the question in dispute would be to alter the whole system of law which since the revolution has been established in this Protestant, and he trusted not to the less Protestant, for being the United Kingdom. There had been great men, certainly not chargeable with bigotry and intolerance, who had thought it of some importance that the religion in which they had been educated, and which be, it might be erroneously, could not help considering the purest in the world, ought to be favoured by the state in a higher degree than any other religion. It certainly shocked him to see the descendants of those great men act so oppositely to the principles of their ancestors. They must pardon him, but he could not refrain from expressing his regret at this cir cumstance. From the year 1800 to the present period, he and those who thought with him on the present subject-the bumble advocates of the civil and religious liberties of their country (liberties fostered by the Church Establishment, so closely connected with that of the State)-had never ceased to request those who proposed an alteration in the existing state of things, what it was they meant to do? He now asked the noble marquis, in that language of respect which it was as becoming him to use as the noble marquis to hear, what it was that he meant to do? What did the noble marquis propose? Consideration? Did not all the noble marquis's arguments go to establish the necessity not of consideration only, but of absolute concession? During the last debate on this subject, be (the Lord Chancellor) had got up to protest against the imputations which had been thrown out against him in that House and in other places, that he was an enemy to the Catholic claims. He was no enemy to the just claims, if they could be entertained consistently with the public welfare of any class of his Majesty's subjects. But holding the high station which he had the honour to hold, he should think himself the most culpable and criminal of beings if he consented to the sacrifice of any guard which, in his opinion, was indispensable to the security of the Church and State. He repeated what he had said in his last speech, that nothing on earth should induce him, contrary to his sound discretion as a legislator, to pledge himself to the consideration of a subject, which, even if it appeared fit to be discussed when the proposition was originally made, might, by the intervention of various circumstances, become not fit to be discussed at the period to which the pro

position referred. According to the avowal of the noble marquis himself, the event of five or six months might produce a very great change in the propriety or impropriety of any discussion. For instance, at the end of the session of 1811, Parliament had heard nothing of the Convention in Ireland; they had heard nothing of the measures adopted in consequence, on the legality or illegality of which he would now say nothing, except that the Irish lawyers and the Irish debaters elsewhere, had no right to inform the pub lic that he allowed those measures to be illegal, because he bad not contradicted Lord Erskine on the subject. The fact was, that he thought it became neither his noble and learned friend, nor himself, to say one word on that subject, pending a legal consideration, and when it might be ul timately submitted to the decision of their lordships. But he remonstrated against having concluded unfavourably to the legality of those measures, because he had conscientiously abstained from expressing his sentiments on them. He confessed his surprise at the opinions delivered by the noble marquis, fighting side by side with him, as that noble marquis had done at the commencement of the present session. He had not heard much of the noble marquis's opinions on this subject before. If he were pushed, he would say, that he entertained little suspicion that such opinions existed in the noble marquis's mind. At the time when the noble marquis stated in that House, that if the Legislature ever gave way to menace, there was an end to free and uncontrolled discussion, the noble marquis and he voted together. The noble marquis was now, it would appear, of a different opinion; and yet the circumstances were the same, or rather, they were much stronger. One would have thought that similar circumstances would have led to a similar conclusion. He knew that the Resolutions of the late Aggregate Meeting of Catholics were not a Parliamentary document, to which a regular reference could be made; but it was nevertheless impossible that the Legislature could blind themselves to what had occurred. At the same time he begged that his vote of that night might not conclude him on the subject in the next session of Parliament. What he contended for was, that no man ought to pledge himself to some future course of proceeding; that when the season of action arrived, he should do that which, under all the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him was right to do. Reverting to the Resolutions of the Aggregate

Meeting of the Catholics of Ireland, he asked those who had read the papers in which they were contained, if they ever met with a more scandalous or a more infamous publication, containing, as it did, the most unwarranted censure on illus trious persons, holding in the place of the King, offices of Sovereignty in this country? A more criminal production had never appeared, When he saw such characters so ob served upon, he must maintain the impropriety of it, even if he had voted with his noble friend. He owed it in justice to those who voted for the Resolutions to say, that he believed they were surprised into them. With respect to the measure itself, he had listened with the greatest attention to what the noble marquis proposed, and he was to the bona fide consideration, with reference to bona fide concession, not only a friend, but so far a friend as to believe that no man, consistently with his public duty, would be an enemy to it. The noble lord had asked them to shew bim the danger; but was he in this Protestant country to shew the danger of subverting the Protestant establishment?-(Hear, hear!) What he meant to say was, that every where in our Statute Books they would find the security of the Protestant religion provided for, not merely with reference to religion, not because we quarrelled with the religion of the Catholics, but because their religious opinions operated on their political principles in such a way as to render it ne cessary to adopt some defence against them. It had been said that the regulations of which the Catholics, complained were called for by the particular occasion; but the ancestor of a noble lord (Hardwicke) had cautioned them, that if they permitted their religious establishment to be broken in upon, the effect would be injurious to their civil rights. This was the general principle upon which their ancestors proceeded. It had been said that the Catholics regarded their oaths. He did not deny that they did so; but there was no oath which met the case, or afforded an adequate security. As to the distinction drawn in their favour between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, it was a distinction in itself ob scure and liable to great confusion; and one thing we might depend upon in looking at this subject, that a great deal of what we would call temporal, they would call spiritual power. The authority of Blackstone, which was quoted so frequently on this subject, if quoted impartially, would to a modification of the provisions against the Roman Ca tholics, but no further than a modification, so long as they

go

acknowledged a foreign Sovereign in spiritual or in temporal matters. He would next beg leave to direct the attention of their lordships to what had been done for them since the Revolution. We had proceeded from mouth to month, and from day to day, i concessions consistent with the spirit of our constitution, and guarded by that cautious. policy which should regulate such proceedings. If the present motion was carried, and it meant not consideration but concession, as he hoped for God's mercy, he did, not think he should be living under the same constitution as hitherto (hear, hear!) Feeling the weight of all those ob jections strongly pressing on his mind, it was his intention. to conclude with a motion, upon which he should divide the House, if he was to stand alone. As the noble marquis (Wellesley) and he had agreed on a former occasion, that they could not vote for concession under the existing circumstances, so he (the Lord Chancellor), under similar circumstances, could not vote for the motion of the noble marquis. He should sit down, after giving notice to their lordships that he meant to move the previous ques

tion.

The Earl of Hardwicke observed, that it was not for him to say what his ancestors would have done if they were living now; but, as far as he understood their principles from public and from private sources, he believed that Lord Chancellor Somers and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, had they acted in the present day, would have differed exceedingly from the noble lord on the woolsack. He was sur prised to hear the futile arguments adopted by the noble lord; they appeared to him, if they went to any thing, to go to this, that the door ought to have been shut against cou cession at the commencement; that neither the Acts of 1778 or 1782, of 1792 or 1793, ought to have been passed, and that the noble lord ought not to have been shocked by a sight so alarming as that of a Roman Catholic pleading at the Irish bar. For his own part, he had been in Ireland in the years 1781 and 1782, before the relaxations alluded to by the noble lord were enacted. He had also seen it recently, and he could state from the comparison he was thus enabled to draw, that its present prosperity in agriculture and in commerce was owing to those Acts. It would be impossible the agriculture of the country could succeed if the Catholics bad laboured under their former disqualifications. His lordship went over the circumstances which imme

VOL. 111.-1812.

3.Р

diately succeeded the Union, praised the conduct of the Marquis Cornwallis and Mr. Pitt, both of whom resigned, because the expectations of the Catholics (to whom, however, he acknowledged, no promise had ever been given) could not be realised. After some further arguments, he concluded by declaring that be should vote for the motion.

The Earl of Clancarty said, that whatever pledge or expectation might have been held out by Government, it could not be interpreted into an intention of granting all, without any view to accompanying securities. Having, about two years ago, gone minutely into the subject, he should not recapitulate his arguments on the present occasion; but there was one point which he felt it necessary to press upon the attention of the House. He did then say, and (continuing of the same opinion) should still maintain, that whenever it was right to take up this subject, the Roman Catholics of Ireland should come forward with friendly dispositions, and in a conciliatory tone. He regretted to see the string of resolutions which they had lately passed; but it was necessary to consider what was right to be done, and to acquire what securities would be necessary to obviate the danger of their unqualified admission to all privileges.

The Duke of Sussex said, that after the very ample detail of his opinions on this subject which he had given on a former occasion, it was not his intention to trouble their lordships with a repetition of that detail; but after what had fallen from the noble lord on the woolsack, he found it impossible not to make a short and conscientious effort to counteract the tendency of those sentiments to which the noble lord had given utterance. He hoped that he would be believed by the country, and by their lordships, when he said he felt as great anxiety for the support of our establishments of Church and State, as the noble lord, though be differed from him most widely in the manner of that support. As he had just said, his opinion on the present subject was long since made up; but he should not do justice to the noble marquis, if he did not express his satisfaction at the splendid exertion with which the noble marquis had this night confirmed his opinion-with which he had strengthened his conviction. The question now came before their lordships in somewhat of a different shape and form from those in which it even lately appeared. Its position, relative to external considerations, was much altered for the better.