had enabled them to purchase property, had, to a great extent, become the purchasers of those very forfeited estates. After this, would it be said that they were not disposed to respect the titles to such property? Would it be supposed that they were anxious to invalidate the rights of those from whom they derived their own by purchase? Yet it was on such grounds that the right rev. prelate had rested his tender apprehensions for the security of those protestants who now held forfeited estates. He hoped the right rev. prelate's better recollection, or more attentive observation, might teach him a little more as to the real state of Ireland, with respect to the security of church and other property in Ireland. It was true, that one of the grounds on which he (Lord Lansdown) supported the present bill, was, the insecurity to which property would be exposed in Ireland from its refusal; but that insecurity rested on very different grounds from those which the right rev. prelate had taken. The insecurity which he dreaded was that which must ever exist where discontent prevailed among the great body of the people. The right rev. prelate, in his remarks on the conduct of certain individuals in Ireland, had spoken of the Catholic Association, and observed, that no feeling of discontent prevailed in the country until that association was formed. Did he for a moment take into consideration the causes which produced that association? Why were none such formed in this country? Because no ground for similar discontent existed, because no feeling of such injustice to the great body

of the people prevailed--a feeling which, while it was suffered to remain, would be daily breaking out into new phantasmas, that it would be impossible ever to get rid of, until the great question which produced them was set at rest. The right rev. prelate had quoted many violent opinions with respect to the church of England, which he commented upon, and condemned as the opinions of the great body of the catholics. Many of those opinions could be traced, as the right rev. prelate himself admitted, to a speech delivered by a Dr. Dromgoole some ten or fifteen, or perhaps twenty years ago, for he really did not recollect. Upon these the right rev. prelate had fastened, and taking them as articles of the Roman-catholic faith, had urged them as arguments against the bill before the house. Was this, he would ask, fair? Was it treating the catholics with common justice, to fasten upon them doctrines which they disavowed, merely because they happened to be used by one of their body? Their lordships had heard of the writings of a rev. baronet-he meant the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees--would the right rev. prelate approve of the language contained in those writings? Would he subscribe to all the opinions they embraced? Would he even approve of the principles contained in some of the petitions presented on this subject? Would he be disposed to sanction all those principles as doctrines taught by the church of England? Undoubtedly he would not. Why, then, in fairness should he use a mode of reasoning towards otherswhich he would think it unjust to have applied to himself? Was it

not

not most unjust to condemn men by attributing to them opinions and doctrines which they wholly disavowed? He had heard from the right rev. prelate that he was disposed to argue this on the ground of expediency. If he took that ground, it would be getting rid of more than half the objections which had been urged against it, in and out of the house. If the question was allowed to rest on expediency, then there was an end of the objection respecting transubstantiation, and the several other doctrinal points which were urged-there was an end to the objection resting on the belief of the spiritual supremacy of the pope, beyond this-how far that belief was calculated to operate on six millions of people so as justly to disqualify them from the enjoyment of their civil rights as British subjects. Leaving those points out of the question, he would readily consent to view this measure as one of expediency, and taking advantage of an admission made by a right rev. prelate, that the spirit of protestantism was never more prevalent in the country, since the reformation, than it was at present, he would ask, if that were true, what need had it of the crutches of the penal code to support it? He would rather look at this question as a protestant than as a catholic question. He would consider it rather as it affected the security of the church establishment, the security of property

in Ireland, and the general safety of that country. Upon these grounds he might confidently rest it, without reference to the justice of the claim on the part of the catholics (though in that alone a strong claim might

be made)-a claim strengthened by the recollection of their fidelity to the state in times of danger; but waving those, he would ask the opponents of this bill, what had the protestant church to apprehend, if it were passed; or what had it to gain by its refusal ? He had expected, that when the right reverend prelate spoke of his recent studies on this subject, he would have stated to their lordships facts connected with the present condition of the catholics of Ireland, with their present opinions and conduct. Instead of this, however, he had stated that bulls had been sent over by one of the popes to depose George I. True, the right rev. prelate admitted that these bulls had had no effect-they formed no part of the history of the country; yet he added, they affected the minds of the catholics, though they did not arm their hands. Now he was prepared to contend that those very bulls, and the reception they met with in this country, were the strongest proof of the truth of what Dr. Doyle had given in evidence--that there was a line drawn by catholics between the ecclesiastical and temporal power of the pope-a line which a noble baron (Lord Colchester) could not seea line beyond which if the pope attempted any act of temporal power in this country, the obedience of the Roman - catholic ceased. The noble marquis, after again adverting to the unfairness of selecting tenets which the catholics disavowed, and putting forced constructions on others which they admitted, observed, that when their allegations of their own doctrines and opinions were not allowed, it was right to put in

their conduct in this country, where their rights were limited, and in others where they were not restricted, in order to show, that their allegations were borne out by their practice. He would not suppose that the catholic religion was so dark and hidden, so lost in the obscurity of past ages, as to be traced out only by the research of the diligent antiquarian. It was, he should imagine, well known, its present tenets of doctrine and discipline were well defined and understood: why, then, was it necessary to go for objections to the catholic religion as it now existed, back to the tenets which might have been in operation centuries ago? Suppose some public lecturer, on electricity or astronomy, were to say to his hearers" You must not attend to the state of the atmosphere, or the appearance of the heavens, but you must look to the principles adopted by the ancient founders of those lectures-go to the Philosophical Transactions, vol. 1, and there you will find what you must take to be the true present state of the science." Would not such doctrine be most deservedly held up to contempt-would it not argue in the lecturer an utter ignorance of the present improved state of science? He (Lord Lansdown) contended, that it would be equally unjust to argue the question before their lordships without reference to the actual state and opinions of the catholics as they existed at the present day. The principle on which a true statesman should act, would be, in all measures of importance, to adapt himself to the altered condition of society. True philosophy, as Bacon said, was the art of inter

preting nature. The business of a wise legislator should be, to direct his measures so as to adapt them to the condition of men as they then existed, and not to that in which they might have been at a former period. Let their lordships look at what was the conduct of catholics in the different states of Europe and in America, and see whether it bore out the allegation that they were hostile to a free constitution, or were found disloyal subjects when in the service of protestant princes. The noble marquis then proceeded to contend, at considerable length, that the catholics were found faithful subjects to protestant princes; that this had been proved in every protestant state in Europe; that their attachment to a free constitution was proved by the conduct of the catholics in America, and their disposition to admit religious liberty-by the readiness with which the state of Maryland, originally composed principally of catholics, admitted the most tolerant regulations with respect to religious worship; and concluded this part of his remarks by an appeal to the learned lord on the woolsack; in which he asked, whether, in the course of his official experience, he had ever known of any catholic minister or general who had betrayed the secrets of a protestant prince, or swerved in any manner from his allegiance or duty in conséquence of his obedience to the pope. The noble marquis went on to point out the manifest impolicy of paralyzing the energies of a large portion of the subjects of the empire, by political disabilities on the score of religion, and to show that those who wished to unite the ex

ertions

ertions of every class in support of the general welfare of the state, were the true friends of that church establishment, which he admitted was so closely allied to it. He was, he added, fully aware of the sensitive fears of those who apprehended that the protestant church would be endangered if catholics were allowed a seat in the legislative bodies where subjects connected with the welfare of that church might be decided. The conscientious opinions from which such feelings and alarms arose, he duly respected; but he was convinced that the apprehensions were unfounded. He was the less inclined to be influenced by such alarms, when he considered what had already occurred with respect to cases in which similar fears were expressed. It was matter of history that when the union of Scotland with England was proposed, that part of the plan which was to introduce sixteen representative peers of that country to seats in the English house of lords was warmly opposed by some right reverend prelates of that day. They imagined that if sixteen presbyterian lords were allowed to sit and vote on all subjects in that house, it might be attended with consequences the most dangerous to the church of England. One right reverend prelate in particular, in the warmth of his zeal for the security of the protestant establishment, went so far as to predict that the most imminent danger to the church would be the necessary consequence. He compared the introduction of sixteen presbyterians into the upper house to the mixture of so many foreign ingredients in the cauldron, which

would have the certain effect of making it boil over till it burst. Notwithstanding those grave predictions, the measure was carried into effect; the sixteen presbyterian lords were admitted into parliament, and what happened— not that the cauldron had boiled over till it burst, but that no danger whatever had accrued to the church; and on looking at the divisions which since then had taken place, it would be found, by a very curious coincidence, that these sixteen presbyterians were generally found voting on the same side with the bishops who had been so much alarmed at their approach. The noble lord proceeded to contend, that prophecies generally, of the description to which he alluded, had been unfortunate. Dean Swift, at the time of the repeal of the sacramental test in Ireland, had foretold that the whole religion of the country would become presbyterian. Again, in the early part of the late reign, when a bill was brought in to admit the catholics of Canada to civil rights, it had been prophesied that, through the machinations of the pope in that country, we should lose the whole of the United States. We had lost the United States; but Canada, instead of having led the way in their declaration of independence, was the only colony which had remained faithful to us. Noble lords might be sure, and right reverend lords, that it was a dangerous state of affairs for a country to have a large proportion of its population excluded from civil rights. It was a state of things which could not continue; men fancied sometimes that they stood still, while the ground, in fact,

was

was crumbling from beneath their feet. The noble lord concluded by quoting the following opinion, which had been given by Lord Somers, Lord Peterborough, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the late Duke of Devonshire, upon the subject before the house. The words of those noble persons were -" An Englishman cannot be reduced to a more unhappy condition, than to be placed by law under incapacity to serve his king and country; and therefore nothing but a crime of the most detestable nature ought to place him under such a restraint.' lordship then sat down with a declaration, that he supported the bill before the house upon its own merits. He did not imagine that it would of itself form a panacea for all the evils of Ireland, but he thought that it would lead to those further measures, towards which alone she could look for improvement or lasting tranquillity.

His

The Earl of Liverpool was ready, for himself, at once to meet the question as a question of expediency-to look fairly at the advantages which were expected from it, and at the evils to which it might give rise. But he could not do this without first making a few observations upon the situation in which the house stood with respect to the question-a situation which, in his judgment, was equally novel and inconvenient. In consequence of events in Ireland which had transpired prior to the assembling of parliament, the house had found it necessary to pass an act putting down the body called the Catholic Association, and also to institute an inquiry by both branches of the legislature into the state of

the sister kingdom generally. Now, even had he been favourable to the concession of the catholic claims, he should certainly, under such circumstances, have thought it right to await the result of that inquiry so instituted, and at all events legislate only upon a full investigation of the subjects. No such course, however, it seemed, was to be adopted by the promoters of the present measure. The bill was brought in without one moment waiting for intelligence: nor was it the mere bill before the house only that was to be brought forward; but two others were devised, got up with equal haste and want of consideration; some of the provisions of. which might go perhaps to alleviate the evils belonging to the main measure, but others which seemed no less likely to increase it. Why, then, it was not one measure of change that was proposed, but three; and where were they-on what was each to depend-and, what was their connexion? This course might answer the purpose of some advocates of the catholics; it might serve, as it was meant to do, to catch a few stray votes on the right or the left; but in what sort of situation was the house of lords, he asked, placed by such proceeding? He (Lord Liverpool) desired to know what it was expected the house of lords should do. The house of commons put them in this condition-it sent them up a bill which they knew not how to act by; having purchased a majority for that bill below, by the introduction of other measures. He did protest again, that he had never known any body placed in so disgraceful a situation as the

lords