would be sufficient for the investigation, and he thought the House ought instantly to grant the inquiry.

Mr. H. Smith resisted the inquiry, because he thought no sufficient ground was laid for it; and if the matter stood over till next session no one could be injured by it.

Mr. Lockhart replied shortly, and the gallery was cleared for a division, but they did not divide. The motion was then negatived.

The Report on the Highway Bill was taken into further consideration, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 1.

CATHOLIC AGGREGATE MEETING.

The Duke of Norfolk adverted to certain resolutions pas sed at the Aggregate Catholic Meeting in Dublin, and wished to put a question to the noble viscount (Sidmouth) bearing upon the subject which was about to be submitted to the House. He had read in a morning paper, that a meeting of the Catholics of Dublin had since taken place, where Mr. Keogh reprobated the language held in certain speeches at the Aggregate Meeting; and where Lord Fingal, and another member of a noble family in Ireland, had declared their regret at having supported some of the resolutions at the Aggregate Meeting. He wished to know from the noble viscount, whether there had been any such meeting as that described in the paper alluded to, and whether the circumstances said to have taken place there were correctly -stated?

Lord Sidmouth answered, that Government had received no information whatever on the subject.

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

The Marquis Wellesley rose to submit his promised Resolution, on the subject of the political disabilities to which the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland are subject. The question, he said, had been often agitated, but never fully, maturely, and deliberately considered. The ordinary maxims of policy had been violated. The more important any question was, the greater and more powerful the body which it concerned, the more extensive the inter

ests involved in it-so much the more deliberately and attentively had that question been generally investigated: but, in regard, to the disabilities to which the Roman Catholic subjects of the empire were subjected, this course had been inverted. In their origin and in their progress, these laws had been more frequently the offspring of passion than of reason and sound wisdom; sometimes enacted under the influence of terror-sometimes of vengeance-and at other times, of contumely and contempt, combined with the operation of such passions. There had been many persons, no doubt, who acted on more honourable principles; but in the course of ages there had been much intermixture of the passions to which he had referred. These laws had never been formed into a system, to which the soundest maxims of state could be applied. The question, "how shall so great, numerous, and powerful a body, be incorporated in the state, so as to render it least injurious or most beneficial?" had never been considered as a grand whole. The code had grown up by snatches, in the most irregular manner, till it was at last brought to its present condition, in which he could not call it a system. It was no system, it did not deserve the name. The attention of their lordships had often been called to it, but the Legislature and the Government had always shrunk from it. They had refused even to entertain the question, like a person embar rassed in his affairs, who shrunk from inspection, and carefully avoided a detailed examination; and thus a subject of such vast magnitude was still left open for persons of every description, who found it for their purpose to descant upon this strange and anomalous state of the law. “Now, then," continued the noble marquis, "I would ask your lordships, is the time at last come for the deliberate consideration of this important subject? Is the season at length arrived, when we can apply our minds to the investigation, clear of those accidental circumstances, and distinct from those passions, which at various periods of our history swayed the passing of these regulations? Are those circum stances past, which induced many of us to think delay expedient? Is the time come, when the question is no longer to float on the wings of error, on the whirlwind of passion, and the tempest of foreign war-and are we at last to apply to it the maxims and policy of the Constitution? Are we at length to consider how these disabilities accord with the principles of natural justice-with the spirit of the Chris

tian religion, and above all, with that of our reformed religion? Shall we now, then, rescue this momentous subject from the hands of those who may wish to make use of it for the worst of purposes, and rest it upon those solid grounds, and sound principles, which have rendered this country pre-eminent among nations, for arts, arms, liberty, war, government, and religion? (Hear, hear!) But, my Lords, though I have said that these laws do not deserve the name of a regular and well-digested system, I have too much respect for those who may differ from me in opinion, to bring this subject before you in any other manner than in the way of regular deliberation; and I desire your lordships to look at it as you would at any proposition which I might submit to your consideration, respecting any other branch of our Constitution. I should then ask your lordships whether the system is so perfect in theory, so beautiful in symmetry, so sound in principle, so admirable in frame, and so strongly and evidently marked with the characters of wisdom, that it must be improper even to take the subject into consideration? I should next ask your lordships, whether, supposing the system not to be perfect in theory (and there are many parts of our Constitution which do not rest upon perfection in theory, but upon their advantages in practice), it is so excellent in practice, that you ought not to apply your minds to the question, whether, though the theory is defective, the system has practically a tendency to promote the best interests of the country, to secure its power, its liberty, and the authority and stability of the Established Church?-whether, in short, it is so well calcu lated to secure those objects for which it was instituted, as still to render it improper to consider the subject at all? -There is another point of view in which I should also wish your lordships to apply your minds to the question: Suppose the theory defective, and the practical consequences in some respects detrimental, is this an evil which must be endured? Is it impossible to get rid of it, or must it be submitted to, as often happens in human affairs, in order to prevent a greater evil? Are the evils arising from the prevalence of the system less than those which must follow its destruction? I should then wish your lordships to inquire whether the time at which this question is pow brought before you, whether the mode in which I have called your lordships' attention to it, whether the end of that consideration of the subject which it is the object of my resolution VOL. III.-1812. 3N

to propose, are altogether so objectionable as to induce your lordships, on that ground alone, to reject it, though the other propositions should be proved to be favourable to my view of the question? In stating the subject in this formal manner, a manner not usual with me, and so little calculated to arrest your lordships' attention, I am sensible it may be imagined that I mean to address you at very great length. This, however, I hope, will not be the case; but I was anxious to adopt this mode of presenting the ques tion to your lordships, that every Peer in the House may see what I consider to be its most important bearings, and have an opportunity of stating his objections distinctly to every point of the subject. With regard then to the first proposition, the theoretical perfection of the system, with out recurring to ancient times, and all the various causes, as detailed in our history, from which the system originated, and advanced to its present state, I shall only ask your lordships to look at it as it now exists. In England, the Roman Catholics are disabled from voting for Members of Parliament, and from sitting in Parliament, and excluded from holding any offices, civil or military. That the conduct of the Roman Catholics of England has for a long time been most exemplary, and conformable to every principle of good Government, no one, I presume, will venture to deny. Yet the operation of this system is, to subject the Roman Catholics of England to disabilities from which the Roman Catholics of Ireland are to a certain degree exempt. What, then, is the operation of the system in Ireland? There, while the Catholics are admitted to certain civil offices, they are excluded from the most important. They are admitted to the Bar, but disqualified from serving the Crown in that profession; and the lower classes of the Bar are therefore discontented, I hope not disaffected, but dis contented-and that discontent necessarily arising out of the concession itself. (Hear!) The admission to the Bar must inspire every English and Irish breast with the belief that he is deemed qualified to proceed farther; and yet here he is permitted to advance to a certain extent, and then has the mortification to be stopped in the midst of his career. In the army, the operation of the system is the same. They are allowed to reach a certain point, and when they have attained that, they find an insuperable bar to their farther progress. Such is its effects in a variety of other points. Still, however, more ample concessions have been made

to the Irish than to the English Catholics.

Your lord

ships have heard of intemperate speeches and intemperate conduct on the part of the Irish Catholics. In considering this question, my Lords, as well as others, we are bound to hear, and attend with due regard to the general sense of the people; but we are not to be dictated to by any other class of men whatever. But I have adverted to this at present, that your lordships may contrast the conduct of the English Catholics with those of Ireland: and can your lordships conceive any thing more grossly impolitic than a system which operates so much more severely upon the English than upon the Irish Catholics? I should next request your lordships to look at this system as it operates upon the Catholics in Scotland; and I ask whether, by the law of Scotland, since the year 1793, Catholics are not admissible to all offices, civil and military, in that country? That, I think, will appear to be the case. The fact is, that the English Catholics are subject to all the disabilities imposed by the system, except in as far as it was relaxed by the Act of 1791; while the Catholics of Scotland, though precluded from voting for Members of Parliament, or sitting in Parliament, are admissible to every office, civil and military. If the law of that country was examined in regard to this subject, I believe it would appear, that notwithstanding this privilege of the Catholics, they would be liable to a prosecution there, for the exercise of their religion. Such was the strange and monstrous anomaly of the system in Scotland. But how has it happened that with these superior advantages enjoyed by the Catholics, the Established Church in Scotland is still safe? The Catholics surely might have done a great deal in the period that has elapsed since the year 1793. Even the Commissioner to the Kirk might have been a Roman Catholic; though if he happened to engage in the exercise of his religion, in his way to the general assembly, he would have been liable to a prosecution. How, then, has the establishment of Scotland escaped this danger? How are we not alarmed for the consequences? I have never

heard that any ground of apprehension ever existed, or that the Church of Scotland has been in greater danger than in those parts of the empire where the system has been preserved in a higher degree of vigour, I am aware that the Catholics of Scotland are but small in number; but I wish to see the proof, that the relaxation, has inspired them with