had already referred to. The bill only excluded them from being on what was called the foundation of Protestant ecclesiastical colleges. In this respect, it was thought proper that the law should stand as it is at present. Neither would the Catholics remain excluded by the present bill from the power of being guardians to a Protestant; and a recent decision of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland (Lord Manners) made it doubtful whether they could be so excluded as the law now stands.

These, he believed, were the principal objections to the bill; but they were not made by the Catholic Board ; they were objections which arose to the minds of individuals ; but he had no hesitation in saying that they were unfounded. By the bill, the Catholics were admitted, first, to the right of election; second, to corporate rights; third, to franchises; fourth, to the bench ; fifth, they were not excluded from colleges; and sixth, they were not prevented from acting as guardians to Protestants. On the whole, it was a bill of incorporation; a bill granting substantial emancipation to the Catholics, and at the same time affording ample securities to the Protestant establishment.

Another objection had been made, that the bill did not go upon the general principle of liberty of conscience, and did not comprehend other classes to which the Catholics wished the same extension of civil liberty. In answer to this objection, he should put it to the House, whether the committee would have been justified in framing their bill upon an abstract proposition of this nature. They conceived that they were bound only to consider the case which the petitioners had stated, and that they were not at liberty, by introducing other matter, to deprive the Catholics of their own case. If they had done so, the committee would not have known how to face the House with a bill upon a principle so different from that which was expected from them. The great object of the bill was, the adjustment of the claims of the Catholics ; but the principle and soul of it was their incorporation with Protestants into the general body of the empire. It was for this reason that the repeal of the penal laws was an object of far inferior importance. The great question was, the repeal of those oaths which now prevented the incorporation. In fact, the committee had abstained from touching much upon the penal laws, as that could have no other effect than to bring forward a great quantity of irritating matter. The repeal of those laws would be doing nothing without repealing the oaths.

It was alleged, that they ought to have introduced a bill containing a specific repeal of all the penal laws. In that case, they would

a

a

away by the le

have been under the necessity of proceeding by a numerical enumeration of those laws, a mode to which he had many objections. The great object which they had in view, was a conciliatory adjustment of the Catholic claims; and incorporation formed the very soul and essence of that adjustment. The laws which operated to prevent that incorporation were those that enforced the taking of the oaths. The gentlemen who framed the bill thought it better to remove those Jaws without specification by introducing new oaths; and he considered that to be a final adjustment, by which those obnoxious acts, although not mentioned by name, were rendered null and of no effect. If they had pursued a different course, and introduced a numerous detail of the penal laws, they would have been compelled to bring forward matter of a very irritating description. Without removing those test laws, nothing could be done; but by setting them aside, all the other acts were rendered of no avail, and were left to be done

ture at any future time. This was the principle which was acted upon in 1778 in the Irish Parliament. In the bill brought in at that period, a clause was inserted repealing the test act. That bill was sent back from England, that particular clause having been expunged, and they were obliged to pass the act without this provis:on. In the act of 1793, the Irish Parliament did not state numerically the laws which were repealed. They proceeded on the principle now adopted, and administered great constitutional rights to the Roman Catholics. Having thus acted with the best motives and intentions, they hoped for the support of the House.

Having stated that the present bill gave emancipation to the Catholic, he had next to state the securities it gave to the Protestant. Those securities were to be found principally in the exceptions which were to be found in the bill and in the alteration of the oath. 1. The first was, the exception of the situations of Lord-chancellor of England and Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, which were withheld from Roman Catholics. The office of Lord-chancellor comprised a great deal of ecclesiastical patronage; and the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was the representative of the king, who must be a Protestant, independent of which circumstance, he possessed very considerable ecclesiastical gifts. 2. The second exception related to the right of holding advowsons, or presenting to livings. Where any Roman Catholic possessed an advowson, Protestant commissions were appointed to superintend its disposal. 3. In the third place, all officers in ecclesiastical courts were excepted. 4. The fourth security is, the exclusion of the Catholics from all ecclesiastical courts of judicature. 5. By the fifth, all courts of appeal, or review of ecclesiastical matters, were likewise excepted. 6. Catholics were also excluded from situations in ecclesiastical schools. 7. They were prevented from any interference in the disposal of Protestant benefices. 8. All Roman Catholics were excluded from any episcopal authority within these realms. 9. The ninth security is, the exclusion of nonresident native Catholics from such ecclesiastical duties and functions. 10. The tenth security consisted of an oath containing a great variety of clauses. By it, the Catholic swore to his allegiance, and abjured the supposed regicidal and deposing power of the Pope. He also abjured the temporal power of His Holiness in these countries; the infallibility of the Pope, as an article of faith ; and the principle, that no faith was to be kept with heretics. By it the Catholic deposed, that he would support the Protestant succession and the present state of Protestant property; that he would discover all plots and treasons which came within his knowledge; that he would not make use of any power he obtained in the state, either to its injury, or to the overthrow of the Protestant church ; and that, in the nomination of any bishop or apostolic vicar, no man should be chosen with his consent, of whose loyalty and tranquil disposition he was not convinced ; that the clergy were also to swear that, in the election of persons to be recommended to the apostolic functions, they would never choose any persons whose loyalty and good conduct were not known to them. The oath also bound him to hold no intercourse with the See of Rome, which, directly or indirectly, could disturb the Protestant church in England, Ireland, or Scotland ; and that his intercourse with that see should be purely of a spiritual nature. He was aware that some gentlemen would inquire, why the oath was so very long and particular. To this, his answer was, that those who drew up the present bill, found a part of that oath already established. They did not wish to alter a single article of it, as they felt it their duty to increase and not to diminish the securities now existing ; therefore, they had made a variety of additions to it, comprising every point which was connected with the safety either of church or state. The present oath was generalised ; it was not necessary for a Catholic clergyman to take the former nath unless some office were conferred upon him; but the oath being generalised, it would now, by law, be necessary for every Roman Catholic in the United Kingdom to take it. They had therefore added to the present oath the obligation of disclosing treason, and of not recommending any clergyman whose loyalty was not well known. They had also extended the obligation of the oath. The former oath was only required to be taken on the acceptarce of some

office; the present oath, however, was proposed to be extended generally to the clergy, as well as to the laity. These, then, were the securities. Whether the House would consider them to be sufficient, he knew not; but great securities they unquestionably

were.

A right honourable gentleman, he begged leave to call him his right honourable friend (Mr. Canning), had suggested some additional clauses. He proposed the appointment by parliament of Protestant commissioners, with power to withhold their assent to the nomination of those bishops and apostolic vicais, of whose loyalty they entertained any doubt, and also with power to inspect the papers and books connected with those nominations, with a proviso that they should be bound not to betray the secrets of the Catholic church. These clauses would amount to a complete security for domestic nomination. His right honourable friend had touched the subject with a delicate hand. Those appointed to frame the bill had not introduced the clauses into the bill, not because they disapproved of them, but because they did not know how far the Catholic body might approve of their introduction. For his own part he thought they were liberal in their nature, and that they ought to be received.

He would now say a very few words on the general merits of the bill now before the House. It would, no doubt, undergo some alterations here; but such as it was, it amounted to a plan of perfect domestic security and liberality—a plan, for the accomplishment of which the greatest statesmen of this country had struggled in vaina plan that, he trusted, at no distant period would be completed. If, however, the motion of the honourable baronet were acquiesced in, and this committee should be appointed, he should not dare to hope to witness the fulfilment, not only of his wishes, not only of the wishes of the majority of this House, but of the wishes of the majority of the nation. This was a bill of Catholic emancipation, in which were provided three main securities for the Protestants. The first and greatest, was incorporation; the second, a positive bar against domestic Catholic influence; and the third, an effectual provision against foreign Catholic interference. This measure, they submitted, ought to receive the sanction of the legislature; parliament had already pledged itself to concede it. It has already declared, that it was expedient to repeal the laws which deprive a great portion of their countrymen of privileges they ought to enjoy, for the sake of producing general harmony, security, and happiness. Let parliament, then, fulfil the pledge it had given to the nation, without being diverted from its obvious duty by motions like that'tonight proposed. The bill was before it; nor could any solid objections be urged, unless by those who are enemies to Catholic privilege and Protestant security.

May 24, 1813.

a

SIR, I rise to direct the attention of the House to the course of opposition which has this night been taken to the great measure now under discussion, and shall commence with the right honourable gentleman (Mr. York), who has last spoken in the debate. He has emphatically told you how futile must be the success (if such should attend it) of this bill

, when it is evident its provision will never be complied with by the party for whose relief it has been framed. Now, Sir, I say

I that such a mode of reasoning goes too far, it proves too much; for what is the deduction ? why, that there will be no Catholic episcopacy, because, if the clergy do not comply with the provisions of this bill, there can be no episcopacy; it must, in such case, expire ; and the very body which the right honourable gentleman holds in terrorem before your view, can no longer (upon his own argument) have existence ; his fears are therefore visionary, and his reasoning groundless. So far for the clerical argument. Now, Sir, towards the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament: here again the argument of the right honourable gentleman is built upon no foundation. Can any man in his senses credit the assertion, that the ingress of the Catholics to this assembly can be productive of the effect described ? Is the right honourable gentleman so ignorant of the constitution of this House as for a moment to believe the principle he has himself laid down ? I shall not pay him so poora compliment as to think he does. Does he, Sir, take it for granted, that this is a Catholic House legislating for a Protestant people? or does he not know that this is a Protestant House legislating for a Catholic people, a Protestant people, a Presbyterian people, a Dissenting people ? A House, Sir, making laws for a whole and a divided community; not a particular body enacting for a particular sect. The admission of a few Catholics here left the constitution where it stood. It left it as it found it, a Protestant body. The principle of this bill is incorporation, uniting the jarring differences of many religions.

Another argument equally defective, equally erroneous, has been sounded-sounded with acclamation this night; namely, that it is impossible to unite the Catholic with the Protestant; also that the

a