The objection which alleges the growth of demand, naturally connects itself with this part of the subject; if the Roman Catholics get a share in the state, they will demand a share in the church, that is to say, they will desire to become Protestant clergymen. Here, however, the nature of things interposes insuperable limits; but if they mean that he will desire a church establishment of his own, they are mistaken it is what the Protestants in general wish to give him, and the Roman Catholic declines, because he does not feel that impulse in favour of a church ascendancy; because they wish to have their pastors a little nearer themselves, and less connected with the court. : Mr. Grattan, pursuing his line of argument, says, the oath and declaration framed at the Revolution, were intended to be final, parliament says otherwise; the House of Lords, in its resolution of 1705, says otherwise; in the act of the Scotch Union, it declares that the oath and declaration were not to be final; and parliament, in the act of the Irish Union makes the same declaration. In order to obtain the approbation of the Roman Catholics in favour of the Union, they were informed by parliament, that their exclusion was not final. So that instead of a covenant amongst the Protestants, against the Roman Catholics for their final exclusion, there is a covenant between the same against their final exclusion. The rigour of the acts directed against the Roman Catholics. was intended against such as refused to abjure the temporal power of the pope. Now this description does not comprehend the present race of Catholics, and therefore they do not come within the meaning of the act of exclusion, as declared in the act of 1793. Of the petitioners against the Roman Catholics I know, and personally regard many; but I would ask them, do they really think their fellow subjects should be excluded on account of extreme unction? certainly not: for transubstantiation ?-certainly not: and yet their application, if strictly taken, would, for no better reason, deprive them of their civil rights for ever. They will observe, also, that there was no law against the admission of Roman Catholics into the Irish parliament at the time of the Revolution, nor did any law take place till near one hundred years after. They have then chosen a period as the standard of their rights, when the Roman Catholics were not excluded from seats in parliament by law, and when the whole country was deprived of trade and liberty, by power. After a considerable number of detached observations on various topics, Mr. Grattan concluded his speech in the following manner : Our prince is, on the part of his father, the supreme head of the church; we are his national council, and have a right to advise him. I avail myself of that privilege, and say to him, My Prince, my Master, you must take the lead in the deliverance of your people. Your predeces sor, sor, the Plantagenet, conquered on the continent, so have you; but then they confirmed the great charter thirty times: your other predecessor, the Tudor, saved Holland; but then she passed good laws without number: the Hanover, and under your direction, has carried Europe on his back; but then a great work still remains for the fulfilment of this glory, a fourth part of your subjects are now before you. Come, the destinies of the house of Hanover are waiting for you; come, be the emancipator of the Catholics, as you have been the deliverer of Europe, and look in the face the Plantagenet and the Tudor. I move, Sir, "That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider the state of the laws by which the oaths or declarations are required to be taken, or made as qualifications for the enjoyment of offices, and the exercise of civil functions, so far as the same affect his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and whether it would be expedient in any, or what manner to alter or modify the same, and subject to what provisions and regulations." Mr. Croker now rose to second the motion, in which he said that he owed some apology to the House for venturing to solicit its attention at so early a stage in the debate, but he trusted that an apology would be found in the nature of the considerations which he had to offer to its notice. The statute which the hon. gentleman found prescribing the oaths at present existing as the principal one now in force on this point, is the first of Geo. 1st, which provides, that all persons holding any office, civil or military, or any place of emolument ortrust, shall, within three months after they shall have entered upon any such place or office, subscribe in one of the courts at Westminster, or at the general quarter sessions of the peace, the oaths in the statute set forth, namely, the oath of allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of abjuration. By a subsequent act of 9th George 2nd, it is provided that, instead of the period of three months given by the statute of George 1st, a period of six months shall be allowed for qualification; and farther, that the declaration against transubstantiation enacted 25th Charles II, shall also be made at the same time. From this time commences a new series of legislation on the subject, for, from the extension of the period allowed for qualification, the wisdom of parliament has been pleased annually to pass an Act of Indemnity, which reciting the acts, imposing the oaths of qualification, and the declaration against transubstantiation, enacts, that any person who may, before the passing of such an act, have omitted so to qualify himself, shall not be liable to any pains or penalties for such omission, provided he shall qualify before the 25th of March next ensuing. If (says the hon. gentleman) with all the attention I have directed towards this subject, I should have failed in unravelling its details, if no research research can guide us, and if no authority will direct us to a clear view of the true state of the law, I ask, confidently ask, is it not high time to have a committee of investigation? Again-What, on all creatures, is the effect of the lash, but to make them pursue their course with a blinder, and more headlong fury? Jealousy and severity may have produced distrust and disaffection; but by the very same operation of our nature, moderation and kindness must generate mutual confidence, and a reciprocity of affection. regular convention sitting like a parliament in Dublin. By their secretary they promulgated their declaration, of which their whole demand was limited to the four following objects: admission to the profession and practice of the law; a capacity to serve as county magistrates; a right to be summoned, and to serve on grand and petit juries; and the right of voting in counties only for Protestant members of parliament. This ultimatum of Catholic desire was conceded to them; but in two short years afterwards, they approached the Irish parliament with such fervency of entreaty for admission into both houses of parliament, that Lord Fitzwilliam, then lord lieutenant, declared in a speech delivered after his recall, that the Irish Catholics would go into a rebellion if they were refused. Mr. Leslie Foster opposed the concessions to the Catholics on various distinct grounds. The first was the actual state of the Protestant feeling in Great Britain, which, he said, was not ambiguous, at least could not be contradicted in that House. His second ground was the indisposition of the majority of the Protestants in Ireland to entertain such an idea, which, from undoubted authority, he contended to have been very inconsiderable. A third case is the feelings of the Roman Catholics themselves. The Relief bill, of 1813, were in search of expressions to mark their execration of it. They pronounced it to be a law of penalty, and preferred to it their present state of exclusion. The clergy in their pulpits, and the bishops in a solemn synod, declared that they could not submit to it without incurring the guilt of schism; and that, with the blessing of God, they would lay down their lives for it. In 1792, the claim for political power was advanced by the Lord Normanby next rose, who highest Catholic authority, a authority, a after strongly expressing his feel The right hon. gentleman concluded with saying, the church of England has grown with the growth of our civil freedom, been overcome when it was overcome, and triumphed when it triumphed. Like our civil constitution, it is a happy mixture of whatever there is safe and beneficial in the opposite extremes of liberty and power, adopting the free spirit, though not the tenets, which marks the church of Geneva, but tempering it by retaining the principles of supremacy and episcopy. And never be it forgotten, that in Ireland it superadds the additional claim to your present protection, that in all times past it has been your tenure of the island. ings in favour of the Catholics, said, in conclusion, I shall rest their case principally upon this point can any man sincerely and solemnly affirm, that he believes the safety of the state requires the continuance of the present system? Let that man, and that man only, vote against the present motion. Other persons spoke for and against the present motion; at length, the House having been cleared, amidst numerous cries for the question, there appeared, Ayes, 241; Noes, 243: Majority against the Motion, 2. In the House of Lords, on May 17th, the Earl of Donough. more rose, in pursuance to notice given, to call their lordships' attention to the petitions, praying for relief to the Roman Catholics; and in furtherance of this object, he submitted to their lordships a resolution to the effect that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider the state of the laws which inflict civil disabilities on account of religious opinions, particularly in so far as those laws deprive his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of the exercise of their civil rights; and in how far it may be expedient to alter or modify the same. The earl then entered into a consideration of the manner in which the Catholics were still fettered; and he said, if the House went into the committee, he should propose, in the first place, the repeal or modification of the declaration oath, a great part of which amounted to a denial of doctrines, held, by those who believed them, to be the great truths of the Christian religion; and in the second place, to obtain the repeal of the oath of abjuration. The oath of supremacy, he thought, might remain. He concluded by moving the resolution stated in the beginning of his speech. The Bishop of Worcester strongly declared against the claims of the Catholics, and protested against bringing them within one single step of putting their church in the place of the establishment. The Bishop of Norwich held the opposite opinions; and said that it was the duty of the House to let England cease from this day forward to be the only coun try in Europe where intolerance was established by law, where religious opinions excluded from civil office, and where men were obliged to surrender their rights for the sake of their conscience. The Bishop of Peterborough asserted that it was not merely on account of any difference in abstract opinions between the petitioners and themselves, that they thought their religion a ground of exclusion; but because opinions, abstract in themselves, are coupled with other opinions which are not so. Having considered this question in reference to the state, he next considered it in reference to the church, and dwelt with some force upon the dangers which might attend it under a papal establishment. The Lord Chancellor thought that in the present question, the real point at issue was, not what would satisfy the Catholic alone, but what would or ought to satisfy the Protestant. What security by oath could the Catholics give which could recon cile the king's supremacy in things temporal, with the pope's supremacy in things ecclesiastical? To him it appeared, that out of all the plans proposed to parliament since the commencement of these discussions, none of them were practicable; because, if we were to believe the recorded history of the country from 1660 to 1688, it would be seen how systematically the Roman Catholics pursued the accomplishment of their own objects, and the destruction of the national church. If the House looked to the sentiments which were avowed and expressed by the Catholic church during the whole reign of Charles the 2nd, it would see the necessity of the present disqualifications, and how strongly that necessity was impressed on the minds of the whole nation. At the latter part of the two periods alluded to, it was resolved that this country should have a Protestant king, a Protestant parliament, and a Protestant government. Such was the great principle parliament ought always to have in view, holding in due reverence that right of all men derived to them from God, that they should not be persecuted for religious opinions. After a considerable range through various sentiments, his lordship said, that he should betray his duty to his sovereign, who by law ought to be a Protestant, to the people, who were Protestants, to the two Houses of Parliament, who by law ought to be Protestants, were he not decidedly to oppose such motions as that brought by the noble earl, unless the Catholics were, in the first instance, to declare. and prove that they had renounced those doctrines which rendered their admission to a full participation of the rights of their fellow subjects, dangerous to the tranquillity of the state. Earl Grey, who had already made up his mind to the support of the noble earl who was the mover of the question, said, that in due deference to the noble and learned lord's authority, he felt it incumbent on him to contest some of the points which that lord had endeavoured to establish in support of his own opinions. What, he said, was the meaning of the expression, that the constitution established at the Revolution was essentially and fundamentally Protestant? He, himself, could find no other meaning than that it was not contained in the great charters of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement. If, however, it could be shown that they were securities established, not at the Revolution, but at periods previous and subsequent to that event; if none of them were ingrafted in those acts which formed the charter of our constitution; if it could be proved that they arose from particular circumstances and the exigences of particular times, then the whole of the noble and learned lord's argument would fall to the ground. The first of the acts to which he had referred was the Corporation Act, passed in the first year after the Restoration. The object of this act was, not the exclusion of the Catholics, who, at that period, had seats in parlia ment, |