hereditary nobility of soul, which must lacerate the breast of the father of one of this unfortunate race, when first called upon to check the youthful ardour of his offspring, to damp his glowing patriotism, and stifle all the proudest feelings of his nature with the bitter recital of his country's distrust, and his own nothingness?" Your station is in obscurity; you are condemned to be a calm spectator of all that passes; an useless bystander in the hour of danger. Those services which from the lowest of your menial servants are accepted with gratitude; from you, are rejected with scorn. That name which animates with proud recollection the canvass on your walls, giving it a current value, a perennial existence; that very name, is in your living person, a blank in the hopes and expectations of your country,-you are exalted but to be excluded,-ennobled but to be degraded."

I have already trespassed too long on the time of the House, or I could proceed to show, that the present state of things is as absurd, as it is unjust; that we have either done too little or too much; but that fact has been sufficiently dwelt upon by my hon. friend who seconded the motion. I could also show by comparitive analogy with almost all the nations of the continent, that the present state of things is utterly foreign to the enlightened spirit of the age in which we live; that it is in the boasted liberality of the British legislature, that intolerance has found its last advocates; that it is in the dominions of the Defender of the faith, that that faith has found its last persecutors.

But I am content in conclusion, to rest the case of the Catholics principally upon this point:-Can any man sincerely, and solemnly affirm, that he believes the safety of the state requires the continuance of the present system?-Let that man, and that man only, vote against the present motion,-for it was upon that ground only that parliament could ever suspend that which could not destroy, the dormant, but unalienable privileges of the Catholics, because the indisputable birthright of every Englishman. It was It was for the paramount claims of public security alone, that the legislature could in any instance, however limited, and for any period, however short, render penal that liberty of conscience, and freedom of opinion, which is coeval with the pros

perity of the country, and perishable only with its decay.

I have, in the course of what I have had the honour to offer to the House as my sincere opinion upon this subject, not said any thing about securities, for when I see no danger, I cannot require any protection; but, if it should be the opinion of the sincere friends of the Catholics, that by any measure of this kind, men's minds would be conciliated to the question, I should be the last person to oppose such a consideration.

be

There is, however, one term frequently used by the ponents of the present question, and alluded to by the hon. gentleman to-night, against which I cannot refrain from protesting-that of an equivalent. What equivalent can offered by those from whom every thing has been previously taken, and to those by whom no sacrifice is to be made ?— What equivalent can be offered by the Catholics for the restoration of their rights? But if reducing an act of grace to a bare debtor and creditor transaction, they still insist on an equivalent, they will find one-not, it is true, wrung from the hopes and fears of the Catholics;-but an ample equivalent in the union of all classes of their fellow subjects, and their joint co-operation in every common patriotic cause.

One word for myself before I sit down. Had I not been convinced of the paramount importance of the question itself; had I not entertained the most conclusive conviction of the justice of the cause which I have been advocating: I should not have presumed to intrude myself on the time and attention of the House. It is a question which no consideration shall tempt me for a moment to compromise, much less to abandon; nor can my feelings, on the subject be satisfied, until that period shall arrive, which for the credit of the liberality and justice of the country, I hope cannot be far distant, when the claims of the Catholics shall receive the united sanction of every branch of the British legislature.

Mr. Brownlow opposed the motion, and maintained that there was no modification in the Roman Catholic religion which could justify an extension of political privilege to its professors in this country. The principle which he advocated was supported by the practice of all the Catholic powers of Europe. They saw the encroaching influence against which they

had to guard, and adopted measures to oppose its progress; those measures were founded upon the system of preventing the dangerous interference of foreign authorities in their states. To those who had seen and known the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, it would be scarcely necessary to say, that it was not weeded of errors which were objected to in other countries. The influence of the see of Rome was still predominant, and could not be eradicated. It was such influence that had occasioned the act of Charles 2nd in this country, and afterwards the similar measures which had been adopted in Ireland; and however much we might be disposed to condemn the policy of our ancestors, nothing had since occurred to justify a departure from the laws which they had established on this subject. He could see no reason why the bosom of the British empire was to be the only place in the Christian world where the influence of the pope was to be without control; and he trusted that it was not reserved for the reign of an illustrious prince of the House of Brunswick at this day to restore in this country that power to the Catholics which the legislature were obliged to expel from these realms for the security of a Protestant government. He was perplexed at the speech of the hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. Croker), but his answer to it was this, that by all the statesmen who had ever spoken upon this subject, the constitution of England was considered and represented as being Protestant in all its parts.

Mr. Becher begged the attention of the House, while he offered a few observations on the question before it: they were those of a well-meaning, and he should hope an independent man; and he trusted, that, as such, they would not be without their effect. He would state, in as short a compass as possible, the reasons why he should vote for the motion; and he would do so, not because he thought the question so important to the Roman Catholics as a body, as to the general interests of the country at large. It was, no doubt, im portant to the country to which he belonged; but it was also highly important and interesting to England. What could be a more important subject than to consider, that there was a large portion of her subjects whom, after presiding over for such a length of time, she had not succeeded in making better? The question was of importance to Ireland, for it

involved one of the most serious subjects connected with its welfare-that the great body of its peasantry had not that respect for the laws, which a similar class in this more favoured country entertained; and why?-Because they did not, in an equal degree, feel their protection. Was it not worthy of consideration, that England had gone on for nearly seven hundred years governing a nation without conciliating its affections; that she had not yet secured their attachment? But the fact was so. He mentioned the circumstance, not as a proof of any want of feeling in his countrymen, but because he conceived it to be the result of their constant exclusion from the benefits of those laws which they were called upon to obey. The thing was natural; it was what might be expected from a nation so governed. He would suppose a case, that any member of the House was excluded by political disabilities from that arena which was then before him; would not that member feel some abatement of his devotion to those laws which so excluded him? It was natural that he should. A system of proscription never yet produced an admiration of the laws which proscribed. He might be asked, why this should extend to Ireland; why they had not felt the same zeal for the laws as the people of England? He would use the privilege of his country, and answer it by another question;-Why were not the people of Ireland admitted to the same privileges? The Irish, who were so quick and intelligent in other points, would not be so stupid as not to see the benefit and evince their feeling of a similar mode of treatment with the people of England. The conduct of the Roman Catholics had been alluded to: that conduct he conceived had nothing to do with the question before the House, in the way in which it had been introduced. The conduct of some few Catholics had been mentioned, but it was an unfair criterion to judge of a whole sect or class of men by the acts of a few of its members; but supposing the conduct and disposition of those men such as they were represented, would not that be an argument in favour of the motion? The great body of them were badly treated, and in that bad treatment persons of the description alluded to had a ground to go upon. Under such a system, the speech of this or that man would have an effect which, under other circumstances, it could never produce. Remove the cause, and you deprive them of their only

means of doing harm; continue it, and you give them every opportunity of effecting the mischief of which you complain. The great increase of the Roman Catholic religion was urged as an objection. He would admit, that it did increase, and was increasing, in equal proportion to the increase of population; but then he would say, do not give them such a ground as they now have; let it not be spread among them that they are persecuted for their religion, and you will remove one ground of their increase. They have not only strength in numbers, but in wealth; and if they cannot be opposed, they might be neutralised. To the continuance of the penal code he had also this objection, that it tended to keep alive those dissensions which had so long existed on the ground of difference of religion, that it irritated the Catholic without giving confidence to the Protestant. What must be understood of a church to support which it was found necessary to keep four millions of people, nearly one-fourth of the population of the country, in a state of political degradation? This might be said to be a weak argument; but take it any way, it could not be used in favour of the church, in whose support the system was kept up. It was, in fact, inconsistent with those principles of toleration which that church itself taught. To argue that the church would be in danger from the admission of Roman Catholics to political privileges, would be to repeat an argument which had been long used, but had never been proved to be correct. Arguments somewhat similar had once been urged against the slavetrade. It was said, that it would be the destruction of British commerce; but the time had arrived when such prophecies were found to be erroneous. And here he could not avoid observing upon the inconsistency of two systems so discordant. We had abolished the slave-trade upon the principle that slavery was incompatible with the usages of our constitution; but we still adhered to a code which enacted a species of political slavery, and that, too, for an adherence to a religious opinion. He was glad to see the harmony with which the present discussion had been conducted. It pleased him to perceive, that it was carried on without those animosities, which such a subject was calculated to excite. This was the surest way to come at a fair decision. He had en tered into it with strong feelings in favour of the general principles which he had

mentioned; but in candour he would admit that he had also a kind of personal feeling in it. He was interested as a Protestant, wishing to enjoy the full benefit of religious toleration; but he was also interested as an Irish subject-he was anxious that his tenantry should have an inducement to a co-operation in the execution of the laws of their country, from a feeling of the benefits which they enjoyed under them. This was a feeling in which every member who resided in that part of the united empire would concur. They would not desire the co-operation of their tenantry in support of the laws from a wish to please or a fear to displease, so much as from a feeling of the benefits which they enjoyed in common with those under whom they acted. In the hope that he might see this feeling fully estab lished among his countrymen, he gave his most hearty and warm concurrence to the motion.

on

Sir R. Wilson contended, that the best answer to those who asserted that the people of the metropolis were adverse to those claims, was to be found in the fact, that no anti-catholic ground of preference was acknowledged by the electors of London, Westminster or Southwark, during the late elections. On former discussions of this question, when the subject was not so fully understood, petitions signed by 68,000 persons were laid on the table of that House, against concessions to the Catholics. Not a single petition from. that great and enlightened body was the present occasion submitted to parliament. Indeed, it was preposterous to think that after this country had restored or subsidized all the Popish powers of Europe-after we made such struggles for their establishment-that we should turn round on our own countrymen, who cooperated in all our exertions, partook of all our sacrifices, and who contributed to the renown and glory of our arms, and deny them the participation of those constitutional securities which they so patriotically defended and helped to preserve.

Lord Lowther was against farther concession, as it tended to weaken the stability of the Protestant establishment.

At the conclusion of the noble lord's speech, the cry of " Question! question!" became loud and general, and it was accordingly put from the Chair. The Speaker having called upon the Ayes and Noes, was of opinion that the Noes had it.

There was then a loud cry of " Divide! divide !" The Speaker gave the usual order for strangers to withdraw, preparatory to a division. The order was repeated, but without effect. Some of the strangers under the gallery at length yielded with apparent reluctance, but those in the gallery kept their seats, conceiving from the appearance below that the debate would go on. This expectation was founded upon the idea generally entertained, that it would be an adjourned debate, and the disposition shown by several members to address the Chair. Among these were, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Canning, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Peel, Mr. Colclough, and some others. Mr. Plunkett presented himself twice; Mr. Peel also offered himself to the attention of the House, amidst loud cries of "Question! question!" A discussion then arose, whether, it having been stated from the Chair that the Nocs had it, the debate could be resumed. The Speaker gave his opinion in the negative, and that as no member could afterwards speak to the question, any observations to the order of the House could only be delivered in the way of advice to the Speaker, by the member sitting and covered. Mr. C. W. Wynn then put his hat on, and taking his seat, cited a case from the Journals, to show that the debate was finally closed. A division then took place, when the numbers appeared to be, for the Motion, 242, against it, 248. On declaring these num. bers at the table, Mr. Croker, one of the tellers, stated that it was his duty to report, that some members had irregularly entered the House after the question had been put, and the decision in favour of the Noes pronounced from the Chair, whose votes must therefore be disallowed. It was accordingly decided that the names of lords Worcester and Rocksavage, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Ure, and general Porter, should be struck off from the Noes, and that of lord Forbes from the Ayes. This left the real numbers,

Majority against the Motion ...... 2 Adjourned at half after one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

ing the subject of the abolition of lotteries once more under the notice of the House, he expected to be blamed for agitating a question which had been so often decided that it might be as well if it were for ever abandoned. It was a question, however, neither frivolous nor unimportant; but on the contrary was of such con. sequence as to deserve the most serious consideration. But certainly he should not have presumed to bring it again before the House had he not perceived that the former discussions had made such an impression on the public mind, that perseverance alone was requisite in order to obtain ultimate success. If, on the one hand, it was discouraging to him to see his proposition disposed of in that House in the manner in which it had been on all former occasions, without even an argument being produced in favour of the system by its warmest advocates;-they thereby implying that they were determined to support it in despite of reasonso, on the other hand, that very circumstance was to him a source of hope, and confidence in the ultimate success of his endeavours. Ultimately, the public voice would be raised, effectually raised, against what was indefensible by sound argument; for in this country, the progress and efficacy of public opinion, though slow, were sure, and this was peculiarly the case with regard to questions of a moral nature. This had been proved by the success of several beneficial measures, which, though on their first proposal they had been opposed by party and by prejudice, had ultimately been carried with scarce a dissenting voice. The manner in which the abolition of the slave trade had been effected, was one glorious instance of the omnipotence of public opinion; and if another were wanted, he would refer to the long and arduous struggle in which those honourable members who were solicitous for a reform in the criminal code, had been engaged, before they could produce that recent and signal alteration in the sentiments of that House which had induced them to appoint a committee to examine into the severities and anomalies of which complaint had so frequently been made.

Tuesday, May 4.