and strenuous supporters of the Catholic claims. He might also enumerate men of learning, like the Bishop of Llandaff, and the Bishop of Norwich, a name that would be ever respected, and which was dear to every friend of religious liberty and social freedom. It was also remarkable, that the Lord-lieutenants of Ireland, for the last fifty years, were uniformly in favour of them. Lord Fitzwilliam was decidedly so; Lord Camden, who went over to Ireland with opposite sentiments, and who lived in that country at a most trying time, when he could not avoid knowing the opinions of the Catholics, was ultimately for concession. He, too, was the friend of Mr. Pitt, and might be supposed not unacquainted with the sentiments of that individual. Lord Cornwallis publicly declared it essentially necessary for preserving the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland. This was the practical conclusion formed by a statesman and a soldier, at a most critical period of Irish history, and was entitled to the utmost respect. Lord Hardwicke did not go over a friend to the measure; but after some years' residence as Lord-lieutenant, he altered his opinion, and now supported it by his vote. His right honourable friend, the late secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. Pole), had, at first, opposed the Catholics on account of the obstacles that existed in certain quarters to the granting their claims; but when, by the removal of the restrictions on the Prince Regent, such obstacles were done away, and after his right honourable friend had derived, from five years' official residence in Ireland, a high degree of experience on this subject, he had voted in favour of the Catholics, and had stated, that, in his opinion, the country could not do well without some measure of the kind. He had, for this, been charged, and, in his opinion, unfairly, with inconsistency. His right honourable friend's mind was not stationary, like the minds of those who made this idle accusation. He showed that it was progressive; and he was right, for time and circumstances had operated very powerfully in favour of the Catholic question.

There was a time when Roman Catholic emancipation would not have been heard of without horror; but, as had been stated by an honourable gentleman on a former night, the intenseness of the prejudice had been weakened. Those professing the two religions had advanced much nearer to each other in spirit; so that, though they still differed on points of faith, they were much more likely than formerly to coalesce in other respects. He intended to propose certain resolutions; first, that the Catholic disabilities should be removea; second, that the establishments in church and state ought to be effectually secured; and he should then propose regulations fo

the ecclesiastical courts and other matters, and an oath against foreign influence. It might be demanded of him to state the regulations; but he would not, and for this reason, that under pretence of opposing these regulations, some gentlemen would oppose the principle. He would only say, that if any gentleman on the other side proposed any regulation of security not trenching on the Catholic religion, he would support it; for he valued the principle so much, that he would not hazard its loss by precipitation and punctilio. His object was to lay the seminal principle of making the inhabitants of the empire an united people. The language we ought to hold was, we are friends to your liberty and to our own religion. Suppose he was to introduce a clause into the preamble of his bill, saying, it was necessary that the Protestant succession should be secured, in order to obtain the concurrence of some of those who opposed his measure, would they not then admit that to be provisional now, and not fundamental, which they formerly, in their comments on the bill of rights, contended to be fundamental, and not provisionary? For his own part, he must say that he valued the principle too much to surrender or lose it for reasons of regulation. If once admitted, it would make the empire one, for it was a principle of union and regeneration.

If the resolutions were agreed to, he should then move for leave to bring in a bill; but he was not desirous of precipitating the measure. He thought that time ought to be given for men's spirits to cool; that they should not legislate without consulting the feelings of the people; and that, in the mean time, they should repose upon the good sense of both countries, and not take any step that would deprive the cause of the benefit of that good sense. It might be asked, why the Catholics did not protest against the violence of some of their own body? The answer was, that parliament had not given them encouragement. But when the arm of parliament should be once stretched out to the Catholics, there would be many wise and moderate enough to embrace it. By thus evincing a conciliatory disposition towards the Catholics, parliament would at all events show that the fault did not lie with them, should the measure prove unsuccessful. Let them send out the dove, and she will bring back the olive.

The right honourable gentleman concluded, by moving, "That, with a view to such an adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the security of the Established Church, and to the ultimate concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, it is highly advisable to provide for the removal

of the civil and military disqualifications under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour; with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant succession to the crown, according to the act for the further limitation of the crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, and for maintaining inviolable the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and the Church of Scotand, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as the same are respectively by law established".

May 11, 1813.

MR. GRATTAN rose, he said, for the purpose of opposing the proposition of his honourable friend. He certainly should feel a considerable degree of difficulty in answering the speech with which his honourable friend had prefaced his motion; not on account of any force or cogency of argument observable in it, but from its extraordinary length, and the immense extent of the subjects which it comprised. He begged leave, however, before he entered into the consideration of his honourable friend's speech, to return him his most sincere thanks for the great services he had on a former occasion rendered to the cause of religious liberty-services which never could be forgotten, and which rendered it painful to be obliged to differ from him on the present occasion. His honourable friend now proposed, "that a select committee should, in the first instance, be appointed to examine the state of the laws at present affecting the Roman Catholics". Connected with this subject, there were four other propositions, embodied in the same motion, the whole of which proceeded on the supposition that the House were ignorant with respect to the Catholic question. His honourable friend must surely have forgotten, that thirty-five years had now elapsed since the question was originally discussed, and that twenty years had already been consumed in this inquiry. Could he not call to his recollection, that it was brought before parliament in 1791, again in 1792, in 1793, in 1795, in 1805 (on a motion made by Mr. Fox), in 1808, in 1810, twice in 1811, and three times, both in 1812 and 1813? Had he forgotten the part he had himself taken in those different discussions, as well as the various books he had published on the subject? Was it possible that he had lost all remembrance of the victories he had gained, of the adversaries he had put to flight, of the

theological arguments which he had conducted, so much to his own honour and so decidedly to the discomfiture of his opponents? would he now contend (for so in effect he did when he stated that the subject was not understood by the House), that all his labours had been useless, or was it by a very strange excess of self-denial, that he wished to forego the fruits of those victories, and fight his battles over again, giving his enemies ground for claiming a triumph, where they had sustained signal and complete discomfiture? No! this was impossible; his honourable friend's motion was defeated by the services which he had performed; his very successes in this way deprived him of the power of now saying that the country was uninformed upon the subject. Under what circumstances were they called on to accede to this proposition? A resolution had been passed, in which the House stated, "that it was advisable to make provision for the repeal of the remaining penal laws", and what was the motion of his honourable friend?" that a committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the grounds on which you, the House of Commons, have resolved that it is so advisable". After a debate, which continued for several days, the House came to this conclusion, "that it was highly advisable to provide for the repeal of those laws", and now they were called upon to enter into an examination of the principles by which they were influenced. With all respect to the House, he would suggest that such a measure would be little short of a disavowal of their own act. If they adopt it, they would tacitly say, that they regretted their admitting the introduction of the present bill. They would avow that their resolution was precipitate. The honourable baronet had confessed, that if the effect of his motion should be to get rid of this bill, he thought it would be so much the better. Now, it would be for the House to determine, whether it would be right to get rid of the bill in such a manner. The question was not, whether the House would go into this committee merely, but whether they would reject the bill then pending that, and that only would be the effect of such a proceeding. It would not be a rejection for six months or for a session, but it would be a rejection for an indefinite period. The whole question of Catholic liberation would be postponed; not as he had already observed, for a certain period. No! it would be postponed till all the penal laws were examined. Not merely those laws which were enacted since the reformation, but those which were made before it; not only our own laws against Catholics, but the proceedings in colleges and ecclesiastical courts, and all the controversies on doubtful and disputed points. To demand of them to examine

the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, was in effect to ask them tc do that which, in respect to time, could not be done for a very long period. And could it be supposed, that any rational man would agree to a measure which must inevitably put off the adjustment of this great question for ten or even for twenty years, or could it be supposed that any person who wished for the success of the Catholic cause would be satisfied with such a delay? Could it be supposed that the Catholics could be contented that their claims should be kept back for nine or ten years, until a committee had made a report upon the immense mass of matter which the honourable baronet wished to refer to them? His honourable friend had alluded to the proceedings in the case of the slave trade, and observed, that the legislative proceedings on that occasion were preceded by the labours of various committees. But it should not be overlooked, that that question was first agitated in 1788, and the bill was not passed till 1807, a period of nineteen years, during which time incessant appeals were made to the justice and humanity of parliament. In fact, if the motion were granted, they would do worse than reject the bill; because they would do it with a sort of apology which stultified themselves, by a confession of ignorance which they ought not to evince on any subject, and which, on this particular subject, they could not be supposed to possess. He objected to this intended exhibition of the penal laws, because it was not necessary with a view to their repeal, and much matter was contained in them which was calculated to produce discontent and irritation. It was on this ground that an honourable gentleman on the other side of the House had opposed the production of a book which enumerated a considerable number of the penal laws still in existence. That honourable gentleman was of opinion, that no benefit could result from such a statement of grievances; but they were now called upon to do that by the committee, which, in the particular instance referred to, had been refused, and themselves to furnish those topics for animosity, by holding forth to the public as acts in force, those which were in fact and is practice obsolete.

This committee would not only revive the odious name of the penal laws, but it would answer a variety of other purposes. It would be a judicial committee, in which the charges against the Catholic bishops would be investigated; and whatever the result of such an inquiry would be, he conceived that it was one not at all consistent with the dignity of the House. It would not perhaps actually tax them with disaffection to the government, but it would certainly, whatever might be the extent of their suspicions or accusations, put