tical matters, were likewise excepted. 6. Catholics were also excluded from situations in ecclesiastical schools. 7. They were prevented from any interference in the disposal of Protestant benefices. 8. All Roman Catholics were excluded from any episcopal authority within these realms. 9. The ninth security is, the exclusion of nonresident native Catholics from such ecclesiastical duties and functions. 10. The tenth security consisted of an oath containing a great variety of clauses. By it, the Catholic swore to his allegiance, and abjured the supposed regicidal and deposing power of the Pope. He also abjured the temporal power of His Holiness in these countries; the infallibility of the Pope, as an article of faith; and the principle,' that no faith was to be kept with heretics. By it the Catholic deposed, that he would support the Protestant succession and the present state of Protestant property; that he would discover all plots and treasons which came within his knowledge; that he would not make use of any power he obtained in the state, either to its injury, or to the overthrow of the Protestant church; and that, in the nomination of any bishop or apostolic vicar, no man should be chosen with his consent, of whose loyalty and tranquil disposition he was not convinced; that the clergy were also to swear that, in the election of persons to be recommended to the apostolic functions, they would never choose any persons whose loyalty and good conduc were not known to them. The oath also bound him to hold no intercourse with the See of Rome, which, directly or indirectly, could disturb the Protestant church in England, Ireland, or Scotland; and that his intercourse with that see should be purely of a spiritual nature. He was aware that some gentlemen would inquire, why the oath was so very long and particular. To this, his answer was, that those who drew up the present bill, found a part of that oath already established. They did not wish to alter a single article of it, as they felt it their duty to increase and not to diminish the securities now existing; therefore, they had made a variety of additions to it, comprising every point which was connected with the safety either of church or state. The present oath was generalised; it was not necessary for a Catholic clergyman to take the former oath unless some office were conferred upon him; but the oath being generalised, it would now, by law, be necessary for every Roma Catholic in the United Kingdom to take it. They had therefor added to the present oath the obligation of disclosing treason, and of not recommending any clergyman whose loyalty was not well known. They had also extended the obligation of the oath. The former oath was only required to be taken on the acceptance of some

office; the present oath, however, was proposed to be extended generally to the clergy, as well as to the laity. These, then, were the securities. Whether the House would consider them to be sufficient, he knew not; but great securities they unquestionably

were.

A right honourable gentleman, he begged leave to call him his right honourable friend (Mr. Canning), had suggested some additional clauses. He proposed the appointment by parliament of Protestant commissioners, with power to withhold their assent to the nomina. tion of those bishops and apostolic vicars, of whose loyalty they entertained any doubt, and also with power to inspect the papers and books connected with those nominations, with a proviso that they should be bound not to betray the secrets of the Catholic church. These clauses would amount to a complete security for domestic nomination. His right honourable friend had touched the subject with a delicate hand. Those appointed to frame the bill had not introduced the clauses into the bill, not because they disapproved of them, but because they did not know how far the Catholic body might approve of their introduction. For his own part he thought they were liberal in their nature, and that they ought to be received.

He would now say a very few words on the general merits of the bill now before the House. It would, no doubt, undergo some alterations here; but such as it was, it amounted to a plan of perfect domestic security and liberality-a plan, for the accomplishment of which the greatest statesmen of this country had struggle‍d in vain— a plan that, he trusted, at no distant period would be completed. If, however, the motion of the honourable baronet were acquiesced in, and this committee should be appointed, he should not dare to hope to witness the fulfilment, not only of his wishes, not only of the wishes of the majority of this House, but of the wishes of the majority of the nation. This was a bill of Catholic emancipation, in which were provided three main securities for the Protestants. The first and greatest, was incorporation; the second, a positive bar against domestic Catholic influence; and the third, an effectual provision against foreign Catholic interference. This measure, they submitted, ought to receive the sanction of the legislature; parliament had already pledged itself to concede it. It has already declared, that it was expedient to repeal the laws which deprive a great portion of their countrymen of privileges they ought to enjoy, for the sake of producing general harmony, security, and happiness. Let parliament, then, fulfil the pledge it had given to the nation.

without being diverted from its obvious duty by motions like that tonight proposed. The bill was before it; nor could any solid objections be urged, unless by those who are enemies to Catholic privilege and Protestant security.

May 24, 1813.

SIR, I rise to direct the attention of the House to the course of opposition which has this night been taken to the great measure now under discussion, and shall commence with the right honourable gentleman (Mr. York), who has last spoken in the debate. He has emphatically told you how futile must be the success (if such should attend it) of this bill, when it is evident its provision will never be complied with by the party for whose relief it has been framed. Now, Sir, I say that such a mode of reasoning goes too far, it proves too much; for what is the deduction? why, that there will be no Catholic episcopacy, because, if the clergy do not comply with the provisions of this bill, there can be no episcopacy; it must, in such case, expire; and the very body which the right honourable gentleman holds in terrorem before your view, can no longer (upon his own argument) have existence; his fears are therefore visionary, and his reasoning groundless. So far for the clerical argument. Now, Sir, towards the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament: here again the argument of the right honourable gentleman is built upon no foundation. Can any man in his senses credit the assertion, that the ingress of the Catholics to this assembly can be productive of the effect described? Is the right honourable gentleman so ignorant of the constitution of this House as for a moment to believe the principle re has himself laid down? I shall not pay him so poor a compliment as to think he does. Does he, Sir, take it for granted, that this is a Catholic House legislating for a Protestant people? or does he not know that this is a Protestant House legislating for a Catholic people, a Protestant people, a Presbyterian people, a Dissenting people? A House, Sir, making laws for a whole and a divided community; not a particular body enacting for a particular sect. The admission of a few Catholics here left the constitution where it stood. It left it as it found it, a Protestant body. The principle of this bill is incorporation, uniting the jarring differences of many religions.

Another argument equally defective, equally erroneous, has been sounded-sounded with acclamation this night; namely, that it is impossible to unite the Catholic with the Protestant; also that the

Catholic himself protests against this measure. This assertion I deny; I repeat, sir, this denial; let those who cheer contradict me. I expect nothing from their moderation; I now challenge them to the proof. What, sir, constitutes this impassable abyss of separation between the Catholic and the Protestant? Why, forsooth, the belief of transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, the worship of the Virgin Mary. O limited view of human nature! O preposterous conclusion! No, sir, it is not those visions which have separated the community; the cause of this separation, such as it is, has arisen from the enactment of your civil penalties, continues only by their operation, and with them only can have extinction and oblivion. A right honourable gentleman (the Speaker), whose great authority in the House I willingly admit, has told you that the representatives of Ireland will, if this clause should pass, be entirely Catholic, that the Catholics will engross the nomination of 100 members in this House. I deny this conclusion wholly; I deny the right honourable gentleman's authority here. Why principally Catholic? It is necessary for the Speaker to prove that the citire property of Ireland is in Catholic hands. The fact is not so; the great proportion of that property which would be represented, should this bill pass into a law, that great proportion, I assert, is in Protestant hands; and the just conclusion, generally speaking, must be, that a Protestant representation would still emanate from it. Again, I am told, you are about to erect a Catholic ascendency in parliament. This, like the other arguments, proves-what? the discomfiture of the supporters of exclusion and monopoly; because, to give effect to this argument, you must make forty a greater effective number than six hundred; you must make seven or eight the majority of four hundred. I contend for it, forty Catholics would be the major number which this bill would introduce into one House; seven or eight, the major number it could introduce into the other. Therefore, sir, this is to be the foundation of a Catholic ascendency, and this is the argument directed to 658 legislators! This is the principle tipon which exclusion is to be pronounced towards millions of people, and here is the argument and the authority upon which we are to arrive at the conclusion! Therefore, I repeat, the right honourable gentleman's authority, great as it is in general, is, upon this particular cause, no authority at all. The question is not, whether you will uphold the Protestant establishment, but it is, whether you will endanger its existence, by proscribing your people. I repeat, again and again, that if you repel Catholic emancipation, you trample to the ground Protestant security.

You addressed us, the framers of this bill; you said; "We will argue the point: produce us your securities in the first instance; we will then produce you our concessions". Here they are [Mr. Grattan here extended forth the bill]; here are our securities: where are your concessions? How do you meet us? After calling on us for securities, you reject concession, and, by that rejection, refuse the best security for the church, by withholding freedom from the people. If you vote against this clause, you vote against thebill; you nullify your object, you falsify your pledge. The noble lord opposite (Castlereagh) has acted a manly part; let the noble lord share then the merit of the bill. Upon my head be the odium of the clauses: to insure the principle of concession, I shall submit to the minor infringements. The alleged unpopularity of the bill can only be temporary. Should the Catholic mind be indisposed to accept it, should their leaders inculcate hostility to its clauses, clauses so necessary to carry through its principle, why then, I shall lament such an occurrence; I shall feel it bitterly; I shall then, indeed, admit, that the Catholics are the bitterest enemies of themselves, and that upon their own heads, and on their own heads only, can the consequences of their own folly rest. [Mr. Grattan here paused for a moment, but resumed his wonted animation.]

Sir, the question is, if you reject this bill, can you dwell upon the resrictions? and, upon your own view of the subject, how do you stand? You vote for the continuation of galling and jarring restrictions upon four millions of your fellow-subjects. You vote for the unlimited power of the Pope upon this proscribed population, instead of enfranchising the one, and obliterating the other. [The right honourable gentleman concluded in a strain of eloquence, of which it is impossible to convey even a faint outline.] I beseech you to pause before you vote this night. You stand between two important opinions. The one leads to unanimity in the nation; the other to discord in the community. The one incorporates the Catholic with the Protestant, and limits, nay, extinguishes, the power of the Pope; the other exasperates the feelings of the people, and saps the best securities of the empire, The one lays at your disposal a brave and generous people, to testify on the embattled plain the allegiance and the gratitude they owe you, and places your country on an iron pedestal, never-never to be shaken; the other arms you, with what? the Pope and his visions at your back; and, with these banners, to advance against and appal the almost overwhelming enemy of Europe.