the Catholics, and the Catholics had given him a petition to present to the House in which those declarations were explicitly made. The House had exacted certain terms, and with those terms the Catholics had complied. He held in his hand a letter, for the authenticity of which he could vouch, directed by the Pope to be written by Cardinal Litta to Dr. Poynter, touching the conditions with which the legislature of this country wished to accompany any concession to the Catholics. The letter set forth the forms of those oaths, which were very little different from those at present taken by the Catholics of Ireland, and though the oath which was to be taken by the bishop was thought in itself a sufficient security, yet his Holiness did not hesitate to permit those to whom it appertained to make out a list of the candidates for a bishopric, which list was to be presented to the King's ministers, in order that if any one of such candidates were disliked or suspected, his name might be expunged from it. The letter went further, and said, that as soon as the British government shall promulgate emancipation to the Catholics, his Holiness will send a brief to the Roman Catholic bishops to the above effect, and publish to the universe his grateful sense of the generosity and clemency of the British government, and finally permit the bishops to observe what was before stated with regard to the oaths and to the mode of elections.

Here then, upon the granting of emancipation, was that power given to the crown which had been so freqnently demanded as its condition. He had been often, on former occasions, asked what plan did he bring, in order that emancipation should be granted ? what plan could he propose for the security of the Protestant religion as by law established ? In order to be able to answer such questions on the present occasion, he had, with a great deal of pains, possessed himself of good information on the subject. He was acquainted, through a most authentic channel, with the sentiments of the Pope on the great question ; and the Pope had expressed himself, that if emancipation was now withheld, the fault was not his. He (the Pope) had very fairly said, “Why will the parliament not legislate for the Catholics? I am not indisposed to withhold my assistance”. If then he was asked on the present occasion, where are your securities ? he would

say:

Here are my terms; they are the terms on which you wished heretofore to grant emancipation, and if you now refuse them, you refuse what you so anxiously sought for, and considered as securities”.

He would ask the House how many petitions had been presented to them this session against the claims of the Catholics ? Ile wished

and

to have all, or any, such petitions read. None could be read. None had been presented. What then was the inference? That the great body of the Protestants were not inimical to the claims of their Catholic brethren. He would not go so far as to say, that there were not many Protestants who still opposed Catholic emancipation, but it would not be presuming too much in him to suppose, that where so many petitions had been presented ou a former occasion, all or most of which were against emancipation conditionally, none on the present, there did not exist any general opposition to it in the minds of the Protestants. There then was 10 general prejudice to contend against on the part of the Protestants, and there was sufficient authority to show that they could legislate iu respect of concessions for the Catholics. The Catholic bishops had in 1799 agreed to certain resolutions, which declared that the concessions which were then, and have been since demanded, were not hostile to the discipline of the church. The Pope himself not only declares that such concessions may be granted, but has actually granted them, provided the Catholics be emancipated. This then, would be one good effect of the cominittee for which he intended to move: it would show to some of the Catholics, that those concessions to which they objected were not only not against the discipline of the church, but accordant with its practice. He would not take up the time of the House by mentioning in detail the grievances which at present affected Ireland. They might be classed under a very few heads. She had commercial and financial difficulties ; but a great deal of hepresent misfortunes might be traced to religious animosities. The causes of the other evils of Ireland might be removed with perhaps little difficulty ; but it would not be easy to remove many of the evils which arose from religious distinctions and the effect of the penal code, without a particular investigation. To this inquiry he called the House; by it they would reduce those who made religious differences a pretext for disturbance, to a mere banditti, because the removal of that pretext would be the result of the inquiry, and having no foreign power to aid them in their wish for disturbance, they would die from jejunity. If the result of the inquiry which the House might enter into did not satisfy some of the Catholics, it should be recollected that the duty of the House was to serve, not to satisfy them; and if they succeeded in the former, he trusted they would have firmness and spirit sufficient to act upon that conduct which justice and duty should point out. Most of the evils which at present affected Ireland were not to be attributed to the system pursued by one or another chief govemor. He by no means wished to attribute them to such cause. The fault lay in the law, which obliged the government of Ireland to act with a marked partiality to one sect. Until this defect in the law was remedied, it would be impossible for any chief governor of Ireland to act impartially. The fault, then, of the government of Ireland, as far as its government was affected by the operation of the penal code, rested with parliament, who had it in their power to repeal that code. Almost all the evils which affected Ireland, whether they originated in this code or not, were fostered and fomented by it. The United Irishmen had not originated in religious animosities, but their disturbances had at length turned into that disordered channel. Thus it would ever be; there was something radically bad in the law, and as long as it was not remedied, so long would it continue to be the nurse of every evil which arose in the state, whether originating with itself or not.

A sore on the finger may, though in itself not very dangerous, be turned to mortality. It was the same in the body politic; small evils may thus become the channels through which great miseries might flow on the state.

The honourable gentleman then contended, that it was essential to the security of the empire, that the evils which existed in any part of it should be traced to their source, in order to prevent their spreading, or being the cause of others as pernicious as themselves. He observed that the societies of Orangemen, which caused so much disaffection between Protestant and Catholic in Ireland, had arisen from the effects of the penal code. Another evil which arose from it was, that the people of Ireland, he meant the Catholic population, were not identified with the law. The advantage of that identification would be to unite all in defence and support of privileges which all equally enjoyed; but this advantage, which was contemplated by the Union, was lost by the continued existence of partial laws, which, while they obliged the Catholic to defend the constitution, gave him little or no share in the privileges of that constitution.

vain then to expect, that while such partiality existed, the great body of the Catholics could be identified with the laws. So long as this code of laws remained unrepealed, so long would there exist in the state a large body of men, of whom the government must necessarily be afraid, and to overawe whom it would be necessary to support a large standing army.

This was a necessary consequence of the penal code, and not its least obnoxious one, as it tended to draw on a military government. It was true the soldiers so employed may not be badly disposed, but as long as the soldiers in any country exceeded a fair proportion

It was

of the population, so long is the liberty of the inhabitants held, not by the law, but by the clemency of the army. He had every respect for the army, he applauded them for their unparallelled victories and for their strict discipline, but still he could never consent that British subjects should hold their liberties at their pleasure. He did not mean to say, that the support of a large standing army was the intention of the continuance of the penal code, but such was its effect. It was necessary that this army should be kept, in order to keep down a proscribed people. It was also necessary that this army should be paid at a vast expense to the country; and for what was all this expense and this risk of a military government incurred ? To keep such men as the Duke of Norfolk or the Earl of Fingall out of parliament, lest if they got a seat there they should seek by treasonable conspiracies to overturn the constitution.

But why should these, or any other Catholic noblemen, seek to overturn the constitution when they were admitted to a participation of its privileges ? Or if they were so disposed, how could they effect it? Would it be by applying to France ? No. To Spain?' 'No. We were in peace and amity with those powers. Was it then to the Pope they would apply ? Such an idea was ridiculous. The Pope had not the power, nor if he had, was he disposed to exert it. Yet it was for this we were obliged to keep up a large standing army, to prevent a few noblemen from doing that which they would not do if they could, and could not if they would. Yet these were the idle fears for which we were called upon to make such sacrifices.

He begged leave to add, that the empire, according to the admission of all parties, was at present in a state of great splendour. We had made great additions to it by conquest, and it required large standing armies to keep those conquests. Why then should we add to the number of our troops, in order to keep a part of our fellowsubjects as aliens in their native country ? Such conduct was most absurd and impolitic, and tended greatly to reduce the strength of the empire. Here then was the danger which was to be incurred ; and for what? For refusing emancipation on those very terms on which it had been opposed some time back. The opponents of emancipation feared some time back, that by granting that measure, they would be granting an influence to a foreign power; that fear was now done away by the terms which he proposed. The terms would place the Catholic prelates out of the danger of any foreign influence, and sufficiently under the power of the crown for any security which it could demand. He begged the House to be on their guard against anything like recrimination on the Catholics. It would not be politic to refer back to ancient dates of history, to see what had been done on former occasions by them. It would be sufficient to know, that in 1782 we had made inost 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 fnal 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, moveil, “That the petition of the Roman Catholics oi Ireland, presented on the 15th of May, 1810, be read!'

The petition was accordingly read by the clerk.

MR. GRATTAN 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 inteution 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 hall now trouble gentleinen 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 relie e the Catholics, to give every security to the Protestaut