presented an humble Address, Petition, and Remonstrance of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of London in Common Hall assembled, the 21st day of May 1810; setting forth:

"That the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of the city of London, in Common Hall assembled, have witnessed, with grief and surprise, the rejection by the House of their late Address, Petition, and Remonstrance; and they beg leave humbly to declare, that in the statement it set forth of their complaints and grievances, it was their anxious wish to preserve every possible respect consistent with the honest, and, as the Petitioners then trusted, the constitutional expression of their sentiments: discouraging as such rejection may be supposed, the Petitioners cannot forego the indisputable right they possess, nor abandon the duties they owe to themselves and their country, of once more intreating the attention of the House to the heavy calamities which afflict them; the Petitioners have beheld, with indescribable concern, the extraordinary power assumed and exercised by the House, in the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. John Gale Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, a power which, in their humble conception, appears inconsistent with the free principles of the English constitution; and that, when the Petitioners contemplate this power, exemplified as it has been in the afflicting instances they have mentioned; when they consider the numerous wrongs of which they have so long complained, and which still remain unredressed; when they observe the enormous frauds, abuses, corruption, and peculation, which have so long and notoriously existed; when they mark the excessive point to which taxation has been strained; when they review the series of military enterprizes, which, after immense sacrifices of blood, honour, and treasure, have led only to disgrace and disaster; when they have seen the authors of our public calamities not only escape with impunity, but retain their official situations, they are convinced that all these deplorable evils are produced by causes constant and irresistible in their effect, and that the root of all their complaints and grievances is to be found in the defective state of the Representation of the people in the House; and the Petitioners cannot but recollect, that, in the course of the last session of parliament, events took place in the House, such as they may venture to say never before occurred in the history of parliament; offences were said to have been committed, against the House of Commons, which, from the earliest period of our parliamentary annals, by common consent, by positive laws, by uniform and consistent usage, have at all times been proclaimed the highest offences that can be committed against the dignity of the House of Commons; it was admitted by lord Castlereagh, upon a charge exhibited against him to that effect, that, being an official minister of the crown, he had attempted to employ his ministerial patronage in procuring a seat in the House; it was tendered in proof to the House, that the right hon. Spencer Perceval, another minister of state, had, in conjunction with lord Castlereagh, through the secretary to the treasury, Mr. Henry Wellesley, another member of the House, actually sold another seat in the House; yet, in both these cases of admitted enormity against the justice and dignity of the House, the House did not appear to the petitioners to adopt any measure of punishment; they therefore humbly submit, that it is to them matter of the most alarming reflection, when they observe the House so indulgent when they are insulted by the corrupt servants of the crown, and so austere when they think themselves offended by the advocates for the just rights and liberties of the people; and the petitioners further feel it their duty to state openly and frankly to the House, that, upon the matters above referred to, as well as upon various decisions of the House respecting great and vital questions to the state, it is their firm conviction that, the people of this land, and their representatives, are of opinions directly opposite; and that, without referring to other facts and circumstances universally known and admitted, as to the inadequate state of the representation, and the modes of obtaining seats in the House, the Petitioners feel themselves called upon humbly to observe that, when, they view these flagrant breaches of the constitution; when they perceive the power of the House directed against those individuals who have presumed to discuss the propriety of their proceedings, whilst no vote of expulsion, committal, or even of censure, has been passed upon the conduct of lord Castlereagh and Mr. Spencer Perceval: when they deplore the painful results of recent inquiries, the numerous failures and disappointments in which the grossest and most culpable mismanagement has been apparent to the whole nation, and recall to their minds, that the House of Commons ought to be the guardians of their lives, liberty, and property, the redressers of their wrongs, and the controulers of ministers, it plainly appearing at the same time, that no want of confidence has been manifested, no symptom of distrust evinced, no effectual inquiry instituted, but that on the contrary, a disposition has been signalized to stifle or evade every attempt to promote investigation, and to correct abuses, they cannot but exclaim, in the language of Mr. Burke, this is an unnatural and monstrous state of things; and the Petitioners consequently call upon the House for an immediate and radical reform; if it be said that reform would lead to violence and confusion, the Petitioners reply, that such insinuations are infamous and wicked libels upon the people and the blessings and benefits which the British constitution only can impart; they would ask, can the people endure such wrongs, and can they not endure to have them redressed? if it be said that corrupt influence is necessary to the government, they answer, that it would be the worst of libels upon the constitution; and if true, Englishmen ought to cease to venerate that constitution which requires corruption for its support; if it be said that reform would not relieve us from oppressive taxation, they reply, that it has been for want of. free and vigilant parliaments that all these enormous abuses and heavy burthens have arisen; that, under the present corrupt system, they must increase; and that, were the people fairly and honestly represented, they would, instead of augmenting, be gradually diminished; to such objections the Petitioners might reply, in the words of the memorable protest, signed by thirty-two peers, if the objection means to insinuate that corruption is necessary to government, we shall leave that principle to refute itself by its apparent iniquity; and the Petitioners therefore pray the House to take all these matters into their most serious consideration; and earnestly implore the House immediately to revoke all their late proceedings respecting Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett; and convinced that all the disorders of the state, the distraction and imbecility of our public councils, the abuses which have undermined the British constitution, crippled our national exertions, and now threaten the security of our venerable and beloved Sovereign's crown and dominions, have arisen from the causes the Petitioners have described, they beseech the House to apply the only remedy for these alarming evils, by a speedy and effectual reform of the representation of the people in parliament."—Ordered to lie upon the table.

rose in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to a question of no less importance than whether or not the subject should obtain in a court of justice redress for the wrong he suffered, or maintenance in the right he possessed. It was for the House to consider, if, in the increased state of the commerce of the country and of its attendant opulence, the assistance which the subject received in the court of chancery to redress that wrong, or to maintain that right, ought not to be greater than that which he received 200 years ago. If it should appear that, notwithstanding every exertion made by the noble and learned lord who presided in that court, by the subordinate judges, and by the masters in chancery, the pressure of business was such that human strength was inadequate to its discharge, it would become the House to devise a remedy for the evil. Nothing could be farther from his view than to state any thing invidiously with respect to his noble and learned friend who held the great seal. No man could be more attentive to the discharge of his duties. He had stamped more bills in the court of chancery and in the House of Lords than any of his predecessors. To his noble and learned friend, therefore, it was by no means his intention to impute the slightest blame. Nor did he wish for useless innovation. The nature of the precise remedy it would be for the wisdom of the House to determine. All that he had to state was, that if they looked at the condition' of the numerous suitors who had been many years necessarily waiting for the decision of the court of chancery, little argument would be necessary to show that some remedy ought to be applied. It was impossible, without giving to the advocates of parliamentary reform a more tenable ground than they had hitherto occupied, to allow that the House of Commons, properly constituted, and sitting for the benefit of the people, could permit such an evil to grow without some attempt to check or to correct it. Magna Charta declared that justice should be administered to the people "freely," "fully," and "speedily." What, however, was the state of the present business in the court of chancery? There were near 140 orders on the paper, the arrears of many years; and it was well known, that at most five or six were heard in each term! The appeals before the House of Lords were also so numerous, that, on a fair calculation, it would take little less than eight years to determine them. At the commencement of the present session, the number of those appeals was 205. In the first i4 days of the session, 44 new appeals had been presented to the House of Lords; since that period 20 had been presented; so that there were 269 appeals then pending before the House of Lords, without including the writs of error! Was this a fit situation for a suitor to be placed in? In a criminal court, in a court of common law, justice was immediate; but in the court of chancery, delay had become so proverbial, that no man began a suit in it with the expectation of concluding it in less than ten years. The lord chancellor, he must repeat, was in no degree to blame, as he had other and important business to attend to. The master of the rolls (to whom the utmost credit was due, for his laborious attention to the duties of his high office) had quite enough to do. Constituted as the court now was, therefore, it was impassible that effectual relief could be granted to the suitors. Superadded to the common business of the court, to the protecting the superintendence of the affairs of infants, lunatics, &c. the lord chancellor had to hear appeals from the commissioners of bankrupts, a source of business which had unfortunately of late become a fertile one. Where one day had formerly been occupied in this manner, five days were now set apart for that purpose. After stating several strong cases in which, to his personal knowledge, the most injurious delay had been sustained by suitors in the court of chancery, and by appellants to the House of Lords, the hon. gent. proceeded to observe, that, in his opinion, a division of the offices which the lord chancellor held might probably afford some alleviation of the evil. The office of a judge in bankrupt cases might possibly be separated with advantage from that of the lord chancellor. If the emoluments of lord chancellor and speaker of the House of Lords conjoined have not been thought sufficient without the addition of those resulting from the situation of judge on bankrupt cases, 4 or 5,000l. a year might be granted to supply the deficiency. Some persons perhaps might think that the office of speaker of the House of Lords ought to be separated from the offices held by the lord chancellor. He did not, however, affect to propose any specific remedy; he had merely thrown out these suggestions for the consideration of parliament, but he declared his determination never to abandon the subject while he had a seat in that House. He regretted that the business had not fallen into the hands of one more competent to treat it with ability, and concluded by moving, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the arrears of causes now remaining for hearing in the court of chancery, and to report the same to the House, with their opinion as to the best mode of relieving the suitors; and that the said Committee do inspect the journals of the House of Lords to ascertain the number of appeals and writs of error."

, though he was fully persuaded that his hon. and learned friend was influenced only by motives of public duty in bringing forward this subject, yet recommended him to withdraw his motion for the present,—a step which would not prevent him from renewing it at any future period, should he find that the evils of which he complained continued to exist, and that no measure had been adopted to obviate them. Situated as he had long been in the court of chancery, it was impossible for him not to do to the noble and learned lord who at present held the great seal the justice to which he was so fully entitled. It did not appear to him to be possible that any man could ever have devoted himself more completely to the public service than that noble lord had done in the performance of the difficult, arduous, and important duties which he had been called upon to discharge. He felt himself the more at liberty to offer this impartial testimony to the merits of the noble and learned lord, as he had not the honour of any closer connexion with him, than that which in the discharge of his professional duties the business of the court necessarily induced. Adverting however to the question before the House, he observed, that one very material reason which might have produced an increased delay in the proceedings of the court of chancery, was a considerable alteration that had gradually taken place in the form of those proceedings. Perhaps no time had occurred in which such delays as those mentioned by his hon. and learned friend did not exist. They were frequently attributable to the agents of the suitors rather than to the court, which thus unjustly because unfoundedly incurred the popular censure. But however great might be the evil, the mode proposed by his hon. and learned friend did not appear to him to be the remedy best calculated to remove it. The venerable antiquity of the situation of Lord Chancellor—its high importance in the state—its close connexion with the Crown, made it a subject which those who, without meaning any imputation on his hon. and learned friend, were, perhaps, more experienced than he could possibly be, trembled to touch. He allowed, however, that some remedy might be necessary. He had no doubt, after the notice which the motion of his hon. and learned friend occasioned, that the noble and learned lord would himself give to the subject all the attention which it demanded. He had no doubt also that it would excite the attention of the other members of his Majesty's government. If a legislative proceeding should in consequence be judged necessary, he was sure that no consideration of emolument would be allowed to stand in the way of any remedial measure.—At the present period of the session, when every thing indicated its approaching close, it would be impracticable, even were a Committee appointed, that it could make any progress useful to the public. But, he conceived, that the subject ought in any case to be left to the deliberation of those persons whose authority and experience qualified them most eminently to investigate it as it deserved. He repeated therefore his recommendation to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his motion.

thought, without going into any great detail on the subject, it must be obvious to every one that there were great arrears in the court of chancery. This circumstance was felt by no one more than by the noble lord who had been mentioned. If it would be any satisfaction to the hon. gent., he could inform him that the subject had been taken into serious consideration. There appeared to be no way of remedying the evil complained of, but by bringing the subject before the House, and letting those with whom the evil originated know, that unless the recurrence of such causes of complaint were prevented, proper measures would be taken for proceeding against them. Throughout the business it was most satisfactory to find the noble lord had taken special care to preserve from injury those individuals whose interests might be endangered by the regulations of the court.

appealed to the candour and good sense of the House, if it was likely he should have made his motion had the statement of his hon. friend been made before. All he had asked, and all he wanted, was that the subject should be fairly taken into consideration, and proper means provided to remove the grievance and prevent its recurrence. After what had passed therefore, he should, With the leave of the House, consent to withdraw his motion, wishing it at the same time, to be understood, that if proper steps were not taken to remedy the evil, he would renew it early next session. The motion was then withdrawn.

rose and spoke to the following purport:—Sir—I feel it my duty to offer myself to the notice of the House at as early a period as is permitted, because I have not merely to state my own sentiments, but those of the respectable body which I have the honour of representing, and by whom I am instructed to state their opposition to the prayer of the petitioners. They have been given to understand that their late election of a Chancellor has been considered in this House as implying a departure from those principles which they professed upon the subject, when it formerly came under discus- sion. The compliment paid them by the hon. mover upon this proof of increased liberality they beg to decline, though with all private respect for the quarter from which it comes. Of that election it becomes me to speak with peculiar reserve, but I can say without offence, that the success of the noble person was produced by other causes and for other merits than those which have any connection with the Catholic cause. My constituents object to these petitions, because they consider them as injurious to the civil and religious establishments of their country, and I state this with the more satisfaction, as it is an opinion which is in unison with my own.

The Petitions before the House pray an unqualified removal of all legal incapacities under which the Catholics of Ireland labour. They offer no conditions,—no securities whatever: they manifest no disposition to do so, nor any inclination to submit to any conditions that are offered, or to give any securities that may be required; and it is upon these unqualified petitions proposed that we should go into a Committee.

To enter into a statement of general principles applying to these subjects, which have been so long and so recently discussed, would be an unjust invasion of the time of the House. The practical wisdom of mankind has pretty generally acquiesced in the opinion that it is fit that there should be a national religion connected with the state, but with a liberal toleration for those who are of different religious persuasions, not affecting the safety of the general establishments of the country. Upon these principles the constitution of our own country has rested in its best and most enlightened times.—It has prospered under their influence; and a constitution so formed, and so happily prosperous in its effects, ought not to be hazarded but for causes the gravest in their own nature, the most defined in their extent, the most pressing in their necessity, and the most assured in the beneficial consequences which are expected to result from them.

Upon the subject of connection between the civil and religious establishments, it rather appeared to me, that the right hon. mover did not very exactly adhere to the same principles in every part of his very eloquent speech. Certainly in a part of it he had laid down principles that pretty strongly militated against the legality of such a connection. He laid down, in broad terms, that religion was a matter entirely between the conscience of the individual and the Creator; that the state had nothing to do with it; that where it did interfere it wandered out of its proper functions, and encroached upon the sovereignty of the Supreme Being. But he did likewise admit in another part of his speech, that "If a hostile army was now to land in Ireland, whilst the Pope was in his present condition, that the spiritual authority of that pontiff might be most formidably employed against the safety of that country;" and how? by the influence which that spiritual authority has over the consciences of Catholics. If so, he admits the position, that religious opinions may possibly be attended with civil dangers, that the state has an interest in checking, and a right to check the activity of such opinions; a right to employ means of self defence, to consult its own safety, and certainly not to entrust the holders of such opinions with such portions of its own civil authority as may, under possible circumstances, be applied to its ruin. If so, what becomes of the unqualified assertion, that the state has nothing to do with the religious opinions of its subjects. It is admitted that there are possible and not very improbable cases, in which it must possess and exercise the right. Attributing to the latter part of that speech, all the praise of eloquence that belonged to it, I cannot but think that the merit of just, and correct, and guarded opinion, belonged pre-eminently to the former.

To another part of the right hon. gent.'s speech I shall advert but shortly likewise; that is, to the part of it connected with the immediate history of Ireland, and to the unhappy contests which have taken place at different times in that country. I decline entering into a subject painful in its nature, and which can hardly be touched without exciting sensations which I should be very unwilling to revive for a moment. He has painted in strong colours the oppressions under which the Catholics of that country had laboured; but may I be permitted to ask if it is quite fair to represent all these as the effects of Protestant aggression; without any provocation of any species? at any time? and consequently without any justification or excuse? Has nothing taken place within the two last centuries that might, to an eager mind, furnish materials for unkind reflections upon their opponents? Has no- thing passed within the memory of the youngest gentleman in this House, that might not suggest something of the same kind to those who would be disposed to use it? I am confident the House will hardly deem it just in reviewing the history of that country, to confine all the blame to one party, or to think it right that all the transactions of the one should be forgotten, whilst those of the other are to be recorded in brass or marble. I agree in the principle that all should be mutually forgiven. That all should be forgotten may be more questionable in considering a measure of prospective regulation. To turn one's back entirely upon all history and all experience has not usually been deemed an act of true political wisdom.

I now pass to what is more properly the object of our present consideration; the petitions themselves and the motion proposed by the right hon. member. The petitions, as I observed, propose nothing but an unqualified repeal, and they do this in perfect conformity to their former applications; and the motion for a Committee does not itself propose any thing more. But the right hon. mover, in his speech, opens another view of things; for he expressly states that the appointment of this Committee, is for the purpose of considering the terms on which the petitions are to be complied with, the right hon. mover admitting, without reserve, that without terms this compliance cannot be given. It does not occur to me that in any of the former discussions upon this subject, this was ever before admitted or suggested; the arguments of the right hon. gent., and of those who argued in favour of the petitions, adhered closely to the prayer of the petitions, by contending for the propriety of an unqualified repeal, as matter of clear unqualified right and justice. The discovery that it ought to be limited by conditions is rather recent; and I should have been glad to have learnt what circumstances have led to it. Certainly no substantial change in the condition of the pontiff, who was at that time as much under the dominion of the French emperor as at present, the only perceivable difference being, that he was then in liberâ custodiâ, and he is now, unfortunately, in arctâ custodiâ; the power and influence of Napoleon, to be exercised upon his mind, was as formidable at that time as now; and the influence of the Pope himself over the minds of Catholics, has, I presume, undergone no alteration. I am at a loss, therefore, to find what it is that rendered the unqualified repeal so highly expedient at that time, and so totally inadmissible at the present.

Suppose, however, the Committee formed, what is to be their employment? to take into consideration petitions which the right hon. mover deems it impossible to comply with, unless accompanied with qualifications. Are they to take into consideration petitions acknowledged by the mover to be inadmissible upon their own terms, and then to try their luck in finding out conditions on which they might deem it safe to comply, but which conditions there is no reason whatever for supposing the petitioners will accept? I think we have every reason to infer from the language of the petitions, that no such change has taken place in the minds of the petitioners, as I have remarked in the arguments of their advocates; they do not seem to have hit upon the discovery that conditions are now indispensable; their demand of the repeal is still unconditional. The conclusion therefore is, that if both parties are consistent, the appointment of a committee can lead to nothing. Because if the committee acts upon the principle of exacting conditions, it will in effect negative, the petition; and if the committee does not exact them, the petitioners must negative the result of the committee's labours.

The right hon. mover has acted fairly by the House, in declaring what is the species of security he would require, viz. a domestic nomination of their prelates, which he conceived would be a complete defence against the dreaded interposition of French influence over the Catholics of Ireland. Was the right hon. mover enabled to give any assurance that this security would be furnished? No such thing: the hon. gent. has only rested upon his own reasonings, that it was fit it should be furnished, and thence inferred that it might probably be expected. But surely he cannot have forgot how little, in the event at least, the same premises led to the same conclusion, upon the proposition of the Veto. He has with great force contended that that would be the most natural and safe security that could be resorted to;—the fittest therefore to be adopted; and yet he has admitted without reserve, that to obtain that is a groundless expectation. Considerations of propriety and fitness, therefore, (as they strike his mind) are no sufficient grounds for a rational expectation of success in the offer. What reason has he to hope that the proposition he wishes to substitute would meet with a better fate and fortune than his favoured Veto?

I confess, that without knowing distinctly the grounds on which the right hon. gent. builds his hopes, it appears to me infinitely less probable that this scheme of domestic nomination would be acceded to by the Catholics, than the rejected Veto. It was not very exactly, or indeed at all set forth in such a detail as could at all instruct us in the real nature of the remedy proposed, how this domestic nomination was to be exercised. Is the power of nomination to reside in the other prelates of the church? Are they expected to nominate independently of the Pontiff, from whom they derive their own spiritual authority? Is it at all likely that they would concur in a form of appointment so little consonant to the general sense and constitution of their church? If the laity are to share in the nomination, would that be less than an entire schismatical defection from the whole of their ecclesiastical establishment? And gentlemen will remember that the discipline and constitution of their church make neither a small nor an insignificant part of the religious faith of that communion. They are fundamental points—matters of high and important orthodoxy; the unity of the church, the regular devolution of authority from the sovereign pontiff to the prelates, to be by them communicated to inferior pastors, are essentially connected with the most vital offices of religion. Is it to be supposed that all this would be sacrificed by the general body of the Catholics of Ireland for the attainment of the present object? I see nothing in the history of that people that should induce us to expect it.—They rejected the Veto with horror and disdain; I honour them for a conscientious adherence to the principles of their faith in so rejecting it.—But I must honestly confess, that the reverence which I feel for that conduct would be much diminished, if I saw that they were disposed to adopt the present proposal, which goes to a much wider departure from the doctrines of that church, than the proposition of the Veto Itself. The Veto, if admitted, would give his Majesty merely a negative; and this, I think, has been rightly enough admitted by Dr. Milner to be a "mere shadow," a thing of shew, but of no real efficacy. But this proposal of a domestic nomination, (however that is designed to be executed, of which as yet we have received no information) instead of merely giving his Majesty a concurrent jurisdiction, shoulders the pontiff entirely out of the business, and devolves it into hands which are as yet unknown from any description with which the right honourable gentleman has favoured us. In such a course of things, what becomes of the sovereignty of the pontiff, or the unity of the church! If I can judge from any thing that I have been able to collect respecting the faith of that church, I repeat the assertion without any diffidence, that the proposal suggested is at a much wider distance from the principles entertained by the Catholics on such subjects, than the Veto itself, and therefore that there is much less probability of its acceptance.

Before I pursue this matter further, I wish to be informed by the right hon. gent., how he proposes that this measure is to be carried into effect in a manner consistent with Catholic principles; for proposing to carry it into effect upon other principles would amount to little in point of real utility. I could not but observe (he will excuse the remark) that he slurred over the matter of confirmation and investiture in rather a rapid and indistinct manner, as a matter unworthy of our deliberate consideration. I cannot quite agree to that view of the matter: but before I come to that, I beg to ask him, how this machine of domestic nomination is to be put upon the wheels? Is the pontiff to be consulted, or is he not? If he is to be consulted, how can that be done in his present captivity? Can he accept any concordat but such as is dictated by his gaoler Napoleon? And I beg to ask what sort of concordat is likely to be approved by that inexorable oppressor, which comes to him under the description, that it is intended to prevent the success of French interference in Ireland! Let any man weigh that question and its probable solution in his own mind. Supposing such a concordat not made, is this Catholic church in Ireland to usurp the functions of this pontiff, whilst he is languishing in an obscure and helpless captivity, without his knowledge and approbation? Can any man venture such a supposition against all historical, all theological knowledge? What! take to themselves the peculiar attributes of that personage, on account of his temporal cala- mities! I answer, I observe no indication of such a disposition on the part of the Catholics of Ireland: I see no inclination to withdraw from their allegiance to the person whom they consider certainly as their spiritual sovereign or to usurp upon his prerogatives, because he is under the lash of a tyrant, who in terms replete with perjury and falsehood professes to respect him. I see no such inclination in the Catholic laity of Ireland; still less in their Catholic bishops. I know that there are in all religious persuasions men who sit loose enough to the distinctive opinions of their sect, or, as the fashionable phrase is, are extremely liberal on the subject of opinions of that nature. There are likewise persons in this particular communion of Christians, highly respectable in their rank and situations in life, and for whom, in consequence of much private intercourse, I have all possible respect, also entertain a system of opinions in which I must believe them to be perfectly sincere, though I must consider those opinions to be, as far as my own individual judgment goes, collected as it has been from the perusal and consideration of canons and other ancient writings, not so clearly reconcileable with the principles of the Catholic church. But if the matter were even so clear that their opinions were perfectly reconcileable with the proper dogmas of the Catholic church, still I maintain that the opinions expressed by the bishops and pastors of that church, supposing them to be ever so erroneous, are those by which the faithful in that church are likely to be governed, and that those opinions exclude all hope that this project of domestic nomination can be acceded to by the general body of Catholics in Ireland. The bishops and pastors are, according to the principles of that church, the depositaries and organs of its faith under the pontiff; and if their judgments upon the matter differ from those of the noblemen and gentlemen who are willing to negociate upon terms, there can be little doubt whose judgment will prevail with the general body of Catholics. What the judgments of those persons are upon this matter, may be learnt from a pamphlet lately published by their accredited agent, himself a prelate of the church, and certainly a person of considerable learning, and of an intrepid sincerity in thy avowal of his opinions. I mean Dr. Milner. In that publication it is stated, "That you may as well attempt to pluck a beam from the sun, as attempt to touch a fibre of the spiritual authority of the pope; that the attempt to divide the Catholics from the pope is a monstrous experiment; that it is giving them the shell, and refusing them the kernel." Now if such are the Catholic doctrines of Ireland, what hope is there that the present proposition can be realized? Would it not be asking these people to surrender their consciences, and declare themselves not Catholics? When you attempt, without a real conversion, to strip a Catholic of the opinions which he holds amongst the most sacred tenets of his church, how much do you propose to leave in that person either of a real Catholic or of an honest man?

Suppose, however, all these original and fundamental difficulties surmounted, how is the intercourse that is absolutely necessary for the purposes of confirmation and investiture to be maintained? Certainly not without the permission of the person in whose custody he is; and the permission that may be granted, may likewise be refused. Is it at all likely that that person will concur in executing a plan, the avowed purpose of which is the total exclusion and interference of his? In fact, the whole of the proposed arrangement seems to me to project little less than the transfer to Buonaparté of that power of the Veto which the Catholics upon conscientious principles have refused to allow to their own lawful sovereign.

In every view in which I can contemplate the project, it is impracticable and hopeless, as far as the Catholics are concerned. Whether if it were practicable, it is that in which Protestants should acquiesce with entire satisfaction, is a question which I do not think necessary to discuss at present. The right hon. gent. admits that it is not the most eligible security; he would prefer another, but this is something better than nothing as he represents it. Whether we ought to consider it as a sufficient security against that overbearing influence which the hierarchy of that church exercises over its members, and is surely not unlikely to exercise against the interests and safety of the Protestant, or, as they call it, the non-catholic church. According to our notions, we have cleared our religious system from the impurities which it had contracted during the darkness of the barbarous ages: according to our notions, they unhappily lost the favourable opportunity of accom- plishing the same work. Their notions give a very different representation of things; they consider us as the corrupters of the true faith. With the prejudice which such an opinion inspires, supported by the influence which the governors of their church possess, I am by no means prepared to say that this domestic nomination could be accepted as a sufficient security, even if all foreign influence, with its attendant dangers, was out of the case. It might, even in that state of things, be a grave question, looking to the natural hostility of that system of religion to that which has supplanted it in civil establishment, and to the spiritual power over conscience which that system maintains, by the use of all the means by which the minds of men can be forcibly affected. We are to remember, that the pastors of that church are not like the obscure teachers of petty obscure conventicles, with little influence, and dependent on the fancies of temporary congregations: they compose a numerous and embodied hierarchy, acting by a regular and permanent system, tending to a common purpose by an application of the most powerful means. Something more might be requisite, under such circumstances, for the safety of the Protestant establishment, than this domestic nomination. But when you combine with this the apprehensions arising out of foreign influence directly hostile to every interest which the state is bound to protect from danger, and the impossibility of excluding that influence by any barrier which this measure proposes to erect, I cannot for a moment hesitate to give this motion a decided negative. It calls for a committee to consider a proposal which appears to be unattainable in itself, and which if it could be attained, would not give that security to the state and to its establishments which they have a right to demand, and a duty to maintain, against the dangers of probable aggression.

. I rise, Sir, immediately after the learned gentleman, with a view of shewing that the charge he has thrown out against gentlemen on this side the House, of changing our mode of argument, is not imputable to us, however applicable it may be to those who now resist the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and that it is those only who have always opposed these claims, that now seek new grounds for their resistance, as all their former arguments have been completely and repeatedly refuted. Much of their former scruples were founded upon his Majesty's coronation oath, but this ground they have now completely abandoned, and they change their resistance into merely refusing a committee. It must be obvious, indeed, to any gentleman who will only look back to the circumstances under which that oath was framed, that no such construction is applicable as would warrant those scruples founded upon it. It was the opinion of lord Sommers, sir Edward Lyttleton, and all the first authorities, at the time when the bill under which this oath was framed, passed, that no such intention was thereby expressed, as the taking away any right of persons professing, the Catholic religion, or the imposing any obligation upon his Majesty to repress the Catholic worship, or to exclude any Catholic from civil employments under a certain degree;—and so said Mr. Finch, so said sir Robert Cotton, and all the leading authorities of that party who framed the oath. That ground, however, has been laid aside by the opposers of the Catholics, as being found no longer tenable. The motion of my right hon. friend, at present, is merely for the purpose of enquiring what mode of redress can be devised for relieving the oppressions and calming the discontents of four millions of his Majesty's loyal subjects; and it is refused, not upon any ground of justice or policy;—not upon any pretence of impeaching the loyalty of the Catholics, but upon the evasive manœuvre of going into imputed dogmas of the Catholic religion. I would appeal to the sound policy and common sense of the House, whether this be a ground upon which it ought to refuse the motion, and thereby to risk losing the attachment of four millions of subjects, whose zeal and valour are so indispensable at all times, and more especially at this awful crisis, for the common defence of the empire? I ask, is it consistent with the justice, the liberality, or the character of this House, when so many millions of your fellow subjects submit to you, as the ground of their claims, the consideration of their long tried loyalty and attachment to the state, illustrated by their conduct for more than a century, and on numberless occasions sealed with their blood in your cause, through every region in the world; to tell them—"we cannot redress you, we cannot grant you the restoration of those civil rights you claim, because your reli- gious faith is obnoxious to us;—and unless you will first state to us what part of your principles you are willing and ready to surrender, we will not even go into a committee, to enquire what we may think it expedient to ask from you, or to grant of what you claim." Why, Sir, I beg leave to say that I do not think it is incumbent on the Catholics to make such a statement on their parts. It is, on the contrary, for those who resist their claims, to state to the Catholics upon what conditions, if upon any, they are willing to comply with the prayer of their petition. They state that their birth-rights, as British subjects, have been taken away from them at a former period; they call upon us to restore those rights; and they add, "our claims are grounded upon our long-tried loyalty and attachment to the King and constitution, which entitle us to call on you to rid us of our restraints:"—and yet, Sir, we are desired by those who resist these claims, to reject this petition, and refuse even going into a committee, to enquire how far it is even possible for us to comply with the request, or any part of it. Let us remember, Sir, that the Catholics of Ireland enjoyed these rights they now claim long after a Protestant government was established in these realms: and yet, when we are asked to enquire respecting the necessity of restoring them, we are told it is useless to enquire about that which it would be inconsistent with the safety of a Protestant state to grant. Sir, I deny the fact, and I assert, on the contrary, that the establishment both of church and state, must fall, unless the last of these galling restrictions be abrogated. You cannot expect the attachment or the zealous support of men in your common defence, who are debarred of rights which you exclusively enjoy, and are precluded from rising to the high ranks of professions to which their talents and characters may entitle them. It is to this grand stimulus of honourable ambition and natural ideas, that this and every country in Europe are indebted for the greatest heroes and statesmen that adorn their annals; and you can never have a Marlborough amongst your Catholic armies, while you maintain this invidious, and prescriptive principle of exclusion. What would not these Catholics have done for you, had they been admitted to the blessings of your constitution, whose fame has gilded the annals of France, Spain, and Austria, and whose talents have adorned the camps and councils of those hostile states into whose service, they have been driven by your narrow prejudices and unnatural policy,—to follow the bent of their genius, and receive those rewards and distinctions for their talents, which they were indignantly refused at home. You extol the valour of those O'Neills and O'Donnels in the service of Spain, whom you have rejected from your own. You are lavish in the praises of Irish Catholics in foreign services, fighting in the cause of your allies, but you refuse them reception and rank at home, in the country they wish to defend. But upon what ground, Sir, are the Catholics of Ireland to be distrusted? or why suspected of attachment to France? I ask, into what country of Europe have you gone, in which you have not found Irish Catholics in the armies of yourselves or your allies righting with distinguished valour against France? I come to another point: the bar. Why have you cut the Catholic off there from rising by his talents to that rank and honour, which are the most forcible stimulants to ability, and the just meed of merit:—for while the honours and rewards of that profession are open to all other sects, the Catholic alone is precluded from receiving the honorary appointments of a King's counsel or a King's sergeant. Would he be more dangerous in a silk gown, than in one of serge? What peculiar formidability to the state can there exist in a Catholic barrister, when put into the shape of a King's counsel or sergeant?—and yet even from these honorary distinctions they are precluded. With respect to the army in Ireland, you admit, while the regiments remain in that country, Catholic officers to a certain limited degree of rank—but the moment they are transferred to this country, or any other, they forfeit this privilege unless they renounce their religion: of what use, then, to the state, is the admission of Catholic officers or Catholic soldiers under so limited a principle? Sir, it is not only in this country that the Irish Catholic officers and soldiers forfeit the privilege of the Irish statute for allowing them the free exercise of their religion. To my certain knowledge, complaints of the most serious kind have reached this country from Sicily, that although in the midst of a Catholic country, and that in the country of an ally whom those troops are sent to defend with (their blood, yet the Irish Catholic soldiers are strictly pre- cluded from the exercise of their religion; many of them have been flogged for practising its worship. Their clergy have been refused all admittance on intercourse with them—and where they have ventured to appear in British quarters, they have been ordered to quit within twenty-four hours, on pain of incurring military punishment. I understand it is alledged, that this order was not made for any particular preclusion to the Catholic soldiers, but upon general principles. But, Sir, if upon any pretence faith, is thus broken with the Catholic soldier, and notwithstanding the pledge of law under which he devotes his life to your service, he is thus debarred the exercise of his religion, what can you expect from him, at best, but a languid and passive obedience to the orders of his leader, instead of that gallant ardour and patriotic zeal which a liberal confidence, and above all, a faithful adherence to the condition of his services, would not fail to promote. Give the Catholic but the same encouragement and he will embark in his country's, cause with as much ardour and energy as the Protestant can:—and why not, when of the same society, formed of the same materials, and animated by the same manly and natural feelings? I do not mean to depreciate the courage or patriotism of his Protestant fellow soldiers: but sink them to the same level of degradation and injustice with their Catholic comrades,—and I ask you, could you expect from them the same zeal and attachment they now feel for the cause in which they fight? Sir, it is not human nature; and if promotion and honourable distinction be the grand stimulus to the display of great valour, and the acquirement of great military skill, they are as necessary, and will be as effectual with one sect as they can be with the other. But, Sir, even under all the discouragements that I have stated, the Catholics of Ireland have embarked heartily in our cause: we have been obliged to acknowledge it over and over again—and we cannot deny that they have deserved well of their country: but really, the system pursued towards them would seem to emanate from a desire to prevent their doing better.—Sir, this is not all—nor does the principle of preclusion stop at the point up, to which I have already stated—for it has been even carried to the invidious length, not only of excluding them from the office of bank directors in Ireland, but even to the pitiful extreme of precluding them from becoming sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, not to mention all the municipal honours of cities and corporation towns. What, then, must the Catholic of Ireland have felt under a system of oppressive and degrading preclusions in his native land, founded on imputations not to be traced to any part of his conduct or principles? It is true, Sir, that under the increased experience and growing liberality of the Irish legislature, many of the penal statutes have been repealed, and many of the prejudices done away, through the liberality of their Protestant brethren; but the legislature ought no longer to tell the Catholic that any portion of his liberty or toleration is to depend upon the discretion of others, but to give him at once a legal security for the whole. Believe me, Sir, that on the conditions of the Union, you have a sacred pledge to redeem. You promised them, in every thing short of a bond, to give them full emancipation so soon as that measure was accomplished; and it was upon this pledge you obtained from them that support to the measure, without which you could not have effected it, and which they would never have been induced to support upon any other condition. Mr. Pitt said at the time: "We are a divided people, distracted, weakened and torn by religious dissensions, which, under existing circumstances, must be interminable.—So long as England and Ireland were under separate governments, it would be impossible to concede those claims, which justice and generosity might grant under a different order of things." Such were the words of the great author of the Union, and the principle upon which alone he objected to this measure. The justice of the Catholic claims were therefore fully admitted by that great statesman, whose objections are now quoted in support of refusing them; and however dangerous the discussion might be thought before the Union, that he thought it no longer so, after that measure was accomplished, I shall shew by the most indubitable testimony; for, in two years after the Union, Mr. Pitt declared his opinion that an extension of the rights of the Protestant to the Catholic was then innocent and safe. He illustrated the sincerity of his opinion by the resignation of his office, on feeling himself unable to accomplish a measure to which his administration stood solemnly pledged. Yet, Sir, this is the tenth year which has elapsed since the Union; and when the Catholics at this day come forward to claim the promised redress, those very persons who profess to admire the wisdom, the policy, and the principles of Mr. Pitt, refuse even to enquire into the justice of those claims, or the policy on which they are rested.

It is said, Sir, that the Catholics have not chalked out any concessions which they are ready to make, in order to justify us in conceding to their claims. Why, Sir, they never had reason to conceive it was necessary to urge any other ground than their tried loyalty and attachment to the state and constitution, which nobody presumes to question, but all profess to admit. It is for those, then, who oppose them, to state the terms upon which they are willing to concede. It is the right and duty of the legislature to state the terms, and leave it for the option of the party petitioning to accept the concession under such restraints as may be proposed to them. And every man must see the policy of granting those rights, at a time when they would secure to us the grateful attachment of the Catholics, and not defer the boon until the cause which would render it valuable should no longer exist. It is no time, when their aid can be no longer useful to resist your enemy, to grant the terms which would now bind them to your cause. Nor is the moment that you want their support, the time at which you should begin to conciliate their confidence and affection. It is not by broken faith that you can secure the loyalty which the Catholics profess. You cannot expect to unite in your cause equal zeal from men between whom there exists such disparity of interests. You are not to hope that men are to be conciliated, by cajoling them out of the expectations they formed on your promises. Such ideas are not founded in the principles of human nature. The same man cannot make the same exertions, if he is not animated by the same hopes:—but give men a common feeling in the same common cause, which the Catholics claim from you—and you will have every ground of reliance upon their gratitude and their zeal.

Sir, I shall not trespass longer upon the patience of the House, than by noticing an observation which has been made by the opponents of the Catholics; namely, that emancipation is not desired by the great body of the people, as its beneficial effects could not extend to the lower orders, beyond what they at present enjoy. Why, Sir, how many men have we seen even in these countries, who have attained the highest characters and dignities, in the law, for instance, who have derived their origin from the very lowest ranks of society? It is natural talents, which neither rank nor education can bestow, that are thus cut off from all advantages derivable from the right of nature and the privilege of genius. I cannot better state the opinions of the Catholics, than in the words of their own petition, in which they state: "that of which they have cause to complain, as the source of daily humiliation, namely, the impassable line of separation drawn between them and their Protestant fellow subjects, which constantly divides the nation, and keeps animosity alive; while they regard the emancipation for which they ask, as a boon above all price, and for the absence of which there can be no compensation." Sir, if I am not mistaken, my right hon. friend has urged this argument in the splendid speech in which he introduced this motion,—and I trust he will make it, as he ought to do, the basis for his future proceedings.

apologized to the right hon. mover for troubling him with a question, but, circumstanced as he was, and bound up by the instructions of his constituents, it was absolutely necessary that he should have some intimation as to his future intentions. The right hon. gent. in his opening speech had declared himself decidedly in favour of the Veto; concurring most cordially with him in this sentiment, he desired to know, whether in the event of his succeeding in his motion, it was the right hon. gent.'s intention to propose that measure, and make it the basis on which to proceed. Should the answer be in the affirmative, which he sincerely hoped it would, he (Mr. Knox) would vote with him for going into the Committee; If otherwise, he should be under the necessity, in conformity with the letter and spirit of his instructions, of opposing him. He would not, at the present, press the right hon. gent. for an answer, but hoped, in the course of the debate, he would be so good as to give him satisfaction on the point, as according to the answer he should receive, his vote would be regulated.

said that he could not reconcile it to his sense of duty to give a silent vote on the present important question; he was the more desirous of delivering his sentiments, as circumstances had occurred since the subject was last under consideration, which deserved the most serious notice; he regretted to find that increased obstacles to the measure of extending further political indulgences to the Catholics had arisen out of their own conduct and declarations; obstacles, which from his former intercourse with the body were matter to him of equal surprise and regret.

Considerations, which it was unnecesary for him now to detain the House with repeating, had precluded him from giving his support to any of the various motions which had been submitted to parliament since the Union, for extending constitutional privileges to the Catholics; his sentiments, however, in favour of the principle of the measure, coupled with adequate arrangements for the security of the constitution in church and state, had always been unequivocally declared. It was an opinion formed upon much reflection, and nothing had occurred to shake his conviction on that subject: he had supported, the Union from a persuasion that it was calculated not only to put an end to the various political dangers and anomalies of distinct legislatures, in the same empire, but, as opening the only means of adopting, with safety to our establishments, a more comprehensive and liberal system of government.

He had never considered that the claims of the Catholics to further indulgences rested upon a claim of a right, as had been urged by the right hon. baronet (sir John Newport. He had always protested against such a principle, had considered that their claims could only be constitutionally argued on grounds of expediency, and so far as they might be consistent with the stability of the constitution, more especially the ecclesiastical branch of it; he had always resisted political concessions to the Roman Catholics in the parliament of Ireland (having voted in 1793 against the grant of the elective franchise), from a persuasion that, so long as Ireland was governed by a distinct legislature, a participation in political power, with a sect, composing, as it did, the majority of the whole population, was utterly inconsistent with the security of the established church, and with the tranquil administration of our affairs.

It was the measure of union to which he had looked, as alone calculated, by placing the whole fabric of the government, civil and ecclesiastical, upon the basis of a cor- responding population, to enable the state to adopt a course of greater political indulgence to the Catholics; but, in looking to such a system, it never had been his opinion, nor that of his late right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt), that such concessions could be made without qualifications and restrictions; it had been, on the contrary, their deliberate and declared opinion, that they could only be thought of, upon the principle of substituting new and equivalent securities in the room of those to be done away; securities, which in their judgment, might be framed upon principles consistent at once with the tenets of the Roman Catholics, and with the improved security of our civil and religious establishments.

In estimating the safety of such a measure, lord Castlereagh admitted that the amount of Catholic power to be thus introduced into the system of the constitution must be weighed, not solely and separably, but that its probable effect must be considered in reference to that of the other sectarists of the empire, with whom their political efforts might, at moments, be combined. The security of the state, including the church, must be adequately provided for, against dangers from all quarters; and it is no reflection upon the loyalty of dissenters, whether Protestant or Catholic, in judging on such a question, to consider, that they cannot be expected to be animated with the same warm attachment to the preservation of a church establishment from which they dissent, as naturally animates the members of that establishment itself. It was also necessary to consider how these important interests might be affected by the political power of the various dissenting sects, in the struggles of party, pressing forward measures which might be injurious to the permanent security of the established religion.

Lord Castlereagh said that it was impossible to traverse the endless detail of reasoning upon which the investigation of a question of this complicated nature depended; he could only state, that his judgment, examining it upon these precautionary principles, was prepared to decide in favour of concession under proper guards; he did so upon a conviction that it was, under all the circumstances, the safest as well as the wisest course. He was of opinion that the anomalous system that now prevailed on this subject, in different parts, of the empire, could not be permanently adhered to,—a system contradictory and clashing in itself, and which was most restrictive in England, where least danger could be apprehended from Catholic authority; whilst, in Ireland, where sectarism preponderated, it was comparatively relaxed.

He was persuaded that, if the Catholics conducted themselves with temper and loyalty, and were prepared to concede those securities to the state which their religion admitted of, and the Protestants were entitled to require, that a revision of this system must ultimately be accomplished with the good will and cordial consent of the Protestants; that the concession should proceed from such a temper, had always appeared to him essential to its being either safe or useful; for, without sentiments of mutual conciliation and confidence previously established, he feared a precipitate incorporation would only tend to excite political contention and animosity.

Lord Castlereagh then proceeded to discuss the internal circumstances of Ireland, which rendered regulations necessary, and made concession, under adequate checks, conducive to the social settlement of Ireland; he adverted to the magnitude of the Catholic population—the struggles for power that had for centuries divided and desolated the country—the severe laws the Protestants, a minority in Ireland, but a majority in the scale of the empire, had felt themselves compelled, under an overruling necessity, to enact, for their own preservation,—laws framed to depress Catholic power, and to secure the state and the church, by weakening opponents then unhappily hostile to both. Happier times had succeeded. The last century in Ireland had been one of comparative repose and returning concord. The Protestants had met the change with corresponding sentiments, and we had the satisfaction to observe, under the benevolent protection of his present Majesty, the Catholics relieved from all the severities and the greater part of the disabilities of that painful code; but still, whilst the Roman Catholics have long ceased to be a depressed and impoverished people: whilst all the means of acquiring wealth, influence, and, of course, power, have been communicated to them, little progress has been made in considering how this mighty interest in the scale, not only of Ireland, but of the empire, can best be brought into useful connection with the state. His

His right hon. friend (sir W. Scott) had truly described the great power and influence which every where appertains to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and no where in a greater degree than in Ireland. It might be doubted whether the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland was not the most powerful instrument that existed in that country to direct the minds of the people, not merely with respect to their spiritual, but their temporal concerns. How important then, to the peace, as well as social and moral improvement of the country, that the clergy of so large a proportion of the people should be connected with the state by every tie of common interest which may be compatible with the principles of their religion and the character of its ministers.

When he expressed his desire to see such a connection established, it was not in the expectation of imposing upon them any unbecoming or unworthy influence, which might lower them in the minds of their own people, and disqualify them from the due discharge of their sacred functions. It was no part of his purpose to endeavour to extinguish the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland; he might lament the extent of sectarism in the empire as adding largely to the difficulties of governing it, but he was sure, any attempt at this time to disturb the faith and habits of a people long attached, under every difficulty, to their religion, was equally unwise and impracticable; his wish was, therefore, not that they should cease to be Roman Catholics, for if they did, they probably would cease to have any religion at all, but that they should continue to be sincere, but liberal Roman Catholics, connecting themselves with their own government, for purposes of mutual benefit, to the exclusion of all foreign connection.

It was not as justifying any reflection upon the Roman Catholic body in Ireland, he felt it necessary to state, that, not only no connection at this moment subsisted between their church and the temporal state under which they lived, such as has been known to exist both between Roman Catholic governments and Roman Catholic churches, but between Protestant governments and Roman Catholic churches, without any infraction of the principles of their faith; but that the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland is known to be at this day in a state of more complete and unqualified dependence upon a foreign au- thority, than any other Catholic church now subsisting in Europe. It is no. reproach to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, that the liberties of their church have not been vindicated in former times as successfully against the see of Rome as those of the Gallican or other Roman Catholic churches have been: such efforts have seldom been made successfully, except in concert with, and at the instance of, the state itself. It has been the unfortunate policy of the British government, since the reformation, instead of endeavouring to limit and controul papal authority, (so far as papal power may, consistently with the principles of the Roman Catholic church, be limited and controuled,) to aim at a fruitless and ineffectual exclusion of what they never did, or could effectually exclude. If such a policy were ever rational, it is obviously inapplicable to times when the religion of the Roman Catholics is not only recognised and established by law, but those who profess it admitted to the exercise if not of all, at least of some, of the most important privileges of the constitution.

Is it not obvious, then, that the state and the Roman Catholics have a common interest in obtaining such safe-guards against the abuse of papal authority and foreign influence, as other states, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, have established, without prejudice to the principles of the Roman Catholic church, and with the full acquiescence and sanction of the pope himself? and surely, if, at former periods, such securities were desirable, how indispensably necessary have they become since the head of that church has not only ceased, in common with the other states of Europe, to be free, but has been enslaved as a prisoner, within the territories of the enemy?

Such were the feelings and impressions under which Mr. Pitt's government, at the period of the Union, contemplated the possibility of effecting a general settlement.

Upon the ecclesiastical part of the arrangement, lord Castlereagh was authorised, in the year 1799, to communicate with the Catholic clergy. It was distinctly understood, that the consideration of the political claims of the Catholics must remain for the consideration of the imperial parliament; but the expediency of making some provision for their clergy, under proper regulations, was so generally recognised, even by those who were averse to concessions of a political nature, that a communication was officially opened with the heads of their clergy upon this subject.

The result of their deliberations was laid before government, in certain resolutions, signed by ten of their bishops, including the four metropolitans, in January, 1799; in which they declare:

"That, in the appointment of the prelates of the Roman Catholic religion to vacant sees within the kingdom, such interference of the government as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person to be appointed, is just, and ought to be agreed to.

"That, to give this principle its full operation, without infringing the discipline of the Roman Catholic church, or diminishing the religious influence which prelates of that church ought justly to possess over their respective flocks, the following regulations appear necessary.

"1. On the vacancy of a see, the diocesan clergy to recommend, as usual, a candidate to the prelates of the ecclesiastical province, who elect him, or any other they may, think more worthy, by a majority of suffrages: in the case of equality of suffrages, the metropolitan, or senior prelate to have a casting vote.

"2. In the election of a metropolitan, if the provincial prelates do not agree within two months from the vacancy; the senior prelate shall forthwith invite the surviving metropolitans to the election, in, which each will then have a vote. In the equality of suffrages, the presiding metropolitan to have the casting vote.

"3. In these elections the majority of suffrages must be ultra medietatem, as the canons require, or must consist of the suffrages of more than half the electors.

"4. The candidates so elected, to be presented by the president of the election, to government, which, within one month after such presentation, will transmit the name of the said candidate, if no objection lie against him, for. appointment to the holy see, or return said name to the president of the election, for such transmission as may be agreed on.

"5. If government have any proper objection against such candidate, the president of the election will be informed thereof, within one month after presentation, who in that case, will convene the electors, and proceed to the election of another candidate.

"Agreeably to the discipline of the Roman Catholic church these regulations can have no effect without the sanction of the holy see; which sanction the Roman catholic prelates of this kingdom shall, as soon as may be, use their endeavours to procure.

"The prelates are satisfied that the nomination of parish priests, with a certificate of their having taken the oath of allegiance, be notified to government."

The House will judge of the surprise with which he must have learnt, after receiving from the heads of that church the resolutions in question, not only that such regulations as were therein expressed, and which corresponded precisely with those which the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) was authorised by Dr. Milner to open to parliament in the year 1807, could not be acceded to by the Catholics, but that it was also alledged that the Roman Catholic bishops who signed those resolutions, had been terrified by the Irish government of that day into an acquiescence in measures which they afterwards, upon reflection, disapproved.

Lord Castlereagh expressed his persuasion that a statement so ridiculous upon the face of it, and so utterly destitute of truth, never could have been countenanced by any one of the respectable individuals who signed those resolutions. The fact was, that he never perceived the slightest repugnance on their part to the measure, or doubt of its being consistent with the principles of their religion to give to the crown a negative upon the appointment of their bishops; as little did they doubt of the arrangement being acceptable to the pope, whose consent they undertook to use their endeavours as soon as possible to procure. So far from the negative so intended to be given to the crown, being considered as carrying with it any direct controul over the appointment of their bishops, that the wish to have such a power was distinctly disclaimed on the part of government. Not that ministers considered that an actual nomination of a Roman Catholic bishop, even by a temporal prince of a different church, was in itself necessarily incompatible with the Roman Catholic faith in Ireland, any more than in Russia, or Prussia, the nomination only operating in the nature of a recommendation to the pope; but it was of all others precisely that power which government would have been most unwilling to charge itself with, incompetent as they felt themselves faithfully to administer such a trust. They were per- suaded that direct patronage was unnecessary to the purposes which they alone had in view, in claiming any interference, viz. the obtaining for the Protestants, a security that no person hereafter should be invested with the functions of a Roman Catholic bishop, of whose character, as a loyal man and good subject, the state was not previously satisfied; and they also knew that direct appointments by the state were likely to create unnecessary jealousy, and to deprive, in the same degree, the individual chosen, of the respect and confidence of those committed to his care. If patronage had been really their object, it never could have been secured, but on the contrary defeated, by the open and avowed exercise of such a power as the proposed negative by the responsible servants of the crown. No such object was looked to, and the persons with whom government communicated at the time did perfectly understand, and did justice to the principles upon which they acted. It is due to the Roman Catholic bishops, at the same time, to state that government experienced, on their part, every facility in the inquiries they had to make; they furnished them freely, and without the appearance of distrust, with every information they required. They shewed, throughout the discussion, an earnest disposition to conform to any arrangements which might be proposed, with a view of giving confidence to the Protestants, and which might not derogate from the principles of their own church. They acknowledged that a moderate provision from the state, such as had been extended to the Presbyterian clergy in Ireland, and to the Roman Catholic clergy in Scotland, would contribute much to the comfort and respectability of their clergy, yet they always displayed an unaffected and disinterested reluctance to receive exclusive benefits, which might have the appearance of separating their interests from those of the laity, and thereby impair their means of discharging with effect their sacred functions.

Those who have studied the public temper in Ireland, can best appreciate how salutary would have been the effects of such an arrangement; how much the Protestants would have been conciliated and satisfied, if the government were entrusted with the means of excluding dangerous men from the exercise of such important powers; and how much the Roman Catholic clergy might be improved, if they grew up in such communication with the state, under which they lived, as to feel that it was not less their interest than their duty to maintain at all times a reputation for loyalty and fidelity. Its benefits would not have terminated there: in times of public tumult and popular delusion, the Roman, Catholic clergy would feel, that they had at least something on which they might subsist, without being compelled to flatter the passions of their misguided flock, till the period of intemperance had passed away, and might thus be enabled, with a firmer and bolder step, to tread in the path of their duty.

Whilst the Roman Catholic clergy feel a becoming confidence in the purity of their own intentions, and justly appeal to the tests by which they have solemnly disclaimed all the noxious tenets which have, in former times, been imputed to their church;—whilst they declare that they owe no obedience to the pope, inconsistent with their duty as good subjects, and that their allegiance to the external head of their church is purely spiritual, and restricted to matters of faith and doctrine, yet they must be too well versed in the history of mankind, not to feel and to allow, that, so long as spiritual authority is exercised by men, it is prone to mix itself in temporal concerns, more especially in matters which may be considered as affecting the interests of the church itself; that a taste for power is inseparable from human nature, and that the times may return when the power and influence of the see of Rome, if not restrained by wholesome regulations, (a supposition not extravagant, when the visible head of the Catholic church is a prisoner, and consequently an instrument in the hands of the enemy,) may be turned against the temporal interests and security of the state. Why is the British government alone, of all the powers of Europe, to remain exposed to a danger, against which it has been the invariable policy of all other states, Roman Catholic as well as Protestant, to provide. Why should Spain, the country perhaps, of all others in Europe, least disposed either to heresy or schism, have sedulously excluded the see of Rome from any intercourse with their church, except through the state? Why did Austria? Why did France, unless they were satisfied that such a power, if secretly exercised over the clergy, passing by the state, might, and must be abused? If Roman Catholic states have not thought it safe to rely upon the mere security of oaths, defining the allegiance of the clergy to the temporal government, the interpretation of which, in all cases of doubtful import, as matter of conscience, can only rest with the individuals subscribing them; and if they have deemed it essential to their freedom, and safety, to fence themselves round with additional safeguards, and even to exclude the direct power of the see of Rome, from operating within their dominions, in concerns not purely appertaining to faith and doctrine; can the Roman Catholics of these dominions complain, if the Protestant state of this realm should regard that foreign power with similar sentiments of fair and justifiable jealousy, and insist upon corresponding measures of security and precaution? Shall the Roman Catholics of Ireland complain, or are they rationally entitled to impute to their own government, views either illiberal or unwise, when they demand securities from them not greater than states purely Roman Catholic in their structure have required? If the Sovereigns of Russia and Prussia claimed not only the right of excluding all briefs or rescripts from the see of Rome, not previously submitted to the temporal authority of the respective states; if they further assumed (if not with the formal sanction of the sovereign pontiff expressed in a concordat, yet certainly with his full and cordial acquiescence in giving effect to the appointments made) the direct and positive nomination to all the Roman Catholic sees within their dominions; if regulations similar in principle have prevailed in Protestant states, popular in their form of government,—shall it be imputed as a demand unreasonable on the part of the crown of Great Britain, not actually to nominate, but to have the power of excluding persons from the exercise of the episcopal functions, in whose loyalty his Majesty cannot confide?—Shall all the Roman Catholic subjects in Europe cheerfully confide such power to their respective governments?—Shall the head of the Roman Catholic church himself acknowledge such powers, not only in all the Roman Catholic sovereigns in Europe, but in the monarch of the Greek church in Russia, and in a Protestant monarch in Prussia; and yet refuse to the king of these realms a much more limited interference? That any such repugnance would have been found in the late, or present pontiff, when in possession of their personal liber- ties, has always been denied by persons most competent to answer for their sentiments. Does it then become the Irish Roman Catholics to raise difficulties on this head?—Does it become their titular bishops, after all that has passed on this subject, to object? They ought to recollect that their church, being a strictly papal church, peculiarly warrants the state in such a demand. The Roman Catholic church of Ireland, from causes already alluded to, never has vindicated its own liberties against the see of Rome, it has no concordat, it has no domestic rights expressly secured. The pope has, on many occasions, rejected the recommendations of their bishops to vacant sees, and substituted direct nominations from himself in their room. In short, it may be asserted, founding their discipline and church government principally on the canons of the council of Trent, a council which pointedly saved to the see of Rome all its rights and privileges, in the most extended and objectionable sense, and which has never been acknowledged, in points of discipline, by the Gallican and other free churches, that the Irish church is at this day one of the most dependent in Europe, and that in which the power of the pope has the most unqualified sway.

It is impossible that the Roman Catholics of Ireland should, upon reflection, gravely determine to stand on such grounds, when they come to solicit constitutional privileges, and political confidence. Do they mean to describe themselves as such separatists from the whole body of the Roman Catholics in Europe, that, consistently with the principles of their religion, they cannot enter into any connection with the state under which they live? In the discussion of a settlement, under the protection of which mutual confidence might be expected hereafter to prevail, many new points may suggest themselves for candid consideration; but can there exist any question upon points long since settled, and understood, by the practice of every liberal Roman Catholic in Europe?—If such pretensions are persevered in, the inference must be, not that the Roman Catholic religion itself is the obstacle, but that the belief and practice of it, at this day prevalent in Ireland, is the impediment?—Are the Roman Catholics prepared for such an avowal? If they are, it appeared to him they must wait till better times and better notions prevail on their part, before they can hope to urge their claims with any prospect of success. With such sentiments political incorporation can never lead to peace and union. Upon such principles concession was never contemplated by Mr. Pitt, nor, as far as he believed, by any of those who acted with him at the time of the Union. They were prepared to give the Roman Catholics the most unqualified securities, for the free exercise of their religion; their wish was to see the ministers of the Roman Catholic communion, without prejudice to the established religion, decently endowed. They had no desire to interfere with the discipline of the Roman Catholic church, so far as it regarded matters of worship; but, in so far as it concerned the appointment of their clergy, especially the titular bishops, and more particularly the intercourse of the Roman Catholic body with the see of Rome, they desired to see it brought under such regulations, as, without imposing any degrading dependence upon the crown, might dissipate the impressions of alarm naturally arising from the secret exercise of a foreign influence within these realms:—by secret, he did not mean to insinuate, that it had not been innocently exercised in latter times; by the two latter pontiffs, he believed it had been not only innocently, but most virtuously administered, and with the most friendly views both to the interests of the state, and the preservation of internal peace; but no such covert interference ought to prevail in any country, and it ought to be the wish of the Roman Catholic body, as much as of the Protestant, that its operations should be undisguised, and be submitted openly to the inspection of the temporal power.

Lord Castlereagh proceeded to argue on the compatibility of such a modified endowment of the clergy of a dissenting sect, with the preservation of the established church in all its rights and privileges. He instanced the advantages which had been derived from a similar provision, which had long been enjoyed by the Presbyterian clergy, but especially from the regulations under which that endowment had been lately extended. He adverted to a similar extension of royal benevolence to the Roman Catholic Clergy in Scotland, which took place, with the grateful acknowledgements of the late Pope, Pius VI. in the year 1796. He pointed out that the adoption of such a measure of indulgence to the two ancient sects, whose numbers and weight in the empire made them objects of permanent regulation, did not countenance any claim in the various and fluctuating sectarists of the present day to similar favor and protection, which could not fail to be productive of the greatest evils, as tending to encourage religions separation. He instanced the case of Scotland, where the episcopal church was endowed by the state, without prejudice to the established Presbyterian religion, and contended that, so far from endangering, such a system was calculated to strengthen the established church, by tranquillizing Ireland, and by placing the clergy of the most numerous sect in a more friendly relation to the state.

In this view, he further argued against the idea that any additional evil or difficulty arose from the existence of the Roman Catholic religion in an episcopal form in Ireland. On the contrary, he was of opinion, that the power and authority incident to bishops was, in itself, protanto, a salutary reduction of the external authority of the See of Rome; and on this ground, however, the assumption of the titular character might excite some degree of uneasiness, he much preferred the ministry of bishops to that of apostolic vicars, who were missionaries, removeable at pleasure, and obliged explicitly to obey all orders from Rome.

Lord Castlereagh next proceeded to complain of the insinuations too often falsely and ignorantly thrown out, of pledges given to the Roman Catholics on this subject, at the time of the Union. He condemned the practice of idly imputed breaches of faith on loose grounds, which tended to excite a sense of injury, as well as disappointment. It was singular if such pledges had ever been given, or promises made, that none of the parties to whom they were addressed, should have come forward distinctly to claim their execution; he asserted that none such existed, to his knowledge, and he could venture to make the same assertion on behalf of those with whom he had acted.

He did not mean to say, that many of the Roman Catholics did not form, and naturally form, sanguine hopes that further political indulgences would follow the Union, founding such expectation on several of the speeches delivered in parliament at the time, and on the general language held,—that their claims would be discussed in the united legislature with less prejudice, and that the question itself would then come forward, stripped of many of its local difficulties; but these speeches could only conclude the individuals who made them, they could neither commit the parliament, nor the government, whose language uniformly was, that it was a question which must remain for the unfettered wisdom of the united parliament to dispose of: and so pointedly distinct was Mr. Pitt's language on this subject, that, when opening the measure, after setting forth all the immediate advantages of union, he expressly argued, that it would be more safe, in an united legislature, either to concede, or to refuse the Roman Catholic claims.

So anxiously solicitous was the Irish government not to mislead the Roman Catholics, with false hopes, that they never gave them, during the two years the Union was in agitation, any reason to know what line Mr. Pitt was likely ultimately to take upon their measure. In consequence of this studious reserve on their part, much of the influence of the Roman Catholic body was exerted against the Union, and so little did the Roman Catholics, who had been in communication with the Irish government, feel themselves entitled, from any previous explanations they had received, to expect Mr. Pitt to take the decisive line he did in favour of their claims, that he believed his doing so was a matter of considerable surprise to them.

That lord Cornwallis never considered any pledge or assurance to have been given, he had the means of proving, beyond the possibility of doubt, from a communication received from that noble lord, in 1801, in reply to inquiries made by himself, relative to two papers, which the House will recollect were circulated in Ireland at that time, and which he (lord Castlereagh) had never seen till they appeared in print; on the contrary, the principle upon which lord Cornwallis acted was, that the measure, to be either conciliatory or dignified, ought to be the spontaneous and gratuitous act of the united legislature. The Memorandum received from lord Cornwallis, he would, with permission, read.

"Dublin Castle, March 3, 1801." My dear Lord;

"In answer to the queries stated, in your lordship's letter to the lord lieutenant, of the 26th instant, his excellency has directed me to enclose to you the statement which accompanies this letter, and which has been prepared according to his excellency's directions; I am ever, my dear lord, most truly, your lordship's servant,

E. COOKE."

"Viscount Castlereagh, &c."

Memorandum. "When it was notified to the lord lieutenant that Mr. Pitt, lord Grenville, lord Spencer, lord Camden, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Windham, had requested permission to retire from his Majesty's councils, upon their not being sanctioned in bringing forward such measures as they thought essential to secure to the empire the full benefit of the Union, the most important of which measures was a concession of further privileges to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, his excellency conceived that it was expedient that the Catholic body should have an authentic communication upon a subject so deeply affecting their situation and interests, and so calculated to influence their future conduct.

"His excellency had long held it as his private opinion, that the measure intended by those of his Majesty's ministers who were retiring from office, was necessary for securing the connection of Ireland with Great Britain. He had been, however, cautious in his language on the subject, and had studiously avoided any declaration to the Catholics, on which they could raise an expectation, that their wishes were to be conceded. Through the whole measure of the Union, which was in discussion for two years, and, during which period, every effort was made to procure a resistance to the measure on the part of the whole body of the Catholics, no favourable assurance or promise was made to them.

"Their judicious conduct, during that trying period, confirmed his excellency in the opinion, that every measure tending to secure their attachment to the empire in future, which they had in this instance so essentially served, ought in true policy to be attempted.

"His excellency did therefore recommend it to his chief secretary, who was engaged with his Majesty's ministers, in the course of the summer, in England, to second every disposition for effecting the object of the Catholics: at the same time he retained a prudential reserve to the Catholics during the progress of the discussions of the cabinet.

"His Majesty having approved of the solicitation of the majority of his Majesty's ministers to retire from his Majesty's councils, his excellency having requested that his Majesty would extend to him the same indulgence, it became a matter of public duty for his excellency to explain to the Catholic body the sentiments which had been held with respect to them, and to inculcate the line of conduct which in this arduous crisis it became them to pursue.

"His excellency therefore, being apprized of the sentiment held by Mr. Pitt, did, on the 13th of February, send for lord Fingal and Dr. Troy, and gave them two papers, to be by them circulated among the principal Catholics in different parts of Ireland.

"The first, his Excellency felt assured, corresponded with Mr. Pitt's sentiments;

"And the other conveyed his own private sentiments, formed on the speeches and conduct of many of the most eminent characters of all parties and distinctions.

"It being of great importance that any communication made by his excellency, should not be misunderstood, or misinterpreted, and that it should make a due impression, and produce a general good effect, his excellency preferred a written to a mere verbal communication, which might have been ill reported, and might have been subject to perversion, according to the inclination or the capacity of those who should circulate and receive it.

"His excellency has seen a happy result from this mode of proceeding. Rumours having been transmitted from England, that the wishes of the Catholics were likely to be acceded to, every ill consequence from their disappointment has been obviated; and there is now every reason to believe, that they will take that line of conduct which the well-wishers to his Majesty's service, and the cause of the empire, would desire."

The House will perceive, from this statement, not only that no pledge was given previous to the Union, but that the papers in question, which have been often confounded in point of date with the Union, and been supposed to contain some pledge, were framed and issued in Ireland, long after that measure had been effected, without the knowledge or authority of any member of the government in England. The sentiments contained in one of the papers^*, lord Cornwallis knew to be Mr. Pitt's, having been conveyed in a letter from himself (lord Castlereagh) to his lordship, which letter was previously seen and approved of by Mr. Pitt, although not expressed precisely in the terms used in the paper; but that the opinions contained in the second paper, were given to the Roman Catholics simply as his lordship's own sentiments at the moment, appeared distinctly, not only from the Memorandum which he had read, but still more pointedly from a correspondence which subsequently took place between lord Cornwallis and Mr. Plowden^*,

^* The leading part of his Majesty's ministers finding unsurmountable obstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body, whilst in office, have felt it impossible to continue

in administration, under their inability to propose it with the circumstances necessary to carrying the measure with all its advantages, and they have retired from his Majesty's service, considering this line of conduct as most likely to contribute to its ultimate success.

The Catholic body will therefore see how much their future hopes must depend upon strengthening their cause by good conduct in the mean time.

They will prudently consider their prospects, as arising from the persons who now espouse their interests, and compare them with those which they could look to from any other quarter.

They may with confidence rely on the zealous support of all those who retire, and of many who remain in office, when it can be given with a prospect of success.

They may be assured, that Mr. Pitt will do his utmost to establish their cause in the public favour, and prepare the way for their finally attaining their objects.

And the Catholics will feel, that as Mr. Pitt could not concur in a hopeless attempt to force it now, that he must at all times repress with the same decision, as if he held an adverse opinion, any unconstitutional conduct in the Catholic body.

Under these circumstances it cannot be doubted, that the Catholics will take the most loyal, dutiful, and patient line of conduct, that they will not suffer themselves to be led into measures, which can, by any construction, give a handle to the opposers of their wishes, either to misinterpret their principles, or to raise an argument for resisting their claims; but that, by their prudent and exemplary demeanour, they will afford additional grounds to the growing number of their advocates to enforce their claims on proper occasions, until their objects can be finally and advantageously attained.

Sentiments of a sincere friend to the Catholics, (Lord Cornwallis.)

If the Catholics shall now proceed to violence, or entertain any ideas of gaining their object by convulsive measures, by forming associations with men of jacobinical principles, they must of course lose the aid and support of those, who have sacrificed their own situation in their

cause, but who would at the same time feel it to be their indispensable duty to oppose every thing tending to confusion. On the other hand, should the Catholics be sensible of the benefits they possess, by having so many characters of eminence pledged, not to embark in the service of government, except on the terms of the Catholic privilege being obtained, it is to be hoped, that on balancing the advantages and disadvantages of their situation, they would prefer a quiet and peaceable demeanour to any line of conduct of an opposite description.

^* (Copy). Correspondence between Lord Cornwallis and Mr. Plowden.

(From Mr. Plowden.)

Essex Street, 6th April, 1805.

My Lord; Having, by the publication of my Historical Review of the State of Ireland, largely committed myself to the present and future generations, I will not dissemble that I am anxious to preserve, and hand down to posterity, my character free, as I know it to be, from the slightest stain upon its honour, honesty and truth. Ere your lordship quits this country, I have one request more to make of you, which, as it is an act of justice to the Irish nation and to yourself, I do expect will be attended to. It is merely that your lordship verify my assertion of your having given the papers mentioned in my Historical Review, 3d vol. p. 944. to Doctor Troy, in the presence of Colonel Little-hales. My reason for asking this act of justice at your hands is, in order that in your absence, I may effectually repel the charge which has been made to me personally in Downing-Street and elsewhere, by members of parliament, calling themselves your lordships confidential friends, that you never did give such pledge to Doctor Troy, nor ever did entertain a sentiment like those which are expressed in that paper. I am encouraged by several of the first characters of this counwith reference to these papers, in which his lordship declares "that he never was authorized, directly or indirectly, by any member of the administration who then resigned his office, to give a pledge that he would not embark again in the service of government, except on the terms of the Roman Catholic privileges being obtained." That lord Cornwallis did not continue to consider, even as a matter of opinion, that the grounds

try, to prepare an abridged edition of my work, for more general consultation, and I shall, of course, avail myself of fresh evidence to confirm what I hope is true, as well as to correct what I should lament was false in the present edition. Your lordship will not wonder that a certain degree of scepticism has assailed my mind upon coupling in my thoughts some recent appointments with many characters of eminence, pledged not to embark in the science of government, except on the terms of the Catholic privileges being obtained. I therefore thought it consistent with the character of a gentleman to present you my works, to write to and to call upon your lordship. As these intended marks of attention have remained unnoticed, I should think it inconsistent with that character to renew them. I have the honour to be, with all due respect, Your Lordship's obedient humble Servant,

on which the ministers then resigned should preclude them from again lending themselves to the public service, was evident from his being the first himself to accept a situation under the crown, an acceptance of office which no man who knew that exalted character, can suppose to have proceeded from any other motive than a sense of public duty. But supposing his opinion had remained unchanged, it could neither pledge nor bind Mr. Pitt, lord Grenville, himself, or others, who then retired, not to take office.

give a pledge that he would not embark again in the service of government, except on the terms of the Catholic privileges being obtained. Sir, I have the honor to be, &c. &c. CORNWALLIS.

FRANCIS PLOWDEN.

(Lord Cornwallis's Answer.)

Burlington Street, 7th April, 1805.

Sir; I have received your letter of yesterday's date, and I feel no difficulty in giving the most satisfactory answer to it in my power.

I have neither a copy nor a distinct recollection of the words of the paper that I gave to Doctor Troy; but this I perfectly well remember, that the paper was hastily given to him by me, to be circulated amongst his friends, with the view of preventing any immediate disturbances or other bad effects that might be apprehended from the accounts that had just arrived from England; and if I made use of the word pledged, I could only mean that, in my own opinion, the ministers, by resigning their offices, gave a pledge of their being friends to the measure of Catholic Emancipation; for I can assure you that I never received authority, directly or indirectly, from any member of administration who resigned his office, to

(From Mr. Plowden.)

Essex Street, 8th April, 1805.

My Lord; Having given to your lordship a copy of my History, and in my letter of the 6th instant pointed to the page of it which contained that important paper, of which you say that you have neither a copy nor a distinct recollection, I take the liberty of inclosing an exact copy of it, from the manuscript of Doctor Troy in my possession, which led me to believe that it had neither been hastily given nor insidiously intended to answer a temporary purpose, or to meet the effects of a flying report. I have the honor to be, with all due respect, Your lordship's obedient humble servant,

FRANCIS PLOWDEN.

(Lord Cornwallis's Answer.)

Burlington Street, 9th April, 1805.

Sir; I alluded, in my former letter, to a short paper which I gave to doctor Troy on the morning after the account of the resignations arrived. I have no copies of the papers that you transmitted to me. I do not, however, doubt their authenticity; but of one circumstance I can speak with absolute certainty, viz. that I had, on no occasion, any authority for making use of the word pledged, but the act of resignation. I have the honour to be, Sir, &c.

CORNWALLIS.

The government at that day gave the most unequivocal proof of the sincerity of their sentiments on this great question, in retiring from an administration which, at that moment, enjoyed in the highest degree the confidence of their sovereign and the country. If they found greater impediments than they expected, much greater than they could overcome, to the accomplishment of their views with respect to Ireland, no fair man can impute to them, on that account, that they did not discharge their public duty honestly, boldly, and disinterestedly; and if, after they had given this decisive and unequivocal proof of the designs they had formed for consolidating all the advantages of the Union, they were conscientiously satisfied, from what then passed, that the measure could not be pressed with advantage, it became them to recollect, that this was not the only question in which the interests of the empire were involved, and to feel that duty commanded them no longer to refuse their services to their sovereign, when his Majesty condescended to require them.

Lord Castlereagh concluded by stating, that his vote, on the present night, would be guided by the same considerations which had on two former occasions induced him to be of opinion that no practical advantage could result to the question from going into a committee, whilst its successful accomplishment remained, in his opinion, impossible. How much more hopeless had it become at the present moment, when, in addition to all the former impediments to success, obstacles the most serious, and to him the most unexpected, had been raised by the Roman Catholics themselves. It never had been any part of his purpose to force the Protestant mind upon the subject. Time, and a due disposition evinced on the part of the Roman Catholics to connect themselves with the state, might create favourable impressions, on the growth of which, retrocessions of sentiment, such as those lately witnessed, could not fail to check and to destroy. For what purpose go into a committee, when no person has any plan to propose; when the Roman Catholics are neither prepared nor enabled to comply with what is allowed even by the right, hon. gent. (Mr. Grattan) who moves the committee, to be an essential preliminary? But, in his mind, there were other insuperable bars at present to its accomplishment, the public mind was not ripe for the measure, the indisposition was too general and too strong. He also felt too deeply impressed with those considerations which had determined Mr. Pitt to discourage the agitation of the question, whilst he lived, to reconcile it to his ideas of duty, now to press it. He had stated his sentiments candidly and fairly, he much doubted the policy of having exposed a question of this nature to successive defeats, by bringing it forward under adverse circumstances; but, if the Roman Catholics thought discussion at all events advantageous to their cause, it was natural for them to court opportunities of bringing the subject under the repeated deliberation of parliament. Lord Castlereagh bore testimony to the judicious and temperate manner in which Mr. Grattan had always agitated the question, and concluded by hoping that, from the present debate, at least one advantage would result, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would discover the errors into which they had lately fallen, and correct them.

rose to offer some explanations. The noble viscount, he observed, had understood that there were not more than two dioceses in Ireland in which the discipline of the council of Trent had not been received and promulgated, although he (sir J. H.) had stated "there were six in that predicament;—but this distinction, (added the noble viscount) did not materially alter the general inference."—The discipline of that council, particularly as affecting clandestine marriages, was not obligatory, because not canonically recognized in the archdiocese of Dublin, nor in the dioceses of Kildare, Meath, Fernes, Ossory, nor in the wardinate of Galway, which has episcopal jurisdiction, though the warden, by a singular prescription, is of a lay nomination: the result was, that a marriage between minors, without consent of parents, which was valid in either of these enumerated dioceses, would be deemed invalid in the other dioceses wherein the decrees of the council had been canonically received.—The inference, therefore, was certainly of more importance than the noble viscount attached to it; for it not only went to prove that much eventual mischief, affecting the feelings and property of families, was incidental to this contrariety of practical discipline,—but also it demonstrated that the Roman Catholic church of Ireland was not so implicitly governed by the decrees of the council of Trent, as had been asserted. In reference to another part of his speech, which had also been touched upon by the noble viscount, sir J. H. wished to state, that the acquiescence of the Pope in the recommendation of the British and Irish Catholic prelates was not invariable; for some time after the abdication of James 2, the representa- tive of the house of Stuart was generally complimented with the recommendation. In latter times it was left almost entirely to the domestic prelates—but in the instance of the recommendation of Dr. Milner as vicar apostolic of the middle district, though standing high in estimation at Rome, the faculties of institution were for a considerable time suspended, as the see of Rome had been impressed with an opinion that the appointment would not have been acceptable to the then government.—Upon its being understood, however, there was no ground for such a report, the usual faculties were expedited. This fact may be taken as an instance in which the see of Rome was desirous to mark its respect for his Majesty's government—a disposition uniformly manifested throughout the last and present pontificate.

.—Sir, I do not know whether the noble lord be right or not in his opinion, that this is the most unfavourable moment for bringing forward, with any prospect of success, the present question; but this I do in my conscience believe, that if this question be not brought forward, that if this measure be not speedily adopted, our blindness and our delay will be the ruin and destruction of this country.—Feeling as I do with the noble lord, that there is throughout this nation, as he expressed, a great weight of resistance to this measure; that there does prevail, in a great proportion of our countrymen, a fair and honest, though in my view an erroneous and mistaken opinion upon this subject; and having upon a former occasion, in the year 1808, given a vote similar to that which I shall give this night, I must necessarily feel anxious, I had almost said, to vindicate, at least to explain, my own sentiments, and the line of conduct which I have already held and shall again pursue.—But this wish alone would not have been sufficient to induce me to rise, as I own I was very anxious to do immediately after the speech of the learned judge, who opened this night's debate, if I had not thought and felt that the argument of that learned judge had placed the question exactly upon the ground upon which it was most advantageous to argue it.—The learned judge, speaking not only with all the weight of his own character and situation, but with all his own proper authority augmented and increased by all the dignity which belongs to the learned university of Oxford, declares that the venerable body which he represents do seriously and sincerely apprehend, from the removal of these disabilities upon the Roman Catholics, danger to the national church establishment and to the Protestant religion. The learned judge, however, added not one word of argument in support of this assertion, and I do put it to the House, whether it does become the learned judge, whether it does become the university of Oxford, upon a great question like this, to throw out vague and general declarations of danger, without condescending in the slightest degree to point out and explain from whence the danger arises, in what manner it threatens, and how the institutions and establishments alluded to are likely to be affected by the adoption of the proposed measures.—The learned judge attempted also to charge an inconsistency upon my right hon. friend who brought forward this question, alledging that in the beginning of his speech he seemed to treat the religion of the subject as a matter with which the government had no right whatever to intermeddle or concern itself, as a matter resting solely between God and man, and that towards the conclusion he admitted, in contradiction to his former principle, that there might be political danger from the spiritual influence of a foreign power.—Good God! Sir, danger from the spiritual influence of a foreign power! danger from the prevalence of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland! Who ever doubted, who ever disputed it? Who does not admit it with sorrow and trepidation? There is danger, Sir, a danger which makes me shudder day and night—a danger which makes the empire totter to its very foundation.—But the question is not now upon the existence of the danger, but upon the best means of meeting and averting it.—The question is, whether there be danger in adopting this measure; whether there be danger in removing these disabilities; whether there be danger in giving to the whole people of Ireland equal rights; and whether, on the contrary, these be not the surest safeguards and defences against that danger, which we are all compelled to admit, and which we all deplore.

With respect to the principle of toleration it has been over and over again said that we are all agreed—I hope we are; but the difference is, as to the application of that principle.—I suppose it will be admitted to me by the most zealous opposers of the present claims, that if they could be convinced in their own minds that the Roman Catholics would, when they had obtained equality, be content with it, that they would urge their pretensions no farther; that they would not attempt to subvert the Protestant establishment, and erect a church of their own in its stead; that they would use the power which should be granted to them for the support of the constitution, and not for its overthrow; that they would oppose, heart and hand, a foreign enemy, even though backed and assisted by all the spiritual influence of the Pope, and not from religious motives unite with and assist him. I say, if they could be thoroughly convinced that these are the principles, and that such would be the conduct of the Roman Catholics, they would at once withdraw their opposition, and consent to the concession of those privileges, which prudence and apprehension of the different objects and intensions induce them now strenuously and decisively to withhold.—On the other hand, I am as willing to admit to them, that if it could be shewn to me that there were any chance, any likelihood of making any impression upon the Roman Catholic faith in Ireland, of producing within any time, such as human nature can reasonably calculate upon, by the continuance of those restrictions, an increase and extention of the Protestant religion, so much is that an object near to my heart, so anxiously and devoutly do I think that a consummation to be wished, that hostile as I am in principle to disabilities on account of religious belief, I should be willing to embrace even this mode of producing so good an effect; I should be ready to purchase so important an advantage even at the expense of the continuance of these laws.

But upon both of these points my reason compels me to be of a different opinion.—I do not think such a spirit, such a temper, such a line of conduct is reasonably to be apprehended from the Catholics.—I do not think the apprehension, if it were well grounded, of the demands which the Catholics may make hereafter, a just or a wise ground for refusing them what they demand at present; and if this apprehension of the malignity of their ulterior views and objects be well founded, I do not think, nor can any man think the refusal of their demands calculated to have any other effect than that of increasing, inflaming, and irritating that malignity, still less can I believe that there is any chance whatsoever of producing, at least within many years, any material alteration in the religious faith of the majority of the Irish.

It is said, that such is the never dying spirit of encroachment, that such is the restless lust of domination inherent in, and inseparable from the existence of the Roman Catholic religion, that it never will acquiesce in any thing short of complete and unqualified superiority both in church and state? Is this said? Let us see how well it is borne out by facts. Recollect, that now during some centuries you have established, with some reluctance, and with some disturbances indeed, a religion contrary to the opinion of the great majority of the inhabitants of that country: you have placed and kept an heretical clergy, heretical in the eyes of the people, in possession of all ecclesiastical revenues and of all ecclesiastical dignities.—You have effected that in Ireland which two Roman Catholic monarchs, assisted by Roman Catholic ministers, found themselves totally unable to effect in this island.—You have accomplished that object in Ireland, for attempting which you deposed and drove into exile one of your own lawful hereditary sovereigns.—Let us consider this fact in justice to the Roman Catholics.—Let us recollect this plain statement of circumstances, when we talk of the obstinacy, of the restlessness, of the unyielding spirit of that religion, and let us also have clearly in our view, and bear strongly in our minds, that what we call obstinacy and pertinacity in error; they call, aye and consider too, courage and fortitude in the cause of truth.—Is this spectacle of a religion rejected by the greater part of the people, and at the same time established by law, exhibited by any other nation in Europe at this day? is it to be found in history? is it reasonable in itself, if it be abstractly considered, and without reference to the peculiar circumstances which have made it necessary? If the answers to these questions be, as they must be, in the negative: a people who have acquiesced, and who are still willing to acquiesce in such a dispensation, do not deserve to be stigmatized as a very stiff-necked and perverse generation, as very prone to rebellion, as ever ready to seize opportunities for insurrection, or as peculiarly tenacious in maintaining their own religious tenets and opinions,—will then toleration make them more rebellious than before? Will unity and indulgence excite a spirit of hostility, which has not manifested itself under harshness and oppression? Will conciliation have the novel effect of alienating and offending?

But grant that it be so; grant that their object be to overthrow the Protestant and establish a Popish hierarchy; grant, that if these concessions were made, such would still remain their object, then I ask, what greater power do you give them of accomplishing that object, by removing those restrictions? what greater difficulty do you throw in their way by continuing them? Do you do any thing by them, but add to that eagerness for superiority which distinguishes, as you say, the Roman Catholics, which, as others say, is the characteristic of all religious sects, or rather of all bodies and associations of men?—Do you diminish their numbers by them? No,—on the contrary, all sects thrive under any mark or note that is set upon them.—Do you detract from the authority of their pastors?—On the contrary, you give them every means of increasing their influence.—Do you establish any thing like a controul over them on the part of the government? No,—you miss the best means of obtaining sway amongst them; for what could give the government a greater, a better, a more genial influence amongst the Roman Catholics, than the circumstance of some of them being members of this House, some of them enjoying commands in the army, some of them filling important civil offices under his Majesty: and if men there are amongst them, as no doubt there are, if men should arise amongst them, as no doubt there will, endowed in every respect with capacities sufficient to sustain the weight and support the dignity of the highest situations in the army, the navy, the law, and the state, is it to be expected or feared that such men will entertain so depraved and mistaken notions of the tenets and doctrines of their own faith, as to be prepared to excite intestine commotion, to unite with the pope or any other foreign prince, to employ the power, which their merits have obtained, for the purpose of overturning that throne and that constitution from which their own dignity is derived, and upon the stability of which their own influence and importance, their own characters and fortunes, entirely depend?—I trust there are no traitors in any class of our fellow-subjects; I trust there never will be; but I am sure they are more likely to be found amongst those who are excluded from trust and power, than amongst those who are admitted to them.—These reasons are to my mind satisfactory, that there is no political advantage to continuing these restrictive laws, that there is no political danger in repealing them.

Now, Sir, with respect to the religious part of this question, which strictly speaking it is impossible to separate from the political, though for the sake of convenience it may be so considered.—I am as anxious as any man in this House for the propagation of the true faith in Ireland; I have as much confidence in the natural strength of the religion which we profess, I have as little doubt that, if it be allowed to be heard, truth will ultimately prevail over error, the reformed over the Roman Catholic form of worship.—Take all the proper and rational means for promoting this great object, use all the power of instruction, of education, of argument, and you have my warmest wishes for your full success;—but recollect at the same time that the progress of reason, though sure, is very slow against superstition;—consider how very tardy the march of the human mind is upon these subjects;—look back upon the page of history, and see whether, since that great schism which tore asunder the Christian world, since the memorable æra of the reformation, an æra at which the eagerness of inquiry and the flagrant abuses of the Church of Rome had inflamed the minds of men to a vehemence and irritation, which has long since subsided; an æra, at which all men's thoughts were intent upon religious differences and topics of controversy, and from which, consequently, no reasoning can be fairly applied to times of a different complexion—see whether, since that period, you can produce me a single example of any great body of men who have changed the religion which they have received from their fathers.—How long, then, and this is perhaps the most important point of view in which the question can be considered; how long are you to refuse to Ireland some of the most important privileges of the British constitution? How long must you determine to continue in that country the' present unnatural state of affairs? If until the majority of her inhabitants are converted from their religious errors, ages upon ages may first elapse, and you are pronouncing against them, according to the finite views of man, an eternal proscription.

But then I ask you besides, of what as- sistance to you in this great work of conversion are these disabilities? All the weapons, by which your cause must ultimately prevail, the weapons of reason, of argument, of common sense, will be as powerful in your hands after the repeal of these laws, as they are at present.—They are entirely independent of penal codes and legislative exclusions.—How, then, do these restrictions help you in your efforts, or further you towards your object?—Why, not at all! on the contrary, they are a great obstacle to your success, a great impediment to you in your course.—They are so, because it is well known that all religious sects are active and zealous, and consequently that they thrive and grow under difficulty, and want, and disability; and that they become supine and negligent as soon as they are established in security.—These are principles so well known, so generally acknowledged, that it is quite unnecessary for me to take up the time of the House by expatiating upon them.—This is the simple view which I take of the case.—I have the same objects in view as those who oppose the present question; the maintenance of the Protestant establishment, and the extension of the Protestant religion:—for the reasons I have given, I do not believe either that the former would be endangered or the latter retarded by our granting the prayer of these petitions. I have endeavoured to establish five propositions, which if they be established, lead, in my opinion, irresistibly to a conclusion in favour of the motion brought forward by my right hon. friend.—First, that there is no reason to impute to the Roman Catholics of Ireland a disposition hostile to the English government.—Secondly, that if such a disposition does not at present exist, it will not be produced in them by the concessions proposed to be made.—Thirdly, if such hostile disposition does at present exist, you give it no greater power of doing injury by removing the disabilities, than it possessed while they remained in force.—Fourthly, that if you propose to delay this measure until any great revolution is effected in the religious faith of the majority of the Irish nation, you propose in fact to wait for ever.—And fifthly, that the continuance of these disabilities does not in the slightest degree promote the spreading of the Protestant faith.

With respect to the subject which has been most insisted upon in the course of this debate, I mean the Veto and all the topics connected with it, I shall think it prudent to make very few observations. This appears to me to be very delicate and very dangerous ground.—All the discussions, all the differences, all the strong speeches and strong resolutions, which have been come to upon this point, lead my mind to a conclusion very different from that which I find has been adopted by others.—I can see in them nothing but the most imperative reasons for the immediate adoption of the measure which we are at present discussing, and the strongest and most melancholy proofs of the impolicy of having so long delayed it.—If there was any part of the speech of the learned judge upon which I could feel disposed or venture to animadvert with any thing of asperity, it certainly would be that in which he seemed to affirm, that in his opinion the English Roman Catholics, in acceding to the safeguard of the veto, had done that which was inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of their religion.—If it had been his wish to encourage discord, if it had been his object to prevent conciliation and union, what more skilful conduct could he have pursued—what language could he have used better calculated to promote his end?—What can be more bitter, more galling and irritating to the feelings of the Roman Catholics, doubly galling and doubly bitter, as being a reproach from the mouth of a Protestant, than to be told, that by the very concessions they have made for the sake of conciliation, for the sake of quieting the alarm of the Church of England, they have sacrificed the doctrines of their own religion, and blemished their own faith.

Let us, Sir, upon the whole, place ourselves for a moment in the situation of Ireland.—Let us think with her mind, and feel with her feelings.—Let us recollect, that for us she has made great sacrifices—for us she has given up her national legislature, her acknowledged independence, all that is most dear to the feelings of a gallant, a generous, and a high spirited people.—Has she not a right to demand of us something of reciprocal concession, and shall we not have the generosity to make a sacrifice for Ireland, who has sacrificed so much for us?—Can we not prevail upon ourselves to yield up to her claims those feelings and opinions, the prevalence of which in this country is not to me a matter of surprise:—feelings and opinions formerly useful and praiseworthy, but even then pushed beyond both justice and necessity, but which have long since ceased to be either wise or reasonable.—Have we not liberality, have we not gratitude enough to do this for Ireland,—for Ireland, with whose fate our own is so inseparably united, with whom we are so closely and nearly connected, some of us by the ties of property, some of us by the dearer ties of blood and affinity, and all of us by our common laws, our common language, and the common cause of independence in which we are engaged.—What was in sense and reason the great and leading objection to the measure of the Union, a measure from which so many important benefits have arisen, and will continue to arise to both countries, and which may be considered as that act of Mr. Pitt's government, upon which, whatever may be the case at present, there will in future times exist the least difference of opinion.—But what was and still is the most forcible argument that can be urged against that measure? Why it is this,—that looking upon Ireland with all her advantages and all her resources; considering her fortunate commercial situation, her spacious and convenient harbours, the fertility of her soil, the increase of her population, and above all, the high spirit and quick feelings of her children, it was improbable that she would ever finally acquiesce in the arrangement, and tranquilly settle down into the situation in which she was placed by that measure.—Shall we not, then, do all we can to crown that work? Shall we not take every step to lessen the force of this reasoning, and to make its application improper? Shall we not adopt every means within our reach, to reconcile her to a situation which cannot but be galling to her pride, although I believe it to be conducive to her real interests, as well as to those of England.

For the advantage, or rather for the necessity of this measure to the general safety of the empire, if I am asked for arguments, I would only desire you to turn your eyes upon the affairs of the world.—Good God! Sir, what a spectacle does Europe present to the eye of any man who is in the slightest degree acquainted with her former history, with the relations that subsisted between the states of which she was then composed;—so many nations, once powerful in arms, flourishing in commerce, proud and fierce in the spirit of liberty and independence, now tranquil and silent, and to all appearance contented under the domination of France.—Soldiers of so many different countries, of different religions and different manners, officers of high military prowess and fame, provinces far divided from one another in situation and interest, all these jarring elements are forcibly moulded into one system, and made to act steadily and harmoniously for the furtherance of one design, and at the beck of one man;—and he who sits at the head of this strange and formidable machine, however we may abhor his atrocities, it is impossible not to look upon his character with something of a superstitious awe and veneration.—His actions scarcely resemble those of human conquerors,—they may rather be compared to those great physical convulsions by which nature effects her changes over the face of the habitable globe; to an earthquake or a volcano, that raises hills and depresses vallies, that plants kingdoms here, and annihilates them there.—He is

One of those great visitations of the earth,

That on its alter'd face for ages leave

The traces of their might.—

What have we, (circumscribed as we are in means and in dominion,) what have we to oppose to this enormous power, so united, and so directed?—We have that which has in all ages, and which will again be found sufficient for the protection of those to whom it belongs;—we have the spirit of liberty, we have the energy of the democracy of Great Britain, of that democracy, at the head of which, whatever faction may throw out to the contrary, still stand his Majesty and the royal family, still stand this, and the other House of parliament, and may still remain, if we will but adopt the easy means which are within our reach, of satisfaction and conciliation.

Sir, I have already said, that I am sensible that an opinion prevails in this country very adverse to that which I have been endeavouring to enforce.—I am sensible that I might better consult for my own popularity, by speaking a different language upon this subject; but in taking the side of the argument which I do, I am actuated by stronger selfish motives even than the love of popularity, to which I do not pretend to be insensible.—I verily believe, that in urging the arguments which I urge, I am speaking, not indeed for popularity, but for all that is dear to man; for family, for property, for independence, for freedom from a foreign yoke, for my very existence in the situation in which I at present stand.—I have but one more observation to add; I have, since their accession to power, for the most part acted in opposition to his Majesty's present ministers. I do not repent of that conduct. I think their foreign policy has been mistaken. I think their expeditions have been ill concerted. I think their commercial measures have been unwise. But all these may be defended—plausible arguments may be urged in defence of them all—doubts may be entertained upon every part of their conduct, except their policy towards Ireland—Ireland is the great cause, the root and foundation of my opposition.—My hostility to them is persevering, as it is because they hold their offices, pledged, I will not say, in hostility to that country, because I give them full credit for the fairness of their intentions and the sincerity of their opinions, but pledged not to adopt those measures, which are necessary for the conciliation of Ireland, and the consolidation of the empire.

, in answer to an observation from the last speaker, that according to him the indulgence prayed by the Catholics could upon no terms be granted, explained that he had not asserted or intended any such thing; he had only maintained that the present proposition was hopeless and inadmissible; it would be time enough to consider other propositions when they were offered to the legislature.

. Sir; in rising to express my opinion upon this great and vital question, for such I have always considered it, I must express my satisfaction that the discussion has been adjourned from a former night, in order that gentlemen may have the full opportunity of declaring their sentiments. When I came down to the House this night, I thought it would be unnecessary for me to trouble the House at any considerable length, after the able speeches of my right hon. friend (Mr. Grattan) who moved, and the hon. baronet (sir John Cox Hippisley) who seconded the motion; for they have left but little for me or any one else to say on the subject. I do not, however, agree with them altogether on the subject of the Veto, which was proposed to be given to his Majesty, notwithstanding the many historical documents quoted on the occasion from Davis, Cox, Keating, and other historians who had written on the penal laws. But, Sir, the Petition from the Catholics of Ireland is not merely in a Ca- tholic cause: It is also a Protestant cause; for nine-tenths of the Protestants of Ireland are favourable to it, and as anxious for the emancipation as the Catholics themselves, and I hope to prove to you, that it is a cause not only interesting to Ireland, but to England, to Europe, and to the world at large. Sir, it is now become a question, whether we shall continue to Ireland the same system of cruelty, tyranny, and the bayonet, by which we have oppressed her for the last 600 years, or by abandoning that system of cruelty and injustice, conciliate the affections and attachment of your Catholic fellow subjects. Sir, the question necessarily involves another, which is no less than this:—Whether the empire of Great Britain shall exist any longer great and independent, or share the fate of the other empires and kingdoms in Europe, and crouch at the feet of a conqueror?—a doom to which we must inevitably rush, if we suffer ourselves to be governed by those feeble and distracted councils which have so long prevailed,—and of which Ireland will be the first, and England the next victim. I do not scruple to say, that for 600 years, England has been the oppressor of Ireland; and if the same system of tyranny is pursued, I tell you there can be no doubt but you will lose that country. Sir, it is matter of astonishment to me that experience has not made some of those who govern mankind wiser; or that not only the evidence of all history, but of facts passing under their eyes, has no influence upon the policy of their councils. This remark has been no where more applicable than to those who have from time to time, and especially of late years, governed this country. There is not an English member in this House who must not know (that is to say, if he knows any thing about Ireland,—which I much doubt) that coercion and cruelty never yet did any good there;—that the system so fatally adopted in Ireland, has totally failed of its intended effect, and that those who were the advocates of such tyranny and cruelty might have easily perceived their error from its palpable consequences, and recommended a wiser system; a system of lenity and toleration, such as was recommended by my lord Verulam and Secretary Cecil, to lie Irish viceroy Mountjoy, in the reign of Elizabeth; when, as it appears from the historical authority of Morrison, (and there is none higher or more authentic) that amongst other horrors," The ditches were filled with poor people, men, women and children, some dead, some dying,—their mouths green with nettles, and other weeds they were forced to eat, in order to gratify the calls of hunger; even old women were hanged after their cottages were burned, for adhering to their opinions; and three famishing children were found in one place, feeding on the dead body of their mother, who had been murdered for her religion, and, in short, such cruelties were practised on the ill-fated Irish, as beggared all the horrors of the reign of Tiberius. When these things were represented to Queen Elizabeth, she said to Mountjoy, "It is you that have done all this mighty mischief: you ought to have been to your flock a shepherd; but you have been a wolf." She ordered Mountjoy to follow the councils of Verulam and Cecil, and to cease the shedding of blood. The system was accordingly changed, and that followed which might easily have been foreseen, a system of toleration and lenity was adopted, and tranquillity and happiness was restored.

Now, Sir, in spite of these examples, a system equally cruel and barbarous with that I have quoted, has occurred in Ireland within the present reign. Let it not be supposed that I am exaggerating while I state the cruelties exercised by this country towards Ireland, in the year 1798, for of that which I shall state, I was myself an eye witness. I saw in the city of Dublin and other parts of Ireland, scenes which will excite horror, even in the very recital, and what must they be to those who saw them?—what, indeed, to those who felt them?—I saw honest men dragged from their families and thrown into prisons, without proof or trial, in contempt of the 48th article of that boasted pillar of the constitution, Magna Charta, which provides, "That no person shall be imprisoned except by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." I did also see honest and industrious men seized by military force, stripped, and tied up to triangles or halberts, and contrary to all laws, human and divine, barbarously whipt, flogged, tortured, or half hanged, and infamously forced to confess crimes of which they were innocent, and which they confessed merely because unable to endure more pain: and this, in contempt and defiance of the Bill of Rights, which says, "No torture nor cruelty shall be exercised towards a British subject." I did see men, in hundreds, insulted beyond endurance, and lying in ditches in a dying state, after their houses had been burnt, and their little property reduced to ashes; their wives or sisters ravished before their faces, and some of their daughters, children of ten years of age, barbarously and inhumanly defiled by a rabble rout of English Fencibles and German mercenaries. All 0762these horrors took place in Ireland in the year 1798, during the administration of that worst of all lord lieutenants, lord Camden. When his Majesty's first minister and adviser, Mr. Pitt, saw the effects of this diabolical system, he saw clearly that no good whatever could result from it; he gave the same advice to government which Verulam and Cecil gave to Mountjoy. The system of torture was abandoned, mercy was resumed, lord Camden was withdrawn, lord Cornwallis was sent in his place, conciliation was tried, and tranquillity instantly followed.

Happy the people were at this change for a while: happy they might have continued; but, shameful as it was, the amnesty was shortly afterwards broken by what was called the government party. (No! no! no! from the ministerial benches). I know, Sir, what I assert to be fact, and I am ready to prove it, notwithstanding the confident manner in which the contrary is asserted. And would any man wonder, after this, if the people of Ireland should be roused to revenge? Was there not cause enough for resentment and vengeance in the cold blooded murders of their fathers, mothers, and brothers? In the pollution and defilement of their wives, their sisters, and their daughters? And yet, notwithstanding the butchery of 40,000 of them in that year, the people of Ireland remained true to their allegiance. After this statement of facts, will any man in his senses come forward and tell us that such men are not to be trusted, and are unfit to be admitted to our glorious constitution? Is it not madness to refuse to four millions of his Majesty's loyal subjects, men, of whom one half of your army and navy are composed, men, without whom you cannot man that navy or recruit that army, men of such tried courage and dauntless intrepidity, who have every where faced your enemy with firmness unshaken, notwithstanding that enemy is of the same religion with themselves, the enjoyment of those privi- leges enjoyed by their countrymen of a different religion. I call upon you, therefore, in the name of God, and of my country, for the emancipation of these my brave and loyal countrymen! But if you refuse that, I must insist upon it that the Catholics of Ireland ought to be placed in the same situation in which they stood after the treaty of Limerick, which was signed by the lords justices in Ireland, and the English generals and Irish chieftains, and finally ratified by king William 3, by which the Catholics of Ireland were put into possession of all they held under king Charles 2, but which treaty was afterwards scandalously broken by a British parliament in the 4th year of that reign. I do demand on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland, that they be placed in the same situation with all other his Majesty's subjects: but if not, that they be at least placed in the same situation they stood after the treaty of Limerick. But I do say they ought to be put on the same footing with the rest of his Majesty's subjects, for nothing can surpass them, nothing is too much for their loyalty and their courage, and their attachment to you would be equal to that courage if you would only do them justice. I am convinced the salvation of this country depends upon it; and that the refusal must tend to the subversion of this empire. For, in case of an invasion, what have you to look to? You must know that so soon as that man, who has humbled the rest of continental Europe, shall have finished the conquest of Spain, he will have all the ports of Europe in his power, and especially those most favourable for the purpose of invading yours. He will have Ferrol, Vigo, Lerida, and other harbours wherein he can prepare and man his fleet, in spite of your blockading system. His fleets, it may be said, are insufficient; but he has enough for his purpose, and they may sail from ports so convenient to the Irish shores that no man can foretel the moment in which they may come upon you. I do not think you can be always secured against invasion by your fleet, and this is the opinion of many of your oldest and most experienced naval officers. Neither are you to be too confident of your strength, if the enemy should land in Ireland, when your conduct shall have disgusted and exasperated that people, and set them, as it were, in array against you. They have an immense population fit to take arms, and ready to be brought forward, as ap- pears from the reports of the Secret Committee of the Irish parliament, and the state of things in that country, in the year 1798, when it was proved to the conviction of the government and the parliament, that Ireland was ready to bring into the field 300,000 fighting men equipped for service, that they could reinforce that army, in six weeks, by a levy of 60,000 more; and that they never required from France, nor would they accept, though offered a greater auxiliary force than 10,000 men, and 40,000 stands of arms. What would, then, be the fate of this country in case of an invasion, with Ireland in hostility? I should like to know what there would be in such a case to hinder Ireland from falling under the yoke of France, or becoming an independent nation, closely in alliance with her. You would then see Irish force and Irish discontent united against you, and a large French fleet manned with Irish sailors, to dispute with you the sovereignty of the sea, (Some laughter from the treasury benches)—Aye! aye!—you may laugh; but the time may come when you will be sorry for it. You will see your error when too late; I hope I shall never see it. But by such a change Ireland would have every thing to gain, and nothing to lose. The Irish would form a government of their own. They would abolish penal laws: they would abolish tythes, and not pay one-fifth of the taxes they do at present. They would save to home expenditure the whole of those rents paid to the absentee proprietors of landed estates; a perpetual drain of the wealth of the country, no part of which ever returns to replenish its resources. They would get rid of 60 millions of your public debt. They would get rid of your establishment in church and state, and of your lord lieutenant, whose office ought to have been abolished at the Union, which would have saved to the country 180,000l. a year. This country never did, nor ever could suppose, the retention of Ireland practicable, if the people were unanimously determined to be free. And if by your oppression, they should be driven to a separation, you could never afterwards be able to subdue them; for you could never, at any one time, send 100,000 men into Ireland, deprived of the aid which Ireland gives in the recruiting your army; and what chance would you have even with such a force in the heart of the country, able to muster, at 48 hours notice, 300,000 men, and reinforce them by 50,000 recruits per month, for six months. That country wants nothing from you;—it owes you nothing in point of gratitude. If they are ever driven to extremities, the fault will be in your oppression. In 48 hours they could effect their purpose. They could seize on your fortresses, and secure, as hostages, all the members of your government there. The practicability of all I have stated was proved before the Secret Committee of the Irish parliament—by four leading persons—you may call them traitors if you will; but nobody will accuse them of not knowing the resources of the country. I look for information to any quarter from whence it may come. I do believe that I know the situation of Ireland as well as any man in this country. I have in that country, and from that country, knowledge of certain matters which no other man in this House possesses but one, and he does not make use of his knowledge. For the last sixteen years I have made it my business to understand the affairs of Ireland; and I know what I say when I tell you they can bring into the field 300,000 men fit for military operation, and that they could in six weeks replace a loss of 60,000 of them; for this is a calculation deliberately made—a calculation which no man in this House, who has any information upon the subject, will think exaggerated. The country possesses upwards of five millions of inhabitants; that number I believe is within the bounds of the population. Now, taking one out of every fourteen is a moderate calculation to prove the possibility of raising such an army—for that one in ten may be raised, is proved by the conscription in France. There are two members in this House who gave an opinion upon this subject two years ago, an hon. member for Dublin, and an hon. member for Tavistock. Of their opinions I rate highly, although they afterwards, I think unfortunately, gave up their opinions to be misled by an English minister, who was himself misled, as to the existence of French influence in Ireland, when they voted for that obnoxious measure, the Irish Insurrection bill. But differing from them as I then did, I must say, that there are no two men in this House for whom I have a higher respect; and I hope they will now agree with me, that no such influence did then exist to warrant that obnoxious measure. But they do know the influence that does now exist in Ireland— it is that of a powerful party, increasing and gaining strength every "day—a party attached to the true interests of Ireland.—And, Sir, I hope, that the interests of Ireland, will be considered by this House as the interests of this country. I hope that Irish interests are not only similar, but that they make up that which may be deemed one and the same: a bold, independent, and virtuous interest, that will maintain itself firmly; that will not submit to the separate domination of King, Lords, or Commons, but an interest that is determined, at all hazards, to stand or fall by the constitution.

As to what has been said respecting the coronation oath, I could refer the House to the speech of my right hon. friend when he opened this subject to the House on a former night; in which it was proved, to my perfect satisfaction, that the granting of the Catholic emancipation was not against the coronation oath, and that if the subject were fairly represented to the sovereign, he would think so himself. For that oath only binds the King to do nothing to endanger the Protestant religion. Now, I would ask, whether granting the claims of one part of his Majesty's subjects to be admitted to the enjoyment of that constitution they admire, and for the defence of which they have been at all times ready to shed their blood, can endanger the Protestant religion? No, Sir, that has never been the opinion of any enlightened politician in the presentreign; and, on the contrary, we have the evidence of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Burke, a triumvirate, the like to which this country never saw before, nor perhaps will ever see again, who all agreed that the grant of these claims to the Catholics would do no injury to the Protestant religion; but that the total emancipation of the Catholics would be of incalculable benefit to the British empire at large. But, Sir,—if there is any thing in the King's coronation oath that stands in the way of granting emancipation to the Catholics, I have no difficulty in saying, that I would go as far as to repeal that oath and frame a new one, more compatible with men's minds in the present day. That oath was framed in the time of William and Mary; and if the parliament of that day felt no scruple to form a new coronation oath suitable to the times, and for the good of this country, I see nothing objectionable in doing so at this enlightened day, and framing a coronation oath more suitable to existing cir- cumstances; and far am I from thinking that if the matter were fairly represented to our gracious Sovereign the object I have in view might not as well be effected without it.

Now with respect to the Veto, or negative, which it was at one time proposed to give his Majesty in the appointment of Catholic Bishops, I must say, that although, perhaps, I do not agree with what has been said, yet, after all that I have read and heard, and thought, I do not feel myself competent to form a decisive judgment upon that branch of the subject; yet I have not on that account any difficulty, because I defer to others; and indeed had I an opinion against the Catholics, I should not insist upon it, because in a matter of religious doctrine, I do not think my judgment considerable enough to put it in competition with that of four millions of people, who know their own interests and the principles of their own faith infinitely better than I can pretend to do,—better, I will venture to affirm, than any individual can do. But I an) so far prepared to state, that at a very respectable meeting of the Catholic clergy which took place on the 31st of March last in the county of Tipperary, they came to resolutions decidedly in favour of the domestic appointment of their bishops. (Here the hon. member read the Resolutions.) Now, Sir, so far as these resolutions go, you see they are entirely favourable to the domestic arrangement, to which I own I cannot see any possible objection; but that is a point on which, as I before said, whether right or wrong, I am not competent to decide against the sentiment of four millions of my countrymen, who know their own faith and consciences better than any individual can tell them. They have decided that point for themselves, and whatever they decide I shall always suppport, and give my unqualified vote for Catholic emancipation, whether they allow the Veto to the Sovereign or not.

It becomes me now, Sir, to thank the House for the attention with which it has been pleased to honour me; and I will only add, that I do most earnestly implore this House to look steadily at the affairs of Ireland, at the condition of that country—at the temper of its people. Here the House will be able to form some idea of its true interests, and that it will consider these interests united and the same with those of this country. Then will this House see the policy of giving up the system of coercion and terror, most unwisely adopted as the system of government in that country, and adopt one of toleration and mildness, such as Mountjoy was induced to do in the reign of Elizabeth by the wise councils of lord Verulam and secretary Cecil. Such a system was recommended to the government of that country by the demi-god Mr. Pitt. For if the government of Ireland be conducted on principles of mildness, and the Catholics have complete emancipation, the British empire may bid a proud defiance to the efforts of the world, for it will be in every part invulnerable. But if not: if the old system of penal intolerance and coercion be fatally pursued, then it is my duty to tell you, as one who knows Ireland better than most of you, that Ireland will be lost to you, and finally the British empire will sink to ruin.

.—Sir, I am extremely unwilling to obtrude my sentiments on the House on a subject so often discussed, and with so much difference of opinion, as renders the duty I assume difficult. I feel, Sir, that the subject is undoubtedly one of vast importance to the British empire as well as to Ireland; and one upon which it is extremely critical to decide. I lament that I should have the misfortune to differ in opinion from the gallant general who has just spoken, because I am sure we both have the same object in view, namely, the welfare and security of the empire, although we differ totally as to the means of effecting a purpose so desirable. I differ also from the learned judge who opened the discussion this night, inasmuch as I think no danger could arise to the Protestant church and establishment, in conceding to the claims of the Catholics, provided the measure be accompanied with certain restrictions, without which the Catholics should not be allowed to enjoy the share of power and political influence which the measure would certainly confer. But much as I wish for the tranquillity and unanimity of my countrymen, and highly as I respect many, individuals of the Catholic persuasion, as men of the highest integrity, loyalty, and personal worth, yet when I call to mind the late resolutions formed by the Catholic committee at Dublin, to resist all interference on the part of the crown in the appointment of their bishops, I cannot contemplate the opposition of that committee, without some apprehension of that dangerous alternative, the influence of France. For unless the King has a Veto in the appointment of Catholic prelates within his dominions, I see no possibility of ceding the claims of the Catholics; and such is my firm conviction upon this subject, that unless the Catholics come forward, not individually, but in their whole body, and allow the Veto, I would never allow to them the grant which they seek, conscious that it would open a dangerous access for the influence of France. This is a point which I consider indispensable, and which ought to be settled before I can go into any committee on the subject.

But, Sir, I feel persuaded, that if it were this moment practicable or politic to grant the claims of the Catholics, no great alteration in the minds or happiness of the people would thereby be effected within a short time: nor would that content and tranquillity so suddenly follow, which gentlemen have so fondly predicted. There is another, and in my mind, a much stronger cause of discontent in the people of Ireland, than any thing which belongs to the Catholic claims. An injury of much greater weight than any thing of which the Catholic community have to complain, exists in the perpetual absence of those noblemen and gentlemen owners of great landed estates in Ireland, who perpetually reside in this country, spending those revenues which are drawn from the industry of their tenants, no part of which ever reverts to replenish the sources from which they flow.—This, Sir, is the true cause of the discontents which agitate Ireland; and unless some check be put to the further progress of this growing evil; unless the absentee owners of great estates in Ireland will condescend to visit, to view, and to consider the situation of that country; to reside occasionally amongst those tenantry whose industry furnishes the means of their own luxury and splendor; unless by a frequent appearance and occasional residence amongst them they patronize and encourage their industry, inspire them with confidence, and by their example, influence their manners and morals, and teach them a due submission to the laws, it will be in vain to look for tranquillity or contentment in Ireland; no Catholic emancipation will ever effect it. No effectual remedy can or will be, found until some barrier is thrown up to check that destructive emigration of the land owners of Ireland, which, up to the point at which I am speaking, continues to desolate the country, and increase the discontents of its resident population. Sir, every man who has of late years travelled over that country, must have marked the contrast on the very face of it, between the high state of cultivation, improvement and tranquillity which reigns in the estates of the resident landholders, and the wretched appearance of those estates where the owners are absentees, and their tenants are delivered over to the disposal of mercenary agents. Sir, until this evil be effectually checked, and until the absentee lords of the Irish soil shall see their own interest, and reflect on the necessity of visiting their estates, and cheering by their presence, cherishing by their encouragement, and instructing by their example those now neglected tenants from whom their wealth is drawn, and by spending amongst them in their establishments some portion of those revenues derived from their labours, it will be in vain to look for tranquillity or popular content in Ireland:—on the contrary, I fear the same poverty, wretchedness, discontent, and desolation every where visible on the estate of the absentee, must continue to afflict the sight of every tender-hearted man who contemplates the condition of the great mass of the people in that country. Until some remedy can be applied to those evils, and I know of none other but that which I have recommended, it will be in vain to go into any committee of inquiry upon petitions coming from any portion of the Irish people, complaining of grievances merely speculative and ideal in comparison of those I have stated, and which have nothing to do with the true sources of discontent. I shall therefore oppose the motion.

(Dublin.) Sir, I shall not trespass long upon the time of the House, but I cannot content myself in giving a silent vote upon this question, and I am anxious to state the motives which influence me in the vole I shall give. I can assure the House and the country they do not arise from any hostility towards the Catholics in Ireland;—towards that great and respectable body of my fellow subjects I never felt, nor do I now feel, any sentiments of intolerance. That they possess all that loyalty and attachment which they profess to the King and constitution, I firmly believe. I sincerely wish them all the advantages of that constitution, consistent with the real security of the constitution itself; but I regret extremely, that while they demand concession from us, they are themselves so slow in conceding those securities which we think indispensable, and which even their best friends and ablest advocates in this House think necessary. I perfectly agree with my right hon. colleague, that it will be a happy day for Ireland, when so desirable an end can be accomplished. But mutual concession would be the best pledge of mutual conciliation, and this is the only medium through which so great a purpose can be accomplished. But if any of us believe, that without such security the constitution would be in danger, I ask, can any liberal Catholic blame us for requiring the security in the first instance? Let the Catholics then give the security, which even their warmest friends wish, and there is not a liberal Protestant in Ireland who will no; rejoice in the opportunity of being enabled to admit his countrymen of every religious persuasion to the full benefits of the constitution. Ail we desire of the Catholic is, that he will enable us to grant what he asks. This is what we require, and all require. I know the value of conciliation: but to be sincere, it must be reciprocal. Until that point be satisfactorily adjusted, I see no use in going into a committee. But, Sir, when that spirit of conciliation, which is evidently gaining ground in this House, and in both countries, has worked a little more, such is my confidence in the good sense of the Catholic portion of my countrymen, that I have no doubt they will in due time see their own interest, and come forward to give that security which alone can justify this House in complying with the prayer of their petition, and which their ardent and warmest friends think they should not refuse.

said that it would not have been his wish to have risen at that period of the debate, if those who had preceded him had not taken a view of the whole subject far more extensive than appeared to him to be necessary, in order to enable the House to decide upon the question before them. That extensive and enlarged discussion he should not decline whenever the occasion required it: but at the present moment, and under the circumstances in which it was brought forward he could not but think the prolongation of such a discussion, upon the general merits of the question,, both ill-timed and unnecessary.

It was useless to dwell upon those arguments by which motions similar to that now upon the table had been successfully resisted, not because those arguments had lost any of their force since they were last advanced in that House, not because the grounds on which those arguments rested were less strong, less powerful, and less convincing than they were at any former period, but because, even in the view of those upon whom those arguments had had no weight on former occasions, of those who had, on the contrary, condemned the conduct of that large majority in both Houses of parliament who were influenced by, and acted upon those arguments, of those who had been considered, both in parliament and in the country, as the greatest champions of the Catholic claims, even in the view of those persons new difficulties had occurred, unexpected embarrassments had arisen to clog the discussion of any of the measures connected with the Catholic petition. These difficulties and embarrassments were of so grave and serious a nature, arising too from the Catholic body themselves, as to lead the noble lord (lord Grenville) who had boasted of being selected to bring forward their claims, to decline doing so again, and to declare his conviction that the difficulty of originating at this time, and under such circumstances, any fresh discussion respecting this measure almost insuperable.

The period when these declarations were made by lord Grenville was not an unimportant consideration;—they were published at the eve of the meeting of parliament—at a time when the expectation of a change of administration was entertained by the political supporters of the noble lord, who were not slow in proclaiming their hopes, that he would shortly be placed at the head of the government of the country.

The sentiments, therefore, contained in lord Grenville's celebrated letter to lord Fingal, must be considered not merely as those of a person of high literary attainments, of acknowledged ability, and holding a great station in this country; but as the political creed of the party who acknowledge that noble lord for their head, and opportunities had been taken by some of the most distinguished political friends of that noble lord, to express their entire concurrence in his opinions.

Without meaning to subscribe to all the opinions contained in that letter, Mr. Ryder said he most cordially concurred in the result. And he must express his surprise that neither the right bon. gent, who brought forward the motion, nor any of those who had followed him on the same side, had adverted to that letter, or attempted to explain the singular circumstances which had occurred since this question was last brought forward, or to account for their adopting a different line of conduct from that of those with whom they were in the habit of agreeing, upon all political questions, and upon none more closely than those connected with the Catholic petition.

The House could not have forgotten that when this question was brought forward two years ago, it was recommended to the attention of parliament, both here and elsewhere, upon the express and specific grounds, that they knew there was a disposition on the part of the Catholics to allow the crown a negative in the nomination of their Roman Catholic bishops, and the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Ponson-by) upon being asked on what authority he made that assertion, stated it to be upon the authority of doctor Milner, a Roman Catholic bishop, and the accredited agent of the Irish Roman Catholics in this country, who spoke in the name and by the authority of the Roman Catholics.—And in another place, similar assertions were made from the same, at that time, unquestionable authority.

What followed? Not many months after this discussion in Parliament, in the month of September, 1808, the Roman Catholic bishops held a meeting in Ireland, at which all but two of their number attended, and came to the resolution to deny to the crown all interference, direct or indirect, in the choice of the Roman Catholic bishops; and we found in various publications about the same period, one signed Milner, expressly denying that he ever gave such authority, and affirming that he would rather shed the last drop of his blood than consent that any non-catholic prince should have the power of interposing, in any manner, in the election of their bishops;—that is, that he would rather shed the last drop of his blood than consent to the proposal made by the right hon. gent. in his name, and by his authority.—A proposal which it appears was made in his hearing, both in this and the other House of Parliament, and for which, while the impression was fresh in his recollection, he made, as lord Grenville has informed the public in his pamphlet, the most gratifying acknowledgments.

Whether Dr. Milner did not' himself understand the nature and extent of the proposition made to parliament in his name, and by his authority, or whether the persons who made it misunderstood the nature and extent of the proposition which they were authorized to make on the part of the Roman Catholics, was as yet unexplained. The only point clear and indisputable was, that between both, and by this unaccountable misunderstanding, parliament and the public were misled and deceived into a belief that there did exist a temper and disposition on the part of the Catholics the very reverse of that which they state themselves to have entertained.

Who was to blame for this imposition upon parliament and the country, is as yet a mystery.—Mr. Ryder said that it would be inconsistent with parliamentary usage, and not less foreign from his intention, to impute any motives to the right hon. gentlemen opposite which they might wish to disavow.—But he must be permitted to lament that before they made those declarations professed to be made for the purpose of recommending the Catholic claims to the favourable consideration of parliament, they had not taken more pains to be assured that the agent, upon whose authority they relied, was himself authorized to make them, on the part of those, without whose concurrence the proposition could not be carried into effect, and that the proposition itself was that which they had the authority of the agent to propose.

If they were themselves deceived, and in consequence of the delusion practised upon them, had been the innocent means of imposing upon parliament and the country, upon this most important subject, it would have been but natural to expect, that as soon as they were themselves undeceived, as soon as they knew the real opinion of Dr. Milner, as soon as they were apprised of the decision of the Catholic bishops, they would have taken the earliest opportunity of explaining the whole of this most extraordinary transaction.

If such an explanation was not due to themselves, and for the sake of their own character, it was at least due to the public, who had been deceived by their representations, and he hoped the time was at length arrived when it would be afforded.

But whatever explanation that proceed- ing might receive, he saw reason to congratulate the House that they had not followed the advice, or acted upon the opinions so frequently advanced on former occasions by the noble lord and the right hon. gent., that the grant of the Catholic claims was not only the most efficacious, but the most easy of all remedies for alt the evils and dangers of the times. Not only infallible, but so much within reach, that parliament and government had nothing to do but to stretch forth their hand and to speak a single word in order to obtain the full and instant benefits of its operation.

What would have been the consequence if their advice had been adopted?—No sooner had you agreed to the important step of going into a Committee for the purpose of taking the Catholic claims into consideration, no sooner had you consented to raise and excite all the hopes which the appointment of such a Committee must have created and encouraged, than you would have been stopped short in the consideration of all the important questions connected with this great subject, by finding that the Catholics themselves absolutely refused to grant to the crown a degree of negative authority, which their warmest advocates held to be indispensable.

The agitation of such a question could not be a matter of indifference. It was not a prudent or a wise policy, it was not even fair to those whose interests were concerned, to consent to a Committee for the purpose of taking their claims into consideration, unless you have rational grounds for the belief that the result would" terminate favourably for their objects.—However widely he had already differed, or might hereafter differ, from the noble lord (to whom he had so often had occasion to allude) upon other points connected with this great question, yet the reasoning of the noble lord, as applied to the question upon which the House had this night to decide, appeared to him so unanswerable, that he could not urge any arguments against the adoption of the motion of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Grattan), more conclusive than those which had been advanced by the noble lord himself, and which, as coming from that noble lord might have an influence which he (Mr. Ryder) could not expect, to obtain for any reasoning of his own. The noble lord states that the prayer of the Roman Catholic petition was not a single or un- connected measure—that its objects are the peace and happiness of Ireland, and the union of the empire in affection as well as in government, yet that the hope of accomplishing such purposes solely by the repeal of a few partial disqualifications was vain.—That with the just and salutary extension of the civil rights of the Roman Catholics, must be combined other extensive and complicated arrangements, that all due provision must be made for the inviolable maintenance of the religion and civil establishment of this united kingdom: much must be done for mutual conciliation, much for common safety, many contending interests must be reconciled, many jealousies allayed, many long-cherished and mutually destructive prejudices eradicated,—The noble lord proceeds to state that amongst those measures was the proposal of vesting in the crown an effectual negative in the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops,—that that suggestion had previously been brought forward to meet the just expectations, not of any bigoted or interested champions of intolerance, but of men of the purest intentions and the most enlightened judgment—men willing to do all justice to the loyalty of the present Roman Catholic bishops, but not unreasonably alarmed at any possibility by which functions of such extensive influence might hereafter be connected with a foreign interest, hostile to the tranquillity of the country. A danger recently very much increased by the captivity and deposal of the head of the Roman Catholic church, by the seizure of his dominions, and by the declared intention of that hostile government, to assume in future the exclusive nomination of his successors. That he had learnt with heartfelt regret, the subsequent proceedings which took place in Ireland in consequence of this suggestion; and the practical result of the whole, in the opinion of the noble lord, was that which he (Mr. Ryder) had already had occasion to quote, namely, that circumstanced, as the question now was in England and in Ireland, no motion, grounded on the Roman Catholic petition, could at this time, in any hands, be brought forward, without a great and permanent disadvantage to its object.

He had no fears of public danger from the disappointment of the Catholic hopes, if indeed such hopes could be seriously entertained at the present moment. He had a much higher opinion of the loyally and good sense of the Catholic body than their friends in that House professed. But impressed, as he was, with the conviction lord Grenville had expressed, he for one could not agree to agitate the question, or to trifle and sport with the feelings of a large body of his fellow-subjects, by consenting to a measure calculated to encourage hopes, when he knew at the time he was called upon to consent to it, that those hopes, even in the opinion of the most zealous advocates of the Catholic claims, could not be safely realized.

.—I am totally unaccustomed to public speaking, but I hope the House will indulge me in a few short words, as I cannot think of giving a silent vote on this occasion. I have just returned, after having thoroughly canvassed the very numerous Protestant freeholders of an extensive, populous,. wealthy, and respectable county; and I have authority to declare their anxious wishes that their Catholic fellow-subjects should share in common with them the same rights, privileges, and immunities of British subjects.

then rose, and spoke to the following effect: 'I hope, as a right hon. gent. (Mr. Ryder) has called upon me to give some account of my conduct and proceedings in this House, on a former occasion, that the House will have the goodness to hear patiently, what would under other circumstances be little deserving of notice, namely, my explanation of the particular grounds of my own conduct.—The right hon. gent. has said, that I had on that occasion stated to the House, that the accredited agent of the Catholic bishops of Ireland had authorised me to make a specific proposal to this House, in their names. Now, the right hon. gent. must be greatly mistaken, because he is perfectly incorrect in that statement. I never stated any such thing. I stated, I had every reason to believe, that the Catholic bishops and clergy of Ireland, and the Catholics generally, were disposed to give to the crown an effectual negative on the nomination of the bishops, if in return for that, the House and the other branches of the legislature would be disposed to give to the Catholics of Ireland a full participation of all the privileges and benefits of the constitution.: and when I was asked for my authority, by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Yorke,). it will be remembered, I answered, that my authority was Dr, Milner. And now I will state to the House what were the vouchers then in my possession, which enabled and authorised me to give that answer. The right hon. gent. has also ventured to say that, when the Catholic claims have been enforced, I have always remained silent; and he wonders that I should have remained so. The right hon. gent.'s wonder however will never be a motive of conduct with me. He may wonder if he pleases; but I shall regulate my conduct by my own feelings and my own judgment, and I trust in such a manner that the House shall think it not unworthy its approbation. I did not, upon what was called the first question, think it necessary or fitting for me to speak. I thought it more proper as well as more becoming in me to reserve what I had to say, till the discussion came fully before the House; and I was disposed to bear any load of calumny, rather than prematurely or unnecessarily occupy the time of the House, until the fit and proper occasion should occur, of expressing my sentiments. Having been, as was well known, for a great many years of my life, a sincere and uniform supporter of the Catholic claims, when lord Fingal came over, two years ago, the sole delegate of the Catholics of Ireland, he was pleased to enter into much confidential conversation with me upon the subject of their claims. I told him, that I had observed, in all the intercourse I had had with others upon this important subject, that nothing weighed so much and seemed to have such an operation, upon the minds of the gentlemen of this country, as the notion, that the Catholics of Ireland were under the controul, and subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign potentate, and I stated, that I understood some communication had formerly taken place between the Catholic bishops and Catholic clergy and the Irish government on that subject; but that I did not know what was the nature of it; for the noble lord, on the other side of the House (lord Castlereagh) is aware, that to his administration no man was more opposed, than myself; and that therefore what was passing under his administration, was the less likely to be known to me. Lord Fingal said, he thought so too: but added that he believed there would not be much difficulty upon the subject; for that, in 1799, the Catholic bishops had made a proposal to the Irish government with a view to obviate that objection, and that they now entertained the same opinion they then entertained.—I asked lord Fingal, if I had his permission to state such proposal-to the House at that time? He said certainly; but he added that the Irish bishops had selected in this country one of the Catholic bishops who was their agent, and that I had better see him—I said he was unknown to me, but that if lord Fingal would introduce him to me, I should be glad to have some conversation, with him—A day or two after I received a a note from lord Fingal, stating that Dr. Milner was in Warwickshire and would write to me.—Some time then elapsed without my hearing farther on the subject, but before the 3d of May, lord Fingal wrote to say, that Dr. Milner was in London, and that he and Dr. Milner would wait upon me the next day. My answer to his letter appointed the particular time, and accordingly the next day they came to me—the conversation lasted some hours—two or three hours at least; there was a great deal of conversation on the occasion relating to the Catholics, but particularly with regard to the nomination of the Catholic bishops, and the negative proposed to be given to the crown upon such nomination. After this conversation had taken place, lord Fingal and Dr. Milner withdrew, and most certainly when they withdrew, nothing had passed in writing which could have been produced as an authority for the proposition I advanced; and if it had not been for an event which afterwards took place, I should not have any thing more to shew for the truth of what I have stated to the House, than my own word, and the confirmation of lord Fingal; but the day after this conversation had passed, Dr. Milner called at my house again and left there a card and letter, which, with the permission of the House I will read—(hear! hear! read, read!)—the card had on one side Dr. Milner, Bloomsbury, and on the other these remarks:

1. Protestant succession clause in oath of defence bill.

2. Attending established service.

Service by articles of war.

3. Catholic catechism—Thomas Paine's works.

4. Nomination to Catholic prelacies.

This card was accompanied by the letter I have in my hand, and in reading this letter, I shall be obliged to state passages which are extremely favourable to my argument; but the House will feel that I am called upon in my own vindication to make a public statement of them. The letter is to this effect:

"Dr. Milner presents his respectful compliments to Mr. Ponsonby, and takes the liberty of stating distinctly in writing, the substance of what he did say, or meant to say, in the conversation which he had the honour of holding with Mr. Ponsonby. First, the Catholic prelates of Ireland are willing to give a direct negative power to his Majesty's government, with respect to the nomination to their titular bishoprics, in such manner, that when they have among themselves resolved who is the fittest person for the vacant see, they will transmit his name to his Majesty's ministers, and if the latter should object to that name, they will transmit another and another, until a name is presented to which no objection is made; and (which is never likely to be the case) should the pope refuse to give those essentially necessary spiritual powers of which he is the depository, to the person so presented by the Catholic bishops, and so approved of by government, they will continue to present the names till one occurs which is agreeable to both parties, namely the crown and the apostolic see. It is to be observed, however—I. That the crown does not interfere with the concerns of any other religious sect, or church, which it does not support—2. That the nominators in this business, namely, the Catholic bishops, have universally sworn allegiance to his Majesty.—3. That they will moreover engage to nominate no person who has not taken the oath in question.

"2dly, It appears that the clause concerning the Protestant succession does not occur in the oath of the Defence Bill, but it would be highly gratifying to the consciences of the Catholic bishops and clergy, and a great proportion of the laity, (should an opportunity occur,) if any friend of theirs would distinctly state, in what sense they understood that clause, in the oath appointed for them to take, particularly in that of 1791, viz. as a penalty, which must for ever remain upon them, and to which they submit with all humility, not as an engagement which they take upon themselves, in such sort that they would be obliged to take up arms against his Majesty if he were to go to mass. They conceive themselves justified in under-standing the clause in this sense, by the most positive assurances, that such was the meaning of the legislature, which were given them in 1791, by bishop Horsley and other distinguished senators, who managed the bill in parliament.

"3dly. The practice of forcing Catholic soldiers and sailors to attend the established service of the church of England, and every where else, except in Ireland, is a religious grievance and oppression, which is deeply felt by all Catholics, particularly by the subjects of this intolerance.

"4thly. Mr. P. was so good as to say that he would disclaim, in the name of the Catholics of Ireland, the civil and religious code of Thomas Paine, which they have been accused in the newspapers at least of teaching and holding.

"Dr. Milner has not, of course, had an opportunity yet of consulting with the Catholic prelates of Ireland on the important subject of the Catholic presentations; but he has every reason to believe that they will cheerfully subscribe to the plan traced out in the first page of this note."

It will be observed, that the first page of the note contains the plan of election and nomination, with an unlimited veto in the crown. When I stated that the Catholic bishops entertained the same opinion they did in 1799, and was called upon for my authority: all I said was, that Dr. Milner was my authority for that statement. I have read his letter to this House, and it will be for the House to say whether such my statement was correct. I recollect that the next day the member for Cambridgeshire desired to see my authority, when I shewed it to him; and also to the hon. member for Yorkshire. And I remember their observations Were, not that I had overstated its contents, but that it would have authorised me to have gone much further. At the conversation which had previously taken place as well as at the debate on the subject in this House, there was present not only Dr. Milner, but lord Fingal. I recollect too that, when I went out into the lobby, the first person I met was lord Fingal, and he thanked me for what I had done. I said, 'I hoped I had not gone too far?' He said 'No; you are quite exact; perfectly correct.' And lord Fingal has, on some other occasions, confirmed as a man of truth and honour ought to have done, what I had stated upon that occasion. I believe about a day or two after the debate, Dr. Milner called upon me, and told me he had been much found fault with by persons of his persuasion, for what I had said; and that it would be necessary for him to publish something to justify himself. He stated that it was apprehended, that if this negative or veto were given to the crown, it would make the King the head of the Catholic Church. I told him I had never mentioned any such thing. I told him that if the veto was given to the crown, the most timid Protestant would be satisfied, that all temperate persons were willing to acknowledge the right of the Catholic clergy to exercise their episcopal functions; that with respect to their morality and good conduct, in civil life as subjects, I was satisfied the King was head of the Catholic church, but as to matters of faith it was impossible to require that he should be considered as head of the church in that point of view; for it would be to arrogate the right of having all matters of faith determined by the King; when, by the devolution of Christ himself, it was given to the bishops. Dr. Milner said that was true, but that I had been much misunderstood, and again informed me of the displeasure some had taken at the idea of an unqualified and unlimited veto, proposing at the same time that I should sanction a paper to be circulated, limiting the veto, and confining it to one, two, or more persons only Upon this I told Dr. Milner what was perfectly true, that the veto was not intended to give the crown a direct nomination of the Catholic bishops, that it could not be in wiser hands than those bishops themselves; that I never understood it was meant to be otherwise; that the veto was only given to satisfy the Protestant community upon the subject of foreign nomination; but I said, if you retract what has been already stated, and if you attempt to limit the veto, I fear it will have an extremely bad influence upon your cause; it will look as if you wished to retract the condition upon which you engaged to accept the grant of your claims. I said to him also, if the crown were to be limited in its veto, as to the number of persons who may be proposed, those persons who are unfit, for causes known to the crown or to its ministers would be rejected, and then some others who might possibly be unfit by reason of other causes not known to the crown would be proposed, and the crown by the effect of such limited veto will be obliged to accept them. I authorised Dr. Milner expressly to say that I never did think the veto ought to be granted for any other purpose than what I have stated, but I never authorised him to say, that I should approve of a dis- claim of the veto. Lord Fingal and Dr. Milner both said they thought that this would be satisfactory, and thence I was taught to believe it would be so. I concluded most certainly that they had reason to believe it would be satisfactory.

It is rather a remarkable circumstance, that though Dr. Milner had said that the reports in the newspapers had in their statement of what fell from me gone much further than what I had said myself, and that some of the writers of those reports had acknowledged that the statements went further than my language would justify, yet it is remarkable, I say, that I received two letters thanking me for what I was supposed to have said on the subject. One is from an archbishop, he thanks me in this way: (Here the hon. member read the letter of the archbishop to whom he alluded; it contained the most unqualified approbation of the arguments and observations which had been used by the right hon. member in the debate as reported in the public papers.) The other letter, which was also from a Catholic prelate, thanked me only in general terms. I say, therefore, it is not at all surprising that lord Fingal himself should have thanked me for what I stated in the course of the debate, and should have added, that there was nothing offensive, incorrect, or unauthorised in my statement; when you find that immediately afterwards I received the thanks of two Catholic prelates both acknowledging that there was nothing offensive in what I did advance, but that, on the contrary, it was perfectly correct, and consistent with the opinions and sentiments of the Catholics themselves. Why the Catholic prelates should afterwards have departed from what Dr. Milner and lord Fingal thought they were authorised to concede on the subject, I do not pretend to know. I was even assured that a few days before the meeting, which took place with a view to a resolution that it was not expedient that the crown should have the unlimited veto on the nomination of the Catholic bishops, it was thought the meeting would come to a contrary conclusion; but in the course of the month I did see a publication upon the subject, signed J. Milner.—(The right hon. member read several passages from this publication, and also the report of his own speech from a newspaper—he then read a letter which he had sent to Dr. Milner, in consequence of such publication.) I received an answer from Dr. Milner upon the subject, explaining to me his sentiments; but that letter I do not choose to read, because it may be considered as containing matter rather of a private nature. The letter I have read is on the contrary, a formal instruction to me with respect to what I was to say; and it was written with a view of stating what Dr. Milner had said, or meant to say, in the course of the conversation to which I have referred. That being a public letter, there could be nothing improper on my part in mentioning it. The answer to my letter is not precisely of the same description; and therefore I do not think I am at liberty to read it to the House. Such has been the nature of the instructions I received from Dr. Milner. I had no other conversation with him, than what I have stated, upon the subject of Catholic representation, except the one to which I have also referred, with lord Fingal, after the debate. The letter making intelligible to me, what I was to say, was delivered to me the day before the debate. I have since read, with considerable surprise, another publication of Dr. Milner, written evidently for the purpose of meeting my hon. friend's motion. (The right hon. member read a long passage from this second work of Dr. Milner, in which it was inferred, that the arrangement was incompatible with the security of the Catholic religion, and that Mr. Ponsonby had acted without having sufficient authority.) I never conceived myself immovably fixed, and I never stated any arrangement but his own. If it is incompatible with the safety of the Catholic religion, he is answerable and not I; and I really think, that a bishop of the Catholic church ought to have been as good a judge of the question as I could possibly be.—(The right hon. member here read another passage from Dr. Milner's publication, referring to the arrangements made by the heads of the Catholics.)

By what means he knows what the arrangements are, in the minds of those he calls the heads of the Catholics, I am at a loss to determine; for I have never had any intercourse with him upon the subject; and I must say, that Dr. Milner would be the last man in the community to whom I should wish to communicate any opinion upon any subject, and much less upon such a one as this.—(The right hon. member then read several paragraphs from another part of the book, in which the Doctor expressed a belief, that the Catholic religion was an object of unreasonable prejudice on the part of the Protestants.) It is thus that Dr. Milner is pleased to represent all those persons who for twenty years have supported the cause of the Catholics with unceasing fidelity; when he desires the Catholics to believe that their religion is an object of unreasonable prejudice upon the part of the Protestants. There are several other pas sages in this book, which are equally applicable to the question, but I think it would be tiresome to read them to the House. I have read thus much of them in consequence of Dr. Milner having stated that he would rather lose his life than give to the crown that Veto which he had before authorised me to state that the Catholics were willing to give; and because he professes to state the opinions of the Catholics, with as much confidence as if he was really informed what they were.

Having, Sir, said thus much upon this point, I hope and trust I shall stand acquitted before this House of having rashly advanced any proposition on this subject, without sufficient authority. I hope I shall be acquitted of having out stepped the authority given me, or of having stated in an imperfect or exaggerated manner the nature of the Veto to which the Irish Catholics were inclined to submit. With regard to the Veto itself, and my conduct with respect to it, I must say that it was regulated according to the opinions of others. I had never, either in the Irish parliament or here mentioned the subject. The noble lord over the way (Castlereagh) witnessed one or two motions which were made in the Irish parliament, and must be sensible that they never pointed to any such proposition. But, Sir, the state of the world, but more particularly of Europe, is materially changed now from what it was then. Formerly the pope was an independent prince: he had an independent state and temporal sovereignty guaranteed to him by the other princes and powers of the continent. Their jealousies of each other formed the basis of his power and stability. It was the interest of all the princes of continental Europe that the power of the pope should be exerted over the whole of their respective dominions. Catholic Christendom was, necessarily, a kind of religious republic, and every state had a separate and particular interest in maintaining the authority of the pope, as the head of the catholic church, and in supporting his ascendancy. But, Sir, in consequence of that great and extraordinary event in the history of nations, the French revolution, the pope became little more than a tributary sovereign, a power altogether depending, for its political existence, upon France. And two years ago it was well known, that the emperor of the French had it in prospect and in serious contemplation to have associated in the papacy Cardinal Fesch, and in that case, and if such an event had taken place, it is manifest that the real power of the pope would have resided in the coadjutor of the pope, namely, the cardinal nominated by the French government. It is however, perfectly well known, that the pope and the cardinals resisted this proposition cm the part of the emperor of France, with undaunted courage and inflexible firmness and integrity. It is well known what the pope's answer was upon that occasion. His answer was, that it was possible the emperor of the French would put him to death, but that such an association of the papal power and authority as was required of him, was contrary lo his conscience, and he would not submit to it, be the consequence what it might. The proposition, therefore, failed of success; but I firmly believe, the expulsion of the pope from Rome was greatly accelerated, if not altogether occasioned, by his refusal to comply with the wishes of the French emperor. The pope, however, having been driven from Rome, every one must admit that he is to all intents and purposes to be considered as a French subject. I do not say that he is in his will, and still less in his mind, a subject of France; but I say, that as far as his temporal interest is concerned, he is absolutely in the power, and under the controul of the emperor of the French.

In the present state of things, consequently the authority of the pope is considerably lessened, even compared with what it was two years ago. At that time he possessed at least a nominal sovereignty, but at the present day the emperor of the French has absolutely deposed the pope, and has said that his existence as a temporal sovereign, is incompatible with the principles of the French government; but, because the Emperor is willing to acknowledge that pastors are necessary to the catholic religion, he gives the pope two palaces, and a certain annual income, at the same time making it part of the condition upon which he receives his stipend, that he shall reside a certain part of the year at Paris. The effect of this arrangement necessarily is, not only to place the present pope, but all future popes under the influence of France, and to make the papacy an instrument of French dominion, and an engine of the ambition of the French emperor. I own it is not surprising that a great many persons in this country should feel a considerable degree of jealousy about the catholic clergy and the papacy. As to myself, I think the Catholics ought to accede to every thing for the purpose of satisfying the Protestants, that is not absolutely inconsistent with their consciences. If the Catholics are sincere in what they ask, arid do not ask it, wishing at the same time that their request may be denied, they ought, I think, knowing as they must, that what they ask can only be granted through parliament, to give an equivalent for what they expect to obtain from parliament, and the Protestant government. But I think, however, on the other hand, that your Protesant subjects have no right to ask what is inconsistent with the consciences of the Catholics. There are no apprehensions of foreign jurisdiction, or French interference, operating, upon my mind, that shall ever induce me to abandon the interests of the Catholics, founded undoubtedly upon such arrangements as are consistent with the Protestant safety. I think they have a right to exercise their religion as their ancestors professed it; and I see no reason why the exercise of the religion of their forefathers should prevent them from enjoying the full benefit of the British constitution.

Now, Sir, to say a few words on the subject of the Veto. I do not know how giving the crown a Veto on the nomination of bishops, can in any manner interfere with the Catholic faith. If it could be so considered, the Catholic faith would have been violated by the Catholics in Silesia, Prussia, and Russia, and other parts of the continent where the sovereign has a Veto. In some places the nomination is in the king, and yet no man has ever stated it to be contrary to the essential articles of the Catholic faith. Should they not be disposed however, to agree to the Veto, I think other arrangements may be made which will answer the same purpose, provided the Catholics are desirous of doing what is right. I will not now state what those arrangements ought to be—it is sufficient to observe that I think there would be no difficulty in making arrangements which would be satisfactory to all parties. We are told that the claims on the part of the Catholics are made for no purpose but that they may be refused. We are told that there are many Catholics, both in England and Ireland, who wish them to be refused, and that, if there was a disposition on the part of the Protestants to make an arrangement with the English and Irish Catholics, both these classes of persons would set to work and employ all their arts to render any arrangement as disagreeable as a Veto, and thus put it into the power of the enemies of arrangement, to defeat any thing that might be proposed by those who were really the friends of both Catholics and Protestants. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ryder) even has expressed his wonder that any Catholic should have, been found to signify an approbation of what my hon. friend (Mr. Grattan) mentioned in the course of his speech, domestic nomination; he observes too, that it would be a departure from the Catholic faith to sanction the appointment of a Catholic bishop, in the way proposed by the effect of this Veto. But I think that the right hon. gentleman, as he is not friendly to the cause of the Catholics, might at least have abstained from wounding their feelings, by such imputations, He must know that several of the Catholics have signified something like an approbation to the arrangement proposed, and therefore it was not liberal in him-to state that they could not do so without a departure from the essential articles of that faith. But, it appears to me, that the hon. gent. dreaded nothing so much as that the arrangement should be accepted, and, as he thought it likely that parliament would sanction such an arrangement, considered the best way to defeat it was by taunting the Catholics with the violation of the principles of their faith, by assenting to such a proposition.

The right hon. the secretary of state however says, that he has voted against every concession that has been made to the Catholics; so at least he has expressed himself. Am I then to understand that, if an arrangement could be made which would be agreeable both to Catholics and Protestants, that still the Catholics must not have to depend on the right hon. gent. for his support? The light hon. gent. says he is too well aware of the interests of his country to profess to be willing to grant the claims of the Catholics his concurrence; and that if the Catholics and Protestants could come to any arrangement, he is still determined not only not to agree to it, but on the contrary to refuse his assent. He says even that if the Catholic ministers were ready to comply with what is required of them, he would not be less determined to refuse his sanction to their claims, at least, so I understood the right hon. secretary also to say. Then, give me leave to ask, why any concessions on the part of the Catholics are to be urged as a ground of argument, either the one way or the other? When the true state of the case is, that veto or no veto—arrangement or no arrangement—the same determined purpose of resisting the claims of the Catholics exists in the minds of the administration of the country. To talk of rejecting their claims, because they will not agree to the veto, is nothing but dissimulation and folly.—(Hear! hear!)—When these men are talking of arrangements between the Catholics and Protestants, their declarations are the deceitful words of their lips, but convey not the real meaning of their hearts.—Whether this determination to resist all endeavours at arrangement between the Catholics and Protestants be wise or not, it will well become the House to consider.

I do not mean to follow my hon. friend behind me (gen. Mathew) in all his arguments. I wish his zeal had allowed him to express himself in language more conciliatory and less violent. I do certainly agree with him, that there is no danger whatever to be apprehended by granting to Ireland those privileges the people of that country justly claim and have a right to enjoy; but that on the contrary, it would be a means of security and strength to the whole empire—But the House is not called upon at the present moment even to grant the claims of the Catholics of Ireland to their full extent.—At present the only demand by the motion before the House is, that you will go into a Committee; and yet the motion is treated as if it was a demand of all you had to give.—There are concessions to be made on both sides; and if you expect great concessions from the Catholics, ought they not in return to expect some concession from you—those concessions would however be the subject of future consideration.—All that is asked now is to go into a committee—it does not follow that because We go into a committee to consider the petitions, we are therefore necessarily to grant all they pray.—Does any one mean to say we are to give all that can be asked?—we shall not be bound to do so by our vote of this night, agreeing to go into a committee.—How far in the Committee it may be expedient to determine to recommend to the House the granting the Catholics of Ireland and England full participation in the benefits of the British constitution, may be a question at this particular crisis worthy of mature deliberation. For what is in fact the state of Europe at the present moment? Is not the whole power of the continent united under the dominion of a single person? Is not that person a man—(I cannot describe him so well as my hon. friend has done). Is he not one of those extraordinary men whom providence creates to bring about those great and extraordinary revolutions, which in two or three thousand years are produced; and totally change the moral and political state of the world? Is he not unparalleled in the history of the world, both as a military man, and a general statesman? I say he is the greatest man that has ever appeared on the face of the earth. I speak not of his moral character; I speak of the strength of his faculties and of the energies of his mind. I am ready to admit that his vices may be equal to his talents, and his ambition not inferior to the powers of his intellect. He commands a people too, who are as ambitious as himself. I know not in what period of their history they have not been actuated by their ambition—it is their predominant prevailing passion. Here then is this extraordinary man, wielding the greatest power that ever was placed in the hand of any mortal, commanding a nation ready to make any sacrifice to promote his and their own feelings and views of ambition, and this country is the only remaining independant power with which such an enemy has to contend. Do not let us flatter ourselves by supposing that he is dragging reluctant armies into the field—depend upon it that the antipathy of the French nation towards this country, will support and stimulate the emperor of France to employ the energies, the powers he possesses to your destruction.—He is willing to enter into any contest to gratify his ambition—they are willing at any sacrifice to support him, to gratify their own; for the people of France know, that if they can pat down England, they will then be the undisputed masters of the world.

Is it not then, particularly necessary, that in such an alarming state of the world you should see how you can consolidate the forces of this empire? When you are asked only to go into a committee, in order to see how far this object could be accomplished, is it wise for a statesman to say, or is it wise of the House of Commons to decide by its vote that the question ought not even to be entered upon, until the opinions and sentiments of the Catholics are known, and the concessions they are willing to make are expressly stated? Is it wise to say to the Catholic clergy, you shall make all the advances, but we will make none: In my opinion, it would well become the legislature to make the first advance; it would not derogate from the dignity, the power, and the character of the legislature, to make the first overture of concession to the Catholics. It would become the House of Commons, on such a question, to act, not as theologians, but as statesmen. My hon. friend behind me has said, that grant Catholic emancipation when you will, it will have very little effect on the habits and prosperity of the Irish people. I have lived long among them, and from what I know of their sentiment am warranted to differ from my hon. friend. I say that the first thing to be done is to grant what the people of Ireland ask, if you wish to make them participators in the advantages you possess yourselves. The people of Ireland feel insult above every thing; it festers in their mind, and rankles in their hearts. If you knew them, you would know that they are a people whose spirit is high and not to be broken—that they are generous, open-hearted, frank, and liberal, as they are courageous. You would know that you cannot subdue them by force; the people of Ireland are not to be subdued by force; you have tried it for centuries, and you know that Ireland is not more secure now than it was in more troublesome times.

The noble lord (Joscelyn) has said, that many of the evils of which the Irish people complain, would be done away if the great landlords and wealthy proprietors were to reside amongst them. Now, what is the situation to which you have reduced that country?—I must speak the truth. Honoured as I am by the gentlemen of this country, it is the more imperative on me to tell you what the truth is upon this subject. Sir, the effect of the Union was, to defeat the very object of which the noble lord speaks; the natural effect and object of the Union was, to draw out of Ireland the great proprietors, and men of rank and property, at least, for a very considerable part of the year. If the noble lord thinks that resident landlords, and wealthy proprietors, remaining on their estates, are necessary to the prosperity of Ireland, he must try his hand at repealing the Union. If that cannot be done, I trust those concessions will be made which will have the effect of satisfying the people of that country; but the melancholy truth is, that Ireland never obtained any considerable advantages, except at the moment of England's embarrassments. That is the melancholy and deplorable truth. If you go on refusing every thing to the people of Ireland; if you say you will not even suffer a committee to inquire into the subject of tythes, lest it should endanger the security of the church; if you will not have a committee to investigate the claims of the Catholics, upon the weak pretence that the mover is not empowered to make concessions, depend upon it the people of Ireland will say, that the Union has made them worse than they were, and that what you refuse they would have obtained from their own parliament—their own parliament must have relieved them from their oppressions. If you persevere in resisting their just pretensions, if you continue to disregard their petitions, depend upon it they will think of more dangerous means of enforcing their claims, and the ability and inclination of the emperor of the French will not long leave them without that assistance and co-operation they may require. Are you aware of what would be the certain consequence of their resorting to such dangerous assistance?

The noble lord (Castlereagh) has alluded to what I think ought not to have been made the subject of observation in this House. Give me leave to inform the noble lord, that the conclusions of his mind are, in my opinion, the contrary of what ought to be the dictates of his duty. It is not the duty of a member of parliament to consider what, upon any particular measure of legislation, may be the individual opinion of the sovereign who wears the crown; but it is his duty to recommend, that, the sovereign should be informed as to what will be most likely to promote the interests and happiness of his subjects, and the prosperity of his dominions. It is owing to a contrary conduct on the part of his Majesty's confidential advisers, that so large a portion of the subjects of his Majesty are labouring under such unmerited disabilities and oppressions—the great evil is, and has been, that his Majesty's ministers are and have been too good courtiers. His Majesty's ministers ought to tell the sovereign the truth, even though it should not be agreeable to him. If his opinion be different from theirs, it is their duty to induce him to change it, or to say that whilst such a difference of opinion continues, they do not feel it consistent with their duty to remain in his service. The American war was not put a stop to by any private representation to his Majesty on the part of his ministers—his Majesty's ministers had not virtue enough to make such representation.—The American war was stopped by the voice of the people, and by the votes of this House. It is the duty upon the present occasion, as it was on that, and is. with regard to every question of national policy and interest the duty, of parliament to let the sovereign know what are its opinions and sentiments. I remember what the House of Commons told king William, when he refused his royal assent to a measure which had passed both Houses; they carried an address to the King to say, that they did lament that those who had access to his royal ear, should have given him advice contrary to what was given him by the two Houses of Parliament; that they thought it his duty to listen to his parliament and not to those who gave him ill-suited and evil counsel.—I say, then, Sir, it is the duty of ministers to come into the service of their sovereign, and to remain in his service, free from any restraint, bond, or obligation, but that which is imposed upon them by a just sense of their duty to their King and to the public, and I cannot but think, that when his Majesty was advised to demand a written pledge of his ministers, that they would not mention a particular subject to him; his Majesty was advised to do what was more unconstitutional than any thing that had been done by any sovereign since the reign of James 2.—Give me leave to say, that such unconstitutional advice has never prospered in this country—it has, lost us America.—By its fatal influence and effects, we have seen every state on the continent ruined and overthrown. It is, therefore, the duty, as it is the interest of parliament, to give to the sovereign such advice as will prevent him from losing Ireland. Think on what your own situation would be, if Ireland should be lost to this country. You never will be able to secure Ireland by continuing the conduct you have hitherto pursued towards that country. If you proceed in the same course you have done, you may be assured that either during his Majesty's life, or in the reign of his successor, there will be a convulsion in that unhappy country, that will either have the effect of losing the country, and placing it under the power and control of the enemy, or make it a frightful scene of bloodshed, devastation, and ruin.

. Whatever praise the House may be disposed to give to the eloquent and able speech of the right hon. gent. who has just sat down, I do not think he will have much of the commendation of those encomiasts who have applauded, and justly applauded the right hon. gent. who introduced this motion, for the spirit of moderation with which he brought it forward, endeavouring to conciliate the opinions and feelings of those whom he knew to be not only generally opposed to him, but particularly opposed to him in sentiment upon this subject. Very different unquestionably must have been the temper and the spirit which have actuated the right hon. gent. who spoke last; the very reverse of conciliation must have been his object;—but whatever impression the party violence of the right hon. gent. has necessarily made upon my mind, and upon the minds of many others, by a great portion of his speech, yet I do assure him, (and the right hon. gent. may give me credit or not, as he chuses) that I derive great satisfaction, a satisfaction which no sentiment of party animosity towards him shall prevent me from expressing, from that part of his speech which has so satisfactorily cleared his own reputation and conduct, upon a point which certainly required a very full explanation on his part.

I have great satisfaction in finding that the right hon. gent. and his noble friend—two individuals whose characters unquestionably stand very high in the public regard, have not been convicted of grossly and foully imposing upon the House and the public, by holding out fallacious motives to endeavour to induce parliament to adopt a course of conduct which, under other circumstances, there could not have been the slightest doubt of their rejecting. If I have any fault now to find with the conduct of the right hon. gent. upon this point, it is with his forbearance from explanation for so long a period, and that for nearly three years he has suffered the House and the country to remain in error on a subject so seriously involving his own conduct, and upon which the House and the country ought long since to have been undeceived. The public had a deep interest in this explanation, and they ought to have had it before.—The public ought to have been enabled to see in its proper colours the conduct of that reverend gent., who was so long suffered to enjoy a character with the public, to which the right hon. gent.'s statement has now shewn, that that rev. gent. is so ill entitled. It is curious to observe the shuffling and duplicity of the rev. gent., sometimes defending, and sometimes impeaching the conduct of the right hon. gent., of late indeed he says little in his defence, but much in his accusation. It is difficult to account for the very confident assertions he has lately made, even in print; unless he could be supposed to have totally forgotten the strong grounds of defence which he himself had placed in the power of the right hon. gent.; unless he had forgotten the contents of that paper which the right hon. gent. has just read, (to the existence of which, even when he must have forgot its substance, he so distinctly alludes,) for, in his letter to lord Stourton, published as an appendix to Mr. Keogh's pamphlet, is the following passage.

"The presenting of the petition may induce one member to taunt another with questions, concerning his authority for making a certain offer; and it is possible that the latter may again make use, of my name, and of a hasty short note which I sent him, not as a proposal, (for I never had an idea of such a thing till I heard it in the House) but barely as a supplement to a short conversation which I had been honoured with by that gentleman, and which note I scribbled in a bookseller's shop, as I was returning home. In this supposition, it will be incumbent on me, after having been burnt in effigy, more or less in his defence, in Ireland, and after standing the bating of the ministerial writers in the Morning Post, and after having pleaded his cause, as far as truth would permit me to go, in the Morning Chronicle, it will be incumbent on me, I say, to bring my documents and other proofs, fairly and fully forward, in order, as I have so often been called upon to do, to convince the public that I never gave authority for bringing forward the proposal, which from misapprehension, and an earnest zeal to serve us, was brought forward, nor indeed any proposal whatever. These proofs cannot fail, though very much against my inclination, to furnish matter of triumph to our common enemies."

Here, Sir, the House will observe, that the rev. gent. says. that he pleaded "the right hon. gent.'s cause, as far as the truth would permit him to go, in the Morning Chronicle." And undoubtedly, Sir, he did so; aye, and much further too, if he has "these documents and other proofs" which he threatens to bring "fully and fairly forward, in order as he has been often called upon to do, to convince the public that he never gave authority for bringing forward the proposal which was brought forward, or any proposal whatever."

It is no doubt, in the memory of many gentlemen of this House, that in the latter end of the year 1808, Dr. Milner published a letter in the Morning Chronicle, in which he defended, in very distinct terms, the parliamentary conduct of the right hon. gent., as connected with his proposal of the Veto. His words in that letter are,

"Whoever duly weighs this statement, sees that our parliamentary advocates were warranted in the declarations which they made in parliament, to the extent and in the manner here set down. And it is my duty thus publicly to avow the share which I took in the warrant under which they spoke of the presumed disposition of the Irish prelates, to make the desired concession. On the other hand he will see," mark the sincerity of the doctor, "that I did not hold out the most distant prospect of these prelates yielding to the crown any degree of ecclesiastical supremacy, or actual power, direct or indirect, over the Catholic church of Ireland, on short he will acquit the hon. and noble personages alluded to, of the foul fraud imputed to them by their political adversaries, and he will acquit me also of the inconsistencies with which I have been charged in the newspapers, with respect to my declarations and writings, on different occasions."

At that period then Dr. Milner was unquestionably the advocate for the correctness of the right hon. gent. Now the case will stand clear with the public; I am glad it will do so. But I cannot forbear trusting, that from the whole of this strange transaction, we may learn this useful lesson, that we should in future not only be extremely jealous of the manner of such communications, but that we should not depend too much upon the accuracy of judgment of the right hon. gent. and his friends on that side of the House, as to the judgment they may form of the Roman Catholic feelings and opinions upon this subject; nay, I should trust it would be a useful lesson to the right hon. gent. himself, not too hastily to imagine that he could vouch for the opinions of the Roman Catholics, when they seem to be so fickle and undecided in their objects and intentions as not to be able justly to anticipate them themselves. The right hon. gent. had even said, that he had received a letter from one of the Catholic bishops, stating his expectation, that a meeting of the Roman Catholic prelates would concur in the sentiments which had been asserted last session being the general sentiments of the Irish Catholics.

, in explanation, observed, that his statement was merely that he had received a letter from a Catholic bishop, expressing his opinion, that his speech deserved the thanks of all Ireland, and particularly of the Catholic prelates.

resumed; We know now with what feelings we are to receive any representations coming from that quarter, when after this letter of thanks and approbation from a Catholic archbishop, in the name of his suffragans in grateful approbation to the proposition and the conduct of the right hon. gent, this very archbishop and his suffragans shortly afterwards adopted, in their synods, resolutions directly condemning the proposal.

But, Sir, in proceeding to the question more immediately before us, I could wish to know the right hon. gent.'s opinion concerning that domestic nomination, that new substitute for the Veto, which has now been introduced much in the same way, and with no better apparent authority, nay, with still less apparent authority, than that unfortunate proposal. I could wish to know whether the right hon. gent. concurs, or thinks differently from his right hon. friend, who opened the de- bate upon this subject. I am sure that the House will feel that it is of extreme importance that we should be under no mistake or misconception on this point. I distinctly understood that right hon. gent., the mover of this question, to say, that, in his opinion, no proposition was admissible fn favour of the full emancipation of the Roman Catholics, unless it were accompanied by the Veto, or some other concession containing a complete renunciation of all foreign influence. Now we undoubtedly should know from the right hon. gent, who spoke last, explicitly his views. We do not deal fairly with the Roman Catholic, with one another, or the public, if we do not require an explanation on this point. No one (and I beg the House to observe it) no one has as yet been so explicit as the right hon. gent. who began the discussion. And after paying to the speech of the right hon. gent. who spoke last, all the attention it merited, although anxious to mark and to retain what he might say on this point, I am still at a loss to know whether he agrees with the right hon. mover in this principle, of necessary renunciation of foreign influence, to be effected either by the domestic nomination, or by the Veto, or by some other substitute for that Veto; or whether he thinks the concessions on our part to the Catholics, should be unconditional, upon the trust of what they may afterwards be disposed to do: on this point the right hon. gent, has, as yet, left us totally in the dark; and, in fact, we have no admission of its necessity nor proposal for its adoption, except the right hon. gent. who opened the discussion. He indeed has been more candid and explicit in his avowals than any of those who have succeeded him in debate; I must do him the justice to say, that he has not sheltered himself under any reserve, but has plainly, unambiguously, and manlily stated his opinion: and indeed from the admissions of that right hon. gent. I think I have some right to stand vindicated, as well as those who think with me on this question, from the charges of bigotry and intolerance, so repeatedly urged against us, and even now so liberally, or rather so lavishly renewed by the right hon. gent. who spoke last. For it appears, Sir, now most clearly, even from the declaration and admission of the right hon. mover himself, that if we had granted these concessions to the Roman Catholics before without any condition, as it has been frequently proposed by those hon. gentlemen to grant them, and as frequently and uniformly resisted by me, we should have granted them most unwisely and most precipitately, and that no man would have more regretted that precipitancy, or been more convinced of that folly than the right hon. gent. himself who proposed it; for it now is clearly admitted by him, that these concessions cannot safely be granted without full and satisfactory securities, and that, in fact, there ought to be no further concessions without some security, such as the Veto, or some equivalent which he thinks indispensable. Where then is the ground of charge of intolerance against me, in which the right hon. gent. must not fully partake? He thinks himself justified on principles of public policy, in withholding those concessions from the Catholics, which they claim, unless upon a condition, which hitherto they have given us no reason to believe they will consent to—What do I do more?—We may differ in our application of our principle, but on the principle itself we are agreed. The right, hon. gent. admits that the spiritual influence which the pope, through the bishops and the priests, may have upon the people if the election of the bishops remains as it is, is reasonably to be dreaded from the temporal effects which it may produce; that this influence in spirituals, is, in fact, a means of temporal power, and that, therefore, it must be guarded against. Here, Sir, again the right hon. gent, and myself I find agreed; and I must entreat the House never to forget that the hon. mover has argued that no concessions ought to be yielded to the Catholics, without securing some concession on their part equivalent or analogous to the concession of the Veto. What this analogous concession is—what arrangement is to be substituted, the hon. mover had not stated, and the hon. gent. who has last spoken has said, that for many reasons it should not be extorted from him. (A cry of hear! hear! in which sir J. Newport's voice was peculiarly distinguishable). The right hon baronet by his cheers intends, as I conclude, to express his approbation of his right hon. friend's determination, and yet that right hon. bart., with admirable consistency, no doubt, has this very night told his Majesty's ministers, that they should express their opinions on this subject to the Catholics of Ireland; that they should; de- fine and explain the restrictions which might be demanded as an equivalent for emancipation; that the Roman Catholics have a right to expect this explanation, before they can be expected to concede any thing. Surely then he is rather too kind to his right hon. friend to approve of his determination to withhold the very thing which he has recently and peremptorily demanded as due in justice to the Roman Catholics.

But when the right hon. gent. states that he will not explain the nature of the proposed arrangement, is it too much to suspect his real reason to be, that he cannot explain that of which he has no idea himself? He has argued, indeed, that he will not explain it, because there are in Ireland and in England ill-disposed persons who would immediately avail themselves of its publicity, and wishing nothing more than to keep alive the discontents of the Roman Catholics, and nothing less than to see those discontents allayed, would, by inflammatory publications, and otherwise disseminating erroneous nations concerning it, endeavour (as in the instance of the Veto they had but too successfully endeavoured) to render it obnoxious to the Catholic mind.—I am as sorry as the right hon. gent. can be, that there should exist such men, disposed to act on such motives, and for such an object, in either country. But how does the right hon. gent. seek to obviate this difficulty?—He supports the motion for referring this measure to a committee: does he mean to say that the explanation of the nature of this arrangement in his speech must be mischievous, whilst the discussion of it in a committee would be perfectly innocent and safe?

Sir, the right hon. gent, who brought forward the motion, and a noble lord of the other House, in his well-known letter to lord Fingal, have declared that certain arrangements are indispensable in case of further concession to the Roman Catholics. Whatever expectations others may have entertained, certainly neither I, nor any of those who have thought with me, ever were of opinion that such provisions would be agreed to by the Catholics. But if the present motion should be agreed to, and the House go into a committee on the question, we have no assurance, no, not even the authority of Dr. Milner, that any arrangements would be acceded to. That the Veto would be objected to we know, that any equivalent arrangement would be acceded to, we have no reason to believe. But let us even suppose that the Veto, or such equivalent arrangement, were agreed to at this time, how could it be considered as a valid agreement? How or by what sanction could such a power be conferred on his Majesty? How or by what sanction could obedience to that power be enforced? It supposes a contract to which the government of this country, the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and the pope, must all be parties. Now the pope may refuse his sanction, Buonaparté may compel him to refuse it, or the Catholics may change their mind, and you cannot punish them for non-performance, without justly incurring the charge of intolerance. Should the present race of Catholics make the concession, how can they bind the religious scruples of their children?

What would be our situation, if, after all the disabilities of which the Catholics complain had been removed, on the supposition that certain concessions on their part would be perpetual, the sons of those Catholics should refuse to abide by what was stipulated for them? nay, if the persons themselves who had conceded them should repent of their concession? We could not punish them for withdrawing their consent; and if we did we should be justly accused of interfering in a matter of religion and conscience with the hand of power. The right hon. gent. argues, and for ought I know may argue correctly, that the veto is consistent with the Roman Catholic religion, but who is to be the judge of the validity of that argument? In such a case, none can be competent judges but the Catholics themselves, and if they declare that they cannot conscientiously grant such a power, it is just as intolerant to require them to grant it, as to insist on their taking the oath of supremacy. Suppose after such a concession on their parts, persons assumed the episcopal character, functions and authority, without complying with these terms, and the Roman Catholics acknowledged their authority, how would you prevent them?—Suppose they asserted it to be an article of faith, of religion, not to suffer a Protestant to interfere in the election or nomination of their bishops; would you prosecute them? would you punish them for this article of their faith? would you? where then would be your toleration? yet without this, what is the validity of your agreement?

Besides all this, Sir, how is such an arrangement practicable? The investiture of such an authority in his Majesty must be, according to all usage, by concordat with the pope; and how is his consent to be obtained? How are we to procure access to him? Were it even possible to obtain his ratification of such a regulation whilst be remains a prisoner; nay, if it were to be obtained; if Buonaporté were to induce him to give it, were to consent that he should give it; and without his consent, at this time, I conclude, no man is idle enough to suppose that the pope could give it. Might he not, when at large retract his former act, and plead in justification his former situation? How wild and chimerical, then, is it, to suppose that such an arrangement can, at this time at least, be productive of a satisfactory issue with the Catholics of Ireland!

Let us not, then, be amused with a project, the nature of which it is not attempted to explain, and the execution of which borders on impossibility.

As the arguments for going into a committee have been rested on this ground alone; as concession has been coupled with the Veto, or with the domestic nomination indispensably, by the right hon. mover of the question himself, I think it unnecessary this night to do more than to meet the arguments of the right hon. gent. who began the debate upon this ground. But although I do not feel myself obliged nor inclined to go more at large into the question at this time, I must protest against its being inferred, from my opposing this motion on this ground alone, that my objections would be removed if the veto, or domestic nomination, were conceded. I must be permitted to say, that foreign influence is not the only influence I dread, and that there is another as much to be apprehended; and that also that foreign influence would not nor could not be destroyed by the veto.—If the right hon. gent. has one objection to concession, I have two; and although I think his a serious one, and one which his proposed remedy would not cure, yet there is another, which, with a view to the tranquillity of. Ireland, I think of much greater importance. I remain of the opinion which I have always maintained, that the Catholics of Ireland are disposed to go further than what they now demand as emancipation; that whatever they now profess, nay whatever they now may feel, they will not, they cannot be satisfied with any thing short of the entire and exclusive establishment of their religion in Ireland:—the establishment of their religion with all the right of such establishment annexed to it. Nay, the better the Roman Catholic, the more sincere he is in his faith, the more attached to his religion, the more impossible it is to suppose that he would be satisfied, if his satisfaction is your object, till he had obtained that establishment for his religion. But there are many, Sir, which even this establishment of their religion would not satisfy.—I do not speak this lightly nor without proof, at least presumptive proof. What else can I think, if I am to judge by what every day falls from the press, and from the declared sentiments of many who are foremost amongst the Catholics themselves? What does Mr. Keogh say in his pamphlet on this subject; and it is of high importance that what is here said should be noticed by gentlemen. Thus Mr. Keogh: "It is time to lay the axe to the root of the evil. If you sincerely feel that love of England, and that loyalty to the King, you are so forward to profess: if, in a word, you purpose to save Ireland to the empire, let her experience an eternal divorce between religion and politics, including the abolition of tythes, and the suppression of every species of public plunder on pious pretences. Let her see her corporate bodies, including the university, annulled; for they are all organized accomplices of old errors and of old vices against every moral, political, or physical improvement.—Let her peasantry be freed from the pressure of rack rent, not by imperative statutes, but by bringing to market fewer bidders for more arable land;—by encouraging domestic manufactures—let the progressive accumulation of her taxes be terminated."—And in short, his cure for the grievances of Ireland virtually tends to a repeal of the Union, and separation.

The right hon. gent. in pointing to what was mentioned by the noble lord (Jocelyn) behind me, as one of the grievances of Ireland, namely, the absence of the landed proprietors; the right hon. gent. retorted, that this was one of the great and mischievous effects of the Union, and advised my noble friend to try his influence for a repeal: I must suppose that right hon. gent. too wishes for its repeal. Perhaps this was one of the arrangements in the mind of the right hon. gent. which he declared should not be extorted from him.—It might be so, although not professed by the right hon. mover, nor the noble lord in the other House. The hon. general (general Mathew) opposite me, distinctly contends that it is necessary for the salvation of Ireland, and Mr. Keogh does the same. What, therefore, are we to judge, but that emancipation is not the real object of the petitioners, and that nothing will satisfy them but a separation from this country? This, I trust, however, is far from the general sentiment; but I candidly state my view of this subject.—I have always thought that the Catholics of Ireland would never be contented unless with the full establishment of their church.—I always argued the question in that way, and I do so now, quite fearless of the censures that may be cast by any one on my motives. Without therefore relinquishing that ground of objection, I have thought it sufficient to state what I have stated in opposition to the hon. mover, who, to preserve consistency, ought to vote against his own motion, and not for it. For if there were no grounds for the hon. mover's belief that the Catholics would consent to make a satisfactory arrangement, then the hon. mover, on his own principles, should opppose the referring of the petition to a committee, the result of whose proceedings must be, after having excited expectations which it was impracticable to gratify, to leave the public mind in a state much worse than that in which it was found.

I have now stated what I conceive to be sufficient grounds for not going into a committee on the prayer of the petitioners.—Should the Roman Catholics consent even to the Veto, or any other arrangement in contemplation, I see no practical utility in agitating the question.—I think it is only exciting expectations which are not to be satisfied; and upon the impracticability alone of the arrangement proposed, I think the House would act absurdly and mischievously by consenting to this motion for referring the petition to a committee.

said; After the many excellent speeches which have been delivered in the course of this debate, in support of the opinions which I espouse, little remains to be offered by me on the present subject, important as it is on every account. I shall, however, take occasion to make a few remarks, and particularly on the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the able and convincing speech of my right hon. friend, (Mr. Ponsonby). Let not the House be for a moment misled by the train of argument of the right hon. gent. He may discuss the propriety of this or that restriction, but upon these questions he is not a man open to conviction, or whom any arrangement could satisfy. If the Catholics were to lie prostrate at his feet, and to implore him to name his own terms, his answer must be, "I can never be satisfied. I can propose no arrangements; I can accept no terms. You are men whom I cannot trust, I cannot believe you upon your oaths." In what other language could the right honourable gentleman express himself, who must judge of the principles of other men by his own? for he has told you, that if instead of being so truly orthodox as he is he were a schismatic, he would ask for immunities chiefly for the sake of using them to overthrow the establishment from which the concession of them had been obtained; that he would not, that he ought not to be satisfied, until he had succeeded in demolishing the one church, and setting up the other on its ruins. With such a man it is idle to discuss arrangements, with his consent none will ever be carried practically into effect.

It is not, however, my wish to quarrel with the religious doctrines of this man of intolerance, nor to waste the time of the House in exposing the weakness and bigotry of arguments which have been so often exposed and refuted. I must come directly to other parts of the speech of the right hon. gent. I accuse him of the greatest want of candour in the representation he has given of that part of the speech of my right hon. friend, wherein he touched upon the subject of the Union. The noble lord (Jocelyn) who spoke early in the debate, in enumerating the grievances of Ireland, dwelt upon the number of her absentees, to which circumstances he ascribed much of the evil known to exist in that country, and expressed a wish that some barrier could be erected against this fatal emigration. My right hon. friend in his masterly reply animadverting upon what had been said by the noble lord, truly said, that the Union had added most largely to the number of absentees, that it had compelled many of the Irish to absent themselves from their country, and that the most effectual barrier which could be erected, would be the repeal of the Union.

But my right hon. friend, so far from recommending the repeal, as has been mis- represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave no opinion whatever, even upon the original propriety of the measure. He pointed out to the noble lord the conclusion to which his own arguments inevitably lead—concession to the Catholics, or the repeal of the Union. The argument belongs to the noble lord; the result of it he did not appear so fully to have perceived.

True it is, that the gallant general (Mathew) has recommended, with great fervour and earnestness, the repeal of the Union, which he deems so fatal to the interests of his native country. Ample allowance is due to the ardent feelings of a true born Irishman, and for the keen regret with which he must view, what he conceives to be the extinction of Irish independence.

Who can blame the heated language of my gallant and hon. friend, when it is recollected that he was an eye witness of the tragic horrors which took place in Ireland in the year 1798, which he has described with so much feeling, and in such glowing colours? who can be surprised if on such a subject, a brave and humane man speaks warmly; when he sees in this distant and more enlightened period of the year 1810, the minister of England and the tools of that minister, use every topic of inflammation—encourage every rancorous feeling, in discussing the claims of the Catholics. I impute not such blame to the duke of Richmond, nor to lord Wellington, during the period he was chief secretary in Ireland, nor to his right hon. relation who now fills the same office. It lies at the door of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has thought it decent and fair to oppose every species of obstacle to the emancipation of the Irish Catholics; and a learned doctor, his right hon. friend and coadjutor. Of that learned gentleman's over-done violence, however, his partizans are so little proud, that because he broke his compact, and on the subject of tythes, favoured us a short time ago with an harangue, in his accustomed strain, they appear to have positively transported him, that he might not take part in this debate. He has not failed to make up for want of attendance by publication. We have also seen the History of the Inquisition republished within a short time with plates, illustrating all the horrors of torture. All the obsolete stories of Catholic persecutions have been brought forward for the purpose of deceiving and alarming weak minds, (as if such were the practices of the Catholics of the present day:) and of rendering more fierce that fire, which if it shall long continue to blaze, will consume the very vitals of the country. As well might the History of Ireland be published, illustrated with plates, representing those scenes of cruelty and horror which were acted by the government of 1798, as giving a true representation of the government of the present lord lieutenant, and his conduct towards the people. I must not forget Dr. Milner, who if he had been created for the purpose of sowing dissension amongst the Catholics themselves, and unfounded distrust of their friends, could not have succeeded better than he has done. I think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been pleased with the honest triumph of my right hon, friend, over that rev. divine. I was not a little gratified by the pompous introduction of the charges against my right hon. friend by the Secretary of State; had my right hon. friend stationed him there, and directed him to play a part for stage effect in his favour, it could not have been done more entirely to his wish.

On the other hand, I confess I have experienced no small degree of mortification from the proceedings of some of the members of the University of Oxford, who have directed their representative (sir William Scott) to announce their opinion upon the present question. It is a mortification to think that a body so enlightened, and so liberal as the University of Oxford ought to be, should wish to place itself foremost in resisting the claims of their Christian brethren. The opinion then of Oxford is, that she having herself heretofore thrown off the errors of the Catholic church, has carried her reformation to that point of perfection where it ought to stop. To the Catholics she will not allow all the tenets which she herself formerly maintained, to the reformists she will not allow the slightest scepticism upon so much of those tenets as she has thought proper to retain: nor to stir one hair's breadth beyond her line of demarcation. Oxford is perfect. All that is above her is too high, all below her too low. This is her opinion of herself, and she looks with an odious austerity upon all who presume to differ from her.

Sir, I am sorry to see such a spirit of intolerance and cruelty in that ancient seat of learning. It is a matter of just apprehension and regret, when we know that a large proportion of the rising generation is to be committed to her care, and is likely to imbibe her feelings and opinions. The manifestation of this spirit is a grievous disappointment, after the liberality displayed in the election of lord Grenville, to the distinguished honour of her chancellorship, in spite of the war-whoop of No Popery. I am confident, however, that there are, belonging to that great body, both within the walls of her own colleges, and spread over the kingdom, many members who widely dissent from those opinions which have been delivered to us as the opinions of the University of Oxford.

The learned judge himself has adopted a curious course of argument. He must be supposed to speak with sincerity when he says he wishes all obstacles could be removed: that he wishes liberty of conscience could with safety be universally extended. Yet, he tries to create fresh obstacles, in addition to those which already unfortunately exist in so great abundance. He labours the matter with both sides, to prevent a possibility of union, and, as far as I can discern, egregiously misrepresents the state of the case to each. He tells the Protestants not to enter into any arrangements with the Catholics, for that concession must inevitably lead to the subversion of the Protestant establishment: and then, for fear the Protestants should deride his gloomy forebodings, and be willing to do their duty to their fellow subjects, he turns to the Catholics, and denounces them as guilty of nothing less than schism, if they shall consent to the Veto, or any thing at all analogous to it. At least the learned judge may content himself with the guardianship of the establishment. The Roman Catholics can dispense with his kind concern, and judge for themselves of the conduct they ought to pursue. He must excuse me if on both points I differ with him altogether. I am neither judge, nor theologian, but when I read the admission of the titular archbishop of Armagh, when I have laid before me the body of evidence contained in that most able speech, delivered in the debate of a former night by my hon. friend (sir J. C. Hippisley), and which he has since submitted to the public in the shape of a pamphlet; containing the most convincing reasoning, founded upon the purest principles, and fraught with the most profound erudition, which all would do well to consult: (those who are for the concession to the Catholics, that they may see on what firm foundations they stand; those who have been misled by bigots, that they may see how all their false glosses fall before the light of truth, and the evidence of authentic documents, and historical fact): when I have even the authority of Dr. Milner, that the Catholics may admit of a Veto consistently with the tenets of their religion: above all, when I remember that in the year 1799, the prelates of Ireland were ready to grant the Veto to the crown, I am decidedly convinced that the learned judge has taken a very mistaken view of the subject; and that his kind, but gratuitous fears for the integrity of the Roman Catholic religion, are not only overstrained, but altogether groundless. The single authority of Dr. Milner on this subject, such as it is, would weigh with me against that of the learned judge, with all his conscientious scruples for the purity of the Catholic faith.

The learned judge has told the Catholics, that by granting a Veto they will be guilty of creating a schism, and he has added that a domestic nomination will be equally fatal to their church. But, Sir, is not this a gross fallacy? Will the Catholics be deluded by it? Do they not know, does not the learned judge know, that in many of the Catholic churches in Europe, a Veto has been exercised by the temporal sovereign? Did not the king of Prussia exercise a Veto, and has not the nomination of bishops in the Catholic church of France, always been purely domestic? But the learned judge is another of those whose reasonings must be admitted with the greatest possible caution: and all his scruples most nicely weighed. It is his business, as well as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to create difficulties, for the purpose of throwing off his own shoulders the odium of refusal. But all difficulties removed, they would remain unchanged. Oxford, its representative, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shine forth in the full blaze of intolerance: they would still decide against the smallest concession of the Catholic claims.

One part of the speech of the learned judge I think savours of the ludicrous; although it was delivered without any departure from the general gravity of his manner. He has asked how, in the present state of captivity of the Pope, it would be possible to approach him to ob- tain his sanction to any arrangement which may be proposed? In the first place it may be answered, that the Pope's consent, anterior to such arrangements, is by no means necessary. His sanction might be obtained afterwards: and undoubtedly would be so, if required, in conformity to all usage: and if not required, would be offered, as was the case with the appointment of a Roman Catholic bishop in Russia, to which the Pope spontaneously acceded. Again, the question, one should think, could be readily answered by a supporter of the King's present ministers in the affirmative. They are so fertile in expedients of the sort, they could surely get at the Pope. They could approach the marquis of Romana by means of a Catholic priest, and thereby get his army from the Baltic: and they who could devise the brilliant expedient of stealing Ferdinand VII. by the agency of baron Kolli, who is also reported to be a Catholic, would surely be able, by means of some pious and astute Catholic, to approach the unfortunate Pope. By the way, one cannot help observing how the abhorrers of the Catholics venture to confide the most important and difficult affairs to the management of the very men whom they profess so entirely to distrust. Let it be remembered, that in the dreadful crisis of the mutiny at the Nore, to a Catholic priest was confided the task of bringing back to their duty and allegiance the misguided seamen. Away with all these idle pretexts for not entering into arrangements. We admit the danger of concession without adequate controul; but the difficulty of execution is no plea against an attempt to carry into execution, what is on all accounts so desirable and necessary.

In the speech of the noble lord (Castlereagh) who replied to the luminous and philosophic oration of my illustrious friend the member for Dublin, the fullness of danger of yielding to the claims of the Catholics, with an equivalent controul on the nomination of their bishops, was forcibly urged, and the influence of the hierarchy magnified to an extraordinary degree. Be it that the clergy are all-powerful over the minds of their congregations; and that, in the present state of things, there is danger of French influence amongst the prelates. How does the continuance of the disabilities of the Catholics weaken that power, or diminish that influence; Is it from the shepherds or from their flocks the danger is apprehended? Recollect, that without Catholic sinews not a regiment of your own establishment can be marched: without Catholic arms, not an anchor in your fleet can be weighed. Recollect how many victories the Catholics of Ireland have achieved for the country! contemplate the trophies with which they have enriched you! then make mankind believe, if you can, that you are really apprehensive of the dangers arising to you from the Catholic body of Ireland. But you are alarmed at the effect of French influence over the prelates, and of the further extension of that influence. Does French influence now exist? What is the fact? Why, that in contending against France, your armies are filled with Catholics, who are pouring forth their blood to disprove so foolish a supposition. But grant your position to be true, is your conduct consistent with common sense? You disgust the higher orders by humilitating disqualifications, and you will not admit those who you say have the greatest power over the Catholic mind to any communication with yourselves. You affront, instead of conciliating, men whose services are of the utmost importance to you. To cut them off from France, you take the line which, if any thing could, would drive them into an immediate connection with your formidable enemy. It is very material to consider what has been the conduct of the Catholic prelacy of Ireland upon the most trying occasions; and a due consideration of that conduct will lead to the acknowledgment, that the bishops have at all times evinced the purest loyalty. Have they not in the worst of times, under the bitterest persecutions, and in despite of the penal code, preached to their flocks the doctrines of conciliation and peace? Again, if the Catholic prelates of Ireland are so enthusiastically attached to the papal chair, so blindly obedient to its spiritual influence, as they are represented to be, what must be their feelings with regard to the emperor of the French? Instead of lending themselves to his projects, must they not rather consider him as antichrist? He who has torn the triple crown from the brow of the sovereign pontiff, who has stripped him of all temporal dignities and possessions, and has reduced him to the ignominious state of a vassal and a prisoner, must be held in abhorrence by all who have any regard for the dignity of the Holy Father. The mode of reasoning must be, indeed, strange, by which it could be proved that those prelates, who under all discouragements and persecutions have preserved their allegiance, whom you do not fear to disgust, and to leave so disgusted, equally obnoxious to foreign influence, should the moment you treat them with kindness, become traitors to that country towards which they had uniformly evinced their fidelity so long as they experienced nothing but harshness and proscription.

Sir, the noble lord has laboured hard to evade the charge of having held out Catholic emancipation as the price which would be paid to the Catholics of Ireland for the Union, which it was in their power to grant or to withhold, as the boon or reward which was to be their compensation for the surrender of their legislature and of their national independence. He says, that at the time of the Union, emancipation was not stipulated; it was to be an emanation from; it was not to be the price, but the consequence of the Union. Sir, no words may have passed, but the meaning of the noble lord might well be interpreted without the intervention of language. His known disposition to grant the claims; the known determination of the Catholics not to have acceded to the Union unless their claims were granted; the declarations made by the most powerful of their friends in this country, that unless an imperial parliament were established, those claims could not be acceded to, all tended to confirm the Catholics in the belief which they undoubtedly entertained, that the cession of their independence at the Union would be rewarded by the restoration of their rights. "Don't press your claims now; suffer the Union to be effected, and I am your advocate." The express words may not have passed; but I put it to the noble lord himself, whether so much was not to be inferred from his manner: whether the Catholics were not justified in drawing the conclusion; and whether, if his late colleague in office, the chancellor of the exchequer, had been the minister who had attempted to carry that measure, it must not altogether have failed, because of his being known to be from his heart, and for ever, irreconcilable to the rights of the Catholics? Sir, the Catholics have it not in their power to produce any bond written with hands and sealed with seals, but there is an agreement not written with hands, nor sealed with seals, eternal in the heavens,—a record against you until you shall execute your contract; to that registry they appeal against you for the non-fulfilment of your moral obligation. Doubtless Mr. Pitt had the measure in contemplation immediately on the passing of the Union. He tried it privately, and he failed. What bitter disappointments have not the Catholics experienced! and, if we had not evidence to the contrary, how bitter should we not, reasoning upon the general principles of human nature, expect their resentment to be? A century of persecutions had elapsed, when some portion of the restraints upon them were removed; and at length, in the year 1793, the memorable act was passed, which permitted the Catholics to hold certain commissions in the Irish army, with an express understanding that the same measure should be proposed without any delay in the parliament of the sister kingdom. But nothing further was done, and for seven long years were their hopes constantly baffled, and the state of the army was made such as it still remains. On one side of the narrow channel which divides the two kingdoms, an officer may serve his king under the protection of the law; on the other, he remains subject to penalties for offering his life in the cause of his country. In 1800 they looked with anxious well-grounded expectation for relief. An unforeseen obstacle arose, of which we must presume that the men who carried the Union were entirely ignorant. That obstacle is often most unconstitutionally introduced into our debates; but however we may individually know and lament, that such an indisposition exists, (an indisposition which is I fear, much more inflamed for selfish purposes, than softened for the public good, by those who have access to the sanctuary,) we cannot take any notice of it in our capacity, as forming one branch of the legislature. The Union passed. Mr. Pitt could not accomplish his object, and in company with the noble lord resigned. The disappointment was lessened to the Catholic body, by the evidence which was thus given of the sincerity of their advocates. It was then understood that lord Melville, Mr. Pitt, and the noble lord, would not return to office without having it in their power to gratify the hopes of the Irish Catholics. How ill they had calculated upon the intentions of those ministers events have proved.—The noble lord (Castlereagh) soon re- turned to office as part of an administration who were known to be adverse to the claims of the Catholics. Another administration succeeded, composed of the leading persons who had resigned in 1801, and under them in 1805 the Catholics could not have their claims taken into consideration. The course of events produced another change of ministers; and at length, in the year 1807, it was proposed to assimilate the law of England with that of Ireland, in respect of the situation of the officers of the army, with an extension of similar rights to the navy. By the furious proceedings of the chancellor of the exchequer and his associates, the cup was again dashed from the lips of the unhappy Catholic, at the very moment when he expected to have tasted a part of its sweets. Three years have again elapsed. One more unsuccessful effort was made in 1808 to induce the legislature not to concede, but to take the claims of the Catholics into consideration.—Again, in the year 1810, we are called to this discussion; again we meet with the same spirit of intolerance; again the Catholics will meet the same heart-breaking refusal.

The noble lord has recommended patience to the Catholics. Sir, I thank God they have upon all occasions manifested their possession of that virtue in the most exemplary manner. If any thing could excite their feelings to a pitch beyond their own controul, it would be this sermon upon patience from the noble lord, during whose different administrations their hopes have been so highly raised, and so cruelly disappointed. I am confident the Catholic body of Ireland will act with the moderation and temper which have always characterized them, although the conduct of the noble lord has been much calculated to produce a different effect. We must not argue from the warmth, or even violence of any particular person addressing a meeting, or issuing a publication, under the keen sense of suffering, and using intemperate language, to the feelings and demeanor of the whole collective mass of the Catholics. We have had recent experience, indeed, that one misguided or misguiding man may convulse the moral feelings of a whole country, and throw an obstacle in the way of a most beneficial national arrangement. The chancellor of the exchequer succeeded in so doing, and thereby obtained the reins of power; but let us hope that no intemperance corresponding with his own, on the part of those to whom he denies justice, will be permitted to defeat their objects, and further his.

The noble lord has told us that he conceives there are many arguments which might be successfully urged to convince the most obstinate enemies to the Catholic claims of the propriety of granting them. He again alludes in an unparlialiamentary manner to the one great obstacle, but he adds, that in time he conceives many persons will be induced to yield to those reasons as well as himself. Sir, I have seen the noble lord twice associated with ministers the tenure of whose office was the exclusion of the Catholics. I should be glad to know whether the noble lord ever exerted his talents to convince either of those two persons on this subject; particularly, whether before the formation of the last administration, or during its existence, the noble lord ever tried to convince the present chancellor of the exchequer of this his great political error, as it was his bounden duty to do; or whether he found him an unmalleable mass of bigotry, not to be moved by any exertion the noble lord could make, from his short-sighted purpose?—Sir, I fear the experiment was never tried, and the noble lord by joining the ministry, contributed to throw far back the Catholic claims. But the speech of the noble lord to-night has been, of a complexion very different from, those which we have heard from him upon similar occasions, whilst he was in the trammels of official situation. It breathes a purer air. The noble lord has shone in a former part of this session as an orator, and in the course of this debate he has spoken more like a statesman than ever we heard him speak whilst he had any share in the conduct of affairs of state. I fear his vote will be in contradiction to his speech. Nevertheless, the speech will do good. I congratulate the Irish on the emancipation of the noble lord, and I congratulate the noble lord. I congratulate the right hon. gent. under him (Mr. Canning) that he is also free to declare his sentiments, and vote according to his feelings, upon a point of such transcendant importance, both to the community, and to each member of the legislature who is called to decide upon it. It is not unworthy of remark, that the two friends to the claims of the Catholics who joined the anticatholic administration, for their own reasons, have both relinquished their situations in consequence of the conduct of the one towards the other.

We have no longer a cabinet composed of jarring opinions on. this point: it is one pure, unadulterated lump of bigotry, animated by one principle, and acting under one impulse. The only antidote is repeated discussion. I wonder at the opinion delivered by the noble lord, that the Catholic cause is prejudiced by being repeatedly brought under the consideration of parliament. I feel perfectly certain that it has been materially advanced by the debates which have taken place. Does he find that our opponents now will venture to rely on the same arguments to which they heretofore trusted? Do we see all the same champions in the field?

Repeated discussion drives bigotry from her strong holds. As in other questions which stand upon the immoveable basis of reason and truth, the like effect has been produced by unwearied and reiterated discussion; so in this, the debates which have already taken place have exposed many fallacies, destroyed many prejudices, and driven out of the field the most violent advocates of intolerance. By debate upon debate, that monster the slave-trade was. overcome. By the same means the cruel restrictions upon the Catholics will be removed, as mists are dispelled by the noon-day sun. So far from agreeing with the noble lord, that these frequent discussions give power to the enemies of the question, I think that we acquire power by every fresh debate. Let us take one amongst many instances of our progress. The coronation oath used to be placed in the van of the battle against the Catholic claims. The coronation oath is abandoned. The false statements which were made respecting it, the false inferences which were drawn from them, have been so often and so fully exposed, it has become quite harmless. Its advocates are ashamed of it! Is not the desertion of the coronation oath a step gained by the Catholics? Is it not another great step gained, that the University of Oxford, notwithstanding the opinion delivered as hers by the learned Civilian, has elected lord Grenville her Chancellor? Have we not heard from the noble lord (Dursley) who has just been returned by the rich and populous county of Gloucester, that in the progress of his canvas he found a very large proportion of his constituents in favour of the Catholic claims? Why are the dogmas, formerly imputed to Roman Ca- tholics, no longer thrown in their teeth? Why are we no longer told that the Catholic, though sworn, is not under any obligation to keep faith? Why do we no longer hear of general sweeping absolutions, licensing all treachery, and washing away all crime? Because such absurdities can no longer be credited. Because the right hon. gent. no longer ventures to impose upon his audience the nauseous absurdities which he used formerly to urge with so much vehemence, and not without some effect. The pamphlet of the learned doctor appended to the new edition of the History of the Inquisition, to which I before alluded, has, together with its more bulky accompaniment, fallen still-born from the press. Are not these signs of the advancement of the Catholic cause?

The right hon. Secretary of State, who thought proper to open so violent an attack upon my right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby,) has, with equal solemnity, and equal success directed his shafts against lord Grenville. I wonder the right hon. gent. should so far have forgotten dates and circumstances, as to have asserted that the masterly letter addressed by lord Grenville to lord Fingal, was ushered into the world at a moment when lord Grenville expected a new administration would be formed, in which he would in course have a prominent share; thereby insinuating that lord Grenville had constructed his letter, and published it, for the purpose of facilitating his access to office. It seems the right hon. gent. has need to be informed that lord Grenville's letter was not published till after the meeting of parliament in the present year; that an offer had been made to that noble lord of official situation many months antecedent to that period, which offer had been speedily and peremptorily declined: and that after the offices had been tendered to every variety and description of person, the right hon. gent. had found himself a secretary, to tire surprise of the world, if not to his own astonishment. So much for the fairness of the representation of the motives of my noble friend in publishing his letter. So much for the accuracy of the hon. secretary's dates, and the fidelity of his report of circumstances.

If, however, I could believe my ears, I should derive some consolation From the speech of the right hon. gent. If I heard him right, keeping back the cogent argument which the originality of his own genius would certainly have furnished, and restraining the copious flow of his own imagination, he selected some passages from the letter of lord Grenville to read, which passages he said had his entire concurrence. We all know how possible it is to take out particular passages from any writing, which, abstracted from the context, may give a sense diametrically opposite to that which the whole writing would convey, and which the author intended. If indeed the right hon. gent. has imbibed any particle of the spirit of the illustrious author whom he has quoted, I should hail it as a most auspicious omen. Even the lack of all other resource displayed by the right hon. gent., in the shift to which he has been obliged to have recourse, is not without its consolation. Will the right hon. gent. consent with lord Grenville to go into a Committee, to inquire into the nature and extent of the securities which it may be necessary to take from the Catholics, in order to enable us to grant to them their just rights? Sir, I am sure he will not. Why then affect to pay a hollow compliment to lord Grenville? Why ask of my right hon. friend an explanation with regard to the Veto? An explanation the most triumphant has been given by my right hon. friend; but neither the right hon. gent., nor any other of his Majesty's ministers, are one bit nearer to the point of conciliation.

I cannot omit this opportunity of expressing my satisfaction that this question has again been discussed, in order that the nature of the Veto may be appreciated. Its importance has been much over-rated. I confess, I think it was prematurely brought forward by my right hon. friend. It should rather have come into discussion in a committee, if granted, and been proposed as part of a reciprocal agreement by the Catholics, when it had been ascertained by them whether any, and what attention would be paid by the legislature to their claims, than have been put gratuitously forward. I do not believe it made one convert to the cause of justice, but since it was mentioned it has afforded a constant source of distraction amongst the Catholics themselves, and a constant topic of misrepresentation amongst their enemies. This discussion has again placed the matter upon its right footing.

It has been cruelly said, that the privations of the Catholics are few and light; that they suffer nothing material under the remnant of the penal code. Can gentlemen shut their eyes to the hardships to which they are exposed; to the disabilities under which they labour: and tauntingly say their grievances are imaginary? Whither can the Catholic flee, that his disgrace does not follow him? In what act can he be engaged that he is not visited by oppressive and injurious distinctions? Has not the House been made acquainted by the hon. baronet with what has occurred in Sicily? a Catholic country! where the Catholic soldier serving in the British army has been refused the free exercise of his religion! With a proper deference to the national establishment in the Catholic countries where our troops are serving, the British soldier is ordered to pay obeisance, by presenting arms to the host; but if he himself should be of the Roman Catholic persuasion, by a cruel contrast he is denied the consolations of the religion which it is acknowledged that all sects of christians ought to respect.

The armies of lord Wellington and sir John Stuart are filled with Catholic soldiers. They may again, as they have done heretofore, fight and conquer; they may purchase the redemption of the liberty of other nations and maintain our own with their blood, but if they survive, they may not return thanks to God, who is the giver of all victory, after the rites of their own religion, and in the manner which they must deem the most expressive of their, gratitude for the past, and most likely to propitiate future blessings. If they fall, when sinking into the grave they are denied those consolations to the dying, which to the Catholic christian are beyond all price; they are interdicted the presence of their priests! Supposing a Catholic soldier so to have signalized himself in battle, that the commander in chief were to select him, accompanied by the acclamations of the whole army, for promotion; if it should unfortunately turn out that the hero is a Catholic, his valour could not be rewarded; the keen disappointment must be experienced, which his conscientious feelings of religion would have procured for him, and the best incentive to good conduct, its just and high reward, would be lost. Is not this conduct on the part of a country towards its courageous defenders monstrous, ungrateful, inhuman! Can it, ought it any longer to be borne? Can respect for any prejucices, entertained in any quarter, throw a veil over such injustice, or afford any apology for its continuance?

Sir, the consideration has often occurred to me, how few there are of those even who have the reputation of being the best instructed, who are aware of the very slender distinctions existing between the tenets insisted on by the church of England, in many cases, and those of the church of Rome: and one cannot forget the remarkable circumstance which occurred in the debate of the other night. When my hon. friend, the worthy baronet, to whose admirable speech allusion cannot too frequently be made, quoted a canon of the church of England, the member for Yorkshire, from whom such a mistake was the least to be apprehended, was surprised, and could not help exclaiming: "That is a canon of the church of Rome." He was contradicted by the hon. baronet, and informed that the first statement he had made was correct; that the church of England had laid down the rule at which the hon. member started, respecting confession made to priests. Such is the ignorance or misapprehension respecting the exclusive adherence to many of those very doctrines on the part of the Roman Catholic church, from which so much danger is apprehended.—You object to the Catholics' doctrines, which are your own as well as theirs, and you take the exposition of their principles, not from their mouths, but from the mouths of their enemies. You assume to yourselves rights which you do not possess; you deprive others of the enjoyment of rights which are unalienable.

Suffer the Catholics to speak for themselves, and to plead their own cause. When the great apostle of the Gentiles, whom, God thought fit, by a special intervention of his power, to convert to the belief in Christ Jesus, after having lain in bonds, and been tormented with stripes, was brought before the Roman governors, and lastly before king Agrippa, although he was accused as a pestilent fellow and a sower of sedition, he was permitted to speak for himself: that great orator then "stretched forth his hand and spake, and deemed himself happy that he was permitted to speak for himself before the king touching all the things of which he was accused." That which was conceded by a pagan to a christian, shall we not, who call ourselves christians, concede to our christian brethren? Listen then to the voice of the Catholics, expressed in their petition presented in the year 1808! There you will find a full exposition and detail of all their grievances, and the whole of their prayer for redress. Their language, from repeated disappointment, may have become more warm; but all they ask of you, is to go into a committee for the purpose of considering their claims. A boon you may surely grant without risk or danger. Not only is it a boon which you may concede without any risk or danger, but it is what the Catholics have a right to demand, and you have no right to refuse, in order that it may be seen whether in their tenets or in their conduct there is any thing which can justify you in maintaining against them the remnant of that system of persecution by which they have been so long oppressed.

Sir, my right hon. friend, in his opening speech, talked of the dungeons of theology and the madhouse of casuistry.—I am not versed in the voluminous writings which have encumbered and obscured the truths delivered to us in the gospel, but to me, as to all men, are open the writings of the Evangelists, wherein alone we can find the history of the transactions of the Divine Dispenser of our revelation; wherein alone are recorded the words which fell from his mouth. I do not there find any authority given to man to persecute his fellow man, because he does not accept the same interpretation with himself, of all the mysteries of our religion. I do not there find that I have the right, however I may have the power, to deprive my neighbour of the free enjoyment of all the civil blessings of that community in which we live, because he takes the sacred symbolical words uttered by our Saviour, in a sense more literal than I do. Religion is a matter of concernment to each individual man. No man,—no collection of men can impose a belief upon another. They can have no right then to deprive any man, or description of men, of their civil freedom, on account of their conscientious scruples. It has been said there is a natural connection between the church and state. That position I deny. That there ought to be an union between the state and a church establishment I admit; but when the state unites with the church, she ought not to lend her strength to the church for the purpose of persecuting all who dissent from her tenets. If sectarists assume the cloak of religion for political purposes, and make their tenets the rallying point of disaffection, with a view either to overthrow the national establishment, or to do injury to the state itself, then ought restraints to be imposed, and disabilities to be created, which would not indeed be restraints upon religion, but restraints upon those bad purposes for which bad men would use religious differences as a cloak.—The simple question then for you to consider is this: Is the Catholic religion assumed by the Irish for such purposes? Are they actually traitors to the state, or does their religion dispose them to become so?

In answer to these questions you have their solemn declarations.—You have the oaths they have taken.—You have the evidence of their conscientious scruples, evinced by their refusal to take those oaths which are the only obstacles to their possessing temporal honours and power. You have their conduct.

Can you refuse to accede to the motion of my right hon. friend? It may be so: and I fear it will. But I would still inculcate the doctrines of patience and perseverance to the Catholics. Their disappointments have been great and numerous; inveterate prejudices may still exist, prejudices which I fear even the noble lord did not endeavour to dissipate, when he was in a situation of confidence, which would have entitled him to urge those reasons, by which he thinks the most adverse might be convinced. Yet, if patience can be preserved, the time will assuredly come when the Catholics will be admitted to their rights, in the enjoyment of the full benefits of the constitution. Then, and then only can be put forth the full strength of the empire.

.—Sir; The hon. gent. in referring to former declarations made by different persons on the subject of the Catholic claims, has done me justice, in not imputing to me the charge of having entered into any pledge against that portion of his Majesty's subjects. But if I am not contented with that exculpation, I am glad of this opportunity to declare, in the face of this House and of my country, not only that on no occasion, directly or indirectly, remotely or by implication, did I ever give to any man, or any set of men, such a pledge; but that I have always kept myself, and consider myself at this moment perfectly free, on this most momentous question, to act according to the dictates of my judgment and my conscience, and have adopted no positive and invariable opinion upon a subject which appears to me to be in itself a question of policy, liable to many and great variations; liable to be influenced by considerations and by circumstances which the wisest cannot anticipate, nor the most powerful controul. I have never viewed this question as an abstract question, on which the right and the wrong are clearly and permanently ascertained, but as one upon which the final decision must be reserved until political expediency, as well as moral fitness, shall concur to recommend it. Earnestly, therefore, as I protest against being included in the number of those, if any such there be, who are pledged either in opinion or by engagement against the claims of the Catholics, I equally disavow any pledge the other way, and desire to retain a perfect liberty of conduct. I disclaim any inference that may be drawn from my having, followed my late right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) out of office in 1801, when he resigned on this question: I should have followed him equally on any other ground. My conduct on that occasion was dictated by political opinional attachment. I was neither of importance to be called upon to give, nor did I in fact give any pledge that I would not accept of office again except on certain conditions. I have accepted office since, at two different times: first, with my right hon. friend in 1804, on precisely the same principle on which. I followed him out of office in 1801. The second time, on the formation of the present government, when I acted on what I conceived a true sense of public duty,—but not on the ground of any pledge whatever on this or any other public question.

As to the immediate question before the House, although I cannot vote for going into the committee, I do not mean at the same time to deny or disguise my opinion, that it would be highly desirable, highly conducive to the strength and happiness of the empire, that all the clashing and conflicting interests of Protestants and Catholics should be reconciled. I think, moreover, that, great as are the difficulties which now oppose such reconciliation, the time will most certainly come when its consummation shall take place. The present time I do not think ripe for its accomplishment. How is it possible for any man so to consider it, when one of the two contending parties is at variance within itself? It is not a little extraordinary, that Protestants should be expected to be of one mind as to granting every thing to the Catholics, when such a discordance of opinions reigns amongst the Catholics themselves, as to the terms on which such grant would be acceptable to them? It has been argued rather whimsically, that the granting party should be prepared to offer terms to the petitioning party: but surely it is for those who seek a concession in their own favour, to propose those means of security and those terms of arrangement, without which it is admitted on all hands that concession could not be rationally made.

My right hon. friends above have rested their opposition to the motion this night on this sole ground, the want of any adequate security, the absence of any definite suggestion on the part of the Catholics, in the room of that which was tendered ten years ago, and which has been since publicly withdrawn. To this single point the question has been this night narrowed by the right hon. mover himself, (to whose temper in the discussion of a subject calculated to excite so many angry passions, I must pay my humble tribute of applause;) but who, in my mind, has brought the question before the House this year, rather as a matter of duty, than of prudence; and with a full conviction, that in the present state of men's minds on both sides of the question, his motion must be unsuccessful. I am sincerely glad that my right hon. friends have been contented to meet the right hon. mover on this narrow ground in the present debate, abstaining from all those generalities respecting the nature of the Catholic religion, which have given to former discussions on this subject so hostile and angry a character. And it is no less a satisfaction to me, that on the other side, the question has not been urged on any abstract principle of right: a mode of argument, which, if it had been employed, I should have felt myself obliged, as much as the most bigotted Protestant, to resist.

To maintain the claims of the Catholics on such a ground, is in effect nothing less than to argue that there should be no national established religion at all: it is to argue against the policy of all nations, ancient or modern, with the political frame of which some system of religion, pure or corrupt, has invariably been associated and incorporated, to uphold and consecrate the civil establishments. The hon. bart. (sir J. Newport) who alone has insisted upon this argument of right, has not attempted to prove that this in- variable system of national policy has been uniformly wrong. If, as the hon. bart. insists, it is the right of the Catholics, to be admitted to all the privileges and immunities of the constitution, it is injustice, it is tyranny to withhold them. A state, then, has no right to maintain its established religion by any exclusive privileges; and if the Catholics possess a right to be admitted to all privileges on the footing of the members of the established church, so do all the dissenters of every denomination. The necessary consequence of such doctrine would be, the destruction of all national religion, as such, and the establishment of unlimited sectarianism in its room.

The wiser advocates of the Catholic claims, however, have abstained from placing them on this ground; as, on the other hand, the opponents of these claims have desisted from those arguments drawn from the nature of the Roman Catholic religion, which, if pushed to their full extent, would go to prove not only the establishment, but the toleration of that religion, to be incompatible with the safety of a Protestant state.

I, indeed, agree with my right hon. friend who opened the debate this night (sir W m. Scott), that the chastised and purified system of religion which we Protestants are happy enough to profess, stripped as it is of all the follies and corruptions with which the Catholic church is infected and incumbered, is in every view, moral or political, to be preferred to any other. But at the same time, I confess I cannot share all the fears which he expresses for the security of that Protestant church, if Catholics should be admitted into a more equal participation of the benefits of the civil constitution. The principle of "no faith with heretics," and the supposed unlimited power of absolution, have always been represented as the two great sources of practical danger from Catholics living under a Protestant state.—And upon these two points I confess the very able speech of an hon. baronet (sir J. C. Hippisley) who seconded the motion, (and which has been since published in the form of a pamphlet) appears to contain much substantial and consolatory information. It is, to my mind, clearly demonstrated by the reasoning of that speech and its accompanying documents, that there is no such danger from the operation of these supposed principles, of the Catholic church, as we had been taught to apprehend.

I purposely forbear, however, from going at length into any discussion of this part of the subject, which the course of this night's debate does not appear to bring necessarily before us. My objection to the motion is of quite another sort. I object to it in limine; because, with all my professions of good will, with all my disavowal of hostility or suspicion towards the Catholics, I cannot see the use of agitating the question at present; I cannot see what practical approach is likely to be made to adjustment, by consenting to go into the committee now proposed.

No security or engagement is offered on the part of the Catholics. Their very advocates are obliged to come forward with censure against the Catholics, for withdrawing that security which on a former occasion was proposed to parliament in their name. The right hon. gent. who brought forward the motion, has indeed thought it expedient now to undervalue that former proposed security, and domestic nomination is now in his mind infinitely to be preferred to the Veto.—For my own part, I think that nothing less than the Veto should be accepted by the government.—With respect to the plan of domestic nomination, one thing is clear; that it must necessarily originate in the express consent of the sovereign pontiff, without which the contract could be binding only on one side. And how is his consent to be obtained, situate as he is known to be at present, under the controul, in the fetters of Buonaparté?—This suggestion, therefore, affords no facilities, removes no difficulties. It is not more easily attainable than the Veto; and it would be less efficacious if attained.—At least, then, it would be necessary to adjourn this question until the papal see should become free once more from the dominion of the ruler of France. Until then we cannot form any arrangement; nor even then could we accept of any security short of the Veto originally proposed. Such, at least, is, I confess, my present opinion; an opinion, however, which I shall be willing to re-consider whenever the opportunity of re-considering it to any practical purpose shall arrive.—But that some such condition is absolutely necessary, no man will doubt, who thinks, as I do, that of any adjustment between the Catholics and Protestants, mutual concession and mutual conciliation must be the basis; that such an adjustment, in order to be permanent, in order to produce any of the fruits of tranquillity, happiness and prosperity, which are expected from it, must not be a victory to one party or the other;—it must not be considered by one side as a successful struggle, nor as a forced concession to a rival by the other.—That the time for this greatly to be desired adjustment is not yet arrived, is my clear and decided opinion; although I certainly do not agree with some who have spoken in this debate, that the Catholic question has made no progress, or that the disinclination to entertaining it is as strong at this hour as at the period of its first introduction. Some progress, I think, has been made; many prejudices have been removed; and much of the asperity which attended the earlier discussions would have been done away entirely, had it not been for the unfortunate revocation by the Catholics of their own voluntary tender of two years ago. It is not unreasonable, that, after such a retraction, a more mistrustful jealousy should be exercised, and a more settled and perfect security required, as to any subsequent offers of arrangement. Hence, in part, arises that indisposition which unquestionably exists in the public mind at present;—which exists, not as has been vainly supposed, in one quarter only in this country, a quarter to which it is as unjust as it is unconstitutional to refer, as opposing the only obstacle to the settlement of this great question;—but which is diffused widely amongst the different classes of the English community; so widely, that concession at this moment upon this point would have the effect of shaking the general confidence in the legislature.

But while I believe this feeling to exist in such force at present, I believe it to be transitory. It will gradually pass away. I cannot point out the year, the month, or the day, when the period for dispassionate discussion and amicable arrangement will arrive. My judgment and my vote must, in the mean time, be guided by my own view of the circumstances of the question; if I contended for the Catholic claims on the ground of right, no time and no circumstances could vary or delay my decision.—But contending, as I do, for the right of parliament to withhold concession until it can be granted without danger,—but for the expediency of granting it when that danger shall be at an end,—I feel that I most conscientiously discharge my duty, in resisting, as I shall by my vote to-night, a premature, an imperfect, a fruitless and hazardous attempt to do that, which, when it can be done fully and effectually, and with safety, because with general concurrence and advantage, I shall be among the foremost to recommend.

spoke in favour of the motion, after which the debate was adjourned to Friday, June 1.