According to my view of this great measure, in its origin and progress, I must of course be adverse to the present Bill. And I am desirous of taking the earliest opportunity which is allowed to me, for stating the general grounds upon which I think we should now do well to pause upon our proceedings; and also those general principles, which, when applied to the structure of this Bill in its different parts, must lead to such amendments as would destroy its main purpose, namely, the admission of the Roman Catholics to political power, and the capacity of bearing sovereign rule in a Protestant state.

The basis of our whole proceedings was originally laid down in terms of sound practical wisdom. And the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) who brought forward in a former parliament, out of which the present Bill has sprung, after explicitly declaring that his object was to accomplish a final and conciliating adjustment, declared also, that unless such arrangement could be made satisfactory to all parties, and without conferring a triumph upon either, he himself should no longer think its execution to be desirable.

And now that this Bill, with all its amended and incorporated provisions, is before us, does it appear that this basis of general satisfaction and concord is likely to be established?

What say the Roman Catholics of Ireland?—Have the Roman Catholic laity and their Catholic Board (the hitherto avowed and accredited organ of their sentiments) declared their approbation of this Bill? Certainly not. And so far as we do know of their proceedings, some of their most distinguished leaders and auxiliary delegates, have in three successive meetings, most vehemently declaimed against it.

The Roman Catholic clergy on their part, also cry out loud against its ecclesiastical provisions. The Roman Catholic metropolitan archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Troy, has declared them to be worse than the old Veto. And a vicar apostolic in England, who presides episcopally over the Midland district, and is himself the agent for all the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, has denounced them as what all Roman Catholics must abhor, and has declared to the world, that sooner than accept them, they will lay down their lives upon the scaffold.

Of the Protestant millions in this United Kingdom, the large majority of his Majesty's subjects, it is needless to ask, Whether they can be satisfied to place the government, if not the crown of Ireland within the reach of Roman Catholic hands; and to create the means of surrounding the sovereign himself with ministers of state, whose religion must be hostile to his own right of succession to the throne?

This surely is an inauspicious commencement, and might be well taken for a warning loud enough to arrest our progress; for I fear, that instead of establish- ing concord, we shall only be opening new scenes of collision and conflict.

But, Sir, in proceeding to the consideration of the Bill itself, I think our judgment must be formed by an examination of the system which it seeks to establish, as compared with those general rules and maxims of policy, which hitherto have been deemed fundamental in this constitution.

The elementary principles upon this subject are few and clear, and happily are now admitted by all who share in our debates. It is now allowed, that state expediency and civil utility, not abstract right, must decide in all cases upon the form of government in which the sovereign powers of any state are to be concentrated, and also upon the extent to which its control should be exercised over the natural free agency of the people, in matters civil and religious.

Looking to the strength and tranquillity of a state, in the mode of combining its civil and ecclesiastical authorities, many of the wisest men have hitherto agreed, that it would be desirable, so far as practicable, that the civil authority of the state should be vested in those only who conform to the established religion of the state. But the diversity incident to human opinion, and the liberty of action necessary to a popular state, require also, that such conformity should be exacted no farther than the safety of the government itself demands; and the measure of its danger, is the true measure of exclusion.

And thus it is, that our constitution, as settled at the Revolution, stands upon the joint principle, of excluding from power all non-conformists by a religious test, and of bestowing at the same time the fullest religious toleration upon all the excluded. Upon this principle it is, that the crown itself is holden by a religious test: and the church of England having been found upon experience to be well suited, by the form of its government, to the practice and habits of the English constitution, the safety of the church has been at all times, and deservedly, the object of its earnest solicitude. By the same principles adopted and acted upon now for nearly 120 years, the state has excluded by a religious test all Protestant dissenters from civil and military offices, upon an opinion (rightly or wrongly formed) of their imperfect attachment to the constitution in church and state; and it has also excluded the Roman Catholics from parliament, as well as from all offices, civil and military, upon the score of their alleged defective allegiance.

Some of these exclusions, it is true, have been deemed from time to time to be of less urgent necessity; I mean those which regard the Protestant dissenters: And although it has not been thought prudent to repeal those laws; and although in the memorable debates of 1796, their continuance was vindicated by Mr. Windham, upon the principle of self-defence, and the restraint of mischief from those who might use the powers of the state to subvert it, it has nevertheless been deemed fit to suspend and relax their operation, upon the long experience of the loyalty of the Protestant dissenters, and their exemplary conduct.

Against the Roman Catholics, however, the laws of exclusion have been maintained in permanent force, founded as they were upon the existence of principles imputed to the body excluded; which principles have not appeared to have undergone any subsequent alteration. And from this policy I profess that I do not yet see any cause to depart. For I agree in the opinions, and desire to adopt the language of Mr. Burke, in his Tract upon the Popery Laws of Ireland. "That to exclude the Roman Catholics from all offices in church and state is a just and necessary provision," whatever we may think of their admission into the army or revenue; which in another part of his writings upon this subject (his first Letter to sir Hercules Langrishe) he describes to be only subservient parts in the economy and execution, rather than in the administration of affairs; distinguishing those offices which really guide the state, from those which are merely instrumental.

What therefore I now contend for, as upon a former occasion, is this; that we ought still to withhold from the Roman Catholics all capacity of political power and jurisdiction; but at the same time widely and liberally to lay open before them the field of profitable and honourable reward for distinguished exertions and services, and in matters of religion to render their legal toleration complete.

With this view of the principles which have hitherto guided our ancestors, from the period of the Revolution to our own days, let us apply them to this Bill, and try its merits; taking however into our consideration, not only what it does contain, but also certain other points which it does not contain.

By the leading enactments contained in this Bill, we at once throw open the doors of parliament, and give access to all or nearly all the executive departments, political, judicial, civil, and military.

And first, of parliament, which if carried, I believe both the supporters and opponents of the Bill will agree, must speedily put the Roman Catholics into possession of all their ulterior objects. Take the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament as individuals, or take them as a body: to admit those who as individuals may become the distinguished leaders of parties, and at the same time to debar them from filling the ruling offices of the state, would be to create a most dangerous combination of means and motives; for their natural and legitimate ambition, when baffled and obstructed from advancing in its ordinary career, could then attain its objects only by resorting to the most violent courses: if in parliament, they ought also to be admissible into the confidential service of the crown; but that is another species of mischief equally to be guarded against, and which falls under another head. Consider the Roman Catholics sitting here collectively as a body, there is also much ground for apprehension; their peculiarity of connection must necessarily produce that combination of strength, which, coalescing in critical times with all the other embodied discontent incident to a popular state, would produce an overwhelming force, and endanger the general establishments of the country.

I do not certainly presume to ascribe any such spirit or temper as likely to actuate any known individuals, who might in such an event be returned at any future election; my duty and my disposition alike forbid it; but from such causes, such consequences must naturally and inevitably flow; and I can assure those honourable gentlemen from Ireland, whom I am now addressing, that amongst the many causes which strongly induce me to oppose the present measure, is the firm persuasion, that we should have but little chance of seeing many of the same representatives from Ireland any longer sitting among us.

Of the executive offices, the privy council may be considered as comprising those who hold the seals of all the great and efficient departments of the state; and it needs no words to prove, that they must necessarily sway and direct the government in all its branches. That right, I think, ought never to be conceded,

The bench of justice, if occupied by Roman Catholics (however ably and impartially filled) cannot be expected to administer justice upon Protestant church rights with equal satisfaction to Protestant suitors; to say nothing of the graver cases of criminal justice: and justice which is not satisfactorily administered, is, politically speaking, no justice at all. These therefore are offices which, I think, ought never to be conceded.

As to the general range of other offices, which fill up the functions of the state, I have already declared upon a former occasion, with respect to the military, my perfect concurrence in admitting the Roman Catholics to all the objects of their honourable ambition in the profession of arms, short only of such as are mixed with the political government of the state. And as to those of a civil nature, whether derived from the crown, or obtained by corporate franchise, I am content to adopt the plan suggested by the noble lord near me (lord Castlereagh) that the existing law in England should continue to prevail, and that the admission of Roman Catholics here (so far as regards the sacramental test) should depend upon the same annual bill of indemnity which now covers the case of the Protestant nonconformists. So also as to the admission of Roman Catholics to become what are called independent members of our Universities; excluding them where other non-conformists are now excluded, and admitting them where non-conformists are now admitted; a rule varying in its operation, according to the various statutes which prevail in the several Universities of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

But, Sir, this is not all. There are also other matters, not contained in this Bill, which appear to me to require our attention. Some are of necessary restriction, and others of concession, which the suggesters or framers of this Bill have not condescended to propose; but which in justice to the Roman Catholic body, and to ourselves, we should grant.

Amongst the restrictions omitted, and which ought to have been inserted, stands first, the regulation of all religious houses now existing in this realm, and the not suffering others to grow up. Within the United Kingdom we have at present Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, and almost every other description of monastic order. But the Jesuit funds now at Stony hurst are alone sufficient to awaken our attention. Of the system of education, indeed, as there conducted, we know only that it is not the same as at May-nooth; and that their young men are afterwards sent out for ordination to the college of the order in Sicily, from whence they are re-imported into this country. And yet these are the persons who are now about to establish themselves in Ireland, for the purpose of spreading their own peculiar and suspected modes of education.

Some provision should also be made for imposing an effectual restraint upon spiritual excommunication, so far as to deprive it of all civil consequences. Many and grievous are the sentences of this sort which are known to have occurred both in England and Ireland, in our own times: and it may be enough now to refer to the melancholy fate of those persons who were excommunicated in 1791, for their civil conduct in these memorable transactions, and whose misfortunes have been so often and so feelingly lamented by the English Roman Catholics. Such sentences are derogatory to the civil rights of the subject, and in this free country they should no longer be endured.

Sir, I complain equally that other concessions also have been omitted, which should have been inserted in this Bill of relief; and more especially those, which respect the legal right of the Roman Catholic soldier to his own mode of worship (a topic heretofore loudly urged within these walls): the exemption also of the Roman Catholics from the obligation to solemnize their marriages in Protestant churches, and the protection of their places of worship in Ireland from insult and outrage, by laws as effectual as those which now prevail in England.

Why were not some provisions for remedying these acknowledged grievances embodied and inserted into this Bill of relief? To peaceable and conscientious Roman Catholics, they could not be otherwise than acceptable. But omissions like these all tend to demonstrate, that religious liberty has not been the real object of the promoters of this Bill, whose provisions and enactments point to nothing but political ascendancy.

With these subordinate concessions, however, I must nevertheless repeat my strong protest against all these larger innovations, which, according to the language of Mr. Burke, tend to change the ruling character of the state. And when it is said, that these dangers are visionary, we reply, that what to-day seems to them unreal, may to-morrow display its reality. All these are departures from principle. The mischief is in making the breach; and if the barriers are thrown down, though the first influx of the tide may be unalarming, it will be too late to repair it, when the full flood is come upon us.

With respect to the proposed guards and securities, which constitute the latter half of this Bill, they consist partly of oaths, and partly of regulations for ecclesiastical appointments, and the restriction of foreign intercourse.

As to oaths:—I do not think they are to be undervalued; but they cannot be accepted without some discrimination. Upon enlightened and honourable minds, I do not doubt their obligatory force. It must not however be forgotten, that the minds of the great mass of Roman Catholic population are in a state of darkness, and absolute subjugation to the priesthood. Of the particular structure of these oaths I shall not now enter into any discussion; a matter upon which the honourable baronet opposite to me (sir John Hippisley) is competent to give the House much important information. But that they are not to be entirely relied upon, is apparent by the very conduct of the friends of the Bill, and by the necessity they have felt of superadding regulations to enforce the same purposes. We must also bear in mind by whom these, oaths are to be interpreted, and how they have been interpreted. Nor can we shut our eyes against the notorious fact, that the sovereign Pontiff, not in ancient times, but so lately as in the year 1809, by a solemn instruction to the prelates of his church, has commanded them to distinguish between the passive oaths which may be taken, and the active oaths which may not be taken, by the Roman Catholics of any heretical state; and has declared, that all oaths taken to the prejudice of the church are null and void.

Nor, Sir, are these doctrines to be found only in Italy; it is well known to the honourable baronet, and probably to many other members of this House, that in London also, and within the last eight and forty hours, distinctions of the same sort have been promulgated in the name and by the authority of a leading prelate of the Roman Catholic church, and circulated throughout this metropolis.

As to the regulations of the clergy, and the restrictions of foreign intercourse, for the purpose of giving us some domestic security against foreign encroachments, (whether the concessions now proposed, or any, or none, are to be granted) these, I think, are necessary matters for legislation; I have said so before, and I say so still.

Upon the modes of nomination, I think the commission, as originally proposed, was objectionable with reference to the crown, as well as to the Roman Catholics. The present is less objectionable as to the crown, but probably is not rendered more acceptable to the Roman Catholics: and I should have much preferred the mode of direct appointment by the crown, as I understand from the hon. baronet, it has been practised already in Canada, and, as the noble lord informs us, has actually taken place within his own department, as to Malta.

But, Sir, upon this head I must particularly entreat the attention of the Committee, to the necessity of excluding the regular clergy from all such situations. The regular clergy, it is well known over and above their imperfect allegiance to their temporal sovereign, and their allegiance also to the sovereign Pontiff, owe also another allegiance each to the general of his own order. The general of the order of the Jesuits is to-day in Russia, to-morrow he may be in France; the general of the Dominicans was in Spain, and is now I believe at Rome; and although Dr. Troy, now the titular archbishop of Dublin, is himself a Dominican, I confess I do not wish to see others of the same description in the same situations.

I think also, that to exercise the office of apostolic vicar within this realm, should be expressly prohibited. The apostolic vicars are the direct diplomatic agents of the papal see, governing ecclesiastically half a million of his Majesty's subjects in Great Britain. By their offices they are bound to execute the mandates of the Pope, without the power of hesitation or deliberation; and these mandates, so delivered, the great majority of the English Roman Catholics have conceived themselves conscientiously bound to obey. This was the complaint loudly made by the English Roman Catholics in 1790; and it is for their protection, as well as for our own safety, that no such office should be tolerated within the King's dominions.

The restriction of foreign intercourse, as originally provided for by the supple- mental clauses of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), did not appear to me to be in any degree effectual to its own ends. The mode now adopted is certainly a considerable improvement. But means are still left for withdrawing some branches of this intercourse from state inspection; and the reserve consists in whatever a Roman Catholic prelate shall certify to be "personal and spiritual." Now, this exception may endanger the whole effect of the provision; and here will always be found the ultimate difficulty of securing to the state all the knowledge which it ought to possess, of what may be otherwise concealed under this separate and secret intercourse.

But, Sir, after all, let us not overrate the value of these guards and securities. Good they may be, as measures of state police, and desirable additions to our statute law, whether accompanied or not with any further concession. Let no man, however, mistakenly accept them as that just equivalent for which he is to barter away the strength of our own Protestant constitution.

Amongst the Roman Catholic population of the United Kingdom, their faith in the papal supremacy will continue fixed and unalterable. Their prelates, however nominated, will still inculcate the same doctrine, and bow with the same implicit obedience to the papal authority. And this spiritual jurisdiction, we have been distinctly told by the highest Roman Catholic authority in England, can be completely exercised, if necessary, by mere personal agency; utterly passing by all these ostensible securities, and without the formal intervention of any written instrument or document, or any state control whatsoever.

This, Sir, is that spiritual supremacy of the sovereign Pontiff, however exercised—and let all Englishmen remember it—which lord Clarendon and lord Somers as statesmen, Mr. Locke as a political philosopher, and king William as a sovereign, all deemed to be incompatible with the Protestant constitution of these realms. And this usurped dominion, although it may now be subdued and eclipsed for a time in France, has recently blazed forth in Spain, and we may be well assured never can be a harmless guest, much less a safe co-estate, with the government of any country under heaven.

Such is the outline of those considerations upon which my vote will be founded, respecting each of the prominent parts of this Bill. I have thought it better to state them all at once, that the Committee may be spared the trouble of hearing me again at any length in its further progress. But I feel it incumbent upon me to repeat, that in my opinion, the great stand to be made for the preservation of our constitution in church and state, must be, against the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in parliament; a concession which would virtually accomplish, and at no distant period, their admission into every other branch of political power; and an event which I dread, and deprecate, and shall think it my duty to resist to the uttermost.

I therefore beg leave now to move, that the words "to sit and vote in either House of Parliament," in the first clause, be left out of this Bill.

The Clause having been read, and the question put upon it,

rose and observed, that the great weight of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and the rarity of his delivering his opinion on public questions, must naturally add to the influence which it was likely to possess with the Committee. He must regret, however, that when some six years ago a Bill was brought in to open the army to the Catholics, the House had not then been favoured with the sentiments of the right hon. gentleman on that measure, which raised such an hideous outcry. Had his friends who originated that Bill, had the good fortune to have unlocked the right hon. gentleman's mouth on that occasion, they must then have been sure of his powerful support. The right hon. gentleman's objection to this Bill was, because, in some instances it went beyond, and in some cases it fell short of his wishes, and yet he took that opportunity of making such an opposition to the Bill (which would have been fair enough if all the clauses had been gone through) as would go to the extinction of it altogether. At the same time the right hon. gentleman told them, that he was willing to admit the Catholics to the honours of the army and the law, excepting judicial situations: he told them of the dangers from vicars apostolic, from Dominicans and others; and yet he would wish to put an end to the Bill "before them, in which event, most probably, all opportunity for granting the boons he consented to, and for extirpating the nuisances which he detested, would for many years be lost. The right hon. gentleman had said that the speech of the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Canning) was founded in political wisdom, and then availed himself of some report which he (Mr. Whitbread) had not seen, to prove that the object of the member for Liverpool was not answered, because that had not happened which no one expected—that those were not content whose business it was never to be contented. There never would be wanted discontented auxiliaries of the Catholic Board. There were many persons of this description, who felt that the passing of the Bill now under consideration would be a death blow to their consequence—to whom that individual consequence was every thing, the interests of the Catholic body nothing. As the right hon. gentleman had looked to the proceedings of the Catholic Board, he should have looked a little further, for there had that day arrived a most consolatory Resolution of a body of Catholics in Ireland, which he should take the liberty of reading to the Committee. Although the Bill were not exactly as he should have framed it himself, yet framed as it had been by the best abilities, and by those who knew how to avoid trenching on the scruples of the Catholics, it should have his most hearty concurrence. Mr. Whitbread then read the following Resolutions:—

"At a numerous meeting of the Roman Catholic Board for the county and city of Cork, held at the Bush Tavern, on Thursday the 20th May, 1813. Daniel Callaghan, jun. esq. in the Chair.

"The following Resolutions, proposed by James Roche, esq. and seconded by Robert Burke, esq. were unanimously agreed to:—

"Resolved, That the confidence reposed in the justice and wisdom of the legislature, by our resolution of the 22d March last, has been amply justified. Our cause has met the solemn consideration it deserved, and the most signal advantages have been the result.

"Resolved, That with the spirit and object of the Bill now in successful course through parliament, we are happy to declare our entire satisfaction, and to express our conviction that when in its further progress it shall have received the technical amendments necessary to its perfection, it will be hailed by the Catholics as the great and long wished for charter of their emancipation, and by the empire at large, as the firmest bulwark of the state.

"Resolved, That from a legislature so manifestly actuated by liberal principles and enlightened views, we cannot for a moment apprehend the impositions of any restrictions inconsistent with its acknowledged purpose of conciliation.

"Resolved, That Mr. Grattan continues entitled to our unbounded confidence; imperishable as the monument raised by his mighty labours to his country's happiness and to his own fame, will be the gratitude of the Catholic body to the great advocate of its cause.

"Resolved, That we offer the tribute of our sincerest thanks to the other distinguished members of the Committee, who have so ably co-operated with Mr. Grattan on this memorable occasion.

"DANIEL CALLAGHAN, jun.

"WILLIAM J. SHEEHY, Sec."

He would ask the right hon. gentleman (the Speaker,) whether these Resolutions had not relieved his mind from the dread arising from mis-statement, or ignorance, or misapprehension. The right hon. gentleman was not against the admission of Catholics to the army or navy, and how ludicrous must appear to him the terrors of those who apprehended evils from such concessions, as great as those which, in the right hon. gentleman's opinion, would result from this Bill; as such must be the opinion of the right hon. gentleman. He would pardon him (Mr. W.) for supposing his fears to be equally visionary. The right hon. gentleman would have the Catholics excluded from the bench, although the most galling circumstance which attended the present condition of the Catholics was, that no reward for their labours at the bar was held out. They were to be excluded too, because (as the right hon. gentleman said) in civil cases between individual and individual, they could not be expected to be just (hear, hear, hear!); "to say nothing of criminal cases." He hoped some explanation would be offered of these expressions, which cast such an aspersion on the Catholics. Had not the right hon. gentleman seen in the publications of the day, that the principal grievance complained of by the Catholics was Protestant ascendancy; that whenever a Catholic came before a tribunal, he was prejudged as soon as his religion was known? The Protestant asserted there was no foundation for this—but the effect of the right hon. gentleman's speech was to shew the contrary. The right hon. gentleman had fallen into that common-place and hustings error, of which they had heard so much at the elections some years ago, that because the crown might make a Catholic an officer of state, all officers of state would be Catholics—that when the doors of parliament were opened to Catholics, not a Protestant would be returned. There was to be such a combination in favour of Catholics too, that even the wearer of the crown in Ireland was to be a Catholic. Whence, however, were these combinations to flow? It was not long since petitions on the subject of the Catholic claims poured into the House in such shoals, that it was found impossible to bestow on them the usual attention. To these petitions (it was then contended) were affixed the names of the freeholders of almost all the counties of Ireland, against the claims of the Catholics; and how was it thought, that in spite of their own reason, when all the guards which were boasted of as their security were taken away, these men should say to the Catholics, "It is not proper that you should go into parliament; therefore we will send you there." (Hear, hear!)—The right hon. the Speaker had said, "give them seats in parliament, and every thing else would follow." The dissenters had long had seats in parliament, and had it been found that any danger to church or state arose from that circumstance? The right hon. gentleman had adverted to the opinions of Locke, of Clarendon, and others, on this question. But the Catholic of the time of Locke was as different from the Catholic of the present day, as darkness was from light, not in the tenets of their religion, but in the feelings with which they regarded Protestants. Catholic and Protestant were then violently opposed to each other in their opinions about the right of succession to the crown. The Catholic was attached to a Catholic prince—to the Pretender: the Protestant supported the right of him who held the crown. Both felt an inveterate rancour towards each other, and their differences were inflamed with all the fury of recent animosity. As long as these pretensions to the British crown existed, what these great persons had said certainly carried considerable weight with it; but if the same persons had lived in times and under circumstances, like the present, there could be hardly a doubt,—considering the general liberality of their sentiments, the depth of their philosophy, the soundness of their sense, and the wide and enlightened character of their views,—but they would concur with those who were desirous of putting an end to these disabilities.—If those who supported the Bill should be defeated, upon the clause respecting the admission of the Catholics into parliament, in his opinion the whole Bill was lost. But though the right hon. gentleman should be victorious upon this point, he had not told the House that he meant to take charge of the Bill, and introduce the several provisions which he himself admitted to be highly just and proper, and which he considered as necessary for the safety of the state. He was ready now to make the concessions which had been proposed in 1807. How must the right hon. gentleman have wished to support him and his friends on that occasion, when urging the propriety of these concessions! How anxious must he have been to have had his mouth unlocked, in order to lend them the benefit of his powerful authority! How his heart must have been wrung to see the unsuccessful termination of their exertions! yet the right hon. gentleman had not said, that he himself would undertake to carry forward such a measure, as that which he contemplated in favour of the Catholics, or to impose the restraints to which he had adverted; nor did he give any hint that he would recommend the matter to others. Though there were sitting on his right and on his left, the Gog and Magog (Mr. Ryder and Mr. Yorke) of Protestantism, yet not a whisper was heard about carrying his scheme of conciliation into execution, nor for warding off those dangers which, were apprehended from monastic institutions. Really this same danger had been long kept in disguise. The worthy baronet (sir John Coxe Hippisley,) who was to give the House some more information about the Catholic oaths, had, in addition to the Dominicans and Benedictines mentioned by the right hon. gentleman this night, spoken of a society of Jesuits, in a speech which the House would not soon forget, (hear, and a laugh.) He entirely acquitted the hon. baronet of any wish to injure the Catholic cause; but the line of conduct taken by him unquestionably had that tendency. The hon. baronet had undoubtedly given much information on the subject to the House, but it was really too much now to call upon them to say their prayers back again—to convince them first, and then attempt to unconvince them. But it was very singular that the hon. baronet, if he had discovered that so much danger did exist from these Jesuits, had not communicated that discovery to the government, (hear, hear, from sir J. C. Hippisley.) Why had the important intelligence been first given in that House? Did the right hon. gentleman mean, that they should interfere by legislative enactment with these monastic institutions and vicars apostolic? If he did, and succeeded in the object, he would do more towards establishing and maintaining the papal authority in these kingdoms, than had been done by any act, spiritual or temporal, for these hundred years past. Such would be the inevitable effect of interference by the strong hand of power and persecution. But if this Bill should pass the legislature, the most moderate of the Catholics, as evidently appeared from the paper which he had read, would be conciliated; and the wildest of them did not wish that it should pass. If this Bill passed, there would then be no occasion for restrictions upon monastic institutions, for all dangers from such causes would be at an end. The Roman Catholic religion would then have fair play, without being supported by that pertinacious adherence which always resulted from persecution of every description; and the state would certainly be in no danger whatever from that quarter. The argument, that if a part were given, they must concede the whole, had been repeated again and again, and published from speeches delivered long ago in the Irish parliament. When it was proposed in 1807 to make certain concessions to the Catholics, they were met by these arguments; and if the right hon. gentleman were to bring forward even his limited plan of concession now, he would find himself opposed exactly on the same grounds by those who sat near him. They would certainly turn his own argument against him, and tell him, that if so much were conceded, the crown itself might get into the hands of a Catholic. He thought it necessary to notice the very word, and to expose, that even upon the principles of the right hon. gentleman himself, there could be no foundation for his apprehensions; because what he said in that House, backed by the great authorities he had quoted, might otherwise produce a very pernicious impression on the public mind Those who were adverse to the Catholics would be glad to lay hold of the expression, coming from such high authority, to employ it for their purposes. The public would be perpetually called upon to observe, that the Speaker of the House of Commons had said, that the crown itself might get into the hands of a Catholic, and that he had received no answer. The right hon. gentleman had not adopted the most parliamentary mode of urging his objections to this Bill. His opposition did, indeed, come in the shape of an amendment to one of the clauses of the Bill; but then it was an amendment which affected the principle. If it should be adopted, the Bill would be worth nothing, and, probably, would not be proceeded in any farther; for the right hon. gentleman himself had not stated, that he was now prepared to introduce the provisions which he himself imagined would be salutary. The most beneficial of those good effects which would result from the Bill, would be the bringing Catholics into that House, that Catholics and Protestants might see and know each other. They had not now to contend for the principle, however; the principle had been adopted and sanctioned by the House of Commons. The greatest enemies of concession had been reserving themselves for a last effort, and had succeeded in producing some distrust in regard to the measure among a considerable portion of the community; but notwithstanding this, he was firmly persuaded, that the public mind in England was ripe for the Bill, and that the public mind in Ireland would be conciliated by its passing. Those who had prepared the Bill, would have no objection to agree to any fair and reasonable amendment; and when the right hon. gentleman should be defeated, as he trusted he would be, upon the amendment which he now proposed, he hoped they would have his powerful assistance in their endeavours to render the measure as perfect as it could at present be made.

said:

Sir; this important measure has now assumed a new shape, and presents itself to the consideration of the committee under new circumstances. The various supporters of its principle, who before seemed to entertain considerable discordance of opinion upon the detail, are understood to have met and reconciled their differences, and now to offer the Bill in the shape in which they are willing to concur in pressing it forward for adoption. These gentlemen, it is quite apparent, will not consent to any material alteration in the detail, for they hold (quite consistently with themselves) that if any considerable change were to be made, either deducting from the concessions to be granted to the Catholics, or adding to the securities to be required from them, the Bill would fail in its great object; it would not be satisfactory or conciliatory to the Catholic body.

There are, on the other hand, a considerable body of members, upwards of two hundred, who have already voted against the principle of the Bill; and therefore to those members no alteration can render the measure satisfactory; the utmost that can be effected in the committee, is to render the measure less objectionable and mischievous.

There is a third class of members, and probably not inconsiderable in number, who have not made up their opinions upon the subject; who hitherto have not resisted, and some have even supported the progress of the measure, from a desire to see its precise character and extent before they come to any final decision. It is this third class of members whose attention is particularly solicited, and who are requested now to pause, and consider what will be the effect of the Bill if carried in its present form; hoping that by taking this view of the subject, they will feel strongly disposed to insist upon important alterations in the committee;—that they will more especially join in excluding this first clause, which (as has been truly stated by the right hon. and highly distinguished member who opened the debate,) by admitting Catholics to seats in parliament, in effect gives them every thing;—and in the further hope, that if those important changes in the Bill are not obtained in the committee, the class of members referred to will ultimately join, upon the report, in rejecting the measure altogether.

Taking this view of the subject, it is proper to remind the committee that at present the constitution, in all its parts, is fundamentally, essentially, and exclusively Protestant. Not only are the church and the throne Protestant, but the counsellors and advisers of the crown must be Protestant—the officers of state, the responsible conductors of the executive government, must be Protestant—the two Houses of Parliament, the great council of the nation, must be Protestant—the judicial offices must be filled by Protestants—the magistracy must be Protestant—the high military offices must be Protestant—in short, there is no branch or department, not only of the ecclesiastical establishments, but of the civil government of the country, that is not exclusively Protestant.

On the other hand, complete toleration is allowed the Catholic, in the exercise of his religion, in the security of his person, in the education of his family, in the enjoyment of his property—but he is excluded from exercising the powers of the state, the supremacy of which he refuses to acknowledge.

Such being the constitution, it may not be unworthy of recollection that it has attained this form and character, not by some sudden change, not by some violent measure produced by the excitement of temporary circumstances, but slowly and gradually—proceeding on the sale ground of experience—ameliorating itself cautiously and from time to time, as occasion required—applying remedies to evils, and providing securities against dangers as they arose—and thus making progress in improvement till it deemed its own security complete.

Even while the whole state was Catholic in form, and before the name of Protestantism existed, our Catholic ancestors, in the spirit of Protestantism, found it necessary to resist with firmness the pretensions and encroachments of the See of Rome; in proof of which, reference may be had to various acts of parliament passed before the Reformation.

At the Reformation, the Protestant church of England was by law established: but the laws then enacted were found insufficient for its security, or for the preservation of the tranquillity and liberties of the country. Various Acts were passed for further security in the reigns of Elizabeth, James the first, and Charles the first. Upon the Restoration came the Corporation Act, which required all persons, exercising any offices in that branch of the civil government, to take the Oath of Supremacy, as a qualification for their admission. About twelve years afterwards the Test Act, as it is called, was passed, extending the same principle to all offices, civil and military, and requiring the Oath of Supremacy to be taken previous to admission. By some it has been erroneously supposed that the Test Act was directed against Protestant dissenters; the fact is, that Protestant dissenters supported the passing of that Act for the sake of excluding Ca- tholics, though the taking of the sacrament would have the effect of excluding themselves: but that test being only required within twelve months after the admission to office, it in practice has become a dead letter, and does not operate to the exclusion of Protestant dissenters—but the very title of the Act itself is, "An Act for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish recusants."

Up to this period, and for about five years later, Catholics could sit in parliament, and this is used as an argument that they may safely be again admitted—but the argument operates in the contrary direction: they were excluded because by experience they were found to be dangerous inmates, the title of the Act being, "for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament."

Notwithstanding all these guards and precautions, the bigotry of James the 2nd and his advisers to Catholicism, rendered a revolution necessary for the preservation of the civil and religious liberties of the country — and immediately upon that event, the Bill of Rights passed, which fixed more permanently and extensively the Protestant basis on which the constitution was built, again requiring the oaths of supremacy to be taken by all persons holding office, and going, on to exclude from the throne itself "Papists, and persons marrying Papists." About twelve years afterwards came the Act of Settlement, which seemed to consummate the work, by limiting the crown to the princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, declaring such limitation to be "for better securing the rights and liberties of the subject."

It is evident therefore, that the giving of an exclusive Protestant character to the constitution in all its branches was upon a principle of general policy, growing out of experience and founded on self-defence and security. This principle of general policy was followed up in the subsequent reigns of Anne, of George the 1st and of George the 2nd, several acts having passed requiring the Oath of Supremacy to be taken as a qualification for those offices, respecting which there was any doubt, whether they were comprehended under former Acts. The same principle was strongly recognized upon the union of England and Scotland, and again upon the union with Ireland, the same oaths being required, and the faith of the nations being solemnly pledged to each other, for the preservation of our Protestant establishments as, "an essential and fundamental part of the union."

Under this constitution thus gradually formed, excluding Catholics not from the church and the throne only, but from all the powers of the state, not in sudden passion, not in angry times, not by one act, but cautiously, step by step, by a succession of acts, and as a fixed principle of policy—under this Protestant constitution, the nation for above a century, has been secure and prosperous and happy, its tranquillity only disturbed by two attempts to restore a Catholic monarch to the throne; and by the more recent insurrections in Ireland, which, though not Catholic in their origin, made use of Catholicism as a stalking-horse and as an instrument to forward the views of those agitators and traitors who wished for a separation from Great Britain.

This is the existing constitution. It now becomes worth considering what will be the constitution, if this Bill in its present shape passes into a law. It is true that it proposes at present to leave the church and the throne Protestant—nay, for their future security, here is a magnificent preamble declaring them to be Protestant permanently and inviolably—but the Protestant character of all the civil and military departments of the government, which at present surround and defend the church and the throne, is to be removed,—the counsellors of the crown, the Houses of Parliament,—the judicature,—the magistracy,—the military—are no longer to retain their exclusive Protestant character. This is a fearful change!! This is a fundamental alteration in the very essence of our happy constitution, which twenty years ago, no man, no set of men would have been bold and daring enough to have proposed, or even hinted at, for the adoption of parliament! All these Acts, which have been referred to, requiring an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the state as a qualification for exercising its powers, these Acts (it is a mere artifice to confound these temperate defensive laws, with those disgraceful penal laws which have sometimes passed in times of heat) these Acts which have been justly called the bulwarks, not of our church only (for that is another artifice to narrow the danger) but of our constitution, or as Mr. Justice Blackstone calls them, the bulwarks of our civil and religious liberties, they are all to be carried off at "one fell swoop,"—by this single Bill,—not extending concession by degrees and removing disabilities with the same caution as they were created for security,—but at once,—and at a time, when the attention of the nation is engaged in a struggle for its existence with a most formidable foreign enemy—when the throne itself is not in the exercise of its full powers,—and when an administration exists, broken into two parts upon this momentous question, affecting the constitution so vitally,—this is the time when this Bill is pressed forward upon the legislature for its immediate adoption!

The Bill proposes to admit into a full share of political power a description of persons who, however respectable, enlightened, and valuable, many of them are as individuals, however dear to us they all are as fellow-subjects, yet professing a religion, the vital character, the fundamental principle of which is, its own infallibility, (not indeed the infallibility of the Pope individually, but of its church), which holds all other religions to be heretical and insufficient to salvation, and therefore, which upon its own principle must necessarily be hostile to a Protestant church and a Protestant throne, and must seek ascendancy and enforce exclusion; a religion, the members of which are under the absolute dominion of their priesthood, and that priesthood swearing canonical obedience and paying blind submission to a foreign power—it is in vain to say that this only extends to matters purely spiritual; the fact is notorious, that it extends itself to all matters civil and political: and in such a religion, when the priesthood shall tell their followers that the question lies between their religion and the civil government, it is easy to foresee, and we already know from experience, which influence will prevail.

This proposed change in the laws, provided by the wisdom of our ancestors from time to time for the security of the constitution and of the liberties of the people, is not founded on any change in the principles of that religion, the profession of which was the ground of exclusion. Its character and its boast are that it is immutable;—"Semper eadem" is the motto of its church. It cannot be suggested, that the Catholicism of Ireland is less under the dominion of its priesthood, or the priesthood less blindly submissive to the See of Rome, than the Catholicism of other countries, or of former times. It cannot be suggested, that the bulk of Irish, Catholics are more enlightened, and more tolerant, than the Catholics of other countries;—the reverse seems to be the case in these several particulars; and they have by no means shown themselves more tolerant and conciliatory towards their Protestant fellow-subjects, since these discussions have been going on.

The benefits held out as likely to arise from this great experimental innovation are quite visionary; it has been stated, even with much apparent seriousness, that we shall add four millions of population to the effective strength of the empire!—that religious differences are to be extinguished; and universal harmony and concord to prevail!—nay, that the Protestant establishment itself will receive additional stability! The preamble holds forth "an end to all religious jealousies;"—"an oblivion of all animosities;"—"a binding together in all times to come!" Nothing can be more delusive and extravagant than these suggestions. In respect to these four millions of Catholics, their priests have not been such traitors to their king and country as to prevent their flock from entering into the public service,—they have entered it in their full proportion—and this Bill will not add the amount of a single regiment to the strength of the army, nor of a single ship's crew to that of the navy. Instead of the concord and harmony promised to us, this Bill would be the "beginning of strife," reviving religious struggle, and bringing again into activity the most violent and dangerous passions of the human heart. This perpetual concord and harmony can be really expected by few, except those who either feel no religious preference, or those who are such enthusiasts in universal philanthropy and charity, as to form a very incorrect estimate of the practical characters and passions of mankind. The time is hardly yet arrived when the lion and the lamb will rest in peace together.

An "adjustment satisfactory to all classes of his Majesty's subjects," has been held out to the country; but from the petitions on the table from one class, and from the proceedings and resolutions of the other class, as well as from a memorial this very day circulated by a distinguished Catholic prelate, one of the vicars apostolic, it is tolerably manifest, that the adjustment proposed by the Bill will not be satisfactory to either class.

In respect to its being a "final adjustment," "in all times to come,"—what a vain hope is this! Will the Catholic, or the agitators for them, have nothing further to demand? or because you increase their powers of enforcing their demands, will they cease to make them? Will this fine preamble prevent the Catholics from demanding to pay their own tithes to their own priesthood?—Will it prevent the Catholic priesthood, who now consider themselves to be the lawful possessors of their sees and benefices, and the Protestant bishops and incumbents to be mere intruders and usurpers, who subscribe themselves with their titles of dignity, while they acknowledge the Protestant constitutional primate of Ireland by no other name than plain Mr. Stuart; will the preamble or Bill itself restrain this priesthood, from expecting to become the bishops and incumbents, de facto et de jure, that is, to become the establishment in Ireland?—Will a single passage, buried in the midst of this cumbrous oath, in such manner as hardly to be intelligible in respect to its object, prevent Catholics from looking forward to the restitution of forfeited estates (notwithstanding some few of these estates may have got into Catholic hands; for arrangements to compensate the few for the sake of the whole body, will easily be settled)—estates the titles to which are represented to be carefully preserved and registered in the families of the asserted proprietors?—Will not the Catholics cling together as a political body, and act together in every other character, diffused as they will be in all the powers of the state, in order to enforce these demands and to abrogate this "final adjustment?"—Nay, in case of the succession to the crown itself falling on a Catholic, will the recital of the Act of Settlement, and the declaration in the preamble to this Bill, "that the Protestant succession to the crown is inviolable," prevent Catholics under favourable circumstances from supporting the Catholic heir to the crown, and induce them to join in his exclusion, in favour of the next Protestant heir?—These are vain expectations!

It may perhaps be said, the fear of such events is chimerical; if so, why recite those principles in the preamble? Let it be recollected, that at the present moment his Majesty has but one single grand-child upon whom the hopes of the nation rest for the succession to the crown. On whom the right of succession may rest twenty years hence, whether upon a British-born prince or a foreigner, no person can even form a conjecture. Why, then, are these dangers so visionary even in respect to the succession? Who, ten years before the event, foresaw the subversion of the monarchy in the murder of Charles the first? Who, ten years before the event, expected the restoration of that monarchy? Who foresaw or expected the glorious Revolution which so firmly fixed the present happy constitution on its Protestant basis? Who, ten years before the event, expected the downfall of the ancient French monarchy, and the erection upon its ruins of a most barbarous and savage republic; followed again by the most arbitrary military despotism ever sent as a scourge to visit the world? Human foresight is but of short extent; and is best employed in providing securities against future dangers.

It is against the danger of domestic contest for power and ascendancy, that the great difficulty presents itself of providing securities in any degree adequate to those securities so wisely provided by our ancestors in the laws already referred to. Of foreign influence stirring up rebellion, while the constitution possesses its present guards, there is no great reason for apprehension; but it will be a very different question if those guards shall be removed. The Catholics are loyal to the monarchy; they are attached to their country; and would bravely defend both against a foreign enemy: but does it follow from thence, that they would not wish for political ascendancy over Protestants? that they would not prefer a Catholic throne or a Catholic church to those which are Protestant? that they would not be constantly at work to gain that ascendancy, and would not have a better chance of success, when they should participate in every branch of the civil government of the country?

We are yet told, that the Protestant establishment will be rendered more secure! that the powers of the Catholics will not be increased! that every thing in effect has been given them already in the elective franchise! for, having given that, you have it not in your power to withhold the remainder! These arguments appear strange; and the last of them, if founded, would go the length of warranting the resumption of the elective franchise; but although the argument is unfounded in its extent, and there exists neither the necessity of granting every thing, nor of resuming what has been already granted, yet it strongly fortifies the expediency of standing firmly where you are, and not increasing the political power of the Catholics, until it be manifest that the body of them shall have shaken off the despotic dominion of their priesthood, and the priesthood shall have withdrawn its blind submission to the See of Rome.

It seems most strange to maintain, that the power of the Catholic would not be increased, and the security of the Protestant throne and Protestant church, would not be weakened by these concessions. Put the case of a future sovereign, being secretly disposed to Catholicism, or being so illuminated by modern liberality as to have no religious preference, but happening to have popular Catholic minister. Would not that sovereign or that minister, (though observing some caution in the execution of the purpose) surround the throne with Catholic counsellors? Would not Catholics be introduced into the great offices of state—into the houses of parliament—into the courts of justice—into the magistracy—into the high military commands—and, in that case, with four millions of population, blindly devoted to their priesthood, would there be no danger of a Catholic establishment in Ireland, in violation of our solemn faith pledged to the Protestants of Ireland at the Union? Nay, under such circumstances, more especially if there were a disputed succession, would there be no danger to the rights and liberties of this country—no possible chance of an attempt at Catholic ascendancy? The attempt would probably be made, although the prospect of such circumstances arising may not be very near. Its success would be in the hands of Providence. The spirit of our Protestant ancestors would probably arise to defeat such an attempt; but the conflict itself would be a great national calamity,—a calamity from which we should he most anxious to protect our children, and our children's children, by handing down to them the constitution in its present Protestant form and character, and by resisting the innovation and inroad attempted to be made upon it by the present Bill.

said, the right hon. the Speaker had expressed considerable disapprobation that the framers of the Bill had not drawn it with reference to the re- ligious disabilities of the Catholics; but he (Mr. Ponsonby) believed that the instruction given to the Committee, was to bring in a Bill to remove the civil and military disabilities under which the Catholic inhabitants of these realms laboured, and he did not know how they could go beyond the instructions which had been given to them. He wished to obtain, by the Bill, relief for the Catholics from, grievances under which they laboured; and the object of the Bill was, as to civil rights, to produce equality amongst all his Majesty's subjects. The right hon. the Speaker had contended, that if the first clause were to stand part of the Bill, which clause was to permit Roman Catholics to become members of parliament, it would go to destroy the British constitution in church and state. Now, he, on the contrary, thought the adoption of that clause necessary to prevent the destruction of the British constitution, and necessary for the security of the Protestant establishment. The right hon. and learned gentleman, who spoke last, had said, that if by this act Roman Catholics were admitted to parliament and the high offices of the state, they would quietly, gently, imperceptibly, hardly knowing it themselves, become masters of the country, and overturn the crown. Quiet advancement to the first offices in the state, unknown to any person, was rather difficult to conceive. If a Roman Catholic were advanced to be Lord High Admiral, would it not be known? If he were made Lord Chief Justice, would it not be known? If a Roman Catholic general were to gain a victory, would it not be known? Were a Roman Catholic admiral to bring an enemy's squadron in triumph into a British harbour, could that be concealed? According to the right hon. and learned gentleman, nothing would be known until the whole plot was ripened and prepared for a sudden and dreadful explosion. Did the right hon. and learned gentleman, who laid so much stress on this part of the Bill, mean to contend, that if such a plan were formed, that no discovery would be made until the plot was ripe for execution? Suppose ten, fifteen, or twenty Catholics, returned to that House,—they were to turn out all the Protestants,—ten or fifteen Roman Catholics to turn out 638 Protestants; or even the Catholics, by their talents, eloquence, or interest, would persuade the Protestant members of that. House to overturn the British constitution in church and state? However, to understand usefully it was necessary to understand practically. Let the House suppose a Catholic sitting by the right hon. and learned gentleman, and that the Catholic had some measure to advance, favourable to the Catholics: he would not openly say, I have a measure favourable to the Catholics, and inimical to the Protestants, to carry, give me your support: but he would probably say, I see you and your friends are anxious to carry a certain measure, I and my friends, the Catholics, will support you, if you and your friends will support us in a measure in which we feel a warm interest. Would the hon. and learned gentleman enter into such an agreement? It was not possible for the Catholics to carry on such a plot, without being detected. If the Catholics should attack the Protestant settlement, as to the crown or church, how would they be treated by their Protestant fellow-subjects, who in their generosity had conferred upon them an equality of rights? It was impossible for the Catholics to effect any thing against either, if they were even wicked enough to be willing. The right hon. and learned gentleman had said, it was impossible to predict who will sit on the throne of these realms twenty years hence; it certainly was impossible to predict who should sit on the throne, or who should be dean of the Arches at that time: but let the crown rest where it would, he was confident the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, would not concur in subverting the constitution. He thought there was great security in allowing the Catholics seats in parliament: he liked to see men openly and responsibly giving their opinions—the sentiments of the Catholics would then be known by the House of Commons and by the people of these realms. Was it possible to subvert our religion, and the settlement of the crown? If any other person but the right hon. and learned gentleman had stated those fears, he should have called them nonsensical. Was it to be supposed, that we would give up to others our property and religion? Did the right hon. and learned gentleman suppose that the House would become Catholics, or that they would prefer a Catholic prince? Would he tell the Committee, where the Catholics could get the power?—those who gave could take away. Suppose a plot, by the Catholics, through the means of members and of able speakers, to subvert the constitution. If the House and the people, were to know of such a plot, would they leave them the power? There was no Protestant who would not be willing to deprive them of privileges that they wished to abuse: but these were imaginary fears. The only clause in the Bill of real value to the Catholics was the first. The only clause of value to the Protestant was the first. If they were defeated as to the first clause, which, he trusted, they would not be, he would care little for the rest. The Test Act had been called an Act enacted by the wisdom of our ancestors, and had been stated to have been passed, in order to prevent the Roman Catholics sitting in that House; which statement was true, but not to the full extent. The Test Act was passed principally with a view to turn out lord Clifford, a minister obnoxious to the nation, and to a large party in that House. But if it were allowed that that Act was devised by a state necessity, the gentlemen on the opposite side must, in their opposition to the Bill, shew that the same necessity still existed: but, surely, no person could say that the state of things was now the same as then. The right hon. and learned gentleman had spoken of the blind obedience shewn to the See of Rome, and stated a recent occurrence in Spain as a proof. It was strange how differently the same things appeared to different minds,—it furnished to him conclusions of a very different nature: that the spirit of papacy was still aspiring and restless was a matter of no importance to him; there was no national clergy at present in existence in a humour to comply with it. Did the clergy in Spain obey his directions? The principal was to keep them a secret from the government, that in the way the right hon. and learned gentleman had described, the plot might go on quietly and imperceptibly until it should explode, but the clergy communicated it directly. The spirit of papacy, the spirit of every priesthood, was to govern men as rigidly as possible, if men would submit. He looked to the laity, he would never rely on a priest; the priesthood, when it found people instructed and unwilling to submit, conducted itself with propriety; but if it were otherwise, it always abused its authority. He felt persuaded, that the Catholics of the present day would be very unwilling to submit, as the Catholics did in the time of Charles the second. They would resist with the greatest vigour any foreign power that would attack their own authorities. The Test Act, the great security of the constitution, as it was called, was not mentioned in this Bill, although it was mentioned in the first Bill. He intended to support the Bill, generally, as conceiving it to be of great public utility, although there were parts of which he did not entirely approve. He did not wish to be misunderstood: he always wished to express his opinion boldly and openly; and if the Dissenters should petition for the repeal of the Test Act, he would sup-port them with all his power. It had been said, that the Bill had not given general satisfaction: he did not know whether that was fact or not, but if it were meant that it did not give universal satisfaction, that was not to be expected. He would say, that the Catholics ought thankfully and gratefully to receive the Bill,—a Bill which opened to them the highest offices of the state; which enabled the English Catholic to vote for members of parliament: and a Bill which opened both Houses of Parliament to both English and Irish Catholics. He could not believe, that it did not give satisfaction to the Roman Catholics. If it did not give universal satisfaction, it only met with the same fate as others. If a free government were never to legislate, except when its measures met with universal satisfaction, its business would be very light; it would never have to legislate at all. It was sufficient if the Bill gave satisfaction to reasonable men; great public benefits were likely to result from it; it was the triumph of truth, liberality, and wisdom, over bigotry, selfishness, and superstition. It would unite a great mass of the people, in defence of the liberties of the country, and in defence of the constitution. To unite the Roman Catholics to their fellow-subjects, was a measure of the greatest importance: no measure since the Revolution was of equal importance with the present. He felt great satisfaction in stating, that those excellent persons with whom he was in the habit of acting, had been governed on this occasion by the most liberal policy,—quite distinct from party politics; and he must say, they had gone beyond any party in yielding their opinions, in order to unite the people of Ireland with the people of Great Britain. If the Bill had defects, it was for those who saw them, to remedy them; and he thought every person was bound in duty, to propose such amendments to this great measure as he thought necessary. Without this clause, the Catholics would not be conciliated; there would not be security for the Protestants. Gentlemen should not suppose, that granting the Catholics admission to the high offices in the army, navy, and the law, would not make them more eager to acquire the remaining privileges. He would not, for an hour, consider them as satisfied: nor did he think they should be satisfied. Whoever thought he would not be teized by the Catholics to grant the remaining privileges, would be deceived, and he thought he ought to be deceived.

said the clause had his most cordial support. After the Reformation, the Catholics voted for five reigns. When the question for expelling the Protestant bishops was proposed, 24 Catholic peers voted against the motion. Having been subjected to the animadversions of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), whose speech had been alluded to by the member for Bedford, he must say, that his conduct was consistent. Although the clause in itself had his approbation, yet, as it stood in the Bill, he could not give it his support: but he would not give it his negative. Of the right hon. gentleman he could complain, but he demanded no reparation; if the right hon. gentleman could excuse himself, it was sufficient. The principal charge made by the right hon. gentleman against him was, that by his motion for a select committee, he wished unjustly to gain time: but year after year, he had asked for a select committee, and so little injurious did the right hon. gentleman think it, that he promised, if it were not proposed as an amendment to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grattan's) motion, he would support it afterwards. He had only moved for papers on or near the table, and his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) could not look back to that box without regret, out of which he had gained the information he had given with so much effect to the House. The Bill had been carried by physical force, not by discussion; and he would predict that the triumph would be short which had arisen from the indecent precipitation of the Bill, when the House should come to its senses. He hoped he should have frequent opportunities of delivering his sentiments in the course of the Committee.

intreated the House to consider at what time they were called upon to pass this Bill. It was at a time when the spirit of Papacy was as aspiring as ever. It was said that the clergy of Spain did not support in a late instance the pretensions of his holiness the Pope. This was not to be wondered at. The temporal authority of the hierarchy of every country, as well as Spain, had been always subject to the controul of the state. It was upon this principle that their Catholic ancestors had passed so many laws to confine the pretensions of the See of Rome. With respect to the different orders of the regular Roman Catholic clergy establishing themselves in this country, when it was considered how dangerous their power had been in other parts of Europe, the government should look to them at least with a view to regulation. The right hon. gentleman spoke at some length; but in so low a tone, that he could not be heard in the gallery.

spoke strongly in favour of the Bill. He could not think, or admit for a single moment, that his countrymen would be so absurd, even as Catholics in their elective capacity, to return Catholics to parliament, who might in their conduct prove detrimental to the Protestant interest and the present establishment. He contended for the civil rights of the Catholics, which he deemed altogether unfair to be confounded with their ecclesiastical regulations. For himself, he had on all occasions contended against the interference of all foreign jurisdiction; and he should continue to adopt that line of conduct, from a conviction that he was fully sanctioned by the precedents of independence and national spirit evinced by the Catholic kings of this country. If gentlemen were desirous of considering the question in its proper light, they would rather revert to the practice of the government, and the opinions of the people of the country, when the Catholic religion prevailed, than to the reproaches which were thrown out against it. They would then find, that amidst all the attachment and devotion so decidedly manifested for that religion, both the princes and the population of the country were determined to maintain its independance against the interference and jurisdiction of any spiritual power. The right of the Pope to nominate to bishoprics had been almost constantly opposed, and he could adduce, with peculiar satisfaction, the triumphant issue of the contests which had been carried on against the sovereign pontiff by several archbishops. This history, however, he would not take, as a learned civilian (sir John Nicholl) had done, from the preambles of statutes enacted to suit the views of the minister of the day—to gratify prejudice, passion or party. But he would refer to higher unprejudiced and indisputable authority, and from such authority it was to be collected, that our Catholic ancestors had been most anxious to guard against the interference of foreign jurisdiction. This was particularly evident upon the enactment of the statutes of Premunire, when archbishop Courtney, who was primate and chancellor of England, solemnly protested that the Pope had no right to nominate to any diocese in this country, or to excommunicate any person, or to interfere in any nomination of bishops, or other ecclesiastical dignitaries, which belonged of right to the crown. This protest, which was upon record at the Tower, he would advise Dr. Troy, and Dr. Milner, and others, to look at before they ventured again to write or speak with such confidence upon this subject. But the protest of archbishop Courtney was not the only instance of Catholic resistance to foreign jurisdiction, for bishop Fisher strongly withstood the pretensions of Pope Martin 4, to assert that jurisdiction. So strong and decided, indeed, was the resistance of bishop Fisher, that the Pope suspended him. But what was the conduct of the bishop? why, that he appealed to a General Council against the Papal Decree, and by the Lords and Commons of this country he was sustained and vindicated, so as to prevent the Pope from taking any farther proceeding against him. With such evidence, then, as to the principle of our Catholic ancestors—as to the principle of Catholic divines in resisting the interference of the Papal jurisdiction, at a period, too, when the Papal power was at its utmost altitude, he could not without astonishment, contemplate the alarm which appeared to prevail in some minds upon this part of the question. The honourable member concluded with exhorting the House to discard the prognostics of imaginary danger which had been pressed upon its attention by those who professed more solicitude for Ireland than its own representatives, and to act upon this great question, agreeably to the maxims of justice, liberality, and sound policy.

expressed his surprise that gentlemen who, he was persuaded, felt as much solicitude for the security of the church establishment as himself or those who thought with him, could consent to pass a clause of this nature. If it were passed, he declared his inability to comprehend how the church establishment in Ireland could remain for twenty years; for in that country, according to a great authority (Mr. Plunkett), whose absence on this occasion he regretted, it would not be long before the Catholics in Ireland bore the same proportion to the Protestants in property as they now confessedly did in number. Then if Catholics should be admitted into the legislature, was it not reasonable to calculate that the whole of the Irish representatives were likely to be chosen from among the Catholic body, and, with 100 Catholic members in that House, was there not good ground to apprehend that they would diligently seek their own object—that they would struggle, first for the removal of any restrictions which, under the name of securities, might be now imposed upon them, secondly for the attainment of equality, and next for the establishment of their own church. He begged gentlemen acquainted with the nature and efficiency of party to consider how such a number of Catholic members, linked and connected together for one common object, were likely to operate. Would they not naturally endeavour to recover that church property, and that ecclesiastical dignity which they generally deem their right, which every conscientious Catholic must desire in his heart? What security could an oath permanently furnish against such danger? for that oath might be repealed; but if the opinion of Dr. Milner were to be consulted, as it appeared in his publication, and that opinion was likely to have considerable influence with the whole Catholic body, the plan and object of the proposed securities must fall to the ground. No securities, however, could, in his judgment, be effective for the protection of the church in Ireland, if the Catholics were admitted into the legislature. Archdeacon Paley had maintained the position that the established religion should be that of the majority of the people, and when such a position had been advanced by a Protestant divine of distinguished authority, was it chimerical to apprehend that the same position would be urged with peculiar industry by Catholic divines in Ireland, where the Catholics numerically so far exceeded the Protestants?—But was it possible that any gentleman could seriously suppose that this measure, even if it passed in its present shape, could be regarded as a final adjustment with the Catholics—that the legislature would not be called upon to go farther? Those who could answer in the affirmative would, he was persuaded, betray a total ignorance of the Catholic body, with such an hierarchy at its head, and with such agitators as were in the habit of moving that body, would indeed argue most childishly. When Mr. Pitt, chiefly at the instance of lord Melville, consented to make such material concessions to the Catholic body in the year 1793, these concessions were most inconsiderately supposed, a final conciliatory adjustment, that there would be no occasion to go farther; and was it necessary to observe, that when such a fatal error was committed by two such eminent statesmen, by statesmen to whom the framers of this Bill were, with all deference, so inferior, at least to Mr. Pitt, it was rather improbable that those framers had found out the secret of effectually tranquillizing the Catholics; of removing all apprehensions, and healing all animosities. He very much feared that it was idle to look for such a final adjustment upon this subject. The Union he remembered to have been termed a final adjustment, but instead of so proving, it was among the mischievous consequences of that measure, and it had, produced many, that parliament had since it passed been so very frequently teazed with this Catholic question, and he feared that it would continue to be so teazed. But yet, until he could clearly see his way to some plan for effectually allaying all animosities, for safely conceding upon this subject, he would proceed with peculiar caution. Upon such a question, he forcibly felt the propriety of legislating step by step—of proceeding by degrees, at least till the period for safe compliance with the Catholic claims should arrive. And yet he must frankly confess that he could not at present foresee such a period.—Here the hon. gentleman adverted to the long struggle for rank and power between the Plebeians and Patricians of Rome, in which struggle the former pressed so strongly their claims to reward and distinction—for they too spoke of their services to the state—of their blood shed in its defence, &c. And what was the result? Why, that the Plebeians were at length rendered eligible to the office of consuls, but still being in the habit of deferring to the Patricians individually, Patricians were uniformly elected to the consulships, until a decree was passed, ordaining that one of the consuls should always be a Plebeian. Some similar division of power between Catholic and Protestant would, be feared, be finally selected should this measure be acceded to—possibly a Catholic establishment for Ireland, whilst a Protestant establishment might exist in England.—The hon. member concluded with expressing his conviction, that if the clause under consideration were allowed to pass, the proposed securities would be of no consequence, and that parliament would continue to be teazed upon this, subject just as often as the agitators in Ireland should think proper; therefore he would on this occasion make a decisive stand against the measure.

said, he had already stated his general impressions on the leading views embraced by the Bill, therefore he would not trouble the Committee on the general question, but would confine himself as closely as possible to the clause respecting the admission of members into that House. He concurred with the right hon. the Speaker in opinion that the other clauses were of less importance than that one—for it contained the essence, and formed the leading feature of the Bill. If they failed in carrying that clause, he thought they would fail to carry what he considered to be of the most salutary tendency in the whole measure. He felt it to be the essential feature of the whole Bill. To reject it would be to say that the House never would be prepared to give to the Catholics any thing like an appearance either in the state or in the government; and, to say that they were ready to give them state appearance, he deemed to be the essential and main feature of the Bill. The state of the Roman Catholic religion—the situation of the head of its church, were circumstances that showed the necessity for making arrangements to protect the Protestant establishments; but he did not think that they afforded such strong grounds against the measure as the expediency of it adduced arguments in its support. He firmly believed that there was that species of restraint on them, arising out of the expediency of it at the present moment, that they were called upon to enact some substantial constitutional measure for the relief of the Catholics. The policy of the measure might be called into doubt by some external proceeding; but by admitting the Catholics within their own pale, they gave them a pledge of the sincerity of the wish to become friends, and they thereby armed them against all foreign and domestic danger. This would be establishing a confidence that would be useful to the state and to the country. The Bill proceeded on the principle of promoting mutual confidence, and thus would they have a shield which in times of danger would protect both Protestant and Catholic. He would meet the Catholic, and would pursue what would promote their common interests. He would shew that he was prepared to act with them, and that would produce what was wanted — mutual confidence; and he would not be deterred by any hypochondriacal views of danger to the constitution. But it was said this would not be a final measure—the Catholics would still have something to propose. Would it not be strange to say that any thing that was done by parliament was final; indeed, would it not be a great tax on human wisdom to say any thing of the kind? No question could be fairly said to be final—to be set at rest for ever. But why should that idea alarm them?—The idea that the present measure would not set the question at rest, if they felt in their own mind? that they were strong enough to embark with the Catholic? If they did so, and treated them as friends, he felt no doubt as to the ultimate success of the measure in promoting the security and peace of the empire. With respect to minor questions, on his conscience he believed that they would be of easy regulation when once a mutual confidence was established between the Protestant and Catholic. Let them be treated as friends, and he solemnly believed that they would not be found to throw much obstruction in the way of a complete arrangement. The House must feel themselves strong enough to act on such a principle—to embark with the Catholic without any vain and groundless fears, and wisdom called on them so to act—to make the Catholic a friend, which only could be done by establishing a mutual confidence. The proceedings of the Irish Catholics in 1793 had been referred to; but that measure had sown the seeds of dissention, by promoting the annual discussions of questions relative to the Catholics. This was the effect of those proceedings by degrees—step by step: they occasioned perpetual discussion and perpetual anxiety. But if they were to view the great question with statesmen- like minds, instead of wasting it by detail, they would put an end to these annual struggles by establishing some regulations at once that might be expected to meet the whole case. The power of Popery, as it had evinced itself in other countries, had been cited against the present measure; but instead of making against it, he thought it was in favour of it, and that it made the strongest possible appeal to the wisdom of parliament, by calling on them not to lose the opportunity of protecting themselves. If they made the Catholic their friend, and armed him in the common cause, they made the more effectual effort to exclude the enemy. They now had the opportunity of doing this, and they had arrived at that state when they were not open to the insinuations of those who were for ever calling on them to shew the securities that were to be given, as well as the arrangements that were to be made. Before, they had never known what they were discussing, but now they had a clear distinct measure before them, They had at least something to proceed on; and it was gratifying to hear that the right hon. the Speaker had expressed his approbation of the general system of regulations introduced into the Bill. Approving of the general system, as that right hon. gentleman did, it was only to be lamented that he did not carry his approbation to the highest point. The first point in the Bill was the only material one, as he understood, to which the right hon. gentleman objected. As to what had been said respecting certain religious societies, he agreed in opinion with the right hon. gentleman that they ought to be noticed; and he was not inclined to differ from him respecting regulations of the clergy in Ireland—but he did not want to entangle these questions with the one before the Committee. He had no such anxiety, for he was sure, if they succeeded in establishing an amicable interchange between the Catholics and the Protestants, that there would not be found much difficulty to bring about necessary and useful regulations. If he understood the principle on which his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Bankes) had proceeded, and he thought he did understand him, it was, that all innovation on the laws as they now stood, was a violation of the constitution. But he would put it to the House whether such a principle could be acted upon at a moment like the present; indeed, could that hon. member say, looking at the state of public opinion, and at the progress which this cause had made in the public mind, that the security of the empire would be promoted by promulgating and acting upon a principle of permanent exclusion of the Catholics from political state and power? With respect to what had fallen from his hon. friend, he could not agree with him in the views which he had taken; but he was surprised to find that his hon. friend considered it his duty to give an unrelenting opposition to the Bill. The impression upon his mind was, that his hon. friend was not jealous of the principle of the measure so much as apprehensive whether the Catholics would consent to or that House should impose such securities, as would protect the constitution from all possible danger. It appeared to him that there had been too much of a disposition to look to these securities when they appeared to be difficult, and now that specific arrangements for the purpose had been proposed, to overlook the securities and refer the difficulty to the measure itself. Another point which had been much insisted on was, that if the Catholics should but take an oath of supremacy, then all difficulties would be removed. This oath, he was of opinion, they might safely take in the sense in which it ought to be taken; but if they conscientiously believed that they could not consistently take it, their refusal ought to be regarded as highly creditable to their moral character. Though they declined to take the Oath of Supremacy, they were ready to take that which denied that the Pope had any power in temporals. This would remove every difficulty, if there had not been so many mixed cases in which it was desirable to provide against any possible inroad of the power of the Pope. The Bill, however, contained ample provision against these mixed cases by means of the commissioners to be appointed to carry its enactments into execution. But then it might be said, that still some loop-hole would remain, and undoubtedly it would be impossible by any act of legislation to guard against every possible evasion. Was the principle of exclusion that which was to secure the state against foreign danger? Should they not rather if they found themselves strong enough to do so, admit the Catholics into the possession of the privileges of the constitution? By granting to them the rights proposed to be yielded by the Bill, they would inspire them with caution to secure what they had attained, rather than enterprise to seek after further concessions. He agreed that it was in the nature of religious sects to have a peculiar feeling; but if he thought that the Catholics, uniting with other dissenters, would direct that feeling against the state, he should not think of concession. In despotic states, there might be a perfect freedom and independence of sects, but in a mixed government like that of Great Britain, there must be a religion of the state—which religion was in this country Protestant—requiring not only that the king should be Protestant, but that the government and the legislature should be principally Protestant. In his conscience he believed that the measure would not aggravate power within the walls of that House, as the Protestant gentlemen returned upon that interest, were disposed to go further than even Catholic members would go. He called upon the House, therefore, by entertaining the measure, to save the representatives of Ireland the misery of witnessing the continuance of that disquietude which the present state of things was calculated to keep alive. He, above all, deprecated the idea of making the subject of concession an annual question, by which the House should dole out its bounty to the Catholics. He approved of the Bill before the Committee, and the support he should give it was not the result of sudden conviction, but of the reflection of a length of years. Though he was aware that in this he differed from some of those friends with whom he had the happiness to concur and to act upon other questions of national policy, he was persuaded that he should be unworthy of that favour with which he was honoured by them in general, if he had not honestly stated his sentiments on this occasion.

said, the noble lord had spoken much of the happy state of things which might be expected to result from the passing of this Bill; and could he hope that the effects of it would be such as the noble lord had described, the measure should certainly have his warmest support; but so far from this, he was of opinion, that it would increase the existing differences, and influence the animosity of the parties, by bringing them in contact with each other. The dangers spoken of, it had been said, were imaginary. He could not say what of evil might occur in 20 years; but this he was sure of, that we had been well governed under the laws as they at present stood. These had raised this country to a situation of greater prosperity than any country had ever been raised to before; and he was satisfied if the laws continued the same, that things would go on as they had done. With this confidence, and with the experience of the past, he could not consent to such an alteration in the law as was now proposed. Those anomalies which could safely be removed, he should be happy to see done away, but the present question was, whether or not the Catholics should be admitted to take a part in the government of a Protestant country? His noble friend had admitted that danger was to be apprehended from foreign influence, and he had also admitted the necessity of securities. Now, in his opinion, there was but one security for the Protestant constitution, and that security they were going to give up, for the only real security against the Catholics was keeping them out. When in framing the English constitution, it was declared that it should be a Protestant monarchy, had it been suggested that the king should be authorised to choose Popish ministers, this proposition would have been laughed at. It was undoubtedly meant by a Protestant monarchy, that the king, the ministers, and the parliament, should be Protestant. If, then, this principle were given up, the English constitution would be destroyed. How could they suffer Roman Catholics to make laws for the regulation of the church of England? His noble friend, on a former occasion, had adverted to the inconsistency of his thus observing to the friends of the Catholics, "You set out on the principle that there shall be no interference in any degree with the Roman Catholic church, but would admit the Roman Catholics into parliament to interfere with your own." If this were permitted, what would the church of England say? Admitting Catholics into parliament, and to be ministers, what security had the Protestant church: was not doing this a violation of the compact between church and state? He could not, therefore, agree to this clause, but this thrown out, he had no objection to take into consideration the other provisions of the Bill. Whatever they did he was sensible would not give satisfaction to the Catholics, but he was ready to go as far as he could conscientiously, and to do what ought to satisfy them, and what would be sufficient to content reasonable men. He had understood that the Bill was not to pass till it had been ascertained that the Catholics would agree to the provisions it contained. The commission, however, which was to signify this agreement, would stand for nothing if their decision had not the sanction of one of the episcopal order. From the moment the Bill passed, the Catholics would be entitled to the privileges of the constitution, and while they were suffered to come to parliament, and take a share in the government of the country, he feared the Protestants might look for their security in vain.

contended, that the objection last urged by the right hon. gentleman against the Bill was utterly unfounded. If the Catholic bishops did not agree to the commission, the episcopacy must expire; what then would become of the alarm arising from it, when there would cease to be any episcopacy at all? The right hon. gentleman thought that great danger must result from the infusion of Catholics into this and the other House of Parliament. In this he should agree with the right hon. gentleman, were the ground on which his apprehension was built at all founded in fact. But, though there were Catholic members in that House, did it by any means follow that the House, in consequence, would become a Catholic body? Surely not. It still would continue a Protestant body, with a small number of Catholic members, making laws for the regulation of Protestants, Catholics, Presbyterians, &c. The right hon. gentleman had set out with a position radically erroneous; namely, that the Protestant and Catholic could not be united. This he denied. There was no civil incompatibility between the two. It was from the penalties imposed on the Catholics alone that an artificial separation was made—a separation which would cease with those penal laws. The right hon. the Speaker seemed to argue, that if the present Bill passed into a law, they would immediately have nearly 100 Catholic members in the House of Commons. This was a conclusion which he denied, nor did he see the smallest reason for the presumption. To prove that such an idea was correct, the right hon. gentleman must shew that the landed property of Ireland was in the hands of the Catholics. The contrary, however, was known to be the fact; and it was also known that it was the landed interest who returned members to parliament. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the present Bill would have the effect of producing a Catholic ascendency in parliament. That he denied. The utmost effect which the present Bill could have, would be to introduce probably seven or eight peers into the other House of Parliament, and 20 or 30 members into that House. Could that be called an ascendency in parliament, considering that there would even then remain on the side of the Protestants a majority of upwards of 600 in the one House, and of about 400 in the other. Yet these were the grounds on which the Catholics were to be excluded from the constitution, and on which an alarm for the safety of the Protestant church was to be raised. The question now was, would the House reject both Catholic emancipation and Protestant security? They had come forward and offered security to the Protestant establishment; and now the House was called on to reject security to the Protestants on the one hand, and liberty to the Catholics on the other. For his own part, while he supported the clause now more immediately under consideration, he thought the other clauses, containing the securities to the Protestant establishment, perfectly necessary for the Bill, and should vote for them as one and the same. The noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh) had acted a manly part. He had a right to share in the credit arising from the Bill; and he (Mr. Grattan) and the other supporters of the Bill, had a right to share in the odium arising from the accompanying clauses. Notwithstanding the opposition of the Catholic clergy to those clauses, he must say that in doing so they were enemies to themselves and to the Catholic community, and that they must take on themselves the consequence. If the House rejected the Bill, they could not pass the clauses accompanying it. They must therefore, in rejecting the Bill, shew that ail apprehension of the Pope and of the Popish ascendency had ceased to operate. They must give up the securities to the establishment on the one hand, and vote for the exclusion of four millions of their fellow-subjects from the constitution, on the other. They must vote equally against Catholic freedom and Protestant security.

thought what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman of so extraordinary a nature, that he must call the attention of the House to some of the points he had urged. It had been proposed, at an early stage of the Bill, to postpone the concessions till they saw if the Catholics would agree to grant securities—by the mode now pursued, all would be granted to the Catholics with no prospect of their submitting to them; as was stated by Dr. Milner. He augured, therefore, that the clause of security would be nugatory. He was surprised at the assertion of the right hon. gentleman, that they could not exclude persons from the state but for treason. The constitution and the practice of our ancestors from the time of the Revolution, proved the reverse of this; for by these the religion of the state was held to be Protestant, and other religions were excluded. As for the probability of danger from the Catholics in that House, it did not rest on the number of those who might be chosen in the first instance. But gentlemen on the other side had, in former arguments, told them that the power and property of that body were growing and must grow in Ireland, till they had a decided superiority. And were there no Catholics in England; were there no counties in which there were thousands of them? and ought not the legislature to look beyond the present moment in a measure of this importance? He denied the truth of the dilemma that bad been put, and conceived it to be perfectly possible to enact all the securities in the Bill, with only part of the; oncessions. It was high time for the House to look to the former, after what had been stated concerning religious sects, and the progress of clerical Catholic institutions in this country. The right hon. gentleman had stated, and he begged the House to attend to the very remarkable word—he had stated that he was willing to share with them the 'odium' of the clauses to provide against foreign interference. Whence proceeded this odium? Was it a provision against Papal interference that the right hon. gentleman declared to be odious? It could only come from the body to which he had alluded. Then, where were their securities, or where the principal object for which they entered upon this Bill—general conciliation? He feared that this work of peace was only the beginning of animosities, and he, for one, would not consent to give his vote for an innovation, which involved the downfall of the constitution.

begged to recal the attention of the House to the clause more peculiarly under their consideration. However disagreeable the clauses containing the securities might at first be in Ireland, he was satisfied, before the measure began to operate, that the good sense of the people would have reconciled them to any thing that might at first be unpalatable in the measure. For his own part, he was against the exception of any offices whatever, though he was satisfied, at the same time, that in the introduction of the few exceptions which had been made, the authors of the Bill had best consulted its success.

rose and declared, that like the right hon. gentleman who had preceded him, his object was to recal the attention of the committee to the immediate stage of the Bill before them, the adoption or rejection of which virtually involved the adoption or rejection of the whole measure. That measure involved two distinct considerations, conciliatory concessions to the Catholics, and security to the Protestant establishment. For himself, he was for the clause, because it was the most valuable concession that could be bestowed, and he was still more for it, because in his conscience he believed it would prove the most effective security for the Protestant establishment. Of such paramount importance did he consider it, that he would say it formed the whole matter of consideration that was then pressed upon them. It had been urged, by a right hon. member, that if the present Bill passed they would only be creating a source of disquietude and disaffection for the next 20 years. Twenty years were a long period to legislate for; it was a long period of human life; but, he would say, that whether tranquillity or restless discord were the result, the way not to excite, but to allay them, was to give them vent in that House. Surely it was the part of sound policy to teach the passions of the people to run in a regulated course, rather than to let them break out into wild disorder, aggravated by all that intemperate faction might mix with them of real and imaginary grievance. He had often heard, in allusion to certain characters, if such a man finds his way into parliament, be will do such and such things: his opinion had always been, that every such demagogue ought to find his way among them; he would wish them to carry there their ill-acquired influence; he would almost lend his personal assistance to bring them there; that they might appear face to face with those who meant, and were anxious to maintain the true principles of the constitution. To apply that reasoning to the Catholics, if they should be still dissatisfied with what was done for them, he would ask but this—let the cause of dissatisfaction be pleaded in that House—that they might meet it—that they might discuss it—instead of its being agitated out of doors. He would strip the cause of real grievances, and in bringing it before that House, he would bring it where it could be judged, not by the passions of an irritated multitude, but by the acute judgments of persons accustomed to regard state affairs with statesmen's eyes. Therefore admit the Catholics, perhaps admitting them might be synonimous with disaffection; but, in God's name admit them, for where should disaffection find its antidote so surely as in that House? But, what were the exaggerated apprehensions entertained by his hon. friends? If Catholics now sat among them, if they actually formed a part of the legislature, and the question were to expel them from their bosom, their arguments would be more applicable. Yet the object of their arguments was to give the Catholics a common grievance, and consequently to give them a common bond of sympathy; and that, too, not only as it affected the Catholics themselves, but it was holding up a standard to which all other discontents might flock. Rebellion, however originating, springing from whatever cause, would immediately become a Catholic rebellion; but he wished to take away that colour, and to save that House the reproach of having foregone an opportunity of stripping disaffection of its plea of right. An hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) had maintained, that if the clause were retained, Catholics would acquire an influence in the state which they could not acquire in any other way; he would thus exclude them from the popular part of the constitution, which alone formed any counterpoise to the favour of the crown; and he would expose them to the danger of losing all sympathy with the public. But if such a proposition were adopted, would it be possible to conceive any class of men more cut out for danger—men capable of serving the crown, but incapable of coming in contact with the popular part of the constitution. He really could not form in his imagination any system more fraught with danger. His hon. friend had carried his fears very far, and had given a happy historical illustration of them. If you confer capacity, he argued, you confer possession; and he taxed his memory in the Roman History to shew the only instance in which a capacity to receive had been accompanied with an abstinence from office. For himself, he hoped in God, if the concession were once made, it would have a practical effect, and not be suffered to remain a dead letter. All the objections urged against the clause were of a nature precisely similar to what had been urged before the Union with Scotland; and, indeed, they were urged before the Union with Ireland; and if he was not mistaken, though he would not be quite certain, by his hon. friend himself. If, said his hon. friend, at that time, you admit 100 members from the sister kingdom, you will only knit them more closely, you will make one compact body of them, united for all Irish objects, and throwing their weight into that scale. But let any man look at what had happened, and say if such had been the case? or, whether the representatives for Ireland have not fairly distributed themselves, and in no way adhering, as his hon. friend had anticipated? The same had been prophesied with regard to Scotland, but all such fears were visionary: no one could trace in that House a distinct Scotch, or a distinct Irish interest, and it was equally visionary to talk of a Catholic interest predominating. If he were desirous of ransacking history, he could shew examples of many prescriptions, now happily done away, as severe nearly as those against the Catholics. He could shew some relating to Wales, in which, among other things, any person who married a Welch wife was ineligible to a seat in parliament; and yet, now, his hon. friend was among them, and able to take his part against the Catholics (hear! and laughter.)—With regard to the course which the debate had taken, he must a little complain of it. In all the early stages of the measure, instead of discussing the principle of the Bill, the constant burthen of the debate was, that no securities could be devised satisfactory to any reasonable man: it was therefore idle to discuss the principles: securities, ample and effectual, were the sinc qua non of the whole business. Well—securities had been devised, and now what was their conduct? There was no more talk about them. They were more satisfactory than they could expect, and therefore they would say nothing about them. If they were against concession altogether, it would have been better to have said so distinctly; but it was rather hard to set them at work to devise securities, and when, with the sweat of their brows, they had devised such as seemed to defy all cavil, to leave them out of the question, and let concession shift for itself. He perfectly agreed with the noble lord (Castlereagh) who had with so much manliness and candour declared his sentiments that night, that if the Bill came out of the committee a Bill of pains and penalties, let those who made it such look to it. He would wash his hands of it altogether. If they succeeded in beating out the Bill, which they would do if they beat out that clause, they must not let to-morrow pass without announcing to the trembling and dejected Catholic, that they had pains and penalties in store for them. He knew not what phantoms, what spectres, what shadows haunted their imaginations; what grisly sprites glided before them in death-like paleness, harrowing up their souls and perturbing their minds; but, he would repeat, if they beat out that clause, he would have nothing more to do with the measure. [Hear, hear!] He would let those sleepy guardians of the constitution, who could see no danger till it was disappearing, possess it wholly. But it was idle to suppose that parliament could separate without doing something for the Catholics, unless they meant to falsify all they had hitherto done. If conciliation was necessary, there (pointing to the opposition bench), sat the friends and advocates of that system: if pains and penalties were wanting, there (pointing to the other side of the House) were those who were ready to bring them forward. He did not envy them the odious task, but such was the burthen which they could not shake from their shoulders. The House had now to decide on a question arising out of an anomaly in the constitution, which deprived a country of the services of a large portion of its population. This anomaly had arisen from the policy of our ancestors, for which we pretended not to be responsible: but if the clause were that night rejected, the fault became exclusively our own: the House would adopt all the blame of their ancestors; the cruelty and severity of the code would become their own work. But God forbid that the cup of expectation, which had been filled to the brim, should be now dashed from the lips of the Catholics! God forbid that any member should sanc- tion a proceeding which he might afterwards contemplate with remorse! After alluding to the stage in which the Bill was, and the manner in which it had been fought, inch by inch, through the House, he continued by saying that every exertion had been made to stifle it in parliament, and the most active canvassing out of doors had been resorted to against it. The question, however, before them, was whether by rejecting the Bill they would dash the highly raised hopes of the Catholics to the earth, and throw them into a state,—he would not say of justifiable resistance,—but into one of trial, such as no people had ever undergone before. But could it really be conceived, that after four divisions in that House in their favour, when those who had opposed the measure had manfully come forward in its support, and when, one after another, all the obstacles had faded away—could it be believed, that having nursed this measure to maturity, having filled the cup to the brim, that now it was to be dashed from the fevered lip of the expecting Catholic who already tasted it in imagination? Was it possible that any man could be induced to vote against the clause? If, however, they should succeed, as perhaps they might by two or three units, would they not be anxiously watching the rest of the year what would be the effect upon the Catholic mind?—With regard to a question which had been put in the course of the debate, whether the adjustment as now framed would be final, he thought it not a very judicious one. "Man, and for ever!" exclaimed the poet, and so might the legislator exclaim. He could say, however, that as far as he and others were concerned, he believed it would be final. The measure gave all that could be required. It combined Catholic concession with Protestant security. In that sense it would be final. It would, also, be so far from calling forth new claims, that it could create an oblivion of all former ones. The right hon. gentleman concluded by saying, that if this clause were negatived, he should not think it worth his while to support the other points of the Bill, but should discharge himself of all concern in a measure which would then be fruitless and nugatory.

began by noticing what the right hon. gentleman who just sat down had said respecting those who opposed the Bill intending to introduce pains and penalties against the Catholics. What right or reason the right hon. gentleman had to say so, he could not tell, but for himself he disclaimed any such sentiments. The right hon. gentleman had said the Bill was an equal grant of security and concession. He differed with the right hon. gentleman on this point, because the concession was immediate; the security, on the contrary, distantly contingent.

said, he had no doubt but the hon. gentleman had fairly delivered his own sentiments; but he would be pleased to recollect, that he had not spoken before this night; therefore, what he had said, could not apply to him: but there were those who had said that night, that the restrictions might be retained, though the concessions were not granted. To them he had alluded, and on them would rest the responsibility for whatever consequences might follow.

The question being loudly called for, the Committee divided: when the numbers were,

Upon the numbers being declared,

said, as the Bill, without this clause, was neither worthy of the acceptance of the Catholics, nor of the further support of the friends of concession, that he would move that the chairman do now leave the chair: which, being carried without a division, the Bill was, of course, abandoned.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at two o'clock.