however, is clear; that if we expect to convert three millions of people into good Protestants, it must be done by argument, and not by force. This great question has now for the first time come before us and I trust the full discussion it has undergone, and the moderation and sound argument displayed by its advocates, will not fail to have their due weight, and to conquer in due time here, as they have before done in Ireland, the prejudices existing against a measure, which, I am thoroughly convinced, would consolidate the strength, unite the attachments, and render impregnable the security of these Realms.

SIR WILLIAM SCOTT, after some preliminary observations."The Hon. Mover of this question has affected to distinguish between the Civil and Religious Institutions of the country, as if they were capable of complete separation: the practice, however, of all civilized States, has fully demonstrated that they are so intimately united, that to attempt to sever them would be in reality to destroy them. A luminous and eloquent political philosopher (Mr. Burke) entertained ideas directly opposed to such a doctrine. The attachment (he says) of the Religion of the State, with our Civil Establishment, reigns throughout the whole of English policy; not merely as conjunctive, but as inseparable; not as what may be laid aside, but as that, the union of which is the foundation of the whole Constitution.' They are so far joined, that the idea of the one almost necessarily impresses upon us the recollection of the other; and Church and State so imperceptibly flow into each other, that the connexion, even to the or gan of speech, is perfectly familiar. This fraternal relation is not a novelty in our history, it grew up.in the most early periods of it, and was firmly combined in those times when the liberties of this nation were effectually secured. After our sacred institution had endured many desperate assaults, it rose with renewed

newed strength from the conflict, and we were de stined to enjoy the blessings not only of a free but of a Protestant Constitution. In the same character in which the Sovereign appointment was given, in which the rights of the subject are declared, it was said,This kingdom shall be for ever Protestant. And "Esto perpetua" is the earnest prayer I shall offer for the safety and happiness of my country. But the principles now advanced are calculated not to preserve, but to impair the Constitution we have received from our ancestors, and to sacrifice to experiment the invaluable privileges by which we have been hitherto distinguished. By what provisions is this Constitution to be secured? By the fundamental laws of the country. What are these laws? The King must be a Protestant. He can marry none but a Protestant. Was this to lull to repose the conscience of the Sovereign? Was it for his personal comfort in this life, or his happiness hereafter, that these restrictions on his very thoughts were ordained? Certainly with no such design: it was for the protection of these Realms from the dangerous consequences of Catholic innovation. It was, in such a country as this, guarded by such Legislative precautions, with regard to the opinions of the Prince, that if no distinct provisions had been made, the general maxims resulting from established law would be, that all the Great Officers of State assisting the Monarch in the discharge of his high functions should be Protestants. It was required, that the Supreme Magistrate should be of that persuasion; and were not the representatives of his august power to entertain the same religious sentiments? In order to preserve the system inviolable, it is not only expedient, but necessary: whatever may be the si tuation or the policy of other States in this particular, in England it is prudent, from peculiar circumstances, to preserve this restraint; because, from the nature of our limited Monarchy, the Incumbent of the Throne may be in the exercise of a very small portion

portion of power; almost the whole actual authority, and the entire responsibility, may be delegated to his Ministers; and what would be the perils that might await us, if they were the slaves of the Catholic superstition? It is on such grounds that I consider it not a matter of doubt, but of conviction and certainty, that to permit these privileges to be extended to persons of the Romish Faith, would be to infringe the fundamental maxims of our Glorious Constitution. A Protestant King, surrounded by Catholic Ministers, would be a solecism in fact, as well as in law; for there must be a perpetual contradiction between the duties of the one and the other. It is an important function of the Great Officers of State to attend with zeal and vigilance to the protection of our Church Establishment; but how could this obligation be discharged by those who deem it to be absurd, pernicious, profane, and fanatical? It is true, I am not enabled, as many others are, from intimate and local knowledge, to speak to the present question; but if the premises I have assumed are at all correct, the objection to the motion before the House is paramount to all the inferior circumstances of accident and locality. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Fox), in his introductory address, told the House, that from some unfavourable events, the grants already made had not produced the effect that might have been naturally expected; and this disappointment he used as an argument for new concessions. In my mind, it operates in a way precisely the reverse: if what has been already given has not been beneficial to the persons to whom the donation was extended, there is little expectation that by them any future advantage from the present proposition will be derived. An Honourable Member, who is an eloquent advocate of the cause he asserts, (Mr. Grattan,) has intimated there would be danger of separation between the Sister

Islands,

Islands, if this motion were rejected. In such a declaration he may have said much for the courage, but very little in favour of the loyalty, of the People of Ireland. I had hoped we should rather have seen some proofs of their gratitude and attachment for what has been conceded, than any indications of disgust and alienation for what is withheld. If I may make a comparative observation on the feelings of the Catholics of the two countries, I should discover the disposition manifested by the English Papists as much the more honourable, although the Jaws now complained of are more onerous to the English than to the Irish of that profession. The proportion of Gentlemen of distinguished families, who are Catholics, is much greater among the former than among the latter; and hence the laws which restrict them from the executive and legislative situations are to them peculiarly severe. It has been said, that the subjects of that persuasion are deprived of their civil rights. True it is that one of the Princes of the House of Stuart has been driven from the Throne for misconduct; but upon what principle were his successors excluded? It was because they were attached to the Popish Religion; the Protestant Faith has become a necessary part of our Constitution, and we could not be governed by those who were inimical to it. The House has heard much of vir tual représentation, and it is pretended the Catholics of Ireland are not represented; but nothing is more manifest than that they are admitted to the complete exercise of the elective franchise: and in this respect, at least, they enjoy every privilege possessed by Protestants. I have understood that the Honourable Mover of this question is preparing the History of a very important and eventful period in the annals of this country. The favourite chapter, to which I should direct his attention with peculiar pleasure, would be that in which so enlightened an author

must

must contemplate the benign effects of the Protestant Religion, as conducive to the peace. order, and happiness of the community, and to the integrity and glory of the British Constitution. The true question now is, if the privileges granted to Catholics are to be extended? The Parliament of Ireland has acted with great wisdom in regard to this inquiry, and has granted to them all that was either necessary or discreet. But the Honourable Gentleman, on the contrary, says, Because we have given so much, we ought liberally to make them a present of the rest. The converse of this I shall rather maintain, because he cannot consider former generosity as a just motive for future prodigality. However, if more should be fit to be conceded, a reason less inconvenient might be easily discovered for the donation. The discretion of our ancestors has erected a strong barrier to protect the Constitution; but we are now required to admit the Catholics, and for this purpose to hurl down this stupendous monument of their industry and wisdom; to which I can never agree.

MR. GRATTAN explained that he had not intimated the probability of any separation of the two countries, if this motion were rejected.

SIR W. SCOTT said, he certainly so understood the Honorable Member.

MR. GRATTAN." I said, If the Parliament assented to the calumny propagated, that the Ca. tholics were traitors to their King and Country, it would lay the foundation of such a separation. It was not the rejection of the Petition, but the adop tion of the calumny, to which I adverted,”