vantage of his discountenancing what, he must feel, reflects as much honour on his principles four years ago, as disgrace now. His vote undoubtedly would have been of advantage to the country; but his speech is of much more advantage. It is not merely the vote of the Right Honourable Gentleman that would be important; but it is of consequence, that in England, Ireland, and every part of the British Empire, it should be known, that the opinion of men in power, or likely to be in power, or whose authority or interest is looked up to with confidence, is favour able to the cause to which the vote of the Right Honourable Gentleman is adverse. I wish we could have had his vote, but I thank him for his argument; and this brings me to another part of his conduct. The Right Honourable Gentleman says, that he finds not only now, but that three or four years past, the public opinion was contrary to mine. If he had brought forward this question when he was out of office, he might have stated some grounds which would have made it less dangerous to be encouraged than at the present moment. If he had stated that fact, and the public had seen that most of the consi derable men in Parliament were of one opinion, though his opinion would have done much, yet the argument would have done more, and the public opi nion would not, perhaps, have taken the turn he tells us it has: whether it has taken that turn, or not, I doubt; I own I see no symptom of it. There are unquestionably very respectable bodies of men, some of whom have given their sentiments contrary to the opinion I profess: but that there is a generally prevailing opinion adverse to mine, I cannot suspect; I cannot think, that, among rational men, the advantages which present themselves on the one hand, and the dangers which menace on the other, can be overlooked. The claims of the Catholics are not only consistent with the principles of the Constitu tion, but consonant to its vital spirit; and I hope

and

and trust the public opinion will ultimately be led by reason to that point, to which if it is not led, I am sorry to say, we shall not have the full and effective force and physical strength of the United Empire. If ever there was a time when it was necessary we should have its entire exertion, it is the present. This is a period when all our energics are called into

action.

Toto certandum est Corpore Regni,"

But who can say the Country has the effectual advantage of the Corpus Regni, while one-fifth of its inhabitants are deprived of those privileges they' ought to enjoy, and without which, to them, the Country is nothing? But the argument is taken two ways: first, you say you have no fears from the Catho-' lics, that if you trusted them they would be loyal and that, therefore, what danger is to be apprehended from them? I would answer, "Give to them, then, what they claim, as the reward of their loyalty." Are we to argue without reference to the general principles of human nature? The proper way to weigh the justice of an argument is by the scale of common' sense, and the feelings of mankind upon the subject :but if the argument drawn from the loyalty of the Roman Catholics is to be used against them, to their prejudice, I can only say, that it is more disgraceful to the Public than even to the speaker. They, say these Gentlemen, I mean the Roman Catholics, are loyal; I truly believe they are so-nay, I believe thats even if you refuse their claims, many in their zeal, public spirit, and loyalty, will go far beyond what they can' fairly be called upon for but can I expect as much from the generality of the Catholics? Do we not say, that our Country being under the freest Constitution in the world, the Subject enjoys the greatest degree of Civil and Political Liberty, terms which imply no difference, except that the word Civil is derived from the Latin, and the word Political from the Greek. (A laugh.)

Y

(A laugh.) Do we not enjoy the most important privileges of any nation in Europe? We boast that we shall be able to make exertions against the enemy, that the Subjects of Arbitrary Governments cannot be expected to make. Why is this? It is because we are fighting for Laws that are our Laws-for a Constitu tion that is our Constitution-for those Liberties and Sacred Immunities which no other Country under Heaven possesses the advantages of fighting for. If, Sir, such are the grounds on which, under God, we trust so much to for our success, do they not apply with equal force to another Country, or rather another part of our own Country? And do you not suppose, that those who fight for greater privileges, will exert themselves more than those men who are deprived of the civil and political advantages enjoyed by their fellow-citizens? If the same exertions cannot be expected by those who are deprived of the privileges to which they are entitled, what do we gain by the disabilities we impose on them? You put the Country in the situation in which you are com pelled, of necessity, to confess, you have no other expectation than that of comparative exertion. I ask you, whether that is not the true state of the case with regard to the Roman Catholics of Ireland? I will not urge further than I did when I opened this subject, the argument, that the privileges bestowed upon the higher orders of People are, in point of fact, enjoyed by the lower. No answer has been given to the argument, and therefore I must take it as a principle admitted. No one has attempted to contradict the opinion that the lower orders are in-, fluenced by the advantages and the privileges bestowed on their superiors. Those who recollect the debates, two years ago, may furnish their minds with as strong an illustration on this subject as any argument can possibly produce. It was two years since an Honourable Member, then Secretary at War, brought in a Bill for raising an army en masse. After

having explained the details of the Bill, as it applied to Great Britain, he did conclude with a short sentence, which every body well understood, and with regard to which no one thought any comment was necessary. The sentence was to the effect, that it was not thought expedient to apply the Bill to Ireland. It would certainly have been indiscretion, in the true sense of the word, either to have applied. it to Ireland, or to have commented on the reason for not applying it. Why? Because it was well known that the mass of the People of Ireland were not like the mass of the People of England-because they consisted of two divided parties, in the lower of which you could not have the same confidence as in the higher; and therefore it was, that in England, the levy en masse, which constituted the best security of the Country, was in Ireland looked to as its greatest source of danger. I will refer Gentlemen to the Bill for promoting our Military Force and National Defence. I remember, in the course of one day's discussion, relative to the Force in Ireland, at the time of the Debate, compared with the period of the Treaty of Amiens, that a statement was made of so much cavalry, so much infantry, so much artillery, and so many fencibles. It was then admitted on both sides, that with regard to such and such regiments, there was a circumstance that made them more particularly useful to the Country-that circumstance was, that there were no Irish among them. (Violent clamour.) It was stated and admitted, that for the reason I have mentioned, there were two or three regiments as available as four or five. Apply this to England, or to any other Country that is well governed; would any body say that our military force was strong, because it consisted of foreigners, or that it was weak, because it was composed of Englishmen? Would you not argue, that so much the more would be expected from men who were fighting for their own country, their homes, their fortunes, and all that was dear to them? Why is the argument different

with respect to Ireland? Why do you wish to have reginents in Ireland with, as few Irish as possible? The argument is this, and you may reduce it to a syllogisin, of which the major is, "Every man is most to be depended upon in proportion to his in terest in the Constitution. The minor is, Englishmen are most interested in their Constitution; ergo, the conclusion is, Englishmen are most to be depended upon." Apply this, on the other hand, to Ireland, and, altering the terms of the syllogism, the conclusion will be the reverse; the minor will be, that the Irish Catholics are the least interested in the Constitution; and therefore they are the least to be relied on to defend it. Is it on this principle you would have your regiments in England composed of Englishmen, and in Ireland not composed of Irishmen? Who are so little interested in Ireland as the Irish Roman Catholics? None. Yet such is the state of that Country, in which you say nothing is to be obtained by gaining over the hearts and energies of three-fourths of the population. It is said, Are not those Noblemen and Gentlemen who compose the higher class of the People of Ireland, loyal? If they are, why would you give them any thing to make them more so? I would give them the same interest in the Constitution of the Country which others have, and then I may reasonably expect similar exertions from them. We say it is little for them to gain, and much for us to give. They say it is much for them to gain, and little for us to give. What is it we give? All we give away is political power. To whom do we give that power? To the Catholics. -Who are the Catholics? Our Fellow Subjects.(Hear! Hear!)-I come now to the objection as to the particular form. It is objected to giving hopes to the Catholics, because it is said, How can I desire the House to go into a Committee, if I do not know that the Committee will support me in all the points in favour of the Catholics? Has not this objection been answered, even by what has been said on less important

4