-

ness, and moderation, but he ought to vote against Mr. Calley's resolution, because he dreaded nothing but the supremacy of the Pope. Why then if the Catholics would renounce that supremacy, he must be satisfiedhe ought to be willing to reduce the oaths to that but though some part, a very small part of the oaths touched that part, the greater part of them related to tenets which had nothing to do with it. Lord Lansdowne had read to them the oaths Catholics actually did take; he would now read the declaration they would. not sign, and the meeting would judge if the. part, at least, which he read was either necessary or proper.

66

"I A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare "that I do believe, that in the sacrament of the "Lord's Supper there is not any transubstan"tiation of the elements of bread and wine into "the body and blood of Christ, at or after the "consecration thereof by any person whatsois ever, and that the invocation or adoration of "the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the "sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used "in the church of Rome are superstitious and "idolatrous."

Now this required them to abuse and vilify tenets which their very enemies allowed to be harmless to the state; at least and which they or their ancestors had long considered to be sacred-He (Lord H.) was no advocate for such a creed-he wondered

how Catholics could believe it, but they didand though he saw no sense in the belief of transubstantiation or invocation of saints, he saw no danger to king or to Parliament therein

1

Those then, who saw danger in the poor old Pope, should confine their guards to the Pope, and not extend them to transubstantiation, and the invocation of saints; but what did the resolution say? It said-no alteration whatever.The law as it now exists, whether it meets our ideas of danger or not, though it be levelled against one peril when we apprehend another, must remain as it is, unaltered and unalterable. One gentleman says, we must hand down these laws of exclusion as they were established at the Revolution-why? The laws about Dissenters and Catholics have been altered five or six times since the Revolution; and in Ireland, where they are now most complained of, they were not enacted till years after therevolution.* They have differed at different periods and indifferent parts of the kingdom-the legislature has rung all possible changes upon them-there is neither intelligible system nor uniform principle in them--they differ now in Ireland and England. In Ireland, Catholics vote at elections, in England they cannot. In England there is a test law, in Ireland there is none. But no matter, says the resolution, there must be no change,no alteration, no modification

* The revolution was accomplished in 1688; the act of Parliament by which Roman Catholics were excluded from the Irish Parliament passed in 1691.-The test act was not extended to Ireland till Queen Anne's reign-It was not till seven or eight years after the Revolution that Catholics were rendered incapable of voting at elections.

E

26

whatever; we must petition Parliament to keep things exactly as they are, though they have expressed their opinion distinctly, that they are not in a state either reasonable or secure.

He did not wish to enter on a distinction too often insisted upon between toleration and eligibility to power-It would open a very wide field-This, however, he would say, there was no instance in history of any body of men disqualified by law from all share of political power, practically enjoying civil or religious liberty for any length of time. The only security for the liberties of the people was a share in their government.-Religious worship might be tolerated by law, but if those who attended it were disqualified from all office, trust, or power, they never would have the means of ensuring the enjoyment of what was nominally granted to them.-Exclusions were contrary to the spirit of the British constitution, not only as it was written on parchment or recorded in public acts, but as it was engraven in the hearts of Englishmen. What man of this free country was so base or ignorant as not to feel that no severer sentence could be pronounced upon him than this," whatever may be your loyalty, your zeal, or your abilities, you are incapable by law of serving your king or your country ?"

To return to the danger apprehended from Bonaparte through the Pope, we had the experience of several years to prove it was

*This sentiment, nearly in the same words, is to be found in the reasons of the Lords in a conference with the Com

mons.

groundless-He believed Bonaparte relied on his numerous resources, on his legions, on his bayonets, (entrusted by the bye without exclusion to men of all sects and religions,) more than on his influence with the Pope or the Pope's influence with any one-the fear of papal power returning seemed to him most extravagant. So strange an apprehension of remote dangers reminded him of a story which when he heard it, appeared absurd from its improbability---A man it was said was led to execution, and the rope was actually tied round his neck; yet he betrayed no symptoms of fear, bore the dreadful preparations for death with firmness and resignation, and expressed neither terror nor concern at his approaching fate---suddenly, however, to the astonishment of every one, he exclaimed, in great agitation and alarm, "Good God, there is a man in that field, don't you see him ""Well, and what then?" "Why he is sowing hemp, the hemp will perhaps come up, and who knows if it does, but they will make a rope of it, and with that rope they may hang me." So it was with these gentlemen, they saw no danger in discontents in Ireland, and Bonaparte in France, the real ropes round our neck, while they were wholly lost in contemplation of distant, improbable, and speculative perils. He gave the gentlemen who signed the requisition credit for the moderation of the terms in which it was conceived, and for fairness and manliness in calling a meeting, if they were disposed to petition. He thought it, however, somewhat hard upon those who attended that call to be taunted with being prepared, being

arrayed in a phalanx, and other expressions insinuating some advantage taken of those who moved the resolution.-Those who first moved the question had surely time to prepare the grounds of what they recommended, and to form their phalanxes in support of it-Those who called the meeting could not well censure others for attending it as it was called, the question was which would be the safer and wiser course to give a decided opinion on this matter, or to refer it to the wisdom of Parliament, which is pledged to consider it? For himself he seldom disguised his opinion, and he was ready to acknowledge that it was, and long had been favourable to the Catholic claims--but he did not for that reason wish, like the other gentlemen, to press the meeting to adopt his opinion? No; he wished them to leave the matter to Parliament, at least for the present--for the wise forms of our constitution had provided that nothing could be done in such a business in Parliament without full time occurring for the country to give its opinion thereupon. Parliament had declared that it was desirable to make an arrangement if possible--and the question which we now had to decide was, whether in this preliminary stage we should entreat Parliament not even to try to bring the matter to an amicable conclusion; or place our reliance on Parliament, for doing nothing inconsistent with our safety or impervious to our establishments.-As to the veto or other securities he saw no use in entering into such details--those, however, who thought that if a veto were secured the rest