that right with a view to the catholics of | countenance; secondly, the one which surIreland, let it be done; if it is right prised me, and which the noble lord seem-: with view to the catholics of England, if ed to countenance, that, as its requests did it is right upon general policy, let it be not affect their order, they did not choose done; but let no man's mind be influenced to sign it; that it did not go far enough, in deciding upon this question by the opi-and therefore did not deserve their applicanion that concessions of this nature are tion. To neither of these observations shall, likely to tranquillize Ireland. We are told I give any weight, but I will give one more it arises out of the union; how? was it fiing the conduct and character of that promised? certainly not. Did the catho-reverend body, the superior clergy of whom, lics carry the union? certainly not. Was from every thing I experienced, I shall althe question tried at the union? why, it ways speak with respect. The reason that was previously rejected by both parliaments I conceive why the priests did not sign the before the union, and at the time of the petition is, that they disapproved of the seaunion itself, it was a strange sort of ex-son; that they who knew the state and pectation that what both parliaments re- temper of their own people, the state and jected before and at the union, should be temper of the protestants, knew that the done as soon as they were united. But is time was unfitting for the discussion; it not well known that the measure could neither party had forgiven the sufferings and not have been carried if this proposition injuries of the late rebellion, and that to had been clogged to it? Is it not well revive the consideration of this question known that the most. zealous friends of would only be to revive the horrors of the that measure would have opposed the union rebellion. They therefore, in which I conif this had made a part, considering it as cur with them, wished to postpone the conleading to the separation of the countries? sideration of their situation to a more fa"But it will please the people of Ireland." vourable moment; and when, as was ably Are you to learn that there are two de-observed, so very few persons have signed scriptions of persons in that kingdom? will this petition from several parts of Ireland, it please the protestants of Ireland; those it may be argued that a large portion of the who carried that great measure, those who catholics concur in this opinion with the preserved that country to this? It seems priesthood.-Having looked at this question as if noble lords had forgotten such people as it related to Ireland, let us extend our existed; I have not heard mention of view to its general effect. What is the state them from any one of them; a people by of England, of Scotland? perfectly quiet; whose loyalty and courage, in a situation no religious jealousy, every man worshipunparalleled, that kingdom was secured; ping the Deity according to the form he apwhose conduct was never equalled by any proves. Will the noble lord ensure the condescription of men in any country. Why, tinuance of such a state if this motion then, what must be done? I say, "let is complied with? And here an obserthe union alone," let that great measure vation should be made; the Irish parliaalone, let it work, as it has begun, the ments, taunted as they have been as bigots settlement of that country, and let not the and oppressors, in 1793 gave considerable operations of that great measure be impeded privileges to the catholics; have the Engby bringing the catholics forward at an un-lish done so to their catholics, whose loyfit season, to be made the tool and sport of alty and good conduct has been unimpeachBritish factions. In considering the peti-ed, and against whom suspicion never tion several observations might be made, broached a whisper in their disfavour? The but I shall confine myself merely to two; argument of the dangers attending the meathe first is, an insinuation that the catholics sures in Ireland not applying in England, have not the benefit of equal justice. Now, why did not the noble lords propose relaxafor one, I beg leave to observe on the un- tions to the same extent ? because the state fairness of this insinuation, and to defy any and temper of the country would not bear man to shew that equal justice in that coun- the proposition. What is the case of Scottry is not done to every man of whatever land? why even the laws of 1791 were not religion or description he may be. Secondly, extended to that country. What is to be that the petition is signed by no priest. argued from this? that those who had the From this three observations may be made; management of Scotland knew the state and first, that the priests disapprove of the te- temper of that country would not bear the nets and declarations contained in the peti-discussion; that it would be injurious to tion, and do not choose to give it their the catholics, injurious to the protestants. wished for their continuance. Is it so ? neral, and seemed to profess only a compliance with the petition in aid of this favoured sect, forgetting all others upon equal claims, though his argument went to the full extent to them; but no guard, no declaration of what was to be put in the place. I attended with great anxiety to the next, in the blue ribbon, fully convinced, by his mature judgment and discretion, that he had some distinct plan to produce, which, whilst it gave liberty in one instance, would set up some substitute and guard on the other. Not a word.-As to the third noble lord, from the extent of his arguments, I heard at least nothing in favour of any religious establishment. We ought to see the whole plan and the whole project, that we may be sure, when we come into this committee, any two of the proposers may agree upon what they would wish to have done. I shall be glad to see this new work of Vauban, and to know if I cannot proceed against it by sap or storm with more prospect of success than against this ancient castle, which has been fortified at every point where danger has threatened. May I then ask, what has happened to induce you to throw this measure wild upon the country? Does any man wish to renew the horrors of the year 1780? Is any man sure that the cry may not be raised that the church is in danger, and may there not be some ground for this alarm?-It was very ably shewn, and I shall not again go go over the ground, that this question might throw the one hundred Irish members and the whole power of Ireland into the hand of the catholics. Calculate what the dissenters of this country are; add to these those of no religion, those willing to sacrifice the estab-proposed. The first noble lord was all gelishment to free themselves from tithes and taxes; consider the tempting state of the possessions of the church as a source of taxation; contemplate the effects of an union of these bodies acting systematically, forming subscriptions; recollect that parties may be in this country who would go all lengths to attain and maintain power, and nobody can calmly say very serious attacks might not be made on the establishment of the church. We are told this is not a time to exclude men from the service of the state for religious opinions. In the first place, in Ireland the catholics are not generally excluded; and secondly, it is not on account of religious opinions, but because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the king, and come, in a general way of considering the subject, within the provisions of the 24th of Henry the Eighth. We are likewise told, that the fears of the pope and pretender are gone by; of the latter certainly, except by arguments there seem some attempts to set up his title. But the pope has no power. It is not the power of the pope, but the power of those over-We have been told that this proposal is to whom the pope has influence, that is to be considered; and if that unfortunate person, having disgraced his reverend hand by anointing an usurper, is a prisoner in his capital, and under his authority has a communication with Ireland, and spiritual mixed with civil authority appointing the hierarchy of the country, who can deny this is a solecism in politics, and cannot be contemplated without apprehension? -But what I most disapprove is the manner in which this question is brought forward. Whoever proposes a change of so important a nature as this is, whoever proposes to alter laws, ought to explain the whole plan and the whole project. It was said that, in the consideration of restrictive laws, all that excluded persons from equal power, the onus lay upon those to shew cause who strengthen the church establishment, to produce the tranquillity of Ireland, and secure the settlement of the union; but I must look not at the professions of the proposer, but at the tendency of the project; and as I am convinced that its discussion at this improper and unfitting period will, instead of strengthening, shake the establishment of the church; instead of tranquillizing, will convulse the kingdom of Ireland, and instead of cementing the union, will risk the separation; I must beg the noble lords not at such a moment to hazard the horrors and the miseries of religious contests. The Bishop of St. Asaph.-My lords, in delivering my sentiments upon this subject, I hope I shall be able to maintain that temper of cool discussion, which a question affecting so numerous and so respectable a des pacity of being any thing in the state, but king. Now, if there would be no danger to the constitution, to admit a Roman catholic to be any thing but king, if this would be a safe thing to do, I confess it is beyond-the powers of my mind to imagine upon what scription of his majesty's subjects, a question hold of the distinction between toleration so important and momentous in its bearings and admission to political power and authoand consequences, demands.-My lords, if I rity in the state. The object of toleration is should feel it to be my duty to resist the conscientious scruples. I conceive that the prayer of this petition, my vote will not be Roman catholics already enjoy a perfect tofounded upon any uncharitable sentiments, leration. The statutes, which exclude them entertained by me, of that branch of the from offices of high trust and authority in christian family, which holds communion the state, are not penal. Such exclusions with the church of Rome. I shall easily are not penalties, and the relaxation of those find credit with your lordships for this asser- statutes would not be toleration. It would tion; I shall easily find credit for it with the be an indulgence of a very different kind. country; I shall easily find credit for it with And although I wish the Roman catholics the Roman catholics themselves. For of should enjoy toleration in its full extent, that every measure that has been brought for- they should be subject to no penalties for ward, during the time that I have had a seat any religious opinious which may be pecuin this house, for the relief of the Roman liar to them, to no restraint in the use of catholics from the old penal laws, it is well their own forms of worship among themknown I have been a strenuous supporter; selves; yet I could not, without anxiety and some measures of a contrary tendency, I apprehension, see a Roman catholic upon have strenuously and successfully resisted.- that woolsack, where my noble and learned My lords, I do not hold, that there is any friend now sits, or on the bench of justice thing in the Roman catholic religion at va- so worthily occupied by a noble and learned riance with the principles of loyalty. I im- lord at my right hand. My lords, this petipute not actual disloyalty, far from it, to the tion goes this length. It prays, that a NoRoman catholics of this kingdom at the pre-man catholic may be invested with the casent day. I do not believe that any Roman catholic of this country at the present day, thinks himself at liberty not to keep faith with heretics, nor bound by his oaths to a protestant government, or that the pope can release him from the obligation of his oath of allegiance to his sovereign. The ques-principle the act of settlement can be defendtions upon, these points, which were some years since proposed to foreign universities, and to the faculties of divinity abroad, and the answers that were returned, which a noble earl this evening read in his place, were no news to me. I had a perfect knowledge of the questions proposed, and the answers returned; in which these abominable principles were most explicitly and unanimously reprobated by the learned bodies to which the questions were propounded. And I am persuaded, that the Roman catholics of this country are sincere in their disavowal and abjuration of those pernicious maxims. I hold, that the Roman catholics of this country are dutiful and loyal subjects of his majesty, and I think them as well entitled to every thing that can be properly called toleration, and to every indulgence which can be extended to them with safety to the principles of our constitution, as many of those who do us the honour to call themselves our protestant brethren; the Roman catholics indeed differing less from us, in essential points of doctrine and in church discipline, than many of them. But my mind is so unfashionably constructed that it cannot quit ed.-My lords, my mind is not yet brought to that modern liberality of sentiment, which holds it to be a matter of indifference to the state, of what religion the persons may be, who fill its highest offices. I hold, that' there is danger to the state, when persons are admitted to high offices who are not of the religion of the state, be it what it may. And I am ready to argue this very fairly; I think in my conscience, that I myself, being a protestant, should have been a very unfit person to have held any high office under the old French government. My lords, the noble secretary of state, in the former night's debate, argued this point of the inexpediency of admitting persons differing in religious persuasion from the state; he argued it from the practice of antiquity; and he argued justly. It certainly was the policy of all the states of antiquity, to require that persons in office in the state, should be of the established religion of the country. I shall argue from the sad experience, which modern times afford, of the mischief of giving way to the contrary principle. Having said that I will argue from modern times, I may seem to be going somewhat back, if I mention the French Hugonots. But they are an instance | well remember, (and I have reason to rein point. I will say, that the Hugonots were member it, for I had a great share in that very bad subjects of Roman catholic France. business,) that when the oath to be imposed They became bad subjects in consequence of upon the Roman catholics was under con the extravagant indulgences, which, for a sideration in this house, there was some helong series of years they were permitted to sitation about the word indirectly." enjoy. They became at last so bad, that Some of us thought, that it would be pressthe French government was provoked to re-ing too hard upon the conscience of the voke those indulgences; and the cruel per- Roman catholic to make him abjure that, secution took place, which drove them from which might seem to be an appendage only their country. The persecution was cruel, of what he was permitted to acknowledge. but it was the natural effect of impolitic in- The word however was after some debate dulgence; and such indulgence may always inserted. It stands in the oath, and the be expected to terminate in such cruelty. English Roman catholic abjures even that But I rely chiefly on the events of much indirect authority of the pope in temporal later times;-of our own times. I ask, what and civil inatters. Still I fear, the line of was the real beginning and radical cause of demarcation between spiritual and tempothat dreadful convulsion, which, at this mo- ral, it may not always be easy to define. ment, shakes all Europe? What was the And I must observe, that the Irish oath is real beginning and first cause of the subver- not drawn with the same precision. The. sion of the ancient French government, and word "indirectly" is omitted. And there of the overthrow of the venerable Gallican is another important omission. The Irish church? Was it not the placing of Neckar, Roman catholic does not, so explicitly as that protestant republican, at the head of the English, bind himself to maintain the the counsels of monarchical Roman catholic protestant succession. My lords, having France?-Now, my lords, if there be danger mentioned these oaths, I must take occain admitting a protestant to any high part in sion, in justice to the Roman catholic clergy a Roman catholic government, the danger of England, to set right a matter, which I certainly must be rather greater of admitting think was inaccurately stated by a noble and a Roman catholic to any high part in a pro- learned lord, in the former night's debate. testant government. And for this reason; That noble and learned lord seemed to think, that the Roman catholic pledges his obe- that the Roman catholic clergy of this coundience, within a certain limit, to a foreign try scrupled to make those abjurations, which power, which is not the case of the pro- their laity have made. And he told your testant. I say, within a certain limit. For lordships that, when the bill for the relief of I am aware of the distinction, between the the Roman catholics was brought into parspiritual supremacy of the pope, which is all liament, the apostolical vicars put forth an which our Roman catholics acknowledge, encyclical letter forbidding the people of and his authority in civil matters, which their communion to take the oath prepared they renounce; and I believe them to be for them. Now, it is very true, that the perfectly sincere in that renunciation. But, apostolical vicars forbad the taking of that there is such a connexion between authority oath, which stood in the bill originally in spiritual matters and in civil, that I ap- brought into the house of commons, which prehend some degree of civil authority may actually passed that house.. But their obindirectly arise out of the spiritual supre-jection to the oath was not, that they were macy; insomuch that the conscientious Roman catholic may sometimes find himself hampered between his acknowledgment and his renunciation. It is true, however, that the Roman catholics of this part of the united kingdom, explicitly renounce even that indirect authority of the pope in civil matters. For the English Roman catholic swears, that he does not believe, that the pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm." I very unwilling that their people should swear to the maintenance of the protestant succession, or to the renunciation of the pope's indirect as well as direct authority in temporals; but the oath, as it was framed in the lower house, contained some theological dogmata, which they deemed, and in my judgment rightly deemed, impious and heretical. The dogmata, to which I allude, amounted to an abjuration of the legitimate authority of the priesthood, in the administration of what we churchmen call the power of the keys. Abjurations, which I, a protestant bishop, would not make, and I should impute great blame to any priest of mine, who should | longs to him, in itself is no great matter. condescend to make them. It was on account of these abjurations, that the apostolical vicars reprobated the oath as it stood in the first bill; and when the oath was amended in that part, as it was in this house, the vicars apostolic made no further objection." bishops." Most undoubtedly, they are On the contrary, when the bill had passed, they exhorted their people, clergy as well as laity, to take the oath as it now stands, and they have I believe themselves taken it. My lords, at the beginning of this debate, although I never thought of consenting to the prayer of the petition in the extent to which it goes; yet, I confess, the inclination of my mind was not to oppose the motion of going into a committee. I thought it might best become the gravity of your lordships' proceedings, to consider the subject in detail, to examine the petition, article by article. For, I hold not with those, who think that because the whole, or any thing like the whole, cannot be granted, nothing be conceded. And it was not till the debate had made a considerable progress, that my mind was changed. But I must declare, that it is now completely changed, by the representation that has been made to us by very high authority, of the actual state of the Roman catholic hierarchy in Ireland. My lords, I have long understood, that the Roman catholic clergy in Ireland were upon a different footing from their brethren here. Here the Roman catholic clergy appear in the unassuming character of mere missionaries. There are no diocesan bishops, no parish priests. England is divided into four districts, which are superintended in spirituals by four bishops in partibus, a bishop of Centuriæ, a bishop of Acanthos, &c. who take the titles of vicars apostolic, and exercise their spiritual authority with great modesty and decorum, and in a manner perfectly inoffensive to the established church and to the state. I knew that, in Ireland, each province has its titular archbishop, each diocese its titular bishop, and each parish its titular priest. But I had no conception, till a noble and learned lord informed us of it, that these titular prelates and priests claim to be the rightful possessors of the respective sees and parishes, and treat the prelates and priests of the established church as usurpers and intruders. I had no conception, that the titular archbishop of Armagh would publicly take to himself the stile of Armachens, and designate the lord primate by the simple appellation of Dr. Stuart. The withholding from the lord primate the title which be But the claim to jurisdiction, in exclusion of |