Mr. Justice Day, another judge in that court, is known to be possessed of the most decided sentiments in favour of the franchises of the Catholics: he is my most early and intimate friend; a man of a sound understanding, and the best heart in the world: but it does not follow, because I respect the judges of the King's Bench, that I should not vote for a motion to go into the state of the nation, as if such a motion did of itself import their criminality; or, as if we ought not to enquire into the conduct of judges, supposing the fact to be that their decisions had been erroneous.

It is not, as had been asserted by the right honourable gentleman, the peculiar province of the House of Lords to take notice of the proceedings of the judges; it is the province of both Houses of Parliament, and the duty of the House of Commons not only to enquire into their proceedings, but, in the event of their misconduct, to address His Majesty for their removal. If the motion of the noble lord imported that, it was still constitutional; but his motion imports no such thing. Having thus answered the objections of the right honourable gentleman, to the comprehension of the motion, I beg leave to observe on his defence of the Irish administration. The right honourable gentleman has said, that, in point of law, they were right; and, that even if they should be found to be wrong in the point of law, they were justifiable, notwithstanding; he has not thought proper to go into the point of law, and in that respect I shall follow his example; it is not necessary for me to give any opinion on the legality of the point, which belongs to the profession; because, even if the delegates were mistaken in the law, the right honourable gentleman has furnished their apology; he has said, that should the government prove to have misconceived the law, they have acted under the authority of their lawyers; to which I beg leave to add, that should Lord Fingall have mistaken the law, he has acted under the authority of his lawyers. I am willing to give every credit to the constitutional advisers of the Crown; nobody admires more the abilities and the splendour of the Irish Attorney and Solicitor-general; I have acted with them in politics, and know their virtue; but yet I cannot withhold my tribute of praise and confidence to the counsel on the other side, and to their political virtue and professional ability: if then, the advice of counsel is to be an excuse for the state, so let it be for the delegates. Still less, are you to say with the right honourable gentleman, that the delegates have not only mistaken the law, but that, on account of such a mistake, the whole body of the Catholics is to remain in perpetual disability.

When Lord Fingall refused to the government to decline the chair, he was probably influenced by this sentiment, that, being advised by his counsel that the law was on his side, he could not abandon his brethren. You will further consider before you adopt such an idea, as would reject the claims of the Catholic body now, on account of the conduct of certain individuals among them; what has been the example which the Protestants have afforded, and which the Catholics themselves have been not only suffered to adopt, but have been in a very signal manner by the ministers of the Crown encouraged and rewarded. I allude to the numerous conventions which have at different times taken place in Ireland; the Protestant convention at Dungannon, in 1782, which was followed by a parliamentary claim of right; several Protestant conventions that came after; the Catholic convention of 1793, of which the delegates were received at court, their petitions presented to His Majesty, and by him recommended to the two Houses of Parliament, and attended by an acquiescence in their claims. It is extremely natural for the Catholics to look at such a mode of redress now, provided it could be done legally, being instructed by their counsel (which, according to the right honourable gentleman, is a sufficient apology); such a step was legal, and they naturally resorted to it: it is not necessary for me to say how far, in so doing, the delegates were legal, or justifiable; but it is sufficient for me to say, nothing in their proceedings can justify the denunciation of the other side, that the incapacities of the whole Catholic body should be prolonged. It is not my business to give an opinion on the conduct of the Catholic committee, which is now before the court, and must be decided by juries: they had been acquitted by one jury, and convicted by another, and future juries must decide; but I will not hesitate to pronounce one verdict on this question, namely, that we are guilty; we are guilty of all the violence we charge on that body; we have deprived threefourths of the people of Ireland of their civil and political qualifications, and now you are angry because they have spirit enough to tell you so.

With respect to the act in question, give me leave to say a little. I I gave it my decided opposition. I did so because it went to deprive the people of an effectual representative convention. It declares and enacts, that all representative conventions, assembled for the purpose of procuring an alteration of matters established in church or state, are unlawful assemblies. You will observe, the crime consists, not in delegation, but in that species of delegation which is accompanied with that confidence and power that constitutes representation.

The bill, in general, contains a reflection upon the past measures of Ireland, in obtaining her rights and privileges, and reflects on the brightest passages of her history. Those rights, the bill could not take back; it reflects upon the mode of acquiring them. There certainly had been too many conventions in Ireland; perhaps more might have been at that time projected; it was in consequence of that, the bill took place; a bill unnecessary on that account, because such future conventions might have been left to the law of the land; a bill, whose declaration questions the legality of the Revolution, and the bright consequences that followed that great measure; a bill, whose clauses, whether you consider the word "pretence" or the proviso that saves the right to petition, seem framed equally to perplex the government and the people. I beg to observe upon this part of the subject, that to the interposition of conventions, we owe our liberty; and to their infrequency, its tranquil preservation. It is a power I wish the people should retain, and seldom exercise.

With regard to the general question of disabilities, I see no reason to abate my conviction for any thing that had been introduced in the debate. The learned civilian (Sir J. Nichol) has produced his objections; but his objections, like those that had been made on former debates, carry with them no conviction. He has talked much of the right to impose incapacities. Whatever right this Parliament had over Ireland, arose from the union; and the great inducement by which the union was obtained, was the removal of those incapacities, and therefore you are, in honour, obliged to remove them. I have no hesitation to say, this Parliament has no right to disqualify the people of Ireland on account of their religion. Religion is the duty which they owe to God, independent of you or any human establishment. The learned civilian has said, that by the constitution, this was, and must be a Protestant House of Commons. In that I differ from the learned civilian toto cœlo. Before the 30th of Charles II. Catholics sat in Parliament. There is no law, or oath of religious uniformity, affecting either House of Parliament. The oath you take, does not swear you to any religion; a Deist may take it, an Atheist may take it, Lucifer might take it, but a Catholic cannot; and you have made the oath to exclude him, because you consider his religion an evidence of treason; that is, of his connection with a party, whose politics would overturn the succession to the crown. You have acquitted the Catholics of that charge. Your resolutions of thanks are nothing less. It remains then to repeal the law of disabilities, which has no other foundation except that supposition of treason and dis

affection. The learned civilian went on to say, that he would postpone the removal of those qualifications until the Irish peasant became more civilized. Nobody laments more than I do, the sad consequences of the English statutes, that took from Ireland her trade as well as her constitution: but I should do injustice to England and to Ireland, to say, that those acts of power have left the peasantry of Ireland barbarous; certainly, if the Irish peasant is poor, or in any degree barbarous, you are the cause; therefore, when gentlemen reflect upon the people of Ireland, they accuse England, and the cruel policy of their own country. But the learned civilian has aggravated the misconduct of England towards Ireland, when he said the Irish peasantry were barbarous. They are an affectionate and a faithful race of men; they are besides, his constituents, and, now by law, part of the Commons of the empire.

The learned civilian has said, that the Catholics have not been conciliated by concession. The learned civilian has received to that observation, from a right honourable gentleman, an answer brilliant and profound. Give me leave to add two facts, which will go to refute the learned civilian's objection: the repeal of some of the Catholic disabilities in 1793, was not followed up by a mildness on the part of administration; on the contrary, as the law relaxed, the Irish minister became more hostile. See at that time the publications of government, and its proceedings. The constitution was less hostile, and the Irish minister more so. Another fact I beg leave to observe, in answer to the learned civilian's objection, that, before the repeal, you had no Irish Catholic in your service, and since the repeal, they have swarmed into your ranks: so that the strength of your empire increased as your penalties diminished. The learned civilian has gone on to suppose a case where the King and the two Houses of Parliament were Catholics; and he asks, what should we then do? I answer, I cannot say. But let me suppose a case less supported by fancy, but more within the range of possibility. Let me suppose a French army landed in Ireland, what would the Catholics do? I say, fight the French; most certainly it is their interest and duty; but if they should not, you are the cause of it, and those ministers who continue to impose disqualifications on three-fourths of the people of Ireland. Let me suppose ministers impeached on such an event, for the loss of Ireland: this would be their defence: We hated the abomination of the mass, we trembled at the eucharist, and we were afraid of the Pope and the Virgin Mary! If these terrors would not be sufficient to

acquit the ministers, they ought not to be sufficient to convict the people.

A noble lord has objected to the mode of proceeding in the Catholic business, because we began by moving for a committee; give me leave to observe, it is the usual way of proceeding in matters that regard commerce, constitution, or religion. In Ireland, the commercial propositions began in a committee; in England, the final adjustment with Ireland began in a committee; the claim of right was referred to the two Houses of Parliament; they resolved themselves into a committee to take the subject into consideration; referred to that committee the Irish claim of right, and resolved, upon consideration thereof, that the English act, claiming a right to bind Ireland, should be repealed. The right honourable gentleman has called for some condition from the Catholic body, as a further security for the church; but I beg leave to observe to the right honourable gentleman, that he has no right to make any such demand, because he is an enemy to the repeal of the disqualifying acts, conditionally or unconditionally, and when he makes a demand, he only requires new matter for objection; but this I will say, in answer to that gentleman, that I conceive there is no impediment to prevent us from repealing the disabling code, with security for church and state, save only the opposition of His Majesty's

ministers.

When gentlemen ask for further security for the church, they do not express what security would satisfy them; but, indeed, they rather seem to suggest that there is no practicable security that would content them. Now give me leave to suggest, that there is one security which I believe to be indispensable. I beg leave to explain what this security is. The church, established by law in Ireland, is the church of England; but the established church, for the most part, in justice, should be of the religion of the people. The establishment of the church is not made for the King, nor for the lords and ladies of the court; it is made for the people: so it is in Scotland; in Ireland it is otherwise. You have established your own church in Ireland, and have made the people pay it; but you go farther, you disqualify three-fourths of Ireland for that church, the church of another country. Such is your argument; the better to secure the church you disqualify the people but if you wish to secure that church, repeal the disability; until then your church is established in injustice, and you create a question between the establishment of the church on the one side, and the privileges of the people on