rose and said^*: —Sir, I move in the first place, that that part of his Majesty's most gracious Speech, at the opening of the Session, which relates to the affairs of Ireland, and which recommends to Parliament the consideration of the Laws imposing civil disabilities on his Roman Catholic subjects, be read.

^*Inserted with the permission and approbation of Mr. Secretary Pell.

The Clerk then read it as follows:—

"The state of Ireland has been the object of his Majesty's continued solicitude.

"His Majesty laments that, in that part of the United Kingdom, an Association should still exist, which is dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution; which keeps alive discord and ill-will amongst his Majesty's subjects; and which must, if permitted to continue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve the condition of Ireland.

"His Majesty confidently relies on the wisdom and on the support of his Parliament; and his Majesty feels assured that you will commit to him such powers as may enable his Majesty to maintain his just authority.

"His Majesty recommends that when this essential object shall have been accomplished, you shall take into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland, and that you should review the Laws which impose Civil Disabilities on his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.

"You will consider whether the removal of those disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and permanent security of our Establishments in Church and State, with the maintenance of the Reformed Religion established by Law, and of the Rights and Privileges of the Bishops, and of the Clergy of this Realm, and of the Churches committed to their charge.

"These are institutions which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant Kingdom, and which it is the duty and the determination of his Majesty to preserve inviolate.

"His Majesty most earnestly recommends to you to enter upon the consideraation of a subject of such paramount importance, deeply interesting to the best feelings of his people, and involving the tranquillity and concord of the United Kingdom, with the temper and the moderaation which will best ensure the successful issue of your deliberations."

then addressed the House as follows:

Mr. Speaker; I rise as a minister of the King, and sustained by the just authority which belongs to that character, to vindicate the advice given to his Majesty by a united Cabinet—to insert in his gracious Speech the recommendation which has just been read respecting the propriety of taking into consideration the condition of Ireland, and the removal of the civil disabilities affecting our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. I rise, Sir, in the spirit of peace, to propose the adjustment of the Roman Catholic question—that question which has so long and so painfully occupied the attention of Parliament, and which has distracted the councils of the King for the last thirty years. I rise, Sir, to discuss this great question in the spirit inculcated in one of those simple and beautiful prayers with which the proceedings of this House were on this day auspicated. In that solemn appeal to the Almighty Source of all wisdom and goodness, we are enjoined to lay aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, that the result of our councils may tend to the maintenance of true religion and justice; the safety, honour, and happiness of the King; the public wealth, peace, and tranquillity of the realm; and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same in true christian charity.

Sir, I approach this subject, almost overpowered by the magnitude of the interests it involves, and by the difficulties with which it is surrounded. I am not unconscious of the degree to which those difficulties are increased by the peculiar situation of him on whom the lot has been cast to propose this measure, and to enforce the expediency of its adoption. But, Sir, through all these difficulties (be they of a public or a personal character however disproportionate to my capacity, or galling to my feelings) I am supported by the consciousness that I have done my duty towards my Sovereign and towards my country; and that I have fulfilled the obligations of the solemn oath to his Majesty which I have taken as his responsible minister, namely, "that I would in all matters to be treated and debated in Council, faithfully, openly, and truly declare my mind and opinion, according to my heart and conscience." According to my heart and conscience, I believe that the time is come when less danger is to be apprehended to the general interests of the empire and to the spiritual and temporal welfare of the Protestant Establishment, in attempting to adjust the Catholic Question, than in allowing it to remain any longer in its present state. I have stated, on a former occasion, that such was my deliberate opinion; such the conclusion to which I found myself compelled to come by the irresistible force of circumstances; and I will adhere to it, aye, and I will act upon it, unchanged by the scurrility of abuse; by the expression of opposite opinions, however vehement or however general; unchanged by the deprivation of political confidence, or by the heavier sacrifice of private friendships and affections. Looking back upon the past, surveying the present, and forejudging the prospects of the future, again I declare that the time has at length arrived when this question must be adjusted.

I have been called upon to state the reasons which have swayed me in the adoption of the course I now advocate, and which is in opposition to that which I have so long pursued. And for the satisfaction of those who have made this appeal to me, and for the satisfaction of the people of this country, I will endeavour to make out the case I have been challenged to establish.

I am well aware, Sir, that I speak in the presence of a House of Commons, the majority of which is prepared to vote in favour of an adjustment of this question; upon higher grounds than those on which I desire to rest my arguments. To them it is needless to appeal. But I trust that, in what I shall think it necessary to say less with the personal object of self-vindication than with a view to satisfy the great body of the people of this empire; those who require no reasoning to convince them, will bear with me while I go through the details of an argument which has pressed on my mind with the force of demonstration. Sir, I have for years attempted to maintain the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament and the high offices of the State. I do not think it was an unnatural or unreasonable struggle. I resign it, in consequence of the conviction that it can be no longer advantageously maintained; from believing that there are not adequate materials or sufficient instruments for its effectual and permanent continuance. I yield, therefore to a moral necessity which I cannot control, unwilling to push resistance to a point which might endanger the Establishments that I wish to defend.

Does that moral necessity exist? Is there more danger in continued resistance than in concession accompanied with measures of restriction and precaution?

My object is to prove, by argument, the affirmative answer to these Questions.

In that argument, I shall abstain from all discussions upon the natural or social rights of man. I shall enter into no disquisitions upon the theories of government. My argument will turn upon a practical view of the present condition of affairs, and upon the consideration, not of what may be said, but what is to be done under circumstances of immediate and pressing difficulty.

Sir, the outline of my argument is this: we are placed in a position in which we cannot remain. We cannot continue stationary. There is an evil in divided cabinets and distracted councils which can be no longer tolerated. This is my first position. I do not say, in the first instance, what we are to do in consequence. I merely declare that our present position is untenable. Supposing this established, and supposing it conceded, that a united government must be formed; in the next place I say, that that government must choose one of two courses. They must advance, or they must recede. They must grant further political privileges to the Roman Catholics, or they must retract those already given. They must remove the barriers that obstruct the continued flow of relaxation and indulgence, or they must roll back to its source the mighty current which has been let in upon us, year after year, by the gradual withdrawal of restraint. I am asked what new light has broken in upon me? why I see a necessity for concession now, which was not evident before? True it is, that this House of Commons did last year, for the first time, recognise the principle of concession; that, last year, the division between the two Houses of Parliament was renewed. But the same events, it is said, have happened before, and, therefore, the same consequences ought to follow. Is this the fact? are events in politics like equal quantities in numbers and mathematics, always the same? Are they like the great abstract truths of morality, eternal and invariable in their application? May not the recurrence, the continued recurrence of the very same event totally alter its character, at least its practical results? Because divisions between the Lords and Commons can be tolerated for five years or ten years, must they therefore be tolerated for ever?

So far as my own course in this question is concerned, it is the same with that which suggested itself to my mind in 1825, when I was his Majesty's principal minister for the Home Department, and found myself in a minority of this House upon this question. When I then saw the numbers arrayed against me, I felt that my position as a minister was untenable. The moment, Sir, that I, the minister responsible for the government of Ireland, found that I was left in a minority on the question, which was of paramount interest and importance to that country, that moment I sought to be relieved from the duties and responsibility of office. I stated to the earl of Liverpool, who was then at the head of the Administration, that in consequence of the decision given against me in this House, it was my anxious wish to be relieved from office. It was, however, notified to me, that my retirement would occasion the retirement of the earl of Liverpool; and that such an event would at once produce a dissolution of the Administration, the responsibility of which would rest with me. I hold in my hand, Sir, the proof of this assertion. I would wish to be spared the necessity of using it, but I am ready to produce it to any person who may wish to see it.

But to proceed. Sir, I was told that the consequence of my retirement would be the immediate dissolution of the government. Lord Liverpool was then approaching the close of his career. I had entered public life under his auspices, and I shrunk from the painful task of causing his retirement, and the dissolution of his majesty's existing government. If I had acted simply in obedience to my own wishes, I would have resigned. I was induced, however, to retain office, and to ascertain the result of another appeal to the country by a general election. In 1826, there was a new parliament. In 1827, a majority in this House decided against the Catholic question. In 1828, however, the House took a different view of the matter, and though it did not pass a bill, it agreed to a resolution favourable to the principle of adjustment. That resolution being passed, I was again in the situation in which I had been placed in 1825, and I determined to retire from office. I intimated my fixed intention in this respect, to the duke of Wellington; but I felt it my duty to accompany that intimation with the declaration—not only that I would not, in a private capacity, any longer obstruct a settlement which appeared to me ultimately inevitable, but that I would advise and promote it. Circumstances occurred, as I have already explained, under which I was appealed to, to remain in office; under which I was told, that my retirement from office must prevent the adoption of the course which I was disposed to recommend. I resolved, therefore, and without doubt or hesitation, not to abandon my post, but to take all the personal consequences of originating and enforcing, as a minister, the very measure which I had heretofore opposed.

I was called upon to make those sacrifices of private feeling, which are inseparable from apparent inconsistency of conduct—from the abandonment of preconceived opinions—from the alienation of those with whom I had, heretofore co-operated. Sir, I have done so; and the events of the last six weeks must have proved, that it is painful in the extreme to prefer, to such considerations, even the most urgent sense of public duty.

"'T is said, with ease—but oh! how hardly tried By haughty souls to human honour tied—Oh! sharp convulsive pangs of agonizing pride."

Sir, I return to objects of more public concern. I detailed, on a former occasion, that a dreadful commotion had distracted the public mind in Ireland—that a feverish agitation and unnatural excitement prevailed, to a degree scarcely credible, throughout the entire country. I attempted to show that social intercourse was poisoned there in its very springs—that family was divided against family, and man against his neighbour—that, in a word, the bonds of social life were almost dissevered—that the fountains of public justice were corrupted—that the spirit of discord walked openly abroad—and that an array of physical force was marshalled in defiance of all law, and to the imminent danger of the public peace. I ask, Sir, could this state of things be suffered to exist, and what course were we to pursue? Perhaps, I shall be told, as I was on a former occasion, in forcible, though familiar language, that "this is the old story! that all this has been so for the last twenty years, and that therefore there is no reason for a change." Why, Sir, this is the very reason for the change. It is because the evil is not casual and temporary, but permanent and inveterate—it is because the detail of misery and of outrage is nothing but "the old story," that I am contented to run the hazards of a change. We cannot determine upon remaining idle spectators of the discord and disturbance of Ireland. The universal voice of the country declares that something must be done; I am but echoing the sentiments of all reasonable men, when I repeat that something must be done. I wish, however, to take nothing for granted, but to found my argument, not upon general assent, but upon unquestionable facts. I ask you to go back to a remoter period than it is generally the habit to embrace in these discussions—I ask you to examine the state of his majesty's government for the last thirty-five years, and to remark the bearing of the Catholic question upon that government—the divisions it has created amongst our statesmen—the distraction it has occasioned in our councils—and the weakness it has consequently produced. I ask you then to observe what has been the course of parliament for the same period. And lastly, what has been the consequence of the divisions in the councils of the king, and of disunion between the two Houses of parliament—the practical con-equences as to Ireland.

I begin with the year 1794. From that period there has been disunion in the government on account of the Catholic question, and the administration of Irish affairs. When Mr. Pitt associated the duke of Portland and lord Fitzwilliam in power, division prevailed in the cabinet. Mr. Pitt was then prepared to offer unqualified resistance to the claims of the Roman Catholics; but he took the duke of Portland, Mr. Windham. and lord Fitzwilliam, into the government, and they differed with him on the course that ought to be taken in respect of this question. Lord Fitzwilliam went to Ireland in 1794; he favoured the claims of the Roman Catholics, and from that moment dissention has existed in our administrations upon that subject. His government came to a termination in a few months—On what ground? On account of a difference about the Catholic question. Mr. Pitt continued to conduct the public councils for some time longer. In the interim occurred the distractions of Ireland in 1798 and 1799. In 1801, Mr. Pitt's government came to a close: on what ground? A difference about the Catholic question. Mr. Pitt resumed the government in 1804. The manner in which his cabinet was composed showed that it was not formed on the principle of unqualified resistance. Mr. Pitt died in 1806, and his government was succeeded by another, which endured about eighteen months, and then came to a termination: on what ground? A difference, again, about the Catholic question. In 1807, Mr. Perceval undertook the administration of affairs, and it was undoubtedly quite true that, from that period until his death, the government did resist the consideration of this question; but it did not resist it on permanent grounds. Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning were advocates of the Catholic claims, and only acted, at that particular period, in opposition to them on the ground of the conscientious scruples of the king. Mr. Perceval lost his life in 1812, and after his death, another course of policy, with respect to this question, was adopted. This was attributed to the circumstance of his death, and it is said that, had he lived, a united government, pledged to the unqualified resistance of the measure, would have been permanently established. I doubt this fact. There was an important event which must have influenced the formation of a government. The restrictions on the Regency were removed at this period, and the parliament elected in 1807, decided by a majority of 129;^* to take the question into consideration. I do believe that, if Mr. Perceval had lived, he would have continued to offer unqualified re sistance to the Catholic claims; but I do not think that Mr. Canning, or lord Castlereagh, would have been parties to a government formed on that principle. Since 1812, the Catholic question has been what is called a neutral question, each member of every cabinet being allowed to take that course in respect of it which he thought best, and I must say that the consequences have been most unfavourable to the administration of the affairs of this country. The cabinets have been in general nearly equally divided upon the subject—sometimes exactly balanced—sometimes a preponderance of a single voice in the cabinet in favour of or against the question, Ireland has been governed, almost inevitably governed, upon the same principle—at one time, a Lord-lieutenant adverse to the claims, and a Secretary favourable—at another time, a Lord-lieutenant favourable, and a Secretary adverse. The law officers of Ireland divided in opinion—the subordinate members of the Irish government divided also. What has been the consequence? Jealousies and suspicions between honourable men embarked in the same cause, and subject to the same responsibilities—against their will, they have been made the heads of opposite parties in Ireland. The differences actually existing have been exaggerated in public impression in a preposterous degree. Every expression which may have casually escaped from public servants, has been scrutinized by zealous partizans, and a construction put upon speeches in this House, and upon declarations out of it, of which their authors never dreamed. While they were living on cordial terms, or differing in public matters on this single question, the spirit of party in Ireland has viewed them in the light of bitter enemies—checks and spies upon each other—and has construed the most trifling circumstances, appointments to office, or removals from it, in respect to which there was entire concurrence, as the indications of mutual hostility, and of the preponderating influence of one or other of the parties. Such is the evil which has been practically experienced in Ireland—which has been tolerated too long—which which has paralyzed the vigour of the executive government, and defeated its best intentions—and which it is absolutely necessary—(I say not now in what manner, but in some manner or other) to terminate. From a consideration of the principle on which the executive government has been conducted, let us now turn to the proceedings of the legislature, and the demonstration of public opinion in this country. From the year 1807 to the present moment, there have been five parliaments, consequently five separate appeals to the sense of the constituent body of the empire. The House of Commons elected for four of these five parliaments has, on some occasion or other, decided in favour of the adjustment of the Catholic Question. The House of Commons of the fifth, parliament decided against the claims, but by what majority? A majority of two; two hundred and forty-three members against concession; two hundred and forty-one in favour of it. Refer to the divisions on the Catholic question in this branch of the legislature for the last sixteen years, and see how nicely the balance of opinion in a neutral government has corresponded with that of the House of Commons. In 1813, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was carried by a majority, after the second reading, of forty-two. The admission to parliament was negatived by a majority of four. In 1816, the majority against the question was thirty-one. In 1819, it was two. In 1821, the Relief Bill passed by a majority of nineteen. In 1822, the bill for the restoration of Roman Catholic Peers to seats in the House of lords was carried by a majority of twelve. In 1825, the general Relief Bill was sent to the lords by a majority of twenty-one. In 1827, the consideration of the question was rejected by a majority of four. In 1828, it was admitted by a majority of six. What is the result? Each party can paralyse the other, nothing effectual can be done, either by the means of coercion or relief; we advance a step this year and recede a step the next, and rejoice or lament in our petty gains or losses. But what becomes of Ireland, and what may become of her, if these party conflicts without a result shall continue beyond the present season of general tranquillity?—"Sedemus desides domi—inter nos altercantes, præsenti pace læti, nec cernentes ex otio illo brevi multiplex bellum rediturum."

^* See First series of this Work, vol. xxiii. P. 710.

Sir, this House of Commons has, after trembling in the nice balance of opinion, at length inclined on the side of concession and relief. Why should this House of Commons be considered, as some profess to consider it, an unfair representative of the public opinion upon this great question? Was it not elected at a period when the public mind was sufficiently alive to the Catholic question? Was it not sufficiently acquainted with the efforts made to pass Catholic Relief Bills through parliament, and with the state of Ireland? Sir, this House was elected shortly after an intense excitement of the public feeling by the proceedings of the Catholic Association in 1825. The bill to suppress that Association had been passed, and the discussion on the question was not brought to a close in less than five nights. The general election, Sir, was the time for the public opinion to declare itself, and to afford us the materials for a successful contest. But, Sir, this proper occasion having been suffered to pass by, it is now rather hard that we should be blamed for not carrying on a bootless resistance. It is a hard thing, Sir, to call upon us, the responsible ministers of the Crown, to carry on resistance without furnishing us with those instruments by which alone the battle could have been fought with success. For, Sir, I ask you, when we are told of the feeling of the country against the Catholic question, to look at the returns of the last parliament. If unanimous discontent pervades the people, it is of but a short date. If it has long existed, it ought to have been shown, not merely by public meetings, but by the exercise of the elective franchise. It is not fair to throw upon ministers the whole responsibility of resigning a long-continued resistance, when that resistance was paralysed by the manner in which the people had exercised the elective franchise. I asked an honourable friend of mine, from pure curiosity, to make a return of the members sent to parliament for the fifteen largest counties, and twenty most populous towns of England, and to ascertain in what manner the votes of those members were given on this question. This is a practical and constitutional method of determining the sense of the people. Sir, in the parliament of 1826, the feelings and opinions of the counties and towns which have been thus selected, selected, I repeat, merely on the ground that they are the most important in point of population and influence, have been thus expressed in parliament. Yorkshire has given no opinion; she has sent us two representatives that vote for, and two that vote against, the question. [Here some honourable member interrupted the right hon. gentleman, by saying that Yorkshire had an opinion upon the question.] I am not presuming to speak as to what may be the present opinions of Yorkshire. I only say it has expressed none through its members: and, in this instance, I will be governed by parliament, not by petitions. I know it has been said, that in 1826 the country had not sufficient warning. No, forsooth, we ought to have roused the country by the cry of " No Popery!" Never, Sir, never, under any circumstances. The Parliament, and the Parliament alone, will I ever acknowledge to be the fit judge of this important question. The people at large may express their feelings and opinions, and they should always be received with deference; but, Sir, we are not bound to conform to those opinions, or to refer to their decision questions affecting the general interests of the country, on which it is the peculiar province of Parliament to decide; and, therefore, when I say Yorkshire has expressed no opinion, I mean that it has expressed none in the only way in which it could be made available; it has afforded us no instruments by which we could continue resistance, and, therefore, its opinion (if it has one) comes too late for any practical purpose. I next come to Middlesex, the metropolitan county of England. It sends two members to Parliament, and both of them are in favour of the Catholic claims. Lancashire is the next county in point of population. That county declined to express any opinion on the subject of the Catholic claims; or it suffered that voice to be neutralized. Of the two members it returned to Parliament, one votes for granting further concessions, and one against it. The county of Devon follows the example set by Lancashire, and has expressed no opinion, one of its representatives is for, and the other opposed to, Catholic Emancipation. The county of Kent, which comes next in the order I have described, takes the same course, one of its members votes for the consideration and adjustment of the Catholic Claims, the other for resisting them. Surrey is in precisely the same situation as Kent. Such is the state of things in the counties I have mentioned. These, which are the greatest in point of population, expressed no opinion on the Catholic question, at the last election, though their attention had been fully called to the subject by the proceed ings of the last and the preceding parliaments. The county of Somerset is, however, an exception; for besides my hon. friend (sir Thomas Lethbridge) who has long been one of its representatives, and who, no doubt, fairly represented its wishes and feelings, by uniformly voting against any further concessions, it returned another hon. member, who also votes against the Catholic Claims. Norfolk returned two members, both of whom vote in favour of them. From Staffordshire, my own county, two members were returned, who vote on the same side with the members for Norfolk. Dorsetshire expressed no opinion, as one of its members votes for, and the other against further concessions. Essex stands in the same situation. The two members from Hampshire both vote against the Roman Catholics. Lincolnshire is neutralized, its members voting different ways. Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, and Suffolk, are in the same situation, equally balanced. And this is the history of the feeling manifested at the period to which I have referred in the fifteen largest counties in England. They send collectively thirty-two members, and seventeen of the thirty-two vote for concession. I, therefore, think that that universal disposition to oppose concession, of which we have heard, has no existence; or, if such be not the case, I must conclude that others have abandoned their duty, and have not come forward with that public expression of their wishes and their feelings, which could alone make opposition availing.

Having shown what the sense of the largest counties has proved to be, I will now call the attention of the House, in the same way, to what has been done by the largest towns, the list of which includes about twenty. London returns four members to Parliament, and two of those last sent to Parliament vote for, and two against, Catholic Emancipation. Westminster sends two, and both are in favour of it. The two members for Southwark are both in favour of it. Liverpool sends two members; one is for Emancipation, the other is adverse to it. From Bristol two members have been sent who are both against further concessions. Norwich sends two members, of whom one is for and one against. Nottingham sends two members, and both are in favour of the settlement of this question. From Newcastle-upon-Tyne two members are sent, both in fa- vour of it. Leicester gives one voice against concession. Hull is neutral. From Preston two members are returned, who both vote in favour of Catholic Emancipation. Exeter sends two, who are both against it. The voice of Coventry is neutralized. Such is the case with York. Both the members for Chester vote in favour of further concessions to the Catholics. Both those returned for Great Yarmouth do the same. From Derby the members returned are both in favour of considering this question. Of Ipswich I am uncertain. Of the two members sent from Worcester, one did not vote at all, the other did vote, against concession. The two members for Aylesbury vote on different sides. To these I may add Carlisle, which is in the same situation as the place I last named; and of the two members returned for Colchester, one voted against concessions to the Catholics, the other gave no vote at all. The result, however, of the analysis made of the returns for the twenty largest towns is this; that eighteen members are against concession, and at least twenty-five or twenty-six vote in favour of it. These things, then, I say, prove to me that the voice of the people was not deliberately pronounced against the consideration of this great question, at that period when it might have been pronounced with most effect. I therefore conclude, that it does not exist. But, be this so, or be it not so, I repeat, that it is hard upon those who have fought the battle against making further concessions to the Catholics, for the last ten years, with Houses so nearly divided, with forces so nearly equal, now to charge them with want of zeal, because they consider it would be useless and injurious to continue the struggle longer.

As another indication of public opinion and zeal in the Protestant cause, let us refer to the debates in this House. I hold in my hand a list of the speakers on each side of the main question for the last ten years. On the side of resistance I find a constant recurrence of the same speakers, year after year, with scarcely the addition of a new advocate. If I look to the young members of the House, can I conceal from myself, when I consider the prospects of permanent resistance, that the rising talent of this House is almost unanimous against it? That session after session we have had defections from our side, and that we cannot claim a single convert? Are these indications to be neglected? Are they not just elements of consideration, to be weighed by those who must calculate, if they are prudent legislators, but, above all, if they are responsible ministers, to what extent resistance can be safely and wisely carried? And yet, the few who have borne the brunt of this battle for ten years are to be taunted as responsible for failure, we are not to be at liberty to consider what support we have had, in the division, from numbers; or in the debate, from the active zeal and ability of those who have been voting with us. Why is it that the eagerness and the vehemence of opposition have been reserved for this occasion? Why has not the member for Kent, so qualified to take an active part in debate, why has he not borne his part in the protracted contests of former years? It is within these walls, and within these walls alone, that the struggle could have been maintained with effect; and the victories of Penenden Heath are no compensation for repeated defeat here.

I have now, Sir, described the state of the king's government in reference to the Roman Catholic Question, for the last thirty-five years, and I have detailed the progress of our discussions in this House, the equal balance of our opinions, the continued discussion for sixteen years between the Lords and Commons on a great question of national policy. Let us proceed to inquire what has been the condition of Ireland during these unfortunate dissensions? I will not presume to affirm that the dissensions in our councils, and the distractions of Ireland, stand to each other in the exact relation of cause and effect but this I affirm, that they have been very nearly concurrent, and that there is no present prospect of the restoration of peace to Ireland, and of authority and vigour to its government, unless our own differences can be, by some means or other, reconciled. I will not prophesy what may be the ultimate effect of the measures which I propose; but the true recommendation of them I apprehend to be, that it is scarcely possible that we can change for the worse. Let us cast a rapid glance over the recent history of Ireland, trace it from the Union, the period when the retirement of Mr. Pitt from the king's councils brought more prominently forward the differences of public men in regard to the Catholic Question. What is the melancholy fact? that for scarcely one year, during the period that has elapsed since the Union, has Ireland been governed by the ordinary course of law.

In 1800, we find the Habeas Corpus Act suspended, and the act for the Suppression of Rebellion in force. In 1801, they were continued. In 1802, I believe they expired. In 1803, the insurrection for which Emmett suffered broke out: lord Kilwarden was murdered by a savage mob, and both acts of parliament were renewed. In 1804, they were continued. In 1806, the west and south of Ireland were in a state of insubordination, which was with difficulty repressed by the severest enforcement of the ordinary law. In 1807, in consequence chiefly of the disorders that bad prevailed in 1806, the act called the Insurrection Act was introduced. It gave power to the Lord-lieutenant to place any district by proclamation out of the pale of the ordinary law—it suspended trial by jury—and made it a transportable offence to be out of doors from sunset to sunrise. In 1807, this act continued in force, and in 1808, 1809, and to the close of the session of 1810. In 1814, the Insurrection Act was renewed; it was continued in 1815, 1816, and 1817. In 1822, it was again revived, and continued during the years 1823, 1824, and 1825. In 1825, the temporary act intended for the suppression of dangerous associations, and especially the Roman Catholic Association, was passed. It continued during 1826, and 1827, and expired in 1828. The year 1829 has arrived, and with it the demand for a new act to suppress the Roman Catholic Association.

Shall this state of things continue without some decisive effort at a remedy? Can we remain as we are? Have I not established the first step in my argument, that our present position is not tenable; that the system of neutral governments and of open questions ought to be and must be abandoned; and that there is no safety excepting in the united councils, and joint responsibility of the king's government?

This being admitted, it remains to be determined on what principle shall those councils be united—and for what object shall that responsibility be incurred? The choice is between permanent, unqualified resistance to concession on the one side, and the settlement of the Catholic question on the other. There is no intermediate line to be discovered—there is no useful purpose to be promoted—either by resistance, rested upon grounds of mere temporary expediency, or by the hesitating grant of a few additional privileges to the Roman Catholics. By the first course, you would concede the principle of resistance; by the second, you would give new power, without giving satisfaction. The main question is this—Can a government be formed, capable of conducting, with vigour and success, the general administration of this country, upon the principle of decisive and permanent opposition to further concession? I will not take for granted that it cannot. The question involves considerations most important to my argument—because, if it be answered, as I think it must be answered in the negative, I establish at once my own justification, and the necessity of an immediate settlement of the Catholic question.

Can, then, a government be formed, united on the principle of permanent exclusion? It may perhaps be formed, and it may determine to resist the Catholic claims, but how will it govern Ireland? Questions much more difficult will occur, than in what mode a motion in the House of Commons can be best debated or resisted? To come at once to the point—what is to be done with the Catholic Association? "Suppress it," is the ready answer. But by what means? The existing state of the law provides no effectual means of suppression; at least such is the deliberate and unanimous opinion of the law-officers of England and of Ireland. They have deprecated prosecution, either under the Convention act of 1793, or under the common law.

It seems taken for granted, Sir, by many in this House, that the Association is an evil of recent occurrence—that the law has been plain—and that nothing was requisite but the due enforcement of it by the attorney-general for Ireland. But, Sir, the evil is one of long continuance—it has assumed various shapes, and has survived more than one attempt at its extinction. Read the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords in Ireland, in 1793; you will find the same evil described in terms which are but too appropriate to the present. "Sums of money," says the report "continue to be levied upon the Roman Catholics in all parts of the kingdom, by subscriptions and collections at their chapels." Again, "The existence of a self-created representative body, of any description of the king's subjects, taking upon itself the government of them, and levying taxes or subscriptions to be applied at the discretion of such representative body, or of persons deputed by them, is incompatible with the public safety and tranquillity." Look to the debates in this House, and to the proceedings of the Irish government, in the years 1811 and 1812; you will find the same evil in existence: a body representing Roman Catholic feeling, and inflaming Roman Catholic passion. It had another name, but its influence and its effects were nearly the same. The Catholic Committee, as it was called, was appointed in 1810. It consisted of the Roman Catholic peers; the eldest sons of peers; the Roman Catholic baronets; the Roman Catholic prelates; ten persons chosen from each county; five persons from each parish of Dublin; and the survivors of the delegates of 1793.

Legal proceedings were instituted—the verdicts were in our favour. The Catholic Committee was in form suppressed, but it soon revived under another name; and in 1814, a proclamation from the Lord-lieutenant in council, directed the suppression of its successor, the Catholic Convention.

In 1823, the Catholic Association was organized. In 1825, the evil became intolerable. A new law was passed for its suppression, but still the body exists with undiminished power of mischief. What is to be done for its coercion and extinction by the united government that we assume to have been formed? The existing law, in the opinion of legal authorities, affords no sufficient remedy—a new law must be passed. Can it be carried in the present state of the House of Commons is the first question? What shall be its enactments is the second? I hear it now intimated by a high authority in another place, that the common law is, and has been, sufficient for the purpose. Why, then, did lord Eldon, being lord Chancellor at the time, consent to the introduction of the temporary statute of 1825? That same authority has declared, "That the act recently passed will do nothing. That it had been said of the act of 1825, that a coach and six might be driven through it—but that he would undertake to drive the meanest conveyance, even a donkey-cart, through the act of 1829." If this be so, why has it been suffered to proceed without the suggestion of an amendment?

But let this pass; I refer to those declarations for another object; they contain admissions that are deserving of more serious consideration. The common law, it appears, has been evaded—new enactments have become necessary. In 1825, we tried the experiment of precise definition and express particular prohibition. In 1829, we give unlimited discretionary authority to the chief governor of Ireland—authority to interdict any meetings from which he apprehends eventual danger. The first experiment has failed—the other, we are told on the authority of lord Eldon, is still more certain of failure. What, Sir, is the inference from these declarations? This, and this alone—that there exists a spirit too subtle for compression, a bond of union which penal statutes cannot dissolve.

But, let us suppose the preliminary difficulties overcome—the government formed—the House of Commons assenting to the bill for the suppression of the Association—the enactments adequate for their object, and passed into law. This is not all that is requisite—another, and a more important question, is to be answered. What is to be done with the elective franchise in Ireland? The member for the University of Oxford^* has told you, that, in the case of a general election, twenty-three counties in Ireland are ready to follow the example of the county of Clare—to withdraw the trust from their former representatives, and to commit it to others, whether locally connected or not, who are devoted to Roman Catholic interests. Be it so; but is it possible, then, to let the franchise remain in its present state? What will be the effect of the formation of a government united on the principle of eternal and uncompromising resistance to the Catholic claims? It will add fuel to the flame in Ireland—increase the existing irritation and excitement—confirm the union between the priesthood and the lower class of freeholders. It is in vain to say, you will give no new power to the Irish Catholic. What will you do with that power—that tremendous power—which the elective franchise, exercised under the control of religion, at this moment confers upon him? "Take it away," is again the ready answer. But, is it possible to take it away? Will this House of Commons, two hundred and seventy-two members of which voted last year in a majority for the extension of further pri- vileges to the Roman Catholics—will this House of Commons retract those which have been already granted, upon the invitation of a government pledged against concession at any time, and under any circumstances? There is an alternative no doubt—the immediate dissolution of parliament, and the appeal to the elective body of Great Britain. But you cannot make that appeal, without making a simultaneous appeal to the elective body of Ireland—that body exercising the present franchise, under every circumstance of superadded mistrust, apprehension, and excitement. My deliberate conviction is, that no majority on the Catholic question that you can procure from the representation of Great Britain, will counteract the evil—of severing every remaining tie between the landed proprietor and the Roman Catholic tenantry of Ireland—of confirming the spiritual influence in political matters of the Roman Catholic priesthood—of binding together in the dangerous, but not illegal, exercise of a great constitutional right, the combined and desperate efforts of Roman Catholic wealth, intelligence, numbers, and religion. The infusion into this House of such a representative body, as that which will be sent from Ireland, by a general election in the case supposed, will be a real danger; and I appeal to any man, connected with Ireland, or acquainted with its condition, whether the government of Ireland could conduct, with energy or success, the administration of that country, having opposed to it (as it would have opposed to it) under the circumstances of which we are speaking, a vast majority of the representative body, and of the constituent body.

^* See Robert Inglis.

But, independently of all such difficulties, I should implore any government to pause before it enters upon the task of withdrawing from the Irish Roman Catholics privileges already granted. We cannot replace the Roman Catholics in the position in which we found them, when the system of relaxation and indulgence began. We have given them the opportunities of acquiring education, wealth, and power. We have removed, with our hands, the seal from the vessel, in which a mighty spirit was inclosed—but it will not, like the genius in the fable return within its narrow confines, to gratify our curiosity, and enable us to cast it back into the obscurity from which we evoked it. If we begin to recede, there is no limit which we can assign to our recession. We shall occasion a violent reaction—violent in proportion to the hopes that have been repeatedly excited. It must be coerced by new rigours, provoking in their turn fresh resistance. The re-enactment of the penal laws, even if practicable, would not suffice. The trial by jury must be abolished; at least the Roman Catholic must be incapacitated from serving as a juror. What would be the ultimate issue of this contest? A more marked separation of the people of Ireland into distinct and mutually hostile classes—a more complete monopoly of every civil right and franchise for the Protestant—unmixed and unqualified degradation of the Roman Catholic.

Now look at the population of Ireland, and then determine, whether such a system of government is, in the present state of the world, maintainable. According to the census of 1821, the population of Ireland was computed to amount to nearly seven millions of persons. Of them, by a calculation formed by my right hon. friend (Mr. Leslie Foster), deduced from the numbers of children educated in Ireland, five millions are Roman Catholics—two millions Protestants, including the members of the established church and every class of Protestant dissenters. Can the local government of Ireland be conducted through the exclusive instrumentality of two millions out of seven of the population? Surely, government, civil government, means something more than the rigid enforcement of penal law, the suppression of breaches of the peace, and the apprehension of notorious offenders. There is a willing moral obedience, founded on the sense of equal justice, without which the terrors of the law would be vain instruments to secure protection and peace even to the favoured class. if the two millions of Protestants were equally distributed throughout Ireland, the difficulties of administering, through their exclusive agency, the whole progress of government and of the law, might possibly, in the opinion of some persons—certainly not in mine—be overcome. But of the two million Protestants, twelve hundred thousand are residents in one single province—the province of Ulster. In the three remaining provinces we have a population of five millions thus composed—four million two hundred and fifty thousand Roman Catholics; seven hundred and fifty thousand Protestants—a majority of nearly six to one. The disproportion—the inequality of the distribution of the Protestant and Roman Catholic population, are still more striking in the case of individual districts:—

By returns from the clergy of three hundred parishes in Ireland, containing a population of seven hundred and fifty-nine thousand five hundred souls, it appears,

That in three parishes in Munster, there is neither Protestant nor Dissenter—all Catholics.

That in four parishes of Ulster, all are Presbyterians.

That in one hundred and thirty-four parishes of Leinster, there are, of the church of England, 23,000; Dissenters, 1,400; Roman Catholics, 186,300;—Total, 210,700 persons.—Proportion, seven and a half to one.

That in seventy-two parishes of Munster, there are of the church of England, 12,900; Dissenters, 128; Roman Ca-

Catholics, 167,500;—Total, 180,528.—Proportion, thirteen to one.

That in twenty-three parishes of Connaught, with a population of 101,600, there are Roman Catholics, 96,800; of the church of England, 4,800; Dissenters, 12. Proportion twenty to one.

That in nine parishes of Roscommon, with a population of 26,581, there are Roman Catholics, 25,700; Protestants, 881.

These circumstances being duly considered, again, l ask, how is the civil and criminal process of the law to be equably and regularly conducted throughout Ireland, supposing the withdrawing of the powers and privileges already granted to the Roman Catholics to have the effect which I anticipate from it—namely, that of dividing the population into two distinct classes—one favoured by the law, the other totally estranged from it? It may be said, and truly said, that reliance can be placed upon the army and upon the police; but will England patiently bear the enormous expense of enforcing every civil right of property, of supporting every legal claim for rent or for tithes, by the agency of such expensive instruments? And yet there will be, in many districts at least, no alternative.

These, Sir, are practical and certain, and, I fear, incurable evils, which we must determine to endure, if we resolve to retrace our steps. But are there no contingent misfortunes, upon the occurrence of which, and upon the issue of which, if they should occur, a prudent government must calculate? What will be the result of civil insurrection?—What will be that of foreign war? Will this system of continued exclusion, or, I should rather say, of deprivation and coercion, be proof against such calamities? If it be not, is it wise to adopt it? We have had, in the recent history of Ireland, experience of the effect of both these calamities—experience of the practical bearing of each of them on the Catholic question. Take the example of foreign war. In 1792, bold hearts and able heads presided over the councils of this country—there was no disposition to yield to the Roman Catholic claims—no want of Protestant feeling in Ireland to make resistance effectual. In 1792, the Roman Catholics petitioned for partial relief. The grand juries of Ireland were nearly unanimous against any concession. The Irish House of Commons not only refused relief, but, by an immense majority, rejected the petition which prayed for it—it refused permission that it should lie upon the table. The vote was taken upon that motion: two hundred and eight members voted for the rejection of the petition; twenty-three only against it.

In 1793, broke out the revolutionary war with France; and in 1793, the session of the Irish Parliament opened with a recommendation from the Crown to consider the condition of the Roman Catholics, and to repeal some of the disabling laws. Mr. Pitt was at the head of the Government;—Mr. Dundas, the Secretary of State, in correspondence with Ireland; and at their pressing instance was this recommendation given. What was the consequence? The hasty grant of that power to the multitude and physical strength of the country, which has been conferred by their unrestricted admission to the elective franchise. Let us profit by the example of the past, and not feel too confident that stern resolutions of uncompromising resistance, formed in the time of peace, can be rigidly maintained under the pressure of foreign war.

We have also had the sad experience of that other and greater calamity—civil discord and bloodshed. Surely it is no unmanly fear that shudders at its recurrence—no degenerate impulse that prompts one to exclaim, with lord Falkland—" Peace! Peace! Peace!"—that looks out with anxiety for the alternatives by which civil war may be honourably averted; which may rescue the natives of the same land, and the fellow-subjects of the same king, from the dire necessity of embruing their hands in each other's blood.—

Coeant in fædera dextræ Si datur—ast armis concurrant arma cavete.

Let us again appeal to history, as to the issue of civil war. Let us refer to the records of 1798, and well consider what has been the bearing of a defeated rebellion on the claims of the Roman Catholics. The character of that rebellion is written in the Stature-book. The preamble of the law, which contributed to its suppression, dcelared it to be "a wicked rebellion—that desolates and lays waste the country by the most savage and wanton violence, excess, and outrage—that has utterly set at defiance the civil power—and has stopped the ordinary course of justice and of the common law." This rebellion, thus characterized, was utterly defeated, and suppressed by force. There was the utmost indignation at the atrocities committed—there was every stimulant to retaliation and revenge—complete triumph on the part of the government,—but was there an end of the Catholic Question? No, Sir, so far from it, the ministers, by whose fortitude the rebellion was suppressed,—Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dundas, lord Cornwallis, and lord Castlereagh,—carried the measure of Union, as a preliminary to the settlement of the Catholic question, and resigned their offices almost before the dying embers of the rebellion were cold, because they could not also carry this very question of relief to the Roman Catholics. Will the issues, the successful issue of civil war, leave us in a better condition now than it left us in the year 1800? or shall we not, at its close, have to discuss this same question of concession—with embittered animosities—with a more imperious necessity for the adjustment of this question—and with a diminished chance of effecting that adjustment on safe and satisfactory principles.

One calculation I have omitted—but it is too important to be passed in silence—I mean the state of Protestant feeling and opinion in Ireland. On the last occasion on which the Catholic question was agitated, of the sixty-four members for counties, sixty-one actually voted;—forty-five were in favour of concession, sixteen opposed to it, being a majority of the county representation of nearly three to one. Of the total representation for Ireland, one hundred in number, ninety-four members voted; sixty-one for concession, thirty-three against it. The member for the University of Dublin, the two members for the city of Cork, the members for Limerick, for Waterford, for Galway, for Drogheda—all voted for concession. Take another indication of Protestant opinion. The declaration which grew out of the Protestant meeting recently held at the Rotunda in Dublin. That declaration earnestly implores the legislature to adjust this long-agitated question, as the only means that are now left of giving peace to Ireland. It bears, among many hundred signatures of the highest respectability, the names of two dukes, seven marquisses, twenty-seven earls, all possessed of property in Ireland, or locally interested in the welfare of that country. With such a division of Protestant opinion, are we fighting this battle on advantageous terms? Are we promoting, the true interest of our own establishment, by continuing to enlist on the side of the Roman Catholics a great majority of the Irish representation, and a great portion of the Protestant wealth and intelligence of Ireland?

Above all, such being the present state of Protestant opinion in Ireland in respect to the policy of conferring all the privileges of the constitution upon the Roman Catholics, could a government, pledged against any further concessions, and prepared to retract some of the franchises already granted, conduct with satisfaction the administration of Irish affairs? could it contend against the resistance of the united body of Roman Catholics—that resistance encouraged and supported by a powerful alliance of Protestant influence?

Sir, I here close this part of my argument, the double object of which has been to show; first, that the principle of a neutral government must be abandoned; secondly, that an united government, prepared to offer permanent and unqualified resistance to concession, cannot be formed in the present state of parties, and of public opinion, with a prospect of maintaining its ground, and of administering, with satisfaction and success, the affairs of Ireland.

If these deductions be fairly drawn from the course of reasoning which I have pursued, there remains one only alternative—the adjustment of the Catholic question on the principle recommended in the speech from the throne. Whatever may be the objections in the abstract to such an adjustment, if any man be satisfied that under all the existing circumstances of the country, there is more hazard in continued resistance, than in the settlement of the question, that man is justified, he is truly consistent in changing his course, and in listening to terms of accommodation which he may have heretofore rejected.

This is the conclusion to which I myself have come. Compelled to give advice to the Crown under circumstances of no ordinary difficulty, I have, in concurrence with my colleagues, given advice in conformity with that conclusion; and I have been required to take the responsibility, and to make the sacrifices inseparable from the adoption of that course, which appears to the king's government less pregnant with danger than any other that now remains to us.

Charged with this arduous task, I now approach the most important part of my duty;—the explanation of the measures by which his majesty's servants propose to carry into effect the recommendation of his Majesty's Speech. I will not disguise the difficulties which are to be encountered. Some there are, urged with great confidence, the existence of which I cannot admit, but still those that really exist are many and formidable. Two preliminary objections have been urged, which if valid would seem to preclude even the consideration of the subject. The first, that this is a question not of policy but of religion; the second, that the Coronation Oath is an insuperable obstacle to the relief from Roman Catholic disabilities. I must totally deny the validity of either of these objections.

This question, at least the measures I have to propose for its adjustment, are measures of state policy, and of state policy exclusively; they are not calculated to shock any religious scruples. They will imply no sanction, they will disclaim all encouragement of any religious doctrines from which our own established church revolts. They rest upon this broad principle, that there is less of danger under the present state of affairs to the spiritual and temporal interest of that church, in removing those civil disabilities which affect a portion of his majesty's subjects, than in continuing those disabilities.

But, Sir, if I were to admit that religious considerations are deeply involved in this question, I would ask of those, most strenuous for arguing it mainly upon religious grounds, what progress have we made in Ireland in the propagation and establishment of religious truth, under the system of penal and disqualifying laws? Where are our conversions? In what part of the world is the adherence to the errors against which we protest more inveterate than it is in Ireland? Let us maturely consider, whether penalties and disabilities may not have enlisted pride on the side of conscience—may not have deterred the rich and powerful from a conformity that is suspicious, so long as it is profitable—may not have raised defences round prejudice and superstition, which have been and will continue to be impenetrable by terror or force?

Be the cause what it may, the fact is certain, that reformation in Ireland has hitherto made no advance. We lose nothing, we endanger nothing in this respect by the change of system; but on the other hand, let us cherish the hope that increased intercourse between Protestant and Roman Catholic will inspire feelings of mutual charity and good will—that the agents of Protestant benevolence will be regarded with less of suspicion and distrust—that truth, moral and religious, will have a freer scope for exertion—that the Protestant faith, by confiding in its own intrinsic purity, in the progress of knowledge, in the love and affection of the people, may find an energy and expansive force, which it has not found, in Ireland at least, in the monopoly of civil privileges.

If this question were to be argued, as I deny that it ought to be argued, as a question of religion, I greatly doubt whether the issue of fair argument upon that exclusive ground would not be in favour of the measures of relief.

With respect to the other preliminary objection the Coronation Oath, I shall say little. During the many years that I have opposed concession to the Roman Catholics, I have uniformly disclaimed all concurrence in such an objection. It appears to me that the Coronation Oath is any thing but a barrier to the adoption of measures, which may be, as I believe these are—under the existing circumstances of the country—conducive to the interests of the church establishment. Mr. Pitt, lord Kenyon, lord Liverpool, almost every public man of eminence, have left their opinions upon record, that the removal of the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholic is perfectly compatible with the obligations of the Coronation Oath.

That there are real difficulties in the way of a settlement of the Catholic Question, no man is more disposed to admit than I am. But if it be necessary that the question should be settled, we must take the course which others before us have taken; we must "construe the times to their necessities," and effect a great object at the expense of minor considerations.

No doubt there are difficulties; but what great measure, which has stamped its name upon the era of its adoption, has been carried through without objections and obstacles, insuperable, if they had been abstractedly considered? What was the Revolution itself, but a violation of principles, which would have been respected in ordinary times, and under ordinary circumstances.

How was the union with Scotland carried? By an overwhelming, conviction, that it was indispensable to the peace and concord of the two kingdoms. It was this conviction that reconciled a powerful kingdom to the sacrifice of nominal independence; to the outrage of those high and honourable feelings which were associated with its ancient history, its separate monarchy, its peculiar form of legislature and government. Our difficulties may be great, but they are nothing as compared with those which obstructed such a measure as the first incorporate union between the two kingdoms.

What justified the Septennial Act? the prolongation by the House of Commons of its own existence, beyond the period for which it was elected. That which is the true justification of every political measure in which no question of moral obligation is involved, the preference of the greater good, or the avoidance of the greater evil.

In more recent periods of our history, the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in Scotland; the nomination of a Regent by an Act of Parliament, to which the King could not be, personally, a party; the Union with Ireland; are all great measures of policy, to which objections were made that would have been fatal, and justly fatal, if weighed separately, and if judged by the rules applicable to ordinary occasions. We must contemplate the measure I am about to develope, in the same spirit in which our predecessors acted under similar circumstances, we must look at the end to be achieved, and the danger to be averted, we must be content to make mutual sacrifices, if they are essential to the attainment of a paramount object; and must withdraw objections to separate parts of a comprehensive scheme, if, by insisting on these objections, we should endanger its final accomplishment.

The plan for adjusting the Catholic Question, and of improving the condition of Ireland, which I am now to detail, is that plan on which the king's government agreed, after mature deliberation, before the session of parliament was opened. Nothing that has subsequently passed has diverted the government from its course. No menace of opposition has induced them to modify or to abandon any part of the general measure. It is proposed on the responsibility of the government: it is the result of no compact with any party, or with any individuals. The Roman Catholics have not been consulted in respect to it, and for two sufficient reasons: first, because it is better suited to the dignity of legislation, that it should be independent of previous understandings and compacts with the parties whom it is to affect; and secondly, because it is not fair upon the Roman Catholics themselves, to require them to give their previous assent to the conditions or securities or restrictions with which it may be necessary to accompany measures of relief.

There is also another reason to which I must advert. If we make a compact, we seem to relinquish the right of future legislation in respect to the Roman Catholic Religion. Now, one great advantage of this measure will be, that it will enable us to assume our proper position, with respect to every interest in Ireland, and to guard against new dangers, if new dangers should occur, by any precautions or securities that the public interests may require.

The measures which I propose for granting relief to the Roman Catholics are founded upon two great principles: The abolition of civil distinctions on account of the religious creed of the Roman Catholics; and the maintenance, intact and inviolate, of the integrity of the Protestant Church, its worship, its discipline, and its government. These measures will restore the equality of civil rights; but they will give no favour or encouragement to any form of religious worship, excepting that which is incorporated by fundamental laws with the constitution of the state, and which claims the respect, veneration, and affection of a Protestant people. It is needless, Sir, for me to explain the existing state of the law, as it bears upon the Roman Catholics of England, Ireland, and Scotland. It is known to every one whom I address, that the law affecting the Roman Catholics in each branch of the empire is different: that the Irish Roman Catholics are the most favoured, the Roman Catholics of Scotland the least. I propose to place them all, as to civil privilege, upon the same footing, the footing of equality. I am well aware of the provisions of the Act of Union with Scotland, of the enactments which require that persons electing and elected to seats in the legislature, shall be Protestants, excluding Papists, expressly, by name. But who would wish that this great work shall be left incomplete by a rigid adherence to the letter of the Act of Union, and by continuing exclusion in that part of the United Kingdom, wherein the Roman Catholics are the least formidable, and where there is hardly a conceivable danger?

It would be repugnant to every generous feeling, and to the dictates of common sense, to continue disabilities upon the Roman Catholics of Scotland, whose conduct has been uniformly patient, loyal, and submissive to the laws, after the complete removal of similar disabilities in England and Ireland.

Before, Sir, I speak of political privilege, I must advert to the laws relating to the possession of property by the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom. The prevailing impression is, that every penal law, with respect to property has been repealed. This is not the case; the penal laws, as to property, still survive, and the Roman Catholics are only relieved from their operation upon taking the oaths with certain formalities, which are required by the several acts that relate to this subject. The Roman Catholic, who, through accident or inadvertence, omits to take the oaths, is subject to the penal laws in regard to property. The title to it is thus rendered insecure. There appears no reason why the Roman Catholic should not hold property, real or personal, upon the same terms and conditions upon which other subjects of the king hold it; and for the common benefit of the Roman Catholic proprietor, and of the Protestant or Roman Catholic purchaser, or heir, I propose to repeal the operation of every penal law which has a bearing upon the tenure or acquisition of property.

Now, Sir, as to political privilege. I say at once the whole question turns upon admission to Parliament. Without this concession every other will be useless, perhaps injurious; because the grant of other privileges, if this be withheld, will give no present contentment, and it will diminish the means, by which the grant of this further privilege can be effectually resisted. If we are to relinquish the system of exclusion, let us secure the advantages of concession, if we are to settle the Catholic Question, let us settle it, at once and for ever—settle it, I mean so far as political rights are concerned, by the restoration of equality. There is no intermediate position, defensible upon principle, between the maintenance of the present civil disabilities in Ireland, and their complete removal. Either policy—continued resistance or final adjustment—is far preferable to an imperfect grant of privilege, which leaves behind it "A Catholic Question," and ensures a renewed struggle for equal civil capacity.

The bill will, therefore, expressly provide for the admission of the Roman Catholics to seats in the two Houses of Parliament. It has been proposed to limit the numbers so admissible; but I doubt the practicability and expediency of affixing any precise limitation to the numbers. It would be extremely difficult to execute a measure of this nature, to devise the means by which, supposing at a general election a larger number of Roman Catholics were returned than the number prescribed by law as qualified to sit and vote, a selection should be made, and the returns to Parliament of a portion of the whole number should be declared invalid. But I doubt the expediency of the limitation, if it be practicable. It would have a tendency to alienate from us the limited body of Roman Catholic members—to unite them into a compact phalanx, bound to act together for the promotion of Roman Catholic interests, by new obligations of honour and fidelity imposed by our law, which, by restricting their number, compelled them to find a compensation in increased zeal and devotion. I would admit them, therefore, on the same footing, the same principle of equality, on which we now admit the Dissenter from the Church of England.

Another proposal has been made, by a right hon. friend of mine,^* made from the best motives, and supported with an ingenuity, ability, and research, worthy of the motives and of the character of its author. My right hon. friend has proposed, with a view to calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Roman Catholic member should be disqualified by law from voting on matters relating, directly or indirectly, to the interests of the Established Church. There appear to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal. In the first place, it is dangerous to establish the precedent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exercised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand what are the questions which affect the interests of the Church. A question which has no immediate apparent connection with the Church, might have a practical bearing upon its welfare ten times more important than another question which might appear directly to concern it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic from giving his individual vote, you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the power of speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a jealous and distrusting, but ineffectual precaution, you tempt him to exercise to your prejudice the remaining power of which you cannot, or do not, propose to deprive him. I believe there is more of real security in confidence, than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccompanied by effectual guards. For these reasons, I am unwilling to deprive the Roman Catholic member of either House of parliament of any privilege of free discussion, and free exercise of judgment, which belongs to other members of the legislature.

^* Mr. Wilmot Horton.

It is desirable that I should here explain the nature of the Oath, which it is proposed to administer to the Roman Catholic as the test of his civil worth, in the place of those oaths and declarations, by which he is at present excluded. It is proposed to repeal altogether for parliament, and for office generally, the Declaration against Transubstantiation. There is no object in retaining it as a test to be taken by the king's subjects in respect to any office or franchise for which the Roman Catholic is to be here after qualified. It was applied originally, solely as the instrument of exclusion. It is the mere abjuration of belief in certain doctrinal tenets of the Roman Catholic faith; and I believe there are few Protestants, who would not have rejoiced in being relieved from the necessity of making that declaration as a qualification for the enjoyment of a merely civil privilege, even if it had been determined to continue Roman Catholic exclusion, and if other means of effecting it could have been devised. But when exclusion is to cease, let us be spared the pain of pronouncing an opinion, for mere temporal purposes, in regard to the mysteries of religion, and branding as idolatrous the belief of others.

The Oath of Supremacy, that oath which denies to any foreign state, prelate or potentate, any jurisdiction, temporal or spiritual, within this realm, I propose to retain. The enactment of this oath, at least of one corresponding to it, was coeval with the reformation, and it constituted the only test to which a Roman Catholic could object during the whole interval that elapsed between the first year of the reign of Elizabeth, and the twenty-fifth of Charles 2nd.

The time has been when Roman Catholics in England have not refused to take the Oath of Supremacy; and when invidious distinctions shall have been removed, and with them a sensitive jealousy on points of honour,—that time may return. In the mean while, the bill will provide an oath, to the effect following: an oath to which the Roman Catholic can have no valid or conscientious objection, which will incorporate the substance of the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, and will disavow all belief in the temporal or civil jurisdiction within this realm of any foreign authority.

"I, A. B., do declare, That I profess the Roman Catholic Religion. I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth, and will defend him to the utmost of my power against all con spiracies and attempts whatever, which shall be made against his person, crown or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them: And I do faithfully promise to maintain, support and defend, to the utmost in my power, the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an Act, intituled, And Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of these realms: And I do further declare, That it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever: And I do declare, That I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. I do swear, That I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws And I do hereby dis- claim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm: And I do solemnly swear, That I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in this kingdom: And I do solemnly in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this Declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this Oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever."

The Roman Catholic who will take this Oath surely gives us every security which an oath can give, that the difference in religious faith will not affect his allegiance to the king, or his capacity for civil service. It will perhaps be observed, that this form of Oath omits some abjurations and disclaimers which are inserted in the oaths now required from Roman Catholics. Sir, It does so, and purposely and advisedly. Why insult the Roman Catholic, on whom we are about to confer the equality of civil privilege, by compelling him to reject, in terms, "the impious position that it is lawful to murder Heretics," or to record his detestation of the "unchristian principle that faith is not to be kept with Heretics?" We cannot suspect the Roman Catholics of these countries, of entertaining such opinions; and if we do suspect them, we have been wrong heretofore in giving them their existing privileges. I will neither detract from the force of those disclaimers, which the oath will contain, by the addition of useless incumbrances; nor mortify, by galling and unjust suspicions, the fellow-subjects whom we are inviting, in the spirit of peace and confidence, to share the blessings of equal and undiscriminating laws.

In respect, Sir, to offices, this bill will admit the Roman Catholics to all corporate offices, and the enjoyment of all municipal advantages.

It will admit the Roman Catholics to one great class of office, to which it has always appeared to me that a claim might have been urged on stronger grounds than those on which the claim to mere political office could be rested—I mean, that class of office which is concerned in the administration of criminal and civil justice.

The army and the navy are already practically open to the Roman Catholics, without restriction. There is nothing, I believe, in law, which would prevent a Roman Catholic from exercising the command which is at present held by lord Hill—as the general commanding his majesty's forces.

But, Sir, with respect to all these offices—to corporate offices—to offices in the courts of justice—to military appointments—aye, and to the highest civil offices—we have, in my opinion, decided the question, the moment we have resolved on the admission of the Roman Catholic to Parliament.

The eligibility of the Roman Catholic for civil office, becomes a "security" for the Protestant Establishments—so soon as you have determined to throw open to him the doors of Parliament. You want to secure his loyalty to the king. Do not tell him that he must be a democrat. Do not tell him that he may acquire power and distinction by courting popular favour, and by the devotion to popular interests—but that he is no fit subject of a monarchy—that the Crown must, by law, view him with suspicion and distrust—that no zeal for the service of the public—no attachment to the person or government of the Sovereign—no gratification of, perhaps, his own hereditary bias in favour of prerogative, can qualify him for the favour and confidence of the Crown in high civil trust.

If we remove the restrictions which the law has imposed upon the exercise of popular rights—let us, for our own interests, and our own protection, remove, at the same time, the restraints upon the prerogative of the Crown. Upon every ground, therefore, the policy of making a final adjustment of the question—of founding our measure on a great and comprehensive principle—of giving a fair scope to that grace and influence which, for wise purposes, are vested in the Crown—let us confer on the Roman Catholic, not the right of admission to every office, but a qualification to be admitted, if a Protestant king shall desire to admit him.

It will, nevertheless, be quite consistent with this principle to exclude the Roman Catholic from a certain limited number of offices, which have special and peculiar duties attached to them, connected with the patronage of the Church, or with education, or the administration of the Ecclesiastical Law.

The Roman Catholic is jealous of our interference with the appointments and discipline of his Church, and we have, at least, as good a right to take security for the maintenance of the integrity of our own.

This Bill Will, therefore, exclude the Roman Catholic from the office of Regent, and from exercising, under any circumstances, the delegated authority of the Crown; from the office of Lord Chancellor, in England and Ireland respectively, and from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

It will not qualify the Roman Catholic to hold any office, place or dignity connected with the Church Establishments of the United Kingdom, or with the Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature, with the Universities, or the great public schools, or schools of ecclesiastical foundation. All local statutes of the Universities, and the power of making such statutes, will be preserved inviolate.

The laws respecting the right of presentation to ecclesiastical benefices will remain unrepealed and unvaried; and provision will be made for intrusting, exclusively to Protestant authorities, the right of Church patronage, belonging to any civil office that may hereafter be held by a Roman Catholic.

The Roman Catholic will be disabled under severe penalties from advising the Crown, directly or indirectly, in respect to the grants of Church preferments; and generally, from the exercise of any influence derived from civil office over ecclesiastical appointments.

Such is the principle and the outline of the measure, so far as it concerns the removal of political disabilities.

I now approach the consideration of that important branch of this subject which includes the securities and restrictions by which it is fitting that this measure of relief should be accompanied. We have given freely to the Roman Catholic, and we have a right to require in return, that on his part every concession shall be freely made that does not invade his conscientious scruples, or break in upon that great principle of our measure of relief—the civil equality of all classes. We do not desire merely to gratify the Roman Catholic. We desire to make an equitable arrangement that shall promote the concord of all his majesty's subjects, and shall give satisfaction to the reasonable and the moderate, however it may be condemned by extreme opinions on opposite sides.

I say at once, that we must look for real security in the regulation of the elective franchise of Ireland, in a decided uncompromising reform of the abuses to which the present exercise of that franchise is liable. It is in vain to deny or to conceal the truth in respect to that franchise. It was, until a late period, the instrument through which the landed aristocracy—the resident and the absentee proprietor, maintained their local influence—through which property had its weight, its legitimate weight, in the national representation. The landlord has been disarmed by the priest; and the fear of spiritual denunciations, acting in unison with the excited passions and feelings of the multitude, has already severed, in some cases, and will sever in others, unless we interfere to prevent it, every tie between the Protestant proprietor and the lower class of his Roman Catholic tenantry. That weapon which he has forged with so much care, and has heretofore wielded with such success, has broke short in his hand.

Look at the elections in Monaghan, in Waterford, in Louth, and Clare, and then consider whether it will tend to the security of Protestant interests to leave matters as they are, neither granting relief, nor imposing restraint; and also, whether, if we grant ample relief, it be not equally just and expedient, to restore to property its legitimate weight in elections, and to guard against the future abuse of spiritual influence?

This measure of a regulation of the franchise is defensible on two grounds—first, as an indispensable security, a necessary concomitant, on the complete extension of privilege—and secondly, as a measure politic, if considered abstractedly, being calculated to improve the civil and moral condition of Ireland, by discouraging the subdivision of law for mere political objects, by diminishing the temptations to perjury, and by giving weight to enlightened and independent opinion.

The Roman Catholic, as a Roman Catholic, has no right to object to this measure. He would have that right if the restriction were unequal in its application; if it curtailed his existing privilege, leaving untouched that of the Protestant: but the restriction extends to all, and admits no distinction between the Protestant and Roman Catholic voter. Like the measure of relief, it is founded on the principle of equal justice.

It may not be immaterial to compare the number of registered voters in some counties in Ireland, with the number of votes actually given at contested county elections in England. The following list

I have not the list of registered votes in the counties of Ireland, with which I meant to compare the numbers above-mentioned; but I believe that there are many counties in Ireland of which fourteen or fifteen thousand votes are registered, and some counties in which there are upwards of twenty thousand. Assuming that the present constituent body in an English county fairly expresses the sense of it; and comparing the amount of property, of education, and intelligence, in the counties of England and Ireland respectively, with the number of voters which they contain, the disproportion is very striking.

There is, Sir, a precedent for the measure I propose, so exactly applicable, that, before I enter into further explanation of its details, I must avail myself of the advantage which that precedent affords. The regulation of the elective franchise is not new and unprecedented. The Statute-Book records the reasons upon which, in former periods of history, it has been carried into effect; and impartial witnesses have left upon record their opinions of the

contains an account of the numbers polled during some of the severe contests which have taken place in this country within a recent period:

practical bearing of such regulation upon the constitution of this country.

The present elective franchise in England has for its foundation an act of parliament, which passed in the reign of Henry 6th, which raised the qualification to its present amount; namely, forty shillings—a sum in those days representing a very different amount of value from what it now represents. The act explains the necessity which called for and justified its enactment, in terms so appropriate to the case of Ireland, that no fitter preamble for the present measure could be devised. The preamble of the act of Henry 6th is as follows: "Whereas the elections of knights of the shires to come to the parliaments of our lord the King in many counties of the realm of England, have now of late been made by very great, outrageous, and excessive number of people, dwelling within the same counties of the realm of England: of the which most part was of people of small substance, and of no value, whereof every of them pretended a voice, equivalent as to such elections to be made with the most worthy knights and esquires, dwelling within the same counties, whereby manslaughters, riots, batteries and divisions among the gentlemen and other people of the same counties, shall very likely arise and be, unless convenient and due remedy be provided in this behalf;"—the effect of this act, upon the constituent body of England, and upon the expression of public opinion, has been described by a writer, who, from his own sentiments on popular privileges, and from the peculiar relation in which he stood to others, is an unbiassed and unsuspicious testimony in favour of the restriction on the franchise.

There is an historical discourse on the Constitution of England, written by Mr. Nathaniel Bacon, the confidential friend and executor of the learned Selden—in which he discusses the consequences of the act of Henry 6th, on the constituent body of this country—and in which, as the work was mainly composed from materials left by Selden, Mr. Bacon probably expresses their common opinion:—"Thus," he observes, "the manner of election is reduced, but the electors are more considerable; for hitherto any man of English blood promiscuously, had right to give or receive a vote, although his residence was over the wide world: thus, the freemen yielded up their liberty of election to the freeholders, possibly not knowing what they did. This change was no less good than great. For—First, Those times were no times for any great measure of civility. The preface of the statute shews, that the meanest held himself as good a man as the greatest in the county, and this tended to parties, tumult, and bloodshed. Second, Where the multitude prevail, the meaner sort are upon the upper hand, and these (generally ignorant) cannot judge of persons nor times, but being, for the most part, led by faction, or affection, rather than by right understanding, made their elections, and thereby the general council of the nation, less generous and noble. Third, There is no less equity in the change than policy; for what can be more reasonable than that those men should have their votes in election of the public council, whose estates are chargeable with the public taxes and assessments? But, above all the rest, this advancing of the freeholders in this manner of election, was beneficial to the freemen of England, although, perchance, they considered not thereof; and this will more clearly appear, by the consideration of these three particulars:—First, It abated the power of the lords and great men, who held the inferior sort at their discretion, and much of what they had by their vote. Second, It rendered the body of the people more brave; for, advancing of the freeholder above the freemen, raised the spirit of the meaner sort to public regards, and with an ambition to aspire to become freeholder. And thus the meaner sort, sifted to the very bran, became less considerable, and more subject to the coercive power; when the freeholder, now advanced in degree, becomes more careful to maintain correspondence with the laws. And, Thirdly, by this means, the law makes a separation of the inferior clergy and cloistered people from this service, wherein they might serve particular ends much, and Rome more." Coupling this description of the consequences of the statute with the preamble of the act which curtailed the franchise, it seems to me that nothing can be more apposite or appropriate to the subject. The measure I propose, will have the effect adverted to by Bacon. It will remedy the evil of the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland, and will raise the character, respectability, and independence, of the real freehold interest of the counties. It will give an independent constituency, in the place of a dependent one—of one either under the control of the landlords or the priests. I do not say, and I cannot, Sir, that the effect will be, to diminish the legitimate influence of the Roman Catholic body; but I assert, that the spiritual control exercised over the voter is illegitimate, and that it ought not to exist. Before I ask the House to come to a decision upon this part of the bill, I entreat every honourable member to read the evidence taken before the Committees of the Lords and Commons in 1825. The evidence before the Lords was not, I believe, accessible, when we last discussed this question. Let gentlemen go over the evidence given by every man examined—Roman Catholic as well as Protestant, Layman as well as Ecclesiastic—and then I will ask, whether there is not a body, of concurrent and conclusive testimony, as to the evils arising out of the present state of the elective franchise in Ireland? Practically, it differs in every respect from the elective franchise in England. In this country, the freeholds generally are held in fee-simple. There is scarcely in Ireland a single in stance, out of thousands, where the freehold is not derivative and held on lease for life. I do not propose to alter the character of the freehold in Ireland. It would be too great an innovation were we to endeavour to assimilate the system in Ireland to that of England. The system, there, is for landlords to lease lands to middle-men, and the freehold is created through intermediate channels. Any attempt, therefore, as I before remarked, to change the system, would be too violent an alteration, and not accommodated to the circumstances of the country.

In the evidence you will find, that various opinions were entertained in respect to the amount to which the franchise should be raised. Many individuals, whose judgment is entitled to the greatest weight, were decidedly in favour of raising it to 20l.; and they thought that, by so doing, a respectable class of yeomanry would be created, exercising at elections an independent voice. For my own part, I think it would be too much, to ascend at once from 40s. to 20l.; and the qualification of 10l. is an intermediate one, with which I am inclined to be satisfied. It would be very difficult to estimate, from the existing returns, what would be the number of persons at present entitled to vote, if the franchise were raised to 10l.: it is impossible to deny that it would be very considerable. The registered number of freeholds of the annual value of 50l. or 20l. would afford no criterion by which a judgment on this point could be formed; and there being no intermediate registration between freeholds of 20l. and 40s., all those of 10l., 12l., or any sum below 20l., are registered as 40s. freeholders.

I propose, Sir, in the first place, that the determination of the freehold should not, as at present, rest only upon the oath of the party. Nothing can be so objectionable as that practice in Ireland, which leaves every thing to the oath of individuals; it has introduced into that country, I ant afraid, a great deal of lax swearing—or I should rather use the terms of fraud and perjury. Any man may go before two magistrates and register his vote, merely upon the responsibility of his oath, however ignorant he may be of the nature of the sacred obligation. The construction of the law, too, is this—not that the man's freehold is worth forty shillings a-year, but that he would rather remain in it than accept forty shillings a-year in exchange; thus, numbers of freeholders are constantly made where the interest is unquestionably less than forty shillings a-year. A man who holds a lease for a term of years, however long, has no power of granting freeholds; but numberless freeholds are nevertheless created and sworn to, although the lessor had no legal power to create a freehold interest. The principle I shall select will go far to remedy this evil; every man who has a ten-pound freehold shall be entitled to his registration and vote; but means will be provided of ascertaining whether the party claiming has, in fact, such a freehold.

I propose, that the lowest amount of the qualification, entitling a freeholder to vote at an election for counties in Ireland, shall be ten pounds instead of forty shillings; and that, immediately after the passing of the act, there shall be a registration of such bonâ fide freeholds in each county in Ireland.

I propose, that the assistant barrister of each county shall be charged with the duty of inquiring into the title and the value of the freehold, in respect to which a right of voting is claimed, and of deciding on the registration of the vote. The right of voting to accrue immediately after registration—should that registration take place at the first session, to be specially held immediately after the passing of the act; and six months after a registration at any future sessions. As the law at present stands, the freeholder cannot vote at an election until twelve months after the registry.

It may be objected, that undue power is hereby conferred upon an officer appointed by the Crown, and removeable at the will of the Crown. I do not rely, for an answer to this objection, merely upon the high judicial character of the assistant barristers of Ireland—upon the exemplary manner in which they discharge their present important functions—or upon the universal satisfaction with which their decisions are received by the public. The bill will provide, I trust, an effectual check upon any possible abuse of power, by giving, in every case, the right of appeal to the freeholder, whether his claim to register be rejected by the assistant barrister, upon the ground of defective title to the freehold, or of its insufficient value. On the question of title, the appeal will be given to the judge of assize. On the question of fact, namely, the amount of value of the freehold, the freeholder will have a right to appeal to a jury.

I propose to make no distinction between the different freehold tenures in Ireland, but to disqualify the freeholder whose title is derived from a possession in fee-simple, as well as from a lease for lives. The law at present recognises no superior claim, so far as the right to vote is concerned, on the part of the fee-simple freeholder. The abuse of this species of freehold has been as great, in some parts of Ireland, as of any other; and the abuse would be multiplied ten-fold, if the existing law, in respect to the fee-simple freehold, were left as it is. The freehold qualification of life interest having been raised to ten pounds, the protection of one favoured class of forty-shilling freeholders—every other class being disfranchised—would have the appearance of injustice, and might cause much dissatisfaction and discontent.

It is not proposed—by this act, at least—to affect the franchise in corporate towns, or in any other places in Ireland, sending members to parliament, excepting counties. In corporate towns in which the right and the practice exists of qualifying non-resident freemen to vote, it would not be consistent with the principles of justice and impartiality, on which the whole measure is founded, to raise the qualification of the freehold interest, unless some concurrent regulations were made for limiting the corporate right as to non-resident freemen. If the right of conferring the freedom, excepting in special instances of public service, were limited to resident inhabitants—and if the abuses in the exercise of the forty-shilling freehold were at the same time corrected, and the right of voting from a freehold confined to the bonâ fide possessor of it—it would no doubt be a great improvement in the present system, and one that may be well deserving of future consideration. On account, however, of the difference in local circumstances of the cities and towns, full inquiry, and mature deliberation, would probably be requisite, before a satisfactory arrangement on this head could be made.

I admit at once the full force of the objection which will be urged against that part of the measure I propose, by which the existing right of voting is taken from the freeholder. No doubt it is a vested right, but it is a right that differs in its character from the rights of property, and other strictly private rights. It is a public trust given for public purposes—to be touched, no doubt, with great caution and reluctance; but still, which we are competent to touch, if the public interest manifestly demands the sacrifice.

It will be asked, what is the compensation which you give to the parties, from whom you take a privilege vested in them by law? What return is to be made to the Roman Catholic freeholder, whose franchise is to be abolished—and still more to the Protestant freeholder, by whom it has been never abused? My answer is, that ample compensation is offered to both.

I would say to the Roman Catholic, "the stigma is about to be removed, of which you have se loudly complained. Every invidious distinction will shortly be abolished; the avenues to honour, and power, and distinction, are about to be opened to you and your descendants; you will stand erect on the footing of perfect equality. Compared with this, what is the miserable privilege which you are asked to relinquish, which has made you the instrument, at one time, of your landlord—and another of your priest—and has distracted you between the conflicting claims of gratitude and temporal interest on the one hand, and of spiritual obedience on the other."

To the Protestant I would say, "We restore to you your just weight in the representation—you are now overborne by a herd of voters, the voice of each of whom is equal to yours—you are foremost in that industrious, honest, and independent class, whose influence will be mainly increased by the disfranchisement of poverty and ignorance."

To both—to the Protestant and Roman Catholic I would say, "Look for a still higher compensation. Cherish the hope, that the sources of civil discord may be dried up;—that you may be freed from mutual fears and jealousies; that a new field may be opened for the enterprise and capital of England;—and that you may find, in the gradual spreading of tranquillity and improvement, your own individual conditions elevated—and ample compensation made to you for any privilege you now relinquish, in the increased value and secure enjoyment of whatever you possess,"

Sir, there is but one more subject to which I have to address myself—the question of Ecclesiastical Securities. The de- mand of such securities, as well as the nature of them, must, I apprehend, mainly depend upon the preliminary consideration—What shall be the future relation of the Roman Catholic Church to the State? Will you incorporate it, in any degree, with the state, and give to it a qualified establishment? Or, will you reserve all marks of public favour and indulgence for your own established church—maintain it in the possession of exclusive privilege—and disclaim all connection with any other form of religious worship?

I am not insensible to the force of those arguments which have been urged in favour of admitting the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, to a qualified and subordinate establishment, by giving stipends to the Roman Catholic priesthood, from the public funds. This was the measure contemplated by Mr. Pitt in 1801, and uniformly urged by lord Castlereagh, as an arrangement which ought to accompany the removal of the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics. But, on the other hand, there are formidable objections to such an arrangement.

Other measures of regulation and control must accompany the pecuniary provision for the priesthood; and if the preliminary consent of the Papal See were indispensable to the satisfactory settlement of such measures, that circumstance alone, would constitute—at present, at least—an insuperable difficulty. In undertaking the adjustment of this great question, we cannot consent to admit any foreign power to be a party to our domestic legislation. We can enter into no negotiation with the Court of Rome, in respect to the conditions on which we are willing to give to the Roman Catholics the benefit of the constitution. We must decide that question for ourselves, determined to claim nothing, by way of restriction or security, save that which is reasonable and just; but, prepared to insist upon that which we do claim.

There is another, and an equally powerful reason, for declining to intermeddle with the discipline or government of the Church of Rome.

Such interference, if accompanied by measures for connecting that church with the state, would provoke much greater objections throughout the country, and would give much greater offence, than the mere relief of the Roman Catholic from civil incapacities.

If we treat the Catholic question as a question of policy, and confine ourselves to the grant of civil privilege, we shall rest the discussion upon grounds totally different from those upon which we should have to discuss it, if we were to imply any sanction of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith, or to make public provision for the inculcation of its peculiar doctrines.

It must not be forgotten, also, that the Roman Catholics themselves have, at various periods, expressed great discontent with the measures that have been suggested, for submitting their church to the control of the government. Our impression, therefore, is, that we are much more likely to give general satisfaction to the subjects of the king, Protestant and Roman Catholic, by disclaiming all connexion with the Roman Catholic religion—by leaving it on the footing of dissent—and by maintaining inviolate the exclusive establishment of the Protestant church, than by taking "Securities," as they are called, such as those which have been heretofore suggested.

We have, therefore, no Veto to propose. We ask for no control over the appointments of Roman Catholic bishops, and we disclaim all responsibility for the fitness of such appointments. We do not believe that the power given to the Crown by a Veto, would either have the advantage which its advocates have attributed to it, or would be open to the objections which have been urged against it by its opposers. On the one hand, it would merely give to the Crown a nominal but ineffectual control; and, on the other, it would not be, as has been apprehended by the Roman Catholics, vexatiously or capriciously used to the prejudice of their church. We willingly, therefore, relinquish a "Security" from which no real benefit will arise, but which might, after what has passed, detract from the grace and favour of the measures of relief.

So likewise with regard to the examination of the spiritual intercourse that subsists between the See of Rome and the Irish Roman Catholic Church. To such a power of examination to be vested in the hands of the government of this country, I am not at all sure whether or not an objection would be made by the Roman Catholics; but I do not desire to inspect the correspondence, and therefore feel no wish to raise the question. Being acquainted with the fact, that an intercourse in spiritual matters does exist between the Irish Roman Catholic church and the See of Rome—so far am I from thinking that a power of inspecting it would be satisfactory to the people of this country, that I imagine it would have a contrary effect; and so far from wishing to examine it, I had much rather (and I believe the majority of the country is influenced by the same desire) that the Secretary of State should have no more to do in the way of interference with the spiritual affairs of the Romish Church, than he has to do with the internal discipline and regulations of the Wesleyan Methodists. If the time shall ever arrive, when, from a change of circumstances, danger shall arise from the intercourse in question, I, for one, after the abolition of the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics, should have no hesitation in coming down to this House, and asking for a law to regulate or interdict any such intercourse, or to require all the correspondence that might be passing—every document, lay or spiritual—to be submitted to the inspection of his majesty's government. The great advantage of settling the Roman Catholic question, and composing the differences at present existing in Ireland, consists in this—that after we have set this matter at rest, we shall be enabled to demand and take any securities that may be necessary. We shall then be able to maintain a high, independent, and uncompromising tone towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and legislate for them as for others of his majesty's subjects. At present we cannot act thus, and the unsettled state of the Catholic question prevents us from taking the steps which might be necessary for the security of the Protestant Church.

There are, however, some points—in no respect trespassing on any legitimate priviliges or discipline that the religion of the Roman Catholics requires to be preserved inviolable—which may he so arranged and regulated as to afford great satisfaction, and a sense of security to the Protestant mind. With this view I think it fit to provide, that when Roman Catholics are admitted to the enjoyment of corporate offices, and other offices of a similar nature, under no circumstances whatsoever, shall the robes and other insignia of office be taken to or exhibitedin any other place of religious public worship than one belonging to the Protestant Established Church of England.

A practice has, occasionally, of late prevailed in Ireland, which is calculated to afford great, and I may add just, offence to Protestants—I allude to the practice of claiming and assuming, on the part of the Roman Catholic prelates, the names and titles of dignities belonging to the Church of England. I propose that the episcopal titles and names made use of in the Church of England, shall not be assumed by bishops of the Roman Catholic church. Bishops I call them, for bishops they are, and have, among other privileges, a right to exercise the power of ordination, which is perfectly valid, and is even recognised by our own church; but I maintain it is not seemly or decorous for them to use the styles and titles that properly belong to prelates of the Established Church—much less publicly and ostentatiously to assume them, as of late. This will be prevented in future.

There is another point, also, with respect to which the Bill will make a provision—I allude to certain societies and communities which have excited great suspicion and distrust in the minds of persons in this country: I mean the extension of orders and communities bound by monastic vows; more particularly of that order generally called the order of Jesuits. Sir, I do think that some provision upon this head is necessary. At present the individual members of such societies are not under the control of law, and with the existing communities I do not propose to interfere. However, it is manifestly right that we ought to know the numbers of these societies, and who are the members of them; and, with a view to obtain this information, government intends to make a provision for having the names and numbers of the individuals composing such communities registered.

We also require that communities, bound by monastic vows, shall not be extended in this country in future; and we mean to provide against the entrance among us of a class of men, against whom other countries have set their face; and who may, therefore, resort to this country in greater numbers on that account—I mean the order of Jesuits. Other countries have taken precautions against them—why should not we? The state of the law as now proposed to be established will give to every party belonging to these religious orders and communities the full enjoyment of the rights which they possess at present; it will confirm their existing privileges on a registration of their names and numbers. We have a clear right to take measures of security and precaution against the entrance of other members of these orders into the country, and against the extension of religious communities being under the control of foreign superiors, resident at the court of Rome. The state of the law, as it has hitherto existed on this subject in England—the expulsion of these communities from other states—their arrival here with considerable funds, which have been unwarrantably applied, by means of secret trusts, to the foundation of endowments in this country,—these circumstances have given rise to alarm and uneasiness among many persons, and are fit subjects for legislation. The bill to be introduced will, therefore, take precautions against the future arrival of Jesuits; will render a registration necessary of those who are here at present; and will prevent the extension of communities under religious or monastic vows which are in no way necessary to the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion.

Such, Sir, will be the principal heads of the measure, which it is the intention of his majesty's ministers to call upon parliament to adopt. I have not intentionally omitted any provision which it is meant that the intended Bill shall contain. I shall propose to the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, for the purpose of adopting a resolution which will be the foundation of a Bill for the admission of Roman Catholics to civil privileges, and of making the other regulations, the particulars of which I have detailed. After the resolution shall have been agreed to, I will move for leave to bring in a separate Bill, the object of which will be the regulation of the elective franchise.

I have now completed the task which I have undertaken, and shall devolve upon the House the duty of dispassionately considering the measures I have submitted for composing the troubles of Ireland. Let them be discussed with the moderation and temper befitting the character and the importance of the subject, with a due sense of the difficulties which the pursuit of any other course would have presented; but, above all, of the fearful consequences of rejecting this attempt at a final adjustment.

Sir, objections, solid objections, if considered abstractedly, may be brought forward against the details of every measure of an extensive and complicated nature, like the present. Depend upon it, we never shall settle the Catholic question, if every man is determined to settle it in his own way and according to his own peculiar views and wishes. We never shall settle it, unless we are prepared to make mutual concessions and sacrifices. I admit the possibility of danger from the grant of Relief, but I ask the Protestants whether there is not a prospect, that, by uniting the Protestant mind on this subject, we shall be able to find new and sufficient securities, against any difficulties that may possibly arise out of the settlement of this question. I ask the Roman Catholics to contemplate the extent of privilege that is conferred, and the sarrifices which we make, by consenting to repeal the laws which have given an exclusive character to the legislature and government of this country. Let them meet us in the same spirit, and manifest an anxious wish to allay every reasonable apprehension. God grant that the sanguine expectations of those who for so many years have advised this settlement may be fulfilled! God grant that the removal of the disabilities, that have so long affected our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, may be attended by the desired effect; and assuage the civil contentions of Ireland!—that, by the admission of the Roman Catholics to a full and equal participation in civil rights, and by the establishment of a free and cordial intercourse between all classes of his majesty's subjects, mutual jealousies may be removed; and that we may be taught, instead of looking at each other, as adversaries and opponents, to respect and value each other, and to discover the existence of qualities, on both sides, that were not attributed to either!

Perhaps I am not so sanguine as others, in my expectations of the future; but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, that I fully believe that the adjustment of this question, in the manner proposed, will give better and stronger securities to the Protestant interest and the Protestant establishment, than any that the present state of things admits of; and will avert evils and dangers impending and immediate. What motive, I ask, can I have, for the expression of these opinions, but the honest conviction of their truth?

watched the progress of events. I have seen, day by day, disunion and hatred increasing, and the prospects of peace obscured by the gloomy advance of discontent, and suspicion and distrust creeping on "step by step"—to quote the words of Mr. Grattan, "like the mist at the heels of the countryman." I well know that I might have taken a more popular and a more selfish course. I might have held language much more acceptable to the friends with whom I have long acted, and to the constituents whom I have lately lost. "His ego gratiora dictu alia esse scio; sed me vera pro gratis loqui, et si meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit. Vellem equidem vobis placere: sed multo malo vos salvos esse; qualicunque erga me animo futuri estis." In the course I have taken, I have been mainly influenced by the anxious desire to provide for the maintenance of Protestant Interests; and for the security of Protestant establishments. This is my defence—this is my consolation—this shall be my revenge.

Sir, I will hope for the best. God grant that the moral storm may be appeased—that the turbid waters of strife may be settled and composed—and that, having found their just level, they maybe mingled, with equal flow, in one clear and common stream. But, if these expectations are to be disappointed—if, unhappily, civil strife and contention shall survive the restoration of political privilege;—if there be something inherent in the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion which disdains equality, and will be satisfied with nothing but ascendancy—still, I am content to run the hazard of the change. The contest, if inevitable, will be fought for other objects, and with other arms. The struggle will be—not for the abolition of civil distinctions—but for the predominance of an intolerant religion.

Sir, I contemplate the progress of that struggle with pain; but I look forward to its issue with perfect composure and confidence. We shall have dissolved the great moral alliance that has hitherto given strength to the cause of the Roman Catholics. We shall range on our side the illustrious authorities which have heretofore been enlisted upon theirs;—the rallying cry of "Civil Liberty" will then be all our own. We shall enter the field with the full assurance of victory—armed with the consciousness a having done justice, and of being in the right—backed by the unanimous feeling of England—by the firm union of orthodoxy and dissent—by the applauding voice of Scotland; and, if other aid be requisite, cheered by the sympathies of every free state in either hemisphere, and by the wishes and the prayers of every free man, in whatever clime, or under whatever form of government his lot may have been cast. I move you, Sir,

"That the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the Laws imposing Civil Disabilities on His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects."

[Loud and protracted cheering followed the conclusion of the right hon. Secretary's Speech. It occupied more than four hours in the delivery. Throughout the right hon. gentleman was listened to with the most profound attention, and at times the cheers were so loud as to be heard in Westminster-hall and the passages leading to the lobby.]

rose amidst considerable disorder, occasioned by members hurrying from the House. Owing to this cause, and to the great impatience of the House, the hon. member was very indistinctly heard at the commencement of the speech. The hon. member observed, that the right hon. gentleman had put it strongly to the House in the course of his able speech, and had pressed it as a preliminary that things could not remain in their present situation. The right hon. gentleman also desired to know what answer could be given to that proposition? Abundance of answers might be found in the discussions which had taken place upon this question during the last ten or fifteen years. Indeed, he might be content to draw upon no other source than the right hon. gentleman's own speeches; which put it beyond doubt, that the peace of the country might be preserved, and the Protestant establishment maintained, without this innovation upon the constitution. The point which the right hon. gentleman now pressed had been repeatedly pressed against himself by Mr. Canning and others, and he had resisted it with great ability and success. This was, indeed, a day of triumph to the Catholic Association; and of pain, sorrow, and indignation, to those who, like himself, wished to maintain the Protestant establishment as it now existed, unaltered and unimpaired. Before he entered upon an examination of the provisions of the intended measure, he would recur to the observations made by the right hon. gentleman, with regard to the Catholic Association. For his part, when he heard the dangers which were admitted to exist by the right hon. gentleman, he could not help doubting whether those who had brought the country into such difficulties would not prove themselves blind guides. This Catholic Association had been suffered to assume a dangerous degree of importance. A bill had been brought in, so long ago as 1815, by the present chancellor of the Exchequer, to put down that body; so that the danger had been long foreseen. The bill, however, then introduced was completely ineffectual; and it had been proved to be so by the law officers of the Crown; for they never attempted to carry its provisions into effect. What was the duty of the government under such circumstances? The acts of the Catholic Association had been as flagrant as at any subsequent time. In 1825, Mr. Canning and Mr. Plunkett, those great advocates of the Roman Catholics had stated, that the present measure could not be carried, until the Catholic Association was put down; and they objected to that Association, not so much because it was objectionable in itself, as because it was an obstacle to the adjustment of the Catholic question. He was glad that a bill had been passed to put down the Catholic Association; for it was evidently an obstinate and factious body. It was contended, that this was a purely political question; but he denied it: and would contend, that it was a mixed question, for it was impossible, to separate its features. The constitution of the country made all the difference; and, he was therefore, entitled to say, that the question was religious as well as political. He knew not how any man holding a place in the legislature of this country could reconcile it to his sense of duty, to favour any measure likely to promote the present, much less the ulterior objects of the Roman Catholics. As to what those ulterior objects were, it would be absurd to affect ignorance. They were neither more nor less than the acquisition of the property of the Established Church in Ireland. Those were the ulterior objects of the Roman Catholics. Indeed, the Association itself did not attempt to deny that it had ulterior objects. When Roman Catholics were admitted to the situation of privy councillors no man could guarantee the safety of the Established Church, or the integrity of the constitution. Thus, he hesitated not to say, the principles, for which our ancestors had suffered so much, were trampled under foot, and the only security offered was some regulation about the 40s. freeholders, which was as gross an injustice with respect to them, as it would be inefficacious considered as a security. It was of the highest importance that the House and the country should observe the animus with which the Roman Catholics sought for these advantages; seeing that it could not be for the things themselves, but for the uses to which they might hereafter be made subservient. He would finally call the attention of the House to this—that, though the right hon. gentleman had dwelt at great length, and with considerable eloquence, upon the dangers which might ultimately arise from the rejection of the Catholic claims, he had left out of view the dangers that could not fail to spring from the present concession—dangers that he considered present, immediate, and pressing.

(member for Hull) said, that in the address of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, one observation had escaped him, which called for some notice from him and from those hon. members who thought with him upon this question. It was in consequence of that, and of that alone, that he then rose to occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes; and he was sure that when the House had those observations recalled to their mind, they would agree with him that he was justified in animadverting upon a certain portion of the right hon. gentleman's speech, wherein he had stated, that something like indifference had been manifested by gentlemen opposed to the claims of the Roman Catholics in remaining silent on the several discussions of the great and interesting question. Now, there could not be a more unfounded, he might say a more ungenerous charge. Honourable gentlemen opposed to the Catholic claims remained silent, conscious, not of any want of zeal in the good cause, but of their own incapacity to advocate the cause of the constitution and the established religion, with the talent and the eloquence of which it was worthy. Accordingly, they suffered right hon. gentlemen on the Treasury bench to speak the language which alone did justice to those sentiments which the silent voters not less vividly felt. It was cruel to charge against them as want of zeal, that which solely arose from want of confidence in their oratorical powers—a want of confidence which suggested to them, that they were not justified in pushing themselves forward at a moment, and under circumstances, when all the imposing effect of talent and information was required, and when the mere numerical strength of speakers was a matter of second-rate consideration. He would, therefore, once more repeat a declaration, which he should never retract; namely, that their silence did not arise from lack of zeal, but from a consciousness of their own inability. On the introduction of a measure for the removal of civil disabilities affecting Roman Catholics, he confessed he felt a good deal disappointed at not hearing from the right hon. gentleman an eulogium upon the character of him who was the great architect of that measure—of him, without whose eloquence and talent it would never have been brought to the present crisis, and who might be said to have died a martyr to the cause of Catholic emancipation. However, instead of that eulogium, so naturally to be looked for and so justly deserved, they had nothing but a statement, which put the measure upon the ground of policy, and expediency and state necessity, disclaiming, all the justice and liberality. He might reasonably have expected to have heard something like a peace-offering being made to the manes of that illustrious individual, whose career he had the happiness in part to witness. But the right hon. Secretary had passed over every generous and liberal topic of this nature, and had placed the question on the narrow grounds of expediency, and policy.—Having made that single observation upon the grounds taken by the right hon. gentleman, and the few remarks preceding, in vindication of himself and of those who thought with him respecting their conduct, he would detain the House a few minutes longer, not to express any sentiments of his own, but to read to the House the recorded opinions of men for whom they had on all occasions manifested the highest deference. The first of these to which he should direct attention was a passage in the speech of a noble and learned lord of high authority on this subject; and he trusted, that in submitting it, with one or two remarks, to the House, he should be favoured with the same indulgence which the noble and learned lord in the latter part of the proposed quotation, had claimed for himself. The passage to which he had referred was to this effect, that he "felt perfectly certain, that if sixty or seventy Roman Catholics got into that House, the very next step would be an attempt to upset the existing Protestant establishment in Church and State." He would now give that noble and learned personage the full advantage of that declaration. The next point to which he should advert was a demand made by the noble lord for time to deliberate. "I must," said he, "have time to deliberate." And he claimed now that indulgence from the government, of which that noble lord was a member, which that noble lord had demanded for himself. Again, from the same eminent individual he would quote the following declaration; namely, that he " must be fully satisfied that the proposed measure of relief contained nothing which should at all militate against the security of the Church and Constitution." Further, he impeached the intended bill of the right hon. Secretary on the high authority of the illustrious duke from whom it proceeded—on the authority of no less a person than the head of his majesty's government: he impeached it as being without any provision to guard against the danger, of which that illustrious individual was himself peculiarly apprehensive; at least, if they might judge from his recorded opinion, which was, that he "had no doubt that if the Roman Catholics were once admitted to political power, they would endeavour to procure from the Protestant Established Church an immediate restoration of all the church property of which they had been stripped at the Reformation." Now, considering the bill of which the right hon. Secretary had given them an outline, he could see no clause in it which would provide against that justly-dreaded calamity. The next of the opinions of the supporters of the Roman Catholic claims which he should quote would be that of a right hon. Secretary of no light authority on Irish affairs—a gentleman of great talent, and possessing an early, intimate, and extensive knowledge of Irish affairs. In the year 1817, in the most unequivocal terms, he had declared his hostility to the demands of the Roman Catholics [cries of question!] He had more reasons than one for laying these extracts before the House; and amongst those reasons one was, his wish to give the distinguished individuals in question an opportunity of explaining their former sentiments, and of reconciling them with their present opinions, so as in some degree to satisfy the people, that they had not been brought wilfully into the present awful dilemma. The right hon. gentleman had said, in the year 1819, "Do you think that when the Roman Catholics come into power, they will not aspire to establish the supremacy of their Church?" Now, the Catholic of 1829, was not much changed from the Catholic of 1819; and surely if it was dangerous then to admit them to political power, there was nothing in their character which justified their present admission. It was then the opinion of that right hon. gentleman, that the Roman Catholics, once in possession of political power, would spare no exertion to restore their church to its ancient splendour, and he had done nothing since to show that circumstances had changed their sentiments, or abated their zeal, or diminished their hostility to the Established Church, and to the constitution, as settled at the Revolution. Indeed, that gentleman had admitted that, from the very nature of things, they could not proceed otherwise. Such, he acknowledged, would be his feelings could he place himself in their situation; and yet the House was called on to admit Roman Catholics to the plenitude of political privilege, and without any provision that could be esteemed a security for the established church. In speaking of the dangers to the reformed religion with which the present measure was fraught, he by no means wished to have it understood that he designed to convey the slightest imputation upon the characters of such men as lord Gormanston or lord Fingal; but the body of the Roman Catholics were not composed of such men as these, and it was from the fanaticism of the great mass of that people that he apprehended danger. He was now told, that no danger would accrue from admitting the Roman Catholics to a full participation of power. The gentleman was proceeding to argue against that principle, when from the renewed disturbance in different parts of the House, he felt himself under the necessity of again entreating its attention, while he laid before them, not his own sentiments, but those of the right hob. Secretary for the Home Department, whose present opinions they were quite willing to attend to, but whose past opinions they wished to bury in oblivion. Over and over again that right hon. gentleman had told them, that the Roman Catholics would never rest satisfied with permitting the Protestant establishment to retain its present state of ascendancy. The right hon. gentleman then went on to say, that his apprehension was, that the Roman Catholics would advance step by step, until they should make their final stand in open hostility to the established church and to our Protestant constitution. Supposing at any time it should occur, that they should have a king who, though nominally Protestant, was secretly a Catholic—the consequence would be, that he would select a Catholic minister, who in his turn would select a party on whom he could rely, and gradually make them amends for their long exclusion from the honours and privileges of the state. He begged to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he had seen a resolution of the Catholic Association; and if he had, whether he supposed that the proposed measure was one which would tend to tranquillize Ireland? On the 10th of December, last year, a resolution at the Catholic Association had been unanimously agreed to, "That the best security of the government was to be found in the happiness and freedom of the people; and that they were ready to give in return for emancipation, the security of their oaths of allegiance; but at the same time they were bound to declare, that any conditions annexed to the restoration of their rights would only tend to the increase of the danger." There was also another resolution which had been unanimously passed by that now self-dissolved, but, as he believed, latently-existing body, to the effect that any bill of emancipation, accompanied with an encroachment on the rights of the forty-shilling freeholder, ought to be resisted. The resolution went on to say, that in such a case every parish would assemble and denounce an attack on the rights of men whose constitutional demands constituted their only crime. Now, he wished to know how the forty-shilling freeholders would feel, when they found that by this act their neighbours, who happened to be a little richer than themselves, were elevated to a superior rank. He wished to put that to the consideration of government, and to ask the House, whether the forty-shilling freeholders, on finding themselves deprived of their elective franchise, would not use all their exertions to bully, intimidate, and force the 10l. freeholders to vote as they pleased? He looked upon it, that England had been unfairly dealt with in this question. The country was not fairly represented; and he dared the ministers to a dissolution. They knew they could not carry the measure if the present parliament were to be dissolved. The parliament of 1826 had been elected with the understanding, that the cabinet was so constituted, that the Catholics would never come in. Confidence in the administration of lord Liverpool was the basis of the parliament in 1826; and he therefore contended, that a dissolution was the only fair way of arriving at the sense of the country.

said, he had paid great attention to the principles upon which the Roman Catholics were excluded from political power: and those principles were so deeply rooted in his mind, that all the eloquence of the right hon. Secretary's four-hours' speech had not been able to shake them. He wished to examine the arguments which his right hon. friend had advanced; and, in the first place, with respect to his own peculiar situation, the House had been told, that his right hon. friend had felt his situation so peculiarly irksome, in having to advocate the Protestant cause almost alone in that House, that he had resolved to resign his office. Now, he did not think that the defence of the Protestant cause had been so entirely left in the hands of his right hon. friend as he seemed to suppose, though it certainly was true, that speaking was much more of a trade on the opposition side of the House than on the other [Cries of oh! oh! and laughter]. At all events, during all the discussions that he had witnessed on the question, there had been at least three speakers to one in favour of the Catholic claims. On one occasion, in the course of a former discussion, he had himself risen nine times, but could not obtain a hearing. Still, he could not see that the state of the cabinet was such as to call for the present measure; and he thought he was warranted in concluding, that his right hon. friend's dilemma was not so well founded as he had supposed. But his right hon. friend had said, that he would not have been able to have carried any strong measure for the suppression of the Catholic Association. Now, he did not see how that could be. Would not all those who had voted against Catholic emancipation last year, have voted for the putting down of the Association, besides all those who were in office? He would then ask, what became of the plea of his right hon. friend, as to the extreme necessity arising out of a divided cabinet, and of an unmanageable House of Commons? For his own part, he could not see why his right hon. friend should have deserted the cause of Protestantism. He did not intend to make use of one of his right hon. friend's former speeches, which he had in his hand, and which he might almost say he had by heart. He must, however, be allowed to say, that it was a speech unanswerable, even by his right hon. friend himself; and by that speech his right hon. friend was so screwed—so nailed down—to the anti-Catholic cause, that he defied him to make a reply. He conceived all securities to be mere delusions, calculated to postpone, but not to avert, the evils of concession; and he was convinced, that if the government persisted in thus flying in the face of the people of this country, under the pretence of pacifying Ireland, they would inflame the Protestants of England into a much more dangerous discontent. The hon. member concluded by declaring, that if the Catholics must be represented, and if they must be admitted into parliament, he would say, let them have a parliament of their own in Ireland; for he would much rather consent to that—even if it went to the dissolution of the Union—than that Catholics should be permitted to sit in the parliament of England.

rose and said:—Sir; the difficulty which I have frequently felt in addressing the House on the present question is considerably increased when I have to oppose those with whom I have formerly acted, and particularly the representative of his majesty's government, my right hon. friend, as I still call him, when I recollect the respect which I have so long felt for him, and the good will which I believe be has so long entertained towards me.

The question is no longer brought forwards as one of right, and of principle;—but is urged upon us as a question of expediency only:—and, as my right hon. friend states that he retains his opinions as to the dangers of concession, the expediency to which he yields ought to be shown by him to be so strong as to amount almost to actual necessity. Nothing but a state of things, the difficulty and danger of which amounted very nearly to necessity, could have justified the government in the extraordinary change of their policy on the great question which has so long been before us. The reasons for that change are founded, according to the right hon. gentleman, on the state of Ireland, the state of the Cabinet, and the state of the Parliament. With respect to the first point, I contend, that the state of Ireland not only does not present to us any new features, but that it has not been occasioned by the Penal-laws against the Roman Catholics, and cannot, therefore, be amended by a repeal of those laws. I would appeal to my right hon. and learned friend, the member for Knaresborough, so intimately acquainted with all history, whether in the earliest native chronicles of Ireland, there is not found the same uniform scene of social misery, and political dissension, which have characterised that country in our own times. I appeal to every man acquainted even moderately with Irish history in any age, whether the same unvarying picture which we now behold, has not always presented itself. Long before the civil disabilities, or the Penal laws, long before the Reformation, long before an Englishman had landed in Ireland, this state of things existed there. This turbulence, whatever be its temporary designation, has always existed, from the first days of Irish annals to the days of our own memory;—to the Peep-of-Day Boys, the White Boys, Hearts of Steel, Defenders, United Irishmen, or to Captain Rock;—I am authorised, then, in the assertion, that evils which existed before the Roman Catholics were excluded from parliament, evils which are not proved to have arisen from their civil disabilities, because they are found to have preceded them, will not be relieved by any of the remedies now proposed.

The right hon. gentleman asks us, what other remedy, then, can the opponents of Roman Catholic emancipation propose for such a state of things? To this I answer, first, that firmness would have prevented some of the evils of the present day, and would even now prevent their exasperation: and secondly, that, be those remedies what they may, they ought not to be sought by breaking in upon the constitution of 1688.—When I use that phrase, let me say at once, in reference to a challenge of the noble lord, the member for Yorkshire, the other night, that I do not mean that the constitution was created in that year; but, that it was in that year consolidated and secured; and that no fundamental change, involving any principle then established, has since that time been made. I contend, then, that his majesty's government, before they hazard such a measure, ought to show, not merely that the evils of Ireland are greater than they have ever been before, but that they have themselves tried unsuccessfully every other remedy. Now, first as to the proof of the increase of the evils of Ireland:—what is the case brought forward by the right hon. gentleman on a former night?—Why, that, such is the state of excitement between the two parties in Ireland, that Mr. A. cannot get his potatoes dug, and that Mr. B. cannot get his peats stacked;—and is it for such evils, brought forward in the House of Commons as forming part of the justification of his majesty's government on the introduction of the present bill, that the Protestant constitution is to be changed?—Then, what is the proof that any of the ordinary remedies have been tried, and have failed?

But then, says the right hon. gentleman, there is the evil of a Cabinet continually divided upon this question. Sir, I cannot help asking—why, if this be an evil, the right hon. gentleman did not try to bring his colleagues over to his conduct, rather than yield himself to theirs? There might be a delicacy in the proposal, if he had asked them to change their opinions; but as he tells us that he retains his own opinions as to the dangers of concession, he might surely have asked his colleagues to suspend their opinions, and to concur with him in the formation of a cabinet united against concession; instead of suspending his own opinions, and joining them in a cabinet united for concession. Surely my right hon. and gallant friend, the Secretary of State for the colonies, was not so deeply pledged to the Roman Catholic claims, as the right hon. gentleman and the chancellor of the Exchequer were pledged against them. So far, therefore, the right hon. gentleman needed not to have despair ed of forming a cabinet in union with his own opinions: so far, if the evil be one of any weight, he needed not to have changed his own course: he needed not to have struck the colours, under which he so long fought; and under which he might still have rallied such a force of public opinion, as would have ensured the triumph of any cause, of which he had continued to be the leader. But, says the right hon. gentleman, look at the state of parliament, and the continued collision between the two Houses. On the first point, I will only say, that his enumeration of the majorities appears to me to be erroneous, and the conclusion which he draws from that enumeration to be consequently unfounded; since, in 1813, I think the majority was 129; whereas in 1828, it had decreased to 6: and I have not the least doubt but that an appeal to the people on this particular question, would have ensured such a return to this House as would have given confidence to the most timid minister.

The right hon. gentleman said;—You have only the alternative of civil war, if you refuse to pass the present bill. Sir, I deny the alternative: the utmost which I will admit is this, that you have the choice between the chance of an insurrection to-day, and the higher, far higher chance, almost the certainty, of a civil war to-morrow. At the utmost, you only postpone the evil day, as my hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire, has well stated; and it is for the right hon. gentleman and the House to consider under what different circumstances the attack would be resisted now, than it will be hereafter, when you have armed the Roman Catholics, and alienated and abandoned the Protestants. I do not underrate the horrors of insurrection or of civil war. He does not deserve the name of man, of Englishman, or of Christian, who can look with indifference on war without horror; on civil war; without unmingled bitterness at civil war among our own Christian fellow-subjects;—but I repeat it; civil war is not the alternative to which we are forced; firmness would have prevented many of the present evils, and firmness even now would remedy many of them.

Sir, the right hon. gentleman has fearfully erred in not relying on the aid and force which he might have derived from the people in the maintenance of their constitution. I do not accuse him or his colleagues of having preferred their places to their principles; I do not underrate the sacrifices—I, at least, am not the person to underrate the sacrifices—which the right hon. gentleman has made to give effect to his new policy. I admit those sacrifices fully: but I complain that his majesty's government have yielded needlessly and fatally to intimidation; that they have not had that confidence in themselves, which we had in them; that they did not, as statesmen, measure the force and progress of public opinion; that they have grossly miscalculated their own strength, and the spirit with which the people would have supported them in the defence of the sacred cause committed to them. The noble duke, unrivalled as he is, and, above all men successful in directing the energies of brute force, has never learned to calculate the powers and the resistance of opinion. He is not aware of the rising—still rising—force of public opinion, against which he has arrayed himself, when he recommended to the Crown measures hostile alike to the principles of the constitution, and to the wishes and feelings and sentiments of an immense majority of the people of England.

We are asked, after all, what is the danger which we apprehend from concession; what harm can a few Roman Catholics do here, or in the other House? Sir, a few men well compacted, have done much even here; and will do much more when united by such a principle as the religion of the church of Rome. And who is to limit the number of Roman Catholics to be admitted to the other House? The hon. member for Durham (Mr. M. A. Taylor) said yesterday, that the utmost number of Roman Catholic peers is only five or six, and asked, what injury to our institutions can that number effect? I ask again, what security is there, that a Roman Catholic minister from principle, or a Protestant from ambition, may not create as many Roman Catholic peers as may enable him to carry any measure?

Sir, we have been often told, and shall be told again, that gratitude to the Roman Catholics for supplying our fleets and armies, ought to induce us to admit them to civil power. I do not perceive the connexion, or admit the argument:—if the Roman Catholics furnish the best materials of our public forces, they have now at any rate, and have had for many years, the best and most appropriate rewards; arid the Roman Catholic peasant may, from a private, rise, unchecked by any laws, to the very highest rank of the military profession. But I contend, that, while in thus engaging in the duties, and enjoying the honours of the army and the navy, they are ministering to the strength and energy of the whole empire, they are not thereby better fitted to legislate for other interests to which they are necessarily hostile, and to be intrusted with the concerns of our Protestant church. In their own sphere, they are sources of strength and prosperity: but the case is very different, if to an element so uncongenial with our own, we give political power: just as milk, the most nutritive substance which we can take, received as food into the system, sustains the whole; but infused, even one drop, into the blood-vessels of the constitution, its taint is fatal. The moment that one Roman Catholic enters this House, and thus destroys the essential purity and Protestantism of our legislature, that moment is the commencement of a system, which will soon terminate in realizing all those evils, which the right hon. gentleman himself has so often foretold as the consequences of concession: the danger may not be to-day, or to-morrow; but a very few years will see the destruction, or, at least, the irreparable injury, of the church in Ireland, if not of our own still nearer interests here;—these evils are the subject of the just apprehensions of the people of England, who have approached this House in such numbers, urging us to pause before we inflict them; but these evils will even now, if unhappily we should disregard the prayers of the petitioners, be still, I trust, averted by the interposition of that hand, to which the people look with increasing hope and confidence.

said—Sir; If ever it had happened to me before, at any time, to have delivered my sentiments in this House upon the Catholic question, I should deem it proper again to do so upon the present occasion. I should deem it right to do so even as an individual member of the House, and still more proper and more necessary, standing here, as I do, in the capacity of a minister of the Crown. So strongly, indeed, am I convinced of that necessity, that I think I should be acting inconsistently with my duty, if I failed now to express fully to the House, the opinions I entertain upon this most important and most vital question to the interests of the country and this necessity must he the more obvious, when I state, that I have never before taken any part in the discussions which have occurred upon this question; and have never, at any time, given a vote upon it.

The first occasion on which I had it in my power to give a vote, connected in any manner with the affairs of the Catholics, was in the session of 1825. On that occasion, I voted for the suppression of the Catholic Association. I did so, because I was convinced—and I still entertain the same conviction—that the existence of such an Association, no matter whether composed of Roman Catholics or of Protestants, was incompatible with the exercise of the just authority of the government, in any country whatever. I have again given my vote, in the present session, for the suppression of the Association, on the same grounds; but with this additional motive, that I conceive that nothing could more impede, or more prejudice, the discussions about to take place in parliament on the recommendation of the Crown, and calculated to produce such important benefits to the state, than the existence, at the same time, of the Catholic Association. But, although I gave my vote, in the session of 1825, for putting down the Association, I took no part in the subsequent debates upon the Catholic question. I had, indeed, a strong feeling of the justice of the claims of the Catholics; but I found the question surrounded with so many difficulties, and saw so little prospect of the opposite parties being able to come to any satisfactory understanding upon it, that I thought it better to abstain from taking any part in a discussion, in which neither my voice nor my vote was likely to be productive of public advantage.

Soon after the period to which I have alluded, I had the honour to be appointed to the military command in Ireland. This appointment placed me in a situation to observe more closely the state of things in that country; and having been called upon, in the absence of the Lord-lieutenant, to fill, for a time, the office of one of the lords justices, the civil affairs of Ireland came under my notice, in addition to those connected with my appointment as commander of the troops. The result of my observations in this double capacity was, a thorough conviction, that the country had arrived at a state in which it was impossible that it could remain, and that it was absolutely necessary, either that the government should move forward into a different system, or that it should trace back the steps which it had thus far pursued. I say, it was impossible for things to remain as they were; for all the connexions of society were loosened, and all the bonds by which it is linked together were every moment in danger of being broken. But I saw also, that it was not possible to go back, and be able to retain at the same time any system which could merit the name of civil society. I knew, indeed, that a frame of society could be formed upon different principles, that a frame of society could be formed, founded upon penal statutes, and upheld by the sword and by the bayonet; but I knew that such a frame of society could not have the slightest analogy with the British constitution.

Having mentioned the British constitution, I must beg leave to make a few remarks, in reply to the observations of those who have asserted that we are now about to destroy it. The opinions which those gentlemen entertain with regard to the British constitution, are very different from mine. They seem to think, that the great principle of the constitution is, the principle of exclusion; but I think, on the contrary, that the great principle of the British constitution is, the diffusion to every class of the community of all those blessings which it is so well formed to bestow. Those gentlemen maintain, that the measures now proposed to be brought forward by his majesty's government, will be an infringement of the constitution; but my view of the matter is, that exclusion is itself an infringement upon the true spirit of the constitution, to the extent to which it goes. But these gentlemen would date the constitution only from the year 1688, whilst to me it appears, that its origin is to be traced to a period much more remote. I am most willing, indeed, to admit, that at the period of the Revolution, the best principles of the constitution were successfully asserted, upheld, and amended. I am most willing to admit, that improvements and ornaments were then, indeed, added to the structure, but its deepest and its broadest foundations were laid at a more ancient date; and let it be remembered, that they were laid by Catholic hands, and cemented with Catholic blood.

It has been argued by the hon. baronet who spoke last, that by looking into the remotest periods of her history, we shall find that Ireland was then a prey to internal disturbance, that we may trace the like disturbances through every age, and that they still continue; and hence my hon. friend has concluded, that these disturbances must for ever continue. We are to infer, then, from his statements, that discord is to be the perpetual destiny of Ireland, in all the future, as it has been in all the past periods of her existence. Is it that there is something peculiar in the climate of Ireland? or is it that there is something peculiar in the character of her brave and generous people, which is to render that country for ever impregnable to improvement? I am incapable of discovering anything which should for ever preclude Ireland from the possession of that tranquillity and civilization which England has so long enjoyed. I can see nothing which should prevent Ireland from following in the footsteps of my own country (Scotland), which has made within the last fifty years such rapid advances in all the branches of improvement and of civilization. As far as my opportunities of observation have enabled me to judge, during the period of my services in Ireland, I am convinced, that there is no nation more capable than the Irish of advancing in arts and in sciences; and of carrying to their utmost extent the improvements connected with agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. It requires only the encouragement of a better system of policy, and of a liberal government, to afford to Ireland the opportunity of realizing all these advantages, and that, too, in a degree, of which the hon. baronet has perhaps not yet formed any conception.

Allusion has been made to the evil of a divided cabinet, as if that, indeed, had been the main evil to be cured; and the hon. baronet has asked, why my right hon. friend beside me has not sought to bring over some of his colleagues to the opinions entertained by himself, rather than alter his own line of conduct in conformity to theirs. My right hon. friend has given sufficient evidence to-night of the powers which he has at his command to persuade: but the real evil was not the division of the cabinet, the real evil was in the condition of Ireland; and the change which my right hon. friend has made not so much, perhaps, in his private opinion, as in the line of his public conduct, was the best and the only remedy. For my own part, I rejoice in that change, for several reasons, I rejoice in it, because the sincere application of the extensive knowledge and the powerful abilities of my right hon. friend to the advancement of the measure, gives me the best pledge I can have for its success. But I rejoice in it also, because, to those who are most apprehensive as to the consequences of the proposed measure, the known opinions and the past conduct of my right hon. friend, give the best security that those interests and those establishments, for which they express most alarm, will be effectually protected. Of this, indeed, I trust they will find that they have a pledge in every member of the government; that pledge is, however, most conspicuous in my right hon. friend. But, the truth is, that the dangers to be apprehended, are to be apprehended from the condition in which our Catholic fellow-subjects are placed; and those dangers will best be guarded against, by extending to them an act of liberality and of justice.

The hon. baronet has alluded to the noble duke at the head of the administration, and to the force which he has been most accustomed to wield, and which the hon. baronet has designated as the "brute force" of the country; a term intended to intimate, no doubt, what is the characteristic of the military profession. For my own part, I can only say, that I shall always deem it an honour to have devoted to that profession the greater part of my life. It is from it that I have derived those liberal sentiments which I hope I possess. For in the army there are no distinctions, no differences on account of religion. It is in civil society only that I have found such differences prevail. In the army, the Catholic and the Protestant soldiers dwell in harmony in the same tent; they march in the same ranks; they mount together the same breach; and the only competition which is known between them, is, the competition of emulation to excel in courage, and in fidelity to their country. And if they fall together in the same field, they are laid together in the same grave; leaving behind them the same feelings of regret in the breasts of their surviving comrades; and carrying with them to another world, the same hopes in their common Redeemer. This is the character of the army with reference to the points which we have now been discussing; this is the character which my experience justifies me in giving of it; and this is, I trust, a sufficient reply to the imputation conveyed by the expression of the hon. baronet, that "brute force" is its predominant principle. Why is it that, in civil society, the same spirit of peace and of harmony is not to be found? Why is it that men of different religious persuasions live in harmony under military authorities; but that under the civil magistrates, and, I lament to say, even under those who should be the ministers of peace, fellow-citizens are arrayed against one another, and are roused to mortal combat?

That the government has been influenced by intimidation has been a favourite topic with some of those hon. members who are most opposed to its present measures. I ask, Sir, by what intimidation? Has it been by the Catholic Association, and by the numerous but unarmed multitudes who have been influenced by its speeches, or swayed by its power? I have seen that power when I commanded the army in Ireland, and I deemed that the power of the Catholic Association was as nothing, when measured against the power of the State. But there was indeed another source of intimidation, of an intimidation against which no army, however brave and however numerous, can be an effectual protection. I mean the intimidation resulting from a well-grounded apprehension, that the bonds of society might at any moment be broken by the collision of hostile parties, who stood ready for mutual destruction. The intimidation that must result from the certainty that when such a state of things should arise, the gratification of private revenge, and the perpetration of private outrages, were evils which no military power could prevent, and no force of the government would be able to control. Another danger was to be found, in the willingness supposed to exist in one of these hostile parties, to provoke their opponents to actual combat; and but a little call was required to be made upon their courage for such an attempt, for they were themselves arrayed and armed; they were certain that in such a conjuncture, the power of the state would be constrained to give them all its support, and they knew that the combat would be with unarmed multitudes, who could only crouch and be slaughtered. But what is the object of civil society? for what do governments exist? It is not to side with one portion of the people, to oppress and to destroy the other; it is for the peace, and for the protection of the whole. For my part, I can see no objection to the present measure; on the contrary, I hail it as a bond of Union, and as a pledge of security; and I regard it as the most certain means of confirming the tranquillity, of increasing the prosperity, and of extending the power of the empire.

observed, that after the eloquent and convincing speech of the right hon. baronet, it might seem presumption in him to offer any observations to the House. But with the sentiments in regard to this subject which he entertained, and had long entertained, he felt that it might be considered a species of ingratitude to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to the government by whom this great measure was brought forward, if he did not rise to express his grateful thanks, not merely for the measure itself, but for the manner in which the boon had been conferred. If there were one single point on which he desired not to be considered as concluded, and on which he desired to reserve to himself the right of further deliberation, still he should be ungrateful if he did not express his cordial and entire approbation of the measure. He admired its simplicity; it was one of the attributes of wisdom to be simple [a laugh]; simplicity was one of the greatest attributes of plans which had in view the attainment of great ends. It had always appeared to him, that there was something in circuitous and complicated contrivances unsuited to individuals of great understanding. The hon. baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, had made it a matter of charge against the measure proposed by his majesty's ministers, that it was inconsistent with the constitution, as fixed at the Revolution in 1688. But he agreed with the right hon. and gallant officer who spoke last, that we were not to look for the constitution to the year 1688. That measure was the result of a great struggle happily concluded, which secured their rights to the people: but the constitution was of much more ancient date. He should be sorry if any measure he advocated was inconsistent with the constitution of 1688; but if the hon. baronet would search the Bill of Rights, he would find nothing there of this Protestant exclusive system. The Protestant supremacy was, he knew, a part of the Bill of Rights; but there were other provisions likewise. Did the hon. baronet say, that the constitution was impaired because Roman Catholics had the use of arms? He would remind him that one of the clauses of the Bill of Rights prohibited Papists from having arms. Yet no one would say that the placing arms in the hands of Papists was inconsistent with the constitution. The law which excluded the Catholics from parliament was a temporary measure, and never intended to be perpetual. He had said last night, that what was called the present constitution took its date, not from 1688, but from 1678. Historical references to the circumstances under which the laws at that period passed, bore him out in this assertion. That Act was passed by a House of Commons reeking with phrenzy, at the perjuries of Titus Oates. It was passed for the purpose of preventing a Popish successor ascending the throne, whose principles were hostile to the spirit of the British Constitution. It was not so much for the purpose of excluding Catholics generally and permanently, as for the object of preventing a Popish successor to the throne. The Test-act was passed in 1672, and it professed to exclude Catholics from Parliament and Corporations. It was aimed at the duke of York, who was known to be a Roman Catholic. The noble lord proceeded to advert to the statutes which were passed to defeat the succession of the duke of York, and to obstruct the designs of Charles 2nd. who was known to be in a secret alliance with France for the destruction of the United Provinces, and for the establishment of the Catholic religion in this country; from which he inferred the well-grounded deduction, that those laws were passed by the people against the Stuarts, the whole of whose career in this country was one continued opposition and hostility to civil liberty. Under these feelings it was, that all the laws against the Papists were passed. He could not, therefore, bear to hear it asserted that it was contrary to the constitution of 1688 to open the two Houses of parliament to Catholics. Then the hon. baronet, and those who were of his school, were pleased to say, that the Roman Catholics were hostile to the liberties of England, and therefore ought not to be admitted into parliament. Now, he should be disposed to give credit to them for this discovery; but that he had observed, that they had not given the benefit of their support to other dissenting sects, who were not liable to this reproach: take the Independents, for example, who, in the worst of times had respected the rights of civil liberty. When, therefore, he found the hon. baronet arrayed against the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, for the relief of the Protestant Dissenters, the hon. baronet must forgive him if he suspected that he was actuated by other feelings than a desire to defend the civil liberties of the country. It had been argued by the hon. baronet, as if the admission of a single Catholic into that House was to operate like a drop of acid in a cup of milk; that the constitution would then be completely annihilated; that the Church of England, or, if not the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, would then be overturned. If hon. members would indulge in ideas so truly ridiculous, as that the admission of a single Roman Catholic would destroy the whole church establishment of Ireland, they must not be surprised if sober men refused to give credence to such notions. So far from the constitution receiving any injury from this measure, it appeared to him, that it would derive great benefit from it. The English constitution was not made for exclusion. It was the sentiment of that great statesman and orator, Mr. Burke, that either exclusion would destroy the constitution, or the constitution would destroy exclusion. For himself, he rejoiced, that the constitution would destroy exclusion. Would, said the noble lord, that we had that great statesman and philosopher now in this House, would that he could see, in this measure, the fulfilment of his wishes, would that we could recall those other great men who had laboured so earnestly in this cause, that they might enjoy the triumph of this night, more particularly a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Grattan) who, the last time he opened his lips in that House, expressed himself so ably and so eloquently on this all important subject, and to whom the measure now proposed would have afforded unspeakable delight. He would not trespass further on the time of the House, but conclude with again thanking his majesty's ministers, and particularly the right hon. Secretary, not merely for the measure before the House, but for the manner in which it was to be carried into effect.

As soon as the noble lord sat down, there were loud cries of "Adjourn, adjourn," and "Go on, go on." At length, after some minutes, during which considerable confusion prevailed, lord Tullamore moved the Adjournment of the debate till tomorrow, which was agreed to.