committee, make our propositions to the Catholics, and impose nothing on them that was not perfectly agreeable to them. I have no doubt of their spirit of accommodation to every thing which is necessary for our security; but if we do not go into a committee, neither parties can make any proposition, and therefore I should suggest to the member, who put a question to me, that his instructions are for a committee; for without a committee no part of them whatever can be fulfilled.

·

Mr. Grattan took notice here of the injustice committed by those who charged the friends of Catholic emancipation with a design to subvert the Catholic clergy. What view could they have in taking such a part? What! to conspire against their widowed and unendowed condition, in order to rob them of their no power and their no magnificence. He then adverted to the argument which objected to the time, and said, he apprehended that the consent of the Pope would be necessary to any arrangement; that the Pope was now our friend, but if we delayed until there should be a French Pope, we should find a new embarrassment. Had the Catholic quéstion been carried in 1801, or in 1805, or in 1808, there would have been no embarrassment on that head. The gentlemen who say, that had you gone into a committee in 1808, you could not have obtained the veto at that time, speak without authority, and without information. The difficulty arises from the delay; and from a continuation of delay, a further difficulty, a difficulty for instance with regard to the nomination, may arise; so that a greater embarrassment would be found to justify the postponement of the question, than to support the present motion.

In adverting to that class who opposed the motion on the principle, he observed, that a right honourable gentleman had said, he did not think the Catholics would, in consequence of civil franchises, be satisfied, but that they would ambition the establishment of their own church, and the overthrow of ours. He founds this objection on imputed character. What evidence of this character? Bishops, Protestant bishops, are held to be tenacious of power; shall we disqualify the Protestant bishops therefore? Presbyterians are held to entertain republican tendencies; unjust, I think, the surmise; but shall we disqualify the Presbyterians? Will you receive such evidence to disqualify a great proportion of your people; and when the right honourable gentleman who comes forth on this subject, is evidence against a people with whom he is not acquainted? Had he been in Ireland, and witnessed the spare habits of the Catholic clergy and their exemplary frugality, or

had he recollected that this very clergy, whose love of magnificence alarms us, have receded from the suggestions of salary, he would not have trembled at their passion for magnificence. But they will learn the lesson, we are told, from the growth of power; and this prophecy is to be received as evidence against the civil rights of a great community; a prophecy tendered by a person to whom that community is unknown. He asked whether any community would be satisfied with half privileges; the Catholics, in 1793, were dissatisfied with bad government and half privileges. He observed, that though the right honourable gentleman would not agree to give more to the Catholics, yet he hoped he would agree that they should enjoy what they had, fully and freely, and therefore should, in the naval and military service, have the free exercise of their religion; he would therefore hope, that no officer should obstruct them. How monstrous and prophane would it be in any officer to do so; as if religion was like the manual, or the Prussian exercise; a military manoeuvre, to be done on the principle of uniformity, in which the soldier's God and conscience were perfectly unconnected. If such obstruction should take place, I make no doubt that ministers will interfere; and if they should not, that Parliament will. This appears a subject the more important, if we consider the numbers of Catholic seamen and soldiers. The Irish militia, some regiments of the line, the Irish yeomanry, and the sailors of some ships of the line, are wholly or in a great proportion Catholics. This the recruiting sergeant procures for you, without knowledge either of divinity or politics: that great practical statesman, and that profound practical divine, proceeds without book, and with his fife and drum fills your ranks and your ships with Catholics; he goes on the principle that sapientia prima stultitia caruisse. By stultitia I do not mean folly; I mean the wisdom of this right honourable gentleman, the divinity of that right honourable gentleman, and their great controversial abilities.

In adverting to the argument of the able civilian who opposed the motion, he observed, that the right honourable member had remarked that religion must be controlled by law. In answer to which he begged to say, that the religious sentiment was not a subject for legal control, and the reason was, because we could not; human legislatures could not make laws for heaven; no more for the truths of religion than for principles of motion. An act of Parliament with regard to the square of the hypotheneuse, or with regard to the eucharist, would be equally out of the region of the legislature; but if to preserve religious opinions an establishment should be made,

:

and that establishment connected with a foreign power, such communication would be a proper subject for the state; but even then the consideration should be, whether that communication was political, and if the communication was with the natural enemy of the country, as in the case of the French emperor, should. that happen, then the state would naturally consider such communication, though professedly spiritual, in fact, and in effect, political, and would naturally wish to make an arrangement which should guard the kingdom from such an influence. The right honourable gentleman says, it is impossible to do so; domestic nomination, he specifically says, is impossible. How we do try Catholic allegiance! sometimes we say no Catholic, no true Catholic, can bear true allegiance to a Protestant king; then we say, no true Catholic can submit to domestic nomination, but rather must suffer nomination of their bishops to be made by France. Thus we give, Protestant authority for Catholic rebellion; but I must observe, that such cannot be the principles of any divine religion: there cannot be any divine religion that compels the subject. to submit to the enemy of his country; and if any professor shall say so, I ask that professor, has there been a revolution in heaven, that he shall come to preach diabolical doctrines, as if God Almighty had abdicated, and Lucifer was on his throne. We know the world to be his work, and if any man contradicts his dispensations here, either by misrepresenting the laws of motion or of morals, we know such a preacher belies the Almighty, to damn his fellow-creatures. But the present question is not left to surmise; the fact is, that the nomination of Catholic is, almost universally, in considerable countries, domestic; the institution and the investiture must be in the Pope, but the nomination, with his consent, may be, and generally is domestic. In old France it was domestic in Austria in Russia in Prussia-in England, with regard to Canada, domestic; nay, more, it is now practically domestic in Ireland; the Catholic bishops, now in Ireland, nominate. The learned member quotes doctor Milner as authority against a veto, and against domestic nomination. Dr. Milner proposed both; his propositions, read by my right honourable friend, made the nomination domestic, and he proposed, expressly, a domestic nomination in the Irish Catholic bishops, and he calls them nominators. Speaking of doctor Milner, I beg to say, that I hope the sentiments which I have delivered may not be taken from doctor Milner's publication. In one of his letters, he supposes me to have said that canoni-, cal institution was the investiture of a foreign power, with the unqualified and arbitrary right of nomination to a portion of

-

our magistrates; a representation too extravagant to deserve observation. The right honourable gentleman having thus supposed domestic nomination impossible, and having considered the veto impossible also, corrects the danger. How? by disqualifying the laity; but as long as you disqualify the laity, you separate them from England. What then is to be our situation, according to the doctrine of the right honourable gentleman? a clergy connected with France, and a laity separated from England. You think it better to have French bishops in Ireland, than Irish Catholics in Parliament. This is a situation defended on account of its safety; a situation, in fact,, of the greatest peril; where the cure aggravates the disorder; where you correct an eventual communication with France, by a separation from England. To shew the better the nature of such a situation, I shall propose to the gentlemen opposing the motion, to lay before them the map of Europe, and let them be the arbiters of their own argument. There is Ireland, here England, and there France; the object must be to connect the Catholics of Ireland with England, and keep them separate from France. To accomplish this, I shall present to those gentlemen two lines, one of communication, and the other of separation. How will they apply them? will they draw the line of communication between France and Ireland, and of separation between Ireland and Great Britain; ecclesiastical communication between the Irish Catholics and France, and political separation between the Irish Catholics and Great Britain. If they draw the lines in that manner, they give up the empire, and if they do not, they renounce their argument.

The House then divided on Mr. Grattan's motion for a Committee Ayes 109, Noes 213; Majority 104.

Tellers for the Ayes, M. Barham, Mr. Parnell.

Noes, Mr. Long, Solicitor-general.

HIS MAJESTY'S ILLNESS.

December 21. 1810.

On the first of November, the two Houses of Parliament met in consequence of the King's inability to sign a commission for a further prorogation. No message being delivered from His Majesty's commissioners, the Speaker took the chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then informed the House of the malady which affected His Majesty, and moved, "that the House do adjourn to that day fortnight" (the 15th). On which day the House

met, but not in such numbers as was expected.

The Chancellor

of the Exchequer stated, that the opinion of His Majesty's physicians was, that he was in a state of progressive amendment; and moved, "that the House should adjourn for another fortnight." This was opposed by Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Archibald Hamilton, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Elliott, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Bathurst, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Fuller. On a division, the numbers were, for the adjournment 343, against it 58; majority 285. The House then adjourned to the 29th. On which day having assembled, Mr. Secretary Ryder presented the copy of the examination of the physicians attending his majesty, which was taken before the privy council. The paper was received and read: it contained the examinations of Doctors Halford Heberden, Willis, and Baillie; it stated the incapacity of His Majesty, his mental derangement; but the prospect of his speedy recovery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, "that the House should adjourn for fourteen days." This was opposed by Mr. Whitbread, Sir Francis Burdett, General Matthew, Mr. Adam, and Mr. Ponsonby, who proposed "the appointment of a committee to examine the physicians on the state of His Majesty's health." It was supported by Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Wilberforce; and on a division, there appeared for the adjournment 233, against it 129. On Mr. Ponsonby's motion for the appointment of a committee to examine the physicians, the numbers were, Ayes 137, Noes 230. The House then adjourned to the 13th of December; on which day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "for the appointment of a committee to examine the physicians;" which motion was agreed to. The report was presented and read on the 14th; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "that the House do, on the 20th, resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the state of the nation." He also stated, that it was his intention, on that day, to submit to the committee resolutions similar to those adopted in 1788; the two first stating His Majesty's indisposition, and the obligation on the House to supply the deficiency in the executive authority; the third, regarding the mode to provide a substitute for the royal authority, by way of bill. Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Sheridan stated their decided objections to the proposed mode; they instanced the case of the Revolution, on which occasion the House proceeded by address to the Prince of Orange. They also quoted the precedent of the Irish Parliament in 1789, who proceeded by an address to the Prince of Wales, on a similar indisposition of His Majesty. The call of the House was then ordered for the 20th; on which day the House resolved itself into a committee on the state of the nation; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then proposed his resolutions as follows:

"1. That it appears to this committee, that His Majesty is prevented, by his present indisposition, from coming to His Parliament, and from attending to public business; and that the personal exercise of the Royal Authority by His Majesty is thereby for the present interrupted.