The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-06 00:00:00

c %Ina, 1 to a belief even of tiansubstantion
wnat, my Lords, aro the arguments on the other side ?
' ":find the Catholic population united by a sense of emu..
,7104 injury for advancement of a common interest. You
nave heard the Noble Duke give a clear illustration
of the state of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)--lie told
Yen that the present system controuled the magistracy
in their duty, that it affected materially the administration
bfiUstiee, that it deteriorated the value of property, and
threatened the credit of the country. These are evils,
Y Lords, the correction of which devolves upon
thl this night.—.([Tear, hear.)—They are evils from
e contemplation of which you will not shrink in the
• Performance of your duty. We have had a long detail
from the Nolde Viscount opposite of the measures he had
in contemplation to improve Irelan.l. But I would ask how
I%ltis law could impede the progress of those measures ?
aYs more, I will ask your Lordships, can you attempt
to measures unites this law be passed. Until you depart
• "at the system you have so long pursued, and with such
tnitaliliy consequences, until you tranquillize Ireland, until
hatgreat and paramount difficulty be removed, all your at-
tempts at improvement will be vain. If .1 were asked would
ts measure tranquillize Ireland, I certainly could net
!)1( into the womb of time; and state what its effects
leould be, but I tsbould say that it is our duty to provide
144 ch. tams Ira the, urgent necessity of the times dictates.
t_"l°°°l lUtan to say that it will have an immediate effect,
14t 1 thi'ak it more likely than any other mode that can be
7°P
cy. to effect that change in the condition of Ireland,
ou I am sensible your Lordships are anxious to achieve.
invits stated last night, by the Noble and Learned Lord on
".woolsack, that the condition of Ireland was every year
• Pm'ing worse and 'worse, and that assertion has been fully
,rnonstrated by circumstances which have recently come
finder your Imrdship's cognizance. That alone is in my mind
The reason for the adoption of a different system.
sue Noble Marquis who has recently had such abundant
;;Pprturilty of forming a correct opinion on the state of
at country, has truly told you, that although the present
sgaterremight be endured in peace, it could not in time of war.
le us look at the situation of Ireland exposed as she is to
theof France
of America upon the one band, and to the fleets
dik upon the ether. Such a situation was full of
langers and more particularly so since a mistaken policy
*lad allowed Spain to be sacrificed to France.—(Hear.)—
ARetter opportunity might not occur when these
tiauters could be obviated with less difficulty. Looking
, !the question fairly, their Lordships should consider that
'would be. better to sustain certain losses in time of peace,
than hazard the consequences of leaving Ireland in a state
°J,dissatisfaetion• and disaffection in the event of a war.
"hat rept obation would not a Statesman deserve if he did
bring
attempt ie a time of tranquillity like the present to
'ring forward some measure like the present for the pur-
Pose of conciliating the iwople of Ireland, and avoid in
that danger which they had for so long a time failed in
meeting by means of force.—(Cheers.)—My Lords, the
Nble Lord says, "why not enforce the laws which are at
rent in existence." My Lords, it is very easy to say this,
t though the Catholic Association was in existence for
1.414 a length of time, and with the danger hourly encreas-
g uPon them, still it was found impossible to relieve Ire-
nti from the danger which attended it.—(Hear.)—But
11:Yi nay Lords, if this be charged against the Government,
!, °se who are disposed to bring forward such a charge
souk' sake especial care "that the arguments they use will
j,"°,tadaeprpY with double force against the Noble and Learned

1-°,14 ELDON made an observation in an under tone to
tbeNoble. Earl which was inaudible.
4.1 GREY, in continuation—Well, then, they should
Sake care that their arguments will not fall upon the head
1i the Noble and Learned and highly gifred Lord, to whose
Efforts and assistance they look forward with such ear-
Side,
to expectations. The Noble Earl, who spoke early
She debate, said that the Government of Ireland was
41°Poeed to exert the whole of the force it possessed
° avert the danger, but that the Government at home, and
i\itticularly the lawyers connected with that Government,Were opposed to it. The Noble Lord, had opened a pretty
:Lege indiettnent, and he began with the Noble Lords on
~fis aide the House, charging them with being the exciters
Lth•Sis charge by continuaily urging this measure. My
17ai I, for one, plead guilty to this charge.—(Cheers.)
talways urged this measure to the utmost of my ability.
cat he brings the charge that we have advocated this topic
prof puses
po. Now, my Lords, coniderng that a
tvreet portion his Majesty's Government,s andi those not
thhe least distinguished by their transcendent talent, aed
eir influence in the country, have always advocated this
°*aeore, it is too much to charge us that we have urged
't merely for party purposes.—(Hear, hear.)—My Lords,
°ls This occasion I will support this Bill, for I will never
think from the performance of my duty, because it may
tiyebarged against me that I am actuated by factious mo-
Iv, • My Lords, if I were disposed to retort upon those
• "° have charged us with having used public laws as
instronlente
of
private ambition, I might find ample
n'aSter to enable me to do so. The Noble Earl himself
le" one of thong who in 1807 raised an outcry against the
':,ery measure which they themselves carried through
ssarliament. The next persons in the ind i ct men t
were hie Majetity's Ministers, and even the highest
authority, his Majesty himself, has not escaped the general
tieeens eure,—as if it were not sufficient that the Ministry'
Wer not responsible for his acts. But I contend, my
Lords, that giving political power to the Catholics ought
sat to be viewed as dangerous to the Established Church,
and I run sure the possession of such power as this Bill will
give them would be infinitely less dangerous than the phy-
toc a power which they now possess. __(Hear, hear. )—As
this effects of this measure, I confess that I am sanguine
that it will produce all the beneficial consequences predicted
°I it. It has been said that it will have the effect of de-
stroying
the Established Church, but in reply to that I
till refer your Lordships to the speech of a Right Rev.
relate, who spoke last night upon this subject. 3ly
44, I felt highly gratified with his declaration, that
pen after the passing of this measure the Church of
Ogland had nothing to fear. I agree with him, my
'Ns, that the church of England has nothing to fear ex-
'elst indeed from those impolitic laws which this Inca-
Eire is intended to repeal. I say, my Lords, the
stablished Church has nothing to fear unless
abandons that ground on which it is unas-
-lilable to avail itself of forbidden arms.—(Cheers. )
4 Church of Ireland what fears can be entertained?
Cis already in such a situation that do what you will you
anot exempt it from its present difficulty. It was the
'itch of a small minority, a minority' small to a degree,
thatllill Could only be the result of those very laws which this
pwould repeal. My Lords, I say it would take away
as Ift'ers. That church would increase in magnitude
soh Pr°?Perity. I do not mean, my Lords, by means of
-le4ion for I think any injudicious attempts at con-
-I:°° Would only create injury ; but I mean by means
szi-"°Pcrior truth and reason, it will prevail to a greater
titt' Moon as you have relieved it from the invidious
sf-a"(in in which it now stands, by avoiding all means
Novocation—( Hear, hear, bear, hear) as soon
seh.Y°° have taken away those pretended supports,
Ish however only encumber its efforts.—(Cheers.)
04t this prospect also may fail, and a Catholic Association
' again be established, but I believe if any thing could
2went such a recurrence, it is the measure which is
a',sfre before your Lordships. That is the only chance.—
lear, hear.)—l• will suppose that this might happen
t4{l even then I contend that Ireland might remain united
tifilis country. I say, my Lords, that such might be the
44W, the experience of all Europe proem I say that such
aacurrence might take place without destruction to the
to-Itablished Church. This might be illustrated by referring
pti:::1 the different Governments of Europe. I will sup-
, Iny Lords, for a moment, that you were to go as
,t stofore, embodying the discontents of the people, and
Irstletinising the pressure of all the old evils which distracted
tt;(4(l.--(llear, hear, hear, hear.)—l will suppose
to Lt Y°ll were to do this, and then that you were
4,4 a Inland embarked in another war. In the course of
debate, my Lords, allusion has been made to Mr. Tone,
1,170111 ti strongly recommend to your Lordships to read his
liet~`itrs• I would refer your Lordships to the ex-
lettlecl invasion of Ireland by General Hoche, which
oft, it taken place, notwithstanding the superiority
44 British navy, must have caused a separation between
tvo countries. Such would have been the result had
e'ected a landing,—and that this country escaped on
lice c'ecasion teas almost miraculous. It was, indeed,
UhLaL merciful interposition of Providence; and surely, •
/14 ,°ribl, common sense would dictate that we should do
e7rnoet to avert the recurrence of such consequences.
4 i0:1"13, I will put to you the case of Ireland invaded by
•sefe'gn force—of her people joining with a foreign enemy
t will Suppose the Irish people united with the intru-
-4°(.1 departed from our Government, what then will
eip,".a extent of their wishes ? will it be merely the eman-
tharlon from their civil disabilities, no, assuredly not, but
Of (411,,ving their own church established as the church :
asiicw State ? The difficulty then is, not whether you
(l,,t4have the probable danger of a Catholic church and
Yet,,,ll° ascendency—which you may avert while it is in
he' Power, hut whether yon will have those with a foreign i
ip d subject to foreign dominions—united with, and
tkte'°'se alliance with it. I would ask you, what security
?a V", for the Church of England and Ireland ? For,
Lords, if the establishment of the Roman Catholic
ane
h:tell, and of Roman Catholic ascendancy in Ireland,
tnut the same sovereign with ourselves, be au evil, how
greater will it be, when achieved by a people

stparated from 0, and limier the ir,flueore of another and
a strange Government. An,l, my Lorl., what consola-
tion would you have y,mr,elves—" Oh, we
havc been at leAsi, e msl,;.,.nz—we have ion..!•ur
maintain the 250. and :31)th of `r!:.arics 11.—we have

clung by those atat!'?O t airh prescribe then itbs of supre-
macy and proscribe the doctrine of tr,nsubstantiation, and
the invocation of saints; we have laboured and succeeded
in excluding from seats in the Legislature, and from ail
high and influential offices, the Catholics of Ireland, and
in so doing, have the most precious jewel of the Crown,
and lopped off the right arm of the country. We have at least
this consolation, that we have persevered, against all the
warnings which have been given by the most sensible roe7i,
against all the voices of the greatest man who have adorned
the senate, against the conviction of the most eminent states-
men who have adorned either Houses of Parliament, and
against the advice of the greatest generals who have adorned
our arms; we have done all this, and we can at least con
sole ourselves that we have done our duty—
Fiat justitia, mat ceelum.
_ _

This have we done, and we therefore set down,
sedate, and satisfied with having thee our duty, though in
the discharge of it we have hazarded our country, and
abridged its honour." (Cheers.) My Lards, I have no*
nearly done. I have already trespassed too loni upon yoiir
indulgence; one topic more only, will I advert srto.
Your Lordships have been told, that in the hands
of inefficient administrations, the powers of the law
were suffered to slumber. (Hear, hear, hear. )
The vigour of the common law had been paralyzed. They
ask, why was not the law (for sufficient it was for the pur-
pose) put in force to suppress the spirit of disaffection
which was said to reign in Ireland ? My Lords, my an-
swer to that is this. In the first place I should say that it
is no easy matter to apply a coercive and highly penal law,
when the parties against whom it is directed do not furnish
any thing in their conduct tangible to its operation.—
(Hear.)—But somebody has suggested that there was a
possibility—a supposition, .that a series of provocations
might be adopted in Ireland, which would have the effect
of throwing that irascible people off their guard, and of
outraging their powers of patience beyond further en-
durance.—(Hear, hear.)—By this means it was hoped
that an opportunity would be afforded of applying force
in the quelling of the disturbances with effect and cer-
tainty. But further, my Lords, it is imputed to the Noble
Duke at the head of the Government, that he has been
guilty of neglect in not applying those measures of coercion
which were within his reach for the suppression of these dis-
turbances. My Lords, lam not disposed to quote here the
splendid passage in the speech of tke:Noble Duke, which de-
scribed the horrors of civil war, and the sacrifices which be
would make to arrest it; I should only weaken by re-
peating He of all men- could pronounce such a
determination with peculiar grace and effect.—But
of that speech, and the sentiments expressed in it,
I shall say, that that which is imputed to
the Noble Duke as a weakness, I consider as
the strongest proof of his magnanimity—the best proof of
that moderation and coolness upon which all real wisdom
is based. Instead of reproaching I would applaud that
Noble Duke for this conduct—l revere hint the more—
and when I see this great soldier who has shared in the
shock of a hundred battles, shrinking from the horrors of
exposing his country to a civil war—when I see him depre
eating domestic contests, and protesting against that blood
which had covered him with immortal glory, shed in internal
broils—l say, that he is an authority beyond which we
ought not to go, and that he has contributed one step snore
in securing the honour, prosperity, and happiness of this
country.—(Cheers.)—But, suppose it should resolve on
civil war, and that a standard is wanted by which to judge
of the probable success of the experiment, where shall we
find so good a criterion as the year 1798 ? Did the
civil war of that period produce beneficial conse-
quences to Ireland—were the fires which were then
lighted, yet extinguished, or would their desolating
influence cease to be felt, till the whole frame of Irish
society shall have an amendment? My Lords, I admit
that you may by the sword suppress riots, extinguish
open resistance, and restore apparent quiet ; but can
you get rid of secret discontent—of that spirit, which,
though it shews not itself, is working secretly and
dangerously under the surface?—(Hear, hear.)--Here
my Lords is the mode of accomplishing that most desirable
result, and of achieving that much to be wished-for con-
clusion. This Bill offers you the: surest means of restor-
ing tranquillity in Ireland, without: using means of
coercion. It is not allowed to us to look into the womb of
time, but judging of this evil by fair probabilities, I think I
may say, that from the passing of this Bill, you may date
not the re-establishment, but as had been more
happily expressed, the regeneration of Ireland.--(Cheers.)
--My Lords, I have now to apologize for having tres-
passed so long upon 'your time. It only remains for me
to express my hearty concurrence in the measures of his
Majesty's Ministers, and to say, that by this measure
alone they have deserved my confidence, and that I shall in
future give them my support, consistent with my duty in
judging of the effect of their measures.—(Cheers.)—That
I have little reason to corn plain of the course which the
cause has taken, and the delay which has been given to its
progress, perhaps some of your Lordships may feel. But,
my Lords, I am thankful that justice has been at length done
to foe principles which I have advocated, to the view which
I took of this question—views which I learned from Fox,
and which I uttered by the side' of Lord Grenville.—
Their views were single and simple. I always contended
that the Catholics had an unanswerable claim to a full
participation in: the rights of the Constitution—and from
these sentiments I never swerved, and I hope, never
shall depart. It is, my Lords, therefore, 'no small
gratification to me now to see justice done to those prin-
ciples and to those views which I so long entertained.—
The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack has de-
scribed, in eloquent terms, the difficulties of a divided Ca-
binet. Against these evils I long ago protested; these
were the objections which interposed themselves to my
taking place, or making part, in the Councils of my
Sovereign. I have not however, now, my Lord, any un-
pleasing recollections of these transactions. lam thank-
ful for the boon which is about to be given to my fellow
subjects in Ireland ; it is a source of unmixed gratifica-
tion to me, that proof is thus given of the purity of
those principles, and of the propriety of that conduct
which I have pursued ; and that that confirmation is thus
made of the soundness of principle, which actuated that
great and immortal man, who, on the 18th of March, in
the year 1779, (the same day on which this Bill was read
a second time in the House of Commons) stated in his place
there, in terms which will ever be remembered by pos-
terity, the necessity, the imperious necessity, of giving to
the Catholics of Ireland that justice to which they were en-
titled. I, on behalf then, my Lords, of all those great
men, whose names are associated with this measure, 1 re-
turn thanks for the justice which has been done to their
memories. Ino longer regret the loss of tune which has
taken place in its progress, and I am, as I said before, blind
to the circumstances which attended the delay, though of
a personal nature to myself when I look, as I do
now, with confidence to its final accomplishment.—
I receive with unqualified gratification the measure which
the Noble Duke has proposed, and I shall sit down with
stating my conviction, that the country will feel towards
that noble individual the same gratitude for this Loon of
peace, which they confess to have received at his hands
as the triumph of war, and be as little churlish to admit the
one, as they have been prodigal in testifying to the other.
Lord TENTERDEN explained.

Lord REDESDALE now rose to address the House,
hut the cries of " Question" were so loud, and the confu-
sion so great, that he was obliged to sit down.
The Earl of ELDON (amid much noise) then came to
the table. My Lords, he said, I was strongly disposed
to abstain altogether from offering myself to your
notice, conscious that to those who concur in opinion with
me I could have but little new to advance, and that to
those wlio differed from me, this was a question upon
which I could but little hope, by any reasoning of
mine, to make any impression. My Lords, I am willing
to give full credit to the No!ile Earl (Grey) who
has addressed you, for the compliment which he was
pleased to pay me, by erecting me into the situation of a
leader of a party, but I can assure your Lordships that
there is no one who more sensibly feels his incompetence
to discharge the responsible office to which that Noble
Lord has appointed me, than I do.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
—My first remark upon this Bill, and the discussions
to which it has led, is, my Lords, that of unmixed sa-
tisfaction, that in these debates, as far as they have gone,
there has been almost a total absence of personal allusions
amongst your Lordships. The proposition which the No-
ble Duke bas made to your Lordships is assuredly one
which he would be bound to make one time or other, but
that it is made now, is to me a matter of great sur-
prise.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I say, my Lords, that the
bringing it forward at this critical moment was to me
matter of great surprise, and I believe to the country also,
which by some means or other was under the impression
that it had been utterly abandoned.—(Cheers.)—Your
Lordships have been told, that it is the duty of a Mini-
ster of the Crown not to disclose his intentions with re-
spect to any public measure, till he shall have obtained the
approbation of his Sovereign to that particular measure.
From that doctrine I do not dissent. Bnt I say this,
my Lords, that if unintentionally, and by mistake, it was
intimated abroad that no such proposition as this
was to be made,—then, I insist that the people of the
country have been taken by surprise, and that upon a

measure, too, which i% detrer tl:eol than their hvog___.
upon a measure which prov,:ity, fors iit Oye
words of Lore. Scniel-.4; " the t,46 priipetty

of the sobjeot."—(Cheers.)--This is the Measure in Which
they were taken by surprise,--this the property which
was attacked, the most valuable inheritance which they
could leave to theit• children. I say, my Lords, that at
the close of tie itist SessiOri the Noble Duke placed the
people of this country in a situation to believe that this
question was, for a time at least, to be left in a
state of oblivion. I say that the Noble Duke, by a mis-
hap, if it was nothing else, furnished a Roman
.CatholiC
Bishop with the means of reliiiing to the World, in tht
month of December last, that it was not his intention to
bring forward a measure of this nature this Session, and
that therefore the country was warranted in believing that
no such measure was in contemplation ; and, I must say,
that it has been to the people of this country a great mis-
fortune, that a general apathy was generated by the assuf-
a!ve that no stith thing was intended.—(Cheers.) To
this effect contributed also not a little the conduct and de-
clarations of a Right Honourable Gentleman in the
other House (Mr. Peel), of whom, as it occurs to

me, to mention his name, I wish it to be tinder-
stood that lam not dueler the influence of any feeling of
irritation towardslhim. I solemnly declare, and I wish to
state it here in my vindication, that I have no unfriendly
feeling towards that Right Hon. Gent. ; we have long
acted together, we have always acted, I believe, in the
strictest concert, and I have thought that the idern none,
idein velle, was as safe a course as I could take with
any colleague in politics.—(Hear, hear. )—For fifteen
years we have acted together; I have always had the most
perfect confidence in his councils, and now that we have
parted company, and differed in opinion, it would be as un-
generous as unjust, in me to insinuate, that theadvice
which he has given to his Sovereign, was not given with
the sincerest wish of doing his duty,—(Cheers.)—Passing
then from the Right Hon. Gentleman, I come to answer
for myself. The late Lord Privy Seal (Lord Westmore-
land), whom I am sorry not to see in hie place, bas been
pleased to arraign me at the bar of this House for my con-
duct while we were fellow servants of our ;Sovereign,
I can only say that if the charge be made upon just grounds
that Noble Lord is not free from impeachment for so long
suffering me to sit with him in the King's Councils.
1 heard the proposition laid down last night, that it was
the duty of any man who found himself a member of a
divided Cabinet to withdraw from it. I must say that I
have heard a different opinion from Mr. Pitt and Lord
Liverpool, I might quote other great names in support of
this opinion, but I think I have covered myself with au-
thority enough, and therefore, I say, that I could not feel
it my duty to retire from a Cabinet which was divided
unless an opportunity presented itself of forming a united
Cabinet. The Noble Lord on the Woolsack will excuse
me for stating that if he considered it his duty not
to remain a member of a divided Cabinet, he must,
I think have had extremely good luck to go through
the Cabinet up to a certain period of his friend his Grace
the Duke of Wellington—the Cabinet of his esteemed
friend Viscount Goderich—and the Cabinet of his Hon.
Friend Mr. Canning.—(Hear, and laughter.)—The Noble
Lord on the Woolsack was pleased to say last night that
he would not address me as his friend, in consequence
of an observation which I made on a former occasion.
What I then stated was, that I would not call him my
friend who insinuated that I acted insidiously, or
that I looked to expedients and mystification, and
mentioned my opinions with respect to the Union with
Scotland, in a manner which I could not but feel most
disrespectful to my feelings.—(Hear, hear.)—He would
tell the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, that those who had
known him for many years, would, he hoped and
trusted, say of him, that they knew not a man of

a more kind heart in the world.--(Hear, hear, hear,)_
Upon the subject of the remarks which the Noble Lord
on the Woolsack has thought proper to make with refer-
ence to me, all I shall say in reply is this—that there is a
sort of indecorum in these personal allusions between a
Chancellor on the Woolsack and an ex-Chaneellor—(a
laugh )—and that disputes of such a nature had better ikbe
settled by quiet words elsewhere, and not by intruding
them on tlae public business of this House.—( Hear, hear.)
—lndeed, when the Noble and Learned Lord under.
took what he called a defence of his own consistency,
I thought it but natural to expect he would keep his word,
and prove what he had stated to be his intention. What
however was the result ? Not a vindication of his consis-
tency, but a long and deliberate attack upon mine. I
should have preferred, I confess, to have been allowed to
defend myself, and I should have then readily admitted
what seemed to take the Noble Lord a good deal of time to
establish, namely, that consistency in the business
of a statesman is most certainly to be governed by the
pressure of events and circumstances ; all this I most freely
and readily admit. Now as the Noble and Learned Lord
has challenged me to investigate his consistencies, I shall
venture upon the task, for I have in my hand the speech
of an Attorney-General, upon which I must take the
liberty to comment. I do not mean his Majesty's late
Attorney-General, Sir Charles Wetherell,—(laughter)—
who is, by the bye, one of the most learned, and what
is far better, one of the most honest and independent
members of the profession to which I have myself the
honor to belong.—(Hear, —I do not, I say, mean him,
but I mean the Attorney-General who preceded him—l
mean in fact the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack ; and I am alluding to a speech in this House so late as
last June. He must excuse me if I feel a little diffidence

in reconciling that speech and his late conduct. That
very speech, I say, exactly defines my view of what was
done in the settlement of the Constitution, as established in
1688.—1 n fact, my doctrines upon this point I learned
from him. I am too old, abruptly to change opinions
which I have long cherished.—l am now at that stage of
life when I have the most indisputable authority for know-
ing, that what remains to me of life must probably be
spent in infirmity and sorrow. I am in fact now verging
nearly on fourscore, and I would fondly trust, that such
has been my conduct through a long and arduous life, that I
can look back upon it without being struck by the taint of any
mark or stain affecting my character.—(Cheers.)—lf I
have gone on so long without being compromised, I will
not now expose myself to the agony of a change. Impu-
tations have been cast upon me, however, which I feel I
do not deserve, and I am emboldened to repel them in the
presence of the parties who gave tkem.—(Hear, hear.)—
The first of these attacks upon me seems to be that I was a
willing party to the Act of Relief of 1791. Now, I was
officially no party to this Act; it was introduced I know
into the other House of Parliament by Lord Redesdale,
and had that sort of support, I admit, from me,
which my affection and respect for him dictated, and which
has been maintained between us for half a century. In
that Rill of 1791 I saw then and see now no alteration of
the policy of our Constitution as cemented in 1688. I am
also identified with the Act of 1793, which was in fact an
Act passed by the Parliament of Ireland, with which I, of
course, could have had nothing to (10. Then comes the
Scotch Act of 1794, for which I am also to be rendered
responsible. Now, my Lords, allow me to say, that
though I was about that time a good deal employed at
your Lordships' bar as Counsel in Scotch causes, I
found myself so little proficient in Scottish law, and felt
such a difficulty in being master of it without an intense
and to me an inconvenient application, that I left all mat-
ters connected with that law to those who were mote
competent to undertake them. Noble Lords should recol-
lect that there was then such a person in Parliament, the
father of a Noble Lord whom I now see opposite.
Lord MELVILLE, (across the table,) you mistake :
my father was not then Lord Advocate for Scotland.
Lord ELDON—So far, then, I am wrong; but I recollect
that the Noble Lord's father was then a Member of his
Majesty's Government, and that he always assisted the
Lord Advocate of Scotland with his able and sionspetent
advice upon matters connected with Scottish law, I had
therefore little or no concern at that time with such mat-
ters ; but I am quite ready to say that I was an assenting
and assisting party to that law. My mind at that time was
not so touch taken up with politics as some Noble Lords
appear to think ; my ambition was then directed to the Chief
Justiceship of the Common Pleas to which my revered
and dear sovereign promoted me. I was afterwards by
the gracious condescension of my sovereign made Lei d
Chancellor in 1804-5, where I remained, with the excep-
tion of a short interval, for 2.5 years. I know well that
during that period few persons were more exposed to obloquy
ban I was. I met that obloquy, however, by as careful!
and attentive devotion of my time to the duties of my
office as it was possible for me to give it, and though I
know it is possible that it may be a pleasant thing in the
House of Peers to catch an old Chancellor, it behoves him to
have a share in the joke if he can.—(Laughter. )—And
indeed if one could compare a serious case of public legis-
lation with a private and personal transaction, I could
state' an anecdote, I think almost quite in point upon this
busin.ess. I was many years ago at Buxton, with a vene-
rable and deceased friend of mine, Lord Thurlow, who
had gone there for the benefit of the waters. Whilst sit-
ting with him one evening in a room at one of the inns,
we were informed that there were six or eight persons
who meant on the next morning to have at the bath what
they called a splash at the Ex-Chancellor.—(Much
laughter.)—Well, Sir, said Lord Thurlow, let them
have a. splash at me if they like, but what
is there to prevent me from having a splash in return.— I
(Renewed laughter. )--Well then, that is all I want on the
present occasion. Now, With reference to what I have

done at tie tino?s referred to, I always ac+ed under the ful-
,
responsibility of whatever station I happened to 104,
gave my hest and honeSt advice to my Sovereign of that
day, always bearing in mind that he was not to he consi-
dered the Only man in his Itajesty'ti dvrrinions, who
was not at liberty to express his own opinions upon
a great public queStion.---(llear, , hear, hear.)—When
N,,14 Lords allude to what I have done When a
member of his Majesty's Cloterthnent, they will
surely allow me to state what I know of their opinioni
When acting with me. In 1817, when my Noble Friend
opposite, if he will allow. me to call him so, when he was
a getiriber Of his ..iiajesty's Goternriaent-

The Duke of WELLINGTON—I was not.
The Earl of ELDON—WeII, then, what I am about to
explain is simply this—l was then influenced by what I
now know to have been an erroneous opinion,
that persons qualified to serve in the army in
Ireland, being as all thilitary trieti are iindlr
the orders of the Crown, could have been brought
here without the specific intervention of any, new Act of
Parliament? There were those, however, who thought
that it was not safe to trust to the common law in the re-
moval of these soldiers from Ireland to England, and that
it was safer to lave a specific Bill for tle purpOSC. I
ask, what was there in that Act to confer a new political
power upon the Catholic interests? My objection always
has been upon this question to the admission of Catholics
to political power to either House of Parliament, which
would lead to their having that. power, or to any of the
great offices of State, which are now, it seems to be thrown
open to them ?—(Hear, hear.)—ln none of these Acts in
which participations is ascribed to me, is there any inroad
upon our Protestant Constitution. And here when we
are arguing this question, let use at once say that I do not
at all rely upon the construction which some persons have
put upon his Majesty's Coronation Oath : the sole intent
and meaning of which is—that his Majesty is bound to
execute the law as the Legislature imposes upon him. I
do Rot at all, I say, rely upon any dependence on the con-
struction of that oath—l rather prefer going at once into
the spirit and principle of the Constitution as cemented in
1685.—(Hear, hear.)—The full and fair purpose of the
settlement of the law as then constituted, was this and
this only—that the Constitution should be essentially Pro-
testant : the Throne Protestant : the Parliament Protestant
and the great officers of State Protestant. Mind, Ido not
mean to contend that however essentially necessary at the
time were these precautions, that they were never under
any change of circumstances to be liable to modification or
alteration. All I mean to show is, that such was the na-
ture of the Act of 13th Chas. IL and 25th and 30th, which
were all directed to maintain an exclusively Protestant
ascendancy. Exactly in the same spirit was the Act of
Queen Anne for the Union of Scotland. There again
was alike recognised the strong necessity that our Consti-
tution should be fundamentally Protestant. That was the
clear and plain governing principle. I know enough of
his-
tory to know, however, that laws so planted must abide
the eventual modification of circumstances. But it must

be upon a clear and palpable ground of necessity. The
feelings of the people are identified with these laws. These
feelings will necessarily be affected by any alteration of
them. Where, then, is this necessity? Show it to me
and I will endeavour to deal with it. At present I deny
its existence. I see it not. I can therefore neither
shape my course by it, nor grapple with it.—(Hear.)—
My Lords, I think I may venture to say, that duty is felt
by you as one of the moat prominent duties you have to ex-
ecute, to preserve in this Protestant kingdom the Protestant
religion inviolate. My Lords, I contend, that if the safety
of this Protestant kingdom is to be preserved, that it is to be
preserved by a Protestant House of Peers and Protestant
House of Commons. I have contended that you may
make alterations which may subvert the system on which
your Protestant Government exists, or make alterations,
which may yet afford better securities for the Protestant
Ascendancy of the country. That it was due to the
people, and to the impulse of the mind of the great Duke,
that no concession should be made until the Catholic As-
sociation should he put down, I most readily believe. If
that Bill has,—l don't say it has,—but if it has by its
provisions in any way affected the remedies at common
law, either as it affects the Association or common indivi-
duals, it may be a very useful Bill, but it will not answer
its intended effects. There is likewise another measure
to follow this, I mean the Disfranchisement Bill. My
Lords, Ido wish Noble Lords to consider the 'provisions
of that Bill, ai it may operate in other places, and affect
the Constitution. My Lords, if that Bill is built upon
speculation of what has been, or has not been, it will not
answer the purposes intended. Your Lordships are like-
wise to consider, that if you are to exercise the power
now proposed, you may have inconvenience in electing
Members for Parliament. You will leave many without
the power of electing, and may leave the Legislature with-
out the return of those very Members which the measure
is intended to secure. I confess, my Lords, the only dif-
ficulty I have, looking at the Bill, is that I cannot agree
to another measure, to which, if it stood by itself,
I should most gladly give my assent. My Lords, that
ether Bill is the one which I do not recollect the Noble
Duke mentioned on the night on which he introduced this
question. Now with respect to that Bill, my humble
opinion is, that it is a measure by which I can by no means
agree to. My Lords, I shall not enter into the construc-
tion of the Acts of the Union of England and Scotland, and
that of the Revolution, which has been gone into by my
Noble Friend, the Lord Chief Justice. My Lords, the Noble
Earl who has just sat down, whose talents and consistency
must entitle him to great respect, seemed to take some of-
fence at the terms the Learned and Noble Lord made use
of, that he was a friend to civil and religious liberty. I
am sure, my Lords, the Noble and Learned Lord meant no
such construction to be put upon the terms he made use of
as that which the Noble Lord put upon it. My Lords, it
was my painful duty to oppose last year the Repeal of the
Test and Corporation Acts.—(Hear, hear. )—I did so
because I felt it was my duty, I have ever been
of opinion that the established Church of England
I say of England, and I cannot admit that the Church of
Ireland is in danger without the Established Church of
England being in danger also—it has ever been my opi-
nion that it was the duty of a Government to form the
best and purest system of religion that the mind of man
was capable of forming. I don't entertain a notion that
the .Church is one separate body and the State another, and
that the Church is to rest separate from the State, and the
State from the Church. I look upon the Church and State
as one. My Lords, I have lived with Lord Kenyon, of
whom I never speak without stating the gratitude I feel ;
I had also the happiness to hear the opinion of the late
Lord Ellenborough delivered in this place upon the sub-
ject. One of that Noble Lord's sons has now given his
opinion. My opinion is, that such is the connection be-1
tween the Church and State, that it is of very es-
sential necessity that the committal of offices
of State should be as much as possible given to individuals
who belong to the other part of the Union, and that it be-
longs to the most enlightened and liberal part of the com-
munity to fill it. We have the authority of great names;
what right have they to say that Mr. Pitt stated upon
his legs in the House of Commons, that he would oppose
emancipation most manfully? What right had they to
throw that at me as an argument why emancipation
should be granted now ? Persons doing so entertained
notions of religious liberty on principles I cannot understand.
My Lords, there is another reason I must attend to, and
that is the great danger of breaking in upon the established
system. Destroy the Constitution of 1688, and you theu
will have to take care that you don't annihilate the
whole system of Legislation. My Lords, this Bill provides
for the advice to be given to the Crown : and if the Mi-
nister at the head of Government who introduces the mea-
sure thinks he can bring Catholics to support the Protestant
Constitution, he may be a Minister that will succeed, but
I ens sot one who can agree in the expectation that he will
and I think it not unfair- to suppose the Lord Chancellor,
who supports the measure, may be in the part he
takes, supposed to be a little under the influence
of that Prime Minister.--(Hear.)—My Lords, you have
heard a great deal about the enactments relative to the Ca-
tholics—you have heard of the laws made in the reign of
Elizabeth—nay, you may carry it back to a century before ;
your Lordships have heard of Magna Charta ; but I say
that Magna Charts was a recognition only of those liber-
ties established long anterior to the time at which Magna
Charts was signed ; and it should he remembered that
statute is neither more nor less than what was enacted at
the Revolution on behalf of the Crown. If your Lord-
ships will look at Lord Hale's Pleas of the Crown,
you will find that he speaks of the old oath, and I
think no man will deny that the Oath of Allegiance
is talcen by the Protestants alone, including the Oath
of Supremacy.
0 construe the Oath in his own way, had made
such encroachments y Lords, Hale says
onthrepowers
of his
that the Pope,
wishing
Aiaiestyinthis,
kingduopmmre,tiot became necessary, to use his own expression, to
unrivet those errors, and to let them know that they must
take an additional oath of supremacy. In speaking of the
Act of Mary, he states that those Acts were neither more
ner less than revolutionary Acts. Well, then, my Lords,
such being. the nature of things, I find it not easy to recon-
cile myemind readily to accede to the proposition of admit-
ting persons into power, under an Act in which there is an
express clause, declaring that they do not admit the supre-
rnaey of his Majesty. My Lords, we are told that this
measure is in truth a new bulwark in defence
of the established Protestant Constitution, and in support
of that fabric which I suppose in a measure rests upon the

Act of Parliament which was passed in the tout se of last
:;rev, All l can say, is, that if I theught so, I would he
the first man who tlloold vtlte for this measure. But the
first question is, whether the liers,ns wishes it is
fritciPted to meet wAi be inclitiA to support tile estahlish,,,il
? Ir.ar, bear.) Hoe, they not by the
abominable
.proreotit g tWe toistiatien the civil
epresented
scruple to tell, your Lordships that, if some Noble Lore;
Pin°63's'te offensive er thate Le
Lever b s''tdedt.hurTcliileeasdetni7t
will read the let statute of Kertry VIII. they will learn
what supremacy is, and wh it is the supremacy 01 the
Pope in the ecclesiastical establishmente. I don't go
bac;e.o aneieet times—for there is really no change pees.
in the doctrines of the Clnerch of Rome froth what there
was in ancient times. Those dectrnee Ido not enter into
but I think they will in a great degree destroy the purity
and morality of the doctrines of the Protestant Churcl:.
Let those doctrines be what they may, it shall never be
said thai I hat,' been tits roan seho would sacrifice the su-
premacy of the Crown to then. Your Lordships have
now been addressed by a great many Peers, and iii waiteel,
as I must own, to this period of all the debate before I ad-
dressed you, because I was willing to hear all the argu-
ments which could be urged its favour of the measure. I
have listened studiously to the speeches which have been
delivered, and I expected to hear frtm the Noble Earl
(Earl Grey), who has alluded to so many teipies, sothe
new reasons for agreeing to this measure. But after lis-
tening to all the arguments which have been so fully stated
in favour of this. measure, I must say, that the subject
seems to me just where it was before:, and to need no fur-
ther answer. I give great credit to the statements which
have been made, and I shall take care at a more favourable
opportuity, to examine all the clauses when they cm be
discussed in the Committee. In my opinion, it will be much
better to listen to the arguments in favetir of the several
clauses of the Bill in that stage, and to remove their conse-
quences ; and at present I shall let if stand till that stage
of the proceedings. The Noble Lord has stated, that if
their Lordships were in possession of all he knew, that
they would not scruple to pass the Bill. I shall be always
an enemy to going into Committee to inquire into reasons,
unknown to others than the Ministers, the operation of
which is to influence the Members of this House to pass
any measure, when Parliament is not to know the reasons
for introducing it. I have one thing more to say, my
Lords—that I will never consent, because some of
his Majesty's subjects are of a different religion
from him, to point the finger of dissatisfaction
against the Sovereign, but it is rather against the laws it
should be directed. 1 have thought it my duty, in the course
of these discussions, to pay great attention to the peti-
tions of the People ; and though I may lament the apathy
of the people, I must still observe that there has been some
display of public feeling. My Lords, with respect to the
opinion of Mr. Pitt, at the time of the Union with Ireland,
what I know of that great man's opinions is this, that he
said he never would give his consent to any change without
a full and sufficient security. I never could learn what
the security was which he contemplated, but I know also,
that that great man never would, if he found the people of
this country uneasy, have consented to pass such a measure.
The Noble Earl was partially cheered at the conclusion of
his speech, and the calls for " Question" were immediately
very loud and frequent.
Lord PLUNKETT—My Lords, from the time at which
I heard the Noble Lord who has just sat down state that the
measure proposed was calculated to subvert the Protestant
Constitution, I have thought it would be my duty to give
my opinion on the subject. After the argument of the
Noble Lord on the Woolsack and my Noble Friend (Lord
Grey) I had, I confess, great anxiety to know what the ar-
gument would be that the Noble and Learned Lord who
has just sat down would use in opposition to it, and I must
say those expectations have been very much and agreeably
disappointed, for ho has left the whole on his own au-
thority, unsustained either by statute or historical evidence.
My Lords, it will be expected I should go into some par-
ticulars respecting the necessity of the present measure. I
look upon it as one of expediency, but it has been said by
Noble Lords that expediency was not sufficient to justify
the House in passing a measure of this nature.
A Right Rev. Prelate had asked, has any ground of justice
been violated ? I will say, yes. Has it not been a vio-
lation to refuse an act of justice, by preventing millions of
our fellow-subjects from enjoying those rights to which
they are entitled. My Lords, arc not most Acts
of Parliament passed on the ground of expediency ?
It is expediency alone on which statesman must take their
stand. It never could be contended that this Constitution
was one of exclusion. If it were such, I, for one, will
take my share of blame in assisting to pass a law conferring
on our Roman Catholic Brethren their civil rights.—
My Lords, the Roman Catholics are entitled to seats in
both Houses of Parliament according to the basis of. this
Constitution—it never was intended permanently to ex-
clude them.—(Hear, hear.)--It is a great mistake, my
Lords, to suppose that all the grievances under which
Ireland labours have been upon the system of
misgovernment. For the last fifty years Ireland has been
encreasing in wealth and prosperity. She has raised her-
self to a situation in the scale of nations, but how lament-
able the fact, with this increased prosperity, she is at
this moment in unexampled political danger, she is
bordering on a state of civil war, and nothing but the
measure proposed by the Noble Duke can afford a remedy.
(Hear, hear. )—I agree, my Lords, with putting down
the Catholic Association ; but that could not have been
done but by following it up with this other great measure
of relief. No one who has not witnessed the state of Ireland
can entertain the least idea of the odious and vexatious
exclusions under which the Roman Catholics have so long
and so unjustly laboured. I can assure Noble Lords, from
my own experience, that they have proved the greatest
curse to that country. They have raised father against son,
and family against family ; they have produced discord
and confusion in every transaction of life; they have
poisoned every enjoyment, made every one discontented, and
created a jealousy that has shook the safety of the kingdom.
My Lords, it is said that the petitions against the measure
are sent from those who are afraid of the safety of the Pro-
testant establishment. A great many of those petitions
have been presented from districts which as widely differ
from the established religion of the country as the Roman
Catholics. My Lords, the great mischief of the existing
laws are, that they give an artificial superiority to those
professing the Protestant religion. This was what had
caused the great mischief. My Lords, nothing is more
common in Ireland than to hear a Protestant Brunswicker
say, " What ! have a Roman Catholic for a Judge ? Can
I be safe if such an one administers the laws of the country?
I never can submit to such a state of things," anti yet my I
Lords, you tell the Catholics that they must submit to
have exclusively Protestant Judges. You tell them that
it is for their good that they should do so. But is it
reasonable to suppose that they should always
quietly submit to such a degradation.—(Hear, hear.)L-
I have heard several Noble Lords say, that they are inti-
mately acquainted with many Catholics who they think
are very good and very amiable men, but yet they are con-
vinced that there would be no safety in granting them
their civil rights. What a paradox!—(Hear, hear,)--
All those who think with me that concessions ought no
longer to be withheld, are charged directly with being
either apostates or favourers of idolatry, and that we have
no regard to the Protestant Constitution, but that we are
raising up enemies. It is no such thing. It re-
quires no act to influence parties to unite together,
their common grievance is sufficient. It had been stated
by a Noble and Learned Lord that the people cared nothing
about emancipation, but I can assure him that they do
care. They feel that au indignity is offered to some of
their body, and if offered to one it affected the whole. The
present system of exclusion is certainly an insult to the
feelings of a loyal and a brave people, and the wrongs
that they have so long suffered had made them too power-
ful for this country any longer to resist their just claims._.
(Hear, hear.)—Are we, my Lords, to he frightened at a
monster of our own creation ? Intolerance is that mon-
ster, and let us by passing this measure, annihilate it.
Many persons trust to time and lenient measures for the
removal of complaints. For the evils of Ireland time can
bring no cure. Complaints must go on from day to day,
until every unnatural distinction is removed. Until that
removal every unjust distinction will be the root of danger.
(Hear.)—The vices of our system have led to these evils.
remedies may be proposed, and if by those remedies you
make Ireland three times as powerful as she is, still she
will be three times more dangerous, unless you change
your position. You are now founding your Go-
vernment neither on the basis of power or
public expediency. Your principles are abandoned by
every civilized nation in the world. I declare I cannot
understand the Noble and Learned Lord, when he says
well-
knownvofhi which alone
al
oevils.n
discontent
Government
aa
have
lad %icy Tuedh
subdue
sldsauatpdetplas
adapted
tine
dtttehmmeeptnfhlotee:si
fully
itfa and
she
d onlyf
vu
eioniptneol e
talk oof l Ireland
an
n
that the common law provides a remedy for these
ice
are burning, and the human frame wasting in the hectic
stybserteemisofno
ap-
plying the common law of the land as a remedy. The
danger Government.
o f
a sudden rfli e
eoxb
pl el
oDs u
ion.ke h
Ta sh
ew isel
tohfe presentpolicy
y people said,di
d
not wish to fight it out with the Government ;
but there was much to be apprehended from the present
state of that unfortunate country. Whether Government
have complied with the wishes of the Catholics I can not
say, but I will. say they have folloWed the recommenda-
tion of the speech frees the throne in doing the best

t Ireland. Let me ask
the lii
Rev. Bh, who
sui,s(eii.,,t,Heaoyi.
ealyesrotrnts:mlc,v
ynit.
from me on the question, what are the dangers they appi es
at
ot
manage that the wish
nger.
appears that the hii Lest cha:rartea
is iven
f tae
. Prelys they are
idolatrous, yet th.y
say,
a
of the Roman Catholics is to ga'n the Protestant
ascend )o. Th
ay hostility must exist tutvauds t'ie
Established Church, but let us see what are the grounds
of this
respectable man, but I cannot be.
Nerve 5011
onha;y.eourbeteiantli.,:iol(elilt laatihingeglirc.y)a—tsipmCeleaii.n.isicesnyotetmtris:id,vet
that the Roman Catholics have done any thing against
the Protestant Church ?—I admit at public meet-
jttga, there
by affgry Priests and angry Demagogues; but that
was not ground to charge the whole Catholic Dods-
with improper feeliuge. I 'ft) not think it wise to lectors,
hostile feelings ff3etiellienegts. tTo
htehlie elv4oitjeesntcain'tsaeystablishment. Why is
it so? There must be an establishment; religion cannot
gn without it. If the Roman Catholic laity adroit, a s
they do admit, that there must IT a religious cstit-
bliAment, they will not decide against
It is impossible to overturn the Protestant establishment
without subverting the State itself. If you give Catholics
their rights, they will respect the Protestant establishment,
It is an abuse of good sense to talk of hostility against the
Protestant Establishment; I believe from my Heart that the
Roman Catholic Priests and Laity of Ireland, have
no intention to niahe an attack on the Protestant Fe-
tablishment.—(Hear, hear.)—Do they forget, in the
first
thatth place,ethat
Constitution the
itself is essentially Protestant.
That the King is bound by his Coronation Oath to
corner-stone of the Constitution,
exclude Roman Catholics from the State, I will
not admit ; but I will maintain with all that
the Constitution is unalterably Protestant. As to the ad-
mission of Catholics to this House there can be no danger
of a Popish representative. If they look to the other House
can they suppose the Catholics would send Members to Par-
liament for the purpose of overturning the Constitution.--
Could such a scandalous conspiracy he carried on in the
face of the people of England? I say no! and if such an at-
tampt were made those who were hardy enough, and
wicked enough to try the experiment would be swept off
the face of the earth. But then it is said there is a pro-
bability of such an attempt. My Lords, I deny it. Such
a scheme would fail, and it will not be attempted.
The danger that I contemplate from a continuation of that
system of exclusion is, that the English nation must neces-
sarily rest upon a disproportional minority fur support,
How will you remedy this? How will you give effect to
the engines of Government. You cannot make the Ca-
tholics Protestants, and there is the great difficulty with
which you have to contend. This measure gives security to
the Protestant Church which you can obtain no other way!
It is impossible that the Catholics can ever ceaseek.to see
the attainment of those rights, so long as an exclusive eats-
blishment exists. Indeed, we are offered one alternative
one which I trust will never be adopted. I support this
measure, because I see in it those prospective benefits
which I can look for through no other medium : because
it will have the effect of affording protection to the Pro-
testants of that country—because it will give them a full
and certain assurance of safety, anti also encourage the flow
of property into that country. I regretted last night to
hear the Right Rev. Prelate at the head of the Protestant
Church in Ireland express his dissent from this measure ;
But I was gratified at :11 events to hear that dissent given
in such qualified terms, and I am convinced that nothing
can tend so much to soften the exasperation that will befall
the Protestants in Ireland, as the exercise of his power and
the influence of his example. We have been told that the
Roman Catholic religion remains unchanged, that in doc-
trine, in tenets, and in prince, it is virtually the
same. I deny this assertion.--( Hear, hear, hear.) The
Catholics of this day are no more like the Catholics of the
time of Philip and Mary than light is like darkness. My
Lords, at this late hour I sin unwilling to detain your
Lordships by going more largely than I have done iota the
consideration of the various topics which the subject em-
braces. It was my intention to have endeavoured to have
explained the obligatory principle of the Coronation Oath,
about which so much has been said, but perhaps it is now
unnecessary, as the arguments on that point appear
to me to be gives up in the course of the debate.
I am, however, reminded by my lion. Friend on my right
that the Hon. and Learned Lord who spoke last asked
where is your security? I think, my Lords, it is impos-
sible to speak of any better security than that given by this
Bill. It has been said that if this becomes a law we may
have Popish Ministers, a Popish King and a Popish Par.
liament, but is this a probability, or an improbability? Ifthe
Roman Catholics possessed this power, no Act of Parlia-
ment can control them. I am unwilling to speak in allusion
to anything that has fallen from the opponents to this
measure, particularly when I consider the softened tone
which the debate has assumed. In the course of that
debate your Lordships have heard none of the denunciaa
tions which rung in this House during the previous part
of the Session. The Noble and Learned Lord had, in-
deed, taken care to vindicate the Protestant faith, and he
gave your Lordships his solemn assurance that he would
die in that faith. I trust it will be long ere he gives such
proof of his attachment to his religion. The Noble and
Learned Lord alluded to the Oath of Supremacy, and
contended that unless that oath was abrogated Roman
Catholics could net be admitted into civil power. Ido
not conceive that oath was framed for any such purpose,
or with any such view, its only object at that time, and
that was a time of suspicion, was to ascertain who were
loyal subjects and who were not. I believe Hume stated
facts in which the Noble and Learned Lord would go along
with me, because they are founded on their own statute
books, on the evidence of history, and on the authority of
Queen Elizabeth's Minister. At that time, be it remem-
bered Roman Catholics took part in the affairs of the
state, and assisted in making the laws, and it was not till
the conferacy of foreign states against the English Govern-
ment, that Catholics were debarred from interference in
the concerns of government. I will admit that at the
time of Charles the Second the Catholics were held
so unworthy of trust, that they became suspected, but
why? on account'of their attachment to the King.
By the laws which were made against recusancy, Catholic
recusants were not allowed to come within ten miles of
London and Westminster. By this means they were dis-
abled from sitting in Parliament, and new writs were
issued for the places represented. This proved that by
the law as it stood, down to the time of Charles 11., there
was nothing to prevent Roman Catholics from sitting in
Parliament. There was in the SOth of Charles 11. a clause
against Popish recusants, which had the effect of excluding
them.--(Hear, hear. )—There were two enactments which
applied to them, the one declaring that they could not sit in
Parliament, unless they signed the declaration, and the
other, that unless they signed the declaration, they could not
be admitted to the presence of the King, and must submit
to being banished to a distance of ten miles from the
metropolis. What became of those laws ? All the laws
against Popish recusancy were struk off. All the laws
banishing them from the presence of the King were
struck off, so that nothing remained but the mutilated
bust of Titus Oates.—(Loud cheers and laughter.)--
Now, my Lor&, so much for the law of Titus—(A laugh)
—for such I must call it. But at that time there were
reason for the enactment of that law, for the Catholics
were then dangerous to the State. • What is the meaning
of the Noble Lords, who state that these principles of ex-
clusion were consecrated at the revolution ? What had
the revolution to do with that exclusive system ? Is it in-
corporated in the Bill of Rights ? Does that Bill contain
any trumperies about transubstantiation, and the worship
of the Saints? No ! they enacted those things which were
stated by my Noble Friend, and did net trouble themselves
with such trumperies as those. They enacted and declar-
ed the liberties of the people, so far as those liberties had
been invaded by the Crown, and no further. —(Great
cheering.)—They were no system-mongers, they were no
grinders of theories.—(Hear.)—They were sober, practical
Statesmen, and they set themselves to inquire into the
grievances of the people in order to redress them.—( Hear,
hear.)—There were thirteen particulars in which the
Crown had violated the rights of the people, and they ac-
cordingly declared them to be violations, and they con-
fined themselves to those. There was no stronger proof
than their declaration with regard to the right of the sub-
ject to petition the Throne, a right which bad been in-
vaded in the ease of the seven Bishops.—(Hear, hear. )
They inserted in the Bill of Rights that the people had a
right to petition the Throne, and this proved that they
confined themselves to the existing grievances of that time.
I beg of your Lordships to observe the manner in which
they carried into execution the law relating to the acces-
sion to the Throne. In the preample they say that " when-
ever it has been found by experience that in the Protestant
kingdom the Crown ought also to be Protestant," and the
Act then goes on to say that the King must be of the Pro-
testant religion, and if he marries a Catholic he forgets his
right to the Throne. My Lords, this is a Protestant
Kingdom, but does that imply that it is exclusively Pro-
testant? Have we not a Protestant Government and a
Protestant Parliament? ,It, in fact, is, and must he so till
the end of time, for there will be such a preponderance of
Protestants in it, that at no time can it cease to be a Pro-
testant Parliament. Another word, my Lords, before I
leave this subject. It is said that those acts which are
cotemporary with the Bill of Rights, partake of the
same nature with the Bill itself. There was one Act