then my motion ought to be rejected. But if, on the contrary, there does not appear any disaffection in their proceed ings, in their speeches, or in their general conduct, then the resolution of thanks to the Irish Catholics, which was involved in the resolution of thanks to the army which gained the victory of Salamanca, should be followed up in its full and genuine spirit; and the Catholics of Ireland should be considered as entitled to the same civil liberties, as the other loyal subjects of his Majesty's empire have a natural and legal right to possess. of a requisition to the sheriffs of the respective counties, to call a meeting of the Protestant inhabitants. Now, it appears to me to be exceedingly objectionable for a public officer to call the people together in sects; and to give, to a private and party meeting, the authority of a public assembly. Again, it appears to me exceedingly objectionable thus to separate religious sects, and to give the semblance of public authority to religious animosities. I object again to calling one part of his Majesty's subjects to petition against another; and still more do I object to their petitioning another country against the liberties of their own. To Having thus stated the question to be one of allegiance, let us proceed, Sir, to Sir, I beg not to be understood as cast examine how the Anti-Catholics have ing any reflections on the Irish Protestant made out their case. They say, that the petitioners; but their object has evidently Catholics desire political power. Why been neither more nor less than this-to should they not? Why should they be intreat the parliament of this country not sentenced to utter and hopeless excluto grant civil liberty to the great body of sion from all political power? But, Sir, the people of Ireland. They petition us the Catholics have not applied for political to inflict on their countrymen a sentence power. They have applied for political of perpetual incapacity: they petition us protection; and no farther for polito announce to Ireland, the destination of tical power than as political power is inbeing for ever a divided colony, and to separable from political protection. The impress on the general sense, an acquies- Catholics, having given pledges of their cence in the necessity of this being a di- allegiance, desire not to be bound in fetvided empire. Sitting for a moment, they ters, from which their fellow-subjects are have given judgment for eternity. Let us free; they desire not to be taxed without consider a little their reasons for this their own consent; they desire not to be judgment. One of the first observations tried by persons who are exclusively parwhich these petitions contain, is, that the tizans not only partizans, but who are tone which the Catholics have assumed actually covenanted against them. renders it unwise to grant their claims. the enquiry, What is your wish?' they But that is not the question. We are not, reply, We wish for our liberties. We do in the parliament of the united empire, not demand this or that office, but we deentering into an examination of the argu-sire to possess our just civil qualifications." ments which may have been urged in this or that body. We are not enquiring whether Mr. A. or Mr. B. may or may not have spoken too freely. What has the conduct of any particular assembly to do with the great body of the Catholics? The question is, shall the great body of the Catholics of Ireland be emancipated? The opponents of the Catholic claims say, that they ought not to be emancipated, because Mr. Fitzpatrick published a libel. But this is not a question dependent on such circumstances. I do not say that there may not have been much warmth exhibited in the discussion in Ireland; but I say that the question is-can you, in any of their proceedings, charge the Catholics with want of allegiance? It is a question of allegiance. If it can be shewn that the Catholics of Ireland have shewn a disposition adverse to loyalty, Do you understand them? Is this ambition? If it is ambition, then was Magna Charta ambition-then was the Declaration of Rights ambition. Protection, not power, is the request of the Catholics. The Catholic petitioners ask for protection; it is the Protestants who ask for power. The Protestants ask for the ascendancy of their sect-the Catholics ask for the ascendancy of the law. Let me repeat, that I wish to treat the Protestants with all possible respect. It is natural that they should be tenacious of their pe culiar privileges. But, unquestionably, they desire, by their petitions, to keep all the patronage of Ireland in their hands,→→ to maintain a continued ascendancy-to govern the other sects in the country; while the Catholics only desire, in their petitions, that the whole should be governed by an equal law. The Protestant petitioners assert, that the Catholics want power, in order to make laws for the Protestant church. No, they only desire, as I have before stated, not to be taxed without their own consent-not to be tried by partizans, nor juries called by partizans. Their prayer is, that the Protestant church should be governed, not by Catholics, but by Protestants; for the Catholics know, and the Protestants know, that under any circumstances, and after any concessions, the majority in this House must be Protestants, and that, by that majority, the laws for the Protestant church must be made. But the members of the Protestant church, who have petitioned us, desire to make laws exclusively for the Catholic church. They wish to controul the conscience of the Catholic, as well as to bind him in other respects. They are willing to receive the tithes of the Catholic labour, but they desire to exclude the Catholic from a participation in the blessings of the constitution. Their argument is this, the persons who regulate the Protestant Church should be of that Church.' Why, then, all the Scotch members of this House ought to be sent away. All who do not profess to hold the doctrines of the church of England ought to be sent away. The tendency of the argument of these gentlemen is, that we ought to have a church government. But ours is not a church government, it is a representative government: it in cludes all classes, all religions, all descriptions of persons, except the Catholic and the churchman. The principle on which these gentlemen insist will prove fatal. If you confine the enjoyments of the constitution to the limits of the church of England, you will endanger the empire; if you extend it to all religious persuasions, you will place the empire in a state of security. The parliament is justly called imperial. It is not a partizan. The Catholics of Ireland make a part of the third estate. Is it not so? Is not the great body of electors in Ireland Catholic? Does it not follow that a part, and that no inconsiderable portion, of the third estate is already Catholic? And can we, for a moment, suppose that this is incompatible with the genuine principles of the British constitution? But the fact is, Sir, that the Protestants will and must have the ascendancy in the state. The great population of the empire is Protestant-the great property of the empire is Protestant. This ascendancy the Pro testants have a right to possess, but they ought to possess it, not by the exclusion of their fellow subjects from a participation of civil liberty, but in virtue of their superior numbers and property. Sir, in the provision for the royal authority being exclusively Protestant, the Protestant interest has another great and wise security for the maintenance of its ascendancy. The admission of the Catholics to their civil rights will be entirely co-existent with the maintenance of the Protestant ascendancy; and, by granting that admission, you will strengthen and fortify the whole empire. To grant the Catholics their privileges, will be to identify the people; for it is by granting them their rights that you must expect to iden tify them, and not by keeping them in chains. To grant the Catholics their privileges, maintaining the just ascendancy of the Protestants, will be much more effectually to support the state, and much more effectually to support the church, than either can be supported by a monopoly of power, and without that identification of the people of the two countries, which such a measure alone can insure. Superficial, indeed, are the arguments of the opposers of emancipation. They think that the admission of five or six individuals (such men as lord Fingal, and other enlightened members of the Catholic body) into parliament, will be productive of injurious consequences, but, to the alienation of four or five millions of persons out of parliament they attach no importance! A right hon. gentleman bas talked of the pains and penalties which, as he thinks, were justly inflicted on the Catholics at the time of the Revolution. They were not, however, the effects of the Revolution, but took place long after the reign of queen Anne. As to the exclusion of the Catholics from political power, at the period of the Revolution, that was not an original idea at that period, but arose out of and was founded on the fabricated plot of Titus Oates, the severities occasioned by which were even mitigated at the Revolution. And will parliament make the madness of that time the rule by which the liberty of their fellow-subjects is to be regulated at all times? But,' say the Anti-Catholics, toleration in England is greater than in any other country.' Sir, I know very well, that the principles of every established church are in some de Sir, the Catholics of the present day have evinced their principles by their oaths. They have abjured every criminal tenet attributed to their ancestors. In taking an oath, framed by a Protestant, enacted by a Protestant parliament, and going into the minutiæ of rejection, the Catholics have acquitted themselves, by a solemn obligation, of the principles formerly imputed to them. They nevertheless, maintain, that there is no difference of opinion between them and their ancestors, because they maintain, that their ancestors were charged un This defence of their ancestors has been converted into a crimination of themselves; and they are suspected of maintaining doctrines, an adherence to which they deny on oath. gree hostile to toleration: there is scarcely | quote Catholic writers, who have said that any church which will tolerate so exten- the fathers and they hold the same opisively and liberally as a wise parliament nions; and on this the Anti-Catholics ought to do; but when it is maintained found a monstrous mis-statement. that toleration in England exceeds that of any other country-that it is perfect-I must declare my opinion to be the reverse. Abroad, in Catholic countries, persons professing a difference of religious sentiments, enjoy, not only toleration, but qualification at home, in a Protestant country, persons professing a difference of religious sentiments are not only disqualified, but hardly tolerated. Abroad, sectaries enjoy toleration, united with qualification-here, they have a scanty toleration, united with pains and penalties. In France, for instance, no man is dis-justly with entertaining criminal opinions. qualified on account of his religious opinions. In Hungary, toleration and qualification are completed. I will read an edict issued by the Hungarian diet, in 1791. It declares, "that all persons shall have free exercise of their respective religions, with full liberty to build churches, erect steeples, found schools, form churchyards, &c. without impediment." So much for religious toleration! Now for civil qualification. The edict proceeds to say, that "the public charges, offices, and honours, high or low, great and small, shall be given to native Hungarians, who deserve well of their country, and who are competent to hold them, without any regard to their religious persuasions.' This is the declaration of a Popish diet, This proceeds from one of those nations which, according to the Anti-Catholics, has no idea of toleration, as compared with this country! This Catholic government gives not only toleration, but qualification, and the Catholic church acquiesces in the gift. We give toleration without qualifi-tholic to obtain his civil liberties be opcation; and we accompany that toleration with pains and penalties. The AntiCatholic petitions require, that those pains and penalties should be continued. The petitioners seem totally ignorant of the real state of things. They declare generally (mayors and corporations) that the principles of the Catholics are the same as they were at the worst of times. They state, and they state it after the demolition of the Vatican-after the prostration of the inquisition-after the fall of the Pope, that religious toleration and that civil qualification ought not to be granted, which is allowed in every great country in Europe, England excepted. They assume that to be true in argument, which is false in fact. They (VOL. XXIV.) It is said, by the Anti-Catholics, that the Catholics have been, and are always the same. The Catholics allow that a true Catholic was and is always the same; but they add, that a criminal Catholic is not a true one. "But the Catholics are enemies to the Church of England." Believe me, Sir, it is a very hasty and im prudent assertion; it is one calculated to make the Catholics that which they are not-enemies to the Church of England. If it proceeds from high authority, it might be seriously dangerous; but coming as it does, from persons, however respectable, whose opinions are not entitled to very serious consideration, it may be comparatively innoxious. Sir, why should the Catholics be enemies of the church of England? If the endeavours of the Ca posed by the church of England, then it is not the Catholic which is the enemy of the church of England, but the church of England which is the enemy of the Catholic. So What is it, Sir, which is to make a Catholic an enemy to the church of England? Is it his doctrine? Is it the doctrine of penance, of absolution, of extreme unction? The affirmative would subject the affirmer to the most just ridicule and scorn. much for the hostility of the Catholics to the church! But,' it is said further, the Catholics are enemies to the state." [Some honourable members on the other side of the House observed, that they were so in principle?']-In principle! Sir, I deny it. How are principles to be ascertained but (3 C) by actions? If they are enemies to the state, let us go into the committee; and let those who allege that the Catholics are enemies to the state, support their allegations by evidence. If they plead the canons of the council of Lateran, of Constance, of Trent, I will produce authority of a much higher description; I will adduce the testimony of the parliament of the united empire. I will quote the thanks of that parliament unanimously voted to armies, of which a large component part was Catholic, for the most important service rendered to the state. Sir, the opponents of the Catholics go on to assert, that they are enemies to li. berty. What! the authors of Magna Charta enemies to liberty! And have the Catholics shewn no other attachment to liberty? I say that the very Declaration of Rights, which, on the motion of the right hon. gentleman opposite, was read by the clerk, sufficiently shews the attachment of the Catholic to liberty: for what does that declaration? It does not enact new laws, but it re-affirms those which the declarers found already established; and by whom were they established? Who were their authors? The Catholics-those alleged enemies of the church those alleged enemies of the state those alleged enemies of liberty! Why did the legislature, at the period of the Revolution, go no further than to declare the law? Because the Roman Catholics had not only been friendly to liberty, but had established the principles of liberty by statute, that the wisdom of the reformers could not exceed their distinct enactments. Sir, what is the amount of the charge now preferred against the Catholics? That they are governed and swayed by all those canons which, they contend, have been grossly misinterpreted; but which, however interpreted, they have forsworn. They are accused of maintaining the deposing power of the Pope-of cherishing regicidal principles, and of asserting the right of perjury. On these assumptions, and in this enlightened age, the Catholic is not only not admitted to the constitution, but formally excluded from it. Sir, I defy those who are hostile to Catholic concession to support their positions by any thing but by these canons nugatory, contemptible, obsolete, and denied by the Catholics themselves. What were the answers made by the Universities of Salamanca, Paris, Alcala, Louvain, Douay, and St. Omers, to the questions put to them? "1. Has the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? "2. Can the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever è 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics may break faith with Protestants, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature?" They were asked whether the Pope had a deposing power, and whether it was a tenet of the Catholic religion to hold no faith with heretics? Sir, on the best authorities, I can assert that those learned bodies were disposed not to deny, but to ridicule, the opinions imputed to them not to reject, but to scorn them. They, however, answered, that the pope had no such deposing power, and that, as to the supposition that the Catholics would keep no faith with Protestants, they were almost ashamed to say any thing on the subject. Sir, a book bas been alluded to, used by the students at Maynooth; and it has been adduced as decisive evidence, not only of the criminal principles of the Catholics, but as a proof of the criminal principles, which the posterity of the existing Catholics were doomed to imbibe, by its being rendered available to the purpose of their education. These criminal principles are the authority of the Pope to depose royal authority; the consequent regicidal disposition of the Catholics, and the tenet that no faith is to be kept with heretics. The work I allude to, Sir, is called Tractatus de Ecclesia; and, with the permission of the House, I will read several passages to shew how baseless their assertions are. [The right hon. gentleman here read some extracts from the book in question. They stated that Christ had not granted to St. Peter direct nor indirect power over the temporal concerns of kingdoms; that, by the kings and emperors of states alone, the supreme temporal establishment of them ought to be held. That the declarations of pontiffs were not to be considered as infallible, nor as points of faith which it was neces sary to salvation to believe.] 1 Here, then, Sir, is a book which has | ture immoral, though the Pope, or any been traduced as a concentration of evils; ecclesiastical power, should issue or direct and it appears that it enjoins principles, such order, but, on the contrary, I hold, directly the reverse of those which have that it would be sinful in me to pay any been ascribed to it. When such are the respect or obedience thereto : I further misrepresentations which are circulated, declare, that I do not believe, that any the result is not surprising. But there is sin whatever committed by me can be another work of higher authority to which forgiven, at the mere will of any Pope, I wish to refer. I mean the Common or any person or persons whatsoever; but Prayer Book of the Catholics. [The right that sincere sorrow for past sins, a firm hon. gentleman here quoted several pas- and sincere resolution to avoid future sages from the Catholic Prayer Book; the guilt, and to atone to God, are previous tenor of which was, to declare that no ge- and indispensable requisites to establish neral council, much less a papal consistory, a well-founded expectation of forgiveness; had the power of deposing sovereigns, or and that any person who receives absoluabsolving subjects from their allegiance; tion, without those previous requisites, so -that the Pope had no authority, direct far from obtaining thereby any remission or indirect, over temporal affairs;-that, of his sins, incars the additional guilt of notwithstanding any papal interference, violating a sacrament; and I do swear, all Catholic subjects were bound to defend that I will defend, to the utmost of my their king and country, at the hazard of power, the settlement and arrangement of their lives and fortunes, even against the property in this country, as established by Pope himself, should he invade their the laws now in being; I do hereby discountry; and, that the alledged duty claim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any of Catholic subjects, to murder their intention to subvert the present Church princes, if excommunicated for heresy, establishment, for the purpose of substiwas impious and execrable, being con- tuting a Catholic establishment in its trary to all the known laws of God and stead; and I do hereby solemnly swear, nature.] that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government in this king dom.So help me God." I have another instance with which I shall beg leave to trouble the House, and which will go to complete the chain of proofs which shew the Catholics are not without principles of allegiance, and which will acquit them of every charge and imputation on their loyalty. I mean the oaths which are prescribed to be taken by Catholics by the 31st and 33d of the King. The oath of the 31st, which must be taken by Roman Catholics in England, runs as follows: "I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion. "I, A. B. do swear, that I do abjure, contemn, and detest, as unchristian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, destroy, or any ways injure any persons whatsoever, for or under pretence of being a heretic: and I do declare solemnly before God, that I believe, that no act, in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified or excused by or under pretence or colour, that it was done either for the good of the church, or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever I also declare, that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither am I hereby required to believe or profess, that the Pope is infallible, or that I am bound to obey any order, in its own na But the oath of the 33d of the King, which is particular to Ireland, I beg the House to pay every attention to: "I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion. "I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, King George the 3d, and him will defend to the utmost of f my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity: and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them: and I do faithfully promise, to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown; which succession, by an act, entitled, An Act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject,' is, and stands limited to the princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and |