would not be politic to refer back to ancient dates of history, to sec what had been done on former occasions by them. It would be sufficient to know, that in 1782 we had made most important concessions to Ireland, which we should not now retract in part, by refusing the benefits of our law to three-fourths of its inhabitants. It had been once said, that Ireland would not receive the English law when it was pressed upon her. The House should not now act upon a contrary principle, and refuse those benefits to so large a portion of the Irish population, who would receive them with joy and gratitude.

He then moved, "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration the state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and tranquillity of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general concord and satisfaction of all classes of his Majesty's subjects".

May 9, 1817.

MR. GRATTAN, previous to submitting his motion to the House on the subject of the Catholic claims, moved, "That the petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, presented on the 15th of May, 1816, be read"

The petition was accordingly read by the clerk.

MR. GRATIAN then said: Having been applied to by the Roman Catholics of Ireland to bring their case under the consideration of the House, I shall now proceed to discharge the duty I have undertaken. But, sir, it is not my intention at present to go into this important question. I shall entreat the indulgence of the House to hear my sentiments fully by way of reply. Upon a question of this sort, which has been debated in this House so often, it would be monstrous presumption in me to expect to be heard twice in the course of one night; I shall therefore request the indulgence of the House for my reply; and shall now trouble gentlemen but a very few minutes. The resolution I intend to move is, for a committee to take the laws affecting the Roman Catholics into consideration. It is the same motion which was carried in 1813, and does nothing more than pledge the House to examine the penal laws, with a view to relieve the Catholics, to give every security to the Protestant

establishment, and ultimately to impart satisfaction to all orders of men in the empire. I say ultimate satisfaction; because in such ‹. question as this, the hope of giving immediate satisfaction to every order of men, is a matter of utter impossibility; and therefore the House must legislate to the best of its judgment, with a view to the ultimate satisfaction of one party, and the immediate relief of another.

I have read the report* which my learned and useful friend (Sir J. C. Hippesley) has presented to the House, which has clearly shown you that, in all the great countries of Europe, there is a civil and military toleration, incorporation, and qualification, for all religious sects; that there is, in nearly every state of Europe, a certain connexion between the clergy and the government, so as to preclude the danger of foreign influence; and that England is almost the only country where such an arrangement has not yet been made. I beg to observe, that there is now every reason to hope, and there is no reason to doubt, but that securities may be had, and such securities as the House will perhaps think desirable. There may be domestic nomination, there may be a veto-there may be both! Now you may command your own securities, and therefore let not gentlemen say: "We cannot accede to Catholic emancipation, because we have no securities". The question is, will you endanger the safety of your own church, in order to exclude the Catholics from the constitution? You now have securities, both for church and state, at your command. If you exclude the Catholics, if you keep from them civil and military rights, will you not say, that you will exclude the Protestant church and the Protestant settlement from security? That is to declare, that you will prefer to the securities which your fellow-subjects offer, and which have so often been represented as necessary to the safety of the church and state, a monopoly, the monopoly of power, the monopoly of seats in parliament, the monopoly of civil and military offices. Is it not to say, that you will prefer this power, not to the freedom of your Roman Catholic fellowsubjects, but to the security of the Protestant church? So that it will appear that, having called for securities in order to justify you in granting liberty, you now refuse them when offered, and exclude the Catholics, in order to prevent them from participating in that power which they were expected to share. I beg leave to say, that the present question is not about the means by which securities may be effected. I will not debate that point. The question is, whether

*Official papers relating to the regulation of the Roman Catholics: printed by order of the House of Commons.

any securities whatever will be received? Let me tell you why. There is a communication between the Pope and the Catholic clergy, which must end either in incorporation with the See of Rome, or connexion with the government of England, and if the latter be refused, it will be dangerous to the safety of England. You will have the Catholic clergy incorporated with the See of Rome, and the Catholic laity discorporated from the people of England.

I shall go into a committee to move the repeal of the laws that disqualify the Catholics from civil, military, and naval power, subject to such arrangements as may be judged necessary for the safety of the Protestant religion, the act of settlement, and the government of Great Britain; that is to say, subject to such provisions as you will feel necessary for the security of your church and state; that, if you choose to adopt the resolution, you may show to the world that you have ceased to be the only country in Europe that withheld those rights, but that you are ready to give franchises, and that you are willing to grant a participation in the benefits of your constitution to your Catholic fellow-subjects. This will acquit you with regard to your having a just idea of the principles of liberty, whilst the securities you will receive will effectually protect your civil and religious privileges. Give to the Catholics all they require, taking care that your church is properly protected. This is the principle on which the question will stand, and the point which you must ultimately concede. With respect to safeguards, I think there is no man, when he procures rights which he considers inestimable, that ought not to give you those securities, which, while they do not trench on the Catholic church, afford strength and safety to the Protestant religion. I shall now move:

"That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into its most serious consideration the state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects".

I beg to say this, that my idea is not, in any degree whatever to put it out of the power of this House to insist on full satisfaction relative to the proffered securities, before they proceed to legislate; so that nothing that shall occur in the House, either now or at any future period, shall be considered operative, unless the House be perfectly satisfied that the securities offered will insure the safety of the Protestant church and state.

On the close of the debate Mr. Grattan spoke as follows:

I beg to restate what I said in the beginning, that you can now command your securities, and in refusing to agree to this motion, you not only reject the emancipation of the Catholic subject, but the security of the Protestant. It is very true, a certain unpopularity may for a while attend one species of security, but I agree with the noble lord (Castlereagh), you are not to legislate to please, you are to legislate to serve, you are to legislate to save; and then, rely on it, you will ultimately satisfy. If you reject this motion, I repeat it, you reject your security, you oppose the franchises of those of another religion, and the security of your own. The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Peel) has called our system a Protestant constitution; as justly might he have called it a Protestant empire; he means a constitution to which the Protestants have an exclusive right without the participation of any Catholic member; he will prove that title. I do not find that he has produced any authority in which that constitution is called Protestant, and if he did, denomination is no title. Still less can he advance prescription; the constitution was the work of Catholics, and the fundamental laws the work of Catholics. The bill of rights, and the declaration of rights, went no further than to declare the rights obtained by Catholics. The right honourable gentleman has no right to say, the oath is a fundamental law; the oath was not intended to go against the Catholic religion, but against those who obey the temporal power of the Pope, and such is the explanation by act of parliament. [Here the statute of 33 Geo. III., chap. 44, was read.]

Mr. Grattan proceeded and observed, that the preamble ran thus: that the oath was a dogmatic renunciation of religious tenets, instead of an oath of allegiance; that the oath had been enacted to preserve the government against the attempts of those who were supposed acknowledge the temporal power of the Pope, and not against their religion; that it was accordingly repealed, and the oath of allegiance put in its place. I speak of the repeal of the Scotch oath of 1793. There is another act which declares the oath to be provisional, and if provisional, of course, not fundamental. The Irish act of Union enacts, that the qualifying oath and declaration shall be taken until altered by parliament, and it had in view this very question, namely, the admission of the Catholics into parliament. Here, then, are these

gentlemen declaring the oath to be fundamental, and here are two statutes declaring the contrary; which then will you believe? Gentlemen say, the Catholics are excluded by the fundamental laws of the land from all political situations. The act of parliament says

exactly the contrary: "Be it enacted, that persons professing the Catholic religion may enjoy all places, civil and military". Having failed to make out this exclusive title by law-on the contrary, being convicted in the attempt by act of parliament, they endeavour to make out a title by inference: they say the King must be Protestant, the lords must be Protestant, and the commons must be Protestant. They are mistaken; the lords are not exclusively Protestant, writs are now sent to Catholic peers; the commons are not exclusively Protestant, the commons are in part Catholic; the constituency of Ireland, and they form no small part of the electors, are in no small proportion Catholic. Gentlemen make a comparison between the body and the House wherein it acts; the House are not the commons; the commons are those who elect and act by representation; accordingly, the King thanks the commons, and impeachments are made in the name of the commons, and survive prorogation or dissolution. I have two objections to their argument; it raises disabilities on inference, which is against a principle of law, and it founds inference npon what is not fact. You cannot take away the prerogative of the crown by inference; you cannot take away the privilege of the people by inference.

They have failed to make out an exclusive title to this constitution, they have produced nothing in the letter of the Revolution, and the spirit is all against them. The Revolution, properly understood, was not a victory of Protestantism over Popery, but of civil and religious liberty over oppression; and the Catholics were excluded from its benefits because they were ranged in the cause of that oppression. They were excluded then, because they were in a state of war; and they are admissible now, because they are in a state of allegiance. Gentlemen have said that the Revolution was a final settlement of religion; no such thing; the penal laws took place a considerable time after; and then their argument is, that this final settlement was open to penalties and shut to benefits. Gentlemen having failed to show that the Protestants have an exclusive title to the benefits of the constitution, or to say more properly, that the constitution is hermetically sealed against Catholics, are reduced to prove that they have a right to exclude the Catholics from political power.

I do not enter into the question of natural right to political power; but I do say that the Catholics have a right to the attributes of law, universality, and equality; and I do further say, that the Catholics have a common-law right to eligibility. The parliament does not give that right, but the parliament takes it away. The common law gives the Catholic the right of eligibility, and the parliament deprives