tioned by the great body of our constituents; yet, decided as are their instructions, I shall follow them so far only as they are consistent with the dictates of my own conscience.

The right hon. gentleman who now urges to redeem the pledge of the last parliament, has contented himself with giving an eloquent and general detail of the advantages to be derived from the investigation and full discussion of this subject, in a committee of the whole House. Now, Sir, I frankly confess that, in a question of this nature, I see no advantage to be gained by that mode of enquiry, which is peculiarly suited to such cases as the Orders in Council, where the production of evidence might throw additional light on the subject under consideration; but what evidence could assist us in weighing the scruples of conscience, or the feelings of loyalty? In ascertaining constitutional rights, or balancing political expedience? Our present debate may afford a fair specimen of the proceedings of such a committee, and of the dissonance which must prevail there. We hear the right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunket), whose speech has met with such deserved applause, candidly admit the necessity of providing some safeguard against the danger, which must arise, from the exercise of foreign influence; yet he does not profess to be prepared with any definitive proposition, satisfactory to the Catholics or to himself. The hon. baronet (Sir J. C. Hippisley), who has bestowed so much attention on the subject, has indeed matured his plans, but requires a special committee to take them into consideration. The hon. general (Mathew), on the other hand, boldly avows that the Catholics will not, ought not to be satisfied, unless their claims are conceded, without any restraint or restriction whatsoever.

Sir, I demand, before we descend, for the sake of conciliation, one step from the high ground of the constitution, that we should not only have, before us, the appearance of a cordial disposition, on the part of the Catholics, to approximation in loyalty and charity, but that the heads of that church should give proof of their sincerity and moderation, by the tender of every concession and every pledge con-. sistent with their faith and conscience.. Is this, Sir, the spirit that we witness? On the contrary, have not their most zealous friends, who have been striving to render them popular, by desiring pledges of loy

|alty, received in their turn nothing but obloquy and disavowal ? May we not still recognize, in the haughty tone which thus rejects all compromise, the spirit of the Servus Servorum, trampling on the neck of kings! With such experience, few senators will hereafter have the hardihood to become sponsors for those who refuse to ratify and confirm all that has been promised and vowed in their names."

These Protestant advocates of the Catholic cause now take their ground with greater circumspection. Unable to conceal the intolerant spirit and dangerous, tenets of the church of Rome, recorded in the page of history, they aver that modern Catholics have renounced these doctrines, and triumphantly produce their proof, in answer to certain queries proposed to foreign universities. Need I reply that every true Catholic acknowledges the authority of a general council, duly held under the sovereign pontiff, to be infallible, and submits his conscience implicitly to its decrees; whereas he knows of no such authority, in his church, as that of an university? I cannot but observe too, that not one of these universities intimates that the belief of the Catholic church is, in the slightest degree, changed or capable of change; and though they disavow certain doctrines to be those of their church, they do not deny that she retains every article of the faith, which she professed, when the horrors of a bigotted persecution presented, to this country, its practical illustration.

I will not now enter on the question, whether any of those tenets, in times of greater peril to the constitution, rendered necessary the exclusion of their professors, from the full benefits of religious toleration, or justified the penal laws which, under happier auspices, have been effaced from our statute books. I rejoice, Sir, that no limits are now placed, nor need be placed, to the enjoyment of religious toleration. If there remain one vestige of a penal statute, infringing the free exercise of religious worship, according to the dictates of every man's conscience, let it be wiped away as a disgrace to our religious charter!

But surely I need not remind the intelligent legislator that religious liberty is one thing, and political privilege another; that a state of political society implies the existence of restraints for the general good; and that it is for the supreme au thority, in every state, to judge and deter

of the established church, for taking a

mine to what persons power and office can most safely be entrusted. If the legisla-share in what is called a merely political ture deen it prudent to prescribe a test of discussion. What, Sir! after passing an affection to the government, as a qualifica- act of political exclusion, not very contion for admission to office, surely this is sistent with the doctrine of universal right no infraction of political rights! If to office; after incapacitating every indi there exists a national establishment vidual of the clerical body from the possiof religion, united with the civil govern- bility of addressing you in this House, ment, and incorporated in the consti- will you debar them from the privilege of tution of the country, is it not natu- humbly petitioning you in favour of that ral that this test should be extended to a venerable establishment, to whose interests proof of attachment to the whole constitu- they are bound by every tie of duty, as tion? Above all, could it be reasonably well as affection? I deny, Sir, that they expected that any government should have come forward with a spirit of bigotry admit, to places of the highest trust and or intolerance; very different is the mild authority, those, whose principles are character of the church of England. known to be adverse to a part of the con- Learning has a lovely daughter, and stitution, and whose faith must lead them to her name is Moderation." And the adwish for its subversion? Lord Bolingbroke, dresses from the clergy, lying on that whose judgment will be allowed not to table, are imbued with that genuine spirit have been warped by any religious partial- of Christian charity, which improves and ities, expresses a decided opinion, that "no adorns society. It is, then, as a lover of man ought to be trusted with any share of toleration, as a warm friend of civil and power under a government, who must, to religious liberty, that I plead for the mainact consistently with himself, endeavour tenance of Protestant ascendancy. the destruction of that very government.' I admit of the inestimable blessings of peace and concord in the country, but let us beware of sacrificing the solid advantage of union in our councils, for the illusory temptation of a general comprehension. I see nothing to be coveted in that "false peace," which lord Bacon describes, as" pieced up upon a direct ad-go, but no farther." With what argumission of contraries in fundamental points, ments will he combat the next petition where truth and falshood are like the iron from the Roman Catholics, when he has and clay in the toes of Nebuchadnezzar's previously conceded, nay advocated its image; they may cleave, but they will principle? not incorporate.' Let me appeal to the sentiments and conduct of a Catholic peer. When the Test Law was introduced into the House of Lords, lord Bristol candidly ayowed that, "as a faithful member of a Protestant parliament, his advice pruden tially went with the main scope of the bill," though," as a Catholic of the church of Rome, his conscience obliged him to give his negative to it."* Here we see the conflicting and irreconcilable principles, and observe that the duty of the statesman yields to that of the churchman. What have we then to expect from less honourable minds, than that of this distinguished nobleman!

I have heard, Sir, and I am sorry to say, within these walls, the most harsh, the most illiberal censures cast on the clergy

* See the new Parliamentary History of England, vol. 4, p. 564.

The right hon. mover disavows any intention of interfering with the Bill of Rights, or the Act of Settlement. He will recognize and re-enact the security of the Protestant succession to the throne; but, let me ask the right hon. gentleman, upon what principle he fixes the limit of Catholic rights, and says, "thus far shall you

I have considered the subject of the Catholic claims, as it affects the general interests of the empire. I shall not presume to touch on the peculiar situation of Ireland, though I think much might be said on the causes of the irritation, which has been excited, in that country; but I leave this subject to those who are acquainted, from personal observation, with her wishes, ber wants, and her interests. I shall now conclude, Sir, with reminding the House of one of the queries of her sagacious and patriotic prelate, "Whether those men

who move the corner stones of a constitution, may not pull an old house on their own heads?"

Mr. Ayshford Wise addressed the House in a maiden speech, as follows:

Mr. Speaker; considering the question now before the House, as a question of the greatest importance, I have listened,

with proportionate attention, to the different opinions, which have been so eloquently delivered, during the discussion of it; and I shall now trespass upon the House for a few minutes, not because I am presumptuous enough to suppose that I can have any claim to their favour, but because I do sincerely believe that, from that class of society, the country gentlemen, may best be earned the sentiments of those among whom they reside.

The Resolution, Sir, of the last parliament, that the House would, early in the next session, take into its most serious consideration the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such final and conciliatory adjustment as might be conducive to the peace of the United Kingdom, stability to the Protestant establishment, and the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, naturally created much interest in all classes of society; much interest, Sir, in the minds of those who were accustomed to look up to this House, with that respect, which is, and I trust, ever will be due to the legislative body of a great and independent country-amongst those, Sir, I must include myself; not then, in the proud situation I now hold; and, since returned to parliament through the approbation of honourable men, free from expence and unclogged by promises.

the power of that constitution, which has so long protected our laws, our liberty, and our land.

Sir Frederick Flood.-Mr. Speaker; the best apology I can make to this House, for rising at this very late hour, is to assure them I shall be very short. But, on a question so deeply important as the present, which, whilst it involves the general interests of the empire, affects, in a peculiar manner, millions of the country to which I have the honour to belong; lowe it to myself, and to my numerous constituents (many thousands of all religious persuasions), to explain my reasons for voting to go into a committee.

I lay it down, Sir, as a maxim that the blessings of our free and glorious constitution ought to be diffused as widely, as is compatible with the safety of the constitution.

Another incontrovertible proposition, very material to the question, is, that there is nothing in the Catholic religion naturally hostile to the constitution under which we live. They ever were friends to monarchy. In the bosom of the Roman Catholic religion, the English constitution received its birth, and Catholics rocked its cradle. They obtained Magna Charta-founded our universities; and let us proceed to Runneymede, and, on that hallowed spot, inquire whether Catholics are hostile to the liberties and chartered rights of England. Let those who say that the Catholic church is inimical to our freedom, refer to the reign of Henry 3, and see all the Catholic bishops and abbots assembled, and after reading the great charter, with solemn ceremonies and tremendous denunciations, passing sentence of excommunication against every person who should violate it. It was Catholics that founded the House of Commons of England, in which we sit this night, discussing the propriety of granting them a participation in the constitution. Common dangers should be repelled by united efforts.

Having, Sir, said thus much, I beg humbly to state to the House, that, from very particular observation, I am inclined to believe that the Protestant population of England is not unfriendly to a due and fair consideration of the claims of their Roman Catholic brethren; and I shall, this night, very sincerely give my vote for the motion of the right hon. mover, because I think that the Catholic communion is now divested of many of those tenets, which have been, hitherto, considered dangerous and unconstitutional; because I think the parliament is pledged to pursue its own resolutions, and because I firmly believe that a Protestant parliament can, You, Mr. Speaker, have twice read now is, and always will be able, so to le- from your chair, solemnly, and, I trust, gislate, that the Protestant establishment impressively, the last will and testament may remain pure and strictly secure, both of the late parliament, executed by 237 in church and state; and, considering members of it, and attested by 106 that, by the vote for going into the com- witnesses, other members of the same mittee I do not pledge myself to any fu- parliament, date 23d June 1812; resolvture act, and that I reserve to myself full ing to take into their serious consideraand ample power to object to any resolution the state of the laws affecting his Mation of that committee, which I may even jesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great suspect of a tendency to weaken or cripple Britain and Ireland, with a view to

Sir John Newport rose and said, that if the question had been left to the consideration of the House, under the circumstances, and in the form in which it had undergone the discussion of last year, he certainly should not have felt himself then called upon to trespass on their patience, but would have rested the cause of the Roman Catholics on the statement so ably made by his right hon. friend who open

concession has already reached its utmost limits, and that it would be utterly unsafe to admit, into the councils of the state, those who hold tenets at variance with a Protestant creed, and subversive of a Protestant ascendancy. I cannot consent to go into a committee from which I expect no satisfactory result-I am sure the House cannot come, with any prospect of a final and conciliating adjustment of rival interests. I owe it to the Catholics them-ed the debate; and on the eloquent appeal selves, not to excite hopes, which I believe, will terminate tn the bitterness of disappointment: I owe it to the Protestant community of this country not to turn my back upon the petitions they have presented to this House, praying against the concession of the Catholic claims. In every view of the subject, I feel myself compelled to vote against the proposition of the right hon. gentleman for going into a committee.

Sir John Newport rose amidst loud cries of Question! The right hon. baronet observed, that as there were very many members who were anxious to speak on the question, he should move an adjournment of its consideration to Monday.

Lord Castlereagh remarked, that as it would be quite impossible to come to a conclusion on this important question that night, it appeared to him, that the only point of consideration was, whether the House would then adjourn, or at a later hour. The motion for deferring the further consideration of the question to Monday, was then put and carried.-Adjourned at two o'clock on Saturday morning.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 1.

of another hon. gentleman (Mr. Plunket) whose speech was heard by the House with so much attention, and which had been honoured with so much well-merited applause.

But there were circumstances attendant on the discussion of the subject this year, which did not exist when it was last submitted to the consideration of the House. Some of those who were inimical to the cause had gone as far as they possibly could, by recurring to the basest arts to prevent the subject receiving a calm and deliberate investigation. They had endeavoured to persuade the Protestant population, that this was a question vitally affecting their religion, and that it was to be judged on that principle alone, divested of those various and important political considerations, by which the legislature ought to be actuated in their examination and their decision, and which he was sure were more fit to guide the judgment of parliament, than any of those topics which seemed to be principally relied upon at several meetings,-meetings which he was in some respects obliged to characterise, as calculated to produce, and absolutely producing ill-will and dissention amongst the great body of the people.

In the course of his speech, it was his MR. GRATTAN'S MOTION FOR A COMMIT- intention to examine some of the stateTEE ON THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CA-ments which had been publicly made, THOLICS ADJOURNED DEBATE.] The order of the day being moved, for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into its most serious consideration the

state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the united kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects," the House resumed the said adjourned debate.

with a view, as he conceived, to prejudice and inflame the minds of the people against the claims of their Catholic brethren. Under the circumstances in which they were placed-when they were called on to legislate, in order to restore tranquillity to a large portion of the empire-when they were called on to legislate, for the purpose of producing that strength and ener gy throughout the empire at large, which must result from conciliation and harmony-by uniting the great body of the people in the participation, and, conse quently in the defence of those rights, which were common to them all-uuder these circumstances, it must appear evi