said, he rose for the purpose of proposing as an amendment to the preamble, that after the word "subscribed" the words "as a qualification for sitting and voting in parliament, and for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right," should be left out. His main object had always been to prevent the admission of the Catholics into the two Houses of parliament. What he wished was, that the bill should specifically state such offices as the Roman Catholics should have power of holding. If they were once to be let into parliament, in his opinion, all other securities would immediately become nugatory: nor could he conceive how it would be possible for the Protestant church establishment in Ireland to stand long against such a combination of Roman Catholic interest, joined to those other interests which were adverse to the church of Ireland. The arguments of the present lord chancellor, when master of the Rolls, were so strong and potent on this subject, that he felt he could add nothing to them. If the Roman Catholics once got into parliament, what was there to induce them to depart from the principles of their own church? And that church, be it remembered, was the most intolerant of all churches.

, in rising to second the amendment of his hon. friend, would not go over the ground that had been already so ably pursued, but he felt it his duty to offer a few general remarks, with a view to state his strong objections to that part of the measure which went to admit Catholics into either House of parliament. He would not follow his hon. friend, in declaring his satisfaction at their admission to other offices; for he would contend, that we could not with safety admit them into any office, by virtue of which office they would partake of political power. In arguing, however, against the expediency of admitting Roman Catholics into parliament, he would confine his observations to the practical results of such a measure; and he would oppose the proposition of the right hon. gentleman upon the grounds he had himself stated; namely, that the time had arrived when we could with more safety admit the Catholics to parliament, than keep them out. Now, with reference to such a position, the first step which ought to be taken was, to ascertain in what the danger consisted; and this, he thought, could be best ascertained by a calm inquiry, as to the objects held in view by the Roman Catholics in seeking admission to parliament. The next inquiry would be, as to the prosecution of those objects when in parliament; and the next, as to the extent of their power under those circumstances. Now, the first proposition could not be denied. That the Roman Catholic church had ulterior objects, could not be for a moment questioned; nor could it be denied, that they desired to exalt their own church, and to degrade the Protestant church as a church establishment. He had seen so many proofs of their desire manifested upon so many occasions, both by the clergy and laity of that church, that no doubt could remain of its existence. Nay, one of the greatest authorities of their church had given his testimony, that Catholic emancipation was but a step to the attainment of other objects. When he saw, then, such authorities holding up the established church of these kingdoms as a subject for execration—as an institution which must sooner or later fall—could he entertain any doubt as to the directions of those ulterior objects? It should be remembered, also, that those sentiments were not declared in the heat of debate, or amid the excitation incident to a discussion, but deliberately uttered and deliberately repeated—repeated from one end of Ireland to the other. Was he, then, to suppose, that if the Roman Catholic church obtained the power they desired, that they would not use it? Would it be denied that the Roman Catholic church had the power, if they chose to exercise it, of sending a number of persons to parliament as the representatives of that church? He would not say, that every Roman Catholic who came into parliament would be so circumstanced, for doubtless many of them would be desirous of promoting the true interests of the country, without any reference to the interests of that church; but he would say, that, when once an opening was made for the admission of Roman Catholics to parliament, the natural result would be, that the members so admitted would use every effort to accomplish the objects he had stated. He would put it to the right hon. Secretary, whether, in a contest with such a party, much would not be lost to the constitutional party of the country—[hear]—that party which was attached to the king and the constitution. Could any person say, that the introduction of such a party, with peculiar objects, and with a desire to press those objects by every possible means, would not be detrimental to the sound principle by which a government ought to be regulated?—There was also another consideration involved in this question. Such a party might have ample means of thwarting any constitutional measure that might be brought forward in that House. There were many ways in which this might be accomplished; even upon the simple question of adjournment, a party might worry the House, and annoy his majesty's government [hear, hear]. If by the word "hear" it was meant that any such proceedings had been adopted by those members who were at present in opposition to government, he would say that such an insinuation was utterly groundless. Such means had never been resorted to by them. On one or two occasions it had been stated, that the people had not been sufficiently heard—that they had not been allowed time to declare their sentiments; and there was a division upon this point. But with that division he, and those with whom he had acted, had been satisfied. That such a power, however, did exist, was certain; for it had been exercised. He would, therefore, say, that, if the Catholics were admitted to political power, they would be admitted to an influence which must in time destroy the constitution.

commenced by expressing his admiration of the good temper and moderation with which the two hon. gentlemen had advanced the arguments adduced in support of the course which they recommended for the adoption of the House. The force of those arguments would lose none of their power, from the moderation with which they were urged. The main point contended for in the speeches of both speakers was, that some danger was to be apprehended from the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in that House. Now, he admitted, and always had admitted, that some danger was to be apprehended. He was still of that opinion; but the question was, whether, on a comparison of dangers, greater danger was not to be dreaded from excluding Roman Catholics from that House, than from admitting them to it? Would it not be a greater source of danger, that this leading and essential part of the measure of relief should be withheld, if Roman Catholics were to be admitted to an equality of civil privileges in other respects, than that seats in parliament should be conceded to them? If all other civil disabilities were removed, and the disqualification to sit in parliament were only retained, the measure of relief would, in the first instance, be ineffectual to give content to those for whose benefit the measure was intended; and, secondly, the privileges which they would obtain would only render them more anxious, and invest them with increased means and additional power, for the attainment of the object from which they were debarred. The hon. member for Dorsetshire had placed the argument precisely on the same basis— namely, that there was such a union between the clergy and laity of the Catholic body, and that the laity were so devoted to the views and purposes of the clergy, that, when admitted to that House, they would endeavour to give effect to the ulterior objects of the clergy. Now, this union in Ireland, he believed to exist, in consequence of the disqualification and exclusion under which the laity and clergy suffered. They were bound together by a community of common grievances; and when that bond, cemented by disqualifying laws, should be dissolved, there was every reason to expect, from the state of society in other countries, that the same alliance would not subsist. Looking to France and the Netherlands, where an equality of civil rights prevailed, they did not see that close alliance and attachment subsisting between the laity and clergy that existed in Ireland. This shewed at least, that this community of interest and feeling between the laity and clergy formed no principle of the Roman Catholic religion; and it was a fair ground of expectation to presume, that the same cause—equality of civil rights—would produce a corresponding effect in Ireland, and dissolve the intimate union at present subsisting between these two classes in that country. He was at a loss to perceive how some hon. members could alone see danger in the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in that House, and could see no danger in the repeated declarations of Protestant majorities of that House, during the last sixteen years, in favour of Roman Catholics. Was there no danger to be seen in four out of five successive parliaments deciding in favour of relief—in pointing out the grievances under which Roman Catholics suffered—in creating a sympathy on their behalf—in exciting their hopes, and keeping alive the excitements which those hopes and the constant discussion of their claims created? He was at a loss to perceive how hon. gentlemen could be alive to the power which the introduction of a few Roman Catholic members into that House would confer, and insensible to the great and material power which they enjoyed (of which that House had had recent experience) by the elective franchise; which, as it was under the control of spiritual influence, that influence would be greatly diminished by the proposed regulation of the elective qualification; and he would ask hon. gentlemen fairly to consider, whether that regulation could be effectively established, if not accompanied by the measure of concession?—He would here again refer to what had fallen from the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that twenty-three counties in Ireland were ready to imitate the example of the county of Clare. Now, if such were the state of society and of feeling throughout Ireland, what advantage could be expected from Ireland, if a general election were to take place, by those who were opposed to the measure of concession? Besides, hon. gentlemen who had such an anxiety for the preservation of the interests of the church, should consider, dig it was not necessary that mem bers returned to parliament should be in communion with the church of England. All that was necessary was, that the member returned to parliament should abjure the tenets of the church of Rome. This was all that was required; and, provided they abjured those tenets, there might be sent to that House as bitter enemies to the church of England as any Catholics could be. He saw greater danger in this state of things than in the proposed change; for, after all, he admitted, that it was a compromise of dangers, and the adoption of that course which was less dangerous than a perseverance in the present system.—After re-asserting, that the change in the elective qualification could not be made without the measure of relief, and that the Roman Catholics would be less objects of apprehension when their grievances were removed, the right hon. gentleman proceeded to advert to the argument of his hon. friend, the member for Dublin, as to the danger that would result from a small party of Catholics acting as a compact and united body for the attainment of objects peculiar to themselves. Without undertaking to determine what might be the effect of such a small party acting in such a way—of which, however, he did not entertain the same apprehension as his hon. friend—of this he was sure, that if any body of Roman Catholics should attempt to advance their peculiar interests, and to give them a preference over the general interests of the country, from the feelings which were now described to exist, they would be met by a resistance, which must effectually defeat such an attempt. His hon. friend had referred to the period of the French war, to shew what might be effected by a small party in that House, in the way of thwarting the measures of the government. He did not think that his hon. friend had been very happy in making that reference; for if he recollected rightly, Mr. Wilberforce, in 1794, brought forward a proposal for negotiating a peace with the French Republic, but it was quite ineffectual; for the war continued from that period up to 1803. He had no doubt but this measure would tend to establish the happiness and tranquillity of the country, and he trusted that none of those dangers which some honour; able members apprehended from the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in parliament, would ever arise. It was not to be forgotten, that similar predictions of danger had been made at the period of the repeal of the Sacramental Test; and he would only ask, had they been fulfilled? Similar forebodings had been uttered at the period of the Union with Scotland. It was then said, that forty-five Presbyterian members would enter that House; that they would have their own peculiar views and interests to consult and advance; that their feelings would be uniformly adverse to the interests of the Protestant institutions of the country; and that they would act together in a combined body for the promotion of their own objects. What was the result? These members had taken their places—some on the ministerial, and others on the opposition side of the House—and they had been guided in their votes upon measures affecting the interests of the Protestant church, as well as upon all other public measures, by the opinion of the party to whom they had attached themselves; and thus were all the predictions, as to the dangers to be apprehended from their introduction completely falsified. The same, he was convinced, would be the case with the Roman Catholics. The great danger to be apprehended was, not from the admission of the Roman Catholics, but from their exclusion. He would adhere to the provision which was objected to by the hon. members, as he was certain that the measure would give no satisfaction to the Roman Catholics. It was of all others calculated to satisfy the Catholics, and to promote the great object of this bill—the establishment of the tranquillity and happiness of the country.

said, that the parallel which the right hon. gentleman had attempted to draw between Ireland and France and the Netherlands was not correct; for, in the latter countries, the Catholic religion was established and the clergy were paid by, and under the control of, the state; but in Ireland, even under the bill brought forward by the right hon. gentleman, there would be no provision for the Catholic clergy, and they would still continue unconnected with the state. He was sure that when Roman Catholics were admitted to parliament, they would return thoroughpaced Catholic representatives, who would use all their efforts to promote the interests of their religion. The right hon. gentleman said, that they could not safely stand the danger of a general election in Ireland, under existing circumstances. He had known a good deal of Ireland some years ago, and from all he had heard since, he was convinced that but a little firmness would carry us through the experiment. As to the number of Catholics that would be sent to parliament, the right hon. gentleman did not appear to entertain any apprehensions. Now, in the discussion of the bill in 1825, lord Plunkett, while he said that he did not think there was any thing to be apprehended from the number of Catholics who would be sent to parliament, added his willingness, with a view to satisfy the objections of others, that the number should be limited to twenty-five. It was to be recollected too, that there were Catholics in England, and that they would purchase boroughs, and by that means obtain influence in that House. The best way to avoid the danger was, not to let the Catholics in. The council of Constance had declared that no faith should be kept with heretics. That decree had never been revoked; and as long as it existed, how could they depend on the oaths of Roman Catholics? He should strenuously oppose the bill, because he felt that they could have no real security, except in the exclusion of Roman Catholics from seats in parliament.

expressed his determination to vote for the clause now under consideration, because he felt convinced, that the Protestant establishment would be placed, by the provisions of this bill, in a much safer condition than that in which it stood at present.

The committee divided: For the amendment 84; For the original clause 207; Majority 123.

wished to know, whether it was not possible, under this clause, for Roman Catholic clergymen to sit in that House? They must all recollect what occurred some twenty years ago, when Mr. Horne Tooke was elected to a seat in the House of Commons. It was at that time stated, that, neither conformably with the ecclesiastical law, nor the law of parliament, he could retain his seat. One party maintained, that the character of a clergyman was indelible, and that Mr. Tooke having been a clergyman, was ineligible for a seat in parliament: whilst others rested on the general law of parliament, and argued, that, under the law, he must be excluded. It seemed, however, that the House did not rely on either of these positions. It was felt, on all sides, that the law of parliament ought to be rendered perfectly clear on this subject; and therefore it was distinctly declared, that persons in holy orders should not sit in parliament. Now, Roman Catholic clergymen were not de facto noticed in that proceeding, and he wished to know, whether under this bill, they might not enter parliament. He had heard that a person ordained by the See of Rome, if he became a Protestant, would be allowed to officiate, without any fresh ordination. He could not say what weight ought to be attached to it; but he was certain of this—that it was a position which he had never heard ratified by the general law of the land, or by any special act of parliarnent; and therefore he conceived, that some more decided exposition of the law ought to be promulgated, before they passed a bill which might enable persons to sit in that House who were never contemplated by the legislature. He was anxious to know, whether his majesty's law officers had taken into their serious consideration this particular point.

said, he thought he could give his hon. friend complete satisfaction on the point to which he had very properly called the attention of the House. The 41st of the late king provided, that no person in holy orders should be qualified to sit or vote in that House; and he believed the general impression of the lawyers was, that that enactment was sufficient to apply to the Roman Catholic clergymen. But at the end of that act of parliament, it was directed, that a certain description of prima facie evidence was to be given as to the person being in holy orders; which evidence was, that the individual had officiated according to the rites of the church of England or Scotland. Now, a doubt might exist, which he wished to remove, as to whether that provision extended to Roman Catholic priests. No person could contend that it would be just or fair that a Catholic priest should be placed in a better situation than a Protestant clergyman and therefore he had provided, by a clause which he held in his hand, that no person having taken holy orders in the church of Rome should be capable of being elected to sit in parliament. That, with other exceptions, would completely meet the object of his hon. friend. Bona fide evidence, that an individual had officiated according to the rites of the church of Rome would be sufficient to exclude him from parliament.

inquired what was meant to be done, with respect to the spiritual authority of the Pope? It was asserted, that the Pope had no spiritual authority, while the contrary was known to be the fact.

said, he should be glad if the consideration of this point were deferred to another occasion. He should then be prepared to answer the hon. gentleman, but he did not wish to retard the measure before the House by entering on so very complicated a question.

said, the clause set forth, that "it shall and may be lawful for any person professing to be a Roman Catholic," &c. Now, he wished to know on what test the right hon. gentleman relied, in order to prove whether persons presenting themselves to be sworn were or were not Roman Catholics. A person who was really a Roman Catholic in secret, though he did not avow it, might come into the House and avoid taking the general oaths, but merely take the single oath which was administered to Protestants. The Declaration being repealed, any person had a right to come into parliament, on taking the only oath that remained; namely, the oath of Supremacy.

said, if his hon. friend would look at the clause at the top of the third page, he would find a distinct enactment to this effect—that no person professing the Roman Catholic religion shall be capable of sitting or voting in either House of Parliament, without taking the oath hereinbefore stated; and that any person sitting or voting in either House of Parliament, without having first taken and subscribed the said oath, shall he subject to the same penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities, as are by law enacted in the case of persons sitting and voting in either House of Parliament, without taking the oaths, and making the declaration, now required by law to be taken and made. Therefore every person professing the Catholic religion would be compelled to take that oath. But his hon. friend had said, suppose the case of a man secretly holding the Roman Catholic faith, but not professing it. Now, he thought it was rather an extreme case to suppose a Roman Catholic who did not profess his religion. With respect to the words "professing the Roman Catholic religion," he found in every act relating to the Roman Catholics, that they were described in various ways. They were denominated Papists, persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, &c.; and he thought it better, whatever designation he gave them, to adhere to it throughout the bill.

said, he did not object to a uniform designation; what he wanted was some immediate test, by which a Roman Catholic might be discovered on entering that House, without the necessity of an after investigation into matters of fact.

said, that formerly the object was, to exclude the Catholics, whilst their object now was to admit them. Two roads were opened for admission to parliament, either of which the Catholic might take. He might either take that which required the oaths provided in this act to be taken, or he might take that provided for those of other religions, or of no religion, in which case he would have to take the oaths of Supremacy, and Allegiance, and to make the declaration against transubstantiation, but which road he would take depended entirely upon his own conscience.

said, it must be quite clear that they had in view the keeping of the Roman Catholics out of parliament, unless they took the oaths required by this bill. Having, in page 2, acknowledged that they were legislating upon the principle of security, the question was, whether they should deprive the security of a portion of its value, which they would do, if they did not supply an unerring test, to show that a person who did not take this oath was not a Roman Catholic? He could assure his right hon. friend, that nothing had created more litigation in Ireland than persons doing acts which rendered it necessary to ascertain whether they were Catholics or Protestants.

said, that if persons did not come forward as Roman Catholics, they would be obliged to take a stronger oath.

said, that the table of that House could only be approached by two doors; and if a Catholic came in by taking the oath of Supremacy, it would be by the wrong door, and he would do it at his imminent peril; being then subject to all the disabilities and penalties. He thought it much easier to prove that a man professed the Roman Catholic religion, than that he really believed in it, as profession was an outward act. In that respect he conceived the act would be perfectly safe.

suggested an amendment to the clause, for the purpose of more effectually excluding Catholic priests from sitting in parliament.

said, he should have to propose a clause, much more efficient than the amendment of the hon. member. That clause would incapacitate persons in holy orders of the church of Rome from being elected to parliament; and would also make the election void in any case where a person should, after his election, enter into holy orders.

said, there were Catholics who belonged to religious orders who, nevertheless, were not in holy orders of the church of Rome.

said, that that objection was already fully met by the act, in the clause respecting members of religious orders.

said, that the first clause repealed the acts relating to declarations against transubstantiation, and so forth; and yet the next clause said, that an oath set forth in that clause should be taken, instead of those declarations. Now as those declarations were abolished by the first clause, there could be no occasion to mention them in the second. He thought the act would be more clear if these words were omitted in the second clause.

said, that the only object in repeating the words was, to render the act as clear and explicit as possible. They were certainly not a necessary part of the bill.

said, that if these words were mere surplusage, he had no wish to retain them.

wished distinctly to know whether the clause for the exclusion of Catholic priests from parliament would extend to the members of religious societies.

said, that in the clause to be introduced for disqualifying Roman Catholic priests from being members of that House, he intended to propose a provision to the effect, that no Roman Catholic in holy orders should be eligible to a seat in that House, and, if elected, that the said election should be void.

wished for an explanation of these words in the clause—"That from and after the commencement of this act, it shall and may be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, being a peer, or who shall, after the commencement of this act, be returned as a member of the House of Commons," and so forth. Was it meant, that a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, who might happen to be returned before the commencement of this act, should be excluded from sitting and voting in the House? Suppose such a case were to happen, would the individual be excluded from the benefit of the bill? He could not help thinking that the words had been inadvertently introduced; and sure he was, that they were deprecated both in and out of the House.

said, that the act had a prospective, and not retrospective operation. In such a case as that alluded to by the hon. member, the act would apply only so far as it repealed the declaration against transubstantiation, and to that extent it would make the condition of the Catholic better: but the Catholic so situated must still take the Oath of Supremacy.

said, he had been requested—and he begged leave to be distinctly understood, as merely complying with that request when he made the statement—he had been requested to state that, in the contemplation of the bill, if there was any individual Roman Catholic who came within the hypothetical case put by the hon. member, it was the wish of that individual, that his case should be entirely waved, and that the bill should be considered only upon a strict view of the expediency of passing it into a law. The very last thing the individual to whom he alluded could wish was, that in consideration for him or his case, any point should be raised, or any obstacle brought forward, which might impede or prejudice this measure which regarded the general interest of the Roman Catholics [cheers].

contended, that a measure of this nature ought equally to affect those who had been already elected, and those who should hereafter be elected. If not, it might happen that persons would be hereafter disqualified from sitting in that House, while others who laboured under the same disabilities, but who had been previously elected, were allowed to sit. The principle for which he contended had been recognized in the time of Charles 2nd, and the test was applied as well to the existing members of parliament as to those who should be afterwards returned. It appeared to him, that these words were now, for the first time, introduced into a bill, and that they were unnecessary. The right hon. Secretary had said, that the situation of the Catholic would be changed; but it ought to be recollected, that the situation of the House would be much more changed. The House had, until now, declared that Catholics should not sit and vote, but the House now declared that they might: and would it not be a strange anomaly, when two Catholics came to the table, to say to one of them, "there is one oath for you, because you were elected in May, 1829;" and, to the other, "here is a different oath for you, because you were elected in May, 1828, and are not, therefore, competent, without taking this oath, to discharge legislative duties here?" He argued the question as an abstract point, and without reference to any particular person.

said, that if there was a case in which a Roman Catholic had said, that he would not take the oaths required by law, and his constituents had nevertheless returned him to parliament, he could see no hardship in depriving the person so returned of the benefit of an act which was not in contemplation at the time of the election. There could be nothing unequitable or unjust, in not extending the provisions of a new law to a case which was said to be a good one under the old law.

could not think that the legislature would extend a penal act by retrospection; and he could not therefore see how any Catholic now elected should be precluded from the benefit of this bill.

said, that these words were evidently interpolated, and he should therefore move that they be left out of the clause.

said, that after what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Dublin, he felt himself compelled to say a few words. He had, at one time, intended to move an amendment respecting these words; but before he did so, he had thought it right to consult the individual more immediately concerned. He had no difficulty in stating, that he had been particularly requested by that gentleman not to propose the amendment. From what he knew of the character of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, and from what was due to the dignity of the House, he was quite sure they would never have consented to the insertion of words, for the mere purpose of excluding an individual. He, therefore, must entreat his hon. friend not to press his amendment. Though he could not say whether the words were or were not necessary in an act of parliament, yet he was convinced, from the manner in which the right hon. Secretary had conducted himself in bringing forward these measures, that the right hon. gentleman would not have been a party to a measure which, professing a general object, was aimed at a particular one.

said that, after what had fallen from his noble friend, he should not press his amendment.

then proposed, that the following words, in the second clause—"instead of making and subscribing the declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, as practised in the church of Rome," be left out of the bill.

did not object to the amendment. As this declaration was repealed in the first clause, it was certainly not necessary that any mention should be made of it in the second clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

stated, that the Catholic clergy possessed very extensive power, through the means of acts of excommunication. The persons denounced were separated from all their former society; and if in trade, they were ruined, because all custom was withdrawn from them. Some years since, an action was brought by a Roman Catholic against a Catholic ecclesiastic for having excommunicated him, and a verdict was gained, subject to a point of law, that the Catholic ecclesiastic had a right to enforce his spiritual denunciations. The court of King's Bench, however, would not allow that right. There were very few, indeed not one out of a thousand Catholics, who would bring an action against an ecclesiastic for the exercise of such power; and he thought that the Catholic laity ought to be protected by the House.

thought, that if any Catholic should make the proposed declaration sincerely, he would have no objection to put his sincerity to the test; and he therefore proposed, that the Catholic should be obliged to declare, that if, contrary to his belief, the fact should turn out to be, that the pope of Rome, or any other potentate, had temporal power within this realm, he would take measures to counteract its exercise.

said, it would be extremely improper in the House to admit the possibility of the pope having temporal power in this country; besides which, he thought the security afforded by one individual making such a declaration not of sufficient importance to warrant the adoption of the amendment.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved, that in the clause, "And I do hereby disclaim, disown, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present church establishment as settled by law within this realm," after the word "subvert," the words, "And I do solemnly swear that I will not, directly or indirectly, attempt to subvert or injure," should be introduced.

thought the committee would consider it was quite sufficient to abjure any intention to subvert the present church establishment. The oath, in fact, went farther in that particular than any oath which had been heretofore proposed.

agreed with his right hon. friend, that the amendment could not be introduced into the oath without taking from its effect. He would even prefer the oath if it was shorter. Any man who would not be bound by this oath would not be bound by any.

The committee divided: For the amendment 99; Against it 261: Majority 162. Some other verbal amendments were proposed, and negatived. After which the House resumed, and the chairman reported progress.