mutinies against the Gospel; he affords | but what is here claimed, is the dispensa→

to the universe one glance, and has not patience for the second; but I should think I provided ill for the security of our church, by the destruction of others.

tion of the Almighty; the revolution does not repeal the New Testament; the revolution, properly understood, is the victory of civil and religious liberty, not over a sect, but over a tyranny. When the Roman Catholics cease to support that tyranny, they are entitled to the benefits of the revolution; it is said, that the oath and declaration framed at the revolution were intended to be final, parliament says otherwise; the House of Lords in its resolution of 1705, says otherwise; in the act of the Scotch Union, it declares that the oath and declaration were not to be final; again, parliament in the act of the Irish Union, declares that the oath and declaration were not to be final. You will observe that this declaration is conventional; in order to obtain the approbation of the Roman Catholics in favor of the Union, they were informed by parliament that their exclusion [was not final; so that instead of a covenant amongst the Protestants against the Roman Catholics for their final exclusion, there is a covenant of the Protestants, with the Roman Catholics, against their final exclusion; therefore the argument is nothing less than a proposal to break that covenant: I have understated the force of the Roman Catholic case on this part of the argument; the oath and declaration were not only not intended to be a final exclusion of the Roman Catholic, but did not purpose to exclude the Roman Catholics finally, but directed its rigour against such as refused to abjure the temporal

The objection which alleges the growth of demand, naturally connects itself with this part of the subject; if the Roman Catholics get a share in the state, they will demand a share in the church, that is to say, they will desire to become Protestant clergymen ;-the law may make a Catholic a member of parliament, but cannot make him a Protestant clergyman, there, the nature of things interposes limits; but, if they mean that he will desire a church establishment of his own, they are mistaken; it is what the Protestants in general wish to give him, and the Roman Catholic declines; he declines, because he does not feel that impulse, charged on nature, in favour of a church ascendency; because they wish to have their pastors a little nearer to themselves, and less connected with the court; the progress of demand does not arise from the unreasonableness of the Catholics, but from the nature of things; in the time of the Pretender, there was a general disability; at the death of the Pretender, some of the penal political provisions were by law to cease; when the emperor Joseph repealed the principal provisions against the Protestant, you naturally proposed a corresponding repeal: when the French made great changes in their religion, and their country ceased to be a champion of popery, a further repeal took place; and now, when you have esta-power of the pope;-such is the act of blished a political conformity abroad, a political comprehension at home naturally presents itself; it is not the growth of demand, but the ceasing of the hostile circumstances which were incident, but not essential to the Roman Catholic religion; there was a time perhaps, when less could be said for the repeal of the penal code, and the time has now arrived, when nothing can be said for its continuance.-Your error is, that the circumstances that belong to the times, you annex to the sacraments of their religion.

And now I must add another objection interposed in the way of Roman Catholic emancipation, and that is, a denomination not less respectable than the revolution, a great event, but a human transaction, and the arrangement of man;

1793. Now this description does not comprehend the present race of Roman Catholics, and therefore they do not come within the meaning of the exclusion, such is the act of 1793; it contains three principles: it condemns the oath and declaration; it repeals the oath and declaration in the instance of Scotland; and it declares that Roman Catholics in general did not come within the purview of the act of exclusion. Gentlemen talk of a Protestant constitution;-it seems they prescribe for a Protestant constitution:-What-for a constitution in favour of the Protestants before the existence of the Protestant religion ?-baptism is no title ;-you may call your son George Brunswick, but that does not give him the crown;-the component parts of the constitution are not ex

will observe, when the pope objects to the Regium Exequatur, he shows that you may take it if you please, as other princes have done, and he cannot help it.

Gentlemen object that the bill gave every thing. How then could it give ge neral dissatisfaction? Certainly not on account of the two exceptions in it, the seals and the lord lieutenancy, for they are the patrons of Protestant livings. Now to tell a Roman Catholic that he cannot be trusted with an office, is to tell him he is a bad subject; but to tell him he cannot be a Protestant patron, is only to tell him he is a Roman Catholic.

are now great authorities to support it; authorities canonized by death; but I do not despair; my right hon. friend still lives; the trusty constitutional hand that drew the bill still lives;-the noble lord, his enemies must allow him abilities, he lives: the luminary by his side, he lives'; and the good ameliorator of the lot of Africa, he lives. What then is the tremendous obstacle, to overcome which we boast our incapacity? It is a declaration that the majority of Christians are idolators; that our good ally, the emperor of Austria, is an idolator; that our good ally the emperor of Russia, is an idolator; that our good ally, the king of France, is an There are those who disapprove of the idolator: that the king of Portugal, for Veto, and detest emancipation; if you wait whom we have been fighting so brilliantly, until you can reconcile these, you will wait is an idolator. Saying this, we announce forever; because you cannot satisfy all, you that we have crowned idolatry in Italy; will satisfy none. Recollect that the questhat we have given idolatry new vigour in tion here, is not merely a question of pub France; and have planted idolatry in Ca- lic satisfaction, but a question of publie nada. This declaration is one obstacle, service; and not only a question of public the oath of supremacy the other. The service, but a question of religious duty, latter means to abjure any foreign power and then the argument is, you must take of any kind, coactive, coercive, or com- the pleasure of the crowd, before you pulsory; affecting any jurisdiction of what obey the Almighty. When I say the sort soever in this realm. The Roman crowd, I mean a crowd of sectaries. Catholic might take that oath properly When we consider obedience a human explained :-Will you try him? Would law, we ask is it on the roll? But when you explain that oath so as to give the we consider the law of God, we ask—is it crown the benefit of what is called his convenient? How will it please the complete allegiance? There are two prince? How will it answer our interest oaths, then, in the way of their emancipa- in the corporation? How will it serve tion; the one, the oath of supremacy, us on our elections? We try the wisdom which, if properly explained, the Roman of God by the folly of man, as we did his Catholic would take; the other the declar-person; and decide against both by a preation, which every Protestant should wish sumption, which is blasphemous. to repeal: to repeal the one, and to ex- Gentlemen call this a question of emplain the other, with such circumstances pire; the gospel is not a question of emand accompaniments as may be held to be pire; it is the highest possible command necessary, are motions that will be sub-pronounced by infinite power; it is the mitted to the committee; refusing them, you will have refused your own security.

It is farther argued, that all this will not satisfy; that is to say, to obey the word of God, commanding us to love one another, will not satisfy; as far as any thing is personal to the Almighty, they are ready; but farther, they beg to decline, and they make a compromise with their maker; they praise God, and damn one another. When gentlemen have said that the bill of a former year gave universal dissatisfaction, they go farther than they are warranted; the laity did not give any general expression of dissatisfaction; some Catholic bishops certainly did, but they had before expressed their satisfaction, and approved of the bill; and you (VOL. XL.)

highest imaginable interest pronounced by infinite wisdom; as the empire swerves from it, she falters; as she stands by it, she prospers.

It is objected that the Irish are below the privileges which this emancipation would confer; I scorn to answer it; 'tis you must answer it; it would say that you have governed the Irish so ill, as to put them below the blessings of a free constitution: you have given the elective franchise to those whom you thus describe, and refuse to give the representative to those who do not come within that description: they want bread, you say not privilege, and you give them neither. The objection that they have not a love for a liberty I despise also. What? in these (C)

of their opposition, for the population of the two islands is Protestant four to one; the Protestant ascendancy would therefore be established, by the emancipation of the Roman Catholics; and increased, inasmuch as where the different parts of the community have their natural place, the strength of the part is the strength of the whole. You must consider the progress of amalgamation; you must consider also, that in addition to their numbers, the property, particularly the landed property, is beyond comparison Protestant; you are to consider that the crown is exclusively Protestant; you are to consider that the seat of legislature is Protestant; you are to consider that the number of members from the Roman Catholic part of the empire, cannot equal a sixth part of the representation in one House, still less in the other, even were we to suppose that the whole number were Roman Catholics, which is impossible.

walls to say so that have witnessed their confirmation of Magna Charta thirty times; and in this city of the Tower, that guards that sacred instrument? There are now extant of those who trace themselves to the signature of the charter two families; they are Roman Catholics; they are petitioners also, and desire to share that liberty which their ancestors gave you; you complain of imperfect allegiance make it perfect, and explain the oath of supremacy; their allegiance is as perfect as that of Austria, that of France, or that of any other Roman Catholic country, who all furnish an experimental proof of ample allegiance: 'tis said, the Protestant church in Ireland is established by the articles of Union, and therefore, that the Roman Catholic people should be disqualified; the framers of the union were not of that opinion; they said, that the Roman Catholic emancipation would be the probable result of the Union-on what ground then do you place the Protestant church by that argument?-You make it incompatible with the civil rights of the people who pay that church; you make it incompatible with your own gospel; you place the Protestant church in direct opposition to the gospel on one hand, and the people on the other; you said, that when we urged the fewness of their numbers to sit in parliament, we allowed their unfitness; no :-it is a question of proportion, not of goodness or badness; you would not have all the members Scotch, or Irish, or English, but a proportion of each representing their respective interests. This question has been now under consideration for forty years, from the right hon. member (Mr. Foster), whom I see opposite, who resisted it with great ability and great temper also, to the other right hon. member, a late secretary, who opposed it on a former occasion, in a speech replete with ability set off by the brightness of his talents, the suavity of his manners, and the excellence of his character: upon that occasion I was not very kindly dealt with by some of our own side; their criticism upon me was not handsome; I answer it by referring to my speech.

In the course of these debates two great points have been obtained which should settle the question for ever; the one is the confession of its antagonists, the other, the experiment of its safety: they have said, that with equal privileges, the population draws power; then there is an end

*

But the antagonists say, that in Ireland the Roman Catholic ascendancy will be established; I answer, not unless it be established in England, for there is but one ascendancy, and that ascendancy acts here. Gentlemen say, it would be Protestant England, Presbyterian: Scotland, and Catholic Ireland;-not more than it is so now; with this difference, however, that it is now disqualified Ireland, and of course discontented Ireland. Gentlemen say, that the property in Ireland would change, and become Roman Catholic. Why so?! Not in consequence of the emancipation; to make them members of parliament, or to make them officers, is not a change of property; if such a change takes place, it must be from the freedom of trade, and the right of purchase; you do not mean to take away that; you do not mean to restore the gavel, and repeal the act of 1781, which gave them the freehold?

Their proposition,

then, is this:-by the laws which they do not propose to repeal, the property of Ireland must become Roman Catholic;to guard against the evil consequences, they propose to disqualify the property, and render hostile the landed proprietors of Ireland. I cannot say what would be the best constitution for Ireland, but I am sure that would be the worst.

While gentlemen were talking of the permanency of an imaginary balance, two quantities, and those not very inconsiderable, went out of the scale; the navy and army. In the year 1807,