muft neceffarily be taken up on the fubject of reform, from the variety of opinions relative to that queftion, before which the crifis on which their cause is faid to depend, will probably have paffed over. Combining their caufe with that of reform, will alfo, Sir, have the effect, of uniting amongft their claim, all who were adverse to parliamentary reform. As to the objection, if they had got the franchise they would vote for those who befriended them; I think they would be very extraordinary men indeed, if they did not prefer thofe who were their friends to those whom they conceived hoftile to their wishes. It had been faid, that all claufes ftill left in the bill, operative against them, would be fo many inducements to them to unite against the proteftants to get rid of them: if this be fo, it is an additional reafon for agreeing to my idea, of not leaving one offenfive clause against them in the bill. I fhall defer offering specific claufes until the proper ftage of the bill; but they go to do away fuch oaths as at present stood in the way of the catholic being on a footing of perfect equality with their proteftant brethren, and fubftituting an oath for the fecurity of the poffeffion of property derived under the act of fettlement. This I do not do from thinking it the leaft neceffary, but that no argument of danger, even the most childish, fhould remain against their total emancipation. Mr. Maxwell.-Sir, I defire to know whether the Roman catholic bufinefs is to be hurried through the houfe before the affizes? or whether a reasonable time will be allowed to gentlemen who ftill retain fome regard to the proteftant intereft, to confider a business of fuch great magnitude, and to confult their conftituents on it? Mr. Secretary Hobart.-I truft, Sir, no man will fuppofe that I could be fo indecent as to fay that the bufinefs bufinefs fhould be hurried, but I hope it will be concluded before the affizes. Right hon. Mr. Ogle.-I hope the right hon. genman will not infift upon Friday for the fecond reading of the bill. I entreat that he will reflect upon the importance of the subject. Surely no question of this magnitude was ever fo hurried through an house of parliament; 'tis this day read a first time, in two days it will appear in print, and then in two days more we are to read it for the second time. Would it not be decent, would it not be respectful to the proteftants of Ireland, who fent us here, who entrusted their rights and liberties in our hands, to confult them upon what we are about to do? Will gentlemen recollect that they are but the trustees of the proteftants of Ireland-that this is a bold meafure indeed, and a measure which I do not think them warranted to take without the consent of their confti-" tuents. Sir Hercules Langrishe.-If the parliament of king William, if the parliament of queen Anne had a right to deprive the Roman catholics of their franchifes, we furely have a right to say, "return to the enjoyment of your inheritance, to the poffeffion of your franchife," by whatever right they can deprive, by the fame right we can reftore. Mr. J. Claudius Beresford.-I defire that the right hon. gentleman will explain himself. He fays we have a right to fay" return to your inheritance." Does he mean by this inheritance, the forfeited ef tates? Sir Hercules Langrishe.-Sir, the hon. member entirely mistakes me; I meant only political rights and franchife-no eftates. Doctor Browne.-Sir, not only lawyers, but what is of much more importance, country gentlemen, will be obliged to leave town to attend on the affizes, and therefore therefore the bill ought to be poftponed. I muft complain of the low trick admitted to be practifed on us, in that the managers of the bill had delayed it to the eve of the affizes, and juft at the time it was impoffible for gentlemen to attend to it, they are anxious to hurry it through the house. Doctor Duigenan.-The right hon. baronet certainly did use the word inheritance, which he afterwards applied to political rights: He feems to think that those rights, though the exercise of them had been fufpended for fifty years, may still be confidered as an inheritance; but he fcouts the idea of receiving any claim to eftates that have been forfeited above an hundred years. I will tell the right hon. baronet,, that the fame authority which declared their eftates forfeited, did alfo deprive the Roman catholics of political power, and he might as well call the forfeited eftates their inheritance, as call the elective franchise by that name. I affure the right hon. baronet, they will think length of poffeffion no bar to their claims-they did. not think it any in the reign of James II.-What was the first act of his popifh parliament that met in Dublin? It was an act of refumption of all the ettates forfeited by papifts in the rebellion of 1641: and if they then reaffumed their eftates, I cannot fee why they may not do the fame again whenever the parliament fhall be fufficiently popith. I therefore think the obfervation of the hon. member (Mr. Claud. Beresford) very ftrong and very feafonably made. I think it is a very odd and a very indecent mananœuvre to press this business forward thus on the eve of the affizes,, without allowing time to expofe its pernicious tendency. Sir, the houfe, inftead of two days should have at least a fortnight to confider this ( this bufinefs, to precipitate it, is to treat the protef tants with the utmoft contempt. Right Hon. Mr. Hobart. When I first introduced the subject of the bill, Sir, I fully explained its fcope and intention. Of this the house and the nation were perfectly apprized. The argument, therefore, that I defire to precipitate the meafure, and that further time should be given to confider it, must fall to the ground when thefe circumftances were recollected. Right hon. J. Cuffe. It is, Sir, extremely unjust to charge the right hon. gentleman with indecency or precipitation. The gentlemen on the other fide have repeatedly called on him for the bill, and even feemed to think him tardy: but now it was brought forward, he is reproached with indecent precipitancy. Surely there never was a man in his ftation that lefs deferved fuch a cenfure, never one who conducted himself with fuch perfect refpect and politenefs towards that house and its individual members. Mr. Egan-Sir, I am perfuaded that the Roman catholics, however anxious they might be for the fate of the bill, would yet not w to receive a boon which feemed to be the offspring of precipitancy, or the little measure of party, nor fuffer themselves to be betrayed into a refractory impatience. They were now fully aware of the difpofition of the house, and of his majesty's minifters; nor fhould their emancipati even be poftponed, I am certain their loyalty, the prudence, or their patience were not to be fhaken by the I hope, however, that government are really erious in the objects of the bill, and that the measure of poftponing the committal of it was not a trick to throw the advocates of the bill off their guard and lead them to diftant parts of the country. The question was at length put that the bill be read a fecond time on Friday next, and carried without a divifion. Friday, Friday, Feb. 22. The order of the day for the fecond reading of the Roman catholic bill being called for, Mr. George Knox, rofe to fubmit a motion to the House, in order to try whether this bill was confidered by them as perfectly meeting the gracious wifh of his majesty in his fpeech from the throne, a wifh that measures might be adopted which would gratify his Roman catholic fubjects, and he would himself ad not merely gratify, but fatisfy them in the fulleft extent; and here he begged leave to cenfure those perfons who had attributed to the introducers of reform and other popular measures, a difpofition and intention to excite that flame which this bill endeavoured to allay; for he who attributed evil motives where good intentions might be from circumstances prefumed, must speak either in ignorance or malice; it was not the genuine fpirit of human nature to afcribe the actions of virtue to the motives of vice. He recollected the proceedings of the last feffion of parliament-but that recollection only proved to him, that a public body will never act as an individual; that to refift was only to encourage them, and to refuse served merely to demand. In this feffion he wished to fhew to catholics, that the house met, not to difcufs their claims but their interefts-under no apprehenfion but that of erring, under no fear but of being unjuft, until the catholics were permane fatisfied, the conftitution would not be fatisfiedtheir claims were the claims of the conftitut was faid the catholics did not require more than the bill offered them, and therefore they fhould obtain no more. Was this reafoning for an Irish parliament? Was it not more fit for a French convention? Shall their demands be the definitive measure of conceffion, and their moderation the gauge of the liberality of parliament? He trufted that he would hear Cc It no |