deceased bishop, so that in fact the Roman Catholic bishops appointed their own successors. He understood something was to be done to take away this influence of the predecessor. This might be useful to the Catholic, but it was nothing to the Protestant; the one was domestic_nomination, as much as the other. The grand concession, therefore, by which the Catholics were to remove every ground of distrust was, that matters should stand exactly as they were. He would proceed to inquire into the nature of that danger which required restrictions as a defence against it. It was impossible for the Protestants in Ireland to view without apprehension, a population of four millions, depending for their education, habits, morals, principles, and attachment to the Government of Great Britain, on a numerous body of ecclesiastics, whom the fatal and mistaken policy of our ancestors had treated in such a manner, that it was inconsistent with human nature that that body should be otherwise than alienated from that government. We might lament that which was passed, but we could not annul it. The Protestants had seen that numerous body so lately proscribed, even for the discovery of any of whom a reward had been offered, who were studiously rendered a severed order, nevertheless exercising more power over the population and feelings of Ireland, than the legislative or executive authority had ever been able to obtain. The Protestants had seen this order submitting to a small body of bishops; and they had seen those Catholic bishops acting with an unanimity and a perseverance in furtherance of their common interest, unpar. alleled, except in the history of papal Rome. The Protestants had seen these bishops assemble annually for the ostensible purpose of regulating a college of education, but not separat

ing until they had accomplished the more important object of communicating with each other on their general affairs. The Protestants had looked in vain for any friendly feelings as following upon the numerous concessions which had been made in the course of the last thirty years. In too many instances a personal proscription had been established against those who professed the Protestant faith. The Protestant tradesman had been deprived of his Roman Catholic customers.

The Protestant farmer had been menaced, his habitation destroyed, himself way-laid at night, and treated with brutal outrage, until he either sought peace in emigration, or bought it by his conversion. Added to this had been the system of intermarrying Protestants with Catholic families, producing in many instances a change of faith in the Protestant husbands, and almost invariably ending in the Catholicism of the children. The Protestant saw all this; he saw the number of Protestants diminishing; he saw the property of Protestants decreasing; he saw the interests of the Roman Catholic clergy púrsued with indefatigable activity; and he was then told to be of good cheer, for he had nothing to apprehend. Such had been the state of things under the system of domestic nomination. As to the veto, it was a curious fact, that when that House in a committee expressed an opinion favourable to the Catholic claims, with the restriction of the veto, a synod of Roman Catholic bishops was holding in Dublin; and on the very day which brought to Ireland the news of the vote of the House of Commons, that synod of Catholic bishops published a declaration, that "they would cheerfully lay down their lives rather than submit to such an interference in spiritual matters." In what a situation would the country have been, had that

proposition of the committee been carried into effect! If such was the opinion of the Catholic clergy with respect to the veto, that of the laity went hand in hand with it. At all subsequent public meetings the Catholics vied with each other in finding terms sufficiently expressive of their abhorrence of the proposition. He held in his hand some resolutions agreed to at a meeting in the county of Kilkenny, which he had selected not by any means as the strongest that could be found, but as affording a fair sample of the whole. These resolutions termed the veto "a penal law, and a persecution, which, if persisted in, would shake the British empire to its foundations." He would put it to any friend of Catholic eman cipation, if any change had taken place in the sentiments of the Catholic clergy in respect to the veto, except that of regarding it with still deeper detestation. Domestic nomination and the veto being thus proved to be both nugatory, what new security could a committee be expected to devise? It had on a former occasion been said to the House," Give us a committee, and then you will see we will find securities." The expedient had been tried. The House had gone into a committee to see what could be done. That committee had groped about for principles. The mountain had laboured, and brought forth-the veto, an object at once of Protestant ridicule, and of Catholic abhorrence. The uniform opinion of all Europe on the subject might be collected from the report on the table, of which he should merely give a general outline. It was a curious fact, that there were but two states in Europe, Prussia and Great Britain, in which Catholic bishops were suffered to exist at all. The example of Prussia, therefore, was very material, as bearing on this question. In Prussia-not merely in

Silesia, which was Catholic, but in Prussia-there were several Catholic bishops. The King, however, nominated to all the bishoprics. What was still more surprising was, that there was not a Catholic priest in the Prussian dominions who was not appointed by the Protestant Government. There was no synod allowed to be held until its object was ascertained, and until it had received the express sanction of the state. No communication was allowed with the see of Rome, but through the bureau of the Protestant minister of state. If there was any proposition to put the Irish Catholics on this footing, even if he were wild enough to suppose that they might be induced to accede to it, it would by no means be his wish that they should do so. But there were degrees of interference and restriction. Some securities of a similar nature might be devised to which no Catholic objection could be made. He had heard it said by some who sought for a distinction between the Catholic clergyman in Ireland and the Catholic clergyman in Prussia, as one part of it dwelt on the fact, that in Prussia a stipend was annexed to all ecclesiastical functions, Protestant or Catholic. Of this distinction he could get rid in two ways. First, he was decidedly for allowing the Catholic clergy in Ireland stipends, (hear, hear!) convinced as he was that no possible system of countercheck, such as that in Prussia, could be otherwise established in Ireland. But the second and more substantial answer was, that it was impossible, if the interference of the King of Prussia in the appointment of Catholic bishops interfered with the spiritual authority of the Pope, that the Pope could ever have consented to it. It was said he gave aliquod spirituale pro aliquo temporali; but the fact of his having acquiesced in such a bargain was a proof

that he only gave up a temporal privilege. As to the other Protestant states in Europe, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, &c. no Roman Catholic bishops were permitted to reside; and the inferior Catholic clergy were prohibited from holding any intercourse with the see of Rome, except through the respective governments of those states. If, therefore, the parliament consented to grant the full participation in all civil rights to the Catholics, it would be to try an experiment which no state in Europe had ever made; and when the right honourable gentleman (Mr Grattan) spoke of this country as the only intolerant state in Europe, he should have also added, that if it adopted the course now recommended, it would be the only Protestant Government which ever ventured such a trial. In Russia, the Catholic bishop was appointed by the Emperor; but it was said in a work of great authority on the question, (the Edinburgh Review,) that there was less difference between the Greek church and the Catholics than between Catholics and Protestants. This was not the fact, as the Greek church differed from the Romish in all the points at issue between the latter and the Western Reformers, and besides esteemed the Pope and his adherents madmen, schismatics. But notwithstanding this, when the Empress of Russia proposed to give a stipend to the Catholic Archbishop of Mohilew, and to appoint that officer, the proposal was gladly accepted by the see of Rome. A regulation which the Pope could accept under a Greek Emperor, he could not object to under a Protestant King of Great Britain, on any religious principle; and if the objection was merely political, he should on that account be more disposed to insist on the enforcement. Thus much as to the states which dis

sented from the church of Rome. As to the Catholic states, there were none, great or small, enlightened or ignorant, which permitted any communication between their clergy and the see of Rome, except with their own privity; and in all states, with some inconsiderable exceptions, in the case of a few sees in Naples, the bishops were appointed by the sovereigns of the respective countries, and not by the Pope. In Spain, where it would be expected there would be the most superstitious attachment to the see of Rome, any communication between a clergyman and that see was punished by deprivation and imprison. ment in Africa. Even the attornies, who were the parties in such a transaction, were punished by ten years' imprisonment in Africa. The free communication with Rome which the Catholic clergy were to enjoy in this country, while the laity possessed all civil rights, was a perfectly novel experiment. Indeed all countries in Europe, Catholic as well as Protestant, had carefully shut out the doctrines propagated by the court of Rome for its own power and interest. These tenets, known by the name of transalpine doctrines, were excluded from all Europe, excepting two spots

the one was the Vatican, the other the college of Maynooth. The intolerance which still prevailed in the Romish church was shewn by the rescript of the Pope against that noble society, which, like the angel in the Revelation, bore the gospel through the world. He referred also to the late pamphlet of Dr Gandolphy, in which Protestantism was described as a visitation on England, worse than pestilence and the sword, and the Bishop of London was represented as an emissary of the Prince of darkness. He believed, that in the acts of violence which took place between the

members of different religions, the Catholics were uniformly the aggres

sors.

Mr Yorke would state candidly his opinion, though it might not be in his power to satisfy either party. He was most anxious that something should be done, and considered the freedom of the Pope as affording an opening towards it; since no arrangement which had not his concurrence could have any stability, He considered securities essential, whether by the veto or otherwise; but a nomination purely domestic appeared to him to afford very ample security. He should have little difficulty in granting the request, if the Catholics of Ireland were like those of France or Germany; but he believed them to be the most bigot. ted that now existed. His chief difficulty would be with regard to seats in parliament, and efficient offices under the crown. It was true, he would be glad to see the Howards, the Cliffords, and the Arundels, taking their seats in our parliament; and the Plunketts and Barnwells from over the water; but the greater part were of a different description. He hoped, however, the House would find some means of consolidating the union of the two countries, and confirming them in mutual attachment.

Sir J. Cox Hippisley supported the motion, and controverted the statements of Mr Foster.-Sir H. Parnell observed, that Mr Foster had materially mis-stated the fact relative to the nomination of the bishops. It was by no means a general practice for bishops to appoint a coadjutor; it took place only when they were in some manner incapacitated for the duties of their office. The practice was for the bishops to make up a list of three, which was transmitted to the Pope, who usually chose the first on the list; but he had the full right of acting

otherwise, of appointing any one whom he chose, or of leaving the see vacant. The Catholic clergy were ready to enter into a concordat with the Pope, by which this right should be given up. They were also ready to take the following oath: "I, A. B., do most solemnly swear, that I will not effect or connive at the election of any man whom I do not believe to be a loyal and faithful subject, and of a peaceable demeanour and disposition; and that I will not attempt by open force or by secret fraud, to subvert or destroy the constitution, either in church or state. Nor will I attack any thing as by law established, and if by any correspondence, or by any other means, I discover any persons endeavouring so to do, I will without delay make it known to his Majesty's Government." He considered every requisite security as thus afforded, and earnestly hoped the house would go into the committee.

The motion was zealously opposed by Mr Webber, and as zealously supported by Mr Elliot.-Lord Castlereagh was deeply sensible of the importance of the measure, and was unwilling, by opposing it, to occasion the annual occurrence of such a discussion. Any great question hanging year after year about parliament, was an evil, especially when religious were mixed with political considerations.— It was impossible to contemplate the temper recently manifested in Europe, without feeling that the former dangers connected with the question were considerably diminished, if not wholly removed. There was a period when the alliance of the Pope was courted by all, and when he had it in his power to convulse Europe by his influence. Latterly, however, Rome had not interfered in political questions. Let the House carry its attention back to the treaty of Westphalia, in which the

question of religion formed so leading a feature; in which Catholic votes were balanced against Protestant votes, and in which the principle of exclusion was carried into effect. What was the case at present? When the great political questions of Europe were last discussed, he had never heard the subject of religion mentioned in any of those discussions. In the diversified states of Germany, in some of which the Protestant religion, and in others the Catholic religion predominated, the whole body chose equality of religion as the basis of their mutual arrangements. He conceived that concession had been chiefly prevented by the rash and intemperate conduct of the Catholics themselves. Though differing in opinion from Mr Foster, he was much gratified by the information his speech contained; but the facts disclosed in it led, in his mind, to an opposite conclusion. He believed that a sound temper would never exist in Ireland while religious considerations continued in that country on their present narrow basis. Never would he believe that any existing danger could be aggravated by the introduction into parliament of a few noble Catholic peers, or of a few generous Catholic commoners. On the contrary, he was persuaded that they would be the foremost to repress any deluded people of their own religious persuasion, who might be tempted to disturb the public tranquillity; and the concession of the Catholic claims would afford them most powerful means of achieving an object so desirable. It was the unhappiness of Ireland under its present circumstances, that the state had not sufficient talents to maintain itself, and carry it through adverse circumstances. A connexion with the higher ranks of the Catholic body would afford an aid in that respect which would be invaluable. He would press this measure, if possible, with the concur

rence of the Catholics, but otherwise even without that concurrence, and would trust to its producing ultimately the proper effect. He would expect ample securities both as to oaths, and as to government having some influence in the nomination of Catholics. He certainly knew that every objection on the part of the Pope to such an arrangement was now withdrawn. He conceived that much would be done if the crown even received information previous to the appointment of a bishop. He regretted the word veto had been used; it was a forbidding word. Upon the whole, he apprehended nothing but good from the introduction of a few Catholic members into parliament. Until they had got the Catholics among them in that House, fighting the battles of the constitution, as in our wars they had so bravely fought the battles of the country, he should never be satisfied. Feeling so strongly, he should be guilty of great baseness were he not to declare it. During a part of his life he had considered it his duty, under existing circumstances, to oppose the claims of the Catholics. But those circumstances no longer existing, he was bound to make an earnest and a solemn appeal to the House in their support. Until the subject should be disposed of, the legislature would never enjoy repose, nor should we appear in the eyes of Europe and the world as we ought to do an empire, consolidating its varied population into one great mass, actuated by the same interests, and directing its energies to the same objects.

Mr Peel opposed the motion in an elaborate speech. He was convinced that no scheme could be devised at once agreeable to the Catholics and affording security to the Protestants. It was with the deepest regret he confessed himself not included in the number of those who saw any prospect of