lords were by this conduct of the other house. Surely, at least, they ought to know what it was they had to decide upon-whether it was the measure submitted to them alone, or that measure as joined and connected with two others? For himself, as far as his opinion went, perhaps this question, however, was one of slight consideration; for he detested, from the very bottom of his heart, the bill already in the house. A great part of it he took to be nonsense; some of it was even rather worse. The least objectionable part of the bill, as he of the bill, as he thought, was the concessions which it proposed making to the catholics; for, upon that subject, he would be content to put one short question to the house, would they relieve the catholic from the disabilities under which he laboured, or would they not?-and if they replied in the affirmative, then he would engage to draw a bill for the purpose in half an hour, which should not be liable to a tenth part of the objections which applied to that now upon the table. In short, the simple question as to the great measure seemed to him to bewould the house, or would it not, remove the catholic disabilities? And that question-perhaps one of the most important that parliament had ever undertaken to decide-could not too soon be treated in such a manner as to place it on a firm and solid basis. The noble lords opposite maintained, that it was fitting to grant the concessions demanded; because the catholics of this country and Ireland ought, and were entitled, to enjoy equal civil rights and immunities at all points with their protestant brethren. Now this was the plain

proposition of the advocates for emancipation; and he (Lord Liverpool) would deal plainly with it

he met it with a decided negative. He said, that the catholics were not entitled to equal rights in a protestant country, and that opinion he would sustain. Upon some points he had been favourable to the catholics; he did not know but there were others upon which he might still be so; but upon that broad principle that they were titled to equal rights he and their friends were at direct issue. He admitted—no man could dream of denying it-that all subjects in a free state were entitled to the enjoyment of equal rights, upon equal conditions; but then the qualification of that principle in the case of the catholics was clear

--

en

The

the catholics, who demanded these equal rights, did not afford equal conditions. The difference was this-it was stated in a moment-the protestant gave an entire allegiance to his sovereign; the catholic a divided one. service of the first was complete; that of the last only qualified; and unless it could be proved that a half was equal to the whole, he should not be convinced of the truth of the catholic proposition. Thus, therefore, he took his stand upon the broad principle of justice: he was content to argue the question at present as one of expediency; but he still maintained that his opposition to the spirit of it was founded in principles of justice and of common sense. It was said by the noble lords on the other side, that the practical effect and conduct of catholicism should be looked at; and that the actual result and operation of that

way.

faith was very different from what its tenets, some of them, in theory, seemed to point to. Practically it was, that he wished to examine the question, and in no other He desired to say nothing about theological dogmas -to seek back for no faded or obsolete opinion: the doctrines upon which he would rely should be those, and those only, laid down and contended for in the evidence before the house. And first, then, upon this head, to notice the condition of the power of the holy see, and the nature of the relation which that power had to the Roman-catholic church of Ireland. A noble earl denied that the appointment of the Roman-catholic bishops of Ireland was in the discretion of the pope. Why it appeared-it was admitted unequivocally-upon the evidence both of Dr. Doyle and Dr. Murray, that there was no other means or power of appointment. It was true that the pope had been in the habit of attending, in his appointment, to the nomination or recommendation of the church of Ireland; but this was matter of mere courtesy or hazard; the power was distinctly in himself; and if he thought fit to appoint a foreigner-nay, the foreigner of all Europe most obnoxious to the government or the country-that foreigner would be, and must continue, a catholic bishop of Ireland. This fact had notoriously come out beyond dispute, during the lives of several of the later princes of the Stuart family. The pope had been in the habit of appointing Irish Roman-catholic bishops at their nomination. He might now appoint, in the same way, upon the nomination of France or

Spain; and the individual so constituted would proceed to exercise influence, and most extensive temporal influence, within the British territories. The question was not now, let the house recollect, as to the danger, or the degree of danger, which might attend the concession of these claims; the question was, whether it was fit that equal rights should be enjoyed by catholics and protestants? Immediate danger he apprehended none; but it was not always in the brightest or the calmest weather that the storm was farthest distant. When could the established church appear more secure than it had seemed at the restoration of Charles II.? and within twenty years it was seen threatened with total destruction by the machinations of a popish prince. Seeing where the appointment of the heads of the Romancatholic church lay in Ireland, it was impossible not to advert to the power-the temporal-the practical power, exercised throughout that country by the priesthood. The system of confession — the right of demanding it, for the act was not left to the will of the individual confessing-that device rendered the clergy masters of all the secrets of the community. The extent to which some of the doctrines connected with this arrangement were carried, he (Lord Liverpool) had absolutely entertained no idea of until after the appointment of the late committee. He had believed always that the priest, receiving confession, was bound to secrecy even as to crimes committed which might be disclosed to him; but he had never suspected that which was actually the case-that the

priest was equally bound to secrecy as to crimes intended to be committed. Thus a catholic clergyman discovering, in confession, that there was a conspiracy on foot to blow up both houses of parliament, would not be justified in making known the fact. To take a simpler instance, if a man came to a place at which there were two roads, and a priest knew that if he took the right hand he would be murdered, and that by the left he might be saved-knowing this, he would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he gave that man even a hint which might preserve his life. Differences such as these in tenet and in feeling must of necessity prevent the catholic and the protestant from amalgamating. With respect to education, there was scarcely any possible mode by which catholics and protestants could unite in one and the same system. We had not any of this difficulty with other dissenters; for, whatever were their shades of difference from us, both had the same foundation to build upon with the catholics it was otherwise, and of the natural result it was impossible to get rid. In the same way, upon another point—the marriages between protestants and catholics- it was allowed by Dr. Murray that mar. riages between catholic and protestant were altogether discouraged; and that they were not permitted at all, except upon an undertaking that the children should be all brought up in the catholic faith. Then, if there could neither be intermarriage, education in common, or any other description of domestic bond between the protestants and the catholics, how was it possible that really kind

feelings between the followers of the two persuasions could exist? The fault was not the fault of the established church; it was in the bigotry and intolerant spirit (and yet our intolerance was complained of) of the Roman-catholic religion. He repeated, that it was his wish to look at the question not theologically, but as a question of convenience; but a part of that very question of convenience must depend upon the degree of influence exercised by the catholic priesthood, and on the species of influence which the tenets of the catholic faith put into their hands. The sentence of excommunication amounted to this-to give a crust of bread, or a cup of cold water, to the proscribed party, though he were perishing for want, were a punishable crime. Many, no doubt, there were, among the catholic priesthood, most virtuous and deserving men; but among so large a body there could not fail to be some of a very different character; and yet these men generally-it was stated in the evidence before the house - had more authority over the peasantry than their landlords. Now what were the evils which they had to apprehend? He might in fairness require the supporters of this measure to prove, before allowing this alteration, that there would be no evil. He would not ask so much. from them: he only required them to show him the benefit of conceding. If all the evils which he had pointed out were really to be expected, then the advantages promised by the noble lord were out of the question. He held their lordships held-all the bills held-that a protestant succession was the foundation of our constitutional

system.

system. He would say, that if these measures should pass, the protestant succession would not be worth a farthing. Much had been said of rights-- indefeasible and natural rights. The state was protestant essentially, the crown was to be protestant, and the successors to the throne must take to the same faith. But were they to be the only persons so limited? He would speak of a king's rights here in the same sense, and no other, as that in which he would argue for the rights of a peasant. Was it not hard upon the king and the heir to the throne that they must be bound to the protestant faith, while the chief justice, the ministers and secretaries of state, might be Roman-catholics? Why was this? Where was the danger in having a popish king or a popish chancellor, if all the other executive offices might acknowledge the pope? He thought there was less danger in a popish chancellor, who might be removed at pleasure, than in a popish chief justice, who would hold the administration of the criminal law in his control, and could only be removed by a peculiar process of law in case of his dereliction. His lordship went on arguing that the bill would compromise the security of the protestant establishment. There might be no immediate danger; but the period must come when the danger could not be evaded; it would certainly be brought about in the ever-varying fluctuations of the times. He looked with apprehension to the danger to the church establish

evidence-who disowned any intention of laying hold of the property of the established church. He would give them that admission for the sake of putting another question to them." But you would diminish that property if you could?" "Oh, most undoubtedly I would; but I would do that as an Irishman, not as a Roman-catholic." Was any man so blind as not to see was any so deaf as not to hear and understand, to what this amounted?" We take the property from the church!-no-we would give the country a part of that property if we could; well knowing that if the church loses her property, she must also lose in consequence, and thereby we must be gainers." They would diminish the property of the church to reduce her power and destroy her influence. They must have this feeling-it was their duty, their religion, their oath, their every thing, to destroy the protestant church. Circumstances might or might not aid them: but they must do it with that view, whether by diminishing the property or the influence of the establishment. The bill was to bind "all his Majesty's peaceful and faithful subjects, so as they may grow into one nation, to the utter oblivion of all former dissensions and discord." Would it have this effect? or did it not rather leave both parties just where they were, with the exception of granting new powers to the Roman-catholics? Would there not be fresh occasion of discord-new opportunities and many additional points to contend for? It was assumed that the evils of Ireland were owing to the catholic disabilities.

F F