said, that the object of the Resolution, which he had to propose, was to obtain a sufficient supply for the sugar-market of this country. He was given to understand, that the stock of sugars from our own colonies was very nearly exhausted, while there was no immediate prospect of supply; and this would produce a very inconvenient rise in the price of the article, unless the sugars of Martinique and Guadaloupe were permitted to supply the deficiency, and enter into the consumption of this country. For the protection of our own West India planters, however, he meant that this should he only a temporary expedient. He concluded by moving, "that it is the opinion of this Committee, That Muscovado sugar, the growth or production of Martinique and Guadaloupe and their dependencies, imported into Great Britain previous to the 12th of May 1813, be admitted to entry for home consumption on payment of the duty of 5s. per cwt, above the duty payable on British plantation sugar, until the average price of Musco-vado sugar of the British plantations, as published in The London Gazette for four weeks successively, shall be less than 53s. per cwt., exclusive of the duties payable thereon. 2. That clayed sugar, the growth or production of Martinique and Guadaloupe and their dependencies, imported into Great Britain previous to the 12th of May 1813, be admitted to entry for home consumption on payment of the duty of 12s. 6d. per cwt. above the duty payable on British plantation clayed sugar, until the average price of Muscovado sugar of the British plantations, as published in The London Gazette for four weeks successively, shall be less than 53s. per cwt., exclusive of the duties payable thereon."

said, that as this was intended to be only a temporary expedient, he should not oppose it; but were it proposed as a permanent regulation, he should consider it as a breach of faith with our own West India planters. As to the small amount of British plantation sugar now in hand, it had arisen not from any failure in the produce of our colonies, but from the delay in the conveyance of that produce, which had arisen from the arrangements of the Admiralty in respect of convoys.

was unfriendly to the imposition of any additional duty on the foreign sugars, which, in that case, would be worth more for exportation than for home consumption, and therefore were not likely to come into the home market at all.

approved of the resolution, because the country stood in that situation that it had not more than a fortnight's supply of our own colonial sugars, The planters of Martinique and Guadaloupe laboured under great hardships, for the French government had discouraged the importation into France of the sugars of those islands, doubtless with a view to disgust them with our ascendancy.

was not unfavourable to the measure, because, though the present deficiency in the supply of sugar might give high prices to a few foreign planters and merchants, yet too great a rise of price was always ultimately injurious to the growers. The West India planters had been represented as a wealthy set of men, and possessed of great influence with the minister of the day; on the contrary, he thought they had been oppressed on every occasion, and by almost every body; and as to their wealth, the greater part of them had, within the last ten years, been reduced to a state of absolute ruin.

wished to state, on the subject of West India convoys, that they had been regulated by the Admiralty according to the wishes of the merchants themselves; and that there had not been the usual number of running ships, from the danger of falling into the hands of the American schooners.

The Resolutions were then agreed to, and the Report ordered to be received tomorrow.

presented a Petition from the town of Leeds, and from 23 other places, praying, that in the event of the charter of the East India Company being renewed, provision might be made for permitting missionaries to go to that country for the purpose of converting the natives to Christianity. The noble lord took this opportunity of observing, that the subject to which these Petitions referred was one of very considerable importance, and ought to be weighed with due deliberation. It was a matter of sincere satisfaction to all benevolent hearts to perceive the ascendancy which the true principles of the Christian religion had obtained over the minds of the greater part of the population of this country, an ascendancy of which there could be no stronger proof than the desire which had been universally manifested, to extend to the natives of India those blessings which they themselves enjoyed. In carrying these wishes into effect, however, great care and circumspection was required. It should be recollected that an indiscreet zeal might be attended with the worst consequences, and that the adoption of any course which might prove disgusting or offensive to the native Indians, might lead to the ultimate overthrow of the British possessions in India. The House, he trusted, therefore, when the topic came before them, would legislate with that degree of caution and prudence which the interests of this country and the prosperity of our Indian government required.

The Petitions were then brought up, and ordered to lie on the table.

after directing the attention of the House to the hardships often experienced by persons tried for various offences throughout England, in consequence of the imposition of severe fees, even after their innocence had been made manifest, moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for procuring returns of all persons committed for trial, and of all persons convicted, in England and Wales; and for taking away or regulating the fees of clerks of assize and clerks of the peace in certain cases, and affording compensation during existing interests."—Leave was accordingly granted.

signified his intention to enforce the Call of the House on Monday next most rigorously. His motive for this determination was a feeling of the necessity, be the fate of the Catholic Bill what it might, of shewing to the country that as full an attendance of members had been procured as circumstances would admit, during the discussion of its merits.

although he did not see a noble viscount (lord Castlereagh) in his place, rose for the purpose of moving for certain papers, to which he bad alluded on a former night, to the production of which he understood, from a conversation he had had with the noble lord that morning, he would have no objection. He had also intimated his intention to move for those papers to the right hon. gentleman the member for Dublin (Mr. Grattan), who had likewise declared, that he had no objection to their being laid before the House. It was his wish to have had those documents produced through the medium of the Select Committee, for the appointment of which he had so ineffectually contended on Tuesday night, and, in his labours to obtain which, he was successfully repelled by the eloquence and ability of a right hon. gentleman, he did not then see in his place (Mr. Canning). His devotion to the Catholic cause, he believed, was equal to that of the right hon. gentleman; they were, in fact, pursuing the same end, but by different means. The hon. baronet then began to move for copies and extracts of letters from sir Charles Stewart, dated Lisbon, and relating to the provisions made by the Portuguese government to prevent the encroachments of the See of Rome; also, copies of the resolutions of the bishops in Ireland, and certain other papers, when he was interrupted by lord Castlereagh, who had just entered the House, and who said, he was not aware that the hon. baronet had given notice of this motion.—Sir John Hippisley said, he thought he had fully stated the object of his motion to the noble lord, that morning, and understood that no objections existed to the production of the papers for which he wished to move. He apprehended he had been misunderstood by the noble lord, however, and begged therefore now to give notice, that he should, on Monday, move for the papers to which he had alluded; he begged, at the same time, to state, that he had no intention whatever of throwing the slightest obstacle in the way of the progress of the Bill then before the House. Having, however, exerted himself to procure a committee, without effect, he did not think he should be doing his duty, if he did not endeavour, by some other means, to procure that information which he was so desirous the House should possess. He certainly did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he was equally determined not to support it. It was his intention, in the committee, to endeavour to amend the Bill, in such a manner as to render it less objectionable than it was at present; and it was also his intention to oppose the clauses introduced by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), which he could not help pronouncing inconsistent with the opinions which that right hon. gen- tleman had delivered upon former occasions.

said, that he had no objection, generally, to the motion of the hon. baronet; yet, as the papers for which he was desirous might be of a very voluminous description, he was anxious fully to understand the object of his motion, before he gave his concurrence.

assured the noble lord, that the papers for which he should move, were by no means of an extensive bulk, and merely related to the measures which had been taken to prevent the encroachments of the See of Rome.

moved, That the order of the day, for the second reading of the Bill to provide for the removal of the Civil and Military Disqualifications under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour, be now read; and the same being read: the right hon. gentleman next moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.

rose. This was a Bill, he said, which, far from being what it purported to be, a Bill for relieving the Roman Catholics, was, in fact and in truth, a Bill for the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion and the supremacy of the Pope in these realms. A Petition had been presented by the right hon. mover and was laid, upon the table, calling itself the Petition of the Protestants of Ireland, prayed the unconditional repeal of all laws affecting the Roman Catholics. That Petition could not with truth be called the Petition of the Protestants of Ireland. He had read the whole of it, and the names subscribed did not altogether amount to 4,000, of which the name of the right hon. mover of the Bill (Mr. Grattan) was the third or fourth, while there were Petitions signed by upwards of 100,000 Protestants of Ireland against the Bill. The names, whatever boast might be made of their length, were not more trifling in number, than, with a very few exceptions, they were in respectability. It was not the Petition of the Protestants of Ireland. He looked over it with some attention, and found upon calculation that it did not contain more than 300 names of any note. The rest was a collection of obscure signatures, unknown to any person but themselves and their associates, of revolutionary characters, who had long laboured for the ruin of their country, and unfortunately escaped from execution; men amongst whom he regretted and was ashamed to observe the very few respectable persons who signed the Petition. This Bill had neither more nor less in view than the scheme pursued by James the 2d, when he was ambitious of introducing the Roman Catholic religion into England. It was supported, too, by the very same arguments of general conciliation, while in fact, from the principles of the Catholics, conciliation was impossible. Before he sat down, he would demonstrate, that the conciliation which the Bill was expected to produce, must for ever continue impracticable; that it must continue impracticable from the principles professed at present, and always maintained by the Catholics themselves. In the pursuit of a scheme not at all differing from that now in contemplation, James the 2d lost his crown. His Protestant subjects were then convinced that it would be ruinous to the constitution; and if, from a conviction of the injustice of such a scheme, they deprived him of his crown, how could the scheme be now a just one? If, by the passing of this Bill, it was declared a just one, the House should seriously consider how such a declaration would militate against the present succession, and subvert at once all the principles of the Revolution. If James was unjustly dethroned, the person who succeeded him was unjustly crowned; and what then became of his present Majesty's title? The tenets of the Catholics to which he alluded, and which in his mind rendered conciliation with the Catholics impossible, seemed to be very little understood by a great part of the House. The hostility of those tenets to all friendly connection with Protestants, he should shew to exist. They were unchangeable and constant, and could not be abated, mollified, relaxed, or altered. They inculcated the doctrine, that heretics were to be exterminated by all possible means in the power of Catholics; and it was only from impotence that such tenets were not carried into effect. Their impotence was the only security that Protestants had. They venerated the denunciation like the Holy Scripture: with them it was immutable and fixed. Those tenets, whatever others might pretend in argument, were as unchangeable as the Roman Catholic church itself, and he would offer sufficient proof of their unchangeableness. Roman Catholics held the church to be infallible. The church held that the decrees of councils were as binding upon conscience as the Scriptures—the tenets to which he alluded were to be found in those decrees. The consequence was clear without any further reasoning. They not only held the decrees of councils to be binding, but the present professor of theology at Maynooth maintained and taught, that the decrees of the Pope, when not dissented from by the bishops, were as binding as the decrees of a council. They must resort to the councils to see what the nature of some of those decrees were, The first council of Lateran, which decreed that no faith was to be kept with heretics, was held in 1215. It also decreed that when any temporal lord or people denied the supremacy of the Pope, their subjects were to be absolved from their oath of allegiance, and other princes were commanded to conquer their territories and reign in their stead. It was said that these decrees were become obsolete from age. Christianity could not be abrogated by time, and those decrees were held to be as immovable as Christianity itself—Gentlemen, before they laughed at these councils as antiquated, ought to consider that the Christian religion itself was considerably more antiquated; but he should be sorry that Christianity, because it was much older, should be abolished by the comparatively modern Anti-christ. How could they call these decrees antiquated, which the Roman Catholic professor at Maynooth held up at this day to the admiration of his students? The professor at Maynooth maintained that the decisions of these councils were as binding as the Scriptures themselves. There was no reason to say, that those decrees were antiquated when the Roman Catholic divines themselves still maintained them. [The learned doctor here read several passages from the decrees, particularly marking those parts which went to absolve subjects from their allegiance to heretical sovereigns,—to excommunicate heretics,—to render them infamous, and to deprive them of all privileges of suing at law, of being witnesses, &c.] These, then, were the decrees which the Roman Catholics of this day declared to be unchanged and unchangeable: and yet it was proposed to pave the way for the Catholics to parliament and the bench! It was true, indeed, that those decrees were not now put in execution, but this proceeded from the inability of the Catholics so to do. It was utterly impossible to bind people of this description to any security. The oath taken by all Roman Catholic bishops led to the same effect. It rendered conciliation impossible. They swore to promote, and even augment the authority of the Pope. Dr. Troy indeed said, that a part of this oath was withdrawn at the desire of the empress of Russia. He did not know whether such was the case. The assertion rested on the authority of Dr. Troy. There was an oath also taken by every priest when he got a parish, in which he swore obedience to the See of Rome, and to the decrees of General Councils, and anathematized all heretics whom the church had anathematized. This was the doctrine of that church, out of which there was no salvation. No stronger oath of loyalty to the Pope than this could be devised by human ingenuity. They were sworn to prevent any encroachment on the regality of St. Peter, and to resist heretics, and persecute them to the utmost of their power! Could gentlemen really believe that they would keep the oath prescribed them by this Bill, when they considered the nature of the oaths which they took in regard to their own church, out of the pale of which, according to the prominent doctrines of their religion, there was no salvation? Let gentlemen compare the engagements of the Catholics to their own church, with the oath required by the Bill,—that no disloyal person should be recommended for appointment to their vacant sees; and when they had made the comparison, they might judge what was the value of this security. But since objections were made to the oldness of the council of Lateran, he would give them a more modern instance. The council of Constance came next. It was held in about 200 years after the former, and promulgated its dicta from 1414 to 1418. Its decrees were also maintained as binding by the same professor at Maynooth. This council de clared John Huss and Jerome of Prague, heretics. They had the protection of the emperor Sigismund; but it being decreed, that all oaths and promises to heretics were null and void, as tending to the prejudice of the church, the protection of the emperor went for nothing. He had engaged for their safe conduct to and from, and at the council. This he stated, but the council soon silenced his scruples, by passing a decree, that any engagement with heretics was to be considered as null and void, if the keeping it should be pre- judicial to the interests of the church. The council of Bazil was the next, and its decrees were admitted as well as the rest. The decrees of the council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to 1563, confirmed the decrees of the former councils: and yet these two were strongly recommended in 1809 by the Maynooth professor, 'cum 'rationibus dogmatum.' The consequence of the proceedings of the council of Constance confirmed by the latter, was, that John Huss and his companion, even in the presence of the emperor himself, whose protection they had, were burned, burned alive, and yet the professor at Maynooth took pains to preach obedience to the decrees of these councils. This council of Trent was defended by professor Delahoy, as a 'manuale doctrinæ ' and 'compendium omnium precedentium conciliorum.' Here was a set of Christians to be put on a level with the Protestants—a set of men who were the notorious and unchangeable enemies of the Protestants, and who acknowledged the supremacy of a foreign potentate. They professed not to burn the heretics, for the church never shed blood, they only turned them over to the secular arm, which finished what the church had begun. These were the unchangeable decrees which the professor defended in the fullest manner. Here, then, was a sect demanding of parliament to admit them to all the privileges of Protestants in a Protestant country;—a sect which still avowed and defended tenets and doctrines which must render them irreconcilable enemies to the Protestants, and which was, besides, subject to a foreign power. But if, as they said, these decrees of councils were as unchangeable and binding as the holy Scriptures, he again asked, by what oaths imposed by Protestants could these people be bound? It was perfectly absurd to expect, that they should constitute any security whatever. There was an establishment for which they annually voted the supplies by which it was maintained, while those connected with it, refused to take the Oath of Supremacy required by their own government, and acknowledged the supremacy of a foreign potentate. If all the Catholics asked were granted tomorrow, they would still refuse to take this oath. Why did they not take the Oath of Supremacy? If they took that oath, there might, perhaps, be but little difference in that House on the subject. But then it was argued in their favour, that even their refusal to take that oath proved, that they had a regard to oaths imposed by Protestants; for nothing but such oaths had stood in the way of their attaining the object of their wishes. This, however, was easily explained. They made a distinction in their oaths. The Oath of Supremacy, for instance, related to an article of faith; and to take such an oath would be considered as an abjuration of their whole religion: in other matters they would take oaths without holding themselves bound to fulfil the engagements thus contracted; for other oaths, according to Dr. Troy, and all their other theologians, were not binding, according to the decrees of the church, which were unchangeable. He had already exposed the folly of supposing these decrees were abrogated, because they were ancient, or obsolete, as they had been called. They might as well say the law of our Saviour was obsolete: and no more attended to, as contend that because these decrees were old they were not considered binding. If these were held to be abrogated because twelve hundred years had passed since they were issued, it might with equal reason be contended that the law of our Saviour was also abrogated, as that was so much older. They valued decrees according to their antiquity, and to forsake a point of ancient faith was esteemed a mortal sin. Their slavery to the Pope was an open, notorious, undeniable doctrine, for he had with his own hand extracted it from their books of theology. The Catholic bishops were slaves to the Pope, as the Catholic clergy were to them, and in Catholic countries the lower classes were slaves to the clergy, while the Pope himself was the slave of Buonaparté. Buonaparté had made him subservient to all his wishes. He had got him to crown him, and to declare that no foreign bishop should have power in his dominions. Respecting these, the language of Buonaparté was, "that they had employed their spiritual influence to injure him, and that it had been demonstrated to him, (the learned doctor begged the House particularly to attend to this) that the exercise of such power as they had possessed in his dominions was inconsistent with the interests and independence of France, and the safety and dignity of his throne." This conqueror had declared, according to the Moniteur, sometime during the year 1809, that it was unsafe to allow any foreign bishop to have influence in his dominions, for they had employed their spiritual power to injure him, and he conceived that the spiritual superiority of a foreign prince was hurtful to the glory of France. This had been the opinion of Buonaparté; he had refused to suffer foreign influence in France, and had obliged the Pope to reside there, and would not suffer him to stir out of his dominion. Was it consistent then that in a Protestant country the Pope should be allowed to have greater authority than even in Catholic countries? In fact, the Pope was permitted to exercise a much higher authority over the Irish Roman Catholic clergy, than he was allowed to maintain over the clergy of France. Here, then, was a sect which would be satisfied with nothing short of placing the Pope on one side of the throne, and giving him a share in the government of the country; and upon such a people, they were talking of conferring political power and aiming at conciliation, which was utterly impossible. They had a manual, indeed, which directed them not to tell lies, and enforced some other moral duties; but that related only to the Roman Catholics themselves. To violate oaths imposed by heretics, when the good of their church required it, was with them neither a lie, nor breach of any moral duties. Such oaths, according to their doctrines, were absolute nullities. They thought that the Protestant religion ought not even to be tolerated. The learned doctor then proceeded severely to censure the Bill, and asserted it was of more consequence to Buonaparté to get this Act passed than to obtain twenty continental decrees. By means of this Act he might be able to stir up a revolution in this country and accomplish its ruin. This he could easily shew. Buonaparté named the Pope, the Pope the bishops over whom he had great power; the bishops named the clergy, with whom they could do what they pleased, and the clergy had boundless influence over the people; and, in fact, might be said to govern them. He now called upon the House to see what Buonaparté had done, He had not only got the nomination of the bishops into his own power, but he had prohibited the bishops from nominating a single priest without the approbation of the prefect of the province. Yet while this was done in France, a Catholic country, here all restrictions were to be removed, and Catholics were to be admitted to the highest offices of the state. In England they were desirous to place the Pope on one side of the throne, and make him as it were a partner in the government. A manual had been read to the House which forbade lying and swearing, but that was between Catholic and Catholic; he apprehended it extended not to their connexions with heretics. He wished the House to look what had been the conduct of those who were to be thus favoured here in other countries. They would not tolerate the Protestant religion where they had power. For proof of this they had only to look at the first article of the New Constitution of Spain, where it was enacted that the Catholic religion should be the religion of that country, and no other religion should be tolerated. Another proof of this he had lately met with in a work which he had read, wherein it was stated (this was a fair specimen of the feeling of his Holiness to a Protestant people) that Buonaparté had proposed to the Pope that all religions should be tolerated and freely exercised in France. What had been the answer of the Pope—of the present Pope? The proposition was violently rejected, as being contrary to the canons of the Romish church, and as being likely to lead to the most shocking consequences. And for this his Holiness was highly praised in a work in three volumes, lately published by a Mr. Keating, or a Mr. Delahoy. The passage was to be found in the first volume, page 43. The right hon. gentleman who had amused the House so much on a former evening, had certainly displayed much wit and humour, but he (Dr. Duigenan) could not think this was a laughing matter, but on the contrary, the gravest and most important question that ever came before the House. To him it appeared a most serious question, affecting as it did the constitution of the country, as it had been since the year 1558, the first year of Elizabeth, when the oath of supremacy was first enacted, which afterwards, in the 5th of Elizabeth, every man was obliged to take by law before he could sit in parliament. The right hon. gentleman had stated it to have been the intention of Mr. Pitt to do something in favour of the Catholics, but from Mr. Pitt's own words, (which he quoted) it was clear he had no intention of admitting Catholics to places of trust and power. After this how the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) could think the clauses he had proposed founded on any thing that Mr. Pitt would have countenanced, he (Dr. Duigenan) did not know. He contended Mr. Pitt had never given such instructions to lord Cornwallis representing the Catholics, as he had been stated to have given. He had himself heard Mr. Pitt deny having given such, and he (Dr. Duigenan) was satisfied be was too great a minister to do so, or think of placing known enemies to the state in places of trust and power. This was contrary to the whole conduct of his life, and such statements were prejudicial to the character of that renowned statesman. Mr. Pitt had never mentioned any specific plan: and from his opposition to the attempt of Mr. Fox, in 1790, to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, as well as from several other passages in his speeches, it was evident that Mr. Pitt could not have consented to have given political power to those whose principles were in-veterately hostile to the British constitution. It had been said, that Mr. Pitt had authorised the publication of certain statements, that the ministry who went out in 1800 would not accept of any situation in the government, unless large concessions were made to the Catholics. This, however, Mr. Pitt had openly denied; and lord Cornwallis had stated, that he had not the authority of Mr. Pitt for the pub-lication of any such resolution on the part of the ministry. Mr. Pitt was too wise a minister ever to have admitted to parliament and the great offices of state those whose doctrines rendered it impossible for them to be loyal subjects. He hoped no gentleman would in future amuse himself with endeavours to unravel that wonderous statesman's designs: such a design was contrary to the tenor of his life, and to suppose it was an insult to his memory. He wished to know what could be the great grievances of which the Catholics had to complain just at this time, that they should publish a manifesto like that which they had just sent forth to the world, in which a noble lord, the judges (one excepted), and other distinguished persons, were treated with the most virulent abuse. This publication, too, contained menaces which, but for the countenance they had lately met with in this House, the Catholics would not have dared to have thrown out. But for this countenance and support, they would not have dared to act as they had acted; knowing their own impotence, they would have been more cautious, knowing that it took the Protestants but one month,. in 1798, to put them completely down, and knowing that the Protestants were ready again to put them down in the same manner.

Every means had been resorted to, to swell the importance of the Catholics. Their numbers had been greatly exaggerated, and the House had been repeatedly told of the sorrows of five millions of their suffering brethren. The whole population of Ireland did not exceed four millions of persons, and it was admitted by the Catholics themselves, that in Ireland, there were 800,000 Protestants.—It had been stated that the established church of Ireland cost the country annually 20,000,000l., which was transmitted out of the country to absentees, who were the bloodsuckers of the nation. The income of the established church, it appeared, on a careful calculation, did not exceed 382,000l. This exaggerated statement of the expence of the established church, was like their vain boasting of their numbers. In some parts of their late publications they represented themselves to be in a state of depression and extreme poverty, yet in others they made a most magnificent display of their numbers, their wealth, and their power, with as much regard to truth as was observed in their 20 million church expence story. They boasted of the greatness of the wealth and influence of the Roman Catholics, who had not above a 50th part of the real property of the country, and not a 10th of the personal property. In the same spirit they had represented the income of the Board of First Fruits to amount yearly to 20,000l. He was himself a member of the Board of First Fruits, and could take upon himself to say, that it had never yet exceeded 400l. per annum. He mentioned these things, to shew the monstrous falsehoods they were capable of sending forth to the world. It was said the Catholics were fighting our battles. He admitted that we had Irish troops in our armies. But as to the number of Roman Catholic soldiers and sailors,—instead of constituting one-half of our force, as had sometimes been stated, there was not in the army and navy, including militia, above one-eighth of the whole. A considerable misapprehension arose from considering the Irish as all Roman Catholics; whereas the whole of the officers, and one-half of the soldiers, were Irish Protestants. The cause of so many-Roman Catholics being found in the army was, that the condition of the soldier was so much more eligible than that of the Irish peasantry at home, that their priests could not prevent them from enlisting.

In spite of them they would enlist; and, notwithstanding all that had been said of the advantages which the union of the Catholics and Protestants would give in adding to our military force, he was confident that the passing of this Bill would not cause one man to enter the army. In speaking of the Irish in the service, it was a common practice to assume that every Irishman must be a Catholic. Of the Irishmen now in our army and navy, half were Protestants. He hoped no one would be induced to vote for this Bill from the menacing tone of the Catholics. If they dared to stir, they would be put down in a month, as they had been put down on a former occasion. The learned gentleman, reverting to the Pope, observed, that he was much more formidable as the slave of Buonaparté, than when he was free. The argument that the present abject situation of the Pope must preclude all apprehensions was futile; he was never formidable from his temporal power, but from his influence over the minds of the people, and at present being the slave of Buonaparté, his influence was more to be dreaded than ever. He would now, if the prayer of the Catholics was granted, have to decide on the legitimacy of children, on the claims of Catholics to estates, to settle disputed titles, and this alone would give him great influence among them. His spiritual authority was necessarily attended with civil influence, as any one must perceive, who considered the power of excommunication, and that over their sacrament of marriage. He could not approve of this Bill. He could not consent to repeal the 1st and 5th of Elizabeth, the Acts of Uniformity, and the Test and Corporation Acts. If these, which had been pronounced by our best lawyers to be the bulwarks of the constitution, were to be repealed, he wished to know where they would stop. With all the boasting of the Catholics, they had not among them a tenth part of the property of the country; and if this Bill were passed, there would be, he would not say in the next session of parliament, but in the course of two sessions, the most infamous impositions practised to procure the return of members to parliament by means of 40s. freeholders. What security could the Protestants have when those Roman Catholics were admitted into parliament, that they would not overturn all the oaths and other means which had been provided to secure their loyalty? Where could they stop if once they brought such a party into parliament? That it would be a considerable party, he had no doubt. A 40s. freeholder was generally a labourer who bad a piece of land about an acre, or frequently less, for which he paid as high a rent as any other person would pay, but he paid it with his labour. On this he raised a little miserable hovel, which in Ireland was commonly called a cabin. To make this he built three mud walls, the fourth being supplied by the bank of a dry ditch,. He made one hole in it, which he called a window, and another which served for a door. The hole which served for a window, served also for a chimney to let out the smoke; and to keep out the cold of a night, these holes were stopped with hay. The owner of such a place goes and registers himself as a freeholder. He swears that he has. a freehold of his own, worth 40s. a year—after payment of his rent, though, in fact, it was rented as high as it possibly could be, but then it was not paid in money but in labour. These freeholders had so much increased of late years, that in one county, where there were formerly 400 votes, there were now 11,000—By which means the elective franchise was placed in the hands of the meanest of the populace. These practices would become still more prevalent if the Bill passed, and in less than 20 years the Roman Catholics would return 60 out of the 100 members, while 30 would be added to the party in England. The Catholics always, however they might differ in other things, in any thing that appertained to religion, stick together like a flock of bees. They would thus obtain a dangerous influence in the state, as they might be expected to say to the minister when he had any particular measure to carry, "If you will do so and so for us, we will support you with such effect, that the opposition shall not dare to shew themselves; we will carry this favourite measure of your's for you, provided you in return enable us to accomplish the object which we have in view." They would get possession of all the places of trust and profit in Ireland, but they would not stop there. The petitions in favour of the Catholics had been signed by all those who were anxious the two countries should be separated. They wished to repeal the Union, and have the whole of the representation to themselves; and this gained, was it not to be expected they would try to do that which they had attempted in the reign of James 2, to separate the two countries? In less than 20 years, if the Bill passed, that would be seen. This country would again have to send over an army to conquer Ireland. But if the separation should be effected, they ought to consider in time how Great Britain could stand alone in the present state of Europe. They ought to consider what might be the consequences of passing this Bill. For his own part he was now a very old man; he had lived past the time usually allotted to the life of man, even in the Scripture, and could not expect to live to see that which he feared, but at the close of his life he was sorry to see the constitution in danger. He had no chance of living to see these calamities: but he had a regard for the constitution, and for that reason he thought himself bound to give this warning. To shew the implacable hostility of the Catholic clergy, and their disloyalty to the crown and the state, he noticed their conduct in 1809. When the Catholics, at a synod held at Tulloch, in Ireland, by an unanimous resolution, approved of that bull of the Pope which confirmed the elevation of Buonaparté to the imperial crown of France, whereby they acknowledged that usurper, with whom we were at war as sovereign of France, to the exclusion of its lawful king, and sanctioned a system which deprived all those inhabitants of France of their estates who would not submit to the new order of things. This was not a concern of religion, bat an act of disloyalty to their king. What right had they to signify their approbation of that bull? It was done from a wish to conciliate Buonaparté with a view of procuring his assistance? The conduct of the Catholics had been such, that instead of giving what they did not at present possess, there were he thought good reasons for withdrawing the elective franchise from them. What could be expected from people of this description? It had been argued that as the elective franchise had been given to the Roman Catholics, they ought not to withhold the representative privilege. But in his opinion, the argument proved the reverse of what those who urged it intended it should prove. If the possession of the elective franchise rendered it necessary for Roman Catholics to have the representative privilege, then, in his opinion, they ought to be deprived even of the elective franchise. What right had they to acknowledge the supremacy of any foreign power? If we were one nation, the people in both countries ought to be placed in this respect on the same terms. The Acts which it was proposed to repeal by the Bill, were the 1st and 5th of Elizabeth, the 25th of Charles, and also the 30th, commonly called the Corporation Act. But he would contend that the Regent was bound to preserve all these Acts. He wished to know how, consistently with the pledge given in the Coronation Oath, the sovereign could give his assent to the Bill. They all knew what had been the feeling of the King on the subject; and how could the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, do that for him, which had his reason been spared, be would not have done himself? It was idle to argue, that, if the two other branches of the legislature should agree to the measure, the sovereign would be bound to assent to it. That would be to make a cypher of the King: for the Houses of Parliament had no power to dispense with the obligation of the Coronation Oath. The right hon. and learned gentleman then took a review of the arguments of a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunkett), ridiculing the nature of the corporation oaths; and opposed to his authority the opinion of a great constitutional lawyer, in the reign of William and Mary, when it was proposed to repeal the 30th of Charles 2. It was laid down then, that the Romanists ought to be contented with the protection of their persons and properties, and that if that Act were to be repealed, it would be attended with danger to the state. He had already adverted to the Oath of Allegiance, which contained a declaration that the Pope had no power in temporals. But that doctrine was contrary to the decision of their councils, and must, therefore, be considered by them of no validity. The Popes had exercised temporal power in the cases of Henry 3 and Henry 4, of France, and in the case of Henry 8, and Elizabeth, in England. When they asserted doctrines then, so. contrary to what had been the practice of Popes and the authority of councils, did not the House feel the contempt in which their present declarations ought to be held? Then as to the opinions of their universities, a great deal had been said about the opinion which many foreign Catholic universities had given about certain points that were alleged to be tenets of their faith. He did not mind the opinions of those Catholic universities. There were many instances of important cases left to their opinion, in which half of those universities were on one side and half on the other. This was the case when Henry 8, wished to divorce his queen Catharine, the opinions of those universities, Douay, Salamanca, Sorbonne, &c. had been taken on the subject; and one half decided that his marriage was invalid and incestuous, whilst the other half declared it to be lawful and perfect. The fact was, they were bribed on both sides—on one by the agents of Henry 8,—on the other by those of Charles 5; and. it was remarkable that Bonner was one of the agents of Henry 8, in the distribution throughout Europe of the bribes to the universities. But as to the obligation of an oath, let themselves speak. Dr. Milner (a laugh) yes, Dr. Milner, notwithstanding the sardonic smile on the countenances of the hon. gentlemen—Dr. Milner, who was the general agent for all the Catholics of England and Ireland, maintained that the obligation of an oath was to be measured by expediency; and Dr. Lanegan, an Irish titular bishop, held nearly the same: in short, there was no such thing as holding them by any oaths; even the Doctor Subtilis of the right hon. gentleman who had the other night entertained the House with so much wit and humour—even that same doctor, Thomas Aquinas, held that an oath might be broken, if after having taken it a person should come to the knowledge of a fact which if he had known previously would have prevented him from taking it. But the same doctrine had at a still later period been maintained by the Pope: when to appease an insurrection of his subjects in Hungary, the emperor of Germany had entered into a treaty with them, and took an oath to observe it faithfully, the Pope in 1712 issued a bull, declaring both the stipulations of the treaty and the obligation of the oath to be void. He objected, therefore, to the whole of the Bill, and particularly to the amendments of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning.) These amendments provided, that certain commissioners should be bound by an oath not to recommend any individual to a bishopric whom they should not believe to be loyal. This was the only security provided. But it was impossible they could be loyal whilst they acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, unless loyalty to the Pope were meant. When the Veto was rejected, the right hon. gentleman was put to it to find out some other security. The Veto gave to the crown an absolute nomination of the Roman Catholic bishops, but the right hon. gentleman's amendments gave the crown no power, though they would give to the commissioners some interest, The clauses, however, which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had thought such ample security, were disapproved by the Catholic clergy; and Dr. Troy had publicly said that he considered those clauses respecting the church as worse than the Veto. The Veto, it was to be observed, had been objected to, because it gave a power to the crown to controul the appointment of the bishops. The substitute proposed for this was the communication of private intelligence by the bishops, &c. to the Secretary of State, of any bulls, &c. What power, however, did this give to the crown, except that it might turn into great advantage to the bishops them-selves?—But supposing any person to fail in fairly and fully communicating all such information, the only punishment was that they should be sent out of the kingdom, without any provision even being made as to the mode in which he should be sent out. Even should the Bill as it now stood pass, he was well convinced it would not give satisfaction to the Catholic Board, who would at once say, that they could not approve of it because the nomination of the bishops belonged to the Pope. He saw even by the papers received this day, that Dr. Troy had sent a deputation to the Catholics to intimate his entire disapprobation of the Bill.—["It is not so" observed a member sitting near the learned gentleman.]—He had seen it stated in the public papers, and had no other authority for his assertion. Under all these circumstances he should feel it his duty to move, that instead of 'now' the "Bill be read a second time this day three months."

jun.

Sir;—In presuming to offer myself to your notice, I do not intend to enter into the theological topics which have been urged by the right hon. and learned gentleman. I should not indeed, under any circumstances, feel myself qualified to do so; at present, I am relieved from the obligation of making the attempt, because, and I say it with the most sincere deference for the hon. gentleman, for whose venerable age and many virtues I have the highest respect, I think that I heard the same arguments from him in the last session, and that I then had the satisfaction of hearing those arguments completely answered by the right hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. Canning.) The learned gentleman has complained of the tone and manner in which this question has been pressed by its friends upon the attention of the House. I think they might with at least as much reason complain of the warlike tone which has run through the whole of his speech. Indeed, Sir, I cannot imagine, how it is possible to come to this discussion with other feelings than those of reluctance and regret. For surely the exclusion of so large a portion of our fellow subjects from the common lot of the empire, must, in every view of the case, be in itself an evil, forced upon us perhaps by imperious circumstances, and to which we submit, in order to avoid still greater evils; yet independently considered, and in itself an evil. We should, therefore, as it appears to me, approach this discussion with the feelings with which we should consult in common respecting a common misfortune—with an anxious wish rather to discover the means of its removal, than to invent arguments for its support; and if, after full investigation, such a system be found absolutely necessary; it should be regarded not as a blessing to be cherished, but an evil to be endured. I cannot therefore allow, that this system can be legitimately defended by arguments drawn from the constitution. It is an exception to the general rule; it is a deviation from the general spirit of our policy; imposed upon us, if you please, by irresistible considerations; yet still a deviation. It is not an integral part of the constitution, and must, therefore, be justified on its own grounds, and not on the principles of the constitution. It may be called constitutional in the same manner in which any calamity to which we submit in order to avoid a heavier evil, may be complimented with that title; but it can never be classed among those privileges of which the free people of this country are so justly proud. It can never be defended with the same spirit and temper with which we defend the Bill of Rights or Magna Charta.

There is nothing in truth so amiable in this system as to make us particularly anxious to give the credit of it to our constitution. If we may judge by its effects, never was a system invented more pernicious and fatal. It proceeds upon ideas irreconcilable with any notions of well-regulated freedom. It creates a broad distinction between two classes of subjects of the same state; and thus destroys that harmony and fellow-feeling which are essential, not only to the happiness, but to the very existence of an empire. It not only creates a distinction, but it produces a degradation of the one class and an extravagant exaltation of the other. It produces a sense of depression which tends to check the expansion of the moral faculties, and to retard the progress of improvement and civilization. Nor is this profound sense of depression a new sensation. It is not now for the first time experienced. The wound has long been rankling in the bosom of the Irish people. It is not an insulated feeling. It comes loaded and sharpened with all that is gone before; aggravated by the recollections of history and the traditions of their fathers. The bitter contests which took place between the two countries, from the moment of their first acquaintance, might naturally have been expected to excite in that people an alienation with respect to England, amounting even to antipathy. That disposition gathered strength in its progress; till the war which followed the Revolution of 1688, finally broke the pride of Ireland, and consummated the oppression which had been accumulating for ages. The struggles of that period called forth the most powerful and malignant passions of the human mind, all that was dark in bigotry, or fierce in national pride, all that was inflexible in loyalty, and invincible in the love of freedom. That domestic quarrel, aggravated by every circumstance which gives peculiar malignity to civil warfare, left behind it many a painful thought and bitter recollection; it left the thought of mutual crimes and sufferings; of injuries inflicted and received; of disappointed hopes, of malice unsatiated, of vengeance unappeased; it left the thought of days of conflict and nights of suspence and pain; of alternate success and defeat. It left on the one side, the restless galling and feverish remembrance of shame and humiliation; on the other, the proud, but not peaceful recollection of ultimate triumph. These animosities, however, fierce as they were, might have gradually worn away. A generous policy would have assisted the healing influence of time. A wise policy would have abstained from counteracting that influence. But what shall we say of that policy which seemed to tremble only lest the sorrows of that period should, be too soon forgotten. We invented a system of which it was the merit to keep alive those animosities, to revive what was cold, to renew what was fading, and thus to stamp afresh on every generation the crimes and follies of the preceding. We wished to transfuse that spirit into the genius of our civil liberties. We polluted the code of the national legislature with its effusions. We attempted to make it immor-tal by uniting it with the immortality of the constitution, and hung the bloody spoils of those unhallowed victories round the altars of a pure and beneficent faith. That system has completely answered its purpose. It has succeeded in correcting the influence of time, in rescuing extinguished crimes and decaying resentments from oblivion; and in thus transmitting, not only unimpaired, but strengthened, from age to age, all the anguish and indignation of the first defeat, all the flush and wantonness of the first conquest. We see its effects in the practical developement of that fatal watch-word, the Protestant ascendancy. By this expression, I do not mean that just ascendancy of mild laws and humane government which is implied in the very formation of every society; and which must peculiarly be maintained in Ireland, so long as the Protestant is the established religion of that country. I do not mean that ascendancy which is perfectly consistent with the utmost benevolence between the subject and the ruler, which tends to cherish a spirit not of slavish submission nor yet of indignant resistance; but of generous and unbought loyalty. I mean that other ascendancy which is grounded on contempt and suspicion and hatred; which exalts one class on the ruins of another; which mixes itself with the daily intercourse of man and man; which poisons the whole course of life, civil and domestic; which operates as a standing insult to the Catholics, as a fresh triumph daily renewed to the Protestants; and which even in the hour of mirth and conviviality reminds the Catholics that they are a vanquished people. So long as this ascendancy is maintained, there will be always a bar to the improvement of Ireland. I know there are other evils of which she has reason to complain. I am happy to find that these evils have excited the serious attention of the legislature; and I trust they will be to a great degree removed by the benevolent mea- sures which are now in progress; but while this vindictive principle is allowed to operate, it will, I fear, tend very much to retard, if not to defeat the effect of those measures. It is in vain that you attempt to improve, to conciliate, to civilize; amidst the profusion of all your benefits, there is one region beyond the range of kindness; there is one barren spot which no blessed influence can visit, which no conciliation can reach, no benevolence ameliorate. And supposing, that in every other respect you succeeded. in securing the affections of Ireland, still, while this remains, you are never safe. If at any time (and no government is exempt from this contingency) a serious cause of dissatisfaction should be given, you have before hand provided a rallying-point for all such discontents. You have prepared a fortress, in which the unburied resentments may be treasured up and reserved for the day of vengeance, and in which every malignant propensity may find a congenial climate. Every minor grief, every inferior sorrow will here fly for shelter and protection. You cannot excite a single passion, without striking the chord to which all the strong passions reply. You cannot awake a single feeling of jealousy without rousing a host of animosities that ever keep watch round the master grievance. If under such circumstances, we hope that the other means of conciliation which we may have successfully used, will be effectual to counteract any evil consequences of popular discontent; I fear a slight knowledge of human nature will prove that hope to be unfounded. For these considerations of benefits received and obligations incurred, do indeed, in the hour of peace and good will, conciliate and unite men; but in the moment of irritation they serve only to exasperate discontent and add bitterness to hostility. 'Quæres apud Concordes 'vincula caritatis, apud insensos incita-'menta irarum sunt.'

But it is said, that the penal code has in fact, as to its really obnoxious part, been repealed, and that these arguments are therefore inapplicable. I know, Sir, that the system of which we are speaking, has, in a great measure, been abandoned; but it is not all abandoned. The spirit still lives; the principle is active and avowed. So long as a fragment of it remains, the same mind will haunt the ruins. There will be always something to check harmony and confidence, something to alienate and irritate. In order to establish a new system, we must begin by ploughing up the foundations of the old. But to confess the truth, that part of this system which is still preserved, appears to me at least as objectionable in principle and as galling in practice as any of those which have been exploded. I allude to the exclusion of the Catholics from this House. Although this exclusion is approved by some very high authorities to which every an gladly pays deference; I must regard it as a violation of the first principle of the constitution. The constitution requires that the representatives should be chosen by the electors from among their own body.—The expulsion of the Catholics from the House of Commons seems to me to have been (if I may so speak) the most overt act of expulsion from the privileges and rights of the constitution that could have been committed. I believe it is one feature in the character of the lower classes of the Irish, (at least in some parts of the country,) that they have no sense of the moral obligation of obeying the laws. I do not bring this as a charge against that people. I mention it with pity and regret. It is an effect of the system; and the great cause of it undoubtedly is, that they feel no identity of interest with the power from which the laws issue—they feel that the laws do not flow from themselves, that they are enacted by men with whom they have no common points, who differ from them in manners and habits, and above all, in religion; and who precisely on account of that difference forbid them to share in the legislation. From such impressions, is it surprising if such consequences should follow?—But how will you correct this evil?—Give them a fellow-feeling with the government. Give them to know that there is a spirit in parliament which can sympathise with theirs. Let them regard the acts of the legislature as flowing from their own body through their representatives.

Sir; I do not wish to dwell upon the shame of my country; but it is lamentable to consider how few have been the advantages which Ireland has reaped from her intercourse with England. Since the commencement of that intercourse, England has advanced in prosperity; she has acquired renown; she has achieved greatness by sea and land; she has suffered indeed some reverses of fortune; but on the whole, her path has been a stream of light and fame. What a mournful contrast to this spectacle does afflicted Ireland present! There it is the same dark succession of crime and misery—a dismal monotony of inflictions and penalties; or if there be any variety, it is the variety which springs from more intense suffering, and aggravated oppression. How melancholy is it that those periods of our history to which we recur with the fondest exultation, should to her be memorials of a very different meaning! Every fresh æra of our greatness has to her been a new æra of depression. Our very blessings have worn to her a withering aspect. Her humiliation has always kept pace with our aggrandisement:

"In equal paths our guilt and glory ran."

Look back, Sir, if the retrospect be not too painful, I will not say to our first acquaintance with that kingdom, but look to the reign of Elizabeth, to us a reign of glory, to Ireland a reign of terror. Look at the Restoration, to us a day of joy, to Ireland signalised only by the preference given to the claims of regicide usurpers over the rights of a brave and loyal people. Look at the Revolution from which we date our liberties, and she dates her subjugation. The brilliant reign of Anne, the accession of the House of Hanover, the war of 1745,—all these were to Ireland periods of misfortune and degradation. But, it seems, in return for these evils, they have our constitution. Why, Sir, have they our constitution? What do they know of our constitution, but by its penalties and privations? They hear indeed of its excellencies, but how do they see them practically exemplified? They hear of equal rights and privileges, they find themselves under a ban of exclusion. They hear of those minor offices in corporate towns which flatter the innocent vanity of men, and give them a local distinction; they find that those offices are denied to them. They hear of the trial by jury; they find, that in consequence of the existing laws which preclude Catholics from being sheriffs, the juries are almost entirely composed of Protestants. They hear of the elective franchise; they are told they possess that franchise; they approach to the exercise of it, they find themselves fettered by restrictions which the constitution in no other instance recognizes. Is this the British constitution Is it here we would send a foreigner to study our constitution? It may have some resemblance to it—it may, if you please, be an aukward imitation of it—a system cast in some broken mould of the constitution, but certainly not stamped glowing and alive from its finished excellence.

If this system be injurious to Ireland, it is no less so to the empire at large. The very loss of so much talent and spirit which are now proscribed from contributing to the common cause, is a most serious loss. Is it consistent with any principles of political science, that so large a class should be cut off from the common feelings and interests? Can that empire be called secure, or happy, or flourishing, the one fourth of whose population is allowed to lie fallow; of which so main a limb is paralysed? Let it be supposed, for the sake of illustration, that circumstances had been reversed; that the Catholics had possessed the ascendancy in Ireland; and had governed the Protestants according to the existing code of penal restrictions. What would have been the result! What an extinction of individual and national glory! How many transcendant names would have been swept from our annals! What darkness instead of the light which the genius of Burke has shed over the last thirty years! Lord Wellington would have been wanting to the destinies of his country; and the liberator of Spain might have been content to head an Austrian brigade. We should not have known what pathos is united with the comic powers of Sheridan. We should not have listened to that most able and argumentative speech (Mr. Plunkett's) which on a late debate on this subject so powerfully commanded the attention and applause of the House. We should never have heard that voice (Mr. Grattan's) which first dissolved the fetters of Ireland, and which now in a new sphere under other circumstances, still with undiminished eloquence pleads the same cause; that voice which will soon, I trust, be called no longer to marshal our efforts in the pursuit, but to proclaim our success; no longer to animate the battle, but to chaunt the triumph.

It were well indeed, if under present circumstances, that portion of the empire could be called inactive or paralyzed. If you could extinguish the faculties which you imprison, if you could crush the feelings which you attempt to fetter, if you could sweep those four millions from the face of your empire, you might speak of safety,—a miserable cowardly safety indeed, yet something which might give a pretext for that name. But here there is no sleep, no torpor. Here is active life shained. Here are beating hearts and kindling pulses condemned to inactivity and servitude. Here on the one hand, is nature rousing the mind and prompting the genius to aspire; on the other, is man restraining the powers, quenching the light of the passions, and beating down the aspirations of genius. Oh, vain and impotent struggle! Do you think you can vanquish the laws of nature? You may drive these passions from their natural course, but you cannot destroy them, you cannot make them idle. If you deprive them of their proper sustenance, they will seek out other and more pernicious aliment. If you exclude them from their native theatre, they will open for themselves new scenes of action. If you forbid them to rally round the throne and the constitution; they will, they must exercise themselves in a manner injurious to both. Thus it is, that your efforts are productive only of danger to yourselves. You cannot remove the means of harm, but you take away all incentives to good. You exasperate rage, without disarming vengeance. You bind the strong man, but you leave his locks unshorn.

But it seems, that even if all this be true, yet there is something in popery absolutely incompatible with the existence of any well organized government. Really, Sir, I was both surprised and grieved to hear the learned doctor retailing once more those charges against the Catholics which I had hoped might have been allowed to rest in the oblivion which they so well deserve. Is it not singular that we should be gravely addressed by arguments which are refuted by the experience of every day?—We are told that the oaths of Catholics are not to be considered as binding; and yet in our courts of justice, the oath of a Catholic is taken against a Protestant in the most solemn cases, in cases of property and of life. We are told that Catholics do not acknowledge the obligations of treaties; and yet Europe has lived for ages upon the faith of treaties. It is a remarkable circumstance with respect to the treaty of Westphalia, the contracting parties to which consisted both of Catholics and Protestants, that the Pope, even while it was under negociation, protested against it, refused to have a share in it, and publicly declared it null and void; and yet the Protestants felt no hesitation in accepting the signatures of the Catholic powers, and although since that time, that treaty has been disclaimed and declared of no obligation by more than one Pope, it continued till the French Revolution the standing law of Europe. We are told of the bigotry and intolerance of the Catholics; and yet no religion has produced greater instances of universal charity. I should not, however, now have adverted to this topic, if I had not lately met with a passage which may throw some light upon it; and as a proof, how far this reproach may be true, I shall beg to read to the House, an affecting declaration taken from the dying mouth of a distinguished Catholic, of one who was eminent for his attachment to the See of Rome, and who indeed fell a martyr to that attachment. "I pity with all my heart our brethren who may be in error; but I do not pretend to judge them; and I do not the less love them all in Jesus Christ, according to what Christian charity teaches us."—These words occur in the last will of Louis XVI. Such was the intolerance bequeathed by that monarch to his successors on a Catholic throne!

How differently do we judge of Protestants and Catholics! How differently do we judge of the same facts accordingly as they are connected with the one or the other of those classes! If I were to relate to a strong opponent of the Catholic claims, who might not have a very lively recollection of that portion of our history, that, at a period when religious differences ran high, and the Catholics were the predominant party, the most unfounded and atrocious calumnies were industriously circulated against the Protestants; that the fury of a Catholic mob thirsted only for blood; that many Protestants were seized and condemned upon frivolous pretexts; and that at length, amidst others of inferior name, one noble victim was selected. If I were to add, that this illustrious person, eminent for high descent and venerable for his age and virtues, was, after a tedious imprisonment, brought before a tribunal of his peers; and that his judges, partaking the delirium of the people, attempted only to perplex and harrass the prisoner, anxious not to obtain truth, but to find a pretext for the utmost severity of the law. If I were to add, that this nobleman was condemned and executed upon the evidence of three witnesses, of whom the first by repeated prevarications and falsehoods proved himself, perjured and infamous, the second, in addition to perjury equally palpable, con- fessed that he had for several years lived under an engagement to commit assassination; and the third notoriously united in himself every thing that is detestable in hypocrisy, in malice, in apostacy.]f I were to add, that at that moment there was upon the bench a Catholic bishop, who, from peculiar circumstances, had it in his power to give information which would have more decisively proved the infamous character of one of the witnesses, and have made bare the nature of the plot formed against the life of an innocent man; that in a case in which common honesty and common humanity could not hesitate for a second, this Catholic bishop saw much reason to doubt; and that he resorted to his friends for advice. If I were to add, that these his friends, themselves dignitaries of the Catholic church, after mature deliberation resolved, that the disclosure should not be made, and so resolved precisely on this ground, that it was not safe to make the disclosure, thus betraying at once the motives of their conduct. If I were to add, that at a period long subsequent, a Catholic historian, himself one of those advisers, relates these circumstances without a single expression of regret or contrition—what would be the remark—"Oh, the spirit of Popery! Oh, the bloody intolerance of Catholics!" But, Sir, if I were to reverse the narrative, if I were to relate that this was a period in which the Protestants were predominant, that this was a Protestant mob, that these were Protestant judges, a Protestant bishop, a Protestant historian, (and the House will anticipate that the historian was bishop Burnet, and the victim lord Stafford) what then would be the reflection—"Oh, the spirit of the times! Oh, the madness of the people! Oh, the weakness of human nature!" True—but why is not the same candour extended to the Catholics? Why is it in their case alone that we must forget the mitigating circumstances of time and opinion and human infirmity? I trust it is no proof of disloyalty to that reformed faith to which I profess myself among the most loyal, if I acknowledge my regret that we should have allowed ourselves to descend to such bitterness of accusation; that we should have adopted modes of reasoning which in any other case we should have avoided as unsound and condemned as uncharitable. It is surely singular, that in discussing things present we should draw arguments only from things past and forgotten. It is singular, that upon a subject of all others depending on the fluctuations of opinion and the fugitive caprices of the time, we should run back to the 9th and 10th centuriea; we should take up a position in the depth of the middle ages, and because that post is impregnable, claim the victory and condemn the Catholics. We gather up the random expressions of the worst of men in the worst of times—expressions still more remarkable for their absurdity than their wickedness. We appeal to names held in as much abhorrence by the Catholics as by the Protestants. We ransack the graves of those who have long ceased to be remembered, for obsolete enormities and sins that have sunk under the weight of ages. Sir, I protest against this mode of deciding a great question. I protest against holding a trial upon the 11th century, and pronouncing sentence against the 19th.

It has been said that the present Bill does not provide for the attainment of the objects which it professes to have in view. I do not now mean to enter into the details of the Bill—I feel incompetent to enter into them; and at any rate that is a discussion which will with more propriety take place on a future occasion. But generally speaking, I confess, the Bill appears to me admirably calculated for the accomplishment of its purpose. While it communicates advantages to the Catholics, it is not unmindful of the indispensable obligation of securing in the first place the Protestant religion.

It proceeds upon this fundamental principle, that the British constitution is essentially Protestant. It proceeds also upon this other maxim which indeed flows from the former, that so long as the sovereign and the ecclesiastical powers are Protestant, so long the constitution is Protestant. I cannot conceive it possible that it ever entered into the heart of any man who supports this Bill either in or out of the House, to separate our civil from our religious institutions. Never could a more desperate imagination have been entertained. Never was wisdom more wise than when she bound in one those two branches of the constitution. The rays which adorn the altar, are rays of strength no less than glory to the throne.

It is upon this truth that the Bill is founded—While it is anxious to secure to every class of Christians their just rights, it jealously protects the throne and the altar from the approaches of any unhal- lowed influence. It watches with peculiar jealousy over the integrity of the church—it assumes the guardianship of the Protestant priesthood through all the stages of its progress, from its first entrance into the temple of knowledge, till its final admission to the sanctuary. It conducts the candidate for orders in his childhood to the pure fountains of instruction; it guards his youth from the contagion of false doctrine, and thus presents him prepared in manhood for the discharge of his high functions.—It then rises to a higher sphere, regulates the distribution of ecclesiastical patronage, and presides over the dispensation of ecclesiastical justice. Thus it extends its vigilant survey over the whole range of our ecclesiastical institutions; in all their departments, through all their duties, their honours and rewards—securing, as I trust, from every violation, that Protestant constitution which it is our duty, and I have no doubt our most anxious wish to transmit unimpaired to the latest posterity.—When, however, I hear so much said respecting the necessity of securities, I own it strikes me as rather an ill compliment to the clergy of our church. It would seem as if those who were so clamorous for securities imagined that any Bill in favour of the Catholics would be a deathblow to the zeal and vigilance of our priesthood; and yet it is in that zeal and vigilance, and piety, that we must place our main dependance. I was, therefore, extremely sorry to hear the unjust and illiberal reflections that have been cast upon those of the clerical body, whose petitions against the present measure are on your table. I particularly allude to the university of Cambridge, of which I have the honour of being a member, and for which I feel a deep affection. It is no less the duty than the right of these various bodies, and especially of the universities, to watch over the interests of the Protestant cause, and to present their apprehensions to the consideration of parliament. I was sorry on every account to hear this conduct censured; but more especially because, as I have said, the spirit which dictated such conduct is precisely the spirit to which we must look for security, and from which the most timid may draw reasons for confidence.

It is remarked by a great author, in allusion to the maxim "that money forms the sinews of war," that after all, the true sinews of the war are the true sinews of the men by whom it is waged. Whatever varieties of opinion may prevail respecting securities, the true security of the Protestant church, must after all be found in the living excellence of the Protestant clergy. Whatever safeguards we may invent, whatever ramparts we may throw up, whatever spells we may breathe round the altar, we may depend upon it there is no rampart so impregnable as the strong defence of virtue, no talisman so powerful as the charm of a dignified and consistent conduct. The shrine is safe, so long as the lamps that burn round it retain their original lustre.

But what are the dangers which are to result from admitting Catholics to a participation in civil privileges? The influence of the Pope. Now, although the Pope never has exerted that influence in times the most favourable for its exertion; and although he is at present little likely to exert it; let it be admitted that he may be induced to make the experiment; and let it be admitted, that in spite of the guards placed by this Bill, and by the additional regulations suggested by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning,) he may be able to reach the mass of the people. Supposing that the agents of Rome upbraided the Irish with submission to a foreign yoke, represented to them the indignities to which their religion was exposed, and the triumphs of heresy and falsehood, and appealed to their feelings for a proof of their degraded condition. At what period do you think this appeal would be most powerful? When will these remonstrances have the greatest effect? Will it be when every word is sharpened with truth? when the peasant feels his own degradation and the superior privileges of his Protestant fellow-countrymen; when every thing around him, when his family, his children, his cot, the soil which he tills, the air which he breathes, confirm the sad history? or will it be, when he feels himself on a level with his brethren, when he can appreciate the value of civil rights, when the prospects of himself and his family irresistibly prompt him to loyalty and peace and order? Are hardships and deprivations, or comforts and enjoyments, the better preservatives against the danger apprehended by the learned doctor?—There may, indeed, exist another source of danger. I can conceive it, barely conceive it possible that in the course of time, a Catholic privy counsellor, having acquired high rank and reputation, and great personal influence with his sovereign, should form the project of employing that reputation and influence for the promotion of his religion. I can conceive it possible that the sovereign should yield to that influence, or lend himself from motives of mutual accommodation to the wishes of his servant, even at the risk of forfeiting his throne and his life. I say I can conceive this possible. But is it a possibility on which any man would act? and even if this were the case; the parliament would not forget its duty—and if parliament should slumber at its post; there is yet drawn up in reserve behind the parliament the whole nation, this Protestant nation enlightened and generous towards the Catholics, but heart and hand against Popery on the throne and at the altar. If however the nation could be sunk into supineness, there is yet the strong hold of the national church; there are the various sects of Christians scattered throughout this country, who would zealously unite in such a cause.

I might enlarge upon this part of the subject; but when we hear of danger let me ask—Is there no danger now? Are we now in such a state of halcyon tranquillity, that any change must be a change for the worse? Let the danger in the two cases be compared. In the one case the danger is distant, uncertain, highly improbable; and to be averted or repelled by the natural action of our political system, by the means which are already provided by the constitution. In the other case the danger is not remote, but immediate; not contingent but existing; and to be allayed and removed only by a course of patient and conciliating policy.

Nor in this estimate must we forget the antidotes which are involved in the very measure to which these dangers are attributed; the discontent which it soothes, the hatred which it softens, the consolation which it diffuses, the hopes which it wins over to our side, the prospects which plead in our behalf; the benevolence of a warm and susceptible people who are ready, in the ardour of gratitude, to forget that the hand which heals, is that which also gave the wound.

It has been strongly asserted that the Catholics themselves are dissatisfied with this Bill. I was happy to hear this assertion contradicted by the right hon. mover of the question, and by other gentlemen who possess means of authentic information. Unquestionably it would be de lightful if this measure were followed throughout its progress by the unanimous acclamations of the Irish people. But what great measure can ever be universally and without exception popular? And if there be any local and temporary irritation either now existing or likely to exist, I do not see that this alters the nature of the question. The injuries and sufferings of Ireland are the same. The rights of our Catholic brethren, the great principles of government, the laws of nature remain the same. If indeed I could suspect that any such partial dissatisfactions could completely and for ever defeat the benevolent objects of the Bill, I might hesitate; but this I cannot persuade myself to admit. Even if it should not immediately succeed in producing confidence and cordiality, these cannot fail to be its ultimate consequences. Do you think that after the passing of this Bill the Catholics will enter into a confederacy to abstain from the advantages which it offers? Will they refuse commissions in our army? Will they decline advancement in the military and civil professions beyond the line which they are now allowed to reach? Will they by a voluntary act continue that exclusion from this House of which they now complain? It is impossible; and it is equally impossible that a great improvement in the moral character of the people should not take place.—Let us therefore proceed in the course which we are pursuing, neither on the one hand startled by our own visionary fears, nor on the other discouraged by the unmerited disapprobation of those whom we are most anxious to conciliate. It is an act of national justice. It is an act of national atonement. Let us continue to repair the wrongs of our sister kingdom. I use the word 'continue'; and I am happy to say that amidst that long series of events to which I have before alluded, so dark on the one side, so brilliant on the other, there is at length one bright spot on which the fates of the two nations approach towards each other; on which we may meet and indulge in mutual congratulations. It was since the accession of his present Majesty that Ireland must date the commencement of her liberties; I am most anxious that they should be carried to their consummation during the same reign. No deeper homage can be offered a monarch whose virtues still live in our affections, than this solemn exercise of national charity. No prouder monument can be raised to the father of his people, than this memorial of parental tenderness and protection.

And, Sir, if at any time the considerations which I have taken the liberty of pressing upon the House (at too great length, as I fear, though received with an indulgence which calls for my deepest gratitude) but if at any time those considerations could be supposed entitled to any attention, this surely is the time. What a moment is it in which I address you!—The most odious tyranny that ever tormented the world seems shaking to its base. The cry of vengeance is every where heard. All Europe is rushing to the battle of freedom. Is it for us to linger in the rear, or assume our proper post, in the van of this great contest? But how can this be done, if we neglect to avail ourselves of every possible resource? There is this marked difference between our case and that of the rest of Europe.—With them this mighty struggle is yet but the struggle of yesterday. The spirit by which they are animated may vanish as suddenly as it rose.—The enthusiasm may subside, and leave them as it found them. With us it is not the trance of an hour, the extacy of the moment; with us this struggle is one of a series of contests; part of a protracted and systematic resistance. For us therefore there is no retreat. The bridge is cut off behind us. We must push the combat "to the utterance"—we must stand or fall with the liberties of human nature. Other nations may hope to escape by voluntary humiliation; they may purchase a comparative security by insignificance. They may be poor, and contemptible, and safe. For us there is no such alternative; for us there is no repose but in the lap of victory—no safety but in the triumphal car which drags at its wheels the violators of law and social order. Under such circumstances it is a consideration of tremendous import that the whole strength of the empire should be fully called forth; that we should be safe at home, in order the more effectually to lavish our energies abroad; that there should be no distrust, no misgivings; that there should be nothing to distract the national councils; nothing to sadden the national heart, nothing to cramp or enfeeble the national arm.—If we were told of the sudden accession of four millions to our population, should we not hail it as almost a visible interposition of Providence on our behalf? This is no imaginary sup- position. The accession has been announced. This living fund of genius and virtue has been provided. This mine of richer ore than gold and silver has been opened; but we have refused to take advantage of it.

It was the boast of lord Chatham that he had sought for. virtue among the mountains of Scotland, and that he had found it. Let us seek for valour and patriotism amidst the marshes of Ireland, and there we shall as surely find them. How many brave spirits are there in that country who weep in secret over this cruel exclusion! How many who pant only to be useful to their country; whose fondest prayer it is, that their genius may be tasked in her service, that their valour may bleed in her defence! Yet these are the men whom you reject from your bosom. These are the men whom you compel, because they cannot sink into indolence and obscurity, to find an asylum on foreign shores. There indeed they are welcomed with transport; there they are advanced to honors and high command. There they are valued as treasures of inestimable worth—treasures, in comparison of which the richest subsidy which we ever lavished on our allies is truly contemptible.—I believe it is a fact that there are at this moment in the Austrian service no less than 30 general officers, Irish Catholics, besides inferior officers through all the subordinate stages of promotion.—I do not envy our allies this acquisition; but I ask if this is a time when we can spare such men? Have we such a super-abundance of talent and genius that we can afford to throw it away to be scrambled for amongst foreigners? It is a shame and a guilt to any country, which reduces its subjects to this sad alternative; which proclaims to them that in order to become heroes they must become either apostates or exiles. It is a misfortune also for those who are the victims of such a system. In the midst of the hard-earned honours with which they are surrounded, do you not believe, Sir, that there is something which embitters their prosperity; something which robs life of its value and glory of half its charms? Do you not imagine that in their retired thoughts they brood over the memory of the soil which gave them birth? Do you not imagine that in their secret societies they mingle regrets over the fate which tells them that they can never draw the sword in defence of their native land; that they may indeed in the field of honor die the death of the hero, but are forbidden by their country to die the death of the patriot? But why do I speak only of the Irish? There is another class of our fellow citizens, whose distinguished loyalty, whose dignified submission to the laws, whose many virtues have secured to them the applause and admiration of the whole empire—I mean the English Catholics Amongst this class of men there are those who are descended from a long line of illustrious ancestry; whose names are associated with the brightest periods of our history; who are clothed with honors and distinctions — distinctions bestowed by their native sovereigns, while yet it was allowed to distinguish merit in a Catholic; and honors conferred by a grateful people, before it was criminal in a Catholic to serve his country. The ancestors of these men built up those liberties from which they are now excluded. Their ancestors framed and established the two Houses of Parliament; the doors of those Houses are shut against the descendants!—What must be the feelings of him, who sprung from such a race, nourished by a virtuous and generous education, warmed by the remembrance of his forefathers, and burning only to emulate their renown and tread in the steps of their patriotism, finds himself crossed in the very threshold of his career, by the evil genius of the Catholic code? He is at once thrown back into insignificance. He must tear from his bosom those yearnings after glory; he must renounce his hopes and abandon his recollections; and after having fulfilled his joyless destiny in the shade, he must console himself with the prospect of transmitting the same ignoble inheritance to his children.—What must be the feelings of a father, who having a son so gifted and so inspired, formed to be the ornament and support of his country, feels at the same time that these talents and promises must be blasted, that he must waste the bloom of his youth and the vigor of his manhood in obscurity and indolence!—I conjure the House to place themselves for a moment in the situation of these men; to realise the emotions with which they are oppressed. I implore them to listen to the voice of nature, which, in this instance at least, is the voice of policy; and to abandon a system so pregnant with private sorrow and public calamity. As it often happens that unwise measures produce pernicious consequences which have not been foreseen, so in this wise and salutary measure, may perhaps be involved blessings of which we cannot now conjecture the extent or the importance. I know not if it be a visionary prospect which some wise and good men have loved to contemplate, that a period might arrive in which by mutual concession and conciliation, by the sacrifice of prejudice on the one side and of error on the other, the Catholic and Reformed Churches might approach to something of an amicable intercourse and alliance. I do not know if there be any symptoms of such an issue in the present state of things; but it is a pleasing dream, even if it be not prophetic; and it is not only pleasing, but useful, because it tends to realize the prospect which it pourtrays.—It tends to soothe and conciliate; to lead us from the points on which we differ to those on which we agree; to draw us from the scene of contest, strewed with the memorials of many a struggle, to that hallowed ground on which our common faith and common hopes may grow up and flourish together. If such a disposition animated any considerable portion of Christendom, how soon might religious differences be reconciled; and that spirit of gentleness be revived which should breathe peace and concord over the troubled elements. Let us at least do our part towards this great result. Let us show how much of good will and of forbearance there is in our religion and our policy. Then indeed we might boast of our constitution. Then we might present it to the admiration of the world as a constitution which combines within itself the soundest principles of vitality and happiness; which to all that is great adds all that is amiable; which, without sacrificing important interests or confounding essential differences, is anxious only to soothe and unite; which, preferring its own form of faith and discipline, and preferring it, because believing it to be the noblest, and the purest, and the best, is yet armed with no bigotry nor envenomed by any malignant partialities; which founding its religion upon truth, yet recognizes the maxim, that truth is inseparable from charity; as a constitution, in a word, which proves with how much facility and mutual advantage, different modifications of faith, so long as they revolve round one common centre of Christianity, may perform their various movements, may contribute to the general order, and thus furnish an example of that harmony which modulates the universe! Of such a constitution, we might hope that it would not soon decay. By incorporating the kinder emotions into its essence, it would imbibe something of celestial origin, and be gifted with the virtue of immortality. For if the fabrics which are reared of the ordinary materials of vulgar policy, be found so frail and perishable; it is because they are built on the angry and mutable passions; on narrow expedients, on base and ever-shifting jealousies; but such a system as it is now in our power to accomplish, rests upon principles the deepest and most permanent; upon passions which can never be torn from our nature.—It is composed of materials which borrow strength and brightness from the affections of every coming age. Ever purified and renovated by that living spirit of benevolence, it may defy the influence of time and caprice; it must be durable as the feelings on which it is founded, and unfading as that holy name of charity with which it is inscribed.

animadverted on the observations of Dr. Duigenan, whose various appointments and consequent obligations to some of the Protestant clergy of Ireland the hon. baronet detailed, observing that it was by no means honourable to his constituents that this itinerant vicar-general had played such a part in that House. From Dr. Duigenan the hon. baronet proceeded to the speech of sir John Cox Hip-pisley, which he characterized as the most. multifarious, complicated, circuitous oration he had ever heard; and he regarded it as a proof of the hon. baronet's inconsistency, which inconsistency he endeavoured to illustrate by referring to the productions which the hon. baronet had alluded to.

He commented upon former productions of Dr. Duigenan, which he said were totally at variance with the language which the learned doctor held this night. The hon. baronet particularly quoted a passage from a pamphlet of the learned doctor published pending the discussions upon the Union in Ireland, in which the learned doctor maintained this proposition, "that after the enactment of the Union, all necessity for restrictive laws upon the Catholic body would cease." But how different, or how directly opposite, was the tone of the learned doctor in this debate! Whence this change? Did the learned doctor mean to operate upon the Catholics by delusion in one instance, while he meant to visit them with penalties perpetually? Here the hon. baronet took a view of the services rendered to the empire by Catholics, particularly in the army and navy, and dwelt upon the advantage and honour likely to result to every department of the state, and especially in the law department, if adequate encouragement were held out for the cultivation of Catholic talents.—For instance, he would, ask, whether, if lord Avonmore, and that unrivalled orator, Mr. Curran, had been born Catholics, Ireland could have ever been benefited or adorned by their great and splendid abilities?—After further illustrating this point, the hon. baronet ridiculed the apprehension, that any danger could result to the church establishment from any number of Catholics ever likely to be introduced into the legislature by the adoption of the proposed Bill, whatever the disposition of that number might be towards the church, while opposed by an immense majority of Protestants; for what could 100 members, which was the utmost number of Catholics ever mentioned, even by the most prejudiced conjecture, contrive to accomplish against upwards of 500 Protestants? The honourable baronet again returned to Dr. Duigenan, whose conduct upon this question he declared to excite his astonishment, not only on former occasions, but particularly on the present, when the learned doctor ventured to assert, that the oath of a Catholic was not to be relied upon. What! exclaimed the hon. bart. was it to be maintained, that while the life or property of any man in the land might be taken away according to law, upon the path of a Catholic,—that while all the privileges of the constitution were open to any Catholic who would take particular oaths,—still that the oath of a Catholic was not to be relied upon? The assertion of such a doctrine was, he maintained, not only unfounded and unjust, but completely absurd. But the language of the learned doctor had been generally most unjust and offensive towards the Catholic body, and such conduct on his part was at once surprising and ungenerous, for he had been 17 years embracing a Catholic, and yet he would perpetuate restrictions upon that body of men from among whom he had chosen a wife, as a sample. After panegyrizing the character and conduct of the Irish people, the hon. baronet expressed his conviction that no one in this country was prejudiced against that people but through ignorance; for those among them who had known the Irish felt no prejudice, and he heartily wished that half the English people would go to Ireland where they would have an opportunity of seeing how much his countrymen had been misrepresented. [Here the call for the question, which had often interrupted sir Frederick in the course of his speech, became so loud and general, that he felt it necessary to take his seat.]

said, that although he meant to vote for the second reading of this Bill—although he thought proper to vote against the committee proposed on a former evening—although the committee on the Bill might be deemed the proper place for urging the sentiments which he had to offer, he yet found it necessary at this period, to state somewhat in detail, the grounds upon which he differed in some points from the framer of the Bill. He trusted the indulgence of the House might be extended towards him, whilst he took a general view of those points in which he should cordially concur with the right hon. gent. (Mr. Grattan), as well as those in which he could not so entirely acquiesce. As to the principle and expediency of a measure of this nature, he concurred fully with his hon. friend on the lower bench (Mr. Grant), to whose glowing and impressive eloquence, in support of that expediency, it was unnecessary to offer any addition. He perfectly concurred also with the proposition, that where men were agreed upon a principle, the mere details might be easily arranged. He should now, therefore, submit his views in this stage, rather than the committee, that such explanations might be made as might lead to an accommodation between himself and those persons to whom this Bill appeared in the same important and necessary point of view. He was most anxious to come forward thus early in the debate, with a view, and in the hope, of securing some satisfactory explanation, of making some approach to a fair understanding, on points with regard to which he could not but feel considerable difficulty, and those points were, in his mind, of fundamental importance; and he was the more anxious to observe upon these points, in this stage of the debate, lest he should be precluded from availing himself of any future opportunity, by the variety of official duties to which he had to attend. Perhaps it was from a consideration of those duties that the gentlemen of the committee by whom the Bill was prepared, had not referred to him—but had that reference taken place, he should have stated his opinions as explicitly as he meant to do this night. He approved of the discretion and delicacy of the framers of the Bill, and thought they had done their duty in not referring to him in the first instance. Anxious as he was to give all the assistance in his power to this momentous measure, yet from difference of political views any intercourse between himself and those gentlemen might not have been useful. He was, however, disposed to prefer the communication of his opinions to that House, and it would be for the House, but particularly for those that thought with him as to the principle of the measure under consideration, to decide what degree of attention was due to those opinions, whether any of his suggestions ought to be adopted. Upon all the points to which he had to refer he had no doubt of receiving the most candid exposition; and here he had no difficulty in saying, that considering the several interests that were to be reconciled, the various parties which were to be conciliated, the right hon. mover of the Bill had acted most discreetly in having abandoned his original view of moving at once for a general comprehensive repeal of all the penal laws, and proceeding, as was now proposed, in a measured manner, because such a comprehensive repeal, he for one, and many who thought with him upon the principle, could not approve, tending, as it must, to alarm the country, if brought forward, unaccompanied by the guards necessary for the security of the church establishment. It was difficult to approach the existing laws on great fundamental points of the constitution, with a view of repealing them simply. The wisest course was to see what the Catholics could be indulged in, notwithstanding any reproaches that might be cast on such a mode of legislation. Whatever course then might be pursued, whatever opinions might been-tertained as to this measure, the right hon. gentleman had indisputably adopted a wise precaution, and proceeded in a more prudent and constitutional manner than was originally proposed. Instead of insisting upon the universal application of his principle, the right hon. gentleman had conceded where concession was required, proper, and necessary, and in that line of proceeding which must have additional influence with the House in favour of the Bill, the right hon. gentleman had followed the policy of the legislature at other times. For, according to the 5th of Elizabeth, enacting the oath of supremacy, the principle of the Act was not applied to the Catholic peerage, who were exempted from the provisions because their allegiance was not doubted. He, therefore, approved of the discretion and judgment shewn in the present Bill. As to the policy of it, he should endeavour to state his views, distinguishing his difference of opinion, from those of the framers. He expressed his entire concurrence with that right hon. gentleman as to the principle of the Bill, under proper securities, as he had before stated, and also that no securities for the church establishment should be required from the Catholics which, consistently with their religion, they could not notoriously grant—none, indeed, which any considerate, liberal Catholic could hesitate-to grant for the satisfaction of his Protestant fellow-subjects. Now, by the Bill before the House, it was proposed to admit Catholics to a share in the legislature, to which proposition he was most ready to accede. It proceeded on the principle of granting all the powers of the constitution to Catholics, with security to our church and state. The right hon. mover felt it due to the church of England to secure it from all that might-be prejudicial to it; and also to abstain from the interference of the Protestant state with the spirituals of the Catholic religion. But the very nature of the privileges to be conceded, and especially the legislative eligibility, might give a large share of authority, not merely in general interests, but particularly in the interests of the church as connected with the state. That most desirable part of the measure, the bringing Catholics into parliament, would give them that power: they ought, therefore, to be prepared to expect some regulations. It was ever to be recollected that this admission would invest the Catholics with great authority over our church establishment.—For it was impossible to divorce the two questions, or to draw a parallel line between the right of legislation, and a power to interfere with the church establishment. Thus the Bill proposed to grant to the Catholics a power to legislate for a Protestant establishment, while the legislature were to be, utterly excluded from any similar interference with the Catholics, whose hierarchy were too jealous to allow any persons to interfere with their jurisdiction. He was ready to admit that the right hon. mover of the Bill had dealt fairly with the House by the oath he had proposed, which oath was certainly as much calculated as any oath could be to meet all the danger to be apprehended; and he begged to be distinctly Understood as not objecting in the slightest degree to the efficacy of that oath from any reliance upon the oath of the Catholic; for in fact the Catholic's respect for that sacred obligation was the cause of his preclusion from the very privileges which he now sought to obtain.—But he disliked the principle, if it were urged as such, that oaths were in all cases a sufficient security, he must protest against it, not only with regard to the Catholics, but even were he to suppose Protestants concerned. He did not think the obligation of an oath wholly sufficient, although he was satisfied that the oaths of Catholics might be as much relied on as those of any other sect of Christians; and were he to admit that oaths would in any case be sufficient security, he would also allow that those already imposed were as strong as any that could be devised. But he objected to making an oath the sole ground of security between Catholic and Protestant, and as meeting all probable dangers; this shewed great poverty of legislation, and a want of knowledge of mankind; for society was not to be held together, crimes prevented, and the discharge of social and public duties enforced, by taking oaths, however honest, on the construction of the particular parties. Old honest prejudices must be consulted, and combined for the welfare of society. Out of the conflict of various interests must be found the security for all. By the combining of different interests against each other, the general result was brought out, which conduced to the general welfare. He allowed that no oaths could be more comprehensive than those provided; and that the small number of those who had already taken them, formed no objection, since even here Protestants who did not receive offices, did not qualify for them. The first oath was as much a security as an oath could be. The second oath to be proposed by a right hon. gentleman was fairly directed against all the dangers which his clauses were intended to meet. But he was of opinion, that besides oaths other regulations were necessary; and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grattan) was aware that this was always his opinion. When any set of men were to re- ceive great advantages, they would be unwise to agitate the removal of the theoretical inconveniences, by which they might disturb the general temper, in seeming to extort that which they might, perhaps, gain easier at another time.

The course which the right hon. gentleman had followed in framing his Bill was a wise one but he was disposed to think it unwise, or at least imprudent, to bring forward prominently, and to agitate a mere theoretical or imaginary grievance, instead of fixing the whole attention of the public on those which were felt and really practical. He alluded to the measure of last session with respect to the Dissenters, and he believed that even as a conciliatory measure, had it been brought in at an inopportune moment, it might have disturbed the harmony of the country, and the councils of state. Practical wisdom seemed to have been exceeded in one point. Nobody felt stronger than he did, the impropriety of any law entirely precluding Dissenters from holding offices; but he felt that there would be great reluctance to shake an ancient established law: and the Dissenters obtained relief by annual parliamentary suspension, which they might not get by other means; and they had been for a long time, without, as far as he knew, sustaining any inconvenience from the test laws. He was afraid the right hon. gentleman had gone a little farther than he ought to do in prudence, in wishing to re-agitate now the question concerning the repeal of the test laws generally. Those in force against Protestant dissenters, from the annual relaxation, could not be called a practical grievance, like the laws against the Catholics, and did not therefore so forcibly call for a repeal. A general repeal of them he would at all times consider a very serious and difficult question; and at present he thought it was imprudent to couple it with the repeal of the laws against the Catholics, or with any measures of concession to that body. The case of the Catholics did not precisely apply to the Dissenters: yet it might be called an anomaly to refuse the repeal of the tests to the Dissenters. It was, of importance, therefore, to consider what might be the effect, of the present proceedings. If the tests rested inconveniently on any portion of the King's subjects, he would encounter all the difficulties of a repeal; but he doubted the prudence of coupling it with this measure. In Ireland there was no test, but great numbers of Catholics; in Scotland none, but very few Catholics. The annual relief from the test laws might still be afforded, and the omission of them now might avoid a question inconvenient in this country. [Something was said across the table.] If he was wrong in this view of the matter, he should be happy to be set right. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), in his proposed clauses, had fairly directed them towards two great fundamental dangers: that of foreign authority in spirituals, and that of such authority working, by means inconsistent with the constitution and security of this country. He differed a little from the right hon. gentleman, with respect to the securities required against the influence of a foreign jurisdiction. But as we meant to conciliate the Catholics, we ought to treat their religion with respect; nor ought we to require from them any securities that were inconsistent with the integrity of their religion. He never wished to give any currency or authority to the acts or a foreign power in this country, without some security or examination; but was always anxious for some guards or protection against the dangers to be apprehended from this source; and he was the more disposed to think such an opinion a just one, because he knew that it had been hitherto acted upon in all parts of Europe. But, at present, he was doubly anxious for such a safeguard, now that the Pope was so much under the influence and controul of the enemy. He never wished to claim, on the part of the crown, the di-rectnomination of the Catholic clergy; but he was anxious to limit the patronage of the See of Rome in this country. He was not bigotted to any former notions, but he wished, consistently with his duty, fairly to examine how far his principles were satisfied by means conducive to the welfare and support of the state. He did not argue now on details, but it must not be expected to him to concede principles which were affected by details. From time to time he had alluded to the means to be employed, and he wished to shew why he thought the proposed regulations would fall short of their object. He was always for making such provisions as would not wound the feelings of Catholics, nor attempt to compel them to disclosures contrary to their religion; but he always desired to guard against the currency of the acts of a foreign power in this country operating in the nature of laws. He admitted that this was attempted in one clause; but if the right hon. gentleman and himself meant the same thing, he did not despair of their coming to an understanding upon it. He would state his own measure. He had always professed that he did not mean to exclude the acts of the See of Rome, such as bulls and rescripts; but he looked at their natural influence on men's minds, and on their temporal interests, as calling on us, not in unfair jealousy, or hostile relations, to consider the practice of all other states, and of our Own Catholic ancestors, who were jealous of the encroachments of the See of Rome. We ought to take our remedy within the scale on which all nations had taken their's against such encroachments. He was sure most Catholics were too wise and too patriotic, not to be aware of such jealousies formerly, and now also, when the Pope had ceased to be a free agent, and could no longer exercise forbearance towards this country; but had become, in fact, an instrument in the hand of our enemy. In what related to faith or, discipline, or did not trench upon temporal matters, he agreed that it was not policy to interfere. As to controul over the appointment of high ecclesiastical officers, which was absolute in the Romish See, he was anxious not to claim any nomination, or any direct interference. How far the clauses did interfere, was another point. But he considered that the Catholic clergy ought not to be left in a situation, in which they had two separate interests,—arising from influence and duty; but that their interests should be made such as to reconcile their duties, both to their own country and to the See of Rome. This had been his anxious wish; and which he once thought was near its accomplishment at the period of the Union, when an arrangement was proposed for the clergy, satisfactory to them and to the state. He alluded to the communication which he made at that time to the Catholics, respecting a state provision for the body of their clergy. He was sanguine in this expectation, having received, as far as the then government could give him, authority to promise an arrangement to the clergy, both of the Catholics and the Dissenters in Ireland. On the eve of the Union he expected this, from the quality of the measure, as well as from his having been the channel of communication. After the measure had been frustrated at that period, he also hoped to see it carried into effect some time after. It was with this hope, and some such understanding, that he took a part in lord Sidmouth's administration. He had asked of lord Sidmouth's cabinet, whether these measures would be agreed to; and upon receiving an assurance that they would be so, and on that ground only, he consented to become a member of that cabinet. On communicating this to the Catholic clergy, they informed him that their disposition was not changed, (the papers on this subject might be found in the Secretary of State's office;) but that they thought it would be discreditable to them, and unbecoming their character, if they embraced a separate, exclusive advantage for themselves, while the Catholic laity were smarting under the disappointment of their expectations. The Catholic clergy, having thus declined becoming parties to such a regulation, though their bishops had before assented to it, the matter dropped, which but for this step would then have been carried into effect. This was his object in wishing for such a regulation, and not to divorce the Catholic clergy from those whom it was their duty to instruct and to guide. He thought it would be the least revolting measure to the Catholic mind; and that it would form, better than any dry authority, a counterbalance to the See of Rome. No security was better than such an independence in their own society, that foreign power was no object in their eyes. He knew no better mode of placing them above all suspicion in the eyes of the Protestants; or of enabling them with advantage to discharge their duties. He thought this of so much importance, that he was anxious to state it, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would weigh it carefully. He thought the Catholics would not consider his views unreasonable, since he never dreamed of their doing more than the Presbyterians, whose church system was infinitely more republican, and therefore tending more to political inconvenience than a church purely monarchical like that of Rome, which seemed thereby more compatible with the genius of the constitution. Such had been his views and his hopes at that time; nor was he yet disposed to abandon either. From considering the state of the Presbyterian clergy in Ireland, he thought that the Catholics ought to be more disposed towards this measure. They were now endowed by the crown, and though nine years had elapsed since the measure, which gave the crown a negative upon their election, by withholding the endow- ment of their livings, still in all that time this negative had never been exercised. Why then should the Catholics apprehend worse effects from a similar power in the crown? Such a fact, at least, was no bad proof of the spirit in which the crown meant to exercise this power. He believed the crown had the power of refusing every Presbyterian minister, on grounds of disloyalty, even after the recommendation of the synod, with respect to his receiving the endowment, according to what was established in lord Hard-wicke's administrations; but he believed no instance had yet occurred, of a refusal by government. This provision was, he believed, 100l. a year at the highest; the scale descending. The Catholics ought not to feel jealous of this measure, and alarm the public mind upon it. In no view ought they, unless they would refuse all connection with the state. If so, he understood them; but that would be different from their former disposition. He did not wish to extend this plan to all the various sects; but as it had been already done, the example ought to be followed with the Catholics, which would relieve Protestants from the fear of danger. He dwelt the longer on this topic, because he wished at present to have it adopted as much as ever, knowing, as he did, how much it would facilitate the execution of every other regulation. He knew, besides, very well, that the measure had been declined formerly by the Catholic prelates of Ireland, not because it was in any degree inconsistent with their religion, or any part of its discipline, but in order not to shock the prejudices of the Catholic laity, and the lower orders of their clergy.—As to a regulation in direct appointments to ecclesiastical functions, he did not think any law could be advantageously exercised. He was not prepared to say that a regulation respecting the loyalty of ecclesiastics, should merely exist in a declaration of loyalty to the crown. He must be allowed to express an opinion that the proposed commission created an authority inconsistent with the rights of the crown and the constitution: if he did not misconceive its tendency. He thought it would not answer its purpose; but if acted upon, would be worse than any system on more known and admitted principles. Although he approved of the principle of the right hon. gentleman's (Mr. Canning) clause, he could not give his approbation to the clause itself, as it seemed to create a power not recognized by the constitution of this country. He had other objections besides to this commission, so far as he was able to understand it from the right hon. gentleman's amendment.—The right hon. gentleman had, in his clause, guarded sufficiently against the power of the crown, by making the commissioners independent of it, and displaceable only by the Houses of Parliament. It was one of the best points of the English constitution, that the judges were removable only by parliament, and the more immediate superintendance of the crown was unnecessary, because they exercised their authority under the controul of public opinion, one of the most efficient checks known to our constitution. But a commissioner, under the clause he spoke of, would, while he was removable only by the crown, be abstracted from the efficient controul of publicity, and be vested with a secret and discretional authority. The evil to be apprehended from this was, not so much that the power would be abused, to the detriment of those subject to it, but that the commissioners as individuals, would feel a reluctance, in the absence of the necessary stimulus afforded by the eye of the public, to exercise the severe process vested in them, except in cases of such enormity as would be more effectually restrained by the constitutional modes of punishment. They could not always have the means of exercising a sound discretion. The five respectable noblemen could not always know what was dangerous, for it was impossible that they could have the whole question brought before them in all its circumstances, in the full shape in which the crown could view it. In referring all such matters to those respectable persons, senior peers in both countries, it would be felt that they might sometimes have imposed upon them, what they could not do with-out great hardship. As the Bill stood they would be called on not merely to give an opinion as to the qualifications of an individual, not for their authority respecting a person in an early stage, but at a late one, when the highest ecclesiastical appointment was taking place. With all his respect for the character and integrity of the noble lords who were, according to the right hon. gentleman's amendments, to be invested with the power of granting a testimonium to the Catholic bishops, he could not but think that such a measure would go to the creation of a tribunal un- known to the constitution. It would, in fact, confer the power of appointing bishops at the will and caprice of individuals, divested of all responsibility, and not amenable either to the crown or to parliament. It would be, to all intents and purposes, a permanent commission against the crown, without being subject to the control of public opinion, or of the authority of that House. The right hon. gentleman would accomplish his object much better by proceeding according to the plain, clear, and recognized principles of the constitution. He did not wish to quarrel in the sentiments he was called upon to express with the principle of security itself, but with the fact that the provision was not accompanied with due and requisite responsibility. He would certainly prefer the appointment of commissioners directly and openly by the crown, but the right hon. gentleman's mode was a secrecy against the crown, against the legislature, against all mankind. It tended to establish a new estate in the country highly dangerous, and to transfer from a foreign power to a power within ourselves a right of interference seriously detrimental to the Catholic body itself and to the constitution. To the proposed testimonium or certificate he should therefore decidedly object. The principle which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had taken up, namely, to make the principal Catholics auxiliaries to the crown, was laudable; and it was only to the means of carrying it into execution that he had any objection. The principle of the right hon. gentleman would be better carried into effect in a more constitutional manner. He did not wish to bring before the public such parts of any religious establishment-as it would be advisable to veil from the public eye; but in this case the secrecy was vested in an irresponsible body. The interests of the parties concerned would be better provided for by vesting in the crown more ample power over these commissioners, and in that case, secrecy could be made an auxiliary security against the crown, as it would only be dissolved by a special act. Those Catholics too, who might object to being put upon the commission as it stood at present, could not have such objections when called on by the crown to lend their aid. This would obviate the difficulties as to this measure, which, as it at present was proposed, gave to a body of men, within our own limits, an authority as capable of being abused as when exercised by a foreign power.—Another of the proposed clauses on which he wished to remark, was the second, by which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), if he understood him rightly, wished to protect the state from decrees of foreign powers being circulated as valid, even under the show of their being as to spiritual matters; at the same time without interfering in such a degree with the essentials of any church, as to forbid men to worship God after their own manner. The authoritative papers forwarded from the court of Rome were bulls, institutions, and rescripts. As to the first and second of these, there could be no difficulty in submitting them to the cognizance of the state, and causing them to bear on the face of them, when forwarded to the persons who were to be guided by them, something to notify that nothing was contained in them derogatory to the temporal authority of the state. He should wish that this examination should be performed by one of the dignitaries of the Catholic church duly responsible. The clause of the right hon. gentleman was not satisfactory, asunder it only a copy of the paper would be submitted to examination. It was desirable that the paper should be inspected before it was suffered to be current, and rather the original than a copy. But the relaxation went one step further,—for, by taking an oath that nothing derogatory to his fealty was contained in it, a person was absolved from submitting even a copy of any paper to examination. The papers which issued from the Penitentiary at Rome were the only ones in which secrecy was at all necessary to be observed. These related not only to cases of penitence, but to marriage dispensations. On this subject, as on all others, the Catholics would perceive the expediency of inspiring confidence on the part of the Protestants, and could not wish to give a less perfect satisfaction, if a more perfect one could be given. The rescripts issued from the Penitentiary, could (besides the subject of marriage within the prohibited degrees) relate only to the more, enormous crimes, such as murder and incest; for lesser offences could be expiated by penance, without applying to this office at Rome. It was not his wish that persons should be obliged to fix on themselves the ignominy which the knowledge of their having committed such crimes would occasion; but the ends of secrecy might be answered, and some security afforded to the state, by causing the rescripts to be submitted to some of the dignitaries of the Catholic church of these kingdoms. He had thus endeavoured to give some conception of his ideas in detail on the subject at this time, that at a future stage of the measure, an opportunity of coming prepared for the consider-ration of it might be given. As to the measure in general, he had, immediately after the Union, looked to the establishment of it as practicable, as individuals would then have come to the discussion unpledged to opinions concerning the policy of it; because objections antecedently existing against it were obviated, from the new shape which the empire had assumed from the union of the Catholics to a preponderant body of Protestants; and because that settlement was calculated to surmount many difficulties, to open new views, to enlarge the system of general policy, and to strengthen the means, and consolidate the prosperity of the empire. Although circumstances had prevented the accomplishment of it at that time, be had always anxiously looked forward to it; and if now accomplished, it would be accomplished under the most auspicious circumstances. One motive must animate them all—the idea that, in adopting any plan on the subject at this time, they would be open to no injurious suspicions;—nothing could stand between the interests of the empire on this question, and those great considerations of policy which should never be disregarded. No moment could present itself so auspicious for the common interests and common happiness of the country as the present. No Catholic could suppose that, at this time, we were induced to depart from any line which we had marked out to ourselves, by any feeling of timidity. There was no peculiar reason to induce the Catholics to believe that the legislature were called upon to act from unworthy motives, from the feelings of timidity, of fear, or the predominant apprehensions of danger. On the other hand the Protestants had every just ground for co-operating in the attainment of the measure. As legislators acting for the Catholics, as well as for the Protestants, they were bound to make every arrangement for the public security and the public good; to proceed in the great work by a suitable congeniality of sentiment; and to produce by their cooperation a diffusion of blessings incalculable in their influence upon the welfare of the empire at large. This consideration should lead them, so to manage their regulations, that their measures should carry with them the cordial joy of the Catholics; and that the Protestants should regard them not as a sacrifice, but as a consolidation of interests. He hoped, that though this measure had never entered into the political conflicts of his life, he had sufficiently shown that it was only from the conviction, that if pressed, it would not be carried. There was at a former period much reason to believe that there was in the Pope a mild and benevolent spirit of conciliation, ready to concur in the measures most proper to be adopted; and that there existed in the great body of the Catholics a disposition to run before the crown in just concession and conciliation. Although the same facility with respect to the head of the Catholic church did not now exist, the want of that could not constitute any obstacle, if the Catholics themselves were ready, as they had been, to adopt the best means of conciliation, and to conform to the best interests of the country. The plan which had been published by the hon. baronet had been agreed to by the Catholics, and though inculcated by the government was in fact the plan of the Catholics. This body had always shown a wish rather to meet the wishes of government (notwithstanding the conduct of some of those who had assumed the lead of it), and if it acted as was to be expected from its general principles, it would be entitled to the gratitude of Protestants. In the present circumstances of the Pope there could (he supposed) be no difficulty, for while that personage was under the authority of a foreign power, if the Catholics were satisfied with the measure, they might safely leave it to be approved by him at a future moment. The Pope was a prisoner in the power of an inveterate enemy; and therefore the friends of the Catholics, and the Catholics themselves, were bound to do their duty, without listening to the strange doctrines of some individuals. He wished to have it clearly understood that there could be no preclusion to their claims on account of the Pope's detention. If even there were, it would become the duty of the House to provide exclusively for the Catholics, and the safety of the country together. The only question before them was the mode of proceeding on a question of degrees; and he trusted most sincerely, that in the steps they had to take, no temporary indiscretions of individuals would be allowed to operate against the Catholic claims. It had been truly said, that there was no necessity for knowing the sentiments of the Pope; that they should legislate by their own act as to the civil securities of the state. As to bishops and priests they might be regulated by law, as there already existed regulations to which they must conform before they were allowed to preach. Though all this indeed might be claimed as right, yet from prudential motives, he should wish as a legislator, to know how measures enacted for the benefit of the Catholics, would be received by them? On this subject he had heard with pleasure the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grattan), on a former night; nor had he (lord C.) been ever disposed to collect the sentiments of the Catholics from the effusions of a few factious persons in the height of political controversy. The sentiments, however indiscreet, injudicious, and unseasonable, which might be expressed against the opinion of the general body by any individuals, ought not to be considered as a criterion by which the legislature ought to measure and regulate its decisions. He could at no time, and under no circumstances, be induced to lend his sanction to such a doctrine. If it was asked why the Catholics had not marked with disapprobation these sentiments, he should answer, that it would have been contrary to all the rules of action in human beings, that they should have exposed themselves to the obloquy and sarcasms of the noisy part of their own body, in order to aid a measure, of the accomplishment of which they had no expectation. He hoped that the effect of this measure would be not only the introduction of Catholics into parliament, but into a fair proportion of the offices of the state. He would address himself, there-fore, to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grattan), whether, as a friend to the Catholics, it were not better that such regulations should be introduced in the Bill as would tend to give the Catholics the confidence of the crown, than that the Bill should pass by feeble majorities, in which case the Catholics, excluded from office, would be arranged in hostility against the Protestants within, instead of without, the constitution. He thought, therefore, that the Catholics, for their own benefit, should submit to the regulations submitted to by their brethren in foreign states, and the other parts of our own dominions. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman, who was intrusted with the care of the Bill, would finally make such arrangements as should be found sufficient to guard against the chance of every danger, and to give to the Catholics every opportunity of enjoying the confidence of the crown, and the esteem of their fellow subjects. Of the Catholic clergy in Ireland, he could not speak too warmly; for he had witnessed, in times of peculiar peril and trying distress, the excellence of their conduct. He was desirous of uniting them with the state upon the same principles which allowed them to partake of honours and dignities in every Protestant country. It was his earnest wish to grant to them the confidence they possessed in Protestant states, where they had not opposed any obstacle, but had wisely lent themselves to the established policy of the country. These were the feelings he entertained, and upon which he wished the question to be understood and discussed, when the facilities with the head of the Catholic church existed. But if the auspicious moment in the Catholic mind now presented itself, and they were ready to take what was given in all Protestant states, unless indeed they declared they were different from all Catholics in all Protestant countries, from the Catholics in Canada and Malta, he did not hesitate to say, that the results would be most beneficial to the common interests and happiness of the empire. With respect to the Protestants in this country, he was aware that there certainly did exist a considerable degree of reluctance to grant all the rights and privileges which were claimed; but he felt that the reluctance prevailed more among the lower than the higher classes, and that it was caused more by intemperance and misrepresentation, than by that conviction which ought to be the consequence of mature and unprejudiced deliberation. Yet, the question, he was happy to observe, had gained ground, and he, therefore, felt anxious to solve it in every way, and by every mode consistent with the safety of the state, and with all the views and ends suited to the spirit and practice of the constitution. He did not wish to consider it as a question of party, and having stated the general outline of his ideas upon it, he should reserve himself for a more detailed statement when they went into a committee. He conjured the right hon. gentleman, however, not to try to force the measure, but rather to exert his powers another way, and by conciliating the Protestants, claim a power in behalf of the Catholics which would greatly serve their cause. He was anxious that whatever change the measure might undergo, it should originate with those who had brought it forward. Having thus stated his sentiments, he again conjured the right hon. gentleman to obtain for the Catholic body the fullest acquiescence which could be given in the proposed measures upon the principles he had laid down, and he pledged himself that they should have his cordial concurrence and support. He concluded with expressing his confident hope, that the House would go into the committee, where the question might be fairly and minutely discussed, and such an arrangement made, as would give equal satisfaction to the Protestants and the Catholics by the best possible provisions of concession, conciliation, and security.

did not rise to enter at large upon the topics to which the noble lord had adverted; but to assure the noble lord, that both he and his friends felt every disposition to meet his lordship with the strongest feelings of conciliation. He would not presume to understand all the opinions delivered that night by the noble lord upon the subject before them.—Indeed, it Would be difficult for any man to understand what might be the opinion of another upon a question involving, as appeared from the noble lord's speech, such a great variety of topics, without the most mature deliberation, and, consequently, nothing could be more presumptuous than to make any alteration in the Bill now before the House, as if authorized by the noble lord, where not only an approval, but a complete understanding of the noble lord was necessary.—It was fit that each man should express his opinion, and, when the House resolved into a committee, propose such alteration in the Bill as was agreeable to himself. He would submit, however, to the candour of the noble lord, whether it was not requiring rather too much of those who concurred in the general principle of the Bill, that they should bring forward any alteration, in the hope of meeting the ideas of the noble lord himself, without perfectly understanding to what those ideas pointed. All he could undertake to do, and he might say as much of his right hon. friend, was, to meet in a spirit of conciliatory feeling, any proposition the noble lord might make. They had formed an opinion upon which they had acted—if the noble lord had any alteration to propose, they were ready to listen to it, and to give it every fair consideration; to undertake more would be undertaking a great deal too much. The noble lord had agreed to the principle of the Bill, and had declared he would vote for the second reading—after this, for all further discussion, he apprehended the committee would be the proper place, and he should accordingly reserve what he had further to urge on the measure till that opportunity was afforded him.

rose under a loud cry of Question, and great interruptions, and was obliged, after waiting some time, to sit down.

then rose, but after waiting some time, was also obliged to sit down.

then rose, and moved that the House do now adjourn.

having, with difficulty, obtained a hearing, stated the question.

said, that his right hon. friend had, he was confident, only moved the adjournment, in order to obtain a hearing for such gentlemen as wished to deliver their sentiments; and having obtained that object, he had no doubt he would immediately withdraw it.

rose and said, that after the House had listened somewhat more than two hours to the noble lord, who had gone into details which had no connection with the question then before them, he certainly did hope they would hear his hon. friend, whose intention it was to speak to the question.

then rose, and asked if it were the wish of those who brought forward the measure that it should pass, in such a way as to give general satisfaction, would it, at all contribute to that desirable end, that those persons who did not entertain the same sentiments with the friends of the Bill, should not obtain a patient hearing? As he had before given his opinion upon the subject, he would not now take up the time of the House with stating over again the grounds upon which that opinion had been formed; but he could not help calling their attention to the Bill as it appeared before them. He was not to be considered as one of that class alluded to in the course of the debate, who did not consider the laws affecting the Catholics as an evil. He looked upon them to be a very great evil, but an evil, however, which he could not consent to remove without some security, and the difference between him, and the supporters of the Bill was, that he thought no securities could be devised; and every other individual, except the author of the Bill, thought that securities were necessary. (No, no, from the opposite side.) He understood gentlemen to say, that securities were necessary, and that a Bill should be introduced to discover what securities could be devised. If such were the case, he must remind the House of the situation in which they stood with respect to the Bill. When leave was given to the right hon. gentleman to bring in his Bill, it was the general sense of the House that some securities should be provided, and they were willing that a Bill should be brought in to discover whether any thing could be devised that would justify the removal of all the disabilities now affecting the Roman Catholics. But if they looked at the clauses of the Bill they would see that while it removed every disqualification no additional securities were provided. The Corporation and Test Act were to be annulled; Catholics were to be admitted into parliament and corporate magistracies; and all that was devised as a security was an oath merely made up of two other oaths as enacted by the statute of 1791 and the Irish Act of 1793. This, however, was no additional security; and yet, thus stood the Bill which they were now called upon to support. Perhaps it might not be exactly fair to connect in his view of the question the clauses proposed by his right hon. friend (Canning) and yet there could be little doubt, he apprehended, that the House, in coming to a vote, would have in its con templation, those clauses so connected. He did not mean to go into them at any length, but, with respect to one of them, he would say thus much, that he would rather hazard all the dangers of direct foreign influence as it now existed, than sanction that clause which professed to obviate it. He could not conceive a more monstrous proposition. He could see no-thing more mischievous than such a commission as that which his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) proposed; a commission, it was true, to be appointed by the crown, but neither removable by the crown nor responsible for its conduct. Even if the commission were to consist of Protestants, he would have nearly the same objection to it. Such a species of imperium in im perio he had never before heard of in the British constitution; and whether it was to consist of Protestant peers or Protestant commoners, he should equally oppose it. No sufficient securities had been yet proposed, or seemed likely to be devised, after the great abilities that had been so, long employed ineffectually for the purpose of discovering them.

said, that notwithstanding the impatience of the House at that late hour, he trusted that, considering the situation which he had the honour to hold in the government of Ireland he should be indulged for a few minutes, while he stated his sentiments upon this most important question. He should rather have wished to reserve himself entirely for a more fit occasion when the Bill went into a committee; but he was, he confessed, very unwilling to let this Bill pass the second reading without entering his protest against it. He protested against the principle of this Bill, because it conferred on those who admitted an external jurisdiction, the right of legislating on all matters connected with the church of England; he protested against this Bill, because it was not conformable to the Resolution of the House, on which it professed to be founded; that resolution did certainly adopt the principle of concession to the Catholics, but it was concession connected with the strongest and most distinct securities for the established church. He wished to ask, where were these securities? The House, he should think, would not be satisfied with the promise of a member, however respectable, that some clauses, which were printed and circulated, should be hereafter added to the Bill, when they ought to have these important securities embodied and distinctly brought before them as a separate and at least co-equal subject for consideration. Upon a question of such vital importance, the securities ought to accompany the Bill itself. The principal ground, however, of his objection to the Bill was, as it affected the connection of the country with Ireland. One of the great difficulties which appeared to him to stand in the way of the proposed concession was the state of the population of Ireland. If the Protestants exceeded the Roman Catholics in number—if the population of the two countries were mixed up together, he should have much less objection. But it was impossible to look at the situation of Ireland, where the Roman Catholics so greatly preponderated in num- ber, and where there were distinct interests, without feeling alarmed at the consequences of such unlimited concession. They could not close their eyes to the fact, that differences of religion existed there for a long time, and that they were now going to try the experiment whether these religions could be placed on the same footing. His noble friend had talked of providing for the clergy of the Roman Catholic church; but, if they were maintained at the expence of the state, how could the Protestant be called the established religion? What was an established religion? If he understood what it meant, it signified a religion, the teachers and professors of which possessed certain privileges, and were maintained by the state. If then the Catholic clergy were maintained by the state, (and under other circumstances, such a measure would be desirable) in what would the Protestant establishment consist, as contradistinguished from the Catholic. The only difference between the two religions in Ireland would then be, that a Roman Catholic could not be lord lieutenant. It should be recollected, that Ireland had a distinct hierarchy, that she had the same number of archbishops and bishops that there were in this country, and that she had 2,000 clergy; now, if by this Bill the two religions were equalized in Ireland, would not parliament soon be called to put the professors of both on the same footing? When parliament had declared, that there was no reason why one religion should have any preference over the other, was it to be supposed that the Catholics of Ireland would consent willingly to maintain the clergy of a religion not professed by more than one-fifth of the inha-tants of that country: how could they hope, when it was admitted that there were 4,000,000 of Catholics and only 800,000 Protestants, to maintain the Pro-tant ascendancy? This was a point which, he thought, they ought well to consider. He would not detain the House much longer at this late hour, but was anxious to vindicate himself from the charge of inconsistency, which had been preferred by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) against those who opposed this Bill, because, though they disapproved of the principle of this measure, they had yet voted for the proposition of the hon. baronet (sir J. Hippisley). It was true, that last session he opposed the motion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning); the question then was, whether the House should resist the claims of the Catholics, or go into enquiry for the purpose of concession. The House adopted the motion, and after this there was surely no impropriety in trying to render the Bill as little obnoxious as possible, although they might fail in preventing its adoption. When, therefore, he, and those who thought with him, were driven from their strong hold, there was no inconsistency in their taking the next strongest that offered. Though they might have preferred resistance to enquiry, yet they might prefer enquiry to concession. He might differ with the hon. baronet as to the extent of enquiry which he wished to institute, but he thought the ground upon which he voted perfectly consistent with his vote of last session. That motion was not brought forward with the concurrence, or at the desire of the persons at that side of the House.—If it were their intention to oppose the Bill, they might have adopted another course. With regard to the Bill, it was in his mind premature. He did not think it could lead to final or conciliatory adjustment. It would have been a more decent mode of treating the numerous petitions laid upon the table, if such enquiry as the hon. baronet moved for had been made. He was the more inclined to object to this measure, because, even if it were passed, its professed object would not be obtained, for many grievances would still remain behind. There was nothing said in this Bill about the laws in existence respecting bequests of Roman Catholics for their schools and places of worship, nothing about the education of the Catholics. It was then absurd to represent this Bill as calculated to effect a final adjustment, because there were many laws existing upon our statute books, which must be repealed if this Bill should pass. He concluded with stating, that he would not trespass longer upon the House at that time, but that he would, at some future stage of the Bill, either in the committee or on bringing up the report, take the opportunity of stating his sentiments more at large.

observed, that no person, however long his experience in that House, could have devised a better way of getting rid of a question, than the motion of the right hon. baronet (Sir J. C. Hip-pisley,) and that nothing could be more opposite to the feelings of the House. He then made a few observations in reply to some parts of lord Castlereagh's speech. He thought the obscurity in which the noble lord had enveloped his opinions respecting some alterations or amendments, was placing those who concurred in the general principle of the Bill in a very distressing situation, and he hoped the noble lord would, if not in that House, yet in some other way, intimate what his view of the amendment was, that the House might understand what he wished. In voting for the second reading, he had no doubt the House would do so, with a pointed view of the Bill as brought in by the right hon. gentleman, and in connection with the clauses proposed by his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning).

said, he was sorry that he had not made himself fully understood. He had been willing to assist in his private character in forwarding the measure, but he had not been called on; he felt no more difficulty in doing so now than he had before; he only wished that the amendment, which he thought necessary, might be brought forward by the friends of the measure, as it would be better received. He by no means intended to complain that he was not consulted on the formation of the Bill. It was natural to expect that those would be anxious to frame it according to their own distinct notions who had been more forward in promoting the general object.

very shortly adverted to some unparliamentary and unjust expressions made use of by the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one and who had charged him with endeavouring to fritter away the Bill, and to compromise the rights of the Catholics. The hon. baronet was entering upon other topics, when he was interrupted by an almost universal cry of "question!"

admitted that the language used by the late member for Yorkshire might be severe, but it was not unjust; he would repeat, that the hon. baronet had endeavoured, by every means within his power, under colour of friendship to the cause, to destroy the Bill, and to frustrate the well-grounded hopes of the Catholics.

said he rose merely to apologise for not addressing the House in reply to some of the observations of the noble lord, but the remarks he had to make would more properly be stated in a future stage of the Bill. He was fully convinced, from the conduct of the noble lord, that he was a sincere, he might even say an ardent friend, to the measure before the House, although differences might exist upon particular points. Of the noble lord's powerful assistance he should always be happy to avail himself; and he was perfectly ready, in or out of the House, to confer with the noble lord, and to compare their mutual opinions upon this important subject; where the noble lord was wrong, he was convinced no difficulty would be found in conceding the point, and where he (Mr. C.) was in error, he would be ever happy to acknowledge his mistake, and to adopt the better ideas of the noble lord. Some remarks that fell from the noble lord respecting the Veto, he did not comprehend, but speaking generally, he should think it right to exact from the Catholics every thing not absolutely inconsistent with the tenets of their religion: while, however, we professed to tolerate it, we must not wound it in the most vital part. With regard to a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, he was not so fully convinced of its expediency as to justify him in originating and introducing any measure to that effect; and he thought that if such provision were necessary, the proposal would much more fitly come from the noble lord, as a member of his Majesty's government. He sat down, re-assuring the House of the cordiality and sincerity of the profession, that he should be at all times happy to unite with the noble lord in a mutual endeavour to render this Bill as perfect as possible.

The question was then loudly called for by all sides of the House. A division took place. The numbers were, For reading the Bill a second time on this day three months, 203; Against it, 245; Majority, 42.—The Bill was read a second time and committed for to-morrow.