were many instances of important cases left to their opinion, in which half of those universities were on one side and half on the other. This was the case when Henry 8, wished to divorce his queen Catharine, the opinions of those universities, Douay, Salamanca, Sorbonne, &c. had been taken on the subject; and one half decided that his marriage was invalid and incestuous, whilst the other half declared it to be lawful and perfect. The fact was, they were bribed on both sides-on one by the agents of Henry 8,-on the other by those of Charles 5; and it was remarkable that Bonner was one of the agents of Henry 8, in the distribution throughout Europe of the bribes to the universities. But as to the obligation of an oath, let themselves speak. Dr. Milner (a laugh) yes, Dr. Milner, notwithstanding the sardonic smile on the countenances of the hon. gentlemen-Dr. Milner, who was the general agent for all the Catholics of England and Ireland, maintained that the obligation of an oath was to be measured by expediency; and Dr. Lanegan, an Irish titular bishop, held nearly the same: in short, there was no such thing as holding them by any oaths; even the Doctor Subtilis of the right hon. gentleman who had the other night entertained the House with so much wit and humour-even that same doctor, Thomas Aquinas, held that an oath might be broken, if after having taken it a person should come to the knowledge of a fact which if he had known previously would have prevented him from taking it. But the same doctrine had at a still later period been maintained by the Pope: when to appease an insurrection of his subjects in Hungary, the emperor of Germany had entered into a treaty with them, and took an oath to observe it faithfully, the Pope in 1712 is sued a bull, declaring both the stipulations of the treaty and the obligation of the oath to be void. He objected, therefore, to the whole of the Bill, and particularly to the amendments of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning.) These amend ments provided, that certain commissioners should be bound by an oath not to recommend any individual to a bishopric whom they should not believe to be loyal. This was the only security provided. But it was impossible they could be loyal whilst they acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, unless loyalty to the Pope were meant. When the Veto was rejected, the right hon. gentleman was put to it to find

out some other security. The Veto gave to the crown an absolute nomination of the Roman Catholic bishops, but the right hon. gentleman's amendments gave the crown no power, though they would give to the commissioners some interest. The clauses, however, which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had thought such ample security, were disapproved by the Catholic clergy; and Dr. Troy had publicly said that he considered those clauses respecting the church as worse than the Veto. The Veto, it was to be observed, had been objected to, because it gave a power to the crown to controul the appointment of the bishops. The substitute proposed for this was the communication of private intelligence by the bishops, &c. to the Secretary of State, of any bulls, &c. What power, however, did this give to the crown, except that it might turn into great advantage to the bishops themselves?-But supposing any person to fail in fairly and fully communicating all such information, the only punishment was that they should be sent out of the kingdom, without any provision even being made as to the mode in which he should be sent out. Even should the Bill as it now stood pass, he was well convinced it would not give satisfaction to the Catholic Board, who would at once say, that they could not approve of it because the nomination of the bishops belonged to the Pope. He saw even by the papers received this day, that Dr. Troy had sent a deputation to the Catholics to intimate his entire disapprobation of the Bill.-[" It is not so" observed a member sitting near the learned gentleman.]-He had seen it stated in the public papers, and had no other authority for his assertion. Under all these circumstances he should feel it his duty to move, that instead of now' the " Bill be read a second time this day three months."

Mr. Charles Grant, jun.

Sir;-In presuming to offer myself to your notice, I do not intend to enter into the theological topics which have been urged by the right hon. and learned gentleman. I should not indeed, under any circumstances, feel myself qualified to do so; at present, I am relieved from the obligation of making the attempt, because, and I say it with the most sincere deference for the hon. gentleman, for whose venerable age and many virtues I have the highest respect, I think that I heard the

policy which seemed to tremble only lest the sorrows of that period should be too soon forgotten. We invented a system of which it was the merit to keep alive those animosities, to revive what was cold, to renew what was fading, and thus to stamp afresh on every generation the crimes and follies of the preceding. We wished to transfuse that spirit into the genius of our civil liberties. We polluted the code of the national legislature with its effusions. We attempted to make it immor tal by uniting it with the immortality of the constitution, and hung the bloody spoils of those unhallowed victories round the altars of a pure and beneficent faith. That system has completely answered its purpose. It has succeeded in correcting the influence of time, in rescuing extinguished crimes and decaying resentments from oblivion; and in thus transmitting, not only unimpaired, but strengthened, from age to age, all the anguish and indignation of the first defeat, all the flush and wantonness of the first conquest. We see its effects in the practical developement of that fatal watch-word, the Protestant ascendancy. By this expression, I do not mean that just ascendancy of mild laws and humane government which is implied in the very formation of every society; and which must peculiarly be maintained in Ireland, so long as the Protestant is the established religion of that country. I do not mean that ascendancy which is perfectly consistent with the utmost benevolence between the subject and the ruler, which tends to cherish a spirit not of slavish submission nor yet of indignant resistance; but of generous and unbought loyalty. I mean that other ascendancy which is grounded on contempt and suspicion and hatred; which exalts one class on the ruins of another; which mixes itself with the daily intercourse of man and man; which poisons the whole course of life, civil and domestic; which operates as a standing insult to the Catholics, as a fresh triumph daily renewed to the Protestants; and which even in the hour of mirth and conviviality reminds the Catholics that they are a vanquished people. So long as this ascendancy is maintained, there will be always a bar to the improvement of Ireland. I know there are other evils of which she has reason to complain. I am happy to find that these evils have excited the serious attention of the legislature; and I trust they will be to a great degree removed by the benevolent mea(VOL. XXVI.)

sures which are now in progress; but while this vindictive principle is allowed to operate, it will, I fear, tend very much to retard, if not to defeat the effect of those measures. It is in vain that you attempt to improve, to conciliate, to civilize; amidst the profusion of all your benefits, there is one region beyond the range of kindness; there is one barren spot which no blessed influence can visit, which no conciliation can reach, no benevolence ameliorate. And supposing, that in every other respect you succeeded in securing the affections of Ireland, still, while this remains, you are never safe. If at any time (and no government is exempt from this contingency) a serious cause of dissatisfaction should be given, you have before hand provided a rallying-point for all such discontents. You have prepared a fortress, in which the unburied resentments may be treasured up and reserved for the day of vengeance, and in which every malignant propensity may find a congenial climate. Every minor grief, every inferior sorrow will here fly for shelter and protection. You cannot excite a single passion, without striking the chord to which all the strong passions reply. You cannot awake a single feeling of jealousy without rousing a host of animosities that ever keep watch round the master grievance. If under such circumstances, we hope that the other means of conciliation which we may have successfully used, will be effectual to counteract any evil consequences of popular discontent; I fear a slight knowledge of human nature will prove that hope to be unfounded. For these considerations of benefits received and obligations incurred, do indeed, in the hour of peace and good will, conciliate and unite men; but in the moment of irritation they serve only to exasperate discontent and add bitterness to hostility. Quæres apud concordes vincula caritatis, apud insensos incita'menta irarum sunt.'

But it is said, that the penal code has in fact, as to its really obnoxious part, been repealed, and that these arguments are therefore inapplicable. I know, Sir, that the system of which we are speaking, has, in a great measure, been abandoned; but it is not all abandoned. The spirit. still lives; the principle is active and avowed. So long as a fragment of it remains, the same mind will haunt the ruins. There will be always something to check harmony and confidence, something to (K)

alienate and irritate. In order to establish

a new system, we must begin by ploughing up the foundations of the old. But to Confess the truth, that part of this system which is still preserved, appears to me at least as objectionable in principle and as galling in practice as any of those which have been exploded. I allude to the ex

clusion of the Catholics from this House. Although this exclusion is approved by some very high authorities to which every man gladly pays deference; I must regard it as a violation of the first principle of the constitution. The constitution requires that the representatives should be chosen by the electors from among their own body. The expulsion of the Catholics from the House of Commons seems to me to have been (if I may so speak) the most overt act of expulsion from the privileges and rights of the constitution that could have been committed. I believe it is one feature in the character of the lower classes of the Irish, (at least in some parts of the country.) that they have no sense of the moral obligation of obeying the laws. I do not bring this as a charge against that people. I mention it with pity and regret. It is an effect of the system; and the great cause of it undoubtedly is, that they feel no identity of interest with the power from which the laws issue-they feel that the laws do not flow from themselves, that they are enacted by men with whom they have no common points, who differ from them in manners and habits, and above all, in religion; and who precisely on account of that difference forbid them to share in the legislation. From such impressions, is it surprising if such consequences should foilow?-But how will you correct this evil? -Give them a fellow-feeling with the government. Give them to know that there is a spirit in parliament which can sympathise with theirs. Let them regard the acts of the legislature as flowing from their own body through their representatives.

Sir; I do not wish to dwell upon the shame of my country; but it is lamenta ble to consider how few have been the advantages which Ireland has reaped from her intercourse with England. Since the commencement of that intercourse, England has advanced in prosperity; she has acquired renown; she has achieved greatness by sea and land;(she has suffered indeed some reverses of fortune; but on the whole, her path has been a

stream of light and fame. What a mournful contrast to this spectacle does afflicted Ireland present! There it is the same dark succession of crime and miserya dismal monotony of inflictions and penalties; or if there be any variety, it is the variety which springs from more intense suffering, and aggravated oppression. How melancholy is it that those periods of our history to which we recur with the fondest exultation, should to her be memorials of a very different meaning! Every fresh æra of our greatness has to her been a new era of depression. Our very blessings have worn to her a withering aspect. Her humiliation has always kept pace with our aggrandisement:

"In equal paths our guilt and glory ran."

Look back, Sirf if the retrospect be not too painful, I will not say to our first acquaintance with that kingdom, but look to the reign of Elizabeth, to us a reign of glory, to Ireland a reign of terror. Look at the Restoration, to us a day of joy, to Ireland signalised only by the preference given to the claims of regicide usurpers over the rights of a brave and loyal people. Look at the Revolution from which we date our liberties, and she dates her subjugation. The brilliant reign of Anne, the accession of the House of Hanover, the war of 1745,-all these were to Ireland periods of misfortune and degradation. But, it seems, in return for these evils, they have our constitution. Why, Sir, have they our constitution? What do they know of our constitution, but by its penalties and privations? They hear indeed of its excellencies, but how do they see them practically exemplified? They hear of equal rights and privileges, they find themselves under a ban of exclusion. They hear of those minor offices in corporate towns which flatter the innocent vanity of men, and give them a local distinction; they find that those offices are denied to them. They hear of the trial by jury; they find, that in consequence of the existing laws which preclude Catholics from being sheriffs, the juries are almost entirely composed of Protestants. They hear of the elective franchise; they are told they possess that franchise; they approach to the exercise of it, they find themselves fettered by restrictions which the constitution in no other instance recognizes. Is this the British constitution? Is it here we would send a foreigner to study our constitution? It may have some resemblance to it-it may, if you please, be

an aukward imitation of it-a system cast in some broken mould of the constitution, but certainly not stamped glowing and alive from its finished excellence.

If this system be injurious to Ireland, it is no less so to the empire at large. The very loss of so much talent and spirit which are now proscribed from contributing to the common cause, is a most serious loss. Is it consistent with any principles of political science, that so large a class should be cut off from the common feelings and interests? Can that empire be called secure, or happy, or flourishing, the one fourth of whose population is allowed to lie fallow; of which so main a limb is paralysed? Let it be supposed, for the sake of illustration, that circumstances had been reversed; that the Catholics had possessed the ascendancy in Ireland; and had governed the Protestants according to the existing code of penal restrictions. What would have been the result! What an extinction of individual and national glory! How many transcendant names would have been swept from our annals! What darkness instead of the light which the genius of Burke has shed over the last thirty years! Lord Wellington would have been wanting to the destinies of his country; and the liberator of Spain might have been content to head an Austrian brigade. We should not have known what pathos is united with the comic powers of Sheridan. We should not have listened to that most able and argumentative speech (Mr. Plunkett's) which on a late debate on this subject so powerfully commanded the attention and applause of the House. We should never have heard that voice (Mr. Grattan's) which first dissolved the fetters of Ireland, and which now in a new sphere under other circumstances, still with undiminished eloquence pleads the same cause; that voice which will soon, I trust, be called no longer to marshal our efforts in the pursuit, but to proclaim our success; no longer to animate the battle, but to chaunt the triumph.

It were well indeed, if under present circumstances, that portion of the empire could be called inactive or paralyzed. If you could extinguish the faculties which you imprison, if you could crush the feelings which you attempt to fetter, if you could sweep those four millions from the face of your empire, you might speak of safety, a miserable cowardly safety indeed, yet something which might give a pretext for that name. But here there is

no sleep, no torpor. Here is active life shained. Here are beating hearts and kindling pulses condemned to inactivity and servitude. Here on the one hand, is nature rousing the mind and prompting the genius to aspire; on the other, is man restraining the powers, quenching the light of the passions, and beating down the aspirations of genius. Oh, vain and impotent struggle! Do you think you can vanquish the laws of nature? You may drive these passions from their natural course, but you cannot destroy them, you cannot make them idle. If you deprive them of their proper sustenance, they will seek out other and more pernicious aliment. If you exclude them from their native theatre, they will open for themselves new scenes of action. If you forbid them to rally round the throne and the constitution; they will, they must exercise themselves in a manner injurious to both. Thus it is, that your efforts are productive only of danger to yourselves. You cannot remove the means of harm, but you take away all incentives to good. You exasperate rage, without disarming vengeance. You bind the strong man, but you leave his locks unshorn.

But it seems, that even if all this be true, yet there is something in popery absolutely incompatible with the existence of any well organized government. Really, Sir, I was both surprised and grieved to hear the learned doctor retailing once more those charges against the Catholics which I had hoped might have been al lowed to rest in the oblivion which they so well deserve. Is it not singular that we should be gravely addressed by argu ments which are refuted by the experience of every day ?-We are told that the oaths of Catholics are not to be considered as binding; and yet in our courts of justice, the oath of a Catholic is taken against a Protestant in the most solemn cases, in cases of property and of life. We are told that Catholics do not acknowledge the obligations of treaties; and yet Eu rope has lived for ages upon the faith of treaties. It is a remarkable circumstance with respect to the treaty of Westphalia, the contracting parties to which consisted both of Catholics and Protestants, that the Pope, even while it was under negociation, protested against it, refused to have a share in it, and publicly declared it null and void; and yet the Protestants felt no hesitation in accepting the signatures of the Catholic powers, and although