judicial to the interests of the church. The council of Bazil was the next, and its decrees were admitted as well as the rest. The decrees of the council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to 1563, confirmed the decrees of the former councils: and yet these two were strongly recommended in 1809 by the Maynooth professor, cum 'rationibus dogmatum.' The consequence of the proceedings of the council of Constance confirmed by the latter, was, that John Huss and his companion, even in the presence of the emperor himself, whose protection they had, were burned, burned alive, and yet the professor at Maynooth took pains to preach obedience to the decrees of these councils. This council of Trent was defended by professor Delahoy, as a' manuale doctrina' and ' compendium omnium precedentium conciliorum.' Here was a set of Christians to be put on a level with the Protestants-a set of men who were the notorious and unchangeable enemies of the Protestants, and who acknowledged the supremacy of a foreign potentate. They professed not to burn the heretics, for the church never shed blood, they only turned them over to the secular arm, which finished what the church had begun. These were the unchangeable decrees which the professor defended in the fullest manner. Here, then, was a sect demanding of parliament to admit them to all the privileges of Protestants in a Protestant country ;-a sect which still avowed and defended tenets and doctrines which must render them irreconcilable enemies to the Protestants, and which was, besides, subject to a foreign power. But if, as they said, these decrees of councils were as unchangeable and binding as the holy Scriptures, he again asked, by what oaths imposed by Protestants could these people be bound? It was perfectly absurd to expect, that they should constitute any security whatever. There was an establishment for which they annually voted the supplies by which it was maintained, while those connected with it, refused to take the Oath of Supremacy required by their own government, and acknowledged the supremacy of a foreign potentate. If all the Catholics asked were granted tomorrow, they would still refuse to take this oath. Why did they not take the Oath of Supremacy? If they took that oath, there might, perhaps, be but little difference in that House on the subject. But then it was argued in their favour, that even their refusal to take that oath proved,

that they had a regard to oaths imposed by Protestants; for nothing but such oaths had stood in the way of their attaining the object of their wishes. This, however, was easily explained. They made a distinction in their oaths. The Oath of Supremacy, for instance, related to an article of faith; and to take such an oath would be considered as an abjuration of their whole religion in other matters they would take oaths without holding themselves bound to fulfil the engagements thus contracted; for other oaths, according to Dr. Troy, and all their other theologians, were not binding, according to the decrees of the church, which were unchangeable. He had already exposed the folly of supposing these decrees were abrogated, because they were ancient, or obsolete, as they had been called. They might as well say the law of our Saviour was obsolete: and no more attended to, as contend that because these decrees were old they were not considered binding. If these were held to be abrogated because twelve hundred years had passed since they were issued, it might with equal reason be contended that the law of our Saviour was also abrogated, as that was so much older. They valued decrees according to their antiquity, and to forsake a point of ancient faith was esteemed a mortal sin. Their slavery to the Pope was an open, notorious, undeniable doctrine, for he had with his own hand extracted it from their books of theology. The Catholic bishops were slaves to the Pope, as the Catholic clergy were to them, and in Catholic countries the lower classes were slaves to the clergy, while the Pope himself was the slave of Buonaparté. Buonaparté had made him subservient to all his wishes. He had got him to crown him, and to declare that no foreign bishop should have power in his dominions. Respecting these, the language of Buonaparté was, "that they had employed their spiritual influence to injure him, and that it had been demonstrated to him, (the learned doctor begged the House particularly to attend to this) that the exercise of such power as they had possessed in his dominions was inconsistent with the interests aud independence of France, and the safety and dignity of his throne." This conqueror had declared, according to the Moniteur, sometime during the year 1809, that it was unsafe to allow any foreign bishop to have influence in his dominions, for they had employed their spiritual

power to injure him, and he conceived that the spiritual superiority of a foreign prince was hurtful to the glory of France. This had been the opinion of Buonaparté; he had refused to suffer foreign influence in France, and had obliged the Pope to reside there, and would not suffer him to stir out of his dominion. Was it consistent then that in a Protestant country the Pope should be allowed to have greater authority than even in Catholic countries? In fact, the Pope was permitted to exercise a much higher authority over the Irish Roman Catholic clergy, than he was allowed to maintain over the clergy of France. Here, then, was a sect which would be satisfied with nothing short of placing the Pope on one side of the throne, and giving him a share in the government of the country; and upon such a people, they were talking of conferring political power and aiming at conciliation, which was utterly impossible. They had a manual, indeed, which directed them not to tell lies, and enforced some other moral duties; but that related only to the Roman Catholics themselves. To violate oaths imposed by heretics, when the good of their church required it, was with them neither a lie, nor breach of any moral duties. Such oaths, according to their doctrines, were absolute nullities. They thought that the Protestant religion ought not even to be tolerated. The learned doctor then proceeded severely to censure the Bill, and asserted it was of more consequence to Buonaparté to get this Act passed than to obtain twenty continental decrees. By means of this Act he might be able to stir up a revolution in this country and accomplish its ruin. This he could easily shew. Buonaparté named the Pope, the Pope the bishops over whom he had great power; the bishops named the clergy, with whom they could do what they pleased, and the clergy had boundless influence over the people; and, in fact, might be said to govern them. He now called upon the House to see what Buonaparté had done. He had not only got the nomination of the bishops into his own power, but he had prohibited the bishops from nominating a single priest without the approbation of the prefect of the province. Yet while this was done in France, a Catholic country, here all restrictions were to be removed, and Catholics were to be admitted to the highest offices of the state. In England they were desirous to place the Pope on one side of the throne, and

make him as it were a partner in the government. A manual had been read to the House which forbade lying and swearing, but that was between Catholic and Catholic; he apprehended it extended not to their connexions with heretics. He wished the House to look what had been the conduct of those who were to be thus favoured here in other countries. They would not tolerate the Protestant religion where they had power. For proof of this they had only to look at the first article of the New Constitution of Spain, where it was enacted that the Catholic religion should be the religion of that country, and no other religion should be tolerated. Another proof of this he had lately met with in a work which he had read, wherein it was stated (this was a fair specimen of the feeling of his Holiness to a Protestant people) that Buonaparté had proposed to the Pope that all religions should be tolerated and freely exercised in France. What had been the answer of the Pope-of the present Pope? The proposition was violently rejected, as being contrary to the canons of the Romish church, and as being likely to lead to the most shocking consequences. And for this his Holiness was highly praised in a work in three volumes, lately published by a Mr. Keating, or a Mr. Delahoy. The passage was to be found in the first volume, page 43. The right hon. gentleman who had amused the House so much on a former evening, had certainly displayed much wit and humour, but he (Dr. Duigenan) could not think this was a laughing matter, but on the contrary, the gravest and most important question that ever came before the House. To him it appeared a most serious question, affecting as it did the constitution of the country, as it had been since the year 1558, the first year of Elizabeth, when the oath of supremacy was first enacted, which afterwards, in the 5th of Elizabeth, every man was obliged to take by law before he could sit in parliament. The right hon. gentleman had stated it to have been the intention of Mr. Pitt to do something in favour of the Catholics, but from Mr. Pitt's own words, (which he quoted) it was clear he had no intention of admitting Catholics to places of trust and power. After this how the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) could think the clauses he had proposed founded on any thing that Mr. Pitt would have countenanced, he (Dr. Duigenan) did not know. He contended Mr. Pitt had never given such instructions to

lord Cornwallis representing the Catholics, as he had been stated to have given. He had himself heard Mr. Pitt deny having given such, and he (Dr. Duigenan) was satisfied he was too great a minister to do so, or think of placing known enemies to the state in places of trust and power. This was contrary to the whole conduct of his life, and such statements were prejudicial to the character of that renowned statesman. Mr. Pitt had never mentioned any specific plan and from his opposition to the attempt of Mr. Fox, in 1790, to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, as well as from several other passages in his speeches, it was evident that Mr. Pitt could not have consented to have given political power to those whose principles were inveterately hostile to the British constitution. It had been said, that Mr. Pitt had authorised the publication of certain statements, that the ministry who went out in 1800 would not accept of any situation in the government, unless large concessions were made to the Catholics. This, however, Mr. Pitt had openly denied; and lord Cornwallis had stated, that he had not the authority of Mr. Pitt for the publication of any such resolution on the part of the ministry. Mr. Pitt was too wise a minister ever to have admitted to parliament and the great offices of state those whose doctrines rendered it impossible for them to be loyal subjects. He hoped no gentleman would in future amuse himself with endeavours to unravel that wonderous statesman's designs: such a design was contrary to the tenor of his life, and to suppose it was an insult to his memory. He wished to know what could be the great grievances of which the Catholics had to complain just at this time, that they should publish a manifesto like that which they had just sent forth to the world, in which a noble lord, the judges (one excepted), and other distinguished persons, were treated with the most virulent abuse. This publication, too, contained menaces which, but for the countenance they had lately met with in this House, the Catholics would not have dared to have thrown out. But for this countenance and support, they would not have dared to act as they had acted; knowing their own impotence, they would have been more cautious, knowing that it took the Protestants but one month, in 1798, to put them completely down, and knowing that the Protestants were ready again to put them down in the same manner.

Every means had been resorted to, to swell the importance of the Catholics. Their numbers had been greatly exaggerated, and the House had been repeatedly told of the sorrows of five mil lions of their suffering brethren. The whole population of Ireland did not exceed four millions of persons, and it was admitted by the Catholics themselves, that in Ireland, there were 800,000 Protestants.-It had been stated that the estab lished church of Ireland cost the country annually 20,000,000l., which was transmitted out of the country to absentees, who were the bloodsuckers of the nation. The income of the established church, it appeared, on a careful calculation, did not exceed 382,000l. This exaggerated statement of the expence of the established church, was like their vain boasting of their numbers. In some parts of their late publications they represented themselves to be in a state of depression and extreme poverty, yet in others they made a most magnificent display of their numbers, their wealth, and their power, with as much regard to truth as was observed in their 20 million church expence story. They boasted of the greatness of the wealth and influence of the Roman Catholics, who had not above a 50th part of the real property of the country, and not a 10th of the personal property. In the same spirit they had represented the income of the Board of First Fruits to amount yearly to 20,000l. He was himself a member of the Board of First Fruits, and could take upon himself to say, that it had never yet exceeded 400l. per annum. He mentioned these things, to shew the monstrous falsehoods they were capable of sending forth to the world. It was said the Catholics were fighting our battles. He admitted that we had Irish troops in our armies. But as to the number of Roman Catholic soldiers and sailors,-instead of constituting one-half of our force, as had sometimes been stated, there was not in the army and navy, including militia, above one-eighth of the whole. A considerable misapprehension arose from considering the Irish as all Roman Catholics; whereas the whole of the officers, and one-half of the soldiers, were Irish Protestants. The cause of so many Roman Catholics being found in the army was, that the condition of the soldier was so much more eligible than that of the Irish peasantry at home, that their priests could not prevent them from enlisting.

In spite of them they would enlist; and, notwithstanding all that had been said of the advantages which the union of the Catholics and Protestants would give in adding to our military force, he was confident that the passing of this Bill would not cause one man to enter the army. In speaking of the Irish in the service, it was a common practice to assume that every Irishman must be a Catholic. Of the Irishmen now in our army and navy, half were Protestants. He hoped no one would be induced to vote for this Bill from the menacing tone of the Catholics. If they dared to stir, they would be put down in a month, as they had been put down on a former occasion. The learned gentleman, reverting to the Pope, observed, that he was much more formidable as the slave of Buonaparté, than when he was free. The argument that the present abject situation of the Pope must preclude all apprehensions was futile; he was never formidable from his temporal power, but from his influence over the minds of the people, and at present being the slave of Buonaparté, his influence was more to be dreaded than ever. He would now, if the prayer of the Catholics was granted, have to decide on the legitimacy of children, on the claims of Catholics to estates, to settle disputed titles, and this alone would give him great influence among them. His spiritual authority was necessarily attended with civil influence, as any one must perceive, who considered the power of excommunication, and that over their sacrament of marriage. He could not approve of this Bill. He could not consent to repeal the 1st and 5th of Elizabeth, the Acts of Uniformity, and the Test and Corporation Acts. these, which had been pronounced by our best lawyers to be the bulwarks of the constitution, were to be repealed, he wished to know where they would stop. With all the boasting of the Catholics, they had not among them a tenth part of the property of the country; and if this Bill were passed, there would be, he would not say in the next session of parliament, but in the course of two sessions, the most infamous impositions practised to procure the return of members to parliament by means of 40s. freeholders, What security could the Protestants have when those Roman Catholics were admitted into parliament, that they would not overturn all the oaths and other means which had been provided to secure their loyalty? Where could they stop if once they

brought such a party into parliament ? That it would be a considerable party, he had no doubt. A 40s. freeholder was generally a labourer who had a piece of land about an acre, or frequently less, for which he paid as high a rent as any other person would pay, but he paid it with his labour. On this he raised a little miserable hovel, which in Ireland was commonly called a cabin. To make this he built three mud walls, the fourth being supplied by the bank of a dry ditch. He made one hole in it, which he called window, and another which served for a door. The hole which served for a window, served also for a chimney to let out the smoke; and to keep out the cold of a night, these holes were stopped with hay. The owner of such a place goes and registers himself as a freeholder. He swears that he has a freehold of his own, worth 40s. a year-after payment of his rent, though, in fact, it was rented as high as it possibly could be, but then it was not paid in money but in labour. These freeholders had so much increased of late years, that in one county, where there were formerly 400 votes, there were now 11,000.-By which means the elective franchise was placed in the hands of the meanest of the populace. These practices would become still more prevalent if the Bill passed, and in less than 20 years the Roman Catholics would return 60 out of the 100 members, while 30 would be added to the party in England. The Catholics always, however they might differ in other things, in any thing that appertained to religion, stick together like a flock of bees. They would thus obtain a dangerous influence in the state, as they might be expected to say to the minister when he had any particular measure to carry, If you will do so and so for us, we will support you with such effect, that the opposition shall not dare to shew themselves; we will carry this favourite measure of your's for you, provided you in return enable us to accomplish the object which we have in view." They would get possession of all the places of trust and profit in Ireland, but they would not stop there. The petitions in favour of the Catholics had been signed by all those who were anxious the two countries should be separated. They wished to repeal the Union, and have the whole of the representation to themselves; and this gained, was it not to be expected they would try to do that which they had attempted in

the reign of James 2, to separate the two countries? In less than 20 years, if the Bill passed, that would be seen. This country would again have to send over an army to conquer Ireland. But if the separation should be effected, they ought to consider in time how Great Britain could stand alone in the present state of Europe. They ought to consider what might be the consequences of passing this Bill. For his own part he was now a very old man; he had lived past the time usually allotted to the life of man, even in the Scripture, and could not expect to live to see that which he feared, but at the close of his life he was sorry to see the constitution in danger. He had no chance of living to see these calamities: but he had a regard for the constitution, and for that reason he thought himself bound to give this warning. To shew the implacable hostility of the Catholic clergy, and their disloyalty to the crown and the state, he noticed their conduct in 1809. When the Catholics, at a synod held at Tulloch, in Ireland, by an unanimous resolution, approved of that bull of the Pope which confirmed the elevation of Buonaparté to the imperial crown of France, whereby they acknowledged that usurper, with whom we were at war as sovereign of France, to the exclusion of its lawful king, and sanctioned a system which deprived all those inhabitants of France of their estates who would not submit to the new order of things. This was not a concern of religion, but an act of disloyalty to their king. What right bad they to signify their approbation of that bull? It was done from a wish to conciliate Buonaparté with a view of procuring his assistance? The conduct of the Catholics had been such, that instead of giving what they did not at present possess, there were he thought good reasons for withdrawing the elective franchise from them. What could be expected from people of this description? It had been argued that as the elective franchise had been given to the Roman Catholics, they ought not to withhold the representative privilege. But in his opinion, the argument proved the reverse of what those who urged it intended it should prove. If the possession of the elective franchise rendered it necessary for Roman Catholics to have the representative privilege, then, in his opinion, they ought to be deprived even of the elective franchise. What right had they to acknowledge the supremacy of any foreign

power? If we were one nation, the people in both countries ought to be placed in this respect on the same terms. The Acts which it was proposed to repeal by the Bill, were the 1st and 5th of Elizabeth, the 25th of Charles, and also the 30th, commonly called the Corporation Act. But he would contend that the Regent was bound to preserve all these Acts. He wished to know how, consistently with the pledge given in the Coronation Oath, the sovereign could give his assent to the Bill. They all knew what had been the feeling of the King on the subject; and how could the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, do that for him, which had his reason been spared, he would not have done himself? It was idle to argue, that, if the two other branches of the legislature should agree to the measure, the sovereign would be bound to assent to it. That would be to make a cypher of the King: for the Houses of Parliament had no power to dispense with the obligation of the Coronation Oath. The right hon. and learned gentleman then took a review of the ar guments of a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunkett), ridiculing the nature of the corporation oaths; and opposed to his authority the opinion of a great constitutional lawyer, in the reign of William and Mary, when it was proposed to repeal the 30th of Charles 2. It was laid down then, that the Romanists ought to be contented with the protection of their persons and properties, and that if that Act were to be repealed, it would be attended with danger to the state. He had already adverted to the Oath of Allegiance, which contained a declaration that the Pope had no power in temporals. But that doctrine was contrary to the decision of their councils, and must, therefore, be considered by them of no validity. The Popes had exercised temporal power in the cases of Henry 3 and Henry 4, of France, and in the case of Henry 8, and Elizabeth, in England. When they asserted doctrines then, so contrary to what had been the practice of Popes and the authority of councils, did not the House feel the contempt in which their present declarations ought to be held? Then as to the opinions of their universities, a great deal had been said about the opinion which many foreign Catholic universities had given about certain points that were alleged to be tenets of their faith. He did not mind the opinions of those Catholic universities. There