to continue your monopoly of power. The charge of moral atrocity in the catholic religion has been completely met, by the unanswerable declarations of the catholic prelates, who state that it is not the doctrine of the catholic religion, to support or obey any foreign temporal power, and who tell you that, to break faith with heretics is not a part of their creed. Besides, there is another argument against it, which is founded on the divinity of the christian religion. Monstrous crimes are incompatible with the christian religion, which they profess-and the argument of moral atrocity makes not against the ca tholic religion alone, but against christianity in general. The reasoning went to this, that the religion of christendom is an abomination. If it be an abomination, why do you continue to tolerate it? You must either give up your argument or your religion-or say, that the christian religion exists only in England, Scotland, Sweden, and part of the north of Ireland, viz. in the counties of Armagh, Down, and one or two others. The idea is entirely inconsistent with the christian religion; and, therefore, I shall dismiss the subject. From this question of moral atrocity, I shall now go to the assertion that the emancipation of the catholics is incompatible with the safety of England. The plain meaning of this is, that a man cannot be a good subject, unless he go to church. The absurdity of this doctrine is so manifest, that it does not require a formal refutation. Then comes the influence of the pope on the feelings of the Roman catholics. Sir, I beg leave to know what has parliament said on this subject. The Irish parliament declared, that the catholics were good subjects. In 1791, they stated, that it was necessary for the security of the country to give them a share of political power. That parliament gave them the privilege of holding landed property, and put arms in their hands. Gentlemen argued, that it was contrary to the principles of the constitution to let Roman catholics possess any civil or military office. Now, I will read an extract from the act passed in 1791, which rebuts this assertion. The statute says, Be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for papists, or persons professing the popish or Roman catholic religion, to hold, exercise, and enjoy, all civil and military offices, or places of trust and profit under his majesty.' Gentlemen contend, that catholics cannot be admitted to political power, because it is against the principle of the constitution-and here is a law expressly admitting them to the participa tion of that power. Now I want to know, how is it contrary to the principles of the constitution to admit persons of that per

suasion to the enjoyment of civil or mili tary offices? What, then, become of those arguments, which say, that, to suffer them to participate in political power, is contrary to the fundamental principles of the constitution-that it is against the law, or the principles of the law? Let us consider the subject fairly, and we shall see with what marked inaccuracy those gentlemen have endeavoured to argue four millions of their fellow subjects into perpetual bondage. I now shall notice the conduct of the catholics which has been so roughly censured. Here, I think, the parliament acquits them at once. The law that gave the catholics arms, acquitted them of intentions hostile to the state—and the law that gave them a vote at elections, and made them a part of the commons of the realm, proves that the legislature considered them to be devoted to the con

stitution. The letters of cardinal Litta, and of monseigneur Quarantotti are decided parliamentary evidence of their allegiance. They both shew, that the allegiance of the catholics was not against the feelings or sentiments of the pope, but that he, on the contrary, encouraged and commanded it. What right had the legislature then to defranchise the catholics? I allow that parliament has the power of limiting the political capacity of the subject; but, I say they have not a right to do it, without a powerful reason, and I will maintain, that the religion of the catholics is not a proper reason. The charges rashly made · against them, charges which have not any solid basis, do not constitute a reason to disqualify them. And therefore, I contend, that the present acts of disqualification are acts of power, acts of injustice, and ought to be repealed. I forgot to notice how the catholics had made use of the power which they had from time to time acquired. I refer to your generals and admirals. will not speak of this battle or that battle -I will not particularise this victory or that achievement-but I will ask, how can gentlemen impeach their loyalty, who have seen them shed their blood in defence of that which it is said they mean to undermine? An honourable gentleman opposite says, that, if there were any commotion in the country, the catholics would follow their priests. What right have we to assert that they would do so? What right have we to say, that those who filled your fleets and armies, when engaged in wars abroad, would act unworthily when confidence was placed in them at home? Would it not be bard to say, Whereas the pope has renewed the society of the jesuits-and has suffered the revival of the inquisition therefore be it enacted, that lord Fingal be attainted? You would say, No-this is

I

an act of monstrous injustice, which we can never think of. But when the loyalty of the whole catholic community is impeached, with as little reason, it is hailed as a just and regular proceeding. You erect a human tribunal, and, for the offence of an individual, you then swell the character of your law into the omnipotence of the Deity, and utter a denunciation against a whole community. It is the folly of your code of laws, that the body are punished for the crime (real or supposed) of an individual. The history of Ireland has been appealed to, as furnishing strong arguments in favour of the opponents of this question. What is that history? Why, generally, it is the tale of an unhappy province, il governed, and cruelly mismanaged. The historian is, in the case of Ireland, generally speaking, peculiarly bad authority. He wrote to gratify power, and he flattered it. His own private advantage absorbed all his thought, and his contemplation only dwelt on that which might be turned to his own account, or that of his employers. But if you wish to state the case of Ireland fairly, don't By back to barbarous times and long exploded prin ciples-state her transactions since she became a nation-take it, for instance, during the last 40 years; do not go back to senseless follies-do not say on this spot such a crime was committed, and on the other such a chieftain reared his despotic and merciless sway; but come at once to the point say, here such a catholic regiment held its ground, and nobly shared the dangers of that battle, the laurels of which it is not destined to share; bere it stood the shock of battle, in defence of your constitution, from which its brethren are to be for ever excluded-add to that their self devotion to Britain, throughout the entire of her arduous struggle. Repay, then, that people the injury you have done them, and make the charm of your concord the force of your rule. Let them fight your battles, and feel that they fight them free as they are brave.

· His sword the brave man draws, And asks no omen but his country's cause.” Again and again, I say the principle of your law is bad-it attaints the child for the crime of the father, and makes discord and division the foundation of your policy. In vain will you fly for your defence to the moment when you oppressed Ireland, and she retaliated rather take her character from the moment when you relaxed your impolitic code, and when she in return loved you and identified herself with you when for the act of one party you disqualify the whole, you are yourselves guilty of a crime -you are guilty of injustice for what else

is it to shut out so large a portion of your fellow subjects from the attributes of law. Law, then, will clearly not support you in your denunciation; see whether religion, the protestant religion, will give you a better support for your proceeding. I have already said, that nothing short of shewing the catholic religion to be an abomination, will give you this countenance; if you can say, the catholic religion is an abomination, then you say the religion of a great portion of the civilized world is of that character. This would be a direct attack on the protestant church itself, for it would be an universal outrage on the christian religion generally, of which that church is a part→ (Hear.)-It was, besides, an outrage upon the deity, for what less can it be called when man arrogates to himself the right of judgment on points of conscience, and appropriates the Deity to his own exclusive use, transfers to himself the powers of om nipotence, and brings the Godhead to his own bosom, and all this for his own monopoly?-Hear.) This passion springs not from divinity, but from monopoly, and of a gross and rank nature. It had no celestial attribute about it- O, no! "it smells of earth!" it wants every thing that is generous, noble, or true. Some gentlemen opposite spoke of the constitution, the state, and religion. They talked of the act of settlement, and of the dangers to be apprebended from my principle of concession. Let them state in what the danger consisted. Until they did, their arguments were of no avail. For argument sake, what were the dangers? for the sake of excluding three or four catholics from having seats in parliament, the whole community were to be disqualified.[In parts of this speech, the house sbewed some impatience.]I know I have tired the house-and can easily imagin that if I were in the place of some of the gentlemen present, I should be quite as impatient as they are, but I am entitled to say, that not having trespassed on the house an opening speech, I have some little claim for their slight indulgence in my reply,(Hear.)-It was once well said by Mr. Fox, that there was no mathematical proposition, however clearly demonstrated, that was not liable to contradiction, if self interest had an object in denying it. So it was in the arithmetical consideration of this question. The government of Ireland was in the hands of protestants; the principal property of the country was with them. Was it likely that by the concession of these claims, those privileges or that property could be shaken ? Suppose (oh! impracticahle supposition) that if these claims were conceded to Ireland, the whole of her 100 members returned by that country into the imperial parliament were catholics, then

did it follow, or was it likely, that they could influence the whole of the general legislative bodies of the country? if they succeeded in influencing the commons house of parliament, were they likely to have similar success in the lords and even if they had, were they likely to depose the king for they must do all before they had the power of overthrowing the constitution? but was this sort of calculation fair and honest towards the catholics; was this arithmetical disqualification rational or just ? the catholic question had been 39 years under discussion? it had gone through every sort of repetition, and the interest in its behalf had been doubled and doubled over again. In these discussions, no doubt, individual irritation now and then appeared, and poison was infused into some part of the populace. But the real question was, whether this state of things ought to be allowed to exist any longer? Are we to contiDue that sort of English connection in Ireland which has been called “a settlement," and which must be defended by an army paid by the people over whom it is placed? Is this what they call a settlement, after the years of their exclusive legislation and unbridled power, and powerful army? If it be not this, what were they doing during the centuries of government which they held? To these rulers I would say, "Have you been, during this lapse of time, spinning round on your axis, and fancying that in your evolutions the people followed in your train? Was it for this your toasts of the glorious and immortal memory, and of successes to party ebullitions were eternally in your mouths? These, then, have been your practices; and are they the return which you pay for the empire so long confided to you and do you turn round upon us and call for military establishments to enable you to prop up your system? Don't let us be deluded by your folly and your absurdity, nor let us be led to identify, the constitution of England with your political malversation of it. Do not tell men whom you have robbed of their liberty-whom you have disqualified by your legislation, and taxed in every shape of human endurance, that the fault is theirs, and not among their rulers. You are taught by God to love your enemy, but here you will not embrace your friend--such a system cannot last, depend upon it it cannot. If you succeed in excluding the people from the state, they will, in the course of things attach themselves else where-they will fly to the church of Rome to renew their ancient relations, that is, they will fasten close upon the connection of which you are so alarmed. The catholic body have now no community with the state; they are morbid and excluded, and, on the other hand, the state is alive and vivacious. Then let a new or der of things mark the times in which we

live, and let an immediate termination he put to any clandestine intercourse between them and the see of Rome. Do not seek for popularity, or dream that any measure of this kind must at once be attended with the results you anticipate from it.-Act wisely, liberally, and rationally, and your measures of redress must be attended with the most beneficial success.-You may have, on some points, a popular outcry to endure, but that outcry must ever be transient when It is raised against the true interests of the people and privileges of the state.-England has grown up into a mighty empire, she is obeyed in the majesty of the earth, and will you tolerate that her state of society shall be entangled and shackled with laws like these, and for the sake of a set of puny theologians and angry bigots, who torture their fellows while they seek for their own purposes to embroil their country iu one common warfare ?”

The gallery was then cleared for a dis vision, when there appeared-Ayes 22k Noes 245-Majority 24.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, May 16.

The earl of Donoughmore, after a pow erful speech in favour of the claims of the catholics, moved that the house should go

into a committee to consider the claims of their catholic brethrena

The bishop of Llandaff, (Dr. Herbert March) opposed the motion, in a brief speech, observing that he could never agree to admit men to a share in the government who acknowledged spiritual allegiance to a foreign power.

The bishop of Norwich, on the contrary, contended that the catholics had given anis ple proofs of their loyalty, and therefore they should no longer refuse to tranquilize the country by admitting them to their due share in the benefits of the state, of which they bore a full portion of the burthens.~ Their claims, he thought, could now only be rejected because of their attachment to the innocent religious opinions of their ancestors. He called them innocent, though with protestants they must be regarded as erroneous. These opinions had been held by our ancestors, who laid the foundation of that political liberty we now enjoyed; and they were the opinions of most of the powers of Europe, with whom we were happily in a state of alliance.

The bishop of Ossory opposed the motion, as did the earl of Liverpool, earl Bathurst, and lord Eldon. It was sup ported by the earls of Harrowby, Darnley, and Grey, and Ford Grenville.

On a division, the motion was lost-the ayes being 90, and the noes, 142.—majo rity against the eatholic claims, 52.

A full report of this debate will be given next month.