only remain- ing emancipation which they are capable of receiv- iniz, must be acquired by an act of their own, by re- deeming themselves from the foreign bondage and thraldom under which they and their ancestors have long unworthily groaned, and from which the state, as it has neither imposed nor continued it, has no adequate means of relieving them consistently with the duty of self-preservation which it owes to itself. Every state claiming and exercising independent powers of sovereignty, has incidentally belonging to it as such, the power of binding its subjects bylaws of its own, not only paramount to, but exclusive of any l45 any authority or control to be exercised by any other state whatsoever. In so far as any other state or person is allowed to exercise an authority breaking in upon this exclusive and independent power of Icr gislation and enforcement of authority in one state, lo that extent such state so intrenched upon is not sovereign and independent, but admits itself to be subordinate to and dependent upon the other. The declaration contained in the oath of supremacy, which expresses a denial and renunciation of the ex- istence of any power and authority in respect of ec- clesiastical and spiritual matters in any foreign slate, potentate, or person whatsoever, is but the affirm- ance of a proposition which is logically and politi- ' cally true as an essential principle of independent sovereignty, applicable not to this government only, but to every other government under the sun which claims to possess and exercise the powers of inde- pendent sovereignty. It is not only true as a maxim of government, but essentially necessary to be insisted and acted upon also, in all cases in which obedience may become questionable, in order to give the State that assur- ance and test which it has a right to require and re- ceive from its subjects, of their entire submission and lidelity in all matters to which the power and au- thority of the State can extend. But, it is said, that what is prayed by this Petition is not a matter which opugns the authority of the State in matters to which its authority extends. That the reserve made by our Roman Catholic brethren is only in fa- vour of matters which concern God and their own consciences; matters of mere abstract faith and mental persuasion. That, however, is not so; the Pope, in virtue of his general spiritual authority, claims authority in matters of morals (i. e. of moral conduct, and which extends to all the acts of man) as well as in matters of mere faith ; he claims and habitually exercises on some subjects a power of dis- pensing with oathS; and in that respect of nullifying U 2 ail 146 all hinnan sanctions whatsoever, as far as they affect the conscience throngh the medium of oaths; he cliums and exercises by himself, and delegates to others, an effectual, or snpposed effectual, power of absolution. What fatal effects that power, as exer- cised by the Ronjan Catholic priesthood and applied to a credulous multitude, is capable of producing upon the civil and political condition of that commu- nity in which it is allowed to prevail, let the recent experience of Ireland during the late rebellion attest, where wretches, reeking with the blood of their murdered countrymen, have been purified from the guilt of past atrocities, and prepared for the com- mission of new, by the ali-atoning virtues of Popish absolution ; such a pow er as this over the conscience, engrosses and directs more than half the faculties and energy of the entire man, SiC. — But, besides the spiritual power thus capable of being, and thus be- ing in fact abused, the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Ronje over its obedient Sons is enor- mous. It establishes and sustains, in the instance of Ireland, an Hierarchy dependent on the See of Rome as to the original nomination and subsequent control of its Bishops and Pastors, through the me- dium of which it enforces an obedience not in niat- t^rs of faith only, but in temporal acts and concerns immediately connected with the duties and habits of ordinary life ; not only in the payment of money for the maintenance of the local Ecclesiastical Establish- ment, or for such other purposes connected with their political ceconomy as may be thought fit by the same authority to be enjoined, but in the perform- ance also of rites and ceremonies, particularly that of marriage, fi'om w^hich all civil rites originate, and which they enjoin to be performed by their own mi- -nisters exclusively, thereby ousting the law of the land, and endangering or destroying the legitimacy of its subjects, and ail rights of descent, inheritance, and representation founded thereon. The power of fxcommunicdtion is, in tiie hands of their clerg}-, a most 147 most powerful and dangerous emrrine, not of spiri- tual and ecclesiastical only, but of temporal power. It acts at once upon all the comforts of doujeslic and social life in this world, and npon all the hopes and expectations of happiness in that which is to come. With what harshness and rigour, and with what daring detiance of the established knv of the land, this most operative power of interdiction has l)een recently applied, not to a few individuals only, but to large multitudes of people, a Noble and Learned Lord detailed to us on a lormer eveniny his mature judgment aad discretion, tiiat he had some 164 some distinct plan to produce, which, whilst it gave lil)erty in one instance, would set up some substitute and i^uard on the other. Not a word ! As to the third Noble Lord (Holland) from the extent of his arguments, I heard at least no- thing in favour of any religious establishment. We ought to see the whole plan and the whole project, that we may be sure, when we come into this Committee, any two of the proposers may agree upon what they would wish to have done. I shall be glad to see this new Avork of Vauban, and to know if I cannot proceed against it, by sap or storm, with more prosj^ect of success than against the an- cient castle, which has been fortified at every point where danger has thi'eatened. We have been told that this proposal is to strengthen the Church Establishment, to tranquil- lize Ireland, and secure the settlement of the Union ; but I must not look at the professions of the proposer, but at the tendency of the project ; and as I am convinced that its discussion at this hn proper and unfitting period will, instead of strengthening, shake the establishment of the Church; instead of tranquillizing, will convulse Ireland, and instead of cementing the Union, will risk the sepa- ration, — I must beg the Noble Lords not at such a moment to hazard the horrors and the niiseries of relioious contests. The Earl of MOIRA expressed a wish that the question should be relieved from a great deal of ex- traneous matter with which it had been encumbered, and that it should be brought to the test of that plain good sense on which he conceived it to rest. He thought the coujplexion of the present times de- manded that every exertion should be made to pro- cure an unanimity of heart and mind in the cause of the country. It was very true, that to give the Ca- tholics the privilege of admission to the few offices from which they were excluded, would be giving them little; but the gift v\T)uld shey/ a disposition to con- ciliate 165 ciliate and to win their affections; which would be in that point of view important. He was surprized to have heard it said, that the Petition tended to throw the torch of discord into the country: on the contrary, he was of opinion that the object of it, if properly attended to, would tend to establish that harmony which was most essential to the country at the present moment. At the same time tiiat he njade these observations, he wished to speak with the utmost respect of the Established Church; but which he did not think would be endangered or injured by granting the Catholic claims. He wished, therefore, that the Petition should be referred to a Committee, for the purpose of considering whether any danger could really arise from conceding those claims ; and if it should be deemed not prudent to grant the whole, whether any part of those claims might be safely admitted; as he wished it to be understood, that in the Committee he should certainly be desir- ous of weighing well each object which the Catho- lics had in view, and investigating in what manner it would operate with respect to the Church Estab- h'shment, before he gave his consent to the admission of the claim which it involved. Earl DARNLEY. — " I am ready to confess my disposition to assent to the opinion of some Noble Lords on the other side of the House as to the time in which this question is agitated. Had I been con- sulted by the Catholics of Ireland, I certainly should have recommended to them to abstain from pressing their claims at a period which is generally known to be peculiarly unfavourable, for many reasons ; into some of which I do not feel myself at all called upon to enter, but which are very generally knou n. I certainly think the present disposition of the country in general adverse to the proposition, however I may be convinced that it is founded in reason and justice, and must therefore, sooner or later, ultimately pre- vail. Since, however, the question is come to be agitated in Parliament, your Lordships will agree 166 with me, that it could not have heen placed in hcfter hands ; and lhatthe propriety and moderation have been as conspicuous as the abihty with which it has been introduced by my Noble Friend. And here I cannot avoir!, animadverting on the unfair and groundless imputations M'hich have been cast upon the introduction of this proposition by some Noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, as if it could' have been introduced as a party-question, or in any respect to answer party-purposes. My Noble Friend who has opened the debate, most solemnly disclaitned such an intention ; and is fully entitled to credit for his assertion. But a better proof than the assertion of any man, is the manifest absurdity of such a pro- position. The party with whom I have the honour ta act, which has been sometimes honoured with the ap- pellation of a Faction, is a faction, be it observed, com- posed of almost every thing in the country respectable for wealth, birth, and talents, and who certainly enjoy- ed, in a great measure, the confidei'ce and good opi- nion of the people of England, which their opponents have forfeited. At such a period the introduction of a measure kno^vn to be unpopular, and in opposition to very general, however unfounded, prejudices, can never be fairly stated as intended to promote party views. In adverting to the different arguments which have been used by other Lords on the other side of the House, 1 have some satisfaction in speaking so late, inasmuch as the task has thereby fallen to others of replying to the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord (the Chancellor of Ireland) which I cannot but consider as one of the most extraordinary speeches that has ever been uttered in Parliament. Considering both the arguments used and the person ■who has used them, it certainly merits all the repro- bation which it had received. I have, however, the greatest satisfaction in congratulating the House on the very different tone which has in general prevailed, and especially in the two last speeches on the other side (the Bishop of St. Asaph and Lord Ellenbo- PwOUGh). 167 rough). The Reverend and Learned Prelate, in particular, has expressed himbcil in a manner which does him the highest honour; and the only ground of surprise is the circumstance of the Reverend Pre- lates appearing to be influenced by those extraordi- nary arguments and assertion's which have been con- tradicted as unfounded, by Noble Lords best ac- quainted with the state of Ireland. The Reverend Prelate appears to have received from that Learned Lord some new lights with respect to the Catholic Religion, which have induced him to change iiis opi- -nion as to the propriety of removing the political disabilities, according to the Prayer of the Petition, which he at first imagined might be granted without endangering the Established Church or the Protes- tant Succession. For myself, T can assure tiie House, that if I could be persuaded either the one or the other would be in any degree aft'ected by the con- cessions prayed for, I w^ouki be the first man in the House to oppose them; but, according to my view of the subject, so far from having this, I am firmly persuaded that this measure of conciliation would produce a directly contrary effect, and, by uniting all the hearts of his Majesty's subjects, would afi^'ord the firmest security to our establishment both in Church and State: not indeed if these remaining concessions are made in the same spirit, and in the same ungracious manner as those which have former- ly taken place in Ireland; but if they are granted (as I trust and am persuaded they sooner or later will) in the true spirit of conciliation and peace. And this leads me to advert to the History of Ire- land with reference to this question, which has been dwelt on with so much seii'-complacency by a Noble Earl opposite to me (Westmo klan d) who has ad- ministered the afl'airs of that country at the period of the last concessions to the Catholics. , The period of the Revolution has been dwelt on by many who have spoken in the debate with satisfaction; and I am as ready as any man to do ample justice to that Z ^ ' great 1G8 great fcra of the establishment ©f the civil and reli- gious liberties which we now enjoy: — the Catholics of Ireland must, however, date from thence the ex- tinction of tlieir liberties, and the commencement of those sufferings v, hich they have borne with such ex- en)})lary patience, and repaid whh such distinu;uish- ed loyalty. Till the auspicious reign of his present INlajesly, their situation was that of the most abject slavery; and they were a proscribed race in their na- tive land, compelled to submit to the most harsh and degrading system of laws that perhaps ever was framed. The policy of this system 1 do not arraign, severe and cruel as it was ; it might, in some degree, perhaps, have been justified by political necessity; and I mention it only with a vieu- to do justice to the exemplary conduct of the Catholics under such cir- cumstances. Dui'ing the Rebellion of 1745, when Lord Chesterfield was Lord Lieutenant, their loyal- ty and attachuient were conspicuously manifested in favour of the Protestant King on the throne, against the Popish successor of hiui who had been expelled on account of his attachment, to their cause. Again, in I759y when a French armament was ready to in- vade L'eland, for the express purpose of restoring the exiled family, and when a partial invasion had ac- tually taken place, their attachment to the establish- ment, under which tiiey suffered so much, was again most conspicuous. Under these circumstan- ces, and in consideration of their loyalty and good conduct^ as was expressly stated, his present ]\Lijes- ly was advised to remove some of their chains. In ly?^, the oath of allegiance which they now take •was enacted. In 1778, some of the most galling and degrading parts of the code of popery laws was abrogated. In 1782, they were admitted to the rights of property; and finally, in 1793, everything that remained, including many important civil rights, was granted, with the exception only of those privileges for which they now petition. Undoubtedly, the Catholics of Ireland have received great and im- portant i 1^9 portant advantajrcs during the present reign; but I cannot agree with those who arc so forward to tax them with ingratitude, when 1 consider the manner in vvhich these concessions have been made, especial- ly the last and most hnportant ones ni 1793. In- deed, the concessions have all appeared to proceed rather from the fear of irritation in times of public difficulty, than from any thing like an enlarged and liberal system of policy. J^ut this observation ap- plies particularly to the last concessions. Your Lordships all recollect the manner in vvhich the French Revolution had unsettled mens' minds, and the wild theories of liberty and equality wdiich were generally entertained. The Irish Catholics, as nnight reasonably be expected, thought the moinent favour- able for urging their claims ; and, in consequence, they ])Ctitioncd the Parliament of that country in the year 1792, to grant the remaining privileges which they now enjoy. The Irish Parliament re- jected their application with scorn, by a division of two hundred and twenty-eight to twenty-three. During the next recess, all the Protestant gentle- men throughout the country, corporations, and grand juries, backed by the authority of Govern- nient, pledged themselves to support this vote of Parliament; and yet, in the very beginning of the fol- lowing year, the same Parliament and the sauie Government almost unanimously and tamely con- ceded what they had a very few months before so contumeliously rejected. No circumstance having intervened, except an increase of public difficulties, increased boldness of the Catholics, and this incon- sistent change in the conduct of Government, can it be expected that they should feel any very lively sentiments of gratitude for favours so refused and so granted? When the Union was in agitation, 1 stated this instance of mal-administration in the Govtrn- nieat, and profligate inconsistency in the Pariiament of Ireland, as sufficient alone to jusufy that great ^ measure; and I now again state, it to prove how lit- 2 2 tie 170 tie reason the Catholics have for very warm gratitude to those who so conrerred the favours they have re- ceived. Was it to he expeeted that, under such circumstances, the Catliolic Body should rest con- tented, or tliat they should not be tempted to expect that what remained would also be conceded, or in- deed, could not be refused by the Irish Parliament? This was another argument for the Union ; for it was truly stated, that whenever the two Lejiislatures were united, the CathoUc claims might be discussed with every possible advantage; and that ti-cy might be safely trusted to the temper and moderation of the Imperial Legislature. The Catholics certainly might reasonably entertain the best hopes that they would be granted; for they must have felt that the United Parliament would be without those prejudices, and that intolerant spirit which they had fatally experi- enced in the Protestants of Ireland. I wish not to dwell upon the unhappy Rebellion of 179^? which has been more than once adverted to in the course of this debate, except to give my most decided opi- nion, that it ought not to be deemed a Catholic Re- bellion: most of the leaders happened to be Pjotes- tants; it originated in the Jacobin Principles of the United Irishmen, to whom religion was a very su- bordinate, if any, consideration; and although it is true that a majority of thos^ concerned in these sanguinary scenes were Catholics, and though the greatest atrocities were undoubtedly perpetrated by some Catholic Priests, it would be very extraordina- ry if both these circumstances had not taken place in the country where four-hfths of the inhabitants are Catholics, and where there was also necessarily a large number of ignorant and bigotted priests. That there were ^qual faults on the other side, I am per- suaded. That the zeal of the Irish Protestants -has been productive of consequences as fatal, I cannot doubt; but on this subject I forbear to dwell, be- cause I know it would sound harsh to some of my hearers, 171 hearers, to whose loyalty and merits I am ready to do ample ju.-tice. iMy Lords, it has been said that the Catholic Body in general is not interested in this question, wliicli only rejzards a few of the higher ranks; but I can never agree that the whole body is not degraded and insulted by this mark which is set upon them, in excluding any of its members from the chance of ever t)eing highly useful to their coun- try. Ijut," say their opposers, We have given every thing else; we never will concede to them pow- er. They have all the civil advantages under the State ; but they shall not become the State itself.''* Now let us consider to what extent this power would go, supposing it granted to Catholics disposed to abuse it. The few seats they could obtain in this House, could never be considered of consequence. Indeed, exdusive of the five or six English Peers, who would afterwards Lave an irresistible claim, as it regarded Ireland only, not one single member, ac- cording to the present mode of election, could be admitted, unless nominated by the minister. The ar- gument, with respect to the other House, deserves more consideration. That some Catholic Members would be elected is unquestionable; but I am in- clined to think the number would be very small in- deed. Some Noble Lords who have spoken, have pjaintained the extravagant supposition of the whole number of one hundred being Catholics. Others have maintained, with some degree of plausibility, that in those counties where the majority of free- holders were Catholics, the Members would of necessity be so likewise, grounding the supposition on the assertion that they would all be rather guided by their priests than by their landlords. I profess myself of a contrary opinion, even if you suppose that, after these concessions, the old invidious dis- tinctions of civil and religious animosity combined, will necessarily be kept up. Much will depend on the manner in which the boon is granted. That it will, that it must be granted, sooner or later, I am prepared 1^12 prepared* to maintain; for although I am not san- guine enough to expect a majority in favour of this Motion, I never can doubt that what 1 consider the course of justice, of sound pohcy, what I will even call the Cause of the Protestant Establishment, must and will finally prevail. Remove with a liberal hand, and with an enlarged system of policy, all civil disabilities on account of religion, and I am persuaded, that in a very few years, all sects of Christians will become equally good subjects; and it will never enter into any man's head to enquire Whether a Candidate for Parliament or for office is of the established religion or not? But we must not confine our views to the simple adoption of the measures prayed for in the Petition before the House, indispensably necessary as 1 may think them for the Avelfare of the British Empire in general, and of Ire- land in particular. The abolition of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland has been called for, as necessary to the tranquillity of that country; but I so totally differ from the Noble and learned Lord, that instead of abolishing it, I would render it the means of re- concilino; to the State and to the Constitution the great mass of Catholic Population. I see no reason why the Bishops should not be placed under the pro- tection of Government, and why they should not be both nominated by the King, and paid by the pub- lic. By such means, and not by the absurd propo- sition of converting the Irish Catholics to the estab^ lished religion by translating the Bible into Irish, may we hope to see them good and loyal subjects, especially if the whole system of policy by which that unhappy country has been governed, should be reversed ; and that, instead of keeping the people in ignorance and barbarism, a liberal and well-digested system of instruction should be adopted, and en- courao;ement afforded to habits of industry, and res- pect for the laws. Lord AUCKLAND— My Lords, having ex- pressed a decided opaiion respecting the Petition of the 173 the Irish Roman Catholics on its first introduction into this House, I liavc purposely waited to this late period of the debate, that I might learn the senti- iiicnts of other Noble Lords. The discussion is now so exhausted, that I can compress what I have to submit to your Lordships within narrower limits than I should have thought right if I had spoken earlier. My Nohle Friend who presented the Petition, has stated, That it involves the interests and happiness of four millions of people: — my Noble Friend might have said that it involves the interests and happiness of the whole British Empire. In agitating a ques- tion of such extent and magnitude, I am desirous to use a guarded and conciliatory language; but I must not be expected to sacrihce truth and fair argument at the shrine of flattery; nor will I be induced to withhold or extenuate any just reasonings that may present themselves to my mind. I see nothing im- proper or disrespectful in the style and temper of the Petition; nor indeed was it to be supposed that indi- viduals making a great request, would express them- selves in repulsive and offensive terms. I have not, however, adverted to the wording of the Petition so much as to its purport and objects; and it is well worthy of remark, that the whole bears a strong re- semhlance to the memorable declaration of James the Second, in lG87, for the liberty of conscience. There are in both instruments the same plausible pro- fessions of anxiety to conciliate and unite all reli- gious persuasions, the same gracious promises to respect the property of the Establisiied Church, ih& same appeals from the interests of trade, which al- ways vibrate forcibly on a British ear, the same dis- play of a generous earnestness to open every avenue of legalized ambition, — and all this as a prologue to the demand of a full and equal participation of pow- er, and of the means of acquiring power. Your Lordships will recollect, that this declaration was soon followed by another, which notified that Pa- pists had been appointed to all the principal ofiices . of: 174 of the State ; and recommended to the people to send Papist Kcprcscntativcs to ilje new Parliament. From the epoch of that inau:?[)icious precedent in 1687, to the rera of French Fraternity and Irish Re- bellion in 17.9!S, the notions of an equality of Po- litical Pow er had been suffered to lie dormant. Du- ring the greater part of that long period the Irish Catholics had been subjected to a systenj of intole- rance and restraints much too severe to be defended, except on ground of a real or mistaken necessity; and even so lately as the 12th of his present Majes- ty, an Act was passed to enable Papists to take not above fifty acre of unprofitable bog, with half an acre of arable adjoining, for not above sixty-one years." The first measure of any estent in favour of the Irish Catholics was in 1778; they were then em- powered to take long leases, and were relieved from various incapacities affecting both their properties and persons. The next material Act for their benefit was in 1781; when I was Chief Secretary, and a ]Vlem[)er of the Irish House of Commons. It is well known that I gave no discouragement to that Act, which, in addition to various indulgences con- tained in it, enables Papists to purchase and to hold estates, with the exception of advousons. I have gladly contributed to give to the Irish Catholics an interest in the soil, and consequently a more imme- diate attachment to the welfare of the community; but it never entered into my mind to allow them any share of the Powers of Government and of Legisla- ture. The jargon of Emancipation was then un- known, the aera of modern illumination was not yet arrived, — that eera when it could be thougiitsafe and practicable to maintain the limited monarchy and esta!)lished Church of England without test-laws, and without any restraint or incapacities affecting any description of sectarists. The next and last concessions of any import- ance, were tho'se which took place in 1792 and 17.93. My Noble Friend who opened thb debate, has been pleased 175 pleased to say that all the framers and supporters of those measures must reflect on them with pride and satisfaction. My near relation (Lord Bucking- hamshire) has expressed a similar sentiment this evening ; and certainly it is an amiable and natural weakness in parents to speak with rapture and ad- miration even of very depraved and ugly children. I have always contemplated the abrupt and improvi- dent concessions of 1793 with dissent and regret ; I have done so in common with two very respectable friends of mine, the late Lord Clare, and the pre- sent Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer. Those concessions placed the Protestants of Ireland in a relative situation, which impressed on every ob- serving mind the urgent necessity of a legislative union of tl^ two kingdoms ; and yet they tended to increase the difficulties of a measure which thus be- came essential to the peace and safety of the em- pire. But great as those concessions were, they only served to stimulate the appetite of the Irish Catholics for further claims ; and, in 179^, the Lord Lieutenant (Earl Fitzwilliam) shewed a strong disposition to gratify them to the full extent of their wishes. Happily he was not supported by the Government of that day, though it was com- posed of the same individuals who now urge the same measure for which they recalled the Noble Earl from his vice-royalty. The career of con- cessions to the Catholics was soon afterwards inter- rupted by that rebellion, over the hon ors of which I wish to throw a veil, and afterwards by the dis- cussions and arrangements which eventually accom- plished the union of the two kingdoms. In the re- sult, a period of comparative tranquillity has now been attained ; and the Roman Catholics and their Efdvisers have thought it eligible for the present ap- plication. What then is the purport of tliat application ? Nothing less than a fall participation of all corpo- rate franchises within the empire, and of all official, judicial, and legislative powers! fli examining the A a tendency 176 tendency of this gigantic grant (which in truth is of small moment to the bulk and general {)opulation of the Catholics) we must presume that it would, he efficient; for if its operation were to be as insigni- ficant as some Noble Lords seem to expect, tliere would be either a fallacy in the demand or a dupery in the concession, Perhaps it would not be difficult to shew that such a grant would be an infringement of a funda- mental article of the Union with Scotland, and also of the fifth article of the Irish Union. But I wish to negative the Petition on a broader ground. My Noble Friend, whose eloquence and argumentative powers have introduced the application with every possible advantage to it, has admitted that it could not be stated as a claim of right. Certainly it could not. Every legislature has the inherent power of qualifying and restricting the possession and exer- cise of civil privileges for the benefit of the -whole community. It is that power which regulates the " qualifications of the electors and of the elected, the rights of succession, minorities, marriages, and all the limitations of property ; it pervades the whole system of our laws ; a denial of it w ouid tend to in- dividual representation, to an Agrarian distribu- tion, to universal equality, and to general confu- sion. Still less can the Petition rest itself on the ground of toleration. The petitioners indeed al- lege, that they are entitled to a toleration not merely partial but complete and yet they well know that they already possess what they describe, and that, c\v vi ter7nini, those w4io are tolerated can- not share the power of those who tolerate. In the benevolent temper of our toleration we do not re^ strain the exercise of any religious persuasion ; but w^e feel and know that our own reformed religion is most congenial to the spirit of our free constitu- tion ; that the protection of the one is the protec- tion of the other ; and, above all things, that it would not be safe to admit within the pale of our Government 177 Government and T.egislature, a sect which professes a religion essentially adverse to our own. The tests prescril)cd hy the wisdom of our ancestors for the exclusion of that sect, have nothing to do with toleration ; they were framed on the plain and evi- dent presumption of law^ that he who receives the sacrament of the church is of the church, I have heen glad to hear it avowed by the Noble Mover of the question, that the Petition cannot rest on any assurances given or compact made at the time of the Union. In truth, it was impossible to make such a compact without the concurrence of Parlia- ment ; and if such a consequence of the Union had existed in the mind of any individual employed to frame the Articles, it should have been stated at the time, both in good faith to the Irish Protest- ants, and in the honest discharge of duty to the respective Parliaments of the two kingdoms. It will ever be a consideration of just pride to me, that I have borne no small share in adjusting all the details of that transaction ; and I do not hesitate to declare, that if the concessions now proposed were in the contemplation of those with whom I acted at that time, their views were industriously concealed from me, and from others of their as- sociates. It is indeed true, that, soon after the Union, tliere was, apparently, a sudden change in the opinions of some leading'persons respecting the sub- ject now in discussion. I do not impute any blame to that change, or doubt its sincerity, though I must deplore it. That change has given an irreparable shock to the confidence of public men in each other ; and to it, perhaps, are owing many of the distrac- tions and difficulties under which the empire has since laboured. It is admitted, that the Petition is not grounded on any claim of right, of toleration, or any compact, expressed or implied, at the time of the Union, but merely on a question of expediency. In arguing the question, I will not cling with a blind attach- ment to the acts and systems of former ages, though A a 2 sanctioned 178 sanctioned by the setdemenl in favour of the House of Brunswick, and by the blessings resulting from it. I am well aware that the objects and princi[)lc5 of legislation must change with the times, interests, and exigencies of the day ; but no doubt arises in my mind that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from political power, contributed essentially to our free and happy constitution, and ought still to be maintained for its security. Nothing has happened to diminish my anxieties for the stability of that mild and true religion, which, by its precepts and in- fluence, is so incorporated with our Constitution, that they must stand and fall together. If you admit the Catholics to a participation of power, you admit the enemy within your camp. All men have a na- tural desire to extend the predominance of the reli- gion they believe ; nay more, it is the sacred and prescribed duty of the Papist, if he be sincere iu his creed, to undermine our Church ; for he be- lieves it to be fatal to the souls of its professors, and must feel that, in demolishing it, he is render- ing a service to his fellow-creatures and to God. It is a fundamental principle of the Church of Ptome to exercise spiritual dominion over the Christian world. The titular bishops, at their ordination, swear ^' to defend, enlarge, and extend the authority of the Roman Church, and of their Lord the Pope." Their metropolitans in Ireland avow the same obligation, and proclaim, at this hour, in their publications, that the spiritual power of the Pope is the same as ever. These doctrines are enforced by the priests, Religion is not similar to the ordinances of human institution, and capable of being qualified and re- strained in its energies by law. The Roman Cathor lies love their religion ; its princi[ies are irreconcile- able to other persuasions, and its hierarchy is inces- santly and indefatigably active, and subject also to the occasional influence of foreign states. If this sect should become co-ordinate in powder with the reformed religion of the British empire ; if we once admit the theoretical solecism of a Protes- taqt 179 taiU Monarch and Papist Councils,— we shall find ourselves involved in a religious anarchy. The petitioners are pleased to assure us that they do not seek to encroach upon the revenues of our bishops and clergy." Nothing is so talse, in prin- ciple or in practice, as the notion of giving much, that nothing more may be asked — " The cruel something unpossessM, Leavens and poisons all the rest/' And though the dangers thus described are not immi- nent, still they are not so chimerical as to induce us to abandon the bulwarks we possess. The bars and bolts of a house may be removed, and yet the house not pillaged ; but every prudent man will keep his bars and bolts. It would be a breach of our parliamentary trust to destroy or abandon the great outwork of that Constitution under which we have so long enjoyed such unparalleled blessings. The Petitioners, by a sort of implied menace, have expressed " their anxious desire to extinguish all motives to disunion, and all means of exciting discontent." If there be any eventual responsibility in this business, it must fail on the heads of those who first agitate a question, of which they must have foreseen the result, if they had duly adverted to the known opinions of the several branches of the Le- gislature, of the whole Body of the Irish Protes- tants, and of the general mass of the British peo- ple. I will be guided, and, I trust, a large majority pf your Lordships also, by a due estimate of the op- posite responsibihties. I cannot mean any disrespect towards the sup- porters of the Petition; I know they are as adverse as I can be to the equalizing doctrines that have taken root in the minds of many; but I must pause before I can accede to that levelling liberality which would consider the Episcopal Protestant Church, that of vScotland, that of Rome, and all the secta- in ti]e empire, as entitled in justice and expedi- ency ISO cncy to the same polilical privileges, powers, and functions. My I^ords, as we have seen, within a few years, ma- ny awful warnings of Providence in the fall of stales and kingdoms, and in the vicissitudes of human af- fairs; chiefly owing to innovations in civil govern- nrient and indiiference respecting religious establish- ments, have we not good cause to adhere to a sys- tem of which we have had a long and beneficial ex- perience? We have more to risk than any nation under Heaven. The present long and perilous war is directed against the spirit of innovation, to which so large a part of Europe has fallen a victim. Did it not commence for the safety of our civil and reh- glous Constitution? So long as the ancient barriers of that Constitution shall be preserved, I am confi- dent that we have nothing essential to fear; and yet lam not blind to the increasing dani^;ers and pro- tracted difficulties which still press upon us. I will not contest prophecies with some of my Noble Friends, who are pleased to say, that the day cannot be distant when the deuiands of the Petition- ers will be complied with. 1 see no such probability, even with llw assistance (which I will readily trans-* fer to them) of a few tioble persons who vote now against the Petition, merely because they think the present is not the proper moment." " On the contrary, I hope and rely that the well- meaning Catholics of Ireland will see and be con- vinced, that the se^ise of Parliament is pronounced against their application, upon grounds of immutable truth and reason, and at the same time with all that good-will and affection which ought to prevail be- tween subjects of the same Sovereign." Lord KING lamented that there should be any serious difference at this crisis between the English Brotestants and the Roman Cathohcs in Ireland; he wished all difterences to cease, and supported the motion as a measure of wisdom. Lord BOLTON having formerly held an high official situation in Ireland (Chief Secretary to the Lord 181 Lord Lieutenant) felt it his duty to express the opi- nion on this subject which he had formed upon niucii reflection. IJc conceived it extremely dangerous to grant to the CathoHcs pohtical power, except under a control, which was by no means proposed, a.nd ^vhich it would be diiificult to devise: and he thought such an experiment the more hazardous, as a language of constructive menace had been held by many Noble Lords of great weight, in course of this discussion, who had said that, what is asked must be granted, to preserve the country from im- minent peril of fatal discord and disunion that must follow a refusal. This was a language of direct in- timidation, which could not be listened to for many reasons ; for nothing could tend more to remove all limits to future demand until the very superiority of povver might be claimed or assumed. The House too was exhorted and warned to concessions, — not merely for the sake of interest, but of self-preserva- tion. But, on the contrary, he feared .much more from the concession than the refusal. Some Noble Lords went so far as to insinuate pretty plainly that the House was encouraged to venture on rejecting tlie Petition, from a reliance on the loyalty and pa- tience of the depressed and ill-treated Catholics. He would not hesitate to acknowledge his own re- liance on the continued loyalty of these Catholics who iiad hitherto maintained it; — but that reliance would not be increased by increasing to the Catho- lics political power. These oppressive restraints no longer exist ; and he would so far acci edit their good sense, as to think that, with all the drawbacks on their privileges so strongly enumerated, they would yet prefer the station they now hold in the empire to any risk under any change to which they migh^ look from the interference of any foreign power. They could be no friends to the Catholics w4io argued their cause so inconsistently, as at one moment to .menace the country with the privation of all aid from them without submission to .their claims; and tho next, to rebuke the Legislature for its want of impli- 182 cit reliance on their invariable attachment. Was it wished by those who so urgently argued tlie necessi- ty of uniting those four niilHons of Catholics cor- dially in the national defence, that they should be considered as actuated to such a purpose, at such a crisis, by motives of self-interest only, after all the favours they have received, and all the declarations they have made? But surely a much more generous and persuasive argument would be the manifestation of precedent efforts and exertions, from genuine patriotism, instead of conditional stipulations ; but nothing could be more clearly necessary than that every species of menace or alarm, of unsteadiness or apprehension, should be completely extinguished on both sides, before an arrangement so important and delicate in its nature could be formed, with a view to its permanence. Quitting the course of general reasoning, he adverted to the period of 1783-4, when the Irish Capital was in a manner in possession of the self-organized Irish Volunteers. The voluntary readiness to take up arms on that occasion, which was urged particularly by the Ca- tholics as a peculiar merit, was followed by an ex- treme reluctance to lay them down again, after the restoration of peace. Occasional votes of thanks to those Volunteers had been moved, and too rea- dily assented to, by the Irish Parliament, as, in fact the object was to prolong the continuance of an in- stitution not regularly acknowledged, which, in a different period, might well become a subject of great political uneasiness. This was accompanied with serious symptoms of internal disgust. But by a decisive vote of ultimate thanks to the Volunteers, with a recommendation to disembody and return to the occupations of peace, in which Government had the good fortune to be supported by the manly and powerful eloquence of a distinguished charac- ter ('Mr. Gkattan) ; at this moment, perhaps, supporting, with his powerful enen^^ies, in another place, tlie prayer of this Petition, which many fear, if granted, vvould be more dangerous to the esta- blished 183 blislied Constitution than were the unauthorized pa- rades of some Cathohc Corps of Vohinteers. It was about this time, too, that the first Bill for an Irish Militia was brought forward, at the desire of Government, by the late Lord Mountjoy (who since gallantly fell in defending his country against the fury of civil commotion) ; and who, tliougli the first to bring forward the Catholic Petition in Par- liament, afterwards fell the first victim of a rebel- lion, in a great degree Catholic. The Noble Lord stated these circumstances, as well to develope the real state of the Catholic body, and the origination of those indulgences which have since so rapidly succeeded each other, as to mark the objects and designs which have actuated the movements of the different members of that body. It was a great er- ror to suppose that the idea of complete Catholic Emancipation from all restrictions was only hinted for the first time in 1788 or I789. The Noble Lord (Grenville) who brought forward this Pe- tition, had appealed to the experience of those who had resided, in official situations, in Ireland, to speak to the Catholic character and conduct. Other Noble Lords had ably and honourably done so ; and he would now add such testimony as occurred to his own experience. " The great change effected in the political situa- tion of Ireland in 1782 continued unfortunately to have a lasting cflcct on the Catholics of all descrip- tioiiS, ever afterward. From these might be dated the systematic restlessness, disorder, nay, absolute disloyalt^^, in a large portion of the lower orders, and the growing eagerness in the higher classes for place and power. Both adopted measures but ill chosen for success ; but they decidedly marked the fast hold those objects had taken on the Catholic mind. They formed great expectation of advan- tage from the new-born independency of Ireland upon England ; but shortly after, those hopes were changed to doubt, and then to despair ; — murmurs and complaints ensued at their nieetin^^?, and dema- 184 gogues, and priests chosen from the lowest orders, educated abroad, and fraught with seditious princi- ples, laboured to work up the minds of the people. They were taught to rely for every thing on the su- periority of their numbers, and a separation from England. Relief from tithes and rents, and gain of property and provision without labour, were all to arise from this separation ; and it soon became a cant word, and the bond of a dangerous Union. White Boys, and other pra3datory associations arose, which though soon suppressed by the vigour of Go- vernment, still left behind them those sernjs of their principles that never since have been quite extin- guished. The weight and influence of their higher orders, and particularly of their clergy, were consi- derably diminished; and have never since been re- gained. Their lassitude and tardines in aiding to suppress the disorders alluded to, were observable to Government ; and there appeared but too much cause to suspect that such aid was reserved for con- ditional compensation. In the beginning of 1786, Dr. Butler, the titular Archbishop of Cashel, a man of considerable talents and high family-connexion, and then considered the great organ of the Catholic Cause, addressed a remonstrance to Government, upon the disappointment felt by the Catholics at the lapse of a whole Session of Parliament, without any mark of favour to them. Long-sufferings, merits, , and expectations were urged, and much mortifica- tion and discontent were expressed, — especially as Parliament was not engaged in the consideration of any foreign war, or other business of difficulty or embarrassment ; and after expatiating much on their zeal in the volunteer cause, and their uniformly inoffensive and loyal conduct, the remonstrance concluded by saying, they would be satisfied for the present with some introductory privileges, such as the professions and honours of the Bar and Army, as preludes to the attainment of every thing else. The answer to this remonstrance expressed sur- prize at them atter, manner, and time of it ; and at the the same time reminded Dr. Butler and, through him, his community of the internal disorders and commotions then existing, excited by and con- fined to CathoHcs, and most prevalent where Ca- tholic influence was the most powerful. It there- fore denied tlie propriety of any remonstrance, ex- pectation, or requisition for favours, while there was no mark of auxiliary exertion from the higher Ca- tholics to support the tranquillity and good order disturbed lately by their own community. Several conferences followed, which ended in an offer on the part of Government to submit the claims of the CathoHcs to Parliament ; but not without condi^ tional professions of active gratitude. The hazard of such a reference was thought much greater than the probability of its success : but there w as an end, for the time, to Petition, and Remonstrance, and soon afterwards, to the appearance of open and pre- datory disaffection. This was in the Administra- tion of the Duke of Rutland ; and the Noble Lord by no means meant to charge any temptation or feeling of disloyalty in the principal Catholics, but, on the contrary, to acknowledge and vindicate their loyal principles, and the many proofs of which they had shewn. But he must observe, that their un- changeable views to their great object of final eman- cipation from all restrictions, and even under their partial and temporary indulgences from time to time, was an obvious check upon the vigour of any zealous co-operation W'ith Government. Fr6m all of which it was obvious, that allowing them to be good and loyal subjects in their present situation, yet they have an msatiable thirst for power. He had, therefore, some doubts whether he should have consented to grant them even the elec- tive franchise, or the removal of other disabilities in 1793. It was clearly obvious that such a grant would be made a step tow^ards claiming representation; and who could even say this would bound their demands? The Catholics did not seem to value what they alrea- dy possessed or enjoyed by connivance. No penalties ' B b £ or 186 or restrictions remain that can be felt by the great mass; nor would all that is now required add one grain to their real wants or wishes; and as to the few who could be benefited l)y the desired concessions, they are merely excluded fronj necessary regard to the se- curity of our constitutional establishments, and from which in fact they exclude themselves, by refusing to take the same tests as Protestants. So long as there exists the uncontrouled dominion of factious dema- gogues, of whatever class, but especially of a monk- ish priesthood, over the minds of these wretched people, they will not be sufifered to exert their re- sources with steady attention to any pursuit. Willi respect to the Catholic Hierarchy, it was an instance of connivance, a striking proof, admitted by the Ca- tholics tliemselveSjOf the liberal forbearance of the Protestant Establishment; and what the danger to be apprehended in that quarter from granting power to the Catholics, was matter for serious reflection. He had hoped an effectual remedy for all causes of alarm and uneasiness, would be found in the great nieasure of (he Union; and in whatever light he had viewed the m.easure of Irish Independence, as inviting a danger of separation, he had altered that opinion in considering that independency as the great demon- strative proof of necessity for an Union; and though there vyas not yet time for obtaining all the good to be expected from that measure, especially in its effect upon the quiet and peaceable demeanour of the lower Caiholics, still, however, he che- rished the hope, that from the Union would ul- timately arise a state of order and industry, productive of more solid welfare to the people of that conntry than all the imaginary schemes of good from it without emancipation. The Catholics at present possess ample njeans of comfort and pros- perity. Let them be fairly estimated, cherished, and enjoyed, and they would produce an harvest of blessings : for the present, he dared not venture to dream of more which would be good for tliem or safe for us. Cut God forbid he should wish to circum-» 187 circumscribe the ways of Providence, which might remove obstacles at present too strong for our at- tenipt to clear away or pass by. There may be fu- ture reasons, however unexpected now, to prove the security with which liic Protestants Uiay grant the Ca- ihoHcsthe fullest participation of privileges: they may, byhabits of industry, good order, harmonious concord, social intercourse, mutual good-will, and reciprocal good ofiices, and by zealous patriotism and loyalty, liive encouragement for unrestricted conlidence. The Catholics may find cause unequivocally to withdraw that barrier (insuperable whilst it remains in force) of divided allegiance, — the obligation to Papal Supre- macy. I will not, said he, shutout the wish or the hope for such alteration of circumstance; shut with our li- mited power of searching into future chance and change, we can, I think, retain tlws possible expec- tation as the only prevention to a positive declara- tion, That heix, even here, must be " the Be-all and the End-all." We are, I am afraid, yet only on our own necessary defence. We are obliged, in con- science, honour, and duty to ourselves, and to our constitution in Church and State, to throw our shield of Self-preservation before us, and on it to ex- hibit the warning motto of Ae plus ultra. Lord G RENVILLE, in the course of an able ^nd spirited reply of considerable length, said, he could with the greatest confidence assure their Lordships, that were they to agree to his motion, which was merely to take the Petition of their Ro- man Catholic fellow-subjects into consideration in a Committee, he could by positive and incontro- vertible proof, do away almost every thing that had been asserted against them. Witii respect to the circumstance of the Petition not having been signed by any of the Romish Clergy in L'eland, on which SQ much stress had been laid, and from which such unwarrantable inferences have been drawn, he pledged himself to prove by juridical testimony, that the Priests were not only willing, but for\\:ard and ji^^^irgus, to take the oaths prescribed by law ; and even •J 88 even exerted themselves to persuade the lay-gentry and numbers of their flocks to take them. This he could prove by certificates from courts of justice in Ireland, and other concurrent testimony ; but, the reason alle2;ed for the C'lcrn;y not sirrnin^ the present Petition, and a correct and rational ob- jection it was, was, that it prayed merely for civil rights. Those, therefore, who abused and vilified this useful and respectable class of men, were not judging from facts, or well-wishors to the peace and prosperity of Ireland. Peace, order, and tranquil- lity, were not to be established, as some may think, in that important part of the empire, by the degra- dation or the abolition of that calumniated hierar- chy, but by securing to it character, influence, and respect. Those who endeavoured to effect this, were practically the greatest benefactors to the empire of which Ireland now forms so essential a part. To meet ultimately the wishes, as well as to obviate the objections, of many Noble Lords who partially or in toto opposed the motion going into the pro- posed Committee, was the first step. This was merely the object of his motion ; and all that, on the part of the Petitioners, he asked, in the first in- stance, from the House. He knew, as had been suggested by a Noble Earl (indeed no man could be more fully aware of it than himself) that the grant of the prayer of the Petition must be ac- companied by regulation, provision, and arrange- ment : there were many topics of detail to be dis- cussed, and many subordinate considerations to be provided for : some in a civil point of view, and gome of requisite ecclesiastical arrangement, as had been alluded to by a Noble Baron (Lord Boring- don) t9 be settled previous to final settlement; but still they were to consider the Petition as the ground- work of the whole. Great stress had been laid upon the objection on the part of the Petitioners to take the Oath of Supremacy ; and this very cir- cumstance, did no other consideration apply, would abundantly and clearly expose the falsity, in- consistency, 189 consistency, and absurdity of the assertion, that tlie Petitioners hold as an article of their Creed, That " no faith is to be kept with Heretics." Nothing now, as had been noticed by a Noble Viscount (Lord Viscount Carlton) on the first night of the debate, and as was emphatically said by a Noble Baron (Lord Hutchinson) this night, remained to exclude the Catholics from a full participation of the benefits of the Constitution, but their sancli- monious regard for the dictates of an oath ! And yet, up to this very hour, they were told tliat Ca- tholics consider themselves as not obliged to keep faith with heretics, and consequently pay no regard to the oaths they take with them. But this was not all. Let then' Lordships consider what this much- talked-of oath respecting the King s supremacy was in reality and in fact. Perhaps, many who talked loudly of it, were far from understanding it. In point of fact, the oath in question is not affirma- tive, but negative. It does not assert that the King is the Supreme Head of the Church, — but that no Foreign Prince or Potentate is so to be considei-ed. It had been repeatedly argued and demonstrated, that the sense in which Roman Catholics regard the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church, is a theological, not a political consideration ; it vv'ould be therefore sufficient to remind their Lordships of that point. An observation, or an argument, if it were intended as such, against complying with the prayer of the Petition, and made use of by a Noble Karl (the Earl of Buckinghamshire) who spoke early in the debate of that night, was inconsistent anil absurd in the extreme. The Noble Earl said, that the King had not in his dominions a set of men more attached or better atfected to his person and government, than the Noble Lords and Gentleineii (men of property) who represented the whole Irish Roman Catholic Body ; but, he added, these men had unfortunately lost their influence over the great mass of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Wliy then, he (Lord Grenville) would ask, should they hesitate 190 hesitate to grant tlic prayer of the Petition, ^hich went to affect a comparatively small number of j)er,sons, and who were described as loyal and faithful subjects, and yet grant to the lower or- ders of the great body of the Irish Catholics, reputedly a contaminated mass, every thinii they could reasonably ho})C to enjoy under the Consti- tution ? The argument of the Noble Earl involved this farther inconsistency : he entertained fears that great Catholic Proprietors would soon exclusively be returned for the counties by the great majority of the Catholic freeholders ; yet, almost in the same breath, he assents, that persons of that de- scription have lost their influence over the great body of the Irish Catholics ! Lord Viscount SIDMOUTII.— My Lords, I shall detain you but with a very few words in ex- planation of my meaning. It was my idea, and it is my wish, that all remaining restrictions on the religion of the Catholics of Ireland, if any remain, should be removed. I would also allow them a full community of civil rights with the rest of his Majesty's subjects ; but never wouldi I agree to put into their hands powers sufficient to subvert the Constitution." The House then divided, when the numbers were, — For the motion, — Contents - 37, Proxies 12 — 49 Not Contents 133, Proxies 45 — 178 Majority against the motion 129. Tellers for the Contents, Lord Dun das. For the Not-contents, Lord Au c klax d. At six o'clock in the morning the House ad- journed. HOUSE HOUSE OF COMMONS. MoNDAY> March the 25th, i8c5. M R. FOX rose to present to the House a Petition on the part of His Majesty *s subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, praying for a repeal of the laws at present peculiarly existing against them. He never, in the course of his poli- tical life, was concerned in a more important under- taking than the Petition of the Catholics, nor did he believe a subject more important had been brought before Parliament j he felt great satisfaction in being the instrument of bringing it before that House. Whatever might be the result, which he would not now discuss, it must afford the greatest pleasure to every sensible mind to perceive, that though dif- ferences might possibly subsist between individuals of that persuasion, yet the great body of the Catho- lics had come forward to solicit Parliament in the most respectful language, and their application was of the most temperate and becoming kind. The Petition stated, amongst other things, that the Ca- tholics hope the House will repeal the statutes dis- qualifying them to sit in Parliament, and to hold certain offices in the State ; and that they may be admitted to the full enjoyment of the British Consti- ^ tudon, as well as the subjects of every other parr B of 2 of the kingdom. The Petition being read, (vide Lords.) Mr. CARTWRIGHT professed himself friendly to the measure of the Emancipation of the Catho- lics, as he had always been, yet he was surprised that the subject was brought forward now, knowing, as those who brought the Petition forward must, that the Petition could not succeed in the present circumstances of things, and for reasons that could not but be well known. Mr. fox did not know those reasons. When made known to him, he should then give an answer. He moved that the Petition do lie on the table; which having been agreed to, Mr. fox said, that he would not propose any precise and definitive day for the consideration of the Petition. The situation of the Members for Ireland, occupied, as many of them were understood to be, in business of that country at home, would not admit either of a day being peremptorily fixed, or of that being a near day, whatever day should be fixed. Open to future alteration, he should, however, propose in the mean time, that the Peti- tion be taken into consideration on the 9th of May next. He should probably give the House notice, before the holidays, of the precise day. Dr. DUIGENAN wished the Hon. Gentleman to fix it then, peremptorily, for the 9th of May. Mr. fox would have readily fixed ie so, but was unable in the present circumstances. The no- tice stands, accordingly, for the ^th of May next, Mr. fox on a subsequent day deferred his notice till Monday the 13th of May. Monday, 3 Monday, May the ijth. THE Order of the Day being read for taking into consideration the Petition of the Catholics, and the Petition itself being also read by the Clerk, (vide Proceedings in the Lords.) Mr. fox. — Sir, at the same time that I can- not help feeling a considerable degree of anxiety at being about to bring before the' House a subject which, according to my conception of it, seems, in its probable consequences, some nearer and some more remote, to be of the very highest importance ; yet, I confess, I feel infinitely less agitated than upon many other subjects on v^hich I have lately had occasion to address you. It is certainly a sort of recreation, if I may be allowed so to express myself, after having been obliged to perform the harassing duties of accusation — after having promoted inqui- ries into circumstances, certainly not more honour- able to the country at large than to the individual concerned in them — after having had my mind so harassed and occupied, to feel that I am not now the mover of accusation, but that 1 am pleading the cause of my fellow subjects, and that I am endeavouring to add to the strength of the country, without takiiig from the credit, power, or authority of any living man in the Empire. I cannot help being sensible of the contrast between the duties lacciy imposed upon me, and that of attempting to draw the aLLentioa of the House to a subject, which, hov/ever embarrass- ing the discussion of it may be to some persons, has at least this advantage, that it rests entirely on principles of general affection and good wiil, con- nected with views v/hich every man must approve, apd no man can condemn. The question, Sir, tha£ I have 4 I have the honour of bringing before you> and I da feci it a great honour to have been desired to brin^ it before you, is no less than a Petition, signed not indeed by any very great number of persons, but embracing, and I take it at the lowest calculation, when I say, one fifth of His Majesty's subjects. C Hear I Hear !) Nay, further, I believe I shall not be incorrect, if I state them at one-fourth of the whole of His Majesty's subjects in Europe. My duty, therefore, calls upon me to plead the cause of 3 or 4,000,000 of the people of Ireland, without reference to the proportion they bear to the popula- tion of that part of the Empire, but which must be allowed to contain the greater proportion of the Catholic subjects of His Majesty — a propordon amountmg to nearer a fourth than a fifth of the whole population of the Empire. I feel particularly fortunate, that when I am pressing the claims of the Catholics of Ireland to the consideration of this House, I am not pressing them as adverse or hos- . tile to the power or pre-eminence, much less the liberty or privileges, of the subjects of any other part of the country. If 1 could persuade the House to do justice to the Catholics, I should persuade them to render a most important service indeed, perhaps the most essendal that remains to be done, or that ever was done, for the security, the great- ness, and general weal of the empire at large, whe-> ther vv^ith regard to its internal policy, or external relations. It may be somewhat difficult for me to choose on what .part of the subject it is most proper to begin. The plain and simple statement of the question, and the first argument in support of it, would natu- rally be drawn from matter of fact, concerning which no controversy or difference of opinion ever did or can exist ; \ mean the number of persons who are affected by the question. If I had not heard that different opinions were entertained with respect ta to the policy and expediency of granting the prayer of this Petition, I should hardly think it could be a question, whether a portion of His Majesty's sub- jects, so considerable as nearly one-fourth, should be on a footing with the remainder, or should have the enjoyment of equal laws, privileges, or advan- tages, and the full participation and benefit of the Constitution and Government of the Country ? Against the principle so generally stated, cause may be shown, suppositions may be urged, and facts may be referred to, with a view to show that this, as well as any other general principle, may be liable to error. I will not detain the House long upon this point i but it is necessary I should call its attention to a topic, which may be considered more an object of theory than any thing else. I shall trouble the House but shortly, and only explain my opinion, that, whatever difference of sentiment and feeling may exist, that difference is purely theoretical — the question, in point of practical application, is pre- cisely the same. What some call rights, and what others call indulgences, are precisely and exactly the same. The differences are rather differences between words than things. — There are two modes of considering this question j ist, as it regards the rights of the subject ; and adly, as it affects the rights of the Crown. That which was most in fashion at different periods of the last century, was the latter mode of viewing it. For my own part, I do consider the rights of the people governed tQ be the prominent rights. I consider, that those wha compose the society of a state have a complete and unquestionable right to equality of law but I da at the same time admit, that this principle is not to be taken generally, I admit the force of the other general maxim, that Salus Populi siiprema est Lex^ and ought with propriety to be considered as an ex- ception. Not only very able men, but men of practical knowledge, have in their closets considered - it'' 6 it in that light. A most respectable modern writer of our own country, now living, (Dr. Paley) has stated, that the ger;cral right of Government is to do whatever may be necessary for the advantage of the people : but he, and every man of sense, will tell you, that although this is undoubtedly the gene- ral right, yet whenever it is exercised by restrictions with regard to one class of the people, such exer- cise becomes an abuse , or, in other words, the peo- ple have a right not to be restricted in any thing that is not adverse to the safety of the country. (Hear! Hear! repealed by many of the Members,) The people have a right to be exempted generally from unequal restriction ; but when the safety of the country demands it, and history shows us that sucii instances are numerous, they are exceptions tq the rule, and have always been so considered. In the way in which different persons consider this subject, a difference of opinion has been produced, but the conclusion is the same. Some say they would give the Catholics what they require, as a matter of favour, and a matter of j)olicy 5 but not as a matter of right. Now, I say, I would give it to them as a matter of right : but we, however, shall not differ, if the practical consequence of our reasoning come to the same thing. I would give it as aright, because it is the general right of the people, and because there is no exception which ought to operate against the Catholics of Ireland, Though Government has a right to impose restric- tions y yet, if there be no necessity for them, then comes the right of the people to enjoy the benefit of every law, provided such enjoyment is not mis- chievous in its consequences to the country. It was therefore, Sir, I v/ished to say these few words, be- cause it is so important a part of the subject, and one which, from the nature of it, cannot be a ques- tion to-day, but might recur and become a question for future consideration. I should v.:ish that all should 1 understand 1 understand each other, and particularly that it should not be supposed there is any essential difference, when, in fact, it is a difference of words rather than of principles. Whatever difference exists with respect to the two theories, it is evident they lead to the same practical consequences. To apply this to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I do noc lay down a principle too large, when I state that it is the general right of the Catholics, as well as of the Protestants, to be on an equal footing, to have equal laws, privi- leges, and immunities, in all cases where they are not prejudiciaUto the welfare of the State. The only differences that could arise would be with regard to the degree in which they should enjoy those rights. Cases might be put where persons might say nothing could justify a departure from the rule of right, but expediency. Some might say, political advantages, connected with external relations, would justify it j others would require such a degree of expediency as would amount to a necessity. They would require that not only the greatness of the country, but the security of the country, should be concerned. I flat- ter myself we shall not go on such near shades. The Roman Catholics of Ireland have undoubtedly a right to equal laws ; but the Government has thought fit to curtail that right, and to put them on a footing disadvantageous to them. To enter into the question, whether the lav/s for restraining the Catholics were originally politic; or, rather, whether they were just ; that is to say, whe- ther the policy which dictated tliem was of such a nature as to render that just Vv'hich was not within the general rule of justice, would be a discussion ex- ceedingly unnecessary at this moment. At the same time, it will be necessary to attend to the particular period of history in which these restrictions ^ were principally imposed. I think I need not state what will be the argument in reply. No man's mind, I hope, is so framed as to imagine that the restrictions can 8 can be Justified on account of the length of time they have been allowed to continue. Such an opinion would be a solecism in political reasoning ; it would do away the original principle on which such laws were founded, to contend, that though they might be unnecessary at the time they were adopted, yet that, by a long lapse of time, they have acquired a prescriptive right. If a restrictive law is made on account of peculiar circumstances of a polidcal na- ture, the moment those circumstances cease, the restriction ceases to be politic, and consequently ceases to be just. I cannot conceive how any man can be justified in supposing that, where the circum- stances on which a law is founded have ceased, the justice of continuing that law can be a matter for fair reasoning. It may so happen, though I think it has not so happened in this case, but it has nearly happened, that the fact of long restrictions may make it difficult afterwards to restore the objects of them to that situation in which they would have been if the restrictions had never been imposed. I think one may generally state, that all the restrictions of the Catholics were laid, not on their religious but their political opinions. At the time they were made, I have doubts whether many of those who concurred in them did not disapprove of the principle ; and I have doubts also, whether others did not mix senti- ments of persecution and rancour with those restric- tions. I would not wish to go to antient times ; but in the early period of the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and Ji^mes I. no one can suppose it was any particular religious bigotry that led to the restrictions with re- gard to the Catholics. As far as one can learn of the character of Queen Elizabeth, her faith was not so repugnant to the Catholic religion as that of many Protestant ministers, who were principally concerned in the restrictions. She managed the question with a degree of prudence which proved her one of the most consummate Princes of the age. She seemed to be engage' 9 engaged in a general war with several great Catholic Powers, and particularly with the King of Spain. From the connection which the King of Spain had with the Catholics by the league with France, she was necessarily involved in disputes with France, as well as other Powers of the Continent; tlierefore they were political circumstances which occ .sioned those harsh and severe laws against tlie Catholics which passed in her reign. Whatever other pre- tences might have been resorted to, it is plain the Ca- tholics were not considered as the loyal subjects of Queen Elizabeth. But I am sj^eaking of old times, and the circumstances of them do not relate to the present. Even in the reigns that followed, very few restrictions by penal law were enacted — very few re- strictions of disabilities took place till a much later period. This may be accounted for from the cir- cumstance that there was no suspicion of the Catho- lics; but afterwards, in the time of the Stuarts, and Charles I. and IL, suspicions had taken possession of the minds of the people of this country, which made those restrictions necessary, many of which have been done away, and some are now under consideration. When we come to the Revolution, it is impos'^ible not to see that all the laws of the Catholics were po- litical laws. It was not a Catholic, but a Jacobite, you wished to restrain. When King James was dri- ven from the country ; when his enormous tyranny became so mixed with bigotry, that many persons professed to be able to unravel his conduct, and tell what to attribute to religion, what to bigotry, and what to tyranny, it was easy to suppose that the Ca- tholics should be actuated by an attachment for a King who had lost his throne in consequence of his partiality for their faith. Ireland at this time was the seat of civil war. Undoubtedly it ^¥as natural, after that war was settled by conquest, to prevent the conquered from enjoying the privileges of the con- querors. It was not against the religious faith of c those 10 those who adored the Virgin Mary, or believed in the docrrir.e of TransLibstantiacion. King William v/as unquestionably a great man ; I may say the greatest that ever filled the Throne of this or any other country j but whoever would wish to raise his character, by representing him as a per- secutor of heresy and idolatry, materially mistake the character of that Prince. I am persuaded, that he ipost reluctantly consented to harsii measures against the Catholics of Ireland, and only did so, because it was represented to him by his ministers, that they were absolutely necessary. That King William would have acted wiser, if he had made those restrictions l*2ss harsh, it is not now our business to consider. King William, in conceding his own to the opinion of others, acquiesced, on the ground of the difference of opinion among the Roman Catholics as to the right of suc- cession to the Crown, and in conformity to that ad* vice v/hlch his ministers gave him. The years that followed the Revolution were most of them years of war ; and those that were not years of war, were, with reference to the Catholics, years of a suspicious nature. Endeavours were made to bring about a re- ligious war, in which it was impossible for the enemy not to have looked with confidence to the assistance of Ireland-r— therefore the Catholics were disarmed — it might have been wise so to do. That there were bigoted motives actuating some I v/ill not attempt to deny-^there were many persons in this, as well as that country, who were of opinion, that by these per- secutions they should convert to the Protestants the property of the v/hole kingdom of Ireland: others there were^ v/ho thougjit that more lenient measures were likely to be more successful. The effect proved that the measures adopted not only failed, but they v/cre of a nature which rendered their success abso- lutely impossible. They vvere lav/s which, though nominally against the Catholics, were substantially against the Jacobites. In the two next reigns the same 11 sdme laws continued^ because the same spirit was sup- posed to exist, and the same danger to be apprehend- ed from it. In the rebellions which followed, the conduct of the Catholics in remaining quicr, gave them a just claim to the indulgence of this House ; yet no man who considers the grounds of tho; c re- bellions, will think that any great degree of trust could have been reposed in the Catholics. We come now to the period of His present Ma- jesty's reign ; a period at which all danger of a Pre- tender, and the return of the Stuart family to the throne, was extinguished. I should certainly say, that all danger of that nature had vanished in thelat^ ter end of the reign of George II., and that there was no longer any dispilte as to the succession to His Ma- jesty's Crown. From that period no further danger existed. During the Lord-lieutenancy of the Duke of Bedford, at the time of His Majesty's accession, the system of relaxation towards the body of the Ca- tholics was adopted. There wvs a remarkable circum- stance at the period to which I am referring, that proves to me more clearly than any thing else, that the causes of these restrictions were at ari end. So far was the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, during the American war, and the war with France, from pre- tending that there was any danger to be apprehended, that upon an alarm on the coast of Cork, arms, though contrary to law, were put into the hands of those against vi^hom the restrictions remained, on account of the unjust suspicions that they were not worthy of being trusted. Then undoubtedly there was a good deal of difference of opinion ; for although there was not much doubt in this House, yet Gentlemen must know that the Catholics of Ireland were the subject of much consideration. I need only refer to the Letters published by the late Mr. Burke, relative to the con- versations in thosedays. I remember in 1 776 or 1777, the matter being mentioned in a conversation in this House. It became a topic of discussion during the period of the American war, when party politics ran ^ C 2 higb> - 12 high, ni. cn persons felt vvarnn, as undoubtedly they ought lO feel upon occasions of such pubhc im- portance. The opinion then was, that it was a de- sirahle thing to Iil)eratc the Catholics from the dis* qu.'ihh'cations which attached to them ; and I rather believe that the real grounds of the motion, and of the Bill, moved and seconded by two celebrated names. Sir George Saville and Mr. Dunning, were not so much to relieve the Catholics of Ireland. I did con- ceive, that to bar a man of his right on account of hi.> religious opinions, was tyranny — that the maxim of saLus populi never could apply, because the safety of the people could not operate as a ground for prevent- ing a man from enjoying his religious opinion. A great disposition was shown to follow up the system of relaxation. It was thought that what had been done might lead to a relaxation of all the laws against the Catholics. All that scattered men's minds at the - time was this, — an apprehension of the Pope or Prc^- tender. There might have been in some persons sentiments of respect and compassion, and in others an inclination to taunt or insult; but there was not one person who had any degree of fear or terror, as one single ingredient in forming his opinion. Itwas-said, that the restrictions in Ireland, the ferocious manners rf those who were Protestants, and the insults sus- tained by the Catholics, had produced, as Mr. Burke says, a degree of desperation in that unhappy people, which made it doubtful how far they were to be triisted. The effect of the vsystem had been that of changing, by degrees, the whole property of Ireland, and that country was brought into a state highly to be lamented. I do not mean to make any compari- son between the treatment of the black slaves on the coast of Africa, and that of the people of Ireland; I ntean only to state, that it was a circumstance likely to produce the general disaffection of the people, that the whole of the property was in the hands of the Protestant ascendancy, while the mass of the popula- tiou'was Catholic. Even among those whose terms of IS 6f gcvernment are less free than ours, the property and power shonM go hand in hand, and there sliould be no other disrinction except that of the proprietor and the servant. We began by enabling the Cntho- lics to acquire property — what has been the conse- quence ? The power connected with the Free Trade and Constitution we gave to Ireland in 178Z, has produced an increase of property beyond all propor- tion greater than that enjoyed by the Protestants. There has been not only an increase of mercantile ^ property among the Catholics of Ireland, but also of the landed property. This has been attended with the happiest effect. It has produced the effect of softening and correcting those distinctions between the Catholics and the Protestants, which were found so oppressive. The Catholics are now possessed of a great deal of that property which was taken from their ancestors. I mention this, because one of the appre- hensions with respect to the Catholics was, that they had preserved memoirs of the antient state of pro- perty, and that, on a favourable opportunity, they were to claim of the Protestants all the property that belonged to their ancestors. This objection has been completely done away ; for at this moment, if you were to reverse the Act of Settlement, and restore the pro- perty of those who possessed it before Cromv/ell's time, I believe the Catholics would be as great sut- ferers as the Protestants. And what Catholics ? Why, the Catholics who are now rich and powerful, viz. the only Catholics to whom we would give an ad- dition of power. From the time of the acquisition of property by the Catholics, I have never been able to conceive on what principle their demands were not conceded to them; least of all, why particular restrictions should have been kept up, when others were abandoned. What are the restrictions now existing ? The general re- strictions may be comprised under these two heads : one, the incapacity under which the Catholics lie with regard to the enjoyment of certain offices, civil and military j 14, tnititary ; the otlicr, the incapacity of sitting in cither House of Parliament. Gentlemen who have at- tended to all this history of the restrictions of the Catholics (sorry I am to say, a large chapter in the history of Great Britain,) need not be told, that it has been useless with reference to the ends proposed, and certainly odious to those who have been affected by it. I believe it is not considered by foreigners as that part of our constitution which is m »st deserving of admiration. The two heads of restrictions are q^uite distinct. Suppose I proceed to consider, first, that with respect to offices ; the restrictions under this head go either to limit the prerogative of the Crown, ur the choice of the people. We restrain the prero- gative of the Crown in appointing the Catholics to certain ofHces — let us examine on what ground. Originally the Test Act was for the purpose of ex- cluding the Catholics from the service of Charles 11., to prevent Catholics being appointed by Charles 11. to executive offices : and here a very whimsical but strong observation occurs. One of the most popular arguments in favour of the test, with a view to the re- straint on the Prerogative, and I have heard it fre- quently used, was, that it was necessary to make the Constitution agreeable to analogy — and that vi-hen it was insisted the Kino; should be of the Church of England, it w^as therefore necessary all his officers should be of the same persuasion. What beautiful uniformity there is in this, I own I cannot see. I apprehend that our ancestors reasoned in a very dif- ferent manner. I apprehend it was not because we forced the King to be a Protestant, that we found it necessary to have his officers of the same religion, but because we doubted whether the King was in reality a Protestant or not, and because we suspected him of a design to overturn the Constitution of the country, as in the case of James II. If we suspected him of being a Catholic, it was right we should not suffer any offi- cers to be near him who might assist him in an infrac- lion of the Constitution. But it is the most strange 3 reasoning 15 reasonin^^ I ever heard, that because the King being d Protestant, and therefore" not liable to suspicion, you arc to pre\'ent him from having the assistance 6f his Cathohc subjects. This test passed in the reign of Charles If., and with the a[)probation of a: very great man (Mr. Locke), who observed, that it might have been a necessary measure. The next reign wa5 that of James II., who was a professed Catholic. If there was any virtue in other days — God knows there was little enough in his : — if he had repealed the Test Act, it would have been for the purpose of ob- taining the means of acting against the liberty of the subject. — Then how can)e the laws to be con- tinued ? The continuation of the Test Laws after the Revolution, was because the Dissenters being in- cluded in the Test Act, it was the object of the High i Church Party to hold the Dissenters to a law which they had favoured. It was a kind of compromise, on enacting it against the Roman Catholics, to say. We will retain it against you. In this control of the Parliament, it ought to be observed how the question stands. The Test does not prevent the King from appointing a Catholic to any office, civil or military ; it only makes it necessary, after a certain time, for the person appointed to do a certain act. With respect to the Catholic Dissenters, you have given it up in a great number of points, and you have maintained it jn others. We come now to the distinction of those cases in which you have given up the restraint. You have given it up with regard to all subordinate offices in the Army and Navy, and in the profession of the Law, but you refuse it with respect to the higher of- fices. Then you say to the Catholics, We have kept nothing from you as a body^ — you do not all expect to be Chancellors, Generals, Staff Officers, Admirals, or other great officers ; therefore, as you do not all expect to arrive at these distinctions, there can be no harm in forbidding any of you to obtain them ! Do you wish the R^ i Catholics to be actuated by a sense that the) ;o be trusted by the Executive Govern- 16 Govcrnmenf, or not ? If not, and you should, in giv- ing them otlicCvS, appear to entertain diffidence and • mistrust of ihem, they will be executed with that re- uiissness and disregard of th^ puhhc service which such dibtrust is calculated to inspire. Suppose I send to a Gentlen)an of the Law, and I say to him, It is true .you may possess talents, but do you think there is any probability of your being Lord Chancellor ? He might probably answer, that there was not ; but is there not a very material difference in having an impossibliity and bar put to the advancement of a man to the honours of his profession ? Suppose a person is engaged in trade, and he can gain a bare living, or perhaps save about twenty pounds a year— 1 say to him, You may go on, and be as industrious as you please, but you shall never j-iake mo»'e than j,.oo9,occL — He says, he is contented. — Well, but does any one think that this country could have arrived at the height it has, if there had been such a restriction on the exertions of industry ? It is not bccauvse a man's quality is low, that he is prevented by the exercise of his faculties from becoming wealthy; but if you limit his endeavours, you destroy the spirit of enterprise and exertion which impels him, and, by such a system, finally prevent his success. Do you not think it would be the most destructive blow to the enterprise, industry, and energy of the country, and undermine the principal source of our riches, to put a restraint on the exercise of a man's genius and industry ? Do we not often hear of a person, not of consequence either from birth or fortune, sa^/, "I live, thank God, in a country, where, by industry and talents, I may arrive at the fortune of the great- est Duke ip the land." Is not this cheering ? Is not the unlimited power of gain the great principle on which industry, enterprise, and commerce exist ? What should we say if men of particular descriptions were to be restricted in their fail' pursuits ? They stand marked and circumscribed to the limit of their possible gain. Apply the principle to the profes- sions 17 tsions — to the law particularly, the one perhaps in which it operates the most. I would ask those who are conversant with the profession, whether it would not damp the ardour of a young man, if he were to be told that he might obtain some pecuniary advan- tage, but that he could never rise to any office of dig- nity. I am not supporting the propriety of indul- ging sanguine hopes, but certainly one of the greatest incentives in the breast of a parent to give to his son a good education, is the hope of seeing him one day fill the situation of Chancellor, or some other splendid office. Take that hope away, and you de- stroy the greatest incentive to an aspiring mind. But when you apply the argument to a military life, how much stronger is it ! Is not the very essence of the profession ambition, and a thirst of glory ? What can you expect of a Lieutenant or Captain, who, after exerting himself in the service of the country, comes home, and, reflecting upon the dangers he has shared, admires the skill and ability of his commander, or per- haps thinks something might have been done better — What must be his feelings, if he is obliged to add. But I can never expect to command an army — all my thoughts, are useless — I may be Colonel, perhaps a General, but aGeneral on the Staff, that lean never be ! I go to my station, because I am a man of ho- nour ; but can I do it with the same eagerness as if, after I havse escaped the danger, my reward was to be proportioned ? Does not such a consideration as this lay an extifiguisher on military enterprise ? Is it not desirable that every man should look, for the purpose of exciting his activity and zeal, to future rewards of the highest sort ? But put it in another way. Is it not of importance that every man in- trusted with the concerns of others should feel the necessity of gaining a great character for ability and integrity ? It is not only satisfactory but necessary. But if you say, there is a ne plus ullra, beyond which you cannot go— you are to think only of filling your coffers quocunquc rnodo rem. — How different must be D the 18 the situalion of liim who feels he can never rise in his profession, though endued with the most splen- did talents, eonipared with the man whose exertions are exeited by the prospect of future honours ! Do you think these men, the Catholies, do not believe themselves to be a marked {)eople, separated from the rest of the conmiunity, not on account of their reli- gious opinions, but the political opinions connected with them ? In all great concerns, the extent of the justice or injustice is of considerable importance. Who is it you are thus stigmatizing and degrading ? Js it a few people of a particular way of thinking ? No ; it is three-fourths of the people of Ireland, and one-fourth of all His Majesty's subjects in Europe. Would you think, that, under these circumstances, such a thing could be, so far as to the part that re- lates to the control of the King's prerogative ? I ought, however, first to mention the exclusion from being Sheriffs; but that is more connected with the jurisdiction I shall have to mention hereafter. Can any body suppose, that Government would be likely to put improper persons into the office of Sheriff in Ireland ? Would they nominate Catholic Sheriffs, to raise disturbances r I say, it is one of the occasions in which it is least possible to suspect an abuse of the King's prerogative, and where it ought not to be controlled. Now with respect to Parliament, the votes of the Peers in Parliament subsisted during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., Charles I. and II., till somewhere about the period of 1698. I would ask. the mo.-^t zealous historian that took the side against the Stuarts, whether any mischief by the votes of the Catholic Peers did really occur ? Here I quote Mr. Locke, who says — " And with respect to the votes of the Catholic Peers, I think, provided the Test Act is preserved, they are lit and beneficial." When did they cease ? In 1698, upon the discovery of the Popifli Plot, suppose it to be true or false — when the country was thrown into a paroxysm of terror — when it was believed that the Catholics were 1 going 19 going to massacre the Protestants — when it was ex- pected they were to have the assistance of the King of Spain — and when the ridiculous story of the silver bullets was set on foot. It was at such a moment of popular fury this mea- sure passed. No man thought of exf^elling the Ca- tholics from Parliament till the people had been put into a paroxysm of rage and terror. Why did they do this ? Because there was nothing el^e to be dore against them : ' it was for no other reason they passed that intolerable law, which put an end to their sitcing in the House of Commons. — You come now to that part of the case which does not affect to diminish the power of the King:, but to control the rights of the People. — You go to the Electors of Ireland, and you say to them, You shall not elect a Catholic. — Upon what principle is it you conceive, that if a Roman Ca- tholic has a mischievous project in his head, in can be defeated by keeping him out of Parliament ? It has always been the objection to the Test Act, that two descriptions of Protestants are in the House of Commons. We know the Dissenters do sit, and have become the most meritorious of any of its members, What is the objection to the Catholics ? That they cannot wish well to the Church of England. — -Why, that is your argument against the Dissenters. You do not deny the Dissenters the privilege of sitting in Parliament, though you say they do not approve the Church Establishment. But the practice is every thing. What would be the practical ei^ect of the Catholics having a seat in the House of Commons.^ Docs any man believe, that if there were a total re- peal of these restrictive laws, there would be twenty Catholic members returned from Ireland to this House ? But I would take it according to the popu- lation of the country, and say, that there weie four, fifths Catholic. If, contrary to ail the principles that govern elecdons, the mere population v/ere the only thing to be considered, *his would, perhaps, give about eighty members. Now the Elouse consists t> 2 of '20 of 658 members. Supposing it possible that eighty Catholics were to be returned out of that number, though I do not think there would be more than twenty, could they be dangerous to the Establishment of this country? Jf the doctrine of virtual repre- sentation be well founded, would it not add to the true virtual representation of this country, if three- fourths of the Representatives were Catholics ? When people put the argument to extremes, and say, that this place is not represented, and that place is not represented, but that you have those in the House of Commons who represent the whole community that the trading and commercial inte- rests, and the military, naval, and learned profes- sions, are all duly represented ; that you have the Landed Country Gentlemen, Statesmen, and Politi- cians, Soldiers, Sailors, Merchants, Lawyers, — in fact, that you have a kind of virtual representation of all the people of the country, — I deny it : you have not the representation of the Roman Catholics — you want what you are afraid to have — you ought to desire what they pray for — you ought to have that complete virtual representation they offer you. I have been speaking for the public benefit, — I now speak for the benefit of the Catholics. You say to the people of Birmingham, Sheffield, and Man- chester, It is true, you send no Members to the House of Commons, but you have Members of Parliament who are connected with the commerce and manufactures of those places. It is true; but still it is my wish to have a more direct represen- tation. The fact is, the virtual representation js undoubtedly a vital principle in the Constitution of the Country. If any particular class of men are excluded, you have not a real virtual representation, in the sense the word representation ought to be understood, implying a sympathy and fellow feeling between the representative and the persons repre- sented. The very substance of representation is, that the Members of Parliament should not be able to 21 to tax their constituents without taxing themselves. Now I say that there is no feeling of this kind with respect to the Catholics. Upon the same |;rinci|)le you deprive the electors of Ireland from electing Roman Catholics — you deny the Corporations the right of choosing them, for they cannot be at the head of any Corporation. I want to know upon what principle it is that Corporations are to be denied the privilege of appointing Catholics to the office of Mayor, or other superior offices ? Corporations being composed chiefly of Protestants, there is not much danger, as some would say, or not much hope, as others would say, of the Catholics being admitted. Is not this one of those additional in- stances in which you keep the stigma without any practical advantages ? You fix an unnecessary stigma on the Catholics — and an unnecessary stigma is, of all modes of punishment, that which is most grating to the People, and destructive of the unanimity and concord necessary for the safety of the State. I shall say a very few words as to certain objections to the matter of this Petition. I think the objections to the Jacobites are given up ; but it is said, that there is something in the nature of the Roman Ca- tholics that makes it dangerous to grant them the same privileges as Protestants. Some have stated, that there is a general impropriety and incongruity in persons' of different religious principles acting together. I should like to know the theory on, which this argument rests. I am speaking now of religious differences why two men sitting in council together should, instead of inquiring how the forces of the country ought to be disposed ofj, and where the fleets ought to be sent, whether to Jamaica, or any other part of the West Indies, fall to a discussion about Transubstantiation, and dispute because one adores the Virgin Mary and the other adores the Saints ? Is it to be supposed that Justices on the Bench, when they try criminal or civil points, will quit their dutv, in order to commence idle idle controversies on religions points ? There are countries v/here the law and religion are one and the same thing ; where, consequently, there would be an impropriety in separating them : but 1 want to know, upon what j^rinciple it is that men may not act together, who entertain strong differences on religious creeds. This stands upon theory only, for the practice is against it. Is there in Europe one State or Country tliat does not employ persons of different religious persuasions in the highest offices ^ In former times even this was the practice, when there was more heat and animosity. When bigotry was at its height in France, when it led Henry the Fourth to renounce the Protestant and embrace the Catholic Religion, in order to obtain the Throne of that kingdom, did it ever occur to any one to sug- gest, that the Duke de Sully, his Minister, who was a Protestant, could not advise with him about public affairs ? Was he ever accused of being a bad Minister, because he was a Protestant ? No one ever objected to M. Neckar, the Minister of the late King of France, because he was a Protestant. Does not the Emperor of Germany employ Protestants in the various important affairs of his dominions ? The Government of Vienna is intrusted to Prince Ferdinand of Wirtemberg, a Protestant. It is true, the bigotry of Frederick the Great could not induce him to employ Protestants as his Ministers or Officers j but perhaps ir w^as because he could not find any that were fit for his service. What is the case with Russia ? The first employment in the service of the Emperor of Russia is filled bv Prince Sartoriski, whose religion is that of the Greek church. With regard to the Swiss Cantons, the employment of Protestants has been, perhaps, less than in other places, but i^.ey have frequently filled offices of Government jointly with the Catholics.^ In the de- mocratic Canton of Uri, and some others, the Ca-. tholics were more numerous ; a proof that they may take an active part in the administration of a, popular ^23 popular Government, without any evil consequence^^ resulting from the opinions they j)rofess. In the Canton of Epenzel the Catholics and Protestants are about half and half. The Pretender being gone, and all other ques- tions of radical difficulty removed as to him, we now come to another person, — the Pope. I wish to know whether, during the last 200 years, the Pope has been a person to be feared ? If he has, it caa only have been in one way, by his oppression of the Catholics.— Long before the period of the Revolu- tion, all the political influence of the Pope, with respect to this country, had ceased. His power became afterwards absolutely insignificant and du- ring the whole of the question between the Houses of Stuart and Brunswick, it was notorious that the Pope could not stir one Roman Catholic in Ireland, But it is stated that the persons principally con- cerned in the Rebellion of 1798 were Roman Ca- tholics.- I have no doubt that the Catholics had their share in that Rebellion ; but were they instigated by the Pope ? — What ! by the Pope, while he was in a state of servitude and humiliation ? Did the Pope, while he looked to this country as almost his only support, wish to overturn our Government, and pre- vail on the Irish Catholics to follow Messrs. O'^Con- nor, Emmet, and M^Nevin ? This fear of the in- fluence of the Pope, when he has no power to do us harm, and when he cannot do us good, even though he wish it, is perfectly absurd. It is an alarm which can be accounted for on no rational principle. Has the recollection of the Proconsuls, sent by the Cse- sars to govern this country, left such an impression upon us, as to make us dread every thing that comes from Rome ? But it is said^ Bonaparte has obtained an influence over the Pope, the Pope governs the Irish Priests, and thus Bonaparte will be able to at- tach to hirn the Catholics of Ireland. Without can- vassing the question of the inclination of the Pope to serve the viev/s of Bonaparte, I shall admit that the French 24 French Government will willingly cm[j]oy his Jn- fliicnce so far as they can obtain it. That the great enemy of this country would be very williug to make use of such an engine to serve his purposes in Ire- land,! have no doubt. But how will he use his in- fJuence ? If )ou will repeal these laws, you will have nothing to fear from that quarter; but if, on the contrary, you persevere in your restrictions, the way in which the influence so much dreaded may be ex- ercised can only be this : The Irish Catholics will be told, 'An equal participation of rights was held out to you; but, instead of granting your just claims, instead of affording you the relief and protection you were promised, you are still' stigmatized as outcasts. You have, therefore, now only to look to a Catho- lic Emperor for assistance, and through him you may expect the emancipation which has been denied you.' This is the language which may be used, if you are determified to persist in your present system ; but, in the other alternative, what influence can the Pope have? Suppose he were to direct the priests to take care that none but Roman Catholic members were chosen for Ireland -y and suppose this influence were so far to succeed as to bring a considerable propor- tion of Roman Catholics into this House among the Representatives from Ireland, — is it likely that Bona- parte would find many friends among these Roman Catholic members ? If there were eighty members Roman Catholics, it would be an extravagant suppo- sition indeed to say that even three of them would be so dead to all sense of honour and duty, so blind to the interests and happiness of their country, as to become the -instruments of Bonaparte. Of the in- fluence to be used in this way by the Pope, surely no reasonable person can entertain any serious appre- hension. Is it possible to look forward to any fu- ture circumstances under which that influence can become dangerous ? Great men, it is said, have long views ; but some views are so long, that my sight, I must confess, cannot reach them. It has been said of 25 of our system of Government, Esto perpetua ; but I should desire no better security for the power and the constitution of this country lasting for ever, than that they should continue until either a Pope or a Bona- parte could obtain a Popish majority in this House. I must now turn to another view of the question. It has always been maintained that the differences be- tween the Roman Catholics and the Protestants are not merely religious, but political. It is on this ground the oaths the former are required to take are defended. The oath is framed against the au- thority of a foreign priest, though that authority is merely spiritual. But if it be any objection to the Roman Catholics, that they deny the King's supre- macy, what do you say to the opinions of the people . of Scotland ? The Presbyterian religion, which is established in Scotland, does not admit the King to be the Head of the Church; and surely the Presby- terian doctrine and discipline of it are at least as re- pugnant to the established religion of this country, as the opinions of the Roman Catholics are ! Yet Scotland, with this Presbyterian Church, forms a part of the United Kingdom. But do not the Rpman Catholics swear, that no temporal consequences what- ever follow from the doctrine they hold on the ques- tion of Supremacy ? They do so swear, and yet it is said we cannot believe them. What 1 are they not to be believed on oath, because they are Roman Ca- tholics ? To make such a declaration, is to display to my mind either great malignancy of heart, or an extraordinary deficiency of understanding : but if the declaration were made on the part of (he Go- vernment of this country, it would be an avowal of wickedness beyond any thing 1 can conceive. Would you say, that you proposed and passed Ads of Par- liament to persuade them to swear that which you would not believe when sworn ? Would you own that you wished to seduce them into, perjury ? The nioment you find that a man at lends mass, he is therelore a Roman Catholic, -cavX therefore no lon- K ger 26 ger to be bdicved. Tb add to the absurdity, yotf frame another oath, to keep out of Parliament those very persons of whom it is said you must not be- lieve that which they swear. This is really at once insultin^^ to "the understanding and the feelings of mankind. It is more than a generous and ingenuous niirul can be expected patiently to bear. I shall not ])reten(l to enter into controversial arguments on the question of doctrine. Indeed, that is a subject re- specting which I own I have neither sufficient learn- ing nor pnti'jDce to fit n)e for the discussion ; but if I had as much of both as the Lord Chancellor of Ire- land, I am sur3 his example would deter me from undertaking so arduous a task. When I consider the state of religion in Europe, of which perhaps three-fourths of the inhabitants are Roman Catho- lics, I am astonished that such o{)inions respecting that religion can be maintained. Is it possible that any man can be found bold enough to say of three- fourths of the inhabitants of civilised Europe, that they are not to be believed upon oath ? Such an as^- i^ertion implies, that Ronian Catholic Nations are not only incapable of the relations of peace and amity, but unht for any of the relations of society whatever. The existence of any such maxim supposes gross ig- norance and barbarism in the people among whom it Jjrevails. Every enlightened mind^ every man who wishes well to his country, must treat it with scorn and indignation. — Wiien a Bill was some time ago in- troduced respecting the army, I objected to the oaths it contained, on the ground that it was not fit to ask any man to take them ; but it will be extraordinary indeed, if those who insisted upon prescribing these oaths should now turn round, and declare that they will not believe them when taken. Vv'hcn the Peti- tion I had the honour to bring into this House watr first read, the clear and temperate statement of the case which it contains appeared to rhakc a deep im- pression. I think I. could see Gentlemen say to themselves, This is not the way I used to think of 27 the Roman Catholics. No, certainly not. It is not the way in which many used to tliink, because they had received false impressions from persons who per- haps had an interest in misleading their judgment. But it has since been whispered, that the language of the Petition signifies nothing, because.it is subscribed only by Laymen. I can assure die House, however, that there is no ground of any suspicion on this account. The reason why there are no names of Priests at the Petition is, because it relates only to civil rights ; on this account only, clerical persons thought it would be improper in them to subscribe it. The oath, however, has been taken by all the Arch- bishops, Bishops, and most of the Priests of Ireland ; and if it be thought necessary that it should be taken over again, it will be taken. I, however, have al- ways regarded the administration of the oath as im- proper, and I recollect having some difference of opi- nion with a late Noble Friend of mine on this sub- ject — I mean Lord Petre — from whoni, had he sat in the House of Lords, the Established Religion of this Country would have had nothing to fear, for he would have only obtained more frequent opportuni- ties of displaying his sincere attachment to the Constitution. His Lordship defended the oath, be- cause it afforded the Roman Catholics the opportu- nity of publicly contradicting the calumnies reported against them. I said, that that might be an object with him, but it was none with me, and that I did not wish such a law to remain on our Statute-book. Having stated that I entirely disapprove of this oath, J must^ however, inform the House, that I have at this moment, in my pocket, a letter from several of the Archbishops and Bishops, declaring that they have taken and signed the oath. They also declare, that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrines or faitl; of the Roman Catholic Religion, and that it is to be taken equally by the Clergy and the Laity ; but foreseeing that the fact of the oath being taken might be questioned, certijficates have been sent from the E 2 Courts 28 Courts before which it was administerecl. It is in these Courts, therefore, a matter of record, and the authority of the fact is completed. It is said, that since the Roman Catholics have already got so much, they ought not to ask for more. My principle, how- ever, is directly- the reverse. It is natural that men ix\ a state of servitude should wish to recover their rights ; that they should desire to assimilate their rights with those of their fellow-citizens, in order that they may acquire a greater degree of similarity with them. It is their ambition to be no longer slaves, but to become men. They ask this ; and until they obtain all they want, they have comparatively gained nething. It would be to shut your eyes to all the evidence of history, to suppose that you could im- pose upon men an obligation not to look forward to the complete acquirement of their rights ; from the moment they began to enjoy any of them, they must aspire to be on a parity with the rest of their fel- low-citizens. The better argument is, that having already conceded so much, what remains is nothing to you to give. — Nothing can be more absurd than the conduct which is adopted towards the Roman Catholics. You admit the lower orders into the Army and Navy, and you prevent the higher from rising to that rank they might expect to attain. You put arms into the hands of men^, who, if the French were to land, might be, from their want of knowledge, influenced to do you mischief ; and yet you v^ill not trust Lord Fingal, or his brother, with a command. You rely, however, it appears, with confidence, on the loyalty of the ignorant and the prejudiced, and you intrust them with arms. Of which class of Roman Catholics are you afraid — the higher, or the lower You do not trust those who?^e property gives them an interest in the country, and whose superior knowledge and information teach them to prefer the Government of their country to every other ; but you rely on the ignorant and uninformed. You place in the hands of the latter the means of insur- rection. 29 rection, and you take from the former the power they would have, by their influence, to repress com- motions. But though you have little to give, what they have to ask is to them immense. You have left them much power to do you mischief, and have afforded them little means of doing you good. Though they require only Qualification, Corporation, Parliament, and Offices under Government, the ob- ject is of great magnitude to them. It is founded on the great principle of requiring to be placed on a foot- ing of equality with their fellow-subjects. Equality of rights is one of the principles which is dearest to the human heart, and it is one which the laws of Great Britain, to their immortal honour, sanction. In whatever country that principle prevails, it pro- duces the greatest of blessings. That country is truly happy, where, in the language of a great mo- dern poet, '* Though poor the peasant^s hut, his feasts though small, " He sees his little lot the lot of all ; " Sees no contiguous palace rear its head, ** To shame the meanness of his humble shed." If a people are placed in a state of humility and de- gradation, can it be said, that to get out of that si- tuation is to them nothing ? But the confusion which prevail)? on this question has arisen from mixing po- liticK iiAjd'teligion, two things which it has always been the wish of the- wisest philosophers and states- men to keep distinct and separate. It is with great eoncern I have heard, that some eminent Members of the established Church are hostile to the proposi- tion I have to rriake ; but 1 have some consolation in reflecting, that person enjoys as high a reputation as any member of the Church, and for whose cha- racter I have the highest veneration and respect — t mean, Dr. Paley. He observes, It has indeed been asserted, that discordancy of religions, even sup- posing each religion to be free from any errors " that affect the safety or the conduct of Govern- " inent, is enough to render men uiAit to act to- " gether 30 " gelhcr in public stations. But upon what argu- " ment, or upon what experience, is this assertion " founded ? I perceive no reason why men of differ- *^ ent religious persuasions may not sit upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or *^ fight in the same ranks, as well as men of vari- ous or opposite opinions upon any controverted " topic of natural philosophy, history, or ethics." Dr. Paley considers restraints only justifiable on ac- count of political opinions, which may affect the safety of Government. In endeavouring to stale the case of exclusion, he says — " After all, it may be asked, Why should not the legislator direct his test *^ against the political principles themselves, which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them *^ through the medium of religious tenets, the only crime and the only danger of which consist in their presumed alliance with the former ? Why, for ex- *^ amj^le, should a man be required to renounce Tran- substantiation before he be admitted to an office *' in the state, when it might seem to be sufficient that he abjure the Pretender ? There are but two answers that can be given to the objection which this question contains : first, that it is not opinions which the laws fear so much as inclinations, and that political inclinations arc not so easily detected by the affirmation or denial of any abstract propo- ^' sition in politics, as by the discovery of the reli- gious creed with which they are wont to be united : ^;econdly, that when men renounce their religion *• they commonly quit all connection with, the mem- bers of the church which they have left, that church no longer expecting assistance or friendship from them ; whereas particular persons might insmuate themselves into offices of trust and authority, by subscribing political assertions, and yet retain their predilection for the interests of the religious sect to which they continued to belong. By which ^' means Government would sometimes find, though it could not accuse the individual, whom it had 2, received 31 received into its service, of disaffection to the *^ civil establishment, yet that, through him, it had communicated the aid and influence of a power- ** ful station to a party who were hostile to the con- *^ stitution. These answers, however, we propose *^ rather than defend. The measure certainly can- not be defended at all, excej)t where the suspected *^ union between certain obnoxious principles in [x>- litics, and certain tenets in religion, is nearly uni- " versal ; in which case it makes little difference to the subscriber whether the test be religious or po- litical; and the state is somewhat better secured by " the one than the other.'* I shall only take up the time of the House a few moments in reading another passage, in which it is clearly stated, that restrictions should not be continued after the circumstances ia which they have originated have ceased. Thus, if the members of the Romish Church for the most part adhere to the interests, or maintain the right, of a foreign pretender to the Crown of these king- " doms, and if there be no way of distinguishing those who do from those who do not retain such, " dangerous prejudices. Government is well war- " ranted in fencing out the whole sect from situa- " tions of trust and power. But even in this exam- pie it is not to Popery that the laws object, but to *^ Popery as the mark of Jacobitism ; an equivo- cal, indeed, and fallacious mark, but the best, and perhaps the only one that can be devised. But " then it should be remembered, that as the connec- tion between Popery and Jacobitism, which is the sole cause of suspicion, and the sole justifi- *^ cation of those severe and jealous laws which have been enacted against the professors of that religion, was accidental in its origin, so probably it will be temporary in its duration; and that these *^ restrictions ought not to continue one day longer " than some visible danger renders them necessary " to the preservation of public tranquillity.'' What- ever then may be the opinions of certain Members of the Establishment, I am happy to have the oppor- tunity of quoting one authority, which all who love profound leartiin^r, exalted virtue, and sound morals, must respect. With regard to the time when these restrictions ought to have been removed, if there could be one time more proper than another, it was when the Union was carried. To that measure I certainly was hostile, and I have seen nothing since which could induce mc to alter my opinion : but whether that opinion be right or wrong, is nothing to my present argument. The period at which the introduction of tl)is mea'sure would have been most proper, doubtless, was the moment when the expec- tations of the Roman Catholics were raised, when hopes were held out to them, or when they them- selves at least conceived that the hour of their eman- cipation was arrived, and that they were to be placed on an equal footing with their fellow citizens. It has been said, however, that on this subject an argu- ment may be drawn from practice which is sufficient to silence all reasoning. No one is a greater friend to the opposition of practice to theory than I am, when that opposition is justly applied. In the pre- sent case it is observed, that when the severe laws existed against the Roman Catholics in Ireland, all was tranquillity, even during the rebellions of the years 171 5 and j 745 ; but that, after the conces- sions had been granted, the rebellion of 1798 broke out, in which the Roman Catholics joined for the pur- pose of subverting the Monarchy and the Constitu- tion. If this argument were true, it would go only to this, — that restrictions are good for keeping mankind in a state of tranquillity ; and, therefore, you ought never to release them from severe laws, never restore them to their rights. This argument goes against every principle of liberty, and is only calculated to support the cruellest tyranny and m.ost degrading sla- very. Its present object is to deprive of their rights one- fourth of His Majesty's subjects, and to place them in a §tate which must greatly embarrass the power 33 power and resources of the Empire. Surely if there be a malady in our situation, this is it. But were there no circumstances besides the concessions, which rendered the situation of the Irish Catholics very different in the year 1798 from what that situation was in the reign of George II.? Is it supposed that the operation of the French Revolution had no in- fluence on their minds, as well as on the minds of men in other parts of Europe ? The circumstances of that Revolution may fairly be allowed to have tended to make them swerve from their allegiance, not as Catholics, but as subjects. Is there not also some allowance to be made for the connection formed between the Roman Catholics and the Pro- testants of the North of Ireland, a people of enlight- ened minds, powerful from their talents and their industry ? But the people of that part of Ireland, who are well known not to be much attached to the Established Church, considered the Catholics to be, like themselves, persecuted. The year 1798 opened new views, and to the union which was then formed between the Protestants and the Catholics ought the activity of the latter in the Rebellion to be in some degree ascribed. There is al^o another little cir- cumstance which ought not to be passed over, when it is attempted to be argued that nothing intervened between the concessions in the year 1793 and the Rebellion. Did nothing happen during Lord Fitz- william's administration ? Did that Noble Lord not conceive that he was acting the best for the peace of Ireland, by holding out to the Catholics the hope of what they called their emancipation ? Doubts have been entertained whether he was authorised by Go- vernment to encourage such hopes: but that has nothing to do with the present question ; that the expectation did exist, is a fact of the greatest im- portance. When that Noble Lord was recalled, when a motion was made on the subject in Parliament, and negatived, the Roman Catholics saw with grief the cup they had looked at with so much eagerness, sud- F denly 34 fJenly dasherl from their lips at the moment they at last expected to enjoy it. Would not any man say, that if he were a Catholic, this would have been to him a great cause of despondency ? The history of the country showed the melancholy consequences of that disappointment; for it was not until after the recall of Lord Fitzwilliarn that a connection began to be formed between Ireland and Fi •ance : and there is every apj)earance that the disappointment then ex- perienced by the Roman Cathol ics drove some of them into this connection. We have been told, that it appears from certain inquiries made by the Irish Parliament, that Catholic Emancipation and Reform were not considered by the people in some parts of Ireland as of more value than a bit of paper or a drop of ink. I believe this may be the fact ; but was it not also stated by the same persons, that, had these measures been granted, they were aware that they must have given up all hope of doing what they call good, but which we call mischief? All those who wished to revolutionize Ireland were greatly alarmed during Lord Fitzwilliam's administration, and were perfectly convinced, that, if the measures he proposed were carried, their intentions would be completely defeated. I have been told, that at the time of the Union no distinct promise of redress was made to the Roman Catholics, and I believe .it. No Mini- ster could promise that which depended upon the c'etermination of Parliament. The Right Honour- able Gentleman opposite to me could have done no- thing more than promise to recommend their claims: but did not the Catholics believe that through the measure of the Union they would obtain complete redress ? Did they not rely on the promised sup- port of the Right Honourable Gentleman ? It was on that ground they gave all their weight to the pro- position of the Union; and I know some who have felt less kindness to the Catholics on that account. The persuasion was certainly general, that the Catholic claims would be fully granted after the Union, and a Learned 35 Learned Gentleman now hostile to these claims aj). pears to have promoted this persuasion. In a letter written by that Learned Gentleman to an Ilononr- able Friend of mine, whom I am happy to see a Mem- ber of this House (Mr. Grattan), there is a paragraph to this purport — " If we were one people with the British Nation, the preponderance of the Protestant interest in the whole State would then be so great, that it would not be any longer necessary to curb the Roman Catholics by any restraints whatever.'* Now when the Roman Catholics found the opinion stated by the Learned Gentleman (Dr. Duigenan), who had been through the whole of his life against granting them redress, must they not have expected that the passing of the Union was to be the sic^nal for the redress of their grievances ? In a printed s{)eech, too, (printed in a way which might entitle it to be re- ferred to as some authority) of a Noble Lord who once filled the chair of this House (Lord Sidmouth), this passage of the Learned Gentleman's letter is re- ferred to in support of the opinion, that no restraints would be necessary after the Union. If then that Noble Lord drew this inference, what conclusion was it to be expected the Roman Catholics them- selves should form ? At that time, then, it appeared to be thought that the repeal of these laws would be a measure of safety to the British Etnpire ; and yet they remain in the same situation^ I state not this as any reproach to the Right Honourable Gentle- man opposite to me ; but what must the Catholics think, when they find that those who most favoured the Union, and who, on account of the measures then in contemplation, held up that event i?s emi- nently calculated to promote the well-being and se- curity of the British Empire, opposed their hopes ? What the circumstances v/ere, which prevented this question being then brought forward, I shall not at- tempt to discuss, because I do not pretend to know them; but I must observe, that its delayimight have led to the very worst consequences. The Catholics, how p 2 ever. S6 ever, have shown b^^ their conduct thatthey are guided by principles vhich merit the highest encomium. Their disappointment has not made them resort to popular clamour or tumult. They have brought for- ward their claims in the most constitutional manner, and they rely with confidence and respect on th« jus- tice of this House. The pre- enting of the present Petition is a pledge of the propriety of their conduct ; and though my motion should not this night be ac- ceded to, they will still have gained something, by having an opportunity afFordcvl them of stating their opinions. A great and respectable part of the people of the Empire are now in favour of their claims. The people of England wtll soon be completely convinced of the propriety of granting them all they demand ; and antiquated prejudices, which it is my lot to ex- pose in 1805, and which were doubtful in 1669, will be completely done away. Hitherto I have said nothing of a kind of my- sterious objection which has been lately started. I have been asked — Why do you bring on this ques- tion when success is impossible ?" Another tells me, — I hke tlie measure as v/eli as you ; but why press it when there is ,no chance of success?" Why, I know of no circumstance that should render it im- possible to carry this question in the House ^ and there would at least be a iitde better chance of suc- cess, if all those Gentlemen who are in favour of the measure would favour us with their votes. I have been told that the repeal of these laws is conceived to be contrary to His Majesty's Coronation oath. Now, Sir, were I to propose any thing which would be a violation of His Majesty's Coronation oath, I should not only think myself a disloyal subject, but a dishonest man. But how absurd would it be to suppose that Parliament, who made that oath for the King to take, should understand it to bind him to refuse his assent to future Acts v/hich they might piesent to him I The oath, as framed by Parliament, was administered to King William, and Statutes'now proposed 37 proposed to be repealed were passed afcer he had taken the oath. Now, if it could be maintai icd that the oath has any reference at all to Legislative measures, still I would ask, how can it affect Acts passed after it was framed ? Such a doctrine appears to me calculated to produce the greatest contusion, and completely to overturn the Constitution. If it were true, the Government of this country would no longer he a mixed Monarchy, but we should be in a mixed sta^e of anarchy and confusion. But it is sup- posed that the Coronation oath v/ouid be violated, because the effect of the measure now proposed would, it is said, be to overturn th.e Church Esta- blishment of this country. These laws were, how- ever, made against Dissenters of all descriptions ; and yet the Church was not overturned by our Union with the Presbyterians of Scotland. Was the Coro- nation oath made to bend in the one case, and not in the other ? According to this new doctrine. Queen Anne must have broken her Coronation oath when she consented to the Union with Scotland, and His present Majesty must already have violated his Coro- nation oath more than once, wlien lie sanctioned the Acts passed in his reign for the relief of the Roman Catholics. His Majesty did not refuse his assent to these Acts ; on the contrary, he did what I am sure , he always v/ill do; — he followed the advice of Parlia- ment, exercising at the same time his own judgment. While I glory in the name of an Englishman, I never can say that any thing which Parliament thinks ■ fit to be done cannot be done. ! hear f] If it had been the practice that notiiing was to be moved in this House, but such questions as Gentle- men had a reasonable hope of carrying, the country would have been deprived of most of tlie laws which now constitute its greatest pnde and boa^t ; for the best measures have in general bee.i at iirst strongly resisted,, and have at last been rcnuered ultimately successful by the perseverance of those w,ho introduced them, and the good sense of Parlia- ment. 38 inent. But I never' can believe that any branch of our Constitution will forget its duty ; and I am sorry that the report of an opinion having been given on this subject, should be circulated — said to be given, too, by one who has a Legislative voice, but who has no right to pronounce any opinion on matters pending in this House. \_Hear ! bear His Ma- jesty's lawful authority is one of the corner stones of the Constitution ; but v/hile I shall always exert myself to support that lawful authority, I cannot be silent when I see interested persons endeavouring to extend that influence beyond its due bounds. It would be a great and incalculable evil, were it to be established as a maxim in this House, that no person must move any measure, however great its benefits might be, if it were once whispered about, that it could not be successful, because another branch of the Constitution v/as hostile to it. I could wish to see any sacrifice made for the gratifi- cation of the Crov/n, except the sacrifice of the welfare and security of the country. The man who countenances such a sacrifice is not a loyal subject — is not one who loves his King, but one who flatters him in order to betray him. loud cry cf Hear I'} Having now troubled the House at so much length, I shall only briefly state a fev/ of the minor points which the subject presents. There may be some persons who would not wish to repeal the whole of the restraints upon the Roman Catholics, but who would wish to do away a part : I should therefore expect, that all who view the question in this way will concur with me in voting to refer the Petition to a Committee, in order to discover what part of the laws it may be fit to repeal. Among these minor points will also fail to be considered the situation of the Army. A Catholic may serve in the King's army in Ireland : he may arrive to the rank cf a General, but not a General .on the Staff! If, however, he comes to England, he is liable to pains and penalties on account of his religion. Surely 7 those Si) those who would resist the question in the whole, must at least allow that this is a case in which som^! relief ought to be given. I am also assured that the common soldiers are restrained from the exercise of their religion sometimes in Ireland ; but almost always in England. Some alteration is also necessary in the law of Marriage. I mention these circum- stances as forming parts of the question wiiich ought to induce such persons as think them worthy of redress, to go into a Committee, whatever their objections to the general question may be. I have stated, that the disabilities under which the Catholics _ suffer are of two sorts ; namely, those which consist of restrictions on the King's prerogative, and those which restrain the choice of the people. I think that Roman Catholics ought, like ail the othe sub- jects of His Majesty, to be enabled to hold places under the Crown, and to sit in Parliament ; but I understand there are some who would consent to a proposition for rendering them accessible to offices, but who would not agree to give them seats in Parliament. Those who entertain this opinion surely cannot refuse to go into the Committee. I under- stand there are others who, on the contrary, think it advisable that Roman Catholics should be excluded from offices in the executive part of Government ; but that, on the ground of virtual representation, which I have stated, they ought to be admitted to seats in the House of CommonvS. I own that I think this opinion the most rational of the two and surely those who entertain it cannot object to the motion 1 am about to make. — I have now stated most of the general grounds on which I think the repeal of the laws complained of is advisable j and I shall now very briefly mention a few of the advantages which might be expected to result from such a measure. A great proportion of the last and of the present Session has been consumed in considering of the best means of recruiting the Army, and of in- creasing our local and disposable force. — Now, without 40 without disparaging the modes recommended by my 1-lonourable Friend on this Bench, or the Right Honourable Gentleman opposire, for attaining this desirable object, — I will venture to say, that no scheme wiiatever of parish recruiting, limited ser- vice, or militia volunteering, can equal the effect of this measure. All these schemes are tardy and tri- fling, compared to the prompt and large supply which would be a^brded by Ireland, were the laws ■ against the Roman Catholics repealed. You now receive into your army Irish Roman Catholics ; but what might not be expected from the zeal and grati- tude of a nation famed for warmth of temper and generosity, fondly exulting in a triumph obtained over illiberality and prejudice? All your other sup- plies would be little rivulets, compared to this great ocean of military resource. But you are not merely to consider the number, but also the nature of the circumstances under which you would obtain the recruits. Look at the situation of France, our formidable enemy 5 is she formidable for her finances, her naval power, her commerce, or any other re- source except her population ? It is from the dis- proportion of our population to hers, that we can have any thingx to apprehend. We are weak only in our population. Why then do we hesitate to adopt a measure which would afford us so powerful a reinforcement? In this age foreign conquests have been less valued than they were in former ' times 3 but if conquests deserved to be ever so much es- teemed, what conquest ever could equal either the true glory or solid advantage of re-acquiring one- fourth of your population ? What prospect can be more consolatory than that of thus adding to your strength that which cannot now be called a part of your strengch, but may ra her be named a part of your weakness ? The Protestant ascendancy has been compared to a garrison in Ireland. It is not in our power to add to the strength of this garrison, but 1 would convert the besiegers themselves into the 41 the garrison. ■ How can you suppose that these four millions of men should feel themselves in the situa- tion of rhc other twelve millions, which form the population of the British Empire ? They know that they furnish you with recruits, from whom you may with reluctance choose Serjeants: they send you Officers, but they know that they never can rise to the rank of Generals. They supply you with sailors, who never can advance to any eminence in their pro- fession. How different would our policy be, how different our situation in a military point of view, were the means I propose adopted ! There would be no differences, no discontents ; but all ^the sub- jects of the Empire, enjoying equal rights, would join with one heart and one mind in its defence. I am sanguine in believing that these equal rights and laws will he fjranted to the Roman Catholics. I am even sanguine en-nigh to believe, that many bad consequences which might be expected to result from a reiusal of them, will not follow the rejection of thiS Petition. 1 rely on the affection and loyalty of the Rorhan Catholics of Ireland ; but I v/ould not press them too far, I would not draw the cord too tigiit. It is surely too much to expect that they Will always fight for a Constitution in the beneftcs of which they are not permitted to participate. No permanent advantage can arise from any measure, except that which shall restore them to the full enjoyment of equal rights with their fellow citizens. In the present situation of Europe, and when the designs of the enemy are considered, Ireland is a place where the acnve exertions of this country may be required ; and this is one of the grounds on which I am anxious that the motion I am about to propose should be acceded to. Whatever be the fate of the quesdon, I am happy in having had this opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the House ; and I shall detain you no longer, but to move, " That the Petition be referred to the consi- deration of a Committee of the whole House." G Dr. 42 Dr. DUIGENAN rofe, and oppofed the motion in a fpeech of nearly three hours continuance, of which we have faithfully endeavoured to prcTf^rve the jubjlance and fpirit \ but a detail verbatim would be too voluminous for our work. Sir, I have read the Petition now before the Houfe, fubfcribedby ninety-one names, of which j^'z.r are Peers, three Baronets, and the reft Commoners : one, the Earl of Shrewf- bury, is a Peer of both countries, but has no property in Ire- land, and is an Englifhman by birth : three others were created in the present reign — Lord Kenmare, who formerly claimed, under the illegitimate title of a Patent of James the Second, after his abdication, and confequently void until re- newed by his prefent Majesty: — and the anceftors of the Lords Fingal and Gormanftown were under attainders for High Treafon, upon Outlawries during four generations, which were not reverfed until through the favour of his prefent Majefty ; and Lord Southwell, of Proteftant anceftry, became a Catholic by the circumftance of his father^s chan- ging to that religion in fVance, and educating him in the llime principles ; fo that till a few years fince the whole number of the Irifh Catholic Nobility did not exceed two. Two of the three Baronets were alfo created by his present Majefty. From nineteen of the thirty-two counties in Ire- land there is not one fubfcriber, and from four of the re- maining thirteen, but one each^ and not a fingle name from all the Catholic Clergy. How, therefore, can this Petition be faid to come from the Catholic Communities, either of Ireland or Great Britain ? I rather fufpe^l: the Petitioners are felf-commiflionedj for five of them profefs to be delegated by the reft to procure its prefentation and folicit its fuccefs— one of thefe is a barrifter, named Mr. Dennis Scully. He publiftied in Dublin, 1803, a pamphlet called " An Irifh Ca- tholic's Advice to his Brethren, how to eftimate their prefent , > Situation, and repel French InvafionjCivil War, and Slavery.'* In this he advifes the Irifti Romanifts, in cafe of invafion, rather to join the King's ftandard than that of Bonaparte — folely on the ground of its being more advantageous, and not at all on the ground of allegiance ; but the whole tenour of the pamphlet is an infidious fuggeftion of ideal grievances to excite the Romifh populace, in the moft horrid forms, to furious a6ls of infurrcdion and revenge againft their Rulers — fo that the advice feems a mere artifice to fcreen the au- thor from legal puniftiment, for fo malignant, fo atrocious, and fo vengeful an attack upon the Proteftant government of Ireland for centuries paft. It overflows with gall, and is filled with the moft infulting epithets againft the authors of the Revolution : he fpeaks of " the gallant ar.d obftinate de- fence 4S fence of Limerick, by his Catholic anceftors under Sarsfield, for their hereditary King James II. againlt a Dutch invader and his hired battahons;" and fpeakingof the gallant army fent to Ireland to punilh rebels and murderers, he talks of ** the mifery caufed by thofc taylors, tinkers, fmiths, coblers, drum- mers, trumpeters, who, after the flaughtcr of ioc,ooo per- fons, obtained various eftates there. — The officers of this gal- lant army, so reviled for relloring Ireland to the monarchy of England, were the anceftors of the greater part of the IriOi nobility and gentry of the prefent day. He alfo flyles the Irilh Parliament * a Club,* and their Houfe * a Club- Houfe.' Speaking of the firft Magiftrate, he fays he may be liable, like the mafterof a family, to fits of anger, caprice, or prejudice, or at times be obftinate, ill-humoured, improvi- dent, or infatuated upon certain fubjedis. And with refpeft to the Royal fcruples on the Coronation oath, as to the Irilli Romanifts, he undertakes to apologize for His Majefty, and hopes he will change the opinion he is underftood to en- tertain ; and that ic is not to be imagined a quibbling crotchet in an oath will circumfcribe the juftice of the be- nevolent father of his people." — And fuch is the agent and advocate the Catholics of Ireland have chofen for a Petition like this, on the fcore of their loyalty and attachment to the State. The Petitioners here allege certain tenets as their political, moral, and religious principles, as inculcated by their faith ; and yet not one of their Clergy has figncd it ; the reafon for which I conceive to be this In the year 1 793 an oath was propofed to the Catholics of England, in addi- tion to that of 1773, which goes to renounce the infallibi- lity of the Pope ; the power of the Priefts to give abfolution unconditionally ; the intention of fubverting the prefent Church Eftabliftiment, and fubftituting a Romifh one ; of overturning the prefent arrangement of property in Ireland, and of ufmg the power and privileges demanded by the Ro- manifts, to weaken the Proteftant religion and government in Ireland. This oath, three out of the four Apoftolical Vi- cars, the fpecial agents of the Pope in England, reprobated and anathematized in an encyclical letter, dated January 12, 1 79T, commanded all the Engliih Romanifts to rejed the oath, and ftated as their authority the approbation of the Apoftolic See, and all the Romifh Biftiops of Scotland and Ireland. Thefe Vicars, however, had fuch influence v/ith the Englifli Miniftry in 1791, as to obtain the omifTion from the oath of the firft and fecond mentioned teners; and the profeftors and members of the Irifh College of May;iooth, founded by Government for the education of Romifh priefts, are exempted alfo from this part of the oath : and the reafon, as I conceive, why no Clergyman has figned this Petition is G 2 becaufe bccaufe it dcnicji this infallibility and unc6nditional power of abfolurion. This Petition demands, upon the grounds of j^fticc and public utility, the very fame meafures for the at- tempt, to enforce which, James II. loft the throne of hi* anceitors j and the rcafons he affigned were precifeiy the fame, "to caufc and promote a brotherliood of afFe^ions,and a conciliation of religious differences, to render the nation happy at home and formidable to foreign nations." If his. attempt was jult, he muft of courfe have been unjuftiy de- throned; and the direft confequence is, that his prefent Ma- j.efty's title to the throne is unjuft. But let the Houfe de- termine whether or not this do6trlne is confiftent with loyally. 1 (hall now ftate my reafons fully why I oppofe the grant of what is allied in this Petition, as 1 conceive the queftion one of the greateft magnitude ever difcufled within thefe walls. In order to this, I will examine how far the profeffions of the Petitioners agree with the principles taught by their re- ligion, as laid down by their own writers, antient and mo- dern, and warranted by the uniform practice of their Church for ages. It is firft necefTary, however, to obferve, that their only difqualification from Seats in Parliament and their eli- gibility to the offices they feek, Is their own refufal to take and fubfcribe the oath of fupremacy, and the declaration againft tranfubftantiation, indifpenfably required by law of all the members of both Houfes before they can fit or vote in Parliament. Their obflinate refufal to this injun6lion is then the fole caufe of their exclufion. But if they would even offer to take the oath of fupremacy, that would be fome plaufible argument for difpenfing with the other, as a mere do6\rinal point with the Romanifls, not tending to difavow thefupreme authority of the ftate, and is a matter of opinion only, unconnected with the Government ; but by rejecting the oath of fupremacy, they openly avow their denial tha-t the State has any right to compel their fubmiffion to its laws in any point of temporal government intimately and iti- feparably connected with the fupreme power in fpi-ritusi matters ; they in faft refufe an oath of allegiance to the State, and contend for the authority of an exSeinal power, to which their allegiance is due in ail fpiritual matters, which that power may deem fpiritual, as well as in all tempora- lities iiifeparably connected with fuch fpiritual fupremacy,, which may amount to half the temporal power of the State, and may in time fwallow up the whole, as attempted in many Other countries; and it is to be left for a foreign ecclefiaftic and his vaflal priefts in this empire, to define what portion in temporal matters comes within the vortex of fpiritual fu- premacy. The Pope himfelf never claimed any temporal power, but under the pretext of its connexion with fpiritual power ; 45 power ; and hiftory and our ftatute books will fliow what imm^nfe temporal power he claimed under fuch a ppetcnce, even within this realm; and the declaration of the fourth general council of Lateran (hows the fcope of authority over temporal princes and their dominions claimed by the Popes. To permit fubje£ls holding fuch a do6lrine as a point of faith, to (hare in the Proteftant l^fgiflation of this country, when fupremacy is lodged in a popular aflembly, is not only abfurd in the extreme, but would be ruinous to the Conftltution. The oath of fupremacy was originally framed in the reign of Henry VIII. merely as an oath of al- legiance to the Crown, againft the intolerable ufurpations then exercifed in England under the maik of a fpiritual power, equal at lead in many cafes, and in many others pa- ramount and fubverfivc, to the power of the Crown, as will appear by the preambles to the flatutes of Henry VIII., 24th, chap. 12, 25. — 25th, chap. 11. — 26th, chap, i — 32d, chap. 38.; and the Irifli ftatutes, 28th Henry VIII. chap. 13, — 2d Elizabeth, chap. 2. — By this oath the King was de- clared only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of Eng- land and Ireland ; and in anfwer to the objections then made, the King publicly declared, he claimed only a civil fupre- macy, and by no means pretended to any facerdotal power ; and that his fupremacy was not that purely fpiritual power lodged in the Church, but a temporal fupremacy over all the fpiritual power of it within his own dominions. The only perfons of the nobility, church or ftate, who refufed this oath, were Sir Thomas More, and Filher biOiop of Rochefter. The Romanifts were better fubje£ls in that day than in this. Queen Elizabeth, however, was induced by the partifans of Rome to alter the claufe in the oath, and inferted that the King or Queen of England for the time being is the only fupreme governor of this realm., as well in fpiritual or eccle- fiaflical things or caufes as in temporal ones — ftill, however, difclaiming all pretenfions to prieitly power, or to any autho- rity not of aniient time due to the Imperial Crown of Eng- land, in the fovereignty and rule over al! manner of per- fons born within her dominiorjs, temporal or ecelefiaftical, to the exclufion of all foreign power. The Romanifts, how- ever, by the anathemas of the Pope, were fo much changed for the worfe fmce the days of Henry, rhat they univerfally refufed this fimple oath of allegiance to their natural fove- reign. James II., a bigoted papift, finding himfelf invefted by this oath with the fupremacy of the hftabliflied Church, was induced by his bigotry, in dire£t violation of his Coro- nation oath, to ufe has authority for the fubverfion of the Kftablilhed Church. But rfic fagacity of thofe Patriots who condu6led the glo- rious 46 rioi'.s Revolution determined them to refcuc the Church from fuch peril, and tliey caufed to be expunged from the oath of fupremacy the words — " that the King is the only " fuprenie governor of this realm, as well in fpiritual or " t'ccleiialtical aules as temporal" — fo that the fubje^l is now bound by the oath of lupremacy only to fwear to the independence of ibis empire upon any foreign power. It is m.crely an oath of allegiance; it alv.ays was fo — and fuch as no fubjeift, not a6tuaiiy a traltor^ can confcientioufly de- cline, for it is purged of all reafonable and plaufible objec- tion. It never was an oath of exclufion, neither of reftric- tion, except to traitors, and is, in every fenfe, flri£lly conformable to the antient law of the realm as recognized in the preamble of the llatute of praemunire in the i6th of Richard II. which recites " that the Crown of England ever hath been free, and fubje6l to none but God, and that the laws and flatutes-of this realm ought not to be sub- mitted to the bifliop of Rome to be defeated at his pleafure, to the defl:ru6tion of the King, his Crown and Regalia." And this was the voice of the people of England in open parliament. See Carte's Ormond, vol. i. page 36 to 43. and Davis's Reports, Cafe Praemunire, The Romanifts of this day and all their abettors (among whom, on this point, they recruit all the Jacobins of the country) defire to have this oath repealed — thus a£ting in the fpirit of traitors to their country from motives of confcience, maintaining its fubjeclion to a foreign power, and profefling to fupporc that power in all poflible ways, by arms or other means to bend their country to its authority ; they therefore demand a repeal of the law which requires an oath of allegiance to the conftitutional government, and which mufl: be an ac« knowledgment of its fubjedion to a foreign tribunal. " It will enable us," argue they, " to obtain feats in the great national council, and procure for us power to betray the independence of our country. 1 he Pope and our divines aflure us, we are bound in confcience to do fo whenever we can. Doctor Troy of Dublin, that eminent Dignitary of our Church, in his Faftoral Letter of 1793, told us that the Pope of Rome is fucceflbr to St. Peter, and prince of the apoftles— that he enjoys, by divine right, a fpiritual and ecclefiaftical primacy in honour and rank — and alfo of real jurifdidion and authority in the Univerfal Church- that we cannot confcientioufly abjure his authority. That Henry VIII. . was the firft Chriltian prince who aflumed ecclefiaftical fupremacy, and commanded an enflaved par- liament to cnadt it as a law of State; and the Catholics confider it as an ufurpation from which we will by every means in our power endeavour to free ourfelves i and we pray 47 pray you, good, kind, liberal Proteftant ufurpcrs! to alTifl us in our purpofe,and enable us to betray our common country to dependence and flavcry.'* To fhow the true fpirit of the Romanifts with refped to temporal governments, it is necef- fary to inquire whether thofc I have ftated have ever been difavowed, and wlieiher and at what rime any material change has been eO'eiled in them ? All the Roman bifhops refident in the Britifli dominions (and who aflume their titles in dire(5l violation of law) at their refpedlive confecrations do fwear an oath of allegiance to the Pope : and among other claufes, that they will from that hour forward be faith- ful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy Church of Rome, and to their Lord the Pope and his Succeflbrs cano- nically entering : that the papacy of Rome, 'he rules of the Holy Fathers, and the regality of St. Peter, they will keep, maintain, and defend, againft all men ; the rights, privileges, and authorities of the Church of Rome, acd of tlie Pope and his Succeflbrs, they w^'l caufe to be conferved, defended, augmented, and promoted Another clauie in the oath is, That heretics, fchifmatics, and rebels to the Holy Father and his Succeflbrs, they will refifl: and perfecute to their power. This lall claufe Dr. Troy Hates to be now omitted in the oath of the Romilh bifhops, in countries not in communion with the See of Rome, at the reprefentation of the late Em- prefs of Ruflia, on condition of fuffering a Papift bifhop to refidc within her dominions ; and if fuch be the fa6l, the oath wears fuflicient hoflility to a Proteftant State even without it. A fimilar oath is taken by the prieils at their ordination, to the Pope and the Council of Trent, binding themfelves to condemn, rejedt, and anathematize, all opinions fo condemn- ed by the Pope or that Council. The Council of Lateran in 1315, under Pope Innocent the Hid, confifting of 400 bi- (hops and 800 fathers, acknowledge the power of the Church (that is of the Pope) to difpofe of the dominions of Kings and Princes, to command temporal Lords, to purge their dominions of herefy, under pain of excommunication j to ab- folve fubjehich he lives. A way then with the claims of Romanifts 51 Romanlfts upon ilntural right to fit in both IToufes of Par- liament ! — The Ronianifts and their abettors, befidc, can derive no benefit from the argument of opinions, in thofe overt a£ts I have jull ftated; becaufe the overt a£ls of our ovi^n countrymen and others profeffnig this cruel and unre- lenting luperftition, have been too frequent, flagrant, and notorious to be denied, from the rei^jn of Elizabeth to the prefent time, for fubjecling thefe kingdoms to a foreign jurifdiclion. Witnefs the bulls of Pope Pius V. for de- throning and aflaffinating the Q^ieen of James I. ; the con- fpiracies of her own fubjefts for her afTafFination, and that of her fucceflbr ; the projefted Spanifli invafion ; the defperate Romiih rebellions and horrid mafficrcs of Pro- teltants in the reign of Charles I., of William IIL, and in 1798, where thoufands of Proteftants, men, vi'omen, and children, were unprovokedly murdered in cold blood. In extenuation and excufe for which laft-mentloned rebellion and mafi'acre, all the malevolence of the whole Republican, Jacobinical, and Frenchified Fa6lion in England has been fmce employed with the moft pernicious efle(^!ls. Even a great minifter of ftate, in this Ploufe (Mr. Pitt) has fo far fufFered himfelf to be deluded by their reprefentations, and thofe of their emiflaries, as to patronize their claims, on the fcore of their patience and forbearance for a century paft, and their hearty concurrence in the late Union. But I main- tain, that their whole merit in the former cafe is imputable only to their own impotence, the rellridions of law, and the fuperior power and ftrength of the Proteftants. Their dif- pofitions will beft appear from their repeated and rebellious rillngs in Ireland within that time, as White Boys, and De- fenders, committing the moft atrocious a£ls of murder, treafon,,and defolation : — and the firft proof of their peace- able and loyal difpofition, after the repeal of the Popery- Code, was to break out into open rebellion, and commence the mafTacre of their Proteftant fellow-fubje£ts. But v/hat- ever ill-founded plea they may make of quietnefs, the refult at bell of their imbecility, to loyalty they certainly have no claim; for their religion is decidedly dilloyal. It was the opinion of Lord Chefterfield, as appears by his fpeech on opening the Sefhon of the Irifh Parliament in 1745, that it was extremely necefFary to enforce the reiiriftions upon the Romanifts, " "whofe fpeculative errors," he obferved, '* would only deferve pity, if their pernicious influence on "^civil fociety did not both require and authorife conftraint." With refpecl: to their fupport to the meafure of Union, or their exertions to effedl it, the tale is as idly groundlefs as their other pretences. The Hiftory of England ihows, H 2 from from the time of Queen Elizabeth to the late rebellion, that fepararion, not union, was the objefl of the RomanKh, to whicli all their plots, corifpiracies, maflacres, and rebellions, were dircdled; while the Irifh Proteliants were always firmly ^attached to Great Britain, and anxioufly defired, until a few yearvS back, an incorporating union-, for which their repre- fentatives in Parliament petitioned Queen Anne, but from fome unaccountable haup;htinefs it was rejedled. But in 1795, the Delegated AfTembly of Irifh Romaniils met at Dublin, from every quarter of the kingdom; proclaimed their abhorrence of that meafure; and after a difcuflion of much length, made up of treafonablc fpeeches, crammed with the mofl: virulent inve£tives againll the Britifli nation, the highed praifes of the French Revolution, fligmatizing the war againfl; France as an impious crufade, and calling upon Ireland to feparate from this country — they came at length to this unanimous refolution — ^' that wc pledge our- felves colleme writers- upon the Gonftitutlonj who affert that the King is bound to- aflent to every Bill paffed by both Hovifes ; f«r fbrs woulct rend-er the King, in hrs legillative capacity, a mete cvp^er* For wlio can aflert that His Majefly is bound to gi^e an af^ fent in dire£l violation- of his Corona;tion Oath ? I ^ha^> ever mahita-in the contrary principle, although I thereby incur the guilt of treafon^ in the opinion of this annotator upon Coke on Littleton ; and I lea^ve fucli dc6trines to Romanifts and the Court of Rome 'tis no Protcttant doctrine. Wrlliam III. in the pnrefl i^ira of the confLnution, in 169^ and 1695, refufed his aiTent to two Bills which had palled boih Ploufes^ one to difqualify Members of Parliament from holding Places, and the other for the furtherRegulation of Eled^ions^ The pamphkt inquires, By what cafuidry is it rendered un-» unlawftrl for His- Majefly to afient to a repeal of the fmali portion of the Peml Laws remaining, after affenting to the repeal of all the former ? To this I anfwer, That the repeaF of the former does not confer any confiderable portion of political power upon the Romanilb even in Ireland, and eould not, as in the prefent cafe, be produclivc of confe- quences fubverfive to Church and State, becaufc it does not place within their grafp thofe offices of the State in which the: Executive Power is lodged, unlefs they perform the requifitea of all other His Majelly's fLibje61:s. The powers therefore remaining to be ceded, though fmall in bulk, are great irt their importance, and indrfpenffisble to the fecurity of the con- ffitution. What commandant of a (Irong fortrefs, the chief defence of a kingdom, would be juffifi-ed in furrenderrng it to a cruel,, mercilefs, and unrelenting enemy, becaufe it wars cieemed expedient^ for the better defence of the place, to flight fome weak and uniraportant outv.'ork, and permifi ,^9 tlic foe to t:ilv-e poflefllon of it? " But (fays the authnr) -all this (llfciiHion is fiiperfluous ; for the Coronation Oarh ^'as fixed in Ireland, by William and Mary, at a time when Roman Catholic Peers fat and voted in the Houfe of Lords', and Commoners were elit^ible to the floufe of Commons. -All civil and military offices were open to them, and they •were not xleprlved of thofe rip;hts until the 3d ami 4th of William and Mary, and the lit and 2d of Ann. Now the Coronation Oal'h can only refer to the fyftem of laws in force when the A6t pafled which prefcribed it : but the Irifli Jaws, meant to 'be repealed, are fubfequent to that Act ; and therefor-e the Oath cannot refer to thofe or to any fimilar Ads.'* Now, in anfwer to this, 1 contend, that not only by the ift, 3d, and 4th of William and Mary, but by the 30th of Charles II., the K'ln^ is bound by his Coronation Oath to maintain, tothe utmoll of his power, the Church, as cRablifl^ed by law in England and Ireland, in the fame man- ner as he found it on his accellion •, and this obligation is iVill further fortified by the fifth article of the Union be- tween Great Britain and Ireland ; nor can I think it credi- table to the annotator of Coke upon Littleton thus to at- tempt fupporting the caiife of his party by the q-uibbles of fpecial plead in fj;. I anijnot fu Oiciefitl-y ■con ver fan t with the journalsof tlie Irifh Houfe of Lo'rdo to afcertain whether Romifh Peers were or were not exckd-ed from feats in that Houfe, previous to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, unlefs they took the Oath of Supremacy. They certainly v^'cre not fo by any Irilh Statute •: but very few fuch Peers could have fat in the Irifh Parlia- ment from the Reiteration to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, excepting the Romiih mob alfembled in DiiUin by King James II. after his abdication, and by him znd them- felves ftyled a Parliament ; for theRomifh Peerage in Ireland^ previous to 1641, was not numeTous, as almoft the whole of them were attainted a© traitors, having joined in that wicked Romifli RebelKon and Maffacre of the Irifh Proteit- ants in 1641, and the remainder for their rebellion in 1689 -90, and-91. But it is a grofs i-nisftatement to fay, that Ro- manics were eligible to feats i-n the Irifli Houfe of Commons, previous to the 3d and 4th of Willium and ISInry, without taking any oaths wliatever, and particularly the Oath of Su- premacy; — as by a refolution of the Iriih Houfe of Coni- nions in 1642, all Members were obliged to take tlie Oath of Supremacy or vacate their feats; and by another refolution in 1O61, all Members were not only obliged to take that Oath, I 2 but but to receive the Sncramcnt ar.cordlnjr to the ufa^e of the EllabliHied Church, or vacate thtir feats. The Author's affertlon, that all places, civil and military, were open to the Romanills in Ireland, previous to rhe acceffion of William and Mary, fmells of the fame artifice with his former afler- tions, refpcfting feats in the Houfe of Commons.- It is true that fuch offices were indeed open to Romanics then as they are now, if they performed the acts required of all others His Majefty's fubjedls, but from their univerfal reje£lion of which, they difable themfelves from holding fuch cfHces. The author cannot refort for his authority, to the unlawful, liotous aflembly convoked at Dublin in 1689, by King James after his abdication, and by him ftyled a I'^arliament : they confided entirely of Romanics unlawfully elected, after he had deflroyed all the Protellant Corporations, and driven out of the country, or into the Proteftant armies, all the Proteftant nobility and gentry, — after he had himfelf ceafed to be King, and had no authority to convoke a Parlia^ ment. Under an A€i of William and Mary, this mock Par- liament was declared to be an unlawful aflembly, and all its -A6I3 condemned to the flames, and publicly burnt accord-? ingly Having, I truft, already proved that the do6lrines, political, moral, and religious, profefled in that Petition, and ftated to be thofe of the Roman Catholic Religion, are the very reverfe of thofe principles taught and inculcated by the Canons, Decrees of General Councils, by a/l writers, lay and cleric, of the greateft authority amongii the Romanifts, and adopted by the unlverfrJ practice of liieir Church from the time of the Lateran Council to the prefentday; and which their modern writers, fuch asDr. Troy and Mr. Plow- den, aflert, are the religious principles of Roman Catholics, being unchangeable, and applicable to all times; and that if any one fays or pretends to infinuate that the modern Ro- man Catholics differ in one iota from their anceltors, he either deceives hmTelf or wiflies to deceive others •, and that Jempcr eadem is emphatically dcfcrlptive of their religion. With refpedi to the argument, ufed in the courfe of this tlebate, relative to the eftabiifhment of the Roman Catholic Religion in Canada, becaufe it has produced no bad efFeds there, it is rather premature to form any decided opinion of what effe(Sls mav hereaftei: flow from it : befide, the eftablifli* ment of it there was not a matter of choice but neceflity, as it was upon the cxprefs flipulation of that meafure that Ca., iiada furrenclered to the Britifh arms ; and that the Roman Catholic Pvcligion fnould be for ever preferved inviolate there; 61 there : and Great Britain, ever faithful to her treaties, wns ? thus oblijred to tlie mcafure. Befide, as to the fidelity of the Canadian Romanids, durinj^ the American war, it may alfa be accounted for by necefl'ity on their fide.— uSluit out from all communication with Europe for fix months of the yt-ar by the freezing of the St. Laurence, Great jJritain could durinc^ the other fix months, by a few ftiips on that river, de- bar them from fuch communication in cafe of a relicliion, and the C.nadians could not fubfdl without thofe European commodities, which they can only obtain through the Uni- ted States, with p^reat dilHculty, intolerable expenfe, and in- finite rifk and hazard. Another argument of the Honourable Member who in- troduced this motion, is the great number of the Romanics in Ireland, whom, in the courfe of his fpeech, he fomc- times reprefents at four millions, and fometimes at three mil- lions, without ever once mentioninoj the Proteltants but has endeavoured to imprefs the Members of this irioufe unac- quainted with Ireland, that the inhabitants, with a fevv triflmg exceptions, are all Romanifts. 'i'o expofe, however, the error of the Honourable Gentleman, it is neceflary to compare the calculations fuccedively made upon the population of Ireland. The number of the inhabitants, as calculated in 1692, after the Revolution war, was 1,200,000 only. Another calcula- tion in 1731, as Hated in the Dominicana Hlbernia of Dr« Jiurke, the Romifli bifhop of Olfory, 700,45 ^ Protellants, and 1,309,768 Romanids, not exceeding the Proteltants in the proportion of Hvo to one — and in 1762 the fame author bitterly conaplains, that the proportion at that time had greatly increafed on the Protellant fide. Mav it not then be fairly dediiced that the Romanids at this day in Ireland are not in the proportion of two to one to the Proteftants ? From the befl calculations lately made it appears, that the whole inhabitants of Ireland do not now exceed three mil- lions, of which numl:>er it may be fairly reckoned that J,2CO,coo are Protellants, wh6m the Honourable Member appears to contemn fo much that he has not even conde- fcended to mention them: from this it will appear that they do not conftitute above one-eighth of the population of the Britilh Iflands—and it is notorious they do not pofTefs one- fortieth part of the re.d and perfonal property of that coun- try, nor one-thoufandth part of the property of the United Kingdom. In fa61:, they compofe the mob and the beggarv^ pf Ireland, and are not of confequence enough, either in numbers, wealth or power, to demand, as tliis Petition does, the 62 the fubvcrfion of the Confiirution in Church and State, and the deftruction of the Protcllaius of Ireland, for their grati- fication.. 'J he argument than the reprefentative franchifc fliould be granted to the Romanifts, becaufe elective fran-r chife is granted to them in Ireland, is fo far from being an argument for fuch a grant, founded on the numbers of that feSy that it is a iliong argument for depriving tliem of the elective franchile. It is much fafer for a RomiHi govern- ment, even a popular one, to admit Protcftants to places of truil and power, than for a Protcftant State to admit Ro- manifts ; becaufe Proteftants hold no point of faith hoitilc to the independence of the State under which they live Romanifts do; and to give them political power would be furnifliing them with the means of overturning the Conlti* tution. The indigent raob in any country, they are in Ireland, ought not to be gratified at the expenfe of ruin to the loyal, opulent and reputable part of the State — for, if fo, we fhould have agrarian laws and equality adopted in every State ; becaufe the indigent in every ftate compofe the bulk of the population, and are defivous of degrading and plun- dering the great and the rich in every ilate, as well as in Ireland. To fum up all the arguments againft thismeafure: The l^ws which enjoin the Oath of Supremacy are not re- flri£\ive nor exclufive laws, in refpe£l to any ciafs of people in the community, except traitors j becaufe it is merely an Oath of Allegiance to the State, and no fubjefl refufmg it {hould be admitted to the functions of a Legiflator, or any place of truft or power in the State. It would be a fubver- fion of the Conftittition in Church and State, and let in an univerfai deluge of Atheifm, Infidelity, Democracy, and Anar- chy. It would be to admit the juftice of the Pope's claim to the fupremacy of the Churcli in theie realms- It would be to violate the conditions of the two Unions, with Scotland and with Ireland. It would be to violate the King's Coronation Oath. It cannot, therefore, be fuppofed His Majelty will ever agree to it. Tht tendering a bill to him for fuch a purpofe, would be an infult to him : — and for all thefe rea* ions 1 give my hearty negative to the motion. 4 Mr. GRATTAN, 65* Mr.gr ATT AN. — "Sir, in offering to the House my sentiments on this most important subject, I shall endeavour to avoid the example set me by the Learned Member who has just sat dov/n. I shall deprecate all animosity on the one side or on the other. As the causes have ceased, I think all ani- mosity arising out of those causes should also cease ; and instead, therefore, of calumniating either party, I rise to defend both. I do not wish to revive in de- tail the memory of those RebelUons to which the Learned Member has alluded. The past troubles of Ireland ; the Rebellion of 1641, and the Civil Wars which followed — I do not wholly forget; but I re- member them only to deprecate the example and renounce the animosity. The Penal Code, which preceded and followed those times, I remember also, - but only enough to know that the cause and reasons for that Code have totally expired ; and as on the one side the Protestant should relinquish his ani- mosity on account of the Rebellions, so the Catholics should relinquish their animosity on account of the Laws ; and I do not hesitate to declare, that the man who attempts to keep alive these animosities in Ire- land, is the worst enemy of that country, and the ' deluded ally of France, or any other power that wages war against this. The question for your consideration this night, is not as stated by the Learned Member. It is not merely whether you will now privilege or still keep disqualified a few Roman Catholic Gentlemen, for seats in Parliament, or certain offices in the State? but it is, v/hether you will impart to a fifth portion cf the population in your European Empire, a com- munity in that which is the vital principle of your Constitution and your strength, and thus confirm the ^tegrity and augment the power cf your Em- pire t whether you will still keep in a state of languor and neutrality, so great a portion of your People? This is really the question before you. Depend on it that this question is to Ireland highly important to you — every thing: and before you I* will will impose on yourselves such a sentence as that rfecommended by the Learned Doctor, you will re- quire I think better arguments than those he has ad- vanced. For, according to him^ you would reject this claim, without even the decency of deliberation. The Catholics aakof you equal advantages with their "Protestant fellow subjects ; but no, says the Learned Doctor, their request must not be granted. Ac- cording to him, they are an execrable Race : his argu- ments make a distinction between the People of Ire- land on the score of Religion, which I contend is fallacious. The Learned Doctor has substantially told you that the Irish Catholic Cliurch, which is more independent than the Catholic Church here, is th6 worst in Europe ; that the Irish Catholics, our own kindred, conforming to our own terms, are the worst of Papists ; that the distinction, — a distinction iDade by the Law, and propounded by ourselves, and essential to the State, — between temporaland spi- ritual power, is a vain discrimination — and that the People of Ireland to be good Catholics must be bad subjects ! — and finally, he has emphatically said^ *^ that the Irish Catholic never is — never was — or ever will be a faithful subject to a British Protestant King*' — and that they hate all Protestants and all Englishmen. Thus has he pronounced against his Countrymen three Curses Eternal War with each other — Eternal War with England — and eternal Peace with France ! — (loud applauses.) The speech of the Learned Doctor on which this assertion is maintained so strongly inculcates the doctrine, thac if a Catholic Printer were to publish it in a time of Invasion, that Printer might be indicted for High Treason, as the publisher of a composition that would administer to the Catholics a stimulus for in- surrection, and advance the authority of their Reli- gion to justify Rebellion. If the Learned Doctor were to be answered by examples, I could. refer him to an extensive branch of Irish Catholics, whose public conduct forms a strong contrast to the opinions he imputes. I could answer him most effectually by reference 65*! reference to the whole of their conduct, — I could answer him by their allegiance — nay, more, I could answer him by the conduct of their Censors in their private families: by the latter reference could I show that the private conduct of those Censors di-^ rectly contrasts their public Doctrine. But I prefer following his own arguments. The Learned Doctor's attack consists of four Parts : First, Invective Ca- lumny uttered against the Religion of the Catholics. Secondly — Invective uttered against the present Ge- neration. Thirdly, Invective against the past ; and Fourthly, Invective against the future. — Here the limits of Creation interposed, and stopped the Learned Member. It is to defend those different Generatioiit and their Religion that I now rise ; to rescue the Catholic from his attack— and the Protestant from f hisDefence. — ( Much laughter and applause ) — I do noc conceive, however, that I have a very difficult task to encounter ; for the Learned Doctor has left me little to do, having in most instances answered him- self, and refuted his own assertions. Sir, I profess to know but little on many of those subjects about which the Honourable Doctor may and ought to be very learned ; and perhaps if I did, it would not be very grateful to the House that I should indulge much in them. I shall not therefore enter into very minute discussion upon his doctrinal points— but confine myself principally to his general heads, in which I differ in opinion from him most decidedly. Before I proceed further I shall lay down a principle as the basis of my arguments/ and which I trust I shall substantiate to the satisfaction of this House; The principle which I do most decidedly hold is; that the Catholic Religion, abstracted from the? Court of Rome, implies not the slightest tenet irre- concilable with the strictest loyalty to a Protestant Government, and therefore can impose no sentiment upon the Irish Catholic hostile to his allegiance to the Government of Great Britain — but quite the contrary : that the Irish Catholic may be therefore as good a Subject of the King, and as much attache<3 I 2* to 66* to His Majesty, ts any Protestant inhabitant of Mid- dlesex. This assertion is founded upon my know- ledge of the principles of the Catholic reHgion. That religion does not, I know, profess or hold such maxims as the Learned Doctor has ascribed. It is not founded upon the decrees of Popes — nor is it to be judged by their conduct. I can show by reference to its most respectable authorities that ever have appeared, that none of tliose tenets attributed to Catholics by the Learned Doctor, and those who think with him, ever formed any part of the Catholic belief. The civil interference of the Pope, his assumed power of diispotism, together with the supposed doctrine, that no faith is to be keptwidi heretics, are the great objections urged to the claims of the Catholics. To convict them on those points, the Learned Doctor has gone forth with a sinister zeal to collect materials for his purpose; and behold he returns with much of disputed comment — much of doubtful test — much of executive decrees and of such other things, now become obsolete because useless, and litde noticed because very dull and very uninteresting ; and wherein the Learned Gendeman may, for these reasons, take many litde liberties in the way of misquotation or convenient suppression. All these, the fruits of his unprofitable industry, he has laid before you : — very kindly and liberally he does it:— but of this huge and tremendous collection you must reject a principal part, as totally irrelevant to the question ; namely, all that matter which belongs to the Court of Rome, as distinct from the Church; ridiy, of the remnant after that rejection, you must remove every thing that belongs to the Church of Rome which is not doctrinal, and which is not con- fined to doctrine regarding faith and moral, exclusive of, and unmixed wirh, any temporal matter whatever. After this correction, you will have reduced this Learned Doctor of the fifteenth century to two mise- rable canons, — the only rewards of his labour, and results of his toil, both decreed centuries before the 8 Reformation, €7* Reformation, and therefore not bearing on the Pro- testant or the Reformers. The first is a canon ex- communicating persons who do not abide by a pro- fession of faith contained in a preceding canon, which notably concludes with the following observa- tion, — that virgins and married women may make themselves agreeable to God! Now I cannot think such a canon ought to excite any grave impression or alarm in this House, passed six hundred years ago, three hundred years before the birth of the reformation, made by lay princes as well as ecclesi- astics, and never acknowledged or noticed in these islands, even in times of their popery. The other canon, that of Constance, goes to deny the force of a free passport or safe- conduct to HeretiCvS given by temporal Princes in bar of the proceedings of the Church : and on this the Learned Doctor founds his deduction, that no faith is to be kept with Heretics. Without going further into that canon, 'tis sufficient to say, that it is positively affirmed by the Catholics, that this does not go further , than to assert the power of the Church to inquire into heresy, notwithstanding any impediments from lay princes ; and, further against the Learned Doctor, there is an authority for that interpretation, in contradiction to his interpretation, not merely above his authority, but any that it is in his studies to produce ; I mean that of Grotius, who mentions, that the imputation cast upon the Catholics, on account of that canon, is un- founded. Here I stop, and submit that the member is in the state of a plaintiff, who cannot make out his case, notwithstanding his two canons j that he has failed most egregiously, and has no right to throw the other party on their defence. However, the Catholics have gone, as far as relates to him, gratuitously into their case ; they have not availed themselves of the imbecility of their opponents; and they have been enabled to produce on the subject of the above charges, the opinions of six universities, to whom those charges, in the shape of queries, have been submitted : Paris, Louvaine, Salamanca, Douay, / 6s* Douay, Vailadolid, x\lcala. The •universities have all answered, and have, in their answere, not only disclaimed the imputed doctrine?, but disclaimed t?iem with abhorrence. Can you then, an imperial Parliament, suffer yourselves to be influenced by such chimeras ? Can you doubt, after all the experi- ence you haVe had, that the Catholics are cordially and sincerely and personally attached to your Sovereign ? thai they are ready to go forth vi^ith you and meet the common enemy? Will you then dis- card them as unworthy of your confidence ? Will yoo in the present circumstances of your Empire, in the present 5tate of human knowledge, have it told that you are irreconcilably averse to three mil- lions of your people on account of their religion ? that, merely for a difference in speculative opinions, you will cast away one fifth of your whole popula- tion and physical resource — and ail this because the Catholics are charged with believing in the Pope's dispensing power in political affairs — and other opinions equally absurd — and equally abjured and refuted ? What methods are the Catholics to take, for satisfying you they do not entertain the principles and opinions imputed to them by their enemies ? They have not only given you the authorities of their most respectable universities — but they have gone further j they have drawn up and subscribed a Decla- ration of nine articles, solemnly renouncing the imputed doctrines, and abjuring all claims to Pro- testant property and to the property of the Church in form and principle. They have gone still further yet — they have desired the Protestants to name their own terms of abjuration. — The Protestants: have done so, — and here is the instrument of their compact — it is an Oath framed by a Protestant Pari liament, principally manufactured by the Hon. Doctor himself, in which the Irish Catholics not only abjure the imputed doctrine, but are sworn ta the state and to the present establishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and to the present $tate of Protestant Property : this Oath has beea Jt-^' universally 69^ universally taken, both by laity and clergy, (for tiio Learned Doctor was mistaken when he said tiie latter did aot subscribe it,) and by this Oath both parties are concluded;: the Catholics from resorting the abjured doctrines, and the Protestants from , resorting to the abjured charge. Did the Learned Doctor siiape this test merely in order that the Catholic might perjure himself? Was it to work no good, to rectify nothing that was wrong, but merely, tp enable the Learned Doctor to say to the Catholics^ taking this test, ^ Hitherto you have been only traitors, but now you are perjured,' and sending them more readily to . the devil ? If there be any. consistency in his argument— such must be the ne- cessary resuk.of his doctrine ; and therefore I contend, that the Learned Gentleman is answered by his own test. When the Member imputes, as he has done,, to the Catholic, the principles thereby abjured, it. is. not the Catholic who breaks faith with him, but it" is he who breaks faith with the Catholic. . He acts in violation of the instrument he himself formed, and is ,put dpwn by his own authority. But the- Catholics have not only thus obtained a special) acquittal from the charges made against them inn this debate; they have obtained a general acquittal; a^so. " The most powerful of their opponents, the late Earl of. Glare, writes as follows: ^ They who ad^i here to the church of Rome are good Catholics,, they .who adhere to the court of Rome are traitors and he quotes Lord Somers as his authority, iu) which he entirely acquiesces, and acknowledges their ^ innocence in their adherence to the church of Rome . as distinct (vomi\\Q court. Very well: a test, such I have already mentioned, is formed by a Protestant Doctor, abjuring the doctrine of . the court of Rome, and reducing their religion, to the church of Rome, by i which this people become Catholics and cease to be Papists. This test, together with a number of other articles, if? reduced to an Oath, and. this Oath . introduced into an Act of Parliament, and is taken universallv. 70*^ imiversally. Here again are the opponents to the; Cathvolic concluded by their own concessions— by tendering an Oath to Catholics, they allow an Oath to be a test of sincerity ; by framing that Oath under the circumstances, they make it a test of pure Catholicism ; and while they continue to visit upon the Catholics crimes with which they were charged before this change, by their own argument they" pronounce pure Catholicism to be innoxious. But the Honourable Member has gone a little further than to pronounce the innocence of the Catholics j he has pronounced the mischievous consequences of the laws that proscribe them ; he has said in so many words, that ati Irish Catholic never is, and never will be, faithful to a British Protestant King ; he does not say every Catholic, for then he would include the English Catholics and those of Canada y nor does he say ev?5ry Irishman must hate the King^ for then he would include every Protestant in Ire- land : the cause of the hatred is not then in the re- ligion nor in the soil ; it must be therefore in the laws ■ — in something which the Protestant does not experi- ence in Ireland, nor the Catholics in any country but in Ireland — that is to say, in the Penal Code : that Code then, according to him, has made the Catholics enemies to the King : thus has he acquitted the Catholics and convicted the Code. This is not extraordinary ; it is the natural progress of a blind and a great polemic : such characters, — -they begin with a fatal candour, and then precipitate to a fatal extravagance ; and are at once undermined by their candour, and exposed by their extravagance : so with the Learned Member — he hurries on, he knows not where, utters he cares not what, equally negligent of the grounds of his assertions and their necessary inferences. — Thus, — when he thinks he is establish- ing his errors, unconsciously and unintentio'nally he promulgates truth ; or rather, in the very tempest of his speech. Providence seems to govern his lips so that they shall prove false to his purposes, and testify to his refutation. Interpret the gentleman literally,— 71* literally, — what blasphemy has he uttered He has said, that the Catholic Religion, abstracted as it is at present in Ireland from Popery, and redu:e;l, as it is, to mere Catholicism, is so inconsistent with the duties of morality and allegiance as to be a very great evW, Now, that Religion is the Chris- tianity of two-thirds of all Christendom ; it follows then, according to the Learned Doctor, that the Christian Religion is in general a curse : he has added that his own countrymen are not only de- praved by Religion, but rendered perverse by Nati- vity ; that is to say, according to him, blasted by their Creator, and damned by their Redeemer. In order, therefore, to restore the Learned Member to the character of a Christian, we must renounce him as an advocate, and acknowledge that he has acquitied the Catholics whom he meant to condemn, and convicted the laws which he meant to defend. - But though the truth may be eviscerated from the whole of the Member's statement, it is not to be discerned in the particular parts, and therefore it is not sufficient to refute his arguments ; 'tis necessary to controvert his parts. The Catholics of Ireland, he says, hate the Protestants- hate the English, and hate the King. I must protest against the existence of any truth of this position : the laws* violent as they were, mitigated as for the last seventeen years they have been, — the people better than the laws, — never could have produced that mischief Against such a position I appeal to the conscious persuasion of every Irishman. We will put it to an issue : — I ap- peal to those Members of this House who, as Eng- lish Secretaries, have resided in that country, whe- ther they ever found in the Irish of any Sect an aversion to Englishmen ? To one Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, — an Englisiiman and a Representative of English Government, — I am sure I could appeal, whe- ther thelrish did not approve hisGovernment and love his person (Earl Fitzwilliam.) — and to anotherEng- lish Nobleman now at the head of that Government— I ask the Learned Doctor whether the Irish hate him ? K* If 72* If any man were to say in Ireland, that Nobleman is /lot loved and venerated by the People, he would be laughed at. If I could believe this position, what could I think of the Protestant ascendancy? and what must I think of the British connexion and Govern- ment, who have been for six hundred years in pos- session of the country, with no odier effect, accord- ing to this logic, than to make its inhabitants abhor you and your Generation? But this position contains something more than a departure. I call upon the Learned Doctor to state in what county of Ire- land it is that neither a Protestant nor an Englishman can live in safety ? or that one cannot exist in har- mony with the other? Will the Representative of Clare or Kerry, or any other county, tell me, that the people of Ireland do not equally love the men, no matter of v/hat religion, vvho use them well? But this position contains something more than a de- parture from fact: it says. Strike, France! strike, Spain ! — for the great body of the Irish are with you; it does much more, it attempts to give them a pro- vocation i it teaches you to hate them, and them to think so ; and thus falsehood takes its chance of gene- rating into a fatal and treasonable truth. Tiie Ho- nourable Gentleman having misrepresented the pre- sent Generation, mistates the conduct of their An* cestors, and sees forth the past Rebellions as pro- ceeding entirely from Religion. I will follow him to those Rebellions, and show, beyond his pov/er of contradiction, that Religion was 7J0ty and that Pro- scription waSy the leading cause of those Rebellions. The Rebellion of 1641, — or let me be controverted by any historian of authority, — -did not proceed from Religion ; it did proceed from the extermination of the inhabitants of eight counties in Ulster, and from the foreign and bigoted Education of the Catholic Clergy, and not from Religion. The Rebellion of the Pale — for it was totally distinct in period or cause from the other-— did not proceed from Reli- gion 'y the causes resembled your Petition of Right, except th^r they embraced articles for the security 73* of property, disarmament of the Catholics, expulsioo of them, in that disarmed state, from Dublin : many other causes; orders for the execution of certain Priests. — You will not forget there was an order to banish their Priests in James the First's time, and to ^ut up their Chapels in Charles the First's ; these were the causes : there was another cause — you were in Rebellion ; Scotland was in Rebellion : there was another cause — the Irish Government was in Re- bellion ; they had taken their part with the Repub- licans, and wished to draw into treason the Irish Freeholders, in order that, with the forfeiture of another's, one Rebellion might supply their own. I go back with concern to these times, I see much blood,— no glory ; but I have the consolation to find, that the causes were not lodged in the Religion or the Soil, and that all of them, but the Proscrip- tion cause, have vanished. I follow the Learned Member to another Rebellion, the which should pro- perly be called a Civil War, not a Rebellion ; it proceeded from a combination of causes which exist no longer, and one of those causes was the abdi- cating King at the head of the Catholics ; and an- other cause was the violent Proscription carried on against the Catholics by the opposite and then pre- vailing party ; these causes are now no more, or will the Member say there is now an abdicating Prince, or now a Popish Plot, or now a Pretender ? There are causes mos tcertainly sufficient to alarm you; but very different, and such as can only be combated by a conviction, that as destinies are now disposed of^ it is not the power of the Catholics which can de- stroy, or the exclusion of the Catholics that can save you. The conclusion I draw from the history to which I allude is very different from that drawn by the Member, and far more healing ; conclusions to show the evils arising from Foreign Connexions on one side, and from domestic Proscription on the other. It all the blood shed on those occasions, if the many fights in the first, and the signal battles in the second perigd^ and the consequences of those bat- K % ties 74* ties to the defeated and to the triumphant, — to the slave that fled, and the slave that followed, — shall teach our Country the viisdom of conciliation, I congratulate her on those deluges of blood. If not, and that they have flowed in vain, I subnnit ; — and I lament her fate, and deplore that perverse under- standing, which would render not only the blessings of Providence, but its visitations, fruitless, and transmit that which was the curse of our fathers, as an inheritance to their posterity. " The Learned Gentleman proceeds to mistate a period of one hundred years ; namely, the century that followed the Revolution, and this he makes a period of open or concealed Rebellions; the sources of his darkness and misinformation are to be found in History and Revelation : of his charges agarnst that period he brings no proof: none of those on the same side with him can bring any — they heard from such a one, who heard from such a one. I neither believe them nor such a one ; and I desire that so many generations may not be convicted on evidence which would not be admitted against the vilest caitiff, and that against evidence by which that vilest caitiff would be acquitted, — against the authority of dis- patches from successive chief Governors and of four Acts of Parlianjcnt — the Act of 1778, which declares their loyalty for a long series of years, that of 1782, that of 1792, that of 1793, and further, against the declared sense of Government, whointheyear 176a proposed to raise four Catholic regiments, because the Catholics had proved their allegiance; against the authority of the then Irish Primate who supported that measure ; and in his speech on that subject as- signs as his reason, that after his perusal of Mr. Murray's papers, nothing appeared against the Irish Catholics of any connexion whatsoever with the Re- bellion of that period. The Learned Member then })roceeds to the Rebellion of 179 8, and this he charges to the Catholics ; and against his charge I appeal to the Report of the Committee of the Irish House of Commons in 1797, in which it sets forth the rebel muater^ 75* muster, containing 99000 northerns enrolled in Re- bellion, and all the northern counties organized. •At the time in which the Committee of the House of Commons states the Rebellion of the North, the dis- patches of Government acknowledged the steady al- legiance of the vSouch, which is the Catholic part 3 to those dispatches I appeal, written at the time of Hoche's projected Invasion, and applauding the at- tachment and loyalty of the Southern Counties, and their exertions to assist the army on its march to Cork, to oppose the landing of the French. If you ask how the Rebellion spread and involved the Ca- tholics, I will answer, and tell you, they followed the example of Protestaacs ; and that as long as the Pro- scriptive System continues, and your Church a Mains AnimuSy there will be in our Country a staminal weakness, rendering the distempers to which society is obnoxious, not , only dangerous but deadly ; every epidemic disease will bring the chronic dis- temper into action^ Even the grap^-stone in the hand of Death strikes with the force of a thunder- bolt. If you have any apprehension on this account, the error is to be found in yourselves, in human policy, not in Religion, — in the fallibility of Man, not of God. If you v/ish to strip Rebellion of its hopes, and France of her expectations, reform that policy I you will gain a victory over the enemy, when you gain a conquest over yourselves. But I will for a moment accede to the Member's statement against facts and history ; what is his inference ? — During one hundred years of the proscriptive system, the State has been in imminent danger; therefore, adds he, continue the system ; here is the regimen under which you have declined — persevere : but the Learned Member proceeds to observe, that you cannot hope to reconcile whom you cannot hope to satisfy i that the Catholics will be loyal only under Restriction, and rebellious under Concession ; and he instances the repeal of tlie Penal Code. I deny the instances and the in- ference; the repeal, in 1778 and 1782 did recon- 7 cile 76* cllc and did satisfy : accordingly you will find, that the Irish Cacholics in 1779 and 1780, 1781 and 1782, were active and unanimous to repel the Invasion tlireatened at that time, when the French rode triumphant in the Channel, and Ireland was aban- doned to the care ot 6,000 regulars, and was only defended irom Invasion by the spirit and loyalty of the Cathc^lics, in harmony and in arms with their Protestant breihren. The repeal of a principal part of the Penal Code in 1793 did not reconcile and did not satisfy ; it was, because the Irish Govern- ment of tha'c tmie was an enemy to the Repeal and to the Catholics, and prevented the good effects of that measure. That Government, in the summer of 1792, had sent insiructions, (I know the fact to be so,) to the Grand Juries, to enter into Resolutions agamst the claims of the Catholics. Their leading Mmister opposed himself at one of the County Meetings, arid took a memorable post of hostility and publicity. When the Petition of the Catholics was recommended in the King's Speech of 1793, one of the wisest ever made from the throne, I remem- ber Ministers at first took no notice of that recom- mendation — and that I had the honour of moving that clause in the Address which refers to that pas- sage *in the Speech j but the Irish Minister answered the King, and with unmeasured seventy attacked the Petitioners. When the Bill, introduced in con- sequence of His Majesty's recommendation, was in progress, the same Minister with as unmeasured severity attacked the Bill, and repeated his severity against the Catholics, who, it was said, so long as they adhered to their religious opinions, never could be loyal — but would ever hate His Majesty and the Government. The Catholics, in this instance, ob- tained from the English Ministry what they failed to obtain from their own Government. The fact was, that the Irish Government was then engaged in party contests, from which the English was free — so that the Irish Catholics found the hostility from Go- vernment worse than from the Law. When the same 77* same bill of reconciliation, in consequence of the re- commendation and reference of the Petition, was in its passage, the Irish Government attempted to hang the leading men among the petitioners; and accord- ingly Mr. Bird and Mr. Hamil were, by their or- ders, indicted for a capital offence. I think it was Defenderism ; and so little ground was there for the charge, that thos n were triumphantly acquitted, and the witness« the Crown so flagrantly per- jured, that the J u -s^e, I have heard, recommended a prosecution. These were the cau-es why the repeal of 1793 did not satisfy ; and, in addicion to these, because the Irish Government took care that the Catholics should receive no benefir, therefore op- posing these with their known partisans and de- pendants in the Corporation of Dublin, when they sought for the freedom of the city, seldom giving any office (there are very few instances in which they got a more deadly and more active enemy than before they had experienced in the Law). I refer to the Speeches delivered and published at the time by the Ministers and Servants of the Irish Government, and persisted in, and delivered since ; and there you will vsee an attack on ail the proceedings of the Irish, from the time of their Addresses for free trade, such as were glorious, as well as those that were intem- perate, without discrimination or moderation ; there you will see the Irish Ministry engaged in a wretched squabble with the Catholic Committee, and that Catholic Committee replying on that Ministry, and degrading it more than it had degraded itself j and you will further perceive the Members of that Mi- nistry urging their charges against the Members of that Committee, to disqualify other Catholics v/ho were not of the Committee, but who opposed it ; — so that by their measures against the one part of the Catholics, and their invective against the other, they take care to alienate, as far as in them lay, the whole body. The tact is, the project of conciliation ^793y recommended in the Speech from the Throne, was defeated by the Irish Cabinet, which ' was was at that time on that subject in opposition j and being incensed at the British Cabinet for the counte- nance afforded to the Cadiolics, punished the Jattef, and sowed those seeds which afterwards, in conjunc- tion with other causes, produced the Rebelhon. "I have now gone through so much of the argument as affects the past and the present, and as connected with the question: widi regard to the future, you must consider that you are now repealing the Penal Code that has subsisted for hundreds of years, and the ha- bits that have grown up with it. But Jet us not de* ceive ourselves, or others, by promises over sanguine or expectations too eager for immediate and complete effect from the repeal of this code. You cannot at once remove habits of such long standing : the ope- ration, however, like the progress of the plough, though slow and silent, will be certain and effectual j will gradually produce the full harvest it promises, and stop the mouth of clamour with its own words. " I now leave the Learned Member, and proceed to discuss the differences remaining that discrimi- nate His Majesty's subjects of the Protestant and Catholic persuasion. I consider the Catholic religion, abstracted from the Cour^ of Rome, a practicable re- ligion with regard to public safety. I cannot sup- pose there is any thing in the climate of the country, or the physical constitution of its inhabitants, by which an Irish Roman Catholic 772ust be of necessity disloyal; unless, as the Learned Doctor seems to think, the Roman Catholics are cursed by the Book of Revelations — by the Father and by the Mother. — No — a bad system of poHcy is the source of those faults ascribed to the Catholics. Man is fallible — God is not. If I see a man healthy upon a certain diet, I presume the same regimen will agree equally v/ell with another. So, the same policy which made you a gceat people will do the same for Ireland. Ic has been said that their request, if granted, would only give the Catholics a few seats in this House and ac- cess to a few places. But this is every thing to the Cathohcs: it gives them an equality of right ; it 79* gives them the whole Parliament of 658 Members— by thus creating a common interest with every Mem- ber of this House — for the force of each part consti- tutes the force of the whole body. Before we consider how far we differ, it is neces- sary to examine how far we agree ; we acknowledge the same God, the same Redeemer, the same con- sequences of redemption, the same Bible, and the same Testament. Agreeing in these, we cannot, as far as respects religion, quarrel about the remainder ; because their merits as Christians must, in our opi- nion, outweigh their demerits as Catholics, and re- duce our religious distinctions to a difference about the Eucharist, the Mass, and the Virgin Mary ; mat- ters which may form a difference of opinion, but not a division of interests. The infidel, under these cir- cumstances, would consider us as the same religion- ists, — -just as the French would consider you, and cut you down as the same commui^ity. See v/hecher we are not agreed a little further, and united by statirte as well as religion : the preambles of three acts do- clare the Catholics to be loyal subjects ; the act of 1778 declares that they have been so for a series of years ; the same act declares that they should be ad- mitted into the blessings of the constitution : the act of 1 793 goes further, and admits them into a parti- cipation of those blessings. — Oh but then they are not to have political power ! — And yet, surely, civil rights imply political power. Thus is the principle of identification between the two sects established by the law of the land, and thus are the Catholics by that law proclaimed to be innocent, the calumniators of the Catholics gv.ilty, and the restrictions condemn- ed. Let us consider their situation under these laws : Professedly and in principle admitted to every thing, except seats in Parliament, and certain offices of state ; they are in fact excluded from every thing, under the circumstances of praying for every thing : L* the 80* the few places they enjoy make no exception. But if, after granting so much, we quarrel here, we must be guilty of the greatest imprudence — they pay their propoition to the navy, and contribute one-third to Its numbers, and have not a commission ; they con- tribute to the expenses of the army, and to one-third of its numbers, and have not a commission : if you injure these, the Catholic part of your army and navy, yon injure yourselves, and you do a great injury to tl e Catholic understanding, by preventing that growth and expansion of intellect and talent which the temptation of attaining the highest station ir. either must create. By the distinction you place him under a great disadvantage, and subject him to insult from his inferiors in merit. You also do an injury to morals, by laying a foundation for hatred and jealousy between individuals of the same com- munity. You do an injury to the peace of the coun- try by persecudon, and encouraging the little man of blood to raise himself into power and consequence by harassing and vexing his countrymen. And shall I now be asked. How are the Catholics affected by this ? or be told that the Catholic body would not be ;>erved by the removal of this? But I ask. How would the Protestant body be affected, if only removed from the state, the parliament, the navy, and the army ? In addition to this, 1 am to add the many minor injuries done to the Catholics, in ways that must be felt, and cannot be calculated : the inesti- mable injury done to the Catholic mind, by pre- cluding it fr(»m the objects of ambition, and to the Catholic spirit, by exposing it to taunts and in- sults, you cannot be at a loss for ; as, for instance, such as are uttered by the vilest of the Protestants against the first of the Catholics, I am to add the mischief done to the morals of the country, by set- ting up a false standard of meTit, by which men without rehgion, moral or political integrity, shall 81» obtain, by an abhorrence of their fellow subject^, credit and consequence, and acquire an impunity for selling the whole community, because they detest a part of it. You see it is impossible for any one part of society to afflict the other, without paying the f;enalty and feeling t^ie consequences of its own po-. licy in the re-action of its own bad passions on itself. I am Lo add the mischief done to the peace of th« country, when the spirit of religions discord descends to the lower order of the people, and the holiday becomes a riot; and when the petty magistrate turns chapman and dealer in politics, turns theologian and robber, makes for himself a situation in the country, formed out of the monstrous lies he teds of his Catholic neighbours, fabricates fal by creating an identity of interest : thus will you have simplified the imperial and constitutional motions to the one, and the same principle of action moving you in your home and in your imperial orbit, informing the body of your laws, and vivifying the mass of your empire. The Petition on your Table from the county of Oxford states, the Catholics have been ever enemies to freedom, iust as the controver- sialists have said the Catholics must be enemies to the King. But this is doing high injustice to Catholic ancestry for the Revolution, from whose benefits you are to exclude the Catholics, was founded on a model formed and moulded by Catholics > the De- claration of Rights, being almost entirely declaratory of rights and privileges secured by your Catholic ancestors, one of your great merits at the Revolu- tion, was not to have exceeded that model : but,, on the contrary, you restrained popular victory, and restored establishments, and with them kindled a Vestal flame which has outlasted the French confla- gration ; and whose vital heat, which then cheered you, should now cheer the Catholic, and, giving light and life to both, I hope will be eternal. The great objects. Church, State, and Property, I adopt with the controversialist, but I beg to rescue them from his wisdom ; to give them, for their support, the physical force of the Catholic body, inasmuch as our danger does not arise from the possible abuse of his constitutional power, but from the possible, abuse of 89* his physical thoughts to obtain that consitiitional power. In ail this debate, you will observe, we argue as if we had buc one enemy, the Catholic, and wo forget the French ; for the course which you are now pursuing is less calculated to keep France in check than Ireland in thraldom : and here, what I said to the Irish Parliament, on the Catholic question, I will re- peat to you : I said to them, ' The post you take is, unfavourable independency of the British parliament, exclusion of the Irish Catholics-— a post to be kept against the power of one country, and the freedom of the other.' "I now say to you, Tne post you would take is un- favourable ; a position that would keep France in check and Ireland in thraldom, to be held against the power of one country and the freedom of the other. There are three systems for Ireland j one, such as Primate Boulter has disclosed, a system to set the people at variance on account of religion, that the government might be strong and the country weak ; a system, such a one as prevailed when I broke her chain, which made the minister too strong for the constitution, and the country too weak for the enemy; a system, which one of its advocates had described, when he said the Protestants of Ireland were a garri* son in an enemy's country, and which another gen^ tleman has described, when he considered Ireland as a cafut mortUHm ' this system has failed, it ought to have failed i it was a party goverment, and a party God. " There is another extermination that will not do ; the extermination of three millions of men would be no easy task in execution, no very charitable mea- sure in conception : the Justices of 1641 had dream- ed of it, Cromwell had attempted, Harrington had talked of it. I hold the extermination of the people, and. even of their hierarchy, to be such an experi- ment as will not be proposed by any gentleman who M* 2 is 90* is perfectly in his senses. Extermination then will not do — what is left ? The partial adoption of the Catholics has failed, the eradication of the Catholics cannot be attempted, the absolute incorporation re- mains alone j there is no other. Or did you think it necessary to unite with the Irish Parliament to in- crease your strength, ar.d do hesitate to identify with the people, which would render you adamant ? — See whether you can conduct your empire on any other principle. The better to illustrate this, and in order to ascertain the principles of your empire, survey its comprehension. Computing your West Indies and your Eastern Dominions ; England has now, with all deference to her moderation, a very great proportion of the globe. On what principle will she govern that proportion ? On the principles on which Providence governs that and the remainder ? When you make your dominions commensurate with a great portion of her works, you should make your laws analogous to her dispensations. As there is no such thing as ex- clusive Providence ; so neither, considering the ex- tent of your empire, should there be such a thing as an exclusive empire, but such an one as accommo- daces to peculiar habits, religious prejudices, prepos- sessions, &c. &:c. You do not, in your dispatches to ycur generals, send the thirty-nine articles ; you knew the bigot and conqueror are incompatible j Louis Xn^. found it so ; you know that no nation is long indulged in the exercise of the two qualities, bigotry to proscribe at home, ambition to disturb abroad : such was your opinion when you establish- ed popery in Canada — I do nor speak of Corsica — such your opinion when you recruited for the foot in Ireland. It was in the American war this practice began : then you found that the princi- pie of exclusive empire would not answer, and that her test was not, who should say her prayers, but who should fight her battles ? On the same prin- cipic, 4h 91* elple, the Irish militia, which must be In a great pra- portion Catholic, stands, and on the same principle the Irish yeomanrvjwho must be In a far more consideraWc proportion Catholic, stands; and on the same prin- ciple you have recruited for the navy in Ireland, and have committed your naval tfumder-bolls to Catholici hands. Suppose, in Egypt, the general had ordered the Catholics td ^ro out of the ranks; or if, in one of our sea-fight>, tho admiral had ordered all the Catho- lics on shore, what had been the consequence? It i« an argument against the proscriptive system, that, if adopted practically in navy or army, the navy and the army, and the empire, would evaporate ! And shall we now proclaim these men, or hold such lan- guage as the Learned Member; language which, if he held on the day of battle, he must be shot ; laiv? guage for which, if a Catholic, he must be hanged ; such as you despised in the case of Corsica and of Ca- nada, in the choice of your allies, in the recruiting your army and your navy, whenever your conveni- ence, whenever your ambition, whenever your in- terest required ? Or let us turn from the magnitude of your empire, to the magnitude of its danger, and you will observe, that whereas Europe was hereto- fore divided in many small nations of various reli- gions, making part of their civil policy, and with al- liances, influenced in some degree and directed by those religious distinctions, where civil and religious freedom were supposed to be drawn up on one side, and on the other, popery and arbitrary power ; sq now the globe has been divided anew — England and France. You have taken a first situation among mankind, you are of course precluded from asecondj Austria may have a second situation, Prussia may have a second, but England seems to have linked her B^ing to her Glory, and when she ceases to be of the FIRST, she is noihmg. According to this sup- position, and it is a supposition which I do not frame. 52* but find m your country, the day may not be very ftmote, when you will have to fight for being, and for what you value more than being, the antient renown ofyour island ! You have said it yourselves, ind you have added, that Ireland is your vulnerable part. I admit it. Why vulnerable ? Vulnerable, be- cause you have misgoverned her. It may then hap- pen, that on Irish ground, and by Irish hearts and hands, the destinies of this antient monarchy, called Great Britain, may be decided. Accordingly you have voted your army, but you have forgot to voto iway your prejudices — you. have forgot to vote your people : you must vote their passions likewise : — ► their horrors at the French proceedings will do much; but it is miserable to rely on the crimes of your ene- mies. — Always on your own wisdom ? Never ! — Be- sides, those horrors did not prevent Prussia from leaving your alliance, nor Austria from making peace, nor the United Irishmen from making war. Loy- alty will do much ; but you require more, — patience under taxes, such as are increased far beyond what we have been accustomed to, from one million and n half to eight millions; nor patience only, but ardour. The strong qualities, not such as the scolding dia- lect of certain gentlemen, would excite the fire ; — a spirit, that, in the case of an invasion,wilI not sit as a spy on the doubt of the day ^nd calculate; but though the first battle should be unsuccessful, would come on with a deperate fidelity, and embody with the destinies of England. It is a wretched thing to ask, how would they act in such a case ? What 1 after a connexiop of six hundred years, to thank your admi-. ral for your safety, or the wind, or any thing but your own wisdom \ And therefore the question is not,whe^ ther six or ten Catholics shall get so many seats in this House, but whether you will give to thr^e mil- Jipns pf your fellow subjects, a participation, full and 93* and equal, of that Constitution enjoyed by. tlieir Pro^ testant countrymen — and attach to you so many grateful and faithful millions ? In such a caj^e, you would live, all a people. What is it that constitutes the strength and health of England, but this sort of vitality, that her privileges, like her money, circulate every where, and centre no where? This it was which equality would have given^ but did not give to France; this it was which the plaiii sense of your ancestors, without equality, did give the English ; a something, which limited her Kings, drove her enemies, and made a handful of men fill the world with their name. Will you, in your Union with Ireland, withhold the wholesome and invio-oratine recjimcn which has made you strong, and continue that regimen which has^ made her feeble ? Give to the Irish Catholics the participation they desire, and all your affections and wishes will be the same. You will further recollect, that you have invited her to your patrimony, and hi- therto you have given her taxes, and an additional debt ; I believe it is of twenty-six millions : the other part of your patrimony, — I should he glad to see that; talk plainly and honestly to the Irish ; — ' 'Tis true, your taxes are increased, and your debts multiplied- — but here are our privileges ; great burthens, and great privileges — this is the patrimony of Eng- land, and with this does she assess, recrtiit, inspire, consolidate/ But the Protestant ascendancy, if is said, alone can keep the country ; namely, the gentry, clergy, and nobility, against the French, and without the people. It may be so : but in 1641, above ten thousand troops^ were sent from Englanci to as- sist that party ; ifi 1689, twenty-three regiments were- raised in England 10 assist them ; in 98, the Eng. lish militia were sent over to assist ihem ; what can be done by spirit will be done by them : bur would the City of London, on $uch assurances, risque a S guinea? guinea } The Parliament of Ireland did risque every thing, and are now nothing ; and in their extinc- tion left this instrnctiori, — not to their posterity, for they have none, — but to you, who come in the place of their posterity, — nol to depend on a sect of religion, nor trust the final issue of your fortunes to any thing less than the whole of your people. *' The Parliament of Ireland — of that asseuibly I have a parental recollection. I sat by her cradle:— I followed her hearse I In fourteen years she acquired for Ireland what you did not acquire for England in a century — freedom of trade, independency of the legislature, independency of the judges, restoration of the final judicature, repeal of a perpetual Mutiny Bill, Habeas Corpus Act, Nullum Tempus Act — a great work ! You will exceed it, and I shall rejoice. I 'call my countrymen to vi^itness, if in that business ' I compromised the claims of my country, or tempo- rized with the power of England. But there was one thing w hich baffled the effort of the patriot, and defeated the wisdom of the senate — it was the folly of the theologian. When the parliament of Ireland re* jected the Catholic Petition, and assented to the ca* lumnies then uttered against the Catholic body — on that day she voted the Unioa. If you should adopt a similar conduct, on that day you will vote the se- paration. Many good and pious reasons no doubt you may gi^e ; many good and pious reasons she gave; and there she lies — with her many good and her pious reasons ! That the Parliament of Ireland should have entertained prejudices, I am not asto- nished ; but that you, that you, who have, as indi- viduals and as conquerors, visited a great part of the globe, and have seen men in all their modifications ' and Providence in all her ways— that you, now, at this time of day, should throw up dykes against the Pope, and barriers against the Catholics, instead of uniting with 95* with that Catholic to throw up barriers against the French ! This surprises ; and in addition to this, that you should have set up the Pope in Italy, to tremble at hirn in Ireland : and further, that yoii should have professed to have placed yourself at the head of a Christian, not a Protestant league, to de- fend the civil and religious liberty of Europe, and should deprive of their civil liberty one-fifth of your- selves, on account of their religion— This surprises me: and also that you should run about like a grown- up child, in search of old prejudices, and should pre- fer to buy foreign allies by subsidies, rather than sub- sidize fellow-subjects by privileges; and that you should now stand, drawn out as it were in battahon, .16,0005000 against 36,000,000, and should at the same time paralyse a fifth of your own numbers, by excluding them from some of the principal benefits of your constitution, at the very time you say all your numbers are inadequate, unless inspired by those very privileges I As I recommend to you to give the privileges, so I should recommend tlie Calholica to wait cheerfully and dutifully. The temper with which they bear the privation of power and privilege is evidence of their qualification ; they will recollect the strength of their case, which sets them above im- patience ; they will recollect the growth of their case from the time it was first agitated to the present moment, and in that growth perceive the perishable nature of the objections, and the immortal quality of the principle they contend lor. They will farther recollect what they have gotten already — rights of religion, rights of property, and above all the elec- tive franchise, which is in itself the seminal principle of every thing else. With a vessel so laden, they will be too wise to leave the harbour, and trust the fal- lacy of any wind : nothing can prevent the ultimate success of the Catholics but iiitemperancc : for this they will be loo wise : the chargers uttered against - them ,r 96* them they will answer by their allegiance — so should I speak to the Catholics. *' To the Protestant I would say — You have gotten the land and powers of the country, and it now re- mains to make those acquisitions eternal. Do not you sec, according to the present state and temper of England and France, that your country must ultimately be the scat of war ? Do not you see, that your children must stand in the front of the battle, with uncertainty, and treachery in the rear of it ? If then, by ten or twelve seats in Parliament given to Catholics, you could prevent such a day, would not the compromise be every thing ? What is your wretched monopoly, the shadow of your present, the memory of your past power, compared to the safety of your families, the security of your estates, and the solid peace and repose of your Island ? Besides, you have an account to settle with the Empire : might not the Empire accost you thus : — ' For one hundred years you have been in possession of the Country, and very loyally have you taken to your- selves the power and profit thereof. I am now to receive at your hands the fruits of all this, and the unanimous support of your people : where is it now, when I am beset with enemies, and in my day of trial ?* Let the Protestant ascendancy answer that question, for I cannot. Above twenty n>illions has been wasted on your shocking contest, and a great proportion of troops of the line locked up in your Island, that you may enjoy the ascendancy of the Country, and the Empire not receive the strength of it. Such a system cannot last ; your destinies must be changed and exalted ; the Catholic no longer your inferior, nor you inferior to every one, save only the Catholic ; both must be free, and both must fight the enemy, and not one another. Thus the sects of Religion, renouncing, the one all fo- reign connexion, and the other all domestic Pro- scription, 97* scription, shall form a strong Country ; and thus the two islands, renouncing all national prejudices, shall form a strong Empire — a phalanx in the west to check, perhaps ultimately to confound, the ambition of the enemy. I know the ground on which I stand, and the truths which I utter ; and I appeal to the objections you urge against me, — which I constitute my Judges, — to the spirit of your own Religion, and to the genius of your own Revolution ; and I consent to have the principle which I maintain tried by any test ; and equally sound, I contend, it will be found, whether you apply it to Constitution, where it is free- dom,-— or to Empire, where it is strength, — or to Re- ligion, where it is light. ^^Turn to the opposite principle, Proscription and Discord — it has made in Ireland not only war, but even peace calamitous : witness the one that followed the victories of King William ; — to the Catholics a sad servitude, — to the Protestants a drunken triumph, —and to both a Peace without Trade and without Constitution, You have seen in 1798 Rebellion break out again, the enemy mustering her expedi- tions in consequence of the state of Ireland, twenty millions lost, one farthing of which did not tell in En)pire ; and blood, barbarously, boyishly, and most ingloriously expended. These things are in your recollection : one of the causes of these things, whe- ther efficient or instrumental or aggravating, the proscriptive system I mean, you may now remove : it is a great work ! — or has ambition not enlarged your mind, or only enlarged the sphere of its ac- tion ? What the best men in Ireland wished to do but could not do, the patriot courtier and the pa- triot oppositionist, you may accomplish. What Mr.Gardiner, Mr. Langrishe, men who had no views of popularity or interest, nor any but the public good ; what Mr. Daly, Mr. Burgh, men whom I shall not pronounce to be dead, if their genius live in this measure ; what Mr. Forbes and every man that I loved 98** loved Ireland ; what Lord Pcry, the wisest man fro- land ever produced ; what IVlr. Hutchinson, an able, accomplished, and enlightened servant, of the Crown ; what Lord Charlemont, superior to his early pre- judices, bending under years and experience, and public affection ; what that dying /nobleman ; what our Burke ; what the most profound divines, Doctor Newcomc, for instance, our late Primate, his mitre stood in the front of that measure; what these men supported : — and against whom ? Against men who had no opinion at that time on the subject, except that which the Minister ordered ; or men, whose opinions were so extravagant, that even bigotry must blush for them; and yet those men had not before them considerations which should make you wise — that the Pope has evaporated, and that France has covered the best part of Europe ! That terrible sight is now before you; it is a gulph that has swallowed up a great portion of your treasure ; — it now yawns for your being. — Were it not wise, therefore, to come to a good understanding with the Irish now It will be miserable, if any thing untoward should happen hereafter, to say. We did not foresee thi^i danger; against other dangers, against the Pope, we were impregnable ; but if, instead of guarding against dangers which are not, we should provide against dangers which are, the remedy is in your hands, — the Franchises of the Constitution. Your Ancestors were nursed in that cradle: the Ancestors of the Petitioners were less tbrtunate : the Posterity of both born to new and strange dangers ; let them now agree to renounce jealousies and proscriptions, in order to oppose what, without that agreement, w ill overpower both. Half Europe is in battalion against us, and we are damning one another on ac- count of mysteries ! — when we should form AGAINST THE Enemy, and MARCH. — But I am exhausted." The ATTOR. 63 The ATTORNEY GENERAL.-^! jtm as mx^ lOiis to concur in any measure, which has for its ob- ject the consolidation of the strength and interest of the Empire, as cither of the two Hon. Gentlemen who have supported this motion ; but the pro[)osi- tion of the Hon. Member who opened this debate does not appear to me in any w^ay calculated to meet that end. The Hon. Gentleman has stated the ab- stract question of right, with his usual precision, but certainly not so strong as he might have done, noF can I agree with him in the inferences he has en- deavoured to deduce from it. The Hon. Mover of the question has argued, that no danger is to be apprehended at present in admitting Catholics to the Representative Privilege. Possibly not. Great num- bers may not come in at first, but Parliament is to look prospectively to the efiect of the measure, and the probable line of conduct that would be pursued by the Catholics when they shall obtain a share in the - representation. I do not suppose that they would en- deavour to recall and replace upon the Throne a branch of a family which had been formally excluded. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to take away all the tithes from the Protestant Clergy for the purpose of giving them to their own ; but if a proposition were made to take av^ay part of the tithes from the Protestant Clergy, .for the purpose of con- ferring them on the Catholic Clergy, I ani not sure that many worthy men may not be found in this House to entertain it ; and, in the event of a divi- sion., I am sure the Catholic representation would be as a dead weight ir> the scale. I shall not take up the time of the House in considering all theobjections to which, in that particular respect, the Motion is liable. I will content myself with proving that it is repugnant to a solemn stipulation between Ireland and Great Bri- tain, and in doing that I shall furni.->h, I trust, sufficient matter for rejecting it. The stipulation to which I allude is that contained in the Fifth Article of the Act of Union, which expressly mentions, that the Pro- testant Church is to be the established Church of the State. state. It is said that the measure woiifc? put an end to all disaffection, and yet, in the very same breath, Genllcmen assert that none cxis^s^ I would agree with thetn in the praise^ which they have bcstowcrl upon the loyalty ofthe Catholicfr, and admit that the Kcbcllion in Ireland was not a Rehellion of Catho- lics ; and that no greater number of th at persuasion were to be found in it than might be expected in a country whose f)opulation was in so great a propor- tion Catholic. The conciliation of Ireland is the ostensible reason for bringing forward the measure ; but if that be really the question, G^^ntleniein will do veil to consider the eflcct of it, not only upon the CathoHcf^, but upon tlie Protectants also. They should consider what woidd be the alienating ope- ration of the repeal of the fifth Article of the Union, upon the Protestant population of Ireland. I fear the effect of it would be to destroy that tranquillity which the Honourable Mover of the Question seems so anxious to maintain. Even that morality, and conscientious regard of their oaths, which is said to be so strongly inculcated by the tenets of the Catholic religion, should convince Gentlemen, that in a rcg!i- Jar, orderly v.av, they would omit no opportunities ofprocuriug for their religion all j)OSsible advantages. It is true that the petitioners have abjured any in- tention to subvert the Protestant religion for the j)ur- pose of introducing their own ; but do they profess for the v»hole Catholic Body } do they profess for the Clergy as v. ell as the Laity ; or do they only profess for ihemaelves ? I have looked at the Petition, and I cannot find the hand of a single Clergyman, of the Catholic persuasion affixed to it ; and the reason assigned, as I understand, is, that it is a Petition for civil rights^ in which they could not participate. The Ca- tholic Clergy have not abjured the expectation of being restored to all the dignities which were possessed by them previous to the Reformation ; and if they had, I should not have thought so well of them as I da. Have they not their Bishopricks, their Deaneries, 65 Deaneries, and all the gradations which arc to be found in the Established Church ? And knowing Lfiis, who can say that they have rehnquished all hopes of enjoying the emoluments appertaining to those dig- nitics ? One of their tenets is, and of which any inem- ber who goes into a bookseller's shop may convince himself, that they are bound to pay tithes only to their lawful pastors. Nay, some persons have carried the principle much further. A Mr. M'Kenna, a very- able man I Will acknowledge, had proposed, in a treatise of much learning and ingenuity, that thirty or forty acres of land should be purchased in every parish in Ireland, and a house should be" budt on it for the Catholic Clergyman. Is not this a plain in- dication of the extent of their hopes and prospects ? No man can entertain a doubt that it is their inclina- tion to propagate their religion by every means in their power. This is a principle inseparable from the character of every religion. Were I in a Catholic country, professing the religion I do, I should feel an inclination to advance that rehgion ; and so it is natural to expect the CathoHcs would do, whenever they had an opportunity. lam not so sanguine as the Hon. Mover, in his expectations of the advan- tages that are to result from the measure proposed. I do not think it would produce conciliation in Ire- land, or give that satisfaction to the Catholic body that is asserted. On tbe contrary, the effect of it, in my opinion, would be, to bring the two sects nearer to each other, and consequently to increase that spirit of rivalship and jealousy which has unfortu- nately-subsisted between them. (Murmurs of impa- tience.}^ I claim the. indulgence of the House for a few moments longer. 1 sec there is no great dis- position to listen to me j and after the manner in which the attention of the house has been gratified by the eloquent and able Member who has just ad- dressed it for the first time, I am aware that any thing which falls from me must appear flat and uninte- resting. I think that no alternative can exist between K ' keepincr 66 keeping- the Estnblishment we have, and putting a Roman Calholic Establishment in its place. If Gen- tlemen can make their minds to that, they may concihate Ireland, but not otherwise ; or perhaps they may enter into a treaty with Buonaparte to allow the Pope to grant tbem another Concordat. This appears to me to be the only true way of stating the question. The immunities which have been already granted to the Cntholics, I think, are sufficient ; and there is one of them, I mean the elective fran- chise, which, had I been a member of the Legisla- ture, I should have felt an inclination to oppose, and also the Roman Catholic College. What privilege is there which the Catholics do not enjoy, with the ex- ception of sitting in Farluunent, and the capacity of being appointed to a few great offices, in as full and complete a manner as those who profess the esta- blished religion ? They have nothing to desire on the score of toleration, that they and every other Dis- senter from the Established Church do not enjoy as fully as tliey could wish. Anxious as I am to con- ciliaie so important a member of the empire, I can- not bring myself to approve of the measure proposed by the Honourable Mover. If the demands of the Petitioners were conceded to their numbers and their majority, no possibility would remain of refusing to comply with any future demands they may think proper to make. What their numbers and majority shall have once obtained, will only tend to stimulate them to fresh demands, until nothing remains for them to require, awd they become not merely a pre- vailing party in the State, but exclusively the State itself. For those reasons I will vote against the motion for referring this Petition to a Committee Mr. ALEXANDER.— Sir, unwilling as I am at all times to obtrude myself upon the attention of the House, yet I teel too deeply interested upon the present occasion to be awed from expressing my sentiments. When the Right Honourable Gentle- man who has just sat down feels so much embarrassed under 67 imder the impression created by the very eloquent speeches of both the Honourable Members who have preceded him in support of the petition, I cannot deny that I too have my feehngs under that im- pression ; but I should ill perform the duty I owe to my conscience, to the crown and my country, \i I gave way to them. I own my national pride is cer- tainly gratified by the attention paid to the talents of the Right Honourable Gentleman who spoke last but onci but I can never forget, that I have wit- nessed those talents employed successfully in beat- ing down the laws and constitution of ins country: (Loud murmurs and cries of No! No! No! No!) I do not accuse the Honourable Gentleman of design; but he has amplified so much on the strength of the physical numbers of what he has called the Irish people, has asserted and painted their imaginary grievances in such high colouring, that there grew in the minds of an influenced and infatuated peasantry, a conviction that they had just motives for rebellion, and strength to accomplish their object. V/hat ad- mits of no doubt, and which I cannot forget, is, that the Honourable Member's conduct and sentiments prevented his taking any share in putting down that rebellion; prevented him from manifesting active loyalty, or exposing himself with other Gentlemen to common exertions, common inconveniences, and common dangers. With such recollections I feel it a duty to v;ithstand all impressions made upon my mind by the talents and reputation of the Honour- able Member, and to recall the attention of the House to the arguments of the Gentleman who has opened the debate. That Honourable Gentleman has stated truly from Archdeacon Paley, that tests were introduced when religious sentiments and religious interests vvere so universally connected and diffused through certain classes in the community, as to be a proof of a deter- mined purpose of action, and that public necessity justified a general law of exclusion^ sacrificing the K. z pre* 68 pretcnF^ion of the few, who might feci differently from the mass of their own sect, lo public tranquilliTy and secm-ity. He has admitted that the Roman Catho- lics were in general so strongly attached to the House of Stuart, as to have justified the Legislature in enforcing the oath of supremacy, and other tests, to the exchision of Roman Catholics from political power. He has debated much upon that subject, and has justified our ancestors for their precaution. And I ask no other grounds of reason than those upon which that Honourable Gentleman has relied, to justify Parliament in tl^e rejection of the present Catholic claims. If attachment to the House of Stu.irt has justified suspicion, and restrictions from power, how much more strongly does the general aversion of the lower order of Catholics, and of their Priests, to Britain and British connexion, justify ail our precaution ! I do not hesitate to assert, that with the middling and lower orders of Roman Catholics, and I he generality of theii C'ergv, under every change of Governors or Government, proposed or attempt- ed, separation from f^ngland has been the object invariably aimed at. Every passion, religic us and temporal, all their traditions, all their prejudices, unite tc excite such feelings, and to rerider this senti- ment I ed rninant in their minds; and this H )use is deceived most fatally, if it suffer itselt to be per- suaded thiit they have changed those sentiments. The best historians agree that the Irish Catholics of King James's dtiy used iiim but as an instrument of separation; they rendered him desperate whh En-^ gland to ensure success to their design — a sepa- ration — by forcing him to confiscate all the Pro- testant and British property in Ireland. The Hon. Genlleman has disclaimed, with great levity, all knowledge of Councils, and of i he foriner opinions of the Catholics, and has entered into abstract dis- cussions of rights, and first principles, for his pur- poses, — in my mind, with great judgment; but an application of men's minds to the situation of the 69 day, and to existing circumstances, would prove fatal to his argument'^, and to his ohj''ct. Without a knowledge of the Catholic doctrines, and of the influence of those doctrines, the question cannot be fairly understood, and that uilful or assumed ig- norance of their opinions is unjustifiable in a gen- tleman agitating such a question. I repeat, thnt the influence of the Honian Catholir. Clergy in Ireland is now most formidably great; thnt in thai country, an Hierarchy exists unconnected with ihc Crown, but immediately dependent upon the Pope; tliat there exists in Ireland at this day a mo^t nurrterons body of Roman Catholic ('lergy, devoted to the doctrinal opinions of the Church of Rome, and maintaining^ the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that Court. In fact, the Papistry \s in many points of view more forrnidable in the present state of Ireland, from the objects on which it attaches, and the persons it inliuences, and produces a more uncon- trollable power over their people, than even before the Reformation. The objects of the first Reformers were twofold: the remedying the avarice, volup- tuousness, and power of the Clergy; the abolition of their separate courts of jurisdiction, and all those privileges, exeiuptions, and distinctions, they claim- ed or proposed, and which enabled the Clergy to cope with Princes, and to oppress and insult the People. Princes and People had feelings in common, that led them rapidly to concur in^those points with the Reformers ; and countries the most Catholic, and the most devoted to the See of Roa;e, limited and curtailed its power and possessions, and w^restcd from it the supremacy in temporal matters. Buc matters of doctrine being blended wuh matters of faith, -and being admitted to be above the comprehension of the lower and middling classes of the people, not being equally apparent upon the qualities of the mind, and the ostensible conduct of those who governed or were governed by them, were not' an ot)ject of jealousy to Princes, or of painful and de- 8 grading TO grading conf rnst to the People. The Catholic Clergy, unequal, therefore, to conibat the feelings excited by their luxury and power, seldonrv attempted to punish, or indeed to bring into question, offences against their temporal interests, but accused their antagonists of offences against fundamental articles of faith ^ and, with consent of Prince and People, inflicted punishments to any extent to which their passions and vengeance led tliem. The Roman Catholic Church, now, in Ireland, has all those sources of doctrinal influence over the faith of a bigoted people ; / their Clergy frequently (as I admit), in the trans- actions between man and man, exercise them for good purposes; but they also have the power of giv- ing a direction to the popular mind, with an effect which is inconsistent with the general safety; and in corroboration of my opinion, I appeal to their conduct in the late and in former Rebellions. la Ireland the British Government seems, hitherto, to feel no apparent interest in opposing the power and encroachments of the Roman Catholic Clergy; the people are left totally in their hands ; and from that inattention, their great, and, in this debate, much- boasted influence has arisen : the Roman Catholic Clergy are now interwoven with the people in all their common transactions of life ; true it is, they cannot punish criminals ; but criminals bear no pro- portion to the number in any state. But I call upon Gentlemen to consider, what is the effect of exccmmunication among the lower orders of Irish Papists? — It excludes a man from his family, and renders him hateful to it ; drives him from his little tenement, nay, precludes him from earning his live- lihood, if dependent upon his labour ; a power possi- bly greater than any possessed by the State, from its general diffusion, unsuspected influence, and exten- sive consequences: add to these considerations, the recollection of confiscated property, the long series of injuries alleged to have been committed by the English against the Iribh^ the remembrance of which ^71 Whicli has been constantly kept alive by tradition, and by recent eKaggerated statements; and the well- known historical fact, that claims to property cannot fail for want of hereditary succession, as, by the Brehon Law, it exists not in individuals, but in the name and Sept ; and the House will see the reasons and motives for that dislike to .British connexion, which ever has, and still continues to influence the lower and more numerous part of the Catholics of Ireiand, a peasantry directed by a Clergy generally ignorant in every point but their school-divinity, all influenced by common motives of action, irrecon- cileable to British connexion at present ; under such circumstances, though we cannot anticipate what growing wealth and more difl^used intercourse may hereafter effect, vi^e must still be on our guard. For these reasons I consider a knowledge of the doctrines of the See of Rome, and their actual influence upon the Irish Clergy and the Irish Catholics, is a most serious subject of consideration upon this occasion. As long as these prejudices and habits continue to influence their people, I am convinced no good effect can result from concess-ions. I am equally convinced that the better informed, the Nobility and Gentry, feel too many advantages resulting from their present situation, not to act with the utmost loyalty, and many, I admit, have already distinguished themselves by their conduct. But it would be reasoning like Novelists, and not like Statesmen, to make the great fundamental principles of a Constitution like that of this mighty Empire, bend so far, as to sacrifice its bulwarks in exchange for the strength expected to be derived from the gratification of the feelings of a few individuals ; those new doctrines which teach a man to forget all he owes to the Laws, the Constitu- tion, and the King; all that he owes to his family, his property, and his honour, if checked or controlled in the pursuit of objects which he may be taught to overvalue; and I lament that such loyalty is repre- • sen ted as only to be retained and secured by the sa- crifice 72 crifice of our Constitution ! The numbers of tlic Irish Catholics have been stated with a double object, to describe them as a source of strength, if con- ciliated, and of terror, if rior jrraiified in their de- mands. If the higher classes of the Catholics have influence, and have not hitiierto exerted it, they can have no claims upon the confidence or gratitude of the Legislature; but if (as I believe the case to be) they possess no power when opposed to the passions of the inferior people, and the interested exertions of their Clergy, I consider the yielding to their claims, a sacrifice ot the Constitution for a most trivial consi- deration. On more general grounds, the introduc- tion into Parliament and the Cabinet of a certain number of the Catholics, heading and acting as the organ of the Catholic people, might be productive-of the most fatal consequences; divisions might arise among the Protestants, and a misguided Monarch might attempt to obtain powers incompatible with the safety of our Church and State, by the aid and support of that Catholic party or interest. Such views were imputed to Charles the First; such conduct was certainly adopted by James the Second; and of that misguided effort we only escaped the fatal consequences, by placing the present Royal Family on the Throne. The concessions now sought might also prove fatal to the Catholics themselves, and tempt them (as it has hitherto done) into struggles for ascen- dency, which might prove fatal to the privileges they now enjoy. Their advocates boast much of their wealth, fairly and honourably acquired under our mild and equal laws ; honours have been conferred by the Crown, or restored to their most distinguished families; the absence of jedousy, and the conscious- ness of our superior constitutional strength, justified our Monarch in conferring these favours, and the Protestant people in rejoicing at their attainment. But great States are distinguished by the wisdom of their precautionary measures ; the wisdom of British policy has led its Councils to protect the Crown from tempta- 81 temptation, and to guard the conduct of the Monarch against the effects of his passions and his wishes, by withholding the instruments by which our Constitu- tion in Church and State might be assailed nnd sub- verted. Should a British Monarch entertain such views, the manufacturings: and preparing instruments would alarm the jealousy, and enable the wealth and independence of the Empire to rise in defence of its civil and religious liberties. As far as the feelings of the Crown itself may be concerned, we must con- sider how cruel it would be to render the exclusion of such a description of subjects from his Councils and the higher offices of State a matter of personal objec- tion, and consequently of personal odium against the Monarch himself. The Catholics surely expect that the capability which they now wish to obtain should be productive of its effects. At present no individual can feel, in his exclusion from power, a personal degradation ; he must attribute it to existing laws, and to the existing constitution. Give them capability, and then do not confer upon a great proportion that share in the Cabi- net and the Councils of the Crow^n which they fancy their boasted numbers and wealth entitle them to, and will you conciliate a single individual ? Will not dis- content be more formidable than it is at present ? On the other hand, what would be the sentiments and the sensation of the people of this Empire, were they to see a Protestant Monarch, whose tenure to his throne depends upon his fidelity to his religion, surrounded by Catholic counsellors ? Could any cir- cumstances reconcile them to such a choice in the Monarch himself? And should the strength of par- ties (as it is sometimes supposed to have done) force such ministers, and such counsellors upon the throne, how miserable, how degraded must be the situation of our Monarch, and how precarious the state of our religion and of our civil liberties! Such appear to rne to be the inevitable evils of concession to the pre- sent claims ; and if we are to be reduced to a choice L of of evils, and must consider Catholic numbers (as the Honournble Memberr. have held out) a source of in- timidation, our ancestors have held Ireland in times infinitelv more unfavournble, and as^ainst numbers infinitely more disproportioned ; and I entertain no doubt that we should do so again. Let England but under«^tand her true interest ; let her justly appreciate the spirit, zeal, and loyalty of the Protestants of Ire- land ; let her be convinced, they feel their properties, their honou2-s, and their lives, dependent ufX)n British connexion : but if England unfortunatelv forgets what is due to as brave and as zealous nllies as any nation ever possessed — her Protestant subjects of Ire- land — she will have the most fatal reasons to la- ment her acquiescence in their and her own de- struction. Let England be firm in her adherence to her laws and constitution. No Catholic can be op- pressed by the Laws in Ireland ; his property and his person are protected by the same Code and Juries that protect the Protestant. If, notwithstanding these advantages, any of them should appeal to num- bers, and be rashly tempted into rebellion, arms and the law must punish the rebels ! With such impres- sions upon my mind, I should have felt myself un- worthy of being the Representative of my Protestant' countrymen, had I not borne testimony to their zeal and their loyalty, but had shrunk from the weight and talents of the Honourable Gentleman. I trust in God, and in the courage of the nation, ihvA we are able to defend our laws, religion, and property ; to maintain our faith, and to uphold the Throne. (The cry of Quest mi ivas veiy frequent during Mr. Alexander's speech.) Mr. W. smith observed, that if the House did not seem desirous to wait longer, he would move an adjournment. (A loud cry of Adjourn I Adjourn /} Mr. W. smith was proceeding: (Adjewnl Adjourn!) — when he moved for an adjournment till this day. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said. ^86 f;aid, that he thought it was desirable that the debate should have terminated on that night, but had no objection to adjourn, as it seemed to be the wish of so many Gentlemen lo deliver their opinions. ( A cry of Adjourn repeated ) The question of adjournment was then put and carried, nem. con. Adjourned at a quarter before three this morn- ing till afternoon. TUESDAY;, May the 14th. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH moved the order of the day for resuming the adjoarned debate upon the Catholic Petition ; which ord-er being read, iic addressed the Chair as follows : Sir, I feel extreme satisfaction that the House has not come to a decision upon this great question, be- fore it had heard the brilliant speech of an Honour- able Geiitleman whom I do not now seje in his place (Mr. Grattan), and who spoke last night third in the debate ; a speech which I, and I am sure every liberal man in this House, heard with the greatest pleasure and admiration ; a speech rai ely, if ever, equalled within the walls of this House ; and which, whether I consider it m point of information, of ar- gument, or of eloquence, ' upon this great subject, I am sure there is no man present, who heard that speech, but will concur with me in the sentiment, that although it may not be fortunate enough to de- cide this House with the opinions of the speaker, it v/ill at least put it out of the power of any man to dispute that this House has derived at least one sig- L 2 nal 84 nal advantage from the Union, in the acquisition of such a Member. The more I revolve in mind the importance of that speech, the more I shall regret if the Huuse shall be inclined to decide upon the argu- ments and principles laid down in the [)receding part of the debate by those who oppo.-e this measure; for, whatever is to be the ultimate decision on the subject, it is highly essential that it should be found- ed upon the most full and mature deli deration, free from that species of heat and impetuosity, which, I am sorry to observe, seemed to be prevalent on the other side of the Hcuise in tl:e -course of last night's discussion. I can at the same time feel, and am very ready to admic, that great allowances are due to the warmth of some gentlemen coming from the Sister Country, in their resistance to this mea- sure i and who, residing there during the period of a late most lamentable cc nflict, had been exposed to all the risks and vicissitudes, in their persons, in their families, and their property, ever inseparable from civil war. I make gi^eat allowances for the exaspe- ration of spirit v/hich must naturally arise from such causes, and from the peril or destruction of their dearest connexions. I do not wonder men's tempers should be soured by such events ; nor is it wonderful if gentlemen who have felt those evils in their own case^ should n t be prepared to discuss this subject with so much coolness and deliberation as the Members for this country, who have not been exposed to such causes of provocation. But in making allowances for such feelings, ipy wish is, that the House may not be led to form its conclusion un- der the impressions made by assertions prompted by such warmth. And, if I understood the arguments of those gentlemen, and more particularly of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who spoke se- cond in the debate (Dr. Duigenan), his objections, and all his argument^, we^^e directed against the Ca- tholics, merely as such, and not upon any fair political ground ; and in fact, the Learned Gentleman seemed much 83 much less anxious to answer the arguments of others than to use his own. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman seemed to think that all the authorities were with himself and those who coincided in his sentiments, and that they only are fit to judge of this suoject before all others, merely because tliey live on the other side of the water. But the Hon. Member must excuse me for not giving quite so much weight to that species of argument as it was intended to have ; for it must be remembered, that objects may be too near, a« well as too distant, from the sight, to form a correct judgeaient of ilieir proportions; and this appears to me to have been much the case with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, when he so severely expatiated on the conduct of the Irish. Ca- tholics. Another Hon. and Learned Gentlemaa (the Attorney General) seemed to argue, that let the Legislature do what it might for the Catholics of Ireland, they would not be contented. In this as<=er- tion, however, I cannot agree ; neither can I conceive that a very great share of what another Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Alexander) has honoured with the name of facts, were really so. I am, how- ever, willing to give both Gentlemen ere lit for stating what they imagined to be facts : but even facts, however truly stated, may be in many cases bad foundation for arguments, stated abstractedly, and viewed through the mists of piejudice^ for in such cases — «' __ trifles light as air, " Are to ihe jealous confirmations strong " As proofs of Holy Wiit.'' The Hon. and Learned Member began by endea- vouring to throw discredit on the Petition itself, be- cause, as he alleged, there were many counties in Ireland from wnich not a single signature appeared amongst the Petidoners : but, whether this observa- tion be meant to insinuate that the Petition is not supported by the general wish of the Catholic Body, or that any portion of them are unwilling to take the Oath 86 Oath of Allegiance prescribed by law, his objection is, in my mind, unfounded either way. Gentle- men who oppose this measure seem very willing to avail themselves of arguments on both sides of it. One Gentleman argues, that if they have not taken the Oaths of Allegiance, it is a proof of their unv/il- lingness ; and another says, if they have taken them, they are equally unworthy of credit. But this spe- cies of reasoning is ea-^ily refuted by a very short answer; for, if the scruples entertained by the Ca- tholics against taking that oath be the only impedi- ment to attain all they wish to enjoy, what becomes of those bold assertions and sophistries used against them, on this ground, to impeach their loyalty, or shake their credibility ? I hold in my hand a book containing a list of 2000 Catholics who refused to take an oath prescribed for them to George I. v/hich they could not reconcile to their consciences, but preferred every species of penal proscription and preclusion to which their refusal expoj^ed them : the very fact of refusal to take the Oath under an expo- sure to such alternatives, was in my mind an irrefra- gable prouf of their conscientious veracity. The refusal of the emigrant priests of France to take an cath of fealty to the usurpant rulers of that country, after the dethronement and massacre of their lawful King, and their preference to abandon those bene- fices whicli they might still have enjoyed, and to embrace banishment, and a miserable and precarious subsistence in this country, whither they came in such numbers as to excite the popular clam.our, that they were come to take the bread from the mouths of Englishmen, stands as another striking proof that oaths are not regarded by the Catholics as matters of indifference : these instances amount to evidence, in m.y mind, subversive of all the asser- tions that have been made upon the authority of musty documents, or any silly resolutions of Eccle- «astical Councils in the twelfth or fifteenth centuries, of Lateran or elsewhere, quoted by the Hon. and 3 Learned 87 Learned Gentleman. I have not thought it worth while to look much into decrees of this kind ; but I have looked into some books which I accidental]/ have, such as Pictures of Papacy, Secret Institudohs of the Jesuits ; but I have found nothing in those to warrant me in following or assenting to the assertixjns , of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in his speedi last night. It is certainly possible, that by selecdng the worst passages in those books, and stringing them together without the context, they might be construed to warrant some such conclusions ; but I will ask the House, whether there does not arise in the breast of every candid individual an internal evi- dence infinitely more powerful than such garbled extracts? and whether any candid and liberal maa can believe such extracts are a fair representation of the feelings of Catholics in the present day ? With regard to the Catholic Faith, I cannot be ex- pected to have a peculiar regard for its tenets or its doctrines — perhaps I am removed from both to the greatest possible distance ; I am a Protestant Dis- senter, and, as such, cannot possibly have any pecu- liar predilection for the Catholic religion ; but 1 feel for those who profess the Catholic religion, as one man may feel for other men : I trust I feel for the Catholics as I ought to feel for them, as men who have, to a certain degree, been oppressed on account of their religious opinions, and v/ho have as great a right to entertain religious opinions, which I may look upon as absurd, as I have to entertain mine, which may appear to them to be blasphemous. Their opinion of my tenets does not make them blas- phemous, neither does my opinion of their tenets make them absurd. To our Creator let us answer for these matters, and not to one another. Let lis stand or fall as we are risrht or wrons before our Maker j but do not let us answer to any human tri- bunal for our religious opinions. The Hon. and Learned Member has referred to a pamphlet v/ritten by a professional gentleman named Scully, whom >ie attacked^ 88 attacked, but not in the most liberal manner, when he founded his accusations upon detached passages • quored from the production of that Gentieman: tor how is the House fairly to judge of those pas- sages without the context, which might show them in quite a different light from that in which the Hon. and Learned Member wished tiiem to appear ? And indeed this conjecture was confirmed by the Learned Gentleman himself, when he admitted that Mr. Scully enjoined his Catholic brethren to be quiet ia their demeanour, and to join the Royal Standard for the defence of their country, in case of an enemy's landing. Indeed, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, throughout his speech, has made use of contradic- tory arguments, ill according with his logical precision, at the same time that he was calling on this House . to come to certain conclusions. — Another of the ac- cusations against Mr. Scully is, that he has spoken of King William as a Dutch Invader : — but what, I ask, has this to do with the merits or demerits of the Catholic Body, or the Petition before this House ? The question is, whether any political danger is to be apprehended from an individual who thought of him so, at a time when there is no person existing upon earth to question the title of his illustrious family to the throne of this country r — unless, indeed, it is ap- prehended that Bonaparte intends to fight against us in the name of the House of Stuart, with a view of restoring to the Government of this Country the principles of that family. The Hon. and Learned Gen- tleman has, in his endeavours to defend a law against opinions in Ireland, maintained that there is a law against opinion in England j and this he has attempted to support by instancing the qualification the law re- quires of every person, before he can be eligible as a Member of Parliament, that he must have 300I. a-year to represent a Borough, and 6ocl. to repre- sent a County. How this measure of mere precau- tion to guard against the possibility of a man's po- verty being too much for his independence of spirit. 81 and might therefore expose him to temptation, I am at a loss to conceive. The other topics brought forward by the Learned Gentleman were exaggerated representations which I hardly ever before witne sed; and for what purpose ? For the purpose of prevent- ing the House from going into a Committee. For he has arc^ued, as if the inevitable result of going into the Committee would be that of making to the Catholics the most extravagant concessions. He has said, that if the House goes into a Committee, the Catholics of Ireland would have the right of being elected Members of Parliament granted them. The Learned Gentleman had jumped to a conclusion most hastily — indeed he had jumped into several conclu- sions much too hastily. He has concluded, that one of the first effects of rendering Catholics eligible to sit in Parliament would be, that fourscore of them would be directly chosen to represent Ireland. The next step which he came to by way of conclusion was, that they would ail be in attendance always in this country. I cannot however agree in the appre- hensions expressed by the Hon. and Learned Mem* ber, that even the admission of Catholic Members to the full extent he has mentioned, would have the effect of embarrassing His Majesty's Ministers on any measure they might think fit to demand. It is a Jibe], not only upon His Majesty's Government, but upon this Jtiouse, to assert, that even if all the Irish part of the Representation were Catholics, and every one of them disposed as the Learned Gentleman has alleged, they could by " hanging together," as he has expressed it, or conspiring ever so closely, carry any measure in this House inimical to His Majesty's Government in Church or State, against the check of 558 Protestant Members of Great Britain ; and that the Minister of a Protest^^nc Monarch, acting under a Protestant Executive, would agree with these four- score to overturn the whole of that Executive Govern- ment, which, when done, would be the absolute ex tine-, tion of his own power and influence. Why all these- J4 things. 82 things are to be taken for granted, if Roman Catholics should be declared capable of becoming Members of Parliament, I know not. I ought to leave this part of the case to be answered by the Chancellor of the Ex^ chequer j and, indeed, the task of answering 9-ioths of the speech of the Learned Gentleman naturally devolves to that Right Hon. Gentleman, whom the House must, of course, anxiously wish to hear on this important subject j and he will of course show that the Government of this country is not made of such straw and stuff as the Learned Gentleman seems to insinuate. Another Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and a friend of his (Mr. Alexander), has dwelt a good deal on the influence of the Catholic Clergy over the minds of the lower orders of Ca- tholics, as members of society. This is a part of the question which certainly has its difficulty : but here again the evil is exaggerated ; for the Catholics are not now what they were centuries ago. They cer- tainly are greatly altered, whatever may be insisted upon to the contrary ; for there is nothing immutable in this life, except physical causes and moral truths. Thus the Catholics, like the rest of the human race, are to be improved by instruction and kindness, and to be exasperated by injury and oppression. I fully concur in the opinion delivered by that great man, the lare Mr. Edmund Burke, that there is no such thing as Geographical Morality^ and that the influence of good treatment and oppression must be the same in one country as in another. If it were true that the Catholics are so constituted as that no benefits can conciliate them^ there is no alternative but to con- tinue them in chains. The British Legislature list- ened to no such opinions as those of the Learned Gentleman, when she adopted the Catholic Constitu- tion in Canada, which never has excited insurrections or rebellions ; but the Hon. and Learned Gentleman is so tenacious of his acknowledgment even for the loyalty and peaceful demeanour of the Catholics in that province, that he tells us it is yet too soon to form 83 form any cohdusions ; and insinuate^, that though no rebellions have arisen, there is no proof that none itiay arise ; for we are more indebted for the pacific dispositions of the Canadians to the ice of the river St. Lawrence, and the terrors of the British Fleet, than to the loyalty of that people. But if the natural character of the Catholic Religion were such as has been represented, the effects would have been the same in Canada as in Ireland. If in Canada we pur- sued, as in Ireland, a series of confiscations and seve- rities, discontents would naturally arise from our op- pressions, and not from the religion of the people. I cannot conceive that any prejudices can be enter- tained by Catholics stronger than those avowed by Protestants in the course of this discussion. But in either I know no means of obviating them, but by the influence of reason, and the confident assurance that no more oppressions shall be exercised, and by granting to the Catholics every thing fair and liberal; for, like every other class of mankind, they will be more or less satisfied in proportion as they ought to be so. I am sorry to find the discussion of this subject now appears in rather an unfavourable view, in con- sequence of the decision pronounced on it in another House of Parliament. But the House of Commons, I trust, will bear in mind its own independence. It is their right and their duty to judge for themselves, and they may without vanity cherish the hope, that should their decision this night be in favour of this Petition^ it will ultimately have weight in every other quarter. I should lam.ent indeed that the Ca- tholics of Ireland were given to understand that the whole of this country was averse to them, or that there was no branch of the British Legislature wil- ling to take their respectful petition into considera- tion. If we go into the Committee, though it may not be thought right to grant the Vv^hole, v/e m.ay grant a portion. For my part, I am extremely de- sirous to have even a definite number of Catholic Gentlemen sitting in this House, which in my mind M 2 would 84 would be the wisest measure we could pursue , br^- cause I am confident even that would go a great way to satisfy tlie feelings of the Catholic community. I think I might appeal to every unprejudiced man in this House, whether in the course of all his intima- cies he ever has found a Roman Catholic Gentleman the worse man on account of his Religion. If he has, he has been more unfortunate than me ; — for though my connexions with Roman Catholics have not been very extensive, yetlnever met one thati could discover, from his character and conduct, inconsistent with the principles of the most virtuous religionist. I think, if the gentlemen of that persuasion were once ad- mitted to seats in this House, they would not be found such mischievous animals as the Learned Gen- tleman has endeavoured to represent them. I think they would cheerfully join with the Protestant Mem- bers of this House in every virtuous measure for the . public good ; and that by such an union the strength of this Empire would be best consolidated, and in- finitely more effectual for our common security against the common enemy, than it can possibly be with hearts disunited and jealousies perpetuated. I had many more observations to offer ; but I shall not nov/ detain the House longer, than by declaring my hearty assent to the motion. Mr. lee. — The question now under considera- tion appears, Sir, to me, to be the gravest and most important that ever v/as debated within the walls of Parliament. It naturally arises out of the Act of 'Union, and should have been maturely considered before that measure v.'as adopted. I will not assert, that, v/hile that plan was in agitation, this concession to the Catholics was ex{)rc?s]y stipulated ; but I never heard it denied, that tiicre v. as at least an understand- ing on the subject. Not having the same opinion of the benefits of that project, as many others seemed to entertain, i had some hopes that it might have been averted, till I observed that these expectations were held out by the Right Honourable Gentleman I w ho 85 who proposed this measure, in a speech so replete with reasoning and eloquence, as would have done honour to the brightest aeras of Greece or Rome. The Right Honourable Gentleman then said, that the disproportion which before existed between the persons professing the Catholic and Protestant Reli- gion in Ireland being done away by this measure, afforded a chance that the same objections would not be made to the Catholics' having a full participation in the British Constitution. That speech, many of us knew, made a very deep impression on the minds of the Irish Catholics ; and, having carefully attended to all the debates which took place at that time, I could not help observing, that there was no Gentle- man in this House who made a stand upon that point, or endeavoured to obtain a pledge either way upon it. I was also present in this House, when the Right Honourable Gentleman was questioned as to his reasons for resigning, and recollect his having answered, that he did so in consequence of being unable to carry a measure which appeared to him essential to the public welfare, declaring at the same time, that he owed too much to his Royal Master to press the subject on him, and that he should think it his duty to oppose it, if it came from any other quar- ter ; and this was, I think, fair parliamentary ground. At present, though I am from principle determined to support the Motion since it has been submitted, I must now declare, that I think it wrong in the Ro- man Catholics to bring it forward at this moment. 1 should even support the repeal of the Test to the Dissenters, if that were now the question — though, undoubtedly, the argument of numbers does not apply to them in the same manner as it does to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who, in point of rights, must be acknowledged to be one short of their due proportion. When you consider, that, on the lowest calculation, the Catholics of Ireland compose three millions out of five of the inhabitants of that country, and are rapidly increasing in wealth and consequence, you 86 vou cannot shut your eyes to their situation, and your own sense must make up your mind to grant at some time what is impossible to be avoided. I freely con- fcss, that I have not the least idea of the measure succeeding at present — and am very well convinced^ that the Koman Catholics themselves do not expect it. In their private conversation, they do not afreet to think that their wishes will be immediately com- plied with. They say, that in time it will work its way, by the force of reason — but that they cannot expect the Protestants at once to throw away those bulwarks which they so carefully raised against them. The effect of it is sure, however slowly it may operate. I remember myself, that when a bill was brought into the Irish Parliament, for the pur- pose of indulgence to the Catholics, there were only thirteen Members in the House who voted in favour of it ; and yet such was the general agitation, and such the strong sensations excited by its agitation, that the Government was soon convinced that some- thing must be done upon it. The country at that time was not well governed — and towards the ap^ proach of the ensuing Session of Parliament, when it was expected the measure would again be brought forward, emissaries wxre sent down by the Admini- stration to procure Resolutions and Petitions from the different County Grand Juries against it ; and they succeeded. But the Catholics seeing no hope of success when the Irish Government was against them, came over to England and petitioned the Throne. Every thing was in readiness for opening the Session of the Irish Parliament. The speech from the throne was prepared, and every resistance to the Catholic claims determined on. But His Majesty was gra- ciously pleased to favour the Petition, and an altera- tion for the intended speech was transmitted to Ire- land, with a recommendation in favour of the Catho- lics. The change of opinion that took place was equally violent and sudden. These very Grand Ju- nes in the different counties who had assembled, and agreed 87 agreed in resolution's against the claims of the Catho- lics, in a short time after were themselves the first who voted in their favour: — and thus the Grand Juries and the Parliament were dis^rraced. I re- member when I was laughed at for saying the Catholic claims must be granted, by many of those persons who in a very short time afterwards voted in their favour. The Irish Parliament, in my opinion^ acted on that occasion with great prudence, in not granting them the whole of what they asked for at once ; and so much inclined am I to this gradual extension of privileges, that, should the House go into a Committee on the Petition, I should be averse to granting all their demands, though I would agree to Members of that religion sitting in both Houses. No man, who values the Constitution, can approve of three millions of his fellow subjects being unrepre- sented in the Parliament ; but it was very well argued by the Plonourable Mover of this question, that the Catholic Body is not even virtually repre- sented, though the members of it are allowed to pos- sess the elective franchise. I will even put it to the Learned and Honourable Gentleman near me (Dr. Duigcnan), whether, if his constituents were of that persuasion, he could be considered as the organ of the Catholics ? My Honourable Friend may be a very good Protestant ; but certainly no very fit represen- tative for the Catholics. All the evils apprehended from giving them seats in Parliament, are now no more than fanciful and chimerical. It was formerly- said. If you give the Catholics the elective franchise, the consequence will be that they will vote for no Member without putting to him a test that he will be obedient to their purposes. But they have since ob- tained the franchise, and no such tests or other con- sequences have been ever known to happen. It turned out to be no more than a phantom of distant danger, which vanished as you approached it. All the dan- ger that can happen has already been incurred. You have given suffrages to, and put arms into the hands of, 88 of^ persons but slightly educated, and most liable to entei-taiu the prejudices you are so much afraid of; and refuse privileges to the higher orders, whose minds are enlightened, whose principles are more sound, and who possess the greatest stakes in the country. My Honourable Friend has at all times opposed the Catholic claims, not as a question of policy, but as a question of religion, and in support of his opi- nions he goes back to musty records and obsolete councils, and the ages of ignorance and bigotry. But will any man in his senses seriously compare the opinions of the Catholics of the eleventh with those of the nineteenth century? Have not the Protest- ants themselves changed their tenets and opinions with the revolutions of time ? Are there not new sects of Dissenters springing up every day ? In this age of rapid and progressive improvement and culti- vation of the intellect, are we to be gravely told, that the Catholic mind alone stands still, and that the people of this day are to be convicted because their ancestors 6cc years ago were bigots ? If so, let me ask again, Who is the man amongst us who might not be equally condemned upon the same principle I While arts, sciences, and manufactures improve, it would be hard if the human mind alone, and pe- culiarly the Catholic mind, remained where it was, and that men in this age should be tried by a few foolish Resolutions passed in the Council of Lateran. It has been said, that if the Catholics were once admitted to an equal participation of rights, their first step would be, to overthrow the Protestant Government. 1, however, am so far of a contrary opinion, that I can nevei* conceive the union of the two countries, or British connection, safe, while three millions of our fellow-subjects are held in political bondage. The strongest security you can give to the Protestant Establishment, is to reconcile to it three millions of your fellow subjects, who conceive that they are unfairly treated. Nothing ap- pears 89 j3cars to me so evil, so extravagant, and so unreason- able, as to suppose you can keep such multitudes always quiet, unless you are detcrrniued to redress tlaem. Nor was there ever any thing more difficult for you to do, than to legislate (or those whom you refuse to reconcile, and to whom, according to the speech oFthe Honourable Member^ never under any circumstances can further concessions be made, nor any change be effected on the Protestant mind in their favour* Many persons have expressed their surprise, that although- the Reformation extended itself so rapidly in England, it made so little and such slow progress in Ireland ; but a little reflection will soon resolve this problem. It is allowed, that the same means have not been used in one country as in the other, for making the Reformation take root. We have records and testimonies i*n abundance, to show that in times comparatively remote, Ireland was conspicuous for its civilization and literature; but the reign of Henry VIII., when the Reformation commenced, was one of the darkest ages of that country.! There was another cause which did not ' less operate against the progress of reform. Wheri the Monarch already mentioned first attempted .to extend it in . Ireland, it appeared, from the letter ad-» dressed to him on that occasion by the Irish Master of the Rolls, that the Sovereign's Government did not extend beyond twenty miles from Dublin, and of course his influence was proportionabiy contracted. It was bad policy to attempt at the same time the Conquest and the Reformation of the country— and yet the reformer travelled with the sword in one hand and the reform in the other. It is therefore manifest that the regular order was inverted ; for the King should have conquered the country first, and endea- voured to convert the inhabitants afterwards. Here the Reformation was propagated by argument and reason. The reformers preached to the! i people in their own language; they listened tothe.wice of Roeson, and were in time convinced, la Ireland- N the 90 the Reformed Religion was preached in a lan- guage not understood by the natives. The me- thod taken was, to propagate it by the sword, which has seldom proved the fittest instrument fop making proselytes. In England the King had no competitor, and easily diffused his Reformation amongst the people ; in Ireland he possessed but a very limited authority, and the doctrines he wished to enforce were considered as coming from an enemy at open war with the people, their habits, customs, and prejudices, and therefore were opposed and re- sisted by them. The impolitic oppression exercised in Ireland was a further obstacle to its progress. Henry passed a law prohibiting the English settlers from intermarrying ov fostering with the natives. As this word fostering has an application in Ireland different from what it has here, it may be right to explain that it refers to the poorer sort of the females suckling the children of the rich, which, in that country, is productive of a kind of intimate inter- course and connexion. It is also to be observed, that it was the same Parliament of Henry that promul- gated the Reformation, which also^ passed this Pro- hibiting Act, which violated all the manners and customs of the people. In every respect the pro- ceedings in the two countries were so extremely different, that the Reformation was not allowed the same play in the one that it was in the other. When the King thought proper to shut up the Monasteries, and destroy the monastic livings in England, he be- stowed them, by grant, upon great landed men of considerable property, who commanded the respect of the people. In Ireland, on the contrary, he bestow- ed them on English settlers, and needy adventurers, whose interests were constantly at variancewith those of the people, — Though the territory of the Govern- ment, as I observed before, extended no further than twenty miles from Dublin, yet Bishops and other clergy were sent over, who never thought of residing on their benefices ; and^ instead of propagating their doctrines. 91 (ioctrlnes, had, in fact, no connexion whatever with the inhabitants. If the religion then adopted had been at that early period taught in Ireland, it would, no doubt, have had pretty nearly the sanne effect that it had here ; but, in that country, it does not appear that anyone ever attempted to teach it; nor was the Protestant religion ever tendered to the people, ex« cept in the form of an Act of Parliament. — But if Henry failed in the mode which he adopted for pro- pagating the Reformation amongst a people who could not understand a word of the English language, Queen Elizabeth hit upon a most notable project to remedy the defect ; for, as the native Irish spoke no language but their own, and could not understand English, she ordered the Bible to be translated for them into Latin — and the Church Service to be per- formed in that language. It was well said by Lord Clare, that any attempt to force men's consciences only made them hypocrites ; and we find that force, instead of argument, was the instrument employed in Ireland. A law was passed, by which the eldest son of a Catholic, who had a landed estate, might, by- turning Protestant, dispossess his father. What could be more detestable than this law, which was so well calculated to revolt the feelings of the people, by an unnatural power given to a son to shake ofFthe do- minion of his parent.? This bribe, however, was not confined only to the eldest ; but the youngest, or any other son, was also, by his conversion, afforded the bribe of seizing on his father's estates, and letting it gavel between him and his eldest brother. In this way it will be allowed, that both the King and his Parliament took a most irreligious method of extend- ing their religion, and prepared their converts for being good Protestants, by first making them bad men. The free tenets of the Protestant religion are of that kind that will always extend themselves witd the progress of civilization; but you took the very worst mode of effecting this in Ireland. By prohi- N % ^jting 92 biting the education of Ronnan Catholics at home, and excluding them from the University of Dublin, you have compelled the parents to send their chil- dren abroad, to be educated in foreign countries, where they were, of course, brought up in all the prejudices of the Catholic religion, or, in other words, of Popery. There were also several other acts which had a similar, and, perhayjs, an equal tendency; but I shall not detain the House by rea- soning on them at present. One great and leading objection which I have heard stated against the ad- mission of Catholics into Parliament is, that the Pope is allowed to have more power in Ireland than he is possessed of in other Catholic countries ; and by appointing the Catholic Bishops, he maintains that supremacy in the Church which of legal right be- longs only to His Majesty. I confess this objection has much weight with me — and I can see no reason why the Catholics should not come prepared to con- cede some of their prejudices, when they call upon us to concede ours. This, in fact, seems to be the grand obstacle to the concessions they wish for; and I am not without sanguine hopes that it may be re- moved. Upon this subject I made it my business to converse with some Catholic Gentlemen of no small authority, and asked them whether they would have any objection to the Bishops of their persuasion being nominated by His Majesty instead of the Pope ? And they all agreed that they could have no objection to it. What I should propose would be, that hereafter, whenever a see was vacant, the other Bishops should assemble, and choose two or more candidates, whom they would recommend to that appointment, and leave the choice of the person to be determined by the King. Indeed I have good reason to believe, that, if the prayer of the Petition was granted, the Roman Catholics would cheerfully give up that point (^^ cry of Hear! hear I from Mr, Fox, and ibose Members ivho siirrotmdedhm); zs -\iQ\\ as make whatiever other rea- 93 reasonable sacrifices the circumstances of the case may be thought to require ; for I must maintain, that they can have no riejht to seats in Parhament, while they continue to take their Bishops from the hands of any foreign power. I cannot, however, but think that the Catholics would be very well satis- fied with this arrangement, and I make but little doubt that many of the opposers of their emancipa- tion would relax in resistance, and consent to agree to it, upon this condition. To speak plainly indeed, I should wish to ask of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Fox), who must be in the confidence of these Gentlemen, by their Fclecting him to present their Petition, to what extent the Catholics would go in this respect, and what arc the points which they would have no objection to give up? I hope the House will bear in n)ind, that when these Ro- man Catholic laws were passed, they were not di- rected against the Catholics as such, but were laws enacted against Popery and Slavery ; for James il., who was the source of them all, was himself a ty- rant and a bigot. The laws, therefore, wore a double aspect, as intending to protect the subjects of these realms sgainst both. As to the prospects generally attributed to Roman Catholics, for the sub- version of property in Ireland, I am, in my own mind, perfectly convinced that they do not enter- tain the most distant idea of ever restoring the estates that were confiscated from their ancestors. The best proof, perhaps, that could be given of this is, that since the Ron)an Catholics of Ireland have been allowed the liberty of purchasing lands, they have almost invariably been solicitious of purchasing those that formerly belonged to their forefathers, which they certainly would not do if they cherished the hope of ever receiving them back in any other man- ner. I once very strictly inquired of a lawyer in Ireland, a Mr. Sankey, who was very much em- ployed in making these purchases of forfeited estates, 6 whether 94 whether lie knew any instance of the desccndanf* making any objection to the tenures by which such forfeited estates were held ? His reply was, that he never once knew a single instance of it. It is a vulgar error into which the Learned Gentleman (Dr. Duigenan) has fallen^ when he told us that the Catholics of Ireland had maps, by which they could trace the boundaries of the estates once possessed by their ancestors, in the expectation that they would, ' on some future day, have an opportunity of reclaim- ing them. The fact is, Sir, that the map of all these forfeited lands is kept by the Auditor in the Castle of Dublin, is accessible to every man who chooses to inspect it, and is daily produced in the Courts, to ascertain disputes respecting boundaries. The his- tory of this map is pretty well known. It was drawn by Sir William Petty, after the old one had been taken away by King James II., and carried into France, where an accredited Agent from this Go- vernment (General Valiancy) was some time since sent to procure a copy of it: it is comprised in twenty-four folio volumes : — and from this it will be seen, how idle the story is, that Catholics are at the trouble of keeping maps privately, with sinister views, when the real one is accessible to any one who ap* plies for it. The great point then, Sir, which I have in view, is to show, that, as the Reformation, now in existence nearly 300 years, has hitherto made such slow progress in Ireland, (for there are still three millions of Catholics in that country uncon- verted,) hence it is obvious that the system you have adopted has failed of its effects, that it must of course be wrong, and that it is high time to change it. The surest method we can take to advance the Reformation is, by treading back the steps of our ancestors, and by undoing much of what they have done. If then we are to measure back the steps of three hundred years, we cannot be surprised if much time shall be required in advancing. One thing, how- 95 however, is clear ; that if we expect to convert three millions of people into good Protestants, it must-be done by argument, and not by force. This great question has now for the first time come bc- ifore us' — and I trust the full discussion it has un- dergone, and the moderation and sound argument displayed by its advocates, will not fail to have jheir due weight, and to conquer in due time here, as they have before done in Ireland, the prejudices existing against a measure, which, lam thoroughly convinced, would consolidate the strength, unite the attachments, and render impregnable the secu- rity of these Realms. Sir WILLIAM SCOTT, after some preliminary observations. — ''The Hon. Mover of this question has affected to distinguish between the Civil and Religious Institutions of the country, as if they were capable of complete separation: the practice, how- ever, of all civilized States, has fully demonstrated that they are so intimately united, that to attempt to sever them would be in reality to destroy them^ A luminous and eloquent political philosopher (Mr. Burke) entertained ideas directly opposed to such a doctrine. ^ The attachment (he says) of the Reli* gion of the State, with our Civil Establishment, reigns throughout the whole of English policy ; not merely as conjunctive, but as inseparable ; not as what may be laid aside, bat as that, the union of which is the foundation of the whole Constitution/ They are so far joined, that the idea of the one almost necessarily impresses upon us the recollection of the other; and Church and State so imperceptibly flow into each other, that the connexion, even to the or- gan of speech, is perfectly familiar. This fraternal relation is not a novelty in our history, it grew^ up in the most early periods of it, and was firmly combined in those times when the liberties of this nation were effectually secured. After our sacred institution had endured many desperate assaults, it rose with r,e^ newed 96 newed strength from Ihc conflict, and we were de- stined to enjoy the blessing? not only of a free but of a Protestant Constitution. In the same character in which the Sovereign ap[)ointment was given, in which the rights of the subject are declared, it was said^This kingdom shall be forever Protestant. And Esio ferpetua " is the earnest prayer I shall offer for the safety and happiness of my country. But the prin- ciples now advanced are calculated not to preserve, but to impair the Constitution we have received from our ancestors, and to sacrifice to experiment the invaluable privileges by which we have been hitherto distinguished. By vv])at provisions is this Constitution to be secured? By the fundamental laws of the country. What are these laws? The King must be a Protestant. He can marry none but a Protestant. Was this to lull to repose the conscience of the Sovereign I Was it for his personal comfort in this life, or his happiness hereafter, that these restrictions on his very thoughts were ordained ? Certainly with no such design : it w^as for the prOr tection of these Realms from the dangerous conse-* quences of Catholic innovation. It was;, in such a country as this, guarded by such Legii^lative pre- cautions, with regard to the. opinions of the Prince, that if no distinct provisions had been made, the general maxims resulting from established law woulci be, that all the Great Officers of State assisting the Monarch in the discharge of his high functions should be Protestants. It was required, that the Supreme Magistrate should be of that persuasion ; and were not the representatives of his august power to entertain the same religious sentiments ? In order to preserve the system inviolable, it is not only expedient^ but necessary : whatever may be the si- tuation or the policy of other States in this par- ticular, in England it is prudent, from peculiar cir- cumstances, to preserve this restraint; because, from the nature of our limited Monarchy, the Incumbent of the Throne may be in the exercise of a very small portion 97 portion of power; almost the whole actual aiitho. rity, and the entire responsibility, may be ddcgated to his Ministers : and what would be the perils that might await us, if they were the slaves of the Ca- tholic superstition ? It is on such grounds that I consider it not a matter of doubt, but of convictioa and certainty, that to permit these privileges to be extended to persons of the Romish Faith, would be to infringe the fundamental maxims of our Glorious Constitution. A Protestant King, surrounded by Catholic Ministers, would be a sojccism in fact, as well as in hw ; for there must be a perpetual contra- diction between the duties of the one and the other. Jt is an important function of the Great Officers of State to attend with zeal and vigilance to the protec- tion of our Church Establishment; but how could this obligation be discharged by those who deem it to be absurd, pernicious, profane, and fanatical ? It is true, I am not enabled, as many others are, from in- timate and local knowledge, to speak to the present question ; but if the premises I have assumed are at all correct, the objection to the motion before the House is paramount to all the inferior circumstances of accident and locality. The Honourable Gen- tleman (Mr. Fox), in his introductory address, told the House, that from some unfavourable events, the grants already made had not produced the effect that might have been naturally expected ; and this disappointment he used as an argument for new concessions. In my mind, it operates in a way precisely the reverse : if what has been already given has not been beneficial to the persons to whom the donation was extended, there is little ex- pectation that by them any future advantage from the present proposition will be derived. An Honour- able Member, who is an eloquent advocate of the cause he asserts, (Mr. Grattan,) has intimated there would be danger of separation between the Sister 0 Islands, 98 Islands, if this motion were rejected. In such a r}e^ claratioti he may have said much for the counip:r, but very little in favour of the loyalty, of the People of Ireland. I had hoped we should rather have seen some proofs of their gratitude and attachment for what has been conceded, than any indications of disgust and alienation for what is withheld. If I may make a cofnparative observation on the feelings of the Catholics of the two countries, I should discover the disposition manifested by the English Pa{)ists as much the more honourable, although the laws now complained of are more onerous to the English than to the Irish of that profession. The proportion of Gentlemen of distinguished families, ^vho are Catholics, is m.uch greater am.ong the former than among the latter; and hence the laws which restrict them from the executive and legislative situ- ations.are to them peculiarly severe. It has been said, that- the subjects of that persuasion are deprived of their civil rights. True it is that one of the Princes of the Flouse of Stuart has been driven from the Throne for misconduct ; but upon what principle were his successors excluded ? It was because they were at- tached to the Popish Religion; the Protestant Faith has become a necessary part of our Constitution, and we could not be governed by those who were inimical to it. The House has heard much of vir* tual representation, and it is pretended the Catholics of Ireland are not represented; but nothing is more manifest than that they are admitted to the complete exercise of the elective franchise: and in this respect, at least, they enjoy every privilege possessed by- Protestants. I have understood that the Honourable Mover of this question is preparing the History of a very important and eventful period in the annals of this country. The favourite chapter, to which I ghould direct his attention with peculiar pleasure, would be that in which so enlightened an author must D9 must (!?ontcmp]ate the benign effects of the Pro! est-* nnt Religion, :is conducive to the peace, order, and happiness of l[)e community, and to the integrity and glory x)f the British Constitution. The true (cjucstion now is, if the privileges granted to CathoHcs are to he extended? The Parliament of Ireland has ' acted with great wisdom in regard to this inquiry, and has gi anted to them all that was cither neces- sary or discreet. But the Honourable Gentleman, on the contrary, says, Because we have given so much, \vc ought hberally to make them a present of the rest. The converse of this I shall rather maintain^ because he cannot consider former generosity as a just motive for future prodigality. — However, if more should be fit to be conceded, a reason less in- convenient might be easily discovered for the dona- tion. The discretion of our ancestors has erected a strong barrier to protect the Constitution ; but we are now required to admit the Catholics, and for this purpose to hiirl down this stupendous monument of their industry and wisdom to which I can never a2:ree. Mr. GkATTAN explained that he had not intimated the probability of any separation of the two countries, if this motion were rejectedi Sir W. SCOTT said, he certainly so understood the Honorable Member. Mr. GRATTAN.— " I said, If the Parliament n.'scnted to the calumny propagated, that the Ca- tholics were traitors to their King and Country, it U'ould lay the foundation of such a separation. iL" Vvas not the rejection of the Petition, but the adop^ tion of the caluumy, to which I adverted." o 1 Doctor 100 t)oCTo7i LAWRENCE.— It is with regret, Sir, 1 differ. On any fubjedl, from my Right Honourable Friend who has jufl; fat down. But whatever fatisfaclion 1 fliould feel in agreeing with my Right Honourable Friend on other occa- fions, T riiould indeed be forry if I did not differ from him in the prefent. I could not look with the fame pleafure to our happy Conflltution, which is juftly the pride of this Country and the envy of the world, if I could fuppofe it Compatible witli its principles, or confident with its practice, that fo great a proportion of my fellow fubje(fts (hould be held at tlie ban of the Empire, and eternally excluded from the mofl valuable of its privileges. It appears to me a moft glaring inconfidency on the face of it, that an equality of rights and of protection fliould be denied to the Catholics, at the farnc tinic that an equality of duty and allegiance is demanded from them. My Right Honourable Friend has drawn arguments in fupport of his opinion from the princi- ples of our Conflitution, as laid down in the Charter of the glorious Revolution. But here my Right Honourable Friend has not excrcifcd his ufual fairnefs and candour. He ha.^ quoted only that part which favours his own pofition, and does not at all apply to the prefent qucftion, but has pafled over that part of the Charter of the Revolution which di- re6lly applies to the fubje£l under difcufTion. The argu- ment, as put by my Riglit Honourable Friend, appears to me a fophifm. Fie fays, that the fundamental principle of our Coniiitutlon, as elLabliflied at the Revolution, is, that we fliould have a Proteltmt King, and a Proteftant Legislature ^ that every member of every branch of the LegiHature fliould be of the ertabliHied Religion, Docs my Right Honourable Friend, then, mean to f^iy that all CeCts who proteft again(t Popery are of the eftablilhed Religion? Does he mean to fay, that Socinians, Arminians, Arians, Zuinglians, Calvinifts, and the feveral other feds, who are all Proteftants, are of the eftabliflied Religion ? 1 am fure he does not ; and yet, if rot puflied to that extent, his argument proves nothing, the Catholics not having been the only defcription of fubje6ts ex- eluded from political power. AmongO: other authorities in fup- port of his pofition, my Honourable and Learned Friend has quoted that of a venerated friend of mine, now no more (a friend whofe loved niv'^mory will be ever dear to me, whole virtues and whofe talents no length of time can obliteratefrcm my eReem, and whofe Icfs his country has fo much reafon to deplore: — and inthofe feelings lam fure my Right Honoura- ble Friend participates.) — But though that great Staiefman admitted that Religion was worked up into the very frame and efTence of our Conflitution, yet I deny that this Reli- gion was, in his opinion, of an e^iclufive kindj for, fo far from 101 from its excluding the Catholic fyfiem from Its chanty and beneficence, full one half of the work from which my Right Honourable Friend has quoted the opinion, — namely, the work on the French Revolution, is occupied in extolling the profelfors and miniflcrs of that Church. The principle upon which is founded that dodlrine of the Revolution, that we (hall have a Proteftant Family upon the Throne, is, that we (liould have a Sovereign to govern by the Laws of God, and according to the Conftitution of the Country. From the attempts that had been made to overturn that Conftitution by James II. who was a Popifli Prince, it had been deemed ncceflary, and was no doubt wife, to exclude the Catholics of this country, for a time, from any fhare in the Government or the Leglflature under the Monarch who fucceeded him. But though the cxclufion took place in this country, it was not in the firll inftance extended to the Ca- tholics of Ireland. They were left by the Revolution in the pofleflion of thofe Parliamentary Seats, thofe Civil Riqhts,and confequently of the full proportion of that Political Power. And why was this diftiniSlion made ? Becaufe, as we find, by the Correfpondence of the Puke of Ormond, who v/as at the time Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the ftatutes againft the Catholics, as applied to the Catholics of Ireland, would be fome of them cruel, others unjuft, and others unnecef- fary : for the Catholics of Ireland held feats in both Houfes of Parliament, and high places in the State, during the reigns of Edward VI. Elizabeth, James I. Charles I. and Charles II. down almoil to the end of it ; when in confequence of what called Gates's Plot (which every man of fenfe and learn- ing now knows to have been a mofl infamous and bar- barous forgery), the aft of the 30th of Chafles II. pafled in 3 moment of delirium, to exclude them trom fuch Htuations. According to the fpirit and letter of. that aft, it was no lefs neceflary to guard the Church againft DifTenters than Pa- pifts : yet one of the firft afts of King William was to mo- dify the Teft Oaths, in fuch a manner as to admit DilTenters in Parliament. But this was not all, for by the articles of Limerick King William aftually granted to the Irilh Catho- lics all the rights and privileges which they had previoufly enjoyed ; in a word, all and more than all they now petition for: and at a fubfequent period, after the temper and politics of tiie times had fubjefted them to molt of thofe reftriftions from which the humanity and juftice of his prefent Ma- jefty, and the wifer and more beneficial policy cf the pre- fent times, have relieved them, that renowned Pvlonarch, by and with the advice of the great ftatefmen by whom he was furrounded, and particularly that of the very Lord So* mers v.-hofe authority as the ground-work of the Conftitu- tion t 10^ Hon lias been fo often appealed to, formed and dlgeflcd a plan for removing ihofc reflraints and difabilities impof-id upon them ; which plan failed of fuccefs, in confequcncc of fome external circumflances which prevented the holding of the Congrcfb in which it was to have been propofed ; fo that the opinion of that great King and profound Statefman William III. was moft undoubtedly adverfe to Penal Reftric- tions. This was alfo that of Sonriers and the other mi- iiifters of that IMonarch, who had taken fo diftinguiflied a part in effeding the Revolution;- and it was the ntceflity of the cafe alone, that, under the exifting circumftances^ could induce them to fandion fuch meafures. If that King and thofe Minifters were now living, they would not he- fitate to remove every dif.ibility from tlie Catholics, and re- Itore that refpe£lr.blc and loyal body to the full enjoyment of their conltitutional rights. The privilege of fitting in either Houfe of Parliament, and all the executive offices of trull, were, in the firll inflance, taken from the Catholics by the lawr. enaOed againll them. In confideration of their loyalty all thefe (latutes were afterv/ards repealed, except that which deprived them of the right of fitting in Parlia- nient; and they were given to underfland, that if they behaved well on this favour, they might afterwards pretend to further favour. It has been obje6lcd. Sir, againft grant- ing the jult claims of the Catholics, that they will not take the Teft Oaths but I am fure this Houfe will never fub- fcribe to the principle of forcing men's confciences. If the Roman Catholics have been and are loyal, is not that a fuf- licicnt argument for giving them a more valuable intereft in the Conllitution ? Will you not for that reafon admit them to the full participation of ail the rights and privileges of I'iritifh fubje6\s ? The Hon. and Learned Attorney Gene- ral fays. Never. If that be his opinion, why does he not a6t upon it ? Why does he not move for the repeal of all the meafures for relieving the Catholics from difabilities, and for the re-ena61ment of all the reil:ri6live flatutes In con- lillency he is bound to do fo ; for the argument he ufe3 ugainil the prefent claims of the Catholics, will equally ap* ply in fupport of a motion fur renewing all the former dif- qualifications. I confefs I view the prefent queftion in a far difiVrent light, and truft that the good fenfe of the Houfe and of the Country will go with me. I am fure J have the authority of ail the events from the reign of Elizabeth dov.'n to the prefent moment to juftify me in dif- fering from that Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The api-- nions I entertain on this fLsbject are ftill further ftrengthened by the authority of King \V]Uiam, of Somers, and of the other able Itatelnien who competed the enlightened admi- iiiftraiion / ICS nidrat'lon of that j^rcat Monarch. But the Learneil GcT^tlc- man argues, that if we were to comply with the prclcnt claims of the CathoHcc;. we fiioukl foon witnefs that ano- maly in our ConlVitutlon, a Proteftant King with Catholic CounfcUors. I coiifefs I am at a lofs to difcover the juftice or the validity of fuch an argument. "When we unfetter the Koyal Prerogative, does it follow that we force upon His Majefly Catholics for his ininillers and counfcllors ? Does it follow, that, by extending the fphere of His Majeliy*s choice, in the felefiion of his confidential minifliers, or the appointment to places of power and truft, to fo numerous a clafs of our fellow fubje£ls, we force any defcriptioii of perfons upon the Throne? There is aiiother clafs of fedlarifts, to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman does not feel the fame objeclioti, I mean the PrefoyterianSj whom I look upon as at leaft equally dangerous with the Catholics ^if dangerous they be. The Catholics are faid to be dan- gerous to the Constitution only from their rules of difcipline; but the Preibyterians are dangerous from their republican principles; yet I am fure that both may l)e equally fervice- able in their proper proportions of political weight and in- fluence. My Right PJonourable Friend argues againll the prefqnt Petition, becaufe the Catholics of this country have not preferred any claims. The fituation of the Catholics in Ireland is widely different from that of the Catholics of this country ; and, even if it were not, will it be contended, that if the Catholics of tliis country fliould never bring forward any claims, the Catliolics of Ireland fliould for ever abandon their equitable rights and juil pretenfions ; or that thefe, in preferring their claims wirh moderation and lubmif- Con to the Legiflature, fliould be fufpeclt-d for improper motives, and charged witli extravagance in their demands, becaufe another body of Catholics had not com.e forward ■with a fimilar application ? Here I cannot help taking notice of what fell, in the courfe of lait night's difcudion, from th.e Learned DocStor, who opened the oppofition to the Motion of my Honourable Friend, in commenting on a paf- f;ige from a late publication. It is the more neceflary to ani- madvert upon this part of the Learned Gentleman's fpeech, becaufe his obfervations were c:dculated to caO. a refiedion on the charader and moral principles of a very refp^clable membjer. of the Catholic Body now living [Rev. Dodor Milner].; and the charge of that learned Gentleman is wholly unwarranted either by the letter or the fpirit of the pafTage of the publication upon which he commented, (" The Cafe of Confcience folvcd, or Catholic Emancipa-» tion proved to be compatible with the Coronation Oatn publiflied about four years rince,when the diihculty wh'^ch is uuderflood 104. undcrf^ooH to agitate the Rcyal Mind was firfl ImprcfTcd upon it.) The definition of an Oath, on which the Learned Do(ftor has been fo pointedly fevere, is, if it had been fully and fairly quoted, flriclly true, and accurately conformable to the molt rigid principles of ethics and morality. With- out the context it is impofTiblc to judge of any pafiage cor- reftly, and in this pafTage the learned author of thac pamphlet has exprtfsly ftated the four cafes in which Ca- nonifts deny the validity of Promiflbry Oaths, namely: — . When the objetl of them is tinhnvfiil. — When the ohjecl obfruclf any good evidently greater. — When it is impojjible to be obtained ; and laflly. When it relates to fomc ridiculous idle things luhich neither tends to the honour of God nor to the benefit of man. — And I perfedly concur in the pofition laid down by that Learned Gentleman, That every human law and every promife or other engagement, however confirmed by oath, muft neceflarily turn upon the cardinal virtue of prudence, which implies that it depends as to the obligation of ful- filling it, in fuch and fuch circumftances, upon the queflion of expediency but this prudence, in the acceptation of Dr. Milner and of ethical writers in general, is not a felfifh principle which employs itfelf in weighing interefl againft duty, but a virtuous principle which weighs one duty with another when they feem to be oppofite, and decides which of them, /m- et num:, is to be fulfilled: a principle not variable with the caprice or intereft of a feerial city of Conlfance ; that the fafe-condu6l with which he came to the Council, of whatever tenor chat might be, namely, whether a mere travelling paffport or otherwife, was granted to him by the Emperor Sigifmund ; and that whatever incidentally pafled in the Council (becaufe certainly nothing of this fort was therein formally defined) with refpett to the nature and validity of fafe- conducts was of a general nature, and no more regarded perfons accufed of herefy, than other perfons who were liable to be brought to trial on any other account whatever. In proof of this, I fay, that the very Pope who convened the Council of Con- ftance, and who was afterwards depofed by it, though fur- nifhed, by the fame Emperor Sig fmund, with a paflport of the fame tenor with that in the pofieffion of John Hufs, neverthelefs thought it neceflary to have recourfe to flight for the fecurity of his perfon when he flood in the character of an impeached man •, being confcious that it could not avail him, in cafe of convitlion, notwithftanding that the crimes of which he was accufed were very different from that of herefy. I have been induced to advert particularly to thefe points in the Honourable and Learned Member's fpeech, becaufe, from the nature of my profefTional purfuits, I had occafion to attend to fuch fubjects particularly, and becaufe it is not likely that gentlemen fliouid be familiar with them. I have done fo for the purpofe of expofmg to the Houfe the line of argument that has been purfued and fo much dwelt upon j and alio as a warning to gentlemen, p 2 in 106 in future, to be cautious how they deal thus partially In abRrufe learning or quote fcraps ot pamphlets foi the pur- pofe of making them the grounds of unfounded charges againft bodies or individuals. But, Sir, quitting thofe remote- ages, let us come down to our own times, and recolIe in private as independent in public life, and as ready to conie forward 112 forward In the defence of their Klnpj and Country as any other defcription of His Majefty's fubjecls. (Hear! Hear! Hear! from the Oppoftt'ion Betiches.) And 1 am fure they would not thank thole who pretend to be their friends, and ^vho fay on their parts that their loyalty is to be the price for granting this meafnre. (Hear! Ifear! Hear! from ike Treafitry Side of the Hcufe.) If you come now to confider what it is that can be granted, the quertion is fairly this : Will you or will you not grant political power ? Can you grant it? I fay No. It is not in your power. You muft firft look to England. The Englifli Catholics ftand in a fituation by no means fo favourable as thofe of Ireland. — The Englilh Catholics cannot vote at eleftions; — the Irlfh can. The Irifh have many privileges which the Englifh Catholics have not. Do you mean to grant to the Irifh feats in this Houfe, and exclude the Englifli This cannot be. You muft firft put the Englifh on a footing with their Weftern Brethren, [Hear! Hear! Hear! ftom all fides of the Houfe,) and then, if you open to all the Catholics of both countries the feats of this Houfe j where, I a(k, is the fecu- nty for your Proteftant Church Eftablifliment ? Would it jiot be the grofleft infatuation to intruft men educated in fuch principles, to frame thofe laws for the protection of the Pro- teftant faith, which it is your bounden duty to provide ? Do you allow fuch a wide diftin6lion between Church and State ? Who is it that frame thofe laws, that regulate the rights of the Eftabliftied Clergy, and the eftablifhments under which their dues are colle£led Who is it ihat forms the laws under which tithes are paid ? Are they not the Lords, fpi- ritual and temporal, and the Commons of England } And will you fill the Houfe with members inimical to the lav^s — inimical to your Hierarchy and Church Eftablifliment, and who refufe to difavow that fupremacy in a foreign Potentate, which legally belongs only to their natural fovereign ? Are thefe the men to whom you will intruft political power, and the firft offices in the State Let us judge of the future by the effeeople of Ireland. But does any man who goes to Ireland fay that the people of that country are in general fo difaf- fecled, that nothing can fecure their allegiance but the fur- render of the Conltitutlon ? While you are turning your at- tention to the claims of three millions of Catholics, are you to be^ whollv unmindful to the rights of one million of Pro- tefl-.ants, whom your anceftors encouraged to fettle in that country, to whom they and you have promifed protedlion, who are dependent on you for the fecurity of their Pro- perty, their Liberty, and their Religion, and who, if you do not extend to them your prote6lion, can have no fafeiy ? Are you to take away from them that protection ? Are you ro deprive them of the bleffinj^s of the Revolution, of the Ha- noverian SuccelTion, of the Illulkious Houfe of Brunfvvick, and of the only Guaranty for their Civil and Political Li- berty ? Is it in the nature of things that you can accede to a meafure which muft carry in its confequences a train of privations and degradations to the loyal Proteftants of Ireland ^ Wliat then w'ill become of that Proteftant afcen- dency to vvhicli I have alluded, and which has been a favourite topic of complaint, and falfely called a Syltem of Opprefiion ? W^hat do 1 mean by Protellant afcendency ? Nothing more than a Proteftant King, Proteftant Lords, and Proteftaiit Commons. I know of none other beyond this. I have never claimed any other, and this, while I have a voice, I will claim for my country. *' Gentlemen have dwelt much upon the aflertion, that what is now demanded by the Catholics is little for us to grant, and much lor them to receive. I defire to reverfc the pohtion ; for, in reality, wha!: thev alk is much for us to crive, and little for them to receive. They afk for admilFion to a few feats in Parliament, — they afk for eligibility to thirty- ieven places of power and truft. They alk us to give up tliat which they profeis would -not much increafe their advantiiGjcs or their power ; but we are to confer upon them that which is the fecurity for our Civil Liberty, that for which jur fureiatlitrrs bled, that on v/hich rcfts the llrength of our Armies, 115 Armies, and the fuperiorlty of our Fleets, — the Protcflant Succeflion, the Bill of Rights, and the whole fabric of our Conftitution. Do they pretend they alk you to give little, when they afk ynu to furrender no more than all the fecu- rities for your Liberty ? What have you more to give ?— What would afterwards remain to you worth prefcrving r (Hear! Hear! Hear! fiom the Min'ijler'ial Benches.) An Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Fox) has defired us to look at the example of other countries, for the employment of Pro- teftant Minifters and Generals under Popifti Governments ; and he refers us to the cafes of Sully and Neckar under that of France. But neither of thofe^ men, who were Proteftants, acknowledged any allegiance to a foreign power : — the Ca- tholics do. Befides, the Crown of P\ance was not bound by any oath fimilar to that by which the Crown of England is bound in this refpe6l ; and therefore the two cafes are wholly diflimilar. Was the Honourable Gentleman ferious when he referred us to the cafe of Venice ? Does he think we will afiimilate with a nation embarrafPed by conflicting parties and polemics, — whofe Government was a mixture of all Religions^ and which, though once formidable in the fcale of nations, is now loft to the world ? I could wifh that the Honourable Gentleman who brought forward this queftion, and many of the friends who have fupported him in urging forward the meafure, would pay a vifit to Ireland, and itay there a few months. They would then be wirneiles to the feelings of the honeft loyal Proteftants, and would fee that they were not wanting in loyalty and attachment, and that they deferve the protection of Government and the Le- ^iflature alfo, againft any further claims of the Cntholics. I conceive, Sir, there is much danger in this queflion. I confider it as tending to break down the pale of the Crovi^n and the barriers of the Conftitution \ and as. this is the firifc attempt, I think we flioulu keep in view the old adage, P//?;- cipi'ts obfttty and immediately give the Catholics to underftand that we cannot grant the prayer of their Petition ; and, therefore, will not deceive them by holding out any falla- cious hopes on a fubje^^ fo truly important and i.nterefting to the whole Empire." Mr. LEE faid a few words in explanation. Mr G. PONSONBY.-~"Sir,having long been acquainted with the great abilities of the Right Hon. Gentleman who has> juft fat down^ I might, perhaps, delpair of encountering him fuccefsfully, if 1 had not previou{ly received the afhftance of one who is altogether as able as the Right Hon. Gentleman, and whom I ^hall always higlily rtlpe^l — it is the Right Hon. yeiulemaahiijifelf : ger.ira! faugh] for I think I can clearly 11^ plow tJjat one half of the Riprlit Hon. Gentleman's fprcch has iricontrovcnibjy aiifwered the other. He has fold us of the victories of Lord Nelfon and Lord liutchinfon in Egypt, grained by the efForts and afTiffance of Iriflimcn, from which he draws a conclufive proof of the loyalty of the lower orders of the Catholics ; and being alfo convinced of the loyalty of the higher orders of that body, he is deternsined to reward it, by — refufing the prayer of their petition. (A loud laugh^ and a cry of Hear I hear ! hear .') He has alfo informed us \\'hat is the Proteftant Conflitution— -that it is a Hroteftant King, Proteftant Lords, and Proteftant Commons — and has inoft emphatically and feelingly pointed out to us the dan- gers of a Proteftant King furrounded by Catholic Counfel- lors. But pray, Sir, who is to effe6l that ? The anfwer is obvious. This very Proteftant King hiir.feif. It is His Ma- jefty, who, of his own free will, is to choofe thofe Coun- lellors, who are to introduce the paramount authority of the Pope ! Why, Sir, if His Majefty ftiouid unfortunately bo furrounded by Counfellors of fuch a defcription, and they ftiouid endeavour to intrigue for fuch a purpofe, would it not be the very firft a6l of His Majefty to difmifs from his Councils fuch wicked advifers The Right Hon. Gen- tleman feems to be in fear for the fafety of the Hanoverian Succeftion. Who, Sir, is to compel any Prince of the Houfe of Hanover to furround himfelf with Catholic advifers and a Catholic Council ? It muft be himfelf alone who can do this— and if ever a Prince could be found, who would fo far attempt to deftroy the high truft repofed in him, by choofing advifers who ftiould endeavour to fubvert the Coa-» ftitution, or to change the nature of the Government in Church and State, i believe there can be no doubt but in this Houfe there would be found many who would take a pride in moving to puniQi fuch advifers. 'I he Right Hon. Gentleman fays, that if you grant the prayer of this Petition, they will not be contented; in proof of which he adduces the various conceftions heretofore made to the Catholics •, he favs, the aftertion made by an Honourable Gentleman,, • that it was little for us to gv^nt, but much for them to receive,' ought to be inverted •, and he tells us alfo, that if -ve give them all we have, which is now but littje, with that; 'rirtiethey will overturn the Conftitution and theGovernment- in Church and State. The Riglit Honourable Gentleman tells us that if 6t"ty or fixty Catholics obtain feats in Parlia- ment, there will be much danger. In v\hat that danger is to confift I am at a iofs to difcover. But how, are thefe fifty '>T fixty to obtain tears in Parliament ? What is to become jf the P-roteltant gentry i Wh^t is ,tQ bexjome. of .their te- li ii-.tvy ?. 117 nantry ? Who are the perfons that arc to return tliofe Ca» thohcs? The fear of it is moll futlic for Jiiy own pan, I really believe there would not be ten Catholics returned in as many years. The Right Honourable Gentleman allows, however, thst if even one hundred Catholics Ihould obtain feats in this Houfc, their efforts would be jiugatory, or of very little avail againll the otlier five hundred and fifty-eight. But, finding they have no weight or influence equal to what they expedted, they become difcontented here too — and what do they do ? 'Fhe Right Honourable Gentleman, by a peculiar kind of logic, fhows that they will diflblve the Union. After having ufed their talents, their unanimity, and adherence to each other, without any avail, they con- trive to diflblve the Union in fpite of the five hundred and fifty-eight, and fend themfelves back to Ireland, there to form a Popifh Parliament, (yf loud laugh, and cry of Hear 1 hear ! hear !) There is fomething ridiculous — I beg par- don. Sir, for unng that word — I mean not tb,e flightefl dif- refpe£t to any Gentleman more efpecially the Riij;lit Ho- nourable Gentleman to whofe argument I am particularly alluding, and for whofe perfonal chara6ler i entertain the higheft refpecl: and efteem — but I cannot help faying there is fomething not only ridiculous, but contemptible, to hear Gentlemen argue that there's any arflual danger to the Con- ftitution or the Government from admitting a few Catho- lics to have feats in Parliament. I have, bir, however, heard arguments ufed in this Houfe which have made on my mind a mofl deep impreihon, and from which one would be led to think that fome men were fent here only to circulate calumnies againft, and to draw the mofl odious pl(Slures of the characler of our common country. I have heard it faid. Sir, that the mafs of the Iriili people are fo blood-thirfty, ignorant, and ferocious, and this is applied to the lower orders in particular, that no Protellant uculd be fafe in living amongfl them. I have heard as much faid in another place^ but I did not feel it with fo much pain and indignation there as I did with fhame here. I cannot but feel forry to hear fuch a chara£ler given to a body of peo- ple, who, under fo many diladvantages as they have had to contend with, are, in my opinion, the very reverfe, in every refpe6V, of what they have been thus falfely defcribed. There never was fo foul a mifreprefentation of the Irifli characler ; and 1 think one of the flrongefl proofs of this is, that thci'e who have given this character have before and will again return to Ireland, and walk in the mofl perfedl fecurity in every part of it ; and 1 defy any perfon living to prove a fingle inflance in which the people who have been thus degradijigly tra- duced duced have ever exprcfled the leall: perfonal refentmcnf, or inflicted any perfonal vengeance on them. A Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) faid yederday, that if he had been in His Majeily's Councils at the time^he wontd have objeOed to ihe eleclive franchife being granted to the Catholics, and alfo to the eftablifhment of the College of Maynooth. This latter objec^lion, I ovim, ftruck mc moll forcibly. What would the Learned Gentleman do with the Catholics ? Would he have them brought up in the groflefc ignorance? Would he permit them no place of education, by which they might be rendered ufeful members of focietyj and good and loyal fubjedts ? or would he have them fent out of the country to be educated in the feminaries of that Pope, of whofe principles he has fo great a dread, and to whofe power he thinks it neceffary to oppofe fuch ftrong and formidable barriers r I am heartily glad. Sir, the Right Horiourable and Learned Gentleman did not form a part of His Majefty 'S Councils at the period when thofe falutary meafures took place, and I fincerely and devoutly hope he iiever will be confulted on any future occafion of a fimilar kind. So much having been faid, Sir, of the danger of a Froteftant King being furroutided with Catholic advifers, I would wiQi to fuppofe an inftance which may, perhaps, place the fubjecl in a fomewhat different point of view. I will fuppofe there fhould be a gentleman born and educated as a Catholic, who fhould be poffefled of very fuperior talents and endowments ; that he was an excellent fcholar *, a good hillorian ; a great financier ; an accompliOied gentleman j and a complete fta efman ; and that a ■ roteflant King, un- derf^:anding all this, fhould choofe to employ him, — would it " not be an uti of folly or madnels, or both, in this man, after the King- had thus taken him into his confidence, if he fhould advife his Sovereign to adopt any meafure that might tend to overturn the Conftitution or the State ? It would moil unqueftionably ; and fuch an advifer could not poifibly efcape being brought to condign punifliment for his attempt. It would be the fame if there were more Catholics in the Coun- cil; and it is ridiculous to fuppofe that they vtould forfeit the confidence of their King, and draw on their heads the hand of vengeance and punifhment, more than Proteftants would. But it ieems. Sir, in the opinions of fom.e Honourable Gen- tlemen, that Catholics are unlike all other men ; that they are not to be believed on their oaths. Other Diijenters of va- rious clafTes may be believed on their oaths, but a Catholic never ; like the lover, *if /v fwears, he'll certainly dece^ive.* The Right Honourable Gentleman who fpoke laft allows that many of thofe who have C^gned the Petition, he knows 119 to be ''men of worth/ Yet the idea of a CatlioHc not being to be believed on his oath, can furcly form no part in the character of a man of worth — nor can any man ever be entitled to that chara£ler, of whom fuch an idea can be fe- rioufly entertained. An objection has been urged againd this Petition, on the ground of its not being figned by any of the Catholic Clergy. 1 believe the true reafon to be this— the Catholics wiHied to have this meafure underftood, as it is really meant, a refpe£lful Petition for a civil right, uncon- nected with their religious tenets ; and therefore it was not figned by the Clergy, becaufe it was confidered as an acb relating folely to the laity of that perfuafion. I have a book in my pocket, Sir, out of which I will beg the leave of the Houfe to read a few Cliort extradis. I am aware that it is not the mod agreeable thing to trefpafs on the patience of the Houfe, by reading books to them ; but there have been fo many grofs mifreprefentations circulated againfb the te- nets of the Catholics, in order to raife prejudices againft this cafe, that I muft entreat your indulgence. It is, .Sir, a Ro- man Catholic Prayer Book, which the Clergy put into the hand of their flock, and out of which they perform their de- votions : {Here Mr. Po}ifonhy read a renunciation of the Catho- lics, which went to JhoWj that they do not think the Vo?'E infal- lible^ or that they are or can he difpenfed by any one^ for any aB of criminality^ or breach of the laws of morality. Alfo^ an oat by ivhich (ays^ in exprefs terms^ that they do not believe in the in- fallibility of the Pope, and that they O'lve allegiance to the King^ under ivhoft: Govermncfit they live that the Pope cannot give them difpenfation from that allegiance ; bui they are bonnd to fight for and proteR their King a?id his Government againfl all £ne?nies^ even though the Pope himfelf fljould e?iter the kingdom at the head of an invading army.) iVIr. Ponfonby continued — If thefe, Sir, are not fatisfaclory renunciations and abju- rations of all thofe ablurd tenets which have been attributed to thefe people, then, I think, no fuch can he framed. I believe there is not a parifti prieft in Ireland who has not taken this oath, and God forbid they (liould think they were not bound to perform and ftri(£lly adhere to it ! But, Sir, if this dreadful charadler of the Catholic's v/e:'e true^ I tl.ink the Proteftancs in Ireland muft be the itranged fct of beings that ever were formed. There are, Sir, at this very moment, according to the articles of the Union, a certain number of noblemen and gentlemen who come over to this country to attend their duty in Parliament ; there are, perhaps, fome- where about one hundred, and ihefe, moft of them, leave .their property, their children, and even in fome cafes their wives> under the care and pr6te<^ion of Catholic ferrants ; and if thefe were the wretches which fume perfous defer ibe the 120 the lower orders of the Irifh Catholics to be, wc fliould l-r^ the mofl unfeeling and carelefs guardians of all that is molt dear to human nature, to tru(l them in the care and cuftody of thofe who are under the immediate influence of their priefts, and thcfe men not to be believed on their oaths ! But, Sir, I will be bold to fay, never was there fo foul a mif- repreientation, and fo grofs a calumny, as this againfl tiie Irifh Catholics. There never was a race of men in Europe who would preferve fo much of what is good under fo much opprcffion. I know them well; and I know, at the fame time, that whatever there is good in them, they owe to themfelves — whatever there is bad in them, they owe to you. Yes, Sir, I will fay, it is owing entirely to your bad Govern- ment. I have many friends and near conne£lions here. Sir, for whom I Feel the highefl: refpe6t, and moft affeclionate regard. I love this country, Sir, and would do every thing in my power to ferve it *, but I will not flatter it. You have governed Ireland badly. That country has long appeared to you in the light of what has been called a bore. You have viewed it as a cafUoff, not worthy your notice or regard, and fo Minifters got rid of the trouble of it, they did not care how, or in what way. I believe, Sir, I can trace the origin of this mifgovernrnent of Ireland to antient times, and that its rife is to be attributed to commercial jealoufy. In days of yore, thofe who compofed the mercantile world were im- bued with the rotion, that the poorer you could make other countries, the richer would be your own. England unfor- tunately imbibed thi? notion. At the time of the Revolution there was a difpnte between two families which (hould pof- fefs the Governinent of this country, and Ireland became mbit unfortunately involved in the conteft. I do not men- tion this, Sir, with any intention of throwing the fmalleft degree of blame or cenfure on your anceflors. I merely ad- duce it as a matter of hilloricai fa6l, to (how how the IriOi have been treated for fo long a feries of years. From thofe who are mere men, you cannot expect the a6lions of fuperior beings. You cannot expecSt the virtues of freemen from flave's ; and when I reflect on this, inftead of being aftonifhed at the (ituation of the IriOi Catholics, I am rather furprifed thaf ihey have been able to conduct themfelves fo well as they have done. I am not furprifed, however, that they now petition ; but I am very much furprifed that a petition has not been prefented lonjr before. I own I am furprifed the petitioners were Catholics, becaufe 1 think the Proteft- ants fhould have voluntarily brought it forward. That would have produced the happiell efFecfts, and have Ibown a confidence highly honourable to them. Power, in itfelf, is •it all limes dangerous ; but when you fuffer one feci to lord I it 121 it over another, you cannot wonder if tlic feelings become warm and animated, and if difcontents and jealoulies are the confequence. Let us now, for a moment, Sir, confider the policy of France. Fas cjl ah hofte docer'u Bonaparte has formed an alliance with the Pope, who has b(rn at Paris, and officiated in placing the crown of the Empire on that Emperor's head. The Roman Catholic is the Eftabliflied Re- ligion of France, and yet Proteftants are there admiflible to all offices of honour, truft, and profit, as well as Catholics. If we were to land an army to-morrow in France, does any man imagine the Proteftants of that country would join them ? Some perfons afFe^l to think, and do not fcruple to fay, they can put m.ore faith in Proteftants than in Catho- lics. Let us fee how far this is confonant wiih reafon, and juftified by the teft: of experience, fo far as relates to our- felves. Piujfta and Aufiria^ in the laft war, were both our allies. The former, a i^roteftant Prince, took our fubfidy, and cheated us of our money, by withdrawing himfelf from our alliance and the war-, the latter, a Catholic Prince, bravely and honourably ftood by us till he could fight no longer. In the laft war, Sir, France loft almoft all her Ameri- can or Weft India pofleffions ; but the rulers of that country, like wife politicians, in order to make themfelves amends, turned all their attention to making themfelves ftrong in Europe. They therefore added Holland, Flanders, Italy, and Switzerland to their former territory; and when a peace took place, the greateft part of what we had taken from them in the Eaft and Weft Indies was reftored to them. Bonaparte well knows now that whoever is ftrong in Europe muft ultimately have the Eaft and Weft Indies. It is that which forms tlie ftrength and power of the political tre^— it is that which gives the lofty head and magnificent foliage, and which enables it to fpread its branches to the moft di- ftant quarters of the globe. Europe may truly be called Magna Mater Virum \ and as our enemy has turned fo much of his attention to the confolidation of his power in Europe, we ought to follow fa wife a policy and do the fame. Above all, Sir, we ought as much as pollible to con- folidate our ftrength, by uniting the afi^edtions of all ranks and defcripiions of perfons among ourfelves. And unlefs you think you will or can overturn the Conftitution, by ad- mitting a few Catholics to fit in Pavliamtnt, you will do a moft politic a£l by granting the prayer of this Petition, and thereby uniting in affl(Slion and political harmor y every de- fcrifltion of His Majefty's fubje man has a greater confidence in the loyalty of the Irish Catholic than I have, when left to the ge- nuine influence of his own heart. But I must re- mark that the Petition on your table holds out an indirect threat to Parliament ; and by asking you to do away those distinctions which make a foreign enemy rely upon the aid of disaffection, it in some degree admits, that, should you not accede, such aid to an enemy may be given should the occasion offer. In the event of such a trial I know the superiorstrengtb of Irish loyalty, and my country was never so well prepared to crush a foreign or domestic enemy. But, Sir, I am willing for my own part distinctly to acquit the Petitioners of any such meaning; and I wish the Irish Caihohc better than that he should derive from our fears what our prudence and inclination would not grant him. 1 feel an anxiety for his ho- nour, as well as for his interest ; and I trust that what- ever he may receive on a future day from this House shall be the result of cool, mature, and impartial de- liberation, and be given to him in a manner conso- nant to that dignified weight, which I wish every class of my countrymen to maintain in the scale of public opinion. Should the day come in which every civil distinction shall be removed, I wish the boon lobe unaccompanied by reluctance or distrust, i wish it to be when the Irish Catholic is relieved from the odium and suspicion derived from his fo- reign connexions and influences, and v\ hen the di- recting head of his Church shall not be the instru- ment and slave of that sanguinary despot who is the implacable foe of the Constitution and Liberties of this Empire. But, Sir, is the House prepared to en- tertaia 145 tcftain this Petition without goin^ further? What i^ to become of the English CathoHc and the English Dissenter ? Sir, I should be ashamed to look the lat- ter, or cither, in the f.icc, if I committed such fla- grant injustice as to exclude them alone from the pri- vileges now required of us. Without intending any invidious comparison, I know that His Majesty does not possess a more loyal, sincerely attached, and valuable subject, than the Irish Dissenter : and the English Dissenter may well be supposed not less meritorious. If there are tests to which those pro- fessing certain creeds cannot subscribe, are they alone to be bound by the influence of conscience, and its dominion denied where it should most prevail, and where it is the bond of our Liberties and our Laws ? No, Sir ; and until some reconciling means can be adopted, let us remain as we are, and all unite in maintaining, against the common enemy, that Con- stitution so superior to all others, and which is the sole refuge of Civil Liberty in this quarter . of the world. I ask pardon for having so long occupied the time of the House ; but having the honour to represent the capital of that country whose interests are vitally involved in the present discussion, I felt it imperative on me to state my reasons for voting against the present motion." Mr. HILEY ADDINGTON rose, merely to ex- plain shortly one point, with which he hoped the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Fox) would be per- fectly satisfied. In the course of yesterday's debate one of the Honourable Gentleman's arguments was, that hope bad been held out to the Catholics, in one of the great debates upon Catholic Emancipation, im- properly so called ; and he had quoted a passage from a speech of a JNoble Relation of his (Lord Sidmouth) ; and an explanation was afterwards givea by another Honourable Member that pleased him, as well as his Noble Relation. If his recollection bad gone far enough, he would have stated the ex- act words. He believed it was to this purpose — That if the Eftabliflimicnt of Popery was not the object of the Petitioners, perhaps he fliouid have been u inclined 146 inclined to liften to it, if modulated with certain con - ditions J this was a call for a Revolution in the repeal of fome of the wifeft laws of the land. Mr. JOHN LATOUCHE.— It is with great regret that 1 differ on this queftion from a very re- fpedable part of my conftituents ; men for whofe lentiments I fliail ever entertain the greatefh refpect. The corporation of the City of Dublin, who have petitioned againft the claims of the Catholics, have ever been loyal to their King and Conftitution ; zea- lous fupporters of the Proteitant Eftablifhment : and did I conceive that going into the Committee would endanger that Eftablifhment, there is no one who would be more ready to give a negative to the mo- tion of my Hon. Friend but fo far from think- ing that the meafures propofed would weaken that Conftitution, I am convinced it would not only tend to confirm that Eflablifliment, but alfo flrengthen the foundations upon which refts the fecurity of the Empire. The advantages to be derived from the adoption of this motion have been ably proved to be conliderable in number and great in benefit j and> m my opinion, it has not been proved to this Houfe, that any danger is likely to enfue from it. Granting for a moment, what I do not allow, but what the mofl violent oppofers of the Cat]:ioiics could urge atjainfl them, that there exifts in a part of that body of men a decided animofity to the Bridfh Conftitu- tion, and a violent defire to ef^'e(5l its ruin, — grant- ing, for the faice of argument, that fuch is the dif- pofition, fuch is the objedt of men amongft the Catholics, the means of effecting their purpofe and accomplifliing their wifhes would be totally de- Jlroycd by the meafure propofed this night. Will tlie Houfe CQnfidcr what are the means by which the dif- af[^e6lcd would endeavour to obtain their objed ? It has been already clearly proved, that admitting Catholics to feats in Parliament could never, in the opinion of any man in this Houfe, give them fufficient weight in it to carry meafures deflruclive to the Conftitution. It cannot be fuppofcd that the number of Irifh Ca- diolic^, whether 20,40, or even 100, that would be returned, U7 tetiirned, could ever prevail on the remaining 558 Englifh and Scotch Members to unite with them in the^'deftrudlion of a Conilitutiion they all venerate ; which has raifed their Country to the height it now is placed in— for which their anceftors fought and bled ; and for whofe defence I truft, if called upon, we are all ready to rifle our lives. No, Sir, it never could be by Parliament that they could hope to overturn Parliament itfelf ; but, poffefrmg as they do a population of nearly four millions, would it not be by that phyfical force, aided and aflifted by a foreign power, that they could alone hope for a pro- bability of accompliihing their objefe of overturn- ing the Conftitution and feparating the two coun- tries ? It is by arraying this population againft you they could alone be formid^ihie : but by adopting this meafure you will remove for ever the remoteft pof- fibility of their doing fo ; by giving an equality in the bleflings and enjoyments of the Conftitution to this population, you will have them ranged not againft you but for you. But while diftinftions and inequalities exift — while you permit an appeal to their pafilons and perhaps to their reafon, that though they equally contribute their property with their Proteftant fellow fubjedls — though th-ey have fpent and are daily fpending their blood in defence of the Conftitution — though by their exertions they have added to the laurels and contributed to the fafcty of the Empire ; — that though they have patiently and cheerfully fhared with the Proteftant equal dangers in time of war, —ye: they are not allowed to ftiare equal advantages in the hour of peace : fuch an appeal muft have fome weight upon the mind ; and though it would not feparate thofe who have ftili many rea- fons to be attached to the Conftitution ; yet, by de- ftroyingthe pofiibility of its being made, you weaken the efforts of your enemies. It is thefe diftinclions that have given rife to a fpirit of party, that has been the misfortune of Ireland — that has conftantly and uniformly checked its progrefs towards improve- ment in time of peace, and I am fure increafed its jdangers in time of war. By remoYing dw^ convidion If 2 in 148 in one man's mind that he poflefTes fuperlor advan- tages, in the other that he hibours under difabihties and reflraintsj by taking away this doubie convic- tion you will give a death-blow to party- fpirit j fur it is by this policy alone that the violent of both parties have been able to agitate and irritate — I fhould almofi: hc-ve faid exafperate the minds of the people againfl each other, even at times when the fituation the Country and the danger of the State imperiouCy demanded harmony and uiianimity. This fubjed has been fo ably argued on this fide of the Houfe, and fo feebly, in my opinion, on the other, that I feel it is but prefQng on the patience of the Houfe to urge any thing more in favour of the mo- tion. But I cannot avoid ftating how mu^ h will be gained by the deftrudion of all party-fpirit. Con- fidcr Ireland with a liberal mind, you vviii lament the difunion of her people; but look at the fituation of "Eurcpe, and the conteft in which we are engaged, you will not only look at it with forrow, but you villi fee the necefTity of endeavouring to harmonize and unite. We may hope to defend Ireland by hav- ing the command of the feas, by blockading the fleets of our enemies ; this mode of defence has failed already, and may again fail ; but give to Ire* land, to ail its people, an equal intereft in the de- fence of the Conftitution, equal enjoyments of its bleffings, you will then have a defence invulnerable by your enemy, which I doubt if the enemy would dare to encounter ; but which Ihould he attempt, I have not the fmaliefl doubt that the refult would be defeat to him and fecurity to us. Sir JOHN HIPPESLEY faid, that though he had rifen very early in the debate with much anxiety, to deliver his fentiments on this important queftion at fome length he had nevertheiefs given way, with great fatisfadlion, to the Honourable Member, (Mr. Grattan,) from the difplay of whofe fplendid ta- lents fo much expectation had been juftly formed. As he now faw the Houfe, at that late hour, little dif- pofed to prolong the debate, he would trefpafs on their patience no further than to ftate two fafts oC confide rable 149 confiderable Intercft, and he would leave Gentlemen to draw their own conclullons from them. — Thefirft was the Conftitution of Corfica, as ratified by His Majefty, and which ftipulaced that the Roman Ca^ tholic Religion, in all its ev^angelical purity (which were the words of the Afl), Ihouid be the only Na^- tional Religion of C jrfica, and all others tolerated ; and that the Parliament fhouid concert the diicharge of the fundions of the Biihops with the See of Rpme- Theother facb was, that a Roman Catholic prieft, of the name M^Donnel, had been commifTioned by ^iis Majedy in the year 1794, as Chaplain to a Catholic JPevxible Regiment raifed in Great Britain. Sir J* iHippeiley faid, he would leave thofe w \o refted fo much on ti-i^ prefamed reftricTtions vv^hich appeared to them to grow out of the Coronatioa Oath, to form their own eilimace how far thefe gracious afts were reconcilable to their inLerpretaiion of it, or whe- ther His jMajefty was not at liberty thus to gratify the ex peft aliens of that defcription of his fubje(5ls, \vlth0u4; irenchmgon the principles of the C(-nftitu- tior^r-T-^Asy-th^e - Houfe. was fo hnpatient for the quef* tion, he would fay no mere. Lord DE BLAQUiERE fpoke againft the mo- tion, and confidered it as calculated to injure the higheit in^eref^s. It was a defperate reaiedy, which led to one of two extremes : either it would produce union, happinefs, and peace, or caufe the beft blood in the counntry to flow dov^ n its ftreets. Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON, with warmth, zeal, and ability, fupported the motion, and vindicated the character of his traduced countrymen. The attorney GENERAL felt it neceOary no explain.— What he had faid was, That if the Houfe expecfled the Catholics would be conciliated, by ac- cedmg to their Petition, they would bemiltaken, as te believed they woyldwant fometning more. The other point was, that he had been reprefented to hold out the threat of reviving the Penal Code. This was a millake he thought ic a bloody and cruel Code. But he had faid. That if iie had been confulted he fhouid have oppofed grancnig them the Eledive ].50 Elective Franchife, and the Eftablilhment of a Col- lege at Maynooth. Mr. hawthorn faid, That at that late hour he would not intrude upon the cxhaufted patience of the Houfe by entering at large into the argument y but that he was unwilling to give a filent vote upon fo important a quellion. He freely admitted that it had been his wilh that this meafure Ihould not have been brought forward, or difculTed, unlefs under the reafonable profpecfl of fuccefs, which in his mind did not exift at prefent; but thofe who were fo much and fo peculiarly interefted in the refult hav- ing judged otherwife, and the difcuffion having taken place, he had no hefitation in declaring, that he confid'-red the complying with the prayer of the Petition to be elTentially neceffary to the peace and repofe of Irelandj the liability of the Union between the two Countries^ and the fafety and fecurity of the Empire at large ; and therefore gave his decided fup- port to the motion. Sir WILLIAM DOLBEN oppofed the motion. He admitted that the balance of talent and ingenuity v/ere in favour of the petition ; but the force of argument and public principle on the other. Mr. fox closed this interesting and important debate in a most eloquent speech to the following effect : — Sir, before I enter into a general reply to the argum.ents, or rather the observations, that have been made by those who have opposed the motion I had the honour to submit to the House, I feel myself necessarily obliged to submit a few words in answer to an Hon. Gentleman, on the subject of the speech of a Noble Viscount (Sidmouth), in the course of a former debate. If I have not been misrepresented, I believe it will be found that what I strictly said, was> not that the Noble Lord said the Catholic Emanci- pation would be the effect of the Union, but that the Union was a pledge of the Catholic Emancipation. I stated, that the Noble Viscount, in his speech, said three things to be considered; one, with a view to the former laws against the Catholics ; another, with a view to Catholic Emancipation, of both which he difapproved ^ 151 disapproved ; but would, of the two evils, prefer the enactment of Penal Laws ; and the third, with refer- ence xo a Legislative Union, which, he said, would not be productive of any of the disadvantages of either of the other meisures. Having stated this as one of the things which did give hopes to the Ca- tholics, I thought the measure proposed in their fa- vour would not be objectionable to the Noble Vis- count. With regard to the objections against my motion, I shall speak to those which apply in point of time first ; for, though they came last, they are first in point of order ; and, first of all, let me make a remark on the objections which came from a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. Considering the general weight of his abilities and his experience— consider- ing some additional vveight which he derives 'from the office he holds, I cannot but remark that the ob- jections he has made come singly from him ; no one who preceded — no one who followed him, has urged any objections of a similar nature. He stands, as far as this debate goes, perfectly singular in staung his objections to the Petition, in point of time. I shall consider the objections in themselves, and then, as coming from him ; and, first of all, in point of time, with regard to myself— I have no defence to make — for I say, let my conduct in bringing the question forward be attended with whatever imputa- tion it may, I am ready to say there is no time of my life when, if any set of men applied to me to support a Petition in favour of Religious Liberty, I should not have complied with the requisition. With regard to what has fallen from another Hon. Gentle- man on the subject of this being a party question, I can only say, that if his opinion was to be followed, and we were to consider every thing as a party trick, as he is pleased to call it, because we did not expect that it would be attended with success, we should render the Constitution of this Country somewhat singular ; and certainly the whole tenour of my life would have been contrary to the opinion of that Hon. Gentleman. With respect to the time, I say, I should 152 I shoiiki a£ any time have presented this Petition; for I always Considered \ that every man had a right to the free enjoyment of his rehgious liberty, suhject to what may arise from considerations of public safe- ty. As I do not believe there ever has been any possible injury to the public safety, by extending re- ligious liberty to those who ask it, I must of necessi- ty think it right to extend it to the Catholics. As to tlie time widi respect to those who have signed the Petition, the objection founded on their omitting to have it brought forward before is most extraordinary ; for it is admicted, that in the way the me*asure of Union was argued and defended, the Catholics had, without a positive pledge, some reasonable ground to hope that their Petition, or tiie matter of their Petition, would be granted. This is not all. , Those who were most averse from the Catholic claims argued it in a way not like the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who appeared to me to think that the Union would pave the way for the grant of the Catholic claims; that it took away the only difficulty which belonged to the discussion of the question ; and that, when the Union was completed, it would be, in the view of many, more safe to grant their claims, or less dan- gerous to resist them. If I am told that the establish- ment of the measure of the Union will produce a fit- ness of time when the claims can be brought forward with proprietyjand cannot be refused without danger, I desire to know whether that is not precisely the pe- riod when men who wish well to their country would naturally be inclined to bring them under discussion. What time can be more proper for discussing the claims of any class of subjects, than that in which it is admitted they can be granted without danger ? I should, therefore, have supposed, that all who thought the Union the most certain means of preventing the danger, would, have conceived the completion of that Union the time peculiarly proper for the Catholics to submit, and a Member of Par- liament to recommend, a measure which the fi;^iends of it considered right, just, and equitable, to be . . adopted. 7 . . 15S adopted. But what then ? You tell them — ycu say to them, Help us in uhis Union — give us that as- sistance which is necessary to us." Maiiy of the Catholics do so j and then your friends, and the friends of the Union, tell them they have great hopes their claims may be granted. Then the Petition comes, as miglu naturally be expected it would come, after such an assurance ; and, in return for the assistance given by the Catholics, it is propo;>ed to say, " Do not discuss the question at all." It may be said, '^^ Why did not the Catholics come immedi- ately after the Union I do not wish to enter in- to an altercation on that subject — it is most probable that the cause of their not coming sooner was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman's resignation, accompa- nied with the reasons he gave for that resignation, induced them to adopt the opinion, that they could not with propriety bring their claims forward at that time. But the Right Hon. Gentleman, in a letter, gives the Catholics a justifiable ground of hope> that it would be a part of his future plan to smooth the way, by preparing the Public to receive the Catho- lic Petition. What must have been the impression on the minds of the Cadiolics in consequence of this ? They must have thought that the Right Hon. Gen- tleman, during the two years he u'as out of ofBce, would have directed his attention to the subject, and that he was a iitclc negligent of their concerns, if he did not take quite so much pains as he ought to have done. But it was natural for the Catholics, when they saw the Right Hon. Gentleman returning to office — when they recollected they had heard him say, that, entertaining the opinion he did of the Ca- tholics, he could neither bring their claims forward with safety, nor continue in his office with propriety — I repeat, it was natural for them to say, that, " al- though we did not consider your conduct as a pledge on your part, or a claim on ours, yet when you de- clared you could not bring the subject forward with hopes of success, nor continue in office, unless you X could ] 54 could do so, we had a right to depend on your sup- port, whenever the opportunity was afforded you of granting it. Thus, when we now see you returning again to office, we may reasonably conclude you are in a situation in which you may support, encourage, and promote those claims of which you approved." This was the natural time for the Catholics to apply to the Right Hon. Gentleman for support, and for him to grant it. I think it is impossible that I can misrepresent what the Right Hon. Gentleman said four years ago, in the course of a debate on the State of the Nation, and 1 think that all he has said tonight is a proof that I understood him rightly. He said, that considering the turn the question had taker), considering the infinite importance of the subject to the Empire at large, bethought he could not move it with all the advantages necessary to its success, or at least to that species of success, as he expressed it, which would be productive of the result ultimately to be desired ; — that, under such circum- stances, he felt not only that he could not move it himself, but that, if it was moved, he should feel it his duty to resist it. If it is true that he told us so, surely it was natural for persons in the situation of the Catholics to suppose, that when he returned to office he would attend to this circumstance. It seems to me that this night he has gone a good way instating the singularity of his own conduct. He said, that the question could not advantageously be brought forward, unless with the general concurrence of every branch of the Legislature. Such was the reason, he tells you, that he did not bring it on. This i admit is perfectly consistent with hts former pro- fessions ; yet, I think, that in the year i&oi, as well 35 if he was to do so in 1805, he did take a further measure of no small importance to his reputation, and the welfare of the country, by puttirro: an end to his own administration. He has stated all he did at lliat period. — He stated his sentiments then, aj? he has done now ; and I cannot but remark^ that in giving 155 giving an account of his conduct, there is a material alteration and difference in his conduct in 1805, with reference to what it was in i8or. Yet, lie has so conducted himself, that it was impossible the Roman Catholics of Ireland could know that such a difference of opinion existed, or that his opinions and sentiments were not similar to what they h'<\d been. They must have concluded, from the very circumstance of his being in office, that it was his in- tention either to move or to support the question. I believe that idea was so firmly impressed on the minds of the Catholics, that he could not imagine the fact was otherwise. Many persons undoubtedly thought, that there might be some circumstances which might make it proper to defer the considera- tion of the subject to another Session. If from pru- dential motives it had been recommended to them to defer the consideration of the subject to a future period, I have no doubt, that, with the opinions they entertain, ed, and the impressions by which they were actuated, they would have readily acquiesced. But when they found that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not now bring their claims forward ; that the ob- jections agaiUvSt them would equally apply at any given time ; and that he continued in office, contrary to his own example in 1801 ; they concluded, as justly they might, that he had completely changed his mind. It was under that circumstance, and the impression it excited, they came to me ; and now, because they have come to me, is it to be said that they have made themselves the allies of a party ? cry of Hear J Hear ! and much agitat'kon,). I wish to know what will become of this House, and eventuallv of the Government, and the Constitution of the Coun-. try, if when those who are refused redressby Ministers appeal to men who for good reasons op[)ose Mini- sters, they are to be stigmatized with aclhering to a party? (Fehemeni exclamations of Hear ! Hear I) Aro those who oppose Administration to be incapacitated, merely for so doing, as independent Members of :5c % Parliament ^ 156 Parliament ? (Violent clamours,) Are we^ the free, uncontrolled, an(l inclcpenckmt Members of this House, and the. Representatives of the l^eople of Eng^ land, the first nation on earth, to be excommuni- cated in our political capacity, because we are in the perfornjance of a duty adverse to the sentitnents of tiiose Ministers whose conduct we condemn? fCon^ I 'mued agitation^ and repeated clamours^ almost drown- ed the voice of the Orator.) We talk of the excom-i inunications of the Po})e, but can his anathemas be more unjust than those which stigmatize men as the allies of a party, who apply to us for the establish- ment of their undoubted rights, privileges, and innnu-e nitieS/civil and religious, denied to them by those Mi- nisters who ought to be foremost in granting them I (Hear! Hear! from all sides of the House.) All I can say is, that I have attentively read the h.siory of the Country, but I have formed a very miperfect no- tion of its Constitution, if those who oppose Mini- sters, or vvlio bring forward measures v»bich should originate in them, are to be branded as the instru- ments of party, and as hostile to those principles to which our free Government owes its existence, and the Coirntry its pros'perity, importance, and pre- eitiinent rank among nations. (All the usual Farlia^ mentary indications, of applause accompayiied this senti- ment,) Th.e Catholics came to me, because a better chance of success did not present itself to their hopes. (Hear! Hear!) They came to me, because they conceived, and I hope trulv, that I would do justice to the-r cause, and because they thought \ would do my utmost to be instruniental in bringing it to a successful issue. Is it to be said, because we are not sanga.ne in our hopes of success, that there- fore we ought not to promote inquiry and investi- gation upon any subject ? Is no man to be justified in moving a question of public concern and import- ance, merciv becaue he does not conceive it will be carried? (Approbation from all sides of the House.) I beg leave to say, that I am decidedly of a different 1 opinion. opinion. I think the House will judge, as Members of a British Parliament ought to judge, that it is their duty to pursue a cjueslion of tliis kind in spite of every temporary obstacle. (Hear ! Hear! Hear I) I am of opinion, that whatever may be, or may have been in another place, the decision upon this ques- tion, the discussion will be productive of the greatest good to the country. The complete refutation of the number of false facts wliich have been advanced, must and will be attended with the best effects. I am confident that the arguments we have heard, whatever effect they may have upon this House, will have their due weight wiih the Public, and that every man of common sense will see on which side the weight of the argument lies. I am confident, upon another ground, which may be stated as a ground of policy, expediency, and justice, that this discussion will be productive of the utmost benefit, because I am convinced, that if I had refused to pre- sent the Petition of the Catholics, and the impression had gone over to Ireland that there was not a Mem^ bar to be found in the British House of Commons willing to present their Petition, it would have pro-, duced a state of despondency and despair in the mind of the people of that country, which would have been fatal to the best interests of the whole Empire. They would rightly, but fatally, as to the probable consequences, have judged that there was; pot only no party, but no individual in England, to whom they could look up with a confident hope of redress. Is it— r-can it be— necessary for me to state to this enlightened House, that a more fatal event cannot happen, or is more to be deprecated, than that three* fourths of the population of Ireland should be justifieci in the dreadful reflection, that there is^ not a man ir\ England who sympathizes with their sufferings, or who is inchned to exert himself in order to obtain the redress of them ? Although such a reflection may be turned to the extreme disadvantage of the Empire, I do trust that the 158 the people oflrelnnd will not reason in this manner. I hope they will not nay, We have no friends in England, and therefore we must look elsewhere''' (A general cry of Hear! Hear !) Yet the time has been when such an inference might have been staled with more probability than perhaps at the [)resent moment. It has been said, *^ Let us finish the question for ever/* When, I would ask, was it known that such a question could be finished for ever \ " Man and for ever 111 " Flistory shows us, that the most vision- ary notion ever entertained never went the length of implying that a question of this nature could be finished forever. Will not the Catholics look back to the Parliament of their own Country? — Refer to the period of the year 1 791 — thai was a period when no Member of Parliament could be found to present a Petition in their favour. In the year 1792 their Pe» tition was presented^ and it was rejected by a very large majority ; the minority consisting, as nearly as I can recollect, of not more than 14 or 15 Members. It was then said the question was closed for ever. I dare say the Gentlemen who stated that, thought the revival of the question would overturn the Protest- ant Government and the Established Constitution of the Country. They undoubtedly thought that the time for agitating the question was improper and dangerous, and therefore it was that they said the question was, and ought to be closed for ever. Was it closed for ever ? Did the event prove that it was closed for ever ? — No. On the contrary, within twelve months after the question was said to have been closed for ever, it was resumed, and a majority of that House, which had closed the question forever, did grant the Catholics more in the year 1793, than in the year 1792 the Catholics had thought it ne- cessary to ask, And in so floing they did right \ for, if you lookback to the history of this r^ign, you will find, that, in almost every instance, what has been refused to the humble prayer of any class of subjects, who have cq-nsidered themselves aggrieved^ has been ^ranteci 159 Ranted afterwards by the fears of Governmenf. When this country was engaged in a war with France, it was fear and imperious necessity which induced you to grant that, than which lesser claim:^ were refused in 1792. Let ine not be accused of menace, when I leave it to the consideration of this House, whether, at different periods of the history of this reign, with reference to its various depen- dencies, Government has not, by sad experience, found, that the best time for granting indulgences, or, to speak more properly, natural rights, would have been when they were first asked for. If this is me- nace, then I think prudence must be altogether ba- nished from our consideration : there is no claim of right which may not be construed into menace. If we are compelled to satisfy the claim, and, at the same time, are to be told that the claim is menace, I ask how we ought lo have acted at the beginning of the American war ? How are we to warn jou by the example of the past, unless it is by showing you, that, to avoid danger, you should make concessions in time ? I must further observe, wiih regard to the objections which the Right Honourable Gentleman took in point of time, that if his particular object was to conciliate those who were hostile to this measure, not with reference to time, but principle, his objec- tions, in my opinion, have not been very successful. I do not indeed conceive that the Right Honourable Gentleman has urged the argument in our t'avour with any other than honourable views ; but after all the ingenious language we have heard — ^^af'ter all the illiberal arguments which have been advanced, all the ignorance which has been uttered, all the asper- -sions which have been thrown out, and all the dan- gerous principles which have been recommended, and attempted to be maintained, for the purpose of rejecting this question for ever ; I say, that although I cannot help lamenting we could not have the be- nefit of his vote, yet 1 rejoice that we have the ad- vantage IGO vantage of his discountenancing what, he must feet, reflects as much honour on his principles four years ago, as disgrace now. His vote undoubtedly would have been of advantage to the country ; but his speech is of much more advantage. It is not merely the vote of the Right Honourable Gentleman that would be important ; but it is of consequence, that in England, Ireland, and every part of the British Em* pire, it should be known, that the opinion of men in power, or likely to be in power, or whose authority or interest is looked up to with confidence, is favour- able to the cause to which the vote of the Right Ho- nourable Gentleman is adverse. I wish we could have had his vote, but I thank him for his argument ; and this brings me to another part of his conduct. The Right Honourable Gentleman says, that he finds not only now, but that three or four years past, the public opinion was contrary to mine, if he had brought forward this question when he was out of office, he might have stated some grounds which would have made it less dangerous to be encouraged than at the present moment. If he had stated that fact, and the public had seen that most of the consi- derable men in Parliament were of one opinion, though his opinion would have done much, yet the argument would have done more, and the public opi- nion would not, perhaps, have taken the turn he tells us it has : whether it has taken that turn, or not, I doubt ; I own I see no symptom of it. There are unquestionably very respectable bodies of men, some of whom have given their sentiments contrary to the opinion I profess : but that there is a generally prevailing opinion adverse to mine, I cannot suspect; I cannot think, that, among rational men, the ad- vantages which present themselves on the one hand, and the dangers which menace on the other, can be overlooked. The claims of the Catholics are not onlv consistent with the [principles of the Constitu- tion, but consonant to its viral spirit.; and I hope 161 trust the public opinion will ultimately be led by reason to that point, to which if it is not led, I am ^orry to say, we shall not have the full and ctFec- tivc force and physical strength of the United Em- pire. If ever there was a time when it was necessary we should have its entire exertion, it is the present. This is a penod when all our energies are called into action. <' Toto certandiirn est Corpore Regni.'* But who can say the Country has the effectual advantage of the Corpus Rcg?u, v/hile one-iifth of its i-nhabitants are deprived of those privileges they ougiit fo enjoy, and without which, to them, the Country is nothing ? But the argument is taken two ways: first, you say you have no tears from the Catho- lics, that if you trusted them they would be loyal — ^md that, therefore, what danger is to be apprehended from them ? I would answer, Give to them, then, what they claim, as the reward of their loyalty." Are we to argue without reference to the general princi- ples of human nature ? The pro[)er way to weigb the justice of an argument is by the scale of common sense, and the feelings of mnnkind upon the subject : but if the argument drawn from the loyalty of the Roman Catholics is to be used against them, to their prejudice, I can only say, i\mi it is more disgraceful to the Public than even to the speaker. They, say these Gentlemen, I mean the Roman Catholics, are loyal ; I truly believe they are so — nay, I believe that even if you refuse fheirclaims,many in their zeal, public fpirit, and loyalty, will go far beyond what thev can fairly be called upon for but can I expect as much from the generality of the Catholics ? Do we not say, that our Country being under the freest Constitution in the world, the Subject enjoys the greatest degree ©f Civil and Political Liberty, terms which imply no difference, except that the word Civil is derived from the Latin, and the word Political from the Greek. Y (A laugh.) 162 ' (A laugh.) Do we not enjoy the most important pri- vileges of" any nation in Europe? We boast that we shall be able to make exertions against the enemy, that the Subjects of Arbitrary Governments cannot be expected to make. Why is this? It is because we are fighting for Laws that are our Laws — for a Constitu- tion that is our Constitution -for those Liberties and Sacred Immunities which no other Country under Heaven possesses the advantages of fighting for. If, Sir, such are the grounds on which, under God, we trust so much to for our success, do they not apply with equal force to another Country, or rather an- other part of our own Country ? And do you not suppose, that those who fight for greater privileges, will exert themselves more than those men who are deprived of the civil and political advantages en- joyed by their fellow-citizens ? If the same exertions cannot be expected by those who are deprived of the privileges to vyhich they are entitled, what do we gain by the disabilities we impose on them? You put the Country in the situation in which you are com- pelled, of necessity, to confess, you have no other expectation than that of comparative exertion. I ask you, whether that is not the true state of the case with regard to the Roman Catholics of Ireland? I will not urge further than I did when I opened this subject, the argument, that the privileges bestowed upon the higher orders of People are, in point of fact, enjoyed by the lower. No answer has been given to the argument, and therefore I must take it as a principle admitted. No one has attempted to contradict the opinion that the lower orders are in- fluenced by the advantages and the privileges be- stowed on their superiors. Those who recollect the debates, two years ago, may furnish their minds with as strong an illustration on this subject as any argu- ment can possibly produce. It was tvyo years since an Honourable Member, then Secretary at War, brought in a Bill for raising an army en masse^ After having 163 having explained the details of the Bill, as It applied to Great Britain, he did conclude with a short sen- tence, which every body well understood, and with regard to which no one thought any comment was necessary. The sentence was to the effect, that it was not thought expedient to apply the Bill to Ireland. It would certainly have been indiscretion, in the true sense of the word, either to have applied it to Ireland, or to have commented on the reason for not applying it. Why ? Because it was well known that the mass of the People of Ireland were not like the mass of the People of England — because they consisted of two divided parties, in the lower of which you could not have the same confidence as in the higher ; and therefore it was, that in England, the levy en masse, which constituted the best security of the Country, was in Ireland looked to as its great- est source of danger. I will refer Gentlemen to the Bill for promoting our Military Force and National Defence. I remember, in the course of one day's discussion, relative to the Force in Ireland, at the time of the Debate, compared with the period of the Treaty of Amiens, that a statement was made of so much cavalry, so much infantry, so much artillery, and so many fencibles. It was then admitted on both sides, that with regard to such and such regi- ments, there was a circumstance that made them more particularly useful to the Country — that cir- cumstance was, that there were no Irish among them. (Violent clamour.') It was stated and admitted, that ifor the reason I have mentioned, there were two ot three regiments as available as four or five. Apply this to England, or to any other Country that is well governed; would any body say that our military force was strong, because it consisted of foreigners, or that it was weak, because it was composed of English- men ? Would you not argue, that so much the more would be expected from men who were fighting for their own country, their homes, their fortunes, and all that was dear to them? Why is the argument different Y 2 with ' with respect to Ireland ? Why do you wish to harg regiments in Ireland with as few Irish as possible? The nrgument is this, and yon may reduce it to a syllogism, of which the m;iior is, Every man is most to be depended npon in proportion to his in- terest in the Constitution. The minor is, English- men are most interested in their Constitution ; ^rgo^ the conclusion is, Englishmen are most ro be de- pended upon," Apply this, un th^e other hand, to Ireland, and, altering the terms of the syllogism, tlic conclu^iou will be the reverse; the minor will be, that the Irish Catholics are the least interested in the Constitution; and therefore they are the least to be relied on to defend it. Is it on this principle you would have your regiments in England composed of Englishinen, and in Ireland not composed of Irish- men ? Who are so little interested in Ireland as the Irish Roman Catholics ? None. Yet such is the state of that Country, in which you say nothing is to be obtained by gaining over the hearts and energies of three-fourths of the population. It is said, Are not those Noblemen and Gentlemen who compose the higher class of the People of Ireland, loyal : If they are, why would you give them any thing to make them more so? I would give them the same interest in the Constitution of the Country which othcn-^ have, and then I may reasonably expect similar exer- tions from them. We say it i> little for them to gain, and much for us to give. They say it is much for them to gain, and little for us to give. W'^hat is it w,e give? All we give away is political power. To whom do we give that power? To the Catholics. — W^ho are the Catholics ? Our Fellow Subjects. — (Hear ! Hear !) — I come now to the abjection as to the particular form. It is objected to giving hopes to the Catholics, because it is £;\id, How can 1 desire the House to go into a Committee, if I do not know that the Committee will support m.c in all the points in favour of tlie Catholics? Has not this objection been answered, even by what lias been said on less 4 . important 166 important points ? Supposing two distinct questions, standing on dilFerenl grounds; surely no one will say, that we ought not to go into a Committee to sec whether we cannot give either, because wc cannot give both. There are tWo very different points in this question — Gentlemen speak as if they thought none but members of the Church of England were capable of silting in Parliament. But do not Dis- senters sit in this House ? However, in point of doctrine, the Church of England differs from the Catholics, yet it does not differ more than from the Dissenters. With regard to the maintenance and esta- blishment of the Church of England, there cannot be more difference between the Catholics, than there is between the Dissenters and the Protectants. We have forty five Members in this House, who are of a profchsed Establishment different from our own, and they are not members of the most tolerant sect. It is true, that from the bias of their education, from their intellectual attainments, from the improvement of their minds,and from their enlightened understanding,they are above narrow religious prejudices ; yet, from the professionof theirFaith, theyare not moreliberal or to- lerant than the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catho- lics are charged with saying. There is no salvation for Heretics ; and the Scots Kirk says, It is blasphemy to assert that any can be saved who are not of their faith. Out of these forty-five Members, not more than three or four could be persuaded to decide with us in favour of the repeal of the Test Act. It is said, Hov^ can we employ persons in office who are not of the Established Religion ? In Ireland they are acceptable, because there is no Test Act. If it is said that we want to put the Catholics in a better situation than the Dissenters, let it be recollected that we are talking of Ireland. But is it supposed that the Test Act is the means of assuring that every man shall be ^member of the Church of England? Do we not know, that in the reign of Queen Anne, Bills of occasional conformity were passed ; and that in the reign 1G6 reign of George I. many of the Dissenters only took the sacrament to show their disposition in favour of the Established Church, however they might not agree as to parts of the Liturgy ? Will any body say that taking the sacrament proves a man to be a sup- porter of the Church of England ? May not a Dis- senter take the sacrament, and yet consider the Li- turgy of the Church of England as the most con- summate bigotry ? This leads me to another part ot the subject, which was stated by a Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir William Scott), whom, I flatter my- self, I may call my friend, I he principal flower ot his eloquence consisted in the repetition of the word must,'* He seemed to think, that the fundamental laws of the Church of England must be repealed by granting the prayer of the Catholics. The exclusion of the Catholics from seats in Par- liament, and the existence of the Test Acts, are the props, according to the Learned Gentleman (Sir William Scott), which support the Church of Eng- Jand. What then was the state of the Church of England in the reigns of Elizabeth, of James the First, and Charles the First ? Were these Princes not the heads of the Church as effectually as his present Majesty ? Nay, would it not be deemed the grossest abomination to doubt, even, that Charles the First fell a martyr to the Church of England ? Yet, throughout the reigns of these Princes, Roman Catholics sat in Parliament, and the Test Act had no existence. Granting the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England to be not repugnant to the free principles of the Constitution, as established in the reign of King William ; yet the Homilies which follow are by many stated to be an absolute con* demnation of the very thing which took place at die time of the Revolution. Nay, did not Sacheverel openly attack, and, upon the authority of these Ho. milies, stigmatize that great proceeding as impious, and utterly destructive of the Church of England ? Now, with regard to those learned places which form , a repository 167 a repository for the essential doctrines of religion, I mean the Universities, in one of which (the Uni- versity of Oxford) I had the honour to receive part of my early education, if I was to produce the de^ cree of that University of i68j, against limited Government, describing it as one of those things which lead to atheism, what would be said of it ? Some of the best of men have come from that Uni- versity. None more so than the Learned Gentleman j but I do beg, to use a plain homely phrase, that: they will not throw stones whose eyes are made of glass. I do not advise the High Church party to look so narrowly into the history of the Catholics^j and into all the violence of their decrees, in order to disqualify them from being amalgamated and^^^e-' conciled with the Constitution of this Country. It ha> been said by a Learned Gendeman, that the Roman Catholics wish to overturn the Established Religion of the Country. To this I answer, that there ara good subjects of all sects and persuasions, in all countries, who, dissenting from the Established Re^ ligion, yet pay obedience to the opinion of the ma- jority. I am surprised it should have been said by an Hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General), that if he was a Catholic in a country where the Protest- ant Church was established, and he had the power, he would exercise it to weaken the Established Reli- gious Government. I have too good an opinion to think so of him. If every man was to conceive himself at liberty, because he differed from the Established Religion of a country, to attempt to ^ overturn it, the general tendency of such a principle would be to destroy all peace in the world. I do not believe any good Catholic would so act — I am sure no good subject, who loves his country, ought so to act. The quescion is this — Here are persons who apply to you, not for exclusive privileges, but simply to be placed on a footing with all others of His Majesty's subjects. It is a claim of justice. If you refuse it, the burthen of proof lies on you, to to show the inconvenience or danger of granting their claim. Nothing of the sort has been proved ; you have argued ic only by referring to old times, differing from the present. The question comes to this — Whether, in the state in which we are, it can be the conduct of a wise and prudent Government to separate from itself so large a proportion of the popiihition of the country as the people of Ireland ? No Statesman, no man who can judge of the affairs of the world, will think so. I should hope that those who wish well to the country will support my mo- tion. If it should, however, unfortunately fail, we $hall all have done our duty in arguing the question, with a view to induce those to adopt our opinion, who are at present under a fatal delusion with regard to this momentous subject. I should notice one thing — it is, that you have raised this question, and not the Petition. The Petition has nothing of the seeds of turbulence in it — You will, I trust, draw the hopes of Ireland to this country — make the people of Ireland look to us as their best reliance, and prevent their recurring to any criminal measures. I should now have done, but for the observation of an Hon. Baronet. He says. Why should you give all this to the Catholics of Ireland, and not grant the same to the Catholics of England ? In the first place, the Catholics of England have not petitioned. I have no doubt as to the propriety of putting the Catholics of .England on the same footing. I have no doubt they would finally obtain the same privi- leges. Those who know tlie Catholics of England, who know the character of the lower ranks of the people, are sensible how little danger would result from the Catholic Peers sitting in the Elouse of Lords, or Catholic Members in the House of Com- mons. Every man must perceive that it v/ould be beneficial to the country, particularly at a time when every man is called upon to show his zeal in the ser- vice, and in the general cause of the Empire. I have pnly to add, in answer to an Hon. Gentleman oppo- site. 169 site, that I was in Ireland a great while ago ; but It did not appear to me that the condition of the coun- try was calculated to reconcile gentlemen who visited it to its general laws. The gentlemen of Ireland ought to be listened to with very considerable atten- tion. From what I have seen in the course of this debate, I think I shall find, on the division, that I shall have the honour of dividing with more of the gentlemen of that country than ever I had on any former occasion. I believe it will be long before the speeches we have heard from them will be forgotten. The question is important in the highest degree. The only way of putting an end to the hopes of the people of Ireland will be by creating despair ; and if ever I hear that they are deprived of those hopes they ought to entertain, I shall despair of those blessings, of that mutual good-will and reciprocal sympathy, without which England can never rely on the effectual and sincere co-operation and assist- ance of Ireland against the common enemy." At half past four in the morning the question was put on Mr. Fox's original motion ; when the House divided. Ayes - - - J24 Noes - - . 336 Majority - - - - - 212 THE END. R. Taylor and Co, Printers j 38, Shoe-Lane, Fleet-Street. 2 INDEX TO THE SPEAKERS. Albemarle, Earl of 120 Asaph, St., Bishop of - 131 Auckland, Lord - - 9. 172 Bolton, Lord - - 180 Borringdon - - 115 Buckinghamshire, Earl of 94 Camhden, Earl of - 71 Canterbury, Archbishop of 118 Carleton, Lord Carysfort, Earl of - 87 Chancellor of England 10.86.126 Cumberland, Duke of - 44 Darnley, Earl - 86. 165 Derby, Earl - - - 87 Durham, Bishop of EUcnborough, Lord - 141 Grenville, Lord 1. 9, 10, 11. 187 Harrowby, Lord FitzL^erald, Maurice, Esq. 141 Forster, Right Hon. John 110 Fox, Hon. C.J. - 1,2, 3. 150 Hawkesbury, Lord Holland, Lord - Hutchinson, Lord 10.50. sb 105 King, Lord 180 Limerick, Earl - Longford, Lord 68 Moira, Earl Mulgrave, Lord 164 - 58. 87 Norfolk, Duke of 10. 128. 136 Ormond, Earl of - 113 Redesdale, Lord - 73. 112 Sidraouth, Lord Spencer, Earl Suffolk, Earl of 52 46 sr Westmoreland, Earl 155 t5f> 148 149 146 100 84 138 122 115 Scott, Sir William - 95. 99 Shaw, Mr. - - 142 Smith, Mr. William - 82,83 HOUSE OF Addikgton, Hon. Hiley 145 Alexander, Hon. Henry 66 Archdale, Mr. - ' - 141 Attorney General - 63. 149 Blacquiere, Lord de - 149 Cartwright, Mr. - 2 Dillon, Hon. Aus. - 141 Dolhcn, SirWillmm - 150 Duigenan, Dr. - - 2. 42 COMMONS. Hawthorn, Mr. Hippeslev, Sir John Hutchinson, Hon. Ch. Hely Latouche, Mr. John Lawrence, Dr. Lee, Mr. N ewport. Sir John Pitt, Right Hon. William Ponsonby, Mr. George Grattan, Mr. 63 99 Windham, Right Hon. W. 135 APPENDIX. The following is a faithful Translation of the Que- ries submitted to the Faculties of Di%nnity in the Catholic Universities of Paris, Louvain, Dozvaj/^ Salamanca, Alcala, and Valladolid, in 1789, on the Subject of those Tenets imputed to Catholics^ of keeping no Faith with those who differ from them in Religious Tenets; and of the Power of the Pope to absolve them from their Allegiance to Protestant Princes; with the Anszvers of the said Faculties respectively thereto. 1st. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, ju* risdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of Eng- land ? 2d. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever ? 3d. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic Faith by which Catholics arejustified in not keeping faith with Heretics, or other persons ditfering from them in religious opinions in any transactions, either of a public or private nature? The Faculty of Divinity at Louvain having been requested to give her opinion upon the questions above stated, does it with rea- diness j but struck with astonishment that such questions should at the end of this 18th century be proposed to any learned body by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and discern- ment of its natives. The Faculty being assembled for the above purpose,— It as agreed, with the unanimous assent of all voices, to answer and tecond queries in the negati've. The Faculty does not think it incumbent upon her, in this place, to enter upon the proofs of her opinion, or to shew how- it is supported by passages in the Holy Scriptures, or the writings of antic[uity : that has already been done by Bos;suet, De Majca, a the 2 tTie two Barclays, Goldastiis, tho Pithacuses, Ar|cntrc, Wiclring- toii, and his Majesty Kiiin; James the First, in his Dissertation against Bellarminc and Du Perron ; and by many othen. The writers of the present limes who have treated of the independence of the civil power, have proved the above positions with abundance of learning. The Faculty esteems the following propositions to be beyond controversy. 1st. That God is the Author of the Sovereign Power of the State, in civil matters. 2d. That the Sovereign Power of the State is, in civil matters, subordinate to God alone. 3d. It follows, that the Sovereign Power of the State is in no- wise (not even indirectly, as it is termed) subject to or dependent upon any other power, though it be a spiritual power, or even though it be instituted for eternal salvation. 4th. It also follows, that no power whatsoever, even a spiritual power, or a power instituted for eternal salvation, not even a Cardinal, or a Pope, or the whole body of the Church, though assembled in general council, can deprive the Sovereign Power of the State of its temporal rights, possessions, government, jurisdiction, or pre-enlincnce ; nor subject it to any restraints or modifications, 5th. It also follows, that no man, nor any assembly of men, however eminent in dignity and power, not even the whole body of the Catholic Church, though assembled in general council, can, upon any ground or pretence whatsoever, weaken theBond of Union between the Sovereign and the People ; still less can they absolve or^free the subjects from their oath of allegiance. 6th. Therefore, as in the kingdom of England, the Sovereign Power of the State stands upon the same foundation, and its na- ture is well known. The Faculty of Divinity at Louvain has no doubt to apply what has been said before, in its utmost extent, to the kingdom and the Sovereign Power of the kingdom of Eng- land. Such is the doctrine which th-e Faculty of Divinity has imbibed from the Holy Scriptures, the Writings of the Antients, and the Records of the Primitive Church : — a doctrine she will maintain with her last breath ; and, by the help of God, will imprint it oa the minds of all her scholars. She is not ignorant that, in the middle ages, some things were done not recoiicilcable with the doctrine here laid down, and that the contrary doctrine was favourably heard by the Court of Rome, and even found its way into the councils of Kings, with some rp* ^trictions, striction, however, as appears from the saying of St. Lewis upon the proceedings of the Council of Lyons. ^ But to Bellarmine, the champion of these proceedings, we must answer in his own way ; — These things have been done : for their justice let the doers of them be answerable. (Vol 1. of liis Work* of General Controversy, lU. B. li. Ch. 29.) And when, in the History of those Ages, the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Louvain finds the evils which have been produced from the circumstances alluded to, the infinite detriment they have been to the Church and Republic of Christianity, and the rivers of blood with which they have more than once coloured the fair face of Europe, — she wishes the torch of history extinct, that this dis- grace of the Christian name might be buried in oblivion. She wishes it erased from the records of history, and would blot out the remembrance of it even with her own tears. But the doctrine of truth of the Apostles and the Church, delivered down by tra- dition from the fathers and holy Prelates, founded in the eternal nature and fitness of things, and established on the positions above mentioned, though in the times we speak of it was defaced and obscured by the filth, as it may be called, which was heaped upon it, yet it could not be obliterated ; nothing could injure it ; no arts could prescribe against it : hence, on the revival of letters, all its light and splendor were restored to it. The Faculty of Divinity of Louvain holds, — That the principles laid down by her upon the positions before stated, are not peculiar to herself ; she believes, that at this day there is no society of learned men, nor any one learned man in the whole Catholic world, who would not be ready to subscribe to them, as it is said, with both hands ; and should any one, led away by preconceived opi- nions, withhold his assent from them, she must think him a man of no leh(>d King Sedicias for breaking the alliance he had made with Nebuchadnezzar, an unbeliever, and in brea:tends indirectly, even to temporals, to the end that it may conveniently help the faithful to their spiritual end, and *' supply the defect of the temporal power, if the temporal power ** should be negligent in the execution of her duty-, or abuse the " power which is particularly true with respect to the crime of heresy, " The Pope can inflict temporal punishment on Sovereigns for " heresy, and deprive them of their kingdoms, and free their sub- ^* jects from their obedience. " The Pope hath both temporal and spiritual power by divine right/' " The Pope has, at least indirectly, a power over Princes in ** temporals, inasmuch as temporals may prove an impediment *^ to their direction of the sheep of Christ to their superna- y tural end/' " The Pope has a directory, and consequently a compulsory " power over Princes who do wrong/' If, for the common good of the Church, vvisdom and sound " reason require that temporal punishment should be inflicted on disobedient and incorrigible Princes, or even that they should be 9 ** be dethroned, the Pope has a right to punish them in that " manner/' " The Apostles were subject to their Sovereigns, de facto, — but not de jure.'* The Sacred Faculty of Divinity condemned the doctrine con- tained in these and similar propositions, " as new, false, crro- " ncous, contrary to the word of God, bringing odium on the Papal dignity, giving occasion to schism, derogatory to the " sovereign authority of Kings (which depends upon God alone) " impeding the conversion of infidel and heretical kings, as tend- " ing to disturb the public peace, to subvert Kingdoms, States, ** and Republics, to withdraw subjects from their obedience and- ** subjection, and to excite them to faction, rebellion, sedition, ^ and the murder of their Sovereigns/' In this censure the other Faculties of the University of Paris, and several other Universities in France, as Toulouse, Valence, Bourdeaux, Poitiers, Caen, and Rheiras, concurred with great applause. The Articles laid before Louis the XIV. in l663, by the Sa- cred Faculty, agree with the above censure. By them it is de- clared, " That it is the doctrine of the faculty, that the King of " France neither acknowledges nor has in temporals aiiy supe- *^ rior but God ; that this is. her ancient doctrine, from which she will never depart. Moreover, that the Faculty has always opposed, even those who were of opinion that the Pope had " in temporal concerns an indirect authority over the King of " France.'' And when in 1682, in the censure hereafter referred to, the Sacred Faculty expressly observes, That the grand principle " of thei,r doctrine (viz. that the sovereign power of Kings de- " pends upon God alone, and that no one has any right to in- " terfere in their temporal concerns) has been frequently re- " peated by them, particularly in their solemn declaration of the " year l663." This suflficiently shews that, in the declaration of l66'3, they stated nothing to the King of France but what they considered as common to him with all other Kings. Thus in l682, when Malagola interpreted the power of binding and loosing" which Christ gave to Saint Peter and his successors, as relating both to the secular and ecclesiastical power, the Sacred Faculty declared that this doctrine resolved itself into the same doctrine which she had before condemned in Santarellus; she used the very same words and the very same expressions of ce^jsure which she has used in regard of Santa- jellus^ she took that occasion to renew her censure of Santarellus ; b and 10 and striirk the name of Malagola from the list of candidates for the u^ grce of Bacliclor. Of tlic iinifonnity of our doctrine upon this head, the celebra- ted DecI.H.ifiunof the I'lvnch Clcrg}^ puLlishcd in ]()82, will |j« an eternal nioiuinient ; the first article of it is as follows; audit well expresses tlie genuine sentiments of the Faculty *' To Saint Peter and to his successors, the Vicars of Christ, and to the Church : — P(/wer was delegated by Cod in concerns " of a spiritual nature and belonging to eternal salvation but ^' not in civil or temporal concerns, as appears by the expressions " of om YjOrd: -^My kingdom is not of this 'vjorU : and again. Give, therefore unto desar those things nxjhich are Ciesar^Sy and ** those <-ujhlch are God's^ to God. On the same ground stands the saying of the Apostle :—Z