-

perfect allegiance by the exclusion? And ought they not to consider the allegiance offered as a sufficient allegiance for all the ordinary purposes of civil obedience? A distinction had been drawn between the allegiance which Roman-catholics were inclined to hold, with respect to Roman-catholic governments, and that which they entertained with respect to governments where the religion was different. But this distinction had been contradicted, in direct terms, by the catholic church. It had been clearly stated, that the members of that chureh were bound by the obligation of an oath, no matter under what government it was taken. If this were so if it were allowed that the obligation of an oath was sacred with them-why not give them the full benefit of that admission? But if, on the other hand, that proposition was opposed, why did they ever give the Roman-catholics any extension of privilege? Was it not wasting all their time to do so? With respect to this particular point, were there not, he asked, questions put 13 years ago to all the great universities of Europe? And what feel ing was manifested on that occasion? Nothing but an indignant feeling of surprise that such questions should be pressed at such a time of day. And had they not, on oath, the disclaimer made by some of the leading members of the Roman-catholic church, of those charges which had been so long levelled at that church? But then it was said, that in former times, a very different statement was made, and that statement had been generally believed. Which, then, were they to place the most reliance on-that of which

they had practical proof, in the present day-or the opinions which had been given long since, under circumstances in no wise favourable to the production of truth? He thought that they were bound to rely on the evidence of the present day, which they had had an opportunity of examining and sifting. His noble friend (Lord Liverpool) had alluded to the rite of confession, as one of the strongest proofs that the Roman-catholic could not, speaking in the strictest sense, be a safe or a good subject under a protestant government. He (Lord Harrowby) admitted, that, under the practice of the Roman-catholic church, a priest might be informed of an intention to commit murder, and yet feel himself debarred from giving to the individual threatened the necessary warning. This, he allowed, was monstrous. But the question was, in what way this monstrous doctrine of the church of Rome prevented catholics from being good subjects of a protestant king. If a priest heard from one of his flock, that he was engaged in a plan to overturn the government, and that he concealed his knowledge of the fact, it would be something like misprision of treason. But he begged leave to ask, would the government, in that case, be in any greater danger, than if no such ceremony as that of confession existed? Certainly not. Therefore, he must say, that there really was nothing in this argument. All the doctrines which had been alluded to by his noble friend, as objectionable in the catholic church, had been long known; and if they were of such a nature as warranted the legislature in excluding them from far

1

to

ther privileges, why, he wished know, had they not operated to prevent them from attaining those immunities which they now enjoyed? Again, he would ask, who were those who adhered most strictly to the superstitions which had been so much condemned? Certainly, the lowest class of the Roman-catholics. Who next? Why the class immediately above them. The class above them attended still less to those objectionable tenets; and that class was the most free from them who moved in the highest rank of all. Were they, then, proceeding safely, wisely, or rationally, in granting immunities to those classes who were most subject to the influence which had been complained of, while they withheld important rights from that part of the Roman-catholic body which was most likely to resist it? They appeared to have begun at the wrong end; for surely it was better to let enlightened men enter parliament, than to give extensive civil power to men who might easily be biassed by their clergy to use it for a particular purpose. It was a most extraordinary anomaly, that while the legislature refused to give the Roman-catholics political rights, they agreed to a law which admitted them to hold a high rank in the army and navy. If any danger were to be apprehended, assuredly it was from the exercise of such a power as this. His noble friend had expatiated on the influence which the pope would use, in the nomination of the Roman-catholic clergy: but did not the pope exercise that influence at the moment? This was an evil, which, by an injudicious course, they might increase, but

which they could not diminish by the continuance of disabilities; because they could not prevent the Roman-catholic from adhering to the doctrines of his church, and cherishing those feelings which he had been taught from his youth to prize. How, then, would he advise the legislature to act? He would say, "Here are strong links which bind men to a particular object: to draw them from it, we must make use of strong meansand those means are kindness and conciliation." He would hold out to the Roman-catholics a participation in those benefits which bound man to man in society. What they had already done, had not operated as a panacea for the evils of Ireland, and what they might now do would not have that effect; but it ought not on that account to be thrown aside. Ireland was a country distracted by too many evils to be restored to peace by any single remedy. This, however, he would say, that though the present measure might not entirely tranquillize Ireland, yet he was convinced that Ireland never would be tranquil without it. His lordship then briefly adverted to the effect which this measure would have on the election of members of parliament, and combated the idea of the danger which some noble lords apprehended from the introduction of Roman-catholics to seats in the house of commons. He stated his firm belief, that if any minister attempted to support his power, by backing it with such a buttress as the Roman-catholic interest, the good sense of the people would take the alarm, and that minister would certainly fall. In this measure he perceived no

danger

danger whatsoever to the established church; and if he apprehended that the interests of the established church would be injured by it, great as he felt would be the mischief occasioned by rejecting the measure, he, for one, would certainly oppose it. As to the idea of any danger to be apprehended from the exertion of physical force, in case the measure was lost, he considered it to be quite futile. The whole of the evidence led him to adopt a conclusion entirely different. It had been asserted that, if they agreed to this measure, it would lead the way to an attack on the property of the church in Ireland. Such an attack would also be an attack on the property of the church in England, and on the possessions of the landholders of Ireland and England. This being the fact, could any one suppose that such an effort, supposing it to be made, would have the slightest chance of succeeding? They had been told that the people of Ireland, generally speaking, either cared nothing about this question, or misunderstood it. But in the same breath they were told, that those people were under the complete dominion of the priests. Now, admitting this to be the fact, the question must be one in which they would feel themselves greatly interested; for, according to the doctrine which he had quoted, if the priests told them that a subject was of great importance, they would believe it to be so. Whether it was or was not of importance, the effect of this representation on their minds would be just the same; and the same discontent must continue so long as this question continued to be

agitated. He differed from those who thought that rebellion, or insurrection would follow the rejection of this measure. He was sure the people of Ireland felt that such a step would render their situation worse, not better. But it was quite evident, that the mere apprehension of such a state of things-the mere apprehension of any attempt being likely to be made by a foreign power, for the purpose of fomenting discontent in Ireland-however much the ordinary demeanour of the Roman-catholics might induce the government to look upon such an attempt as hopeless-would necessarily keep in active employment a considerable portion of the disposable force of this country, to guard against the threatened danger. The noble lord concluded by calling on the house to agree to the bill, and, by so doing, to deprive of a triumph those whom he would not invidiously call the enemies, but who certainly were the rivals of this country.

The Lord Chancellor said, he would not enter into the merits of the catholic question, but would merely state his reasons for not agreeing to the measure now before their lordships. He did not understand how it happened that this bill came before that house in its present shape and form. He saw, from the votes of the other house of parliament, that it was connected with a bill which went to disfranchise a great number of the freeholders of Ireland, and he also observed from the same votes, that it was deemed expedient that the government should pay the salaries of the catholic clergy of that country. No person conver

sant

sant with parliamentary practice could view these measures without perceiving that they were nearly connected with the present bill; and yet they were asked to decide on that bill without knowing what was to become of the two measures which were introduced with it. This, he must say, was not a proper mode of legislating; and if he had no other reason for opposing the bill now before their lordships but the single circumstance to which he had adverted, he would make his stand on that ground. From the period of the union with Ireland, he never heard of this question being brought forward, without mention being made of ample security for the protestant church and protestant establishment. It had been his duty, from many circumstances, not to separate himself from the minister who conducted the affairs of government at the period of the union, on account of certain differences of opinion. That minister was favourable to the Roman-catholic claims, and he had often asked him what were those securities which he intended to propose, and without which he had declared he would not agree to the measure of emancipation? But, notwithstanding all his inquiries, he never could find what these securities were. Although there was a degree of ingenuity displayed in the manner in which this bill was drawn up, which he had hardly ever seen before in the composition of an act of parliament, there was no variation in the preamble of this from former bills. That preamble contained first, a solemn acknowledgment that the protestant establishment of this realm in church and state

must be inviolably and permanently secured; then came an allegation that they were inviolably and permanently secured. He allowed that they were secure, provided the acts which rendered them so were permitted to continue in force; but if their lordships took away the substance of those acts, where, then, was the inviolability of their security, or their security at all? Next came a statement that it was just to unite the hearts of all his Majesty's subjects in one and the same interest: but parliament, it seemed, was to be an exception, for the bill set them all by the ears. His lordship then alluded to the provisions in the bill for Romancatholic commissions, and said that the title "pack of nonsense," by which a noble friend of his had described it, was full as respectable a one as it deserved. What security against the influence of Rome, was afforded by three commissioners, who themselves refused to acknowledge an undivided allegiance to the sovereign? The noble and learned lord next referred to the oath of allegiance, and contended that it could no longer be taken consistently with truth: according to Lord Hale, the oath of allegiance included the oath of supremacy. He could not possibly give his consent to any measure that derogated from the supremacy of the sovereign. It was said that the jurisdiction of the pope in this country, as acknowledged by the Roman-catholics, was merely spiritual; but he (the Lord Chancellor) could not bring his mind to understand what was meant by merely spiritual jurisdiction. If two catholics here were married by a protestant clergyman,

clergyman, the pope would force them to live asunder, and the common law would oblige them to live together. Now, was not that exercising a temporal jurisdiction? He did not think that in the discussion here or elsewhere, the question had been as largely put as it ought. They could not refuse to English catholics what they granted to the Irish; then they would be bound to put the other dissenters in this country on an equal footing with the catholics: so that it would ultimately come to this-that all the bulwarks and fences which their ancestors had provided for the safety of the protestant church would turn out to be wholly useless. But let their lordships beware what they were doing if they took these away. As to the measure for giving salaries and stipends to the priests of the Roman-catholic church, could their lordships refuse them in that case to clerical persons of other persuasions? and if they granted them in Ireland, they could not refuse to support a similar hierarchy in England. If they gave this stipend to the catholic hierarchy, they must give something more than the morsel called regium donum to their dissenting brethren. They had heard of America. It was said, that the experiment of having no established church in that country, tended to her freedom, her glory, and her prosperity: in his opinion, having a protestant establishment here was the source of the freedom, the glory, and the prosperity of this country. As for the bill for the disfranchisement of Irish freeholders, if it had any connexion with the present measure,

the house ought to have it before them. If what a noble friend of his had stated was correct, it certainly went a great way to diminish his respect for the bill which had come from the house of commons. They were not justified in taking away the civil rights of persons, which had been conceded to them upon the supposition that they were competent to exercise them.

A noble lord had asked if he (the Chancellor) had become a reformer; he had lived too long to attach much respect to the character of a reformer; that term united revolutionists and republicans with some of the best persons in the kingdom. The noble and learned earl then insisted that the sentiments of an infinite majority of the people of this country were unfavourable to this bill. He should be sorry to say that the house of commons did not represent the sense of the people; but he well recollected that when the West India bill was introduced into the house of commons, and petition after petition poured in against it, it was said that the house, and not the petitions, spoke the sense of the people however, a general election succeeded, the house, in consequence, became differently constituted, and the sense of the people proved to be a perfect illusion. With these few observations, which had been very imperfectly expressed, he would now conclude. After 25 years' consideration of the subject, he had perfectly satisfied his mind that he should not discharge his duty to his station or his country if he did not oppose this bill.

The Marquis of Londonderry explained.

Lord