pressing the claims of the catholics of Ireland to the consideration of this house, I am not pressing them as adverse or hostile to the power or pre-eminence, much less the liberty, or privileges, of the subjects of any other part of the country. If I could persuade the house to do justice to the catholics, I should persuade them to render a most important service indeed, perhaps the most essential that remains to be done, or that ever was done, for the security, the greatness, and general weal of the empire, whether with regard to its internal policy, or external relations.-It may be somewhat difficult for me to choose on what part of the subject it is most proper to begin. The plain and simple statement of the question, and the first argument in support of it, would naturally be drawn from matter of fact, concerning which no controversy or difference of opinion ever did or can exist; I mean the number of persons who are affected by the question. If I had not heard that different opinions were entertained with respect to the policy and expediency of granting the prayer of this petition, I should hardly think it could be a question, whether a portion of his majesty's subjects, so considerable as nearly one-fourth, should be on a footing with the remainder, or should have the enjoyment of equal laws, privileges, or advantages, and the full participation and benefit of the constitution and government of the country? Against the principle so generally stated, cause may be shown, suppositions may be urged, and facts may be referred to, with a view to show that this, as well as any other general principle, may be liable to error. I will not detain the house long upon this point; but it is necessary I should call its attention to a topic, which may be considered more an object of theory than any thing else. I shall trouble the house but shortly, and only explain my opinion, that, whatever difference of sentiiment and feeling may exist, that difference is purely theoretical-the question, in point of practical application, is precisely the same. What some call rights, and what others call indulgences, are precisely and exactly the same. The differences are rather differences between words than things.There are two modes of considering this question; 1st, as it regards the rights of the subject; and 2dly, as it affects the rights of the crown. That which was most in fashion at different periods of the last century, was the latter mode of viewing it. For my own part, I do consider the rights of the people governed to be the prominent rights. I consider, that those who compose the society of a state have a complete and unquestionable right to equality of law; but I do at the same time admit, that this principle is not to be taken generally. I admit the force of the other general maxim, that salus populi suprema est lex, and ought with propriety to be considered as an exception. Not only very able men, but men of prac tical knowledge, have in their closets considered it in that light. A most respectable modern writer of our own country, now living, (Dr. Paley) has stated, that the general right of government is to do whatever may be necessary for the advantage of the people: but he, and every man of sense, will tell you, that although this is undoubtedly the general right, yet whenever it is exercised by restrictions with regard to one class of the people, such exercise becomes an abuse; or, in other words, the people have a right not to be restricted in any thing that is not adverse to the safety of the country. The people have a right to be exempted generally from unequal restriction; but when the safety of the country demands it, and history shows us that such instances are numerous, they are exceptions to the rule, and have always been so considered.—In the way in which different persons consider this subject, a difference of opinion has been produced, but the conclusion is the same. Some say they would give the catholics what they require, as a matter of favour, and a matter of policy; but not as a matter of right. Now, I say, I would give it to them as a matter of right: but we, however, shall not differ, if the practical consequence of our reasoning come to the same thing. I would give it as a right, because it is the general right of the people, and because there is no exception which ought to operate against the catholics of Ireland. Though government has a right to impose restrictions; yet, if there be no necessity for them, then comes the right of the people to enjoy the benefit of every law, provided such enjoyment is not mischievous in its consequences to the country. It was therefore, sir, I wished to say these few words, because it is so important a part of the subject, and one which, from the na ture of it, cannot be à question to-day, but may recur and become a question for future consideration. I should wish that all should understand each other, and particularly that it should not be supposed there is any essential difference, when, in fact, it is a difference of words rather than of prin- that, where the circumstances on which a ciples. Whatever differences exist with re- law is founded have ceased, the justice of spect to the two theories, it is evident they continuing that law can be a matter for fair lead to the same practical consequences. reasoning. It may so happen, though I To apply this to the Roman catholics of think it has not so happened in this case, Ireland, I do not lay down a principle too but it has nearly happened, that the fact of large, when I state that it is the general long restrictions may make it difficult after- ́ right of the catholics, as well as of the pro- wards to restore the objects of them to that testants, to be on an equal footing, to have situation in which they would have been if equal laws, privileges, and immunities, in the restrictions had never been imposed. I all cases where they are not prejudicial to think one may generally state, that all the the welfare of the state. The only differences restrictions of the catholics were laid, not that could arise would be with regard to the on their religious but their political opinions. degree in which they should enjoy those At the time they were made, I have doubts rights. Cases might be put where persons whether many of those who concurred in might say nothing could justify a departure them did not disapprove of the principle; from the rule of right, but expediency. and I have doubts also, whether others did Some might say, political advantages, con- not mix sentiments of persecution and rannected with external relations, would justify cour with those restrictions.. I would not it; others would require such a degree of wish to go to antient times; but in the expediency as would amount to a necessity. early period of the reigns of Queen ElizaThey would require that not only the great- beth and James I. no one can suppose it was ness of the country, but the security of the any particular religious bigotry that led to country, should be concerned. I flatter the restrictions with regard to the catholics. myself we shall not go on such near shades. As far as one can learn of the character of The Roman catholics of Ireland have un- Queen Elizabeth, her faith was not so redoubtedly a right to equal laws; but the pugnant to the catholic religion as that of government has thought fit to curtail that many protestant ministers, who were prinright, and to put them on a footing disad- cipally concerned in the restrictions. She vantageous to them.-To enter into the managed the question with a degree of question, whether the laws for restraining prudence which proved her one of the most the catholics were originally politic, or, ra- consummate princes of the age. She seemed ther, whether they were just; that is to to be engaged in a general war with several say, whether the policy which dictated them great catholic powers, and particularly with was of such a nature as to render that just the King of Spain. From the connexion which was not within the general rule of which the King of Spain had with the cajustice, would be a discussion exceedingly tholics by the league with France, she was unnecessary at this moment. At the same necessarily involved in disputes with France, time, it will be necessary to attend to the as well as other powers of the continent; particular period of history in which these therefore they were political circumstances restrictions were principally imposed. I which occasioned those harsh and severe think I need not state what will be the ar- laws against the catholics which passed in gument in reply. No man's mind, I hope, her reign. Whatever other pretences might is so framed as to imagine that the restric- have been resorted to, it is plain the cations can be justified on account of the tholics were not considered as the loyal sublength of time they have been allowed to jects of Queen Elizabeth. But I am speakcontinue. Such an opinion would be a so-ing of old times, and the circumstances of licism in political reasoning; it would do away the original principle on which such laws were founded, to contend, that though they might be unnecessary at the time they were adopted, yet that, by a long lapse of time, they have acquired a prescriptive light. If a restrictive law is made on account of peculiar circumstances of a political nature, the moment those circumstances cease, the restriction ceases to be politic, and consequently ceases to be just. I cannot conceive how any man can be justified in supposing them do not relate to the present. Even in the reigns that followed, very few restric tions by penal law were enacted, very few restrictions of disabilities took place till a much later period. This may be accounted for from the circumstance that there was no suspicion of the catholics; but afterwards, in the time of the Stuarts, and Charles I. and II., suspicions had taken possession of the minds of the people of this country, which made those restrictions necessary, many of which have been done away, and * 3 Н 2 : some are now under consideration. When thought that more lenient measures were we come to the revolution, it is impossible likely to be more successful. The effect not to see that all the laws of the catholics proved that the measures adopted not only were political laws. It was not a catholic, failed, but they were of a nature which but a jacobite, you wished to restrain. When rendered their success absolutely impossible King James was driven from the country; They were laws which, though nominally when his enormous tyranny became so against the catholics were substantially against mixed with bigotry, that many persons pro- the jacobites. In the two next reigns the fessed to be able to unravel his conduct, and same laws continued, because the same spi tell what to attribute to religion, what to rit was supposed to exist, and the same bigotry, and what to tyranny, it was easy danger to be apprehended from it. In the to suppose that the catholics si ould be ac- rebellions which followed, the conduct tuated by an attachment for a king who had the catholics in remaining quiet, gave them lost his throne in consequence of his par- a just claim to the indulgence of the house tiality for their faith. Ireland at this time yet no man who considers the grounds was the seat of civil war. Undoubtedly it those rebellions, will think that any degree was natural, after that war was settled by of trust could have been reposed in the conquest, to prevent the conquered from catholics.-We come now to the period enjoying the privileges of the conquerors. his present majesty's reign a period at It was not against the religious faith of those which all danger of a pretender, and the who adored the Virgin Mary, or believed in return of the Stuart family to the throne, the doctrine of transubstantiation.-King was extinguished. I should certainly say, William was unquestionably a great man; that all danger of that nature had vanished I may say the greatest that ever filled the in the latter end of the reign of George II., throne of this or any other country; but and that there was no longer any dispute as whoever would wish to raise his character, to the succession to his majesty's crown, by representing him as a persecutor of he- From that period no further danger existed. resy and idolatry, materially mistake the During the lord-lieutenancy of the duke of character of that prince. I am persuaded, Bedford, at the time of his majesty's acthat he most reluctantly consented to harsh cession, the system of relaxation towards measures against the catholics of Ireland, the body of the catholics was adopted. There and only did so, because it was represented was a remarkable circumstance at the period to him by his ministers, that they were ab- to which I am referring, that proves to me solutely necessary. That King William more clearly than any thing else, that the would have acted wiser, if he had made causes of these restrictions were at an end. those restrictions less harsh, it is not now So far was the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, our business to consider. King William, in daring the American war, and the war with conceding his own to the opinion of others, France, from pretending that there was acquiesced, on the ground of the difference any danger to be apprehended, that upon of opinion among the Roman catholics as to an alarm on the coast of Cork, arms, though the right of succession to the crown, and in contrary to law, were put into the hands conformity to that advice which his ministers of those against whom the restrictions regave him. The years that followed the re- mained, on account of the unjust suspivolution were most of them years of war; cions that they were not worthy of being and those that were not years of war, were, trusted. Then undoubtedly there was a good with reference to the catholics, years of a deal of difference of opinion; for although suspicious nature. Endeavours were made there was not much doubt in this house, to bring about a religious war, in which it yet gentlemen must know that the cathowas impossible for the enemy not to have lics of Ireland were the subject of much looked with confidence to the assistance of consideration. I need only refer to the Ireland, and therefore the catholics were letters published by the late Mr. Burke redisarmed. It might have been wise so to latiye to the conversations in those days. do. That there were bigoted motives ac- I remember in 1776 or 1777, the matter tuating some I will not attempt to deny being mentioned in a conversation in this there were many persons in this, as well as house. It became a topic of discussion duthat country, who were of opinion, that by ring the period of the American war, when these persecutions they should convert to party politics ran high, and when persons the protestants the property of the whole felt warm, as undoubtedly they ought to kingdom of Ireland; others there were, who feel upon occasions of such public im portance. The opinion then was, that it tholics of Ireland, but also of the landed was a desirable thing to liberate the ca- property. This has been attended with the tholics from the disqualifications which happiest effect. It has produced the effect attached to them; and I rather believe of softening and correcting those distinctions that the real grounds of the motion, and between the catholics and the protestants, of the bill, moved and seconded by two which were found so oppressiye. The cacelebrated names, sir George Saville and tholics are now possessed of a great deal of Mr. Dunning, were not so much to relieve that property which was taken from their the catholics of Ireland. I did conceive, ancestors. I mention this, because one of that to bar a man of his right on account of the apprehensions with respect to the cathohis religious opinions, was tyranny, that lics was, that they had preserved memoirs of the maxim of salus populi never could ap- the ancient state of property, and that, on a ply, because the safety of the people could favourable opportunity, they were to claim not operate as a ground for preventing a of the protestants all the property that beman from enjoying his religious opinion. longed to their ancestors. This objection A great disposition was shown to follow up has been completely done away; for at this the system of relaxation. It was thought moment, if you were to reverse the act of that what had been done might lead to a settlement, and restore the property of those relaxation of all the laws against the catho- who possessed before Cromwell's time, I be→ lics. All that scattered men's minds at the lieve the catholics would be as great suffertime was this,—an apprehension of the pope ers as the protestants. And what catholics? or pretender. There might have been in Why, the catholics who are now rich and some persons sentiments of respect and com- powerful, viz. the only catholics to whom passion, and in others an inclination to taunt we would give an addition of power. From or insult; but there was not one person the time of the acquisition of property by who had any degree of fear or terror, as the catholics, I have never been able to conone single ingredient in forming his opinion.ceive on what principle their demands were It was said, that the restrictions in Ireland, not conceded to them; least of all, why the ferocious manners of those who were particular restrictions should have been kept protestants, and the insults sustained by the up, when others were abandoned. catholics, had produced, as Mr. Burke says, are the restrictions now existing? The gea degree of desperation in that unhappyneral restrictions may be comprised under people, which made it doubtful how far they were to be trusted. The effect of the system had been that of changing, by degrees, the whole property of Ireland, and that country was brought into a state highly to be lamented, I do not mean to make any comparison between the treatment of the black slaves on the coast of Africa, and that of the people of Ireland; I mean only to state, that it was a circumstance likely to produce the general disaffection of the people, that the whole of the property was in the hands of the protestant ascendancy, while the mass of the population was catholic. Even among those whose forms of government are less free than ours, the property and power should go hand-in-hand, and there should be no other distinction except that of the proprietor and the servant. We began by enabling the catholics to acquire property. What has been the consequence? The power connected with the free trade and constitution we gave to Ireland in 1782, has produced an increase of property beyond all proportion greater than that enjoyed by the protestants. There has been not only an inCrease of mercantile property among the ca What these two heads: one, the incapacity under which the catholics lie with regard to the enjoyment of certain offices, civil and military; the other, the incapacity of sitting in either house of parliament. Gentlemen who have attended to all this history of the restrictions of the catholics (sorry I am to say, a large chapter in the history of Great Britain,) need not be told, that it has been useless with reference to the ends proposed, and certainly odious to those who have been affected by it. I believe it is not considered by foreigners as that part of our constitution which is most deserving of admiration. The two heads of restrictions are quite distinct. Suppose I proceed to consider, first, that with respect to offices; the restrictions under this head go either to limit the pre rogative of the crown or the choice of the people. We restrain the prerogative of the crown in appointing the catholics to certain offices: let us examine on what ground. Originally the test act was for the purpose of excluding the catholics from the service of Charles II., to prevent catholics being appointed by Charles II. to executive offices: and here a very whimsical but strong up the restraint. You have given it up with regard to all subordinate offices in the army and navy, and in the profession of the law, but you refuse it with respect to the higher offices. Then you say to the catholics, "we have kept nothing from you as a body; you do not all expect to be chancellors, generals, staff officers, admirals, or other great officers; therefore, as you do not all expect to arrive at these distinctions, there can be no harm in forbidding any of you to obtain them!" Do you wish the Roman catholics to be actuated by a sense that they are trusted by the executive government, or not? If not, and you should, in giving them offices, appear to entertain diffidence and mistrust of them, they will be executed with that remissness and disregard of the public service which such mistrust is calculated to inspire. Suppose I send to a gentleman of the law, and I say to him, it is true you may possess talents, but do you think there is any probability of your being lord chancellor? He might probably answer, that there was not; but is there not a very material difference in having an impossibility and bar put to the advancement of a man to the honours of his profession? Suppose a person is engaged in trade, and he can gain a bare living, or perhaps save about twenty pounds a year. I say to him, observation occurs. One of the most popular arguments in favour of the test, with a view to the restraint on the prerogative, and I have heard it frequently used, was, that it was necessary to make the constitution agreeable to analogy; and that when it was insisted that the king should be of the church of England, it was necessary all his officers should be of the same persuasion. What beautiful uniformity there is in this, I own I cannot see. I apprehend that our ancestors reasoned in a very different manner. I apprehend it was not because we forced the king to be a protestant, that we found it necessary to have his officers of the same religion, but because we doubted whether the king was in reality a protestant or not, 'and because we suspected him of a design to overturn the constitution of the country, as in the case of James II. If we suspected him of being a catholic, it was right we should not suffer any officers to be near him who might assist him in an infraction of the constitution. But it is the most strange reasoning I ever heard, that because the king being a protestant, and therefore not liable to suspicion, you are to prevent him from having the assistance of his catholic subjects. This test passed in the reign of Charles II., and with the approbation of a very great man (Mr. Locke), who observed, that it might have" you may go on, and be as industrious as been a necessary measure. The next reign you please, but you shall never make more was that of James II., who was a professed than 1,000,000l." He says, he is contentcatholic. If there was any virtue in other ed. Well, but does any one think that this days-God knows there was little enough in country could have arrived at the height it his if he had repealed the test act, it would has, if there had been such a restriction on have been for the purpose of obtaining the the exertions of industry? It is not bemeans of acting against the liberty of the cause a man's quality is low, that he is subject. Then how came the laws to be prevented by the exercise of his faculties continued? The continuation of the test from becoming wealthy; but if you limit Jaws after the revolution, was because the his endeavours, you destroy the spirit of dissenters being included in the test act, it enterprise and exertion which impels him, was the object of the high church party to and, by such a system finally prevent his hold the dissenters to a law which they had success. Do you not think it would be the favoured. It was a kind of compromise, on most destructive blow to the enterprise, inenacting it against the Roman catholics, to dustry, and energy of the country, and say, we will retain it against you. In this undermine the principal source of our riches, control of the parliament, it ought to be to put a restraint on the exercise of a man's observed how the question stands. The test genius and industry? Do we not often hear does not prevent the king from appointing of a person, not of consequence either from a catholic to any office, civil or military; birth or fortune, say, Í live, thank God, it only makes it necessary, after a certain in a country, were, by industry and talents, time, for the person appointed to do a I may arrive at the fortune of the greatest certain act. With respect to the catholic duke in the land." Is not this cheering? dissenters, you have given it up in a great Is not the unlimited power of gain the great number of points, and you have maintained principle on which industry, enterprise, and it in others. We come now to the distinc-commerce exist? What should we say if men of tion of those cases in which you have given particular descriptions were to be restricted ia |