The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-07 00:00:00

and in the penalty, and in order to furnish yourselves with an ar-
gument against liberality, to refuse to concur in any remedy.—
(Hear, hear.)—One main point has not sufficiently been brought
under consideration—when we got possession of the French pro-
vince of Quebec, where there were a number of persons profess-
ing the Roman Catholic faith, one of the terms of the Treaty was
that their rights and privileges should he secured to them as far
as was consistent with the Law of England. A proclamation
was issued, by which the Catholics, according to the spirit of the
law of England, were required to take the oath of Supiemacy, and
to subscribe the declaration. This was an act of gross injustice to
those people, and an attack upon the very privileges which had
been reserved. What was done upon the subject after mature reflec-
tion? An Act was passed in the year 1774 (11 Geo. 111. c. 83),
which well deserves the attention of all who contend that the
admission of Roman Catholics is in opposition to the King's Co-
ronation oath. It recites that the Proclamation of 1763 had been
found, on experience, inapplicable to the state and circumstances
of the province, where there were 65,000 persons professing the
religion of the Church of Rome. It then withdraws the Pro-
clamation, and declares, that, for the more perfect security and
ease of the inhabiLants of the province, the Roman Catholics
may hold and enjoy the exercise of their religion, subject to the
King's supremacy, as declared by the Act of the lst Elizabeth.
For the purpose of securing the rights of the Catholics, what
was enacted ? That no Catholic should be compelled to take
the oath of the Ist Elizabeth, but the oath of allegiance only, and
thereupon enjoy all their accustomed rights and usages. What
had been the consequence? When the American Protestants re-
volted, and shook off the yoke of Great Britain, the Popish
province of Canada remained true to its allegiance.—(Much
cheering.)—I maintain with confidence that the Oath of Supre-
macy is not a necessary test of allegiance. Upon the legal topic,
I will not longer occupy the attention of the House, except to in-
form
my Right Honourable Friend, if he will allow me to sup-
Pose him ignorant of the fact, that the Statute of the sth
Elizabeth, which requires the Oath of Supremacy, was
never enacted in Ireland ; the 30th of Charles 11., extend-
ing it, was never enacted in Ireland.—(The Master of the
Rolls was understood to express his dissent.)—lt is true, the
Ist Elizabeth was enacted in Ireland ; but the sth of Elizabeth,
the Statute which excludes Roman Catholics from Parliament,
Was confined to this country. I use these facts for this purpose :
To shew that, from the time of the Reformation to the Revolu-
tion, Roman Catholics were admitted into Parliament in Ireland,
without taking the Oath of Supremacy, or subscribing the De-
claration. We know that in the reign of James 1., 101 Roman
Catholics voted on the choice of a Speaker. It is impossible for
any man to doubt the meaning of the articles of the Treaty of
Limerick in 1691. The Roman Catholics were then, by the pe-
culiar law of Ireland, admissible to Parliament and to certain
offices not excepted by the 14th Charles 11. and by the new rules.
What was the stipulation of the Treaty? " That the Roman Ca-
tholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise
of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as
they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II." Now the pe-
culiar privileges of the Irish under Charley 11. were none other
than I have mentioned—to sit and vote in Parliament. The
Treaty did not refer to religious rights and privileges—and
if ray Right Honourable Friend can prove that I am wrong
upon this point, I will give up the question. It has
been said that the article applied only to persons in gar-
rison but what right had the parties who entered into the
Treaty
to touch the rights of any but those who were in arms
against the Government? Those who resisted on that occasion
were governed by a misguided loyalty, I admit ; but the King of
England and the Legislature had no more right to take away the
privileges of the rest of the people of Ireland, than to deprive me
of nine, or any Hon. Member who hears me of his.—(Hear,
hear.)—Therefore, this treaty establishes for the Roman Catholics
at large their ancient rights by positive compact. Any Hon.
Gentleman who attends to the events of history, will find the
miserable state to which the country was reduced by the viola-
tion of this solemn engagement. It was determined to shut out
the great body of the people of Ireland. Those who so determined
were not fools--they did not, perhaps, shew great wisdom in
some of their acts, but in this respect they were perfectly wise :
they saw that it was impolitic to allow wealth and power to accu-
mulate among those who were shut out from any participation in
the Government of the State; for it is as true as mathematical
demonstration, that the accumulation of property among those
no were excluded from power might in time overturn the State
itself. Hence they were employed for 70 years in the odious
and disgusting task of shutting the Roman Catholics out from the
Requisition of knowledge and pi operty, or rather in stripping them
°h. property they already possessed, and reducing them to the
lowest; state of degradation and misery. At the end of that time
hey began to find out that they could not proceed in such a course,
and to dread the consequences of their own acts ; and the Irish
e('r i People ought to be thankful that, though late, their oppressors
inrted some wisdom from experience. They were raised from
their former
relief
degradation and misery, and much sebstantial and
,as was afforded. But that duty was left incomplete ; as
been already
well said, imperfect justice had' raised them to
na
level from zhelnvhceicithey could behold all the blessings of the
Constitution The Irish Catholics they were net permitted to participate.
no longer submit, declare, declare, that to this state of things they will
mageme,
of (Much cheering.) It is easy to talk of de-
am intemperance, and reclamation, and I
" much an enemy to all such proceedings as any man who
hears me ; but let the people of England consider what it is the
people of Ireland demand. The claim no fanciful or supposed
rights—they claim their just share in the British Constitution ;
they demand what for 700
years has been in vain demanded_
that the Irish shall be sharers in the ad vantages of English law.
Let me ask of the Protestant freemen of England, whom I respect
as much as any man in this House, and to whose good sense I ad-
dress myself, if they were deprived of their undoubted privileges,
what would be their feelings, and how vehement would be their
reclaniations ? Is therea man who hears me who would not
freely lay down his life in such a cause? I know he would scorn
to prove himself so base a recreant from the spirit of his fore-
fa,hers•—(Continued cheering.)—Would he not join with all his
..low. -sufferers in demanding the restoration of his privileges, and
Ins right to share in making and dispensing the laws of the land ?
l
If_ an attempt were here made to deprive him of his birth-right, it
is.not idle to say that lie and the countless numbers who felt with
would indeed display the ira leonum vinela recusantium.—
Hear,
bear.)—l have been led to dwell on this part of the case
perhaps longer than I ought, and I may have expressed myself
with
a warmth than becomes the place I occupy less than the cause
I
advocate.—(Hear, hear.)—lt has been far from my wish to give
offencedtl
either in or ut of this house ; but as I claim unrestrained
f►ee" of speech for myself, so I am willing to pay all respect to
the opinions, and to make all allowance for the feelings of others.
Before I Sit down I wish to make a few remarks upon that which
Purposely reserved to the lisst—the present state of Ireland.—
the has been when we have been told, that thee e
body of
the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not dream of sharing in
were not interpretation, and dispensation of the laws, if they
not excited by indiscreet harangues of itinerant orators, and
that
diffeZeit was, they viewed the result with a degree of listless in-
to 0* I need not spend a great deal of time in endeavouring
sH__convince the house that this assertion is not exactly true.—
`n) 7r.)---Every man who allows himself the use of his senses,
„...u‘t see that in Ireland at this moment there is a universal sym-
pathy in the whole body of the Irish Roman Catholics, with-
ow, Zion of order or degree, laity or clergy, young or
jute or wealthy.....-(Cheers.)—All press forward with an
„peeaikact,Y of desire and a unity f determination to accomplish a
particula:l7l7d, and well-understood object.—(Hear.)—What
before, at a
of actual renbrelrioerind of
tive inspela them it is not for me to ask ; but never
to oh' our history, excepting when in a state
Purposes__ nil, has there existed such a universality of
Catholics of obtain a restitution of civil rights. The Roman
and "
eontidetiti d never till now looked Parliament so directly
that Which hit f, the 6'ee, calling
The feeling of tvlsitnt. upon it at last to concede
it has systematically denied.—(Cheers.)—
or to those who
wills I speak is not confined to the higher ranks,
Among the middli be most immediately benefited by a change.
and any man ni bng classes of Roman Catholics it is universal ;
at the pso,2eedings° servation, who looks only at the newspapers,
the Aggregate Avieulh.he Catholics, net in the Association or in
rishes, and villages, 14s, but in all the meetings in towns, pa-
Capacity, and a reasonin
that. they and
and the Poorest
an eloquence of passion, a breadth of
shrewdness and intelligence which prove
bee of their claims, as e know their rights and the jus-
now the honour to address,well as many of the illustrious body I have
that with wealth knowlede
hLaset the House not fail to observe,
t° say, that there is not
, who has not all the also spread ; and I will venture
Year s single Catholic in Ireland, of 1001. a
rasitie
peon. Tsoaraecertain degreneg this
sd
isemobuarrkseadfegounatrhdis;
tes
hinkfihnkis mind
the witer'neyste sensible of such blessings as they do enjoy wider
s.ttineredulollll erna adopted during the last forty years, and lend
by *editions, rto those who tell them they will be gainers
Ring_revolution, or invasion. Ido not believe that the
they art 7ne:e_ S 121e.tter subjects than the class to which I allude, but
--(much Z... 7.1 for good or ill, as you may know how to use it
or for „n;rl9.7l`t'ing.)---Theyare either for peace or war—for battle
Its the present
osl--sto live with you or to die for you—(cheers).
*ery generally ; Ireland there are discontents prevailing
Ivillesssuargy be' her must be discontents, and the discontents
the Irish -Catholic: greater in proportion as a great number of
cOMfort.-,,But, 4_,_„lProre in wealth, respectability, and in
wu‘ne tis impossible for such people not to feel

and express their discontents, yet they are averse to disturbance
and violence, and such proceedings as may endanger the secu-
rity of the Government. In all countries, every man who
is prosperous and in comfortable circumstances is considered
as a hostage to the State, and is -found: to be so. What is
it, then, that makes the difference in Ireland? Every thing is
done there that can be done by the executive Government, which
has never been administered better than it has of late been by the

very distinguished Nobleman at the head of it. Whence, then,
does the mischief grow ? It grows from the vices of the system
adopted by the Legislature with respect to the Catholics—vices
which infuse their poisonous juices into the whole of the Adminis-
tration, and destroy the effects of the best provisions and blessings
of Providence

The way to cure these vices is to apply the re-

medy which all the Catholics, and a great body of the Protes-
tants, now call for. Hitherto I have been talking of the mid-

dling classes ; but there is certainly a population in- Ireland of a
different description—l have no pleasure in stating it. My Hon.

Friend says that there has been a gross misrepresentation as to
their numbers but, however, I don't go into that; it is suffi-
cient for me to mention what is the fact, that the overwhelming

majority of the population of Ireland are as anxious for the remo-
val of Catholic disabilities as the class to which I have before re-
ferred. All are interested in this question. There is not a cabin
in which the subject is not regarded with the most intense anxiety,
and in which the inmates do not keenly feel the degradation to which
they are exposed, by being considered as outcasts, on account
of their religion. We are told that demagogues take advantage
of their situation, and urge them on to extreme, violent, and
mischievous measures. True ; we,are all agreed upon that point:

What the object of these demagogues may be, I know not ; but I
do not think it is rebellion. Ido not think that their intention

is completely to subvert the Constitution. Their only immediate
object seems to be, to rouse the people to fury, that they may have
it iu their power to apply the popular force to any purpose, right
or wrong, as they may think fit. But, is this the state in which
Ireland is to be left ? Are these demagogues to be still allowed to

stand ready with the snatch in their hands, to produce whatever
explosion they might think proper for their purpose ? The only
way to put an end to this state of things, and to insure peace and
good order to the country, is to remove the Catholic disabilities ;
and I here repeat what I have said before that, at present the great
security against outrage is found in the influence of the Roman
Catholic clergy of Ireland.—(Hear.)—The priesthood restrain the
population, not only by their personal and natural influence,
but by the highest sanctions of religion. This I had before
stated, and had hoped that it Would have gone without contra-
diction. In this, however, I have been mistaken ; and I am
sorry to say that my statement, as to the beneficial influence ex-
ercised over the people by the Catholic Priesthood, has been con-
tradicted, not only by the Member for Derry, but by another
Hon. Friend (Mr. Moore, we believe), who has lent his autho-
rity to the allegations of the Member for Derry, respecting the
Catholic clergy. But, after all, what is the amount of the accu-
sations against the Catholic Priests? They never encouraged the
people to commit violence and outrage. The utmost that can be
said against them is that they interfered in the late elections, and
that one of them used very improper and unwarrantable language
respecting the Protestant Church Establishment. As to the affi-
davits of the Hon. Member for Derry, if any one were to ask me
whether I believe them to be true, I would say that I do not.—
(A laugh). I say that, in my opinion, there must be at least be gross
exaggeration. I wish to think higher of the great body of Irish land-
lords than to suppose them capable of depriving the poor peasants and
their families of their ,sattages, merely because they voted for such
candidates as were favourable to their emancipation, Such things
may have happened in some few instances, but they never can
have been generally prevalent ; and I must therefore conclude
that the statements on the other side have been greatly exag-
gerated, both as to the conduct of the Landholders and of the Ro-
man Catholic Clergy. But the Roman Catholic Clergy ought
not to be blamed for making use of the liberty which the law al-
lowed, nor for interfering where not by law prohibited. For in-
stance, in these elections, a Catholic Priest might, without any
breach of propriety or violation of the law, say to a Roman Ca-
tholic voter, " here is a man who wishes to get into Parliament,
and who, when lie gets there,will vituperate you and your fellow-
Catholics, and will characterise your religion as idolatrous and su-
perstitious. Do not vote for him, but vote for the man who is ready
to lend his voice and assistance to the femoval of the civil and religi-
ous disabilities under which' you labour, and to restore you to that
state of equality with your Protestant fellow-subjects in which
you ought to stand." There is nothing in all this contrary to mo-
rality—nothing contrary to religion. It is no more than the
natural expression resulting from a patriotic feeling ; and this is
a sort oc Ifluence which, if confined within due limits, the Roman
Catholic Clergy have a perfect right to use. I told you in 1825
what would be the case with those Forty Shilling Freeholders,
and it is curious now to find, that those who opposed the arrange-
ment which I then suggested with respect to them, are now the
loudest in accusing them. Their tone was remarkably different at
that time. These Yeomen, as they were then called (a laugh),
were not to be deprived of the Constitutional privileges which they
enjoyed. It was touching the sacred rights of the Freeholders.
But what is the language of these Gentlemen now? The Yeomen,
whose sacred rights ought not then to be disturbed, are now the
property of the landlords (a laugh), and the only doubt seems
to be, whether the property is legal or equitable ; and at length
it is softened down to this, that these freeholders are trustees
for the landlords. (Hear, hear, hear.) I do not agree, how-
ever, with the Member for Derry, that there was any thing,
contrary to morality or religion in the conduct of the Catho-
licin persuading these freeholders to vote according to
their C l
consciences,ergy)
u, and
the
i‘dioeinn'tbelii.kfeorhcisavaaffindauviiitls.—(A laugh- —sHonourableleovei I
ex-
cuse me when I advert to his charge against the Catholic
Priesthood, and the great body of the Catholics, on account of the
language contained in a letter addressed to Lord
Farnham by a
Roman Catholic Clergyman, Dr. Doyle. I certainly do not ap-
prove of the whole of that language, and I have only to regret
that a man of so much learning and good sense as Dr. Doyle
should have employed such language. But the electrical shock
which resulted from the letter of Dr. Doyle seems to have been
produced by the paasage in which he compares the Irish Pro-
testant Established Church to the Car of Juggernaut, and its prac-
tices with those of the superstitious votaries and worshippers of that
idol. But whatever credit for invention and imagination may be
due to Doctor Doyle, he has no title to the original invention of
the language in question. Doctor Doyle found it in a newspaper,
in the report of a speech said to have been delivered at a Meeting
of Protestants in Ireland, where Lord Farnham presided, and in
which speech the words were applied to the Catholic Church ; and
it was moreover stated, that the Gentleman who made that
speech was the Honourable Member for the County of Cavan—
(a loud laugh.)—The Hon. Member for Cavan stated, or
was reported to have stated, in that speech, that Popery and
Slavery were twin sisters, and then went on to say, that it was
because he wished to see his country free and happy, that he was
so anxious to rescue it from a degree of thraldom worse than that
of those who bowed down before the car of Juggernaut. This
was spoken of the Roman Catholic religion, and it was stated that
the expression was followed by loud cheers from the whole body
assembled on that occasion. Here then is a specimen of the lan-
guage addressed to Ladies and Gentlemen, to Clergymen and
Laymen, by those who profess, like Peter the Hermit, to be so
anxious to spread the mild doctrines of Christianity among the
Catholics of Ireland, and these are the means which they employ
for that purpose. Now, I ask, is it possible for the Roman
Catholic Clergy to hear and see their religion assailed in this way
without attempting an answer and refutation? And yet the whole
offence of the Letter of Doctor Doyle to Lord Farmham consists in
the mere circumstance of retorting the phrase relative to the Jug-
gernaut idol.—(Hear, hear. )—I confess that I am alarmed at this
system of proselytism which is so eagerly pursued by a certain
class of Protestants with reference to the Irish Catholics. I am,
at the same time, a sincere-friend to the progress of light and
knowledge among the Catholics, and amongst persons of all de-
scriptions ; but my Honourable Friend seems to consider this
spread of education among the Catholics, merely as an instrument
of proselytism. These two points are, however, completely dis-
tinct. I believe that the Catholics are not enemies to education,
either civil or religious. All the Gospels are read once a-year in
their churches. They have no objection to have their flocks well
educated in temporal learning, and well grounded in religious
knowledge. What they object to is the systematic purpose of
proselytism which certain classes of Protestants attempt to corn
bine with the measures adopted for the education of the Irish Ca-
tholics. The Catholic Clergy are friendly to the spread of in-
struction and knowledge generally ; and if the measures which
have been adopted for the promotion of education in Ireland should
prove unavailing, the failure will not be owing to the Catholics.
—The Honourable Member for Derry has rather unfairly, I
thiuk, reproached me with having vituperated the Clergy of
the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, for having had re-
course to that sort of interference with elections which he
now ascribes to the Catholic Clergy. I certainly never did so.
I have stated to the House what is the condition of the great body
of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, particularly with reference to
their Protestant fellow-subjects. But then, what is the state of
a great part of the Protestants of Ireland attached to the Esta-
blished Church? A state of animosity and fury against the great
body of the Catholics.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—And, indeed,
considering the disorganised situation in which Catholics and
Protestants are kept with reference to each other, it is natu-
ral that there should be fury and violence on both sides. The
great body of the Catholics are anxious for their undoubted

rights, and desirous to be placed upon a political and civil
equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects; and all this they
wish to accomplish without tuintllt or violence of any descrip-
tion. A great body of Irish Protestants wish that the Claims
of the Catholics should be conceded, and their disabilities re-
moved; not only from a sense of the justice of these Claims,
but also for the purpose of restoring that tranquillity to the
country which it can never enjoy while these exclusive mea-
sures in favour of the Protestants are allowed to operate. The
Catholics, as a body, are very far from being extravagant in
their pretensions; and if the maasures which were proposed in
1825 had received the sancticn of the Legislature, you would

not now have heard a word about the Catholic Question. But,

Sir, this is not exclusively a Roman Catholic Question. It is

also a Protestant Question—a question in which we are all in-
terested. It is a national—an imperial question; a question in
which the whole country is most deeply concerned. I speak in
this matter for the best interests of my country. and acknowledge

no colours but those of freedom and justice.—(Hear, hear,
hear.)—As to these agitators, it is the misfortune of the system
that, while it prevails, we are continually subjected to their ma-
chinations.—(Hear, hear.)—But the only way to deal wth them
is by the arm of the law, and, by legal means, to repress licen-
tious clamour, when it reaches a point at which it may seri-
ously endanger the tranquillity of the State. I do not say
that the organs by which any body of men convey the know-
ladge of their grievances to the Government and the public
are to be shut up ; but they must be kept within bounds, and
the Act of Parliament which was passed for that purpose has
_ _

certainly done much good. If they violate the law by the intem-
perance of their harangues, punish them; put an end to their
excesses in the ordinary course of law; compel them to keep
within due bounds, and inflict reace upon them, which is the
worst and most galling grievance that can possibly befal them.—
(Hear, hear, hear.)—We have again and again stated, on our

side, what the real situation of Ireland is—a situation which can-
not, without the most 'serious danger to the country be suffered to
continue—and we chew our remedy. They who oppose us admit
the danger, which is, indeed, too obvious to be denied; and we call
upon them for their remedy, but they have none. Some lion.
Gentlemen talk of the danger to be apprehended from the foreign

influence by which the Clergy and the great body of the Catholics
are, as they say, liable to be misled from their allegiance to their
Sovereign, and their duties to their country. Why, then, do they
not propose to the Catholics to enter into a concordat with the
Pope, for the purpose of securing them against the effects of fo-
reign influence ? Another remedy has, indeed, been suggested, and

some appear to entertain sanguine views that it will be successful.
That remedy consists in the Reformation and Conversion of the
Catholics. But I say that those who have any hopes that the
work of reformation and conversation can be prosecuted to any
general and material result by means of meetings, r-7.4. making
of speeches before ladies and gentlemen, and other such proceed-
ings, will find themselves most grievously disappointed. And I

ask also whether, by such proceedings as these, the cause of reli-
gion and morality can be a gainer? There ;s still a further project
connected with this point, and that is a plan by which this at-
tempt at reformation and conversion is to be backed by the powers
of the Government, which, it is supposed, will give extraordinary
effect to the logic and rhetoric which is to be employed in the
work of conversion. This was the course adopted by Henry VIII.
when he formed the resolution to convert his subjects from the
errors of Popery.—(Hear.)—A great portion of his subjects did
not quite agree with him in their views of the matter ; but where
his logic and rhetoric were ineffectual, he ordered the refractory to
be hung up ; and this formed a most potent and successful argu-
ment with those who happened to be within its reach—(Laughter. )
In fine, if we wish to promote the best interests of our country ge-
nerally, Ireland is to be conciliated, wooed, and wedded. For
the sake of our internal and domestic tranquillity and pros-
perity—for the sake of our power and influence among the nations
of Europe and of the world—especially at a time when the gene-
ral peace is in so much danger of being interrupted—we ought,
above all things, to have the most valuable portion of the po-
pulation, of Ireland, and the great mass of that population, if
possible, firmly attached to us—( Hear, hear !)—Our Consti-
tution is said to be the admiration of the world, and justly so.

But it is of the last importance to Great Britain that foreign na-
tions should no longer be able to point out such a flaw in that
Constitution as the existence of Ole civil disabilities imposed on
the great mass of the Irish population ; nor to calculte upon the
alienation that may be produced by a state of things so mischiev-
ous and impolitic. For the sake of our improvement and pro-
sperity in peace ; for the sake of our defence and our strength in
war, all the other divisions of the Empire ought, in affections and
interests, to be firmly united with Ireland—(Hear, hear !)

Mr. PEEL then rose, and spoke to the following
effect :—Nothing could have induced me, after all that has passed
on this subject, to present myself to the notice of the House now,
except an overpowering sense of public duty ; for it is most pain-
ful and nauseous to be obliged to tax one's ingenuity to find new
arguments on a topic already exhausted. But I have no alterna-
tive. A Noble Lord (Elliot) who formerly thought with me on
this subject, has seen good reason to change his sentiments, and
to adopt the conclusions which have been formed on the other
side. I admire and respect him, but still I shall not shrink from
my public duty, whether I shall meet with the approbation of the
majority or not. I had hoped to have been able to abstain from
any thing of a personal nature as far as I am myself concerned ;
but I think it necessary now to repeat what I stated in 1825, that
the Roman Catholics have no right whatever to urge their Claims
upon the ground of any thing contained in the Treaty of Limerick.
The House, Sir, will not think, called on as I have been by
oi td;
thle shall
conclusion athr
the Hon. Baronet, that I trespass on them, if I renew the dis-
cussion as to the Treaty of Limerick, in order to explain the sense
in which
advert, Sir,
have Sir, tahlevreeafdoyree,xptovetsshoedse,
articles
I found u o
n and I shall not wish to escape from the dilemma of the Hon. Ba-
ronet, if I do not show that there are good grounds for that con-
clusion. There are various articles of the Treaty of Limerick;
and the first undoubtedly refers to all the Roman Catholics of
Ireland. It has been held, from its importance, to refer to grant-
ing the Catholics certain rights, which they, therefore, now claim,
but which I deny that it gives to the Roman Catholics of Ire-
land. There are other articles in the Treaty which refer to the
inhabitants of Limerick ; the second article refers to " all the in-
habitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now
in possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in
arms under any commission of King James, or those authorised
by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick,Clare,
Kerry, Cork, and Mayo." Now, Sir, I contend that the first
article of that Treaty confers no political privileges whatever ;
and those who signed that treaty never contemplated conferring
by it any political power or privileges whatever. The privileges
supposed were the free exercise of their religion, the preservation of
the Roman Catholics from any molestation on account of their
religion, and that they should not suffer any disturbance on this
account, nor be visited by any species of punishment ; but it did
not imply an exclusion from office, and the free enjoyment of po-
litical power ; its only object was to secure to the Roman Catho-
lics of Ireland the free exercise of their religion, as they enjoyed
it in the time of King Charles the Second. As to the first article,
I beg leave to call the attention of the House to the meaning of
the terms. It has been argued, I know, that this article does
not refer to the free enjoyment by the Catholics of their religion
undisturbed, but what it confers on their political privileges and
power. But I shall show the contrary, from the meaning assigned
to similar terms—indeed, to the very same terms, by the contem-
porary historians of the time—by Lord Clarendon, for example, by
whom they are always held to mean the undisturbed, unmolested
exercise of religion, or, in one word, to mean toleration. willl first
take the construction of these words from the highest authority—
from that of King William himself. [The Right Hon. Gentleman
here quoted some passages from a letter written by King Wil-
liam 111., in which, speaking of the English Catholics, he ex-
pressed himself willing to grant them the exclusive exercise of their
religion, but he would not grant them any political power, nor
allow them to have seats in Parliament], showing, (said the Right
Hon. Gentleman), that his Majesty understood by privileges, not
political power, but the exercise of their religion. His Majesty
spoke the same sentiments with regard to the articles of the treaty.
He said " Their Highnesses think that more should not he asked,
and that the Roman Catholics should content themselves by en-
joying prosperity, and being secured in their persons and estates,
and in the free enjoyment of their religion." He said, " that
they were not to expect to be admitted to Parliament, nor into
office, but to have the flee exercise of their religion." He says,
first, " that the Roman Catholics ought to be satisfied with
what they possessed, and, not to be discontented on account of
not being allowed to sit in Parliament, because the law did not
allow them, and because, if they were to sit in Parliament, they
would be enabled to overturn the Parliament." He goes on to
say, " that professing the Christian dispensation, they would
not, therefore, on this account judge it lawful to disturb the
quiet of the realin "—(Hear, hear, hear„)—These were King
William's sentiments, Sir, and he plainly held that the Ca-
tholics should be excluded from Parliament, and that the privileges
which he intended to confer, and which he conferred on the Catho-
lics by assenting to the Treaty, were only the undisturbed exercise
of their religion. I beg the House tce remark, that the Treaty of
Limerick was signed on October Scl, 1691, and on October 22d,
1691, an Act passed concerning the Roman Catholics, which con-
firmed to them the enjoinment of their religion as in the time of
King Charles, but excluded them from political power. On the
22d of October the. Parliament met, only a few days after the

signing of the Treaty, and then an Act was passed, applying the
same oaths of allegiance and homage in Ireland as in England.--
There was no question in passing this Act of the rights of the
Catholics, which were now claimed for them under the Treaty of

Limerick. The Act was brought in by the parties to that Treaty,

and no question was ever made as to their right to impose those
oaths. The Act was frequently discussed—a conference took
place between the Houses of Lords and Commons—no stipulations
were then made in Parliament—and no attempt was made by
those who were parties to that treaty, to confer political power,

or political offices, on the Catholics. For one hundred years,
Sir, this Act has been in force, and obeyed without exciting

any remonstrances ; and who, I would ask, were the principal
parties to that Act? Sir, lam defending the Whigs of that day.
At that very time, Lord Somers was Solicitor-General. Treby was
Attorney-General, and Lord Godolphin was Lord Treasurer.—
Now, had King William and his Whig Counsellors done so base a
thing as was implied in passing such an Act in defiance of the sti-
pulations of the Treaty, could any thing have been more dis
honest? Is it to be believed, Sir, that King William came down
to the Legislature to pass such an Act in the face of his own
Treaty, and that Lords Godolphin and Somers acquiesced? After
this Act had passed on February 24, 1692, King William ratified
the articles of the Treaty, and in that ratification he speaks of con-

firming to the city of Limerick, to the great satisfactionof the in-

habitants, all their rights and privileges. And this took place on
the 24th February, one month after he had given his consent to

an Act of Parliament, which excluded the Roman Catholics from
Parliament. Had he understood the Treaty in the sense attributed
to it by the Hon. Baronet, could he have added this solemn mockery
to his violation of a positive engagement? This was the interpreta-
tion of the Treaty by the Whigs of that period ; and what says
the Whig Historian? Bishop Burnet says—" And thus ended
the war of Ireland ; and with that our civil war came to a final end.
The articles of cal...nlation were punctually executed, and some
doubts thot arose out of some ambiguous words, were explained in
favour of the Irish." I take, then, Sir, my meaning of the first

article of the Treaty of Limerick from the interpretation put on it
by King William—l take it from the interpretation put on it by
the Whigs of that time—and I take it from the Whig Histo-
rian ; and by all of them it is held to mean, not political power
or privileges, but freedom of religious worship. On this ground,

then, I am entitled to withhold my assent to the Resolution pro

posed by the Hon. Baronet, as far as he claimed that assent on
the ground that the Treaty of Limerick conferred that power on
the Catholics, it is the object of this Resolution to confer. As
far, Sir, as my assent to his Resolution has been claimed on this
ground, I think I have shown that the Treaty of Limerick does
not justify the conclusion which the advocates of the Catholics
have drawn from it. I come now, Sir, to consider the question
on its own merits ; and I must confess that any apprehensions I
before entertained from admitting the the Catholics into the pos-
session of political power—any unwillingness I before felt to lis-
ten to their claims—have not been diminished by the manner in
which this Resolution was proposed to the House.—(Hear.)—
On the contrary, Sir, I do say, that the manner in whi•-h the
Hon. Baronet introduced the subject to the House has aggravated
my apprehensions.—(Hear, hear.)—The Honourable Baronet,
in claiming our assent to this Resolution, asserted that he saw
no difference in principle between our present exclusion of the
Catholics and burning a man at the faggot.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear, hear.")—And the Attorney-General for Ireland appealed
to the House, as English Gentlemen, if they were oppressed
in the manner of the Irish Catholics, if they would not '
rise in arms.—(Loud cheers.)—lf they would not rise in arms,
and if they would not think themselves justified in rising in arms,
.---(Cheers)--in rising in arms against such an oppression ; or, if
they did not, if they would not think themselves unworthy of the
name of Englishmen.—(Cheers.)—And those gentlemen who ad-
vanced those doctrines, which above all excites my apprehensions,
do it, while they profess to act on the principles of Mr. Pitt and
Mr. Burke, who would have been the first to oppose such
monstrous, such abominable doctrines.—(Cheers.)—lt is at this
moment, when the religious freedom enjoyed in England is greater
than in any other part of the world, that the Hon. Baronet puts
forth these sentiments—when the King's Attorney-General for
Ireland appeals to the passions of the people--(Cheers)—and when
the people of that country are already in a state of agitation.—
(Cheers.)—lf the Hon. Baronet, who supports his arguments by
the authority of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke, had ever read Mr. Pitt's
and Mr. Burke's speech, in 1790, when Mr. Fox brought in his
Bill for the repeal of the Test Act ; on that occasion Mr. Burke
said he would withhold his assent from the Bill, and he vindi-
cated his conduct on the ground of the opinions put forth by Dr.
Priestly and other Dissenters. Mr. Pitt also repudiated their doc-
trines in still stronger terms, and opposed the Bill by all the means

in his power. When at a later period Mr. Pitt had supported the
Catholic Claims, he supported them on very different grounds to
those now stated by the Hon. Bart. and the Right Hon. the Attor-
ney-General for Ireland. What was the language used by Mr.
Pitt in 1805 ? After he had come to that conclusion in favour of
the Roman Catholics on which so much stress was now laid—a
conclusion, I must think, come to unfortunately, but founded on
very different grounds from those on which it is now proposed to
admit the Catholics into political power.—ln 1805, Mr. Pitt,
after declaring, "that he would not, under any circumstances,
or under any possible situation of affairs, consent that it should
be discussed or entertained as a question of right," went on to
say, " I, Sir, have never been one of those who have ever held
that the term Emancipation is in the smallest degree applicable to
the repeal of the few remaining Penal Statutes to which the Ca-
tholics are liable." So that he not only took a very different view
of the grounds on which he would proceed, but he discarded the
name adopted by those who now quoted him as an authority.—
" With regard," Mr. Pitt adds, " to the admission of the Catho-
lics to the elective 'franchise, or to any of those posts and
.offices
which have been alluded to, I view all those points as distinct.ous
itso
tboepgoisyseenss,
them,
fn,orbutht the sake o
for
he
e sake
the so
opfetrhen and the individual
ewho
benefitv
they were created, and for whose advantage they are to be exer-
cised." Mr. Pitt also said, " That we are bound to consider not
merely what is desired by a part, but what is advantageous for the
whole." This, Sir, is, in some measnre, my opinion. I would
not make the Catholic faith, or the religious opinions of any man,
a ground of exclusion against him merely on their account ;
nor am I prepared to say, that the exclusion now suffered by
the Catholics is no evil ; but I am bound to consider not
only what they may suffer, and what they may desire, but
what will be good for the whole. The question is not a question
for the Catholics ; it is a question for the whole kingdom. I beg
to state, that I do not resist the proposition on any ground like
popular clamour. Whatever clamour may exist, it has had no
influence on me, and it ought not to have any weight over the
decisions of the House. Whether those opinions from which the
clamour arises be prejudices or not, the House is capable of form-
ing its own decision without attending to them, and is better able,
I believe, to form a correct opinion on such subjects than the
mass of the people—(Hear, hear !)----and when it has come to a
decision, be it what it may, I have no doubt but that it will
be respected and obeyed. It is the duty of the House to set
an example of justice and liberality to the country, and not
be forced forward in its measures by violence of any par-
ties. I. can say for myself—and my Right Hon. Friend has
also given me credit for this—that I have never encouraged
the presentation of one petition, or in any way induced persons
to send up petitions. 1 have thought it my duty to present pe-
titions when sent to me; but I have never promoted petitioning.
Neither do I resist this resolution from any doubt I entertain of
the Catholics from their conduct in former periods. It is said
that the penal laws against the Catholics are barbarous and severe,
and my Right Hon. Friend referred to the conduct of the Catho-
lics at former periods, to show that these measures were not
adopted as measures of retaliation, but of safety. Meeting the
Hon. Baronet, therefore, as he desires, I must own ;that I have,
on constitutional grounds, a great distrust of the Roman Catho-
lics.—(Cheers.)—l do not find fault with the faith of any man.
I have a high respect for many individual Catholics. They are
quite as respectable, as honest, as honourable as any Protestants.
I vdhoennolthaevaerem so t
much what
stoteiyetyb,elielveh,ma,es hnoowt
madethey act.n-Ty
business to quarrel with a man because he believes in transubstan-
tiation, and I do not ; I quarrel with no man for his faith ; but
when I see a particular faith united with a grand scheme of hu-
man and of worldly policy, I have a right to inquire into that
scheme, and to ascertain, if I can, what is the nature of the in-
fluence it is likely to exercise over the mind of man and over so-
ciety, and what will be its final result. Can I doubt, Sir, that
there is such a scheme engrafted on the Roman Catholic faith, and
that it is more for the sake of this scheme than the doctrines that:the
religion is so much favoured ? I cannot doubt, Sir, that it is
the policy of the Catholics to engraft such a scheme on their faith;
nor can I doubt that the object of that scheme is, that man may
acquire influence over man. When I see the Bulls of the Pope_
the Hon. Gentleman laughs [some Member's smile, but whose we
could not discover, here attracted the Right Honourable Gentle-
man's attention], but let him remember, that a Pope's Bull is
of some importance among four millions of ignorant people, who
have not had the advantages of an education such as he received.
Over them the Pope's Bull has a practical effect ; and let me
tell him, when I see this sort of influence exercised, I look with
suspicion on the power which does it, and I trace in this act the
still-living spirit of that power which has been said to be de-
funct and 'extinct. Am I to be told, when no longer ago than
1807, Pope Pius VII. sent a Bull to Ireland, proclaiming an in-
dulgence of 300 days to all those, who should repeat the three
prayers of the Holy Virgin and Jesus Christ. [The Right Hon.

Secretary here quoted three short prayers, the repetition of
which was to secure the Irish Catholics 300 days indulgence.
There was an indulgence of one hundred days, granted by the
Bull to such as repeated certain ejaculatory prayer& proper to
rescue the souls of the dead from purgatory.] I ask any Hon.
Member, when I see such a mockery of all religion sent forth,
can I doubt whether it_have any other object than the promo-
tion of that worldly polioy I have alluded to? Can I doubt that
it is intended solely to add to the authority of man over man ;
which, claiming a power to pardon him, grants the pardon on
such ridiculous pretences, or withholds it if the command is not
obeyed.—( Cheers. )—These and other things of the same kind are,
perhaps, trifles ; but they are, as Lord Bacon says, " straws which
are thrown up to see how the wind blows," and from them we
may learn what is yet the spirit of Catholicism. My Right Hon.
Friend has referred to the polemical disputes in Ireland, and has
told us, that Dr. Doyle is to end them ; but I am afraid, if the
time should come when Dr. Doyle is not satisfied with the &cure
sions, that he will not be prepared to engage in them. I innet
think, Sir, when I see that the spirit of this religion is altered iiti
no degree, that there is great danger in admitting the Catholics
to political power ; I repeat that I quarrel not with the faith of
individuals, but I entertain a well-grounded constitutional jea-
lousy of granting them political rights. We were told a few
years ago, that the influence of religion was fast dying away I
and we were asked, with pity for our credulity, if we thought
any nien would now occupy themselves with religion?' Re-
ligion, we were told, was even on the Continent, only
a volcano burnt out that could never be rekindled. I re-
member, Sir, when Mr. Whitbread, in a speech fifteen years
ago, ridiculed the apprehensions that were then expressed
as to religious feelings ever again exercising any influence
over mankind. " Look," he said, " at Paris : was there
any fear that religion would be revived at Paris? Was it
to be expected that Buonaparte would revive religion ? Could
he excite any apprehensions ? Could the Pope excite any appre-
hensions? Why, he was Buonaparte's prisoner, and must remain
subservient to him ! Was there any apprehensions of the Jesuits
being restored ? He thought not. Atheism and indifference were
the enemies they had to contend with." But what would that
Hon. Gentleman say now ?---[The Right Hon. Secretary here
referred to something which had occurred at Paris, but in so lot!'
a tone that he was inaudible in the gallery, and concluded by say=
ing]—that if Mr. Whitbread could see what had occurred iti Prance
within fifteen years, and what had been done by the Bourbons, he
would not assert that it was not a wild chimera to anticipate a ke,
form in Ireland. I say, Sir, that it is not in the nature of man, nt4
to wish to see that religion predominant which he himself professes ;
and if the Roman Catholics were admitted to share political power,
they would, I think, exert it to exalt their religion ; nor do I
think that the Catholics could he admitted to seats in Parliament,
without sometimes allowing an undue influence to operate on
their minds when legislating for the Protestant part of the commu-
nity. The destruction of the Protestant establishment would not be
the only, nor even the worst evil. The conflict for ages, before that
object could be accomplished, would give rise to [religious divi-
sions and asperities, that would constitute a greater evil than the
overthrow of the Church establishment itself. But my Right Hose
Friend tells me that the granting of these claims will be the final
consummation of all the hopes and wishes of the Roman Catholics.
I have read the Declaration, which, since the Bill for the relief of
the Roman Catholics was discussed in this House, has been heeled
by some of the most eminent and respectable members of their
faith. But though that Declaration was intended to convince tee
and other Protestants of the reasonableness of their objects, I have
been unable to find in it that expression of entire satisfaction with
the provisions of the Bill, which my Right Hon. Friend alleges was
generally felt by the Roman Catholics. With this Declaration, which
was published in 1826, an Address appeared " from the British Ro-
man Catholic, to their Protestant fellow-countrymen." This Ad-
dress is very temperately worded, and proper in every respect. It
is calculated to conciliate those who are opposed to the Catholic' ;
but it proves also, as I will presently shew, beyond a doubt, that
the removal of their civil disabilities will not be the final end and
consummation of their efforts, as my Right Hon. Friend contends.
In this Address they say We intreat you to endeavour to
divest your minds of preconceived impressions to our disadvan-
tage, and calmly to examine the situation in which we stand. In
a country, boasting of peculiar liberality, we suffer severe prl•
vations, because we differ from you in religions belief."—
It then recites the disqualifications to which- Roman Catholics
are subject :—" A Peer, for example, cannot sit and vote in the
House of Peers ; a Catholic Commoner cannot sit and vote in
the House of Commons ; a Catholic Freeholder may be prevented
from voting at elections." It goes on to complain that a Catho-
lic " cannot hold any office in any of the Corporations ; he cannot
graduate at either of the two Universities, much less enjoy any of
the numerous beneficial offices connected with them, although both
those seats of learning were founded by Catholice"—(Hear, hear.)
It further complains, that " he cannot present to a living in the
Church, though both of these rights appertain to the enjoyment of
property, and may actually be exercised by infidels"—(Hear,hear.)
Now these grievances, of which the Catholics complained in this
Address, were proposed to be continued by the Bill of which
my Right Hon. Friend was the advocate. In that Bill, if
I remember aright, there were special reservations with su-
spect to the officers in the Universities, and as to the appoint-
ments to livings—(Hear, hear.)---It is a natural and just object
of the reasonable ambition of every gentleman, to obtain a seat
in this House. Many Catholics, if eligible, would, in the or-
dinary course of things, find their way into it; but if any greater
purpose were in view, could, or ought we to complain if they
confederated for its acquisition ? Hon. Gentlemen ipeek of
the fewness of their numbers with contempt; but I have had
experience enough in this House to convince me, that a very
small party may, by dexterous management, posing itself of
great influence over the House—(Cheers.)—When anymeasure
might affect the Roman Catholics, why should not they unite as
the East or West Indians did, to get a duty imposed upon or re-
moved from their sugars. By this adroitness in trimming the
balance between rival parties, they might succeed, though their
number should be comparatively trifling, in establishing a consi-
derable power in the House. I firmly believe that it was against
this influence that our ancestors intended to guard at -the time of
the Revolution.—When I consider that it has been determined
that the Crown shall descend only to Protestant hands, I do not
think the security for the establishment would be complete, un-
less the great Officers of State, and the Members of' Parliament,
are Protestant also. Suppose the two Houses partly filled with
Catholics, and that the Sovereign himself should say he was con-
vinced by the debates that there was no serious distinction betimes
the doctrines of the Church of Rome and those of the Chutch of
England, the tranquillity of the country might depend onthe de-
cision of a single man.—(Cheers. )_I am now approaching
the most painful and most important part of what I have to say
with reference to the propriety of admitting Roman Catholics
to Parliament, and to high public offices. -I do not hesitate to
declare, that if I was satisfied that the removal of .their-civil die-
abilities would be attended with the effects anticipated.hyuome
Honourable Members; if I thought it would producer peace:-end
tranquillity in Ireland, I would, to gain an object of such im-
Baronet (Sir F. Burdiefitut)lhtiold.s believed,
one moment to do, if I thought such vast benefits were Within
effectm
e
n
s
e
on advantage,
ah
ne
ta e
British sacrifice
all
m Constitution.y
hich as the Honourable
our reach, by following the course w ,
would lead us directly to the
aPThPreiehenli"ns•avould not
for its ultimateliesitate
puosverful and emphatic language,
as my Right Honourable
oncord of Ireland could for ever be main-
eeces;anctlry-iod,bredt,chat as an Hon. Member has observed, no one
t dEmtFhrlaalnnteseni
dtsadhhnlo has
upFlpeije Fields
hereafter inquire of another what are his religious
opinions. But I have no hope, that any end so desirable can be
obtained, if we intend to retain what we profess to uphold. The
Hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Browulow) says, that " we are
on the edge of a hill ; we cannot remain," he says, " where we
are." " Why," he asks, " should we not then ascend to the top,
as it is admitted on all hands we cannot attempt to descend ?"
If I was quite sure that that was the top which the Hon. Member
now points out to me, I should perhaps agree with him. Bat
how do I know, when I have aseer.ded with him, that a greater
altitude may not yet rise above me, and leave me apparently fur•
ther than ever from the eminence I sought to reach ?—(Cheers.)
—We still propose to retain in Ireland the Protestant Esta-
blishment, for a small minority of the population, and the
cases of Scotland and Canada are quoted to prove the practicabi-
lity of this arrangement. But I confess Inm not convinced -that
the same consequences will follow such an attempt in Ireland.
The cases quoted too are by no means in point. If the pro-
position be, that the Established Religion should agree with
the majority of the people, there would be an end to she
Protestant Church as the Establishment of the State, and sa
the bond of connection between the island.—(Cheers.).....But
when the Roman Catholic and the Protestant shall be -made
equal in the eye of the law, as to political rights, do you
mean that they shall be fairly admitted to the actual enjoy-
ment of those tights? Do you hope to see the Protestant and the
Roman Catholic quietly together, administering the affairs of this
Protestant State, and the Roman Catholic proving equally an
efficient servant of the Crown with the Protestant ? If the ad-
vocates of the Catholic Question do not mean this, if they merely
meant to remove the exclusion of the law, and withhold all prac-
tical benefit of the apparent concession, the Roman Catholics would
be subject to restrictions more galling than before,• because they
would now appear to rest on personal grounds, whereas, previously
they were those of the law. There would be as much mastics.
and no more satisfaction. But I ask, will the friends of the

Catholic Question vindicate the right of the Priests to the exercise
of their spiritual authority now and forbid it afterwards ? My
Right Hon. Friend says, that they have only acted within the legi-
timate bounds of tbeir province, in exciting their' flocks to what
he calls deeds of patriotism. He is the judge at present, and he
styles it patriotism, beca he Prieats have required the voters to
support those candidates vl'ho are friendly to the measuresof which
he is the advocate.—(Cheers.)—But the Priest on another occa-
sion would claim to judge for himself what is patriotism, and
he would retort upon my Right Hon. Friend, that he was
acting upon the same spiritual authority as before, and which he,
therefore, could not deny. Can any Hon. Member for a moment
pretend that there is any analogy between the exercise of the spi-
ritual authority of the Roman Catholic Priests and any influence
which the Protestants may have exercised—(Cheers ?)—I have
no wish to encourage the interference of Clergymen in electioneer-
ing scene", but I am satisfied that no instance can he found among
the Protestant Clergy, in any county in Ireland or England, com-
parable to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Priests. If any
Protestant Clergyman had advised the tenantry in his neighbour-
hood to fly in the face of their landlord, and on the ground of re-
ligious opinions, had appealed to them as a matter of duty to
vote against him, I ask, would there have been any end to
the just denunciations that we should have heard in this
House? Yet this practice has prevailed in Ireland to an ex-
tent utterly unjustifiable—(Cheers.)—But let us look at the whole
question with openness and fairness. Let us see whether the
Roman Catholic Prelates have deserved the high eulogium be-
stowed upon them by my Right Hon. Friend. I have a great
respect for their office. I do not wish to enter too minutely into
their conduct and professions. But when my Right Honourable
Friend invited the House to read their petition at length, on ac-
count of the influence which, he says, it ought to exercise upon
us, and after the lavish eulogies he has pronounced upon them.
it becomes us to ascertain whether they are entitled to all the
confidence he claims for them. He has said, not only that the
Roman Catholic: Prelates have exerted themselves to maintain the
public pace, but he states positively, that the peace and tranquil-
lity of Ireland depend on their good conduct. After this extraor-
dinary praise, let me ask this simple question,--has he not de-
nounced, in the severest terms, the conduct of those agitators
and demagogues, who, if their object be not to excite the people to
actual rebellion, at least tim to exasperate them, in order to intimi-
date us into a toe:cession of t . . claims ? If the Legislature
should decide, as I trust it will • n. 'e, on this momentous ques-
tion, I feel persuaded that the people of Ireland will slim a proper
deference to the seat of the Legislature, and an acquiescence in
the acts of az, Administration acting upon such principles as those
which:t have avowed. I have now stated the grounds on which I
feel it to be my painful duty to pursue the same course which I
have hitherto pursued, and to dissent in this respect from some of
my colleagues, with whom, I believe, on every other subject I
most cordially concur. Within a short period the influence of
great names has been lost to the cause which I espouse, but I have
never adopted my opinions out of deference either to great names,
or even to superior intelligence. I lament] most bitterly lament,
the loss which the country, as well as the cause, has maintained,
and I do not the less lament it, because it affords me an opportu-
nity of declaring that I retain the opinions which I formerly
espoused, and have since adhered to, and of making that declara-
tion without the possibility of being suspected of any views of per-
sonal advantage.—(Hear, hear.)
i‘e'lr. BROUGHAM rose to address the House,
but the noise which prevailed in the body of the House rendered
his obeervatiors for a few moments inaudible. I am aware, said
the Hon. and Learned Member, that the hour is late, and that
the climate of this House is inconvenient. I can readily fancy
that there are cooler places of resort in the neighbourhood of this
House, and I should strongly recommend such places to Hon.
Gentlemen, whose frame of mind and temperature of body are
sufficiently indicated by the manner in which alone they are ca-
pable of exercising their voices in this House.—(A laugh.)—
After the brilliant display on the part of my Honourable and
Noble Friends, not only of matured talent, but of that rising abi-
lity, which must have been witnessed with heartfelt satisfaction
by those tried champions of the cause, whom it must have con-
vinced that their places would he supplied by others more than
worthy to succeed them—after the speech of my Right Hon.
and Learned Friend (Sir W. Plunkett), in which he almost
exceeded himself in the service of his country—a speech leaving
nothing to desiderate—a speech, in which eloquence and wit, and
argument, seemed to strive for the mastery, till conci-
liatory wisdom bore off the palm from all. After all these
services, in what I trust is nearly the last stage of this
long and anxious controversy, I should, indeed, not only ill
discharge my duty, but rather weaken than strengthen the
impressions which those effects must have made upon the House,
if I did not confine within as narrow a compass as possible, there-
marks which I have to offer. To come at once then to the ques-
tion. I will make one or two remarks upon the gloss of the Right
Honourable Secretary, on the articles of the Treaty of Limerick.
I confess that I cannot bring myself to concur with, or even to
comprehend the reading of the Right Honourable Gentleman. It
is not possible to regard this merely as a treaty between the be-
eieging General and the persons locked up in Limerick. Not only
the besieging General, but the Government, was a party to this
treaty ; the treaty was not entered into merely in behalf of the in-
habitants of Limerick, but in behalf of themselves and their brethren
in arms in five of the most important counties in Ireland. The
words of the treaty applied generally to the Roman Catholics of
this kir.g.latn, and not merely to the individuals locked up in
Limerick. It guaranteed to them not only freedom from
disturbance in the exercise of their religion, but all such
privileges as they had enjoyed in the time of Charles the Second.
As to the interpretation which King William put upon the Treaty,
though I entertain the greatest possible respect for that Monarch,
whose services to this country, and to the cause of liberty all over
the world, I should ill deserve the place which I occupy in this
House if I did not most cheerfully acknowledge, yet it is too much
to be called upon to adopt the construction which King William
put upon the articles of the Treaty, when in the very act of violat-
ing those articles. The violation of the Treaty of Limerick is the
charge which has been constantly fixed on the memory of King
William, and on this particular subject the authority of that Mo-
narch is the last which I should be inclined to adopt. But I wish
to get rid of the Treaty of Limerick, for I think it entirely beside
the question, and I am inclined rather to betake myself to a later
Treaty—a Treaty entered into, not at the end of the 17th cen-
tury, but at the beginning of the 19th ; I am disposed to rely,
not on the authority of King William, but of his late Majesty
George 111. ; not otr the authority of Lord Somers, but on the au-
thority of Mr. Pitt ; not recorded by the historian Burnet, highly
as I deem him for his accuracy and good sense, but in the Jour-
nals of the House of Commons. The Right Hon. Gentleman
has ventured to insinuate that Mr. Pitt indiscreetly committed
himself on this subject, by holding out terms to the Catholics
without mature deliberation. But I will put it to the official
experience of the Right Hon. Gentleman, whether he can believe
that Mr. Pitt and his eminent coadjutors, many of whom are
still preserved to us, and others, I allude particularly to Lord
Cornwallis, are not now living—whether, I say, he can believe
that it was consistent with the gravity of character which distin-
guished these men, or with a sense of the mighty interests com-
mitted to their charge, to fling out a hope or promise to the
people of Ireland, as it might be casually held out in a debate in
this House, or by an orator at the Catholic er Aggregate Meet-
ings in Ireland Was it not, in effect, a promise held out to the
people of Ireland, to induce them to agree to the Union of the two
islands ? If it had been a promise half given, it could not have
been forfeited without diegrace—if it had been a promise half held
out. it could not have been violated without shame ; but the pro-
mise was deliberately poised and weighed here before it was com-
municated. It was given in instructions to the Lord Lieutenant,
and by him, after mature deliberation, communicated to persons
of great weight and influence in the country. I dissent from the
Right Hon. Gentleman in the gloss which he has put on the con-
duct of Mr. Pitt, as much as in the gloss which he has put upon
the Treaty of Limerick. I believe this to have been a sincere
pledge on the part of Mr. Pitt. I regard is as a solemn, though
a secret pledge, given by the Government of England to the
people of Ireland. I care not how you read the Treaty of Lime-
rick—l care not what construction you put on the conduct of
King William. If I can show you that, within the last
twenty-five years, a promise w Anenly made by the English
Minister to the people of Ireleie:, and distinctly recognized by
Commissioners on the part of the King, in a speech addressed to
the Parliament, into which, by means of that promise, his Minis-
ter had succeeded in importing the Parliament of Ireland. If any
man can refer the language of the speech to which I allude to any
thing but the promise made to Ireland, he must have a method of
reading the vulgar tongue, which, in the course of my education,
I have not attained. The speech was delivered at the close of
the first Session after the Union, and the words to which I refer
are these :—" The great measure in which my wishes have been
long earnestly centred, I shall ever consider as the happiest event
of my reign, being persuaded, that nothing can so effectually con-
tribute to confer upon my Irish subjects a full participation in the
blessings derived from the British Constitution, and to establish on
the firmest foundation the strength, prosperity, and power of the
whole empire." Can any man figure to his imagination that Mr.
Pitt could mean anything by this except Catholic Emancipation ?
If it (lid not mean this,, what did it mean? A full participation in
the blessings of the English Constitution could not, I presume,
mean the Gagging Bill ; neither could it, I should apprehend,
mean an interchange of commercial advantages, a reciprocal trade

In linen, hardwire, silks, and satins. It is not my intention to
Ldvert particularly to various ancient arguments which have been
_his night revived by the grave authority of my Right Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Master of the Rolls). He has told us that
E Roman Catholics are admitted into Parliament without any re-
,,ard to tests or other securities, we shall instantly have a body of
70 or 80 Members, with some person of great weight at the head
4' them, who will not act or vote as Oppositionists or Ministerialists,
!nit as Catholics against Protestants. Now how does the faCt stand
it this moment : The Catholics now possess the elective franchise,

they have the power of sending Members to this House, of whose
teal in their cause every day furnishes us ample experience.
There has even been no indisposition on the part of some Mem-
;iers to acknowledge the means by which they have obtained
their seats in this House, and to proclaim their thankfulness
to the persons who sent them here—(A laugh—hear, from Mr.
R. Martin, who was seated in the side Gallery.)—l am re-
minded by a voice I hear of the secret history of the election for
the county of Galway, with which we were last night favoured by
the Hon. Member who now superintends the course of this discus-
sion. My Hon. Friend, with his usual frankness, and with not
less than his usual discretion, and undeniable verity, avowed that
he was indebted for his seat in this House to Catholic influence. I
need not be under any alarm of denial, for my Hon. Friend was
himself forward to acknowledge that he owed his seat to the agency
of the Catholic Association. It is not every Member who would
speak out so plainly as my Hon. Friend, but there can be no doubt
that many other Members from different parts of Ireland are
equally indebted to Catholic influence. Catholics may choose whom
they please, provided only they be not of the Catholic religion.
I pass over the long historical dissertation with which my Right
Hon. and Learned Friend (the Master of the Rolls) entertained
the House. He brought it down from before the Reformation
till after the Reformation ; but there was one historical passage,
which was so strictly in keeping with the rest of my Right Hon.
and Learned Friend's instructive narrative, that I am surprised he
overlooked it. Of a truth, I marvel at its omission; I was ex-
pecting it would come every moment ; and, for the of the
younger Members of the Sister Kingdom, who may not be over-
fraught with English history, I will just advert to it. My Right
Hon. and Learned Friend did not forget the Irish Massacre.—
We had Gunpowder Plot a we had Queen Elizabeth ; we
had Bloody Mary ; but, after all, I am afraid my Right Hon.
and Learned Friend has an imperfect edition of Hume's His-
tory, or he would scarcely have failed, when he refreshed his
memory this morning with all this historical lore, to add the
Popish Plot to his catalogue.—(A laugh.)—This chapter my
Right Hon. and Learned Friend omitted, not very consistently
perhaps, as he thought the horrors of Bloody Mary a fit subjeet
to scare us withal in the discussion of this question.—(Laughter.)
The subject on which my Right Hon. and Learned Friend dwelt
is proverbially tiresome, proverbially inapposite, and, if I may
apply such an expression to the historical deductions of so grave
an authority, perfectly puerile. I remember the late Mr. Fox
used to mention, that he had been in the habit of calling upon a
person of high rank, who occasionally entered upon the subject of
the Catholic Claims ; the last three times, however, said that
distinguished Statesman, that I called upon my Friend, he talked
so much of Bloody Mary, that I can't encounter him again.—
(A laugh.) Now, unless my Right Hon. and Learned Friend
enters into some sort of engagement to abstain from Bloody Mary
during this particular period of his legislative labours, I should be
very much dispord to follow the example of the late Mr. Fox._
(A laugh.) My right Hon. and Learned Friend himself admitted
that all he said on this subject was inapplicable and worthless, ex-
cept for the purpose of raising a languid cheer from persons who
were perfectly ready to roar out at any thing to which the words
blood and Papist were anrcxed.—(Loud cheers.) Mc Right Hon.
and Learned Friend had no sooner luxuriated in the store of his-
torical information which he poured out upon us, than, with
usual candour, ne proceeded to tell us that what he had said, was
not in the least to the purpose, and that his glowing and san-
guinary descriptions of the Catholics of former times, were not
in any degree applicable to the Catholics of the present day.—
Why, then, introduce them at all ? We were not legislating for
Catholics in the time of bloody Mary, but for Catholics in the
time of George the Fourth. I was surprised that the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Peel) could think it worth his while to dwell so
much upon the Bulls and Indulgences, and Ordinances, and
other rights of the Church of Rome. Can any man doubt that
there is much of absurdity, and a vast deal of error and folly in
these ordinances and regulations, else, why are we Protestants.—
(Hear, hear.)—But is it because there may be something ex-
tremely ridiculous in the tenets of the Church of Rome, that we
are to treat those who profess it in a manner at variance with
justice ? I'll venture to say, respecting the Church of Eng-
land, as much as any Member of this House, that if
I had been engaged in argument with a Catholic, and had rated
that Catholic upon the subject of the errors of his religion, as
the Right Hon. Gentleman has to-night rated the Catholics gene-
rally ; I say, if I had rated him so, I suspect, strongly, that he
would have taken occasion to pluck out some few passages from
the Athanasian Creed, which would have effectually grovelled me
in the contest, for at least some space. I wish now to come to the
point upon the questions of clerical interference in the temporal
affairs of Ireland. I do not mean to justify the right of the priests
in such cases, but I say that what is good for the parson must be
good for the priest ; and that we are in strict justice bound to apply
the same right of interference to both. If parsons are to be ad-
mitted to interfere in political matters, I cannot see why the
priests are to be deprived of the same privilege, or that we could
eall that irregular in the one which we pronounce regular in the
other. Is there any one, indeed,. who has not witnessed these
things over and over again in England? Is thereany one who has
not seen Protestant and Dissenting Clergymen interfering in all
part., end in the most effective manner, to support each side at an
election ? I ought rather to say, one side, for it has been my lot
to see them much more on one side—indeed, I have seldom known
them to labour except on one side—(Hear, hear, and laughter).—
But, it may be said, perhaps, that they do not interfere spiritually,
but secularly; I, however, call it spiritual exertion, when a man
who has been praying, the night before, with the wife (a laugh),
goes, on the morrow, to the husband, and tenders him a
bribe (perhaps the most innocent method of seduction), or
uses the influence his clerical _situation has given him, to
threaten or to cajole the voter to comply with his desires.—
The/4e things have been done in England, every day, by Protes-
tant Rectors ; I cannot, for the life of me, see on what principle,
therefore, we are to condemn them in Catholic Priests.—
I now proceed to the question which the Master of the Rolls has
most carefully abstained from raising, but which I cannot pass
over, which it is my duty, indeed, to press most strongly upon
the attention of the house. I mean, what alternative it is pro-
posed to adopt in case you refuse the prayer of the Roman Catho-
lics ?—(Hear !)—lt is very well for you to say that the Catholic
Priests of Ireland are too political. It is very well for you to say
that Ireland is under the controul of demagogues who preach se-
dition. It is passing well for you to say that the country is in a
'state of dissatisfaction to the Government. All this may be very
well, if you only wanted an excuse to avoid any concessions to
1 those whom you thus describe. But that assumes, that you are
to rest where you are, and that there is no change to be produced
by your decisions, which may increase the danger. Upon this
subject I would require you to go no further than the speech of
the Honourable Member for Derry (Mr. Dawson), and I
would ask, if it was possible to conjure up any more frightful
pictures of personal or national affliction than are to be found in
the speech of that Gentleman, whom the experience of a life
enables to speak so accurately upon the subject ? I would ask,
if there is any one element of national disorder, or of individual
misery or calamity, not summed up in that description? I
would ask, if Ireland be torn asunder by domestic dissensions—if
landlords be placed against tenants—if Priests be placed in oppo-
sition to their flocks—if demagogues be sent from Dublin to preach
sedition ; and that, although it be necessary to give the Govern-
ment a power unknown to the Constitution to repress them, yet
these demagogues go on defying this extraordinary extension of
law, and the whole power of the Government.—ls this, I say,
without a cause.—(Hear, hear.)--Oh ! it is very easy to cry out
against demagogues. Oh ! it is very agreeable to stand up in:this
House and blame the Catholic Clergy. It is a mighty pleasant
thing, when the question which we are agitating involves the fate
of an empire, to laugh, and to sneer, and to make merry, at Rules,
and Bulls, and Ordinances—(Loud Cheers) ; follies which you
yourselves have for centuries abjured. But the task is not ended there;
a something still remains to be done; there is a something con-
nected with your duties as regards the good government of the
people you are called upon to rule; and the question I will ask,
is, how do you mean to proceed if you refuse the boon which
is asked? I do not mean to escape that question with the same
nimbleness of evolution which distinguished the Learned Judge
who preceded me (the Master of the Rolls)—a nimbleness which
I could not help considering to be very inconsistent with the judi-
cial gravity of his situation.—(Great laughter.) I do not mean
to overleap the barrier with the same nimbleness as that exhi-
bited by the Learned Judge.—(Laughter.) I say, that with
Ireland in this state, a something remains to be done ; that
there is a something at the root of the evil ; and that after all
the jest anal triumphs of this House, the task is half done.
The Learned Judge was aware of this; but, when .it became
necessary for him to point out a remedy, he says " No, I am
not a Cabinet Minister.—(Laughter.) Let them answer whose
duty it is--to point out a remedy is not in my department. I
come here to speak the opinions and represent the feelings of
my constituents, all those persons of learning and knowledge
who are possessed of property in the Church, as well as of

rights in the State ;" and, for a like reason, and by a parity of
reasoning, his Noble Colleagtsie—(loud cheers)—is sent by the same
Learned Body to' support and enforce the propriety of .further
concessions to the Roman Catholics. This opposite course
. .

which that Learned University has given us to find out its opi-
nions, is strangely contrasted with that of the other University
which takes care to be represented to the full extent of its feeling,
and which seems, in its address, to be determined to keep alive, as
much as possible, the times of the good Queen Mary. Cambridge,
however, has sent us no address, and when I came to reflect—for
there is some necessity to have something to direct me in forming
my opinions—l think that this omission turns the balance in
favour of liberty, and Cambridge is willing to.grant Catholic
Emancipation.—( Hear, hear.)—But to come back to the subject
which the Learned Judge evaded, he has left it to the Right Hon.
the Secretary for the Home Department, and the Under Secretary,
and they, with more gravity and less nimbleness, have, after all
their arguments, allowed it to remain where it was.—
They have, however, admitted, that the situation of Ireland
was dangerous to the peace of the Empire; and if you admit
the danger, and despise the remedy which is proposed to
you, not now for the first, but for the 'twentieth time,
it is your task to declare what remedy you propose
fur the evil. It is easy. to cast the balance of injuries
against those who now claim redress. The injured are
always wrong—the oppressed always err. I never knew an in-
stance where hurting did not produce hating—l never remem-
ber a case in which those injuries were not visited upon the
victim which we should atone for ourselves. You may say,
therefore, that they have committed errors, but there is one ac-
cident connected with your situation, which calls upon you for
justice. They have rights which you have withheld—they have
claims which you have neglected. Year after year you have
continued to neglect the prayers of six millions of Catholics,
and after rejecting every warning—after slighting every omen—
after all advice and remonstrance had been given to the
winds, you have still continued to treat as enemies those who
appear at your feet as suppliants. Last year you told
them to wait yet another year, and circumstances would be
different. The Election came, and with it a " No Popery"
yell, which, I am happy to say, was discountenanced wherever
it was raised. That Election is now over—the time is arrived
when you promised to hear them—they come' before you claim-
ing their rights ; and although I do not wish to use strong lan-
guage, I do not hesitate, to declare, that it is the very last time
when you will have an opportunity of expressing your opinion
upon these Claims, in their present shape. If you refuse them,
I believe most strongly that they will never more ask this House
to take their case into consideration. I would here take leave
to say, that I cannot see the propriety of the objections taken
by the Secretary for the Home Department, to that observation
of the Attorney-General for Ireland, in which he declared, that
if the people of England were treated as the people
.of Ireland
now are, they would rise like one man in resistance. In the
sense in which that observation was made, I am ready to go
along with the Attorney-General to its fullest extent.—(Hear !)
I have now discharged a most painful duty ; and I implore the
House, for the last time, to reflect that it is impossible for any man
to say that it must not affect the prosperity of the Empire to al-
low things to remain as they now are: No man who addressed
the House has ventured to say that we can remain as we are. We
are now called upon to adopt the remedy which has been pointed
out to us, and which I, from my conscience, believe to be the best
calculated to ensure the peace and prosperity of the country. It
is for you to say whether you will despise all warning, and all the
motives of a sound and liberal feeling, by applying to this motion
a barren negative.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN rose amid cries of " Question."
He would not further detain the House than to express his con-
currence in all that bad fallen from his Right Honourable Friend
beside him (Mr. Peel), and to declare, that in the official situation
which he had the honour to hold, he had always discharged his
official duty towards the Roman Catholic*, not only with impar-
tiality, but, perhaps, with greater indulgence than towards others,
from the very circumstance of his being opposed to the political
privileges for which they sought.—(Hear, hear.)—On the
Honourable Member's resuming his seat, a confusion of cries for
" adjourn, adjourn !" and " question, question !" arose, which,
however, gave way to a call for Mr. Canning.
Mr. Secretary CANNING rose at half-past two
o'clock this morning, and spoke to the following effect :—The
Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett), who brought the question for-
ward, introduced it with a generosity and prodigality of argu-
ment and remark, which prevented him from confining him-
self merely to the motion itself—to the accurate statement of
what the substance of the proposition is. Of that omission on
the part of the Honourable Baronet, I must say very unfair
advantage has been taken in the course of this discussion.—
Because the Honourable Baronet did not distinctly state that
the present proposition was one that merely asked of you, the
present House of Commons, whether you do, or do not, enter-
tain the same opinion as your predecessors of the importance
of considering this important question, I did not expect that,
therefore, objection would have been made to him for having
onaitted to fill up the details of a measure in a preliminary
resolution of principle—(Hear, hear.)—l should not have ex-
pected this misconstruction of argument from a Member
who had only sat in this House for the first time ; but I
confess I was little prepared to have an example of such 'a
confusion, set by a judicial accuracy—(Cheers and laughter.)—
The speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Master of
the Rolls) has been partly historical and partly critical. The
historical part, on the admission of the Right Hon.' Gent. him-
self, was inapplicable to the present question ; and I shall presently
show that his critical part was not less inapposite—(hear!).—The
Right Hon. Gent. began, continued, and ended his speech, by
complaining that no securities were offered on the part of the Ca-
tholics. If the Right Hon. Gent. required securities, how were
they to be propounded? In what? In a Resolution calling upon
you to declare whether you will affirm or abjure the inherited opi-
nion of Your predecessors. When the House declares its opinion in
affirmation or negation of the necessity and importance of conside-
ring and entertaining this measure, then will be the time for de-
liberating on the measure in its letails—then will be the time for
considering what Bill an.', what provisions it will be proper to in-
troduce ; but until that time arrives, Hon. Gentlemen might
without impropriety, restrain the expression of their surprise that
the Hon. Baronet, had not, in the first instance, introduced a
measure in all its details to the House. The Hon. Baronet had
done right in omitting to do so. He would have only perplexed
and defeated his object if he had encumbered it at this stage of
the discussion, with all the topics, et cetera which might have
been gleaned and collected from the Deluge to the Revolution.—
(Hear, and a laugh.) What Right has the Right Hon. Gent. to
require that the motion should be encumbered with such topics
now—a motion which only embraces a simple proposition, to
take into consideration the laws affecting Roman Catholics, with
a view of relieving them from the civil disabilities under which
they labour? Is this a proposition submitted merely for the
purpose of idle and otiose curiosity ? No ; but because, since this
question was last discussed, and a decision come to upon it, a dis-
solution has taken place, a new Parliament has been returned, and
a general impression has gone abroad, that a change of opinion
has taken place—a change, however, in which I utterly disbe-
lieve.—(Hear, hear.)—The course pursued by the Hon. Baronet
was the correct one ; for by admitting the principle of the mea-
sure, the House would come to a fairer consideration of it after-
wards ; as the Hon. Baronet, by obtaining an admission of the
principle, laid the foundation of its being more favourably enter-
tained in its future stages ; and as, without such admission, he
would have been altogether without the hope of a fortunate re-
sult. Because a detailed scheme of securities has not been
brought forward, the Right Hon. Gentleman has thought proper
to accuse me of abandoning the idea of securities, which I at one
time regarded as a necessary accompaniment of any measure
of relief to the Roman Catholics ; and upon this be has founded
a charge of inconsistency against me. Sir, I have not altered or
abandoned any sentiment or opinion I have entertained respecting
this important measure. Why does the Right Hon. Gentleman
say I have abandoned the notion of the necessity of securities ;
What proof has he that I have done so ?—(Cheers.)—Where is
the evidence of my dereliction ?--(Renewed cheers.)—l do not
know whether or not the Right Honourable Gentleman was in
Parliament in 1812, when I first voted for this measure.--.[lt
was intimated across the table to Mr. Canning that the
Master of the Rolls was not then in Parliament.]—Well ! as
the Right Hon. Gentleman was not then in Parliament, 1 will
fiwnish him with a short abridgement of the history of this ques-
tion since that time. I will be his historian of these later times.
—(Hear, hear.)—ln 1812, towards the close of the Session, I
took the liberty of moving a resolution, the object of which was to
take into consideration in the ensuing Session of Parliament, the
laws affecting our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. The Parlia-
ment meanwhile, as occurred last year, was dissolved. On the
opening of the NeW Parliament the Bill was introduced by Mr.
Grattan—it was given to him by me as I thought it was due to
his fame, his station, and his venerable age, that the Bill should be
brought forward by him, On my unexpected victory, the greatest
that ever was achieved on this question, constituting, I think, a ma-
jority in its favour of 159, the Bill was introduced, and into it were
incorporated the securities which I deemed necessary to the required
concession. The Right Hen. Gentleman lies under a fallacy as to
the object and proposed effect of these securities. The securities
were of a political nature—they were not, as the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman supposes, securities of Church and State. The objects

which these securities were intended to attain were these two--
first, to give to the Crown a certain authority in the nomination of
Catholic Bishops ; and secondly, to subject the correspondence
of the See of Rome with the Roman Catholic subjects in this
country, to the inspection of Government. A correspondence
had gone on before without the inspection of Government, and it
goes on still. This was what we proposed to remedy, and if that
Bill in 1813 had passed, it would have been remedied. It had
been truly stated by an Hon. Gentleman that the King of Prussia
had obtained securities from the Catholics in his dominions; it
was perfectly true that the King of the Netherlands was negociating
for similar securities; it was perfectly true that in Austria and
Saxony, and other States such securities existed. But how had
they been obtained ? They had been procured at the first hand,
of the Pope of Rome himself. The various states in question had
had an intercourse and means of negociation with the Pope, which
we did not possess. In the existing state of the law we could not
enter into any such negociation. The year after he had come into
the office which be then held be had had opportunity of ascertain-
ing the fact. In 'those popular works which were resorted to by the
unlearned, he had read that it was high treason to correspond with
the Pope of Rome. Soon after he entered on the Foreign Office,tkere
came a letter from the Pope addressed to our most gracious Sovereign,
announcing the Pope's accession to the Pontificate, which letter
was accompanied by a very handsome letter from the Roman Se-
cretary of State to him (Mr. Canning). Although he had always
thought that the only way in which the question of the securities
to be required from the Catholics could be settled, was by a nego-
ciation with the Pope, yet he knew that it might be as much as
his reputation was worth to be detected in a correspondence with
his Holiness.—(A laugh.)—At length he bethought himself
of consulting the Law Officers of the• Crown on the subject, and
he would now read to the House the answer which he received.

[The Right Hon. Gentleman here read the answer, which was in
substance that in the opinion of the persons consulted, the let of
Elizabeth, c. 12, would subject any parties corresponding with
the Pope of Rome (who claimed a jurisdiction over this realm)
to the penalties of a premunire ; which opinion was signed
R. Gifford," and " J. S. Copley." Finding that such an Act
would subject him to the penalties of prernunire, he had looked
into that profound work, Burn's Justice of the Peace.—(A
laugh) to ascertain what those penalties were ; and found that the
delinquent was to he out of the King's protection, to forfeit his
lands and tenements, goods and chattels, to be imprisoned at the
King's pleasure, and to be rendered incapable of bringing an
action for any private injury, how atrocious soever. Upon dis-
covering this he became exceedingly alarmed—(a laugh)—and
not only abstained from writing a single line to the Cardinal Secre-
tary, who had addressed to him so polite a letter, but advised his
Majesty to take no notice of the Pope's communication. He was
exceedingly glad to avail himself of the present opportunity, in a
way which would probably reach Rome, and that without sub-
jecting himself to the penalties of a premunire—(a laugh)—of as-
suring the venerable person in question that his silence on the oc-
casion which he had described ;was not to be attributed to any
want of respect on his part.—(A laugh.)—Having ascertained,
Sir, the. Hon. Secretary added, that to correspond with the Pope
would put me in jeopardy, it was not likely that fact could induce
me, with all my admiration for the laws which yet remained un-
repealed, to attempt to convey any communication to the Pope
of Rome. No doubt a similar feeling pervades the bosom of my
Right Hon. and Learned Friend on the subject, and yet, Sir, to
the Pope of Rome it is that my friend must come at last, if he
really desires to effect that security which might be expected to
arise out of the nomination of the Roman Catholic Bishops.—
Hear and laughter.)—With respect to that other branch, when I
called on my Right Hon. Friend for his opinion, and be answered
by informing me, I would be putting my life and fortune both
alike in jeopardy, if I corresponded with—
The MASTER of the ROLLS.—I consider that
the opinion referred to was contained in a private letter--
(Cries of " Order, order; Chair, chair")—and I doubt if the
Right Hon. Secretary has more than a copy, the original (so we
understood the Right Hon. and Learned Member to say) being
in my own possession.
(Great confusion was created in the House by this inter-
ruption.'
Mr. Secretary CANNING—Sir, I do not exactly
understand this interruption.—(lncreased disorder.)—lt is, in
my opinion, most extraordinary.—(Cries of " Hear, hear ! Or-
der, order ! Chair, chair !")—I assert, this is a public document,
on the production of which depends the judgment to be pro-
nounced as to whether or not I have properly executed my pub-
lic duty, as a Minister of the Crown.—(Hear, hear !)—With
this view I called for the opinion of his Majesty's Law Officers,
and received it, not in a non-official, but in an official way ; and
that being the case, have a right to refer to it.—(Cheers.)—As
to the opinion which he had just quoted, it would have lain in
the obscurity from which he had drawn it had it not been for
the extraordinary language which had been held elsewhere, and
which had been repeated in that House, impeaching his honour
and honesty.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—The Right Honourable and
Learned Gentleman was not even original in his remarks. He
(Mr. Canning) had read them in print, so that he was pre-
pared for the attack which had been made upon it, although he
vowed to God, that if he had been required to predierthe quar-
ter in that House from which the attack would proceed, the
quarter from which it had proceeded would have been the last
which would have entered into his conjecture.—(Hear, hear,
hear.)—The other branch required securities related to
correspondence with the See of Rome, touching marriages,
indulgences, and other matters connected with ecclesiastical po-
lity. It was certainly true that the securities of that descrip-
tion which he had proposed were not received. He undertook
to introduce those securities as part of his Bill. When the
Bill failed, his duty respecting the securities was of course at
an end. - If there were those who thought that there was any
danger in communications to the See of Rome, respecting the
marriages of second cousins and other such matters, it was for
them to bring in a Bill to avert those dangers. Some learned
persons had declared, that if any person obtained a Bull from
the See of Rome,- he would he guilty of high treason. Every
day, therefore, some Roman Catholic or other in this country
was guilty of high treason. And yet there were persons found
to say that there would be no safety in concession to the Catho-
lics unless these Bulls from Rome were taken by the horns.—(A
laugh. )__Persons who had slumbered for ages over these trans-
actions, only thought of them when such a question as the
present was
ninowithaalglnitt:itningg)_t;heaunßdwtasitibiseiymnpofthaseßninbmlcehefaortrogehdrimuhntimowfiiln(dAdlawrn.
ndrCadsunntn--
pt which he felt for such imputations.—
chained.--(A hHaeiia expressi
re do.
the (A An
col
eta
nhu
etgerhi
nHon. Gentleman who had spoken late in the.
debate on the preceding night, had thrown out another impu-
tation against him. He believed that that Honourable Member
must be very new to the House, or he would have known, that
the day of reliance on the Coronation Oath was gone by. To
satisfy that Hon. Member, however, and to set his mind at ease,
he would, by way of answer, read a passage from a speech of a
Noble Friend of his, now unhappily attacked by severe indis-
position, who was the leader of the party that had formerly placed
great reliance on the Coronation Oath, as an obstacle to the grant-
ing of the Catholic Claims. The Right Honourable Gentleman
here read an extract from a speech made by the Earl of Liver-
pool in 1825 ; in which the Noble Earl allowed, that he could
no longer consider the Coronation Oath as any legitimate diffi-
culty in the way of granting concession to the Catholics. He (Mr.
C.) trusted, therefore, that they should hear no more of the Coro-
nation Oath. Now, what were the other apprehended dangers?
He was at a loss to conjecture. This particular question seemed to
have a very singular fate. In the first place, the opponents of
Catholic concession were asked if they would do what was pro-
posed to them ; and, if not, what they would propose to do ? In
the second place, they were asked what were the dangers which
they apprehended? . To neither question did they return a satis-
factory answer. They would neither agree to what was proposed,
nor propose any thing of their own ; and, with reference to dan-
gers, from 1813 down to the present time he could never dis-
tinctly understand what they were. At one time great danger was
apprehended from admitting a large proportion of what was de-
scribed as a disaffected population into the Military service of the
country. By the Act of 1818, however, every Catholic in the
Army or Navy might rise to the highest rank. [Some
Honourable Gentleman observed that a Catholic could not
rise to the rank of Commander-in-Chief.] The Honourable
Gentleman said that a Catholic could not rise to the rank of
Commander-in-Chief. By law he might. And what was
whimsical enough, was, that at the moment when this great
change was effected, when our fleets and armies were opened
to the Catholics, when the truncheon of command at sea or in
the field was entrusted to their exercise, the opening of a letter
from Rome enabling a sick patient to eat meat on a fast day was
considered dangerous--(Hear, hear.)—Why now, and all of a
sudden, were dangers dwelt on with so much emphasis? In
1'793 the elective franchise and the Over to hold landed pro-
perty was granted to the Roman Catholics. They were admit-
ted to the bar; but they were prevented from wearing silk
gowns, however well they might deserve the distinction. By
the same Act of 1793 an officer might rise to any rank but the
Staff and the office of Commander-in-Chief, yet no security
was required. But securities were not the real objects at the
present moment. It was an old story trumped up for the pur-
pose of introducing into the debate, and for the purpose of set-
ting the country against the supporters of the Catholic claims,
and exciting the most base and unworthy prejudices against

them.•-(Hear, hear.)—Having spoken of what took place in
1793, that led him to a topic on which he would make a few brief
remarks. He perfectly agreed with an Hon. and Learned Gent.
that nothing was said or done by Mr. Pitt at- the time of the Union
which could be construed into a pledge to the Catholics. But it
would be disingenuous not to say that there was that in the trans-
actions of the period alluded to, calculated to inspire the Catholics
with a lope, which unfortunately had been deferred until it sick-
ened.—(Hear. )—He was also of opinion, that a, the period of the
Union we ought to have been particularly careful not to allow any
expectations to be cherished, which it was not intended to gratify..
He could not, however, shut his eyes to the fact, that directly or
indirectly, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were induced to believe
that in the United Parliament their question would be more
favourably received. Some people entertained a doubt whether
Mr. Pitt was warm on the subject of Catholic Emancipation.
He (Mr. Canning) remembered as well as if it bad happened
yesterday, Mr. Pitt's showing him a letter from Lord Corn-
wallis, stating that he thought he might carry the Union, but
not Catholic Emancipation. He (Mr. Canning) in the pre-
sumption of youth exclaimed, " then abandon the Union !"
Mr. Pitt rebuked him,- as be deserved to be rebuked. He car-
ried the Union ; but although he failed in carrying the question
of Catholic Emancipation, there was no tribunal, however so-
lemn, before which he (Mr. Canning) was not quite prepared
to depose to his firm belief in the sincerity of Mr. Pitt's wishes
and intentions—(hear, hear!).—He would further say, that he
had himself no knowledge, nor did he believe that any other per-
son had any knowledge of any change in Mr. Pitt's opidicm on the
subject; with the exception of his determination not to stir it
during the life of the late King. In that, but in no other respect,
was Mr. Pitt's mind altered ; and he was confirmed in that opi-
nion by the declaration of a person who had known Mr. Pitt well,
the late Marquess of Londonderry, and who, in his place in the
House of Commons, voluntarily contradicted Mr. Rose on the sub-
ject, and added to the testimony the fact, that Mr. Pitt had main-
tained his opinions respecting the Catholics to his dying day.--
He had been drawn aside from the subject in consequence of
having mentioned the name of Mr. Pitt. He repeated that he
did not think that any promise had been made to the Catholics
at the Union, but that a kind of intimation..had bean .thrown
out which was very .operative. The Catholics had, in his
opinion, lent themselves to the Union, in the confident expec-
tation that the Union would be beneficial to their cause. No man
could doubt that if Ireland had continued a separate kingdoni, in-
stead of Catholic Emancipation being discussed for the twentieth
time in that House, it would have been many years ago completely
settled. The pictures of Ireland which bad been drawn by Gentle-
men who espoused different sides of the present question were SG
melancholy, that he trusted the English part of the House of Com-
mons would consider well before they threw away any chance of

improving the state of that unhappy wuntry. Some worcirwhich
had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend near him (Mr. Peel), with
respect to the course that it would be expedient to pursue in Ire-
land, were rather of an alarming nature. He hoped he had mis-
interpreted them; but if not, he did not envy the hands to whom
would devolve the task of carrying such a system into effect.—

He hoped, however, that the opposition to the Honourable Baro-
net's Motion was opposition rather than substitution ; and that
what was suggested as advisable was something that would tran-
q uilliz- the feelings of the Irish nation, rather than any thing
'-
that might assume a more unseemly character. God grant
that it might be so. Ciod grant that the time might arrive when perfect
conciliation would be accomplished. Although he was aware that the
diAaste of the country towards the Catholic cause was stronger than it
had been, yet he was convinced, as he could be with reference to any
event in the womb of futurity, that to the arguments urged in that
House, to the repeated dicussion of the subject the opposition to it
would at length yield; and that a right, equitable, and humane policy°
towards the Catholics of Irtl.ind, would be eventually adopted.—(blear,
hear, hear.)—As it was, it was impossible to hear the speeches of Hon.
Members from Ireland, and conceive the practicability of that country
going on in the way in which it had lately done. As many affidavits
and documents of every description had been read to support various
opinions, he would beg leave to detain the House, by reading one as
a specimen of the absurdities which had bcenputforward on the subject.
The affidavit to which he referred was as follows :—" And this deponent
saith, that he (the saidA.B ) swore that he would kick the damned soul of
the said deponent, so that it should fly round Hell like a blue bottle
round a treacle barrel, and which the said deponent verily believes the
said A. B. would have done had he not been prevented.---(Laughter.)”
...But the present system against the Catholics might be sustained a.
little longer, and a little longer, from year to year ; but speaking of the
ages of a country, the time of its duration must be short indeed. He
should despise the character of the Catholic Priesthood as much as his
Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel), if he thought them guilty of all that was
imputed to thetn ; but he (Mr. Canning) had learnt, even from the de.
bates upon the subject in that House, not to trust to extravagant accu-
sations. The Priests had been accused of garbling the Catechism
of the Church of England, on a point (the second Command.
ment) which went to convict them of idolatry ; but he bad in
his hand a work of great circulation in the Catholic Schools of
Ireland, where the second Commandment was fully set forth.—
He conjured the House to reflect, that the motion of the Hon. Baronet
only related to the state of Ireland. It did not Fledge the House to any
scheme of Catholic relief. All such measures were left for future con-
sideration. If, therefore, the House met the Hon. Baronet's Motion by
a direct negative, it was tantamount to a declaration tha;.. they did not
think the State of Ireland a subject worthy of their consideration.—(Hear
hear.) The Motion went no further, than that the House should
merely adopt the measure which two preceding Houses had sent up to
the House of Lords. In voting for the Motion, he reserved to himself
as a matter of expediency, all further considerations relative to the
claims of the Cltholics. He entreated the House to pause before they
rejected the motion ; for it was more easy to imagine than it would be
safe to ezpress, the consequences that might ensue in Ireland if the
motion were lost. The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud
cheers.

Mr. MOORE explained.
Sir CHARLES FORBES rose amidst the most
anxious cries of " question." He suggested that the Hon. Baronet
should alter the word necessity, now standing in the Motion, to that of
expediency—rthe expediency of taking into consideration the present
laws, was in his opinion, preferable to the Motion, ae it at present stood.
Sir F. BURDETT had no objection to make the
proposed alteration ; and he further wished to omit the term " imme-
diate," as many Gentlemen did not wish to pledge themselves to an
opinion of the necessity of immediately revising the Laws.
The amended Motion was then put, and the House divided—
Noes 2'76
Ayes 272
Majority against Sir F. Burdett's motion FOUR.
At Twenty Minutes to Five o'Clock the House adjourned.

When the Bill for Catholic Emancipation was carried in the
House of Commons in 1821 and 1825, the numbers were-
1821—For it-254—Against it-243—Majority-11-
1825—For it-268—Against it-241—Majority-27.