in presenting some petitions from different parts of Essex, against the Roman Catholic Claims, took occasion to say, that the bill intended to be introduced with respect to the Catholics, instead of being a measure likely to conciliate all parties, was much worse than he could possibly have imagined, and he was therefore determined to give his unqualified vote against it.

presented petitions in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation, from sundry congregations of Dissenters. One of them, he said, was signed by twenty thousand persons. In stating that, however, he was by no means disposed to say that too great attention ought to be paid to numbers, but only to adduce the fact in answer to those who insinuated that the dissenters were unfavourable to the Catholic claims. As to numbers, he was old enough to recollect the period when that House was threatened with a petition on the same subject as that at present agitated, with 120,000 signatures. The lamentable result of the agitation which took place at the period to which he alluded, was the loss of four or five hundred lives, and finally the confinement for insanity of the individual in whom the evil originated. This and many other occurrences of a similar nature, convinced him, that the uninformed classes of the people were perfectly incapable of forming a sound judgment on such subjects.

reprobated the disposition that seemed to exist in some quarters to deny the people their birthright, the right of petition; and asserted his conviction that there were many persons in the lower and middling classes as able judges of the blessings which the country derived from the Protestant establishment as any other people in the kingdom.

observed, that if any man who heard the speech of the right hon. Secretary of State, last night could lay his hand on his heart and say, that the common people were able to discuss the various topics which that speech embraced, he would immediately give up the point.

said, he rose to present to the House several petitions on this all-absorbing subject. They had heard it stated, by one of the first ministers of the Crown, that it was expedient to break in upon the constitution. He had also heard, with equal surprise, that the properest mode of ascertaining the opinion of the people was from the opinion of their representatives in that House. He allowed, that was one mode of ascertaining the opinion of the people; but, collecting that opinion from the exercise of the right of petitioning, was an equally valuable mode. Although the people at large might not be competent to the discussion of abstruse subjects, they were perfectly competent to judge of the value of blessings which they enjoyed, and which it was threatened to take from them. He trusted that the voice of the people would yet be heard. As it had been said, that an opposition would be made to presenting petitions, he trusted that those who had petitions to present would insist on their undoubted right to present them. The hon. baronet then presented a petition from the city of Bath, signed by five thousand eight hundred and six persons, which had been signed in thirty hours, and to which three thousand more names would have been attached had not the individuals previously signed other petitions.

said, that as he had himself presented a petition from Bath, numerously signed, and as he was the representative of the county of Somerset, he begged to be allowed to say a few words. He was quite satisfied of the highly respectable character of the petition just presented; and he was also quite satisfied, that the feelings of the people of Bath were decidedly hostile to the Catholic question, as it was now understood by them. He was likewise convinced, that a large majority of his constituents were adverse to the course at present recommended by his majesty's government. At the same time he must add, that he believed there existed much altered feeling on the subject, though to what extent that alteration might have gone, he would not pretend to say, because he was not sufficiently informed respecting it. But this he would say, that he knew an altered feeling of the nature to which he had alluded did exist; and a counter petition to that which had been presented by the hon. baronet—which counter petition had grown out of the altered feeling to which he had averted, and was most respectably signed—afforded sufficient proof of the truth of his assertion. He would not then state his opinions on the great question under the consideration of parliament. He would do so in the course of the debates upon it. But he would now solemnly declare that he was no longer prepared to resist the adjustment of the question [hear, hear!].

observed, that as a petition from Bath had been put into his hands, of a different character from that which had just been presented, the House would perhaps permit him to say a few words on the occasion. The petition which had been intrusted to him stated, that the petitioners had hitherto abstained from discussing the Catholic question, for fear of producing dissension and ill-will; but that, seeing that unjustifiable means were taking to alarm the country, they felt it to be their duty to approach parliament with the expression of an anxious wish that the civil disabilities under which the Catholics laboured might be repealed, as far as was consistent with the maintenance of the constitution and the safety of the empire. This petition was signed by nine clergymen, resident in Bath, four members of the corporation, forty officers of the army and navy, upwards of a hundred tradesmen; in three hundred and eight persons.

on presenting three petitions from different places in Dorsetshire in favour of emancipation, congratulated the hon. member for the county of Somerset on his change of opinion with respect to the Catholic question, which he was sure would afford satisfaction to a large portion of the hon. baronet's constituents.

presented a petition, signed by nine thousand of the inhabitants of Wolverhampton, praying that no further concessions might be granted to the Roman Catholics. He could, from personal know, ledge bear testimony to the great respect- ability of the signatures attached to the petition; and he was likewise bound in honour to declare, that it expressed the prevailing sentiment of the populous town and vicinity from which it proceeded. Having said this, he also felt it necessary to state, that the petition did not emanate from a public meeting, and that his hon. colleague was intrusted with another petition of an opposite nature, from the same town, signed by two thousand persons, so that the present petition could not be said to represent the unanimous feeling of the inhabitants. The present petition prayed, that there might be no change in the constitution, and he agreed with the petitioners in their conclusion, but not in their reasoning; for he never could bring himself to believe that the system of permanent exclusion was any part of the constitution, any more than martial law was, although it had occasionally been found necessary to enforce it. He could not avoid congratulating the House and the country on the great measure propounded by government. The country had never possessed ministers more entitled to its confidence than the duke of Wellington and the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. No reasonable person, he thought, could believe that those two individuals would propose any measure which was inconsistent with the safety of the constitution in church and state. Although he might differ in opinion from his right hon. friend, with respect to one part of the measure which was detailed yesterday, he would refrain from giving expression to that variance of sentiment, lest it might counteract the advancement of the measure, which he approved as a whole, and which was not less calculated to reflect eternal glory on those who had introduced it, than to confer eternal benefit on the country at large.

said, he wished, for the first time, to offer a few words on this great question. His hon. colleague had rightly said, that the petition which he had presented did not express the unanimous opinion of the town of Wolverhampton. He had a counter petition to present from the same place, signed by two thousand, seven hundred and sixty most respectable individuals. The population of Wolverhampton amounted only to twenty-two thousand persons—men, women, and children. How, out of that number, could nine thousand persons have been found com- petent to form a judgment upon such a question as the present? He had been informed by those for whose veracity he could vouch, that the petition presented by his hon. colleague had been signed by boys from a blue-coat school, and other children. He stated this, because when honourable gentlemen called upon the House to form their judgment of the opinion of the people from their petitions, it became absolutely necessary to examine into the means by which those petitions were got up. He was himself convinced that the great majority of the enlightened part of the community were in favour of settling a question which had disturbed England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the last two hundred years: and he could not be induced to alter that opinion by petitions got up as that and many other petitions had been got up. Why was not a public meeting called in Wolverhampton? It was only stated in a hand-bill, that a petition against the Catholics was lying at a certain place for signatures. If a public meeting had been called, the question would have been discussed, and he was sure the result would not have been what it was. Another thing which deserved the severest reprobation was the attempt to create delusion by means of inflammatory hand-bills. He had one in his hand which was circulated in the county which he represented. He would read three lines of it, and then ask the House if they thought it a fair representation of the measure submitted by government to the consideration of parliament.—"Britons, strike home! Defend the Constitution of 1688. No surrender! Fellow-countrymen, the constitution is betrayed; the outworks have been surprised; the citadel is in peril; there is not a moment to be lost. To your tents, O Israel" What could be the object of such an address but to foment discord and to excite civil war?

said, there might have been some irregularity in the signing of the petition; but he must repeat, that it spoke the prevailing opinion of the inhabitants of Wolverhampton. The petitions of all parties, however adverse those petitions might be to his own feelings, he should always hold as being entitled to respect.

rose, to present several petitions from various parts of Essex, against further concessions to the Catholics. The principal of these petitions was from Colchester, and was signed by three thousand persons. He wished the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had been in his place, because he felt it necessary to animadvert on his conduct. He felt impelled by a sense of public duty to reproach that right hon. gentleman with political apostacy. That might be considered a strong term, but he thought that after the right hon. gentleman's speech of last night, he was justified in applying it to him. The right hon. gentleman had talked of not having been supported in that House in the battle which, until recently, he had been fighting against the Catholics, by those who entertained similar opinions to his own. But it was well known, that the body of country gentlemen, to which class he belonged, had not the ability to speak profoundly upon such subjects; besides that, it would be exceedingly inconvenient to the House if they were frequently to do so. As to the right hon. gentleman's speech last night, it would have been an excellent one if it had been delivered by any body but himself. It would have been an excellent one, if it had been delivered by the late Mr. Canning. It began with cant, and false reasoning prevailed throughout. He had hitherto supported the right hon. gentleman because he had considered him a constitutional politician; but the right hon. gentleman had betrayed the confidence which had been reposed in him. Who would have believed last year, when the right hon. gentleman was the champion of the Protestant cause, that he would ever have recommended to the House such a measure as that which he had last night described? He had not the vanity to suppose that he was able to argue the Catholic question with many of the hon. and learned persons who surrounded him; but he would not yield to them in his knowledge of the Catholic character. It had happened to him to receive part of his education in Catholic France, and in a seminary to which young Irish Catholics were sent to qualify themselves for the sacred profession. He then formed an opinion of them, which had been matured by many years' observation and reflection; namely, that they were intolerant and bigoted, and not to be trusted. Would any man tell him that the Catholics would be satisfied with equality; or that they would be satisfied until they obtained an ascendancy? Every Catholic who was true to his religion was a bitter enemy to Protestantism. He might be called a bigot; but if it was because he supported our church and constitution, he gloried in the appellation. He should give the strongest opposition in his power to the measure proposed by government, and if it passed he should not care how soon he ceased to be a member of that House.

said, he did not rise to vindicate the eloquence or the argument of the speech made last night by his right hon. friend. He would trust those points to the general feeling of the House; he would trust them to the feelings of every one of what opinion soever; he would trust them to the feelings of those who sat round his hon. friend; he would trust them to the feelings of the hon. baronet himself, in his cooler moments. In saying that his right hon. friend's speech would have done honour to Mr. Canning, his hon. friend had given the best possible testimony of the impression which his right hon. friend's speech had made on the House. What he rose for was, to assure his hon. friend, that if he conceived his right hon. friend intended to cast any imputation on him, or on other hon. members, for not having, on former occasions, addressed the House on the Catholic Question, he had quite misapprehended his right hon. friend's meaning. His right hon. friend's object was merely to bring before the House a matter of fact. He stated this fact, not to impugn any one else, but to explain the position in which the question necessarily stood.

expressed a hope, that in the absence of his right hon. relative, he might be permitted to declare his perfect conviction, that he was actuated by motives quite as pure as those of the hon. bart. When a man's guiding principle was the good of his country, there was no inconsistency in supporting at one time measures which he had opposed at another time under different circumstances. Whatever might be said, he would not be betrayed into personal reflections, in answer to a personal attack: for he thought that an indulgence in personalities always carried its own punishment along with it.

expressed his decided opinion, that these petitions spoke the sentiments of the town, and neighbourhood of Colchester. It was not that his mind had not been made up, or that he had not paid ample attention to the reasonings on each side of the question during the three parliaments in which he had had the honour of a seat in that House; but he had felt satisfied that until the question was made a government one—until it was introduced to a united parliament under the sanction of the Crown—there could be no hope of its passing successfully through the House. Now at length the question so presented itself; and, notwithstanding the great risk which he felt that he ran, of forfeiting the seat, which it was his good fortune to hold, and which he had made such great sacrifices to attain, setting upon it, as he did, a value commensurate to the honour which it conferred upon an individual so circumstanced as he was—although he was conscious that, by his present course, he incurred the hazard of losing that distinction—yet he felt that he should be abandoning his duty to his constituents and his country, if he were to yield to any such consideration, and to place himself in opposition to the momentary feelings of his constituents, from an apprehension of their disapprobation. He used the words "momentary feelings," because he felt convinced that within twelve months after the passing of the proposed measure, the majority of his constituents, now opposed to it, would find that they had acted under a delusion, and would feel rejoiced to find Ireland pacified, and the general interests of the empire consolidated and strengthened. There was only one other point upon which he wished to say a word or two. There was, in his mind, an immense difference between the Protestant religion and the Protestant establishment of the country. He felt quite satisfied that, so far as the Protestant religion was concerned, nothing would tend more to extend its influence than the total destruction of every sort of persecution. Sure he was, and he threw it out as a cheering consolation to his constituents, that the proposed measure would have the effect of purifying the established church, by cleansing it of certain undue emoluments [hear, hear!]. He considered that the removal of civil distinctions would tend to the consolidation of all Dissenters; and he was glad to have heard the right hon. Secretary of State, in the powerful And eloquent speech which he made last night, state that the Roman Catholics were to be placed upon the same footing as the Protestant Dissenters. He was also pleased to find that it was not attempted to purchase the Papal priesthood by a provision at the expense of the country. There would hereafter be but two parties in the country—the one those who thought that the church ought to remain with its present appendage of boundless emolument, and the other consisting of the advocates of the purity of the Protestant religion, and who thought that the interests of that religion were best to be promoted by the spread of its tenets. He threw out these suggestions for the advantage of the inhabitants of Colchester, who, he was convinced, would hereafter see reason to be well satisfied with the measures now introduced by the Government; but, even if he were to lose his seat, he should retire, not with the disgust felt by his hon. colleague, because his friends opposite had deserted him, but he should reflect that, although he forfeited the approbation of his constituents, he withdrew with the recollection of having conscientiously endeavoured to discharge his duty.

said, he had not intended to trouble the House at the present stage of the measure, but some observations had been made, which he, as a member of the Protestant Church, and as an admirer of the measures brought forward by his majesty's government, felt called upon, in both capacities, indignantly to repel. If the case were to go forth to the country in the shape in which it had been put by the hon. member for Colchester—and he observed the manner in which the argument had been received, not by those who were the wise and rational and liberal friends of the Protestant Church, but by those who, however they might be attached to the Church, viewed every thing with reference to the Catholic question, and who cheered the observation because they thought it a recognition of the principles of the friends of the cause—he must protest that he was a friend to the question, not upon the grounds upon which it was put by the hon. member for Colchester, but from totally opposite feelings and motives. If this measure were likely to endanger the Protestant church, or at all to trench upon its constitution, then he should think Catholic Emancipation a measure attended with danger. Its object was, to consolidate every well-wisher of the Church of England, and to take away from the number of its enemies many who were disposed to approve of its opinions, but who felt a jealousy of it as being founded, as they con- sider, in opposition to the rights, and feelings, and claims and interests, of the Roman Catholics. He would not add another word except to declare that he was a friend to the Catholic question, and would rather that the hon. member for Colchester had reserved for his constituents the benefit of his vote, or had persevered in a consistent neutrality; or even that he had opposed the measure, rather than have given it his support on grounds so delusive and mistaken, he would rather say, than insidious; because, if the question were to go to a division on the grounds stated by the hon. member for Colchester, there was not a friend to the Catholics on the Opposition side of the House, and, he hoped, not a friend to the established church on either side, who would not unhesitatingly refuse his support to it.

presented a petition from the clergy, gentry, merchants, manufacturers, and other inhabitants of Glasgow, against Emancipation. It was signed by upwards of thirty thousand persons. The petitioners expressed their alarm at the dangerous tendency of the proposed measures, and complained that they would be an infraction of the act of Union with Scotland. The noble lord observed, that he could never consent to the proposed measures, for he considered that they would not only break in upon, but overthrow the constitution. He had heard the statement of his right hon. friend last night, and he considered that his propositions went entirely too far; at the same time he gave him credit for the sincerity of his sentiments, and claimed the same for his own. Much stress had been laid on the fears said to arise from the state of feeling in Ireland; but he thought that that had been a good deal exaggerated. A great deal of it had been caused by the agitations of interested individuals, who had forced almost into rebellion a population which was otherwise disposed to be loyal and obedient. Differing so widely from the views taken on this subject by his right hon. friend, he would take every occasion which presented itself of opposing them; and he did not yet despair of success, for he thought the country would not bear what they believed would not only break in upon, but destroy their Protestant constitution. As to the securities mentioned, they were nothing; and he was sorry to hear that the constitution was about to be sold for a 10l. freeholder.

said, that a petition had been confided to him from the same place, signed by a large number, although the petitioners were certainly not so numerous as those who had signed the petition presented by the noble marquis. He would beg leave, however, to observe, that no person under sixteen years of age had signed it, and no person had been prevailed upon by any influence to affix his signature. He did not know anything of the mode in which the signatures had been obtained to the petition presented by the noble lord. He only wished to contrast the petition of which he now spoke, in certain particulars, with many which had been presented to the House. He might also be permitted to mention, that, although the petition was signed by four thousand two hundred persons, there would have been treble that number had the persons promoting the petition received the ordinary protection of the police. He did not, for his own part, see any objection to the various means often resorted to, to procure signatures to petitions, such as soliciting persons to sign, sending constables about to procure signatures, using a reasonable degree of influence, permitting women to attach their signatures, as well as soldiers and debtors in the gaols, as had been done in some instances. He saw nothing to object to in all this, and he had, on former occasions, stated his reasons for recommending gentlemen to abstain from invidious remarks on these points. But what he objected to was, that measures should be taken to obstruct the signing of petitions. This was a very different thing from using strenuous efforts to procure them on the other side of the question. He would take the liberty of reading a letter which he had received from a clergyman who had signed the petition, and which would show that such practices had been resorted to in the case of a petition in favour of the Catholics at Glasgow. He did not impute the blame of these proceedings to the parties promoting the petition now presented by the noble marquis. The communication which he had received stated the reasons why the petition which had been intrusted to him could not lie longer than one day. The letter stated that a place had been fixed upon where the petition was left for signatures. Shortly after a man was hired and stationed at the door, who, by calling out to the people not to sign in favour of the Papists, soon caused a crowd to collect. The crowd hooted at every one who presented himself to sign the petition, and subsequently the police came and compelled the crowd, after giving three cheers, to disperse. One man who went to sign the petition was knocked down, and kicked. The person who committed the outrage was pointed out to the police, but no effort was made to secure him; but the abused person was taken to the police-office, and, having been severely questioned as to what had passed, was eventually dismissed. On the next day application was made to the police for protection, but adequate protection was refused. The place was, however, opened for a few hours, when the mob tore the petition, and it was unavoidably shut up again. On the day following, an assurance of protection having been given, the place was again opened, but a crowd gathered, and every one who approached to sign the petition was assailed with abuse, and repeated cries of Burke, Burke! Hare, Hare! Many persons were injured, and the landlord of the premises was compelled to intercede with the throng, to dissuade them from destroying his property. The rev. gentleman added in his letter, "Burke's affair has made a great sensation here." It might be proper to inform gentlemen, that this miscreant, who had received the reward of his atrocities, professed the Catholic religion. The circumstance had been used for stirring up the feelings of the people, and he was assured it had met with no small success.

suggested, that as there were not more than six or seven hours for debate before an adjournment must take place, those who had petitions ought to reserve them for another occasion, and allow the debate to proceed.

said, he felt it his duty to proceed with the petitions committed to his care.

then moved "That the order of the day, for resuming the adjourned debate on the Roman Catholic Claims be now read."

said, that feeling it his duty to present the petitions he had received, he was determined, if the hon. member pressed his motion, to divide the House upon it.

expressed a hope, that the discussions on this important question would be carried on with as much good humour as was compatible with the differences of opinion which existed with respect to them. As he was now up, he would take the opportunity of stating the course which ministers intended to pursue with respect to the intended measures. If the House should go into the committee, which he hoped and trusted it would do that night, it was his intention to move in the committee a resolution to this effect,—while he was on his legs—That it was desirable to repeal the laws which imposed civil disabilities on the Roman Catholics, with such exceptions as might be necessary to give full security to a Protestant State as by law established, and as would be sufficient for the protection of the Rights of the Church and of the Clergy. If the committee should agree to this, he would move for leave to bring in a bill to carry it into effect, and also for a bill to regulate the qualifications for the exercise of the elective franchise in Ireland. He could not bring in these bills sooner than Monday, and on their being read a first time, he would move that they be printed, and wait until that day week for the second reading; by which ample time would be given for the presentation of petitions from any part of the country on the subject. He knew his noble friend was too generous to press any thing hardly, and that his opposition would be conducted in a fair and frank manner. He trusted, therefore, he would now permit the debate to proceed, and defer the presentation of any petitions he might have to another evening.

said, he had no wish to take any unfair advantage, but being in possession of the House, and having other petitions to present, he could not accede to the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and would, if the motion were pressed, take the sense of the House upon it.

said, he would not press his motion, lest it should be supposed that he had any wish to stifle the petitions of any persons approaching that House. The course he had pointed out was that which he thought would be most for the convenience of all parties, for he knew there would be ample time for the presentation of petitions.

said, that perhaps it would be hardly fair, as the noble marquis was in possession of the House, to ask him to refrain from presenting the petitions; and as he had more to present, it would be as well that they should be received.

said, he would be the last man to take any unfair advantage, but he could not allow his right to present petitions to be interfered with. He would now present a petition from the Provost and Fellows of the Royal College of Eton, against concession to the Catholics.

presented a similar petition from a parish in Lincolnshire. He perfectly concurred in the prayer of it, and should feel it his duty to give the most determined resistance to the measure of Roman Catholic relief which had last night been propounded to the House. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman would not proceed further with his detestable bill [loud laughter], for it was calculated to sap the foundations of the constitution [a laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh, but he could assure them that he cared as little for their smiles as he did for their frowns, and should treat both with the most sovereign contempt. If they wished to know what he thought of their laughter, he would tell them, and it was this, "risu inepto nulla res ineptior est."

then moved, "That the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Roman Catholic Claims be now read."

objected to the motion, and expressed his opinion that there could not possibly be any business to engage the attention of the House more important than the petitions of the people: while there remained one of those petitions unheard, he would divide the House against proceeding to any other business, even if he divided alone.

The House divided: Ayes 205. Noes 76.

rose and addressed the House, but in a tone of voice which rendered him indistinctly heard in the gallery. He said, he felt extremely desirous of expressing his opinion with respect to the measure which his right hon. friend had introduced to the House yesterday evening; and, if the House would allow him, he would advert, in the first place, to an observation which had been made by his hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, last night. His hon. friend had told the House, that the principles on which this measure was brought forward were now entirely changed: "Formerly," said he, "it was debated on the principle of right: now, it is urged on the principle of expediency alone." Now, as he had given a sincere but humble support to this question on former occasions, he came forward again to uphold the same great principles; and if he and those who thought with him did not rest the question upon the same grounds as formerly, it was not because they were less sensible of its paramount importance, but because it was surrounded by peculiar and additional circumstances, which had reference to the peculiar crisis in which the country was placed. As often as this question had been debated in that place by the great men who were then no more, they had rested it on the great principles of right, of policy, and of justice; but they had also represented it as a question of necessity—of necessity which was more or less remote, and which was questioned by some, and denied by many. But at present there existed a necessity no longer remote, but it was upon us, and about us, and around us, and pressing us upon every side. He did not think that he was taking an exaggerated view of the state of the country, when he expressed it to be his opinion, that that country was never in a more critical situation, than the one in which it was placed at the commencement of the present session. He had heard it denied, up to the last moment, that the necessity existed in the degree stated by the members of his majesty's government. But if be went no further, it would be sufficient for him to state one fact to expose the fallacy of such a denial; and that fact was, that at the time when the session commenced, there were six millions of persons in Ireland in such a state of irritation, that a single word from a single man might have given rise to a conflagration, which could not have been subdued without exposing the country to all the horrors of a civil war. He lamented that this should be the case, but he called on gentlemen who were connected with Ireland to say, whether he had not stated the case correctly. Look at the statements in the petitions which had come from the opponents of concession in Ireland, and see whether they did not complain of a state of society existing there, as distressing to that country as it is disgraceful to this, of which it was considered a dependency. Nay, the facts which were nightly detailed to them by the members from Ireland, proved that the state of society in that country was convulsed to its very foundations. It was enough to give us proof of its condition, to advert to that great political power and authority which had recently risen up there, to that new dominion which pretended to control its affairs, to that imperium in imperio, which had absolutely protected the government, which had found itself unequal to control it. He alluded, of course, to that extraordinary phenomenon of modern times the Catholic Association, which had even succeeded in raising a revenue from an impoverished population, to accomplish its own political purposes. He did not stand forward as the eulogist of the Catholic Association. On the contrary, he censured many of its actions, and still more of its words; but it was idle to attempt to separate the Catholic Association from the people of Ireland—it was idle to speak of that Association as extrinsic from the people, and as merely connected with it by temporary excitements which would soon pass away. The truth was, that the Catholic Association was the people of Ireland, and that no coercion could be successfully exercised over a whole people who had resolved not to obey.

He could not help observing, that there was one circumstance connected at present with the Catholic question which struck him as new—up to the present time, it had always been said, that the question—namely, that of Catholic emancipation—however interesting it might be to a few of the higher classes of society, was utterly uninteresting to the great bulk of the population in Ireland. It was now clear, that the recent conduct of the people of Ireland had completely refuted that statement—to which by-the-bye, he had never given a moment's credit—for all classes had fully identified themselves with that very question. This was a fact that was palpable and notorious. It was said, however, by some, that their recent conduct was not to be ascribed to the interest excited by the Catholic question. If that were true, and due exertion had been used to quiet the excitement of the people—if it Were also true, that government was re- sponsible for the prosperity or misery of those whom it governed—then it must also be true, that the penal code, which government had supported, was the curse of Ireland; and so long as that penal code existed, so long would that curse remain in operation.

He should like to know on what grounds gentlemen on the other side justified further resistance to the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland to be admitted to the political privileges which were at present withheld from them. He believed the grounds were, that the religion of the Roman Catholics was incompatible with their loyalty to their sovereign. Now, these grounds were notoriously untenable; for ever since the system of concession to the Roman Catholics had commenced, every act of relaxation had been avowedly granted upon the ground that the Roman Catholics were loyal subjects; and yet, in the face of the recorded words of the legislature, honourable members now said, "we will refuse all further concessions to the Roman Catholics, because the professors of that religion cannot bear true allegiance to a Protestant sovereign;" thus insulting the religious feelings of their fellow-subjects, and giving a pretext for their own impolitic resolution, which they themselves knew to be false.

His hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford—and in alluding to that hon. member he did so with the greatest respect, both to his public and to his private character—his hon. friend had said last night, that we were not reduced to the alternative stated by his majesty's government of resorting either to concession or to coercion. And what was the argument which the hon. member had used in support of his position? He had said, that a united administration might be formed on the principle of permanent exclusion to the Roman Catholics; that it should obtain from parliament a strong measure for the coercion of Ireland; that it should rally round it the Protestants of that country; and that it should be prepared to support them by the presence of an English army. He had wished that the hon. baronet had followed the train of reasoning adopted on this very subject last night by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home Department. He would not impair his right hon. friend's argument by a repetition of it; but he would ask the hon. baronet, in the first place, whether he thought it possible for a united administration, formed upon the principle of which he had spoken, to obtain a strong measure of coercion—and to be effectual it must be a stronger measure of coercion than ever yet had been tried—from the House of Commons, as it was at present constituted. He would ask the hon. baronet, in the next place, if such an administration should be successful in obtaining such a measure, to tell him, what the situation of Ireland would be, after the government had rallied around it the Protestants of that country, and had made preparations to support them by the army of England, in order to avoid the horrors of a civil war? Did the House recollect what the hon. baronet had called the force which he would thus collect around the administration? Strange as it might appear, he had called it a "moral" force. He would next ask the hon. baronet, whether he conceived that the administration, after obtaining such a position, could remain in it for any length of time?—Whatever might be the power of the Protestants, and whatever might be the prowess of the British army—and no one could think more highly of the latter than he did, still he was of opinion, that five millions of Irish Catholics could not long be awed into submission, by such a force, under such grievances as they had to complain of. He believed that, in such circumstances, the same spirit would continue to influence them as had always influenced them in times past; and if it did, it could not fail to be productive of the most disastrous consequences. But perhaps his hon. friend supposed that it was impossible that a civil war should ever break out in Ireland? If such were his hon. friend's opinion, he Would venture to remind him, that thirty years ago the catastrophe which he considered so impossible actually occurred. He would not push to the extreme the advantage which he had gained over his hon. friend, and therefore he would not ask him, whether he did or not believe in the occurrence of that alleged impossibility? He would also ask his hon. friend, if he did not think, that the allegations of the right hon. secretary proved the existence of a necessity strong enough to warrant the government in making concessions, what allegations he would think sufficient to prove such a necessity, and what degree of necessity he would think sufficient to warrant any concessions? To what ex treme would his hon. friend drive the people of Ireland? For his own part, he thought that his right hon. friend had made out a sufficient necessity; for he was anxious to rescue the British empire from domestic convulsion, and to save it from the triple curse of a war, a civil war, and a civil war of religious feeling.

The right hon. member then spoke for some time in so low a key, that not a syllable which he uttered reached the gallery. When he was again audible he was speaking to this effect:—First of all, we were told that the necessity was not great, though the existing state of Ireland sufficiently refuted that assertion: next, that the laws affecting the Roman Catholics had not produced this position of affairs, though the very nature of things proved the very reverse: and then we were asked, "Who is it that has brought us into our present situation?" That, however, was not the question which ought to be asked. The proper question was, "How are we to get out of it?" He cared not who might be to blame for the errors which had been already committed; he would discard all feelings of indignation for the faults of the past: he would look forward with hope to the amendments of the future; and he would allow nothing to break the unity of his purpose, or to divert him from seeking to secure, so far as it rested on his humble efforts, the safety and integrity of the British empire. "My hon. friend," continued Mr. Grant, "observes that the noble duke, who is now at the head of his majesty's government, having been, from the habits of his life, accustomed to military command and military coercion, is not quite alive to the value of moral force, in the administration of political affairs. And it is curious to see the practical illustration which my hon. friend gives us of this observation. The duke of Wellington, accustomed to military command, when a crisis arrives, resorts not to the employment of power and coercion, but to the enactment of healing and conciliatory measures, to preserve the peace of a large empire; and my hon. friend not used to military command [hear, and a laugh], when the same crisis arrives, resorts to what he calls a system of moral force—that is, he appeals to the bayonets of the Protestants of Ireland, and promises to support them by the bayonets of the British army" [hear, hear].

"But," said his hon. friend, "this great measure is in violation of the principles of the Revolution in the year 1688." He deemed highly of—he had almost a mysterious reverence for—that Revolution, and for the great compact which accompanied it; but it had been well observed by his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the able, and eloquent, and convincing speech which he had made last night, that he too looked for the British constitution in the Revolution, but not exclusively in the Revolution of 1688. He would tell the House, that the Bill of Rights recognized and justified the assertion of his right hon. friend; for the merit of the Revolution of 1688 was not that it gave to the people of England new rights and new liberties, which they had not previously possessed, but that it vindicated and asserted what the Bill of Rights itself denominated their "undoubted rights and liberties." But if, instead of taking the wise, and extended, and statesman-like view of his right hon. friend respecting the fundamental principles of the constitution, he should be desired to look at the public compact formed at the Revolution of 1688 for the foundation of our rights and liberties, he would be content to rest the merits of this question even upon such narrow grounds. Yes, he would defy the most diligent opponent of the Catholic claims to point out to him in the Bill of Rights^* a single clause by which the exclusion of Roman Catholics from seats in parliament was declared to be either a fundamental or an indispensable principle of the British constitution. It was true that the Bill of Rights recorded the grievances committed against the liberties of the people by the preceding monarch, and the remedies provided to prevent a recurrence of them; and that it excluded from the throne any person who should refuse to take the Declaration which it contained, and who should profess the Popish religion. Such were the two distinctions drawn in the Bill of Rights, and whoever looked at that bill—not with the lynx-eye of suspicion, and with a view to discover in every line of it approbation of the principle of exclusion—would see that the indispensable articles of it related to the liberties so guaranteed to the people, and to the protection of the Throne from the intrusion of Popery. All else was mere machinery: but the Declaration mentioned in the bill, and the protection of the throne from the occupancy of a Papist, were the perpetual and indispensable parts of the constitution. The Bill of Rights said, that the king shall "make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the Declaration mentioned in the statute made in the 30th year of the reign of Charles 2nd" and the allusion to that act showed that it came within the contemplation of those who were the authors and promoters of the Revolution. If, then, they had been of opinion, that the exclusion of Roman Catholics from seats in parliament was as indispensable as the Protestant character of the person who filled the throne, how did it happen, he asked, that there was no provision for the one, when there was an express provision for the other? It appeared to have been easy for them to say, that if the king shall hold communion with the church of Rome, or if he shall profess the Popish religion, or if he shall marry a Papist, he shall be excluded from the throne; and that in such cases the people are absolved of their allegiance: and it would have been just as easy, and, if they had entertained such an intention, it would have been almost impossible for them to have omitted saying so—it would have been just as easy, he repeated, to have added, that every Roman Catholic shall be prohibited from taking his seat in either House of Parliament, and that the consent of the king to his admission there shall also be considered as a just cause for absolving the subject from his allegiance. It had been stated that this was already the language of the Bill of Rights, but he denied it. It was only a comment on the bill—it was only a modern construction put upon it by interested individuals.

^* For a copy of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, see Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 483.

There were some persons, he understood, in the country, who contended, that whether Roman Catholics sat upon the throne, or whether they were allowed to take their seats in parliament, the constition was equally violated in both cases, and the subject was dissolved from his allegiance. He should be loth to enter upon the perilous question of deciding when the subject's allegiance was dissolved; but if he did enter upon such a question, he would appeal to the words of the Bill of Rights itself; he would not take the gloss of those persons who called themselves Brunswickers, and who, at the very moment that they were mooting questions regarding dissolved allegiance, inveighed with acrimonious bitterness against those whom they accused of holding a divided allegiance. If, then, the principle of exclusion could not be maintained in the authority of the words of the Bill of Rights, on what other grounds was it asserted, that it formed an indispensable part of the constitution? Was it consistent with the support and maintenance of the constitution? He thought he need not go the length of arguing, that it was not; for all the great authorities, from Bacon down to that of Burke, declared that the constitution did not rest on the principle of exclusion. If this were correct, on what temporary exigency was this principle introduced into it; The act of the 30th of Charles 2nd was the act which introduced it. He need not, he was sure, enter into the history of that act. It was passed at a period the most calamitous and disgraceful in the annals of the empire, and was connected with events which every honest lover of his country would wish to see erased from them, unless they could prove useful in giving statesmen a warning of what they ought to avoid. He rejoiced to see the bill for the repeal of these excluding laws at last submitted by government to the consideration of parliament. He could not express the delight with which he had listened to his right hon. friend, last night when he made the proposition for their repeal. The day of its introduction would form an epoch in our history,—it was a great day for this country,—it was a great day for Ireland,—it was a great day for his right honourable friend. He had proclaimed it in a spirit worthy of the great cause which he had espoused, of the great principles he had advocated, and of the healing measures it enforced. He rejoiced, because he saw in the great amelioration proposed to them, a liberal act introduced for liberal purposes, and in a spirit genial and kindred with its principle—he rejoiced, because he beheld an act of justice bestowed with all the generosity and grace of which it was susceptible True it was, that there were one or two particulars of the measure which might in the details be open to some objections, and on which it was natural to expect different observations would be made. But when he looked at the main principle upon which it proceeded, and saw every thing in it which the most sanguine friend of civil and religious liberty could anticipate, he could not easily bring himself to cavil at points of minor consideration. A noble lord had expressed his opinion that the securities which were interwoven with the proposed bill were worth nothing. To this objection he would reply—that the merit of the measure was, that it carried with it intrinsically its own essential merits; it sought for its efficacy no collateral aid; its great principle was, that it applied directly all the benefits of the measure with judgment and promptitude. To say, therefore, then, that the securities assigned to it were inadequate, was to say nothing, but to magnify the merit of a measure which, in its single quality, must effect all its beneficent intentions. To say, forsooth, that the passing of this bill would leave the Protestant constitution of this kingdom without securities, was to talk idly. Where were the securities which now existed, and which would remain after this bill should pass into a law? The securities upon which Protestantism had long rested, and where it might safely repose, were those which were to be found in the zeal of its professors, some of whom he regretted to see taking a course adverse to the present bill. He believed, however, that many of them opposed it from a sincere desire to vindicate the Protestant faith. As to security (said the right hon. gentleman), I find it in the very exertions made to resist the progress, or rather the introduction of this bill; I find it in the conscientious zeal displayed throughout the country to protect our national faith, and our episcopal church. I find it in the nobility of England—in the gentry and yeomanry of England, whom I see united heart and hand to resist the slightest encroachment of Catholicism. I find it in our clergy, in whom I, for one, place confidence; and I find it in the excellence of our establishment. If I could persuade myself, with the hon. member who spoke from under the gallery, that this measure would lessen the security of our episcopal establishment, instead of being eager to support it I should be among the first to resist it. I think the security of our church depends, not on such law-constructed barriers, but upon the soundness of its doctrines, the purity of its adherents, and the zeal, devotion, and energy of its sacred functionaries. Above all, it depends upon the confidence of the people, who find in their clergy an example of those virtues which the Protestant religion is calculated to cherish, and, more than all, of that virtue which is the source and root of all others—charity. But do I look for securities in this country only? I look for them especially in Ireland, in the now united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I look for it in the attachment of seven millions of fellow subjects. After a long night of injustice and oppression, they will now find themselves restored to their just place in society. They will be rescued by wise laws from the unjust domination of the priesthood, of whom our laws have hitherto made them by turns the tyrants and the slaves. I look for it in the reasonable and proper influence which will now be given to rank, property, the aristocracy, and education, in Ireland, and to the ameliorating spirit that will hereafter pervade all classes. Still more do I look for security from the great mass of the people, now for the first time open to the moral influence which is now agitating not only this country, but every part of Europe. Nor are these securities to be so lightly treated, when we reflect, that, after all, they are the very securities on which the British constitution rests. It is not founded upon the principle of exclusion—it was not framed for the benefit of one estate only, to the neglect or injury of others, but for the purpose of obtaining the combined force of the aggregate population; and upon that combination of interests mainly, the strength, spirit, essence, and perpetuity of the constitution depend. I confess I am most sanguine as to the results of this proposition, and I trust that my anticipations will not be disappointed. I trust that the measure will be received in this House with that disposition which has been already testified, and then I know how it will be received in the country. I hope and believe it will be received in Ireland in the same spirit in which it has been proposed by government. If I had any influence with that fine people, I should conjure them to reflect what the boon is—how long it has been in vain solicited, and in how generous, how noble a spirit this magnificent work of conciliation has been at length achieved. I hope and believe, that the day on which this bill shall obtain the royal assent will be for ever remembered in Ireland—that it will be remembered in their solemn meetings, and in their hours of conviviality, not as the signal of disunion and discord, but as the pledge and rallying-point of tranquillity and obedience on the one hand, and of kindness and protection on the other.

said, that he had already declared early in the session, that if the intended measure of the government were such a one as while it satisfied the Protestant feelings did not trench upon the conscientious scruples of the Catholics, it should have his cordial though humble support. He had heard the measure developed last night, in the speech of the right hon. gentleman, which divided itself into three branches: the first related to the great measure itself, the second to the securities which were to accompany it; and the third, to a subject totally foreign to the other two, upon which he should have a word to say hereafter. Regarding the great measure itself, the ground-work appeared to be so wisely, so largely, and liberally made, that it only remained for him to offer it his warmest approbation. Regarding the securities which were appended to it, no Catholic could object to them, nor any reasonable Protestant offer his dissent. With respect to the third measure, the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, it had little or no connexion with the great measure itself. Upon it he confessed he entertained a strong opinion, and against it he should enter his protest, when the bill came regularly before the House; assuring the House at the same time, that he should make no factious opposition to the main principle of the bill, as nothing upon earth could induce him to endanger the safety of the great measure, by raising any protracted dispute upon the other. In regard to the general question, after the events of the past year—after the special admission of the government, that they would no longer undertake the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country, unless the Catholic question was permanently settled—he should not waste the time of the House by combating the prejudices, or dispelling the apprehensions, of those who now opposed the approach to peace and tranquillity, but would simply ask those gentlemen who were the advocates for the application of brute force to calm the anger of a long-suffering people, how long they meant their experiment to last. Were they so unwise as to wish to marshal the extreme prejudices of portions of the people of England in mortal array against the passions of the great majority of the people of Ireland? Was this consolidation of deadly hatred, this storm and conflict of enraged passions, to be announced as the deliberate policy of the civilized government? In this state of things, it required little foresight to predict, that the result would be irreconcileable and unextinguishable national antipathies, and the exacerbation of all the bitter feelings which these sad laws had enkindled. In the mean time, what was to be the condition of the moderate Protestants of Ireland, whose property and lives must be equally exposed, in the progress of this heated and most impolitic civil contest? The wretched condition and suffering which had followed this cruel and unwise course of action, and was exhibited on the very surface of the country, had been well exposed by an able and eloquent writer, who said—"I set my foot upon their boundaries and said freedom is not here. I saw their naked hills, and still more stunted sterility. I saw the downcast visage of the people, their degraded aspect, and all the indelible traces of their abject and desperate poverty; their crowded and cheerless huts; and I saw in the countenances of man to man the furious vindictiveness of popular feeling. Then I said, this people cannot be free." He thanked God the time had at length arrived, when the Protestants of Ireland implored a change of these obnoxious and paralysing laws. They were surrounded by an almost exclusive Catholic population, and they felt that if something was not done, and that quickly, their hold upon the soil must not depend upon their identity in one common interest with their peasantry, but upon their capability of bringing to bear an anti-national power of coercive control by the means of England, to perpetuate all the pre-existing abuses, and add every species of inflammation to the already too heated mass. The Protestant landlords of Ireland, saw themselves brought into perpetual collision with their tenantry—they were looked upon as unwelcome strangers in their native land—as the oppressors rather than the protectors of the people on their estates. He would ask such gentlemen of England as opposed conciliation, how they would like to live among their own tenantry, surrounded by these elements of danger and combustion? If this system was per severed in, it could have only one result—they would awake from their delusion, and, in the consummation of their foolish project, behold their own ruin involved with that of the empire. What policy could be more fatally mistaken, than that of plunging sects of society into perpetual collision with each other? Look at the proof of these errors of government in the struggle of Greece when driven mad by Turkey. Look at the struggles between the black and white population of Kentucky and Virginia; where the free blacks formed one-sixth of the population. Why, then, persevere in this mad project of degradation, which, wherever it has been tried, has brought misery and desolation in its train? No matter under what emblem party spirit was kept up, whether between white and black, or orange and green, it signified nothing; for wherever man found he was degraded, whether on account of moral or physical causes, there he was sure to complain and resist. While, on the other hand, kindliness produced affection. It operated like charity, as described by a great poet—

"It droppeth like the gentle rain from Heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blessed—It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes."

The question is simply this: shall we use this power to the weakness of the State; or by giving the Catholics a share in the blessings of the constitution, shall we add to our strength, and multiply our resources? Having tried the experiment of exclusion for so many years, and having notoriously experienced its failure, might it not be as well, in accordance with the proposition of ministers, to adopt the contrary system, and to ascertain whether it would not produce a contrary effect? But we were told that our experience was to go for nought—that, because our glorious constitution of 1688 excluded Roman Catholics, therefore they were to remain excluded. What, after all, constituted the security of the Protestant constitution in Church and State? Did it consist of acts of parliament, of public documents, of the rolls of 1668? No: it was derived from a population enthusiastically attached to the doctrines and tenets of the Church of England. This was the only charter of the Established Church. Then how, he should be glad to know, unless the admission of Roman Catholics to civil power was to have the miraculous effect of in- stantly converting the Protestants to Catholicity, could that event endanger the stability of the Established Church? That church was safe as long, and no longer, than while the majority of the people were followers and supporters of it. Let the Protestants once change to Catholicity, to Presbyterianism, or to Mahommetanism, and infallibly, despite the constitution of 1688, the pope would supplant the archbishop of Canterbury, or Synods or Mosques would supplant the Church. Then, what after all, was there in the proposition which was so to fright honourable members from their propriety as to induce them to believe that, by attempting to regulate this subject, on the recommendation of his majesty's ministers, we should shake the well-founded confidence now existing in the stability of the church? Our course was clear; let us not hesitate to pursue it. Let us pass a law which shall make the whole nation, Catholic as well as Protestant, rally as one man round the sovereign. Let us support the grand principle of civil and religious liberty. Once acted upon, that principle would tranquillize Ireland; place Great Britain upon a firmer footing than she had ever yet held, even in times of her brightest glory, and unite the inhabitants of the whole empire in peace, amity, and concord. With these views, and with this feeling, he needed hardly state with what eagerness he should afford his humble support to the measure about to be introduced; nor could he sit down without offering a just tribute to those ministers, who, regardless of personal considerations, have had the magnanimity to sacrifice the temporary popularity of party connexions, to establish the permanent tranquillity of the kingdom. There was a magnanimity in their last act, which entitled them to the public gratitude.

said, that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had put the measure now under consideration on the ground that the House should make up its mind to concessions to the Roman Catholics, or to a civil war in Ireland. When this opinion fell from the right hon. Secretary, his opinions on the subject, he confessed, were somewhat shaken, but when he came to consider the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, he could not believe that it was well founded. He thought there was no reasonable apprehension of a rebellion in Ireland. The property of the Roman Catholics had been constantly increasing in that country since the last rebellion: and it was well known that, in the year 1798, and for some years following, the priests could not collect their dues. It was their interest and the interest of the Roman Catholics of property, therefore, to keep Ireland out of rebellion now; so that he confessed he was a little incredulous when he was told, that they were to look for a civil war in Ireland. He was disposed to think that the proposed measure, like other half measures, would not have the effect of pleasing either party. The Roman Catholics would justly feel offended at the proposal made to disfranchise the forty-shilling freeholders. Where was the justice in telling the Roman Catholic aristocracy, that they might have seats in that House, and in the same breath telling the Roman Catholic freeholders that they should be disfranchised? In his opinion, it was by no means a measure of justice. It was a great mistake, he feared, to suppose that the Roman Catholics would be satisfied with the privilege of voting in that House. They would be for interfering with tithes, with church property, and with vestries; and if Roman Catholics were allowed to vote at vestries, what church in Ireland would ever be repaired? He had no doubt that, if the proposed measure passed, the Catholics would be for repealing the Tithe Commutation Act, the Sub-letting Act, the Vestry Act, and every other act which in any way had the effect of abridging Roman Catholic influence. Another Catholic Association, too, might arise under some new name, and issue its mandate to the Irish members to vote against ministers. If the proposed measure passed into a law, there was every probability that the Roman Catholics would continue quite as much dissatisfied as they now were, unless ulterior measures were conceded, the effect of which would be to give a predominance to the Roman Catholic Church. He therefore called on every independent member in the House to consider the effect of the proposed measure; and he put it to any man in that House, whether he thought that, if the Catholics were in power, they would extend to the Protestants the same degree of toleration which was extended to them.

rose at the same time. The calls for Mr. Brougham were loud and general; but the former honourable gentleman having first caught the Speaker's eye, proceeded to address the House.

assured the House, that he would not trespass on its patience at any length; but if the hon. and learned gentleman had spoken before him, he knew the difficulty he should have had in obtaining a hearing. He was anxious to express his approbation, and he might say admiration, of the measure about to be presented to the House by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. Every part of the proposed measure, with one exception, should have his warmest support, and the objection he entertained to that one part of the measure, had arisen from the information derived from the circumstance of his being one of the committee appointed to decide upon the Clare election. Much as he approved of the measure about to be introduced to the House, he approved still more of the manner in which it had been brought forward. He was particularly gratified last night with the animated and convincing reply of the right hon. and gallant general below him (sir George Murray) to the hon. member for the University of Oxford. It was an unusual and an interesting sight to see the right hon. and gallant general, connected with a profession which was improperly described as too much addicted to the application of brute force, reading a lesson of peace and conciliation to a learned civilian. The maxim, "cedunt arma togœ" was here reversed for the toga of the academic was, in this instance, used as a cloak for intolerance and prejudice, whilst the arms which the right hon. and gallant general wielded with so much effect against the enemies of his country, were changed for those of peace, brotherly love, and Christian charity. He considered that the opposition to this measure was most disgraceful. One of the most favourite arts was to overwhelm the House with petitions. He was inclined to pay every deference to the feelings of the people, through whose confidence he had obtained a seat in that House; but he did not hesitate to say, that there was a great deal of clamour mixed up with these petitions. Surely, when effigies of the Pope and "bloody Mary" were taken about to excite the feelings of the people, it could not be expected that there would be a fair expres- sion of public feeling. In some cases, however, he conceived that it would comport more with the dignity of that House to lead than to follow public feeling, and this was precisely one of those cases. What lord Chatham had applied to America might be applied with equal force to Ireland. Lord Chatham said, that the Americans had been driven to madness by injustice, and then blamed for violence. If the system of violence had been pursued during some years past, he was convinced that the situation of Ireland would be much worse than it was at present. He had a confident expectation, however, that the measure about to be introduced, would prove the foundation-stone of the temple of Concord.

said, he would not occupy the attention of the House but for a very few minutes. He did not rise at that late period of discussion, to offer any answer to the thousand-times-refuted arguments—if they deserved the name—which were still reiterated against the settlement of this question; for that would be wholly useless. He rose merely to express his entire and unqualified approbation of the measure proposed by the right hon. Secretary. It went the full and entire length that any reasonable man ever did or ever could demand. It did equal justice to his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. It put an end to all religious distinctions; it exterminated all civil disqualifications on account of religion. In its means of operation it was at once simple and efficacious: it clogged no exercise of civil or religious rights, and required no securities but such as the most zealous Catholic must readily admit to be of necessity part and parcel of such a comprehensive measure; so that it was altogether a bill which appeared to carry, as far as any measure of the legislature could do, a proclamation through the king's dominions, that religious discord shall be no more. He next came to the oath proposed to be taken by Roman Catholics on assuming office, or becoming members of parliament, which appeared to him to be exactly suitable, and entirely consistent, with the duties of persons taking office under such circumstances, but not so as it respected members of parliament. As far as the form was borrowed from that adopted in a similar measure—he alluded to the case of the declaration embodied in the bill for the repeal of the Test act—it seemed perfectly applicable to the case of individuals accepting office, but it did not appear to be such a declaration as could consistently be taken by members of parliament. He thought that that and some other passages occurring in the oath to be taken by privy councillors, appeared to require further consideration, particularly in the negative part. Possibly, however, the objection would not be found to exist so strongly, when the matter was more carefully examined—possibly he himself, on further consideration, might see cause to change his opinion with respect to it; but on hearing the document read cursorily by the right hon. Secretary last night, he thought there was some difficulty, but he trusted that a more attentive consideration might show the apprehension to be groundless, or provide a remedy for the defect, if there existed any. Passing over that, he came to the other part of the measure; namely, the second bill Which the right hon. gentleman proposed to introduce, and in which he intended to regulate the state of the elective franchise in Ireland. To one who, in 1825, had offered a decided and strenuous opposition to a measure of that description, it might well be considered that this, which, examined by itself, appeared a much larger measure, and one involving a greater and more sweeping disfranchisement, ought to be matter of grave and serious objection. He had opposed the measure for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders in 1825; and he would not disguise it, that for his own part, to that measure he had all but an invincible repugnance. Had he even altered his opinion of the lesser and more moderate measure of 1825, the present, as he had already stated, was one which, taken separately, was of a nature still more obnoxious and more liable to objection. Even had he been one of those who supported that measure, he might with perfect consistency oppose this, which was one of a much larger, more sweeping, and retrospective character. But he looked not to these measures separately; he considered them as a whole. If the question was put to him, "Do you mean to vote for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders?"—If this question was put to him separately, singly, and apart from all other considerations, as an abstract proposition to be weighed and determined on its own grounds, and on its own grounds answered, his answer was at once and simply, "No." But that was not the question to be answered; for it rested on other grounds, and was a much more difficult and complex question; and if he was practically called on to say whether or not he should take upon himself the responsibility—even the smallest share of the awful and tremendous responsibility—of saying to Ireland, "Your last chance of tranquillity, good order, and safety is gone, from the adoption of these two measures which are inseparably connected"—from that responsibility—even from the smallest share of that responsibility—he honestly confessed he shrank; and he was not ashamed to confess that he did; for it was a responsibility that would not only appal the stoutest heart, but shake the soundest judgment. He therefore agreed to the disfranchisement as the price—as the high price—as the all but extravagant price—of this inestimable good; and not only an inestimable good, but a measure that had always been one of the highest expediency, the strictest justice, and which was now a measure of the most overwhelming necessity—that price, to obtain that good, he, for one, would most willingly pay [loud cheers].

owned, that his majesty's ministers had submitted to great sacrifices, in order to attain their object of introducing these measures of concession, from which they seemed so confidently to anticipate the tranquillity of Ireland. The first question to be considered was, were these measures likely to produce that effect? Would they establish tranquillity, allay religious animosities, put an end to the contention between the Protestant and Catholic Associations; or where they, on the contrary, likely to produce any other effect, than merely to change the subjects of dispute, and entail on that country struggles still more fierce and violent than those in which it was now engaged? In estimating the character of these measures which were said to lead to tranquillity, the House could not fail to be struck in the outset by the manner in which they had been brought forward by his majesty's ministers, and by the circumstances under which the concessions were to be made. They were brought forward as measures of necessity: they were represented, not as an act of grace, but as measures forced reluctantly from his majesty's ministers, by the course of events. He was far from imputing to his majesty's government that they had acted under fear, in any disgraceful or dishonourable sense of the word; but it was not to be denied, that the measures had been rendered necessary by the bold and menacing attitude of the Catholic Association. That attitude, indeed, was so formidable, that many of his majesty's ministers had avowed, that though they still retained their former opinions, they thought those concessions were inevitable, and should be made from views of prudence, to secure more firmly the Protestant establishment. With their eyes still open to all the evils—the inevitable consequence of the concessions they were compelled to yield, even at the risk of throwing the country into alarm, and confusion—his majesty's ministers persevered with their measures. The right hon. member for the county of Inverness had last night congratulated the House and the country on the excellent prospects before them, and had described the measures as the most auspicious ever introduced into parliament. Now he could not possibly conceive any measures to be commenced under less happy auspices. They were, in fact, measures extorted by necessity, from a reluctant government. What promise did they afford that they would prove so essential to the future tranquillity of Ireland? Did it augur well for the peace of Ireland, that his majesty's ministers had yielded up their deliberately-adopted and long-cherished opinions, for the sake of purchasing what at best was a perilous and uncertain remedy for the existing evils? He would say, that the manner in which this measure had been brought forward afforded but an indifferent promise for the future tranquillity of Ireland, holding out as it did an invitation to the Catholics to attempt fresh struggles for the attainment of ulterior objects. He for one could not believe that these concessions, ample, and, he might almost say, unconditional, as they were, would satisfy all the desires of the Roman Catholics. They would not satisfy that important and powerful part of the Catholic body who exercised an unbounded influence over the rest, he meant the Catholic clergy. Nothing would satisfy them but the establishment of their own church on the ruins of our Protestant institutions. That must be their ultimate object, anxious as they were to advance their temporal interests, as well as their spiritual power. It was not in human nature that they should have no wishes or interests for themselves. While they exercised a tremendous power over the people, it could not be expected that they would forego all hopes of exalting themselves, and cheerfully submit to exclusion from the wealth and honours of the Church, leaving them undisturbed in the possession of a clergy whom they regarded as heretical. If the Catholic priests were disposed to exert that influence now, was that disposition likely to be diminished by our yielding to them? Were they less likely to show their power then, than they did now through the Catholic Association which they governed and directed? What possible security could be had, that would compel the Catholic priesthood to forbear from exerting their power? We had none and could have none. Was parliament to rely on the moderation and temperance of the Catholic clergy? Surely that was not a security to serve as a foundation upon which to build well-grounded hopes of future tranquillity, by allaying religious animosities, blending together hostile sentiments, and producing that friendly union which the right hon. Secretary sought by these measures to establish. The right hon. member for the county of Inverness had congratulated the House and the country also, that these measures had been brought forward without any parliamentary or artificial securities; and the hon. and learned gentleman, who spoke lately, had certainly admitted that the securities were little better than nominal. He was glad to have the authority of both the hon. gentlemen to sanction the opinion he had formed, when he heard the speech of the right hon. Secretary; namely that this plan of safety contained no adequate security for the protection of the Established Church—that Church which his Majesty, in his gracious Speech, had recommended to their especial care and protection, and which we were enjoined, above all things, to uphold, and to enter into no measure in which the preservation of the Protestant Establishment was not the first and principal object. The offices of Lord Chancellor in England and Ireland, and Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, were not to be filled by Catholics; but the office of first Lord of the Treasury might be held by a Catholic, and all the rest of the cabinet might be Catholics. The Lord Chancellor had the disposal of the Crown patronage, as to livings of the smallest income on the King's books. That office was not to be given to a Catholic; that patronage was not to fall into the hands of the Catholics; but then the first lord of the Treasury, who recommended to the Crown the persons who were to fill the highest stations in the Church, the bishops of the realm, might be a Catholic. There was a provision, he admitted, made by the right hon. Secretary, which certainly stated, that if any officer, other than the Lord Chancellor or Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, should happen to be a Catholic, his patronage should be transferred to a commission. He wished that this provision should be distinctly understood, for he owned he did not perfectly know whether it meant to include the whole patronage necessarily belonging to the office. For example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had the right of presentation to the livings in his jurisdiction, as being necessarily attached to the office. Was it meant that the first lord of the Treasury, whose duty it was, to recommend to the Crown the appointment of the bishops, should, if a Catholic, not himself appoint a clergyman? This exception of the patronage would, however, not prevent the first lord of the Treasury from recommending whom he pleased to the Crown, though it might prevent him, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, from using the patronage belonging to his office. He should be extremely happy to hear this provision explained; as at present he was not satisfied with respect to it. As to the securities, or exceptions he would rather call them, introduced by this bill, he thought they were quite sufficient as a badge or mark to distinguish the Catholics as an inferior sect, not worthy of being completely trusted, while the securities themselves were perfectly insufficient for any practical and efficacious purpose. If the bill were passed with these restrictions and exceptions incorporated with it, they would be admissions of the existence of ulterior dangers [cheers]. He repeated, they were admissions that the Catholics had still an object behind, which they wished to obtain, and which they inevitably would obtain, if parliament gave them sufficient power. Else why, he asked, when parliament granted almost all they desired, as it was said, were they not deemed worthy to be trusted without taking securities from them, and imposing exceptions and restrictions, which shewed that parliament did not yet consider them worthy of confidence? He was happy to be confirmed in that view of the case by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, who had admitted that the Catholics had ulterior objects. That right hon. gentleman had stated most emphatically, that he had not changed his former opinions, but that he deemed it necessary to alter his course. He had also distinctly admitted, that the Catholics had ulterior objects, which they must wish and would attempt to accomplish. In the very able speech which the right hon. gentleman had delivered last night, he had put in this way:—"Let us grant these concessions; then let the struggle come; for I still think a struggle will come for ulterior objects" [cries of "no, no!"] He thought the right hon. gentleman had stated so much in substance, but not, perhaps, in those very words [cries of "no, no!"]. The right hon. gentleman had certainly reasoned in this way: "If we are to have another contest, let us first grant these concessions, that we may come to that contest with additional strength" [cheers]. He believed he had now fairly stated the right hon. gentleman's argument. He honestly confessed, that he did not quite understand this mode of reasoning. It did not seem to him the most wise and expedient course, when a contest was impending, to put additional power into the hands of those who were to struggle against us. In the course of these discussions, a great deal had been said as to the principles of the Revolution of 1688, and it was contended by some honourable gentlemen, that these measures would not break in upon that settlement. In the view he took, he could not regard the resolution in the same light as those hon. gentlemen. He did not regard it, as many of his friends did, that it had originated the British constitution. He looked upon it as the act which perfected and put the finishing stroke to that admirable constitution which had been preparing for ages. There was no provision, it was said, in the Bill of Rights, to exclude Catholics from parliament. But when he looked at what was passing, and at the opinion of our ancestors, it was impossible not to see that they did intend that parliament and the councils of the King should be of a character exclusively Protestant. The Catholics had been excluded from parliament before that time; but the great work was perfected at the Revolution, by excluding Catholics from the throne. But his majesty's ministers, while they retained their opinions, said that the present danger was so urgent, that at all hazards, they were resolved to purchase a little present ease. They could not, forsooth, pass a bill to suppress the Catholic Association—they could not obtain the consent of parliament, they said, to such a measure unless they could obtain an agreement from parliament to pass a bill of Emancipation. They said, in effect, "We will make a compromise; we will grant concessions; and at the same time call on those who oppose them to agree to the suppression of the Association." He believed he had stated fairly, and in a few words, the foundation of what the right hon. gentleman had stated in the early part of the session. The question was, whether, in making this exchange or compromise, the objects on each side were of equal value? Did the people of England gain an equivalent for what they lost? In his view of the case—and when it was confirmed by the right hon. gentleman, that view must be correct—these measures would break in on the settlement made at the Revolution of 1688. The principles of that glorious event were not to be bartered away for any temporary purpose or expedient; but now it was proposed to abandon them, and in exchange his majesty's ministers gave parliament a bill for the suppression of the Catholic Association. The time was past for offering an opinion as to whether the measure for effecting that purpose was likely to be successful or not to the extent required and expected. That bill was merely a temporary act, and afforded a slight chance of accomplishing the pacification of Ireland. We were giving up that which should be permanent, and in return purchasing a mere chance of obtaining temporary tranquillity in Ireland. In fact, we were attacking the established church, without ensuring the permanent peace of that country. We were breaking in on the constitution of 1688 to purchase a short and precarious truce. He trusted that the spirit of the recommendation contained in the king's Speech at the opening of the session would be attended to by his majesty's ministers and others. That recommendation was to take into deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; and he did hope that sufficient time would be allowed for these measures to be calmly, fully, and deliberately, discussed within the walls of that and the other House of parliament, and that time would also be allowed for a full and free expression of the feelings and opinions of the people on those measures, which he would say were the most important ever laid before parliament since the accession of the House of Hanover to the throne of these realms.

said:—The honourable member who has just sat down, began by stating his opinion, that the proposed measure would not restore the tranquillity of Ireland. To the speech of that hon. member I have listened with the greatest attention. While he was speaking I waited with the greatest anxiety to learn from him that proposal with which, from the general tenor of his observations, the hon. member might have been expected, as a matter of course, to conclude. I waited with the deepest anxiety which could be entertained to learn from that hon. member the nature of that complete and satisfactory measure, by which he would propose to establish the tranquillity of Ireland. I need hardly say, that the hon. member's speech arrived at a conclusion so lame and impotent, as, in that respect, to bring with it entire disappointment. The hon. member began by stating, that this measure of government was insufficient, as not creating complete and unexceptionable securities for preserving the established church from those ulterior assaults with which it was threatened. Allow me to say, that the hon. member has not put the argument with that fairness which candid discussion demands, and which ought always to govern the deliberations of parliament. The question is, not whether we have obtained any new securities by means of this measure, but whether we have parted with any securities which we formerly possessed. I trust it will not be imagined, that I am lukewarm in my attachment to the established church; I do not yield to any man in zeal for the established church; and least of all would I yield to any man in zeal for the prosperity and integrity of that portion of it which is established in Ireland. I am attached to it and to its members by the warmest feelings of our nature, by the earliest emotions that animate my breast, by close friendship, by gratitude, and by cordial affection. If I believed that, in making these concessions, we were parting with any real existing security, I would sooner part with my right hand than give my support to any such measure. But can I believe that that which in Ireland is treated as the cause of undeserved humiliation on the one hand, and of unworthy superiority on the other, could long exist in a state of security? Can I believe that it is for the advantage of the established church, that it should be regarded as the cold, dark, and chilling obstacle, which interposed between the people and the beams of royal favour, which crosses every man in the road of industry and of honour—which is regarded as forming an insurmountable barrier to the advancement of every class among the Roman Catholics—which says to them, "You shall be excluded from the common blessings of society, you shall not be partakers of the common prosperity of that country whose common burthens you bear." Is there not, then, an inconceivable increase of security given to the established church, by throwing down those barriers which have so long stood in the way of the Catholics, and pronouncing that the reformed church shall no longer be an object of popular detestation, hatred, hostility, and envy? Does not impart security to the established church, to give content to those classes who feel religion as a necessity of their nature? Does it not give security to that establishment to inspire feelings of mutual confidence and regard, among all classes of his majesty's subjects, be their religious persuasion what it may? I would ask the hon. member for the university of Oxford and others who feel a strong regard for the established church, and that clergy who not only teach and support our religion, but practise its precepts, to consider whether the present state of Ireland conduces to those religious feelings which they profess themselves anxious to maintain? The present state of Ireland, I can speak from my own actual observation conduces to very different feelings and principles. It plucks out the heart of religion, which is charity; it sets man against man; it puts a canker into every heart; and, if it belong-continued, it will, I fear put a dagger into every hand. Gracious God! is it for the interests of religion, and of that church which professes to be united in its spirit and feeling with religion, that men of high rank among the clergy should descend from their pulpits, and, mixing with the multitude, occupy the time that ought to be devoted to the sacred duties of their profession, in inflaming the angry passions of the people, and familiarizing their minds with the horrors of a civil war? Is conduct such as this sanctioned by the tenets of the Christian religion, or necessary for maintaining the established church in Ireland? Can I believe that the tenets of that church are only to be maintained at the expense of public tranquillity? I may be allowed, as a native of that country, and after surveying the conduct of its people for a series of years, to say, without any feeling of prejudice, and with no feelings, I believe, of partiality—and certain I am, that, if any partiality does belong to my feelings and affections, it is for my Protestant rather than for my Roman Catholic countrymen—to tell the hon. gentleman, that it is not possible, if the situation of Ireland remains such as it has been for the last twenty years, that it can be compatible with the tranquillity of the people; and I will tell the hon. gentleman further, that I believe firmly, that if any people on the face of the globe could have been governed as Ireland has been, they would be as much dissatisfied as the Irish themselves. I trust there is no member in this House who believes that when my countrymen have obtained equal rights with the rest of their fellow-subjects, they will cease to be tranquil, become addicted to treason, and disposed to overturn the government, and the constitution which afford them protection and encouragement. As was so admirably and eloquently asked last night by the gallant general below me (sir G. Murray), is there any thing in the character of Irishmen, or in the climate of the country, which can indispose its inhabitants to the blessings of civilized society and the government of law? No, Sir, there is nothing in those circumstances which interposes an obstacle to the improvement of Ireland. That obstacle is only to be found in the law which the present measure proposes to abrogate; it is only to be found in that idolized ascendancy, which has been an object of such impious and superstitious worship in this country—that ascendancy which has excited the unspeakable odium that fills every Catholic breast; that ascendancy which has kept, and will keep Ireland in a state of discontent and agitation, until the present benevolent measure shall be carried into full effect. An outcry has been raised, that the constitution of 1688 will be broken in upon, What proof have we that that constitution is not adapted to every conceivable change which society in this country may undergo, in all time to come? And, if there be no such proof, I hesitate not to say, that the time has arrived when it may, to the proposed extent at least, be broken in upon with safety to its remaining institutions, with justice to Ireland, and with advantage to the empire at large.

Let me, Sir, offer a few words of consolation to the hon. gentleman, as to the result of this question. Sir, I will ask any Irish gentleman, where Protestant ascendancy, about which they talk so much, has been to be found for the last fifteen years. Let them ask the merchant, whether it is to be found on the exchange—let them ask the lawyer whether it is to be found in the four courts—let them ask the country gentleman whether it is to be found on the hustings? I answer for them—no. The Protestant ascendancy, which those Protestant gentlemen worship so devoutly, is in fact a visionary being—without substance, impalpable, and of no account: it is like the ghost of one long since in the grave; or if it does exist, it exists only to distract the judgment, to deceive the heart, and to confound the imagination. But this is not all; along with it the same gentlemen are equally alarmed, because they believe that in concurring in this measure they would be conferring a gift: but I will tell them that the belief is as visionary as the Protestant ascendancy which is the object of their admiration. "What," say they, "are we now to be called upon to confer honours and liberty on the Catholics, and at this crisis, when the king's ministers have been subdued by their intimidation and their threats?" But though these gentlemen talk of giving power to the Catholics, I will tell them, that it is not in their power to make that gift; the Catholics of Ireland possess a power beyond theirs—a power independently of theirs—a power that, though we have not called it into existence, we may at least hope, with proper care, to regulate, since it does exist. In the course of the debate upon this question, there have been a good many allusions to what has been called "brute force," and military power. Sir, I might follow up this allusion by telling the hon. gentleman who used the expression that the question is, whether we are to extinguish the brute but energetic power of the Catholic multitude of Ireland, or whether we are to enlist it, with all its strength and all its magnitude, into the service of the state? I might tell him, that the question is, whether that force is to be turned, through despair, to unlawful purposes, or whether it is to be made to contribute to the prosperity and happiness of the whole empire. An hon. gentleman who has spoken this evening against the measure, has adverted to the bill which the legislature has just passed, for the purpose of putting down the Catholic Association. Now, Sir, I must beg leave to tell that hon. gentleman that there was no part of his speech which did not manifest the most entire ignorance of the actual condition of Ireland; and above all did the hon. gentleman display his ignorance when he spoke of this measure as the price paid for the putting down of the Catholic Association. Does that hon. gentleman think, in his ignorance, that the Catholic Association and agitation are the same, and may be used synonymously? I can tell the hon. gentleman this—the doors of the Catholic Association may be shut up—its orators, from the first to the last, may be silenced—but still the direst agitation may exist and flourish. Will they still let the tribunals of Ireland be open? If they will, then still will there be open a theatre for agitation. A father brings his action into court: it is for the seduction of his daughter—a circumstance wholly domestic, and apparently unconnected with anything public; but no sooner does it make its appearance, than it is taken up as a political case, and the streets of the capital are crowded with persons taking a feverish interest in the decision. An Irish magistrate summons a rioter, or a man for an assault, to appear before him: in his official capacity he either takes or refuses bail for his appearance; he may have decided right or wrong; but whichever way it may be, it occasions a discussion of the Catholic question. Is the hon. gentleman ignorant, that if his measure—his unexplained measure, I believe I must call it—should have the effect of shutting up the doors of the Catholic Association, it will still leave open the door of every Catholic chapel in Ireland. Does he believe that there is no popular priest ready to ascend the pulpit in such a cause, or that he will be listened to with the less attention, because he directs one hand towards the silent orators of the Association, while with the other he points to the altars of their common faith, which are also the emblems of their common suffering. Sir, I tell the hon. gentleman, it is not the Catholic Association—it is not this man or that—upon whom the question depends. Destroy the individuals as often as you please, and others will as often spring up in their places; or if the Association itself be destroyed, other scenes of agitation will be opened. For these things there is but one remedy, one complete, all-sufficient remedy—and it is that which the wisdom and prudence of the government, and the gracious kindness and condescension of the sovereign have proposed. At length there are to be afforded to the Catholics of Ireland equal laws and equal privileges with the rest of his majesty's subjects. The Catholic Association will be extinguished when it is transferred to this House. Bring it here! Let us graft their wild and energetic shoots on our more mature and nurtured English stock, and rely upon it, of the fruit which it will produce you need not be ashamed.

In the course of this discussion there has been a phrase so inappropriately used, that it has given me a disgust towards a rallying word, which I never could have believed, would have been odious. Such, however, is now the case in my mind, owing to the application that has been made of it. I allude to "the constitution of 1688." Now, Sir, as a lawyer—as a person who has studied to some extent the history of my country—as a man who has examined what has been urged on all sides—I cannot be ignorant of the outline, at least, of what has taken place on this subject; but I must confess that I am at a loss to understand what the hon. members, who are so warmly opposed to the Catholic claims, mean by "the constitution of 1688." The great principles on which our constitution rests may be traced back for centuries previous to the Revolution of 1688; and, indeed, I may say that many of its features are as old as the common law itself. What, Sir—limited monarchy—right of petition—law of treason:—impeachment of ministers—trial by jury—Habeas Corpus Act—am I to be told, that we date all these blessings from the period of the Revolution? No, Sir, in the year 1688, it is true that a great Revolution was carried into effect—a Revolution which established principles of great and vital importance, while it extinguished the absurd doctrine of an indefeasible hereditary right of succession; in short, it established the absolute right of the legislature to provide, in every instance, and under all the varieties of circumstances, for the happiness, welfare, and security, of the nation. If I understand the subject at all, Sir, that is; the right way to read the history of the Revolution of 1688; and I will, therefore, take the liberty of telling hon. gentlemen, if they be religionists, that they quote the Bill of Rights as the Devil quotes Scripture [a laugh]; or I will tell them, if they be lawyers, that they cite the case of the Revolution like a weak and ignorant judge who, startled by a precedent which he does not understand, makes use of it for the purpose of defeating juctice and of violating the very principle from which it took its origin.

But, Sir, let me, now turn to another part of the subject. The hon. gentleman has made complaint of the surprise which has been practised on the nation, and he has implored time for the purpose of procuring further petitions from the country against the Catholic Claims, as if there were something premature in the measure that was now proposed. Sir, I have considered this objection in the best way I could, and I feel bound to protest, that a more unfounded complaint I never heard. Why, Sir, let us for a moment pause, to reckon what has been the nature of the progress of the measure. I ask, boldly, was there ever in this House a measure that went on from stage to stage, and from session to session, every now and then making new grounds on the reason and feelings of the parliament, and, I will say, on the reason and feelings of the country, giving every body an opportunity of watching its progress? Let rue also request the House to remember, that the whole of this progress was continually marked by such particular events as ought to have prevented its escaping the memory of any man. In one year it happens—I am only just imagining that it might be so—that one gentleman who had heretofore been strenuous in his opposition to the measure, passes over to the other side and declares his strong conviction of the necessity of something being done in favour of the Catholics; in another year the division was changed from a majority against the Catholics to a majority in their favour—an event which one may well suppose could not have happened, without being strongly impressed on the minds of those who thought that the majority had changed for the worse; and, last of all, let the House recollect what was the warning conveyed to it in the course of the last session, when that great measure for the relief of the Dissenters passed through parliament. If that was not a warning, Sir—if hon. gentlemen did not then see what the signs of the times were—I can only say, that they appear to me to be like that stiff-necked generation described in the Scriptures, that would not have believed, "even though one had risen from the dead." In my opinion, Sir, the hon. gentlemen have had abundance of time; but, if they had had more, could they, I will ask, have acted with greater zeal or activity? Have they not established their Brunswick clubs in Ireland? Are they not as numerous as they are violent? Have they not approached nearer to the confines of sedition and tumult, than any other body or collection of men [cheering]? Will they then now tell us, that they have had no warning of the proposal of this measure? At least I think that if they wanted any further, they might have obtained it from a survey of their own condition. It seems to me, that the well-known story of Mrs. Thrale, about the Three Warnings is very applicable to the opponents of the Catholic claims just now. The House of course knows that, in the story to which I have just alluded, old Dobson complains, that Death has no business with him, because he has not received the three warnings that had been promised him, quite forgetting that at that very moment he was without the use of his limbs, had lost his sight, and was as deaf as a post. So it is with these hon. gentlemen. Here they are complaining that they have had no warning; but I assure them, that the case of old Dobson is very much in point, and that they are so like old men, that they must depart without any further warning [a laugh].

Sir, I feel that I should not be discharging my duty as a member of this House—I feel that I should not be acting as a friend of Ireland, which I am most sincerely—if, before I conclude, I did not return my warmest thanks to the right hon. gentleman who has introduced this measure; and I take the greatest honour to myself, in greeting him not only as the friend of my country, but as my own. I do not intend to dwell upon the sacrifices which the right hon. gentleman has made in undertaking to bring forward this measure; but there is one topic connected with the course which my right hon. friend has taken which has not been touched upon, and which is, therefore, still left open for me. I allude, Sir, to the great reward which is still in store for my right hon. friend, and which will more than repay him for all the sacrifices which he has made for this greatest of questions—for can a greater be imagined than that of Catholic emancipation? I would speak of the period, after a few years shall have passed by, when my right hon. friend shall turn his pleased but anxious eye towards Ireland—when he shall behold tranquillity restored to her—industry excited—knowledge diffused, and the moral tone of society elevated and improved: then will it be that my right hon. friend will experience feelings which he would not exchange for anything which the Crown or the people have within their gift—it will be then that he will say that his reward is greater even than the sacrifices which he made to obtain it. And, Sir, if I may be allowed to turn from my right hon. friend to the noble duke at the head of his majesty's government, I would say of him, that it appears to me that he has achieved a greater conquest, by the wisdom and policy which he has exercised in bringing forward this measure, than by anything he ever consummated by his valour and military skill in the field, he has secured by it the affections of a great, loyal, ardent, and devoted people. As to the measure itself, need I say that I look upon it as calculated to confirm and establish all our great national interests? I believe that it will give security to the government and to the state, and afford satisfaction, as the means of protecting the institutions of the country: it will be the means of completing the imperfect measure of the Union of this country with Ireland; and, if I may be allowed to use the expression, it is inserting the key-stone into the great arch of the policy and safety of the empire. Nay, Sir, it will do more than this—it will still the voice of faction—it will extinguish the seeds of rebellion—and, should foreign envy entertain any lurking hope of witnessing, through this medium, the downfall of British greatness, it will be utterly destroyed.

said, he would apologize for his intrusion upon the atten- tion of the House, but that he thought it the duty of every member to express his sentiments upon this most vital question. He had expected, in the course of the four hours' speech which he had heard last night, that some explanation would have been given of the causes which led to the conversion of the right hon. gentleman. He had, however, expected in vain, for no such explanation had been given. There were many hon. members who had declared that they would wait for the right hon. gentleman's explanation, before they determined on which side they would vote. Now, as no explanation had been given, he trusted the votes of those hon. waiters would be given against any further concessions to the Catholics. He much regretted that when the right hon. gentleman found he could not, as a responsible adviser of the Crown, any longer oppose concession to the Roman Catholics, he had not determined upon continuing to do so in his private capacity. The right hon. gentleman would not consent to form part of an administration of which Mr. Canning was to be the head, because he feared that that right hon. gentleman's influence would preponderate in favour of concession; but now, when there was not merely a probable chance of a minister influencing the decision of the Catholic question, but a minister had absolutely proposed to carry it, the right hon. gentleman continued in office. Unless the House had some explanation upon these points, he should certainly give the measure his most decided opposition.

said, he was desirous of stating to the House the grounds on which he had formerly opposed the Catholic claims, and was. now of opinion that those claims ought to be granted. All those who best knew him—his hon. friends in that House, and his constituents who had placed him in that House—would bear him out in the assertion, that it had always been with the greatest reluctance that he had voted against the Roman Catholics, not only because it gave him pain to place any disabilities on so large a body of his majesty's subjects, but because, as a soldier, he had had many opportunities of witnessing the conduct of those Roman Catholics who had joined the army, and knew the prodigality with which they had always been ready to shed their blood in the defence of their country, For these reasons, it was with reluctance that he had voted heretofore against the concession of their claims; but having early been taught to believe, that the duty of the Catholics obliged them to endeavour to establish the supremacy of their own religion, and that the Protestant establishments of this country were leagued with the best interests of the nation, he had been unwilling to consent to their admission into power, more especially as he was aware, that it had been openly stated in the Catholic Association, that emancipation was not all they looked to, but that, when that was conceded, it would be followed up with ulterior measures. If Catholic emancipation was all that had been required, he did not hesitate to say that he should have voted for it at a former period; but when ulterior objects were talked of—when the Catholics openly declared that it was their purpose to endeavour to do away with tithes, and what they called the "horrible" Union of Ireland with this country, he had certainly objected to give them any power which might enable them to forward such views. It was now, however, impossible not to see that the time was come, when it was necessary to do something. The hon. member for Aldborough had talked about fear and intimidation; but he would venture to assert, that no such feeling had had any weight with his majesty's ministers in the adoption of the present measure. If the hon. gentleman, by fear, meant concession being demanded at the point of the bayonet, his answer was—that not ten thousand bayonets should have wrested it from him; but if he meant a fear to witness the unhappy state of Ireland that must follow upon rebellion, he was ready as a man, and still more as a Christian, to admit that he did feel that fear [hear head!]. The noble lord who had just spoken had said, that in his opinion, the right hon. secretary of state had given no reasons for a change of opinion. What! did the state of Ireland afford no reason? Did the poverty and misery of the people of that country afford no reason? Did the state of excitation that pervaded the whole island afford no reason? But all this they were told was nothing, and they were referred to the occurrences of 1798, to show that it was only necessary to put forth the strength of England to put down rebellion in Ireland. But, in answer to that he would ask, was there any man who referred to the events of 1798 with feelings of satisfaction? Let them look to the dreadful loss of life that took place at that period! Besides which, had not the Catholic question gained ground since then? Hon. gentlemen might exclaim, that it was only necessary for England to put forth her arm to crush opposition; but he would answer them in the words of their immortal bard:—

"'Tis excellent to have a giant's strength, But tyrannous to use it like a giant."

Under the circumstances, he could not but feel that the Catholics were entitled to their rights, and he thought that the securities which had been proposed were quite sufficient for the protection of the Protestant constitution, of which no one was a warmer supporter, or would go further to protect them than himself. These were his reasons for voting in their favour; and in doing so he was uninfluenced by any party feeling whatever; he gave the Catholics their claims from the assurance that he felt that it was the best thing could be done for the benefit of the country at large; and lie trusted that the boon would be received as cheerfully as it was offered; as he was sure it would tend to the strength of the empire, and to the prosperity and happiness of Ireland; while, if they should ever be, unhappily, obliged to have recourse to the last of reasons, they would at least have the satisfaction of laying their hands on their hearts, with the assurance, that they had done all that was within their power [hear, hear!].

said, he admired the capacity which enabled the hon. gentleman who had just sat down to follow in the wake of the right hon. secretary; but for his part, he had always observed, that national calamity followed the introduction of Catholics to political power in a Protestant community; and therefore he looked upon the present measure as a most mischievous one indeed, seeing that the people of this country were not only denied all security for the Protestant constitution by those whom the people had delegated with that trust, they had not only been denied all security, but no opportunity had been given to them, to ascertain whether the measure proposed by his majesty's ministers was a good measure—whether it might be deemed a measure ofexpediency—and whether it had with it the voice of England. He had no intention of undervaluing those honourable members of the House, who held opinions opposite to his, nor would he willingly offend the feelings of any of his majesty's ministers; but he confessed he was wholly unable to look upon the question in the light in which it was viewed by them. For many years there had been a party in that House, and a strong party it had been, and strong views knit them together, and they had now the happiness to receive many contributors towards the support of their darling child. He would ask, then, was it credible, was it reasonable, that a body of men should thus anticipate the public feeling? Although in another place extreme sensibility had been expressed at the idea that the ministers had acted under a false and too hastily-formed impression; and although it had been said, that that House was a criterion to judge of the public mind, he confessed that, unfettered and disinterested as were the members of that House-formed as it was at a time when public feeling was not so much agitated, when public confidence was great—he could not consider it any criterion to judge of the feeling of the country as it now was. The state of the representation was, he was aware, a delicate subject. Some gentlemen there were of sensibility so morbid, that the bare suggestion of the House not being the entire organ of the people, gave them offence. He would not enter the list upon the whole subject; but he would state, without hesitation, that a House of Commons which was not faithful to the exclusive principle of a Protestant king and Protestant parliament, was calculated to give due cause of alarm to the people. He challenged any hon. member to stand up to deny that there existed a general repugnance to breaking in upon the constitution, without calling upon the people. One word before he sat down upon the subject of the changes of opinion which had taken place in those who were formerly devoted to Protestant principles. It had been observed with some force, by a popular writer of the day, that there was no greater inconsistency in abandoning opinions, when they could no longer be supported without danger to those interests which the parties were pledged to preserve, than there was in a general of an army retreating before an enemy, when that enemy was so much stronger than himself, that all opposition would be useless. Now, he admitted this principle to its full extent. But to whom did they owe that strength which the enemy had obtained, and which forced even the right hon. gentleman to declare, that he was compelled to adopt a course different from that which he had uniformly pursued, and in opposition to those principles which he admitted he still retained? Why, they owed it to the weakness and vacillation of the government itself. Language failed him when he attempted to find expressions of condemnation for the feeling which had engendered such a state of things as left that House nothing but the miserable alternative of choosing between the evils of rebellion and civil war, or bowing with abject submission to the threats or the demands of Jesuits and of Jacobins. For his part, he could only implore the members of that House to consider well what they were about to do, and to pause before they allowed themselves, under an intimidation which a wise and energetic government ought not to have borne even for an hour, to consent to a series of measures which might endanger the safety of all.

said, he wished to defend himself from the imputation which the speech of the right hon. Secretary was calculated to cast upon him, in that passage which referred to his silence upon the subject of the Catholic claims. He had always considered the powers of the right hon. gentleman, his then colleague, to be so much beyond his own in the advocacy of the rights of the Established Church, that he rested his hopes upon that right hon. gentleman's exertions, and refrained from obtruding his opinions upon the House. His opinions, however, were not the less firmly fixed against the propriety or policy of concession, and he had invariably opposed such concession, to the utmost extent of his power. But as that right hon. gentleman was now the advocate of very opposite opinions, he felt it to be his duty to state the reason why he could not consent to give a vote different from that which he had invariably given. In the first place, he objected to the argument of his right hon. friend that the present parliament was qualified to settle the Catholic question; for that parliament had been elected in 1826, when the affairs of the country were under the guidance of that vigilant protector of the Protestant cause, the late lord Liverpool. There was not then the same anxiety about the Catholic question, for the country had confidence in that illustrious statesman, and in the right hon. Home-Secretary himself. It was therefore, in his mind, incumbent on ministers, it was consistent with propriety, to have taken the sense of the country, by calling a new House of Commons, before they ventured to submit so extraordinary a measure as that of admitting Catholics to parliament and to the offices of the state, with a view of obtaining for that measure the sanction of the legislature. He was an humble, and, if honourable gentlemen opposite would have it, an ignorant member of that House; but he would still express his opinions, and ask, whether the purposes for which the constitution of 1688, the date of the civil and religious liberties of England, was framed, were compatible with the measure which the House was now called upon to sanction? He asked, was not that constitution framed for a specific purpose; namely, the driving out of a Popish king and the abolishing of Popish counsels? If so, and that it was so, the preamble of the Bill of Rights and the whole tenour of the Act of Settlement were proofs, be asked, why was not the conduct pursued in 1688, when the constitution was founded, imitated when it was designed to alter that constitution? In 1688, the sense of the country was taken by calling the Convention Parliament before the constitution was established. At present, it was not too much, he thought, to ask why the sense of the country should not also be taken, when that constitution was about to be invaded. He was the more anxious that the feelings of the people towards the Catholic question should be faithfully represented, because he had heard of no security for the preservation of the established church, and for the upholding of Protestant ascendancy, though he must confess he did expect such security from the right hon. Home-Secretary, and the hon. and learned Solicitor-general, who was understood to have assisted the right hon. gentleman, in the framing of his present measure. He confessed he thought the Protestant Ascendancy would be endangered by the admission of Catholics to civil immunities, without more securities than the intended bill afforded, and therefore he could not agree to that bill. Indeed he had heard proofs of the danger of concession to the Catholics to the Protestant Ascendancy established at the Revolution, in a speech made by the eloquent, honourable, and learned member for Colchester, in which the hon. and learned gentleman had acknowledged, that he approved of concession to the Catholics, because he considered that concession would open the prospect of a reduction of the emoluments of the established church. It was true that the advocates of the Catholic question, and indeed every man in that House, professed strong attachment to the church of England, and an earnest anxiety to preserve its rights, but nevertheless it appeared to him, that the clergy of that church were justified in resisting every measure that tended to encroach upon their properties.

promised, at that late hour of the evening, not to detain the House by many observations. He felt anxious, however, to justify himself to the country, and to those with whom he had acted, for now taking a course opposite to that which he had on former occasions pursued. He felt bound, indeed, to give his reasons for that departure; and he hoped the House would grant him its indulgence, while he stated the motives which actuated his mind, in adopting the course he now took. He confessed lie could not deviate from that course, or desert the friends with whom he had so long acted in reference to the Catholic claims, without considerable pain; but he had a paramount duty to perform, not only to his constituents, but to all the people of this great empire, which no taunts, no difficulties, no dangers, no feelings of the extent of his responsibility, should deter him from performing. He begged to remind the House, that he had never said a moment might not come [hear, hear!]. He repeated, he had always said a time might arrive, when it would become the duty of the three estates which composed the government to take the question of the claims of the Catholics into their serious consideration, for the purpose of devising some means of final settlement. It was his conviction that the time was now arrived, that the moment was come, when it became his duty to support the government; because he saw no other way by which they could hope to relieve themselves from the difficulties of their present situation. Without making some attempt to settle this great and long-pending question, in the way the government now proposed, he was satisfied they could not arrive at any termination of their present difficulties. If he feigned that the question would by that settlement be set at rest for ever, or if he pretended, that he did not labour under some apprehensions of danger, he should do that which was foreign to his feelings; but he believed that they were reduced to a situation in which they had merely a choice of difficulties, and under that belief he was disposed to try the effect, and run the risk, of those expedients which his majesty's government now proposed. He believed—and he spoke conscientiously—that there was an altered feeling throughout the country upon this question. He had long been acquainted with the opinions of the people upon this subject. He had watched and studied those opinions. He believed, and indeed he knew them to be altered, and in the face of a majority of even his own constituents, he was prepared to contend, that the question of concession to the Catholics ought to be settled. Any member of that House who attentively read the petitions upon their table, even from the West of England, would perceive, that they displayed a disposition to see the question finally settled. Let them look at the language of those petitions. Formerly, the petitions called upon that House to refuse all concession unconditionally; but now they would find the language of those petitions very different, and that they merely refused emancipation unless accompanied with securities. It was said, however, that the present proposition contained no securities for the preservation of the Protestant constitution, or the integrity of the established church. Upon that point he was at issue. He had heard the arguments and the reasons of the right hon. Secretary, and he was astonished that any man should say there were no securities provided, in the plan now before them. Those arguments and those reasons were not, perhaps such as would convince the noble lord (Blandford), and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Estcourt); but they seemed to him to he perfectly satisfactory, even to the strongest advocate for Protestant ascendancy. They were told, by the hon. member for Oxford, that the establishment was in danger; but he had no fears from that danger, so long as the reins of government remained in the hands of the noble duke, and the right hon. gentleman, who were, he was convinced, as true friends to the established church, as the most sanguine could desire. They had, however, other means for the security of the Protestant Church, if these their devoted friends should fail them. They had means of security, both within those walls and without them; because, the members of that House, and the people at large, would be ever watchful, and ever determined, to preserve their liberties and their religion, and to take care that neither their Protestant constitution, nor their Protestant creed, should ever be impugned, either by powerful and open enemies, or by insidious friends. It was under these circumstances that he felt disposed to place confidence in his majesty's government, and to give support to the measure introduced by them—a measure which would enable them to restore peace to the united kingdom and secure the Protestant establishment inviolate.

said, he would not commence by apologising, as did the hon. member who had last spoken, for rising, as he felt it was his duty to do, and to declare that the Protestant constitution was in danger. He deemed no apology necessary for offering himself to the notice of the House. After the observations that had fallen from that hon. member respecting the momentous question they were met to discuss, he could not but express himself decidedly adverse to the course adopted by ministers. He stood forward to oppose any measure of concession to the Roman Catholics, and in this opposition he was forced to stand against many hon. members for whom he entertained the highest sentiments of respect, and with many of whom he had formed a private friendship. He stood forward in defence of the church and state, and of the glorious constitution, as established in 1688. In the proposal for removing the Roman Catholic disabilities, as they bad been called, he expected to have heard something in the form of security to the Protestant constitution; but in that expectation he had been miserably disappointed. He could not help saying that the king's ministers had acted an ungrateful part: they had abused the confidence placed in them: the people of England could no longer confide in such a government. Some securities had indeed, been talked of, but where were they? He would ask the present administration, could they adopt no other course for the pacification and happiness of Ireland? He could not help viewing the conduct of ministers as a political apostacy that disgraced them. Some security had been talked of. And in what did that security consist? Was there any security, he would ask, in the wearing of a particular insignia, on particular occasions, and laying aside that insignia on particular occasions? They had talked of a security in disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders—in raising the franchise to ten pounds. He would ask the movers of this proposition, what security was to be found in it? He saw no cause for the adoption of such a measure as that which went under the name of Catholic Emancipation. On the other hand, he saw nothing to secure the Protestant establishment of the country. He called upon the right hon. gentleman to pause, ere he produced a radical change in the constitution of the country. If the measure now in contemplation should be carried into a law, there was no knowing where the evil would end; and he again entreated the right hon. gentleman to pause, and listen to the advice from that side of the House. He had recently seen such and so many changes in that House, that he actually did not know where his friends sat; and his curiosity to know where they had taken their places had been more strongly excited since the recent declaration of an honourable baronet, who had so long and so strenuously been opposed to Catholic emancipation, but who now as strenuously supported it. Such changes as he had lately witnessed could only be compared to those of the camelion; such marches and such counter-marches as the country had witnessed, it could not be expected that England would bear, at least he could tell the right hon. gentleman that the county would not bear them. For his own part, he was one who had ever been and ever would be consistent in his political conduct. No inducement whatever should tempt him to swerve from the path which he believed to be that of duty. He trusted if the right hon. gentleman was determined to carry this measure, that he would not, at all events, seek to prevent the free ingress of petitions to that House. He hoped that no check would be put to the open and honest declaration of the people of England, but that, from the substantial farmer to the lowest labourer, their sentiments might find their way into parliament. He had now discharged a duty which he owed to himself, to his constituents, and to his country, in giving his most strenuous opposition to the proposed measure; and he would take every opportunity of entering his solemn protest against it—against a measure which was about to be forced apon the country, much after the fashion in which the empiric's ball was forced down a horse's throat.

said, that after a long life devoted to the advocacy of Catholic emancipation, and after having spent many years in watching the state of society in Ireland, upon which he believed he possessed opportunities of obtaining more accurate information than most members in that House, he trusted he should be allowed to express, as briefly as he could, his sentiments on the present occasion He felt convinced that, in the present condition of Ireland, in regard to this great question, it was perfectly impossible that the existing state of things could last. He was perfectly satisfied that such a state of things could never continue with safety to the empire, or security to the subject. He had heard some hon. gentlemen call for protection, and for security for the established church, and much had been said about the proposed measure being an inroad on the constitution, as settled in 1688. Now, it was rather strange that amongst the loudest advocates of the constitution of 1688, upon this occasion, were found men who represented places that, for a century past had been arrayed in direct hostility to every leading principle of that constitution. He believed he was as sincere an admirer of that constitution as any of those hon. gentlemen; and he would contend, that one of the first and leading principles of the constitution of 1688 was, to confer upon every British subject the inestimable benefit of the trial by jury. He would ask any man whether the constitution could possibly afford to the people of Ireland that great blessing, under the existing posture of affairs in that country. It was absolutely impossible that such protection could be obtained by that people, admidst the factious feelings and the violent prejudices which at present pervaded Ireland; and nothing but an equalization of civil rights and privileges could ever render it accessible to them. The principal object which he had in rising, was to express his heartfelt and cordial thanks to the government for the unanimity which they had manifested on this great question, and for having at length brought it forward recom mended from the throne, and upon the ground of perfect conciliation—upon the only ground that it could be satisfactorily and permanently settled. Honourable gentlemen asked for securities. Now the security which he would give, was the measure itself. It would place all the subjects of the empire on one footing, and under one common banner—it would make them all equally ready and determined, heart and hand, to defend that constitution, in the benefits of which they all equally participated. That was the grand security which this measure would give; while, by continuing the present state of things, they robbed the empire of half its strength—they paralyzed the energies and resources of the country—they left England at the mercy of any foreign enemy that might choose to quarrel with her—and they deprived the constitution of the best security which it could possess—the affections and the support of all classes throughout the country. That security the measure which was now about to be carried would completely afford. With regard to the first measure which the right hon. gentleman would propose, he must say that every reasonable Catholic ought to be satisfied with it. If he were asked, what he thought of the second branch of the measure—that which referred to the elective franchise in Ireland—his answer was, that he conceived it was making a sacrifice of a great principle, in order to obtain a great and permanent good—in order to obtain from parliament a measure pregnant with the most beneficial consequences to his country—a measure, without which that country could not prosper; and that he was, under all circumstances, ready—reluctantly indeed, when he considered the subject abstractedly—but willingly, when he looked to the happy consequences which the general measure of relief would afford to the country at large—to make the sacrifice demanded [hear, hear]. He cared not for the obloquy which might attach to him out of doors for making this declaration. He had lived too long in the world not to know, that the first principle which ought to actuate every public man was, to be satisfied in his own conscience, that his conduct was solely influenced by his sense of public duty. It was upon such grounds that he was ready to make this sacrifice; and it was upon such grounds alone he was convinced the right hon. Secretary opposite had brought forward this great question, and in so doing had exposed himself to so much unmerited and unjustifiable calumny. With regard to the speech of the hon. member who had spoken last, it did not require any answer. That hon. member had throughout directed his arguments ad personam, and not ad rem. The hon. member had not argued the question upon grounds to which any man of sense could address himself; he had argued it solely on the grounds of inconsistency in reference to the right hon. Secretary and other members of his majesty's government. Now, it really did appear to him utterly inconceivable, how public men were to watch over the public safety of the realm, if they did not consult it in the measures which they adopted. The man who should adopt a different principle in the guidance of his public conduct would be utterly unfit to administer the affairs of this or any other country. The right hon. gentleman opposite had therefore but acted the part of a wise and prudent statesman, when, looking to the interests of the country in the first instance, and considering every thing else as secondary to their maintenance and preservation, he had, in pursuance of his sense of public duty, brought this measure under the consideration of parliament. For himself, he was ready to support that measure as it stood, even at the expense of a great sacrifice, in order to obtain a great public good, and to secure the prosperity and happiness of his native country.

said, that although he was perfectly satisfied with the state in which the question at present stood, and with the hands to which it was intrusted, and though he was unwilling to trespass on the House after all the discussions to which this question had been subjected, yet he hoped that the House would bear with him for a few moments on the present occasion. He had risen principally with a view to notice something that had fallen last evening from the hon. member for Dorsetshire. But before he proceeded to that, he could not forbear noticing an argument, as he understood it, which had been introduced by the hon. member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Estcourt), which appeared to him so very extraordinary, that he supposed he must have misconceived that hon. member. If lie did, it was but justice to afford that hon. member an opportunity of correcting the mis- take which he, and probably the House, laboured under; and if he did not misunderstand that hon. member, he must acknowledge that it appeared to him to be the most extraordinary position ever advanced in parliament. That hon. member had referred to the Revolution of 1688, and, speaking of the measure now under the consideration of the House of Commons—a measure which at the commencement of a session to which they had been regularly summoned by the Crown, in the opening speech from the Crown had been recommended to their consideration—the hon. member, in speaking of that measure, seemed to think that it was a question unfit for discussion in a parliament so constituted, so called together and assembled for that direct purpose under the declared authority of the Crown; and the hon. member argued, that a convention, as in 1688, should be specially assembled for the consideration of this question. But was the situation of the country in 1688 similar to the circumstances by which they were now surrounded? What was the first act of the Convention of 1688? To declare the Throne abdicated and vacant. Was that a state of things in any respect parallel to the present? Certainly not; and he must, therefore, protest against the extraordinary position of the hon. member, and assert that the present parliament was competent and fit for the consideration of every measure of foreign and domestic policy—fit for the deliberation and decision upon every topic touching the national interests—fit, especially, for the due weighing and judging of the important measure graciously recommended by the sovereign to its calm and temperate consideration. Having listened with the most intense interest to the speech, the able, the perspicuous, the statesman-like speech of his right hon. friend last night, he could not, as an individual, humble, though foremost, in the ranks in favour of this great question, deny himself the satisfaction of expressing the unqualified and heartfelt gratification which that speech had afforded him. He had listened with pleasure to every sentiment which his right hon. friend had expressed in that speech; but never, since he had a seat in that House, had he heard any minister of the Crown with one-half the delight that he had heard his right hon. friend, when he declared, that he founded the principle of the bill upon the abolition of all civil distinctions, and the equalization of all political rights. And he must say, that his right hon. friend, in the measure which he had brought forward, appeared to have acted in direct consonance with that principle and for that purpose—that the manner in which he had introduced it was straightforward and simple—and that it was admirably calculated to effectuate the object for which it had been devised. He would say further, that he felt the greatest anxiety when his right hon. friend rose, to learn the manner in which the important question was to be adjusted, now that it had been for the first time made a government question. He was satisfied that his right hon. friend had considered the responsibility of his situation—that, looking to the measure which he was about to introduce with all the weight and authority of government, he had well considered and duly weighed all the circumstances which were likely to require the attention of his sagacious mind, in reference to this question; and that he had fully examined whether there was any thing in the religious belief of the Roman Catholics, which rendered it necessary to apply to them any special restrictions on releasing them from their present disabilities. He was now happy to perceive that, in the measure proposed by his right hon. friend, they had not to look for those imaginary dangers, which had been so often spoken of in the frequent discussions upon this subject; and that the measure was entirely freed from all the cumbersome machinery, which had been repeatedly suggested, with a view to meet those imaginary and pretended dangers. And here it was impossible for him not to say a word, in passing, in reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Aldborough, (Mr. Fynes Clinton), who, in discussing this question, had complained that no special securities had been provided for the established church. The fact was, that his right hon. friend, in the very words of his resolution, specially referred to the state of the established church. The hon. and learned member had said, that this measure would strip the established church of its firmest and best securities. Had the established church, he would ask, no security in the constitution of this empire?—had it no security in the two acts of union, that between this country and Scotland, and that between both countries and Ireland?—Had it no security in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and in the Throne itself?-had it no security in the public feeling and the affections of the country, and in the great body of the property and intelligence of the empire, which was firmly attached to it? These were the securities and safeguards of the established church, and if more were called for, he for one would say it was amply provided already. He must repeat, that his right hon. friend had introduced this measure in a straight-forward, direct, and honourable manner. He was glad that he had done so: he was rejoiced that parliament, for the first time, was about to do an act of justice, without a drawback towards the undiminished loyalty and allegiance of the British and Irish gentry and people professing the Catholic religion. As far as the British Catholics were concerned, he was glad to perceive that, in the proposed measure of his right hon. friend, there was not a shadow in the shape of security which affected them. All the securities connected with the measure related to Ireland, and arose out of the peculiar circumstances affecting that country. He was glad, that towards the Roman Catholics of England they were about to make that atonement which, in his opinion, they ought to have made long ago, for their long-continued sufferings and multiplied wrongs. He now came to what had fallen from his hon. friend—the member for Dorsetshire. That hon. member conceived, that they were placed in their present situation in consequence of the remissness of the government in not taking measures in order to repress the Catholic Association in Ireland, and to prevent the other events which had taken place in that country, and which had in the view of the government, but not in the opinion of the hon. member, rendered the present measures absolutely necessary. His hon. friend, in opposing the measures for the removal of the disabilities affecting the Irish Catholics, should bear in mind, that he wronged the English Catholics too, for whose relief those measures were equally intended. As far as his (Mr. Huskisson's) political conduct was involved in the accusation which the hon. member had preferred against the government, he should explain to him the course which he had considered, it his duty to pursue. The hon. member said, that in the year 1825 they passed an act against the Catholic Association, and that whether or not the government were united on other questions, in reference to that act the cabinet had been united and unanimous. He was ready to acknowledge, that upon that bill all the members of the cabinet, in this and in the other House of parliament, were perfectly united and agreed. That bill was passed, and now the hon. member asked if the government found it ineffectual for the suppression of the Association, why did they not call upon parliament for a stronger and more efficient measure? He (Mr. Huskisson) would wish to recall the attention of the House to the circumstances of the year 1825, in reference to the great question which then, as now, engaged the attention of parliament. The bill for the suppression of the Association was passed in the early period of the session of that year, and not without a decided and vigorous resistance being offered to it, and a strong discussion having taken place. The bill, however, was carried in both Houses of parliament, and became the law of the land. But what was passing in the mean time in this country and in Ireland? That association, against which the bill was directed, relying with confidence that the grievances of which they complained would be taken into the immediate consideration of parliament with a view to their removal, forthwith obeyed the law. The leaders of the association being assured that concession was at hand, at once recommended the discontinuance of the meetings of the association, and they took every means in their power to enlighten the committees of both Houses on the state of Ireland, with a view to the removal of the disabilities affecting the Roman Catholics of that kingdom. After the association had ceased to exist, a bill for the removal of those disabilities was carried by a majority in this House: it was sent up to the other House, and there it was lost. The consequence was, that the association was revived. Now, here came the consideration, whether it were possible in the state of the public mind in England and Ireland at that time, to press a measure such as the hon. member said should have been pressed, upon the House of Commons, which had already carried a bill of concession, the loss of which had excited the greatest disappointment and dissatisfaction in Ireland, particularly after the sacrifice which they had offered to make of the elective franchise. In that situation of affairs, the government might have come to parliament and proposed a measure which would have been as effectual as any measure could possibly be; but in thus suppressing the Association, it would have been necessary to do nothing more nor less than to entirely and permanently suspend the whole British constitution in Ireland. Did his hon. friend imagine that if the Catholic Association had been thus suppressed, there would have been an end to all discontent in Ireland? Did he suppose that it possessed no ramifications throughout the country, and that there would be no means found for complaining, if the association had been extinguished? If a measure of that description had been passed, then he would say, that Ireland would be in the state which his gallant friend, the Secretary of State, had so well described: it would not be in a state of civilized society, but private revenge and outrages on the law would prevail, from one end to the other of that island. It was, therefore, under, such circumstances, his firm determination, as far as he was concerned in the councils of the country, that until Catholic emancipation was likely to be conceded, he would not lend himself to any measure that would be nothing more nor less than the total suspension of the constitution in Ireland. While the Catholic Association continued, peace generally prevailed: there were less crimes committed in the country than at any former period; private revenge was no longer known; and public outrages, to a great degree, ceased. Now, as long as peace was preserved, he was not willing to suspend the constitution in Ireland, with, out giving to that country any hopes of relief. That was his answer to his hon. friend. He detested the Irish agitators quite as much as his hon. friend did. He detested all parliaments but the parliament constitutionally called by the king—he detested all exchequers but the King's Exchequer, and considered no collection of taxes was consistent with the safety of the state, except that which was authorized by the law. The greatest danger in the situation of Ireland was, that its peace should rest upon any foundation but the protection and fear of the laws. But there existed in Ireland a power which could command the assemblages of multitudes, and could control them when assembled. That power belonged to the Catholic Association; and the only way to put that down was by conceding emancipation. In the course of the last session, he had expressed a hope, that they would grant emancipation as a boon while it would be received as a boon, and before the question should become one of parley and compromise, and when it would not be received with gratitude. In the few months that had since elapsed, the dangers which then existed had rapidly increased; and it was therefore the duty of his majesty's ministers, before the question should become one of parley and compromise, to settle it, while it might be granted and received as a favour. He would not require a higher authority than that of Mr. Burke to justify the wise course which his majesty's ministers had adopted in reference to this question. "If there is," said that great statesman, in his memorable speech on economical reform, "any one eminent criterion, which above all the rest, distinguishes a wise government from an administration weak and improvident, it is this—well to know the best time and manner of yielding, what it is impossible to keep."^* There was no language in which he could better describe the wisdom and courage of government, in at length bringing forward this great question, in order to have it satisfactorily adjusted. With regard to that part of the measure which relates to the elective franchise, he owned he did not approach it with the same unmixed and cordial approbation with which he regarded the main measure itself. Abstractedly it was a measure of positive injustice; and it did not appear to him to be one of indispensable and necessary enactment. This was his own opinion of it. But whilst he said this, he wished to defer to the judgment of persons who were so much better acquainted with the state of Ireland than he was, and in whose judgment such a measure was a desirable accompaniment of the measure of relief. Considering, however, the difficulties with which he was sensible this question was surrounded—knowing well the obstacles by which government was met in the wise endeavour to adjust this question finally and satisfactorily—being aware how desirable it was that the feelings of the Protestant part of Ireland should be consulted and satisfied with this measure—and being assured, as he was, that there was a pressing political expediency for the passing such a measure, he deemed it right to assent to it, rather than, by resisting it, embarrass or impede the success of the other greater and more important measure.

^* See Parliamentary History, vol. xxi. p.11.

explained. He said, he did not intend to disparage the present House of Commons. He had merely meant to reply to an argument of the right hon. Secretary, as to the aptness of time at which this measure was brought forward. It was only his object to show, under the circumstances of the present House of Commons, and the period at which it was elected, that it did not maintain the argument of his right hon. friend, that the present time was the fittest, and the present House of Commons the best qualified, to decide this question to the satisfaction of the country.

rose amidst cries of "question" and "adjourn." He said, he was anxious to deliver his sentiments upon this important question—a question, upon which he had heretofore invariably given a silent vote, and that in the train of the right hon. secretary. He agreed that the present parliament was competent to try this question; but he would contend, that it was not the most competent, because it was elected in 1826, when there was a general impression throughout the country, that this question could not be carried. What he objected to in the bill about to be introduced was, that it opened to the Roman Catholics all civil offices, except that of the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and the two chancellorships. It was true, we were to have a Protestant king; but that Protestant king might be surrounded by a Roman Catholic cabinet [a laugh]. They would, perhaps, see a Protestant king surrounded by a Catholic lord treasurer. [a laugh]. The ministers were about to pull down the adamantine pillars of the constitution [a laugh, and cries of "adjourn"]. Here the cries of "Question, question," became so loud and so vociferous, that the hon. member, after making a few additional observations, not one of which reached the gallery, at length sat down.

Peel then presented himself to the House, upon which the cry of "question" was again repeated. This was succeeded by loud cries of "Peel! peel!" and "Order!" Some voices cried out "adjourn!" After order had been, in some degree, restored, the hon. member said, that he had not been often guilty of trespassing upon the time of the House. He could not, however, upon the present occasion, injustice to his constituents, and to the general people of England, give a silent vote. The desire which he felt to express his sentiments upon this momentous question was increased by the consideration, that he was obliged to differ on this subject from all those with whom it must be his greatest happiness to agree; if such concord could be reconciled with a sense of his duty, and with his attachment to the interests of the country. For the reasons which he had stated, he felt anxious to address a few observations to the House; but not in the vain hope of being able, by any thing which he could say, to preserve the constitution from the danger with which it was now so nearly threatened. He was well aware that the arguments which he should offer to their consideration would be only a feeble repetition of those which had been formerly so ably and eloquently urged by the defenders of the constitution; that his observations would be only a faint echo of those accents which had so long been heard in support of our establishments, and which he grieved to see so much altered upon the present occasion. However, in the view which he took of the question, it was a great consolation to him to know, that he was not called upon to look with doubt or suspicion upon the motives of any of the parties engaged in the discussion of this great question. He felt convinced that all were equally and sincerely desirous of preserving from danger the Protestant institutions of the country, and that, agreeing in the same object they only differed about the means of its attainment. He also felt that it was not necessary for him to ground his opposition to the present measure upon any suspicion of the loyalty and fidelity of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. The numerous occasions on which they had fought and bled in defence of their king and the institutions of their country furnished the most triumphant answer to such imputations. As to the charges which had been made against them, of not being bound by their oaths or not keeping faith with heretics, these and such other imputations he rejected as utterly destitute of foundation and unworthy of notice. It was not to the Roman Catholics as individuals, nor to the Roman Catholics as a body, that he objected: it was against the religion which they professed. He should further declare, that his objections to the Roman Catholic religion only existed against that religion, when placed in competition with the Protestant religion, and in an interest hostile to the interests of the Protestant religion. If Roman Catholics were to be admitted into that and the other House of parliament, they would represent not only the civil and political interests of the general body of Roman Catholics, but also their religious feelings. It had been said by one of the most able and eloquent advocates of Roman Catholic emancipation, namely, Mr. Fox, that unless the Roman Catholics could send into parliament those who should represent their religious feeling, they could never be virtually represented. Now, he would ask, in what the representation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland was deficient, except in this point of its not representing their religious feeling. If they could send from that country persons of their own religion to represent them in that House it was impossible that (the matter of religion alone excepted) they could display a higher degree of industry, intelligence, and zeal for the interest of their constituents, than was exhibited by the present members for Ireland. He therefore rested his objection to the proposed measures upon the effect which the introduction of Roman Catholics into parliament must have upon the constitution. The effect of their admission must be, he contended, to effect the overthrow of that constitution. He considered the present measures as an attempt to apply to religion the same principles which had been already brought to operate upon the trading interests of the country. He should leave it to others who were better instructed than himself upon this subject to say, what had been the effect of those principles upon trade. But for himself, he should only say that, when he heard on every side the cries of distressed and unoccupied manufacturers he hoped he might be allowed to doubt the soundness of the measures which had produced such a result. It had been said that, by the abolition of religious distinctions, all rivalry would be removed. But he would ask, whether it was not much more probable that the rivalry would be greater in proportion as the two religions should be placed in a nearer juxta-position? Was it possible that the two churches so differently circumstanced could always remain as they were? That the Protestant Church, invested with the temporalities of which it had been long in possession, would not be called upon by the other church to return part of the possessions which had formerly been her own? He did not judge illiberally of the Roman Catholics in concluding, that this would be the case; because he believed that sentiments and wishes, such as he attributed to the Roman Catholics when possessed of political power, would be entertained by Protestants in similar circumstances. He thought that the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy themselves had lately furnished the most decided proof of the truth of what he had asserted. If mere political power was all that they wanted, they had profaned their altars, and disgraced their ministry, by the conduct which they had exhibited during the late elections. He would not injure them so much as to believe that they could have so conducted themselves, from any other motive than a desire to promote the interests of their religion and church.—He would now say a few words on the subject of the securities which had been offered to the Protestants. The first security was that of numbers. It was said, that there was no danger from the Roman Catholics, as long as the Protestants maintained their present numerical superiority. But, if any reliance were to be placed on the statements made in support of Catholic emancipation, the number of the Roman Catholics was continually increasing. If they were to believe the information derived from the advocates of the measure, the Roman Catholics had, within the last twenty years, increased from one-fifth to be one-third of the population of the whole country. He was convinced that when the Roman Catholics wanted to get rid of the tithes of the establishment, they would find willing agents in their representatives in parliament. And he here begged leave to offer the tribute of his sincere thanks to the hon. member for Colchester, for the honesty with which he had that night avowed the intentions of his party to strip off the temporalities of the established Church. The House, however, having now before them a view of the dangers, and being convinced of the inadequate nature of the securities offered, would be the better able to understand the position in which the country would be placed by the measures which had been proposed.—He might now be called upon to state, what measure he had to propose as a substitute for that which he rejected? He admitted that this was a fair method of appeal, and that persons who agreed in opinion with him upon this question were very fairly liable to be called on to produce their own remedies for the evils, the existence of which was beyond all doubt. He should meet this appeal by saying, in the first place, that lie admitted that affairs could not remain as they were. He should go further, and say, that they ought not to have been allowed so long to remain as they were. His proposition was, that an appeal should be made to the country; which would not only supply power to support an administration, but talents to conduct it. If it should be said, that an appeal had been made to the country before upon the subject, he would answer, that the appeal had been made under circumstances very different from the present. If an appeal should be now made to the people, it would at least prove to the Roman Catholics that the opinion of the people of this country was entirely adverse to granting them political power. He thought that if the time and attention which the House annually bestowed upon the reception and consideration of petitions on this subject had been employed in devising some other benefit to the people of Ireland, they might have much more advantage to that country and to the empire at large. At all events, whatever might be the best mode of proceeding, he believed that the very worst kind of legislation was that which submitted the law to a power which was opposed to the law. If this submission was the price at which alone the tranquillity and allegiance of the Roman Catholics was to be purchased, he would never consent to pay such a price. If, however, the measures in contemplation should receive the sanction of the legislature, he should advise the friends who voted with him to endeavour rather to anticipate the evils Which were coming, than to wait for their arrival. In the apprehensions which he entertained of the consequences of this measure he believed that he was right; but he most earnestly hoped that he might, in the conclusion, prove to be wrong.

was for some seconds inaudible, owing to the noise in the galleries and body of the House. He said he would support, as far as his ability went, the measure brought forward, with so much wisdom and ability, by the right hon. gentleman, in a speech which had not yet been answered by any thing. in the shape of argument, although the House had been called upon to oppose the proposition on vague suggestions, and on considerations which had no bearing on the merits of this great question. With reference to the speech of the hon. member who had just sat down, he wished gentlemen to consider the state of things in that House, where members of the same family were opposed to each other, as a sample of what existed in Ireland, where this question was mixed with and poisoned every society; and he asked, whether it was possible that such a state of things could be permitted to continue. A noble lord on the other side of the House had called on all persons who had voted against former bills, to vote against the bill now before the House; but the noble lord should have offered some reply to the arguments urged in support of this bill, and a justification of the conduct he wished to be pursued. He would not have said a word upon this question, which be considered to be quite thread-bare, and so completely threshed out, that it was impossible to offer any thing like a new argument upon it, had it not been for one or two topics which had been introduced into the discussion of it. The hon. member for Aldborough had talked of the uncontrollable power of the priests in Ireland, and had said, that the people of that country were a priest-ridden people. Knowing something of the condition of the Irish people, from the statements of eye-witnesses, and from facts distinctly contradicting the assertion of the hon. member, he could affirm, that so far from the Irish Catholics being priest-ridden, they ruled their priests ["No! no!"]; for a long time past the priests had not been able to direct the people as formerly. [Cries of "Oh!") Had it not been a subject of lamentation with his majesty's ministers, that the priests had lost their influence over the people, and that, therefore, they were ungovernable and uncontrollable? In the late election for Clare, did gentlemen forget that the priests strove to induce their flock to vote for Mr. Fitzgerald, and that the people refused? [Cries of "Oh!") He had full information of the facts he stated, and could contradict the assertion he alluded to. He would defend the character of an Irish priest, as he would that of an English archbishop; and would do all he could to obviate the ignorance which represented the Irish people as passive under the influence of their priests. In Clare, the priests did all they could to influence their flock, who were, in many cases, dissatisfied with the conduct of their priests towards Mr. O'Connell. Every thing showed that some alteration was necessary in the state of things in Ireland; and no measure had been offered for this end, but the measure now before the House. The hon. member who had spoken last seemed to him to have been guilty of some inconsistency in his argument. He began by stating, that he had the highest opinion, as every candid man must have, of the loyalty of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and that he felt assured that they respected the trust reposed in them: he admitted that he renounced the belief that the Catholics were not tied by oaths; he admitted that he entertained no jealousy of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; and then he went on to say, that he did apprehend there would be danger in intrusting them with power. He had then argued, that they continued to augment in number, and to increase in property and wealth. The natural conclusion was, in his opinion, that therefore they ought to be admitted to a participation of the privileges of their fellow-subjects—that on principle, seeing they were in possession of wealth and property, and were increasing in number, they had every thing that could entitle them to the favour of the government; and it was a simple act of justice to admit them within the pale of the constitution, to which they were entitled equally with their Protestant fellow-subjects, unless there was some paramount necessity which excluded them. Where had it been shown that this paramount necessity existed? The hon. member who had spoken last had fallen into the strange notion, which had been lately brought into notice, that nothing less than the subversion of the established church could content the Catholics. Such an idea was so injurious to the persons to whom it attached, and so utterly out of their contemplation—an idea which he trusted none of them dreamed of—that it was creating feelings in their minds which they never thought of, to suggest this objection. Even if they entertained such a notion, it had nothing to do with the measure before the House, which benefitted the Protestants more than the Catholics. The disturbances in Irelands and the bond of union which now existed among the Catholics of Ireland, were occasioned by Protestant injustice; and that same Protestant injustice disunited the Protestants, threw into their balanced scales the whole weight of Irish discontent, and subjected the country to the greatest danger. The evil was all occasioned by Protestant injustice; and the only way to remedy it, was to admit the claims of the Catholics, which would re-unite the Protestants, and destroy that bond of a common danger, and a common interest, which now held the Catholics united. It was offensive to suppose that the Catholics of England and Ireland would not feel gratefully affectionate to the constitution, and ready to support it when they were admitted to enjoy all its privileges. He was persuaded that the success of this measure was necessary to the peace, tranquillity, and prosperity of the empire. He implored the House not to be misled, and he believed they would not be misled, by the flimsy sophistry which had been urged by some members to delay the question, in order, as they said, to give time to appeal to the country; that was, to rouse up passions and prejudices, and appeal to them to prevent the House from doing an act of justice. No man could doubt, whatever the prejudice and the ignorance of the country might desire, that the good sense of the country was in favour of the measure. They might, if they went on, stir up the stones to petition; and some of the opponents of the measure had called on the stones to rise in judgment against the measure; and if the stones could write, they might possibly be brought to petition, as the dogs had petitioned—at least the representatives of the dogs had petitioned—for he had seen a petition signed by a huntsman and a whipper-in [a laugh]. But he hoped the House would not be imposed upon by any such foolish delusion. The hon. baronet concluded by expressing his hearty concurrence in the measure proposed by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, and declaring, that those gentlemen must be void of candour, who, being unable to answer the arguments of the right hon. gentleman, were not satisfied with those arguments, and censured him for proposing a measure that was necessary for the welfare and security of the country [cheers].

said, he meant to give his honest and conscientious opposition to the present measure. He looked upon it as an unqualified, unconditional, emancipation of the Catholics. The right hon. gentleman had talked about securities, but he saw none proposed, and the English Church was left without any security whatever. He was astonished to hear the hon. baronet, of all men, attack the rights of the people. He had openly attacked the right to petition; but he, for one, could assert, that the petitions he had presented expressed the honest, decided, and conscientious opposition of the petitioners to the measure proposed by his majesty's government. It had been said, that the country had not been taken by surprise, when the recommendation came from the Throne; but he was in the country when the Speech from the Throne arrived, and it would be in vain for him to endeavour to express the surprise, the consternation, and he might say, the indignation, with which it was received. The hon. member made some few further observations, but the impatience of the House was so great that we could not distinguish what the hon. member said.

The noise and uproar which now prevailed exceeded all description. Cries of "divide, divide," "adjourn, adjourn," "go on, go on," were vociferated from all quarters.

moved, that the further consideration of the question be adjourned to Monday.

expressed a hope, that no delay would take place in passing the proposed measure. It was of the utmost importance that the business of the country should be carried on as expeditiously as possible. Those who were anxious to retard the proposed bill only shewed the weakness of their party; and if they persevered in their opposition they would only publish their own disgrace.

said, the sense of the House on the subject in discussion might as well be taken on the question of adjournment as upon the real one; but he begged it should be understood, that those who should vote against the adjournment were in favour of the right hon. Secretary's motion, and that those who should support the adjournment were adverse to the Catholic claims.

had no hesitation in saying, that it was his intention, throughout the whole discussion, to give to every hon. gentleman an opportunity of expressing his sentiments. So far as depended on him, he was willing to allow every latitude to hon. members; but he was bound also to say, that he felt it his public duty to resist, as far as he could, every attempt to create delay. He had seen nothing in the whole course of the argument to induce him to believe that the debate might not then close. He felt it, therefore, his duty to oppose the question of adjournment; and concurred in opinion with the hon. member for Westminster, that the numbers on the division on the question of adjournment would form a fair criterion by which to judge of the sense of the House.

The same calls of "adjourn," and "go on," were renewed, and kept up for a considerable period.

said, if he did consent to withdraw his motion for an adjournment, he trusted the House would offer no opposition to the expression of his opinions on the question.

The motion for adjournment was, with the leave of the House, withdrawn.

said, he had hoped that when he should have obtained permission to address the House on the important question under consideration, he should have been allowed to do so under advantages of which he was now deprived. He had hoped to have had previously an opportunity of presenting to the House a body of petitions against the Catholic claims eminently entitled to its attention. He could only now express his deep regret that that opportunity had not been afforded him. In reply to the description given by the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea of the measure proposed by government, he would contend, that so far from its being a simple and efficacious measure, calculated for the public good, it was a simple and unqualified breaking up of the constitution [cheers]; indeed, an utter subversion of the fundamental principles of Protestantism. He could not patiently hear it asserted in that House, that Protestantism was not an essential character of the British constitution. He considered that the principle of exclusion being so far from the spirit of the constitution, was essentially necessary for its preservation. It was to preserve the constitution, that those qualifications were prescribed, from time to time, with respect to persons holding the various offices in the state and legislature. It had been said, that in the reign of Elizabeth no objection was taken to Roman Catholics sitting in parliament; but he contended, that it was only by favour, accident, or carelessness that they were admitted. It had been stated, that the acts of exclusion were not perpetual in their terms; but the principle of exclusion was made part and parcel of the law of the land, and permanent, by the 30th of Charles 2nd. An argument had been drawn with regard to the temporary nature of these oaths, by a reference to the act of Union with Scotland and Ireland. It had been argued, that because one of the articles of the Scottish Union prescribed that these oaths should be taken, until parliament should further determine, therefore it was in the contemplation of those who framed the Union, that the oaths should be of but a temporary nature. But they who used this argument seemed to have forgotten, that one of the fundamental articles of the Union was drawn up for the purpose of excluding Papists. If it was meant to say, that the executive government and the legislature might be composed of Roman Catholics, where was the necessity of the Protestantism of the Crown? An argument had been frequently used with respect to the effect which the repeal of these Protestant safeguards might have on the king's right to the Throne. He was quite aware that this was a delicate subject to touch upon; but it was one which deserved to be rightly understood. He was not one who thought that the royal assent to the removal of disabilities affecting the Roman Catholics would dissolve the allegiance of the people: that was a doctrine he could never hold. After having admitted Catholics into the legislature, a ministry might, at some future time, tell the parliament, that in 1829 the Protestant principles of the constitution were destroyed, and therefore the Crown need no longer be worn by a Protestant. He never could agree to the argument of expediency, which had been brought forward with respect to this question. He was quite confident that the constituency of the counties of England were adverse to the Catholic claims. It was no argument to say, that many of the counties returned members friendly to Catholic emancipation; because the minds of the people had been distracted by the consideration of other questions, But if they had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this question exclusively, he was confident it would be against the Catholic claims. Doubtless there had been evils which afflicted Ireland; and amongst them—the Catholic Association, and the enormous power possessed by the Catholic peasantry in the elective franchise. But why had they not been remedied? Why had not the Association been suppressed long before? It was not through any want of power in the government, but through a mischievous desire in statesmen to further the realization of a favourite theory in politics. If the disabilities imposed on the Catholic population were real grievances, then might they reasonably complain; but those disabilities did not affect the people in general. The inconvenience was confined to only twenty or thirty gentlemen, who were excluded from seats in parliament.—He could not conclude without alluding to the conduct, character, and feelings of the Protestants of Ireland as connected with this question. They were brave, loyal, and faithful to British connection. Their sufferings and exertions had contributed much to the success of the military movements made for the establishment of the Revolution of 1688. Were the interests of that brave class of subjects to be sacrificed? After a noise of some minutes the hon. member expressed his wish that the measure should not be precipitated. He wished the right hon. gentleman would give the country full and fair time to declare their sentiments in opposition to it. He was sure the Protestants of Ireland were hostile to the measure. The people of England had already expressed their opposition to it. It was but just that the government should yield to the national desire. The right hon. gentleman himself had admitted that concession would be attended with danger. What was that danger? The fear that the Catholic influence should triumph over Protestant principles. That was the opinion of the people of England. The spirit of the Church of Rome was an elastic spirit, that required constant compression, or it would escape, and spread its influence in every direction—it would insinuate itself into the penetralia of every public: question, ever attempting and aiming at more than it possessed.

"Nil actum reputans, dum quid superesset agendum"

said, he would not have attempted to take up the time of the House at that late hour, but that an imperious sense of duty towards his majesty's ministers induced him to offer a few words upon the subject. He could not allow it to be said, that the people of this country had been taken by surprise upon this question. The discussions had been frequent enough, for every one to be prepared in their opinions. The question could only be settled well in one way, and that was by conciliation. He agreed with those who thought that the course taken by his majesty's ministers was the correct one, and he cordially thanked them for having adopted it.

, amidstloud cries of "question!" made a few observations. He was understood to be opposed to the measure; and he read some letters to shew the dominant influence exercised by the Catholic clergy in Ireland.

said:—I did not intend, Sir, to have spoken upon this subject, but as I had the honour to second the Address to his majesty for the Speech from the throne, in which some measure of this sort was recommended, I feel bound to state my opinion on the measure that is now produced. When I seconded the Address, I thought that this question might be well settled for the advantage of the whole kingdom; but at the same time I reserved to myself the right of opposing any measure, that might be produced; and I distinctly stated, that I would oppose any measure, come from whom it might, if I thought it was not accompanied with sufficient safeguards. However sanguine were the hopes I then entertained that no measure would be produced without those safeguards, I must confess that the bill of last night has completely dissipated those hopes. In fact, with the exception of the change respecting the forty-shilling freeholds, requiring that the right to vote at elections shall in future be confined to the possessors of freeholds of the value of ten pounds, there is no attempt whatever at security. And even that is but a half measure. With that single exception, and with the exception that Catholics are not eligible to the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal of England, this bill is, in fact, a measure of unqualified, unconditional emancipation. To a measure of that sort, I can never assent; and however painful it may be to me to differ from those with whom I have hitherto agreed, I cannot bring my mind to agree with them: and although it might have been more formal to state my objections in the committee, I felt it would be the more direct and manly course to oppose your leaving the chair when that motion was made, with the hope of obtaining securities, that I feel there can be no probability of securing.

was understood to say, that if he could believe the proposed measure would create tranquillity in Ireland, he would be the last man to oppose it; but having seen that every fresh concession did but excite still bolder claims on the part of the Catholics, he should continue to give the measure his decided opposition. When he looked to the conduct of the Roman Catholics for some years back, he could not have confidence in them. As the matter at present stood, he should certainly oppose it: if, however, in the committee, proper securities should he proposed, he would not object to them; but at present, from all that had been stated, he saw no reason for changing his mind.

said, he only rose to implore the right hon. gentleman and his coadjutors, not to attempt to pass a measure of this kind, involving the abrogation of the fundamental constitutional laws of the country, without the consent of the church and the people.

spoke briefly against the motion, but was nearly inaudible, from the cries of "question." If the forms of the House would allow it, he would move, by way of amendment, "That this House return their humble thanks to his majesty, for his gracious Speech on the subject of the disabilities affecting his Roman Catholic subjects, but beg leave to express their firm opinion that the repealing of the act of the 30th of Charles 2nd, and the act of king William, would endanger the just privileges of the king, and the fundamental rights of the people." Here the cries of question were again renewed, when

rose to reply; and order being, in some measure, restored, the right hon. gentleman proceeded to address the House. He said, that although so much of the discussion which was adverse to the proposition now about to be decided upon by the vote of the House, had had personal reference to himself, he yet felt himself relieved from the necessity of availing himself of his privilege of reply to rebut it. He would not avail himself of that privilege, because he thought the interests involved in the question were so important, and so complicated, that any topic of individual or personal concernbecame matter of comparative insignificance. Of all the appeals which had been made to hind, there was but one which he would notice, and during the remainder of these discussions, this should positively be the last appeal he would notice with respect to his own personal conduct. He had explained the reasons for changing the course which he had formerly pursued, and the circumstances which placed him in the situation of having to propose this measure as a minister of the Crown. If those explanations had not been satisfactory, he could not help it. He had nothing to add to them; and he felt that he should only be diverting the attention of the House from matters of much greater moment—of much higher public concern—if he noticed any observations referring to himself, which might hereafter be made. But one question had been asked by the noble member for Anglesey (lord Uxbridge) to which he was desirous of giving an answer. The noble lord had complained of the change which had taken place in his sentiments; but if he mistook not, the noble lord would find in his own family an honourable example of a similar change.

rose with some haste, and asked the right hon. gentleman, whether he referred to the recent conduct of his father? If so, he must strongly object to such an allusion.

said, he had not the slightest intention to offend the noble lord, and he begged pardon if he had doneso: but he thought he recollected, that a brother of the noble lord, in a manner which did him the highest credit, did, in the course of last session, avow a change of opinion. That noble individual had declared, that having been in Ireland, and observed the state of things there, he had seen reason to change the opinion he had up to that time held with respect to the Catholic question. The reference he made to this circumstance was intended only to the honour of the individual alluded to. The noble lord had asked, why he (Mr. Peel) had not, in 1827, taken the course which he had taken in 1828; and why he had not consented, in 1827, to assist Mr. Canning, either in carrying on his government or in the adjustment of the Catholic question. To that question he replied, that there was a material difference in his situation in 1827, and his situation in 1828. In 1827, a new House of Commons decided against concession; but in 1828, it decided in favour of it. He then took the course which he adopted in 1825, when lord Liverpool was at the head of the government. He begged to refer the noble lord to the debates which took place in that House in 1827, and he would find, in the usual record (Hansard's Parliamentary Debates)^* that he did state the course he had pursued in 1825, precisely as he had stated it last night. He would quote the words from the work alluded to—

"In 1825, after I had been left in minorities on three different questions, immediately connected with Ireland—the Catholic Question, the Elective Franchise, and the Payment of the Catholic Clergy (which I thought something very like the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland)—I waited on my noble friend, then at the head of the government. I told him that, personally, it was painful for me to disconnect myself from those whom I esteemed and respected; but that having been left in a minority in that branch of the legislature of which I was a member, I anxiously desired to be relieved from my situation. The reply of my noble friend was, that my retirement would determine his own. I finally consented to remain in office; my noble friend declaring, that he deemed it of the highest importance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should possess opinions as much as possible in accordance with those of the Prime Minister. He represented to me the difficulties he should experience in filling up the situation, and in short, that my retirement must determine his own. I was thus induced to wave my wish for retirement, and to consent to remain until a new parliament had pronounced an opinion upon the great question which interests and agitates Ireland."

In 1827, a new parliament did decide with him in favour of resistance to the Catholic question. In 1828, the same House of Commons took a different course, and left him in a minority; and he then determined no longer to remain responsible for the conduct of the affairs of Ireland, with a minority upon the Catholic question, in that House. The noble lord would find, that his late right hon. friend, Mr. Canning, did full justice throughout to the motives which induced him to decline, as he would now under the same circumstances, to be a member of his government. During the whole course of the discussions his late right hon. friend admitted the impossibility of his joining him. His late right hon. friend, in the course of one of his speeches, said,

^* See vol. xvii. p. 405.

"To begin with the more agreeable part of my task, the speech of my right hon. friend, I shall confirm the greater part of that speech. I can bear testimony that, throughout the whole of the discussions that have taken place since parliament was adjourned, I have kept up with my right hon. friend the most constant and confidential intercourse; and throughout have I found in him the same candour and sincerity, and the expression of the same just feelings, and a uniform exhibition of the same high principle, to which he has laid claim in the address which he has this night delivered. I assure the House, that they much mistake the position in which I have the honour to stand, who believe that position to be one of gratified ambition, or as conveying the feeling of unalloyed satisfaction. From the beginning of these discussions I foresaw—both of us foresaw—that they must terminate in a separation; which I hope to God may be only for a time. Had the question been merely between my right hon. friend and myself, and had it been to be decided by his retirement, or by mine, I do most solemnly declare it should have been decided by the latter alternative."^*

He still believed that his retirement from the government at that period, was for the advantage of the king's service. That, he believed, was also Mr. Canning's opinion. For how could the government have acted effectively with Mr. Canning advocating the settlement of the question in that House, and he opposing it, with only a majority of four. In 1828, when the question was last brought forward, and when he found himself again in a minority, he had said "the time is now come, when a new parliament has decided against me, and when the House of Lords are in a state of division upon the question; the time is arrived, when an attempt to settle the question must be made, and to that attempt I will lend my aid." With reference to quite another matter he found, in another part of Mr. Canning's speech, a passage which he would refer to, because it contained the opinion of lord Liverpool, with respect to the probability of forming a united government opposed to concession. Lord Liverpool stood justly high in the estimation of the country. He had conducted the affairs of the nation for a longer period than most ministers during the last century. His memory was held in respect, and he felt confident that his opinion, with respect to the probability of forming a united cabinet, in the present state of the public mind, determined to offer unqualified opposition to the Catholic claims, would be received with attention. The following was the passage in Mr. Canning's speech, and he could undertake to vouch for the correctness of the statements which it contained:—"Not many months ago, from quarters which I will not name; strenuous advice was addressed to his majesty, to place his government on a footing of unanimity, with respect to the Catholic question; and that unanimity to be one of uniform opposition to that question. Lord Liverpool, to whom this advice was communicated, at the same time that it was addressed to his majesty, in a letter to his majesty, stated first, that having been one of the original authors of a government divided in opinion on that question, he, for one, never could consent to become a member of a government modelled upon the principle of exclusion. Lord Liverpool also added, that as he was called upon to give his advice to his majesty, he must say, that, in his opinion, it would be extremely difficult to accomplish the formation of such a government."^*

^* See vol. xvii. p. 429.

When, therefore, hon. members spoke of the facility with which a Protestant government might have been formed some time since, he appealed with confidence to the opinion and the intention of lord Liverpool, to prove that the difficulty was rather greater than some persons imagined. Some hon. members had imputed to government the taking the House by surprise. Now, apart from the considerations connected with the discussions on the principles and details of measures which had been brought forward during the last sixteen years, he would ask, whether, with respect to the isolated proceeding under the notice of the House, government could be fairly charged with precipitation. The contents of the king's Speech were a sufficient indication that the adjustment of what was called the Catholic question was in contemplation. On the first day of the session, he was asked by the hon. member for Dorsetshire, what was the general principle of the measure. His answer to the hon. member was, that he would go so far as to state that the measure would contemplate the general removal of disabilities, though there would be some exceptions and other arrangements." That intimation was given on the 5th of February. It was now the 6th of March, and yet the House had not proceeded a single step with the measure. That simple statement of fact negatived the imputation which had been thrown out. Another objection which had been made to the motion he had had the honour to propose was, that it gave to the Roman Catholics complete emancipation. It did so. The basis on which the measure proceeded was that which he had explained last night,—namely, equality of civil rights. The more he thought on the subject, the more he was satisfied, that if we once made up our minds to abandon the present system of exclusion, there was no intermediate point at which we could safely and consistently stop, short of the repeal of civil disabilities and the restoration of political rights. Some persons might consider that what was about to be granted was a free gift which we had a right to withhold, but which was granted from motives of expediency. Others might consider it a debt which we were not justified in withholding. If it was not a free gift, and we had no right abstractedly to withhold it, let us give all we could safely give. If it was a free gift, and we might be justified in withholding it, let us give the more generously. If we owed a debt, let us pay twenty shillings in the pound. If of that debt they paid only fifteen shillings in the pound the question would remain in agitation until the full twenty shillings were paid. But it would be because the, twenty shillings had been paid, that if any effort were made to extort one single shilling more than was lawfully due, the most strenuous opposition would be offered to such attempt.

^* See Vol. xxii. p. 430.

Another objection had been made to the proposed measure. It was this:—that it was unaccompanied with any securities, or at least any adequate securities. But what, he would ask, were the securities required? Let it be recollected, that the simple point was, whether the question was or was not to be settled? If it was not, then there was an end of the matter. If it was to be settled, let them at least hear what the securities were. He doubted very much whether, if he had proposed to incorporate the Catholic religion with the state,—to make provision for the ministers of that religion,—to regulate the appointment of those ministers, and to interfere with and control the intercourse of the Roman Catholics with the See of Rome,—he doubted, he said, very much, whether he should not have been told, that such propositions were inconsistent with the coronation oath, and with the maintenance of the established Church. He very much doubted, whether the people of this country would not have looked upon such regulations with infinitely greater distrust, than they would upon such an arrangement as would place the Catholic upon precisely the same footing as other Dissenters from the Established Church. When he looked at the petitions which had been sent from the Protestants of Ireland,—and he had examined all those petitions with the greatest attention,—he could not help observing one very extraordinary coincidence. These petitions prayed for three particular securities, and the prayers of them were couched in terms so exactly similar, whether they came from the county of Wicklow, or from the county of Cork, or from the county of Armagh, or from the county of Wexford, that it was impossible to arrive at any other conclusion, than that those prayers, and the terms in which they were conveyed, had been suggested by some common head and originated in the same common source. And what were the three securities prayed for? Why, the first was, "Put down the Catholic Association." The second was, "Correct the evils of the elective franchise of Ireland." And the third was, "Abolish the order of Jesuits in this country." Now, the bill which he proposed to introduce happened to contain all these securities. And if the necessity for them was as great as the petitioners contended they were, let him be answered this question,—would the Protestants ever have had the least chance of obtaining them, if his majesty had not recommended that the disabilities of the Catholics should be taken into consideration, with the view to an adjustment of this question? Look at the division of the House of Commons last year;—look, as they very shortly might, at the decision of the House of Commons that night—and tell him, whether any man would say that it was possible, though the unanimous voice of the Protestants of Ireland declared these securities to be necessary, that any one of them could have been obtained, unless a proposal of adjustment had been made.

He must say, that notwithstanding so much of this debate had turned upon the observations which had fallen from him last night, he had heard no answer to this question—"If you do not like my proposal, what is it that you propose to do, under the present circumstances?" He was well aware that much might be said against his proposal. His hon. friend, the member for Dublin, might make again, as he had made that night, an able disquisition on what passed in 1688; but his hon. friend might depend upon it, that able disquisitions were not sufficient now. They would not meet the difficulties of the present time. Something must be done; and if it were not what he proposed to do, what was it? This, he repeated, had not been answered. It seemed to be considered as a sufficient answer to the position, that no stable government could be formed on the principle of exclusion, to say—"Only dissolve the parliament." Only dissolve the parliament! That was to say, dissolve the parliament, and in the mean time leave the Catholic Association, leave the elective franchise, as they were. Where, he would ask, were the ministers who would advise a dissolution of parliament, leaving the agitation complained of, not as it was, but increased in a ten-fold degree by the disappointed expectations which had been excited by a neutral government, and by the formation of an exclusive government, which, if it could be supposed to last, must extinguish even hope. If the parliament were to be dissolved, the Catholic Association must be left as it was; for the law officers of the Crown had declared, that the common law was inadequate to suppress it; and being so left, it would overturn the representation of Ireland. Whatever majority they might have from Great-Britain, that majority would not justify them in bursting asunder the ties between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and in strengthening the influence of the priesthood in that country. The Protestant majority returned from Great-Britain could not restore matters to the state in which they were before. If eighty or ninety representatives were returned in the interest of the Catholic Association, and, forming themselves into a compact and united band, were determined to oppose and to harass it nightly, how, he would ask, could the government transact the affairs of Ireland. He knew that they could carry the measures they proposed; but he knew also, that no government could carry on the local administration of Ireland if they were to be met by such a decided opposition at every turn. There were many nice distinctions by which they must carry on civil government; and the details connected with it, though unseen, were most important. It had been said, "increase the army, or the constabulary force in Ireland." They could not apply a greater force than was now engaged by the government in Ireland. He would state one simple fact. Above five-sixths of the infantry had last summer been employed in conducting the government of Ireland [cries of hear]; employed in conducting the, government, not in repressing violence, but chiefly in interposing between two hostile parties. He had said, and he would repeat, that they could not calculate what the consequences would be, if they declared that they would resist all further concession. There must, under such circumstances, be a most violent re-action, which would compel them gradually to this alternative; namely, instead of resting the civil and social government on its base, to reverse it, and rest it on its apex. Unwilling as he was to repeal those laws which conferred a character exclusively Protestant on the legislature, still he did believe, that the Catholics were acquiring that power, by their wealth, their numbers, and, above all, by the advance of education, that with their numbers, with their wealth, and with their education, joined to their expectations and to the justification of those expectations by a majority of that House in their favour, it was less dangerous to incorporate them with the state, than to attempt to continue the exclusion of them therefrom. He did see, by the course of events, by the eloquence which had been displayed in their behalf, and by the decisions of four Houses of Commons in their favour, that a compact had been established in that body, which could not be dissolved but by admission to the state. The bond of connexion could not be dissolved by any other means; and, let it be recollected, it was not merely a bond which united the Catholics, but a bond which also united with the Catholics all those whose religion differed from that of the established Church. All who were subject to disabilities on account of religious opinions, looked upon the cause of the Catholics as their own; so far as it regarded the removal of such disabilities. This connexion would be dissolved, if the disabilities were removed; but he did not believe that they could devise any laws, while the Catholics were supported by so powerful a body in parliament, that would be adequate to repress that volatile and diffusive spirit, as it had been called, with which they should have to deal in Ireland. In conclusion, he would merely add, that, not having heard even an attempt at a reply to the question which he had invited his opponents to answer, he was completely satisfied, that no other course than that which he had proposed could be adopted.

The House then divided: Ayes 348. Noes 160. Majority for the Resolution, 188. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee, in which Mr. Secretary Peel moved,

"That it is expedient to provide for the repeal of the Laws which impose civil disabilities upon the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as may be required for the full and permanent security of the Establishments in Church and State, for 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."

The Resolution was agreed to, and ordered to be reported on Monday; after which, the House adjourned at three o'clock on Saturday morning.