said, he had last night to present a considerable number of petitions, signed by a large portion of the persons of rank, property, and intelligence in those places from which they emanated, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. He had now to present several others of a similar nature. The first of these was from Edinburgh, signed by thirteen thousand persons. This petition would have been submitted to a public meeting of the inhabitants, and the parties with whom it originated would have been satisfied to abide by the result, but, in consequence of an understanding, it was agreed, that if no public meeting of those favourable to concession was called, none would be convened of those opposed to it. Since, then, however, a public meeting of those in favour of concession had been held, and a petition agreed upon, which petition, he believed, would be presented by the right hon. member for Knaresborough. Much had been said of attempts to exasperate the public mind in that city by placards. He had one of those placards now in his hands; and he saw nothing in it which might not be fairly exposed at any public meeting. It only put interrogatively, that which the measure before the House went to enact. It asked the people what they would think of having a popish king, a popish privy-council, a popish parliament, a popish provost, and popish lords of session? Now all these, with the exception of the first, were so far within the contemplation of the bill, that it went to enact directly, that those places, with the first exception, should be thrown open to the Catholics. The only things not contemplated by the bill, were popish professors in colleges, and popish parochial schoolmasters. All the offices he had mentioned, the ministers were prepared to open to Catholics, places which he knew it was the opinion of the great portion of the community in Scotland, could only be held by Protestants consistently with the security of our establishments.

said, he had to present a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of the town of Buckingham, praying that the House would not pass the measure now before it. They stated, that they were favourable to toleration, but they considered that giving to Roman Catholics an equality of civil privileges would be subversive of the constitution and religion of the country. While on his legs he would advert to what had been stated last night with respect to the delay that might be occasioned by the presentation of petitions. It was said, that no member had a right to present petitions against the decision of the House, and that the House had a right to fix any time it pleased for the commencement of a debate, without reference to any petitions which might be presented. He would not enter into a discussion on the rules or orders of the House with the right hon. gentleman to whom he alluded, nor would he say that the House had not a right to fix a time for discussion; but it would also be admitted, that every member had a right to move continued questions of adjournment, if he pleased. He did not intend to avail himself of that privilege, nor did he know that it was intended by others; but for his part, he would be willing to sit there till four o'clock in the morning, rather than not have an opportunity of presenting the many petitions which had been committed to his care. He wished to take that opportunity of stating, that when the measure now before the House should be in the committee, it was his intention to move, that the office of prime minister and also those of privy councillors be excepted from its provisions.

said, he had not stated any thing against the right of a member to present petitions. He had said, and he repeated, that the House had a right to make any arrangement for its own convenience, as to the time when any particular business should commence; and that no member had a right to disturb such arrangement by the introduction of any other business. It was true, that every member possessed the right to move successive questions of adjournment. That right was given to prevent any unnecessary haste, and it was accorded with the Understanding, that its exercise should not be abused, so as to put a stop to the business of the House. Like all other rights, it might be abused, and if it should, it would be absurd to suppose that the House did not possess the power of restricting its exercise.

presented a petition from Market-street, in the county of Lincoln. The petitioners, he observed, looked with horror on the measures now before the House, tending as they did, in their belief, to the subversion of the Protestant establishments of the country. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the noble marquis on the subject of petitions, and he had listened with some surprise to the opinion on the same subject, that the House had a right to prevent any member from presenting petitions from the people. He had yet to learn, that the petitions of an insulted people were not to be considered public business, as much as any other matter that might come. before the House. Seeing the hon. member for Tamworth in his place, he would avail himself of his presence to say a word on the subject of a petition from that place against emancipation, which the hon. member had presented on a former evening. The hon member, in presenting that petition, had said, that no members of the corporation had signed the petition, because they did not concur in its prayer. Now, he could state, on the authority of many members of that corporation, that they had not signed it because they did not think it was sufficiently strong, to express what they felt against the measure of emancipation. He had a petition to present from that town, signed by the bailiff, and five members of the corporation, and by three hundred and forty-nine of the inhabitants, which would show how strongly they felt on this question.

did not think that any of his constituents had any reason to complain of what he had said, on presenting the petition in question. He had stated, that it was most respectably signed; but it did not detract from that respectability when he added what he knew to be the fact—that there were some members of the corporation who would not sign it, because they were willing to leave the matter entirely to the wisdom of parliament. He could show this to have been the fact from several letters which he had received on the subject from his constituents. He would read one sentence from one of them, a member of the corporation, who had formerly been opposed to concession to the Roman Catholics. It said—"Many of us here are hearty emancipators, of which number I avow myself; and I trust, that measures which are calculated to effect so much good, will not be defeated by opposition." Another member of the corporation, who had not changed his mind on the subject, said—"My opinion is the same as before; but still I would sooner that a measure, with proper securities, should pass, than we should risk a civil war with the sister kingdom, by which our alliance with her may be broken." Now, with such communications addressed to him, was he not justified in saying, that some of his constituents were disposed to leave the matter to the wisdom of parliament?

hoped he should be permitted to trespass on the indulgence of the House for a short time, whilst he corrected a misconception of what he had said upon a former occasion. On that occasion he had not been prepared to address the House, and perhaps might not have expressed himself as clearly as he could have wished. In the year 1827, when he was first returned as a member of that House, he was asked, whether he intended to vote in favour of or against concession; and he had voted against concession. He had voted against concession in the year 1828, and he intended to vote against concession that night, when the question came regularly before the notice of the House. Though he might now turn in very good company, he did not intend to swerve from the opinions which he had formerly expressed on this subject. Those opinions were founded, as he believed, on correct principles, and to those principles he intended to adhere. What he had stated upon the former occasion was this: "The principle of concession is either right or wrong: if it be a wrong principle, you ought not to grant concession; if it be a right principle, you have not carried it far enough." He had therefore argued upon the latter supposition, that if ministers did grant concessions, they should grant them with, liberality. At the same time that he said this, he had expressed a confidence in his majesty's ministers; and that expression had been elicited from him by a declaration in the petition from the common council, stating, that they relied with full confidence on the wisdom of his majesty's ministers for a beneficial adjustment of this question. He was particularly sorry that such a statement should have been construed into a declaration of lukewarmness or vacillation on his part. To show that there was no ground for such a misconception, he now stated, that it was his intention to give his vote that night against the second reading of the bill. Whatever might be the decision of to-night, he would much rather have the question decided by good sense here, than by agitation elsewhere.

rose and said:—Sir, I have so often had occasion to enter upon the discussion of the subject now under consideration, both in this and in former Houses of parliament, during the last five and-twenty years, that, if it were not from the very particular circumstances under which the question now comes before us, I should not have considered it necessary to have intruded myself on the attention of the House. The novelty of the question, as it now comes before parliament, arises from the altered position in which I and many others who continue to act with me, and who adhere to the opinions we have always professed to entertain on this subject, find ourselves placed, with regard to some of the members of his majesty's government with whom we had been previously accustomed to act. That is the first consideration which arises, and to that consideration I shall now take leave to direct a very few observations. I do not enter upon this discussion, Sir, with the hope of offering any thing new on this very exhausted subject. It would greatly surpass my ability to offer any thing new on such a question. When it is complained by the right hon. mover, and other members of his majesty's government, however, that they found themselves deserted, in former discussions on this question, by those who concurred in opinion with them, I might, perhaps, venture to say, that I am not one of those who can be justly charged with having deserted them on former occasions, however I might now have a right to accuse them of deserting me. The right hon mover, Sir, has endeavoured to impress upon us, that the great difficulty which weighed upon his mind, and which he found it impossible to solve, was, that if we refused further concessions to the Roman Catholics, we could devise no other course which we ought to pursue. This argument has been so often repeated, and so much relied upon, that I shall take the liberty of adverting to it at the beginning of what I shall offer to the House. It has been pressed upon us, over and over again, that if we do not concur in what is now advised by his majesty's ministers, we have nothing else to suggest in its stead. Now, Sir, I say that this argument, which is pressed upon us by the right hon. mover, was pressed upon him repeatedly in former debates. It was the chief argument of those who were favourable to concessions to the Roman Catholics, and was pressed repeatedly on the right hon. mover by Mr. Canning, and by lord Plunkett, who always endeavoured to put the right hon. mover into a dilemma by saying, "If you will not grant concession to the Roman Catholics, what do you propose as a substitute?" Now, Sir, I could refer to a great number of the right hon. mover's speeches in former debates, in which, as it appears to me, he gave the most satisfactory answer to this question. I can also refer to the words of a very high authority, the colleague of the right hon. mover, and who now holds the highest dignity in this country—I refer to the present lord chancellor. When the noble lord was in this House, and this question was under discussion, he answered a similar question; and I shall refer to his own words for the manner in which he answered it. I believe, Sir, that nobody who was present at the debate which took place in March, 1827, on this question, will fail to recollect the speech of the present lord chancellor, and the collision which took place between him and a right hon. gentleman now no more. In the course of that speech lord Lyndhurst said, "I am asked, if I object to the measure proposed, what substitute I am prepared to propose? But I do not know, Sir, that I am required to give any answer to such a question." This was the observation of lord Lyndhurst, in the debate of 1827. He continued—"My answer, however, is, that I am not a minister. I am not a member of his majesty's government. I am not a minister of the country; and it would be idle, and even mischievous, for me, therefore, to say what measures, in my private opinion, ought to be adopted." Sir, following this high authority, enforced on this particular occasion by the good sense of the observation, I think it would be highly unbecoming in me to broach any project, or to sport any hypothesis, as to what I think ought to be done, but which, unconnected as I am with his majesty's government, I have no means of enforcing. I think that, by indulging in any observations explanatory of my own opinions as to what should be done, I should unnecessarily and unprofitably occupy the time of the House; and, if I were followed by others, I think we should only be deviating from the real question on which this debate hinges. If I am asked, then, what measure I propose to substitute for the concession of political power to the Roman Catholics, in order to allay existing animosities, and to preserve tranquillity in Ireland, I refer to the speech of lord Lyndhurst. The noble lord said, when the question was put to him, "I will answer that question by asking another—I will ask, what are the securities which the Roman Catholics propose to concede to us, for the concessions we are called upon to grant to them?" Those were the sentiments of lord Lyndhurst in 1827. He then thought specific securities necessary; but since he left this House he does not seem to set the same value on securities, as he did when this speech was made. Before taking leave of it, I really wish that hon. gentlemen would take the trouble of referring to this speech; for it contains some very curious matter, and gives rise to many considerations.—There is another point, Sir, on which I wish to put a question and to make an observation. The question I wish to ask is, whether his majesty's ministers see the dangers attendant on this question in a different light now, from what they did last year, and the year before the last? If they do not see the dangers of the question in a different light, then I have a right to ask, whether they think that the present measure gives, or that they are now in possession of, greater facilities, for meeting and obviating those dangers and difficulties, than they were during the last year, and in the year preceding, it? I beg to direct the special attention of the right hon. mover to this question. Either the dangers of resisting those concessions are the same as they were last year, or they are greater. If the dangers are the same, the answer to the proposed measure is the same which the right hon. gentleman made in former years, when this question was discussed. That answer was satisfactory to me, and appeared so to the House; and there is no occasion for us to adopt a different course from that which the right hon. gentleman then pointed out to us.

But perhaps it will be said, the danger is now greater; but I say, Sir, that if the danger is increased, it is owing to the supineness of his majesty's government, and to their unparalleled and still unexplained disregard of that monstrous power which had arisen in Ireland, and was wielded by the unconstitutional body known as the Catholic Association. It has been asked at different times, but it never has been answered, why this imposthume, if I may be allowed so to call it, was allowed to grow up under the eyes of the Irish government, whilst they took no steps to put an end to it? It is true that ministers denounced it in hard words, but they allowed it to arrive to vigour and maturity by their own supineness and inaction, and, as the consequence of that supineness and inaction, they are now driven to come forward with the measure before the House.—The right hon. mover has distinctly stated, that he did not come forward to propose this measure as a matter of option. He does not propose it as a measure of right, or of liberality, or of justice, to the Roman Catholics, but merely as a choice of difficulties. He dreads lest the dangers which may arise from resisting the demands of the Roman Catholics will be greater than those which he is apprehensive will arise from granting those demands. This is the argument of the right hon. gentleman, and it is impossible, therefore, I think, to contend, that the measure now before the House is not a measure of intimidation. It is a measure of intimidation, Sir, and nothing else. That power which has been so long at work in Ireland, undermining his ma jesty's government, has at length triumphed, by extorting this measure from the fears of his majesty's ministers. The noble duke at the head of the administration has been greatly praised and magnified during these discussions; and, in my opinion, there is no man who deserves more to be praised and magnified for many signal and splendid public services. But as to the measure now proposed—be it for evil or be it for good—and in my conscience I believe it will be attended with the most fatal consequences, it is not the measure of the noble duke; it is, in point of fact, the measure of the member for the county of Clare. Be his the honour, or be his the blame; for, to him, and not to the noble duke at the head of his majesty's government, is this measure owing. When the triumph of the Catholic Association is celebrated, as it will be, no doubt, when the measure now before parliament is passed, the noble duke at the head of the ministry will perform only a small part in the pageant. The member for Clare, the great hero of the Association, must act the first part; and what place will be left for the noble duke? Like the colleague of Marius in his triumph, it may be said—

"Nobilis ornatur lauro collega secunda."

Amongst the writers on our mixed constitution, it has long been a question whether, in a constitution like ours, it is safer to depend on a Protestant cabinet under a Popish king, or on a king who professes the Protestant faith and a Popish cabinet; and, considering the situation of this country, the circumstances under which a government is necessarily placed in these times, and the desire of irresponsibility which it has been found convenient and necessary to attach to the person who wears the crown, I do not hesitate to state, that, in my opinion, a Popish king and a Protestant cabinet would be safer for the country than a Protestant king surrounded by Popish ministers. As the business of government is now administered, all the acts of the Crown are done upon the responsibility of the ministers of the day, whoever they may happen to be. It would be so much easier then for a Popish ministry to control the conduct, and even the conscience, of a sovereign, than for a sovereign to control the measures of his ministers, that I should greatly prefer having a Papist near the crown to having a Protestant king surrounded by Popish councillors.—I come now, Sir, to consider what many honourable gentlemen, perhaps, will say that I should have set out by considering, namely, what are the dangers which I think are really to be apprehended from the measure now proposed. I will state fairly and without exaggeration what, as it appears to me, will be the natural, and, I might say, the inevitable, consequences of this measure. With the permission of the House I will refer to what has been said in former debates, on similar measures, as to the dangers to be apprehended, because the dangers are expressed in terms much clearer and more forcible, as we11 as more correct, than they could come from myself. In the memorable debate of 1827, allusions were made to the propriety of admitting Roman Catholics to seats in parliament. That is the point which has been relied on as conveying political power to the Roman Catholics. In their admission to seats in parliament consists that political power which is given them by the measure now before the House. Now, Sir, I have always stated, and I am ready to state it again, that the only thing I object to is the admission of Roman Catholics to parliament. I am ready to grant them every thing else demanded for them. But the advocates for the Roman Catholics insist on this concession; and when I found it was a sine qua non with Mr. Canning, I found myself obliged to leave him, and I have since constantly opposed all measures of concession, because it was repeatedly stated, that the Roman Catholics would never rest satisfied until this, to my mind, most objectionable concession was granted to them. Now, Sir, in the debate in the year 1827 the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament was objected to, by the right hon gentleman, on the ground, "that the effect would be, to bring the Catholic and Protestant churches into collision, finally to the destruction of the latter, and that the confusion and disorder which would prevail for ages, whilst the struggle was going on, would be a greater evil even than the event itself." Now, Sir, I agree in every part of this representation but one. The confusion and disorder consequent on the overthrow of the Protestant church might last for ages; but I do not believe that the contest would be a very protracted one. I think the march of events would be much more rapid than the speaker whose words I have quoted seemed to anticipate. I do not say that the event which he predicted would occur within so short a period as remains to me of life;-but right hon mover, perhaps, may live to see the consequences of this measure. He has, I sincerely hope, a long and a happy. life before him. According to the course of nature he may yet look forward to many years; and I do believe that the danger to be apprehended from this measure—the overthrow of the established church—will happen, not in ages hence, but in the time of the right hon. gentleman, and of many others who now hear me. That the overthrow of the established church will be the ultimate effect of this measure I have no doubt. I think it is as clear as cause and effect.

I cannot, Sir, concur in the observation of the right hon. gentleman nor can I conceive how he can feel that the danger which he described so strongly as likely to arise from continued resistance to these demands, should induce him to overlook the danger which he is now precipitating—a danger, in my opinion, much greater than that which he hopes to avoid by the proposed measure. There are two points which have been often mooted in relation to this part of the subject. It has been said, that if the Catholics were possessed of political power there is no reason to suppose that they would direct that power to the overthrow of the established church. This hypothesis has been met by the observation, that the Roman Catholic religion is adverse to Protestantism, and that we cannot rely on Roman Catholics when the question arises as between the two churches. But then it is said, that this is not a religious question—that it is merely a political question. Now, Sir, this is really cavilling in a way, in my opinion, not quite consistent with common sense. The question is whether the Roman Catholics, being members of a sect holding peculiar religious opinions, can safely be intrusted with political power? The whole question turns upon the nature of the Roman Catholic religion; and it is therefore a question of religion. The Roman Catholic religion, then, being a religion of encroachment and usurpation, if political power was thrown into the hands of its members, what is there to prevent them from using that power in opposition to Protestantism—what is there to prevent them from subverting the established church of Ireland? Many calculations have been made as to the number of members who would be returned from Ireland, if the representation of that coun try was open to Roman Catholics. I have heard even a larger number stated; but I do not think it at all unreasonable to suppose, that fifty or sixty members, half the entire number returned from Ireland, would be Roman Catholics. This would be the state of the representation, if we looked to Ireland alone. But let us also look to this country. It is well known that in this country there are many noble, wealthy, and powerful families, who are Roman Catholics, and who will naturally look to seats in parliament, and to all those objects of ambition and elevation which Protestants in the same rank usually look to By their influence, and their wealth, and their power, those families will endeavour to get power over as many seats in parliament as they possibly can. Every one knows that there are many different ways in which seats in this House are obtained:

"Nunc premio, nunc pretio, nunc vi."

Now, in England, I think it is not too much to say, that out of the boroughs and towns forty or fifty seats might be expected to get into the hands of Roman Catholics. From England and Ireland, then, we have a hundred Roman Catholic members. As to Scotland, I believe less would be done by the Roman Catholics in that country; for the Popish religion is neither prevalent nor powerful there. When speaking of Scotland, however, I cannot pass it by without observing that, by the proposed measure, we break one of the leading articles of a treaty entered into by us with that kingdom, when it was an independent nation. By this measure we are violating a sacred article of the Union. And this is done for the purpose of laying every thing at the feet of the Catholic Association. We will suppose, then, Sir, that there are a hundred Roman Catholic members in this House. But, is this all that is to be dreaded? In any question concerning the Church establishment will the Roman Catholics have no support from the dissenters? Are the dissenters so much enamoured with the Church establishment, that they will unite to support it at all risks? The House will not fail to bear in mind the tone of many of the petitions lately presented from Protestant Dissenters, and the arguments with which they were followed up. Those petitions, and the speeches made in support of them, were pregnant with instances of the feelings of the dissenters against the Church establishment. As the dissenters do riot partake of the spiritual benefits of the establishment, if there are to be no civil disqualifications attached to religious opinions, it is not unreasonable to expect, that they may entertain a great desire, if not to ruin the Church establishment, at all events to be exonerated from the charge of maintaining it. We have heard opinions in this House, and recently too, to this effect. It has been repeatedly said, that the Church establishment is too large, and that by reducing it to its primitive poverty it would also be restored to its primitive purity. How far this doctrine is received in this House I do not take upon myself to say; but the doctrine has been extensively propagated by many popular writers, whose works are much read amongst certain classes. It has been fairly and candidly stated by some writers, that they supported this measure because they thought it would lead to the subversion of the Protestant establishment, and not, as is erroneously conceived, as I think, by some hon. members, that it would strengthen the establishment. How any one can suppose that the proposed measure can confer advantage on the established church is more than I can conceive, and I shall not attempt to argue on it. I think the last time that the Irish Protestant church came under discussion in this House was in 1824, and a distinct motion was then made for the diminution of its revenues. On that motion it was distinctly laid down as a principle, that the revenues of the Church were liable to be applied to the exigencies of the state; and, upon a division, eighty members voted for the motion. Now, Sir, if the Catholics, the Dissenters, and the other foes of the established church, were in combination and marshalled in array against the Protestant church establishment, for how many ages would the contest last? In my opinion, it would only be the struggle of a single parliament. Now, Sir, what is there which would prevent the Roman Catholics from doing this? I have no doubt that they would confederate to obtain any object which they conceived would promote their own religion. They would sit on one side or on the other, as inclination led them; but, when any question relating to their religion was brought forward, they would be found a united body; and, being united, they would become more powerful than as a numerical body. I do not talk of hundreds, Sir, but I have been long enough in this House to know how powerful bodies of twenty, and even of ten, members are when united. When led by an able man small bodies of this description are often powerful in finding the means of forcing themselves into power, and carrying into effect their own views.

The Revolution of 1688, Sir, has been often referred to, and the arguments on that subject have exhibited something of novelty. Much has been said of king William and his councillors, and I have heard, with surprise, the strange distinctions made between the intentions and acts of those who took a part in bringing about that great event known as the Revolution. It has been said, that all that was done by king William was to settle it, that the person wearing the crown should be a Protestant; and therefore it is said, that the crown being Protestant was all that king William and his councillors laboured for, or cared about. Now, the fact happens to be true, though the inference is false. The only regulation made by king William was concerning persons to wear the crown; because that was all that was then necessary. King William could not have done more than was done before to exclude Catholics from political power and from all offices in the state. When it is said, therefore, that king William did not make those exclusive laws, I admit the fact. But then I say, no more did king William and his councillors make Magna Charta. The laws excluding Papists from power were made before king William's time; they were sufficient, and he left them as he found them. Does any human being suppose, that one of the first acts of Roman Catholic members of parliament, when once admitted into power, would not be to seek the immediate establishment and aggrandizement of their own church, at the expense of that now established by the constitution? Notwithstanding all the broad and sweeping assertions that have been made to the contrary, I must continue to think, that such were the opinions of king William and his councillors. I would entreat the House to look at the temper of that monarch and his advisers on the admission of Roman Catholics to political power. One of the first acts of the first session of the reign of that monarch was an act, which disabled Papists from the exercise of legislative power or authority. It even went further, and inflicted upon them banishment from the metropolis. I do not advert to these measures for the purpose of advocating them in the abstract. I am aware that they were called for by the necessity of the times; and that is the very ground which I take. The conduct and known principles of the Roman Catholics called for those measures, and alone warranted their adoption: they were justified by necessity; that only could justify them; but the existence of that necessity is, in the highest degree, important to my present argument. I confess my total inability to comprehend how any rational and well-informed man can doubt the sentiments of king William's government, and of the monarch himself, on the unfitness of Roman Catholics to exercise political power in this country. To say nothing of the acts passed in England, those adopted in Scotland would alone be conclusive. These statutes in the strongest terms denounce the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and assert the unfitness of those who profess them for the enjoyment of power in a Protestant country. To me it appears one of the most perfectly incomprehensible matters that ever came under my observation, how any man can doubt the animus, with which those measures were adopted, or could give any other interpretation than I have given to the Toleration Act. That act was not passed for the indulgence of Catholics, it was passed solely for the benefit of the Protestants themselves, for the relief of tender consciences amongst those who dissented from the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome. In fact, a special exception was made to the disadvantage of Roman Catholics; for then, as fully as now, the believers in transubstantiation were excluded from offices of state and the exercise of legislative power. I am aware that the authority of Mr. Locke is often quoted in support of the measure before the House; and I think his authority most material to my purpose, being, as he unquestionably was, the great advocate of toleration. No one will question at this time of day the character of that eminent philosopher, or doubt the tolerant spirit of his writings. Now, that philosopher distinctly recognised the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the benefit of the Toleration Act. I am far from saying that such principles should now be acted on; but this I do say, that—and it was with the object of supporting the as, sertion I am about to make, that I advert to those circumstances—this I do say, that they manifest, in the clearest manner possible, that the acts of king William were fully and completely calculated for the exclusion of Roman Catholics—that that was the principle of his government, and one from which it never swerved. There cannot be a grosser misrepresentation than to put a different gloss upon the measures of that reign. The authorities to which I have referred put that beyond controversy, and confirm me more and more in the conviction, that the power of a Roman Catholic party in the legislature is of a very high order, and much to be feared and guarded against. No statesman that ever existed in this country had a juster impression on that subject than had king William; but, if it be contended, that he was not a good judge, we have one who must be acknowledged still more competent—I mean king James 2nd. Now, to give the House some notion of that king's opinions, I shall read a short extract from a newly-published book, rather than from any of the old historians upon this subject. The period alluded to, in the passage which I am about to quote, was shortly before the landing of king William in England, and the author wrote, on the 22d of September previous to that event, to the following effect:—"Yesterday-week his majesty was graciously pleased to afford us another instance of his care for the safety of the state, by publishing another declaration, stating, that as he proposed establishing an unusual liberty of conscience, so he was determined on preserving inviolable the Church as by law established; and, in order to effect that object, that Roman Catholics were to remain incapable of being elected members of the House of Commons; and that persons of that persuasion should engross no share of legislative power. Whereby, the fears and apprehensions are at an end which many persons entertained, lest the legislative authority should be enjoyed by the Papists, and by them turned against our Protestant establishments." This, the hon; gentleman said, occurred in the last struggle made by king James, when he felt himself obliged to abandon the principles he had heretofore maintained, and showed the dangers at the time apprehended by the people, from Roman Catholics becoming members of parliament: It also proved that the king himself had manifested his own intention to abandon his former principles upon this point. If he were not afraid of tiring the House, he would refer to another short extract from a contemporary writer, who, in those very eventful times, did not appear quite so well awake to the dangers that surrounded him, as some hon. members were to the apprehended perils that menaced us from Ireland in the present day. The writer in question said, "His Majesty gives every day some mark or other of his gracious intention to preserve the established Church, and of his wishes to convince the bishops of it; in the first place, he ordered that several of them should be sent for to Court, and after a conference, they were all of them dismissed, very well satisfied." How well satisfied the bishops were, the articles which they presented to king James a few days after these gracious conferences sufficiently proved. What would be the conduct of the bishops of the present time with respect to this question,—what answer these right reverend persons would give, if consulted in these days on a proposition for the admission of the Roman Catholics to political power,—what would be their opinion when the present measure was set before them as a means to secure the safety and inviolability of our Protestant Church,—perhaps before long we should have an opportunity of seeing. In his opinion, our modern bishops would follow the glorious example of their great predecessors, in their endeavours to maintain and support the Protestant constitution as established in Church and State—they would neither surrender it to power, nor sacrifice it to expediency.

said, he felt himself relieved from much of the difficulty which he had had to encounter in former discussions of this question, by finding that they were not called upon to go into any arguments with respect to the past, but it was admitted that they were now to consider what was necessary to be done at present. It seemed to be a favourite argument with those who were now opposed to the Catholics, that they ought to be deprived of all political power, because it was impossible to prevent the Catholics and the Protestants from coming immediately into collision upon the subject of the rights of the Protestant Church. They seemed, indeed, to take it for granted, that the moment the Catholic was admitted to the enjoyment of those rights which the tardy justice of the Protestants bestowed upon him—from that very moment, instead of endeavouring to prove his attachment to the constitution, by promoting the prosperity of the empire, he was to be found devoting the whole of his energies to the destruction of the rights and privileges of the Protestant Established Church. Such was the hon. member for Dorset shire's opinion. Would the hon. gentleman take the opinion of the Roman Catholics themselves upon the subject? If he would, it was in his power to point out something worthy of the hon member's attention. The proposition made by him (Mr. W. Horton) with regard to securities went, as was well known, to the extent of depriving Roman Catholics of the power of interfering with, or legislating for, our Protestant Church; and what danger, it might be asked, was to be apprehended from the Roman Catholics, or how could they combine to injure that establishment, if they were prevented from voting upon any measure affecting its interests? He confessed he could not perceive any objection to admitting Roman Catholics to seats in parliament, under such a provision. There might be objections to the proposed security; but if it were once agreed to, and put into operation, he could conceive no difficulty or danger in the admission of Roman Catholics to the enjoyment of legislative privileges. What was the answer that had been given to the proposition by a noble relative of his (lord Kenmure) a member of the Catholic Association in Ireland? The noble lord alluded to observed, that "in prohibiting the Catholics from legislating upon the affairs of the Established Church, he would exact no sacrifice, but on the contrary afford them a relief from a most disagreeable and irksome duty. Were it possible, indeed, to suppose that the Catholics should be admitted to Parliament unfettered by any restrictions or disqualifications, I should feel it my duty to act under the influence of such an opinion, and abstain from taking any part in the discussion, when the subject of the privileges of the Established Church came under consideration." Mr. Blount, the Secretary of the British Catholic Association, after assenting to the restriction, went on to say, by way of explanation, that he conceived there existed no necessity for any such proviso; for if the inequality of the law by which Roman Catholics were at present excluded from political privileges were removed, the Pro testant Church would still continue safe, though some persons might think differently.

He was aware that there were different classes of exclusionists. Some individuals considered religious exclusions—exclusion from political offices and privileges, on account of a particular religious belief—as the best and most advantageous feature in the British constitution; they wished the principle of exclusion to be the rule, not the exception; they looked at it as their breath of life, and their birthright; and they could not breathe the free air of heaven itself, with any degree of satisfaction, if it were not tainted with the poison of political degradation. With persons who felt thus, he knew not how to argue. It was they who said to the Roman Catholics, "We will not believe you upon your oaths." If so—if these were really their feelings, and if they meant to act boldy, manfully, and he would add, consistently—they ought to renew the penal laws. That in which he considered the great wisdom of his right hon. friend's measure to consist—that which gave a peculiar character of utility and safety to the plan, and reconciled him to it above all others that had ever been proposed, was simply this—that it was a measure which did not touch the ecclesiastical concerns of the Roman Catholics. He must be allowed to inform the hon. member, that the Roman Catholic clergyman, whom the hon. member supposed to be so desirous of possessing himself of the property of the established church, knew perfectly well that he could not avail himself of those possessions, unless the character and constitution of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland were to be totally changed. The Catholic clergyman knew that we would never transfer the possessions of the established church to him under any circumstances, without going to the Court of Rome and obtaining powers such as had been confided to other states that recognized a Catholic establishment. The Catholic clergyman knew that he was more independent as he stood at present, than he would be under such circumstances. He did not wish for the emoluments of the Protestant church: on the contrary, he was aware that he would be peculiarly vulnerable upon that point—that of an establishment—and that if an attempt were made on the property of the church, it must be fruitless.

But, the hon member said, the Irish Roman Catholics were desirous of exonerating themselves from the payment of tithes. Did the people, he asked the hon member, believe, if the property of the church were otherwise appropriated than at present—if it were diverted to some other object—that they would not have to pay the amount of what they now paid in tithe, in a different shape? The property of the church was on the same footing as state property. It was property held in trust for the benefit of the Protestant church. If a man purchased property encumbered by tithes, he purchased it at a less price than he could otherwise have done, exactly in proportion to the amount and value of the tithes payable upon it; and so of glebe and other church lands. Again, the man who had to pay tithe, made a calculation of the amount, and paid by so much less to his landlord. It followed, that the rent of land, tithe-free or not tithe-free, must be measured according to the composition or proportion of tithe to which it was liable, or from which it was exempt. As long as the illusion existed, that the destruction or removal of church property would prevent the payment of tithe, or an equivalent to tithe in rent, the mistake might operate upon the minds of men to endeavour to remove or destroy the right of the church to such property; but that was an illusion which, if it existed any where, could only exist in the mind of the hon. member for Dorsetshire. Besides, church property was a species of property recognized and defended by the law; and we could not take a single sheaf of corn, or divert to other purposes five shillings of tithe-composition without repealing the articles of Union between England and Ireland. Did the hon member suppose that the Roman Catholics who might obtain seats in parliament could, in one or in fifty sessions, effect that which would be practically repealing the Act of Union between the two countries? He alluded to an alteration in the appropriation of church property. Such a supposition had no foundation whatever in analogy, and could only be founded on an illusion that still appeared to possess the hon. member for Dorset-shire's mind;—namely, that the Roman Catholics were governed by the same principles, and had the same objects in view now as at the time of the Revolution ["hear," from Mr. Bankes]. The hon gentleman might cheer, but did he mean to say, that a prince of the House of Stuart now laid claim to the throne? Unless he kept himself most religiously incog., he did not know of the existence of any such person pretending to the crown of these realms. How, then, could it be said, that the objects of the Roman Catholics were the same now as they were a hundred years ago? When hon gentlemen said, as they did say, whatever obloquy they might sustain in that House from being in the minority of one hundred and sixty, they were satisfied that, when they returned home, they would have the approbation of the great majority of the people of England—when hon. members said this, they evidently founded their opinion on the total ignorance in which the people of England had been kept as to the real merits of the question [Cries of "No, no," and loud cheering]. He repeated, if the minority obtained the approbation of the people of England, they could only do so by means of the ignorance of the people of England on the subject.

If hon members were not prepared to believe Roman Catholics on their oaths, they should, if they were disposed to act consistently, come manfully forward, and say at once that the penal laws ought to be re-enacted. Cruel, dangerous and oppressive as might be the attempt, that was their only resource. In 1826, the Roman Catholic bishops put forth a declaration stating, that the principles, belief, and doctrines, of their church had been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented, and explicitly promulgating their real opinions and tenets upon particular points. They protested, that as Catholics they entertained no opinions which were not perfectly consistent with the performance of their duties as British subjects. Now the objections to the removal of Catholic disqualifications which existed in the public mind in this country, evidently proceeded from the assumption, that the Roman Catholics did entertain opinions inconsistent with their duties as British subjects; and not from any apprehension that Catholics might obtain admission to parliament in sufficient numbers materially to influence the judgment and decision of the legislature. He would not argue with the hon member the point, whether or not, in former times, the Roman Catholics held principles at variance with their duties as good subjects: he came to the present period, and referred to the declaration of the Catholic bishops in 1826. Being charged with holding opinions, and professing tenets, inconsistent with their duties as British subjects, they took the opportunity of stating the nature of the doctrine which they do profess, and they thus expressed themselves upon the subject of the obligation due to an oath—

"Catholics are charged with holding, that they are not bound by any oath, and that the Pope can dispense them from all the oaths they may have taken. We cannot sufficiently express our astonishment at such a charge. We hold that the obligation of an oath is most sacred; for by an oath man calls the Almighty Searcher of hearts to witness the sincerity of his conviction of the truth of what he asserts, and his fidelity in performing the engagements he makes. Hence, whosoever swears falsely, or violates the lawful engagement he has confirmed by an oath, not only offends against truth, or justice, but against religion. He is guilty of the enormous crime of perjury. No power in any Pope, or council, or in any individual, or body of men, invested with authority in the Catholic Church, can make it lawful for a Catholic to confirm any falsehood by an oath; or dispense with any oath, by which a Catholic has confirmed his duty of allegiance to his sovereign, or any obligation of duty or justice to a third person. He who takes an oath is bound to observe it, in the obvious meaning of the words, or in the known meaning of the person to whom it is sworn."

This was the declaration of the heads of the Catholic church; and he would now take leave to ask, what was it except an oath which kept the Catholics from the enjoyment of all the privileges of the Protestants, and brought them as supplicants to that House? Could any man deny that it was nothing but their sense of the obligation imposed by an oath? Well, indeed, might the Catholics say, in the beautiful language of the noble Poet—

"Were my bosom as false as thou deem'st it to be,

I need not have wandered from far Galilee; It was but abjuring my creed to efface

The curse which, thou say'st, is the crime of my race."

The attention to the sacred obligation of an oath was the crime of the Catholic; and yet, because he acknowledged its force, he was to be taunted, with the imputation of being utterly unworthy of confidence.

They had been told, on the evening before, by the hon member for Newark (Mr. Sadler) that the settlement of this question was perfectly useless and unnecessary, because it did not touch, and could not cure, the real evils of Ireland. He had never said, nor had he heard it stated, that the concession of the Catholic claims would cure all the evils of Ireland; but this he was prepared to assert—that we must apply the moral remedy before we attempted to cope with the physical evils that afflicted that country. One good effect of the adjustment of the Catholic question would be, that it might be expected to calm men's minds, by the, removal of a galling and unnecessary distinction, and leave their faculties free to exert themselves in useful channels, and for the accomplishment of useful purposes. Was it nothing that men should be debarred from a fair participation in all the laudable honours and advantages of civil life? Was it to be expected that, under such circumstances, the Catholic would rest content and satisfied, while excluded from enjoying the privileges of a state to the support of which he contributed? Every hon member could well believe that it was not; and we had the best evidence to show that the mind of the Catholic was strongly roused and excited, to attain what might be considered a fair and praiseworthy object. But that object once attained, was it to be supposed that the Catholic would dash on in his career, and in order to gain visionary advantages, deprive himself of the power of enjoying substantial privileges? Was not such a supposition at once refuted, not only by the dictates of reason and common sense, but by the history of every country on the face of the globe, with respect to the circumstances of which and those of our own any analogy could be instituted? Were hon gentlemen aware of the state in which Roman Catholics were placed in two other kingdoms, and did they know the effects that had resulted from the existing condition of things in those countries.

We were told last night, that we ought not to go into the circumstances of other states, or institute any analogy between countries which had constitutions of a dissimilar kind. On this principles we must not take a lesson from places that had not precisely the same sort of institutions as we had: we could only copy from free States. With respect to that doctrine, he thought an American might be justified in considering the constitution of his country as a free one, because it was founded on opposition to foreign interference, and extended equal privileges to its citizens; yet, had not the American got the principle of slavery recognised and admitted in his code? Was it impossible to find a code of freedom in which no blot of slavery existed? This was the blot that, at present defaced our own free constitution. We boasted of our freedom, yet we excluded six millions of our fellow-subjects from a participation in the full and perfect enjoyment of it. The principle of exclusion might have been originally adopted in defence of our liberties, but now that times were changed, and a necessity no longer existed for restrictions, we should abandon that narrow principle, and carry into effect, in the broadest and amplest manner, the true principles of a free constitution. Now that no possible danger could result from their abandonment, we should remove those disabilities and disqualifications which had pressed upon and weighed down the energies of the State like an incubus—which had obstructed our foreign policy, hampered our councils at home, and depressed the national prosperity. Let gentlemen only look at the truth of this picture—let them only reflect on the advantages that would thus be obtained—and contrast them with the imaginary apprehensions of the hon member for Dorsetshire, who appeared to think, that the admission of a few Roman Catholics into parliament would overwhelm all—the constitution and the country—in one common and indiscriminate ruin.

We were told, that this measure ought not to be adopted, because it was not attended by securities. Now, of this he felt convinced, that what had generally been denominated securities, were not often brought forward by those who advocated the measure through any very sincere or deep-rooted conviction of their utility, but as being calculated to allay apprehensions and satisfy prejudices where they were honestly entertained. He repeated his conviction that the securities usually brought forward and connected with projects for Catholic relief, were intended to satisfy the public mind rather than as solid safeguards to the constitution, which stood in need of no such aid. He himself had proposed a plan with a view to effect this object. At the same time that he did not insist upon securities, because he considered them unnecessary; yet, if he were asked, as a friend to Catholic emancipation without securities or restrictions, whether he would concede the point of securities, he would be ready to do so, on the principle of satisfying the minds of persons who might be opposed to the measure in an unqualified shape. In order to obtain their assent and support to concession, and on the principle of general conciliation, he again said, he would consent to the introduction of securities. But, what he most valued in the measure proposed by his right hon. friend was this, that it was free from all securities. Under the circumstances of the case, he did not think securities, such as those that had usually been proposed, likely to promote conciliation; and if not conciliation, then certainly no other useful object. If he thought the contrary, he would feel disposed to desire and support securities. He thought it wise in his right hon. friend to introduce a measure free from all such incumbrances. If securities could be devised of a nature calculated to conciliate the opponents of the measure, or necessary to the support of the constitution, he would advocate them; but if, as he believed, their introduction would not lead to either of these results, then he preferred having them omitted, lest they should furnish the means to those who had the will to pick holes in the measure [hear]. He made this candid admission on the subject of securities; although no man had taken more pains than he had to devise such as the Roman Catholics could make no objection to. In that object he had succeeded. No Roman Catholic made a reclamation against his plan; and three Protestant bishops, whom he named in order to honour, expressed to him an humble individual not connected with government in any capacity whatever at the time, and at a period too when there appeared no chance of the Catholic question being settled, that they would be ready to vote for it, if accompanied by the securities proposed by him, which these right reverend prelates considered well calculated to protect the Protestant Church, If he thought the liberality of these individuals likely to be generally imitated and considerably extended, upon these grounds, among the occupants of a pious and learned bench in another place, he of course could have no objection to the introduction of such a plan of securities. But, on the whole, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he rejoiced to see that the measure brought forward by his right hon. friend, was altogether unattended by securities; which, except in so far as they might be calculated to conciliate, must be productive of injury.

He trusted, he might be allowed to say a few words upon a part of the subject which he had not heard any of the opponents of the present bill advert to—he alluded to the argument arising out of the state of Ireland, which had been introduced in his right hon. friend's speech. No argument had been offered in opposition to his right hon. friend's position—that the state of Ireland as it now existed, under the civil disabilities affecting the Catholics, could not continue. It was evident, therefore, that we must either advance or retrograde—there was only the choice between these two courses. Now, putting aside the justice of the case as regarded concession, let us look at the question as one of expediency and necessity. No government, he was prepared to say, could be carried on upon a system of deliberate and decided opposition to the claims of the Roman Catholics. Good God! could any body, with the experience of what had passed in Ireland within no long period before his eyes, declare that it was possible for a government to be carried on much longer upon such principles? The reason and common-sense of the country must be satisfied, that if the safety of the constitution and Protestant establishment could be rendered consistent with the admission of the Roman Catholics to a fair share of civil privileges, it was a violation of every analogy connected with the principles on which free states should be conducted, to persist in maintaining needless and irritating disqualifications. The good sense of the country must also see, that Protestant interests would be better secured by allaying discontent and rendering all classes of our fellow-subjects satisfied with their condition, than by means of a military government. We were told, that it was necessary to keep five-sixths of the Infantry of the country in activity in Ireland—that we were obliged to do this, in consequence of the state of that part of the empire. Until honourable members who were opposed to concession could answer this plain fact, that part of the case in favour of Roman Catholic relief remained invulnerable.

An hon gentleman who spoke last night appeared to be of opinion, that the proper meed of merit and applause would not be given by the public voice to all those who bad been concerned in the advancement of this great measure. He differed from the hon. member upon this point, and thought posterity would divide the applause with scrupulous accuracy, as regarded the respective merits of the living as well as the dead. He had no apprehension that any man who had had a share in advocating and promoting this question would fail to receive from posterity a fair meed of approbation. For himself, if he were only permitted to move along among the last and humblest followers of that illustrious train, as one who had plodded his weary way for many years towards that temple of concord in which this great sacrifice of ancient prejudice to the spirit of liberty and the true principles of the constitution was about to be consummated, he should be amply compensated for all the annoyance and vexation he had endured while pursuing his present course.

denied the assertion of the hon. member for Dorsetshire, that the Catholics would, in the event of the passing of this bill, he enabled to send fifty members to the House of Commons. He believed that if all the counties in which Catholic voters predominated were to succeed in sending Catholics as their members, they would not amount to any thing like that number. It had been argued by the hon. member, that the concession of the Catholic claims was not necessarily connected with admission to seats in parliament; and, therefore, that it might be avoided. But he would refer the hon. gentleman to the benefit that had been derived by the Catholics from the concessions already made to them, to shew that admission to parliament was essential to secure any advantage from them. Why was it that, since 1793, so little advantage had resulted to the Catholic population of Ireland from the concessions then made to them, though they were rendered eligible to such a large range of offices? It wa§ owing, he would say, to the want of connection with their admissibility to parliament, which rendered those other concessions nearly useless to them. It was true that those concessions had never been received with that degree of gratitude which some had thought the occasion demanded; but the reason was, because they were of no real advantage to the Catholics, in consequence of very few offices having been given to them. Neither did he agree with the hon. member with regard to the danger apprehended from the possession of seats in parliament by the Catholics. The hon gentleman had quoted several speeches, to show how this danger would work. Now, he would request the House to attend to an authority as to this point, which he conceived would be of some weight with the House, and indeed with the hon. gentleman himself, namely, the authority of Mr. Burke. That great man had stated it as his opinion, that "after the capacity of the army and the navy, and the capacity of voting at elections had been given, to refuse the capacity of sitting in parliament, is a dispute de lanâ caprinâ." And he added afterwards, "if I were to form a judgment on this subject from experience, and also from theory, I should doubt greatly whether the capacity for, and the possession of, seats in parliament, do really convey much political power. I sat for twenty-nine years in parliament, and I do think the power of a member is rather in opposing than in supporting the measures of government; and I do think that a clerk in office frequently possesses far more influence than nine-tenths of the members of the House of Commons. The exclusion of the Catholics is only a mark of jealousy and suspicion, and will not provide any sort of security." This was the deliberate opinion of the highest possible authority to which any matter of a constitutional nature could be referred, and would be, he had no doubt, of great weight with that House and the country, in respect to the arguments of those who were trying to impress on the minds of the people, that the admission of Catholics to parliament would expose the constitution to dangers which would certainly lead to its destruction.—He wished to make some observations on what had been repeatedly said by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the question, as to the future probable conduct of the Catholic clergy of Ireland. Every hon gentleman opposed to this bill ventured to declare a speculative opinion, that as soon as it was passed, the power of the Catholic clergy would be directed to the aggrandisement of the Catholic religion, and the raising of it to ascendancy on the ruins of the Protestant church. It had also been stated, that the influence which the Catholic clergy exercised over the people, through the Association, was still exercised as effectually as heretofore, to forward purposes inconsistent with the peace and tranquillity of the country. He did think, he owned, that these opinions, coming from such quarters as they did, were but of little value indeed; because the House must be aware, that it would require a great deal of local knowledge and a long acquaintance with the people of Ireland to enable any person to form an opinion respecting the persons filling the clerical offices of the Catholic church of Ireland, and especially to come to an accurate judgment as to the motives that govern that body of persons whose general conduct had been so praiseworthy. He would take on himself to say, that if any hon. gentleman would take the pains to do so, he would be satisfied; and as a representative of part of the people of Ireland, he would also take on himself to say, that he would place every confidence in the Catholic clergy as to their future conduct, especially as it relates to the due observation of the laws, the preservation of the tranquillity of the country, and the proper government of the persons under their charge, in a way that would give the greatest possible satisfaction to every body. Undoubtedly, this measure of emancipation would take from the Catholic clergy one of the main supports of their power, and diminish their influence over the people of Ireland. He would go further and state, that, in consequence of the communications he had had with a great many of the Catholic clergy, he believed they would find great difficulty to maintain the Catholic religion to the extent it now existed in that country, after this bill was passed. He felt confident that the competition between the ministers of the two religions, under the circumstances of equal, full, and perfect toleration in which they would now embark in the discussion, would be entirely favourable to the growth and spread of Protestant principles [hear, hear],—The Catholic clergy would find themselves in a new situation, when they had to contend before a people not inflamed by long endured grievances, that theirs was a religion of reason and the gospel, and that it was every way superior to the Protestant doctrines. So far from being likely to enter upon so difficult a task as that of attempting to subvert the Protestant religion, they would rather confine themselves to preserve their own religion in its present state. With regard to the influence of the Catholic clergy over the people, he believed it was greatly exaggerated. He could say, from his own knowledge, that during the first and second year after the establishment of the Catholic Association, the Catholic clergy abstained from becoming parties to its proceedings. They disclaimed any disposition to embark in political affairs, and they adhered to that resolution until the state of the country reached such a crisis that the Association succeeded in making the Irish people believe that any body who did not take a part with them was an enemy to Catholic interests and to the Catholic religion. It then became a question, whether the clergy should follow the stream of public opinion, or take an opposite course, and run the risk of losing all their influence over the people. In support of his statement he could refer to a speech made very recently, and since the measures of relief had been opened to parliament, and which would also shew a little proof of the influence of the Catholic clergy being turned to very good account. He alluded to the speech of Dr. Kelly, coadjutor to the titular archbishop of Armagh, who, at a meeting of the Catholic clergy at Newry, on the 18th of February last, had remarked that "the bishops of the Catholic church had lately taken a considerable share in political affairs, a great deal more perhaps than was consistent with the condition of retirement in which they had hitherto lived. The cause of this interference with their duties as ministers of the Catholic religion had, however, altogether ceased, in consequence of a communication made by his majesty at the beginning of the present session of parliament." The Catholic bishop went on to say—" That being the case, it was, for the future, his determination, so far from continuing to take part in political affairs, wholly to witbdraw from them, and at the same time to assure the public that this was the course most suitable to the occupation he filled."—He (sir H. Parnell) was aware that a Catholic priest who had taken a very active part in the business of the Association, had refused to allow a meeting to be held in his chapel, for taking the franchise bill into consideration. The influence of the clergy had formerly, in many instances, been exercised against the government; but he trusted it would now receive a new direction, and be brought into action to support the laws, and establish the tranquillity of the land. He thought also, that the greatest possible change for the better would result to the people at large; for it was the vice of the particular system of government until lately pursued in Ireland, that it generated a feeling of hostility among the people to the administration of the law [hear, hear], and this to such a degree, that it was almost impossible to obtain evidence against the criminals when offences were committed, and it was commonly known that no person was willing to give information for their detection; and that even when detected, and put into gaol, there was great difficulty in convicting them, and there was in every stage of their administration great difficulty in carrying the laws into effect. He trusted that when this bill, was passed, the feelings that had hitherto prevailed among the Catholics would cease, as they were evidently injurious to the vital interests of society, and that the law would have full effect, without any of those disturbances which had rendered the state of that country such as it had been unhappily for too many years. The principal effect on which he placed his hope of security would be the result that would ensue from the improvement of the condition of the people.—Security of property would be established; the capital now in Ireland would be more actively employed; English capital would be sent over, and produce an accumulation of profits, which would increase the wealth of the country, and give general employment to the people. In this way, he looked to the future improvement of their condition; for when with the wages of industry they could earn a better subsistence, better habits would spread among them, and the progress of civilization would be extended nearer to the degree in which it existed among the labouring classes in this coun try. From this improvement of the Irish people, great advantage would also follow to the interests of the working classes of England. For at present the Irish labourers, not being able to earn even a scanty subsistence at home, were necessitated to come over to this country in great numbers, and by their competition the rate of labour was greatly reduced. This would be put an end to as soon as the Irish people could maintain themselves in their own country. He would not trouble the House at any greater length, but he had felt it his duty to make these observations—particularly those with regard to the Catholic clergy, because he could not sit silent and hear with satisfaction their character and conduct censured, knowing, as he did, that their time and efforts had been employed in every possible way to promote and preserve the tranquillity of their country.

apologised for presuming to address the House, but he felt so strongly on this question that he must throw himself on their indulgence. He had risen in the discharge of a painful duty, which the necessity of the case had imposed upon him. He was sensible that no support of his could do justice to that cause of which he was a humble and zealous, but inefficient advocate. But still he should think himself unworthy of a seat in that House, if he gave a silent vote on a question of that immense importance, and did not raise his warning voice when he considered the country and the constitution to he both in danger. It was his wish to follow the advice given in his majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne, and he should therefore enter into the discussion "with temperance and moderation," because, holding the opinions he did of the measures of his majesty's government, he was desirous, in justice to himself and to those who did him the honour to think with him, to show how undeserved were those epithets which had been used so freely with regard to their conduct in opposing those measures. He referred to the terms "base, infamous, and factious," which had been applied to them; and they had been also described as "bigots," and as men "who had not the common feelings of Christians, but who would gloat their eyes with delight in seeing the blood of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects shed, and who would look with complacency at the prospect of a civil war, to which their efforts were directed."

"Falsus honor juvat, et mendax infamia terret, Quern, nisi mendosum et mendacem?"

If those (continued the noble lord) who spread such falsifying calumnies, think to intimidate or deter us from pursuing the duty forced upon us by those measures, they will find themselves mistaken. It is not my intention to compare the doctrines of the church of Rome with the purer religion of the Reformed Establishment. I have no wish to say any thing to offend the feelings of those who profess the Roman Catholic religion; for I have lived on terms of the greatest intimacy and friendship with many followers of that church, and believe they are very sincere in their religious sentiments. I have known many priests of that church, too, and I must say, that they are men of the most charitable, benevolent, and devout character. But, though I have the greatest respect for them personally, it is another question, whether I shall intrust them with the direction of political power. We were told at the beginning of the session, that we should place perfect and unlimited confidence in his majesty's government; and that we might be certain that their measures would not be brought forward without adequate securities. But now we find, after all, that they are brought forward without any securities at all; and still we are told to put our confidence in their superior judgment. If I feel myself compelled to oppose his majesty's government, I do so with great regret; and if I should express myself strongly, it will be because I feel bitterly, at the remembrance of the deceptive practices followed by his majesty's ministers, and especially by the right hon. Secretary of State, which has caused a general expression of the feelings of the country when they came forward with these measures. The right hon gentleman made a triumphant progress through the northern parts of the country, and heard speeches delivered in support of Protestant principles, and gave no hint as to his intentions. I must look to a Roman Catholic poet for a passage which, like a text of Scripture, may serve as a motto to the mode of his progress—

"Drunk at a Borough; civil at a Ball, Friendly at Lancashire, faithless at Whitehall."

If the right hon. gentleman had come to this House, and said, that his opinions had been changed, from the, knowledge of the affairs of the country which he had gained officially or otherwise, and therefore, that he had found it necessary to adopt opinions different from those he before held, that would have been a fair and intelligible course. But I own, that my confidence in the right hon. gentleman was much shaken by the course which he adopted; for he tells us, that his opinions remain unchanged, and that he now sees all the dangers attending concessions to the Roman Catholics which he ever saw, but that he now prefers present securities to prospective dangers. Now, what are these dangers? We must refer to the right hon. gentleman's speeches in this House. On the 12th of June last, the hon. baronet, one of the members for the city of Westminster, made a speech in this House, in consequence of something that had fallen from a distinguished personage in the other House, and from which the hon. baronet inferred an intention, on the part of his majesty's government, to bring forward some bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics. The hon. baronet, under this impression, put a question to the right hon. gentleman, who replied, "that as the hon. baronet had expressed a hope, that the present administration would take up this question in the next session, and introduce some measure for its settlement, lest any misconception should go abroad respecting his sentiments, he was anxious to speak upon this point for himself, and for himself alone. Under the constitution of the present government, each individual member of it was at liberty to entertain and support his own opinions regarding this question. Conceiving, then, that it was only necessary for him to state his own individual opinion on the subject, he would refer the hon. baronet and the House to the declaration which he had repeatedly made respecting it, and, speaking then as an individual member of the government, he explained, as he was at liberty to do, his own sentiments on the question. To that declaration, and to those opinions, he still adhered, and he conceived that, in saying so, he had said enough to satisfy the House that his sentiments upon the subject remained unaltered."^*

^* See Vol. xix. p.1323.

Now, he would defy any one to draw any other inference from those speeches, than that of direct opposition, on the part of the right hon. Secretary, to the measure which he, of all persons in the world, had now brought forward. But, what had the right hon. gentleman's conduct been on former occasions? In 1825, he had tendered his resignation, in consequence of his determined opposition to the Catholic claims; but, in 1826, a new parliament was formed, and the right hon. Secretary did not then think there would be any inconsistency in remaining in office. [Here the noble lord's voice became so low, that we heard him but very indistinctly in the gallery, but we understood him to say, that]—In May, 1827, after the new administration had been formed, and when the question was again agitated in the House, the right hon. Secretary expressed his opinion upon it in the following terms, at the same time answering a question as to the grounds upon which he had always opposed the measure:—"Sir, the nature of that opposition was such as to allow of no middle course. It was founded upon the belief, which I have always sincerely entertained, that the removal of those barriers which the law opposes to the attainment of political power by the Roman Catholics, was inconsistent with the maintenance of the constitution, and with the welfare and safety of the church. Could I afterwards stand up in the face of the country, and allow it to be said, that I had acquiesced in permitting the first minister of his majesty to carry into effect, without opposition, that which I had always opposed when it was introduced by any other person?" After such protestations as these, he thought every person must feel astonishment at the line of conduct which the right hon. gentleman had pursued. Ireland, at the time of his apostacy, was tranquil. It was true, that large numbers of the people assembled, but they had uniformly behaved peaceably, and had never committed the slightest violence. It appeared to him, that the change of conduct on the part of the right hon. gentleman would not be productive of any good to Ireland. The proposed measure would not have the effect of tranquillizing that unhappy country. It had already given rise to the most violent speeches from those who had lately been at the head of the Association. In proof of the truth of this assertion, he would read an extract from a speech made by Mr. O'Connell, after the measure had been brought before the House. It was in the following terms:—

"The hon gentleman said, that it would be base in them to return to Ireland and tell the people there, that they had silently sat by whilst their rights were wrested from them. They were pledged by past resolutions—by duty—by consistency—by gratitude—by every human tie—by theirlove of civil liberty—to defeat, by every constitutional means, this accompaniment of the bill. The Association (said Mr. O'Connell) has been put down, but I pledge myself to stand in the place of the Association. I am honoured with a large share of the confidence of my countrymen, and through me they shall have redress for any violation of the law that may be committed to oppress or to insult them. I pledge myself, as I have done before, to offer every opposition to their disfranchisement, even though the present bill should pass into a law. I will exert myself to seek retribution for their rights, should they now be taken from them. Should that disfranchisement unhappily be persevered in and carried, I shall consider the measure of our emancipation incomplete until that franchise be restored. It has been asked, who will take upon himself the responsibility of resisting a bill accompanied with such a measure? I am that man. The honourable and learned gentleman proceeded to argue that if there was no veto in the present bill, it was because the Catholics had protested so strongly against it; it was known that it would be better to pass no measure at all, than to pass a measure with the veto. If they were equally united and strong in their opposition to the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders they might equally succeed in preventing it from being incorporated in a measure for their relief."

By this it would appear, that the orators who had so long agitated Ireland, and excited her worst feelings, would not be satisfied with emancipation, upon the terms on which it was offered them. The conversion of the right hon. Secretary, therefore, would be but of little use. It had been urged as one ground upon which it would be advisable to grant emancipation, that in case of war this country would be endangered from the dissatisfied state of Ireland. In reply to that he begged it to be remembered, that in time of war the commerce and trade of Ireland was increased a hundred fold; as it was from that country that the greater portion of the provisions necessary for our forces was derived. He did not imagine, therefore, that a war would influence the people of Ireland to act in defiance of the laws of the realm. Ireland had always been the chosen spot of the Roman Catholic church; and it would appear, by a curious document which he held in his hand, that it had been predicted by a Catholic bishop, that when the faith of the church of Rome was overcome in Ireland the mother church itself would cease to exist. This prophecy was contained in a letter from the bishop of Meath to the great O'Neill, and was in the following terms:—

"O'Neill, thou and thy father were all along faithful to the church of Rome. His holiness Paul, now Pope, and the council of the holy father, have lately found out a prophecy, there remaining, of one of St. Latesianus, an Irish bishop of Cashell, wherein he saith that the mother church of Rome falleth when in Ireland the Catholic faith is overcome!' Therefore, for the glory of the mother church, the honour of St. Peter, and your own secureness, suppress heresy in his holiness's enemies; for when the Roman faith there perisheth, the see of Rome faileth also. Therefore the council of cardinals have thought fit to encourage your country of Ireland as a sacred Island: being certified while the mother church hath a son of worth as yourself, and of those that shall succour you and join therein, she will never fall, but have more or less a holding in Britain in spite of fate." For his own part, he was convinced that the conduct of government would have a demoralizing effect, and could not, by possibility, be attended with any good result. He should conclude by citing the words of the great lord Burleigh, who had said, that "England could only be ruined by her own parliament."

alluded to the manner in which the noble lord had redeemed the assurance given to the House, that he would approach the question with temper and moderation [a laugh]; but it was, perhaps, impossible to expect that noble lord to be more circumspect than others who were wont, whenever they rose to address the House on the side espoused by the noble lord, to heap an accumulation of reproach and invective, of charges and accusations, against every one who happened to be opposed to them in sentiment. He had listened last night with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. member for Newark, and which he considered one of great ability. In estimating the quantity of opposition offered out of doors to concession, he could not but agree with the observation of the hon. member, that it was found more generally among those who were most distinguished for religious habits and the strictest morality. He had endeavoured to make a calculation as to the probable feeling of the public, from the petitions presented to that House. Yet this, on maturer reflection, he had thought, was not likely to afford a fair criterion; for it must be clear, that the whole adult Catholic population of Ireland would, if polled on the occasion, be unanimous in entreating that the measures now contemplated might be passed into a law; whilst of the Protestant community, though many petitions had been presented on both sides, a great number were still behind, and numerous individuals had not expressed their sentiments upon the question. He thought that, in fairness, hon. members should not object to the measure before the House, until they were prepared to submit another—of course a better one—for their consideration. The admissions and objections of hon. members, were, to say the least of them, somewhat strange. One hon. member would admit the Roman Catholics to office generally, while another hon. member, the representative for Kent, would admit them to all the advantages of the constitution, except seats in that House. He did not wish to prophesy—indeed there was no necessity, as the House he was sure, had had enough of vaticination already—but he would say, that if he could for a moment believe that the Roman Catholics would accept of emancipation on such ignominious conditions—that they would consent to such a compromise as admission to office, without the right of a voice in the legislature—he should be the first to abandon their cause, which he had ever advocated, and to declare them deserving of the reprobation of all true lovers of the constitution. But they would not, he was convinced, expose themselves to such ignominy; nor should a British parliament try them. What! would hon. members admit them to the patronage of office—admit them within the presence and influence of the Crown, the fountain of honours—and yet declare them unfit to be the representatives of the people? The only specific objection he had heard against the right hon. Secretary's bill was founded on such a political anomaly; for hon. members would consent, they said, to have a Protestant monarch with Catholic councillors and Catholic placemen, so that the representation of that House was Protestant; whereas, his right hon. friend's measure only did the same thing, with this difference—or, he should rather say, this great advantage—that those Catholic councillors and holders of office under the Crown should appear in their places in parliament to explain publicly their official conduct.

The hon member for Newark argued the question on the supposition, that Catholics should not be, under any circumstances, admitted without limitation into that House. He would not discuss that point; the rather, as it had been fully commented upon before, particularly by the hon. member for Newcastle, and would only say, that he was confident that the number of Catholics whom the present measure would enable to become members of the legislature would not exceed the proportion of the wealth and respectability of the Catholics to the wealth and respectability of the Protestants. Notwithstanding the argument of hon. members, which only deserved a smile, he would contend, that the ratio of Catholic representatives could not exceed that of Protestant—their respective interests in the state being considered. Such a disproportion could not exist under the present system of representation; water, unobstructed in its course, would as soon rise above the level of the spring whence it flowed. He, therefore, could not, for a moment, entertain any apprehension on that score. He would go further, and freely and frankly declare, that with a view to the safety of the Protestant establishment of the country, he should not like to see the Catholic ratio of members of parliament smaller than the Protestant. On the contrary, he thought it highly desirable, that a sort of competition should exist, so as to preserve a number of Catholic members, in proportion to the Catholic property and intelligence of the country, and a number of Protestant members, in proportion to the Protestant wealth and respectability. In the first place, such a due proportion of the Protestant and Catholic members of the legislature would preserve pure that feeling of duty, which a sense of common interest and a fair representation in the state must give birth to. In the next place, it would equipoise any tendency which either might have to encroach upon the supposed interest of the other; and lastly, and above all, such a proportion of Catholic members would convince the people of Ireland and of this country, that the measure of relief was a bona fide efficacious one; not like those former measures which worked very well on paper, but were of no practical benefit.

As he had touched upon the state of Ireland, he might, perhaps, be allowed to refer to the remedy—the only specific charm—which the hon member for Newark had proposed for the admitted evils of that country. The hon member said, the remedy lay in establishing the poor-laws in Ireland. Now, the present was not the fit time to discuss the expediency of such a measure; so that he would only observe, that, admitting its expediency, the hon member's then proposing it as his specific remedy was an error of the same kind, as if a person on entering London in 1665, when the plague was raging, and who on seeing thousands dying in the very streets, forlorn, abandoned, without friend or relation to close their eyes, would ask, what was the cause of all this desolation? and was answered, that it was all occasioned by the absence of the friends and relations of the sufferers: so with the hon member; he was told of the state of Ireland, arising from a long system of misrule, and he came forward with a proposition for establishing a legislative provision for the poor, as the only specific remedy for that state. The hon member said—"Send the Irish absentees back to their native residences, give the people employment, establish poor-laws, and you will improve the condition of Ireland." This certainly, might be all very good at a proper time. But, at present the question was—how the discontent was to be allayed—how the plague was to be stayed in its progress. Do this by removing grievances that had long oppressed the people of Ireland, and then the hon member might submit his other remedies and preventives. The hon. member had quoted the opinion of a right hon. relation of his, to the effect that, local oppression, and not the penal laws against the Catholics, was the source of the evils of Ireland. But the hon. member had misinterpreted the application of that declaration. Had the hon member consulted the context, as he had done that morning, he would have seen that his right hon. relation alleged local oppression to be one of the immediate effects of those penal laws, which, like a pestilent atmosphere, corrupted and blighted all the energies and proceedings in that unhappy country. He would have seen that to those laws as to a common plague, might be traced all the evils, which could not be attempted to be remedied until the great measure before the House had been put in force; and he would have seen that his right hon. relation had described those evils as being less local than civil, and all requiring the one great remedy of Catholic emancipation. An hon baronet (sir R. Inglis) had talked of Ireland as if there were something in the soil—some fatality that prevented any change in that country but a change of evil. He had stated, that long before the Reformation—long before the distinction between Catholic and Protestant was known—that unhappy country was in a perpetual state of discord and disunion. But the hon baronet had not informed the House of the cause of this early discord—a cause that was still in force, and that would not fail to produce the same effects as long as it had existence, and that had been, in the days of queen Elizabeth described as accurately by sir John Davis, as they could be at the present moment. That able and impartial eye-witness stated, that the evils of Ireland were not consequent upon one part of the inhabitants being Catholic and the other Protestant, but because one party in that country excluded the other from an equal participation of the benefits of the laws. What sir John Davis stated to be the cause of the evils of Ireland in his time, was in force still, and was the cause of the evils of the present day. "From the earliest times," said that writer, "of the English government of Ireland, it seemed to be the rule of policy, that the native Irish should some way or other be not admitted to the privileges of the constitution equally with the English residents: and in order to perpetuate the ascendancy of the latter, the governors of Ireland had determined to oppress the former as much as possible. Accordingly, it has been the system of rule in that country for the last four hundred years, to attempt by all manner of means, to root out the native Irish altogether." That system has been acted on ever since the time of sir John Davis, in some form or other; and with consequences which would last so long as the laws against the Catholics remained unrepealed.

It had been stated, that there was no new ground of expediency for the present measure of his majesty's government. With respect to that point, which had been urged in petitions, to which he had listened with the greatest attention, he would say, that there was a natural, an honourable pride, in admitting Roman Catholics to an equality of civil and political privileges with ourselves. There was another topic urged in those petitions, which had been so often discussed, that he could not then take up the time of the House by commenting at length upon it; namely—the almost universal assertion in them, "Do not give political power to the Roman Catholics, for it would only redound to the ruin of the Protestant establishments." Upon this he would merely say, that the necessary effect of the present measure would be, to remove all ground for entertaining any apprehension of the integrity of our Protestant institutions, in church and state, in Ireland no less than in this country. Did hon members recollect the safeguard of the peace of Ireland that the government had had in the Catholic Association? Did they think that an end should be put to the ignoble safety which that body had so long afforded? Was it necessary to maintain a large army in Ireland, in time of peace, to guard the Protestant establishment, against the attacks of Catholic powers? He should suppose not, and that no alarm need be entertained from the measure of government giving additional political power to the Catholics. And for this reason,—if danger was to be apprehended from giving them political power, that danger had for some time existed, for they had political power already. If the will to do injury to the Protestant establishments existed, the power to exercise that will also existed; and all that the measure could effect in that point would be, to check and direct that power. As it would tend to diminish instead of increase the political power of the Catholics to do injury to the Protestant establishments, he would give it his most cordial support, and in so doing would act in accordance with the prayer of the Protes- tant petitions, "to diminish and not increase the political power of the Catholics." That measure, he contended, was essential to the safety of the Protestant establishments,—which common sense would teach them had better be legislated for at the present moment, than in the midst of a future storm. Those, therefore, who opposed concession to the Catholics on the ground of its being dangerous to the Protestant establishments, in his mind, pursued a very injudicious course; for the veriest advocates of these establishments now contended, that concession was necessary to their safety—nay, to their probable existence.

If, then, the principle of the right hon. Home Secretary's bill was right,—that is, that Ireland would be tranquillized by it,—the great problem that had for years puzzled the British legislature would be solved. That problem was to at once tranquillize Ireland, and to preserve the Protestant establishment of that country; so that so far forth as Ireland was tranquillized, so far was the safety of its Protestant institutions ensured. The mains animus apprehended by many zealous friends of the Protestant church in Ireland from the Catholics, against that church, would be destroyed by the right hon gentleman's measure. But supposing it would not—though he was himself convinced it would entirely—he would ask, whether that mains animus would not be more difficult to contend with, under existing circumstances, than if concession had been granted? Therefore, with a view to contend more successfully with that spirit of hostility to the Protestant establishments, was it not the better course to remove the pretext for that spirit, by admitting the Catholics to the benefits of the constitution? History informed them how much the relative situation of the Protestants and Catholics had altered. There was once a period, when a broad and deep line might have been and was drawn—he would not say how justly or unjustly,—between the professors of the two religions. But that time had long since passed away. The time, however, he repeated, once existed, when a broad and deep line of demarkation was drawn between the Catholic and the Protestant—a line that, from its very depth and darkness, tended to destroy the monstrous and unchristian division it created. That line was nothing less than a total prohibition of the Ro man Catholic form of worship; "but that line," said the hon member, "you were obliged to deviate from by granting religious toleration to the Roman Catholics. You deviated still further from that line; for in addition to a toleration of the Catholic religion, you invested its professors with civil rights, with a civil franchise—the all-important elective franchise, And are you to stop here?" What, then, was next to be done; for so far those deviations were in the spirit of the constitution, and it was seen that the civil franchise was not only compatible with the toleration of the Catholic religion, but with the integrity of the Protestant establishments. "Was the broad line of demarkation which you have already touched, in more than one point, to remain in its present state? You deviated from that line when you granted religious toleration to the Catholics; and what were the mischievous effects? You deviated still further, when you invested that body with civil rights; and what were the bad consequences? You bestowed the elective franchise; but upon whom?—the lower orders of the Roman Catholics; and will you refuse any boon to the Catholic gentry—to those of that communion who are wealthy and educated?"

The hon member for Newark had said last night, that the constitution required two qualifications for office—one of which was, that property, as opposed to numbers, should be a condition for office. If so, he begged leave to ask that hon member, whether the elective franchise that had been granted to the Catholics was not a violation of the constitution; for that franchise was not on the principle of property against numbers, but as events had shown, of numbers against property? The effects of conferring that franchise, without doing more, had been clearly and forcibly predicted by lord Plunkett,—had been urged over and over by Mr. Canning,—had been incontestibly proved at the Clare election. Things could not stop there: either less should have been done, or more must be granted. Notwithstanding the declaration of the hon member for Newark, he would contend, that granting the Catholics all they had so long and so anxiously and so unremittingly sought for, and what every law of religion and nature entitled them to, was in the spirit of—was in fact perfecting—the constitution. The majority of its adhe- rents, he repeated, would, under the worst circumstances, uphold the Protestant established church of the country. Supposing the measure before the House should have an effect contrary to what its supporters confidently predicted, let the House look to the different situation in which the Catholics would stand in relation to the Protestants, if they were admitted to the benefits of the constitution, and if they were permanently excluded. In the latter case, as they now stood they presented no tangible point for the legislature to lay hold by; in the former, they would be a distinct body. By exclusion, the Protestants were rendered a divided body, contending against a united body of Roman Catholics; by concession, they would be a compact body against a divided body of the latter; and no one sect or party would be opposed to the other. Besides, the government and the legislature would not be liable to the imputation of having broken their promises in the case of the union of Ireland. They would no longer have the perfidy of that measure whispered in their ear—that the good faith of ministers had been pledged only to be violated. But he need not argue further on the no-danger of further political power to the Catholics, for the sense of common interest alone justified the present measure of concession.

The next point he would call the attention of the House to was one dwelt upon by some hon members, and urged in some of the anti-Catholic petitions that had been presented during the session. The point was, that as the members of that House had taken an oath, or made a declaration, that the Roman Catholic religion was idolatrous and damnable, they would be guilty of a legislative crime if they admitted its professors to the political advantages of the constitution. This point had been urged in and out of doors; among others by a clergyman who had published a pamphlet upon it. Now, he begged leave, in reply to that argument, which had been strongly made and circulated, once for all to protest against an opinion, that the admission of the Roman Catholics to civil power was a question between the comparative purity or excel lence of the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions. For himself, and those who had invariably advocated concession the Catholics, he must disclaim such a notion, so preposterous that he would not have noticed it had it not been so repeatedly and zealously urged. With respect to the oath alluded to, he took it, and that not lightly, nor as a matter of form. He was prepared to show that it expressed his fixed and deliberate opinions. Still he must say, he never took the oath against transubstantiation without wounded feelings, as he was sure was the case with other hon members.

Reference had been made by hon members, and among others by the member for Newark, to precedents which he must say they had no right to refer to, unless they were distinctly prepared to follow up the precedent in its, totality. When such references were made, it was but fair to expect a consistency in those who made them. If hon members referred to precedents to justify them in refusing further concession, they ought to be prepared to go the whole length, and to cut off all connexion whatever with those from whom they were with-holding the entire benefits of the constitution. Hon members were very scrupulous about endangering the Protestant establishment of the state, by granting the people of Ireland their civil rights; but they were not equally scrupulous in extracting as much revenue as they possibly could from that country to support those very Protestant establishments. They felt no scruples—they saw no difficulties—in keeping up in, and drawing from, that country, a large military establishment to keep up those Protestant institutions. Honourable members, when reminded of the three million of revenue annually drawn from Ireland, and of the three million of income derived from our commerce with that country, said "it was all right: commerce was beneficial to all parties, and would improve the condition of the Irish." When they were told of the thirty-one thousand soldiers that Ireland supplied to maintain the honour and power of the country, they replied, "That's all well: the Irish are brave soldiers, and, after all, are just as true as ourselves." If, then, the Roman Catholics have contributed by their labour, their commerce, their property, and their blood, to support and uphold the Protestant establishments of the country, it was too much that they should not only not put forth their unhallowed hands to touch the ark of the constitution they had helped to preserve, but that parliament must moreover turn round upon them, and charge them with being wretched idolaters, unworthy of the benefits of the constitution. This, even, was not the only grievance of their most unjust treatment; for the very test by which they were prohibited from entering that House threw open its doors to individuals of all other persuasions without discrimination, He repeated, to all but Catholics the test was no disqualification. It therefore had been justly characterised by lord Plunkett, as a purely negative disqualification, and by no means a positive condition or qualification for a seat in the legislature. All that it ascertained was, whether the person taking it believed in particular tenets of the Catholic religion; therefore, it might be taken by persons of every other denomination, or by persons of no religion whatever. So that the individual held not those peculiar dogmas of the Catholic religion, he might be without any other religious opinions. The test admitted of all other systems of faith, or of no faith—of scoffers—of infidels. On this point he begged leave to allude to a declaration upon which the hon member for Newark had insisted with much warmth. That hon member, after stating that the constitution required a pecuniary qualification, said, that it also required a religious qualification—that is, that all who partook of it should be Christians. But he put it to the hon member how that religious or christian qualification could be insisted upon; for he contended most emphatically, that the oath required from the members of that House did not, could not, determine whether the individual who took it were or were not a christian—only that he was not a Roman Catholic. When, then, the hon member thought proper to insist that the constitution required, as a cardinal point, a religious qualification, he ought to have stated, if he was aware of the fact, that it had provided no test of such qualification, and only could ascertain whether the members of that House did or did not believe certain tenets of the Catholic faith.

England was united with Ireland by the indissoluble laws of nature, and all common sense and common reason declared, that, under such peculiar circumstances, the people of the two countries should be united together in one body, combined for the maintenance of their common interests, and their mutual protection, and amalgamated into one society by the laws of man, as well as by the dispensations of Providence, under one common constitution, whose benefits were intended, not for the exclusive possession of either, but for the enjoyment and advantage of both. Such, as he understood it, was the genuine spirit of the British constitution. That the British constitution recognised as a permanent and vital principle, the principle of exclusion, he, with every respect for the hon. member for Newark, would beg leave utterly to deny. He had heard that hon. member endeavour to prove that the British constitution was founded upon a system of exclusion, but, in his opinion, the hon member had completely failed in the attempt. The British constitution was not erected upon such a narrow basis. It recognised no such principle. Equal protection to all was the leading principle of that constitution. It was intended to extend its benefits to all, without distinction; every subject in the realm was entitled to a participation in its privileges; and it contained within it no such principle as that of the permanent exclusion of any portion of the people. Its spirit went not to divide the population of these countries into classes or castes, or to raise up a wall of separation between one class of fellow-citizens and another; but, on the contrary, to place them all upon an equal footing, by the communication of equal rights and equal privileges. Such was the English constitution, as contra-distinguished from that caricature of it, which had been given to the House by the hon member for Newark. That constitution admitted all to equal rights, under equal circumstances; and there was no reason whatever for saying, that the admission of the Catholics would be a violation of the spirit or meaning of that constitution. When such was the case—when both from the ordinances of the divine law, and by the unanimous testimony of history, it was certain that those countries must continue united—when the seal of nature was affixed to the bond of connexion between them—surely reason and common sense combined to induce them to enforce the spirit of that compact by human legislation, and to knit the people together in interest and affection. That was the language of common sense and reason, and the admonition came to them even from more sacred sources. The strong reasons which the necessity of the case afforded to justify the course which had been adopted by the government were enforced by the highest authority to which man could appeal; and Divine Providence, in joining together those countries by natural and indissoluble ties, admonished them to live together as one and the same people, in the bonds of peace and mutual goodwill.

When they had such high authority on their side—when the interests of charity, the conciliation of Ireland, and the security of the empire demanded their interposition—it was impossible for his majesty's government to have adopted any course different from that which they were now pursuing, and which was authorized and sanctioned at once by the obvious dispensation of Divine Providence, by the laws of nature, by the dictates of reason, and by the urgent appeal of wisdom and necessity. The government had brought forward this important measure, to effect the great object of restoring peace and tranquillity to the country. It was a measure which, therefore, deserved the aid of every man desirous to promote the interests of the empire at large, and it should have his humble but sincere and most cordial support. He supported it because he conceived that it would be followed by a train of blessings to the country—he supported it because he considered it a measure of peace, tranquillity, and conciliation,—and he would answer the objections of its opponents by quoting to the House the beautiful sentiments contained in the conclusion of one of the speeches of the late Mr. Canning—"Let us not stop short from any feelings of false pride; nor incur the responsibility of having taught a people to seek for general peace at our hands, and of then forcing them to retire back upon themselves. Let us rather, in the language of both Liturgies, exclaim sursunt corda! Let us raise our hearts to the Dispenser of all good; and, with that elevation of soul, let us proceed in that great work which we have begun, and which, sooner or later, will find its own way to the final consummation so devoutly to be wished by all good men" [cries of hear, hear].

said, he felt some reluctance in offering himself to the notice of the House after the very eloquent speech which they had just heard; but he was anxious to seize the opportunity to express his decided opposition to the measure which had been so strongly advocated by the hon member who had just sat down. That hon member appeared to him to have proved a great deal too much. If he understood any thing of the argument of the hon gentleman, it went to this, that the religion of the majority in Ireland should be the established religion of that country. That was the course of the hon. gentleman's argument, and that would inevitably be the consequence of pressing the present measure—a measure yielded to the clamour of the seven millions in Ireland, of whom the hon. member hail spoken. The hon and learned member had also endeavoured to show them that there was danger in the condition of Ireland, and that therefore we ought to grant the Catholics relief. On the other hand, they had been assured by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, that there was nothing to fear, not only not in Ireland or England, but in the relations of this country with foreign powers. Here, then, was the hon gentleman in direct opposition to the right hon. Secretary. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" How should a poor, humble, stupid man, like himself, venture to decide, under such circumstances? It had been said, that the principles of the Protestant constitution were against exclusion; but he should like to know what had been the principles of the constitution ever since the time of Charles the 2nd? Had they not been founded on the utter exclusion of the Roman Catholics from all share of political power? He should take the liberty of referring to bishop Burnet for a proof of the correctness of his opinion. Bishop Burnet was a councillor of king Williams, and he had been called in that House and elsewhere a liberal prince. [The hon member here read a passage from bishop Burnet, setting forth the aspiring nature of the Romish church, its clergy not being able to keep themselves quiet, even when masters, which had made king William disinclined to admit them to power.] History proved that the exclusion of the Papists Was one of the principles of the constitution of 1688; and yet he, and those who thought with him on the subject, were called dolts and bigots, because they asserted the fact. The Roman Catholics themselves avowed their ambitious projects. Over and over again, in their writings, and in their speeches, had they said that they would not be content with equality. Authorities of a contrary character had been quoted, but for one such he could produce ten that confirmed him in his opinion. Let them, then, prevent the accession of these ambitious men to power: let them endeavour to guard the blessings for which their forefathers fought, for which their forefathers bled. He should so act by God's blessing to the latest moment of his life. He was old enough to remember that, in the year 1794, when greater danger existed in Ireland than there had since, or than there did now, Mr. Pitt, upon his own responsibility, had applied the remedies which the exigency of the case required. It was most painful to read the language used towards the Irish themselves by a noble marquis, whose duty it was to enforce those laws which were passed for the purpose of tranquillizing the country. Government had allowed the evil to go on year after year without any attempt at resistance; and they then brought in an inefficient bill, instead of effectually suppressing the evil at once. They had so far neglected the government of the country, and had so suffered its laws to be abused and evaded with impunity, that the Protestants had been obliged to unite for the defence of their properties, their lives, and their children. It was not the friends of the Protestants who had done this, but his majesty's government; and in order to get them out of their scrape he would not surrender the constitution. The hon member having then passed a high eulogimn upon the speech of the hon member for Newark, agreeing with him in the nature of the remedies proper for Ireland, said, that, if the present measure passed, Ireland must become absolutely and entirely a Catholic country. He was convinced that, in addition to their other mischievous consequences, all propositions calculated to tranquillize and benefit Ireland would be greatly retarded, if not entirely frustrated, by the adoption of the measures now proposed. Nor was the apprehension of such a state of things confined to Ireland. He would ask the right hon. Secretary if, under the proposed bill, a jesuit might not be prime minister of England? Let the right hon. gentleman answer that; and if he answered it as he knew he must do, in the affirmative, let the House consider what might by possibility be the result. For himself, a great deal was passing in his mind upon the subject, of a very painful nature. Who could predict what might occur, if there were at the same time a Jesuit prime minister, and a Ca- tholic favourite of the female sex [a laugh]? Hon members might laugh if they pleased, but it would be no laughing matter if it came to pass. The right hon gentleman had, early in the session, let drop the ominous words of "if the hon members did but know all that I know!" Now, he had anxiously listened ever since, in expectation that some explanation of those mysterious words would be given. The right hon gentleman has said this, that, and the other, but nothing to the purpose. The hon member for Inverness had particularly alluded to the obligations which this country owed to Ireland. He did not mean to undervalue the obligations which the hon. member had mentioned, but there was one delicate and important point connected with that subject, on which he wished to say a few words. He alluded to the very great numbers of Irish soldiers that there were in our standing army. Most hon members, at least it was the case with himself, who was not in his majesty's government, were obliged for a great deal of their information to the publications which they found upon their breakfast tables. Now, he had learnt through those vehicles of information, that a Catholic priest had lately, in his chapel, after divine service, made an harangue to the soldiers that attended, which the officer who was with them thought objectionable, and therefore reported to his superior. Through the same source, too, he had learnt that nearly at the last meeting of the Catholic Association several officers had entered the hall in their uniforms, and were loudly cheered. These circumstances made a deep impression upon his mind. If so considerable a proportion of the standing army was composed of Roman Catholics, and they were told that they could not resist the present demands of the Irish Catholics, he, for one, was prepared to hear ulterior demands made; and had not such a confidence in the right hon gentleman's firmness, as made him think he would resist those demands. Ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House he had never missed a single night's attendance; nor should he as long as he could raise his feeble voice in defence of the constitution. The hon member concluded by saying, that the Catholics would never be satisfied with any thing short of absolute ascendancy, and a king of their own upon the throne.

rose and said;—If, Sir, I have hitherto abstained from troubling the House with my reasons in favour of the present bill, it was not from any abatement in the zeal which I have always felt for the measure, but because I hoped that by waiting to ascertain what points might most require answer or explanation, I should fulfil most usefully, and with less fatigue to the House, the duty owing to this measure, which has been called a bold one, but which I will venture to designate as being at once the boldest, and the safest, that was ever propounded for the settlement of an empire. The strongest way in which I have lately heard the main argument on the other side stated, is in the form of the question, whether, since the Catholic church is the avowed antagonist of our own, it will be prudent in us to share our political power with six or seven millions of Our adversaries? And that question is asked, as if we, the Protestants, being two-thirds of the whole Bristish empire, were straightway proceeding to invest the Catholics, who form the remaining third, with the immediate possession of some given proportion of the legislature, and of all the offices and honours of the state. That is a very ingenious, but is it a fair way of representing this matter to the people? Those who talk that language know very well, or if they do not, they have no business to talk on such subjects at all, that it is not the possession of office—that it is not the-possession of Parliament, which this bill proposes to bestow, but only the capacity to hold office, and the capacity to sit in parliament. The distinction is surely a broad one, between giving to any man an actual benefit, and giving him the mere leave to receive that benefit if he can get it; and that is just the distinction between the bill itself, and your version of it. Suppose you should be pleased to repeal the law which requires a landed qualification for parliament—a qualification which ninety-nine in every hundred of our countrymen must of course be without, though none of them be actually disabled from acquiring it—you would then make a hundred persons eligible, for one who is eligible now; but would that extended eligibility take away the power of parliament from the few who have it, and throw it into the hands of the innumerable multitude who have it not? It is only on the subject of Catholic eligibility, that any man will put on gravity enough to predicate such a consequence. Yet, only get rid of this one fallacy about the possession of political power—only get rid of this one confusion between the grant of power and the grant of eligibility for power, and with three-fourths of the people, I believe that the difficulty is cleared up.

But, the councils of the king being once thrown open to the Catholics, how, it is asked, will you protect his majesty against their evil advice? Sir, the access of Popish servants to the king was provided against by the same statute of Charles the 2nd, which excluded Papists from parliament, and which it is one of the objects of this bill to remodel. Now, if this facility of approach to the king be really attended with so much danger to the constitution, how has it happened, that the wisdom of our Protestant legislature, which has so long kept up the bar erected by the statute against the machinations of any Catholic in parliament, should have expunged from the statute, as in the last reign it did expunge, the prohibition that kept away Catholic servants from the king? In the present state of your law, which you deem so satisfactory and so secure, the Papist, whom in his open responsible character you reject and dread, is at liberty to frequent the very closet of the king, in a private irresponsible capacity [hear].

But, when the Catholics shall once be admissible to be peers, a king, if he be of a Popish way of thinking, may increase their number, till they amount to a majority of the other House of parliament. I will not go so far in imitation of those whom I am opposing, as to draw, like the hon. member for Newark, distinction between the moral and the legal title of the sovereign, or to inquire what became of the one king who pursued a Popish policy against the feeling of his Protestant subjects. There is no necessity for entering into these distinctions, because the hypothesis, that the king may be of a Popish way of thinking, is, on the principles of the anti-Catholics themselves, an impossible one. They hold, and very justly, that so long as the Coronation Oath subsists, which is and must remain the security for the Crown, the sovereign who takes that test must be a Protestant and nothing else; and then they build an argument on the supposition, that such a sovereign may, nevertheless, be a Catholic. Why, Sir, if he may, then so may the peers and the members of parliament who take the existing oaths, be Catholics; and then to what value do you reduce those existing oaths, on which alone you rely at this hour for the exclusion of any Catholic at all? That some Catholics will find their way, not only into the House of Peers, but still more into this House of parliament, no man of course will deny; indeed, that is one of the direct objects of this bill. But if the opinions of those who are best acquainted with Irish affairs may be taken, the representatives, even from Ireland, after the alteration in the franchise, will be very few—will be to be counted, not in tens, but in mere units: for, on the then improved order of electors, the Protestant landlord will probably have that influence, which, on the present very humble class of voters, is exercised but by the Catholic priest. But, suppose that a really considerable number of Catholics should find their way into both Houses of parliament, and into office likewise;—let me ask, from what view of our history it is that the opponents of concession deduce the apprehension they are so eager to spread, of a divided allegiance and a collusion with Papal or other foreign influence? The Roman Catholic parliaments and councillors who passed the statutes of præmunire and provisors, which annihilated the political, and almost the ecclesiastical power of the Pope in these realms, were not Protestant, but Catholic statesmen. Was their allegiance, then, divided between England and Rome? The Catholics who passed the Statute of Mortmain, by which the land was rescued from the reach of the Pontiff, did they give to Rome a share in their allegiance? The Catholic cantons of Switzerland; the Catholic provinces of the Netherlands; the Catholic subjects of Hanover; the Catholic inhabitants of Canada—were they, or any of them, ever suspected of any division in their allegiance? Really, in the teeth of all these facts—in the face of all this experience—to press upon us still the argument of a divided allegiance, is not more a libel on the loyalty of our ancestors, and of our fellow-subjects, than it is a slur upon our own understandings.

An anxious attempt is kept up to identify the exclusive tests with the exclusion itself—to persuade the people that, in the repeal of these exclusions, the constitution too receives her death-blow. The hon. member for Newark is of opinion, that the analogies of the constitution require us to exclude the Catholics—that as we have a pecuniary, so we ought to maintain a religious, qualification. Sir, there is this difference—that the pecuniary qualification may be obtained by any man through his own honest industry; but the religious qualification can be obtained by the follower of the excluded faith only through a crime against his Creator. Without that crime, to qualify is impossible. Every man in that situation is not only unqualified, but disqualified; and though the principle of the constitution may consistently recognize the pecuniary requisition, which is only a qualification, it will not therefore sanction the religious requisition, which amounts to a disqualification. The constitution, says the hon. member, demands a moral as well as a pecuniary qualification—that he whom it admits be a Christian. It does no such thing—there is its defect. He may be a Pagan, or a Deist, or an Atheist—any thing, so he be not a Catholic. The constitution has not said, that Christianity shall be indispensable for admission into parliament; but if it had said so, does the hon. gentleman mean to state, that Catholicism is not Christianity? If it be not, then for the first thirteen centuries after Christ, Christianity had no existence in Christendom. I trust that the debates in this House are beginning to undeceive the people; to make them understand that exclusions and tests are no part of our constitution, as it was wrought by its founders; that its basis, its essence, is the common-law of the land, which proclaims the competency of every natural-born subject to all benefits whatsoever; that the earliest test ever imposed—Queen Elizabeth's Oath of Supremacy—was of such a nature as not to have hindered the sitting of very many Catholics in parliament, which they accordingly continued to do through the whole of her time, and through the time of the three first Stuarts—uniformly in the House of Peers, where even the Oath of Supremacy was not required to be taken, and not unfrequently in this House of parliament likewise; and that it was not till towards the close of the reign of Charles the 2nd, that they were actually excluded from parliament on the memorable averments of Dr. Titus Oates. Indeed, it can never be too widely proclaimed, that the great protecting principle of exclusion—the work which the hon. member for Newark, and other good Protestants, delight to describe as the foundation of our glorious settlement—is the work, not of king William, as people are apt to imagine, nor of the statesmen of an earlier time, but distinctly and specifically of Dr. Oates. It may, be to kings and to parliaments that we are obliged for the mere rights and liberties we enjoy; but for that main characteristic, that best jewel of our constitution—the exclusion of our fellow-subjects—for that we are indebted to the labours of Dr. Oates [hear, hear].

Sir, I doubt whether even the negative praise, if praise at all it be, of not disapproving the exclusive tests, can be justly ascribed to king William. Though the necessities of the state may have justified the breach of the Treaty of Limerick, by which William guarantied to the Catholics their religious liberties and franchises, the very formation of that treaty is, at all events, an evidence to shew, that permanent exclusion was no part of the policy of king William. However cogent the circumstances which may have influenced the government to swerve from that treaty after it was made, you will hardly assert that king William intended it to be broken, when he made it—that, through the whole of his negotiations upon it, he carried on a sustained, intentional falsehood. If he was thus false—If one Protestant king was such a Jesuit—he makes but a slippery rock for the foundation of a Christian church! But if, on the contrary, he was sincere in treating the Catholics as admissible to be citizens, he not only is no authority against the principle of this bill, but he is actually authority for it.

And now comes our turn. We, too, have our arguments from the constitution—not from the constitution, in the narrow sense of those who limit the word to the special enactments of 1688, who think nothing of the broad beneficial rule, and set their only value on the invidious exception; but from the constitution, in the larger sense of those who extend their view to other provisions than that of exclusion, and to earlier, though perhaps not greater, benefactors than king William. My hon. friend, the member for Corfe Castle, has not explained sufficiently to make me understand why the particular period of 1688 should be pressed, by Ultra-Protestants, as the only point of reference in these discussions. The Revolution saved these kingdoms: be it so; but did it first impart the Protest- ant character to our constitution? Was king William the first Protestant sovereign of these realms? Why, Sir, the constitution was just as Protestant under queen Elizabeth as it was under the House of Orange itself; and it was only by his defection from this indispensable Protestant creed, that king James ever forfeited his crown. If the problem were, to steer the nation through some conflict between liberty and arbitrary power, the Revolution might well be assumed as our polestar; or, if we wanted, in some civil war, an example how to crush the strength of our adversaries, the Revolution might well be cited as our precedent. But out of the whole history of our Protestant constitution, from the reign of Elizabeth to the repeal of the penal statutes under George 3rd—out of that entire history, to choose the agitated period, when a monarch had just been dethroned, and when a bloody struggle for his restoration in that part of his realms which was, and is, most especially Catholic, precluded all calmness of deliberation, and made even the extremes of illegality warrantable; to select such a period of compulsory legislation, as the pattern æra of our church and state, for the purpose of irrevocably binding a peaceful posterity, is a boldness which, even by its frequent repetition, has not yet ceased to be astounding. It is neither more nor less than to draw civil precedent from martial law [hear]. Sir, when lord Treasurer Middlesex had been found guilty by his peers, on impeachment for certain corruptions, and sentenced by them, that he should never sit in parliament more; lord Clarendon, no vulgar judge of British law and the constitution, questioned that sentence, as being, says he, "a clause of such a nature, as was never before found in any judgment of Parliament, and in truth not to be inflicted upon any peer but by attainder." Unless there not only have been a crime committed, but unless that crime be of magnitude sufficient to warrant the extremity of attainder, a sentence of incapacity to sit in parliament is an unconstitutional sentence upon an individual peer. Upon an individual peer! Why here is a sentence upon an entire order—upon an entire nation! The well known solecism in constitutional policy, which drew down the indignant ridicule of Mr. Burke, was the preferring of a bill of indictment against a whole people; but you go infinitely further; you visit a whole nation with a bill of attainder.

But if Ireland is no longer in a state of war, to warrant a rigour beyond the constitution, is she in such a state of tranquillity, as to indicate that the system of rigour has the merit of working well? Good God! what spectacle is it which, for the sake of the constitution, the lovers of social order are so anxious to perpetuate in Ireland? The whole of her great population in a state of ceaseless excitement—confidence and even commerce suspended—the kindly feeling between the higher and lower classes intercepted in its current—the natural influence of the oldest families, in the heart of their domains, in the centre of their clans, paralysed and overthrown—massacre and burning, and banding together—enmity transmitted from father to son, and the blight of suspicion and fear! A military force making Ireland one vast and costly cantonment—the poor, from their scanty pittance, clubbing towards a general fund for what they, deem the common deliverance—the peasantry, through every second or third winter, besieging their neighbours in their houses; and the government, in the spring, by an Insurrection act, or a proclamation of martial law, reduced to suspend the seditions and the constitution together! These are not fictions nor exaggerations: they are facts, recorded in the Statutes on this table. When gentlemen speak with such timid scrupulousness about the danger of the slightest infringement on the constitution, let me ask them what they think of such Statutes as these?—whether they think either the letter or the spirit of the constitution is much preserved by the act, for example, which we have been under the necessity of passing in this very session, for the suppression of popular meetings? Or will they bear to have it said, that they are ready enough to make a breach in the constitution for purposes of prohibition and punishment, and that it is only against conciliation and kindness that they would keep it perpetually barred.

Sir, when we say that for these reasons the weight of the constitutional arguments on which our opponents would fain rely, is, in truth, with us, and not with them, that ground is little shaken by the reproachful allusion of the hon. member for Newark to the opinions on the constitution, often stated, in former debates, by my right hon. friend, and by some others of the recent supporters of this bill. For let it be still admitted, as they were wont to argue, that a measure of this kind is a departure from the pre-existino. scheme of the government, it is no departure from the spirit on which that scheme was constructed. On the contrary, it is precisely to that principle, which warranted the settlement of Ireland in king William's time, that in her present peril we appeal to warrant her settlement now: the principle of moral necessity, on which the parliament of king William proceeded so far, as to infringe the very first canon of the constitution—the succession itself; the principle, in short, that the constitution is for the people, and not the people for the constitution. And, surely, if the salus populi was a supreme sanction when it called upon the parliament of William the 3rd to enact the disfranchising laws, it cannot be less supreme when it calls upon the parliament of George the 4th to repeal them.

Sir, these apprehensions of danger from the admission of Catholics into the pale of the constitution were at no time very reasonable; but, what shall we say to them at the present day, when, for the very want of that power which the Catholics might gain by admission, they enjoy another power of ten times its magnitude and mischief by exclusion? I speak not now of their legal rights—their right to serve on juries, in the magistracy, in the army and navy. I speak not of the momentous franchise of returning representatives to parliament; but I say, that they have physically outgrown your early laws—that amid the darkness which surrounds them on every other point, they have acquired a singular knowledge of their own strength—that knowledge which, above all others, is, emphatically, power. Look at their numbers—at the talents and surprising energies of their leaders—at their hold upon public, even upon Protestant opinion—look at the funds they command, at the insecurity they spread, at the paradoxical contrast between the disorders they can commit and the order they can preserve—think of all these elements of mischief, even now fermenting for your disquiet, and then answer, whether the time is not gone by for talking of the Catholics, as a body whose power is to be created by your concession or stifled by your refusal? Their position is best described by the fallen angel, when he exclaims—

—"We are at worst

On this side nothing; and by proof we feel

Our power sufficient to disturb his Heaven,

And, with perpetual inroads, to alarm,

Though inaccessible, his fatal throne,

Which, if not victory, is yet revenge."

In that position it is not for the safety, it is not for the dignity of the British crown, that the people of one of these kingdoms should remain—and, from that position, this measure displaces them. It detaches their leaders by a more hopeful career of ambition—it disbands their numerical force—it leaves them with no longer an object to contend for, and no longer a weapon to wield.

But if still, in spite of all that reasoning can accomplish, you persist in your dread of concession—if the fear of the dangers which you think so great is a principal and allowable ground of objection on your side, what right have you to say that the fear of other dangers, which we think greater still, is not a legitimate and statesman-like apprehension on ours? Surely we have as much reason to fear the continuance of a mischief already existing, as you have to fear the occurrence of a mischief which is only in supposition.

But what further plea, it is asked, have ministers for relaxation now, than they had in any former year? It might be a sufficient justification to refer to the Clare election; but there is another still more unanswerable—the continued repetition of disappointment from the opposite policy. If at the commencement of the five and thirty years which have elapsed since lord Fitzwilliam was sent to Ireland by Mr. Pitt, it could have been foreseen that so great a lapse of time, instead of bringing with it any cure, any alteration, would only leave the condition of Ireland where it now stands, is there any man amongst those loudest against concession, who will say that, with that knowledge before him, he would have counselled his sovereign to begin this hopeless series of disasters. And if not can there be any inconsistency now in finally relinquishing so unsuccessful an experiment? Men censure these proceedings, as if ministers had been actuated by some unworthy motive, some interest of their own. Why their interest, on every account, was to leave the matter where it lay, if so to leave it had seemed to them to be pos sible; and, if that did not seem possible, which was the more manly course—to do themselves what they felt indispensable, or to retreat from office, for the purpose of throwing the odium on some sudden administration that might succeed them? I will not vouchsafe to take a tone of apology, on a subject that merits the highest eulogium.

But, whatever it became ministers to do, let us inquire what it becomes us to do ourselves. Whatever the circumstances which may have justified a change of counsels in the government, a change in those anti-Catholics, who are independent of it, seems to me to be not only justified, but in reason absolutely compelled. In former years, it was an argument for them to say, the government are not united—the sovereign is not resolved—vague hopes should not be held out to the people. In every one of these particulars the case is changed—the government are united—the sovereign is resolved—the hope has been held out to the people. From the moment his majesty's speech was delivered, the whole consideration was altered. Whatever may have previously appeared to have been the dangers of concession, I ask my opponents themselves, in the present state of public feeling in England, and of enthusiastic agitation throughout Ireland—after the union of all parties in the government—after the recommendation from the throne—after the universal diffusion of the belief, that the measure, so supported, was sure of ultimate accomplishment, whether they can form even a conception of the dangers which would follow if they could now prevail on parliament to turn round upon the Crown, by which those hopes had been raised, and refuse the grace recommended? My own opinions having always been in favour of concession, the question whether others were at liberty to change is one of no personal interest to me; but I solemnly declare, that if, up to the moment when I heard his majesty's speech read, I had been as jealous of concession as I always was desirous of it—if I had been as strenuous and as able an opponent of it as the hon. member for Kent or for Norwich, I should have felt that from that moment my duty of resistance was over; and that my course must no longer be to consider what strength might have been mustered, if government had continued to disregard the sullen warnings of the time; but what, in the present crisis, when hope and passion have been kindled to their height, will be the way to quiet the country, and, if possible, to satisfy it, and, at all events, to save it.

I will not at this hour consider the questions which have been raised upon the choice, if choice there were, among the difficulties that present themselves; nor will I trouble the House at present on the subject of the securities. The best security of all, I believe, will be found in the healing character of the principal measure; a security not resting in provisoes, nor acting in penalties, but having its deep and firm foundation in the nature of civil society, and in the interests, the hopes, and the hearts, of the people.

assured the House, that he would trespass on their attention but for a very, very short time. He was, however, anxious to be allowed to say one or two words, with reference to certain observations that had been made in the course of the evening. He hoped the time was come when they would no longer hear echoed within those walls, night after night, and year after year, a series of trite and fallacious observations on this question—he hoped that those observations would no longer be made the mere watchword of a party. In the first place, he would ask of those who represented Ireland as a priest-ridden country to consider a little the situation in which that country was placed. He would ask of them to declare, if their religion was insulted, if their religion was held up to odium and ridicule, whether they would not, from one end of the country to the other, rally in its support? Yet this was all that could be charged against the clergy or laity of Ireland. He did not stand there to defend any acts of insubordination or of riot that might have occurred in Ireland; but, in his mind, nothing could be more degrading to a Roman Catholic freeholder than to give his vote in favour of any man whom he knew to be hostile to his religion. He hoped that Ireland would soon see prosperous and quiet days, and he thanked his majesty's ministers, with the utmost sincerity, that they had enabled him to indulge in that hope; because, but for their interference, years might have gone by, and the situation of Ireland continued as unhappy and as unfortunate as it had too long been.—He had intended to say a few words on the general question, but the hon. member for Inverness had treated the subject with so much force and eloquence, that he did not deem it necessary to occupy the time of the House with a more particular statement of his own views and opinions. It was, however, with feelings of sincere sorrow, that he looked forward to the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholder. He did not mean to say, that they might not have committed many errors; but he conceived that it was a great hardship, and, indeed, a great injustice, to take away from hundreds of thousands of individuals that sacred right. But he saw, at the same time, that without that act of injustice he could not have the proposed measure of relief, and he therefore yielded, as a sacrifice to mutual concession. He again thanked his majesty's ministers for the course they had adopted; their disinterested sacrifice of personal feelings at the shrine of public duty—acute as those feelings must necessarily have been demanded the admiration and respect of every unbiassed mind. Such conduct as that of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department would form one of the brightest ornaments of any cause. Let the right hon. gentleman, then, conscious of his integrity, despise the taunts which might be levelled at him—let him look for that reward which emanated from the hearts of a grateful people—let him indulge in those pure feelings which arise from the conscientious discharge of a great duty—and let him, undismayed and unintimidated, prosecute to a happy conclusion those measures which he has so auspiciously begun.

rose and said:—Sir; though I should be willing to rest the vote which I shall give in favour of this bill, upon the able and masterly speech of my hon. and learned friend, the member for Inverness, yet I am anxious to state to the House, as shortly as I can, some few of the principal grounds upon which my opinions on this great question are founded. I shall not go into any depth of historical research; I shall not lead the House into the mazes of theological disquisition; I shall rest my opinions upon the present situation of Ireland, a situation which must be the subject of afflicting concern, to all but the enemies of England. The hon. member for Newark, who spoke last night for the first time in this House, and displayed a talent and an eloquence which commanded the admiration even of those who differ from him the most, thought it necessary to apologize to the House, for touching at all upon the affairs of Ireland. He seemed to conceive that, in discussing a measure which arises out of the distracted state of Ireland, which has for its object to restore tranquillity and peace to Ireland, which deals with nothing less than the rights and privileges of five millions of the people of lreland, any reference to the internal condition of Ireland is altogether improper and misplaced. He seemed to think himself at liberty to draw from the ample resources of his mind, every thing which history ancient and modern can afford, to unravel the intricacies of political economy, to plunge into the darkness of theological controversy, to range through every topic from the poor rates of a parish, up to the settlement of the constitution of empires; but that any allusion to the affairs of Ireland is interdicted and forbidden ground. I take the liberty of differing with him entirely in this respect, and wish to rest my opinions mainly upon the present state of Ireland.

^* Inserted with the permission of viscount Palmerston

Before I proceed however to this consideration, I would advert to some of the remarks which were made last night by the hon. member for Corfe Castle, and by the hon. baronet, the member for Kent, who contended that to repeal the disabilities of the Catholics, would be at variance with the meaning and intention of those men who brought about the Revolution of 1688. In this opinion the hon. member for Newark also concurred, and he asserted that "exclusion is the vital principle of our constitution." Sir, I reverence as much as any one can do, the memory of those great men who effected the Revolution of 1688; and who rescued themselves and us from the thraldom of religious intolerance, and the tyranny of arbitrary power; but I think we are not rendering an appropriate homage to them, when we practise that very intolerance which they successfully resisted, and when we withhold from our fellow subjects the blessings of that constitution, which they established with so much courage and wisdom. I read a far different lesson from the history of those times, and find in them a salutary warning of the miseries that await that nation, which permits religious opinions to become the watch-word of party-strife, and profanes the sacred word of salvation and of peace, by converting it into the element of political contention. The hon. member for Corfe Castle, however, read us extracts from the Declaration, to which the name of the prince of Orange was attached on the 10th of October, 1688, in order to show that the meaning and intention of those upon whose advice the prince of Orange was then acting, was to establish the constitution upon the basis of disability and exclusion. I do not pretend to say that much of that Declaration is not levelled at the appointment of Papists to places of trust and authority, in violation of the then existing laws, but I say that he very much misreads that Declaration, and takes a very narrow and imperfect view of the great objects towards which it was directed, who fancies that the main grievance of which it complained, was the admission of Catholics to power, and that the remedy which it professed to seek, consisted simply in their exclusion. Whoever will read that Declaration with attention, will see that it arises out of much larger and more comprehensive views, and deals with much graver and more important matters; that it is directed against the attempts which were making to subvert the laws, and to establish arbitrary power; and that it touches upon the illegal appointment of Papists, not so much as substantive evils in themselves, but rather as being indications of deeper designs, and steps towards their accomplishment.

What are then the great grievances which that Declaration^* sets forth? Why first, "The assumption of a power, on the part of the Crown, to dispense with the laws of the land." Secondly, "The subjecting of the lives, liberties, honours, and estates of men, of what rank and dignity soever they may be, to arbitrary and despotic power;" and, thirdly, the practice which had been resorted to of "governing without a parliament." What are the circum stances which are set forth as proofs of these abuses? why, instances in which the laws against treason and felony had been dispensed with by the royal authority; cases in which a great deal of blood had been shed in many places in the kingdom by judges governed by the evil counsellors of the king; against all rules and forms of law; and further, the declaration which had been made by the king in Scotland, that he was clothed with absolute power, and that all his subjects were bound to obey him without reserve; "from all which," the prince of Orange goes on to say, "it is apparent what is to be looked for in England, as soon as matters are duly prepared for it." The Declaration mentions, by the by, certain evil counsellors of the king, and in order to let us know who those evil counsellors were, it states them to be persons who "procured parliament to be dissolved, when they found that they could not prevail with the members to comply with their designs."

^* For the Declaration, see Parliamentary History, vol, v. p. 1.

Well, Sir, these being the grievances and abuses of which the prince of Orange complains, what are the remedies which he proposes to apply? Why, to have a free and lawful parliament assembled; I presume that the most zealous advocate of the present day for parliamentary reform, or parliamentary dissolution, will not contend that this, at least, is not a free and lawful parliament. For what purpose was this parliament to be assembled? "In order that the two Houses may concur in the preparing of such laws, as they, upon free and full debate, shall judge necessary."—And what are the objects pointed out for this proposed legislation? Why, first, "The establishing a good agreement between the Church of England and all Protestant Dissenters," Sir, it was not till the last session of parliament, nearly a century and a half after the date of this Declaration, that this wise and enlightened recommendation of the prince of Orange has at last been happily accomplished. But the second object of legislation pointed out was, "the covering and securing of all such who would live peaceably under the government as becomes good subjects, from all persecution upon the account of their religion, even Papists themselves not excepted." And as if to make it impossible for any man to mistake what were the real objects which brought the prince of Orange to this country, the Declaration goes on to say, "We have nothing before our eyes, in this our undertaking, but, first, the preservation of the Protestant religion." We too, Sir, who support this bill, are firmly convinced, that this measure will tend most effectually to the preservation of the Protestant religion. "Secondly, The covering of all men from persecution for their consciences; and, thirdly, The securing to the whole nation the free enjoyment of their laws, rights, and liberties, under a just and legal government." These were the sentiments of that great religious radical, king William. This was the foundation on which he intended to raise a goodly fabric of charity, of concord, and of peace; and upon which his admirers of the present day, are endeavouring to build the dungeon of their Protestant constitution.

If the views and intentions of king William had been such as are now imputed to him; instead of blessing his arrival as an epoch of glory and happiness to England, we should have had reason to curse the hour when first he printed his footstep on our strand. But he came not here a bigoted polemic, with religious tracts in one hand, and civil persecution in the other; he came to regenerate and avenge the prostrate and insulted liberties of England; he came with peace and toleration on his lips, and civil and religious liberty in his heart. So much, Sir, for the principles of the Revolution, and the meaning and intentions of those who brought it about.

But I set out with saying, that I should rest my own opinions on this question mainly upon the present situation of Ireland; and what then is that situation? We have the bitterest civil discord raging throughout Ireland, from one end of the island to the other, absorbing every nobler passion, destroying every kindly and generous feeling, degrading and brutalizing the character of the people, checking their industry, obstructing their improvement, paralyzing the national resources, and threatening the unity of the empire; and why is it that we are called upon to endure a continuance of these evils? Why, because the Catholics are supposed to entertain certain religious opinions, which it is said are incompatible under a Protestant government, with their relations as good citizens, and their duties as good subjects, and which make their admission to parliament and to office dangerous, if not destructive, to the state. It is said, that firm and strong as we may fancy the constitution of the country, deeply-rooted as we may suppose the Protestant faith to be in the conviction and affections of the people, the mere presence within these walls of some forty or fifty Catholic gentlemen, if even so many should find their way here, might be sufficient to overthrow the fabric of the constitution, or undermine the foundations of the Church. By what magical power a small minority is to lead captive a large and overwhelming majority, and compel them to sacrifice their principles and betray their faith, has not indeed been very distinctly explained; but it is said, that in times of nicely-balanced political struggle, when parties run high and divisions run close, a small but compact body of men in this House, acting upon one common principle, pursuing steadily one common object, and throwing their weight judiciously in, as occasions should arise, might accomplish purposes seemingly unattainable. So far as relates to honours and emoluments. to personal or party gains, to any thing which the leader of opposition could promise, or the head of a government could bestow, this argument may have some force; but the changes which the Catholics are supposed to aim at, are changes which could only be effected by the concurrence of the whole of the legislature; and see what various improbabilities, not to say impossibilities, must combine before these fears could be realized. I will suppose that a government, hard pressed to carry some measure of their own, or to resist some measure of their opponents, were to purchase the support of the Catholic band, by promising to introduce some change injurious to, or subversive of, the Protestant religion. In the first place, the consent of the sovereign on the throne, who by law is a Protestant, must be obtained; but I will suppose for the sake of argument, that which I hold to be impossible, that an English cabinet should agree to advise, and a Protestant king should be found to sanction. Yet the very foundation of the supposed case, is a weak administration, tottering in their seats, and certain of support neither in parliament nor in the country: what then would be the effect upon such a government of such a proposition? Why, to give instantly to their opponents ten times the strength which their profligate bargain had purchased from the Catholics. Every honest and independent Protestant would fly their standard, and their adversaries would raise round their heads a storm of public indignation, which would sweep them from their places with ignominy and disgrace. Such apprehensions may fairly be pronounced groundless and chimerical.

The hon. baronet, the member for Kent, stated yesterday, that his objections to the admission of Catholics to parliament, were founded, not upon their general conduct as subjects, but upon the incompatibility of their religious tenets with the safety of the constitution. I presume it is not to the speculative tenets of the Catholics that he objects; that it is not because they believe in transubstantiation, and in the efficacy of the invocation of saints, that he would exclude them from these walls; it must be that in his opinion they hold some doctrines applicable to worldly actions and temporal affairs, which are incompatible with their duties in a Protestant country.

Now, in the first place, the Catholics deny such doctrines, and I believe their denial; but if every thing which has been asserted on this subject were true, still it would not affect the practical conclusion to which I should be disposed to come.

If the question indeed were, whether we should or should not have any Catholics, these arguments would be applicable and conclusive, and I should say, let Ireland be Protestant, and let us have no Catholics in any part of the empire. But that decision is beyond the reach of human control; there they are, be their religion good or bad; there they are, be their tenets wholesome or objectionable; there they are, five or six millions of Catholics in the very heart of the Empire, and the only question is, what we shall do with them; whether by kind treatment and conciliation we shall make them our friends, or by exclusion and coercion convert them into enemies. Even if their doctrines were objectionable, and the hold which we have over them by abstract principle and a mere sense of duty were but slight, the more expedient it would be, since extermination is impossible, to win them to us by kindness, and to bind their hearts to ours by the ties of a common interest; and, therefore, though I utterly disbelieve that the Catholics are guided by the objectionable doctrines which are imputed to them, yet for the sake of argument, I would concede the assertion, and upon that very basis contend for the policy of emancipation.

Now what are these doctrines? The only one which is important to the present question is that which relates to their allegiance; for I am sure the hon. baronet is much too liberal and enlightened to give countenance to the vulgar prejudice, that Catholics do not deem themselves bound to keep faith with heretics. Well, it is said that the Catholic renders to a Protestant sovereign only a divided allegiance—now the Catholic utterly denies this charge. Let the most zealous Protestant devise any form of words which shall, in terms the most unequivocal and explicit, abjure any division of that allegiance which a faithful subject owes to his temporal Prince, and that oath the Catholic is prepared to take, in the utmost sincerity of heart; and if it is said that oaths are words, and words are empty air, he refers you to the exploits of your navy and army, and appeals to Catholic actions to satisfy Protestant doubts. What more can man do, what fuller refutation can human ingenuity devise? But with what marvellous inconsistency is this objection advanced!

Suppose, for argument's sake, that the allegiance of the Catholic could not be depended upon, and that he was liable to be swayed by foreign influence to betray his country and forswear his king, what is the situation in which such a man would be most dangerous? what is the last situation in which it would be wise to place him? why, beyond a doubt in naval and military command. But in naval and military command the law allows the Catholic to be placed, and that law is of recent enactment, and sanctioned, or at least unopposed by those very men who cast in the teeth of the Catholic this charge of divided allegiance. Upon what rational ground then can this charge be made an objection to his admission into Parliament? Can you trust a man to stand sentinel at the very gates of your fortress, in actual contact with the enemy, and yet distrust him in the midst of your garrison and surrounded by your guards? A Catholic may lead the fleet of England into fight; a Catholic may command the army of his country in the day of battle; in that perilous hour, when the interests, the honour, perhaps even the safety of England may hang upon the workings, aye, the secret workings of one single mind, when one single act treacherously done, or one single act treacherously omitted, may bring with it irretrievable disaster; in that perilous hour we are content to commit our fortunes to the hand of the Catholic, confident in his patriotism, his honour, and his faith: but when the question is as to a seat in this House, where he is one among a great number, where little can depend upon individuals, where every word that he utters and every thing that he does are public as the art of man can make them, and are borne by the next morning's dawn upon the wings of the wind to every corner of the empire; here forsooth, we tremble at the dangers that would befal the state, if this man of divided allegiance were permitted to vote in a Committee of Supply.

But how idle to talk of giving the Catholics political power, as if they possessed no political power now.

It is the fashion sometimes to sneer at the wisdom of our ancestors; but as far as regards the treatment of the Catholics, our ancestors were much wiser than we are, at least according to the more limited notions of their time. They hated and feared the Catholics, and they had perhaps some reason to do so; we hate and fear the Catholics, without, that I can discover, any reason at all. They wished to extirpate the Catholic religion, and they set about it in right good earnest; and if it had only happened to be consistent with the laws of human nature, that opinions and belief could be swayed and determined by the strong arm of temporal power, they would most unquestionably have accomplished their purpose. They just did not make it lawful (I am speaking now of Ireland),—they just did not make it lawful to put a Catholic, wherever found, to death. There was some sense in this system; it was not very amiable, but at least it was consistent. They deemed the Catholic a dangerous and ferocious beast of prey, and like a beast of prey, they hunted him out from the pale of civilization, and drove him back to his native fastnesses and wilds. We look upon the race with almost similar dread and abhorrence; but we allow them to prowl unmolested about the streets of our cities, and the gardens of our dwellings, and think we have sufficiently provided for our safety, if we only close against them the portals of the temple of justice. Is there any sense in this? If the Catholic be really so dangerous and formidable, we have gone much too far; if he be not, we have stopped too soon.

Political power, indeed! What is it that gives to any class of men in a state political power? Why, numbers, wealth, intelligence. These are the true elements of political power, and where these exist, whether it be in the republics of the west or the despotisms of the east, these will be found to sway the deliberations of the people, or control the will of the monarch. But these we have granted to the Catho- lics; numbers, indeed, without our permission, they have gained, and to their hearts' content; wealth we now allow them to acquire and possess; intelligence we are daily forcing upon them, with all the zeal and activity of crusaders; and thus while the Catholics are every year becoming more numerous, more wealthy, and more enlightened, we go on descanting upon the dangers that would befal us, if the Catholics should ever acquire any share of political power.

Why those men who sway to their will five millions of dissatisfied people, who hold their obedient passions in the leash, to restrain or let slip, as best may suit their purpose and occasion; who carry, as it were, in the folds of their garment, the dread alternative of domestic peace and war; if such men do not possess political power, there is no meaning in words, there is no danger in things. I call upon the House, to strip them of this political power, which cannot be exercised for good, which must be exerted for evil; which may destroy a state, but never can work for its salvation. Let us turn these materials of mischief into elements of strength; let us, like skilful physicians, extract and amalgamate the poison, and by a wise adaptation of its influence, draw from it renovated health and augmented vigour.

The population of Great Britain, by the returns of 1821, was fourteen millions; the population of Ireland at the same period was about seven millions. The industry of the fourteen millions in Great Britain produced for the public service a revenue of about fifty millions sterling; the industry of the seven millions in Ireland produced for the public service a revenue of what? Of twenty-five millions, according to its proper proportion? No, barely of five millions.—What is the cause of this extraordinary disproportion? Has nature been less bountiful to Ireland in her gifts? is the soil cursed with barrenness, or are the people incapable or unwilling to labour? The fertility of the soil of Ireland is proverbially notorious, and the harvest fields of England afford abundant proofs of the laborious industry of the Irish people.—Well, then, I shall be told the reason is, that Ireland is without capital; and because Ireland is without capital her population is without employment, and her Exchequer is without revenue. But why is Ireland without capital? and does not the single fact that she is without capital, though under the same sovereign as England, and within a stone's throw of her wealthy neighbour, speak volumes, and prove more demonstrably than the ingenuity or eloquence of man, that Ireland is misgoverned?—The capital of England overflows in every direction but one: it seeks a vent in every quarter of the globe; it scales the summit of the Andes; it flies to our very Antipodes; but Ireland it dare not enter. Beyond the limits of the United Kingdom, there is no adventure so difficult and hopeless, no risk so hazardous and desperate, as to daunt the enterprise of our capitalist, and arrest the current of our wealth. But around Ireland the wand of the enchanter has drawn its forbidding circle.—I call upon the House to break the spell, and let in upon Ireland the wholesome and fertilizing stream.

If the country gentlemen of England wish to relieve themselves from those burthens which now press so heavily upon them, let them lend us their aid to grant peace to Ireland; let them assist us to give a free and full development to its boundless natural resources; and they may be assured that there is no plan of finance how skilful soever, that could open such golden prospects to England, as Catholic emancipation.

While the present system of laws continues, peace is impossible in Ireland. If an ingenious tormentor of the human race had wished to inflict upon a nation the misery of perpetual dissension, what more could he have done, than establish that order of things which exists in Ireland—a people, active, sensitive, intelligent, divided into two very unequal portions; separated by the soul-stirring distinction of religious opinions; the small minority invested with civil ascendancy, and exclusive political authority; the large majority condemned to exclusion deprivation, and civil degradation. If the principle of perpetual motion has vainly been sought in the material world, here, at least, in the moral world, we have the most perfect arrangement for producing perpetual convulsion. The degraded majority, conscious of their numerical strength, must constantly be struggling for equal participation: the overbearing minority, sensible of their physical weakness must perpetually be tightening the bonds, which coerce and keep down their prostrate competitors.

Under a pure despotism a people may be contented, because all are slaves alike; but those who under a free government are refused equal participation, must be discontented. Every where they meet men of the same class, of the same rank, of the same talents, of the same attainments as themselves, enjoying privileges and advantages from which they are forever debarred. What must be the inward feelings of such men? and could we be surprised if we found that while we extorted our oaths of allegiance from their lips, their own vows of abjuration should stand recorded on their hearts.

If I wished to convince an impartial Englishman of the policy of repealing these laws, I should bid him repair to the south of Ireland; to mix with the Catholic gentry, to converse with the Catholic peasantry; to witness the open and undisguised discontent of the former; to probe to the bottom the more concealed, but not less deeply rankling passions of the latter; to see what a fierce and unsocial spirit bad laws engender; and how impossible it is to degrade a people, without at the same time demoralizing them too.

But if this should fail to convince him, and his judgment still hung in the balance of doubt, I should then tell him to go among the Protestants of the north. There he would see how noble and generous natures may be corrupted by the possession of undue and inordinate ascendancy; there he would see how men, naturally kind and benevolent, can be brought up from their earliest infancy to hate the great majority of their countrymen with all the bitterness, which neighbourhood and consanguinity infuse into quarrels; and not satisfied with the disputes of the days in which they live, raking up the ashes of the dead for food to their angry passions; summoning the shades of departed centuries to give a keener venom to the contests of the present age; and as if the reigns of the House of Hanover were not sufficiently fruitful in causes of mutual offence, studiously keeping alive the memory of those unhappy events, which afflicted their country in the days of the Stuarts. These things indeed afford a melancholy proof how true it is, that the evil which men do lives after them, and ought to us to be a salutary warning, how we give an enduring and permanent existence to the passions, and resentments, or alarms, of the day.

We are called upon to maintain these disabilities, in order to preserve the integrity of the British Constitution. But what deeper wound can the constitution receive, than that which is inflicted by the present state of things? Does the British Constitution consist in governing by force, and keeping down the people by the sword? and yet my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department told us, the other night, that for some time past, five-sixths of the regular infantry at home, have been employed in Ireland, in preserving a forced tranquillity. Is this the principle of the British constitution? Is this the principle of the Revolution of 1688? Was it to establish a military government, that our ancestors expelled the family of the Stuarts? Is not this

"Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas?"

And yet can we hope to maintain our present system of disabilities by any other means than military force? Can five millions of men be governed against their will, except by the edge of the sword?

My right hon. friend has asked over and over again, of those who oppose this measure, what is the remedy which they themselves would propose; to that question, no satisfactory answer has yet been given; and, till last night, no very distinct one. But the remedies which have been proposed, as substitutes for Emancipation, are the Prevention of Absenteeism, Education, Poor Rates, and Civil War.

It is, no doubt, a misfortune for Ireland that all her landed proprietors do not reside on their estates; but if you wish to bring back the absentees, make the country habitable, and you will find them promptly return. But as long as the bonds of society are severed, while brother is armed against brother, and son against father, it is vain to expect that many will not quit a country, in which it is so painful to live. If absenteeism is an evil, Catholic emancipation is its only cure. But then education—Education, indeed, a substitute for Emancipation! Why, if you wish to retain a people in a state of degradation, do not educate, but keep them in ignorance: and ignorant people may submit with patience, but the more you enlighten them, the more impossible it becomes to withhold from them their rights. Well, but Poor-laws would be an effectual remedy. Sir, if I were not restrained by respect for the honourable member who made this proposition, I should say, that to recommend Poor-laws as a substitute for Emancipation, was an insult, and a mockery to the people of Ireland. The measure would indeed be well adapted to the circumstances of the country! The lower classes in Ireland have sometimes been accused of improvidence; Poor-laws are admirably calculated to inspire them with foresight! The great evil of Ireland is by some thought to be a redundant population; Poor-laws are an excellent expedient to check and prevent its increase! The Irish peasantry have been represented in some quarters as a degraded race; we know by the experience of England, how surely a system of Poor-laws raises the character, stimulates the industry, and exalts the feelings of the lower classes! We have had many committees of this House, containing some of the ablest of our members, appointed for the purpose of devising some means of relieving England from the bur-then of her Poor-laws; but it never, I believe, occurred to any of these persons, that two evils might be cured by one measure, and that England might be relieved, and Ireland pacified by merely transferring to Ireland the Poor-laws of England.

Then come we to the last remedy, Civil War—Some gentlemen say, sooner or later we must fight for it, and the sword must decide; and if we must fight for it sooner or later, we are better prepared now than we may be by and by, and therefore we had better go at it at once.

The hon. member for Newark, too, drew a contrast between the course which the government have pursued in England, and the conduct they have held towards Ireland. "In England," said he, "there have been demagogues and disturbances, but the people were dispersed with bloodshed, and their leaders were seized, tried, and punished; while in Ireland the government have connived at proceedings which they visited with so much severity in England." The only inference, though I admit that the honourable gentleman did not himself draw it, but the only fair inference to be drawn from this statement is, that in his opinion the measures which were so successful in England would be equally so in Ireland. That we ought to have recourse to bloodshed, and that if blood were but shed in Ireland, Catholic Emancipation might be avoided. Sir, when the hon. member shall be a little deeper read in the history of Ireland, he will find that in Ireland blood has been shed, that in Ireland leaders have been seized, trials have been had, and punishments have been inflicted. He will find indeed, almost every page of the history of Ireland darkened by bloodshed, by seizures, by trials, and by punishments. But what has been the effect of these measures? They have, indeed, been successful in quelling the disturbances of the moment, but they never have gone to their cause, and have only fixed deeper the poisoned barb that rankles in the heart of Ireland. Can one believe one's ears when one hears respectable men talk so lightly, nay, almost so wishfully, of civil war; do they reflect what a countless multitude of ills those three short syllables contain? It is easy to denounce against a nation this awful doom; but when Heaven shall once have opened the windows of its wrath, when the foundations of social order shall once have been broken up, when the deluge of civil war shall once have burst upon the land, where is the man who shall presume to set limits to its fury, or foretel the extent of devastation.—It is well, indeed, for the gentlemen of England, who live secure under the protecting shadow of the law, whose slumbers have never been broken by the clashing of angry swords, whose harvests have never been trodden down by the conflict of hostile feet, it is well for them to talk of civil war, as if it were some holiday pastime, or some sport of children:

"They jest at scars who never felt a wound."

But, that gentlemen from unfortunate and ill-starred Ireland, who have seen with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears, the miseries which civil war produces, who have known by their own experience the barbarism, aye the barbarity, which it engenders—that such persons should look upon civil war as any thing short of the last and greatest of national calamities, is to me a matter of the deepest and most unmixed astonishment.

If the nation is overflowing with so much suppressed pugnacity; if like an overcharged thunder-cloud we are bursting with accumulated fire, which a fourteen years' peace has rendered unbearably irksome; let us vent it on any and every other nation of the earth, let us not exercise a suicidal fury on ourselves.

"—omnibus Hostes

Reddite nos Populis, Civile avertite Bellum."

I will grant, if you will, that the success of such a war with Ireland would be as signal and complete, as would be its injustice; I will grant, if you will, that resistance would soon be extinguished with the lives of those who resisted; I will grant, if you will, that the crimsoned banner of England would soon wave in undisputed supremacy, over the smoking ashes of their towns, and the blood-stained solitude of their fields. But, I tell you, that England herself never would permit the achievement of such a conquest; England would reject, with disgust, laurels that were dyed in fraternal blood; England would recoil with loathing and abhorrence, from the bare contemplation of so devilish a triumph.

We are still in time to avert so afflicting a consummation; we are still in time to avert it with honour; we are not in time any longer to delay. Events are pressing on us with a force and rapidity which no human arm can stay. While we are debating our securities, our dangers are blackening round our heads; and we are childishly disputing about the fences of our dwelling, while the loud and unmis takeable murmurings of the earth, warn us of approaching convulsion.

Tell me not that this is the language of intimidation; tell me not that I am appealing to the fears instead of to the reason of the House. In matters of such high concern, which involve not personal and individual considerations, but the welfare o f one's country, no man ought to be ashamed of being counselled by his fears. But the fears to which I appeal, are fears which the brave may acknowledge, and the wise need not blush to own. The fear to which I appeal, is that early and provident fear, which Mr. Burke so beautifully describes as being the mother of safety. "Early and provident fear," says Mr. Burke, "is the mother of safety, for in that state of things, the mind is firm and collected, and the judgment unembarrassed; but when fear and the thing feared, come on together and press upon us at once, even deliberation, which at other times saves us, becomes our ruin, because it delays decision; and when the peril is instant, decision should be instant too." To this fear I am not ashamed of appealing; by this fear legislators and statesmen ought ever to be ruled; and he who will not listen to this fear, and refuses to be guided by its counsel, may go and break his lances against windmills, but the court of Chancery should enjoin him to abstain from meddling with public affairs.

said, he had listened with great attention and delight to the speech just delivered by the noble lord on the other side of the House. It did equal credit to his feelings and to his understanding. He probably should not have trespassed on the attention of the House but for the speech which had been made yesterday by the hon. member for Corfe Castle (Mr. G. Bankes). He certainly had listened with great anxiety to the speech of that hon. gentleman, because he felt satisfied that, if any hon. member could have addressed the House on any legal point touching the question, the hon. member for Corfe Castle was the most likely; not only from the force of argument which he could have brought forward, but from his legal and constitutional knowledge: for the parliamentary history of the country had been the study, not only of the hon. member himself, but of almost every branch of his family; and he therefore was peculiarly qualified for a consideration of such a great question. If there were any legal objections to the measure he was quite confident that the hon. member would have brought them forward, and justified his adhesion to the present system, not only by words but by arguments. After weighing all, however, that had fallen from the hon. member, he must confess, that he felt greatly disappointed when he found that the main support of the hon. member's argument was the Declaration made by the prince of Orange. That Declaration, as had been justly observed by his noble friend, had nothing at all to do with the question, and applied entirely to the dispensing power claimed by James the 2nd. For himself, he would say, that that Declaration applied infinitely more to that point than to the question which the hon. member intended to support by it. For the last two weeks, constant allusions had been made to the period of 1688, and attempts had been made to prove that that measure would destroy the constitution established at that time. If that Were the case, he must be allowed to say, that it would destroy much of the veneration with which he had always looked upon that epoch. The House had been told, that this measure would overturn the constitution of 1688; but he would say, that the law now to be repealed was not established in 1688, but in 1678, and had nothing to do with the era of the Revolution. If that were correct, the view which the hon. member for Newark had taken of the subject, was equally untenable, and the conclusion from the premises of both the hon. gentlemen must be, that the principles established at that period were not founded on right or privilege, but on exclusion. And could there be any thing more unseemly in a free constitution, than utter exclusion? What were the grounds for such exclusion? At the period when that act was passed, the exclusion was theological and political conjoined, but that time was now elapsed, and the distinction was merely theological. He would not enter at any length into the question, and wished merely to state, that the main points on which the whole merits of the case rested, had been thrown out of view and disregarded. The question rested on higher grounds. It did not rest on political or theological grounds, but solely on justice. The people of Ireland rested their claims on the justice of their cause; and to what page of history could the House turn without seeing that when justice was disregarded, the rulers of states thereby brought on their own punishment, and defeated the ends they had in view? He had no wish to detain the House long on the question, but if legal authorities were to be trusted to, he thought that, as yet, nothing at all to the point had been brought forward in opposition to the measure. The exclusion did not commence in the reign of Charles the 2nd, but in that of Elizabeth; and that exclusion was not for the security of the constitution, but to promote conformity of public worship. These were the only grounds for exclusion, and he trusted that such grounds had been long abandoned. He would therefore say, that the opposers of the measure should take up other grounds than those of a political tendency, and be able to prove that there would be danger, not from a few Catholics being admitted into parliament, but from their differing from the established church.

said, he hoped he might take the liberty of saying, that he had never bound himself to any party, and he could produce testimonials of the independent course which he had always followed. When he thought that he could remain in office with honour, he had not quitted it; but when he thought he could not accept office with honour, he had not taken it. Differing in opinion from gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, he was now called upon as the attorney-general of a Protestant government, to deliver his sentiments on the question under the consideration of the House; and he must throw himself on the kindly feelings and indulgence of the House, while he endeavoured to perform the duty which he owed to himself personally, to the British parliament, to the people, and to that sovereign to whom he was nominally, but not practically, the servant. He therefore would presume, as a member of parliament, who yielded in independence to no gentleman present, to deliver his sentiments on the subject under consideration. In doing so, he felt confident of meeting with that indulgence from the House, which he had, on former occasions, experienced; and he would venture to say, that no hon. member had with greater labour and assiduity, with greater candour and liberality of mind, than he had done, approached the question, of how and on what grounds, safely and constitutionally, as regarded his monarch, the church, and the liberties of Great Britain, the Catholic question might be adjusted. He took to himself not the merit of talent, nor of eloquence, but he claimed the merit of industry and assiduity, in the investigation of that question; and having done so, the pain which he suffered from that labour as an individual, was even surpassed by the pain which he experienced, only seven days before the meeting of parliament, on learning, that the question which was usually called Catholic emancipation, was to be the subject of recommendation to parliament by his majesty's ministers [hear, hear]. If, in the course of the discussion, any one expression should fall from him, carrying with it the complexion of ill-nature and asperity, he would willingly revoke such expression. He wished not to speak in the language of ill-nature or asperity; but as an humble member of that House, he had always presumed to deliver his opinion with freedom and independence, and he must say, that he never, in the whole course of his life, experienced so much pain as when he was told, that that large proportion of the House who conceived themselves to be led by the talents, the experience, and the learning of the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Affairs, were, on the first day of the meeting of parliament, to be utterly disbanded, left without a leader, cast forth and abandoned. He might presume, that the House would give him credit for one quality—that of sincerity; and he must say, that he agreed with the hon. member for Kent, that without prior notice—or at least, with only seven days' notice—the Protestant party in England, and the Protestant party in that House, had been abandoned and deserted—deserted by their leader, and cast away to the waves and the winds [a laugh]. He hoped that no one would imagine, that he had the presumption to put himself forward as the leader of that party; but, having declared his intention to vote, and being told that that was not enough, he now came forward as an humble individual, and an independent member of parliament, to declare what were his sentiments. Let no man suppose that he had the audacity, presumption, temerity, or folly, to put himself forward as the substitute of that able and eminent leader, whom the Protestant party formerly had, but he sincerely regretted, no longer possessed, in the person of his right hon. friend [hear, hear]. A very eminent historian, Mr. Hume, had said, that a man could not, without the imputation of vanity, speak more than a very few words about himself; and he would endeavour to avoid that imputation by saying a very few words more of his personal affairs. He certainly did not know whether he was not presuming, to address the House in the situation in which he was now standing, or whether he ought not to speak as the member for Plympton. He was still the king's Attorney-general, and the king's Attorney-general he would remain [a laugh]. He was surprised at the incivility of gentlemen who interrupted him before he had finished his sentence.

The noble lord who had lately sat down had supported the question, in one of the most able and eloquent speeches ever pronounced—a much abler, in his opinion, than that in which the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department bad explained the measure to the House; yet he had heard that speech without any sentiment of incivility, and he did expect the same attention would be paid to him. It had been said, that he had been the obstacle which prevented the University of Cambridge from having another member. He had been the tool of no government in the acquisition of office, and he would be no tool in the retention of office. If those who supported the great question of Catholic emancipation thought that by going to Cambridge they would gain an acquisition to their cause, they might have an opportunity of doing so. If the Protestant party thought that be was an obstacle to the expression of the public opinion in favour of their cause, he could tell them, that he had never for the last three weeks occasioned any obstruction to the expression of the public voice. He had declined to draw the bill now on the table of the House, because, looking to the oath which he had taken as attorney-general, he thought he should, by drawing that bill, be abjuring his duty, and be drawing the death-warrant of the Protestant church. That conclusion he had come to after much anxious reflection on the question: and he believed that if he drew what he conceived to be the death-warrant of the church of England, he should be betraying his duty as attorney-general, as much as Noy betrayed his duty when he drew out the order for the raising of ship-money, or lord chancellor Jeffries when he drew out the warrant of commitment of the Protestant bishops to the Tower.

At the present time of night, and under antecedent circumstances, it might put him in a situation of considerable difficulty to explain why he had come to that conclusion; but he would, with the indulgence of the House, state the reasons why he could not, in the exercise of his own independent judgment, support his majesty's government in that great measure, the consideration of which was now pending before parliament. The noble lord who had just sat clown had called upon him, in a direct manner, to maintain that the exclusion of Catholics from parliament and from executive offices was a principle of the constitution. If the House permitted him, he would refer to some documents, to assist him in answering the noble lord's argument. The noble lord had called, not by name, but by an allusion which could not be mistaken, on the person who was nominally the king's attorney-general, to state what were the grounds on which it was to be maintained, that the exclusion of Catholics from parliament was a principle of the constitution. That was the challenge which the noble lord had thrown out, and which he was ready to meet. He hoped that hon. members would not, from any special pleading, or from any legal quibble, maintain that, because the act of queen Elizabeth, which introduced the Oath of Supremacy, and the statute of Charles 2nd. which introduced the Oath of Abjuration, were not recited in the Bill of Rights, therefore those statutes were not constitutionally and legally embodied in it. It was true, that the Bill of Rights did not recite those acts, or in express terms declare them to be in force; but he would assert and maintain, that all those restrictions against the admission of Catholics into parliament or places of power, which existed before the Revolution, were re-established, renewed, and reconfirmed, and enforced by fresh additions, by the Bill of Rights and the statute of king William. Before king William landed in this country, the preservation of those restrictions were made a condition, entered into between him and the people of this country—before he put his foot on British soil. That he asserted to be the fact, and if the House would grant him patience, he would produce documents to prove the point. Before the last act of extremity was completed towards king James, an amicable arrangement was contemplated between that Prince and the Prince of Orange. Those persons desired to bring about a settlement of the question—he supposed he must adopt that nick-name "settlement of the question" at present so much in fashion, without expelling James from the throne. He begged to remind hon. members, that one advantage they enjoyed in the character of representatives of the people was a very extensive library attached to that House. It appeared to him, that the advocates of the Catholic question were very shy of referring to the records which were contained therein. If they would look to the life of king William and his times, as described either in Rapin or Tindal, they might see some cause for distrusting the opinions which they maintained. Surely, a considerable portion of the faculty of memory must have been lost amidst the Roman mal-aria which prevailed in the House [a laugh]. This Roman mal-aria had not only operated a strange conversion of opinion, but it had also had a most surprising effect upon the recollections of hon. members. If hon. members would refer to the compilations in their library, they would find that, prior to the expulsion of king James,—prior to the extremes which ended in the just constitutional expulsion of that man for endeavouring to invade and supplant the Protestant freedom and liberties of the realm,—prior to that, a correspondence had taken place with the Prince and Princess of Orange, having for its object to induce them to mediate and settle the question, without the extremity which circumstances afterwards produced. The noble member for Yorkshire had called upon the first law authority in that House, to controvert if he could, the positions which he had taken up. Now, he was the first law authority in that House, though perhaps a very fugacious, a very precarious, and a very uncertain one [a laugh]; yet certainly he was at present the first law authority in that House. In that character, he doubted not that he should be treated with all proper respect by both sides of the House. He therefore would accept the noble lord's challenge, and would at once declare, that the noble lord's proposition was denied by the undoubted evidence of facts and the testimony of history. Long before the landing of king William in this country, a negotiation was entered into with the Prince and Princess of Orange, having for its object to ascertain "whether they would consent to repeal the penal laws then in force, by which Catholics were shut out of parliament." He held in his hands a copy of the answer which those eminent persons made to this application, and which he would read to the House. The hon. and learned gentleman then read the document, which declared, that the writers "never would consent to repeal the laws which excluded Roman Catholics from seats in both Houses of parliament, and from all public employments, ecclesiastical, civil, and military, or those other laws which confirmed the Protestant religion, and secured it against all attempts of Roman Catholics."

In answer, then, to the challenge of the noble member for Yorkshire, he would put forth that document, which had on former occasions been in part adverted to in that House, but had never before been fully read. That document showed, that prior to the landing of the Prince of Orange in England, the principle of exclusion had been determined on, as part of the settlement which was afterwards made, This principle formed part of the treaty entered into between the Prince of Orange and the British nation, which was afterwards ratified by the Bill of Rights. It certainly would be strange that the Prince of Orange, having maintained the principle of exclusion before he came to this country, should have abandoned it after he arrived here. However, the hon member for Inverness, the Solicitor-general for Ireland, and others of the same grade and order, had contended, that the exclusion of Catholics from parliament was not a principle of the Revolution. He would take the liberty to confront those hon. and learned persons upon that point, not by his own assertion, which would avail nothing, but by the records of history, which availed every thing. Some persons, to be sure, might be disposed to set as little value on this sort of proof as lord Plunkett, who had facetiously said, on a certain occasion, that history was an old almanack. It might be an old almanack, but the antiquity of an almanack did not affect the veracity of its contents. [Sir J. Mackintosh here observed that, the contents of an old almanack were not applicable to the present period.] He begged to inform the right hon. member, who had thus improperly interrupted him, that he had not the powers of a Scotchman, and could not answer two questions at once [a laugh], He had stated, that before the landing of king William, [a slight laugh, followed by cries of "hear"]. He hoped hon members would not continue thus unfairly to interrupt him. He who challenged ought to hear the answer. He who struck the first blow ought to permit his adversary to defend himself. The noble member for Yorkshire had appealed to the highest law authority in that House for his opinion; and, being so called upon, he would declare, that the principle of excluding Roman Catholics from parliament was settled before the Revolution, and was confirmed and re-established at the Revolution; with additional Protestant securities. That was his proposition, and he would make it out. It was very well known, that king James issued a Declaration of what he called liberty of conscience, which he required to be read in all churches. This Declaration established something not unlike a free trade in religion,—a kind of universal amalgamation of all religions,—Protestant, Catholic, and Unitarian—if he might so express it, a sort of spiritual Jacobinism in matters of religion. He merelyalluded to this for the purpose of observing, that the Declaration of king James set aside the oaths required to be taken by Catholics in the same manner that the bill before the House did. He now begged to remind the House of the Prince of Orange's Declaration of October 10, 1688. In that Declaration he referred to the letter he had previously written, in which he declared his willingness to qualify the laws against the Dissenters, but said, he would not repeal the laws against the Catholics.

Let the House look at what happened next. In the course of that year, James, who thought that he had carried the thing a little too far, tried to retrace his steps. The right hon., member for Knaresborough from whom the public had been for some time expecting an able history of this period, knew well that he was stating facts correctly. Only a month before king William landed, James issued a proclamation from the Privy Council, in which he declared himself disposed to consent to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from parliament. If he were told after this, that the exclusion of Catholics from parliament was not a violation of the principle of the constitutional settlement in 1688, he could only account for it by supposing, that the epidemic disorder to which he had before alluded, had affected the reminiscent qualities of the Catholic emancipators.

He had shown that king William declared he would not relax the laws against the Catholics, but that he was willing to qualify those which affected Protestant Dissenters. King William kept his word, by introducing the Act of Toleration.

He would now say only a few words with respect to the Bill of Rights. The hon. member for Inverness said, that he had read over the whole Bill of Rights, and had been unable to find in any clause of it a Declaration, that the restrictions on the Catholics were to be continued. The noble member for Yorkshire had done the same. Really, he knew not how to argue with such special-pleading politicians. Did they expect that the Bill of Rights was to recite, in the technical language of a lawyer—"Whereas queen Elizabeth passed an act, establishing the Oath of Supremacy, and king Charles passed an act, establishing the declaration against transubstantiation, &c." The Bill of Rights did not recite those laws, but the first article declared, that "king James 2nd, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers, employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom." He thought he had met the noble lord fairly; and he appealed to the judgment of the House as to whether he had not, by facts, and the testimony of undoubted history, proved that the exclusion of Catholics was a principle before the Revolution, at the Revolution, and after the Revolution, insisted on as part of the constitutional settlement.

He could assure the House, that no circumstances under which he had ever before [addressed them pressed on his feelings with half the severity of those which now induced him to trespass on their attention. When he, the Attorney-general of the king, was called on to frame an act of parliament, it was not unnatural that he, as a lawyer, should look to the opinion of a higher authority than himself; namely, the lord chancellor, to direct his judgment on the subject. If he found that a lord chancellor had declared, that he could not sustain such a measure as that now before the House, he should not be visited with particular censure, if he said that the attorney-general could not do that which the lord chancellor could not do. He thought that he was placing himself under a strong shield when he took up his position under the buckler of lord chancellor Lyndhurst [hear, hear]. When he was asked to frame the bill, he naturally exclaimed—"What! the king's attorney-general prepare a bill which the lord chancellor has declared would subvert the Protestant church of England?" He begged to observe, that he was not quoting the lord chancellor as an indisputable authority upon all points. He might differ from him on some subjects, and he would differ from any man who attempted to dragoon him out of his opinions. But this was a point upon which he could not venture from the king's sworn councillor—the keeper of the great seal—who had sworn to give the king good advice. And here, by the way, he might observe, that it might be as well not to cavil too much about the disregard which Catholics displayed for oaths. Let them not "run a-muck" against the Ca tholics, but see what bound some Protestant consciences [hear, and a laugh]. When his attention was called to this bill, he felt it his duty to look over both the oath taken by the lord chancellor, and that taken by the attorney-general; and it was his judgment, right or wrong, that he was called upon to draw a bill subversive of the Protestant church, which his majesty was bound by his Coronation Oath to support. If his majesty chose to dispense with the obligations of the Coronation Oath, he might do so; but he, (the attorney-general) would do no act to put him in jeopardy.

These were the grounds on which he refused, and would refuse, a hundred times over, to put one line to paper, of what constituted the atrocious bill now before the House. Hundreds of those who now did him the honour to listen to him, must remember the able, valuable, and impressive speech delivered two years ago by the present lord chancellor, then master of the Rolls, and a member of that House. It would also be in the recollection of hundreds, that that eminent individual, than whom none was more acute in reasoning, more classical in language, and more powerful in delivery,—that individual, then master of the Rolls, but now lord chancellor, quarrelled with the late Mr. Canning on this very subject. That individual quarrelled with Mr. Canning, who was then sitting in the place where his right hon. friend now sat, upon the question,—whether or not, consistently with the maintenance of the Protestant monarchy and constitution of these realms, Catholics could be admitted to sit in parliament? Was he, then, to blame for refusing to do that, in the subordinate office of attorney-general, which a more eminent adviser of the Crown, only two years ago, declared he would not consent to do? Was he then to be twitted, taunted, and attacked? He cared little for being attacked, whether from the right or from the left. Let the attack come from whence it might, he was ready to meet it. He dared them to attack him. He had no speech to eat up. He had no apostacy to explain. He had no paltry subterfuge to resort to. He had not to say that a thing was black one day and white another. He was not in one year a Protestant master of the Rolls, and in the next a Catholic lord chancellor. He would rather remain as he was, the humble member for Plympton, than be guilty of such apostacy—such contradiction—such unexplainable conversion—such miserable, such contemptible apostacy. He would state nothing without authority; and therefore he would read an extract from the speech delivered by the present lord chancellor two years ago, which would completely bear out the observations which he had made. The hon. and learned member then read the following passages:—"It was said, that they ought to adopt some measure for establishing the tranquillity of Ireland; that it was impossible for things to remain as they were; and that, having already gone so far, they must go farther. He was as anxious for any measure which would have the effect of restoring tranquillity to that country, as the most zealous advocate of the question before the House; but when a particular measure was proposed, with a view to the restoration of tranquillity in that country, he might be allowed to inquire whether it was calculated to produce that effect, before he gave it his assent. If the restoration of the tranquillity of Ireland were pressed as an argument in support of this measure, he must inquire how far it had that tendency. He repeated, that he lamented the want of tranquillity in that country; but it did not by any means follow, that because it was necessary that Ireland should be tranquillized, the precise measure now proposed was the one which would set it at rest. In his opinion, it would have no such effect. If this measure were carried, it would produce a great ebullition in that country. The Catholics would triumph in their victory; and the Protestants, or the great majority of them, would repine in the consciousness that they were subdued. There would be a great and momentous explosion, followed by a momentary calm. But no man who was acquainted with the Roman Catholics of that country, or with the state of feeling which existed there, would gravely assert, that this measure would allay the excitation which prevailed, so far as to restore tranquillity. No man, he thought, had seriously considered the subject, would bring his mind to this conclusion. The Roman Catholic religion was a religion of encroachment; and there were circumstances connected with its existence in Ireland which increased the disposition to encroach, The Roman Catholics of Ireland believed that they had been supplanted by the Protestants, and that it was not less their duty than their interest to supplant them in turn; and from the immense influence exercised over them by their hierarchy, it was not to be supposed that they would desist from making claim after claim until Catholic ascendancy was finally established. That man took but a slight and cursory view of the present state of Ireland, and of the events of which that country had been the theatre for many years, who could maintain the opinion that the Catholics would be satisfied, or that Ireland would be tranquillized, by the mere concession of the privileges which they now sought to obtain. He reasoned on this point from facts which were notorious to every man who was at all conversant with the state of Ireland. The Roman Catholic bishop of Kildare had stated, that 'emancipation would do much, but that much more remained to be accomplished.' He entreated that hon. members would take these circumstances into their consideration, and not allow themselves to be led away by the assertion, that the measure now proposed to them would have the effect of tranquillizing Ireland. I exhort them (continued the right hon. and learned gentleman) not to be led away by such an erroneous hope. I call upon them rather to consider, whether the destruction of the Protestant establishment is not the object, and will not be the consequence, of these measures, and to pause before they lend their assistance to a proposition that may be attended with such a result. The Protestant establishment is now a part of the state. I ask hon. gentlemen, whether they are ready to relinquish it? I believe that there are in this House many members who would willingly take issue upon this question; but the great majority of those whom he had the honour of addressing are opposed to that feeling; and to these latter gentlemen I appeal; and I say, do not fancy, that, by adopting these measures you will put an end to the evils that have so long distracted Ireland. I am convinced that such a vote will produce no such effect; but, on the contrary, will lead to new demands, that will be attended with as much excitement of feeling as that which we are now discussing. I am certain that if we admit sixty or seventy Roman Catholic members into this House, the next measure that will be demanded will be, the upsetting of the Protestant establishment in Ireland. In what a situation shall we then be? If object to the new proposals, we shall be again told, "that as we have gone so far, we must go farther;" and we shall be reminded of what we are now doing, and shall be told "that we ought to have taken our stand before."

His right hon. friend had said that, by and by we might have a struggle. The lord chancellor, however, cut short all speculation on that point, and spoke of the struggle as a thing certain of happening. He said, that if Catholics were admitted into parliament, the upsetting of the Protestant church would follow. As there was a sort of germane sympathy between one lawyer and another, it was not extraordinary that he should pay some attention to the opinion expressed by the lord chancellor. He would be obsequious to no man; but, let not the king's attorney-general be quarrelled with because he would not draw a bill to do that which the lord chancellor had declared would destroy the Protestant church.

He had been put as it were on his trial, and therefore he hoped the House would grant him their indulgence. He had read over and refreshed his memory, with all that had passed in that House during the long time this question had been a topic of discussion. His right hon. friend said that now we had a protection in securities. He regretted that he could not see them here. In all the long discussions which had taken place, the measure had been considered as one of mutual concession. But now his right hon. friend seemed to think that the water was flowing in upon us. His (the Attorney-general's) apprehensions were that the waters were flowing out of us [a laugh]. His right hon. friend thought that the gates were shut quite close—he, on the contrary, thought that the whole flood-gates were opened. It was with pain he differed with his right hon. friend. The situation which he held he did not owe to him; but even if he had, he should have differed from him upon this point, firmly though respectfully. The right hon. gentleman said, "only make the concession I require, and you will have, by and by, the sympathy of foreign countries." Gracious God! When was there a time when a question relating to the external and the internal concerns of this country was not the victim of foreign sympathy? What were the sympathies of foreign powers? What was French sympathy when the contest took place between England and her American colonies? What was the sympathy of France when the battle of the Boyne was fought? In 1715, the Pretender advanced; what was French sympathy then? In 1745, he again advanced, and French sympathy was again enlisted in his cause. Since that time, and recently, the same sympathy was afforded to this country, by the Jacobin government of France. "Then I say," observed the hon. and learned gentleman, "God grant, that amid our divisions, and dissensions, and internal agitations, French and foreign sympathies may never interfere!" He differed with freedom, but with respect, from his right hon. friend on this point; though no pain could be greater than to differ with him, especially placed in the situation in which he stood. His right hon. friend's arguments could not consistently be adopted by his side of the House. It was a measure which must not be accelerated or retarded by ordinary considerations. He would appeal to the recollection of the house, whether, in all the bills which had been introduced on this subject, either by Mr. Grattan or by any other member of the House, another proposition than that laid down by the right hon. gentleman had not been recognized. He had looked into all of them; and they all began by asserting that it was desirable to knit and unite together all classes of his majesty's subjects. This sort of universal concord—this irreparable friendship—this "feast of reason and this flow of soul," this amalgamation and mixture of religions—this union of Catholic and Protestant associations—these deliciœ of speculation, formed an integral part of the schemes of Mr. Grattan, of lord Plunkett, and of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, the skilful compounders of those bills; but they were repudiated by the right hon. gentleman. He knew that, instead of concord, nineteen out of twenty persons in the country were against it. He remembered what had been said by the late lord Ellenborough, with respect to the preamble of a bill which displeased him. He had observed that it

"Like some tall bully lifts its head and lies:"

so he thought, that this act of parliament would have enunciated a scandalous lie, if it had been placed upon the principle of concord. For, setting aside all arithmetical computations, the notorious preponderance of public opinion was such, that it would have been a scandalous untruth, and a contemptible insult upon the feelings and upon the religion of the people, to call this bill a measure of concord. The framers of the bill, therefore, bearing in mind the line of Pope, had avoided this scandalous statement of concord; and, whatever might be its demerits it did not bear an untruth on the face of it. According to the construction put upon His Majesty's Speech, it appeared to be meant that coûte qui coûte, with or without the consent of the subject, this measure was to be taken, even if the subversion of some of our rights and privileges were the consequence.

It was foreign to his purpose to enter at present upon the subject of Ireland. For many reasons he wished to avoid it [cheers from the Opposition]. He would answer that cheer. Gentlemen meant to say, that he wished to avoid this part of the subject. He did not mean to do so. He said then that His Majesty's Speech did not intend that, with seven days' notice, a measure should be brought forward for the relief of the Catholics; no such thing. His Majesty's Speech advised that the whole state of Ireland should be considered. Had that been done? He would appeal to the noble lord, the member for Cambridge. He had talked of absentees, of the poor-laws, and other matters relating to the internal state of Ireland, of the trade and commerce of that country—and these were the grounds for the noble lord's sustaining the bill. If that were the principle of the bill it was not the principle of His Majesty's Speech. Instead of a hasty measure of emancipation, His Majesty's Speech had reommended the House to proceed to an inquiry. No member had argued this part of the question on the proper grounds: they had placed it on the ground of the internal state of Ireland, without inquiry into the real state of that country. Yet now, with a united cabinet, after seven days' notice, we were to proceed to emancipation without any inquiry into the state of Ireland. Many of the members of that House had no expectation of this measure, and that the Protestant interests would be not merely abandoned, but cast off; nor could they believe it until they heard it read from the chair. Such an example of abandonment was without parallel. He the did not think that the chronicles of this country could produce any thing "aut simile aut secundum." There was nothing which approximated to it. He had lately been looking into Shakspeare, and he had there found a noted leader of a party, named Sir John Falstaff, whose sentiment his right hon friend had adopted. When left in a minority of six, the right hon. gentleman said, "No; I'll not march through Coventry with the ragged regiment. I'll not march with these rascals; I'll take a course of my own; and though the regiment is not disbanded, I'll abandon the cause." But though abandoned by its leaders, the cause was not desperate, and he hoped it would never be so. The old partnership firm, and a very valuable one it was, of Peel and Co. was now broke up; though it had four hundred constant customers of characterand respectability. What title the firm would now take, whether that of Chandos, Knatchbull, Bankes, and Co. he knew not; but as an humble individual, he would take care to keep up his connexion with it. He felt that the House was indulgent to him: and he feared that, like the Catholic emancipists, he should, by their granting a little, take a great deal more.

Having disposed of the objections of the noble lord, and of other hon. members, he should now take the liberty of proceeding to a consideration of the bill itself. In doing, this he was really performing the office of attorney-general, and explaining to the House what the bill was. He was obliged to do this; he was here nolens volens, whether he would or not. He might put it safely to hon. members, whether they understood the bill. If he asked the noble lord, the member for Yorkshire, whether he understood it, he would doubtless say, no. The bill contained an oath—that mentioned by the right hon. gentleman when he opened the measure to the House—which Catholics were to take, instead of the Oaths of Abjuration and Supremacy. These two oaths had excluded them. But there was no provision in the bill which confined this oath to Catholics. It was an oath which any man might take, whether Catholic or not. A person who was not a Catholic might, by taking it, enjoy the privileges of a Catholic. The oath ought to have stated, "I am a Roman Catholic, and swear so and so." But the bill did not require any such declaration. He supposed that this was an imitation of James the 2nd's scheme of liberty of conscience. He wished to know what the measure was. Hon. members were cheering Peel and Co. upon the principles of James 2nd [hear, hear, from the Opposition]. "Hear, hear," said the hon. and learned gentleman, "I say it is so." The effect of the oath was, that any man might gain admission to office, or to the House of Commons; whereas, he understood the object of the alteration to be, that only those who swore they were Catholics were to be permitted to take the oath. There were other things in the bill which deserved notice. One of the clauses supposed that a man, who was a Catholic, might be prime minister; it gave a general capacity to office. All offices, said the bill, are open to Catholics, with one or two exceptions; ecclesiastical appointments, however, were to be separated from the patronage, and vested in commissions. Now, Catholics had never manifested an unambitious temper, and a Catholic prime minister would never be satisfied with this retrenchment of his privileges. And who was to appoint the commissioners? Why, a Protestant lord chancellor—lord Lyndhurst. Now, how would the new Pope, whether he should be French, or Spanish, or Portuguese, like this power? Would he entitle the lord chancellor, protector of the Catholic faith? The lord chancellor would have the appointment to ecclesiastical places; but was this a sufficient security? Lord Shaftesbury was a Protestant chancellor, and lord Jeffries was a Protestant chancellor. Was the conduct of Jeffries to the bishops forgotten?—a man who, though a Protestant, was as great an enemy to Protestants, and as averse to admitting them to power, as Father Petre himself? The protection of the great seal might be as little to be relied on as in the reign of Charles 2nd, when lord Shaftesbury was chancellor, or in that of James 2nd, when Jeffries filled that office. If the first lord of the Treasury had no voice in the nomination of the commissioners, he might not even know who they were, any more than if they were in New Holland. If he was asked about them, he might answer, just as he would about a money-lender, "I understand there is one Moses Moses, at No. 2, in some alley up a court; go to him," Or he might say, "I do not know where these commissioners live; go, and find them out." So that, according to. this bill, a prime minister might make a lord chancellor, but he could not compel that lord chancellor to put his seal to an appointment. But there might come a time when no security would be found in the character of a lord chancellor himself. The emancipators argued for abstract and indefeasible right; this was the footing upon which the Catholic claims were put by lord Plunkett. But no, said this bill; we do not admit this doctrine: we allow office to the Catholics, but we do not annex power and patronage to them. The bill proved capacity for office in the Catholics, by the very exceptions which withheld them. And, who would these commissioners select? Would they select Protestants who would, or those who would not, apostatize?

When this bill was dissected and anatomised, it would be found to destroy itself. It admitted the danger, and yet it provided no security for Protestants. He would not have condescended to stultify himself by the composition of such a bill. He had refused to draw it up. The folly and the contradictions be upon the heads of those who did so! [hear]. They might have turned him out of office; but he would not be made such a dirty tool as to draw that bill. Let who would, he would not defile pen or waste paper, by such an act of folly, and forfeit his character for common sense and common honesty. He therefore declined to have any thing to do with it. Had gentlemen read this bill? According to it, any Catholic who took ecclesiastical preferment was guilty of a misdemeanour, and could hold his office no longer: and again, any Catholic who advised his majesty respecting the appointment to an ecclesiastical office was subject to the same penalty. Might he be permitted to ask, who drew that clause? The very clause which created the offence, contained an absolute prevention of a conviction for that offence. The established church of Ireland was protected by a flimsy sort of security in this bill. The right hon. gentleman said, that none of the dignitaries of the Romish church were to be permitted, eo nomine, to hold English titles, as nominees of the Pope; but these titles might he held by virtue of a money medium; a 50l. bank-note would enable Dr. Doyle, or Dr. Curtis, or any other, to sport Catholic titles. The bill forbade this, except upon the payment of 50l., which was all the penalty inflicted. There was no penalty in the bill higher than 200l.; so that, in fact, the whole protection of the British constitution consisted in penalties of 50l. to 200l. No control over the See of Rome—none over the nomination of bishops—nothing after the passing of this bill in the way of security for the Protestant establishment—but those penalties of 50l., 100l., and 200l. The Catholic archbishop might call himself archbishop of Dublin or of Troy. It was all one; the 50l. penalty was the only security we possessed in that way.

His right hon. friend had expressed a hope, that this question would be discussed with good humour. He was certainly disposed so to do, and he hoped he had said nothing that could be considered a departure from good humour. But let his right hon. friend look, and he begged the House to consider, how these penalties were to be paid. Why, they would be paid by the Catholic rent. The funds collected to a large amount, as rent, would be more than sufficient to pay the duties imposed by this new custom-house tariff. It would be sufficient to render those penalties inoperative for the end proposed; and those safeguards on which they were told to rely, would be compromised, just as an unqualified man would compromise for his offence by the payment of 5l. for the killing of a hare. Then, after all, the securities for the Protestant constitution of this Protestant country were to be exchanged for penalties of 50l., and 100l., or 200l., which the parties violating the law would put down upon the table, and laugh at the same time at those who demanded them.

He begged pardon for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House, and was thankful for the attention he had received; and that attention was so indulgent, that he would beg to trespass on it a little longer. He had examined the bill only on a few points. There was one thing more which he could not omit. One article of the Bill of Rights secured the right of petition. That right, he could not but say had been most uncourteously treated on this question. He had heard it said, that petitioning against the measure was faction. If it was faction, it was a faction of the whole, he might almost say, of the British people. It was a faction which had for its object the maintenance of the rights, liberties, and religion of the country; for he differed widely—painfully, he admitted, but widely—as to the point, that this was not a religious question. He thought it was a question of religion—of that religion which had been established since the time of Henry 8th. It was, he admitted, a mixed question, but there was more in it of religion than politics; and, viewing it in that light, he would say to the people of England what had been said to the people of the sister kingdom by a noble marquis who had been recalled, he did not know why. That noble marquis had told the people to go on to defend their rights legally and constitutionally, but to go on and defend them, and they must succeed. He would say the same to the people of England,—"Go on and defend your rights and religion legally and constitutionally; but go on and defend them: do not apostatize, and you will secure your religion, your rights, and your privileges, untouched." In conclusion, the hon. and learned gentleman said, that he felt it necessary as an individual to declare his sentiments on this great question. Those principles he would not abandon from any considerations of office. As the attorney-general of the king, he could not consent to what he believed would be the death warrant of the constitution of England; and with this feeling he would give the measure before the House every opposition in his power.

rose to reply, and as he rose the cheers of the supporters of the measure were so mixed with those of the opposite side, that it was some moments before he could proceed. He began by observing, that about three-fourths of the speech which had just been delivered ostensibly on the principle of the bill—about three-fourths of the defence of the sacred cause of the Protestant constitution—had rested on personal observations. That defence had been made to rest on personal imputations. He would say, that it partook much more of rancorous personal hostility than of ardent attachment to the Protestant constitution. What were the personal charges and imputations—and what did they prove? Why, that if this bill had been introduced from personal interests, it showed the height of folly and absurdity in those who introduced it. But, was this so? Was it not rather in troduced, at the sacrifice of party, and he would say of personal connexions? These were sacrificed to promote the removal of the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured. But what had dictated this sacrifice? What was the cause of this alleged dereliction of principle, of consistency—of this disregard of party feelings and strong opinions?—a sense of duty, which would relinquish all to accomplish measures which were considered indispensable to the safety of the country. That aspersions should have been made on those who took this course was not a surprise to him; but, though the last to declare his sentiments, yet the foremost in casting such aspersions was the hon. and learned gentleman who had just addressed the House; and he owned, that it was with no little surprise he had heard a person in the hon. and learned gentleman's situation disclosing matters which could have been communicated to him only in official confidence. The time was not yet arrived when he should be at liberty to state all the difficulties with which his noble friend at the head of the government had had to struggle, with respect to the measures which had been introduced, or when justice could be fairly done to him and to those who acted with him. Of his noble friend he might say on this occasion, what what was said of Agricola—"naturali prudentia quamvis inter togatos, facile justeque agebat" [cheers]. But, the time would arrive, when this justice would be done, and when he could satisfactorily explain, why only a seven days' notice had been given of the measures which had been recommended in the Speech from the throne. With respect to himself, as connected with the measures before the House, he had hoped at one time that he should have been able to have given his support, his entire and cordial support, to the intentions of his noble friend, in the capacity of a private individual. He was ready to pay the full penalty of what the hon. and learned gentleman had been pleased to call his apostacy, by relinquishing office and returning his trust to his constituents; but, though he was ready to pay that penalty, let no man say that he was bound to adhere to any party, or to give his advice, in opposition to what he thought to be necessary for the welfare of the country. He would tell the hon. and learned gentleman when it was he had determined to commit his fortune with that of his noble friend on this important question, and to abide by the result, be it what it might. It was at a moment when the difficulties of the question seemed to increase—on the day when the highest authorities in the church declared, that they could not give their support to the proposed measure. From that hour, happen what might, he was determined not to abandon his post, but to give to his noble friend all the support he could, as a public man, and to share with him, as a minister, all the responsibility [loud cheers]. But these were circumstances into which he could not now enter fully, and even the mention of them had been forced from him by the, he must say, extraordinary conduct of one whom he considered a confidential friend [cheers]. He saw that hon. and learned gentleman seven days before the communication in the Speech from the Throne. His duty as a minister of the Crown did not permit him to disclose what was passing in the cabinet to any man, until the mind of the cabinet was made up, and the first man to whom he had made the communication was the hon. and learned gentleman. He felt called on to do this from his confidence in the hon. and learned gentleman, as his friend, and from respect to his official station. He told him that the Catholic Association had assumed a form which made it necessary that it should be put down, but that he also considered it but right and candid to tell him, that that was not the only measure which was then in the contemplation of his majesty's government—that they considered, that the measure for suppressing the Association would not be sufficient, if they did not advise his majesty to recommend to parliament to take the whole state of Ireland into consideration. He told him of the whole measure of relief intended to be proposed for the removal of Catholic disabilities, and of the measure which was to accompany it with respect to the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland; and for a man, who had that evening expressed such horror at what he now seemed to consider so atrocious a proceeding, he had never seen any one who kept such complete control over his countenance as the hon. and learned gentleman did on that occasion [cheers and laughter]. As his friend, he might have expected that the hon. and learned gentleman would have told him of the great difficulties which lay in his way in the Coronation Oath. It would not have been unreasonable to expect, that he should have told him of the dangers to which the constitution and the Protestant establishments would have been exposed—of the total ruin which, in his opinion—(as he had since expressed himself to the House)—must come upon them, if these measures were pressed; and that he as the king's attorney-general, could not lend his assistance to forward them; yet the hon. and learned gentleman would do him the justice to admit, that not one word of the kind had escaped him on that occasion. But, when a measure for the suppression of the Catholic Association was introduced, the hon. and learned gentleman gave it his support, though it was avowed at the time, and the hon. and learned gentleman was well aware of the fact, that the measures founded upon the recommendation from the throne were not intended to be confined to that act. Was it, he would ask, quite fair to give such support to a measure which was passed on the implied condition that it was to be followed by another, which was intended to settle the Catholic question? Was it fair that he should support one, an understood condition in the passing of which was, that it was to be followed by another to which he felt such insuperable objections?

In reference to those personal charges which the hon. and learned gentleman. had made, he was surprised that the hon. and learned gentleman should, in making them on his noble friend lord Lyndhurst, who was not there to answer them, diverge from a subject which he himself admitted was of such paramount and overwhelming importance. His noble friend, when master of the Rolls, had not, as the hon. and learned gentleman had represented, declared himself a decided enemy to all concession. His noble friend, on the occasion alluded to, was asked, what he would do with Ireland? and he remembered the remark made at the time by the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, that his noble friend had escaped from the answer to that question, with a degree of agility scarcely befitting the dignity of his official office. But the fact was, his noble friend had answered it. He had stated, that he was not a member of his majesty's government, and that he did not feel bound to declare what he would do with respect to that country. But, what was his situation now? He was now a member of the government—he was responsible for the advice he gave—and he was bound to give the advice which he thought best for the interest of the country. His noble friend had said, at that time, that if securities should be proposed which the Catholics would concede, and with which the Protestants would be satisfied, he, for one, would agree to the concession sought for. Then it was clear, that he did not think at the time, that there was in the constitution an insuperable bar to a measure which would grant the relief for which the Roman Catholics sought, and if at a future time any pressing necessities should force the measure on the attention of government, there was nothing dishonourable, no dereliction, no apostacy in agreeing to those concessions.

The hon. and learned gentleman had next stated, that there was one part of the question to which he was determined not to advert—and what was that? Why, the state of Ireland. That was the very trifling and unimportant point of the case on which the hon. and learned gentleman would not touch [hear, hear]. Why the hon. and learned gentleman must know as well as any man one circumstance connected with that point—that the common law of the land was not found sufficient to put down the Catholic Association. By whom was the bill of 1825 framed—who was consulted upon it—but the hon. and learned gentleman? Had he since attended to its effects; or if he found the Association still in operation, had he ever referred to that act, and sought that its enactments should be enforced? When he heard the discussions about the inefficacy of the common-law to meet the state of Ireland, did he say—"There is my bill of 1825; let its provisions be put in force?" He apprehended the hon. and learned gentleman, and those who agreed with him, would admit, that when that act of 1825 had expired, the common-law was not found sufficient to afford a remedy for the evils which existed in the formation of the Catholic Association, or that any of them would have been willing to risk the consequences of leaving that body to be put down by the operation of the common-law alone; and yet with this conviction, the hon. and learned gentleman would not look to the state of Ireland, as forming any important point in the consideration of this question. It was very well for the hon. and learned gentleman, and for the hon. member for Kent to say, that that was a consideration of government. Really, it was rather hard that the proposing a remedy for Ireland should be left to the government, and when that measure was proposed, which, in the opinion of the responsible advisers of the Crown, would be the only effectual remedy, those who proposed it should be at once met with the charge of apostacy. It was hard that ministers, who thought that something must be done—who were willing to propose that something on their responsibility, should be turned round upon and stigmatised as apostates—by those who, however they admitted the necessity of having something done, would themselves not propose any thing.

They might argue this question for ten nights in succession, and endeavour to blink the real question as much as possible, but still that question would recur—"What was to be done with Ireland?"—not, he would say, merely for the Catholic population of that country, but what for the Protestant interests, and the safety of its Protestant establishments? They had in that country seven millions of inhabitants, two of them Protestants of different denominations, and five of them Catholics. Were those facts which he was about to state, or were they not? There were among those millions, a large portion of one class of them, opposed, politically opposed, to a portion equally large, not of the others, but of the same class, and against the whole of the other class which constituted the great majority of the population. This population, he meant the five million of Catholics, had increased, greatly increased, within the last thirty years in number, in wealth, and in intelligence; but these were matters which it appeared were not worth the consideration of the hon. and learned gentleman. Upon this point, he would enter into no contest; though he admitted that his noble friend (lord Palmerston), who had so ably alluded to that subject, had made a very eloquent speech. He envied not the noble lord his victory, when the hon. and learned gentleman rested it upon the statement, that his noble friend had made a better speech than himself (Mr. Peel). He had heard his noble friend's able address with sincere pleasure—a pleasure which he could assure the hon. and learned gentleman was not in any degree diminished by the disadvantageous contrast that he had made. But, to revert to the seven millions, the population of Ireland—there were five millions of Catholics, who had within a few years, greatly increased in wealth and intelligence. They were all united in their claim on the legislature of the country, for an equal participation with their fellow-subjects of the rights and privileges belonging to British subjects. How was their demand to be met? By a united Protestant people? No; but by a Protestant population, more than equally divided on the same question—for it was not too much to say, that the larger portion of the landed and commercial wealth, and of the intelligence of Ireland, were in favour of concession. What, then, he would ask, would be the feeling of the hon. and learned gentleman, supposing he could succeed in defeating the measure now before the House—he meant in a fair and manly manner, and not by sly and dark insinuation [hear, hear]? But, supposing he could defeat it, and were to undertake the government of the country with some of those who agreed with him in opinion—would he rely on the Protestant population of Ireland for the sup. port of their administration? He would contend, that the Protestant population, he meant the majority of them, in point of property and influence, seeing now a prospect of the settlement of the question, would be as much, or perhaps more, disappointed and irritated than even +the Catholics themselves; and they would, no doubt, not be indisposed to renew the attempts at agitation through the country. But, he had made the supposition of the success of the hon. and learned gentleman and his friends only for the sake of argument. The government, which proposed the measures now before the House, would not fail. They would go on steadily and perseveringly, in the course they had pointed out, regardless of future consequences to themselves, and undeterred by the taunts or insinuations which might be thrown out by the hon. and learned gentleman, or those who concurred with him, until they had secured the safe, final, and satisfactory settlement of the question.

The right hon. gentleman again adverted to the great and increasing numbers of the Catholics—to their increasing wealth and intelligence—and observed, that they were now a compact and united phalanx, while the Protestants were disunited. He called on the House to read the history of the election for the county of Clare—to consider that it proved the Catholics to possess a power which they knew how, and were determined, to use; and though that power might be noxious to themselves, it would not be the less injurious to Protestants—a power which, though they knew its value, they would willingly give up for an equal admission with their Protestant fellow-subjects to the privileges of the constitution. The right hon. gentleman next dwelt on the intense, but sober enthusiasm, evinced by the people of Clare—the perfect discipline they had shown—their abstinence from indulgences to which they were accustomed—their forbearance from every kind of excess, and their perfect and complete organization—and contended, that the contemplation of such a union was awful, and could not be overlooked by any statesman. He ridiculed the notion of putting down that spirit by the sword, for the people did not afford that chance to those who might be disposed to avail themselves of it. They contended not with such weapons, but with those which the law had placed in their hands by the privileges already granted to them. The question again recurred—what was to be done? Was the elective franchise to remain as it was; or was it to be removed without any attempt to remove the causes of discontent?

The right hon. gentleman next referred to an authority which he believed would not be denied—that of an intelligent Protestant clergyman, who had much experience of Ireland—to show that the Protestant religion had not gained in numbers by the penal code; but that, on the contrary, that of the Catholics was gaining; and if those penal laws were continued, would obtain the ascendancy. The clergyman to whom he alluded, in a speech which he had made at a public meeting, said—"I have had charge of one parish in the county of Wexford, where there were twenty Protestant families, but not being able to get on here, they emigrated to America, and yet gentlemen will ask where are the Protestants to be found? In another parish in the county of Wicklow, fifteen Protestant families were obliged to emigrate, and yet gentlemen will ask where are the Protestants. In another parish I had also charge of a number of Protestant families, of whom many have been compelled, to, leave the place, and many to emigrate. I am also acquainted with another part of the country, from which thirty-six Protestant families removed. Now, taking each family to consist of five persons and a half on an average, this will show that two hundred Protestant families have been removed in this manner from one part of the country alone. These are examples of what is occurring in various parts of the kingdom—these are scenes—'Qucæque ipse miserrima vidi,' and therefore it is not surprising, that I cannot ac quiesce in what has been said on the other side. Let me, gentlemen, now come nearer home. Have not three ships sailed from this port of Sligo within the last three months, filled with Protestant emigrants from Ireland? I say, Sir, that from the documents which have come to my knowledge, it appears that upwards of twenty-five thousand Protestants emigrated in the course of last year from Ireland.!' Such was the statement of the rev. gentleman. He would ask, then, was it expedient for the maintenance of the Protestant interest, and of the Protestant ascendancy, that this state of things should continue? Under the excitement which existed at present, the Roman Catholic aristocracy, the Roman Catholic laity, and the Roman Catholic clergy were banded together; and the power of that compact body was too strong for isolated families of Protestants to resist. They therefore preferred going, in crowds to America, to living in the midst of so great and so violent excitement. He knew it was said, that matters would grow worse, but he hardly knew how they could be worse than they were stated to be in the details which he, had just read to them. There were no means at present of shaking the compact body which the Roman Catholics formed; they were inaccessible to the influence of the Crown; they were supported by a large majority in the House of Commons; and though he might wish, if it were practicable, to maintain the constitution in the state in which it existed in 1688, still, under existing circumstances, he thought it better to incorporate the Roman Catholics into the constitution, than to continue to exclude them from it by enactments which only added to their strength and increased their power.

The hon. baronet, the member for Kent, in the speech which he had last night ad dressed to him and to him exclusively had allowed the sacred cause which he professed to have so much at heart to rest entirely on the part which he had taken in the debates of the House in the years 1826 and 1827; and apparently for no other purpose than that of exciting an unfavourable prejudice against him—had said, "You are guilty of gross misrepresentation and gross injustice. Formerly you stated that this was a religious question—now you deny it; and so we have you saying one thing now, and another thing then, and, after all, not concurring at this moment in the character which the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea gave of this question." Now he would say once for all, that he fully agreed in the sentiment expressed by the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea with respect to this question not being a religious one. But when he said this, he would ask; whether the hon. baronet supposed that he meant that this question had no regard to the religious establishments of the country, nor to the preference of the Protestant over the Roman Catholic religion? What he meant to say was this—that the present question was not a question of conscience—that there was no precept of the Protestant religion which forbade them from considering this great and important question. He had been referring to the argument, in which it was stated, that the House was not at liberty to discuss this question, because, forsooth, we were forming an alliance with idolatry by discussing it. Now, that position he positively denied. He found it stated in the paper to which he had referred, and which was drawn up by a very ingenious gentleman of the name of Faber, that as we were obliged to make the declaration against transubstantiation on taking our seats, we were forming an Union with idolatry in seeking to repeal it. It was in allusion to that paper, that he had claimed for statesmen that liberty of judgment which certain ecclesiastics now seemed inclined to monopolize to themselves: it was in allusion to that paper that he had said, that the present was not a religious question.—The hon. baronet had then said, "the Roman Catholics are excluded from the constitution on account of their religion." He denied it. They were never excluded on account of their religion—they were excluded fora supposed deficiency of civil worth; and the religious test was applied to them, not to detect the worship of saints or any other tenet of the religion, but as a test to discover whether they were Roman Catholics. It was a test to discover the bad intriguing subject, not the religionist; and, therefore, when he parted with the declaration against transubstantiation, it was not from any doubt which he entertained as to the doctrines of the Roman Catholics, but from looking at it as a test of exclusion, and from thinking that when the exclusion was deemed unnecessary, the test of exclusion might be dispensed with.

There is another point in the hon. baronet's speech (continued Mr. Peel), which I wish to notice. After a week of concocted sarcasms, which the hon. baronet last night poured out upon me, what was my surprise when I heard him, in a sort of parenthesis to his speech, declare, "I am ready to go further, much further, than those who usually vote with me; and I who call you an apostate, and who taunt you with betraying and destroying the confidence of the public in public men—I, even I, am ready to give to the Roman Catholics every thing they ask, save seats in parliament and offices in the privy council." Now, will the hon. baronet allow me to ask him when his conversion to these liberal opinions took place? How was it effected? On what grounds does it rest? How is it that he, who has all along been resisting me, not on the propriety of admitting Roman Catholics to seats in parliament, but on the propriety of considering this question at all—how is it, I say, that he, who talks to me of apostacy and breach of confidence, has ventured, like me, to change his opinion? [hear, hear, and a laugh]. The hon. baronet could not surely have resisted the motion for the consideration of this question; for he was now ready to give to the Roman Catholics every thing but seats in parliament, and the forty offices which belong to the privy council. Yes; the hon. baronet declares himself ready to give to the Roman Catholics all the offices in Ireland save three—for that is not more than the number of offices there which are necessarily connected with the privy council. Every executive office in Ireland the hon. baronet will bestow on the Roman Catholics. What, then, becomes of the question of religionists there? What becomes of the solemn quotation, which he made with upraised hands to the House, "Nusquam tuta fides?" [hear, hear]. What becomes of his exclamations about confidence never again to be restored to public men? If the hon. baronet is ready to admit the consideration of this question, and to give every thing but seats in the privy council and in parliament to the Roman Catholics—if he is ready to admit Roman Catholics to be competent to fill every executive office in Ireland, to sit on the judicial bench, and to hold every situation connected with the administration of justice in that country—if he is ready to make a Roman Catholic solicitor general, or, if need be, attorney-general [hear, and a laugh]—for it is not necessary that an attorney-general should be a privy councillor, and at this moment the solicitorgeneral is not a privy councillor—will he tell me, when he comes to defend his nice distinctions—will he tell me, I say, why he will let Roman Catholics fill these offices in Ireland, and yet exclude them from seats in parliament? What, then, becomes of the hon. baronet's argument about the intimidation produced by factious demagogues on government? Why, if he fears so much, should he yield any thing? "But then," says the hon. member for Newark, "this is the most unfit time of all others to consider this question;" and why?—because, forsooth, it is the latest [a laugh]—an objection which, if it is worth any thing, will continue to acquire accumulated energy every time the question comes before parliament. If we do not settle it now, every year, according to the doctrine of the hon. member for Newark, will furnish us with new and accumulated obstacles.

But to return to the hon. baronet. If he will admit Roman Catholics to every office but those which he has stated, will he tell me why, when he is ready to go so far, I may not be permitted to go a little further? and if I think my plan better calculated to promote Protestant interests than his, why I may not be permitted to adopt it? Surely, if he is at liberty to change his opinions, I may be at liberty to change mine too. "But," says the hon. baronet, "the constitution of 1688 forbids." I say, that if the constitution of 1688 prevents me from proceeding in my mode of settling the question, it equally prevents him; for the exclusion from office is sealed by exactly the same bonds as the exclusion from parliament. In the Bill of Rights it is expressly stated, that the new Oath of Supremacy, and the new Oath of Allegiance, shall be administered to every officer under the Crown, to whom the former Oath of Supremacy was applied on his admission into office: and here let me observe, that when, upon a former occasion, I used the phrase of "breaking in upon the constitution," of which such unfair and such unjust application has been made, I meant, that we should only have occasion to alter the words of that bill. What! have we never altered them before? If the alteration of them be a breaking in upon the constitution, we broke in upon it some years ago, when we admitted Roman Catholics to have commands in the army and the navy. On other occasions, too, we have repealed the arrangements of the year 1688. Lord Liverpool, I say, broke in upon the constitution—nay more lord Eldon himself broke in upon the constitution, when he admitted Roman Catholics to hold offices in the collection of the revenue; for the Bill of Rights required, that every officer who received the king's wages should, on his admission to office, make the declaration against transubstantiation.

The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to state, that he for one should most strenuously object to the hon. baronet's proposal for settling the Catholic question; for he was convinced, that if they considered that question at all, they must come to this conclusion—that no other alternative was left to them but a final and conciliatory adjustment of it. There was no use in giving the Roman Catholics fresh powers, unless you gave them powers to the extent of their demand. The powers which you gave in that manner would soon be made available by them in the demand for more. He had therefore consented to give them a full and fair participation in the advantages of the constitution, and his proposition now rested, as he had stated on a former evening, on the integrity of the Protestant church and the Protestant institutions of the country, and on the perfect equality of Protestants and Roman Catholics, as far as regarded every civil privilege [hear, hear]. He repeated, that it was his conviction, that if you once broke in upon the exclusive system in Ireland, as was done in 1793, there was no intermediate system, at which they could stop, but you must go on and establish a perfect equality of civil rights. One hon. gentleman who had taken a share in the debate, had said, "if there is one thing which I detest, it is yielding to considerations of expediency, either in morals or in politics." Now, as to the impropriety of yielding to considerations of expediency, in regard to moral obligations, he would say, that he fully concurred with the hon. member; but if the hon. member meant to class political emergencies with moral obligations, and to exclude the consideration of expediency from the management of public affairs, all that he would say was this—that he hoped the hon. gentleman, and those who thought with him, might never have any influence in the direction of the affairs of this country. How can public affairs, he asked, be conducted, except upon the principle of expediency? To class political emergencies with moral obligations, and to exclude all considerations of expediency from the administration of a great country, is an absurdity which he was not prepared to expect from a gentleman who had shown so much tact and discernment on other topics.

He felt that he had been provoked by personal allusions to enter too much upon a subject which he ought to have considered as already exhausted; but there was one observation which he must make, upon a charge which had often been brought against the government, namely, that it had taken the country by surprise on this question. Now, that surprise was inevitable upon this question. The government was formed on the principle, that the Catholic question should be an open question. What advantage, therefore, could it have derived from saying to the country, "We now think of settling the Catholic question?" The government had never had any objection as to settling the question; their only difficulty was as to the terms. Every member had voted on the first night of the session in favour of the address, which spoke in express words of the necessity of settling the question, but every member reserved to himself the right of judging of the plan which government might propose for its adjustment. Therefore, if government had told the country "we think of settling the Catholic question," it would have told the country nothing, unless it had also stated the plan on which it was to be settled. If we had given notice beforehand, that we intended, previous to the settlement of it, to suppress the Catholic Association, anti to accompany the bill of relief with a bill for disfranchising the 40s, freeholders, should we not have made declarations which of themselves would have precluded all conciliatory settlement? Men would have been provoked into declarations, from which they would have afterwards felt that they could not recede, and preliminary obstacles would have been raised to our proceeding, which it would have been almost impossible to overcome. Such a course of proceeding as the gentlemen opposite recommended to government might have been an ingenious plan to defeat the settlement of the question, if we had not had it sincerely at heart, as we always had; but it would have invited discussions in Ireland, which would have created an irritation so universal, as to render it impossible to approach the subject with the slightest prospect of success.

Another hon. member had said, that the government had no right to propose the settlement of this question in the present parliament—that this parliament was not competent to decide it—and that there must be a fresh appeal to the sense of the people. This doctrine the hon. member rested upon two arguments. The first was, that we had all taken the Declaration against Transubstantiation, and that we were therefore incompetent to alter it. If this be so, how, he would ask, was that Declaration ever to be altered? Now if parliament was not competent to alter the Oath of Supremacy, or the Declaration against Transubstantiation, how did it happen that at the time of making the Union with Scotland, and at the time of making the Union with Ireland, a party both in Scotland and in Ireland, with a view of defeating the Union, had proposed, that the Oath of Supremacy and Declaration against Transubstantiation should be made fundamental branches of both acts of Union? That was, however, refused in each act of Union; and if hon. gentlemen would take the trouble to refer to the words of those acts, they would find, that in each of them a provision was made that the Oath of Supremacy and the Declaration against Transubstantiation should be taken by members of parliament on taking their seats, until parliament shall otherwise provide. So far, then, were the parliaments of former days from considering those oaths as permanent parts of the acts of Union, that they absolutely contemplated the necessity of altering them.

As to the appeal to the country, let him ask hon. members to consider whether it would be wise to set such a precedent as to declare their own incompetency to legislate upon any question which the Crown might think proper to submit to their consideration? Would they so far stultify themselves as to begin to consider what questions they were competent to debate? Supposing they were to make such an appeal to the country, how many questions did they think would arise hereafter, in which it would be said to them—"There is a precedent set you by the parliament of 1829, which dissolved itself, because it felt itself incompetent to act, do you follow its example?"—"I deny, Sir," continued Mr. Peel, "the necessity for making such a precedent. No; we will not stultify ourselves so much as to say that we are not supreme as to every measure of legislation which may come before us. But then we are told that this is a religious question, and that it is to be discussed as such. When I hear hon. gentlemen rising up in their places and solemnly declaring, that it is an offence against God to attempt the settlement of this question in a conciliatory manner, I feel that they have armed me with a comclusive argument for not making any appeal at present to the people. Would you agitate England and Ireland from one end to the other on so tender and delicate a subject? You might, indeed, by resorting to such a course, obstruct for a time the settlement of the question, but it would be at the expense of the reverence due to religion itself. If the question be rested, as I think it ought to be rested, on the grounds of public expediency, let us assert our own powers to make the adjustment of it effectual. I believe that it may be safely and permanently adjusted on the grounds which I have stated. I believe that it may be so adjusted as to give security to the Protestant establishment and to the Protestant interests in Ireland; and it is because I believe so, that I am content to abandon the course which I have hitherto pursued, and to give the relief to the Roman Catholics which they have so long prayed for. I entreat hon. gentlemen who differ from me in opinion, to consider the altered position of affairs in Ireland, since the annunciation of these measures of grace and favour has been made. To be defeated now—to throw the question back upon us—when a greater calm has been produced in Ireland than I ever knew to exist there—when there is no spirit of vulgar triumph displayed on the part of the Roman Catholics—and, in justice to the Protestants I must say it, when their disappointment has been marked by the most patient submission—to lose the advantage which we have now gained, and to reject the conciliation which is within our grasp, would be attended with consequences so fatal to the repose of the empire, that I cannot even in fancy bear to contemplate them.

"One parting word, and I have done. I have received, in the speech of my noble friend, the member for Donegal, testimonies of approbation which are grateful to my soul; and they have been liberally awarded to me by gentlemen on the other side of the House in a manner which does honour to the forbearance of party among us. They have, however, one and all awarded to me a credit which I do not deserve for settling this question. The credit belongs to others, and not to me. It belongs to Mr. Fox,—to Mr. Grattan,—to Mr. Plunkett,—to the gentlemen opposite,—and to an illustrious and right hon. friend of mine, who is now no more [cheers]. By their efforts, in spite of my opposition, it has proved victorious. I will not conceal from the House that, in the course of this debate, allusions have been made to the memory of my right hon. friend, now no more (Mr. Canning) which have been most painful to my feelings. An hon. baronet has spoken of the cruel manner in which my right hon. friend was hunted down. Whether the hon. baronet was one of those who hunted him down, I know not, but this I do know, that whoever did join in the inhuman cry which was raised against him, I was not one. I was on terms of the most friendly intimacy with my right hon. friend down even to the day of his death; and I say with as much sincerity of heart as man can speak, that I wish he was now alive to reap the harvest which he sowed, and to enjoy the triumph which his exertions gained. I would say of him, as he said of the late Mr. Perceval—'Would he were here to enjoy the fruits of his victory!—'

'Tuque tuis armis: nos to poteremur, Achille.'

I am well aware that the fate of this measure cannot now be altered, if it succeed, the credit will belong to others; if it fail, the responsibility will devolve upon me, and upon those with whom I have acted. These chances, with the loss of private friendship and the alienation of public I confidence, I must have foreseen and calculated upon before I ventured to recommend these measures. I assure the House, that in conducting them I have met with the severest blow which it has ever been my lot to experience; but I am convinced that the time will come—though I may not live to see it—when full justice will be done, by men of all parties, to the motives on which I have acted,—when this question will be fully settled, and when others will see that I had no other alternative than to act as I have acted—they will then admit, that the course which I have followed, and which I am still prepared to follow, whatever imputation it may expose me to, is the only course, which is necessary for the diminution of the undue, illegitimate, and dangerous power of the Roman Catholics, and for the maintenance and permanent security of the Protestant interests."

said, that the right hon. Secretary, in the early part of his speech, had charged him with having betrayed the confidential communications of the cabinet. I say, (continued the learned gentleman) it is not true. I believe that no one out of the cabinet knew of their intention to propose these measures seven days before the meeting of parliament. I have not disclosed any part of what the right hon. gentleman stated to me. I flatly, positively, and directly deny the assertion.

.—Every gentleman will at once perceive, that it may be extremely inconvenient for an officer of the government to take upon himself to state the precise moment at which a communication was officially made.

The House divided: For the second reading 353; Against it, 173; Majority 180.