will the Noble Viscount undertake to say, they are, at this moment, in possession of all the Irish Parliament intended they should acquire. If they are not, then gross has been the deception held out to their hopes, in obtaining their acquiescence to the Union, that their wishes could only be realized by a Parliament in this country, and must always be frustrated in that of their own. Of late, my Lords, I have not been in the opportunity of ascertaining the internal state of Ireland; but if it be such as stated by the Noble Viscount, is a grievous and wretched state indeed. Had the people nothing else to complain of, it was no small grievance that the Catholics should be excluded from all participation in legislative power; and all the eligibility to the offices and honours of the State-and if they are to be told that such exclusions are to be perpetual; then, indeed, may they truly say, that the Legislative Union with this country, was a base delusion, a rank imposition upon the people of Ireland; and as to its effects, anything but an Union. What is the principal reason why the people of this country make the greatest sacrifices for the public service with cheerfulness, but because they loved that Constitution, in the blessings and advantages of which they all share? But how, my Lords, can it be reasonably expected, that the Catholics of Ireland, deprived of that share, can love the Constitution so well, or be so zealous to sacrifice every thing in its defence? Is it not perfectly well understood, my Lords, that at the Union, they were taught to entertain the strongest reliance, that they in particular would be benefited in their political rights by the measure? And if their claims are now resisted by some of those who fostered their sanguine hopes on this point, must they not be filled with indignation? Must they not feel the sensations common to the breasts of mankind under delusion and abuse of confidence? Or, are we to wonder at those discontents and clamours which their enemies urge in ar

gument

gument against their claims? The Catholics feel themselves degraded by disqualifications below the footing of other subjects; and it is not natural they should feel easy 'under such abasement. Not only precluded from legislative power, municipal office, and professional honours in the civil departments, but they labour under another grievance, equally galling to honest and honourable feelings, in their disqualifications to hold chief commands in the army or navy. This consideration has forced numberless brave and honourable men, of high talents, into the armies of other powers, and sometimes of your enemies. Many instances of this I have had opportunities of witnessing with my own eyes.-Andcan it be doubted that this is a hardship on the Catholic as well as considerable loss to the State? For what can be more galling to the one or more injurious to the other, than that men attached to the military profession, and debarred by their religious tenets from rising to rank in their own country, should be forced to devote their services in the armies and navies of other nations, where their religious tenets form no impediment; and eventually to employ their skill, and draw their swords against their country, while they deplore the narrow and fatal policy which has condemned them to a duty repugnant to their feelings, and natural affections? But surely, my Lords, it is a most severe grievance that Catholics are deemed incapable of rank and distinction, in a profession, when they are deemed so valuable as in military life. But this is not all; for even as cominon soldiers, the Catholics who crowd the ranks of the regiments in Ireland, as the law of that country now stands, are allowed the full exercise of their religion. But move them across the Channel and it is no longer so; for in this country a positive statute compels them to repair to a house of worship, with whose forms they are wholly unacquainted, and debars them, under pain of the severest punishment, from professing, or attending the worship

of

of that religion in which they have been educated: and even officers of the same religion, the moment they set foot on English ground, become not only liable to forfeiture of their commissions, but to enormous fines at law, if they presume to attend the worship of their own church. Were it only to preserve consistency in the laws such gross contradiction should be corrected. These, surely, my Lords, are grievances that weigh oppressively on every rank and class of the Catholics in Ireland; and can it be said, that a Petition, the object of which is, to remove them, is fit to be declared unworthy of consideration? Is it not a little curious, my Lords, to observe the contrariety of objections urged against this measure? One Noble Lord says, the great body of the Catholics don't complain at all-another Noble Lord says, they complain too much; the inference from which is, that it would be in vain to attempt the conciliation of people who it is impossible to please. In corroboration to this inference, the authority of the Irish Revolutionists, Arthur O'Connor and Doctor M'Nevin, is adduced to shew, that Catholic emancipation would not please the United Irishmen. But is the authority of those perons conclusive with your Lordships in every other part of Irish affairs? Do your Lordships believe, that, granting the wishes of the people of Ireland would not take out of the hands of those who want to separate the two countries, those instruments for misleading the people which they have used with success? It was not until the multitude were persuaded that Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform could never be attained by legal means, that many, at last, in despair, plunged from disappointment into treason and rebellion.

It is said, my Lords, that the present system of laws, including the restrictions and disqualifications of the Catholics form one of the principal outworks of the Constitution, and ought to be maintained. But, my Lords, I ask, is not Ireland itself an outwork to this country? an outwork too, which, if taken, would

K

leave

leave this country bare, and expose her to every danger. Is it not then peculiarly for the defence of this country to strengthen this outwork, by conciliating the people who occupy it. The Noble Viscount has alluded to the Revolution of 1688, and the conduct of JAMES II. and said much of the share which the preservation of the Church and the hatred of the Catholic Religion had in promoting that glorious Revolution. But was it on account of the religion JAMES professed that the Revolution was effected?

or, had his various acts of despotism, no share in producing that event? Was it to compose religious differences and scruples of conscience that the Prince of Orange came over? My Lords, if such were the sole causes of that Revolution, if such were the sole motives for the introduction of that great prince, then, indeed, the triumphs which this country has always so proudly boasted in that event, and the admiration in which I and every free-minded Englishman have contemplated the glorious character of that illustrious monarch must suffer most considerable diminution. But, my Lords, I can never admit so pitiful an imputation upon the good sense of that monarch, and the spirit and discernment of the people of England in that day. It was the arbitary principles, as well as the religious bigotry of JAMES which provoked the indignation of this country. It was their civil as well as their religious liberties which the nation rose to assert, and thereby effected the Revolution. My Lords, it has been said by one of the Noble Lords, that the admission of Catholics into Parliament would give them an eventual preponderance in legislation. Possibly such an argument might be properly applied to the Parliament of Ireland, but it must be totally inapplicable to the United Parliament, constituted as it is of 658 Protestant members and in which, by no possibility could the Catholic interest in Ireland produce such a return of members, as to give any preponderance to their influence; and, if there

was any one argument in the opening speech of the Noble Baron more particularly unanswerable than another, it was that, in which he proved, that on the most exaggerated view of the increase of the Catholics, it is impossible that by their restoration to political rights, they can ever form a majority in either house. Indeed, it is clearly obvious, that their numbers in either house must be always exceedingly small. How then, I ask, can there be any rational ground for those apprehensions as to the security of property or the resumption of ancient forfeitures, so ominously predicted to result from the future influence of this visionary Catholic ascendancy? Beside, my Lords, is it to be expected that the Catholics, if they are admitted to seats in Parliament, would always act with such steadiness, as that none of them would be subject to influence or the temp tation of a place?Similar arguments were urged at the time of the Union with Scotland. The na> tives of that country were at that time, and for a long while afterwards, from the nature of their religion, supposed to have a bias in favour of the po pular part of our Constitution, and to be disposed to the extreme of popular liberty: yet, it never has been perceived that they manifested any great dispo sition, either in this House or the other, as far as I have heard, to propagate any such principles. And if any latent spark of that disposition remained in the people of that country, it is not unreasonable to suppose, that it would have been elicited by the French Revolution; which, however, never appeared to be the case. And as little reason, my Lords, appears, to my mind, for supposing that the Catholics, from any tendency in their religious opinions, are very likely to become formidable opponents to our Constitution in Church or State. But Noble Lords have said, if you grant to the Catholics the prayer of the Petition, how are you to know that it willfully satisfy them, or to say where they will stop May they not then come forward with soine new demand?

K 2

Why,