giving an account of his conduct, there is a material alteration and difference in his conduct in 1805, with reference to what it was in 1801. Yet, he has so conducted himself, that it was impossible the Roman Catholics of Ireland could know that such a difference of opinion existed, or that his opinions and sentiments were not similar to what they had been. They must have concluded, from the very circumstance of his being in office, that it was his intention either to move or to support the question. I believe that idea was so firmly impressed on the minds of the Catholics, that he could not imagine. the fact was otherwise. Many persons undoubtedly thought, that there might be some circumstances which might make it proper to defer the consideration of the subject to another Session. If from prudential motives it had been recommended to them to defer the consideration of the subject to a future period, I have no doubt, that, with the opinions they entertain. ed, and the impressions by which they were actuated, they would have readily acquiesced. But when they found that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not now bring their claims forward; that the objections against them would equally apply at any given time; and that he continued in office, contrary to his own example in 1801; they concluded, as justly they might, that he had completely changed his mind. It was under that circumstance, and the impression it excited, they came to me; and now, because they have come to me, is it to be said that they have made themselves the allies of a party? (A cry of Hear! Hear! and much agitation.) I wish to know what will become of this House, and eventually of the Government, and the Constitution of the Coun try, if when those who are refused redress by Ministers appeal to men who for good reasons oppose Ministers, they are to be stigmatized with adhering to a party? (Vehement exclamations of Hear! Hear!) Are those who oppose Administration to be incapacitated, merely for so doing, as independent Members of Parliament

X 2

Parliament (Violent clamours.) Are we, the free, uncontrolled, and independent Members of this House, and the Representatives of the People of Eng. land, the first nation' on earth, to be excommunicated in our political capacity, because we are in the performance of a duty adverse to the sentiments of those Ministers whose conduct we condemn? (Continued agitation, and repeated clamours, almost drown. ed the voice of the Orator.) We talk of the excom, munications of the Pope, but can his anathemas be more unjust than those which stigmatize men as the allies of a party, who apply to us for the establishment of their undoubted rights, privileges, and immunities civil and religious, denied to them by those Ministers who ought to be foremost in granting them? (Hear! Hear! from all sides of the House.) All I can say is, that I have attentively read the history of the Country, but I have formed a very imperfect notion of its Constitution, if those who oppose Ministers, or who bring forward measures which should originate in them, are to be branded as the instruments of party, and as hostile to those principles to which our free Government owes its existence, and the Country its prosperity, importance, and preeminent rank among nations. (All the usual Parliamentary indications of applause accompanied this sentiment.) The Catholics came to me, because a better chance of success did not present itself to their hopes. (Hear! Hear!) They came to me, because they conceived, and I hope truly, that I would do justice to their cause, and because they thought I would do my utmost to be instrumental in bringing it to a successful issue. Is it to be said, because we are not sanguine in our hopes of success, that therefore we ought not to promote inquiry and investigation upon any subject? Is no man to be justified in moving a question of public concern and importance, merely becaue he does not conceive it will be carried? (Approbation from all sides of the House.) 1 beg leave to say, that I am decidedly of a different

1

opinion.

opinion. I think the House will judge, as Members of a British Parliament ought to judge, that it is their duty to pursue a question of this kind in spite of every temporary obstacle. (Hear! Hear! Hear!) I am of opinion, that whatever may be, or may have been in another place, the decision upon this question, the discussion will be productive of the greatest good to the country. The complete refutation of the number of false facts which have been advanced, must and will be attended with the best effects. I am confident that the arguments we have heard, whatever effect they may have upon this House, will have their due weight with the Public, and that' every man of common sense will see on which side the weight of the argument lies. I am confident, upon another ground, which may be stated as a ground of policy, expediency, and justice, that this discussion will be productive of the utmost benefit, because I am convinced, that if I had refused to present the Petition of the Catholics, and the impression had gone over to Ireland that there was not a Member to be found in the British House of Commons willing to present their Petition, it would have produced a state of despondency and despair in the mind of the people of that country, which would have been fatal to the best interests of the whole Empire. They would rightly, but fatally, as to the probable consequences, have judged that there was not only no party, but no individual in England, to whom they could look up with a confident hope of redress. Is it can it be necessary for me to state to this enlightened House, that a more fatal event cannot happen, or is more to be deprecated, than that threefourths of the population of Ireland should be justified in the dreadful reflection, that there is not a man in England who sympathizes with their sufferings, or who is inclined to exert himself in order to obtain the redress of them?

Although such a reflection may be turned to the extreme disadvantage of the Empire, I do trust that

the

the people of Ireland will not reason in this manner. I hope they will not say, "We have no friends in England, and therefore we must look elsewhere." (A general cry of Hear! Hear!) Yet the time has been when such an inference might have been stated with more probability than perhaps at the present moment. It has been said, "Let us finish the question for ever." When, I would ask, was it known that such a question could be finished for ever? "Man and for ever!!!" History shows us, that the most visionary notion ever entertained never went the length of implying that a question of this nature could be finished for ever. Will not the Catholics look back to the Parliament of their own Country?-Refer to the period of the year 1791-that was a period when no Member of Parliament could be found to present a Petition in their favour. In the year 1792 their Petition was presented, and it was rejected by a very large majority; the minority consisting, as nearly as I can recollect, of not more than 14 or 15 Members. It was then said the question was closed for ever. Į dare say the Gentlemen who stated that, thought the revival of the question would overturn the Protestant Government and the Established Constitution of the Country. They undoubtedly thought that the time for agitating the question was improper and dangerous, and therefore it was that they said the question was, and ought to be closed for ever. Was it closed for ever? Did the event prove that it was closed for ever?-No. On the contrary, within twelve months after the question was said to have been closed for ever, it was resumed, and a majority of that House, which had closed the question for ever, did grant the Catholics more in the year 1793, than in the year 1792 the Catholics had thought it neressary to ask. And in so doing they did right; for, if you look back to the history of this reign, you will find, that, in almost every instance, what has bec refused to the humble prayer of any class of subjects, who have considered themselves aggrieved, has been granted

granted afterwards by the fears of Government. When this country was engaged in a war with France, it was fear and imperious necessity which induced you to grant that, than which lesser claims were refused in 1792. Let me not be accused of menace, when I leave it to the consideration of this House, whether, at different periods of the history of this reign, with reference to its various dependencies, Government has not, by sad experience, found, that the best time for granting indulgences, or, to speak more properly, natural rights,would have been when they were first asked for. If this is menace, then I think prudence must be altogether banished from our consideration: there is no claim of right which may not be construed into menace. If we are compelled to satisfy the claim, and, at the same time, are to be told that the claim is menace, I ask how we ought to have acted at the beginning of the American war? How are we to warn you by the example of the past, unless it is by showing you, that, to avoid danger, you should make concessions in time? I must further observe, with regard to the objections which the Right Honourable Gentleman took in point of time, that if his particular object was to conciliate those who were hostile to this measure, not with reference to time, but principle, his objections, in my opinion, have not been very successful. I do not indeed conceive that the Right Honourable Gentleman has urged the argument in our favour with any other than honourable views; but after all the ingenious language we have heard-after all the illiberal arguments which have been advanced, all the ignorance which has been uttered, all the aspersions which have been thrown out, and all the dangerous principles which have been recommended, and attempted to be maintained, for the purpose of rejecting this question for ever; I say, that although I cannot help lamenting we could not have the be nefit of his vote, yet I rejoice that, we have the ad.

vantage