same laws continued, because the same spirit was sup posed to exist, and the same danger to be apprehended from it. In the rebellions which followed, the conduct of the Catholics in remaining quiet, gave them a just claim to the indulgence of this House; yet no man who considers the grounds of those rebellions, will think that any great degree of trust could have been reposed in the Catholics.

We come now to the period of His present Majesty's reign; a period at which all danger of a Pretender, and the return of the Stuart family to the throne, was extinguished. I should certainly say, that all danger of that nature had vanished in the latter end of the reign of George II., and that there was no longer any dispute as to the succession to His Ma jesty's Crown. From that period no further danger existed. During the Lord-lieutenancy of the Duke of Bedford, at the time of His Majesty's accession, the system of relaxation towards the body of the Catholics was adopted. There was a remarkable circumstance at the period to which I am referring, that proves to me more clearly than any thing else, that the causes of these restrictions were at an end. So far was the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, during the American war, and the war with France, from pretending that there was any danger to be apprehended, that upon an alarm on the coast of Cork, arms, though contrary to law, were put into the hands of those against whom the restrictions remained, on account of the unjust suspicions that they were not worthy of being trusted. Then undoubtedly there was a good deal of difference of opinion; for although there was not much doubt in this House, yet Gentlemen must know that the Catholics of Ireland were the subject of much consideration. I need only refer to the Letters published by the late Mr. Burke, relative to the conversations in those days. I remember in 1776 or 1777, the matter being mentioned in a conversation in this House. It became a topic of discussion during the period of the American war, when party politics ran

high, and when persons felt warm, as undoubtedly they ought to feel upon occasions of such public im, portance. The opinion then was, that it was a de, sirable thing to liberate the Catholics from the dis, qualifications which attached to them; and I rather believe that the real grounds of the motion, and of the Bill, moved and seconded by two celebrated names, Sir George Saville and Mr. Dunning, were not so much to relieve the Catholics of Ireland. I did conceive, that to bar a man of his right on account of his religious opinions, was tyranny-that the maxim of salus populi never could apply, because the safety of the people could not operate as a ground for preventing a man from enjoying his religious opinion. A great disposition was shown to follow up the system of relaxation. It was thought that what had been done might lead to a relaxation of all the laws against the Catholics. All that scattered men's minds at the time was this, an apprehension of the Pope or Pretender. There might have been in some persons sentiments of respect and compassion, and in others "an inclination to taunt or insult; but there was not one person who had any degree of fear or terror, as one single ingredient in forming his opinion. It was said, that the restrictions in Ireland, the ferocious manners of those who were Protestants, and the insults sustained by the Catholics, had produeed, as Mr. Burke says, a degree of desperation in that unhappy 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

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 conse→ quence? The power connected with the Free Trade and Constitution we gave to Ireland in 1782, has produced an increase of property beyond all propor tion greater than that enjoyed by the Protestants, There has been not only an increase of mercantile property among the Catholics of Ireland, but also of the landed property. This has been attended with the happiest effect. It has produced the effect of softening and correcting those distinctions between the Catholics and the Protestants, which were found so oppressive. The Catholics are now possessed of a great deal of that property which was taken from their ancestors. I mention this, because one of the apprehensions with respect to the Catholics was, that they had preserved memoirs of the antient state of property, and that, on a favourable opportunity, they were to claim of the Protestants all the property that belonged to their ancestors. This objection has been completely done away; for at this moment, if you were to reverse the Act of Settlement, and restore the property of those who possessed it before Cromwell's time, I believe the Catholics would be as great sufferers as the Protestants. And what Catholics? Why, the Catholics who are now rich and powerful, viz. the only Catholics to whom we would give an addition of power.

From the time of the acquisition of property by the Catholics, I have never been able to conceive on what principle their demands were not conceded to them; least of all, why particular restrictions should have been kept up, when others were abandoned. What are the restrictions now existing? The general restrictions may be comprised under these two heads : -one, the incapacity under which the Catholics lie with regard to the enjoyment of certain offices, civil and

military;

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 prerogative 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 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 fre quently used, was, that it was necessary to make the Constitution agreeable to analogy-and that when it was insisted the King should be of the Church of England, it was therefore 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 infraetion of the Constitution. But it is the most strange reasoning

3

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 been a necessary measure. The next reign was that of James II., who was a professed Catholic. If there was any virtue in other days-God knows there was little enough in his: if he had repealed the Test Act, it would have been for the purpose of obtaining the means of acting against the liberty of the subject. Then how came the laws to be continued? The continuation of the Test Laws after the Revolution, was because the Dissenters being in cluded in the Test Act, it was the object of the High Church Party to hold the Dissenters to a law which they had favoured. It was a kind of compromise, on enacting it against the Roman Catholics, to say, We will retain it against you. In this control of the Parliament, it ought to be observed how the question stands. The Test does not prevent the King from appointing a Catholic to any office, civil or military; it only makes it necessary, after a certain time, for the person appointed to do a certain act. With respect to the Catholic Dissenters, you have given it up in a great number of points, and you have maintained it in others. We come now to the distinction of those cases in which you have given 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 to be trusted by the Executive

Govern