The Sun.
London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

GLASGOW.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH presented a petition from the Mer-
chants, Bankers, and others of the City of Glasgow, in favour
of the Catholic Claims. This petition was impartial and se-
lect, and had not been got up by forced means, in order to
display numbers. He was aware that the respectable Cor-
poration of Hammermen, and also of Butchers, in Glasgow,
had sent up to the House petitions of a different nature ; but
he might, with no disparagement to those valuable and erudite
bodies, put this petition, signed by a hundred of the most emi-
nent Merchants and Bankers of Glasgow, in the scale against
them. He had the most respectable testimony, that of Mr.
Finlay, well known to many gentlemen in that House, for say-
ing that this was the unsought, unbiassed expression of the sen-
timents of the petitioners. As such, he' thought it ought in fair-
ness to be taken as representing the real sentiments of the
City of Glasgow, the third City in importance in Great Bri-
tain. He knew there still remained upon this subject in some
parts of Scotland a remnant of that Puritanic spirit which
had wrought its own ends in its day. But that day was
gone by, anti all that he had to object to those parties in
this particular, was an objection on the score of chronology.—
He thought they were a hundred and fifty years too late in
their sentiments—they were now quite out of date. \% ith
respect to this Petition, he thought it not only should be taken
as representing the sentiments of the people of Glasgow, but
of the laity of Great Britain. If he required any further evi-
dence upon this point, he should adduce the Petition of the
Bar upon this subject. He was, however, aware that against
this respectable testimony they had to put that of the Hammer-
men and Butchers of Glasgow, in the same way as they had
now to put the names of Sir Harcourt Lees and the Preben-
dary Dennis, against the names of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox,
who had both declared for the Catholic Claims. On the one
side he saw all that enlightened intellect and station could pro-
duce; on the other he saw the workings of obscure incendiaries
upon the minds of the ignorant. With respect to the Peti-
tions of the Clergy, he was convinced that not more than one.
sixth of the English Clergy had petitioned upon this subject.
And when he saw that the profession of favour to the Catho-
lics was a bar to promotion in the Church, lie could not consi-
der these Petitions as expressing the real sentiments of that
respectable Body.
Mr. DENNIS BROWN spoke in favour of the Petition.
Mr. HUME said, that at the meetings from which petitions
had flowed into that House from Glasgow, there were- but a
handful of attendants ; and from all that had come to his know-
ledge, he was convinced that the present Petition was the only
one which represented fairly the feelings of the inhabitants of
that city.
Mr. C. U. HUTCHINSON said, that he felt the greatest
satisfaction on seeing such a Petition, expressing such senti-
ments, and being respectfully signed, presented from the city
of Glasgow. He had recently read in the public prints an ac-
count of another meeting held at Glasgow, where sentiments
the most unbecoming, he would say the most disgusting, had
been delivered. It was a meeting of the Synod of Glasgow.
At that meeting the character of Ireland and of the Irish Ca-
tholic Clergy were aspersed in a way which he should scarcely
venture to characterize. He almost doubted whether the account
published of it was true. However, the present Petition in a
great measure destroyed the effect of the former meeting, and
redeemed the character of the City. The Hon. Gentleman said
that there never was a more appropriate Petition than the pre-
sent—nor one more respectably signed—nor committed into
more proper hands for being presented to the House.
Mr..l. MAXWELL bore testimony to the respectability of
the petitioners. He believed the Synod of Glasgow to be also
very respectable, but said that the persecutions of the Synod
had been from the Episcopal Church and not from the Roman
Catholics.

Mr. J. P. GRANT was convinced that the opinions ex-
pressed by the Synod of Glasgow were far from being common
to the Members of the Presbyterian Church. He appealed to
the Petition recently alluded to by the Right lion. Gentleman
(Mr. Peel) from the General Assembly of the Church of Scot-
land in 1811 The feeling of that Petition was strongly in Ta-
your of the Catholic Claims, but it left to the wisdom of the
Legislature the devising of the mode in which Emancipation
was to he effected, and by which the Protestant Establishment
was to be secured. He believed that the general opinion of the
Church of Scotland was favourable to Emancipation.
Mr. C. WILSON did not mean to impeach the respectabi-
lity of the petition, but he would take the opportunity of claim-
ing for the Clergy of the Church of England the right and the
competence to take their share in the great question which was
now agitating the country. That Clergy were the successors
of men who had made the greatest sacrifices to their religious
creed, and they were ready now to hazard even life itself in de-
fence of their sincerity and their conscieuces.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the Church-
wardens and Inhabitants of Burlescombe, Devonshire ; and
another from the Householdors of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields ;
both against the Catholic Claims—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. PRICE presented a -petition from the Inhabitants of
Kingston, in favour of the Catholic Claims.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. Alderman Woon presented a petition from Thos. Ha-
milton, praying for some alteration in the Bankrupt Laws.—.
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Ho ME presented a petition from certain Roman Ca-
tholics, resident at Blackburn, in the County Palatine of
Lancaster, in favour of the Catholic Claims.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. Hu ME presented a petition from John Lawless, a Ro-
man Catholic resident at Belfast, against the Bill now be-
fore the House for Catholic Emancipation. The petition stat-
ed, that the Bill was encumbered by two conditions most de-
roeatory to- the interest and character of the Roman Catholics
onreland. Those conditions were, the disfranchisement of
half a million of Catholics, in order to assist the ends of a few
persons, and the payment of the Catholic Clergy by a stipend
from Government. The Hon. Member said, he could have
wished the petition to have been divided into two parts, for at
present the Bill was encumbered by no such conditions, when-
ever those secondary measures should come before the House,
he should give them his most earnest opposition, but in the
mean time he hoped that the great question of Emancipation
might not be endangered by anticipating other and more ob-
jectionable points.—(Hear !)—Ordered to be printed,.. -
• M HIiME presented a petition from the Seamen of Stock-
ton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, stating, that they
tad heard with regret that certain charges had been made
against them in that House unfavourable to their character,
and praying to be heard by Counsel before the Select Com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the state of the Combination
Laws. •
The SPEAXER wished to know whether any allusion was
Made in the body of the petition to what had passed in that
House ? _

Mr. HUME replied in the affirmative, and read the pas-
sage. He said he was aware that such allusions were. per-
fectly incorrect, but as the House had long tolerated the
publication of their proceedings to the would, it could not
be .very neresiary to censure the petitioners ,for making the
allusion.
Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE considered it a direct
breach of the
privileges of the House. • lie wished to hear the
opinion of smile Member of greater weight and authority.
Mr.. BARING made a single remark in a low. tone of
voice.
Mr. C. WYNN said, that it was incumbent on every Mem-
ber to read over all petitions put into their hands, and to
state to the petitioners that objections would necessarily be
made to any such • improperallusions. It would be adviseahle
to withdraw the present,petition, in order that the error might
be corrected.
Mr.. H UME observed that it was not a petition of an ordi—
nary kind, for it went to deny a charge which affected the cha-
racter of .a whole class of persons. 'flee error was one very
likely ,to happen,.as it did no: appear to him to be of any great:i

importance, he had not withheld the petition on account of it.'
Still, as he was unwilling to sanction any irregularity, he was
ready to withdraw the petition, particularly as he had another
of the same sort to present from the Seamen of Sunderland, and
both might be amended and presented on a future day.—The
petition was then withdrawn.
Sir J. lITROTTESLEY presented a petition from four hun-
dred and eighty-three Roman Catholics residing in the Mid-
land Counties of England, in favour of the Bill for ernacipat-
ing the Roman Catholics.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from Chard, in
the county of Somerset, against the _Catholic Claims ; and
another from NVeliington, in the same county, for the re-
peal of the House and Window Tax.—Both ordered to be
printed.
Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from 3,000 in-
habitants of the Cities of London and Westminster and the Bo-
rough of Southwark against the Catholic Claims. This was
not the petition of any public nieeting, but had been got up by
30 or 40 very respectable Gentlemen, who having met together,
drew up the petition, and left it for signature at the London
Tavern. The Worthy Alderman stated generally the sub-
stance of the petition, and expressed his entire concurrence in
its sentiments. _ _

Mr. J. MARTIN said, that he felt it his duty to state to
the House some facts relative to this petition. On Saturday
morning last a friend of his informed him, that as he was pass-
ing the ,London Tavern, a boy dressed in the garb of a charity
school came up to him and said, " Please to walk in and sign
the Petition. —What petition ?" " The Petition against
the Roman Catholics." His friend accordingly stepped in,
not with the intention of signing the petition, but of reading
it. Hs found four or five large sheets of parchment lying
on the table, with several names subscribed, but no petition.
" Cannot I see the petition itself ?" he asked. "Oh no,
the petition is not hear," was the answer.—(Hear, hear !)._
He then asked the waiter if there had been any public meeting
oa the subject, and was told that about fifty Gentlemen had
met, and arranged the business. The waiter then asked him
to subscribe five or ten shillings to defray the expences.—
(Hear, hear 1)—On hearing this statement, he (Mr. Martin)
and another Gentleman went to the London Tavern, where
they were saluted by the charity boy, saw the sheets of parch.
ment, and the waiter, but no petition.—( Hear !)—He would
leave the House to judge how fay this could be the petition of
the Cities of London and Westminster. He would not sit down
without expressing his strong conviction, that the greater part
of the petitions against the Catholic Claims were got up in the
same way. It was a strong fact, that few or no public meet-
ings had been held, as on former occasions, when a great many
such meetings were called forth against Emancipation. At
present there were none, which proved that the prejudices on
the subject were fast fading away.
Mr. J. SMITH rose to confirm the statement of his Hon.
Friend. It was perfectly true that no petition, or copy of a
petition, was to be found at the London Tavern. Ile him-
self had put the question more than once, and was told there
was none. His hrm conviction was that nearly all the signa-
tures had been obtained by canvassing and personal solici.
tation. The feeling of the Cities of London and 'Westmin-
ster was as liberal as that of any part of the Empire. If
not so, there would have been a great many public meet-
ings. But as there was no hope of exciting a clamour
against the Catholics, no attempt of the kind had been made.
—He believed that the most unworthy means had been re-
sorted to, to stir up a cry against the Catholics. Persons had
gone into obscure parts of the country, and attempted to
work upon the prejudices of labourers who worked for their
daily bread, by exciting an alarm that the fires of Smith-
field were again to be renewed. Such representations must
be the result of the most shameful ignorance, or of some
worse motive. He believed, and he was sorry for it, that
the greater part of the Clergy of the Church of England
was unfavourable to the Catholic Claims, but the arguments
used by sonic of that Clergy were singularly unfair. They
had argued the question as one purely. religious, and had left
the political part of it entirely out of view. Knowing as they
did that it was a great State question, deeply connected with
the welfare of Ireland, it was impossible to pass over without
censure the unfairness of debating it as a question of Theolo-
gy.—(Hear !)—Such conduct must excite the indignation of
every honest politician. Petitions got up by such means
should be rejected by the House. In making these remarks
he wished not to be considered as throwing any general impu.
tation upon the Clergy, because he believed that as a body
they were becoming more liberal every day. To return to the
subject before the House, he did not believe that any public
meeting could have been got up in London against the Catho-
lic Claims.

Mr. Alderman WOOD reprobated the mode resorted to in
getting up the Petition as most disgraceful. Every possible
step had been tried to gather together a public meeting in Lon.
don, but without success, as the Citizens were too enlightened
to be scared by stories about tires in Smithfield. The general
sentiment of the city was in favour of the Catholics, but even
if it were not, he would sooner forfeit his chance of a re-elec-
tion, than suffer such a Petition as this to be presented without
expressing his disapprobation of it.
Mr. BROUGIIA3I said, that as a friend of civil and reli-
gious toleration, he rose io return his thanks to the worthy Al-
derman for the manly and honest expression of his sentiments,
and he wished that every Member who had been threatened
with the less of his election would follow the example.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said, that the petition did not
affect to represent the feelings of London and Westminster,
but only of a certain number of persons who were inhabitants
of those cities. With regard to the facts stated by the Hon.
Members (Mr. Smith and Mr. Martin) he had made inquiry,
and found that from some unexpected circumstances the per-
son to whose care the petition was entrusted, had taken it
home with him.—(Dear! and a laugh.)—The petition had
been advertised in the public papers, and it was scarcely pro-
bable that any person would sign it without having previously
read it. Besides, it had been printed on the ,Saturday, and a
copy was given to every one who asked for it. With regard
to any attempts to call a public meeting against the Catholic
Claims, he had not heard of them,. though he firmly believed
that the feeling of the City of London was against the Claims.
Mr. C. WILSON said, that the Hon. Gentlemen opposite
claimed to be the friends of toleration, but he protested against
its being supposed that the toleration was all on one side.—
( Hear, hear !)
Mr. CALURAFT joined in disapproving the manner of pre.
paring the petition. Had the parties who got it up been sure of
the general feeling, they would have called a public meeting.—
In 1313, meetings were called throughout the country, but now
he could not hear of a single one. The petitioners talked of re-
presenting the Cities of London and Westminster and the Bo-
rough of Southwark. It was quite ludicrous and nonsensical
for 3000 persons to put in such a claim. The facts were most
disgraceful, and proved that the prejudices which formerly ex-
isted were fast declining, and would in a short time cease to
exist.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON and Mr. J. MARTIN mutually
explained.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL protested against the manner in
which some Hon. Members attempted to throw ridicule on every
honest and fair expression of public sentiment.—( Hear. hear .
If those who opposed the Catholic Claims proceeded quietly in
,
getting up their petitions, they were called " hole and corner
men," and if they called public meetings, they were accused of
exciting " No Popery."—(Hear !)—He and many of his friends
had certainly used all proper exertions in getting up petitions
against the Bill now in progress,but they had resorted to no un-
worthy means. If the consequences of the " No Popery" cry
were at all injurious, they ought to fall on the heads of those
who were the original causes of it.---(llear !)
Mr. BARING said that he had not witnessed any of those
attempts at ridicule which the Hon. Baronet ascribed to that
side of the House. They had certainly disapproved of the un.
creditable way in which the present petition was prepared. The
petitioners had no doubt the right to be heard in thatllouse,
but they had no right to pass themselves off as the representa-
tives of London, Westminster, and Southwark.
Mr. It. MARTIN was a great friend to public opinion, and
as a friend to the Catholic Claims, he advised the Hon. Baro-
net (Sir E. linatchbull) to call a Public Meeting on the sub-
ject. The present was a favourable opportunity when there
was a larger number of Irish Catholics able to tell their story—
(Heart and a laugh )—who might soon be qualified to take-a
part in any • Public Meeting by, being made freeholders.(A
laugh !)—lle wished the question to be fairly and publicly dis-
cussed.
Mr. ABERCROM BY said that the " No Popery" cry, and
" an Appeal to the People," wore very different things. Ile
never complained of any fair appeal to the people, because he
could rely on their good sense ; but he did complain of all dis-
honest efforts to rouse their passions and warp their prejudices.
He had read very lately of a Reverend Clergyman, who at
was what he understood by the
a public meeting asked his hearers " are you prepared to see
the Protestants burnt by the Catholics ?—(Hear, hear !)—This
com-
plained of such language from the Clergy and the persons high
in authority.
against tit) lat
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
" No Popery !!' cry. He
Mr. Mouirox PITT presented a petition from *albrook,
e ilEornTannEcvaotinloplircesceniatietmls!zoetirtdioenre(firotombeLlaningteet(lid.yr
in Dorsetshirel • against the Catholic Claims.
had given their assents to certain Bills ; and requesting
A MessagelEBwasS'it-eGceEiNeld'ilf°rortl'ileiLl.oirdjOsitsptaSting that they
leave for the • Right lion. Dennis Browne to attend to the
Committee
i r ry
f tl Lords
into o
th thee claims Stateitns of of
nthe Earl
of
Rd
salsoco
Committeea
n,
• mon to vote at the election of Peers for Ireland, which leave
was ;,riven.
Sir E, ENATCUBVLL presented a petition from Margate

against the Roman Catholic Claims. He hoped that the Hon.
Member for Wareham would feel satisfaction in hearing that
this petition emanated from a public meeting, legally convened
in the Town Hall.

On the petition being brought up,
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that he had Qnly one observation to
make. Here was a petition from a public meeting properly
called, and no one made any remarks upon it. It was only
against the petition from London that any objection was taken.
He would put it to the Hon. Baronet whether that petition did
not fairly deserve such objectioiii4 No one on his side of the
House had said any thing against Pair petitions, and they never
would.

Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, which were inaudible
in the gallery.
Sir L. KNATCHBULL said that he had not spoken with
reference to any particular case, but had merely expressed a
general feeling, which the conduct of Hon. Gentlemen opposite
had excited. He thought that every petition which was offered
in a respectful manner ought to be treated with respect.—
(Hear !)—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from the Master
Upholsterers and Cabinet-makers of the City of Dublin, pray-
ing for an inquiry into the state of the Combination Laws.
Mr. HUME begged leave to correct a mis-statement which
the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) had fallen into on this
subject. He had said, that twenty lives were lost in consequence
of combinations amongst workmen since the repeal of the Com.
bination Laws. Now, by a reference to the evidence received
before the Committee, it appeared that only two persons had
been killed. He knew that the situation of masters was dif-
ferent in Ireland and England, and he admitted that something
should be done to put them on a footing, or at least to ame-
liorate their condition in Ireland.

Mr. PEEL said that he had never said that twenty lives had
been lost. He had merely read an extract from the evidence
given before the Committee, which evidence stated that ten
lives (half the number mentioned by the Hon. Member) had
been lost. Of his own knowledge he said nothing. Another
error the Hon. Member had fallen into, in supposing that even
these ten murders took place in consequence of the repeal of
the Combination Laws last Session. They had happened
during the last seven years, and arose out of various circum-
stances connected with those laws, and not because of their
repeal.
Mr. HUME and Mr. PEEL mutually explained.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. DAVENPORT presented a Petition from the Church-
wardens and inhabitants of Wensbury against the Catholic
Claiins.—Ordered to be printed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a similar Peti-
tion from Ippleby, in Devonshire.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. C. WYNN brought up several Treaties with the Na-
tive Powers in the East Indies, which had been ordered.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice of a motion for Thursday, the
import of which we could not collect.
Mr. LITTLETON said that he should bring forward his
motion respecting the Elective Franchise in Ireland to-morrow
(this day), provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen would postpone their motions
which stood for that day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that lie
wished to move certain resolutions in Committee, respecting
the Distillery Laws, preparatory to a Bill It would take but
very little time. He was willing, however, if necessary, to
postpone them.
Mr. HUME expressed his willingness to postpone his mo-
tion regarding Sierra Leone till Wednesday.
Mr. WILMOT HORTON said it would be better to fix
on some other day, as the question was likely to occupy consi-
derable time.—Thursday was then agreed to.
ADJOURNED DEBATE—CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Sir F. BURDETT moved the Order of the Day for the
Second Reading of the Catholic Relief Bill.
On the question being put from the Chair,
Mr. GOULBURN began by observing, that he had on the
last discussion arrived at that part of his argument which
established that from the very terms of the Bill before the
House, the passing of that Bill would be a measure full of
danger. He could not comprehend the necessity of introducing
securities into the Bill unless there was some danger which
called for such securities. He now proposed to examine the
nature of those securities, and how far they were applicable
to the danger against which it was necessary to guard. The
securities in the bill were of three descriptions. The first
was the declaration in the preamble; the second was the oath
required to be taken ; the last and greatest, was the commis-
sion to assure the Crown of the loyalty of the higher offi-
cers of the Catholic Church, and to controul them in their
correspondence with Foreign Powers. The first point, as to
the recital of the preamble, touched the Protestantism of
the Crown ; and upon all hands it was admitted and de-
clared that the Protestant succession to the throne should be
established permanently and inviolably. It was of peculiar
importance to mark the manner in which this was provid-
ed for in the present Bill, because the Protestantism of the
Crown was the c.ly safety left, after they should cease to
have a Protestant Parliament, and Catholics should be admit-
ted to the High Offices of the State. This was the security
which his Hon. Friends around him who contended for mea-
sures similar to the present always put forward in front of their
battle. It was highly important, therefore, that the House
should examine and understand the manner in which this point
had been treated by the framers of the • Bill, and what were the
opinions of those to whom the Bill protested to extend re-
lief, as to the permanency and inviolability of the Protestant
Succession to the Throne. From all that he could gather of
their feelings and intentions, he thought he saw much to doubt,
and that so far from. considering the Protestantism of the Crown.
as permanently and inviolably fixed, they carried forward their
eyes to a period when the Crown should no longer be worn
by a Protestant Monarch. In the speech, or letter of Mr.-
O'Connell, informing the Catholics of the nature of the Bill, lie
had taken care on this point to guard himself most sedulously.
He told them that the Catholic and Protestant would have
an equality of civil rights, excepting in the succession to the
Crown, as limited to the reigning family, in which they (the
Catholics) cordially concurred._ (Hear, hear ! from the Oppo-
sition Benches.)—lt appeased, therefore, that they did enter.
tain ultimate expectations and intentions of a different na-
ture; and although he hoped the period was tar distant when
the present illustrious family upon the throne should be
vsof
ex-
tinct,ooket ae thatthe
timeperiod
when mightt hthen
alarrive,so th e and
Constitution
the country might be changed, and a Catholic Monarch suc-
ceed to the Crown. The next point in the declaration of the
aen dL Catholicsa
preamble, to which he desired to call the attention of the House,
was one which lie considered strongly calculated to affect the
establishment of the united Episcopal Churches of England
and Ireland. As he understood the Act of Union, and from all
that lie could learn of those who had given it the gravest con:
sideration, it was intended to settle the permanent establish-
ment of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland, and it
never entered the minds of-the Legislators who framed that
Act, to acknowledge any ether Church as belonging to the
country. But in the Bill now before them, the Roman Catholic
Church was designated as the Roman Catholic Church of
Ireland ; . not merely as being in Ireland, but as belonging
to it. And this, let him observe, was no, immaterial dist*.
tion. He remembered hearing the Right Hon. Attorney-Gene-
rid upon the presentation of a petition, declare its importance,
and state, that as long as the Bishops called themselves
the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, they preserved
their true legal description,, but that they could not assume to
be Bishops of the Church of Ireland. Here, however, this
distinction was broken clown, and-the Roman Catholic Church
Was to be recognised by legislative enactment as the Church of
Ireland. Nay, if they Might argue upon rumour, (and it was
the peculiar character of this measure, that one. half of
it, or , certain other ,measures upon
,which ,it . depended,
could only be treated as matters of rumour) it was also pro-
posed to provide for thiliChurch by -paying for its Clergy from
the public funds of the country. He came next to the security
which was provided by the, oath required by the Bill. To re-
peat what had been said by his Right Honourable Friend, the
Member for Corfe Castle, this oath only required a denial of
the. temporal authority .of the Pope, and thereby, amounted to
an acknowledgment of his ,opirital and ecclesiastical
,power.
conceive If this were the case, what would be the situation of those who
well
had taken the oath of SUpremacy, wherein they not only said
many. with a lartn,
motives and
which as giving
would
u nold
that such power and authority did. not, but ought not to exist.
H h
Ceueroduil.d nottie but
couldr
e this oath
adequate security againit eventual danger to the Established
influence the Roman Catholic to -desire the .subversion of the
Protestant Establishment independer. of the wish to- place his
own Church in its' lace. Ile could conceive that a conscien-
tious-Roman Catholic, without any. wish to commit violence,
might believe, that he was getting rid of,a great- heresy in so do-
ing. Let them look at the words of those who had, the greatest
influence with the Roman Catholic body, and see whether they
would not afford ground sufficient -to warrant that conscien-
tious,belief in a good Catholic. The Right Hon. Gentleman
then situtited the writino of Dr. Doyle; whiCh that Prelate
states' that the Church of Ireland was such as ought not to
be suffered to exist in any civilized .country, and -speaks of
the Reformers and early Pastors of the Protestant church, as
being a reproach to all with whom they were connected.
He called upon the House to look at the writings. of Dr.
Doyle, whom he .believed to be a conscientious man in-the
discharge of what he believed to be his religious duty,,,and there
they might see that any Roman tatholie could consistently en.
tertain the intention to Overthrow the existing establishment,
without that of xaising his own upon its rnins. In a former Bill
which was frir.-ted by his Right Hon: Friend, the oath required
wits it very different One from thi,t contained in' the present.
Not only was tliitt oath to.be iulthinisterethto all.persons;talting
office, and to Ilishops and Deans as .99w proposed,
shut ,it wits

~,~.--

required of all the subordinate classes of the Clergy. Now
they had a Bill framed to suit Catholic prejudice, rather than
to satisfy Protestant feeling; and an oath less strict, was not to
be so generally administered. He now came to the third secu-
ty upon which they were called upon to rely. A Commis-
sion was to be created for the purpose of ascertaining the
loyalty of those appointed to high offices in the Roman Catholic
Church, and of controulling the correspondence of that Church
with the Papal See. How was this Commission to be formed,
and what was this security to be ? The Commission was to
consist of four Roman Catholic Bishops, who were to have
the power of advising his Majesty upon certain points, with-
out the intervention of any responsible Minister, and with.
out any individual in the country being able to know what the
0 loyalty or intentions of that body may be. The security to be
provided through their means as to the members of their church
was limited to the declaration of their belief as to the loyalty
of any individual appointed by their own ecclesiastical body.
No inquiry or examination was required of them, but they
were merely to state their belief upon the single point of loy-
alty. The individual so appointed might be the most furious
bigot that ever flourished in the annals of Catholicism ; he
might have every other disqualification that could unfit him to
exercise the influence of so important an office ; yet they were
to be answerable for nothing but their belief in his loyalty._
He could see no greater cause for satisfaction in the arrange-
ments for controulling the correspondence with foreign powers.
It was provided that when any communication from a foreign
power was made, and its character was innocent and inoffensive,
that it should be immediately submitted to the Lord Lieute-
nant. But if propositions were received which in their nature
were dangerous to the state or hostile to its interests, what did
the House suppose was then to be done ? The Commission of
Roman Catholic Bishops were to return it without their in-
dorsement! Now if any set of men desired to possess themselves
of an engine for carrying on treasonable practices in time of war,
or dangerous communication in time of peace, he could not
possibly conceive one more fit for their purpose than such a
commission as this. And what was the provision of the Bill for
the case of concealment if it should arise ? Why, that if trans-
actions the most momentous as affecting the safety of the -coun-
try should be concealed by them, they were punishable as for
misdeameanor. Thus the same conduct which would render a
Protestant liable to be tried for high treason, was in a Roman
Catholic to be treated as a simple misdeameanor. He mentioned
this, not to create the supposition that there were any bad in-
tentions of this nature, but to shew the House what confidence•
ought to be reposed in the framers of a Bill who pretended to
give them such security as this, when they proposed to make
so important an alteration in the laws of the country—four
Catholic Bishops sitting in Dublin or in London, to controul the
power of the Pope, to regulate the correspondence, and to
check the intrigues of the Papal See of Rome, and to be for-
sooth the guardian of the Protestant religion.—(Cheers.)-1n
the Bill of his Right Hon. Friend, a Commission was provid-
ed for of a very different nature. He added Roman Catholic
Laymen to the Roman Catholic Clergy, anti Protestant Privy
Counsellors had access to their transactions. In addition to
this, they were to advise the Crown through the first Minister
for the Home Department, or the Chief Secretary of Ireland ;
so that there was a security against the secret machinations of
the Pope or his emissaries. Let him further call the attention
of the House to another most important omission which the
Hon. Baronet and his advisers had made in the present Bill.—
He looked through it in vain for any- controul over the commu-
nications between the Vicar Apostolic and the Pope ;---a secu-
rity which he considered as even more necessary than in the
case of the Roman Catholic Bishops. The latter when once
appointed, could not be removed; but the Vicar Apostolic
might offend the Pope to-day, and be removed to-morrow.--
He might be told, perhaps, that they were not to look for se-
rities in this, but in the other measures which were to be ap-
pended to it. Now it had been the particular art and manage-
ment of the authors of those other measures not to enable the
House to know their exact nature; so that nobody could say
whether they were to be measures of security, or merely mea-
sures of regulation. Did his Hon. Friend (Mr. Littleton)
mean at once to disfranchise every holder of a forty-shilling
freehold in Ireland—however it- might have been acquired,
however used, and with whatever intentions held ? Did he
mean at once, by the dicta of his enactment to sweep off all
this class from the Electors of Ireland ? If not, what security
then was the measure to afford, and where would be the safety
upon which his lion. Friends the' Members for Armagh and.
Downe rested ? If they- were to' wait until the holders of the
present leases became naturally extinct, they might indeed en-
joy the prospect of security when it would have become useless,
but the measure could afford none for the present. When the
Irish Church should be subverted, and the Church of Legland
shaken, and when there should be nothing left to defend, then
a future generation would have the satisfaction of seeing this
security begin to act. But then they had another security in
the proposition for paying the Roman Catholic Church. But
if an annual sum was to be paid to the Roman Catholic Clergy
without the controul of Parliament, and to be applied to any
purposes of their own, it should meet his decided objection-
The effect of it would be to increase the religious animosities
which already existed, and to have two Bishops in every Dio-
cese, contending for one flock. He did not think such a mea-
sure calculated to encourage the Established Religion, and he,
for one, would not-be a party to it. He thought himself bounu,
as a legislator, and as the holder of that office which he had
the honour to fill, to take care that the religion of the people
was kept pure. lie would not, therefore, consent to place 11
fund in the hands of the Catholic Hierarchy, which must
give them a power hostile to the interests of the Protestant
Religion. Had they who intended to support this measure
asked theniselses the question—how far it would specs
the sanction of the people. What would be the feeling of the
Presbyterians of Scotland-, who differed as widely as they of the
Established Church, from the doctrines of Popery ? What
would the people of this country say, when in addition to their
tithes they were called upon to pay taxes for the support Of
the Catholic Church ? But if this would be a harilithip upon
Episcopalians, what would it be to that numerous class the
Protestant Dissenters? He saw no security in this -measure
which would induce him to make the sacrifice required, and he
was sure the people of either country would be opposed to iter.,
Upon the subject of' the power of the Pope, they were t 01"
that the Scriptures were superior to his order, and that there-
fore nothing immoral could be insisted upon. But had thet
forgotten that the Itomish Church disallows the exercise of in;
dividual judgment upon the meaning of the Scriptures, and
contended that the Pope's exposition of them was infallible ?--;
The Right Hon. Gentleman then argued that the admission 01
Roman Catholics to Parliament, and to the high 'offices of the
State, - must of necessity be dangerous to the permanent as,
cendancy of the Protestant Church. The natural position of tne
Church of Ireland in relation to the great majority of' the people
of that country, rendered what Dr Doyle said of' it perfectly
true, viz, that it -was only supported by the law, and thosie
who wished to protect it must preserve the law uncliange'
The House could not forget the resolutions of the Hon. Mew'
bet for Montrose. They knew, too, that he was not in the
habit of abandoning any idea which strayed across his mind'
for want of perseverance. What was to assure him), then, tilt
the same propositions for despoiling the Irish• Church; WO
not he.revived when backed by the support of a Catholic r4_,
~-
Hamm and all the increased power which the Catholic Church
must acquire from these measures ? If, ineleed, he could. see
in the Bill the least 'prospect of its healing the wounds -21,1).!..
patting an end to the dissensions of Ireland, he might be he
&aced to incur this risk, great and serious as it was. But 1'
could not induge that hope. He could not forget that in tits
celebrated Address of that body which the House had recentnits
been called- upon to suppress--the topics of tytlies, the topic 9
reform, the topics of Grand Jury cases, and others too nun't,,,,
rous to detain the House by mentioning, were all mixed 11P :t,
gether. ,Hows then, could he avoid seeing that all these'ol;,,
ters would be seized by the popular orators whonwished teekeur„,
alive the irritation and distracted feelings of'the country ? '1,1)°,41,
ing at the Bill as being dangerous to the Protestant Chill :bie
anti through the Church to the irotestant Constitution 01 ,to
country—and locking at the pretended securities held-out, vbs.
which, in point of fact,. were aggravations of the daligerilose-
should give it every opposition in his power. He trusted t
toc
who thought -with him,- that it. was the duty of -the Legi3letnise
to guard the fences and outworks of their religion; would 'lose
in rejecting this measure; thereby proving to the cchintrY.,_ 0
entrustedthey
l l
Air.
e jur enoNo unmindfulttßheiyr,3claArX itmd guardianscshi)
cheering.)
itseifnvg e r)y lawsbriefly, and.
and li h
RAaa
tirely inaudible in the gallery. The Hon. 'Oentleinun'iing
understood to support the measure for the lint time, ta
formerly resisted others of a similar nature. ..,„eto
Lord BINNING said, that it was- peculiarly gratil7"'l
witness the increasing effect of conviction upon this most inZable
ant subject—(..su ear !)—lt was most honourable to hiu.,fnielt
Friend to come forward and renounce the prejudices with ;eye
education and early habits had imbibed his mind. He e,
listened.with greater admiration to any, speeth'in that,'isoo-•
then to the one by which this debate was opened froWish_rosiol;
Friend the Member for Armagh.—(Hear !)_His 11191400
was not so much excited by the talents which his Hon!„jeli
always displayed, as by the courage and candour with V511.0.)--•
acknowledged the errors of his former opinions(Chebffctg
He entertained the , same feelings towards: the GallAnt(rftolte
whose conduct had been marked by similar honesty 411,._,„1)iii
ness. With regard to- the speech they had jtist heard .stale
Right Hon. Frtend, he agreed with hint entirely in,',h2'agrekl‘
meat of the situation of the Church of Ireland.' ll' it, arofr
with that the mass of the population were hostile t 0
.atotei
that, principally, • because' they were an irritated and
people. But what teats his Right Hon. Friend'a e011.c1s000:S
That he would -leave things just where they:were. its
hear A.,t6e;,
hear !)—Hp (Lord Binning) would take a very diffeteht:filsoet..
He wished tp support 'the- Church by' the.law, but
_l7O.
further.en stipprt Ihe Church by giving her tlie chains'

leg that respect from the people of Ireland which in his con-
science he believed to be her due. It was curious to hear the
objections now made to the evidence of the Catholics them-
selves as to the nature of their religion. Formerly, when Gen-
tlemen in that House asserted that the doctrines of the Ca-
tholic Church were not what they previously had been, it
was said, " Oh, your Protestants deny these doctrines, but let
us hear theM disclaimed by the Catholics themselves." Now
they were disclaimed by a Catholic Bishop, and the same
parties rejected his authority. His Right Honourable Friend
complained too that the Protestant succession to the throne
was not secure, because the Catholics limited it to the
present reigning family. Why, was it possible that he could
have been thinking of the extent of that illustrious fa.
roily ? Did he forget all the relations of the Duke of Bruns-
wick ? Did he forget the House of Denmark, and the House
of Brandenburglt, and the King of Prussia, several of whose
sons and daughters were married, and had families ? In fact,
if he had looked through Germany, he would have seen a whole
regiment of these royal and illustrious personages to have
quieted his alarms upon that point.—(A laugh.)—Another ob-
jection of his Right Hon. Friend was, that the Roman Catholic
Church was called the Church of Ireland in the Bill, instead of
the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Now all he had to do
was to move in the Committee that the word " of" be struck
eut, and the word " in" substituted in its place, and then
the whole would be remedied. He understood, indeed, what-
ever was to be the fate of the Catholic Question, something
was to be done with the present Oaths, for it was not very
agreeable to tell Gentlemen that they were idolaters, particu-
larly when it was not true.—(Hear, hear !)—His Right Ho-
nourable Friend (Mr. Goulburn) and the Honourable Mem-
ber for Derry (Mr. Dawson), had referred to the letters of
Of J. K. L. He (Lord B.) was not an' apologist for these
letters. On the contrary, he Was extremely sorry that Dr.
Doyle had allowed himself, in an angry moment, to write
them—but this he must say, that in the letters of J. K. L.
there was not one word attacking the Established Church,
and the charge of gross inconsistency between that Prelate's
writings and evidence he therefore denied.—(Hear, hear!)—
Dr. Doyle merely says, that a Church, with the temporalities
of the Establishment in Ireland, ought not to exist in a poor
country devoted to tillage and agriculture. So far from being
hostile to the Church, he uniformly spoke of it with respect, as
one " hewn out of the solid rock," and with that, what he said
before the Cornmitteee perfectly agreed, nor could he believe a
man, such as Dr. Doyle, capable of wilfully lying or perjuring
himself. He held the same opinion of every. Priest who had
been examined, and he joined his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Armagh (Mr. Brownlow) in giving implicit credit to their tes-
timony. He (Lord Binning) would say a word or two on the
auxiliary measures proposed to accompany the present Bill.
The Noble Lord proceeded to argue, that the abolition of 40s.
freeholders could not be properly called a disfranchisement in
the actual state of Ireland ; and that as the Catholics were wil-
ling to surrender that part of the Elective Franchise for Eman-
cipation, with a view to the settlement of the country, he should'
support the measure. The payment of the Catholic Clergy had
been objected to, both as tending to create a new establishment
and saddling the country with a heavy expence. But he
(Lord B.) should not stop on the question of expence, whether
it were 100,000/. or 2 or 300,000/. a-year, and he would ask
those who talked of imposing such a burden on the Protestants
and Presbyterians, to reflect upon the burdens now imposed on
the Catholics for the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)—ln
conclusion, he congratulated the House and the Country tipon
the progress of the Question before Parliament, and he trusted
the House would not only send up this Bill to the other Heuse,
but many others relative to Ireland dictated by equal wisdom,
policy, and justice.—(Hear, hear!)
Mr. WALLACE, who was for the most part inaudible in
the gallery, observed that he did not rise in, the hope of throw-
ing Tight upon the subject under consideration, but, upon an
occasion like the present; he thought a distinct avowal of the
Prounds on which he should vote against the Bill was due to
arliament and the country. No man was more, anxious.than
himself to see 'the objects attained which this Bill professed to
aim at, and if he thought it 'would effect those objects even at
florae sacrifice of the Constitution, he should give kills vote with
fiore gratification than he now expressed his reluctant opposi-
tion to the measure. The passing of the Bill would, in his
opinion, give as much dissatisfaction to one party as it would
Rive satisfaction to another, and could not thereby tranquillize
the country. It therefore appeared, to him the least evil of the
t.1_,0 to brave existing dangers than to create new ones. Looking
t 9 the evidence before the Committee he found that much, hide-
Itadent of this measure, might be done for Ireland, and he
last, prefer introducing other changes first, and leaving tbis
if it were thus deemed necessary. This he also consi-
dered an unfit time to pass 'such an Act. At another period
the Catholics might come forward with respectful solicita-
tions, but Parliament ought to bear in mind, that with what-
ever moderation their petition was worded, and in whatever
terms of conciliation the Hon. Baronet introduced the Ques-
tion to the House, still the petition emanated from the Catho-
lic Association —a body which the Legislature was so recently
_ compelled to put down by a special law. It might hereafter
be conceded without compromising the dignity of the House ;
but now it would be considered a sacrifice and peace offering
to the Catholic Association. No individual in Parliament would
probably assent to that conclusion, but they were to weigh well
What might be felt outside of its doors. They ought to look to
the feelings with which the Catholics would receive the mea-
sure. Two lights in which this qustion might be viewed were,
as a measure to give satisfaction, and as one to put an end to
eel's which now prevailed. Some persons had' said that there
was no danger in these concessions, but he (Mr. 'Wallace) thought
it was most dangerous to trench upon a fundamental principle
of the Constitution. It also appeared to him most dangerous
to give additional power to a new party in the State. Our an-
cestors felt that a Protestant King was no security foi their liber-
ties, unless surrounded by a Protestant Council and supported
.by a Protestant Legislature. What could be thought of the
consistency of Gentlemen on the other side, when in one breath
called the Catholics Slaves and Helots, and in the next repre-
!tented the existing danger to arise from 'the growing wealth,
Prosperity, and power of that body ? Now, it certainly was true
that they were advancing in all those respects, and he there-
fore contended that the present laws could not in operation,
be so injurious as they were described. With respect to
the conversion of some Honourable Members, he must ob-
:er've, that the opinions given in evidence, and which they
bad been influenced, were not new to him ; but he denked that
in the official acts or avowed pretensions of the See of Rome,
there 'was, the least' change. The' Hon. Gentleman thed pro-
ceded to , discuss the form of oaths prescribed in the present
Bill. The first allowed the Catholics to subyert the Protestant
Religion, prOvided they did not attack the Established Church ;
and the other was equally vague and objectionable. The only
security in his opinion, which could be proposed,.was a sub-
!tatitial interference by GOvernment in the appointment of the,
Rnlish Bishops, nor was 'such an interference really incon-
sistent With the discipline or doctine of their religion.. It was
!aid in the evidence last year, that the mass of the people of Ire-
'Pill did not think' their interests identified with Catholic
'flaneipation, and to grant it could not therefore 'confer any
advantage upon them. For these reasons he 'should vote
against the Bill.—( Hear, hear !)
Mr. PORTMAN declared himself a firm supporter of the
stablisbed Church; but a friend of civil and religious tolera-
tl°ll. This Bill would secure the peace and content of Ireland;
and with that conviction he should Note for xhe Question. The
rneaguie would, he thought, give 'fresh glory to Parliament, and'
n
er. 'vigour. to the Constitution.'
eiord VALLERTORT declared himself one of ,the many
concerts to the present Bill, and he believed if all whose prejud..
season meant opinions derived from authority, and not from
`veson and inquiry—were removed by the evidence before the
elentstig Committees, were to declare themselves, the conver-
ti"lB *mid- be found more numerous than was .sypposed.
obstinate
might be delaYed, but every Mae, even its most
"olate enemies, must be convinced. that sooner or later it
could be carried.-(Hear, hear !)—He should give his hearty
te In support of the Bill.
Mr Secretary N • CANNING '(after 'a loud and repeated call
all parts of the .11ouse rose and said—As. it has fallen to
ye! let to address the. House on this oecasion,. I beg to assure
Peculiar
in noir trespassing upon your, attention, I do it with
te-"oar difficulty, because-if I am naturally anxious to treat
Ireeinfihjectat
_some length; the lateness of the hour,. will pre-
ent,..TY doing it justice. In travelling over the ground of thie
te*tibn aethe present crisis, it. is impossible not to per-
Thel'psomething far different, betfat More cheering, thin any
tip_yinl'ifotrih'aOtf Nee have heretofore known. Whether, .or, not, ,the
the 'country is so satisfactorily pronoUnced against
i'luroboaurther concessions to the Catholics as it was' at one time
ni°Lnerd—and whether or not it may be inferred that opi.
tniack's.still the same—l will not undertake to say ; but this
bo:ute certain, that arnorig the petitions on the subject that
dist,,,wetr presented to This House' (I desire to speiik without
tid'eratfement of any), there has been manifested no incon-
Rreater e degree of ignorance as to the question, and a still
yzifick legree of
.ignorance as to the state. of. the country to
iston"
.Plat question refers. I feel, in stating what I _do
fle the full weight of the undoubted right of everyman
hia""a realm to come before this House, and to state fairly
iecea.ions. And I know that every petition should be
eorisi4ur by the House—and be not only received, . but be
Jwith most respectful deliberation. But I know
stetn'' after all, you ought to judge according to your own
13 Relecellt ts, If, out of the general mass of the coontry, ',were
let...,,iett any particular class of men whose interests are more
bead latelY concerned in, this measure, ,and who, ere moet
'Ry -01 Connected with it, that class of men would be the,Cler-
ration:n,e Established Church ; anti I give them rot, ogly .0.14
forward')." Praise, for the manner in which -they have
wept
tilents .to express fairly end honestlyi and boldly, ifjeir
Pon it. But even in their petitions, I have found liothe-

thing of that ignorance of the state of the laws, and of the state
of the country, of which 1 complain—ignorance not affecting
them in their sacred character, but ignorance of which so many
other persons partake. I shall allude in particular to one petition
1 have selected out of the many similar petitions that have been
presented; and it is immaterial to state from whence this petition
has proceeded; but I think the contents of this petition will suffi-
ciently show that the, opposition to the measure has been
founded upon that mistrust to which our natures are so lia-
ble. This petition prays that the House would not grant
to the Catholics those concessions and those immunities

which were denied to every other class of dissenters, -and
it stated that it would be in the highest degree impolitic and
unjust to allow the Catholics, who were comparatively under
the dominion of a foreign court, a voice in the enactment of
laws and in the administration of the laws, while the Protestarit
Dissenters,who were under no such dominion, but who weremore
liberal and better educated, were excluded from those privi-
leges. In answer to this petition, and to this declaration, I say
that if it be declared that the objects of the Bill is to place, and
merely to place, the excluded Dissenters, the Roman Catholic
Dissenters, on a footing with other Dissenters, the objections
against supporting this Bill must at once fall to the ground. I
will not go so far as to say that it would be right to remove all
disabilities on account of religion. I will pledge myself to no
such doctrine. But I will not yield to it unless it can be shown
that practical grievances will result from those disabilities, and

with respect to the Catholics, will those practical grievances
exist or will they not? If I can prove the fact that we discuss
subjects in this House—that we sit in company with, and share
our counsels with those who have still greater religious disabili-
ties than those Catholics, the argument on which the petition is
built is not only weak but groundless. It has surprised me much
that as a great portion of the debate on this subject has more than
usually, touched upon theology, this subject has not been alluded
to. But the petitioners sympathize with the Dissenters, while
to me it is quite clear that the sympathy ought to be the other
way. What, shall we object to sit round that table—shall we ob-
ject to take counsel with those who lie under the stigma of a belief
in transubstantiation? God forbid that before this Assembly and
within these walls I should go into such a subject with any
other view than that of placing the matter in a true light ; but
1 ask, while we reject as unworthy to be our associates those
who believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, shall we ad-
mit and accept those who do not believe in consubstantiation to
be our associates in this House ? Let any man read what
Luther has said on this subject, and perceive the lines he has
drawn between the two classes. He does not merely say that
there is no difference between them, but he says that the one
may be a good subject, and that the other must be a traitor to
the State. But it is charged against the Catholics that their
church is an exclusive church. Now I will only take 'the evi-
dence which was given before the Committee, to show that all
churches are exclusive. All who read the Athanasian Creed,
or hear it read upon certain holidays throughout the year, may
see what a construction is there put upon the sublime doctrines
of Christianity. I say then that is absurd to assert that the Ca-
tholic is the only exclusive church. Again, Sir, much stress
has been laid, during the course of this debate, upon the doctrine
of absolution, which, if taken in its literal sense, is undoubtedly
grossly ridiculous; but it has been proved by evidence bfore
the Committee that this absolution is only a means that
follows reparation of injuries, and good •fellowship. with
all men. If such be the case, then, I ask where is the
great evil that accompanies this doctrine ? and I beg of those
.who look upon it with so much horror, to compare it with a
passage in our ritual service for the visitation of the sick,—
(hear, hear !)—and to place this passage in comparison with
that doctrine. What, then, is this doctrine of absolution suf-
ficient to warrant the grievances of which the Roman Catholics
have to complain ? I will not say that there are not shades of
difference between the Protestant and the Catholic Church suffi-
cient to nriake me rejoice, and I do heartily rejoice, that we have
separated from the Church of Rome; but I say, that those shades
of difference are not powerful enough to permit the Church of
England to impute to others that which .she herself is not with-
out, or to make the breach so wide as that it can never be
closed. Another question is, as to the doctrine which gives
merit to good works, and attaches to them a vital importance.
—Now, I know of no doctrine more dangerous to the State, or
one that is more pregnant with mischief than the doctrine that
good works, ,are nothing, but that every thing depends upon
faith, alone. We are not here to debate points of theology, or.
even higher principles ; we are here talking of good subjects
to a State, and I would far prefer the man who believed that
he must answer in another world for his works In this, and
be judged according to them, to him who believed that each
man was fated to his lot. I say I would rather have such a man
as a subject, and- would unquestionably consider him the safer
companion of the two. These theological objections then are
nothing. No man doubts that we have had, not only in this
House, but in the highest offices of the State, men who have
been Unitarians, or Socinians. I could prove such to be the
fact by many examples, if it were at all necessary to bring them
forward; but if it be admitted that any one such person hasbeen
in those offices, it follows that the theological objection is not va-
lid. Then came the political objections. The Papists, it is said,
ought not to be admitted to certain privileges,• because they
cannot own allegiance to any but a Papist King. Why. not ?
Has the case been at all made out ? Who was it brought a Mo-
narch of England to the block ? Who was it stript the Prelates
of England of their gowns and of their power ? Such acts were
not committed by the Papists. No. I will not now say
by whom they were committed. I am far from advocating
the doctrines of the Catholic Church, hut when it is broadly as-
serted that the Catholics are under the rule and dominion of
a Foreign Potentate, I feel called upon to assert my belief, that
such is not the case. The only and the whole question for the
Legislature is this : —Has a doctrine been ever held and acted
upon, or if'it has, is it held and acted upon now by the Roman
Catholics, that can bring into jeopardy the Church and the Con-
stitution of this State? Dr. Doyle, an Irish Roman Catholic
Bishop, has been examined touching this point before a Com-
mittee of the House. Yet it is asserted by some Honourable
Members„. that he has held one language before this House and
another in his own country. Now, I ask, is it possible that any
man who has a character at stake, and a good name to lose,
could have so done—that he could have pledged his word, put-
ting his oath -out of the question, for this might have been re.
garded by some persons as nothing—to that which was utterly
untrue ? Is it likely that a man, standing before this House,
knowing that every word he uttered would be read, not only
by his adversaries, but by his own flock, and aware that many
of his brethren were remaining in the next room, ready to
be examined on the same topics, and ready to confound
him if his answers were incorrect, could have stated that
which he knew to be untrue? Is it likely that Doctor Doyle
would have given a false explanation of the doctrines he held?
It is utterly impossible that he could so have done. But whe-
ther 'or not we credit the assertions of Dr. Doyle, there is ano-
ther man who believed as he did—and who held the same
Opinions as that Rev. Gentleman professed to hold, when speak-
ing of the spiritual effect of obedience to the Pope. It is the
doctrine not held by Dr. Doyle alone—for all enlightened and
educated Catholics in all ages have been the same. I happened
to fall on a passage in one of the letters of Mr. Pope, the poet,
who, as it is well known, was a Catholic ; this letter was
written soon after, by the death of his parents, he became his
own master, and was written to his friend Bishop Atterbury,
who had vainly endeavoured to convert him to Protestantism.
In this letter Pope said—" I hope all Churches are liberal,
as far as liberality can be rightly understood, but I leave
those points for others to dispute upon. 1 am not a Papist, for
I renounce the Papal Power, but I am a Catholic, a firm Ca-
tholic in every sense of the word." Thus the observation of
Pope confirmed the truth of -the testimony, of Dr. Doyle+ mid
Pope was . a man of a most enlightened mind, and of superior
talents, who expressed this sentiment in confidence to his friend,
a Prelate of the Established Church, without having any other
objeet in view than that of declaring his real belief. I say
this opinion, that was delivered by a man of education one
hundred years ago, tallies with that which of late days was
-given by -an Irish Prelate.- Another charge that has been
made against the Catholics is
•of a kind partly religious and
partly political, and asserts, that they have given themselves
tip to the guidance of their Priests and their Leaders, instead
of dependingupon the Constitution for protection. I will par-
tially admit the, charge, but I will lay the blame elsewhere.
They may be idolaters in religion, but if they be idolaters in
politics we have made them so, b keeping from them those
Privileges which they have a right, t y o enjoy. But I say
admit
them to an equal, share in the Constitution, show that Consti-
tution as we have it, call upon them' to fall down and worship at
our common shrine, and thiscrime of idolatry with which they are
charged will be heard of no more. I am-perfectly ready to admit
that I am not so fond of change a.s to wishfor it, unless it can be
proved to be of unquestionable advantage, unexceptionable in
every respect, and sufficiently recommended by the results that
are likely to follow it.. Is not this change, to which I allude ne-
cessary as well as politic? Is it or is it not a grievous circumstance
that the State should be deprived of the full use of many millions
of its subjects ? Is -it or is, it not a grievous circumstance that the
crowd should be limited in the choice of its subjects' Is it or
is not a grievous circumstance that so many men should
bear about them the badge of degradation, which poisons the
, enjoyment of, society, and- caatsj a damp upon their, hopes and
their aspirations of the rewards of industry and of honour ? I
ask, is there any man who will not, call these real grievances ?
I will not say they are- such. grievances as the Constitution
must die before : 1, will mot even say they are such grievances
as will say, nevertheless, that
tb may not
gr be overievances orfuwlehdic;hbthut I
the
country
should take notice;
and which the Legislature of that country, should endeavour to
removg. .T, he *alba tor Derry air-Dawson) has said
alit' there is bpt choice of difficulties, and that whatever con-
' cinsion the House might come'to he could not feel -satisfied. I
Ido not thinlovo are placed: in this painfukeituaticav; or if we
are it is of our own making. At all events, we have this ad-

, but the cure is in our own
oss
fares those persons were justi-
pvanteagsseio;m werindhot not the
knowd difficulties, Iti
justi-
fied who first framed the system of degradation. But we have
not now to legislate on the same matter ; we have not now to
legislate under the same, circumstances, nor do we come to the
consideration of the subject with the same feelings when, we write
to revise the laws which they enacted. The difficulties which they
had to contend with were not difficulties that were confined to
the closet or the cloister. No ; they affected them politically,
because the Constitution was disturbed, and there was no other
way of putting down those disturbances but by putting down
the religion that created them. They might be pardoned, be-
cause what they did was in the heat of the moment; they might
be pardoned because they endeavoured to sustain a new esta-
blishment; they might be pardoned because they were smarting
under the remembrances of recent suffering; they might be
pardoned because they were elevated by recent victory —a
victory that had been long and well contested for ;- and they
might be pardoned because they retaliated on those who, when
they had the power, exercised it over them. There is ano-
ther way, also, to do our ancestors justice ; they looked at the
problem they had to solve, and they went the way to solve
it. They saw no manner of rooting out the enmity between
them and the Popish Jacobite, and determined that those
they could not convert—for they did scruple a little as to
extermination—they would deprive of every means of in-
crease and of power. I will do them the justice to say that a
more admirable system could not have been devised than the
one they adopted : the rack is a horrid instrument, but it is a
fine piece of mechanism —and the penal code, though exquisite-
ly ingenious,was a code of horrors, for it set the father against the
son, and the son against the father; it stopt the industry of
some, and the energies of all ; it prevented the poor from look-
ing for protection from the rich ; it prevented the rich from
being safe from the poor, and it spetv.ily reduced a population
of about a million to a few isolated individuals. But you have
since changed your policy, or the enactments of 1798 were
mischievous in the extreme. You repaired, you relaxed, and
you then changed them ; you changed this long catalogue
of penal enactments, which I often read with so much horror,
The question then comes to this, are we to go back to the event-
ful scenes of our ancestors, or are we to, go forward, and make
legislation progress with the intelligence of the age ? This is
the question before you. I will admit that this question is sa-
tisfactorily answered, when any man tells me how it is possible
we are to avoid the alternative ; but I have heard from no man
how this was to be. We have an instance deciding how much the
minds of men are becoming unprejudiced on this question. The
truth is making its way in prejudiced, although honestly preju-
diced minds. It is impossible to have listened to this debate,
and not to have seen this triumphant achievement over error :
the honest and conscientious mind throwing, off its former un-
sound opinions, and acknowledging its conviction of the truth.
It was impossible not to feel delighted at the open and manly
declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brownlow) up-
on this question, and of his conviction of the essential im-
portance of it to the peace of Ireland. Considering the station
in which he stands,and the situation which he holds in that coun-
tryt his conduct is most expressive of the force of truth over
prejudice. It was not his speech but his individual presence
m that state that spoke thunder-tongued. It was impossible
not to feel the operation of this power in the speech of the
Gallant Colonel (Bagwell), who was not heard perhaps so fully
as his sentiments were strong ; it was impossible to have heard
that speech and not to have marked the candour and manly
sentiments which it delivered. These are the living illus-
trations of the truth, that the time is now come when this
question must be brought to a triumphant conclusion. There
is also the Honourable Gentleman who is so closely con-
nected with the Northern parts of Ireland (Mr. Brownlow),
and whose name I had always heard coupled with measures
wholly opposed to those liberal views which he now came
forward to advocate ; it was impossible to have heard his
honest and candid avowal of his sentiments, without feeling
that he was become a convert to Catholic Emancipation,
nor without feeling that there is a sentiment excited which
is bringing men of every denomination, and of every party,
to a fair and unbiassed contemplation of the question. Then,
Sir, if these are indications of the state of opinion which
r now prevail among many who have hitherto been opposed
to all concessions, are there not other indications which affect
this question? Are there not proofs that the measure will be
met with a different temper from what it has hitherto been.
What then is the consequence of the exclusion of the Ca-
tholics ? Why the first is, that it turns to evil every blessing
of the country. You speak of the greatness of wealth, an in-
creased population, a growing intelligence, an increasing pros-
perity, as the sign of the times and the blessing of Ireland. But
is it possible that either our growing wealth, increased intelli-
gence, or increased population, can avail those whose feelings
cannot be satisfied while you withhold from them a fair partici-
pation of those blessings. Do you not feel that you lead them
to war if you do not grant them, now that they are ripe for it,,
the enjoyment of those privileges from which they have been so
tang exluded, and which both policy and right decide they
should enjoy ? If you deny them this, they will feel that you
have lifted them up to an_eminence from which to view those
bright objects they would fain attain, if permitted, only to dis.
appoint their expectations and render more desperate their
hopes. Better, perhaps, would it have been for them if
they had remained in their primitive state of bondage and of
ignorance, than that you should stimulate in them every prin-
ciple of action, and then deny them the capacity of enjoying the
fruits of it Sir, what are the consequences which will
flow from our granting the Roman Catholics emancipation ?
My Hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson) has said that one of them
would be the overthrow of the Constitution—a very wide chain
this between my Hon. Friend's premises and his conclusion,
and I should like to see or be informed what are the links which
form it ?—(Laughter.)—:Of course one of them must consist in
their physical force. Physical force, I conceive, is much more
likely to be employed when the door is shut than when the door
is opened.—(Laughter.)—What is' proposed to be given to the
Catholics by this bill is not power, but a possibility of possess-
ing power—not fruition,, but capacity to enjoy it. And while
this country, guarded as it is by its Protestant prejudices, in the
hest use of the word, retains those prejudices, they are quite sure
to present at all times a barrier to any overweening ambition
'which the Honourable Member for Derry seems to attribute
to the Catholics, whenever they should insist upon an undue
portion of power with the Protestants. If you persist in
excluding the descendants of 'the great men who helped to
form that Constitution of which you are' so jealous, the
consequence will ultimately be that the hand that toils, the un-
cultivated hind, the unlettered individual, will assert and as-
sume a' power much more fearful than any you are called'upon
to confer. lt is, therefore, an irrational, impolitic, and dan-
gerous policy, to pursue this course, and I most fearfully look
forward to the consequences. Suppose, - Sir, that the present
Bill were to pass, what would ensue ? Why, in the next, per-
haps, we should have a new corner or two, who would at first' be
-an object of curiosity (Laughter); but after that our feelings
would subside, and we should sit down by his side as uncon-
sciously as we now do by the side of a Protestant. We never
.ask whether any of the Honourable Gentlemen around us are
good Protestants. We all seem to think, with Mr. Burke,
" that he was the best Protestant who protested against every
thingin the world." I say we should soon become as uncon-
scious of the presence of a Catholic as of a Proteitant; and I
would risk my life-on this proposition, that no Catholic would
' ever venture to couch a speech, in thii House, in such strong
and dangerous terms as what I have myself heard from a
t Protestant, and that the Constitution would not be so much' in
'danger from Catholic Members as from some Protestant ones
whom I have heard within these walls. I ask then, the person
i who now opposes this measure to carry his imagination a little
'further beyond the present time, to a period when he is not
,verylikely to haste much personal interest 'in the country, and
let him answer me, on his honour, if he believes (if this Bill
'should not pass) that in ten years from this time, the Catholics
will not be admitted to a seat in this House ? It must be so ;
'nothing can resist this inevitable result ; 'the nature of things,
land the progress of mind, make it irresistible. Then, if
'the boon is to be given, and in so short a time, shall we
not have the grace of giving it now ? Or, to )cut it in another
mtirhoiulibityeottn
rtehfeu
si
inntge riimt
atw ea ttai
ikriee uponwhe
n ourselvesever every
t h
illrge
way—since this must be effected at all events, and perhaps at
much
eo sunp ocs hp
conspires to make it an act both' of grace and or the best'
and wisest policy ? Shall we venture to withhold from the
Catholics a participation in the blessings of the Constitution,--a
Constitution, mind, which we are holding up to the Catholics as
that for which we are to bleed,—a Constitution which, when
r property u
doneslycrifboerdthine tphriost ilecotiuosne'itisechteeibldeasnYvear ou and the boast of nut
r
lives, but for the privilege it bestows. But is it such to the
Catholic !—No ; to him it is rather the Constitution of exthe.
o
sion, and yet you call the Catholic to bow down and prostrate
himself before it. I say it would be most absurd and preposte-
, rous to suppose that you could reason with sentient beings
with such logic as that ? In proportion, then, as you are pro-
proportion as this country is great—in v, t•
pro-
sperous—in
rropor ion
and ' •
as this country is richpowerful, unfolding its wealth
and,capabilities' of which it is every day more and more dis-
playing—in proportion as we want not the aid and fear not. the
frown of any other nation, -so inroportion are we able to grant
• that bright dawn of ho
that boon, and to realise pe, which has
been so- long sought for, and entertained by the Catholics of
Ireland. By the concurrence of the_ most extraordinary el:a:11111-
to' have conspired to bra ' stances, which chance seems . out,
we stand now in a situation in which we, never stood before,
when the Catholic Question has' been discussed. We have
discussed it'either in the meridian of a foreign war or in the
midst of domestic differences and rimy who then opposed it
often did so on' the ground that the times were unsuited for such
a question, and that they would wait for a calmer season be.
fhre so &eta an act of legialiition 'should 'obtain their concur-
rence. The time is now come beyond our hopes or most san.

guine expectations. Whoever looked forward to see this dm- '
try in the high and palmy and prosperous station in which she
at present stands, and shall we not seek them and make it our
own by some signal act of grace and of justice ? If, then our
greatness may fade, our ,wealth diminish, our prosperity pass
away—but we shall still have made this time our own--
"Qui non moderabitur
Infectuin volet esse dolor quod snascrit et mens
Dam penis olio per vim fz.stinat inulto."
This is not the occasion when I should wish to offer any obser-
vations on the particulars of the Bill ; but an non. Member
has alluded to the oath and the securities. With regard to the
oath it is unfortunately framed. I agree in the opinion that
it is more like a Bill of Indictment than a protestation. But

it should be remembered that there is another place tbr the Bill
to go up to, where much scruple and many surmises—(a laugh)
—were likely to arise. To make the Bill palatable, therefore,
to the other House, we have restored the long tale to the oath.

Then comes my hon. Friend, and objects t'() this, and treats
it as if it were a contrivance of the Catholics; and desires

me to omit this part of the oath ; but I would much rather
this omission should be his than mine. But it should be
borne in mind 'that this obnoxious clause is as old as any
Act of the House relating to the Roman Catholics. He
always considered that it was to be measured by what would
satisfy Protestants—not what might come up to the idea of his
Right Hon. Friend. The object was not so much to cure
the mischief of which he was apprehensive, but to afford an
adequate remedy for that which then existed, and pressed upon
the country. My Right Honourable Friend. (Mr. Goulbtirn)
had argued as if the communication with the Court of. Rome
was then, for the first time, to be guarded against; but.l can
inform. my Right Honourable Friend of what certainly is a
matter of very general notoriety, that this communication goes
on every day—that rescripts are continually passing—that every
trivial event is made known—that marriages, and every other
occurrence of private life, is communicated. This unques-
tionably is contrary to law ; but it is, nevertheless, indulged
in, without reference to that limitation. It ir, as created
by law, an offence on which the severest penalties might . be I
visited ; but the penalties, from their extreme severity, are
not inflicted. No one thought of carrying the provisions of.
such laws into effect. I would say to my Right Honourable
Friend, that as the fact was unquestionable, that such communi-
cation did exist, he, thinking it so dangerods, ought to 'intro-
duce a law that would reach it, for the existing enactments, as
the fact proved, were totally insufficient for such a purpose.
The severity of those laws which affected intercourse with
the Court of Rome, came most particularly under my own
consideration. A short time after I came into office the King
had received a very kind letter from the Pope, and I though it
not prudent to advise his Majesty to answer that letter until I
had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon
the subject. Those learned persons agreed in thinking that the.
Minister who should advise such a communication would be
guilty of a prremunire; accordingly the letter from that time to
the present had remained unanswered. These are not the de-
fects of the Bill ; they arise out of the present system, a system
which it is now intended to alter. These are the three objects
to which I have thought it necessary to direct the attention of
the House. The suggestions which may be made on the sub-
ject I am ready to adopt, though I am unwilling to attach to
the measure the limitation spoken of. I would now address
myself more particularly to the two.bills which are understood
to be auxiliary to the present measure. For my own part I am
perfectly contented to support the ,present Bill, without
regard to both or either of those auxiliary
.measures. I ant
willing to vote for it as it now stands, independently of any
such extraneous support, and in doine so I ant not to be consi-
dered as pledged to the support a any other bill on a
different subject, for I have much to learnbefore I can make up
my mind to the conviction that these measures are in them-
selves unobjectionable ; but if by consenting to their ;enact-
ment, I could conciliate 'those who have scruples to overcome
—if I could do. " a great right" by consenting to " a little
wrong" much might be yielded to expediency, that in a stricter
spirit might be refused. I wish to have it distinctly borne in
mind that freeholds in Ireland are very different from freeholds
in England.,—(Hear, hear!)—Those, therefore, who might
hesitate—those who might have difficulties with regard to the
elective franchise, should remember that in this respect Ireland
and England most, widely differ. To such it might be clearly
explained, that in thus striking at the symbol, we do not vio-
late the essence of freedom. Of the blame which may attach
to this measure—of the censure which may hereafter fall on it,
I, for one, ant willing to take my share, if, at the expence of
a trifling evil, we accomplish a great good. In this view of
the subject, I confess that I look upon this auxiliary enact-
ment with great and increasing favour ; nor have I heard any
argument which has shaken my opinions on this subject.
As regards the second of these auxiliary measures, namely,
that' which would go to make a provision for the Roman
Catholic Clergy, it is urged that there would be a gross and
manifest injustice in taxing the whole population of the empire
at large, for the support of a clergy whose ministry was confin-
ed to only a portion of that population • but, in the warmth of
urging this argument, do they forget the regium donum Do
they not all contribute to the payment of this provision for. the
Clergy of apart Of the population much fewer in number than
the Roman Catholics? Is it not a. grievance deeply affecting
the Roman Catholics,- that they are obliged to pay for the
maintenance of -the Clergy of the Established Church, and is
it proposed to remove that grievance ? Quite the contrary.
—Do I intimate a willingness to agree. to any measure having
for its object a diminution of the revenues of 'that Church, or
an encroachment in any respect upon its. rights and proper-
ty ? The integrity of that Church I feel bound to main-
tain inviolate, as the connecting link between Great. Britain
and Ireland. The Catholic is taxed for the maintenance of
that Church, and the regium donum of the Presbyterians' is in
principle a tax perfectly analagous, and consenting to the one
is decidedly inconsistent with objecting to the other. I shall
now trouble the House with but a few further observations.—
(Loud cheering.)-1 would, point attention to the internal si-
tuation of the country, anti at the same time io the condition in
Which the Catholics are placed. In the prosperity of the coun-
try at large it has outgrown all its former greatness ; and as it
in human nature to look inviduously on the success of rivals—
nations following the same rule as individuals—it is to' be pre-
sumed that the other countries of Europe regard with no fa-
vourable eye the increasing power and strength of the British
Empire. In the painful feelings which this may be expected
to excite, where do they look for consolation ? To Ireland,
and there do they fasten, as if by inStinct, up.on the unfortunate
circumstances of that country. They cherish -the persuasion
thateihe is a rankling wound in the bosom of the State, which
will work the destruction of its vital powers. Let is then dis-
appoint the hopes of those who look to this as the means of ac-
complishing their views against the interest of Great Britain._
Let us, by healing this wound, annihilate those hostile antici-
pations, and let the cure be so complete, and the healing so
effectual, that not even the cicatrix shall remain.—(Loud cheer-
ing and applause.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL.—I am sure the House will do me the
justice to believe that it would have been infinitely more grate-
ful to my feelings to have been spared the necessity of address-
ing the House on a subject already so exhausted. My Right
llon. Friendwill, I trust, also give me credit when I say that it
would haVe been much more personally gratifying tome to agree
with him than to differ-on this most important occasion; but if I
see much evil in acceding to the deinands of the Roman Catho-
lics, and vastly less in adhering to the laws and constitution as at
present established, I persuade myself that I shall not, in conse-
quence of that; forfeit his esteem and friendship-:.-for standing
forward in the honest and candid expiession of my conviction.
Before I notice the other points to which I deem it necessary to
advert, 1 shall previously notice the conversion of some Hon.
Members, en which so much stress has been laid. When my
Hun. Friend the Member for Armagh announced that he' had
changed his mind, I heard him with 'as perfect tt conviction . of
his sincerity as could possibly be entertained ; and I trust that
he will give me credit for equal sincerity in adhering to my origi-
nal opinions as I eve hint in his alteration of sentiment. The
course'ofnlyoppoSition to thia Measure, will, I trust, be considered
throughout as a moderate opposition, and free from any rancorous
feeling wheteVer. I am far from*relying upon the petitions that
have been presented against the claims of Roman Catholics, as
presenting a beets the present measure. For my own part, I.
have never said or done any thing to encourage the presentation
Of these petitions; anti if they had been ten times ae numerous
I would .till remain Of thee tine opinion. I certainly admit, with
my Right lion. Friend, that these petitions *sliew nothing more
than the general dissetisfaction which the passing of the, Bill
would be likely to create. ,The conversion of his Right Hon.
Friend clearly sheared that Ite,hitherto conceded to die Roman
He had learned
.from the evidence of Dr.. Doyle,
Catholics on grounds quite different from those on which Thad
Religion no longer
teetehdeedlionnin Catholic held the doctrine,
power to dispossess Monarchs of thrones, that
Vaith was not to be kept with heretics, and that the See of Rome
did' not exercise temporal authority in &her States.. All: this
was well flown before answers to this effect had been given to
'to die ituetieS of Mr. Pitt, addressed to the Universities on this
that
the Popebad
were, and that for that reason he would
vote not go on as they
subject. lint my Right lion. Friend had said, that things
at the sonic time distinctly
hisin fort *_ threaten-
ing that if the Bills for disfranathotic Clergy freeholders,
and providing for, the Roman
in, ergy should be thrown
out; he would, by every means his power, .
the
oppose the. third
Bill. He would thus take eve
reading of the present , ,
vote for the present Bill,
every oppor-
tunity that they
t these;
cannot rethain so. t conceive, thata ?.accompanong
hills I act a much more Consistent part in
opposing the.second
tunity of keeping things as they are, though he
, reedittg.orthe preSent Bill, than in any othee course. which
• are. founded on
petiiiims which have been presented ,
'My 'Honourable Friend. says,, that.
I could possibly take.
that the Roman Catholici, are
moos inipfe'ssibn, praying
placed upon the saint favourable footing with the Dissenters,

but such petitioners should be forgiven, if it appeared that by
any means they could have access to the speech of his Right
Hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, who claimed
for the Roman Catholics the abstract right of equality with .
Protestants in political privileges. This, I confess, appears
a sufficient vindication. I shall next notice the petitions from
the Clergy of the Established Church. It was objected to.
these, that they entered into theological disquisitions, and that
they referred to the doctrine, discipline, and government of the
Church of England: What do you find in those Articleti of
the Church of England which the Clergy, whose petitions
are thus taken exception against, are required to subscriue
to, but strong and lengthened protests against that .system
of religion which the supporters of. the present Bill are will-
ing partially to establish in Ireland? The Articles pf the
Church of England positively denounce image worship, con-
fession, transubstantiation, and various other doctrins of the
Roman Catholic Church, as idolatrous, and not sanctioned
by Scripture. They further declare that the Pope of Rome has
no jurisdiction; and when you tell die Protestant clergymen
of the Church of England, that in the preamble to this Bill for
admitting the Romau Catholic into the full participation of all
the privileges of the State, the doctrines of the Established
Church are not injured or deteriorated, is there: not, • 1 a 4:,
cause for their approaching this House with •a theological dis-
cussion,
in the issue of which they are so nearly interested ?
•
Is it, not imperative on them to come forward and sliti:of their

belief in those doctrines of their own Church, and the
founded nature of those other doctrine's by maintaining the fal-
lacy of which they hold their own existence and place in our
establishment.? lam equally surprised with my lion. Friend
at two of the. clauses contained in the preamble to this Bill ; I
mean those for the maintenance of the Protestant succession,
and the support of the Protestant Church, as by law esta-
blished. 'Why, indeed, have those clauses been introduced,
in the preamble, when, in the remaining part of the' Bill,
there are embodied no enacting clauses corresponding witlt
them ? In the Bill introduced into this House some years

hack, by the late Mr. Grattan, for the admission of Unman
Catholics to employments in the civil and military establish-
ment, such protecting clauses did exist in the preamble, and
were followed up by other provisions and , positive enactments,
bearing a strict relation to them in the body of the Bill.: You
omit those clauses in the enactments of the present Bill, and
wisely have you done so, because the provisions or clauses of
that nature, however they might appear, could really tend to the
maintenance of our Protestant Church, and succession to the

Crown, as provided by the Bill of Rights. I say, Sir, this was
well done ; but I recur to the clauses in the preamble, and I
am prepared to say, that. the apparent anxiety to, support the
Church and Crown, as established in these realms. that care
and anxiety manifested . in the preamble of the Bill, but not
supported or sustained by any positive enactment in the Bill
itself; does excite a doubt that all is 'not sound, but that there
existed even in the minds of the Honourable Members who
framed it a suspicion for the safety of the Church and State.
1 repeat, Sir, this very care begets a lurking suspicion for the
well-being and integrity of our present establishments. It
is in all our recollections, Sir, that when Macbeth meets the as-
sembled peers of Scotland as his guests at the banquet at the
very moment that he has been plotting his destruction, and has
reason to believe his machinations have taken effect upon his
victim—at that very time it is that the tyrant and murderer ex-
presses a great and overstrained anxiety for the presence of
Banquo. His very solicitude on that. occasion would have
struck a close observer as suspicious. Accordingly, it has been
remarked by the commentators, that nothing can be more mas-
terly and powerful evidence of his guilt—nothing could show a
greater consciousness of criminality than this over anxiety for
Banquo's safe return. When die news arrived of the fatal
death of the murdered thane, nothing could excite a greater or
stronger suspicion than the previous actions of Macbeth. His
conduct had at the moment roused fears for the safety of Bariquo.
In like manner, Sir, I. would say, that this over regard for the
safety and protection of the Protestant succession andChurch,not
followed up by any protecting clause, seems to be something like
the over anxiety of Macbeth for the safety of Banquo. It con-
veys to my mind the apprehensien that all is not right, and that
there is some well-grounded reason for fear at the bottom. But,
Sir, say my opponents, the succession to the throne is establish.
ed permanently and inviolably, by provisions already made: Sir,
I deny this, that.is ,if the Acts under which itsintegrity is se-
cured, are altered by the law now sought to be introduced. The
Bill of Rights provides the oath of Supremacy to be taken by
all persons previous to accepting offices in the State. That
oath is for the maintenance of the succession, as established,
and denies all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or temporal within
the realm, other than that of the reigning Monarch. There
is also, Sir, the declaration against transubstantiation ; but that
stands upon different grounds. But, Sir, if the succession is
established on a permanent and inviolate basis, and tb is
House is prepared to alter the Acts and the Oaths necessary
to qualify for the enjoyment of office under the Crown, what
need exists for securies, and why notice the matter
The friends of Emancipation are not disposed to deny (who
is ?) the importance of maintaining the Protestant succes-
sion to the Crown. It is the only office, with the exception of
two, which requires the holder to be a Protestant But, Sir, a
case might arise where a Prince should take the declaration
against transubstantiation, and be, at'the period of his accession,
in communion with the Church of England. suppose, then, all
the security of Protestant. advisers and councillors at an end,
and what may not follow ? How did James 11. try to effect his
purpose ? , What say. the Bill of Rights ? Was it not by divers
evil councillors, ministers, and judges, that he attempted to
subvert the religion, laws, and government of the realm ?
Pass. this bill, anti you leave the Prince at liberty, to make his
selection of advisers from the number of his. Roman Catholic
subjects.. .What may.nothe . the effect of that ? Certainly 1
am disposed to allow great importance to the influence of the
personal character of the King. The late King exercised • an
influence of that kind.-,-(Hear !)—But if a •Prince were to fill
the throne, who, after taking the oaths to maintain the Protest-
ant Church. as by law established among us, should find, or
suppose he found, an error in hiii former belief, anti considering
the ancient religion of his ancestors right, adhere to it, and throw
oft' the yoke of the Protestant faith, what would we then say ?
—lf. I advert to the liberal principles broached this night
such as, that no man is responsible for his religious creed, and
should not be disqualified for office on account of 'his belief,
and should be permitted to change his religion as he thought
fit, and on conviction, what is the deduction to be drawn from
all this ? I say, Sir, it' the King and Queen of this country,
after their accession:to the throne 'become converts to the 'Ro-
man Catholic .faith, the peace of the State rests upon the act' of
two individuals. To expel the Prince from the throne, be-
, cause on .reconsidering his principles he 'had thought fit to
change his :religious belief, would produce a convulsion in
this country.--(Hear, hear !)—lt did not produce that 'effect
in the, case of James H. and it led to the necessity of secu-
rities in the reign of Charles 11. I say, if 'you break down
the barriers, which prevent the access of Roman Catholic
advisers to the throne, you will render such an event infinitely
more probable. • Let me not be told those are visionary views.
I admit they are speculative, but when we are • about to pass
laws subversive of the fundamental principles of the Constitu-
tion, we must speculate on the consequences. The Honourable
and Learned ..Member for .Plympton (Mr. North) had said, We
should not use a telescope to view the clouds, while we over-
t_ ooked the dangers at our feet. I agreeinthe sentiment, but
maintain the necessity•of regarding prospective dangers. And.
:Sir, should we even see a cloud no bigger than -our , hand, we
are bound, if we act upon- the principles of sound policy amine-
cessary caution; tci•provide against the coming storm, ere it rhas
overshadowed 'the firmament and burst upon oar heads.' We tire
bound to act in this -manner, and consider the ' poa.ibility of
'events. 111 y Right-Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) has traced-the
progress of thealisqualifying laws enacted against the Catholics,
and -dismissed the consideration of- the penal, code.' ;I draw a
distinction between those -twos He contends', as -we;have , re-
pealed, the penal laws, no medium-should be • observed' inociov
mode of dealing with the exclusive Ones. t Burthepresent triea-
sore is a medium, and the Catholics are not • to be admitted to
full and equal rights. They will still he subject to the skietartien.
tat test, and the House knew in what terms' the Hrinourabis•
'Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brotigham),' had- eharaeterited that
measure, and•the Indemnity Act: I deny thatinomedititn4 ts
is said, exists between the-re-enactment-of • thevemiloode acid
tho total repeal of thealisqualifyinglaws.—(Hear'!)-4:.do:nok
wish, Sir, to enter into an examination of all the clauses. Ofithe
Bill ;• but I•have been so frequently pressed •on the 'subject ot.
my apprehensions, that I wish to say a few-ivordsupou'the.aub-
4ect. The case now to be decided is entirely:different from What
it would be under a new, government. -Whether or Itot there
should. be a church establishment connected with thia,,Stioe
might • then be a question, to,, be' deeideth by the form
of govermnent existing, bat .witlins there Canariseno question. .
A -monarchical, government •required a ehureft in• connexion
with the State ; +to Republican one- might dispense with it,
as in the case of America. •We found the••Churelvof 'Rome-
once in a state of-power,- sind,argaing:thequestibri
I should say •the• Members of that Church•=styles, -thetPra,:,
testant Establishment with -natural jealousy laid in' Adah, a
light as to render them unfit to legislate forita.interests.4 It
is, Sir, in my- opinion, safer to exclude the:Catholio fronrposier
and place than to call upon- him to take a long earth:-by Nira'rof
security. It is on: thatprinciple:we have diaqualifled.RevatMO
Officers and Clergymen from ranting, in thisr,House,:ibeeittito
they were under ansuridue• influencer--tHretr )-1--Recolleatios
of events and. history' must.'haVer their leffects--ott, ',then 'bib&
and when see: such. Mem as ')1r: CbarlestßOalin--ttoaino:
ing,untitnopeejudices, I cannot ahinkit Safe to toldmit :thy Hos
man•Vatholicsin to State 4stfiees. TlieTtameof:De. Ekoirtio:haa
been connected ,with tbiscliscuasion, aritiTtionntt.totlleknotchwiti•
to, reconcile- 44 evidence, beforb the,Conlmittee tostdsti.Snatetlf
Ireland4ith pievieist writininn If.Pxotestatits'fabbilanised:
by, the DOctor's ptiblicatiens, it cannot be a• matter of surpriso,
that they utter sentiments of alarm. I am told, indeed, of re-

. . . .
iihious animosities in Ireland, and that the measure in question
er41.1 remove them. But the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
rougham) has told the House on a former evening, that the
more religious establishments approximate, the more bitter is
their hatred.—(Hear !)—He has further, Sir, informed us of
the miseries and contentions engendered by the difference of a
single letter, and the blood spilt on account of the distinction
between Homoiousian and Homoousian. The House and the
flor-ourable and Learned Gentleman .may rely upOn it, that
if they superadd to the religious animosities already existing
between Protestant and Catholic, the additional excitement
Of rival Church Establishments, 'the hatred will be abundantly
eugmented. Dr. Doyle, after many other observations, as-
nerts, that the Roman Catholics are merely suffered to exist as
_religionists. He goes on to say, that the Catholics give their
e.eeat and toil to those who forge their chains, that they offer
their hay and corn at an altar which they deem -profane—
! Cries of hear, 'hear, hear !)—these are the words of Doctor'
Doyle—that they still are obliged to support their former
parish Chapel, which stands as a monument of the right
of conquest, and of the power of law over equity and pub-
lic good.—(Hear, hear !)--Further in this book we find
that Dr. Doyle, after enumerating the manifold and grievous
heart-vending evils to which the Catholics are subjected, says
the Church Establishment is the greatest of all: the Catholics,
he says, are obliged to pay tithes and church rates to that
Church, which, with a whip like a scorpion's-tail, drew their
blood, and had to contribute the bread of their famishing chil-
dren to the parson and his rapacious followers.--(Hear, hear !)
—They have to buy bread and wines for the Church, to pay
the sexton and parish clerk, between whom finally their very
clothes are divided,—(a laugh)--so that they sometimes cast lots
for their garments. I shall, Sir, not pursue the opinions or the
assertions of Dr. Doyle farther, but apply myself more-imme-
diately to the question before the House. I hope, Sir, I shall
be excused for stating objections which. I conscientiously enter-
tain, and which are the result of mature consideration. I shall
come at once teethe preamble of the Bill, and state my reasons
for believing the Church Establishment in danger. This is' my
ceaviction, though my. Honourable Friend the Member for
Armat-ch (Mr. Brownlow) thinks otherwise. I war not with
the Catholic religion farther than it affects our Constitution.—
I am persuaded of its illiberality, and while such is my con-
viction, 1 shall ever oppose its incorporation with the State.—
( Hear !)---It is not their doctrine of transubstantiation, as a
religious tenet, that I object to. My Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
Canning) says, we have others such as consubstantiaitOn ; but,
Sir, we are not now legislating about one or the other, nor
do we adopt the disclaimer of that doctrine as a qualifica-
cation for admission into office from any objection to it in a
religious point of view. We merely call on the Catholics to
disclaim the doctrines, as the best means we have of ascertain-
ing their religious feeling; if any other means equally effica-
cious could he hit on, I, for one have no objection to adopt
it. If it were possible that we could ascertain the fact by simply
—are you a Catholic, or are you not ? I would vote for its adop-
tion ; but, Sir—and I will speak it openly—there are doctrines
of the Catholic Church which, in my mind at least, have a dis-
qualifying effect. There are, 1 say, doctrines of the Church
which influence the temporal acts of its members.—(Hear !)
I am free to admit that, in the progress of enlightenment, the
Catholics as well as others have improved. I am free to admit
that the Catholics have, in common with Protestants, become
more liberal in their views, and lost many of their prejudices
in. that change.---(Hear, hear, hear !)—Still these doctrines re-
main. I take them not from hooks, but as they were ad-
mitted before the Committee by their Bishops and others. And
first, without going further; I think that a sufficient reason for
not admitting them to a participation in the State is their doc-
trine of confession.—( Hear! )-1 feel, Sir, great regret, that there
should exist, among any class of men, a doctrine so astound-
ing, as that if an individual inform another of his intention.
to commit a murder, the person so informed dare not warn
the man to be murdered of his danger.—(Hear, hear !)—I alsa
admit, Sir that there are doctrines of the Church perhaps
liable to objection for their spirit of exclusion. I acknowledge
the farce of what my Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) says of
the Creed of St. Athanasius, though I most declare that my
Right Hon. Friend used no small degree of sophistry. in the line
of argument he adopted : but, Sir, I ask him, what is the Prac-
tice in the Protestant church ? how is it acted on ?—(Hear !)
We have also our doctrine of absolution. Is not the practice in
the two churches, however, widely different? I dread, Sir, the
construction which the illiterate peasantry put on the doctrine of
absolution, particularly when they are not allowed to look into
those Scriptures which expose its fallacy—(cheers);—then comes
the doctrine of indulgences, and the influence it must have on the
practical conduct of men. For my own part I don't under-
stand it, nor has the evidence of Dr. Doyle satisfied me on the
subject. He says, that now indulgences cannot be granted for
more than seven years ; but whether for 7 years or 40 days,
the doctrine, was equally unintelligible. Many Honourable
Members have said, that granting to the Catholics emancipa-
tion will have the effect of quieting all animosities, and putting
aa end to controversial acrimony. Sir, I think that measure, by
creating a rivalry, would have the effect of-exciting religious
animosities, which we have hitherto mainly avoided by giving
to one a presidency over the other. I am asked, Sir, what are
we sow to do ? Can we remain as we are, or are we to re-enact
the penal code ? I say decidedly not. I have, Sir, as great a
-disposition to listen to the just complaints of the Ca-.
tholics—whenever I hear a complaint as to the administration
of justice, I was and will always be ready to remove it. I be-
lieve I may appeal to my past conduct if I have ever been fa-
vourable to any societies hostile to the Catholics. It was be-
cause I felt so that I differed from the Member for Armagh(Mr.
Brownlow) when he stated lie was an Orangeman. 1 always
, lamented the existence of such Associations. Their existence
was cited as a proof of the necessity of granting. Catholic Eman-
cipation. One ground of asking for it wasremoved. The Ca-
tholics, Sir, will not be satisfied with what they now ask—
' grant but these, and future concessions must follow. Great dis-
satisfaction has been excited among the Catholics by the rejec-
tion of the present measure, or rather of measures of a similar
tendency at former periods. I, Sir, am rot accountable for the
.feeling i never encouraged; hopes which I felt could not be
realized. I am convinced the greatest portion of that discon-
tent results from the disappointment of hopes excited—excit.
ed too in a great degree I am persuaded; by. the debates in
this House. The Catholic Question, Sir, has always been used
ITS the weapon against Ministers; it was treated as a party
question, and the discussions on it conducted in a manner cal-
culated to do much harm.—(Hear, hear!)—l fear, Sir, I have
trespassed too long on the patience of the House, but I feel I ,
would not be discharging my duty if I did not make one re-
mark as to the history of this question for the last ten years,
and more particularly as to the securities offered on the part of
the Catholics. The first is the veto ; and where is the Pro-
testant state that has not adopted some such precaution on the,
appointment of the ministers of the Catholic religion ? What ,
say the. Catholics to this—" You dissent from us in religion ;
shall we commit to your management what you are so much ,
intetested in subverting." To return to the suhject of securi-
ties,-when in Ith2l his Right Honourable and Learned Friend
brought in his Relief Bill, with such securities as he thought
indisuensible now • we fohnd all done away with—they are
growing "
" Small by degrees, and beautifully less."
(A laugh.)-eN-ow they are below zero—(laughter)—but, Sir, I
ohjeet to these securities ; I would prefer passing the Bill at
°pee on the principle of confidence to retaining these futile
- securities. Whet, Sir, are the-duties of this perpetual Com-
mission ? One is to advise the Crown.; and here let the remark,
-that the Crown has no•discretion ; it must appoint them whether
it wishes it or no ; then these Commissioners are to certify of the
- loyalty of those persons appointed to Bishoprics in Ireland.
What is meant- by the- word loyalty ? The construction put on
'it by Dr. Doyle is, that every man should be deemed loyal un-
- tii convicted before a competent tribunal. Another duty is to
watch over the correspondence with foreign States ; that corre-
spondence is already placed under severe restrictions, though not
put into force. - -1 mean not to advocate their revival, but I
'cernnot but feel that the"proposed precaution is a mere mockery,
although my Right Hon. Friend might, and has, as the law now
swills, incurred the penalties of a premunire, and subjected
'Mei:elf to the punishment awarded by several Acts of Parlia-
. mem But when we have so many formal objections advanced
at die present time, it is proper that my Right Hon. Friend
'hhould know that the correspondence he has carried on is solely
ley connivance; and that he, and all those who maintain these
- communications in England, are violating the express provi-
sions of an Act of Parliament. I -wish now, Sir, before
I sit down—although I am sensible I have already occupied
the time of the House much too long—to say some-
' thing upon the subject of the other measure which
has been mentioned as likely to form a security to those
who might otherwise be disposed to oppose this Bill. Sir, .1 do
net deny that they are very plausible projects, and -I hope
1 may be conceived to approach the consideration of it with-
out being fully sensible of its vast importance, or that I have
any intention of turning my ‘observations against it into an
opposition to the Bill now before us, by any of those artifices
which Mr. Pitt would have called efforts of sinister dexterity.
- If I consider, upon examination, the measures good in them-
selves, I will support them, without, without reference to any
thing connected with them. But, Sir, while I admit that, the
law relating to 40s. freeholds has given rise to great abuses—
while I am ready to allow that it has produced perjury—that
it has a tendency to create perjuries, and that it has produced
perjury—that it has a tendency to create perjuries, and that it isa
great source of corruption. Yet I must own, from the present state
of freeholds both here and in Ireland, that I have veay great
objections td any measure which would go to deprive a bona
fide 40s. freeholder of his constitutional privilege—a privilege
which, be it remembered, is the only political one which de-
scends to the lowest classes of the people, and which, therefore,
should be regarded with the greatest delicacy. But even grant-
ing that thh could he dine without injustice, which .I do not,

still I am by no means satisfied that raising the qualification,'
if it is not to be done, as I am informed, until the whole pre-
, sent race be extinct, ill be productive of the benefit which its
supporters anticipate. Ido not mean the moral benefit, but
that Protestant interest which this bill professes to increase.
—Considering, then, the great addition of prosperity which
we are told this measure would give to Ireland, and loking
at the great majority of the people as Catholics, I am not
quite sure that in somewhat less than twenty years the whole
property of the country would not be in the hands of the
Catholics. I am not singular in this opinion : an evidence of
some weight upon this question—l mean Mr. O'Connell—has
stated it as his opinion, that the disfranchisement of the forty_
shilling freeholders would add considerably to the Catholic in-
terest and power. My Honourable Friend considers that 'this
will be a safeguard to the Protestant interests ; but he forgets
that the same privilege may be still managed under a different
tenure—that it may be attached to the possession of a house, and
still retain the tenant in the same state of bondage, and the
country in the same condition of pauperism. Unless, therefore,
you are satisfied that the measure will produce all the good
effects you hope, I say I should have very serious doubts of the
Propriety of the change. I do not, however, commit myself by
an opinion. I will give the measures separately nay best at-
tention when they come before me, independent of any other
question with which they may be connected. I will now state
shortly my opposition to this Bill, confident that I have already
trespassed much longer than I ought upon the time and patience
of the House. As I object to the paying of the Catholic mini-
sters
from the funds of the State, and as I am by no means con-
vinced of the propriety otilisfranchising the forty-shilling free-
holders as securities offered for the Bill, and as I consider the
securities contained in the body of the Bill wholly illusive,
I must still hold my opinions that the Catholics should be
excluded from certain high offices in the State—that they
should be excluded from the Houses of Parliament—,
and that the Protestant Constitution of the country, in
Church and State, should still remain paramount amt in.
violable. And Lroust confess, Sir, while I consider to conduct
which prevails in a Protestant ouse now sitting, and de-
bating upon the propriety of admitting their Catholic brethren
into a participation af their constitutional advantages-1 mean,
Sir, this House of-Commons—and when I contrast that con-
duct with the proceedings of a Catholic House in a neighbour-
ing kingdom, constituted nearly alike to this one, and stow de-
liberating upon the propriety of punishing the crime of sacrilege
with death—the crime of questioning, I believe, some rights
and observances of the Catholic Church—l cannot, Sir, I con-
fess, avoid saying that the Protestant principles, as they have
been hitherto maintained in this House, are the only real se-
curities for civil and religious liberty.—The Hon. Gentleman
sat down,amidst loud cheers irons both sides of the House.
Mr. BROUGH AM rose, amidst cries of " Question."
After thepowerfill and unanswerable speech of the Secre-
tary for -Foreign Affairs—a speech which seemed, indeed, to
anticipate all that had been advanced by the Secretary for the
Home Department—that he would not be guilty of any at-
tempt to force himself upon the attention of House ; but for
the protection of himself, and, numbers of those around him,
he thought it necessary to say a few words upon those mea-
sures, which had more, than 'once been mixed up with this
question in the course of the debate. He ,would say, then,
that-this Bill, whatever hail been said to the contrary, with
all its security, stood upon its ground, and totally independent
of any other Bills, securities, or alleged securities, with which
it had been said to -be connected. On that plain principle
of the right, justice, and expediency of Catholic Emancipa-
tion,. he supported it. As to the othet Bills, he confessed
that they presented to him a very great difficulty—a difficulty
not a little increased by the different opinions he heard upon the
subject of them, from all those connected with Irish affairs of
whom he sought information. The Ecclesiastics were in-
variably favourable to the Civil Bill, while they expressed great
doubts of the Ecclesiastic—while the civilians were favoura-
ble to the Ecclesiastic measure, they condemned the Ci-
vil. This strange difference was, .in his mind, a satisfac-
tory reason for pausing before he came to a conclusion upon
these important measures. Whenever they did come before
him, he promised to bring to them as much impartialy as if
they had been wholly unconnected with any previous question.
One of his great objections to one of the measures was his indis-
position to interfore with a great Constitutional privilege; the
other was the tendency to increase the power of the Crown ; for
he could not deliver his mind from the answer of an Hon. Friend,
when he said pay the Irish Clergy, and you have a Government
officer in every parish. The Hon. Gentleman, after some
other observations, cnncluded by expressing his satisfaction,
that upon this, probably the last occasion, when they would
have an opportunity to do an act of grace to the Catholics, they
would carry the question with such a triumphant majority as
would produce an effect upon that House, where alone it had
been hitherto rejected.
Mr. TRANT rose amidst great tumult and cries of " Ques-
tion !" The Hon., Gentleman seemed to be reading from a
book, but after some violent gesticulations, and several at.
tempts to raise his voice above •the clamour for a division, he
was compelled to give way.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Gallery
was cleared for a division.

For the Second Reading of the Bill - 268
Against it - - - - - 241
Majority in favour of it - - —27
Tellers for the Ayes—Lord Nugent and Lord Duncannon.
For the Noes—i Mr. Goulburn and Mr. G. Dawson.
The announcement of the Majority was received with cheers
from the Opposition Benches.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at THREE O'CLOCK THIS MonwmG.

PRICE OF STOCKS THIS
Bal.k Stock
3 per Cent. Red. ... 91i
3 per Cent. Cons.
3.1 per Cent
Ditto Red. • 99
4 per Cent. DissdNew 106 A 6 4
Bank Long Ann. 22i 3-16
Imp. 3 per Cents.
India Stock
Ditto Bonds
South Sea Stock

PRICES OF FOREIGN Fl
Austrian Btls, . per ct
Brazilian Ilds

Scrip ' ---
1825 ... 14 pm.
Buenos Ayres Ms • .--,
Colombian lids, 6 per ct....
Do. do. 1824
Danish, 5 per cent.
Do. Scrip 2l dis.
Greek Bch -
Do. Scrip, 1825
Alexican.Bds
Do. - Scrip 1825 par i pm.

DIY AT ONE 0-CLOCK

Old Annuities
New Ditto
Ex. Bills 10001. 2d.
Ditto l id. 5B GO
Ditto 5091.2 d..:....
Ditto Dd.
Ditto Small
Ditto I Ad.
Ditto Commercial
Bank for Act.
India for Acct.
Cons. for Acct.