subject. The legislature accordingly provided-first, for the absolute and unconditional integrity and inviolability of the church; further, for the spiritual prerogative of the crown, forbidding at the same time the exercise of any other than the established religion. What were the mischiefs dreaded, or what were the provisions of the legislature? To prevent the claims of the pope, or any other foreign power, to interfere with the church. Did they hear of any claim to that interference, or to the right of deposing kings, or dissolving the allegiance of their subjects? Was that believed or asserted by any man in either kingdom? Dangers there were still, but of a different kind. These enactments were, therefore, gradually done. The law forbid ding the exercise of any other religion was done away by the repeal of the act against recusancy. The only remaining one which could at all be supposed to contain that spirit, was the act of uniformity, which could not at all be affected by the proposed measure. So far did parliament go down to the time of the Reformation. The wisdom of our ancestors watched the progress of time, and took their measures accordingly. In the reign of Charles, they observed a new danger--a monarch careless about religion, or secretly affected to an unconstitutional one, who was to be followed by a popish successor. Here their providence was as remarkable as before. They provided a remedy, not adapted entirely to meet the evil, but the only one they could obtain; which was to require certain oaths to be taken by those who were ready to take

seats in Parliament. That was found insufficient on the accession of James II., who openly maintained the Roman-catholic religion against the constitution and the rights of his people. The legislature finding this resource fail, then prudently shifted their ground, and had recourse to a measure at once wise, bold and salutary. They drove the monarch from the throne for violating the constitution, and they resolved that the sovereign power should be held inevitably and unalterably in protestant hands. Did he deny that the throne must be protestant? Was he doing any thing to weaken its protestant supremacy? Was there any mode or device to make that supremacy surer which the genius. of any man could suggest? He was ready to incorporate it with the proposed bill, or to have it introduced as a separate, yet concomitant measure. He went on.' What were the dangers which afterwards threatened the 'establishment? The claims of an exiled family driven from the throne, and the plots and agitations of a disaffected party retained in its interests. He admitted, freely, that the Romancatholics of that period were suspected justly. What was the course taken by parliament? All the former measures against the papists were continued. They. were held to be not good subjects, and were to be trusted neither with honour, nor power in the state. They were coerced in their persons and property-they were deprived of their civil rightsthey became sunk and degraded into that wetched state, from which they were relieved by the benignity of the last reign. This

was

was a natural course of reasoning, though he did not conceive it to be a very wise one: but it showed that our ancestors adapted their remedies to the evils then existing, and pressing upon their apprehensions. In 1791, a new danger and an entirely new difficulty presented themselves. The Roman catholics had proved themselves truly submissive-they had been uniform in their peaceable conduct. Though rebellion had twice raged in Scotland, no movement was made in Ireland in favour of the exiled family. It had been found that the catholics, so sunk and degraded, were ineffectual to the protection of the government, -that by the depression and privations imposed upon them, the heart's blood of the state was impoverished. The landlord found that the lands could not be sufficiently cultivated the valuable energies of labour were every where paralyzed. If the annals of that period were to be properly read and considered, the late king would be for ever illustrious in history, as he was entitled to the especial gratitude of every Romancatholic in Ireland. That system of beneficence which he introduced had been now in practice 40 years -it had raised the Roman-catholics of Ireland to a state of affluence, comfort, and respectability it had given them a perfect equality of civil rights-it had caused them to participate in the advantages of the institutions. What was the danger now which they had to dread? not the Pope-not the claims of foreign potentates not the assumption of a power to dissolve the allegiance of the people not the interest of an exiled family. The Roman-catholics had

perfected the proofs of their obedience, and had been admitted to their civil rights, as good subjects who were entitled to every thing which they could reasonably claim. The danger now to be apprehended was perfectly new, though not inferior, he admitted, to that of a dispute concerning the supremacy or the succession to the crown. Better measures had prevailed the state had acquired sounder health a current of wholesome blood was felt-feelings of conciliation had been manifested the Roman-catholic subjects, though not directly raised to power in the state, had acquired possession of the means of danger, and were on a par with themselves. The hon. member for Louth had spoken alarmingly of six, or five, or four millions of persons in the communion of the Roman-catholic church. What he feared was to see four millions-taking them at the lowest-of subjects, having wealth, power, and respectability on their side, and awakened to a full sense of their condition, coming up year after year to claim the rights and privileges enjoyed by their fellow-subjects, and retiring dejected and disappointed continually. That was the danger the house had to cope with. Yet the honourable member for Louth would persist in telling them that they were not to look at the dangers of their own times, but to go back to the Reformation, the reign of James II., and the Revolution. He would say that the present danger was the greatest, perhaps the only one for them to consider. The other argument proved a want of acquaintance with human nature; it bespoke our ignorant use and application

of

of the manual of history. Time, as it had been said by one of the clearest observers of its effects, was the greatest innovator of all. While man would sleep or stop in his career, the course of time was rapidly changing the face of all things. All that a wise government could do, was to keep as close as possible to the wings of Time, to watch his progress, and accommodate his motion to their flight arrest his course they could not; but they might vary the forms and aspects of their institutions, so as to reflect his varying aspects and forms. If this were not the spirit which animated them, philosophy would be impertinent, and history no better than an old almanack. The riches of knowledge would serve them no better than the false money of a swindler, put upon them at a value which once circulated, but had long since ceased. Prudence and experience would be no better for protection than dotage and error. Did he admit that the danger here was serious? He did not therefore inculcate dread. If those persons were to come down to the bar to claim their rights with clamour and shouts, he would laugh at them. Should they use threats and defiances, he would despise them. Parliament could subdue any force raised on their side. But if they merely claimed the rights of a free constitution, he had no answer to oppose to them. He had no mode of dealing with them, but to open the arms of friendship-to admit them as allies, as equals to share the benefits, and join with him in aiding the defence of the constitution, be it against foreign or domestic enmity, be it in peace or be it in war. They were told that there was a

bar-that the principles of the constitution were opposed to the admission of the Roman-catholics. He had read with eagerness-be had carried on his researches with deep anxiety-he had endeavoured hard to find out where that principle could be discovered, and he solemnly declared that he could not discover it. Referring to the distinction which had been taken between civil and political rights, was the fact so that the constitution did not admit any to political power, however completely in the possession of their civil rights, without they subscribed the doctrines of the established church? Did not every day's experience disprove that assumption? Was not the hon. member for Norwich, whom they listened to day after day with satisfaction, an example of the contrary? Were not dissenters sitting in the houses of parliament? Where was the alarm for the disjunction of the interests of church and state? Had there not been a lord chancellor of England who was a dissenter? A man who refused to subscribe the doctrines of the church of England had, in his official capacity, issued writs of summons to the peers of Great Britain, and appended the great seal to them. (He alluded to Lord Rosslyn.) Were hon. members who contended this, ignorant of what had been doing in Ireland? The test laws had there been repealed for fifty years, and the dissenting influence had been on the decline ever since. When that repeal was talked of, there was alarm. Dean Swift, with all his wit and talents, felt and spoke of it with horror and desperation, and prognosticated from it the immediate down

fall

fall of the state. For forty years past it had not been heard of, and was almost forgotten by the house; the dissenters had ever since declined. Had the Roman-catholic influence declined in the same period? The former had been ever since withering under the hand of liberty; the latter had been fostered and cherished by severity. But it was said the Roman-catholics might have their civil rights; they must not expect political power; that the constitution prohibited. Was there nothing of political power in what they possessed? They had the right of electing members to serve in parliament. Was that no exercise of political power? They acted as magistrates: was that no exercise of political power? They served as jurors: was not that exercising political power? This country had liberally imparted education to them: did not that put the means of political power within their reach? Where was this line of difference between civil and political power marked in the constitution? The warmth of discussion apart, he denounced the doctrine as inconsistent with the principles of our free constitution, and only fitted for the meridian of a despotic government. He once endeavoured to define civil liberty to the house; he used the description which he found in the books.-Civil liberty consists in doing all that which the law allows you to do. But he went beyond that. There is a civil liberty, the enjoyment of which is given by the laws themselves. Önce admit man to enjoy property, personal rights, and their usual consequences, and on what pretence could they be excluded

from the institutions by which the whole of those must be guarded? It was asked, what have the Roman-catholics to complain of? they are only excluded from the parliament, the bench, and the offices of state? which meant, that they were only excluded from the making and administering of the laws, from all posts of honour, and dignity in the state. These were bagatelles, for which, according to the argument, it was not worth while for the catholics to contend, and therefore it was scarcely worth the while of the parliament to refuse. How would the hon. and learned gentleman who used this argument like to be excluded from his chance for these trifles? He begged to ask if these were not the very nothings for which Englishmen would cheerfully lay down their lives? Did they still talk of the danger of admitting the catholics? He put it to the house to consider if they would willingly see such a body represented any where but within the walls of parliament. Shutting them out from parliament, after giving them every thing to render them consequential short of it, was teaching them to array themselves elsewhere. Somewhere else they must go, if the house could not make room for them. God forbid the recurrence of bad times: but it might happen that a bad prince might mount the throne, and then, perhaps, being refused admission where they had a right to it, they would range themselves behind the throne, and assist in the sacrifice of the public liberties. His hon. and learned friend, the solicitor-general, was satisfied as to the laity, whom he considered as sufficiently good subjects. The

danger

danger which his hon. and learned friend apprehended was from the Roman-catholic church. He dreaded, in a country where the majority differed from the religion of the state, the uncontrollable and all-controlling influence of priests, who were themselves detached from the state. France, it had been said, had of late shown herself particularly tenacious on the subject of religion; and looking at what might be her views with regard to Ireland, there would be great danger. He (Mr. Plunkett) supposed that the bill was intended to diminish so much of the influence of the Roman-catholic clergy over their flocks as arose from their present grievances. Here was a danger admitted on both sides to be actually existing, and here was a bill proposed by the hon. baronet to meet that danger. Let the measure be shown for bringing those influential priests within the pale of the constitution, and he would say something to it. Had his hon. and learned friend any remedy of his own, since he did not choose theirs? He (Mr. Plunkett) did not think that he had. His was the old panacea of trusting to time and proselytism. The latter was out of favour, though he could not but think it a fair and rational thing for any man to endeavour to bring over another by persuasion, to what he himself conjectured to be the truth. To prevent proselytism, he trusted to the exemplary lives of the clergy of the established church, and the mildness and virtue, with which they behaved to their neighbours: this was a tribute of praise which none could well deny them. The dread of future consequences, by doing right at present, was not

He

worthy of the house. The children of their children might see strange things-they might see the portals of the constitution thrown wide open to all the religious persuasions. Those were remote dangers, but those which existed were pressing and imminent. He would begin by doing away their grievances., As to the means, he would first of all relievę those who were bound by a common bond of oppression. would make a respectable provision for the Irish Roman-catholic clergy. In his opinion this should accompany the bill of emancipation. They had been told that the Irish clergy would not accept it. He gave his assurance, upon a considerable experience of that country, that they would receive it with sentiments of gratitude. There was no danger of their ever attempting to usurp over the protestant hierarchy. The danger was, that of seeing the hierarchy pulled down-not that of seeing it substituted. He trusted in God that it never would be overthrown, as that would be the most inauspicious circumstance for the constitution and the people. But if pulled down to-morrow, and offered to the Roman-catholic clergy, the laity would not permit them to accept it. (Cheers, with murmurs of doubt.) He repeated it, that the laity would not permit them to accept it. Honourable members who knew any thing of Ireland must know the opposition which would be made by the laity to the resumption of the power and tithes by their own clergy. If an enemy were to land on any part of the coast of Ireland, he did not say but that there would be great danger. But the house ought to

do