into any discussion, either of the veto, or the plan of domestic nomination. It was for parliament to determine that question; and if it should adopt the measure, to lay down the necessary conditions. It would then be for the Catholics to say whether they would accept the arrangement so provided, or not; and if they should refuse, parliament would have the satisfaction of having performed its duty. The Earl of Liverpool highly complimented the last speech, but could not think, that in going into a committee, the House stood pledged to no specific measure. The object now was, not to redress any partial grievances, or make any partial concessions; it was not merely to introduce some new modifications into the act of 1793. The professed purpose was to place the Irish Roman Catholics in every respect (some provisions with respect to the church alone excepted) on a footing of equal privileges with Protestant subjects. This, he apprehended, was the real ground of the question. If the motion contemplated nothing but some farther indulgences, or as complete a toleration as was compatible with the existence of a Protestant government, the argument for a committee would be unanswerable, nor should he be disposed to object to it; but the fact was, it was all or nothing that was asked for. He at tached no importance to the offers either of the veto, or of domestic nomination. He believed that no men could be more respectable than the Catholic prelates; and if there had been any exceptions to this remark, they had not proceeded from Irish nomination, but were to be traced to a very different cause. It was not about the form of the nomination that he entertained any scruples; the source of his objections and apprehension was, that, however named, they were necessarily subject to foreign influence, the pas

tors of the Romish Church, and bound to pay obedience to a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction. At the period of the Revolution, the connection be tween the state and the church as such was solemnly recognized; it was a connection which pervaded all our institutions, and characterized every part of our system. It was then settled, that the king himself must communicate with the Church of England, The same rule was applied, although since not unwisely relaxed, to the army and navy. The two Houses of Parliament were on some occasions parties to the performance of its rites and worship; and the judges of the land, if not by positive law, yet by immemorial custom, never opened their commissions without repairing to the established church. The result of equal and generous concession must be to leave no difference between any description of dissenters, and the Established Church in any respect beyond endowment. Parliament must immediately cease to be a Protestant Parliament. He could not be supposed to mean, that the majority of members would be no longer Protestants, but the Catholics, whatever their numbers, would constitute an integral part of the legislature, which must thus cease to be exclusively Protestant. This would at once effect an entire change in the system of the constitution, and must dissolve that intimate alliance between the church and state, which had been established at the Revolution. The proposed measure had been represented as one calculated to heal all past dissensions, to sooth and allay all animosities, and to create what had been termed a moral union throughout every portion of the empire. If he could really believe that these consequences would follow from its adoption, he should be extremely reluctant to withhold his support from it; but because he did not believe so, and

thought it would produce an opposite effect, he felt his objections to it fortified and invincible. This was the result of the best founded consideration he had been able to give the subject; he admitted that it was a case of difficulty-much of the policy that had been pursued in that country he regretted; but they were under the necessity of providing for circumstances as they actually existed. They must take things as they found them. At such a period as the present, he conceived our best security would be found in supporting and keeping toge ther the church and state as established at the Revolution. All the indulgence, and all the liberality, that was consistent with this fundamental principle, he should feel happy to support; but he could not help regarding the design of bringing all religions to a level, as tending to unhinge the minds of all classes of the people; and, by unsettling opinions, to render society liable to receive every accidental prejudice or impression; thus impairing the ancient foundations of a constitution under which we had long enjoyed happiness and security.

Lord Grenville, having on many former occasions endeavoured with his utmost energy to press his eager wishes to have this mighty boon conferred on England and Ireland, did not think it needful now to proceed into the same wide and comprehensive view of the question. The noble prelate (Norwich) who spoke third in the debate -a man with whom it was his pride to have lived from their childhood in the most intimate friendship, and of whose friendship there was no man but should be proud, had justly described it as a question-not of an abstract and polemical character-not a subtle and metaphysical speculation-still less a question of a religious and theological nature; but a question arising out of the varying and mixed mass of hu

man circumstances, and on which statesmen and legislators in such capacities had to decide. It was, indeed, from the legislature, the evils that at present claimed the consideration of their lordships sprung-a legislature that had on so many other great topics of public policy so wisely provided, but whose system of intolerant and heartless restriction, for the continuance of a century, had left upon record enactments that would have degraded the deliberations of the most barbarous men in the most barbarous nations. In endeavouring, therefore, to discuss the great interests involved in such a question, he would not descend into trifling disquisitions on abstract points-they were too narrowtoo little for legislative decision, compared with the great and gigantic considerations that were at issue. Such metaphysical and nice distinctions might suit the recluse in the closet, but could bear little on the motives of those who were called to legislate on the actual condition of a country. It was for them to consider all that experience had established, and wisdom could anticipate, in the removal of those evils that in their operation went to weaken the public security, and diminish the nation's prosperity. This he would say, that if there was any one measure calculated, above all others, to impart satisfaction and harmony to Irelandif there was one still more likely to guard against the mischiefs which a long train of untoward events and of a mistaken policy had generated, it was that measure which has been represented as tending to shake the security of church and state. There were few brighter names in the page of history, than our illustrious deliverer William the Third:-there never existed a man to whom mankind were under more sincere obligations: but if there was one greater and more supereminent quality in that great and su

pereminent character, it was, that he was the first statesman that acted on the principles of universal toleration, and to that great cause were directed and devoted the energies of his whole life. It was hard, indeed, therefore, that when they had to consider one of the most bigotted, one of the most persecuting, and one of the most intolerant systems that ever disgraced any country; an attempt should be made to date its origin from his reign, and to fix it as a blot upon his great and illustrious character. There was one circumstance in the history of the Catholic question, which deserved to be considered. From the first concession in 1777, down to 1782, and from thence down to 1792, they had all been made under circumstances of greater or less political distress and difficulty. And though no one would venture to say it was an unwise or unfit policy, when we were entangled in a civil war with America, or when we were menaced with a foreign war with France, to endeavour by conciliation and union to strengthen our resources at home, yet it might be suspected, (most unjustly, he readily admitted,) that those concessions were not the result of legislative wisdom-not the offspring of justice and liberality—not the consequences of an enlarged and comprehensive policy, which embraced the general welfare of the whole Empire-but a benefit extorted from us under the influence of fear and apprehension. The same objections, it could not be denied, were applicable, at all the various periods when the question of Catholic emancipation had been agitated. But now, they had at last arrived at a condition, when they lost their force; they had now reached that state of security and peace, when it could not even be insinuated, that whatever boon might be granted, was extorted from our fears. We had now the enviable opportunity of con

vincing the Irish Catholics, that as they had yielded their resources with an unsparing hand, and had shed their blood for us, during a time of great peril and exertion, so it was now our wish to promote their union and prosperity. We might now convince them, that our disposition to alleviate their grievances did not rise merely with our difficulties, and sink with the return of our security. And he could not but regard it as a blessed occasion, which the current of human events had placed within our reach, when we were enabled to confer a lasting benefit upon those who could not misinterpret our motives.

The motion was briefly opposed by Earl Bathurst, and supported by Earl Grey. The debate was closed by the Lord Chancellor, who contended that the measure now proposed was utterly irreconcileable with the principles of the British constitution. He would pass over the time of Henry VIII., when the king's supremacy was established; he would pass over the statute of the 1st of Elizabeth, when the supremacy of the church was again established; but let their lordships re. member, that at the Revolution, if, ever a legislative measure was adopted to secure to the utmost the Protestant Establishment, it was at that time. Much had been argued from the writings of Locke; but he would venture to say, that no man in the world had been so decidedly hostile to the claims of the Catholics. That eminent writer had positively declared, that, according to the Romish creed, faith was not to be kept with heretics; that they pronounced all who are not of their own communion to be heretics; and that they claimed the power of excommunicating kings; he, therefore, thought that they ought not to be admitted into power, since they delivered themselves over to another prince. No man living could read the

Bill of Rights without seeing that the civil and religious liberties of this country were to support each other. The preamble of that bill expressly stated, that the late King James had endeavoured to subvert the Protestant religion, and therefore certain persons had sent for King William, for what? Not merely to secure their civil liberties, but also their religion. They ten dered the crown to him, as a crown to be worn by a Protestant, and by a Protestant only; and it was positively declared, that in case the crown should devolve on a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, he should be considered as ipso facto dead, and the crown should devolve on the next Protestant heir. It was utterly impossible that any man could read the Bill of Rights, without understanding that Popery was inconsistent with the principles of our constitution. With respect to himself, he had long entertained an opinion utterly inconsistent with the principles on which this question had been debated this night. He must say, that according to his reason and apprehension, it went to the destruction of all the safeguards of the constitution. The Roman Catholic religion was decidedly hostile to the principles of a free government. The most eminent writers, Milton, Locke, Temple, Somers, and King William himself, had recorded this opinion; and James the Second was deprived of his crown because he had attempted to introduce that religion into the state. What, then, should we now overturn all that our ancestors had done? What would the nation say to this? What would be the feelings of the Protestant part of our people? As he understood the constitution, it was his bounden duty to give his dis. sent to this motion. It was hostile to the liberties of the country, both civil and religious; and went to the destruction of every security for which

our ancestors had so gloriously struggled.

A division being now called for, the original motion in favour of the Catholics was negatived by a majority of 142 to 90. Thus closed the proceedings for the present year, though it was still understood that the Catholic advocates were to bring it forward, session after session, till their object should be accomplished.

On the 20th May, Sir Francis Burdett introduced the subject of parlia mentary reform. He felt it to be a painful duty which he had undertaken in bringing the present question before parliament. Formerly it was enough to state that corruption existed, in order to insure a remedy; now corrup tion was openly defended. He felt it peculiarly awkward to complain before those very persons who were the ob jects of complaint, and to apply for redress to those very persons who were the authors of the grievance. He felt it most awkward to call upon those who must be supposed to be the corrupt, to redress corruption: but the general voice of the nation was so manifestly and so strongly for this mea. sure, that it claimed their utmost regard. When motions were formerly made upon this subject, it had been said, Where are the petitions? Now they had petitions laid before them with more than one million of signa, tures. Whether, therefore, the complaint of those petitions was well or ill founded, whether redress can or cannot be given, the House was bound to institute some inquiry into grievances so generally felt and so generally complained of. The prayer of those petitions was said to be wild and visionary: they were represented as praying for what was never sanctioned by the laws, and never recognized by the practice of this country. They were charged with having invented novel grievances, and demanded novel reme

dies. This charge of novelty had been extended to the proposition of annual parliaments; yet it was clear, that these had been the law and the practice of the country, from the earliest times, they had been established under William the Conqueror, who swore to call a parliament twice every year. It was of no consequence that he was a perjured monarch; this was the law and the practice of England down to the reign of Henry III.; when, though various abuses were committed, still parliaments were always annual. The same under the Edwards; and, in the reign of Edward III., laws expressly enact, that parliament should be called every year. It might be said, this did not necessarily imply an annual election; but this was certainly the case in the reign of Edward III. when there was an instance of five new elections in one year. Henry VIII., to effect his tyrannical designs, extended the period to five years, and first endeavoured to influence elections. This evil was not remedied till the reign of Queen Mary. The people of this country were at this time, so far as life and liberty were concerned, less secure than under the bloody Queen Mary, as she was called. She, proclaiming that the people had been deprived of their just rights, and of the great security for their liberty, had recourse to short parliaments. Her parliament did not continue for one year; it was dissolved at the end of nine months. Sir Francis highly panegyrized the reign of Elizabeth, but admitted that her parliaments were too long. This was continued in the reign of James; but the people had then no reason to be jealous of parliament, and felt themselves safe in its hands. If Charles had posssessed a large revenue, and a standing army, there could have been no question moved now as to the reform of parliament. A struggle ensued, when par

VOL. X. PART 1.

liament gained the ascendancy, and it was thought just, that a body which had acted so meritoriously, should have its duration protracted. Afterwards, it was thought gain to the public, that one great man should protect the li berty and ensure the security of the nation. Yet Oliver Cromwell was a parliamentary reformer, (a laugh,) and proposed a plan of reform, so just, so fair, and suitable, that even Lord Clarendon said it deserved to have proceeded from a better-a more warrantable was his lordship's expressionfrom a more warrantable quarter. But when Cromwell found that he must either lose his place, which to him would be to become a victim to the gallows, or support by the sword what he had acquired by the sword, he naturally preferred the latter alternative. The nation hailed the restoration of Charles, from whom, however, they met an ungrateful return. That mo narch first deliberately attempted to corrupt his parliament; but having failed, he dissolved it. Among the abuses of James II., none had been more flagrant than his attempt to corrupt elections; and the main reason urged by William for coming into England, was to procure a full, and free, and fair parliament. We were therefore entitled to a freely elected parliament; but how could this consist with members of the House of Commons being appointed by individuals. He would state the substance of a petition presented in 1793, relative to a reform in parliament. The petition, after mentioning several other grievances and inconveniences resulting from the state of the representation, and requiring redress, stated, that 84 individuals" do, by their own immediate authority, send 157 members to the House of Commons; and that this the petitioners were ready to prove at the bar of the House, if the fact