Ireland, and that as at present framed, it would operate most unjustly. If any thing could be done with it in committee, he had no objection to its going to that stage; but he was confident that no one clause at present in the Bill could be allowed to remain a part of it.

The Earl of Liverpool suggested the necessity of appointing a distant day for the committee, in order that accurate information might in the mean time be obtained respecting the extensive and important interests which would be affected by such a measure, and proposed this day

two months.

Earl Stanhope suggested one month, which was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and committed for this day month,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, April 24.

PETITION FROM GLASGOW RESPECTING THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord A. Hamilton presented a Petition from several merchants and manufacturers in Glasgow, setting forth,

"That in Glasgow, as well as in other commercial and manufacturing towns and cities of the empire, the late stagnation of trade has been attended with the most calamitous effects; that the number of bankruptcies has been unprecedented, the demand for manufactures limited, and the distresses of the workmen most afflicting; and that, although the sufferings of the petitioners, and the distresses of the people, might not perhaps have been altogether prevented, it appears to the petitioners that they would have been greatly mitigated by adhering to the established laws of neutral commerce, the loss of the American market for our manufactures would not then have been added to that of the greater part of Europe, and our commodities might more easily have reached even the ports of our enemies through circuitous channels; and that the petitioners beg leave, with all humility, to represent to the House, that the rights of neutrals, as recognized by the practice of Europe, are of the most essential advantage to commercial nations when unfortunately engaged in war; and, in the pregent circumstances of Britain, excluded as she has been from many of her accustomed and most extensive markets, the recognition of those rights would be more beneficial to her than even to those by whom

the trade might be carried on; and that the petitioners, reasoning on these general views of commercial policy, could not approve of the attempt, by retaliatory measures affecting neutrals, to force the enemy to relinquish his unjust attack upon our manufacturing and colonial interests: but, while there was any prospect of this object being accomplished, they did not presume to oppose their opinion to what seemed to be considered as the general policy of the state; now, however, that the trial has been made, and has failed; now that experience has shewn that neither the ruin of his merchants can prevail upon our enemy to relax his anti-commercial system, nor the scarcity on the continent of commodities believed to be indispensable, can induce the enthralled nations to throw off the yoke, the petitioners apprehend that measures proved to be detrimental to our own interests, and inefficient against the enemy, should at length be abandoned; and praying the House to take such steps, as to them may seem best, for procuring the recall of those Orders in Council, by which the usual commerce of neutral states has been impeded, and for reverting to the enlightened policy of former times."

Ördered to lie upon the table.

MR. GRATTAN'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Catholic Petitions. The order being read at the table,

Sir William Scott rose and said :-Sir, before I proceed to the few observations which I think it necessary to offer upon the subject now before you, I feel it right, in the first place, to take notice of some observations which fell in the course of last night's debate, from an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, touching a Petition which I had the honour to present from the University of Oxford, against the claims of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. But however brilliant the talents displayed by that hon. gentleman in the sarcasms which he was pleased to cast upon the proceedings of that University on this occasion, it must be confessed that in those sarcasms he has not displayed much of filial affection for the place of his education. The attack was most undeserved, and I beg leave to

refer it to any man's observation, whether he really thinks the public sentiment has, in any degree, altered upon this subject. I would ask, is there any alteration for the better in the question itself? If I seek for any alteration in the language of the petitioners, as a new ground for the anticipa tion of success, I find none; for so far from offering any security for the protection of the Established Church, they obstinately withhold even those securities which they were formerly ready to concede. I have heard of the necessity of securities guaranteed by the most enlightened advocate of this cause, and offered by the petitioners; but these they now retract. I have looked at this question, so important, in a view to our political and religious interests: I have observed the disposition of the parties urging these claims, and I own that I see nothing on their parts which appears like a disposition to afford proper securities to the Established Church. On the contrary, they seem to me to be anxious, not only for the unconditional attainment of civil privileges and power in the state, but also to gain for their religion a marked and public encouragement. What then is the duty of those who wish well to the established religion? Will it not be for them to consider whether this marked and public encouragement to the Catholics may not operate as a marked and public discouragement to the Established Church?

There was a time, Sir, and not many years ago, when it was held in this country to be a fundamental principle of civil polity, that where a religious establishment is formed consistent with the general principles of the nation, such an establishment should be supported with the utmost tenacity, as the basis, upon which rests the security of the state; but we are now told that such notions are quite obsolete that there should be no religious distinctions whatever, no peculiar protection to the Established Church, while, at other times, though the propriety of a peculiar protection was admitted, it was at the same time gravely contended, that this protection might very safely be entrusted to persons of a very different faith. Now, Sir, I would ask gentlemen whether they seriously think a Roman Catholic chancellor, Roman Catholic privy counsellors, or Roman Catholic legislators, could be considered as faithful guardians to the Protestant religion in this country? I do not mean to put this question with any purpose of irritating the feelings of gen

tlemen, as I do admit that there are many persons of the Catholic persuasion, who are men of great private worth, but I cannot withhold my own opinion, that if the Catholics are true to the principles of their faith, there is nothing which they can have more at heart than the complete extinction of the Protestant religion, and when I look to the genius of the Catholic religion, the exclusive spirit which universally pervades it-when I look at its general doctrines, that salvation is not to be had out of the pale of its Church, I cannot contemplate, without alarm, the admission of the Roman Catholics as the guardians of a Protestant establishment. It may as well be asserted, that the Church would be as safe in the hands devoted to its destruction, as under the guardianship of those devoted to its protection. Seeing, therefore, Sir, no possibility of acceding to such a principle, I have the strongest objection to going into the proposed committee.

It has been stated, that the Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland are hostile to the established religion, and yet are admitted into the highest offices of the state; but yet, Sir, I think this argument has no bearing upon the question, nor is it any fair ground to shew that the Presbyterians may not safely be trusted, for there is a principle of union amongst the Protestant sects in all their varieties, which must be friendly to a Protestant establishment; whereas the Roman Catholics, if they hold the sentiments professed for them by their own most approved authors, they must be anxious for the destruction of the Protestant establishment, and the erection of their own upon its ruins. The question, then, comes to this, whether for the purposes of civil government, one religion be not as good as another, or whether, if one be more proper than another, the protection of that one ought to be entrusted to those who must be necessarily anxious for its destruction, instead of those who are most interested in its preservation? Now, Sir, though I am unwilling to say any thing that might have a tendency to awaken religious animosity, I must observe, that I cannot consider this as a mere political question, for it is a religious one also; and every man who so considers it, ought to look into his own mind, and weigh gravely whether it would be right to relax the severities of the established religion. But even in a political view, historical reflection must recal many

events, the contemplation of which cannot be favourable to these claims of the Catholics. It may be easy to compose declamations upon shewy theoretical principles; but it is not quite so easy to give them a safe and practical operation. I would therefore advise every man to reflect on the history of the past, and then ask himself how far it can be prudent to give an accession of political power to the Catholics.

It has been suggested, Sir, that this measure would reconcile all differences, and produce a cordial union amongst all parties. If I could view it in that light, I would be one of its warmest advocates, but I can see no hopes of its producing any such beneficial effects. On the contrary, Sir, I think the appointment of this committee would only tend to agitate and disturb the public mind, that it would open a new focus of inflammable matter, the more dangerous, because the lowest as well as the highest classes would be involved in the general ferment; and a source would be established for perpetual party differences. Sir, the House has been told, that if these claims are not granted, Ireland is lost. This is a prophecy, however, which I do not clearly understand, and affords an argument in my view which, though used in favour of your petitioners, should operate directly against them. What are we to understand from it? Do hon. gentlemen mean to say that the Irish Catholics would desert their duty, and refuse to defend their country against foreign invasion, if their claims are rejected? Do gentlemen mean to insinuate, that they would themselves feel less inclined to support in such case the interests of their country? Does the allegiance of the Catholics then sit so loose upon them? I, who may be considered their opponent, do not join in this opinion of their advocates, because I hope they have a deeper sense of their duty. But if I still hear it asserted that Ireland in such a case would be lost, I must say that those whose allegiance sits so loose about them, are the very last who should be entrusted with any great portion of political power. Sir, I must once more express my regret at the frequent agitation of this question; and I think it would be more for the interest of the petitioners themselves that it should not thus repeatedly be pressed forward. I think it is extremely desirable that the question should be set at rest one way or another. (VOL. XXII.)

Let the petitioners try the effect of time, and await the arrival of a period when perhaps parties may be brought nearer to a mutual acquiescence, and their case may be considered under circumstances more favourable to their hopes than they can now acquire by a restless importunity. I give great credit to the leading advocates of this measure on the other side of this question, who have refrained from urging this subject when they themselves were in administration; and I hope their good sense and reflection will teach them to discourage it henceforward, and thereby shew that their conduct has not changed merely with their situation, and that they will not attempt to make this subject a badge of political party and a means of getting into power.

Right Hon. W. Elliot.- Sir, no person who has not the ties of filial piety and attachment to it, can hold the University of Oxford in higher veneration than I do; nor can any one more readily subscribe to the opinions which my right hon. and learned friend has claimed for that great and ancient seminary, in its selection of its representatives. In one point of view, perhaps, the very Petition on the table may be considered as creditable to it, because it marks the gradual conquest which that learned body is making over its own prejudices. On former occasions it has been unanimous: in the present instance, by the acknowledgment of my right hon. and learned friend, it has been much divided in its opinion. It has also been very tardy with its Petition; and even with this delay, time has scarcely been given for the collection of the sentiments of the distant members of the University. All this is good. It shews the march and progress of truth and reason on this great cause. In the few observations with which I mean to trouble the House, on this most momentous topic, I must beg to be understood as disclaiming all notion of resting the merits of the question on any ground of abstract right. Religious toleration is, in my view of the subject, (certainly at least so far as it has reference to qualifications for civil offices,) a matter of moral and political prudence. If the laws alluded to are necessary for the security of the state, no doubt they ought to be retained, perhaps strengthened and confirm ed. But if on the contrary, the public safety does not demand their continuance, and if (as I certainly think) their repeal (3 K)