, presented petitions against further Concessions to the Catholics from Brereton, Haslington, and other parishes in the county palatine of Chester.

thought the House ought to be made acquainted with some circumstances relative to the petition just presented from Haslington. He was informed, that the meeting at which it was voted was managed so snugly, that the rector of the parish, though residing within a mile of the place, knew nothing of it until a few hours before it took place. Being himself favourable to Catholic emancipation, the rector thought it not inconsistent with his duty to attend the meeting, with a view of recommending his own benevolent principle, of doing to others as he would be done by. On arriving, however, he found the ground pre-occupied by the officiating minister, who had taken the chair, and was conducting the whole business himself—reading, recommending, and moving the petition, and addressing an animated speech to some twenty or at roost twenty-five farmers and labourers; in which he assured them, that he was ready to shed his blood for the constitution. Of course, when the good people heard that the constitution was in so lamentable a plight as to require such sacrifices, they had no choice left but to sign the petition. Now, as this cry of, "constitution in danger" was become the cuckoo-note all over the country, it would be very desirable if the petitioners, and those speakers from whom they took their cue, would be good enough to define, what they mean by the constitution and state, and the exact nature, situation and extent of the wound to which they imagined it was exposed. To judge from their language, one would suppose they considered the constitution as a convenient but not very commodious edifice, and far too small to contain the whole population,—an edifice with two sides to it, the inside for themselves, and the outside for all who disagreed with them in opinion; and they would divide it with the Catholics as in the same manner the Irishman proposed to divide the house with his quarrelsome wife. Every incentive that could act upon the fears of man had been employed to induce the people to come forward in the county from which this petition proceeded: placards of the most inflammatory nature had been disseminated; one, published by the church and king oracle at Chester, and signed "T. Fletcher, printer." This placard called upon the people of England to rise to a man in defence of their religion; and, after a great deal of similar stuff, concluded by desiring, the whole population to go in a body to Windsor, and call upon his majesty to refuse his assent to the bill. The people had been told, that they would be massacred if the Catholics got admittance into parliament: and when gentlemen and magistrates—when persons in the station of chairman of the quarter-sessions, and foreman of the grand jury,—figured at the head of the grand work of delusion, the wonder was, not that they should meet with some success, but that any should refuse to sign their petitions. The latter gentleman, indeed, held a still higher station—a post of great power and patronage: he was manager of the foxhounds, and, being a person of popular and social habits, must naturally have some influence. Accordingly, names no less important than those of the huntsman and both the whippers-in, would be found attached to the petition.

presented a petition from the ministers and elders of the Presbytery Forfar, praying that Roman Catholics might be excluded from certain offices under the provisions of the proposed Relief bill.

observed, that this Was not a petition against, but in favour of, Catholic emancipation; as the petitioners admitted the principle of the mea sure, although they wished to make some exceptions in its operation.

wished to take that opportunity of saying, that as on the presentation of a petition on a former evening by his hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, from Bothwell, in the county of Lanark, against further concessions to the Catholics, he had felt it his duty to read a letter which he had received from an hon. friend of his then residing in the parish, and he believed the largest proprietor in his parish, relating some circumstances respecting that petition, and mentioning some strong language used by the minister of the parish on that occasion, he now also felt it his duty to say, in justice to that reverend gentleman, that he had received a letter from him contradicting the statements, and denying the correctness of the information contained in that letter. He took that opportunity of stating this, when he saw both his hon. friends the member for the University of Oxford and the member for the county of Argyll, in their places.

said:—I shall not long trespass on the time of the House, but having heard the statement which the hon. member for Lanark has just made, I feel myself imperiously called on to trespass on your time for a few minutes. That hon. member has, through courtesy I presume, abstained from mentioning the gross terms in which the reverend gentleman has thought proper to deny the statement I made by letter; but I will inform the House, that that information he has thought proper to designate as a tissue of infamous falsehoods. I now, therefore, stand here in my place, as a member of this House and as a gentleman, to confirm with my voice the statement formerly read by the member for Lanarkshire, as to the manner in which the petition was got up from the parish of Bothwell. The rev. minister for that parish did, from his pulpit, announce, that a meeting was to be held in the relief church of Bells-hill on the Friday following, for the purpose of petitioning parliament against the bill for the relief of the Catholics. He enjoined them to come forward to a man to sign in, telling his parishioners, that the Catholics would, by bloodshed, force them to resign their bibles and their faith, and for the future to worship fire, faggots, and a crust of bread. Let it be understood that this, his first oration, I did not myself hear, but it was so stated to me by those incapable of making a false statement; and were any corroboration of this statement necessary, I received it on the Friday following in the church at Bells-hill. The rev. gentleman there repeated this, and much more. He told those assembled, that it was their duty as christians to oppose this bill—that if they did not, they would be throwing away the light of the precious gospel, which they now enjoyed;—that it was their duty to sign this petition; and if it failed, that it was their duty to resist it with their blood;—that by blood the Catholics—had ever tried to advance, and knee-deep they would again try to do so. To prove how bloody-minded they were, he read extracts from the Rhemish Testament, one of which was, that it was lawful for a Catholic to kill a heretic, if he refused to accept the true faith. He told them, that the Inquisition, which was now raging in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, would soon rage here; that if the Catholics were admitted to civil power, they would take from them their bibles, and would force them to worship a crust of bread. When I corrected his statement, with regard to the raging of the Inquisition in Italy, he produced as his authority a work, entitled "A Three Years' Residence in Italy of a Pious Family," by a Lady; and did from that read a description of the terrors which their drawing-master had undergone, in passing the dungeons of the Inquisition, lest some of the satellites of that institution should seize him and place him in one of them, there to linger out the rest of his wretched existence. So much for the religious part of his argument. For the political part, he stated, that if fifty or sixty of this proscribed body once got into this House there was an end to our religion and constitution; for though, said he, this is but a small part of the whole number, yet they will form the centre round which the Atheists and persons of no religion at all will form and who will vote for any thing, provided it is for their own interest; and he did, by name, denounce one hon. member of this House as an atheist.—And now for the conclusion. Having finished the business of the meeting, it was closed in prayer; and having told his parishioners, that if they did not oppose this bill they would be rejecting the light of the gospel, in that prayer he used these words:—" And may They who reject: the gospel not find; on the last day, that it is better for the dwellers in Sodom and Gomorrah—better for the poor blinded Papists themselves—than it would be for them." These statements this reverend gentleman has termed a tissue of infamous falsehoods. I, however, again assert and confirm them, as a man of honour and a gentleman. I will allow that the reverend gentleman is a most amiable character, and universally beloved by his parishioners; but in this case his zeal has unfortunately greatly out—run his discretion.

moved the order of the day for the third reading of this bill. On the question being put,

rose, he said, for the purpose of objecting to the motion. As that was the last night he should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the measure, he begged leave to trespass on the indulgence of the House for a few moments, and to reiterate the grounds upon which he was induced to give it his decided opposition. He confessed that, after all he had heard from hon. members since the commencement of the session, in favour of concession to the Catholics, and after all the arguments that had been adduced in favour of the right hon. Secretary's bill, he had not yet heard a single reason or ground for altering his opinion against that concession, or of admitting the necessity of the measure. That measure had been described by its originator in that House as "a breaking in upon the constitution of 1688." He would go farther, and maintain, that it not only broke in upon the constitution, but actually destroyed it—that the constitution after that measure was adopted would be a new one. He stood there as the firm, unbending advocate of the Protestant cause, and he would repeat, that he had heard no reason or argument justificatory of the present bill, and therefore no ground for the change of policy of hon, members. When he said he stood there as the advocate of the Protestant cause, he could not but regret, that that cause had lost the leader in whom the Protestants had so long placed implicit confidence, as well as many other hon. members who had hitherto been its zealous advocates. It was true, that the right hon. gentleman to whom he alluded had given some explanation of the grounds of his change of policy, and had most honourably restored to his Protestant consti- tuents the trust they reposed in him,—but so much could not be said for many hon. members who had imitated his conduct. The House had yet to learn the arguments by which those hon. members were induced to abandon the Protestant cause and to vote in favour of concession to the Catholics. With respect to the alarm consequent upon a measure which would give the constitution of the country a new character, he must say, that he hoped, when the bill had passed, and that the Catholics had, as a consequence, felt that they had gained their object—that they would be actuated by such a spirit of gratitude to the legislature, and would deport themselves so respectfully towards their fellow—subjectsof other denominations, that they would induce their Protestant brethren to bestow upon them their confidence, so that they would all live in one common respect to the laws. He trusted that the Catholics would never forget the circumstances under which the laws against them had been enacted—circumstances which, he earnestly trusted, would never recur; and he hoped, indeed he was confident, that should the Catholics forget those circumstances, and the debt of gratitude which the present bill would lay on them, the Protestants of England would rise as one man to rescue and restore the Protestant constitution. With these observations he would take leave of the present question; but before he sat down he begged leave to express his hope, that every angry feeling which the recent discussions had given rise to would be allayed—that all party hostility would be forgotten. He, for one, had never approached the discussion in the spirit of faction—he had never embarked in his opposition to the measure, a single feeling of personal or party hostility, but had spoken and voted honestly and conscientiously. He was willing to give those who differed from him credit for the purity of their motives; for he was conscious of the purity of his own. He hoped he was wrong in his apprehensions, that the new constitution which the present bill would create, would not answer the people of England; but he feared he was not, and therefore would persist in his opposition to the bill. He was confident that more would be lost by the Protestants than would be gained by the Catholics, for the very existence of the Protestant constitution of 1688 was endangered. He repeated —he would then finally take leave of the question. He felt that he had done his duty to his constituents and his country; and would then, at the last stage, express his opposition to the bill before the House by moving as an amendment, that the bill be read a third time that day six months.

begged leave to second the amendment. The bill before the House had been justly described by the noble marquis, as not only a breaking in upon the constitution of 1688, but as destructive of the laws then established. Nor was he without high authority for this opinion: he had that of no less a statesman than lord Chatham. In the year 1774, it was proposed to exempt the Catholics of one of our American colonies from taking the Oath of Supremacy. To that proposition lord Chatham was most decidedly opposed, contending, that it was as contrary to the spirit of the constitution to repeal the Act of Supremacy, or any other act against the Catholics, passed in the reign of Elizabeth or of Henry 8th, as to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. If such was the solemn opinion, as to repealing the Act of Supremacy—one of the last efforts of that great statesman—even in the case of a remote colony, what would he not have said in relation to a measure affecting the British empire? Why was the present bill brought forward before time had been afforded for taking the sense of the people calmly and deliberately upon its merits? Surely no subject required more time, as none required more deliberation. It was said, that the subject was not new to the people, that it had been for thirty years under discussion. But he contended, that it was not before the people in its present form—that it had hitherto presented a different character. The question formerly discussed in parliament and elsewhere was, the nature and the amount of danger consequent upon the admission of the Catholics to the civil advantages of the state: the question now for the first time submitted to the House and to the country by his majesty's ministers was, a balance of danger; for those who had brought forward the present bill, admitted that there was danger, great danger, in placing the Catholics on a political equality with the Protestants, but argued that there was greater danger in excluding them. Now, without entering upon this point of a balance of danger, he asked, why was not time given to the country to inquire into the merits of a comparison of advantages and disadvantages that had never been suggested before—of advantages to be gained on the one hand, and of disadvantaes to be gained on the other? Such time and such inquiry were necessary, with the view of making the settlement of the question satisfactory to all classes of the community. He moreover thought, that the pledge given by that House at the commencement of the session involved such an inquiry, and, in consequence, the time necessary to its completion; for it was stated in the address to the Crown, that the House would apply itself first to suppress the Catholic Association, and that being done satisfactorily to all classes, that it would then, but not till then, inquire into the state of Ireland, and the laws affecting the Roman Catholics. Such a course would have required time, during which existing excitement might have been allayed, and existing evils corrected. Was not the very excitement—no matter how occasioned—an argument for delay and deliberation? But it was not alone with a view to subdue excited feelings that delay was necessary; it was required, were it only to obtain more information than the House at present possessed, on all the bearings of the important measure then under its notice. Every night's discussion brought some new fact to light, or showed the necessity of more information. For instance, the other evening when the question of securities was before the House, it was proposed by an hon. baronet to extend the clause relating to monastic institutions to the colonies; but it was found, that some of the colonies were so constituted, that they could not admit of the application of the clause. At another time it appeared, that many lay corporations—how many, the House even yet had not the means to determine—exercised an influence over many Protestant ecclesiastical establishments, of the nature of which influence there was no information before parliament. It was admitted on all hands, that the sense of the people of England was hostile to the measure; but it was contended, that that hostility was occasioned by temporary excitement. Admitting that to be the fact, should not time have been allowed to allay that excitement, and to enlighten the people on the merits of the question? Such delay was the only mode whereby to obtain a dispassionate and deliberate examination of the real tendency of the present bill; and such a deliberate and dispassionate examination was the only means of ensuring a satisfactory and beneficial result to that bill. When, after calm inquiry, the people had determined upon the safety and expediency of concession, then, and then only, would concession be advantageous; then, and then only, would its accompanying securities be satisfactory to all classes; and then, and then only, would the admission of the Catholic to the political benefits of the constitution be productive of peace to Ireland and contentment in England. But now they were about to give to the Roman Catholics the power to legislate for all the Protestant establishments of this country; they were about to concede to them the power of legislation over the Established Church, its rights and privileges, and over all the Protestant institutions of England and Ireland. These were the powers which this sweeping measure conferred. What were the securities given in return? True it was, that a Catholic minister could not interfere directly with ecclesiastical patronage and appointments; but, would the Catholic members of a privy council exercise no real and substantial influence in the disposal of such patronage? He was sure that this measure would tend directly to the overthrow of the Protestant establishments and institutions of these countries. They were about to give the Catholics in Ireland a power over the appropriation of corporate funds which had been hitherto devoted to the support and maintenance of Protestant institutions; and how could they answer for the proper application of such funds in future? They were about to allow Catholics to be the governors of distant colonies, where, being far removed from the control of the king and of parliament, they might withhold that assistance which had been hitherto deemed necessary for the existence of the Protestant religion and clergy there. They were about to alter the constitution of this country, and to deprive it of the character of Protestantism which had so long belonged to it, and which had been uniformly considered as the best safeguard for our rights and liberties. These were his objections to the measures, and it was for these reasons that he supported the amendment of, his noble friend.

said, he could not at all concur in the views which had been taken of this measure by the noble marquis, and by the learned member who had just set down. On the contrary, he could not refrain from congratulating the House upon the circumstance of this important measure having now reached the last stage in its progress through this House. So far from coinciding in the sentiments of the noble marquis and the hon. member, he would say, that this measure never could have been carried under more auspicious circumstances. He would say that, whether he looked at the nature of the measure itself, or at the manner in which it had been introduced by the right hon. Secretary, and supported by its advocates in that House, it was his firm belief, that there never was a period when the concession of the measure was better calculated to satisfy the Catholics of the empire; and, as far as regarded the House of Commons he would express his belief, that there never was a time when the House itself had better reason to be proud of its own proceedings. The hon. member for Dublin had spoken of the address to which the House had agreed at the opening of the present session, and he appeared to attach some importance to the pledge which had been given by the House on that occasion. To that pledge, upon different grounds, and for far different reasons, he also attached considerable importance; and he conceived he should satisfy the House, that in the view which that hon. member had taken of the nature of that pledge, he had been completely mistaken. Ever since he had been able to form an opinion upon political subjects, he had been of opinion that the Catholic claims were withheld upon insufficient grounds, especially in reference to Ireland. As all governments professed to be founded for the good of the community, he never was able to discover any principle that could justify this country in withholding the claims of the great mass of the people of Ireland; nor could he ever find out any thing in the circumstances of Ireland, which could in any degree justify the maintenance of a system of laws there, which were equivalent to a lasting sentence of strife and contention in that country. With that position he had originally set out in political life; and he was if possible, more confirmed in it by the conduct of the anti-Catholic party throughout the discussions on this measure. The anti-Catholic party, who opposed this bill, had been over and over again pressed by the advocates of the measure, to point out the remedy which they would propose for the evils of Ireland, and they had uniformly evaded the question, and shrunk from the inquiry. In thus evading that inquiry, the anti-Catholic party had, in his opinion, violated those principles of fair and full discussion, upon which a great legislative assembly should uniformly act. He had always been convinced, that whenever the time arrived when the Catholic question should be viewed fairly and fully, in reference to the state of Ireland, it would be impossible for any man accessible to argument to come to but one conclusion, that the question ought at once to be conceded, and he therefore thought that the anti-Catholic party had no other course to pursue, but to evade any inquiry into the state of that country. He had further been always of opinion, that there was only one way of breaking through that evasion of the anti-Catholic party, and of forcing them to come to the consideration of the Catholic question in direct connexion with the situation of Ireland; and that, as it appeared to him, was precisely the way which his majesty's government had adopted in making this a cabinet measure, and in calling upon the legislature, in the Speech from the Throne, to consider those two important topics in the manner in which they should be considered; namely, in direct connexion with each other. For it was plain, that when that was once done, the Catholic question was placed upon totally new grounds, and the opponents of the measure were put to the alternative of either rejecting—as they might do constitutionally, but not consistently with their past conduct, nor in accordance with their professions of loyalty—the recommendation from the Crown, or of adopting, as might have been expected, that recommendation, and thus standing pledged to devise some remedy for those evils, an inquiry into the existence of which they could no longer avoid, or to join the government in supporting that measure which his majesty's ministers had brought forward, for the removal of those evils which were now acknowledged on all hands to afflict and distract the condition of society in Ireland. He therefore gave the government credit for the course which they had adopted, as the best and wisest which could, under all the circumstances, have been devised. It was with sincere gratification, therefore, that, on the first day of the session, he had listened to the Speech from the Throne, recommending the legislature to take into its deliberate consideration the whole state of Ireland, convinced as he was, that no effectual remedy could be devised for the evils existing in that country, unaccompanied by Catholic emancipation. He had heard, he repeated, that recommendation with sincere pleasure, as he well knew that the concession of the Catholic claims was the great remedy, without which all others would be of no avail, for allaying the dissensions of Ireland. He was led to believe, when he saw the anti-Catholic party not refusing to accede to the recommendation of the Crown, but actually adopting that recommendation, and agreeing to an address which pledged them, after suppressing the Association, to take "into deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland, and to consider whether the repeal of those laws to which his majesty had directed their attention might not be effected, consistently with the full and permanent security of all our establishments in church and state."—He was, he said, led to believe when he found the anti-Catholic party adopting such a course, that they were, bonâ fide, intent upon entering on the consideration of the whole question, in a fair and manly manner. Thus far every thing had proceeded according to his most sanguine anticipations. He hoped that a full and impartial discussion of the state of Ireland would at length be had, and that on no side of the House would the least desire be exhibited to shrink from inquiry, or to avoid investigation. His hopes, however, which were thus raised, were soon depressed, when he found the anti-Catholic party in that House not only opposing the present measure, but disregarding, their engagement given to the Crown, as to the course which they should feel it their duty to adopt,—forgetting the pledge which they had given, to enter upon the consideration of the "whole condition of Ireland"—refusing to enter upon that question altogether, and opposing the bill which had been brought forward for the removal of the evils existing in that country, as if they higad ven no pledge whatever on the sub- ject, and had not distinctly engaged, in pursuance of the recommendation from the throne, "to take the whole condition of Ireland into their deliberate consideration." That party, in agreeing to the address, had distinctly pledged themselves with every other party in that House, to adopt the recommendation of his majesty, and to enter upon the consideration of the state of Ireland; and when, in pursuance of that recommendation, his majesty's ministers had brought forward a measure for the removal of Catholic disabilities, consistent with the security of the Protestant institutions and establishments of the country, and which they considered best calculated to fulfil the intention of his majesty, nothing could be more natural or consistent, than for those hon. members who composed the anti-Catholic party to oppose that measure; but it was incumbent on them at the same time to provide some remedy of their own in its place. They were at perfect liberty to give what opposition they pleased to the measure introduced by ministers; but they should be ready, at the same time, to produce a plan of their own, better calculated to fulfil those intentions of his majesty, and to carry into effect that recommendation, to which they had distinctly and unequivocally pledged themselves. He could not conceive how those hon. members could reconcile it to their sense of consistency, to agree to the terms of the address, pledging them to take into consideration the whole condition of Ireland, and subsequently to adopt the course which they had pursued; for though pledged to take the state of Ireland into consideration, the hon. member for Dorsetshire, in his speech on a former evening, postponed the consideration of the state of Ireland altogether, while the hon. member for Corfe Castle argued the whole question without adverting at all to Ireland. The hon. member for Kent, and another hon. member, had contended that they were not bound, in discussing this question, to enter at all upon the point as to what the state of Ireland might require. The Attorney-general had dismissed the state of Ireland in a parenthesis, and the hon. member for Newark had actually apologized to the House, for adverting to the state of that country, into the consideration of which they had been specially called upon, and had distinctly pledged themselves, to enter. He confessed that when such conduct was exhibited by the anti-Catholic party, he despaired of seeing the question met, on their parts, by a full and fair discussion of its merits. Perhaps he had formed an incorrect estimate of their conduct—perhaps they had not given the pledge to which he had referred—perhaps they had not entered into the distinct engagement which, in his humble judgment, they had made; but, if he was right in his opinion,—and he believed the facts of the case would bear him out in it,—he would say, that the manner in which that party had received the proposition of ministers proved manifestly, that they had nothing better themselves to propose; and their uniform evasion of the question, as regarded the state of Ireland, was incontrovertible evidence, that they never entertained serious intentions of entering upon the discussion of that important subject. He had thus retorted upon the anti-Catholic party the charge of inconsistency which the hon. member for Dublin had endeavoured to affix on others, but which exclusively attached to themselves; and he would only, in conclusion, again express his gratification at beholding this great measure of justice and liberality arrived at its final stage in that House.

said, he felt that this measure went to alter the Protestant constitution of this country, and in justice to those who had sent him to that House, he considered it his duty again to enter his protest against it. Nothing that had occurred throughout these discussions had at all altered the opinions which he had expressed when this measure was first introduced—nothing that had since occurred had at all diminished his fears, or allayed his apprehensions—and he was now, as then, strongly opposed to a measure, which went to alter that Protestant constitution under which they had lived and prospered for a century and a half. They were called upon to sacrifice those opinions which had been maintained and cherished in this country ever since the year 1688, on the bare idea that the settlement of this question would tranquillize Ireland. Were the Catholics of Ireland labouring under any religious persecution from which they claimed relief? If they were obstructed in the exercise of their religion, he would be as ready as any one to support a measure for their relief. But, what were they about to do? They were called upon to sacrifice their opinions, and to pass this measure, for the purpose of satisfying a few Catholic demagogues in Ireland. This measure was neither more nor less than the admission of Catholics in parliament. They were already represented admirably in that House. The present Irish representatives were a most useful body of men; they, on all occasions, attended to the discharge of their duties; and if they had any fault, it was, that they were, rather too national in their views. This measure would introduce Catholic members in their place. He looked on the whole measure as the result of the arts and wiles of restless demagogues; and he was sure, when this bill passed, that the lower orders in Ireland would seize the opportunity to gratify their bigotry and prejudices, by returning members of their own religion. Those who possessed the best knowledge on the subject asserted, that they would shortly have thirty or forty Catholic members in parliament, and that from Ireland alone. The present Irish representatives must then bow to the Catholics, whom the populace would return, and tell them, that they had only kept their places for them until they succeeded in obtaining the admission of Catholics to parliament. This measure, then, instead of pacifying Ireland,—instead of introducing peace and quiet there,—would generate innumerable contests to gratify the ambition and the bigotry of the Catholics. In all human probability, at the next general election,—and a dissolution of parliament could not now be distant,—this feeling would be displayed from one end of Ireland to the other. It was not to be supposed, that this question would, as some imagined, be forgotten in a few months. The civil dissentions which desolated England in the wars of the Two Roses did not pass away for a century; and this measure which had engaged the feelings and opinions of the people of this country for the last twenty or thirty years would not be forgotten for many years to come. The principal object of this measure was to admit Catholics to parliament. It was therefore pregnant with strife and contest. The lower orders of Catholics would vote for a candidate of their own religion, and if an election came on, suppose for the city of Limerick, the present hon. member would, of course, give way to some of the Sheils or O'Gormans, or some other Catholic candidate. The forty-shilling freeholders would crowd in, of course, to support the candidates of their own religion; but what would be their feelings when told, that at the same moment that parliament granted them the liberty to vote for a Roman Catholic, it took away their right of voting altogether? The Protestant freeholder, who had petitioned parliament that things might remain as they were, would be told that he was laughed at as a stupid fellow for making the request, and that instead of letting things alone, parliament had deprived him of his vote and given emancipation to the Papists. Was, then, this measure at all calculated to produce peace or quietness in Ireland? So far from conciliating Ireland, it would, in his opinion, supply new materials for fatal discord throughout that country. This was not what Ireland wanted. She wanted a resident gentry, lower rents, and higher wages. She wanted the influx of capital, the introduction of the poor-laws, and above all, she wanted that true religion, under which liberty had prospered in this country. He could not see what benefit this measure was calculated to confer on the lower orders of the Irish population. If the poor-laws were introduced there; and if this measure were accompanied by any measure like that of 1825, for paying the priests, or with any thing for giving employment to the poor, there might be some good expected from it. But he could not see what essential service would be effected for Ireland by the admission of a few Catholics to that House. The sentiments of the people of England had been expressed most unequivocally against this measure. No one could deny that the vast majority of the people of England were hostile to it. If the experiment of a general election were tried, it would be found that nine tenths of the whole population of England were against this bill. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Dublin had been adopted—if this bill had been read a second time, and suffered to lie over then till after the Easter holydays, then perhaps the opposition against it would not be so strong; at all events, the people would have been afforded a fuller opportunity of expressing their sentiments upon it. But to the bill in its present state he should give his determined opposition. It was very important for the House to inquire into the nature of the securities offered to them—if securities they could be called. Almost the only one which he saw was a sort of declaration, and by no means a satisfactory one. But his right hon. friend seemed to think that the securities were quite sufficient; and he argued, that although the principle of the bill admitted Roman Catholics to nearly the whole of the great offices of the state, yet that the limitations, provisions, and restrictions of the bill were such, that Roman Catholics would never consent to take several of these offices—that, for instance, of secretary of state. He, however, was not quite sure of that. In his opinion, it would be better to exclude Roman Catholics directly, than to say to them, "If you accept of these offices, you must forego much of the power and privilege that belongs to them; because, if you exert that privilege, and exercise those powers, you will subject yourselves to the utmost rigour of the law." According to the formation of this bill, there was no security to satisfy the Protestant; neither was its provisions calculated to give satisfaction to the Roman Catholic. He believed that, at one time, when Mr. Canning was in office, some idea was entertained of paying the Roman Catholic priesthood out of the national purse; and he thought, from the manner in which the measure was now brought forward, that his right hon. friend had entertained some feeling of that kind himself; but, as his right hon. friend must have seen that such a proposition would render the bill more generally unpopular than it was, he had thought fit to abandon that idea. The way in which this measure was brought forward and supported would, he feared, prove the destruction of all confidence in public men. The departure from long-established principles—the extraordinary conversions—the many tergiversations which the public had lately witnessed, must tend to destroy all confidence in parliament. Such proceedings would, without doubt, be succeeded by a general indifference, as to the conduct of public men. They might hereafter act in unison together on questions involving some great principle; but of this they might rest assured, that personal confidence in public men was at an end. They had known times, during the late war, when party ran extremely high; but still consistency of conduct was maintained, and men of different sentiments respected each other, and were respected by the public, on account of that consisteney. The case was, however, now altered. He was confident, that, before the present session was over—at least, before another session was over—his right hon. friend would find himself in a very different situation from that in which he now stood. The support which he now received from a quarter, which, generally speaking, had no confidence in him, and entertained no feeling in common with him, could not last. Having combined merely to effect a particular object, they would desert him when that object was obtained. Did his right hon. friend suppose that no latent feeling for carrying other points remained in their breasts? Did he think, that when the present measure should be accomplished, they would continue to extend their support to him? If he flattered himself that they would do so, his right hon. friend would ultimately discover that he was mistaken. He knew that no man more deserved personal regard than his right hon. friend did: his private qualities were deserving of the highest praise: his goodness of heart, and his frankness of manner, could not be too much applauded; but his political conduct was another matter, it called for the most severe scrutiny, and he doubted not that the time would arrive, when his political delinquencies would be remembered and visited upon him. He was, in a great degree, authorised in saying this when he heard the sentiment echoed through the country by the people. He harboured no intention of opposing his right hon. friend on other questions; but he very much feared that in future, there would not be manifested, in the support which he was likely to receive, that anxious zeal, arising from personal regard, which his right hon. friend formerly commanded. If Ireland should not be pacified,—and he believed, in his conscience, that Ireland would not be more quiet at the expiration of the present year, or at the end of the next session, than it had been for a long period,—if government were not able to make a considerable deduction from the military force now employed in that country,—then parliament would have a right to challenge, not only his right hon. friend, on his responsibility, but those also who supported and maintained this measure, to reconsider and amend it. If ministers could not give a satisfactory answer to the question which, under such circumstances, might be put to them, then he conceived that it would be the duty of parliament not to lose the opportunity, but to undertake the revision of the measure.—There was one point connected with the state of Ireland which he regretted had not been brought before the House, and which, before he sat down, he begged leave to mention. He knew not why some system of poor-laws was not applied to Ireland. The only motive he could conceive which induced ministers not to bring the subject forward was, because they wished to avoid that species of taxation which would naturally and necessarily fall on the absentees. He trusted, whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the subject immediately before them, that they would unite in doing this special service to Ireland. His hon. friend, the member for Newark, had done himself immortal honour, by the manner in which he had touched upon this question. He hoped that those who were favourable to the introduction of the poor-laws into Ireland would not be intimidated in their endeavours to effect that object; and he cherished a hope, that his majesty's ministers would give their concurrence to some plan of the kind. Certain he was, that without some such measure it was impossible for Ireland to be tranquillized. There was one clause in the present bill of which he approved, and which he hoped would be acted on. It was that clause which declared, that the bill might be altered or amended even in the course of the present session. It was, he conceived, useless in this, the last stage of the bill, to offer any plan of amendment, or to propose any alteration in this measure; and his principal object in now offering himself to the House was to state that he was as decided an opponent to the measure in its last stage, as he was when it was originally introduced.

said, he did not mean to follow the opposers of the bill through all the various topics which they had introduced. His intention was to state, as shortly as possible, the reasons which disposed him to give his support to this measure. He meant, then, to vote for this bill on the ground of expediency; because he thought it was much better to run the risk of incurring a minor mischief, than to encounter the almost certainty of a greater. He could assure the noble marquis, and other hon. members who thought it their duty to oppose this bill, that, in taking this course, he did not admit the abstract right of the Roman Catholics to those privileges which the legislature was about to confer on them. He would also say, that he did not yield to that noble marquis, or to those hon. members, in a sincere attachment to the Protestant religion, or in a veneration for the Protestant constitution of this country; but he contended, that things could not remain as they were. That he looked upon to be wholly impossible. He could not blind himself to the circumstances that were passing before him: he could not blind himself to the distracted state of society in Ireland—to the utter depression of trade and commerce in that country—and to the cessation of social intercourse between man and man. Was it fit that that country should, in the year 1829, be kept in such a state of discontent and dissatisfaction? His majesty's government had witnessed the evil, and had wisely determined to remedy it. They had brought forward a bill which, in his opinion, was calculated to prevent the hourly-increasing danger. If he thought that it was likely to have any other effect, he would be most anxious to appear in the ranks of those hon. gentlemen who opposed the measure; but, believing that it would effect great and permanent good, he should support it. He would ask hon. members, whether they had fairly considered the danger to which Ireland was exposed? For his own part, he was surprised that the tranquillity of that country was so perfect as it had been. But, how was that tranquillity preserved? Why, the peace of Ireland was partly preserved by an unconstitutional authority, and partly by military force? Now, he would demand, whether such a state of things ought to be tolerated? He most sincerely hoped that this measure, conjointly with that introduced with it, would have the effect which was attributed to it—that of restoring Ireland to peace and prosperity.

observed that, after the many discussions which had taken place on this subject, he should not now have addressed the House, did he not think it the duty of every hon. member to state his opinion on this most important question. He was opposed to this measure; and he was quite convinced, that the great majority of the people of England were decidedly hostile to it. He thought they had, in their petitions, stated their opinions firmly and honestly; and those opinions, however they might be contemned by other gentlemen, he was inclined to treat with deference and respect. Every exertion had been made, by bigotry and superstition, to retard the efforts of the people; but in vain, for a vast majority of the most influential persons in the country had expressed themselves strongly against this measure. He confessed that he entertained the same sentiments. He did not think that the bill would produce the peace and unanimity that were expected from it. It was displeasing to the Protestants, and he was convinced it would not satisfy the Catholics. He should have felt happy to have given his support to his majesty's government, if, after a thorough examination of the measure, he had conceived that it was likely to do good. But this was a vital question—a question which, when once carried, could not be retrieved: and, viewing it as likely to produce evil, instead of good, he should oppose the third reading of the bill.

said, that on no former occasion had he offered himself to the notice of the House with so much pleasure. He rejoiced as greatly as any one could rejoice, at the triumph that was now about to be achieved. He rejoiced to find that religious differences were no longer to be considered as a ground for political disqualification. The measure seemed to him to have been proposed at a moment which peculiarly called for it. An hon. gentleman had just asserted, that the great body of the people of England were hostile to the bill—a position which, in his opinion, was not correct. He did not think that gentlemen had a right to rest their arguments so strongly as they had done, on the number of petitions which had been presented against this measure, when, on other occasions, when great numbers of petitions were laid before the House, they treated the representations contained in them with neglect. In saying this, he did not mean to detract, in any way, from the value of the right of petitioning. On the contrary, he was glad to see petitions laid before the House; because it shewed that those from whom they emanated placed confidence in the legislature. If, by admitting the Roman Catholics to be Common partakers in the rights and liberties of Englishmen, they produced a better state of moral feeling in Ireland—and such he believed would be the case—then; certainly, they would have effected a great object. He looked upon this question with intense interest. He viewed it as extending the great charter of liberty to Ireland; and he was certain, that innumerable benefits would be derived from it. He voted for the measure with the highest degree of pleasure and satisfaction. Some gentlemen might entertain fears as to the effects which it would produce. For his part, he did not participate in those fears. His firm conviction was, that the measure would be eminently serviceable to the whole empire.

said, he could not permit the important question then before the House to go through its last stage without the expression of his opinion on the bill in its present shape. He was compelled to say, that the securities for the preservation of the Protestant constitution of the country were not at all equivalent to the great sacrifice the House was about to make, by granting seats in parliament, and admission to the highest offices in the state, to persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. He allowed that the proposed alteration of the freeholders' qualification in Ireland from forty shillings to ten pounds, as intended by another bill, was a most beneficial measure, and, as far as it went, a good security against an abuse of power and influence by the Roman Catholic priest, in the manner evidenced at the late election of Clare. He entirely approved also of the change that had been made in the bill, by the transfer of all church patronage, which might attach to any office under the Crown hereafter to be filled by a Roman Catholic, to the archbishoprick of Canterbury. But he complained of the measure as wholly uncalled-for by the necessity of the case; and he considered it as totally useless, because it never could produce that union and concord in Ireland, which was expected from it, so long as the patronage of the Irish church was confined exclusively to Protestants. If he could be persuaded, that the bill would produce permanent conciliation between the conflicting parties in Ireland, he declared before God that it should have had his support; but, believing quite the contrary, it would meet with his decided ne- gative. He would notice an observation of his gallant friend, the member for Liverpool, who had threatened the Secretary of State for the Home Department with the loss of his former supporters. But for this assertion, he would not have touched on this subject. He believed that his right hon. friend's conduct had been governed by a conscientious impression of the urgency of the question, and the conviction, that the great interests of the empire would suffer by its delay. With this impression deeply fixed in his mind, the right hon. Secretary would not have acted the part of an honest man, if he had pursued any other course. He deeply lamented this change, but the present ministers should have his confidence on every other question.

pronounced a high eulogium upon the duke of Wellington and Mr. Secretary Peel, and said that, although he could not trust the latter with the conduct of the bill before them, he believed he had acted conscientiously. He believed so, because the right hon. gentleman had made sacrifices of ambition, of friends, and of connections, which could only have been made for conscience-sake. There were others who had changed their opinions, but who had not made the same sacrifices, and who continued to hold advantages which it appeared, by the result, they had obtained under false pretences. Bad as this was, it was nevertheless to be feared, that some who had changed would not only continue to hold the advantages. so obtained, but would even get still higher office. It was said, that this bill was a remedy for the evils that pressed. upon the country; but, could that be called a remedy which was an unmixed evil? The right hon. gentleman had said, that this was not a religious question; but for his part, he could not see how religion was, in this case, to be separated from politics. The danger to us, as it was a question of religion, was, that the spirit of the Roman Catholic church was such, that it would strive to extend itself and use its best endeavours to prevent the existence of any but its own creed; as, according to the notions of the Roman Catholics, there was no salvation out of the pale of their church. There could not therefore, in his opinion, be any distinction between the religion and the politics of the church of Rome. If he could make any distinction, it ought to be in favour Of the English Catholics, who were many of them men of property, but so scattered over the country, that they had acquired a portion of the milder spirit of the community with which they mixed. He had always thought their case hard, when he considered that they were debarred from rising in any of the pursuits open to their Protestant fellow-countrymen. The case was far different with the Catholics of Ireland; for they were numerous, ignorant, and bigottedly attached to their religion and priests. The present bill would not set the question at rest in Ireland; for it would not be for the interest of the church of Rome to let it rest, until she had accomplished the destruction of the Protestant establishment in that country.

contended, that the tendency of the Catholic religion was to make its members bad subjects of a government. This, he said, was proved by history. It would be found that, in the time of Charles the 1st, the wise measures of the duke of Ormond were frustrated by the intrigues of the Nuncio Renuccini, and that even his violent claims were exceeded by those of the church of Rome: so also when, at the council of Kilkenny, the same nuncio recommended fidelity to God and religion, and, next, to the king, he was severely reprimanded through cardinal Pamphilus, for that the Holy See would never, by any positive act, approve the civil allegiance which Catholic subjects paid to an heretical prince. Thus it was, that the Roman Catholics were instigated and supported by the see of Rome against their legitimate government; an obedience to which was stigmatised as that idol of Dagon, a foolish loyalty. When, also, on the restoration of Charles the 2nd, some of the more moderate Catholics addressed, through one Peter Walsh, the remonstrance, in which they disclaimed "all foreign power, papal or princely, spiritual or temporal, inasmuch as it may seem able, or shall pretend, to free them from this obligation (meaning the allegiance), or permit them to offer any violence to his majesty's person or government; protesting further, and declaring it impious, and against the word of God, to maintain, that any private subject may kill his prince." Let the House inquire, Sir, how far the court of Rome approved, or acknowledged the propriety and justice of these sentiments. The court of Rome gave orders to the Internuncio at Brussels, who had then the care of Ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland, and to cardinal Barberini, "to censure the remonstrance, in the name of the Pope, as containing propositions already condemned by the Holy See." In consequence, the remonstrants, we are told, "were persecuted, and every where dispossessed of their cures and stations; and Peter Walsh and his associates were excommunicated, and left without the means of preserving their lives, except by flying to foreign countries, where they were in danger of being burnt alive as heretics for denying the power of the Pope in temporal affairs." He would ask, what security there could be against this persecuting spirit, except the security of the law? The present law had prevented persecution, both on the part of the Protestants and on the part of the Catholics. The present law had worked well: it had preserved our civil, our religious, and our political liberties; and yet they were now called upon to throw it away. He was decidedly opposed to the proposition, because he believed it would be productive of great mischief. If he should be deceived, and if the measure did good, no one would rejoice more than he should.

Several honourable members rose together, but the call was general for

who said, that this then was the bill which, after all, they were called upon to pass! It was a matter of regret to him, that circumstances had rendered him incompetent to raise his voice against it at an earlier period. Unavailing as opposition to the bill had hitherto been, and unavailing as he was persuaded all future opposition to it would be, still he could have wished that his hearty, his uncompromising, and his decided dissent had been recorded in every stage, and against all the provisions of it. He candidly confessed, that he felt it a painful duty to be compelled to oppose and to obstruct, so far as in him lay, a measure which was supported by that great man who was then at the head of the administration. He did not call him great on account of his office or his power, but on account of his great military achievements; and for these, surely, if any man ever deserved the name of great, the individual to whom he alluded was that man. He, and he might say, the whole civilized world, had been lost in wonder at the splendid success which had marked that great man's career, and he would yield to no one in admiration at the glory and the security with which he had surrounded them. As a private individual, too, he had known the noble duke in his retirement, and had been honoured with some portion of his kindness and attention; but here he was a public man, and here he felt himself called upon by his duty, and by his country, fearlessly to offer his uncompromising and unhesitating opposition to a measure, though recommended by a person for whom he had so high an esteem. He was sorry to say, that there was one ground on which he, and gentlemen who held the same opinions with himself, had great reason to complain. They had been much worse treated by their friends than by their enemies. On every former occasion they might have had better terms than they had now. On other occasions there had been some show, some shadow, at least, of substantial, tangible securities. There had been some talk of interference with the hierarchy, or of something which should calm the reasonable and just apprehensions of the Protestants; but here there was positively nothing of the sort: it was plain, unqualified, unconditional surrender. They had heard it argued, that this bill was not the offspring of intimidation. Why, if he had never heard of what was passing in Ireland—if he had known nothing of the Catholic Association in its acts, in its speeches, in its publications, in its menaces—if the name of Mr. O'Connell had never sounded in his ears, still he should have known that it was the offspring of intimidation, for he saw "panic" written in the very face of it. What were the ordinary signs and symbols of intimidation? Giving up all—throwing away every thing—looking neither to the right hand nor to the left, but hurrying and precipitating forward. Was not this bill a casting-off, an abandonment, a surrender of every thing? Had it not been pushed forward with so much precipitation, that, when one law officer was gone, time was not allowed even for the appointment of another, or for sending the one that remained back to his constituents with "all his blushing honours thick upon him," to receive at their hands the recompense which, he doubted not, awaited him? Such had been the course pursued.—One of the strongest circumstances connected with this measure was, the manner of its introduction. How had it been introduced? Why, with a protest against it by the highest legal authority in that House. And it had been carried to its last stage without an Attorney-general. Was there no need of any legal adviser? Why, any architect was competent to pull down an edifice; any man could conduct a work like this, which was the mere ruin and overthrow of laws, without substituting any others in their room. What kind of substitution was this bill? Ask the poor Protestant freeholder: his condition presented a just picture of the state in which the Protestants were now placed. He had been deprived of his franchise; he had been compelled to surrender his rights; and, in return for this, an advantage was given not to him, but to a church to which he was opposed, and which hungered and thirsted after the benefices of the church to which he was warmly attached. This was the picture of our condition.—But, it was said, all this must be done for Ireland, and all those gentlemen who agreed with him had been accused of dwelling too little upon that point. He should like to know how they could dwell upon it at all? Who had given them any information on the subject? Who had laid any documents before them, from which they could form an opinion on the state of Ireland? It was true, that in the Speech from the Throne, at the beginning of the session, they had been recommended to take into their deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; but it was equally true, that they had had no opportunity of considering it at all.—What information had been produced, but a few solemn notes and asseverations, from the right hon. the Secretary of State? And the House had been called upon to rest satisfied with a few garbled extracts from letters, which had not been laid on the table of the House, but merely read in support of an argument. Such was the only information which had been produced, and on which the House was to proceed. And what was the result? It must be candidly confessed, that the situation of Ireland was unsettled. No man could deny that it was so; but within his memory, and within the memory of the right hon. Secretary, the situation of Ireland had never been otherwise [cries of hear]. He was glad to hear that cheer, because it looked as if gentlemen were going to grant that argument which he must ask of them. Had any fresh case of gross aggravation occurred in Ireland? He argued from the cheer that there had; and he would ask the hon. gentlemen opposite, who had brought the present measure forward, to whom were owing these fresh symptoms of danger? Had they not been told by the first officer of the Crown, that the common-law of the land was sufficient to put down a dangerous Association which had existed in Ireland? Had they not been told that? Had they not, moreover, been armed with fresh, and great, and extraordinary powers, for the purpose of putting that Association down; and, armed with a two-edged sword how had they used it? They had let it idly slumber in the scabbard. The Association had gone on gathering strength every day. They met, debated, and multiplied, until they became at last the governors of that kingdom; and now ministers came down to the House, and turned upon them, and produced that as an argument for agreeing to this measure, and as a cloak for their own apostacy.—He would now look at the provisions of the bill, and see if any crumbs of comfort could be gathered from it. In the first place, he found that the prime minister of the king might be a Roman Catholic; but it must comfort honourable gentlemen to learn, that a Catholic prime minister was prevented by this bill, from advising his majesty on any thing touching the disposal of ecclesiastical patronage. That enactment, doubtless, sounded extremely well; but supposing that he were to make use of that solitary access to his sovereign, to which he was entitled by his situation, to counsel his majesty respecting the disposal of church patronage, who was to reveal that he had done so? Would it be his majesty who had listened to such advice, or the minister himself, the adviser? He could not see of what avail such provisions would be; and he looked upon them in no other light than as a mockery. Further on in the bill there was an enactment respecting the Jesuits, which appeared to him to be of just as much value. It was known by many gentlemen in that House, that that dangerous set of men had instituted several establishments in this kingdom, and that they were increasing in various parts of the country. That body had been proscribed, denounced and banished, at one time or other, from every Catholic and Protestant state in Europe; and yet this conciliatory bill, which was to pay such great attention to the just fears and jealousies of the Protestants, it was naturally supposed, would cause the abolition of that sect in this country. No such thing. That body were to continue giving their instructions to the people; they were to remain in the country; and the only comfort afforded to the Protestants was, that the bill afforded the means of making known to them the extent of the danger, by causing the names of the Jesuits to be registered in black and white.—There was also a clause, by which the Secretary of State for the Home Department might allow the landing in this country of any Jesuit friend of his, with whom he wished to consult for six months. He thought that, in the present enlightened times, when the principles of free trade were so much in vogue, that the clause was likely to be extended; but he would venture to say, that a day would come when no importation of foreign Jesuits would be wanted. He thought a day might arrive, and at no distant time, when there might appear a Jesuit in the State as well as in the Church—one, who was bound to no orders, who was tied by no vows, and subject, alas! to no registration. Such a Jesuit, he could fancy, at some future time, in the capacity of minister, coming down to that House and saying, "I have not altered my opinion, but I will go directly contrary to that opinion. I do see danger in the course I am pursuing, plainly, and obviously; but I will run directly on it. I do see the necessity for securities, but I will give you none. I do not deny that there is evil in what I propose; but I do evil that good may come of it."—

"Who would not laugh, if such a man there be? Who would not weep, if Atticus were he?"

It had been said, that recent events had tended materially to lower public confidence in public men. He fully admitted that position, though he felt deep regret at being obliged to do so. He had said, in the outset of the few observations which he had made, that it was with pain that he differed from many honourable gentlemen who composed his majesty's government, and he must now say, with equal sincerity and regret, that it grieved him to be obliged to condemn their conduct. They had stolen upon us in the night, and thrown a fire-brand into the body of the church. But let not gentlemen suppose that it was a smouldering flame: it would unfortunately soon extend to the rafters and the roof, and leave the building a black and empty ruin. They had not the excuse of ignorance for this: they had done it cunningly and craftily; for they had done it advisedly.

He did not think that the consequences which he had described as about to follow the present measure would be remote. The first blow would be struck at the Church of Ireland. That church had already been assailed in that House; the point of the wedge had entered into it, and the strength of a hundred united and hearty hands would drive that wedge home [a laugh]. Some honourable gentlemen might think this a subject for laughter, but he thought it a subject for deep regret and sorrow. The attack on the Church of Ireland might probably be grounded on the difference between the members belonging to that church and to the Church of England; but though such difference did exist, it should be recollected that, with respect to the tenure of church property, both churches were equal. He who assailed the one, assailed the other; and if the Church in Ireland was destroyed, the Church in England would not long survive.

said, he was glad that the hon. member who had just sat down had taken the bill before the House in his hand and made a running commentary upon it, because it afforded him an opportunity of explaining to the House the different parts of the bill in question, and showing that, in connexion with other securities which had before come under the consideration of the House, it afforded sufficient security to the church establishment of these realms. He felt no doubt that he should make out that point to the satisfaction of every intelligent and reasonable man. Let him tell that hon. member, that with respect to a circumstance of which he knew nothing himself, but which had been hinted at;—namely, that he might have an opportunity of meeting that hon. member in another place,—let him tell that hon. member, that nothing would give him greater pleasure. Before he called the attention of the House to the bill, he wished to address an observation to an hon. and learned friend of his, who, he lamented, was no longer his colleague.

He thought that that hon. and learned member was mistaken in his view of the case, when he stated, that a conscientious scruple, on the score of the oath of office which he had taken, prevented him from giving his assistance to the drawing-up of the bill. He could assure the House, that that oath had no bearing at all on the question. The oath, which was in substance the same as the one taken by himself, directed that the party who took it should duly and truly serve the king, and give him good counsel in his courts of record, in that part of Great Britain called England, and that he should well and truly counsel the king in all matters when called upon. He would not remark on the first part of the oath, as it had no reference to the subject; and with respect to the second part he put it to the House, whether that person did not give true advice to his sovereign, who, convinced of the necessity and propriety of any measure, counselled its adoption? After hearing all that had been advanced, both from one side of the House and from the other, it was his thorough conviction, that the course which the government was now pursuing was the only one which would save the Protestant constitution. He certainly did marvel that this extraordinary acute notion of the oath of office should first attach to his hon. and learned friend. In 1791, an act was passed in this country, which emancipated the Catholics to an extent unheardof before, which removed from them many of the disabilities under which they laboured, and gave them that power which they possessed at the presentday. Another act was passed in Ireland in 1793, which gave the Catholics still further power, because it gave them the elective franchise. Now he wondered that the mind of his late hon. and learned colleague had been the first to be struck by the extraordinary obligation of the oath of office, because he found that, in the year 1791, when the first of those two measures was carried, sir John Scott (the present lord Eldon) who was attorney-general, had not such an acute notion of the obligation of the oath in question. Again in 1793, when the second measure was carried, sir John Mitford was solicitor-general, and he never saw the extreme pungency of this oath. I now come (continued the Solicitor-general), and I do so with great satisfaction, to the real state of the question before the House. And I beg to assure hon. members, that I have, throughout the debate, listened with the most anxious attention, in order to hear whether any remedy short of that proposed by ministers was to be suggested for the evils admitted on all hands to exist. But when hon. members who opposed the bill were called upon to point out any such remedy, they were all silent as death: not one of them have we seen coming forward to suggest a measure short of that introduced by his majesty's government. I do not wish to use harsh expressions; but I cannot help observing, that the honourable member appears to entertain a puny and miserable opinion of the Protestant church when he supposed that it could, in the present day, be overturned or infringed upon by the Roman Catholic religion. Why, Sir, one chief object in framing this bill was so to word it that there should not be even a mention of the existence of the Roman Catholic religion in England; pains had been taken so to word it, that not an individual could point a finger at any expression by which such an admission was made. It was held that you could not call for a Veto, or propose a stipend for the Catholic clergy, without an admission of their religion, and the existence of the Roman Catholic church. The fact is that by this bill Roman Catholics are placed on the same footing with Protestant Dissenters. They are relieved from their disabilities, with certain exceptions; but there is to be no acknowledgment of the existence of their church.—There is yet another ground upon which I feel bound to support the bill. There is, it must be observed, a vast difference between the Roman Catholic clergy and the laity. The latter are as I have already said, placed on a footing with their Protestant brethren, with certain restrictions, while the former are excluded from all offices of place or power. This, indeed, was done by the Act of Settlement. But, notwithstanding this, the Roman Catholic church of Ireland has gone on pari passu with the Protestant church, in the appointment of its ecclesiastical functionaries. Where-ever a Protestant bishop has been appointed there has also been appointed a Catholic bishop, where a Protestant dean is stationed, there is also to be found a Catholic dean and so on. But it is to be observed, that the Protestant divines only are appointed by the Crown, and have in law a right to that title. [The hon. and learned member here made some observations about the 'Securities,' but the noise in the House was so great as to render him for a time inaudible in the gallery]. But I will ask what further securities are required? You have two bills passing through parliament with this measure of relief; I mean the Catholic Association bill, and the Forty-shilling Freeholders' Disfranchisement bill, both of which are moving, pari passu, with it. Now, I will put it to the House, whether such measures as these could be carried, could be proposed, without being accompanied with some measure of concession? There is not in this House any man more anxious than I am to continue exclusion, if I could see how it was to be done with safety; but I cannot risk the peace of Ireland—I cannot risk the safety of the Irish established church—by any longer withholding a measure calculated to secure both. We are told that we ought to consult the history of former times. Let us see how that history stands. In 1678 we had upon the throne a monarch who was a concealed, and the heir presumptive to the throne was an avowed, Roman Catholic. Now, I will ask what similarity there is between the year 1678 and the present period? Our present sovereign is as firmly, as decidedly, attached to the Protestant establishment, in church and state, as it is possible for man to be. The heir presumptive is as strongly imbued with the same feelings and principles. Where, then, I ask, is the comparison between the two periods? Besides, in 1678 there was a House of Lords consisting of a hundred and twenty peers, of whom at least sixty were Roman Catholics. Now, you cannot, under the proposed bill, have more than eight or nine Roman Catholic peers in the House of Lords. And then with respect to the House of Commons, we may rest assured that the pope has no longer any power, either to influence persons in this country, or to hold sway in any other courts in Europe.—But, after all, leaving the other parts of the question, I must observe, that there is a difference between the Protestant establishment and the Protestant faith. The Protestant establishment consists of the bishops, clergy, the form of prayer—or, to use another word, the national establishment, as it is generally understood. Let me ask, then, upon what does the security of that establishment rest?—why assuredly, the security of the property of that establishment rests upon the law of the land, in the same way that the property of the laity rests. Who, in the present day, pretends to deny the right of the clergyman to his tithes? Who will venture to deny the right of the spiritual Peer to hold his seat in parliament upon the same right that it is held by a temporal peer? The spiritual peer, if questioned, would say, "I hold my seat as a peer, upon the same terms that you do yours. I sit here as bishops before me did, upon the same right that you follow your father or grandfather created a peer." Indeed, this doctrine was so well known, and of such long standing as a part of the common law, that when Henry the 8th, on the suppression of the monasteries, appointed the five new bishops, not a single word was said about their taking their seats as spiritual peers, that being understood as a matter of course, in virtue of their office. I shall now, with the leave of the House, say a word or two with respect to the Protestant faith; and I must observe that the hon. gentleman opposite must entertain but a mean opinion of that faith, or he would never express his apprehensions, that inroads would be made upon it by the Roman Catholic religion. Any one who heard the hon. member's speech would be led to suppose, that the moment this measure was passed, the Roman Catholics would upset the church establishment, and burn our churches in one common conflagration. Sir, I am almost tempted to say that such apprehensions are ridiculous. I am inclined to rely more upon the purity and morality of our Protestant faith, the excellency of its doctrines, and the mildness and forbearance with which they were inculcated, to dread for a moment any inroads on the part of Roman Catholics. It should be remembered that when we had a Protestant monarch, and when the great majority of the people were Catholics, the Protestant reformed religion made its way; it went on silently and gradually to be sure, but still it did progress, and ultimately with the most complete success. How, then, can any man, at the present day, apprehend that that religion will be destroyed, or in any way invaded by the Roman Catholics, merely because some few of them may sit in the one or the other House of parliament? Are we to attach no importance to the zeal, the piety, and the purity of princinle of our Protestant clergy? Are we to place no confidence in the earnestness with which they inculcate the sacred doctrine handed down to them? Let us look to what was done by Ridley and Latimer, immediately after the Reformation. But, above all, let us look to Parker, Whitgift, and Bancroft, who were heads of houses, and founders of those schools in the University which I have the honour of representing. Can we, I say, looking at the example set by these great men, fear any inroads from the accession of a few Roman Catholics to seats in either House? But, if any doubts prevail on the subject, I beg to observe that there is an express provision against Catholics being allowed to preside as heads of schools. I am particularly anxious to relieve the hon. member from that paroxysm of alarm under which he concluded his speech. The hon. member had conjured up so many grounds of alarm that he appeared to apprehend their coming upon him, before he could make his escape from the House. But there exist no grounds for such alarm; the scriptures are abroad; the spread of knowledge is increased, and, as upon inquiry, truth must prevail against falsehood, so must Protestantism prevail against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. Of this all men must be sensible, nor can they be less aware, that there is no danger to the Protestant interests from the apparent disunion of the Protestants themselves. They do not differ as to the value of Protestant institutions; but the difference between Protestants in this House and Protestants out of the House, and among each other, is in the balance of opinion on the question whether civil rights can or cannot be safely communicated to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Those who think that such rights can be safely communicated to the Roman Catholics, are not opposed to the Protestant institutions of the country, but are as much inclined as others to support them; and when once this bill has passed, nothing will prevent them from making common cause with their Protestant brethren, in the event of any attempt against the safety of those Institutions. This legislation declares to the Catholic, "so far shall you go, and no farther; if you once attempt to transgress these bounds, you will find that we are all on one side." I think this difference, the only one that exists among the Protestants, is the real foundation of our security, and that difference will totally cease, the moment there is any show of attempting an abuse of the power we concede to the Catholics. If I believed that these concessions would in the slightest degree, weaken the Protestant faith—in which I thank God I have been educated, which in my manhood and maturer age has been my comfort, in which I hope to die, for which some of my forefathers have suffered—I should be the last person to advocate the change. It is because I felt well assured that without this measure the Irish Church would fall, and that the English Church was in danger, that I gave my humble assistance in bringing forward this measure. It was on these grounds that I at first gave it my concurrence, and that I shall continue to support it to the end.

said:—Sir, the noble lord whom I have now the pleasure of seeing opposite to me, called on me to address the House on a former occasion, on the ground that I was—to use his complimentary phrase—the first law authority in the House, or, in other words, the king's attorney-general; and now my hon. and learned friend, my late colleague in office, calls on me to address the House because I am not attorney-general. On the former occasion, I answered the noble lord's call as well as my poor abilities would allow; and I shall now endeavour to answer the somewhat discrepant and contradictory challenge of my hon. and learned friend, my late estimable colleague. The noble lord called on me, as the first existing law authority in the House, to maintain the proposition, that the exclusion of Catholicity was adopted as a principle of the Revolution. I entered the tilting-match to which I had been challenged by the noble lord—with what success I shall not now say. And my hon. and learned late colleague has challenged me to another tilting-match with him on the question, whether I do not entertain doubts of my construction of the oath which I took as attorney-general? This is the question on which my hon. and learned friend has challenged me to break a lance with him. On the former occasion, I said, that before I could consent to become the penman who would draw up this bill, or the legal officer who would sanction it, or the member of parliament who would support it in this House, I had attentively and anxiously read over my oath of office as attorney-general. I then said, that the lord chan cellar had his oath too, and, as I have dilated on that with some force on a former occasion, I shall make no further allusion to it on this. My hon. and learned friend has told us that that was a pungent oath. I too, say, that it is a pungent oath, and that it is of a nature so stringent, that it ought to press and restrict the conscience of the officer whom it professes to bind. My hon. and learned friend, or perhaps I should say my right hon. friend, as it is possible that he may be at present, jure suo, the existing first law authority, as I am not—my hon. and learned friend has been pleased to express his regret, that I am not joined with him in sanctioning this measure. I can assure my hon. and learned friend, that I, too, am extremely sorry I have not the pleasure to act with him on this occasion. I assure him that my feeling of regret towards him is reciprocal; and, from the high honour and talents of my learned friend, I most sincerely lament, that I cannot act in conjunction with my late estimable colleague in relation to this measure. But, whether as the existing first law authority in the House, or as the challenged opponent of my late hon. colleague, I must declare the utter impossibility of my concurring with his sentiments on the bill before the House. And, first, as to my hon. and learned friend's construction of the duties imposed on an attorney-general by his oath of office. My hon. and learned friend has said, that the attorney-general is bound by his official oath to give his attention to the care and superintendance of the king's interest in the Court of Exchequer and other courts of record, to enforce the execution of the laws, and to protect the property of the Crown, in all cases where it may be affected by the result of proceedings at law. This, doubtless, is the duty of the attorney-general, but this is not all; it is, in fact, but a branch of his duty. I say that the oath of the attorney-general—and I challenge any man to dispute my assertion—comprehends more, much more. The oath of an attorney-general is as large and ample in its obligation, as the oath taken by a privy councillor. I say it is as large and ample in its obligations to give just advice to the Crown, as the oath of the lord chancellor, and as strong and restrictive in such obligations; and I repeat that, consistently with that oath, I could not conscientiously concur in drawing up a bill which I was bound by my oath to advise his majesty not to sanction—a bill calculated to subvert those Protestant institutions which I was bound by my oath not to assail, and which his majesty was bound by his oath not to assail.

In answer to the challenge of my hon. and learned friend I must tell him, that I should consider I was putting the monarch in jeopardy if I advised him to give his assent to a bill, the tendency of which is to destroy the Protestant part of the constitution—which constitution he is bound by his Coronation Oath to defend and protect [loud cheers]. Sir, I have risen to answer my hon. and learned friend's challenge with much reluctance. I speak under the influence of severe ill health; nor would I have addressed the House at all on this occasion, had I not been called into the field by my late estimable colleague; for, as I said on a former night, no pain I ever experienced, or ever can experience, could be more severe than that which I felt at the necessity of separating from those hon. friends with whom I have so long acted, and to whom I am now opposed by a principle of constitutional antipathy, not a feeling of personal hostility. Personal feeling, personal imputation, I disclaim. I impute personal hostility to no hon. gentleman. I allow that whoever is of opinion, that the king is not bound by his Coronation Oath to maintain unaltered, in their present condition, the principles of this Protestant state, the rights and privileges of the bishops, and of the churches under their care, is justified in giving his support to the present bill; but while I admit so far, I must claim for myself and for those hon. friends who think that his majesty is bound by his oath to maintain those institutions, rights, and privileges. I say all persons who are of that opinion are compelled to oppose a bill which goes to subvert the Protestant principles of the constitution, laid down and adopted as essential parts of the Revolution of 1688. I repeat, then, that consistently with my construction of the obligations of the oath of attorney-general, I am bound to give my decided opposition to the bill. As to the matter of dispute between my hon. and learned friend and my hon. friend the late member for Cambridge, I shall not interfere with it. I shall leave it between them. Nor shall I declare any opinion on the question, how far the government was called on to give the university of Cambridge an opportunity of declaring their opinions on the respective merits of my late hon. colleague and my hon. friend, the late member for Cambridge, or which of the two hon. gentlemen would be the more adequate and fit representative for that university. Nor shall I attempt, whether consulted as the late or existing first law authority, to explain why this measure has been urged forward through parliament with such violent haste, with such unbridled rapidity, on the part of its supporters, that they cannot wait until they obtain the support of that university for their favourite measure; and that too, after another learned university had declared its decided opposition to it [cheers]. Sir, I do not quarrel with any gentleman for supporting this bill, who draws a construction from it different from that which I do; who is of opinion, that it does not aim a blow at our church establishment, nor threaten injury and subversion to our Protestant constitution. Sir, such a man, so sincerely believing the innocuous nature of this bill, I do not blame; but, while I make that concession to the supporters of the bill, I may express an humble hope, that I shall not be challenged by them from holding a different opinion from theirs. I trust I shall hear no more on the constructions of these oaths alluded to.

Sir, my hon. and learned friend has thought fit to make an attack upon me, because I comply with the dictates of what he calls a too tender conscience in opposing, in the year 1829, a measure sanctioned in 1791 and 1793, by official persons not so sensitive in their conscientious feelings relative to their official oath as I have shown myself to be. Such, he says, were lord Redesdale and lord Eldon. Sir, before I reply to this personal argument, I beg leave to tell my hon. and learned friend, that I do not know that any man has a right to set up as a guide for my conduct any such moral standard. I will not recognise any such personal measure of my conscientious feeling. I will not surrender or submit my political principles or moral feelings to the guidance of any man, however high his authority. But really I must say, that it is too hard that I should be accused of dealing in badinage—of having acted with a morbid delicacy of morals—a trifling sensibility of conscience—in putting my construction on the obligation of my oath of office, after such and such official authorities had felt, and acted in a far different way in the year 1791. But, did lord Redesdale and lord Eldon act in 1791 as my hon. and learned friend would have me act now in relation to this measure of 1829? Did those noble and learned lords, when in office, give their consent in 1791 to a bill such as the present—to a bill throwing open the parliament and the great offices of state to the Roman Catholics? I say, no. They did no such thing. But what did they do? Why, lord Redesdale brought in a bill relieving the Roman Catholics from the penalties to which they were liable for not going to church service, and for acquiring property above a given amount. It was a relaxation of the penal inflictions to which a Catholic was liable by the law of the land. But, did they in that bill of relief from penalties concede political power? I say, no; they only relaxed the penal securities that had been exacted at the time of the Revolution, and lasted up to that period of 1791. If my hon. and learned friend, then, will say, that the then sir John Mitford, in drawing up that bill, or that the then sir John Scott, in supporting it, acted inconsistently with their opposition to the present measure of 1829, I will take the liberty of telling my late learned colleague that he is decidedly wrong, and that he cannot have read the bill on the table of the House; and, as to the alleged over-tenderness of my conscience in regard to the oath of office, I contend, that I am borne out by the conduct and opinions of those very noble and learned lords whose authority has been quoted against me.

Now, Sir, for the bill itself; and here I have to complain that we have had no explanation of it whatsoever by any of its supporters. No explanation of its bearings has been given by the right hon. Secretary, either on his opening of the measure, nor in its progress through the committee. In fact, up to the present moment, no man knows what it is. Even my late learned colleague has not adverted to a single clause of it, except, indeed, that relative to the Catholic titular sees of Ireland. Now, I will explain the bill. I will do that, though not in office, which my hon. and learned friend, though in office, has omitted to do. The bill professes to tell us, that the whole of the civil, the whole of the judicial, departments of state are to be thrown open to the Catholics, with the exception of the office of chief governor of Ireland and the two seals. In these civil and judicial appointments are included competency to ministerial office and competency to parliament. I do not know whether the bill is meant to convey securities or not. The bill is said to have been framed for the purpose of being satisfactory to all parties; but to one party, namely, the Protestants, it cannot give satisfaction, unless it affords protection to the church in the shape of securities. Now, the subject of securities has been much talked about in the House and without it too—in particular by a clerical opponent of emancipation, in a pamphlet published in the time of the late Mr. Canning—a publication displaying great power and acuteness of argument, though containing too much wormwood and camomile mixed up with it. However, that reverend doctor proved the necessity of securities with very able reasoning. Is the bill framed on that principle? No, Sir. One of the securities insisted on in the publication to which I allude was a control, on the part of the Crown, over the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. Another security was a power of interfering with, and restricting the correspondence between the Catholic bishops and the see of Rome. But are those securities in the bill on the table? No, Sir. They have been omitted lest, forsooth, says the right hon. the home Secretary, they may not be satisfactory to the Roman Catholics, and also that we may not involve ourselves in the awkward fact of recognizing the Roman Catholic church. Thus, the omission of the House interfering with the communication between the Catholic bishops and the see of Rome has been resolved on, in order to avoid breaking up the union existing between the supporters of the measure, and lest government may seem to imply a want of confidence in the Catholics—an imputation (so says the right hon. gentleman) calculated to excite irritation among them; and, finally, that, when we are conferring power, we ought not at that moment display any distrust of those on whom we are conferring it. These are the reasons given by the right hon. gentleman, and on these the securities have been altogether abandoned. But, then, it is said, the oath to be taken by the Roman Catholics on coming into office is a security; and it is argued, that on entering office the Catholic must take the new oath or the old one, and that nobody but a Catholic will take the new one. But the oath does not call on him to say that he is a Catholic. The right honourable gentleman has omitted that obligation; and how do I know what is his religion, or whether he is a Roman Catholic, unless he declares on oath what his religion is? I repeat, when a man is about to enter an office, suppose of privy councillor, or in the cabinet—an office in which he may have an opportunity of using influence over the distribution of church patronage—I say, how do you know whether he is a Roman Catholic or not unless he declares so by his oath—unless he is compelled by the oath to say whether or not he is a Roman Catholic? I say, in the present form of the oath you have no means of knowing it. And yet this oath is called a protective oath to prevent the Roman Catholics from offering injury to the church!

Now, Sir, I would wish that some senior optime from Oxford, or some senior wrangler from Cambridge, would explain how this bill is to bind a Roman Catholic in his legislative capacity, in the discharge of his parliamentary duties. Sir, there are hon. members in this House, and Protestants too—such as an honourable member, who must be absent from his place on this night through indisposition alone—I mean the hon. member for Montrose—who think that the revenue of the church is national property; that it may be dealt with as a state fund to be distributed by parliament, as parliament shall think proper; in short, as a sort of strong box or till, into which the minister may put his hand whenever the public necessities require it. There are other hon. members, too, such as the hon. member for Colchester, who think—what that hon. member candidly acknowledged—that the property of the church was an incumbrance to her, and that the sooner she was disburthened of it the purer she would become as a religion. Now, suppose the hon. member for Colchester to rise and move the appropriation of the church property to other than their present objects, and the hon. member for Montrose to second that motion—do you mean to tell men the Catholic would be acting against his parliamentary oath, if he sanctioned such a measure, so moved and seconded by Protestants, and probably supported, too, by sixty or seventy other Protestants in this House? Would the Catholic be restricted from supporting that vote by the oath in the bill? Answer that. Let the casuists from Oxford or Cambridge answer that, if they can. I was asked a question; I answered it; and now, in my turn, I ask, I invite, I challenge, any man in the House to stand up in his place, and answer my question. I ask, do you or do you not, when you give the Roman Catholic legislative power, restrain and restrict him from acting in his legislative capacity as he pleases? Satisfy me that the Roman Catholic, when admitted by this bill into parliament, will be restricted and shackled as to his power to injure the church establishment, and that the Protestant will still remain free to vote according to his conscience; do that, and I will instantly concede, that you will have taken the poison out of the measure under your consideration. But if you will leave to the Roman Catholics this legislative power to injure the Protestant institutions of the state; then, I say, I can never believe any man who tells me, that there is no danger to the church in the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament.

In giving this explanation of the bill, I do merely what my late learned colleague should have done, but has not. In fact, in my present situation, I am obliged (so to speak) to take up the heel-taps of my learned friend the solicitor-general. I have said, and proved too, that any man may be, after this bill passes, a privy-councillor, or cabinet minister, without your knowing that he is a Catholic unless the oath shall compel him to declare that he is one. But, supposing that the oath compel him to state his religion, and that he declares he is a Roman Catholic, then imagine him a minister. Now, it is well known that there is nobody present to witness the recommendations made by a minister to the king in relation to the distribution of offices in the church. Now, a Roman Catholic minister may attempt to use his influence with the king, in recommending to appointments in the church; and who, I ask, is to know, or to be able to prove, that Catholic minister's violation of the law? "But," exclaims the right hon. gentleman, "when a Catholic minister fills an office connected with appointments in the church, the right of recommendation will fall to the home Secretary!" But, I say to the right hon. gentleman in rejoinder, supposing the home Secretary too to be a Catholic, who will watch him? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. If the key of the box that holds church patronage is locked up in a larger box, who is to keep the key of the larger one? The right hon. gentleman will here exclaim, that it is improbable, almost impossible, that a man should get into office capable of bringing the church into such danger. Sir, I do not say that we shall, or indeed can, witness every day, a man who can be the champion of a cause one day, and a traitor to it the next, or who an oppose a measure in one year, and in one official character, and support it in another year, and when filling another situation; or a man who can write a book in favour of a particular measure of securities one time, and give his academical vote against his former opinions at another period. Sir, I do not say, I will not imagine, for the honour of human nature, that such characters can often exist, or be found possessing power in the state; but, take the case of a home secretary abandoning his constitutional principles for the sake of cabinet connections,—or suppose him borne along against his better nature, by the favour of a body of men with whom he is in habits of official communication, or, what may be as germane to the matter; suppose him a personal friend to a Catholic prime minister, hostile to the establishment, and attached to him, and disposed, by some sympathetic principle, to co-operate with him in his projects, what security against these projects has the church in such a home secretary? What security, what protection, does this bill afford to the Protestant constitution against the machinations of such a home secretary? I say none—none in the world. There is no protection in the bill—in the matter of security for the church it is mere waste paper, it may be useful in wrapping up cheese and butter—you may send it into the streets as a package, or, as the poet has it,

—"In vicum vendentem thus et odoris,

Et piper, et quicquid chartis amicitur inept."

I repeat, the bill may be sent as a covering for butter and cheese, to those repositories of various and diversified commodities, denominated in the vulgar tongue, shops of green-grocers; but for any legislative or protective purpose, it is an utter waste of print, ink, and paper.

I do not know whether, the right hon. and learned member for Knaresborough is in the House [sir J. Mackintosh bowed] I did not know it. I am happy to see him, and I put it to him, what he would think of having the archbishop of Canterbury regulate all the appointments of the Presbyterian church in Scotland ["hear, hear, hear," from sir J. Mackintosh]. The right hon. and learned member says, "hear, hear." I say, "hear, hear," also; but I call upon him to do something more than cry "hear, hear." I call upon him to answer me if he can. The commission—that farce too bad for Sadler's Wells—is taken out of the bill; even the framers were ashamed of it, and the power which was to have been given to that commission is transferred to the archbishop of Canterbury. Maintainer as I am of the church, its defender, and the would-be preserver of it, in all its rights, I should pause before I conferred even on a Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, such an extensive patronage, when the prime minister is a Roman Catholic. I put it to any man, whether these numerous powers ought to be concentred in any one individual? ["hear, hear," from sir J. Mackintosh]. No doubt the right hon. member has a most learned argument in petto; we shall hear his answer by and by; my argument is what I have stated, and, meo periculo, I give it, at the risk of all the cutting-up with which he threatens me. The effect of the bill is to incapacitate a Roman Catholic, as to the patronage of the church, and to capacitate him as to the whole government of the country. The bill says, that the preferments to which a Catholic prime minister would have a right to nominate, shall be vested in the archbishop of Canterbury; but I contend, that the prime minister has no right of nomination at all: he can only recommend to the Crown, and I assert, as a lawyer, whether in office or out of office, that this bill would not prevent a Roman Catholic prime minister, from recommending the mode in which ecclesiastical appointments should be filled up, because the nomination is not in the prime minister, but in the Crown. Therefore, in this respect, the measure is inoperative; and while a prime minister is incapable of being convicted of the high misdemeanor of which it talks, and the penalty recovered, he may recommend to the king any mode he thinks fit, of filling up the highest vacancies in our Protestant church.

On a former occasion I asserted, and I again asserts, that the bill, in its liberality of giving, and its stinginess of retaining—in its lavishness of confidence, and its penury of security—has given away all ecclesiastical preferments with a few miserable exceptions. I do not mean to say, that it does not secure the two Universities, and the schools of Eton, Westminster, and Winchester. No Catholic minister shall directly pervert those to the purpose of advancing his faith and principles; but let me ask any lawyer who hears me, what is the meaning of the words "ecclesiastical establishments?" I do not ask the framer of the bill, for I am afraid he could not answer me without violating the good humour I wish to see preserved; and I will suppose, that it was put together, compounded, concocted, but certainly not digested, by some anonymous penman. What are ecclesiastical establishments? Does it mean, that schools founded by clergymen are such? If so, nine-tenths of the schools in the kingdom are not ecclesiastical establishments; and how comes it, that in the list of public schools, the Charter-house is not included; of which, by virtue of office, some of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues are governors? Merchant Tailors' is also a lay foundation, and Harrow and Rugby are in the same predicament: they are all left unprotected, and into them Catholics may be poured in any numbers to infuse their principles into the Protestant part of their little community, afterwards to be transferred to Oxford and Cambridge.

I have now arrived at that part of the bill which strikes me speaking in the capacity of attorney-general, as most extraordinary. Into it is introduced a sham penal code, with penalties from 50l. to 200l.; many of these, I apprehend, could not be enforced, but I will suppose that they could. The penalties are to be sued for, at the will and pleasure of Mr. Attorney-general; and, will the explainers of this unexplained, the maintainers of this unmaintained, bill, condescend to show me what chance there is that they will ever be recovered—the door, the very key of the door, to these penalties is in the hands, and within the arbitrium of Mr. Attorney-general only; and who is this Mr. Attorney-general to be? Suppose be should say one day to the Catholic prime minister, "There is a member of your cabinet who has not taken the oath, and I am minded to enforce the penalty, I will walk home to my chambers in Lincoln's-inn, and draw the information." He does walk to his chambers—he does draw the information; and he sends for the clerk of the Crown-office, in order that he may file it. The clerk of the Crown-office may laugh at him, and say, "You Attorney-general!—you are not Attorney-general at all—the king has no further occasion for your services." The fact being, that while the learned gentleman was on his way from Downing-street to his chambers, the Catholic prime minister had seen reason to remove him for threatening to enforce the penalty—his hand is paralysed—the pen drops with which he was on the point of signing the information—his capacity is at an end, and he is found incapable. Did any man ever before hear of securities depending upon pecuniary penalties—those penalties depending solely on the Attorney-general—and that Attorney-general depending merely upon the good-will and pleasure of a Catholic prime minister? The prime minister has nothing to do but to clap an extinguisher on the Attorney-general, and there is an end at once of penalties and securities. The right hon. gentleman has recommended, that the subject should be treated with good humour; and really in all this there is nothing to check our laughter, but our pity. It is easy, by the language of an act of parliament—the vox et preterea nihil of a statute—by naked enactments, incapable of being carried into effect—to pretend to give securities; but what do they amount in the hands of a Protestant Attorney-general; and how less than nothing, how mere a mockery, would these penalties be, when their recovery is confined to a Roman Catholic Attorney-general! A troublesome, pertinacious, Protestant Attorney-general is easily disposed of—every body knows, and has seen, how he may be got rid of [hear, hear]—but a Catholic Attorney-general will not feel himself bound by the same conscience, and will not attempt to incur the displeasure of his superiors, by unwelcome prosecutions.

I have now travelled through these miserable clauses—through this waste paper of a bill—or, to borrow a phrase employed elsewhere—this almanack, old and out of date before it is in esse-which has begun and ended in rottenness, deception, duplicity, and treachery [cheers, and a laugh].

On a former occasion, I was called an Attorney-general in parenthesis; but now, among all my sins, numerous and heavy as they are, that I am an Attorney-general in parenthesis is not one of them. That crime is not mine now, and it was no fault of mine, that when I spoke last I did not go into the subject of Ireland. I did touch upon it as far as was necessary, and I disputed the position of the right hon. gentleman when he said, "If you do not give me a measure of your own you must take mine." What information had we before us on which to found a measure? What right had the Secretary of State to meet us at once and knock us down, as he fancied, with his argument. "If you do not adopt my remedy, you have no remedy of your own to apply?" That is a very dexterous, and a very dapper way of treating the question; it was jumping at once to a conclusion, without giving us a moment to consider, and many thought he was much too short in his syllogism. On the first day of the session, he comes down, and astonishes us with the proposal of Catholic emancipation;—he, who had all his life resisted it, at once turns short round upon his friends, and calls upon them to turn with him; and those who refused to do so, he instantly called upon to originate a measure of relief for Ireland, before a moment's time had been allowed for inquiry, or even for reflection. He, indeed, came down with his plan cut and dry; but was it fair to expect those who had never dreamt of such a project to be prepared on a sudden with an equivalent for his rejected proposal? He put an alternative with which he well knew nobody could comply. I call upon the Cambridge Attorney-general, and upon the Oxford logician, to vindicate this preposterous mode of reasoning and confuting; for I profess myself unable, even at twenty-four hours' notice, to bring forward any alternative.

And now a few words, and a very few, about the sense of the people upon this question. Upon this point, I have heard able arguments from able Scotchmen, physicians and metaphysicians too, Edinburgh and Glasgow logic, but not more convincing than that of the right hon. gentleman. They admit it to be true, that the petitions of the people, in numbers, constitute a preponderance of ten to one; but they add, that reason and justice in this instance is with the few, and not with the many. This topic was urged in very tasty and flowery language, and in a very captivating style, by the hon. member who presented the petition on Thursday. He told us it was signed by all the greatest men in Scotland, where, according to him, they are all great men—by sir Walter Scott, Dr. Chalmers, Mr. Solicitor-general Hope, and many others, exhibited before us in order and degree, all exalted in rank, and all of the first rate intellectual powers, and most refined accomplishments. The argument, not indeed stated, but insinuated, is this—that the Protestant church is to be considered and valued, not by the many, but by the few; and that you are not to take into view what a hundred thousand respectable and well-educated tradesmen of London and Westminster think upon the subject; but what are the opinions of sir Walter Scott, Dr. Chalmers, and a given number of the professors of Edinburgh universities. The value of petitions is not to depend upon the people at large, but upon the learned oligarchy of the north. I take the liberty of asserting, that I hold this doctrine to be an invasion of the principle of the Bill of Rights, and an insult to common sense. I maintain, that men of plain understanding, in the lower ranks of life, are just as capable of judging of the value of the Protestant church, and of the effect of securities, as any man, if such a man there be, who can write as well as sir Walter Scott, or preach as well as Dr. Chalmers ["No, no," from several quarters]. Honourable members may cry "no, no." It is just as easy for the right hon. gentlemen to say, "produce me your alternative;" but they will find it rather harder to contradict me by argument than by assertion. The words of Magna Charta must be altered in future; and if such a doctrine is to prevail, the opinions of the mere multitude are to be disregarded, and we are to adopt as infallible the dogmas of a Caledonian college. The same sort of argument was adopted with reference to the last election for the University of Oxford; twenty first-class men were said to have voted on one side, and, perhaps, only ten on the other; as if the sentiments of all the common masters of arts were undeserving consideration, because, forsooth, although they had spent ten or twenty years in the University, and had been raised to the most important duties in the church, they had not, in the onset of their career, gained the highest scholastic honours. What may be the scale of the Cambridge senior wranglers and senior optimes we know not, and there certainly has been a great deal of shyness in endeavouring to ascertain it. But I take the liberty of asserting, in opposition to this doctrine, that the religion of the church of England is not the religion of the few, but of the many—not of the ministers but of the people—not of men of intellectual attainments and of Scotch metaphysicians—but of men of a sober, dispassionate, reflecting turn of mind. Such are the people of England. It is well to say, that the most eminent novelist of this or of any other time or country is in favour of this novelty—that the most profound metaphysicians that ever graced our schools, see no danger in this speculation; but the question is, what do the people of England think of it, and what do they fear from it? And when they are blamed for listening to the information and advice of their pastors, I answer, that, on such points, they are much better able to instruct them, than the possessors of the most refined and curious genius.

Among other innovations, this bill is to give us the benefit of Catholic judges. Allybone was a judge and a Jesuit, the last that graced our bench, who wore the ermined exterior of a judge, and scandalised and vilified the administration of British law, by his charge to the jury in the case of the Seven Bishops. He gave us a sample of what may be expected from a papist, when elevated to that station, and when a question is brought before him involving the interests of his faith. The bishops, as is well known, had refused to read in their churches the declaration of king James, and nothing could be more delicate or inoffensive than the terms of their memorial; its characteristics were extreme complacency and mildness; but it was called a libel, and it was submitted to the judgment of the court, whether it was or was not what it was called. Let us see then how a Roman Catholic judge sums up the law of libel. He says, "I think, in the first place, that no man can take upon him to write against the actual exercise of the government, unless he have leave from the government. So that I lay down that, in the first place, the government ought not to be impeached by argument, nor the exercise of the government shaken by argument; because I can manage a proposition in itself doubtful with a better pen than another man; this, I say is a libel." This, the House will remember, is Catholic law, laid down by a Jesuit judge, on what was then and will be in future, if this bill passes, a Catholicized bench. Let us see how this learned Jesuit and juris-consult proceeds:—"Then I lay down this for my next position, that no private man can take upon him to write concerning the government at all; for what has any private man to do with the government, if his interest be not stirred or shaken? It is the business of the government to manage matters relating to the government; it is the business of subjects to mind only their own properties and interests. If my interest is not shaken, what have I to do with matters of government? They are not within my sphere. If the government does come to shake my particular interest, the law is open for me, and I may redress myself by law; and when I intrude myself into other men's business that does not concern my particular interest, I am a libeller. These I have laid down for plain propositions; now, then, let us consider further, whether, if I will take upon me to contradict the government, any specious pretence that I shall put upon it shall dress it up in another form, and give it a better denomination? And, truly, I think it is the worse because it comes in a better dress; for by that rule every man that can put on a good vizard may be as mischievous as he will to the government at the bottom; so that whether it be in the form of a supplication, or an address, or a petition, if it be what it ought not to be, let us call it by its true name, and give it its right denomination—it is a libel." Very likely I shall be told, that our law of libel has been altered since the time of Mr. Jesuit Justice Allybone; but let us look at the law as summed up here, and we may anticipate what it will be when we again are blessed with such ornaments of the profession.

Let us not forget that this doctrine of non-resistance, of permitting no argument against government, is of the Roman school—it is strictly belonging to the Catholic church, and the privilege of imprimatur, abandoned by our common law, is still adhered to and preserved by the church of Rome as a principle and maxim. If, therefore, we have Catholic judges we shall have Jesuit Allybones, and we shall be able to speak and write nothing against the public authorities without the terrors of excommunication. A vast deal, in the course of these discussions has been said about names and of the value of authority, and I think I can produce a list of at least as weighty names as those of the writers of novels, however luxuriant may be the emanations of their genius, or of any lawyers of Scotland, however great their learning. Lord Somers, I apprehend, is a lawyer who may be pitted even against the Solicitor-general of Scotland. Milton and Locke are metaphysicians of the olden time, at least equal to any metaphysicians of our own. Hume is one among "quales viros Caledonia emisit," and his authority is perhaps equal to that of any modern, however, palmy, magnificent and efflorescent. To these I may add Sydney and Harrington, and among more modern lawyers, sir William Blackstone. I will not trouble the House with a longer catalogue of great men, the enemies of popery, and it is the less necessary in these times when the many are thrown overboard, and numbers are to go for nothing. If this question were to be decided by the weight of the authority of great names, I could produce a series not easily counter-balanced; but I contend that the wishes and fears of the people of England are to be respected; that their petitions are not to be received with sneers and contempt, while those who thus treat them violate the constitution and insult their undoubted opinions. I will not now trouble the House further: this is the second time I have been called into the field, and if a third time I must meet my adversaries, I am ready to throw down my gauntlet, and I will not refuse the encounter.

said:—Sir, the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman on this occasion is the least effective of his two speeches; and with the charges it makes against me, it contains a challenge—a challenge I am about to accept, while I attempt to defend the bill against the charges he has made. If that speech contains all the imputations against the measure with which it can be visited, I must confess I have not heard, in the whole course of the debates—and I have listened, throughout to the eloquent speeches made by the defenders of the measure—but I did not hear any one with such complete satisfaction as I heard the speech which the hon. and learned member for Plymp- ton made against the bill. The hon. and learned gentleman has attacked the policy of the bill—and why? The hon. gentleman, Sir, has hunted up some quotation, some opinion of Mr. Justice Allybone, in order to prove the impolicy of admitting Roman Catholics to seats on the judgment bench; and all I heard went only to prove, that because Mr. Justice Ally-bone held an absurd opinion, or made use of an absurd argument, we must now expect the same doctrines from any Roman Catholic who should become a justice. But how would the doctrines laid down apply to the Protestants? Were these arguments, at the same time, not equally erroneous? According to the doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman, any man who lays down an obnoxious, or incorrect, doctrine on the bench, is, by so doing, not only disqualified himself for civil liberty, but his erroneous doctrine is to disqualify all the persons who profess the same faith through all generations. On this principle, I ask, what will become of the lawyers of 1829, if they are to be judged by the doctrines of the last century? What was done, Sir, on the question of ship money? Were the judges on that occasion Roman Catholics. Is it possible to draw any argument against any opinion from the erroneous opinions of men during a bad time? Is it possible to conceive for a moment, that because Mr. Justice Allybone held an opinion in such times which was not the same as that held by his colleagues, that his opinion is for ever to exclude Catholics from the judgment seat? What, however, did the Lord Chief Justice say on the same occasion—"Now, gentlemen, any thing that shall disturb the government, or make mischief and a stir among the people, is certainly within the case of Libellis Famosis, and I must in short give you my opinion—I do take it to be libel." Other judges, not Catholics, held the same opinion as Mr. Justice Allybone. Now, the hon. and learned gentleman quotes a Catholic judge; but when the hon. and learned gentleman wanted, the other evening, to hurl a sarcasm against my noble friend, the lord Chancellor, then he referred to lord chancellor Shaftesbury, and to lord chancellor Jeffries. When he is to oppose the Catholics, he refers to the errors of a Catholic; when he attacks a Protestant, he finds arms amongst Protestants. But we disclaim the doctrines —we refuse to be bound by the acts—of those judges; and so may the Roman Catholics of this day disclaim the doctrines, and refuse to be bound by the decisions, of Mr. Justice Allybone, as we disclaim the doctrines of lord chancellor Shaftesbury, and refuse to do homage to the cruelties of Chief Justice Jeffries. The argument of the hon. and learned gentleman is worth nothing, or it tells against the Protestants quite as much as against the Catholics.

As I have disposed of this point, and as the hon. and learned gentleman has alluded to me, I feel myself bound to advert to the points mentioned by the hon. and learned gentleman. I must first say that no person could have been so much surprised, I may say astonished, as I was, at the speech which the hon. and learned gentleman made from this bench. I cannot express, indeed, the surprise, the astonishment, which that speech excited in me. Sir, up to that hour, no person heard of the intention of the hon. and learned gentleman to make a speech, and no person heard of the indignation by which the hon. and learned gentleman says he was actuated, nor of the dangers from the political antipathy of the Catholics to which he then alluded. Sir, I will narrate facts. The hon. and learned gentleman has informed the House correctly, that a communication was made to him seven days before the meeting of parliament, of the intentions of the government as to this bill. But why was the communication made? The hon. and learned gentleman was no confidential adviser of the Crown. We were not bound to ask his opinion as to the course of policy which we meant to pursue. We had merely to resort to his assistance—not for advice, as to the course we meant to pursue, but for his legal assistance in framing the measures we intended to submit to parliament. The House would suppose, when this communication was made to the hon. and learned gentleman, that he had declared that he could not assist to draw the bill, and that he could not support the principle of the measure; but the hon. gentleman said nothing whatever, by which it could be inferred that he did not acquiesce in the measure. I am bound to add, Sir, that the hon. and learned gentleman did assist in drawing the bill for the suppression of the Catholic Association. We thought its was not fair to ask his assistance in drawing the bill to put down the Catholic Association, without communicating to the hon. and learned gentleman the whole intentions of the government, as far as the principle of the measure was concerned. The hon. and learned gentleman made no objections; he assisted in drawing the hill to suppress the Catholic Association. He did more. He assisted us with his legal advice in drawing up the present bill, both as respects the law of endowments and of ecclesiastical charities. It was not until the 23rd of February, that the hon. and learned gentleman expressed any opinion against the measure, or any determination not to draw the bill. But parliament met on the 5th of February. The intentions of the government were communicated to the hon. and learned gentleman seven days before the meeting of parliament; he assisted in drawing the bill for suppressing the Catholic Association; he assisted us with his advice, with respect to the law of endowments, and superstitious uses, and he never during that time expressed any doubt of the general policy of the measure. When the time came that it was necessary for my noble friend, who had given notice that the measure would be submitted to parliament on the 5th March, that all the details of the measure should be prepared—for about the principle we had previously agreed—when it became necessary that my noble friend should, on the 23rd of February, ask the hon. and learned gentleman to prepare the bill, is there any man who heard the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman the other evening, who would not suppose that the hon. and learned gentleman displayed his indignation, and answered. "I foresee danger to my country from the measure, and I have sworn an oath which will not allow me to assist you?" [Sir C. Wetherell offered a momentary interruption without rising from his seat; but what it was could only be ascertained by persons immediately around him. Mr. Peel continued.] No, Sir, the hon. gentleman brings forward the date of the formal communication made to him on the subject, for the purpose of grounding upon it a charge against his majesty's government. I will state the facts of the case, and I declare it was not until the night the hon. and learned gentleman made the declaration in his speech, that, I or others had any grounds for sup- posing that his repugnance to this measure arose from the oath he had taken as Attorney-general. In answer to the communication made to him, he said, he could not give his individual support to the bill; that was his answer, and the only objection offered by the hon. and learned gentleman to it, as far as we were cognizant, until his speech in this House. [loud cries of hear, hear]. Be it remembered, that that speech was made by an Attorney-general of the Crown, holding office at the moment,—not having resigned it—for the purpose of founding a charge against the government under which he acted: and at the same time complaining that he did not know the intention of ministers until a short period before the meeting of parliament. This confidential officer of the Crown, of his own accord, discloses the date of a communication confidentially and officially made to him on the subject. [hear, hear] These are the plain facts—thus has the hon. and learned gentleman acted. One would have thought, that having predetermined so to act, he was not warranted in holding office for a moment; yet he did so, although he had not resigned, nor signified his intention to resign. Certainly, under these circumstances, the hon. and learned gentleman was not warranted in stating the date of an official communication, for the purpose of founding a charge against government for its conduct in connexion with that communication.

With respect to the law of the case, I am aware of the tremendous difficulty which an unlearned individual like myself must find, in attempting to reply to the arguments of an hon. gentleman so skilful and sagacious upon that subject. Yet I must here observe, that if I have any understanding of the bill, nothing has more reconciled me to the loss we have sustained in being deprived of the hon. and learned gentleman's assistance, than the circumstance of his finding fault with the measure upon such legal grounds as he has done. Step by step will I follow the hon. and learned gentleman through his objections. His observations have made me regard the bill as even better than I before thought it. The hon. and learned gentleman states as his first objection to the bill, that it opens and allows an unrestricted intercourse with the See of Rome, The bill does no such thing. It does not repeal a single act which now restrains that intercourse. If we legalized that intercourse, by establishing a commission to inspect and regulate it, we should by that have recognized it. But as the bill stands, it does no such thing. Every act which prohibits that intercourse remains untouched in the Statute Book. The bill admits the Roman Catholics to the exercise of equal civil rights with Protestants, and does not recognize the intercourse with the Holy See. The hon. and learned gentleman, then, has confounded two things essentially different.

The hon. and learned gentleman accuses me of having abandoned the clauses which were found in the bill of 1825, for appointing a commission of Roman Catholic bishops, who should inquire into the character of candidates for ecclesiastical places, and report the same to the Crown. Sir, I did abandon those clauses, because I thought them utterly useless. The commission of bishops was to report on the loyalty of any ecclesiastical candidates. This was invalid as a security. I know not what loyalty means, or how it is to be ascertained. Those who take the oaths prescribed, are to be considered as complying with the obligations imposed by the legislature, and are to be looked upon as loyal. I abandoned the clauses, then, because I thought them useless as a security; and had the Crown appointed a commission of Roman Catholic bishops to inquire into the character of candidates, and report that to the Crown, it would have been, on the part of the Crown, a recognition of the Roman Catholic religion in England; which it is better should not be recognized by the government of this country. For these reasons I abandoned the provisions which the hon. and learned gentleman reproaches me with having given up. The same reasons apply to the clauses for the inspection of the intercourse with Rome, to be found in former acts. Those clauses provided, that what was purely of a spiritual nature should be excepted from the inspection; and this allowed such large exceptions, that I thought it was of no use. With such exceptions, the clause would not have imposed any real restrictions, while the enacting it would have recognised the Roman Catholic church. It seemed to me better, therefore, to abandon the clause, and not to recognise that church. Now we do not recognise it, and we do not pretend to possess a security that can never answer the purpose expected from it. For these reasons, then, I abandoned the securities formerly demanded in bills for the relief of the Catholics. It has been well said of them, that they served as a blind to the Protestants, without affording them any effectual security.

Next comes the hon. and learned gentleman's objection as to the oath that a Roman Catholic is to take, disclaiming any intention to subvert the present church establishment, and swearing never to exercise any privilege to which he is or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the united kingdom. The hon. and learned gentleman is not satisfied with the omission of a disclaimer on the part of the Catholics of the exploded dogmas that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and that in certain cases murder may be meritoriously committed. The hon. and learned gentleman says, that I have not inserted in the oath prescribed to the Roman Catholics, a declaration that they are not excused from holding faith with Protestants, and are not bound to kill them. But why should we retain offensive words that are better omitted? We omitted them because it seemed wiser to do so; and now we are charged with having abandoned all security for the Protestant church, because we have not imposed a declaration an the Catholics, that they are bound to keep faith with heretics, and are not bound to kill Protestants. If the words are omitted, the hon. and learned gentleman thinks that the Catholics will not incur the same penalties as under the act of 1793. The hon. and learned gentleman must recollect that lord Eldon took part in drawing up the bill of 1791; but he was also attorney—general in 1793. I admit that those who were parties to the act of 1793 are not called on to he parties to this measure, because this act goes much beyond that in the privileges it grants; but the preamble of the bill of 1793 says, that the Roman Catholics shall not incur any penalties, forfeitures, or pains, whatever, more than Protestants, on taking the oaths prescribed by that act. The exceptions in the bill of 1793 were more numerous than those in the present bill. The hon. and learned gentleman says, that the Roman Catholics' oath will not prevent Protestants from entering the House. If this argument is well founded, how does he reconcile it with the declaration of the Dissenters, and with the oath of a Privy-councillor? The declaration of a Dissenter, when he enters parliament is, that he will not use any power or influence he may possess by virtue of any office he holds to weaken the Protestant church establishment, or to disturb the bishops and clergy in the exercise of their legal authority. The bill admits the Roman Catholics into the Privy Council, calling on them to take an oath, that they will not use their privileges for the injury of the established church. We are not willing that the Catholics should be excluded, and we are willing to provide for the security of the established church; the reason for introducing the oath is, that similar oaths have been formerly introduced.

The next objection of the hon. and learned gentleman is to the clause which gives the power to the archbishop of Canterbury to exercise the right of presentation to any ecclesiastical benefice or preferment, in case the appointment to such a benefice shall belong to an office the holder of which is a Catholic. We are willing to remedy any plausible objection to the bill; but if the hon. and learned gentleman has so many objections to make to the measure, why did he not attend the committee, instead of reserving all his objections to this last stage of the measure? An objection was made in the committee, and it was suggested that the archbishop of Canterbury was the best person to hold in his hands any power to present to ecclesiastical preferment. We were willing to listen to that suggestion; but the hon. and learned gentleman reserves his objections to the third reading of the bill, when, if they be well founded, the evil cannot be remedied. The objection of the hon. and learned gentleman, however, is not well founded, when he states that the church preferment of Scotland is to be placed in the hands of the archbishop of Canterbury. The bill does no such thing; and either the hon. and learned gentleman has not read, or has not understood the bill, if he supposes that it vests any power over the church of Scotland in the hands of the archbishop of Canterbury. The bill does not vest the archbishop with any patronage or preferment whatever. But as there is certain church preferment in the hands of the Crown, which is disposed of under the advice of a responsible minister, should the minister of the Home Department be a Roman Catholic, in that case he cannot, advise the Crown in giving, away this preferment, which must only be done by a Protestant minister. There are, however, some offices under the Crown, such as the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster, which bestows on its holder, virtute officii a right to present to certain ecclesiastical preferments; and the bill provides, that if such offices are held by a Roman Catholic the presentation to those preferments shall be exercised by the archbishop of Canterbury. Now it does so happen, that in Scotland there is not a single civil office which has annexed to it any church patronage. In this case, then, of such offices as I have alluded to being held by Catholics, the patronage belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury: the presentations by the Crown must be made by the advice of a responsible minister.

The next objection made by the hon. and learned gentleman was to the clause relating to the scholastic establishments. The hon. and learned gentleman objects to the words "ecclesiastical schools;" but, in fact, the bill makes no alteration in the law in this respect, and Protestant foundations, will, as heretofore, have only Protestant masters. We have foreseen this objection, and we come prepared to leave out the words "schools of ecclesiastical foundation," so as to make the clause apply to schools generally. The act will not, then give any persons any new powers in this respect, nor entitle them to any exception, which they do not now possess. The bill will then leave the Catholics their schools, and the Protestants theirs.

The next objection of the hon. and learned gentleman is, that all the penalties are pecuniary; and that the offences are to be prosecuted at the discretion of the Attorney-general, who may be a Catholic; or, if willing to prosecute, the minister may be a Catholic, and appoint another Attorney-general. In the first place, the House must suppose the Attorney-general unwilling to prosecute; but the hon. and learned gentleman might have recollected that some Attorney-general, at least, have some respect for the oath they take. In the next place, the penalties are not altogether pecuniary: if the hon. and learned gentleman had read the whole clause, he would have found that the four last lines stated that the person should lose his office. The clause is this:—

"And be it enacted, That if any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, shall enter upon the exercise and enjoyment of any office or franchise, or of any office or place of trust or profit under his, majesty, not having, in manner, and at the time aforesaid, taken and subscribed the oath hereinbefore appointed and set forth, then, and in every such case, such person shall forfeit to his majesty the sum of two hundred pounds: and the appointment of, such person to the office, franchise, or place, so by him held, shall thereupon become altogether void; and the office, franchise, or place, shall be deemed and taken to be vacant to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

.—"Thereupon!" that is, on the recovery of the penalty.

.—If the hon. and learned gentleman had stated this new objection in the committee, he would have brought it forward in the proper place. As it is, I doubt whether the voidance of office depends on the recovery of the penalty. If it shall be considered to do so, I am willing to qualify the clause by the omission of the word "thereupon." I think, by the act, the office is clearly void, even if the penalty were never enforced. However, I have no objection to meet the hon. and learned gentleman, and if the forfeiture depends upon the recovery of the penalty I shall have not the slightest hesitation in making it depend on the refusal to qualify.

.—Recommit the bill; then.

.—It is not necessary to do so, merely for the purpose of omitting "thereupon." I hope gentlemen will not avail themselves of my desire to cure any defects that may exist in the bill needlessly to retard its progress. The hon. and learned gentleman must not suppose, because we are willing to listen to reasonable objections that we will delay the measure.

The hon. and learned gentleman seems also to think, that the penalty of 200l. is not sufficient. What success, I would ask, attended the old Penal-laws, and, are we to revert again to them? A moderate penalty will be more likely to be exacted than a severe punishment inflicted; and I, believe the penalty will be more efficacious in preventing a violation of the law, than severe penal enactments. I certainly did not expect, at this stage of the discussion, that I should have had to answer legal and technical objections. I expected that all the discussion this evening would have been, on the principle of the bill, and not that the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, which he was burning with impatience to deliver, was to have been a speech fit only for a committee. He was not content with the opposition which he might have given to the bill, when in progress: he could not restrain his impetuous enthusiasm, and be at peace until he had given vent to his speech. Certainly, for a gentleman who bore the exclusion of Papists from parliament with such exemplary resignation, the hon. and learned member bore his own exclusion with great impatience. An hon. member has said, that we begin by burning the slighter ornaments of the edifice, heedless of the flames by which the more solid and important portions are becoming enveloped—somewhat after the manner of York Minster. We are not labouring under the delusion attributed to the incendiary of that noble edifice, and the hon. gentleman is mistaken in believing that we are about to be enveloped in the flames. However, I give the hon. gentleman the benefit of the plea which, no doubt the hon. gentleman denies to me, and am ready to admit that the hon. gentleman, perhaps like the person already referred to, is labouring under a delusion. I submit, that notwithstanding the hustings' speech directed by the hon. gentleman against my hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-general, the hon. gentleman has made no impression in that quarter. Neither in the speech of the hon. and learned member for Plympton, nor in that of the other hon. gentleman, can I find any answer to the question—what is to be our policy in the event of our refusing this measure? They had not said one word calculated to lead the House to adopt any other course, in the present emergency. I have this morning received a Letter from the highest authority in Ireland. It is a private communication, but I cannot refrain from reading one sentence of it, which ought to be more conclusive with hon. members than any thing which I can say upon the subject. The Letter is dated the 27th of March, and states, that the amelioration already effected in the social, even still more than in the public peace of the country, since the intentions of government became known, is matter of general astonishment; that the violent, but well-meaning men of either side are retracting their formerly expressed opinions. This impression, which comes from the highest authority, is confirmed from all quarters. There are many violent persons in Ireland, but both classes have received this measure in a manner which does them the highest honour. In many districts, acting without concert or communication, they considered this an opportunity of reconciling the animosities which had existed for many many years. They said, "if parties in the legislature are prepared to lay aside differences of many years standing, let us copy their forbearance, and by our exertions, anticipate the effect of the measure preparing for us by the wisdom of parliament."

The rejection of this measure, will be productive of danger to a degree which can scarcely be credited. It will destroy the reconcilement which had been already effected: it will elevate the lower classes of partisans on one side, and depress them on the other, and will thus widen, to a most lamentable extent, the breach which is almost healed between the two parties. That is a consideration to which I am sure every member of the House will give its due weight; no matter what objection he may have to the abstract policy of these measures. He may think that we are in the wrong;—he may condemn us for acting as we have done; but it will be perfectly consistent in him to argue, that having once brought such measures forward, we cannot avert the evils which are inseparable from their rejection. On these grounds, I entreat the House, and every member who has influence in the House, to pause before they come to a judgment this night. I am willing to submit my conduct to public revision, but I must at the same time contend, that if any member thinks that the consequence of rejecting these measures will produce a state of things very different from that on which he previously proposed to him, self to give his vote, he will be more consistent in giving his vote conformably to the new state of things, than in adhering to his former vote, in a state of things which is completely altered. I trust that the time is now fast approaching when we shall for ever have done with the consideration of this question. If we were enabled to extricate ourselves from the innumerable mazes and ramifications of it, —if we were enabled to say, that our time shall no longer be wasted, by receiving petitions either in favour or in opposition to the Catholic claims—if we were enabled to disencumber ourselves of this endless Catholic question, and to turn to other objects the thirty or forty days which, for sessions past, we have dedicated to it—even thus far we shall be conferring a great benefit on the country. The discussions have, at all times, been most painful to me; but I beg, notwithstanding the imputations of inconsistency to which it may subject me, to claim for myself the privilege, and not merely to claim the privilege, but to assert the bounden duty of every man who contracts such an obligation as I have contracted to the king, to give his majesty advice, not with reference to speeches which I may formerly have delivered in this House, but with reference to the state of affairs in which the country may at any time be placed. And then, however doubtful it may be whether J shall entitle myself, by my conduct, to the gratitude of posterity—however painful it may prove to me to dissever party connections—and I have this night received a formal menace, that all such connections shall be dissevered — still those are consequences which ought not to weigh with one who has undertaken the responsibility to the Crown and to the country. Different circumstances compel different courses of action. The minister of the Crown is placed in a different situation from the ordinary member of parliament; he is bound to weigh circumstances which others may overlook, and whatever may be the imputations to which he exposes himself, he is bound to give the best advice which it is in his power to give. My hon. friend the member for Liverpool has told me that I shall find great lukewarmness hereafter among those, whose good opinion I have hitherto been proud of securing. I know my hon. friends too well to suppose that they have been influenced either by private or by personal considerations, in the support which they have given me formerly, and I am sure that they will steer their future course in such a manner as will tend to the promotion of the public interests—not to the annoyance of a particular minister. I cannot purchase their support by promising to adhere at all times, and at all hazards, as minister of the Crown, to arguments and opinions which I may heretofore have propounded in this House. I reserve to myself, distinctly, and unequivocally, the right of adapting my conduct to the exigency of the moment, and to the wants of the country. The hon. member for Dover has told me, that I must cling to this opinion, and that it is necessary that I should screw myself up to the other opinion, at all hazards; but the hon. member has not assigned a single reason, for the advice which he has given me. I will tell the hon. member, to use the metaphor of the gallant admiral near him, that it does not always follow that the pilot is bound to steer the same course to guard the ship from danger; and that when different winds are blowing, it is absolutely incumbent to take a different course to save the ship from those dangers, which, if they were incurred, must lead to the inevitable loss, not only of the ship, but also of her crew. That has been the opinion of all former statesmen, at all times and in all countries. My defence is the same with that of all others under similar circumstances, and I shall conclude with expressing it in words more beautiful than any which I myself could use—I mean the words of Cicero:—"Hæc didici, hæc vidi, hæc scripta legi; hæc de sapientissimis et clarissimis viris, et in hâc republiæ et in aliis civitatibus monumenta nobis, ltiteræ, prodiderunt—non semper easdem sententias ab iisdem, sed, quascumque reipublicæ status, inclinatio temporum, ratio concordiæ, postularent, esse defendas."

said:—

I rise to move an adjournment of this debate [cries of go on, go on!]—I have so often, and at such length on former occasions, addressed the House upon this subject, and the subject itself has been so almost exhausted already, that I can scarcely hope to say any thing now, which has not been already said by myself, or better said by those around me, or by some of those to whom I am now opposed. At the same time, the question has been brought forwards under circumstances so unexpected and so extraordinary, and has been carried to its present stage by a combination of support happily so unprecedented, that I am anxious, before it quits this House, to express once more my opinion in reference to its actual state.

A large part of the debates hitherto has consisted, as my right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, has complained, of personal crimination and recrimination, and of gratuitous explanations, and confessions. However unwilling, as on many accounts I am, to enter upon any personal questions, yet, as the defence of his majesty's government in the introduction of the present measure, has been rested by him on four distinct grounds, two of which are of a nature involving personal considerations, I cannot state my case without meeting them. I am willing, indeed, to admit, that the argumentum ad hominem, however much it may degrade the personal character of the individual against whom it is directed, cannot alter, in the smallest degree, the weight of the arguments which affect the question itself. I am willing also, to admit, that the argument against the time of bringing this question forward often only affords room for the reply—"you prove not that the measure is wrong now, but that it should have been brought forward in 1827, or in 1825."—My objection is not to the person, or to the time, by whom, or at which the question is introduced. I object to it by whomsoever, and at whatever time it is recommended to us; by the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, or by the Secretary of State; by Whig, by Radical or by Tory; in 1812, in 1821, in 1825, or in 1829. My objection is founded on the unchanged and unchangeable character of the Church of Rome;—and when I am told, as I was told this evening, that, however just that objection might have been in other days, or in other countries, it is futile now in modern Europe, since the pope and the papal power are nonentities, I ask, is the proof of the extinction of the papal power to be found in the fact, that the mightiest sovereign of modern times sought the aid of the pope, a poor old man, his prisoner, to enable him to govern his own dominions?—But I am told, that in Ireland, at any rate, the power of the papal hierarchy is extinct: I ask, is the proof of that fact to be found in Louth, in Monaghan, in Waterford, or in Clare? Is it to be found in the complete organization of the people under their priesthood,—an organization by which they are ordered to march, or to retreat; to abstain from all spirits, from all quarrels, from all their previous habits; and this, for a political purpose? Is it to be found in the fact, that the leader of the fierce democracy of Clare on the very scene of his triumph, and on the very day of his triumph, knelt down in the streets to receive the blessing of his priest?

An hon. friend of mine told me, on the first day of the session, that his objection to the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion was as strong as when we formerly voted together against giving to that spirit any new sphere of action over Protestant interests; but that he should vote for the bill, because he conceives that it will weaken that spirit. To me this does appear most extraordinary reasoning.—Your enemies surround you on every side; they have dug their trenches; they have laid their mines—they are preparing for the assault—and how do you act? Do you barricade your gates? do you man your walls? do you nail your flag to the staff?—No—you open your gates;—you say to your assailants — "Gentlemen, here is munition of war for you:—you have guns, but you want powder: you have blades, but you want handles: you have soldiers, but you want engineers:—all these you shall have from us. It is right that all men, whatever be their opinions, or their views, should have equal advantages. When we have done all this, you will, we know, be too liberal to take any advantage of us;—you will renounce your threats against us;—the battery which you have erected against our great Church you will discharge in the air;—we will go together to the temple of Eternal Justice or some such goddess, of whom my honourable friends opposite are fond of talking—we will swear eternal friendship." Would any man out of Bedlam use this language, in any other case, without entitling himself to be put into Bedlam?—Tell me that the Roman Catholics have a right to what they ask, and I can reverence the feeling, which would concede that right at the sacrifice of our own dearest interests; but to tell me now, as they have told me always, the Roman Catholics have no right to what they ask;—and we concede, not because they are less dangerous, but because they are more clamorous, is to establish a principle destructive of all order, and all society: and ought to afford no triumph to his majesty's ministers, who now for the first time proclaim it.

I admit, that those are entitled to triumph in the present success of the measures, who for eight-and-twenty years—one of those men I now see—have contended that it will prove a panacea for the evils of Ireland. Those, too, are entitled to triumph in the success of this measure, who hold, that though it will not relieve all the evils of Ireland, you can do nothing in the way of relief without it. The hon. member for the county of Armagh acted gallantly, though, as I think, under a delusion, when, in 1825, he changed his views on this question, and said, "I was deceived in the opinion which I entertained of the character and tenets, and tendencies of the Church of Rome. I am now persuaded, that they are innocuous: and, therefore, I shall now accompany the change of my opinion by a corresponding change of my vote." But that man is not entitled to triumph in the present success of this bill, who changes not his opinion, but his vote,—who tells us, that he sees still the same danger which he saw before,—who declares, that the Church of Rome is now, as it ever has been, and ever will be, hostile to Protestantism in England, in Ireland,—in Europe generally, and wherever else it is found;—but who justifies the change of his vote by the statement, that with all these forebodings, the evils of continued resistance are so great, that he chooses the evil of concession as the least.

Upon the proof, then, that this admitted evil is the least of two evils, depends the whole justification of his majesty's government. This proof is to be sought in the following statements of the right hon. gentleman:—1st. the divided state of the cabinet: 2nd. the division between the two Houses: 3rd. his being, himself, left in a minority: and 4th., and above all, the condition of Ireland.

On the first point, having already on a former occasion touched it, I will here only ask two questions. I will ask, whether any man, strongly and conscientiously attached to the cause of Protestant ascendancy, could, if he had felt that a divided cabinet was an evil which threatened that ascendancy, have found at any time an easier mode of removing such a difficulty, than on the morning of the memorable day, which saw the publication of the correspondence about which "there is no mistake—there can be no mistake—there shall be no mistake." If such a man had felt, that a divided cabinet was an evil to which the constitution might hereafter be sacrificed, could he not on that morning have said,—"here is an opportunity of re-uniting the cabinet, and of sustaining the constitution:—we may now at last be unanimous in the maintenance of the existing laws?" Another question remains. If the evils of a divided cabinet be so great, even when all its members are professors of the same religion, bound by the same interests and by the same oaths to the same institutions in church and state, ought it not to have been within the calculation of the former opposers of the present measure who now recommend it, that there may come times when the cabinet will, by their act, be divided, not between themselves on the one hand, and such men as my right hon. and gallant friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the other; but between nominal Protestants and real Roman Catholics; when such men, for instance, as a lord treasurer Clifford, or a lord chancellor Ashley may be found again in office? And do they, by such means, provide for the security of the Protestant institutions of England?

The next evil, the extent of which has led to the present concessions, is the evil of the division between the two Houses of Parliament. As to this point also, I will only ask two questions. In the first place, has it not been known for many years, that two branches of the legislature have held strong and decided opinions upon the question, and that they differed widely from the late decision of this House upon it? It may not be fitting to refer more particularly to the opinion of one of those branches; but it will not be denied, that it was deeply felt, and has been more than once expressed. The opinion of the other branch of the legislature has been marked by their votes against concession for the last sixteen years, uniformly, and by large majorities. Yet the opinions of both these hereditary branches of the legislature have been made to yield to that of the third—a fluctuating, temporary body—whose judgment has not been pronounced with equal uniformity, but alternately for and against concession. Am I not entitled to ask, why this deference should be paid to the House of Commons, when no man can state that whether the concession be right or wrong, this House by deciding in favour of it, represents in any degree the feelings of the great majority of the peo ple of England? I will ask one other question. If measures are thus to be forced upon parliament by the whole power of government, on the ground that a division between the two Houses is inconvenient—[I limit my argument at the moment to this position]—and if it be said, that, so forced, the measure must pass the House of Lords, though I do not yet abandon the hope of seeing it there defeated, is it not converting that House into a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the House of Commons? Suppose that some bill should pass this House for an alteration of the tithe—system—I only use this as an illustration—and that such a bill, so passed here, should next be forced upon the other House, can any Jacobin devise a surer mode of degrading the House of Lords than by assuming that they must pass it, because it has passed here, and because it is inconvenient, forsooth, that the two Houses should be divided?

The third point on which the right hon. gentleman rests his justification for the introduction of this measure, is the fact, that he was himself left in a minority upon the question. I admit that it is disagreeable to be so left—but he is not the first minister who has been in such a situation; and at no time would the fact be a sufficient excuse to any public man, for his abandonment of a great public principle. At any rate, the argument, whatever be its value, was stronger in 1825 than in 1829. Then he sat between his great opponents, Mr. Canning and lord Plunkett; lord Goderich near him; and two other cabinet ministers, the right hon. gentleman, the member for Liverpool, and the right hon. gentleman, the member for Montgomeryshire, speaking and voting against him: but now all this is reversed—and he has two cabinet ministers in this House with him, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies is in the same forlorn condition in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department sat in 1825.

"But;" says the right hon. gentleman, "I was not only left in a numerical minority, but I was not adequately supported by my friends in this House." He thus throws over-board at once his two right hon. colleagues in the present cabinet, the chancellor of the Exchequer and the master of the Mint, who both at that time certainly gave their talents to the Protestant, cause. The Secretary of State, how- ever, without noticing them, passes on to others, and asks my hon. friend, the member for Kent, why he did not speak here instead of speaking on Penenden Heath. I hope, if so attacked, that I may be able to reply with the same temper and spirit as my hon. friend displayed in his answer. But, in my turn, I will ask a question—Whom did the right hon. gentleman encourage to support him? What young man did he invite to come forward in defence of the views which he then professed to entertain? With whom did he surround himself? Mr. Pitt gathered about him the largest portion of the rising talent of his day; and so completely associated to his own principles the band thus gathered, that almost all the distinguished men now in the Upper House of Parliament—with perhaps two exceptions—were bred in what may be called the School of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Canning also made it his business and his glory to surround himself with young men of the highest talent;—some of them I now see opposite—my right hon. friend the member for the county of Inverness, my hon. friend the member for Staffordshire, my hon. and learned friends the Solicitor-general for Ireland, and the meniber for Milborne Port, and many others, who now represent the opinions of Mr. Canning faithfully, and with eloquence almost equal to his own. But, since the right hon. gentleman complains of not being supported in this House when he formerly advocated the cause of the Protestant constitution, I am compelled again to ask, whom did he invite to support him?—with whom did he surround himself? His argument is, that if he had possessed the aid of sufficient intelligence and power among his followers, he would not have abandoned his late position. This, at least, is the effect of his third argument, in which he refers to the fact of his being left in a minority, as one of the causes which justify his change of conduct. I. violate no confidence, when I repeat here a suggestion which I have made elsewhere;—and which I then made in the full belief—a belief confirmed by all which has passed in the interval—that the larger portion of the intelligence of the country is arrayed in favour of the existing constitution. I ask, then, why, if his majesty's government felt the want of talent in this House to support them, they did not go to the two Universities, to the Temple, to. Lincoln's Inn; and, declaring their sense of the necessity of making a great effort to secure and perpetuate the Protestantism of the constitution, enlist there under the old banner all the rising talent, which was already in principle devoted to the cause, and, with that band, re-enter this House?

Sir, I rejoice, that I have now done with every thing which may appear personal. It was impossible for me, as my right hon. friend had rested his defence on some grounds so personal to himself, to omit all reference to them;—but I may now turn freely to other and more general topics.

The fourth and last point of the right hon. gentleman's defence is the state of Ireland. Having on another occasion, already in part adverted to this subject, I shall not long occupy the attention of the House upon it now. I do not deny the evils of the existing state of things in Ireland. My argument, and my conclusion, do not require it. I contend only, that the state of Ireland, bad as it is, is not worse now than it has been at all times—I will not confine myself to our own days only—but as far as any history can carry us: and I contend, therefore, that the present laws against the Roman Catholics, by which the power of the state is preserved exclusively Protestant, cannot be the cause of evils which existed long before the distinction of Roman Catholic and Protestant—long before an Englishman entered Ireland. I will not, however, on the present occasion, do more than refer to two authorities on this point; one the passage from Sir John Davies, which, as it has been already quoted by an hon. and learned friend of mine, I will not here repeat; the other, a passage from Spencer, whose words might almost have been used by the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State, so exactly did Spencer describe, as existing in his day, that state of things which is now brought forwards as something so new, that the whole constitution must be changed to meet it. I refer particularly to the difficulties alleged now to exist in respect to getting justice in Ireland. Spencer's words are these:—"Now, most of the freeholders of that realm are Irish, which, when the cause shall fall betwixt an Englishman and an Irish, or between the queen and any freeholder of that country, they make no more scruple to pass against an Englishman and the queen, though it be to strain their oaths, than to drink milk unstrained. So that before the jury go together, it is all to nothing what the ver dict shall be. The trial. I have so often seen, that I dare confidently avouch the abuse thereof."—So much for one of the positions of the right hon. gentleman. My argument is briefly this—that grievances which existed before the enactment of the penal laws cannot be removed, or, at least, will not by necessary consequence be removed, by the repeal of those laws;—and When I am prepared to prove that those grievances existed not only before the date of the penal code, but before the Reformation, and even before the English invasion,—that, in short, there has been in Ireland a transmigration of turbulence, under every different name, for centuries, an alternation of insurrection, proscription, and confiscation, I am entitled to conclude, that the repeal of the laws, which, for two of those centuries, have prevented a Roman Catholic gentleman from sitting in parliament, will not have much effect in tranquillizing such a people.

And here, Sir, I cannot but consider the circumstances under which the present bill is brought forward, the persons by whom it is urged upon us, and the arguments by which it is enforced. I cannot but contrast the measure in all these particulars, with the times and persons past by. If at any period, concession would have produced conciliation, it cannot now. From Mr. Canning emancipation would have been granted open-hearted and openhanded. Concession from him would have been a grace, and a gift, and would, perhaps, have been received as such: concession from the right hon. gentleman is privilege surrendered to intimidation. Concession from Mr. Canning would have been alms from the merciful, a debt from the just: concession from the right hon. gentleman opposite is his purse surrendered to a footpad. Am I not justified in the assertion? Does not the right hon. gentleman himself tell us, that he yields unwillingly?—that the party, to whom he yields, has no right to the booty?—that he yields, because he is afraid that, if he resists any longer, he shall be knocked down? But let me tell him, that, while alms may silence a beggar, and payment will satisfy a creditor, the surrender of his purse to a highwayman is not the best way to preserve his watch.

Even if his majesty's ministers had not brought forward the threatening state of Ireland as one of the considerations which induced them to change their conduct in respect to this most important question, I should have seen in that conduct sufficient evidence that it was produced by intimidation. I maintain, that surrender to the Roman Catholics now is a direct premium to intimidation in future. Nothing but the agitation produced by the Roman Catholics in Ireland has brought, or could have brought, their claims to their present triumph. To agitation government have yielded their own principles and the constitution. Henceforth the principle of intimidation will become almost a rule-of-three sum; and we shall have it in the Class-books of Maynooth, if a given degree of agitation will gain seats in parliament, what degree will be necessary to procure any other concession, the abolition a tithes, for example, or the dissolution a the Union? This, therefore, I regard as one of the greatest evils attending the introduction of this bill, that it has, to all orders of men, certainly at least to the Roman Catholics, established the principle of a scale, by which any discontented party may, at any time calculate the attainment of success, by application of a given quantity of agitation.

If, indeed, by any measure which we could pass now, we could hope to satisfy the Roman Catholics, there might be some reason even for the sacrifice of the constitution;—but I am deeply persuaded, that, so long as there is any thing to obtain, so long the Roman Catholics will consider that they have gained nothing, till every thing shall be in their power. This has been the principle on which for more than thirty years their leaders have proceeded. Is it not the principle which their orators have avowed? Has it not been triumphantly announced, that, as it has been by agitation that they have succeeded thus far, by agitation will they continue to seek the objects which still remain to be extorted, and which they own to have still in view? Their motto has been, and will be,

"Nil actum credens dum quid superesset agendum."

The principle of their ambition will no more be satisfied than that of the conqueror;

"On Moscow's walls till gothic standards fly, And all be ours beneath the arctic sky."

The right hon. gentleman has, however, indulged himself in the contemplation of the advantages which he thinks we shall derive from getting rid of the Roman Catholic question: but let me ask him first, whether we are not likely—at the best—to have, in lieu of it, a Protestant question? When the present measure shall be carried against the opinions, the wishes, the prayers of the great majority of the people of England, does the right hon. gentleman suppose, that the people, so disregarded this year, will for ever abstain from reviving the discussion? Does he not think, that the great masses of the people will send their petitions by thousands for the repeal of this measure so forced down upon them?—But in my conscience I believe that we shall still have a Roman Catholic question. I believe that at no distant period we shall see renewed the same system of agitation and intimidation on the part of the Roman Catholics which has been thus far so successful:—and, then, let the right hon. gentleman calculate, whether it will be more easy to govern the country with an immense majority of the Protestants alienated, because injured by this measure, and with the Roman Catholic body made by it more powerful while it has left them still grasping and dissatisfied?

For, after all, will not this measure leave them dissatisfied? Sir, who are the men supposed to represent the mind of the Roman Catholics of Ireland? Are they not Mr. O'Connell, and Dr. Doyle? And do they profess to regard the measure now proposed to the House as sufficient for their rights and their wishes? Why, Sir, Dr. Doyle says—the passage has been quoted by myself already—that emancipation is chiefly valuable as opening the door to ulterior measures: and Mr. O'Connell says, in direct terms, that emancipation will not satisfy him: he owns frankly, indeed, that seats in parliament will be valuable to them as enabling them to keep a watch over the church establishment in Ireland. Are these the men, to whom, after these avowals, you can safely commit the care of that establishment? Mr. O'Connell has further declared, that his first motion in parliament will be to move for the repeal of what he calls that most mischievous measure, the Union. But, Sir, I will afford the House, if they will permit me, another opportunity of judging whether the Roman Catholics are likely to be satisfied with this measure. There has been addressed, though not yet presented, a petition to this House from the Roman Catholics of Newry, from which, as it is printed in a paper favourable to their claims, I will, by the indulgence of the House, read a few short passages. Let me say, that the first signature to this petition is described as "that of the right rev. Dr. Kelly, the Catholic bishop of Dromore," I use the words of the paper, "and coadjutor primate of Ireland." They tell us openly, that this bill enacts "new penal and restrictive laws, which are calculated to keep alive discontents and heart-burnings on the score of religion:" so much for the pacification of Ireland. They tell us boldly, in reference to the clause which forbids their bishops to assume the titles of Protestant sees, that "they do and always will firmly maintain those spiritual rights to their sees,—rights not derived from secular authority, nor the object of secular legislation."—So much for their submission to our laws. After some important reasoning upon the oath proposed; after stating, that the Disfranchisement bill "will neutralise the good expected to be derived from the concession of the Catholic claims," they state explicitly, "that they owe it to truth and candour to declare, that they would rather remain as they are, excluded from the privileges of the constitution, than receive a measure of relief, clogged with enactments insulting to the bishops of the Catholic church of Ireland, having in view the total extinction of the regular clergy; and, in destroying the forty-shilling elective franchise, exhibiting a dangerous precedent for further curtailing the rights of the people."

Now, Sir, I ask, when three of the most influential men in Ireland amongst their Roman Catholic countrymen, (for Dr. Kelly may be joined to Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Doyle,) assert distinctly, that the concessions made by the bill will not satisfy them, whether we have any authority for hoping that there is any thing in that bill which will have the effect of restoring and securing tranquillity to Ireland? And let me also ask, whether the bill is likely to he more satisfactory to the Protestants of England? Need I ask this question, when I recollect, that of the unprecedented numbers Who have during this session petitioned this House,—and a larger proportion of intelligence and of respectability never approached any house upon any question, than those who have endeavoured to make their prayers heard at our bar on this occasion—nine tenths at least are unequivocally opposed to concession, under any form?

Many, indeed, I believe; of the supporters of the present measure are little aware of the dangers which it involves. With some, those dangers would be disregarded, even if foreseen. To many, I am sure, the bill appears as a religious peace-offering. They are now hailing its approach as such with hymns of triumph; little thinking what a source of ruin to all our institutions they are introducing within our walls:

"Scandit fatalis machina muros.

Instamus tamen immemores, ccecique furore, Et monstrum infelix sacratâ sistimus arce."

One topic remains:—often, as on former occasions, I have addressed the House on this subject, I have never treated it as a question of religion. I have sought, and think that I have found, in the civil tendencies of the Church of Rome, sufficient to justify me as a member of parliament, in refusing to yield to a church—grasping, and as I believe insatiable—the means by giving much to-day, of extorting all hereafter. But, Sir, the time for reserve is past: and I can no longer conceal, that I also regard the present as a religious question. I wish that I may be enabled to follow in any degree the manner and spirit with which my hon. and learned friend, the member for the Inverness boroughs, treated this subject. It is one, indeed, of great delicacy; it is a religious question, not merely because, as some of my hon. friends near me have stated the case, it is connected with the obligations of an oath, as affecting the individuals who are required to take it;—but, on more general grounds, as also affecting the nation. My hon. and learned friend, to an observation referring to the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, replied, by asking, "what test have you now of the peculiar religious opinions of any man as a member of this House? You have, indeed, negative evidence, that he is not so and so; but you have no positive evidence." This, Sir, I own is a subject, to which I cannot look with pleasure, or even with indifference. I view it with great regret. It is the use which I expected to be made of the measure of last year. By the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, it is too true that the legislature severed the Church of England from the state: by this measure, now before the House, we shall sever Protestantism from the state:—In another year, in the progress of liberal opinions, we shall, I suppose, be required to sever Christianity from the state. And this places the question in a position, which I regard with anxiety and reluctance, from a feeling upon which I will not enlarge. I regard, Sir, the solemn oath and declarations which are about to be abrogated, as the national protest against Popery: these are the only tests, so far as the legislature is concerned, by which it is seen that we have any interest in Protestantism. I am unable to perceive what, when the House shall have removed these oaths and declarations, will remain, to give to the state that Protestant character which has so long been our glory and our security. We cease as a legislature to protest against popery, and to record before God and our country our sense of the value of the Protestantism of our constitution. In fact, that Protestantism the bill formally renounces. I will not follow my hon. and learned friend opposite in his review of my highly-gifted friend Mr. Croly: I do not pretend to follow Mr. Croly himself in all his details: but this I will say, that since the constitution has been essentially and fundamently Protestant, the country has enjoyed a larger measure of public and private prosperity, has grown more in intelligence, in happiness, in resources of every kind, than any country in any age. All this is to be changed; all this at least is to be put to hazard by the present bill, and believing that a blessing has rested on our Protestantism, and that this measure destroys that Protestantism as the character of our institutions, I have objected to it, and will continue to object to it now and for ever.

being loudly called for, rose and addressed the House as follows:^*

Mr. Speaker; I rise for the purpose of moving an adjournment. [No, no—Go on, go on!] I appeal to the right hon. gentleman opposite, as to its propriety, its necessity. [Go on, go on!] Sir, we owe it to ourselves, to the character of this House, as a deliberative assembly—we owe it, as a representative body, to our constituents. The character, the dignity of the House, I repeat, are implicated in these precipitate proceedings. The anxiety of many honourable members to address this House; the unparalleled importance of the question, placed, as it were, for the last time, under its consideration—the intense anxiety of the public mind, as to its issue—dictate to every member, whatever be the view he may take on this important matter, the decency, the necessity, of more deliberation. [Renewed cries of 'No, no; go on, go on.'] Then, Sir, if adjournment is refused, I must, however reluctantly, proceed. The fatigue to which the House will be subjected, especially at this late hour, I much regret; but I hope it will not be imputed to me. I shall, therefore, venture to address this House, under circumstances which would, on any other occasion, have imposed silence upon me. Deeply sensible as I am of the indulgence I received on a former occasion, and aware of the circumstance to which it was owing, I would not have again trespassed so soon upon its attention, had the question been one of ordinary interest, or the period allowed for its determination sufficiently extended. The contrary, however, is in both particulars the fact. Never was there a measure of such vast and permanent importance brought before the legislature of the country since the Protestant Constitution now sought to be subverted was established: never one, of however confined and uninteresting a nature, attempted to be passed, under such strong opposition both within and without doors, with such unseemly haste. These circumstances, therefore, must form my excuse for again presenting myself to your notice. I feel it to be a duty which I owe to myself, and which I am sure my constituents will exact of me, to oppose this impolitic, unconstitutional, and ruinous measure, at every stage of its progress.

^* Copied from the Original Authority,

Sir, the right hon. Secretary has remarked on the impropriety of discussing the provisions of the bill at this stage of its progress, rather than arguing on its general merits; he has, however, fallen into a similar error himself, in his speech this night. I shall not in this respect imitate him. My objections are still levelled at its principle. Abhorring this as I did, I felt little disposed to attend to any discussions in the committee, as to its various details. My objections remain unaltered. I believe, Sir, that if affects, in its very nature, the Royal Title; that it is subversive of the British Constitution, or, in other words, of the rights and liberties of the people of England; that it is introduced on very insufficient, riot to say fallacious grounds; that its securities, whether meant as such or not, are mere delusions, that they are frivolous in their nature, and will be practically inoperative; that it will instantly introduce a confusion into our institutions which will perpetually increase till the whole be subverted; that, in establishing a principle of indifference as to the public profession of religion, it will assuredly generate a contempt for Christianity itself. I totally disbelieve that it will settle the disputes between Protestantism and Catholicism, which are in their very nature irreconcileable while either is sincerely believed; but I am persuaded it will, on the contrary, unsettle every thing that has been so long and so happily established amongst us; and finally, while I do not credit that the good which its promoters promise us from its operation will ever in the slightest degree be fulfilled, so, on the contrary, I am confident that the evils which they themselves prognosticate as its very possible consequences, will be far more than realized. In one word, I regard the measure to be as unnecessary, as unconstitutional, and as dangerous, as those who are now bringing it forward pronounced much safer and better ones to be some few months ago; and whose tergiversations, both of principle and policy, are, to me at least, slight proofs of their past wisdom, and poor securities of their future stability. I say I shall avoid enlarging upon these topics; if the facts and reasons adduced by such men on former occasions have made so slight an impression on their own minds and consciences, and on those of the present majority of this House, how can I imagine that they will have any influence when more feebly echoed by myself?

I understand it would exceed the ordinary indulgence of the House were I to allude to arguments, or, as I felt them, accusations, directed against me since I had the honour of addressing it. Some explanations I wished to have offered at the time, and rose more than once with the intention of so doing; but the eagerness of many hon. members to take a part in these important discussions (a feeling so proper and natural on every view of the subject) deprived me of the opportunity; and I learn that the time has now passed. I will therefore merely repeat what I have previously asserted, and what I have not heard disproved—namely, that the distresses and disturbances in Ireland, like those which prevailed in the manufacturing districts of England a very few years ago, originate in general indigence; that they have been attributed in the one instance to the want of parliamentary reform, in the other to the want of Catholic emancipation; that you spurned one class of petitioners, that you are about to surrender to the other; that you met the commotion in that case with punishment, and even bloodshed,—in this, with connivance, if not with approbation. But, Sir, I said not that I approved, or otherwise, of either policy; much less did I urge the transference of the severer course to Ireland. I was not the then Secretary at War, [looking at Lord Palmerston] and consequently as I have no claim, so I have no wish, to share with him either the honour or the odium of this, to say the least of it, inconsistent course; much less did I then, or do I now, recommend, as he imputed to me, civil war as a cure of its evils. On the contrary, Sir, the remedies I ventured to propose were to be found in 'the fair, delightful arts of peace!.'—in the encouragement and reward of industry—the relief of misery and sorrow—the diffusion of knowledge—the propagation of truth—the extension to a suffering race of the common rights of humanity—the return of their natural protectors to their several essential and important duties—in short, the promotion of general prosperity amongst a nation 'peel'd and trodden under foot.' I leave the civil war, Sir, to those who cast the imputation upon me—theirs be the war against Protestant Ascendancy—against a moderated system of national relief—against a fancied redundancy of population, in a country preeminently fertile, not two thirds of which is at present adequately cultivated; or, in other words, a war against true Religion, Charity, and Providence itself. No, Sir, the contest I recommended was against injustice in all its forms, and especially when abetted by wealth, and armed with power—against priestly domination—against laical desertion; evils of which the generous and long-suffering people of Ireland have been for area at once the dupes and the victims—evils which I firmly believe the present measures will go far to perpetuate. I repeat, Sir, I recommended no bloodshedding—no civil war; and if any one, more conversant with such dreadful alternatives than myself, attributed in this time of agitation, and on this inflammatory topic, words to me which I never uttered, and imputations which I abhor, the time, I say, is past when I could have replied. I leave such, therefore, to the severer reproofs of their own conscience.

Sir, I will just state further in reference to Ireland—that I attributed the distresses and agitations of that country, which originated, I maintain,(as did the celebrated Sir John Davies, an authority since quoted against me) long before the era of the Reformation, and which have continued for so many centuries, to that imperfect state of civilization, and to that oppression, which have resulted as a necessary consequence from the desertion of their duty by many of the great proprietors of that country—to Absenteeism, the main enemy of Ireland, as it has long been regarded, against which a series of laws have been enacted, commencing nearly five hundred years ago; laws which lord Coke highly eulogises, and which the real friends of that unfortunate country have so long and so earnestly wished to be rendered operative and efficient. In lieu of these remedies, I, for one, am unwilling to adopt the suggestion of those who seem very ready to compromise for the omission of positive duties, and the consequent commission of inevitable injuries, by a few orations in favour of what is called emancipation. Sir, the emancipation I would ask, in behalf of oppressed Ireland, does not affect the few whom this measure contemplates alone to serve, at the expense of the many whose political condition it evidently and intentionally degrades. It is not a sentimental emancipation, extending its privileges to the great Catholic proprietors and peers, the emancipation of the drawing-room and the saloon; it is an emancipation of the mass of the Irish people from the chains of superstition and tyranny—from cruelty and oppression; an emancipation from the devastations of unrelieved want—from the desolation of universal wretchedness. And, Sir, by means simple, obvious, and efficacious, which every good man would hail, and which even the bad would fear to oppose; namely, by encouraging and reward- ing labour—by promoting and extending cultivation—by the reclamation of those bogs and wastes which now freckle over the face of that fair and fertile country—above all, Sir, by the introduction of a moderated national charity—that sacred but much insulted system, which would descend upon that bruised and afflicted country, like an angel of mercy, with healing in its wings. It might, indeed, to use the fashionable cant of the day, absorb some of those products which are now unfeelingly wrested from a suffering people; but, in so doing, it would fall like the kindly dews of heaven upon a parched and unwatered waste, renewing its beauty, and clothing it with fresh and unfailing verdure. Ireland would then, indeed, absorb what would restore her emaciated form to health, reinforce her wasted energies, and soothe her into peace; and the youngest sister of the Union would become one of the fairest and best beloved of all the branches of the British family.

Sir, I make no apology for thus recalling to the House the subjects to which I previously alluded, nor for pressing them, again and again, on its most serious attention. On the contrary, I believe myself, while so doing, to be fulfilling, to the very letter, the royal recommendation, and taking into my consideration, as far as I am able, 'the whole condition of Ireland.' How far, I would ask any man in this House, has that admonition been observed? What inquiry has been yet heard of? None; and the information on which his majesty's government affects to form an opinion of the necessity of violating the constitution is most of it anonymous, or of very questionable authority; at all events, it is secret and unauthenticated, as it respects this House. In taking these views I would not, in relation to that unhappy portion of the empire, disappoint those expectations of general relief which must have been excited. I would not 'keep the word of promise to the ear, and break it to the sense.'

It was my intention, on this occasion, to have fortified the view I previously took of the real principle of the British Contitution, as demanding, and for the most important of all possible reasons, a moral qualification from those who have to make or administer our laws, by appeals to the highest authorities that have ever adorned this country. To present these to the House would, however, consume too much of its time; and it is, moreover, rendered, I think, unnecessary by the feebleness with which that principle of our constitution has been attacked. I mean not the constitution as altered in 1828, nor yet as it is about to be further revolutionized in 1829, but the constitution of the 1st of William the third, preserved entire, at least as it regards England, till the last of George 3rd. What emotions does that venerated name kindle in our hearts, and especially on this important occasion! Some of these authorities, Sir, I have selected, and hold in my hand; but I will not now fatigue your attention by reading them, especially at so protracted a period of the discussion, however much my argument may suffer by the omission. I had meant also to have instituted a short contrast between the doctrines of Protestantism and Catholicism, as to their necessary effects on public morals, liberty, and happiness; subjects inseparably connected with a due consideration of the question before us. I will, however, only remark as to Popery, that the peculiar nature of its tenets is such as naturally to produce those melancholy effects, which have invariably accompanied it whenever dominant. Its exclusive and intolerant character, which dictated such atrocious cruelties when in the plenitude of its power, still remains; and which, however much repressed at present, or however interpreted, is still highly prejudicial to the best feelings and truest interests of society, by disrupting that bond of charity which ought to unite in mutual affection the whole christian community. Its ridiculous and mendacious miracles, including that standing one, transubstantiation ('damnable,' as to its Consequences, whatever may be said as to its nature), disparage the proofs on which the truth of christianity itself is mainly founded, and prepare the way for that infidelity which invariably spreads wherever Romanism prevails. Its dogmas, touching indulgences, penances, auricular confession, absolution, &c., committing, as they apparently do, the jurisdiction of the Deity to ignorant and mercenary man, are hostile to morality. But, above all, its belief in the efficacy of masses for the dead appears to be most injurious; a notion which invests the priest with a power, in reference to the departed,—those who have 'shuffled off this mortal coil'—to arbitrate between the justice and mercy of the Eternal; making his attributes therefore matters of bargain and sale; putting up as to an auction the mercy of the Almighty,—an auction at which the living may bid and barter for the remission of the sins of the dead; and consequently doing away as much as possible with the effect of a doctrine the most essential of all others to the well-being of society; which reason itself indicated, and which revelation was instituted to bring to light; the doctrine of future and irreversible rewards and punishments. A religion this, therefore, which not only drives a sordid trade with the sins of the living, but with the offences of the dead; to the constant peril, and often to the destruction of the primary principles of morality. Can any man, then, who believes in any religion whatsoever, except that, conceive it to be a proper ingredient in the Protestant Constitution of this empire? As to the political effects of Catholicism, these also I meant to have dwelt upon somewhat at large; they, however, as archbishop Tillotson has observed, are rendered sufficiently plain by a reference to the history of our country for a succession of generations. They may be yet more obvious ere long.

But, Sir, I understood his majesty's Solicitor-general to argue, in the very perspicuous speech he delivered this evening, in favour of throwing the Protestant religious establishment more entirely upon its naked merits, as the surest way of securing and extending its influence. At all events this is the great argument of many who profess a warm regard for Protestantism and its interests, and still advocate this measure; they assert that the restoration of Popery to power and influence is the surest way to injure its cause; and, on the contrary, that to divest Protestantism of its privileges is the best and most infallible method of serving it. I disbelieve both declarations, however fashionable they may be amongst certain theologians as well as politicians. Power, Sir, is the food on which Popery has lived; and could this have destroyed it, it would have been defunct many generations ago: while, on the other hand, Protestantism was first planted in this favoured. land by the hand of government; and though I am sure that it enjoys the smile and approbation of Heaven, still the age of miracles having ceased, I am not enthusiastical enough to believe that Providence works without means and agents, and I feel persuaded that of these the most powerful and efficient is that national protection, now, for the first time since its establishment, about to be withdrawn. All, however, that the Protestant church has done and suffered in behalf of the liberties and the monarchy of England—all that her implacable enemy has perpetrated against them—are alike to be obliterated. The meekness and tolerance of the one, the cruel insolence of the other, during their respective reigns, are to be forgotten. In the glorious amnesty about to be proclaimed, all principles of gratitude or justice are to be buried in a happy and everlasting oblivion. Hitherto the church has been the true spouse, the faithful helpmate of the State,—has followed all its fortunes; now it is proposed to admit into the domestic establishment its meretricious rival; and this, forsooth, under the assurance that the adulterous association will heal all quarrels, and produce uninterrupted peace. The proposition is folly as well as infamy. Its very absurdity heightens the insult, and aggravates the injury now meditated. No, Sir! rather than this, let that church go forth, and sit 'solitary as a widow,'—and, still surrounded by her faithful sons, await a happier day, and different treatment than she now experiences from those who, while they are divesting her of her rights, are still loading her with their compliments—who are betraying her with a kiss.

Nothing, Sir, in this measure appears to me satisfactory; and least of all the reasons which have been advanced for attempting it. A few anonymous letters relating to outrages which I could pledge myself to prove, if required, have existed ever since Ireland was connected with this country, and which would continue and increase after this unfortunate bill should have come into operation, are, I think, very insufficient grounds for such a course. If Mr. A. B.'s potatoe-garden could not be got in, in consequence of the inefficient protection extended to the Protestant population; it hardly amounts, I think, to a sufficient reason that the constitution of the empire, in the purchase of which our ancestors counted life itself as cheaply sacrificed, should be surrendered, in order to facilitate that event. But, Sir, let this bill pass—and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of A. B.'s will find it impossible any longer to reap the harvests, or breathe the air of their native country, The right hon. Secretary read the other evening a letter from some anonymous clergyman, who, if we knew his name, would be found ere long amongst those who are wise in their generation, stating something, I forget what—I however hold in my hand a statement, not anonymous, but subscribed by individuals distinguished by character, piety, and learning, men, who would give value to any document which they thus verified—from those, too, whose hostility to Popery, as Presbyterians, cannot be generated by feelings of bigoted attachment to a church to which they do not belong. I will not trouble the House, already so fatigued, with reading this just and earnest remonstrance. From this and other documents of unquestionable authenticity, which also I have here, but which from the lateness of the hour I shall not now read, I am prepared to prove that the people of Ireland are in large bodies making arrangements, at this moment, to expatriate themselves to foreign shores, and abandon for ever the home of their fathers. Nor do they hesitate to charge all their danger on the promoters of these inconsistent and mischievous measures; and to reproach them as the authors of their disasters, in having violated the very principle of incorporation and protection, on the faith of which their ancestors had been originally induced to settle in Ireland.

But, Sir, the singular character of this measure is this—its promoters themselves foresee the difficulties which will ultimately attend even their own policy. They, themselves, are fully aware that futurity is big with danger as to its final consequences; but still, with a political cowardice which has seldom been exemplified in the annals of our country (and which has always met its just recompense of punishment and shame whenever it has), it is proposed to transmit the momentary difficulties, which might be dissipated by dealing with them with a firm, but kind hand, to another day—to postpone the conflict to our children, whom we are at this moment disarming of their constitutional rights, and sending to the struggle which awaits them with a be whose powers we are now thus increasing. We are surrendering the vantage ground—dispossessing them of the position in which our ancestors placed us in anticipation of this perpetual conflict with the enemy of our existing institutions.

What then is the apology for this strange course, in which cowardice and apostacy are the avowed guides? It is expediency. Sir, I shall dwell a moment on this new dogma, which I already perceive is the alpha and omega of the modern school, and which I have been rebuked again and again for repudiating from the science of politics. I glory, Sir, in the rebuke, in the quarter from which it comes, in the cause on behalf of which it is given. Expediency, the arbiter as to the future religious character of our constitution!—Expediency, illumined by religion, and fortified by principle, is, indeed, a safe adviser; but what is it when it purposely divests itself of both? Expediency, then, Sir, is the ready apology of the practised intriguer; the excuse of the ambitious slave; the justification of the inexorable tyrant! In a word, the lip-defence of the most unprincipled policy, of the most heinous crimes that have ever disgraced or desolated the earth. And is this principle, Sir, to supplant, and in this hitherto Christian country, that safe, that necessary, that universal guide of human beings in the most exalted, as in the humblest walk of existence—the rule of right; a rule as inflexible as its Author, and which like all his ordinations, however shrouded for a moment by doubts and difficulties, will ultimately resolve itself into benevolence, justice, and truth?

But, Sir, it may be thought I am dogmatizing in morals, instead of addressing myself to policy, when thus speaking of expediency. I will therefore remove the argument in order to place it on the foundation of human experience. Sir, history opens at every page on instances, inscribed in the most appalling characters, of the just punishment which has ever awaited individuals, or bodies of men, or nations, following so selfish and tortuous a path. I will not speak, Sir, of the pecuniary injuries it has perpetrated, the individual spoliations of property, or the degradation of rank, it has occasioned; I will present a more general view of its effects on society at large. Take an instance or two. What, Sir, did this expediency do for France, when, at the commencement of a state of things, upon which I fear we are now entering ourselves, it was adopted as the rule of public men—when the benevolent Louis, after having established a free constitution in behalf of a beloved, but fickle and ungrateful people, was surrounded by a knot of expediency-mongers, who, whether sincere cowards, ambitious knaves, or hypocritical traitors, advised the surrender of one principle and prerogative after another, till christianity itself was extinguished, and the taper of expediency glimmered in the moral darkness which then fell upon that desolated country; when all that was venerable or just was swept away, and the life of the monarch himself was the last sacrifice upon the altar of this expediency?

But an appeal to a neighbouring nation, whose past events, I fear, are already casting their dark shadows upon the pages of our own fate, and adumbrating the course we are infatuated enough to pursue may not be admitted, especially by the vindicators of its revolution. Let us then turn to the experience of our own country, and see the inevitable consequences of following, in the hour of real difficulty, such a guide. Let, Sir, the appropriate appeal be to the previous downfal of your own church and monarchy. It was at that period that this very House thought it expedient to mark out a noble victim, not indeed either as a human being or a patriot perhaps without his failings, but who bore towards his king and country a faithful and a loving heart—I mean the great Strafford—whose noble descendant^* I regret to see opposed to me on this occasion, and whose rebuke, touching this very expediency, I have received,—it was expedient, Sir, that he should be sent to his trial—it was expedient that those by whom he was tried should pronounce him guilty; lastly, it was expedient that his sovereign should sign the warrant that surrendered the most faithful of his adherents to death, to calm and tranquillize, as it was then pretended, the public mind; all animosities, it was promised, should be buried in the grave of the victim, over which a long and perpetual friendship between sovereign and subject was to be compacted and proclaimed. All this was promised, and by 'large and triumphant majorities.' How well that assurance was justified by the result, all who hear me know;—how far the grave of the murdered minister was apart from the grave of the murdered monarch! The dènouement of this tragedy, of which expediency was again the prompter throughout, was exhibited in the front of that edifice which I see you are now repairing. Expediency destroyed the church—murdered the king! But where might we end these appeals? One more shall be made; and as the matter and cause at issue are, in spite of all assertions to the contrary, plainly sacred, a most appropriate one. It was when a temporising minister of an ancient people was anticipating the difficulties of their situation, and making, in his day, his 'choice of evils,' and appealing to the dangers to be apprehended from the interference of foreign power, as do the advocates of the present measure, that he determined an unexampled act was to be perpetrated, 'lest the Romans should come and take away their place and nation.' 'It is expedient,' said he, 'that this man should perish!—that this sacrifice should be made!' Sir, the present occasion is only less important than that. Protestant Ascendancy is now the victim—Expediency still the priest. That sacred principle for which our fathers struggled so doubtfully and long, and which they deemed cheaply purchased at the expense of life,—peace and immortal glory rest upon their memory! that principle which has planted liberty, civil as well as religious, of the press as well as of conscience, in this happy country, and which has watered the sacred plant so profusely with its best blood; which has diffused its lights abroad till it has rendered this country the preceptor of mankind; which has nerved its arm and manned its heart in the hour of danger, and constituted it the champion as well as the exemplar of freedom—that principle which has fostered the learning, liberated the genius, warmed the charities, purified the morals of this great Protestant nation; I say this sacred principle, the noblest, as the great Chatham exclaimed, for which ever monarch drew his sword, or subject shed his blood, is about to be surrendered from a cowardly apprehension of dangers, which, however, the advocates of this measure do not pretend that it will dissipate, but only change,—not remove, but, perhaps, postpone. It is about to be surrendered to expediency! In a choice of evils, it is asserted that this 'breaking in upon the constitution' would be the lesser one.

^* Lord Milton,

Sir, the measure ought not thus to be presented; it is a choice of evil in preference to good. Banish, Sir, this crooked policy, this disgraceful guide, and the choice will be good; present and permanent good. In the ancient path in which your ancestors so nobly trod, there may indeed be difficulties interposed, obstacles to be overcome, as in the path of duty and of glory there ever have been; but meet them nobly, they will but heighten your achievement, and increase its reward. Preserve your constitution; defend your establishments; become the true friend, the real benefactor of Ireland; succour and save her by safer, kinder, surer methods than those now proposed; and your patriotic efforts will have the approbation of your own consciences, the gratitude of your country, and the applauses of posterity.

I must beg leave to offer another argument, and, as I have hitherto done regarding the preceding ones, I will, as much as possible, condense it. If there be one question which, beyond all others, ought to be removed from the consideration of expediency, it is this which concerns the religious feelings and privileges of the people. I ventured, on a previous occasion, to declare that no Parliament, constituted as the present is, has a right to rob the people of England of the Protestant constitution. I repeat that assertion. We are convoked by our sovereign, we are sent by our constituents, for no such purpose. We are interdicted by the solemn oaths we have taken at that table from pursuing such a course. We have abjured it. I know that I have been rebuked, and by a legal authority, for denying the omnipotence of Parliament; but I persist in denying it. Majorities, Sir, cannot render that true which is evidently false—just, which is manifestly otherwise. I appeal to the literary father of English liberty on this point,—Locke,—whose reasonings, in the conclusion of his celebrated treatise on government, are manifestly with me. I appeal to a greater than Locke; one whose warm patriotism, inflexible honesty, inviolate honour, have never been exceeded, rarely equalled—one whose wisdom, genius, eloquence, have never been approached—I mean the immortal Chatham. His name, Sir, it may be hoped, even in these days of mutual appeal, of reciprocal compliment, of unprincipled concession, of coaxing oratory, will still have some weight here, as it has every where else. His judgment is recorded on this solemn question. Upon the Quebec Bill, as it is called,—affecting, therefore, only a distant colony of the Crown, one recently annexed to the British dominions, and almost exclusively peopled by Roman Catholics,—still this was his deliberate judgment, in regard to the admission of Popery to power. Even then, he said, 'this Act of the 1st of Elizabeth,' as relating to the Oath of Supremacy, and substituting a common oath of allegiance in its place—'this Act of Elizabeth had always been looked upon as one that the legislature had no more right to repeal than the Great Charter or the Bill of Rights.' He deduced the whole series of laws, from the supremacy, first re-vindicated under Henry 8th, down to this day, as fundamentals, constituting a clear compact that all establishments by law are to be Protestant; which compact, he averred, ought not to he altered, but by consent of the collective body of the people. He further maintained that the dangerous innovations of that bill were at variance with all the safeguards and barriers against the return of popery and of popish influence, so wisely provided against by all the oaths of office and of trust, from the constable up to the members of both Houses, and even to the sovereign in his Coronation Oath, and concluded by pathetically expressing his fears that it might shake the affections of his majesty's Protestant subjects in England and Ireland.

Such was the judgment of this great statesman concerning the admission of popery to power, even in the wilds of North America. But, Sir, how fervid would have been his indignation, how irresistible his eloquence, had he witnessed the attempt to introduce it into the very heart of the empire? Happy would it have been for England if she had ever listened to her Chatham: happy will it still be for her if his voice, which I have awoke, as it were, from the slumbers of his immortality, might now be listened to! But the authority of Chatham will of course, like all other authorities at the present time, be 'cast to the moles and to the bats.' [A cry of 'Question,' from one or two members.] Sir, after having received the almost unanimous call of the House to proceed, and having, as must be evident, very much curtailed my arguments, I really think I am unfairly dealt with in being thus interrupted. I am willing to admit that I argue the question with warmth,—perhaps with more of my heart in it than of my understanding,—still, as this is the last opportunity I may have of speaking an the subject, I beg that for a few moments I may not be again interrupted.

I shall only urge one more argument against the measure; it is composed both of expediency and right. When appealed to heretofore, it has always been considered irresistible, and, when not listened to, troublesome and dangerous consequences have often ensued. The argument I now appeal to is founded on the voice of the people. Mr. Pitt declared, over and over again, that, against that voice, the measure ought never to be attempted. Mr. Canning very recently asserted, that the mass of the people of England were opposed to it,—I think the right hon. gentleman's exact phrase was 'the inert mass.' Sir, on this question the people are no longer inert. If they were previously so, it was because they reposed confidence in the declarations, assertions, and, if I may make use of a word so obsolete as to be now without a known meaning, the principles of ministers,—the principles of ministers. The distrust, however, of the people of England is now fully awakened; their fears are roused; hence the anxious and indecent haste in the passing of this bill—that their voice may be stifled and intercepted. The measure is hurried through the House, as I understand from many hon. members, long practised in the usages of Parliament, with a haste totally unprecedented. The people are not to be trusted with its consideration even, till after the conclusion of the ensuing Christian holidays. It must be passed through the legislature, we are told, before Easter. The people of England, at least the petitioning part of them,—those whom only the most momentous occasions would draw forth, who therefore represent the opinions, and embody the strength and resolution, of the community,—these, Sir, are at your bar. How are they to be treated? On not a remote, but unhappy occasion, when your sovereign was seeking redress from a grievance insufferable to any private gentleman in England, then, Sir, a mere handful of petitioners, compared with those who stand forth at this solemn conjuncture, were to be listened to. Such was the doctrine of many who were then heaping on our gracious Sovereign the coarsest and most malignant invectives, but who are now sudden converts to a warm, wordy, but suspicious loyalty; a change, which amongst all, the strange conversions that have marked the present period will, if it endure, be the most miraculous. Till the present occasion, these, Sir, to answer their political purposes, represented the people of Great Britain as an intellectual and intelligent people, amongst whom 'the march of mind,' to use their own favourite phrase, was making incredibly rapid strides; now, however, it is found convenient to represent them as an ignorant and besotted mob. Hence the treatment which as petitioners they now experience! Why, Sir, it has not been enough to refuse and plead against their earnest prayer. Their information is denied—their motives are calumniated—their numbers disregarded; they are represented as inspired by religious bigotry and intolerance,—feelings which those who make the charge know do not disgrace this great Protestant cornmunity,—as being under the influence of an order which their accusers are aware has not the power, even had it the will, to dominate over public opinion; an order, nevertheless, to whose loyalty, learning, and piety, the monarchy and people of England are under immeasurable obligation, but which has been subjected to a series of insidious comparisons and studied insults in this House, which have met with but very slight ministerial reproof—I mean, Sir, the Protestant Clergy of the empire. Sir, the people of England want no incentives to come forward in defence of the altar and the throne, the cause of their fathers and of their God.

Sir, the abettors of this measure say triumphantly that the bill will pass; the triumph is over their former selves, as well as over their present countrymen. But, Sir, whatever be the result, we will contend to the last. In this moral battle we stand at the Thermopylæ of Protestantism, secure of immortality even in the article of defeat; nor would it be defeat, but that some recreant Mœlian leads the enemies of the institutions of his country through secret passes to this melancholy and disgraceful triumph. Exult, then, over the still faithful band who remain true to their principles and professions! Boast in your majority! Carry up your Bill to the other branch of the legislature as in a triumphal procession! Tell us of the honours and the wealth you muster in its train—a train disgracefully swelled by the baser expectants of wealth and honours! These, Sir, may be there. But I tell you who will not, Sir. The people of England will not be there! They will not assist you to carry up this nefarious Bill; they stand aloof; despised and insulted, they pursue it through every stage of its progress with curses not loud but deep—but with curses that may still deepen and wax louder, till they break forth in thunders, as they once did on a like occasion, when they shook the very pillars and foundation of the throne. This Bill you will take up; but it will be received by a noble race, which have hitherto sent their heroes to the defence of the cause of England; and by a sacred order, who have meekly gone to prison and to death for it. We fix our hopes on them; but even they; Sir, are not our last hope. We trust in our Monarch and our God!

Sir, I have done. I am aware my feeble voice can have no influence. I am told none would, however powerful, against the phalanx united in hostility to the Protestant cause. Cemented and influenced as that phalanx is, reason, entreaty, remonstrance, are urged in vain. All I can do is done. I have laid this offering upon the altar of my country, humble as it is. My life should be added, could the sacrifice be availing!—A feeling which I partake with millions!

said:—Sir, every member must be naturally impatient to close this debate—I, at least, have no desire to prolong it. At this late hour, exhausted as the House must be, exhausted as the subject is also, the observations which I have to make shall be few indeed: they are called for by some topics on which the hon. gentleman who has just sat down has been pleased to expatiate, in that second speech of his, in which he describes himself as laying on the altar of his country. Of argument, indeed, there is not much in what the hon. gentleman has delivered to reply to; and even of that little no part has been addressed to the principle or the details of the bill. To the principle, indeed, he repeats his objections, which, he says, are to its unconstitutional character. He scorns to particularize or to prove them—nay, Sir, while he contends that the bill will have for its result the creation of Catholic influence and of Catholic ascendancy, that, instead of allaying it must enflame the hostility between rival creeds, the hon. gentleman has, not very consistently, assured us, that, in establishing a principle of indifference to the public profession of religion, it must generate a contempt for Christianity itself. In lieu of argument, however, the hon. gentleman has given us for the second time, his lucubrations on the state of Ireland, and has adverted to those specifics which he would recommend for her relief. He has not been content with repeating himself, but has also favoured us with a long quotation from a speech of lord Chatham, given to the House with not less effect, or with less solemnity, in the beginning of the night, by the learned representative of the city of Dublin.

Sir, if I follow not the hon. gentleman into a debate on the Quebec bill, it is because I will keep my word. I have not the same notion of succinctness or of brevity with the hon. gentleman, who might have spared his long extract, which had been already quoted on the same evening by another member. This, however, I must say, that the predictions of lord Chatham, and those terrors which were entertained when the Catholic religion was partially established in Canada, may teach us what the result of exaggerated fears may be, since we do not find that the evils have been so frightful from permitting the king's Canadian subjects to profess the religion of their fathers, though lord Chatham so pathetically expressed his fears that it might shake the affections of his majesty's Protestant subjects in England and Ireland.

I have not the presumption, Sir, to suppose, that after continued debates, I can urge any new arguments, or are called upon to urge them, in support of the bill. There have been statements of historical facts—changes on the conduct of public men, which at an earlier hour, I should not leave unnoticed—but, of the hon. gentleman's allusions to past times, and to the crimes which have been committed, on which England must look back with regret and sorrow, which of them have been justified by any analogy or eonnexion with the subject before us, unless he would impute them to the Catholic faith? I remember, indeed, that a noble lord, distinguished for his opposition to the Catholics, addressed a Letter lately to the Protestants of England, reminding them that it was dated on the anniversary of king Charles's marty- dom. Sir, the noble lord, and others, must presume upon Protestant ignorance, if they would connect the sin of the regicides, with those who, in Ireland particularly, were faithful to the Throne. Such allusions might have been more applicable to a debate of last year, on the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, though, even then, they would not have told for much. Still more, Sir, do I deem it extraordinary, to refer to the Revolution of France. The hon. member repeats his conviction, that his efforts against the bill are unavailing, but that he takes this mode of recording his opposition to it. If, I ask, this be his sole object, why refer to subjects so calculated to add to the existing excitement, to that very excitement to which the hon. gentleman alludes, and, as I think, not altogether without satisfaction? In what place, Sir, out of this House, is it intended that these allusions should produce their effect?

The hon. gentleman tells us, that we introduce a new dogma of government—that our apology is expediency—that expediency which he repudiates from the science of politics. Sir, I offer no apology for our course—I deny that it is vindicated upon these grounds; or that that which is the cause of justice—which is called for by a regard to the public safety, requires to be justified by the argument of a temporary expediency.—Yet I will vindicate against the hon. gentleman, that calumniated principle. He has told us that expediency ought not to be separated from morals—in that I agree with him; but when he calls it the defence of an unprincipled policy, the ready apology of the worst crimes that have ever disgraced the earth, I would ask him, whether there have been any crimes committed, however heinous, which have not, at one time or other, been palliated by the distortion of the sacred Word of God? I would ask him, whether there have been any which have not been cloaked by the plausible profession of religion?—whether the appeal to holy institutions, and to principles the most sacred, may not be a ready apology of an ambitious slave, or the pretext of an unprincipled oppressor?—I will agree with him that expediency, separated from true morality, in conflict with public duty, or private morals, is criminal; no man, however, who has argued this measure on a principle of expediency, has rested his defence of it on expediency of that nature.—But I will meet him there also. If he complains that Catholics are to be now admitted to the enjoyment of civil rights on that principle, I ask him on what principle but a principle of expediency was it that the Catholics were excluded? I call on the hon. gentleman to read the act of Exclusion from its preamble to its end, and to tell me if it was not on the ground of expediency, and of expediency alone, that the exclusion of the Catholics was rested. The principle of the constitution does not require—it never did require—communion in religion, on the part of those who were to enjoy civil franchise, or to exercise political power. That act, which rests upon expediency as its ground and its principle, only negatively excludes the Catholic from the enjoyment of civil office. Again he tells us in no very measured tone, that this cause (the hon. gentleman's view of the question, observe!) is taken up by the people of England, as the cause of their religion—the cause of their fathers, and of their God! Sir, I protest against this language of the hon. gentleman; and here, at least, I shall follow, not his precept, but his example; for I shall not either spare or limit the observations which such an assumption provokes. I respect the abilities of the hon. gentleman, but I deny that he, and those that support, or who cheered him, are exclusively prepared to fight (as they presume to arrogate that they are) the battle of the Church, and of the constitution of the country. I deny that I stand not here, as deeply, as firmly, as conscientiously attached to the Church establishment as he, or any around him. It is for the sake of the Church, though not for that alone, that I support this great measure. It is for the sake of the Irish Protestants, and because I believe that greater danger would ensue to the Protestant Church, and to the Protestant establishment in Ireland, by withholding it. It is not I, but the hon. gentlemen, who confound the Protestant religion, with a Protestant ascendancy. That ascendancy, as far as the maintenance of its establishment, I am ready as he can be to defend. But, by taking away a political ascendancy from the Protestant—by raising the Catholic from his inferiority in the State—am I giving any power which will enable the Catholics to destroy the Protestant Church? On the contrary, I say, that they now wield a power which they may effectually exercise for its extinction. It is to destroy this power—it is to unite Protestant and Catholic—it is, above all, to unite the Protestants themselves—it is, that we may have a united government, and a parliament unanimous—that I contend for the bill. I deny, then, any man's right to take to himself the exclusive merit of defending the English Church, or to say that his, more than ours, is the cause of our religion—of our forefathers—of our God! If the religion of the hon. gentleman is of such a nature, that it would exclude others, not because they are dangerous, but because they hold some differences of faith;—if such be the hon. gentleman's creed, I will say to him, as has been said on another occasion, and in another place—'Your religion is not my religion—nor shall your God be my God.'

Sir, it has been contended in this House, by the hon. gentleman—the last entered member amongst us—that we have no right to pass this act—that parliament has no right to entertain it without an appeal first made to the sense of the people; and to-night he repeats that assertion. I am yet to learn how the dissolution of this parliament, or the election of another, can make that just, which is said to be unconstitutional. But, in what book, Sir, have these gentlemen read the history of the constitution? Where do we find those limits and definitions by which they would restrict the powers of parliament? They know, that measures great as this—important as it is—have been passed without any such appeal. I allude, not merely to the Septennial Act, by which this House prolonged its own representative existence without any appeal to the people. Was either parliament dissolved on the Union of Scotland and of Great Britain, that compact to which hon. gentlemen refer, as a treaty never to be touched? Was either parliament dissolved when the Union took place with Ireland, when the Act took effect which incorporated the Irish legislature with yours, which admitted its members amongst you, without a new election—when that act was passed, in right of which alone, let me remind him, has the hon. member for Newark a right to give a vote affecting the people of Ireland—in right of which alone, does he legislate for my country,—when he, uncon- netted with us, but by the Act of Union, opposes a measure affecting our laws, our constitution, our society—on which the majority of the representatives of Ireland are united beyond all former precedent—that majority which would constitute our exclusive legislature, if the Acts of Union had not also given us the hon. gentleman and his coadjutors to dictate to us our course?

I am reminded by my right hon. friend near me, of another circumstance still more remarkable: it is the occasion when the Catholics of Ireland were first excluded from the legislature of their country. It is in that act of William, "of glorious memory," whose name, like those of Spencer, and sir John Davis, is to be unjustly pressed into the ranks of intolerance. Sir, if there was one thing more than another that could add to the glory of the character of William, and which crowned his victory—a victory, which, if it made not a man intolerant, might have afforded him some excuse for being so—it was this—that he was the first to set the example, and to inculcate the precept, of full toleration. The Prince who accomplished the Revolution of 1688 was not of the school of those who profane his name. But I return to the time when the Irish Catholic was first excluded. What! Was parliament dissolved? Did the government appeal to the people? Were the people of Ireland—were even the Protestants called upon to elect a new parliament to enact this exclusion? No! the Irish Catholics were first excluded by you from their native parliament, without reference to the people of Ireland, for whom you assumed to legislate at the time.

Sir, there are other points, on the discussion of which, if it were somewhat earlier, I might wish to enter—points to which the hon. gentleman has, doubtless, given great attention, and argued with great ability, in publications not before the House; but I am warned to refrain from entering upon such topics, by the disposition which has been generally manifested to terminate this debate. I would, however, with all deference, ask the hon. gentleman, whether he can look for the accomplishment of these great works of improvement which he has recommended,—whether he can hope for their being dispassionately and deliberately discussed,—whether there is a chance, a possibility of this, while the greater question remains in its present position,—while the parliament—while the country—while the two nations are distracted by it—while this House is divided in hostile array by its consideration? Does it not occur to him, that the first step towards any great improvement—above all, towards any measure of relief for the population of Ireland—does it not occur to him that the first advance towards a cure of these evils under which we suffer, must be a restoration of that spirit in the country—of that peace which will give encouragement to industry, security to capital, and some chance of internal tranquillity. This is no "sentimental emancipation," as the hon. member for Newark has been pleased to term it, but simple and efficacious, and in the spirit of charity not inferior to any of those subsidiary prescriptions which the hon. gentleman recommends.

One word more, Sir, and I have done. The hon. gentleman, in reflecting on those who have accomplished this measure—(for may we not hope that it is accomplished? May we not hope that a bill carried through this House, up to this point by such a majority, goes from us under auspices which give us assurance of success?)—in reflecting, I say, on those to whom he has been opposed, he has asserted that he, and those who have acted with him, have secured their immortality. When this question is remembered in after time, doubtless all those who have shared in these discussions, must be remembered in connection with it. But does he believe that those who have given their successful support to this Bill, who have contributed to the triumph of a great cause—those who will receive the congratulations of a people—and the gratitude of Ireland, for having restored that nation to happiness and to peace—does he imagine, that they will, in the halo of his immortality be obscured—shrouded—forgotten? Of my right hon. friend beside me, I will not, in his presence, utter all that my heart and feelings dictate—but I declare, in the presence of my country and my God, that I think that the people of this kingdom and of Ireland owe more to him, and to the illustrious duke at the head of the king's councils, than was ever before due from a people to ministers of the Crown. Millions of grateful hearts will reiterate this acknowledgement—and not of Catholics alone.

I trust that I may congratulate the House, and my own country above all, on one common feeling of satisfaction. I am convinced that the news of what has passed here will be received with respect by all. I know, and I say it advisedly, that a great portion of those most opposed to concession in Ireland, now feel that it has become inevitable. They, too, wish for settlement—they are satisfied with the securities offered to them—they do not deem them those "substantial shadows" of security which have been alluded to this night. I do hope and believe, that, while the Catholic accepts with becoming gratitude, and without unbecoming exultation, the great concession which the Protestant has made, both Catholic and Protestant may be, by our acts, united in one feeling and in one common cause—that of their common country.

contended; that the present was a religious question, and on that ground he opposed the bill, believing, as he firmly did, that its effect would be highly injurious to the Protestant religion and Protestant establishments of the country. He looked upon the whole measure as part of a perpetual popish plot against the Protestant establishments of the country. He had heard a good deal of the union, which it was said this measure would produce, and had already produced in Ireland; and in particular of the cordial meeting and shaking of hands of Catholics and Quakers in the streets of Clonmel on the subject; but he had lately seen a Clonmel paper which expressed its astonishment at such an assertion.

said: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may conclude the discussion on this bill with a parliamentary toast—"May the sister kingdoms be united, and may they live hereafter together like two brothers."

The House divided; for the third reading, 320. Against it, 142. Majority 178. The bill was accordingly read a third time.

then offered the following clause—"that no Christian pastor do prohibit the use of the Holy Scriptures, under pain of misdemeanor."—The motion was negatived.

then offered the following clause—"that no Roman Catholic member of a corporation do vote in the disposal of funds for charitable purposes."

observed, that the amendment was unnecessary, as all the parties who were objects of such schools or foundations must be Protestants.

The House divided: For the amendment 17. Against it 233. Majority 216. The Bill was then passed. The Qualification of Freeholders (Ireland) Bill was next, on the motion of Mr. Secretary Peel, read a third time and passed: and, at a quarter before four o'clock in the morning the House adjourned.