But supposing the sense of the nation was divided on the subject, this furnished, in his mind, a decisive argument for finishing the controversy by the wisdom of Parliament: if they found the country in a dispute, it was their duty to terminate it as soon as possible. The truth was, that too many at present of those who enjoyed the privileges of the constitution, founded their arguments for exclusion, on topics which affronted and insulted those who were placed out of this constitution; the controversy, therefore, must proceed to mischief, unless the wisdom of Parliament interfered. He was convinced that many people in England, who signed these Anti-catholic petitions, did not understand the ultimate object to which they led; but were influenced by misconceptions and prejudices. If, for instance, they were asked, in plain terms, whether they believe the Catholics were enemies to liberty, and disaffected to government? he had little doubt they would answer in the negative; but, one opposition naturally begot another, and at length, by the mutual warmth of controversy, it might become a question, whether one-fifth of the population was well affected to the government or not. There was no saying where such disputes might end. He regretted that so many of the clergy had shown a disposition to place the security of the church on the principles of exclusion; by so doing, they did all that lay in their power to place it on principles which might be fatal to its existence. With respect to the enemies to the Catholic cause, what had they done? They had petitioned for a monopoly, and said that the concession of the claims would be dangerous. It was a subject fatal to the Protestant monopoly and the Protestant church. This party were for a perpetual division, and desired Parliament to exclude a great portion of the people from the benefits of the constitution; and upon what grounds, upon an argument that tended ultimately to force them out of the empire.

He would again revert shortly to the arguments that were clothed, with the sacred name of the act of settlement. He allowed, that it was a point of the act of settlement to exclude the Catholics, but it was by no means an essential part which could admit of no alteration. In the act of union with Scotland, the oath was declared to be subject to future regulation; for it was declared, that it should remain as it then was, until otherwise provided for by Parliament. This sufficiently manifested the power of Parliament to interfere: and when his opponents set forth the consecration of the act of settlement, as an insuperable barrier, he should reply to them with this provisional act of Parliament, which declared, that the oath

was not fundamental, but subject to future regulation. At the time when the union with Ireland was under consideration, it did not appear that it was deemed fundamental. Some of those who were concerned in that measure were still alive, and in the House, and were they, now that they had attained their object in gaining the union, prepared to say, that they looked upon that this day to be fundamental which they then allowed to be provisionary?

But the argument upon which some honourable gentleman mainly rested, was the incompatibility of all the plans that had been proposed. His answer was, that a diversity of opinion, as to the mode of effecting Catholic emancipation, was by no means fatal to unity of principle with regard to the object. All were agreed, that the church of England, the church of Scotland, and the church of Ireland, should be amply secured and maintained. Here, at least, was concord. If you are agreed that the Catholic religion was consistent with the welfare of the state, you might have different modes of conciliation, but you were agreed as to one essential point. His right honourable friend under the gallery (Sir J. C. Hippesley), and himself, might think differently as to the particular limitations and exceptions; any plan indeed to be proposed, would of course be the subject of modification, and a matter of debate. When the House resolved to go into the committee, they, in fact, decided that Catholic emancipation, however a question of difficulty, was not a question of impossibility. The question, indeed, before the committee, might be comprehended under three heads, the first was, give full liberty to the Catholics; the second, establish the church, by every requisite security; and the third, impose no conditions incompatible with the Catholic faith. These were the heads of what he should have to propose.

It had been said, that Mr. Pitt had sunk under the difficulties which the subject presented; and as a proof of this it was added, that he never had communicated his plan. But it was certain, that Mr. Pitt went out of office in 1801, not because his plan was impracticable, but from other well known obstacles. He did not think so in 1799, or in 1800, and from his communication through the late Marquis Cornwallis to the Catholics, it did not appear that he deemed the measure impracticable in the following year. That person, on that occasion, sent the letter he alluded to, to the Catholics of Ireland, in which he told them, that "by acting with moderation, and pursuing a loyal and dutiful line of conduct, they would afford additional grounds of argument to the growing number of their advocates in this country, till their object was

ultimately attained." Such was the language of the letter which Mr. Pitt caused to be transmitted to Lord Fingall, Dr. Troy, and others. What, again, did the Marquis Cornwallis say on that very occasion? He gave his formal opinion, annexed to the same communication, that the measure of emancipation was necessary for securing the connection between Great Britain and Ireland. Again, when the question was brought forward by Mr. Fox in 1805, there was nothing in the language of Mr. Pitt to show that he considered the measure impracticable. He said, there was a bar to its agitation, the nature of which was sufficiently understood, but never that it was impracticable. He differed as to the right, but not as to any thing that concerned the question as a measure of regulation. He even alluded to the plan which he had entertained, as consisting of a variety of regulations. Nine months after this period Mr. Pitt died; so that we are now called upon to believe, that what he contemplated as practicable for six years, within these nine short months he found out to be impracticable. But what were the difficulties under which the mind of Mr. Pitt was supposed to sink? Why, they were the difficulties of promoting meritorious Catholic officers on the staff of the army; of admitting such men as Lord Fingall into the House of Peers, and as Sir E. Bellow into the House of Commons! These were the mighty difficulties under which his mind was supposed to have sunk, he who had the ability to destroy 70 Irish boroughs! There was a difficulty started in the Irish Parliament, at the time when it was proposed to grant the Catholics the right of voting at elections; it was then said, that an inundation of Popery would sweep away every thing before it. But what were the effects of this restoration of Catholic rights? Ireland had evidently gained by it; the elections were more free and independent; they were now founded not on monopoly, but on property and respectability.

In addition to Mr. Pitt, he begged leave to name Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Windham, distinguished statesmen and philosophers, and strenuous supporters of the Catholic claims. He might also enumerate men of learning, like the bishop of Llandaff, and the bishop of Norwich, a name that would be ever respected, and which was dear to every friend of religious liberty and social freedom. It was also remarkable, that the Lord-lieutenants of Ireland, for the last 50 years, were uniformly in favour of them. Lord Fitzwilliam was decidedly so: Lord Camden, who went over to Ireland with opposite sentiments, and who lived in that country at a most trying time, when he could not avoid knowing the opinions of the Catho

lics, was ultimately for concession. He, too, was the friend of Mr. Pitt, and might be supposed not unacquainted with the sentiments of that individual. Lord Cornwallis publicly declared it esentially necessary for preserving the connection between Great Britain and Ireland. This was the practical conclusion formed by a statesman and a soldier, at a most critical period of Irish history, and was entitled to the utmost respect. Lord Hardwicke did not go over a friend to the measure; but after some years' residence as Lord-lieutenant, he altered his opinion, and now supported it by his vote. His right honourable friend, the late secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. Pole), had, at first, opposed the Catholics on account of the obstacles that existed in certain quarters to the granting their claims; but when, by the removal of the restrictions on the Prince Regent, such obstacles were done away, and after his right honourable friend had derived from five years' official residence in Ireland a high degree of experience on this subject, he had voted in favour of the Catholics, and had stated, that, in his opinion, the country could not do well without some measure of the kind. He had, for this, been charged, and, in his opinion, unfairly, with inconsistency. His right honourable friend's mind was not stationary, like the minds of those who made this idle accusation. He showed that it was progressive; and he was right, for time and circumstances had operated very powerfully in favour of the Catholic question.

There was a time when Roman Catholic emancipation would not have been heard of without horror; but the intenseness of the prejudice as had been stated by an honourable gentleman on a former night, the intenseness of the prejudice had been weakened. Those professing the two religions had advanced much nearer to each other in spirit; so that, though they still differed on points of faith, they were much more likely than formerly to coalesce in other respects. He intended to propose certain resolutions, 1st, That the Catholic disabilities should be removed. 2d, That the establishments in church and state ought to be effectually secured; and he should then propose regulations for the ecclesiastical courts, and other matters, and an oath against foreign influence. It might be demanded of him to state the regulations; but he would not, and for this reason, that under pretence of opposing these regulations, some gentlemen would oppose the principle. He would only say, that if any gentleman on the other side proposed any regulation of security not trenching on the Catholic religion, he would support it; for he valued the principle so much, that he would not hazard its loss by

precipitation and punctilio. His object was to lay the seminal principle of making the inhabitants of the empire an united people. The language we ought to hold was, we are friends to your liberty, and to our own religion. Suppose he was to introduce a clause into the preamble of his bill, saying, it was necessary that the Protestant succession should be secured, in order to obtain the concurrence of some of those who

opposed his measure, would they not then admit that to be provisional now, and not fundamental, which they formerly, in their comments on the bill of rights, contended to be fundamental, and not provisionary? For his own part, he must say that he valued the principle too much to surrender, or lose it for reasons of regulation. If once admitted, it would make the empire one, for it was a principle of union and regeneration.

If the resolutions were agreed to, he should then move for leave to bring in a bill: but he was not desirous of precipitating the measure. He thought that time ought to be given for men's spirits to cool; that they should not legislate without consulting the feelings of the people; and that, in the mean time, they should repose upon the good sense of both countries; and not take any step that would deprive the cause of the benefit of that good sense. It might be asked, why the Catholics did not protest against the violence of some of their own body? The answer was, that Parliament had not given them encouragement. But when the arm of Parliament should be once stretched out to the Catholics, there would be many wise and moderate enough to embrace it. By thus evincing a conciliatory disposition towards the Catholics, Parliament would, at all events, show that the fault did not lie with them, should the measure prove unsuccessful. Let them send out the dove, and she will bring back the olive.

The right honourable gentleman concluded, by moving, "That, with a view to such an adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the security of the established church, and to the ultimate concord of all classes of His Majesty's subjects, it is highly advisable to provide for the removal of the civil and military disqualifications, under which His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour; with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as may be found necessary for preserving, unalterably, the Protestant succession to the Crown, according to the act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, and for maintaining, inviolable, the Protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof; and the church of Scotland, and the doctrine,