affecting his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Mr. Croker seconded the motion, and was followed on the same side by Mr. Canning, Mr. S. Wortley, Mr. Plunkett, and Mr. Brougham. They argued the question entirely on general principles. The claim of the Roman Catholics, said Mr. Plunkett, was a claim to be admitted members of a free representative government, and to the benefit of institutions, the advantages of which belonged equally to every subject of that government. He did not say that the right would admit of no exception, or control: for there was nothing in the social fabric concerning which he would venture to make that assertion. Even the enjoyment of natural rights must be qualified, in a state of society, with conditions: still more must this be the case with the artificial rights given by the mere existence of society. But these conditions ought to be imposed only in the degree which would be the most likely to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of all. Whether the rights enjoyed by individuals were of the character of natural or of chartered rights, they were liable to be withheld on the ground of general expediency. But, then, the expediency must be clearly and unquestionably made out. At the Reformation, the main object was to protect the rights of the throne against the claims of a foreign power, and against the disaffection of those subjects who might reserve their allegiance for that foreign power, to the detriment of the throne, and of the state in general. This being the object, how did our ancestors proceed? There were the claims of the pope, not simply interfering with the interest

of the Roman Catholic religion, which then was the established religion of the state, but extending also the right of disposing of benefices, of naming the clergy, of deposing the monarch, and of absolving the people from their allegiance. The legislature accordingly provided for the absolute integrity and inviolability of the church, and for the spiritual prerogative of the crown, forbidding at the same time the exercise of any other than the established religion. It was now long since any man had heard of any claim of the pope, or any other foreign power, to interfere with the church, or to exercise a right of deposing kings, or absolving their subjects from their allegiance ? Those enactments were, therefore, gradually done away. In the reign of Charles the 2nd, our ancestors 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 to sit in parliament. That was found insufficient on the accession of James 2nd, who openly maintained the Roman Catholic religion against the constitution and the rights of his people. The legislature then drove the monarch from the throne, and resolved that the sovereign power should be held inviolable and unalterable in Protestant hands. Did he deny that the throne must be Protestant? Was he doing any thing to weaken its Protestant supremacy? No such thing. 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. What were the dangers, which afterwards threatened the establishment? The claims of an exiled family, and the plots and agitations of a disaffected party retained in its interests. He admitted, freely, that the Roman Catholics of that period were suspected justly. What was the course taken by parliament? All the measures against the papists were continued. They were held to be not good subjects, and unfit to be trusted either with honour or power in the state. They were coerced in their persons and property, deprived of their civil rights, sunk and degraded into that wretched state from which they were relieved by the benignity of the last reign. This 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: and though rebellion had twice raged in Scotland, no movement was made in Ireland in favour of the exiled family. But the Catholics, so sunk and degraded, added nothing to the strength of the state. The landlord found that the lands could not be sufficiently cultivated. The valuable energies of labour were every where paralyzed; a new plan was adopted; and a system

of beneficence was introduced, which, having been now in practice for the space of forty years, had raised the Roman Catholics of Ireland to a state of affluence, comfort, and respectability; had given them a perfect equality of civil rights; and had caused them to participate in the advantages of the constitution. What was the danger which we had now 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 interests 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 to that of a dispute concerning the supremacy or the succession to the crown. What was now to be feared was, to see four millionstaking 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. It was in vain to tell us not to look at the dangers of our own times, but to go back to the Reformation, to the reign of James 2nd, and to the Revolution. The present danger was the greatest, and was the only one for the House to consider. While man would sleep or stop in his career, the course of time was rapidly changing the aspect of all human affairs; and 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 their motions to his 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.

But, it was said that the Roman Catholics, though they might have civil rights, were not to expect political power. Was there then nothing of political power in what they possessed? They had the right of electing members to serve in parliament: they acted as magistrates: 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? Once admit men 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 possessions 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 high 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 VOL. LXVII.

worth while for the Catholics to contend: Were not these the very nothings for which Englishmen would cheerfully lay down their lives?

The motion was opposed by Mr. Leslie Foster, the Solicitor General, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Peel. The latter, after commenting on the arguments of sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Plunkett, and contending that the Catholics could not assert any claim of right to the concessions for which they now called, stated with great force and clearness the leading principle, on which he would oppose the measure in every stage. The hon. baronet tells us, said Mr. Peel, that he has never heard what the danger is; and he calls upon the opponents of his motion to point it out. Before I answer this call, I wish to inquire of the hon. baronet what is the object of his present proposition? I presume that the object is, to communicate power to those who are at present excluded from it-to devolve upon them a fair share in the framing, administering, and executing of the laws. Does the hon. baronet mean to give a mere barren capacity, never hereafter to be available? If the two Houses of Parliament mean to pass a measure of this kind, surely there can be nothing more unfair than to throw the odium of refusal of office elsewhere, and to create an unjust impression against the highest personage in the realm. Parliament ought not to give the claimants a ticket of admission, and when it is presented at the door of the constitution, trust to the Crown to shut that door in the face of the party claiming a right to be allowed to enter.

If I were perfectly satisfied that. [E]

concession would lead to the restoration of peace and harmony, and put an end to animosities, the existence of which all lament, I for one, would not oppose the measure on a mere theory of the constitution, when consent would secure such immense practical advantages. But, because I doubt whether the removal of disabilities on the conditions proposed, will promote tranquillity in Ireland, or lessen religious animosities; and because I think you cannot safely remove the disabilities, I am disposed to continue the exclusion. Are these disabilities the cause of the disorders which have so long prevailed in Ireland? As far as actual commotion is concerned, the disorders have no such origin. In the province of Ulster, where the numbers of Catholics and Protestants are nearly balanced, the Insurrection act has not been in a single instance enforced. In 1792, the Roman Catholics came for ward, and asked to be rendered capable of holding the office of magistrates, and of enjoying the elective franchise. They wanted, they said, nothing more, and those persons calumniated them grossly, who said that their wishes went further. The elective franchise was conceded even more fully than they requested it; and Roman Catholics were permitted to serve as well on grand as on petty juries. Since these concessions, has there been any diminution of party feeling and factious animosities? I think not. But the answer of the supporters of this proposition will be "While you retain any thing, while you refuse to put both parties upon an entire equality the evil will continue; but, as soon as they are equal, it will cease." Admitting this for a moment, will

the concession now claimed put them on an entire equality? What is claimed is a mere capacity or eligibility to office; and after you have granted that, will you be able to concede what the Roman Catholics would consider a just distribution of office? Would not the distinction thus necessarily drawn, be infinitely more galling and mortifying, since it would be reduced to a mere personal exclusion? When vacancies occurred, if a Protestant were preferred to a Catholic, would it not constantly expose the government to jealousy and reproach? The respective numbers of the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland may be 4,200,000 to 1,800,000; but, notwithstanding this disproportion, the property in the hands of the Protestants is at least as twenty to one. Now, after equal capacity of office shall have been given to all, the religion of the great minority is to remain the religion of the state. Is it then perfectly safe in Ireland to admit the professors of all religions to the enjoyment of the same privileges? and after this has been accomplished, the Protestant church is still to be retained. I know several hon. members, and among them the member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who contend, that it is impossible. On this point he agrees with me: for, over and over again, he has argued, that it is a mere mockery to suppose that the Roman Catholics will be satisfied with a Protestant church establishment. They will constantly endeavour to recover the power they have lost, by overturning a system which they view with other eyes than ours. The Catholic is to be admitted without restriction into parliament, and into office,

provided the king approves of him. He is to be as perfectly free as we are ourselves, unfettered by any restrictions; and at liberty to pursue what he conceives to be the interests of his country, and the justice of his cause, with perfect freedom. He comes into this House sincerely attached to the religion in which he has been educated; he has all the influence which his personal character gives him; he is placed at the head of a party. Is the Crown to say, "although you are a man of powerful abilities, yet I must shut you out?" After you have capacitated him to become secretary of state, or first lord of the treasury, is the Crown to turn round and say, "I cannot admit you?" Is that the way to conciliate such a man as this? But, suppose the Crown employs him in its service-in what a situation do you place him? Can he exercise a sound discretion, in regard to those measures which relate to the safety of the church of England? It appears to me, he cannot give a safe judgment; and therefore I am for excluding him; and not trusting to the Crown to refuse the ticket of admission you have given him." Sir Francis Burdett's motion was carried by a majority of 247

to 234.

The House then resolved itself into a committee; when sir Francis Burdett moved the following resolutions :

1. That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises and civil rights therein mentioned.

2. That such parts of the said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass as used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may therefore safely be repealed.

3. That it appears to this committee, that in several acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, a certain oath, commonly called the oath of supremacy, is required to be taken as a qualification for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned.

4. That in the said oath and declaration is contained, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, ought to have any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms.

5. That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, with respect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word "spiritual" being inserted therein; and that for the purpose of removing such scruples, it would be expedient to declare the sense in which the said word is used, according to the injunction issued by queen Elizabeth, in the first year of her reign, and recognized in the act of the fifth of her reign, and which, as explained by the 37th of the articles of the church of England, imports merely that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God,