which ought ever to accompany measures in any way affecting the rights of property. For these reasons I have always thought, that the proposition would be best originated by those to whose hands the conduct of public affairs are entrusted. A proper and well regulated direction of the funds appropriated to education is another subject well worthy of the attention of the le. gislature. These, and perhaps some other measures of inferior importance, are indubitably requisite for the improvement of the condition of the people of Ireland; but the basis of all ought to be that to which the motion of my right hon. friend, (Mr. Grattan,) has called the attention of the House. It has been made a great topic of reproach against those of my friends, who have composed the late administration, that they had not introduced a subject, which they deemed of such prominent importance, to the consideration of parliament, whilst they were in the service of his Majesty. But it should be remem. bered by those, who so freely deal out this censure, that my friends retired from his Majesty's councils, because they would not, by a specific pledge, deprive themselves of the discretion of proposing the measure; and, as they were immediately succeeded by the gentlemen opposite, it was not unreasonable to infer that the latter were not unwilling to take such a pledge. My friends, it is true, would have forborn to agitate the question so long, as, in their judgment, it could have been deferred without absolute detriment to the public welfare, and I was one of those who advised the Catholics to abstain from urging their claims at that time, be cause I thought it more for the advantage of their interests, as well as of those of the empire, that the administration of public affairs should remain in the hands of persons known to be friendly to their cause, than that the government should be transferred to the avowed and implacable opponents of further concessions. Surely, however, it cannot have escaped the attention of the House, that one great and prominent obstacle to the measure, which has arisen from the scruples of a venerable and religious monarch, and which operated forcibly on the feelings both of the parliament and of the country, now no longer presents itself; and if any one can be found to deny, that the exigencies of

riod, I shall be content with referring him to the impressions described in the Protestant Petitions on the table, to which are subscribed the names of several persons, who were once among the most strenuous assertors of the policy of the restrictive code.

The present moment is peculiarly auspicious for the consideration of these claims. The Prince, to whose custody the interests of the crown are now committed, has stood high in the affection, the confidence, and the expectations of the Irish people. Whatever spirit of conciliation, therefore, is at this time manifested, would have augmented efficacy by carrying with it the air of grace and bounty. Let us not lose, then, such a golden opportunity. That the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Perceval) has the confidence of a majority of this House is manifested by its votes, but I do sincerely believe that no small proportion of those, who support his government, deeply lament the cloud of prejudice, which hangs over his councils on this subject, and darkens the future prospects of the empire. In some recent instances those persons have differed from the right hon. gentleman, and over-ruled his measures. Let them on this most momentous and critical occasion interpose between the minister and the crown for the preservation of the crown; for the security of the Church, which is insepara ble from the safety of the State; for ensuring to us the full and effective physical strength of the empire in that awful contest in which we are engaged, and on the issue of which depends whatever is most dear and valuable to us in social life, the honour, the glory, the rights, the liberties, and for what I know-the very name of the country. If my right hon. friend's motion should be negatived, its rejection will amount to a refusal to consider the question. By inquiry the House would not pledge itself to any specific measure. Those, if such there be, who may think that the penal code should be retained, those who may be of opinion that part only of the desired relief should be afforded, are surely as much required to vote for a committee as those who are for concession in its full extent. Something we must do: some movement we must make: our present position, it is my clear and firm conviction, we cannot long retain.

1

Right Honourable Charles P. Yorke.- | Sir; not having had an opportunity before now of stating my opinion upon this subject, I take the liberty of rising now, professing my intention, sincerely, not to occupy the attention of the House for any considerable length of time. The subject has been so frequently discussed, and the arguments on this side of the House so ably and eloquently urged, that I have not the vanity to think I can give any novel feature to the debate. And there fore, what I shall say in delivering my sentiments, will be merely to justify me to myself, with the consciousness of having done my duty.

The right hon. gentleman who spoke last has delivered himself with a temper and moderation which I could have wished was more generally observed upon discussions of this subject. Certainly his example on this occasion is well worthy of imitation, not merely on this question, but upon every question connected with Ireland: and although I have the misfortune to differ from him in opinion, I certainly cannot but agree, that the deliberations upon this motion should be such as might tend to the tranquillity and happiness of the country: and in my mind, though the assent of the House to this motion would not be attended with any particular good, yet the question should be considered with every feeling of tenderness and forbearance towards our Catholic brethren. And I confess, could I see this question in the same point of view that it has been argued on the other side of the House, I should be but too happy to give my vote for it.

The right hon. gentleman has stated in the concluding part of his speech, that which I think was not of a piece with the greater part of it, when he supposed that those who had the misfortune to differ from him were labouring under a cloud of prejudice-and when he called upon the House to get from under that cloud and interpose between the crown and ministers on behalf of parliament for the purpose of setting this matter at rest: now whether or not we are under such a cloud, must depend upon a consideration of the arguments adduced by the right hon. gentleman and those who support this question; because that consideration will not only decide the matter, with respect to us, but whether they are not themselves under a cloud, and their eyes are not blinded to those dangers which

threaten both Church and State, when they would persuade you to accede to the demands of the petitioners.

Now, Sir, that this is a most important subject there can be no doubt, but it appears to me from the view of every part of the question, and from every enquiry I have made upon it, that we who happen to differ from the right hon. gentleman, may hope, without being denominated " Protestant Bigots" (a term applied to those of the same way of thinking with myself)that we may be permitted to doubt to hesitate, and to oppose a barrier where we doubt, notwithstanding all that has been said, before we depart from the fundamental laws of the realm.

I confess I was surprized last night to hear it stated, that the proposition now before the House had nothing to do with the fundamental law of the land; and I was asked what the essential laws were? And I was also much surprized to hear, that the same thing had been repeated in another place. It has also been stated, that there was not one word in the Bill of Rights relative to the Catholic religion. Now, without going any farther, I must beg leave to read some of the Articles of the Bill of Rights in order to prove this assertion to be totally false. I admit that there is nothing in that Bill about the Roman Catholics until it comes to the enacting part, which is as follows:

"And that whereas it has been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom that it should be governed by any king or kings of the Popish faith." And it then enacts that princes of that persuasion shall be excluded from the crown, and absolves all their subjects from allegiance to them. Princes and princesses of this kingdom were also forbidden from intermarrying with Papists.

This, Sir, is what the Bill of Rights says. Now, Sir, can any man deny that it is a settled maxim of the law of this realm, that we, as Protestants, must be governed by a Protestant king, and that you must consider, that to dissent from this maxim is inconsistent with the safety and the happiness of this country. Another clause of the same Bill goes to exclude Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. I admit that according to the terms of the Act of Union, the oath there prescribed to be taken by members of parliament is liable to be hereafter altered. There are undoubtedly those words in that act. But I apprehend those words were not necessarily introduced to enable parliament to alter the oath whenever it should appear necessary, for I do not go the length of saying, that the Act of Union with Ireland was a barrier to the House doing any thing with regard to the Roman Catholics when they thould think fit so to do: but all I contend for is, that the established law of the realm is, that Papistsare not to govern this country: and that therefore the measure now brought forward, and the proposition suggested, must have the effect, if carried, of making parliament subservient to the purpose of overturning of the constitution, and to enable the King to chuse Popish ministers.

Now, Sir, that is a most material and serious consideration, and it is a matter for the admissibility of which the onus probandi must lie upon those who contend for it, or to shew that it can be adopted with safety. I therefore claim the right of doubting upon this question; because all I say is, that before we agree to make this alteration, we ought to be satisfied that there is no danger to the constitution in Church and State in making that alteration. Now, Sir, I must say, for one, that having attended to all the arguments used on this subject, and having anxiously considered it myself, I am very far from being satisfied, that our system of government ought to undergo this chimerical change: and I think the honourable gentlemen, before they can induce this House to alter the fundamental laws of the land, must also bring forward much stronger arguments, and much more conclusive reasoning, before they can be entitled to call upon those who have doubts upon the subject, to admit the Catholics to what they claim.

Having stated thus much, I have now to observe, that that which I always considered as another fundamental law in the act which makes the Protestant Church of Ireland, and that of Scotland, integral parts of the constitution of Great Britain; but by acceding to the demandsnow made by the Catholics, this would be annulled along with the other bulwarks of the

state.

There are a great many topics which have been at different times more or less adverted to, but which I wish to dismiss from my view in my consideration of the subject. I shall content myself with adverting to some of the most prominent that have been brought forward on the other

side. I confess that I cannot agree with the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, and others who preceded him, in their arguments upon the two questions of right and toleration. And first of all, I deny that this is a question of right: and I also maintain that it is no question of toleration. In the first place it is no question of right; because no subject of a state can be said to have any right that is inconsistent with the safety of that state; and I deny that it is a question of toleration, because I hope in God that in the true sense of that word, there is no such thing known in this country as intolerance; and I do solemnly declare, that if it can be shewn that there is any thing in the law with regard to the Roman Catholics in Ireland that prevents them from the decent and proper exercise of their religion, I will go as far as any man in this country to correct it. But I utterly deny that this is a question of toleration. The truth is, that it is merely a question of political power. Now, Sir, that that is a very serious question no man will venture to deny: and that it is essential on the part of those who support it, that they should satisfy us who oppose it, by the most cogent arguments of the prudence of its concession. That this is the question appears throughout the whole debate, because all the arguments for the measure as far as it has gone, go to that extent.

Now no man living can doubt, that if this is done for the Roman Catholics of Ireland it must be done also for the Roman Catholics of England: and I must say, to do them justice, that I do not know any body of Dissenters for whom I should be so glad to bring forward such a question as the Roman Catholics of England; because they have been the most quiet, the most contented, and the most loyal class of subjects in the kingdom. But if it is fit and proper to do this for the Roman Catholics, it is quite impossible that it should not be done in justice for the other Dissenters.

I do not mean to argue that question now: but all that I mean to say is, that the question is a vital question, and that if we consent to do away all restrictions by piece-meal, we at once expose ourselves to the greatest danger; because if you do that you must remove all the test laws, and you must leave the Church unprotected from every attack, to stand upon its own foundation. But having said this, I beg to state, that my opinion of all these laws

in, and the controversy that arose at that time between the Apostolic Vicar of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic committee. I do not know whether that controversy is in the hands of any gentleman; I know that it was bought up by the direction of the committee, and in a very little time there were no copies to be had. The two letters published by the Roman Catholic committee were written in consequence of the letter of the Vicar Apostolic in the year 1790, on account of the Oath it was proposed by the Roman Ca. tholic committee to take, in which they denied altogether the temporal authority of the Pope in Ireland, and even his spiritual power, sub modo. Upon a reference to the proceedings of the Roman Catholics on that occasion, we shall see how much they were controuled by a foreign spiritual authority: The Oath proposed by the committee was founded on their own protest, in which they called themselves the protesting Roman Catholics. It was signed I believe by almost all the respectable Roman Catholics in this country and by a great many of their bishops; I think the name of Dr. Milner was amongst them: but the Apostolical Vicar, without assigning any reason, forbid the Catholics to take this Oath. This led to a discussion of considerable length, the result of which was an explanatory declaration from the Apostolic Vicar, "That no new oath should be taken without consulting the bishops, in whom the supreme authority resided as governors of the Church of Christ and keepers of the faith." A controversy ensued which was considerably protracted, and in course of which a great deal of scholastic learning was displayed on one side, and a great deal of sound sense, and certainly I never in my life witnessed more true Christian piety displayed any where than in the two letters to which I have alluded. The committee were desirous to induce their bishops, some of whom had refused to sign the protest, to agree with them in the object they proposed, and relinquish their objections. The bishops refused; but the committee were nevertheless unanimous in framing the Oath, which was afterwards adopted by the parliament of Ireland: and here it is material to state the nature of that Oath, in order to shew the ground upon which it was opposed by the bishops.

The Oath set out with disclaiming as impious and heretical that damnable doc

Pope may be deposed from their dominions, and their subjects absolved from their allegiance. They abjure most solemnly that opinion imputed to them, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; and they also abjure the opinion, that any foreign prince or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal power in these realms. And further sub modo, "that no foreign bishop, priest, or any other ecclesiastical power whatever has a right to exercise any spiritual authority in these realms hostile to the state, or that can directly or indirectly interrupt or interfere with the independence and security of the Protestant Church or Establishment, or the rights, liberties, and properties of his Majesty's subjects."

Now, Sir, the last passage was the one objected to by the bishops, and struck out of the Oath. But this was the most material passage to us, although thus condemned by the bishops. It was pretty material they should object to an Oath so worded; and it is pretty good authority for those doubts now entertained with respect to the Roman Catholic clergy. The result however shewed that even the laity were taught to consider themselves as departing from the principles of their spiritual faith, if they abjured the authority of the see of Rome in this respect.

most

Now, Sir, this controversy went on for a considerable time, and great acrimony was indulged on both sides. The protesting Catholic committee complained grievously of the conduct of their bishops, who by their constant interference prevented the success of their political objects, and the bishops in their turn, charged them with a dereliction of the principles of their religion, and the committee at length submitted and gave up this oath. In giving up this matter on the part of the protesting Catholic committee two things became manifest. In the first place, that no concession would be made by the Catholics; and in the second, that the priests were more absolutely masters of their flocks than they were even in France-or in Italy itself.

Now, Sir, in spite of all the conclusive reasoning in these letters to which I have alluded; in spite of the condemnation of the conduct of their bishops expressed by the Catholic committee; and in spite of the conviction in their own minds of the propriety of what they were doing, they were obliged to give way to their bishops