Catholic body, were now raising a loud outcry. He was aware that the author of the bill had stated at the outset, that he saw no objection to the incorporation at present proposed; but yet he could not undertake to say, whether the proposition of the right hon. baronet resulted from choice or necessity. His right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) and others, had expressed an opinion, that parliament should pass a measure of this nature without any regard or reference to the judgment of the Catholics, with whom it was not for that or the other House to enter into any treaty or negotiation, but to accede to a measure of necessary public justice and expediency. There might be in such language a vast deal of dignity; but he must with deference say, that it did not appear to him to contain much of common sense. It would be recollected that the Catholics, who composed a large proportion of our fellow-subjects, were partly, at least, under somewhat of foreign influence, and that it was rather inconsistent to maintain that their judgment or wishes should not be regarded as to the merits of this measure; while it was on the other hand alleged, that that measure was mainly desirable as a means of conciliation, and as calculated to satisfy all parties. Yet it was evident, that many of the Catholics whom it was hoped to conciliate, were now forward to repudiate, condemn, and reject the provisions of the bill for providing some securities for the Protestant establishment. This was the known disposition of the Catholic clergy, who had notoriously more influence over the laity than those of any other church in the world. Upon the opinion of the Catholic clergy, then, it must depend, whether a measure of this nature would be received as a boon, or regarded as an act of per ecution; and that opinion was pretty well understood. Unless, indeed, the Catholic clergy of Ireland should depart from all the principles which they had solemnly declared but a few years ago, it was impossible to doubt of their hostility to the provisions of the second bill; for those clergy declared the most determined objection to give the king any power of original nomination or direct negative upon the appointment of Catholic bishops or other members of the Catholic hierarchy. If, then, the Irish clergy had not changed their sentiments, the House should consider whether, in acceding to the measures under discussion, it might not, instead of promoting peace and harmony in Ireland, contribute rather to produce agitation, dissent, and even tumult in that country. It would be remembered that the bill of 1813 was abandoned, because the clause was negatived for admitting Catholics into parliament; but that abandonment proceeded from the authors of the bill itself, and rested upon grounds which he could not at all comprehend; especially as the bill without that clause contained many valuable concessions to the Catholic body. For all those concessions he was a ready advocate: but beyond those concessions he was not prepared to go one step. He would never agree to have Catholics admitted to either House of Parliament; because he thought their exclusion most essential to the security of the Protestant establishment. He would always act upon the measure of a great statesman long since no more, that those men should not be admitted to partake of the powers of any system, whose principles must prompt them to desire the overthrow of that system. The principles of the Catholic body did not appear to have under. gone any change; and if no such change had taken place, it was absurd to suppose that if the professors of this sect were put in possession of political power now, they would act on different principles from those which had actuated their conduct when in power heretofore. By this bill it was proposed to invest the Catholics with power, which he could not contemplate without alarm. If it were passed, Catholic representatives were likely to be sent to that House from a decided majority of Irish counties, as well as from some English boroughs. When the elective franchise was granted to the Catholics in 1793, that concession was understood to be conclusive. Yet it was now held, that the grant of a right to sit in that House was the necessary consequence of the former concession; and, if Catholics were admitted into parliament, what should prevent the proposition that that religion, which was embraced by the great majority of the Irish people, should be the established religion of that country? It was, indeed, a principle laid down by a number of accredited writers, among whom were some distinguished Protestants, that the religion of the great body of the people in any state ought to be the established religion of that state; and if the Catholics were invested with the political power proposed by the present bill, what was to prevent them from pressing way in which the Jesuits had formerly exercised their influence, they must see the danger which would result from the education of the youth of high families, who were afterwards to take their seats in that House, in such an establishment. Such was the horror in which the Jesuits were held, that they had been driven out of Russia, where they were long tolerated; and in Spain, Piedmont, and Naples, they were either not tolerated, or at least in very great disrepute. The hon. member concluded by deprecating any concession, which, by opening the door of parliament to Catholics, would dispossess the House of those securities which were necessary for the security and permanence of the established institutions; and moved for the insertion of a clause in the bill, excluding Roman Catholics from seats in parliament. the adoption of that principle? But, if Catholics were admitted into parliament, what guarantee was there for the continuance of the Test and Corporation acts, which Blackstone called the bulwarks of the constitution? The Catholics would have a common interest with the Dissenters in producing the repeal of those acts; and it would be recollected, that in 1790, when that repeal was last proposed, there was only a majority of twenty against the entertainment of that proposition. Let the committee also consider whether, if Catholics were invested with political power, it was possible that they would be reconciled to the payment of a double ecclesiastical establishment, or that they would not endeavour to get rid of that burthen, especially as in such an endeavour they would be seconded by the other Dissenters? But the dangers likely to result from the adoption of such measures were quite palpable and alarming as to Ireland. He should not, indeed, be much surprised, if this bill were passed, soon to hear of propositions in that country for the alternation of the dignities and emoluments at present enjoyed by the established church between the ecclesiastics of that church and those of the Catholic communion. With respect to the oath itself, as it now stood, a great deal had been said. It should be recollected, that oaths were frequently rendered nugatory, by the mode of interpreting them; and it might not be improper to consider in what way the oath proposed by the Irish parliament in 1793 was explained. The words of that oath appeared too clear to be misunderstood. They were these: "I do so lemnly swear not to exercise any privilege to which I am or may be admitted, to the disturbance of the Protestant religion and government of this country." Yet the interpretation given to this oath was, that they were bound not to exercise their privileges in any way which might violate not only the established religion, but the government of the country; because it was contended, that the words religion and government were connected together, without any comma after the word religion. Was it known to the committee, that an order of Jesuits was canonically established at Stoneyhurst, in Lancashire, and another at Castle Brown, in Ireland? That at Stoneyhurst was established by the Pope's authority in 1813, though it was not finally sanctioned till August, 1814. When the House recollected the Mr. Calcraft said, that having never before ventured to deliver his opinions upon this subject, he begged leave to trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the House. He had not abstained from addressing the House, because he did not strongly and anxiously feel its great importance, but because he had always seen it in such able hands, as suppressed any wish on his part to offer his sentiments to the House. He confessed, that he was one of those who considered the principle of restraint as of very little consequence; for if he looked only to the obligatory power of enactments, he should think that they had a very slender hold upon the powerful body of the Roman Catholics. When he knew, however, that the Catholics were governed by the same passions and interests as ourselves-that they were men who possessed a great stake in the country-and that they were as sincerely attached as the Protestant part of the community to all that was most valuable in the institutions of the country, he looked to those considerations rather than to any legislative enactments as the best security against the fancied dangers of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman had said, that if the Catholics were admitted into parliament, they would immediately unite and overturn the whole Protestant power of this country. But, did the hon. gentleman really believe that the Protestants were grown so indifferent to the established religion, and had so little regard for all the national institutions, as to stand tamely by and see them overturned by a small minority in the nation? He hardly ex-| pected to be called upon to defend the measures of Mr. Pitt against the hon. gentleman; but he must say upon this occasion, that he had never heard so gross a libel upon the memory of a great man, as that which had fallen from the hon. gentleman in his description of the measure of 1793. He had characterised that measure, which extended the elective franchise to the Catholics as a mere political expedient of the day, in which a race for popularity was run between the two contending parties. He denied the fairness of this description. Mr. Pitt, in adopting the measure of 1793, saw that a change of circumstances demanded new concessions: he saw that the time was come, at which the elective franchise might be safely conceded to so large and important a body as the Catholics of Ireland. But, did Mr. Pitt, or the gentleman who supported him, mean to stop there? Unquestionably not; for seven years after, when he proposed the Union, one of his main arguments was, that if the Catholic population were merged in the Protestant population of Ireland, it would then be safe to grant them farther rights and privileges. It was natural that the Catholics having obtained, and fairly exercised, the elective franchise, should, require to be admitted to the representation; nor could it be supposed, that having obtained the first concession, they would stop short, and not require more. It would be just as absurd to tell a child he might walk, but must not think of running, as to grant the elective franchise to the Catholics, and deny them that of representation. Equally absurd was the apprehension of the hon. gentleman, that 30 or 40 Catholic members admitted into that House would be capable of obtaining an ascendancy which would prove fatal to the Protestant interest, and to the existing institutions of the country. The hon. member concluded by declaring, that the concessions to the Catholics, to the full extent proposed by the bill, were calculated to promote the essential interests of the country. The Speaker said, he thought it right to express his sentiments on the present occasion, and to state the reasons which led him to oppose those from whom he had the misfortune to differ on the present occasion. He would endeavour to confine himself to the clause now before the committee, and abstain from going generally into the merits of the bill. He admitted, with every one who had spoken, that the exclusion of the Catholics was a great evil-an evil that could not be justified without an adequate reason. But the framers of this bill recognized the principle of exclusion-of absolute unqualified exclusion-from holding ecclesiastical and judicial office connected with the administration of the laws affecting the established church. He did not but say that this might be perfectly justifiable; but, when there was a jealousy of a person professing the Roman Catholic religion participating in the administration of the laws directly affecting the church, he did not know how he was to be answered when he objected to their participation in the framing of laws by which the church was to be governed, This consideration led immediately to that of the clause by which the Catholics were admitted into the two Houses of Parliament. When he looked to the preamble of this bill, in which it was stated, that the laws relating to the ecclesiastical establishment were permanently established, it was a necessary inference, that the Catholics were excluded from judicial offices in ecclesiastical matters, lest any injury should arise from their mal-administration. But, when those laws were said to be permanently established, the meaning of those words could only be, that they were permanent so long as it should not please parliament to alter them. Was it not reasonable, therefore, to feel a jealousy as to the continuance of those laws, as well as to guard against their mal-administration? The hon. member who had just sat down seemed to think that the hon. member for Corfe Castle had carried his views of danger to an unnecessary extent; but it surely behoved them, in legislating on so important a subject, to take the longest view within their reach; for the law once passed was beyond their reach, and if any consequent mischief should arise, it would be no answer to say that the law might be repealed. The hon. member for Corfe Castle said, that there was much ground for alarm; and the hon. member who last addressed the House, thought there was no ground at all; but both the one and the other opinion were mere speculations. They were speculations upon which he did not presume to judge; but he must say, that upon a question of such paramount importance, he would rather look to the security of the law, than trust to the results of chance. The hon. mem- | sistency, if, having agreed to the oath ber for Bramber had said, the other night, proposed on a former day, they should that he felt strongly inclined to believe now adopt the amendment. The difficulty that if the restrictions upon the Roman that he had from the beginning was this: Catholics were removed, many of them-He objected to two oaths being tenwould abandon their faith, and become dered; and the more so, as the more Protestants. It was natural for that hon. rigorous oath was reserved for the Progentleman, being himself an extraordinary testants. The hon. gentleman who spoke good Protestant, and looking as he did last had said, that the whole question to the intrinsic merits of the Pro- turned upon three points; whether, on testant faith, to entertain such an opi- the admission of the Catholics to parlianion; but he doubted whether a good Ca- ment, the safety of the state could be tholic would not be equally inclined to guaranteed; whether the conduct of the say, only give me admission into the Catholics entitled them to the enjoyment House of Commons, and I will so con- of such a privilege; and whether, supvince you of the truth of my religion, posing those points to be allowed, this that you will all turn Catholics." Believ- was not the most convenient time that ing, then, that it was a proper jealousy the concession should be made? With which excluded Roman Catholics from respect to the last, though he had not the administration of certain laws, he the same confidence in the success of the must confess that he could not see how measure, he agreed with the hon. member, the same principle of exclusion should not that never was there a time when the deapply to the present case. In reference liberate judgment of parliament was more to the alterations proposed on a former likely to be the deliberate judgment of night, not wishing to disguise his opinions, the people. As to the second point, he he would say, that neither the alterations was most willing to admit that their con proposed, nor any alterations, could duct, for a long time past, and the benechange his opinions-which were unfa- fits which they had conferred on the vourable to the general provisions of the country, entitled them to every thing that bill; but still he admitted, that the diffi- could be granted consistently with the culties were accumulated in consequence safety of the state. He did not doubt of the alteration which had been made in their sincerity, but he did not think that the clause originally proposed. It was their admission to seats in parliament was contended by some hon. gentlemen, that a privilege which, in conformity with the words proposed to be added, made no their tenets, they could exercise benefidifference in the meaning of the clause; cially to the country and with safety to the but, if that were so, where was the ne- constitution. In his conscience he did not cessity for alteration? He could wish to believe that such a privilege could be know why a severer oath was to be im- safely granted. This was his sincere and posed on the Protestant than on the Roman deliberate opinion; and, as an honest man, Catholic. If that at present in existence he felt himself bound to support his hon. was not thought necessary to secure the friend's amendment. Roman Catholic, he could understand Mr. Canning said, he agreed with those why it was altered; but he could not honourable members who considered this understand why a more rigorous oath as the most important point of the bill. He should be tendered to the Protestant agreed that it was that of which, if rethan was administered to the Catholic. fused, the refusal would take much from The decision of the House on a former the value of any other concessions, and of night had thrown some difficulty in the which, if conceded, the concession would way of their proceeding. It was now said, enhance greatly their importance. that there would be a sort of breaking agreed that it was a point, the granting faith, if the House adopted the present of which would form the key-stone of proposition after deciding as they had that arch which they were erecting, and done on the oath. He did not see that complete that incorporation of interests there would be any inconsistency in adopt- which was the object of those who took ing the present amendment. The oath part in promoting this bill. [Hear, hear, which had been decided on, would admit hear!] He agreed, at the same time, that the Catholic to many situations which he they who, with him, contended for the addid not fill before; and therefore it was mission of Roman Catholics into parlia'not fair to charge the House with incon-ment, were not entitled, from any previous He vote to which the House had come in the course of the present discussions, to assume this point as conceded, or to preclude a renewed examination of it in the present stage. Nothing had been conceded, in fact or in argument, that could prevent members from deciding upon the point before them, according to its merits [Hear, hear!]. Differing as he did from the right hon. gentleman who had last addressed the committee, he begged to guard against any misapprehension of what he should say, by offering at the outset the tribute of his acknowledgment for the general candour and liberality with which he (the Speaker) had stated his opinion [cheers], an opinion, it was unnecessary to say, formed most conscientiously [cheering], and not urged by the right hon. gentleman beyond the bounds of fair argument and discretion [Hear, hear!]. Whatever the result might be, he (the Speaker) would have the satisfaction of feeling that he had contributed his full share to the elucidation of the question and to the good temper which had happily pervaded the whole discussion [Cheers]. always been an object of ambition with the most cultivated minds. In this country, for ages past-and he hoped for ages to come-the highest object had been, was, and would be, to obtain a seat in the assembly which governs the counsels of the nation. To be excluded by positive enactment from the pursuit of this object of ambition, he would not say was an exclusion which no circumstances could warrant and no expediency justify, but it was an exclusion so severe as to be justified only by circumstances which could not be mistaken, and an expediency not to be avoided or controlled. [Loud cheers.] The burden of proof rested with those who contended for the exclusion. Exclusion was the exception. The general rule was the other way. Undoubtedly, if we looked back to the times preceding the Reformation, we should find that no class of society was then precluded from the political service of the state. The distinction grew up with the Reformation, a transaction affecting the whole of Europe, and the policy external and internal of every state composing the European commonwealth; which changed He would now proceed, first, to state the line of demarcation between nations, what he might conceive to be the claims and separated each people among them(the extent to which he understood the selves. A Protestant and a Catholic term "claims," he would afterwards ex- interest grew up, which divided and plain, in order to guard against miscon- classed the nations of Europe; and struction), the claims of the Roman Catho- within each nation took place a corlics to admission into parliament; and 2ndly, respondent division and classification; he would inquire what dangers, real or which had the double effect of arraying imaginary, might obstruct the concession different parts of the same community of those claims. Now, as to the term against each other, and creating in each "claims," he was ready to avow his con- part respectively a sympathy with foreign viction, that neither an individual, nor a states. Similarity of creed was brought body of men, could be properly said to into competition with identity of country; have any natural claims belonging to them and in many instances, and on many ocas men, to any political franchise or em- casions, it could not be denied, the reliployment. The claims of men in a civi- gious sentiment was too strong for the lized society were subject, not only to patriotic. Grant, then, as he might safely limitation from the circumstances of the do for argument's sake, that during the times, but to lasting control from the existence of this struggle in its full force, necessity of the state. The exclusion of it might not be safe to admit to political the Roman Catholics from parliament power the professors of any other than the was just, if it was necessary; and the point predominant national religion, and that now under discussion was, whether such such a state of things justified exclusion. a necessity existed or not [Hear, hear!]. Still, if that state of things no longer Without reverting, however, to any wild existed,-if the struggle between patriottheory of natural right, and under the ism and religious sympathy was at an end, qualification which he had already ex--if in all the nations of Europe, whatever plained, he had no hesitation in affirming, that in every civilized society, and in every well-constituted state, wealth, ability, knowledge, station, gave a claim to gave a claim to office; and that eligibility to office had might be the form of their government or the modification of their faith, that line of demarcation was effaced (with the exception, he would admit, of Spain and Portugal, where the Reformation never made |