these, circumstances, he was disposed to consent to the measure which the protestants of Ireland called for, and which the catholics were disposed to agree to. The hon. member for Corfe Castle (Mr. Bankes) objected to the expense which would be caused by making a provision for the catholic clergy. He could not stop to argue the point. Economy on such an occasion was misplaced.

If he were convinced that it was necessary for the safety of the state to pay the Roman-catholic priesthood, he would do it without caring for the expense. Whether the expense would be one, or two, or three hundred thousand pounds, it was not worthy of a great and wealthy country to consider. The right hon. secretary for Ireland said, that it would be extremely hard to make the presbyterians of Scotland, and the dissenters, and the members of the established church in England, pay for the support of a church which they did not approve of. That was the very thing of which six millions of catholics in Ireland complained. They were compelled to support a church to which they did not belong, and of which they did not approve. The Romancatholic church existed in Ireland, and could not be got rid of; and the only question to be determined was, whether it should exist in a way which was safe and advantageous for the country, or in a way which must be the source of constant danger. He congratulated the friends of the catholics on the great progress which their cause had made. He was convinced that it was in a bill like that before the house that a remedy for the evils of Ireland was to be

found. It was necessary to begin the task of amelioration by tranquillizing the hearts and minds of the Irish people. The misery of the present state of things was, that every thing which came to the people of Ireland was poisoned at its source; even the fountain of justice tasted of bitterness. The case would be different if the people of that country should no longer feel themselves a degraded and stigmatized class. He trusted that the house would continue sending up bills like the present to the other house, until the united sense of both houses should impose on government the necessity of doing that which parliament in its justice and wisdom had thought fit to enact.

Mr. Wallace expressed his belief that the bill would fail of producing those effects which its supporters anticipated from it.

Mr. Portman and Lord Valletort supported the bill.

Mr. Canning said, often as he had spoken upon the question, he could not approach it at the present crisis without deep anxiety; and yet he met it under some circumstances which were both cheering and extraordinary. Whether or no the opinions of the country were as strongly pronounced in opposition to the catholic claims now as they had been formerly, he would not undertake to say; but of this he was certain, that among the petitions which had been presented against those claims, however perfect their zeal and sincerity, there had been some which displayed an extreme ignorance-he meant to use the expression without disparagement-of the state of the existing law, and the merits of the general ques

tion. He felt he should ever feel that the opinions of the country should be received by the house with open doors. They deserved to be considered, whatever was their effect, with the utmost respect and deliberation. But after bestowing that consideration upon public opinion as presented to it, the duty of the house was to proceed, and firmly, upon its own judgment. With respect, therefore, to any class of persons who imagined themselves more particutarly interested on the present occasion, and placed in the advance, as it were, as guardians, in a religious point of view, of the rights of the constitution with respect to the clergy of Englandhe gave them not only toleration but praise, when they came forward with the fair expression of their opinions; but, even in the petitions presented by that body, he had found some portion of the quality to which he had already alluded-some ignorance, in fact, of the real state in which the law as affecting the catholics stood at present. The ignorance which he was now describing, he imputed as no blame. The individuals in whom he discovered it shared it, perhaps, with many members of that house who had not the same excuse of professional avocations to divert their attention from such topics. But the fact was as he stated it; and the charge applied peculiarly to one petition, which he would not mention by the name of the place from whence it came, but which opposed the measure now pending upon so entire a mistake as to the purpose meant to be effected by it, that it actually prayed the house not to grant to the Roman-catholic privileges and

immunities which were not enjoyed by any other class of dissenters. Upon the very words of this petition he would contend, that there was nothing which if taken in their literal meaning could militate against the bill before the house. The dissenters had a voice in the legislation. They had facilities of access to seats in that house, of which the Roman-catholics were deprived, and yet they sought to exclude others from advantages which they themselves enjoyed. Now if the house could act on this petition, it would place the catholic dissenters on the same footing as other dissenters, and to that the prayer of the petitioners was addressed. The petition did not go to the removal of all political differences on account of religion. On this he would rest. He was an advocate for an established church, and he would not sanction any measure, which even in name would appear hostile to that establishment, unless it was shown that it was necessary to the removal of a practical grievance. What was the fact here? It was, that men who sat with them, and shared their councils, called upon them to continue the exclusion of others who were no greater dissenters than themselves. When he saw such a petition come before the house, he was induced to pass it by, not with disrespect, but certainly not with any very great degree of attention. Looking at some of the petitions which had come before them from dissenters, he was struck forcibly with the language which they conveyed on the subject of religious differences; the more so, as coming from men who themselves differed so widely from the established church; and

as

as the present debate had more than usual turned upon theoligical questions, he would say one or two words upon it. It was strange that such sympathy should be felt for one class of dissenters, and not for another. The sympathy, he thought, should in many instances be the other way. What was it which kept the Romancatholics from taking their seats in that house? The oath against transubstantiation. But did the house forget, there might be men amongst their members who believed in consubstantiation- the doctrine which had been avowed and taught by Luther? Did they believe that man a traitor whose creed embraced the one, but rejected the other? He did not say there was no difference between the two opinions; but was that difference of a nature to justify the political distinction? The man who could make it a ground for exclusion from political power, who should contend that the one believer was to be admitted, and the other excluded from a seat in that house, must have a minute perception of the niceties of ratiocination, for which he might be envied as a logician, but which was wholly useless for the purposes of common life. The next ground of objection was, that the catholics held the doctrines of exclusive salvation. Why, almost all the churches were exclusive on some articles; and let not hon. members who urged this objection forget that the church of England held the Athanasian creed-a human exposition of the great mysteries of christianity, and held it with the expressed declaration that they who differed from it could not be saved. With this fact before them,

could the catholics with any fairness be excluded from the enjoyment of their civil rights on the ground of believing in the doctrine of exclusion? The doctrine of absolution was the next ground on which the opponents of the bill rested. He would admit, that in the abstract that doctrine was absurd; but the evidence before the committee of the house of lords went to prove, that the absolution depended on the disposition of the party receiving it, and not on the abstract power of the person giving. It depended on the sincere repentance of the party who received it, on his disposition to amend, and on his resolution to repair, as far as he could, any injuries he might have inflicted. Was this an opinion confined to the Roman-catholic? Let any man read the instructions for the visitation of the sick, as directed by the church of England, and he would find that the power of absolving might be exercised, and was resorted to, when the sick party desired it. There were points in which, essentially, there was very slight difference between the two religions. He did not mean to say there were no important distinctions between the protestant and catholic creeds. There were, he admitted, many distinctions, and they were such as made him heartily glad that the latter had separated from them; but they were not such, as that the one should be refused that eligibility to power which the other possessed. He did not wish to be understood as saying that there was no very material difference between the church of England and some of those christians who dissented from it; but

let

let it be remembered, that while some honourable members turned up their eyes in astonishment at the thought of admitting to the privileges of the constitution those who differed from them in some minor points, they made no scruple of sitting, and voting, and acting, in constant and social fellowship, with those who denied the divinity of our Saviour. If there was a difference which at all could merit exclusion, this was certainly a stronger mark of it than any which could be discovered between the established church and the Romancatholics. The next objection-and it was one which he could not expect to have heard that the Roman-catholics attached an overweening value to the merits of human actions.- Why, that he should consider more likely to operate for the good of the state, than a contrary doctrine. Was it likely to make men better subjects to believe that good works were of no value, but that faith was every thing? For his part, he should prefer as subjects of a state those men who believed that good works were of some value, than the men who held that works were nothing, and that every one was fated to his lot. Let honourable members refer to history, and see what it taught on this subject. Let them refer to the political differences by which the country was once violently agitated. Who were they who brought the monarch 'to the block? Who stripped episcopacy of the mitre, and of all its spiritual authority, and temporal possessions? The papists? No; but they who were most violently opposed to them, and who were earnest in their exertions to deprive them of all influence and

authority-men, also, who professed little respect for the value of good works, but who relied mainly on faith, and almost on that alone. The objection, then, to the Roman-catholics on the ground of the value they set upon good works, was one to which no weight could for a moment be attached. Neither did he see any valid objection in the argument drawn from the belief in the spiritual supremacy of the pope. The question was not whether it was acted upon by the catholics, but whether it was acted upon in such a way as to make it dangerous to the state. He did not on this subject rest alone on the evidence of Dr.Doyle, but he must contend that the insinuations thrown out against the testimony of that reverend divine was not warranted by the fact. It had, he knew, been more than insinuated, that that reverend gentleman held one language before a committee of the house of lords, and another to the public; but he would put it to the house, whether a gentleman of his character (putting aside the oath which seemed to be so little relied upon by many of those opposed to the present question) would have stated that which must, in a very short time, have become known to so many others of his creedwhich must have become known to his flock, and to the pope himself, (the terror of whose name it was said was calculated to make so strong an impression)—he would put it, whether, when so many of his own faith, many of them his reverend brethren in the ministry, were in the next room, and might be called in and give a different testimony, he would have gravely stated that which he knew was not well found

ed?

ed? He could not believe that, under those circumstances, he would have told any thing but that which he firmly believed to be true. It might then be taken that the opinion of Dr. Doyle was the opinion of the catholics in general. That such was the opinion of other times he had no doubt, and he lately fell upon a direct illustration of it in the correspondence between Pope (the poet) and Bishop Atterbury. Pope, as every gentleman knew, was a Roman-catholic; and his friend the bishop, in a very laudable zeal, was anxious to convert his friend to the protestant faith, for which purpose he wrote to him, pointing out what he considered the errors of his faith, and pressing him to renounce it. Pope, in reply, expressed a hope that all churches and churchmen were right in the belief of what they taught their flocks; but if they were wrong, he hoped God would incline them to reform. He added, that he was not a papist, that he renounced the temporal authority of the pope, and disallowed all his pretensions to such power; but that still he was a catholic in the strictest sense of the word. Why, this was not more than had been said by Dr. Doyle. It bore the marks of that confidential and honest opinion which men gave in private correspondence. It was in keeping with his known opinions, and yet it was an absurdity of which Pope was guilty, and with which Atterbury was satisfied. It was said as another objection to the concession of any political power to the catholics, that they were (in Ireland) under the guidance of men whom they regarded with a veneration bordering on idolatry. He admitted the

fact;

but he laid the blame on another quarter. If they were

idolatrous in their devotion to their priests, we were to blame; if they bowed down before idols, it was our persecution which had set them up. We had left them no other objects of political reverence. Let us, however, lift up the veil of the constitution, show them the idol which we worshipped, point out the benefits that we enjoyed, and make them partakers of those benefits; and we should wean them for ever from the imputed crimes of political idolatry and superstition. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to contend, that it was absurd to deny that the catholics laboured under heavy grievances. He maintained that these grievances were most severely felt, and that the remedy, if we did not anticipate it, would force itself upon us. The change must be made, and it was better that it should be effected while it might be brought about with manifest advantage to the country. Could it be expected that the catholics would rest contented under the stigma of their present numerous political disabilities? Was it to be imagined that they would go about without repining at those badges of degradation which the penal code hung about them? It was preposterous to believe it. But the removal of those marks of disgrace would, it seemed, be attended with danger to the constitution. If any such danger existed, most certainly it would not be lessened by delay. To obviate the danger, if any there was, it should be met with promptitude, and the boon which would remove it should be granted with

an