ger to be believed. To add to the absurdity, you frame another oath, to keep out of Parliament those very persons of whom it is said you must not believe that which they swear. This is really at once

insulting to the understanding and the feelings of mankind. It is more than a generous and ingenuous mind can be expected patiently to bear. I shall not pretend to enter into controversial arguments on the question of doctrine. Indeed, that is a subject respecting which I own I have neither sufficient learning nor patience to fit me for the discussion; but if I had as much of both as the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I am sure his example would deter me from undertaking so arduous a task. When I consider the state of religion in Europe, of which perhaps three-fourths of the inhabitants are Roman Catholics, I am astonished that such opinions respecting that religion can be maintained. Is it possible that any man can be found bold enough to say of threefourths of the inhabitants of civilised Europe, that they are not to be believed upon oath? Such an assertion implies, that Roman Catholic Nations are not only incapable of the relations of peace and amity, but unfit for any of the relations of society whatever. The existence of any such maxim supposes gross ignorance and barbarism in the people among whom it prevails. Every enlightened mind, every man who wishes well to his country, must treat it with scorn and indignation.When a Bill was some time ago introduced respecting the army, I objected to the oaths it contained, on the ground that it was not fit to ask any man to take them; but it will be extraordinary indeed, if those who insisted upon prescribing these oaths should now turn round, and declare that they will not believe them when taken. When the Petition I had the honour to bring into this House was first read, the clear and temperate statement of the case which it contains appeared to make a deep impression. I think I could see Gentlemen say to themselves, This is not the way I used to think of

the

the Roman Catholics. No, certainly not. It is not the way in which many used to think, because they had received false impressions from persons who perhaps had an interest in misleading their judgment. But it has since been whispered, that the language of the Petition signifies nothing, because it is subscribed only by Laymen. I can assure the House, however, that there is no ground of any suspicion on this account. The reason why there are no names of Priests at the Petition is, because it relates only to civil rights; on this account only, clerical persons thought it would be improper in them to subscribe it. The oath, however, has been taken by all the Archbishops, Bishops, and most of the Priests of Ireland; and if it be thought necessary that it should be taken over again, it will be taken. I, however, have always regarded the administration of the oath as improper, and I recollect having some difference of opinion with a late Noble Friend of mine on this subject-I mean Lord Petre-from whom, had he sat in the House of Lords, the Established Religion of this Country would have had nothing to fear, for he would have only obtained more frequent opportunities of displaying his sincere attachment to the Constitution. His Lordship defended the oath, because it afforded the Roman Catholics the opportunity of publicly contradicting the calumnies reported against them. I said, that that might be an object with him, but it was none with me, and that I did not wish such a law to remain on our Statute-book. Having stated that I entirely disapprove of this oath, I must, however, inform the House, that I have at this moment, in my pocket, a letter from several of the Archbishops and Bishops, declaring that they have taken and signed the oath. They also declare, that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrines or faith of the Roman Catholic Religion, and that it is to be taken equally by the Clergy and the Laity; but foreseeing that the fact of the oath being taken might be questioned, certificates have been sent from the Courts

E 2

Courts before which it was administered. It is in these Courts, therefore, a matter of record, and the authority of the fact is completed. It is said, that since the Roman Catholics have already got so much, they ought not to ask for more. My principle, however, is directly the reverse. It is natural that men in a state of servitude should wish to recover their rights; that they should desire to assimilate their rights with those of their fellow-citizens, in order that they may acquire a greater degree of similarity with them. It is their ambition to be no longer slaves, but to become men. They ask this; and until they obtain all they want, they have comparatively gained nothing. It would be to shut your eyes to all the evidence of history, to suppose that you could impose upon men an obligation not to look forward to the complete acquirement of their rights; from the moment they began to enjoy any of them, they must aspire to be on a parity with the rest of their fellow-citizens. The better argument is, that having already conceded so much, what remains is nothing to you to give. Nothing can be more absurd than the conduct which is adopted towards the Roman Catholics. You admit the lower orders into the Army and Navy, and you prevent the higher from rising to that rank they might expect to attain. You put arms into the hands of men, who, if the French were to land, might be, from their want of knowledge, influenced to do you mischief; and yet you will not trust Lord Fingal, or his brother, with a command. You rely, however, it appears, with confidence, on the loyalty of the ignorant and the prejudiced, and you intrust them with arms. Of which class of Roman Catholics are you afraid-the higher, or the lower? You do not trust those whose property gives them an interest in the country, and whose superior knowledge and information teach them to prefer the Government of their country to every other; but you rely on the ignorant and uninformed. You place in the hands of the latter the means of insurrection,

you

rection, and take from the former the power they would have, by their influence, to repress commotions. But though you have little to give, what they have to ask is to them immense. You have left them much power to do you mischief, and have afforded them little means of doing you good. Though they require only Qualification, Corporation, Parliament, and Offices under Government, the object is of great magnitude to them. It is founded on the great principle of requiring to be placed on a footing of equality with their fellow-subjects. Equality of rights is one of the principles which is dearest to the human heart, and it is one which the laws of Great Britain, to their immortal honour, sanction. In whatever country that principle prevails, it produces the greatest of blessings. That country is truly happy, where, in the language of a great modern poet,

"Though poor the peasant's hut, his feasts though small,
"He sees his little lot the lot of all;

"Sees no contiguous palace rear its head,

"To shame the meanness of his humble shed."

If a people are placed in a state of humility and degradation, can it be said, that to get out of that situation is to them nothing? But the confusion which prevails on this question has arisen from mixing politics and religion, two things which it has always been the wish of the wisest philosophers and statesmen to keep distinct and separate. It is with great concern I have heard, that some eminent Members of the established Church are hostile to the proposition I have to make; but I have some consolation in reflecting, that person enjoys as high a reputation as any member of the Church, and for whose character I have the highest veneration and respect—I mean, Dr. Paley. He observes, "It has indeed been "asserted, that discordancy of religions, even supposing each religion to be free from any errors "that affect the safety or the conduct of Government, is enough to render men unfit to act to

66

gether

"gether in public stations. But upon what argument, or upon what experience, is this assertion "founded? I perceive no reason why men of differ"ent religious persuasions may not sit upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same ranks, as well as men of vari"ous ous or opposite opinions upon any controverted topic of natural philosophy, history, or ethics." Dr. Paley considers restraints only justifiable on account of political opinions, which may affect the safety of Government. In endeavouring to state the case of exclusion, he says" After all, it may be "asked, Why should not the legislator direct his test "against the political principles themselves, which "he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them "through the medium of religious tenets, the only "crime and the only danger of which consist in their

presumed alliance with the former? Why, for example, should a man be required to renounce Tran"substantiation before he be admitted to an office "in the state, when it might seem to be sufficient "that he abjure the Pretender? There are but two "answers that can be given to the objection which "this question contains: first, that it is not opinions "which the law's fear so much as inclinations, and "that political inclinations are not so easily detected

66

by the affirmation or denial of any abstract propo"sition in politics, as by the discovery of the reli"gious creed with which they are wont to be united: "secondly, that when men renounce their religion "they commonly quit all connection with the mem"bers of the church which they have left, that church "no longer expecting assistance or friendship from "them; whereas particular persons might insinuate "themselves into offices of trust and authority, by "subscribing political assertions, and yet retain their "predilection for the interests of the religious sect "to which they continued to belong. By which " means Government would sometimes find, though "it could not accuse the individual, whom it had "" received

2