sults, which he wished to see accomplished. And he only begged leave to say, that when it should appear to him that the occasion was arrived for going into the committee, with a reasonable prospect of uniting and accomplishing the three main views embraced in his right honourable friend's (Mr. Canning's) proposition, no one in that house would be a more sincere, though many would be more able advocates for it than himself. In the vote he meant to give, he felt there would be no incongruity with the one he had given last session; nor would he, indeed, be ashamed to acknowledge, were it the case, that he had been led away by the dazzling eloquence of his right honourable friend, and that his judgement had been perverted by those extraordinary abilities he possessed. But, in fact, he had not changed his opinion; his present conduct was strictly in unison with his past, as would be evident to any one who had done him the honour to remember the few words with which he prefaced his vote on that occasion. If it could now be shown that the object of the committee moved for, would be general peace to all parties would be security to the protestant establishment-would be conducive to the universal concord of all classes of his majesty's protestant subjects-he would be among the most zealous to vote for that committee. But the ground was now changed. A notion had prevailed that there was a general indifference in the country to the granting of the catholic claims; that there was not even a favourable disposition upon the subject. He did not believe that to be the case. There was another thing also, which it was desirable to ascertain, namely, with what temper the Roman

catholic body would meet the disposition of that house to take their claims into consideration? We now saw what their tone and temper were. They expressly demanded unconstitutional redress of all their grievances. Only a few days after the resolution of that house reached Ireland, we saw the catholic body announcing their serious apprehensions that religious persecutions were about to be recommenced in Ireland. That was the conciliatory manner in which they met the advances of this country. They insisted upon the unconditional repeal of every statute affecting their condition. They did not call for protection; they claimed power. They spoke of what they claimed as matters of right. (Hear, hear! from the opposition benches.) He was not sorry to be thus cheered, because it showed that there were gentlemen in that house who considered those claims as rights: but he would be glad to learn from those gentlemen, in what sense they could regard them as rights, when they remembered that we lived under a protestant king, and a protestant establishment? Would they say that a state so constituted had no right to legislate for its own security? They must, indeed, be little read, and little instructed, in the doctrines of every writer who had written upon the subject, or they would know that every state had a right to watch over its own preservation. He concluded by observing, that the vote he meant to give, against going into the committee, was perfectly conformable to the vote he had given last session.

Mr. Plunkett began by remarking, that the language of his right honourable friend, the enlightened advocate of the catholic claims, ought to be exempt from verhal criticism.

criticism. There was no man who united greater intelligence with greater zeal for the interests of the catholics and of the empire. His right honourable friend had proposed a committee, in which he intended to move' resolutions, expressing a determination to abide by the protestant establishments in church and state. This had been misrepresented, as if he had talked of re-enacting the statutes passed at the revolution. It should be recollected, that the most industrious arts had been used against the catholics. It was gravely stated, that they had no object in view but to overturn the church, and demolish the state; and it was in answer to such calumnies that the declaratory resolutions of his friend had been framed. He agreed that what the catholics sought might not with strictness be called a right; yet he thought it a very metaphy. sical, and useless, and scholastic discussion, to investigate how far it was a right. Inasmuch as religious liberty was a right, their claim was a right; and to withhold toleration, where no danger could ensue from the grant, was to deprive a man of one of his dearest rights. The

catalogue of grievances under which the catholics laboured was large and provoking. It was galling to the soldier, actuated by the love of glory, to find himself unable to Keep pace with his companions in arms: it was galling to the barrister of talents, to see that he could reach no office of high importance in the state and though the elective franchise had been granted, was it not a grievance to gentlemen to be excluded from the house of commons? The motives which influenced persons to desire seats in that house were various; some of the noblest, some of an inferior

The con

kind: but, whatever they were, they operated as powerfully on the minds of catholics as they did on those of protestants. duct of the protestants had been marked with the greatest inconsistencies and solecisms: the catholics had been by them admitted to wealth and knowledge, the great elements of political power, and yet the power itself was denied to them. Those men are called innovators and turbulent, who come humblyto the bar of the house, and bring with them the offer of their hearts and hands, their substance and their blood, towards the support of the constitution; and desire only to be allowed to bring also with them their honour and their religion, without which they must be profligate and dangerous associates in any community. Our ancestors had acted with more consistency: their plans were concerted with a sort of diabolical perfection, that the end might answer to the means; they kept in the deepest ignorance the wretches whom they meant to degrade and render incapable of power: we, on the contrary, have repealed all the penal laws which kept them in darkness, and yet still expect them to be the grovelling slaves of stupidity. The time for such conduct would have been, when these sons of earth were buried under the mountains which the mighty wisdom of our progenitors had heaped upon them. These had now been heaved off; and what madman was there, who would advise that they should be buried again under their heaps? what idiot, who could imagine that they could remain as they now were? Could it be supposed, partially opened as the prospects of power had been to the catholics, that they did not, from this very circumstance,

feel

feel with greater keenness the indignity of exclusion? It was said that they aspired to the highest dignities: to be sure they did they would be worthless hypocrites if they pretended otherwise. They aspired to the most exalted stations -it would, indeed, be a most dan gerous and fatal indifference, if four millions of persons, enjoying property and consideration, should be content merely with the substantial benefit of the laws, without a desire to partake the honours of the state. He would meet the ques. tion fairly. If the claims of the catholics were inconsistent with the enactments of the revolution, they ought to go for nothing; if they were compatible, let them be heard. If the former should appear, after full showing, the petitioners must bow in silence: they must submit to their fate, and trust only to the inscrutable wisdom of providence to work out for them the means of comfort and liberty. Yet before the dreadful sentence' is passed upon them before they retire, over whelmed by the eternal interdiction, let the alleged danger be proved by facts and arguments clear as the light of heaven. But he felt confident that the case was not so; that there was no incompatibility between the sacred principles established at the revolution, and the present views and requests of the catholic petitioners. He wished to fight this part of the subject inch by inch: mean time, let not the people of Ireland be outlawed on visionary surmises; let not the government pretend to be frightened by the spell of its own raising. Such a pretence would be to palter with their own consciences, and to betray the best interests of the empire. Let some of the maxims of the constitution, as established at the re

1813.

volution, be examined. The chief securities were the oath of supremacy, and the declaration against popery. It was not at the period of the reformation that these safeguards were introduced, but towards the end of the reign of Charles II. It was then thought, that some practices were in agita tion contrary to the safety of the state; and the solemn renunciation by oath was then instituted. It was a matter of no great importance, whether the apprehensions entertained at that time were, or were not, well founded: for himself, he rather thought they were. Charles was a profligate monarch; for so he must call a man who had sold his country for foreign gold, that he might act without the control of a parliament, and intended to introduce at once popery and slavery. It was in consequence of such circumstances, that those laws were adopted which had been since repealed, and other oaths had been substituted. If the catholics are willing to take this oath, what excuse can there be for withholding them? It may be said, that it is hot to be relied upon, and is dangerous to the constitution; an argument whose absurdity is of this amount: as long as the catholic adheres to his religion, he is not to be believed; but if he abjure that, his bare assertion becomes worthy of credit. Surely this is an absurdity worse than transubstantiation itself! He did not feel inclined to deny that the power of the pope may be considerable, and might have an improper influence: be now, and always, thought that this was a proper subject for strict and watchful regulation; yet the nature of this provision ought not to interfere with the merits of the general question. He thought that some plan D

might

might easily be devised; and surely the right honourable gentleman must agree, that the committee was the proper place for such propositions. It was asked, whether it was intended to repeal the corporation and test laws? As to his own individual judgement, he would answer, Most assuredly they ought to be repealed; and it seemed to him a burlesque on the constitution to call those statutes its bulwarks. The corporation act, it was well known, was an ebullition of excessive loyalty at the time of the restoration, and inculcated, among other salutary provisions, the neces sity of passive obedience and nonresistance. At the revolution, this act had been purged and maimed; and yet this mutilated fragment of a statute was one of the props of the British constitution. Every body knew the history of the test act. It was the child of lord Shaftesbury, that unprincipled politician, who was utterly indifferent to all religions. It was not with a view to further the protestant establish ment, but to pique the court, that he procured the passing of that act, in order to exclude James duke of York from the succession. Thus one statute was the effect of blind and overflowing, the other of expiring and repentant, loyalty. As to the Bill of Rights, the exclusion of the catholics formed no part of it, and the oath of supremacy was only incidentally introduced.-Af ter much sound argumentation on the subject, Mr. Plunkett said, a wise government had a certain conduct to exercise. If they meant to refuse all concessions, they should say so at once; if, on the contrary, they intend to grant concessions, they ought to do it as soon as pos sible, as they then would come with a better grace, and be re

ceived with double welcome. He was of opinion, that by acceding to the motion of his right honourable friend, means might be found to put matters in such a train that the claims of the catholics might be acceded to without any difficulty or danger. He, for his own pari, had endeavoured to argue the question as a real and zealous friend and well-wisher to the interests of the whole empire ; and if the house agree to go into a committee, he would be one who would do every thing in his power to give every possible security to the establishment.

Mr. Yorke said it was evident the honourable gentleman was not unaware of the point where the danger lay; and he (Mr. Yorke) confessed, that if upon that point, the peril of foreign interference, he could be satisfied, he would lend himself to the question, and see how far they could satisfy the claims of the catholics. On the main question he agreed in many particulars with the honourable gentleman. The question had ever struck him as one not of toleration, (for we did tolerate the catholics in the free exercise of their religion,) but of policy; for we disabled them from possessing power, unless they gave assurances that it should not be turned in hostility against our establishment. If assured of this, he would repeal disabilities at once. But we were by law a protestant state; and this was a fundamental principle of the constitution, which it was idle and nugatory to state, as the right honourable mover proposed, in the preamble to a bill. We were not obliged to him for offering to declare the Act of Settle ment and the Bill of Rights, in the preamble, to be modern acts of par. liament. This being the case, the onus probandi lay on those who

wished to disturb the principle. It was enough for him to say, Here are the laws-and here I rest: I will not change till you give light upon the subject, and show me that I can rescind ancient and fundamental laws without injury or danger. It would be ridiculous too to rescind them, as affecting the catholics only if done at all, the act must be extended to our protestant brethren of every description. He was never one of those who supposed this could at no time take place. He was not an advocate for everlasting exclusion; but, said he, Show me the proper time and sea son, and I will grant what you desire. But he did not think that could be done with safety at this hour. The influence of the papal see over the church of Rome was immense, and the influence of the clergy over their flocks undiminished; and while this was the case, he could not bring himself to relax further in the securities with which the constitution was surrounded. In proof of the influence of the clergy, he noticed two instances; the one in England, where three apostolic vicars procured a committee (and themselves showed the example) to retract from their solemn signature and protestation; and another in Ireland, in the case of the veto, which the catholic laity had unanimously conceded, till they were called to an opposite determination by their bishops. Bonaparte's anxiety on the subject was a clear proof of the power of the pope, even though his slave and prisoner; and the pains this eldest son of the church, and successor to Charlemagne, had recently taken with regard to the nomination of bishops, was a lesson that ought not to be lost upon us. The right honourable gentleman then went into

documents to show, that the manual of the papal see, sanctioned by the pope and acted upon by all catholics, pronounced marriages with heretics to be held in horror by the church; and that the oaths of fidelity could never be allowed to be taken unlimitedly to monarchs out of the pale of their community. He was not satisfied that even the bishops or clergy of Ireland had taken their oaths; and many gentlemen knew that this country was at this hour excommunicated, and placed under an interdict by the pope. The Romish religion was like a mask with two faces; there was the religio laici and the religio cleri. The advocates of the cause seemed to say, that the noblemen and gentlemen among the former were little attached to the pope's supremacy, and rather adhered to their tenets as a point of honour. But with the religio cleri it was a different thing; and he believed all good catholics found themselves unable to get out of these trammels. The new facts that had been made known, and the new circumstances which had arisen since passing the resolution of last session, were conclusive against going into a committee. He confessed, for one, that he dreaded danger from a catholic party introduced into that house growing strong, and acting together with one object in view. They all knew what even a small party could effect in this way. As for the complaint of the depreciation of their characters, who was to blame for that? They must blame themselves; because, if they would persist in acknowledging a foreign supremacy, they had no right to the same privileges with those who disavowed it. They could not serve two masters. They paid only half allegiance, and were only D2

half