All was forgotten, while the particular antagonist only was remembered. The prime order of natural and revealed religion is the love of our fellow creatures. Formerly, when the two sects were at war, two things were unavoidably suspended-the blessings of the constitution, and the duties of the gospel? But were those blessings and duties to be suspended for ever? The contest was now terminated, and the effects of that contest ought also to be at an end. The answer was imperfect allegiance and incapacity to moral obligation; and the reply to that was, that those who made the charge did not believe it. They did not believe it in the 17th of the King, when Roman Catholics were declared good and loyal subjects: they did not believe it when they gave Catholics the right of voting they did not believe it when, two years ago, they gave them commissions and commands in the army and navy: they did not believe it when the right of legislating was given to Catholics in our colonies: in short, to answer the purpose of the day, the Pope had been carried upon our backs, had been represented as a mighty and dangerous power capable of withdrawing the allegiance of the King's subjects; and then again as a poor driveller, incapable of bringing a musket to his defence, and strapped to the war-horse of a great captain, as a means of conquest and an instrument of delusion. The antagonists of the Catholics did not believe their own argument, when they aided in the restoration of the House of Bourbon, and made Catholicity formidable, by securing it one of the most powerful nations of the world. It was clear, therefore, that they had not at all times held the Catholics as a faithless and perfidious church, but had preferred it as a better and safer guide of hu man action than a rueful and desperate philosophy; they had thought Christianity, even with certain forms and ceremonies, better than irreligion and infidelity. Accordingly, the different Princes of Europe, Catholic as well as Protestant, combined together to revive it. Were foreigners then to be supported in the exercise of their religion, while those who practised it among our own country were to be persecuted and punished? But it was said, that if the Roman Catholic clergy were restored to power, they would seek to overturn the Government; that they would urge the laity to misapply their restored rights, and at the hazard or certain loss of life revive Popery, and exterminate Protestantism. That position was founded on a principle fundamentally false: it supposed that all mankind would scorn all hazards to procure the domination of the church; that men were more deeply in love with religion than with themselves; nay, it was carried further; it was asserted that this passion was so strong, that he would prefer the power of the church to the gratification of every other passion: in other words, it was to insist that man was born a fanatic; that every man was mad. It must therefore be argued, on the other side, that such a man as Dr Poynter (and a more excellent man did not exist,) meditating treachery, would go to the Duke of Norfolk (who having obtained all the privileges his heart could desire, would of course be hatching treason also,) and would tell him, that being now invested with political power, he would be naturally inclined in the first instance to attempt to subvert the Government, and use his influence to make him (Dr Poynter) Bishop of London. Of course, every man of sense and discernment must see the probability that the Duke would immediately concur in a sug gestion which was inevitably to end religion. It was a gross error to suppose, that by the grant of the claims one church could be endangered. Upon the French revolution, when the power of the Romish church was pulled down, and France ceased to be a champion for her rights, the Roman Catholics were under a peculiar odium; but now, when there was set up in Europe a system of religious toleration, it was surely reasonable to expect that there should be no political disqualification on account of religious opinion. It was said by the enemies of the Catholics that the principles of the revolution rendered them incapable of partaking in the administration or legis ature of the country, and that the declaration was decisive on that subject. The revolution was a human arrangement: it was a victory over bad principles, the victory of liberty over tyranny: and when the Roman Catholics were admitted to a participation in the principles of political freedom, they had an equal right to the enjoyment of religious liberty. With regard to the declaration, it should be recollected that the House of Lords, at the time of the Scottish union, considered whether it was final or not, and determined that it was not final, but provisional. The act of union itself declared that it was not final but provisional. The Irish union too declared that it was not final, but provisional: the act of Parliament made it provisional to rescind the disabilities imposed or the Catholics, so that it was not always provisional, but conventional. It was, in fact, a covenant between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, that the exclusion of the former should not be final. The elements of the British constitution were not necessarily Protestant. The House of Lords was not necessarily Protestant, nor was the House of Commons. Who were the Commons? They were the third estate of the realm, the electors of a great portion of whom were Irish Catholics. So far from being purely Protestant, a Roman Catholic might sit and vote in that House, because his taking the oaths at the bar was not conforming. But it was said that it was now impossible to enfranchise the Catholics. It seemed then, that to take away their liberties was an easy process, but to apply to remedial laws was impossible: facilis descensus Avern: *; sed revocare gradum -hic labor, hoc opus est. If the Roman Catholic religion was such as it had been represented by its enemies, then the British Government had given idolatry a new footing in France, and had subsidized it in another quarter. With regard to the act of supremacy, which required the abjuration of any foreign jurisdiction, he was of opinion that it ought to be repealed; and as to the oath of abjuration, he thought, from the oaths which the Catholics had already taken, that they could have no difficulty in taking that, un der certain explanations. Thus, of the two oaths which at present excluded the Catholics, the one might be explained and the other repealed. When the question of the admission of a Catholic to office related to the law of the land, it was to be considered whether it would be convenient; but when it related to the law of God, whatever was religiously good must be politically safe. Another objection was, that the desire of the Catholics to establish their own religion would destroy their allegiance. In answer to this, it was only necessary to refer to the examples of allegiance in Catholic countries. Again, it was said, that the Eoman Catholic church swears, expugnabo persequarque ad internecionem, and that therefore they may be expected to persecute the Protestants. By returns made in December last, it appeared that the proportion of Protestants to Catholics of the British population was as 6 to 1-a proportion amply sufficient ever to secure the permanent and free exercise of the Protestant religion. It had been said, that if the amendment in these laws should be effected, a general change of property would take place in Ireland; but it could not take place more in Ireland than in England; landed property in that country would be transferred in the same way as here; if Catholic property increased, it would be in consequence of purchases. It never could be made matter of precedent; it never could be meant that they should go back to former statutes to prevent the Catholics from purchasing freeholds. A noble lord (a minister) in the year 1807 first introduced a bill to enable Catholics to hold certain ranks in the army and navy, and two years ago another bill was submitted for the same purpose. It was read a first and second time; it was read a third time, and passed without any opposition, and went up to the Lords; not a single objection was started, and the mitre nodded unanimous approbation. The bill passed into a law, and the result proved the reasonableness of the claims preferred by the Catholics, and the emptiness of those clamours which had so long disqualified more than one-fifth of the people.-After a few more remarks on the beneficial effects produced by this concession, and the refutation of all the predictions of the exclusionists, the honour It is odd that this often-quoted passage is almost uniformly quoted wrong; every body writing" Averni," which is nonsense, instead of “ Averno,” which is both sense and construction. able gentleman concluded by moving the appointment of a Committee for the purpose already specified. short summary of the laws against Papists; of which the President Montesquieu"-Here, exclaimed Mr Croker, was the greatest authority in France added to the greatest authority in England-"observes, that they are so rigorous, though not professedly of the sanguinary kind, that they do all the hurt that can possibly be done in cold blood. But in answer to this it may be observed, that these laws are seldom exerted to their utmost rigour; and, indeed, if they were, it would be very difficult to excuse them: for they are rather to be accounted for from their history, and the urgency of the times which produced them, than to be approved (upon a cool review) as a standing system of law." This, said Mr Croker, was not the dictum of a lawyer, it was the wisdom of a statesman. Mr Grattan was followed by Mr Croker, who, in an able and elaborate speech, contended for the propriety, expediency and justice of going into the committee. He entered at great length into the history of what may be called the exclusion laws, conceiving it necessary to state what the law actually was at the moment when both England and Ireland were anxiously looking to the result of their decision. In the course of this review, he endeavoured to shew, that many of the most severe and arbitrary of these laws had been virtually repealed; and, therefore, that Parliament were now only called upon to interpose, and expunge from the statute-book oaths and disabilities which time, and the progress of liberal opi-"The restless machinations of the nions, had, in a great measure, abrogated. In maintaining these opinions, and declaring his sincere conviction that the period of concession had arrived, the honourable gentleman declared, that he acted, not as an advocate of the Catholics, but of the Church of England. He was, he said, employed in her service, and endeavouring to throw down those fabrications from which her enemies could more successfully annoy her. He was clearing the ground that surrounded her commanding edifice of the remaining little bushes and hedges and ruins that might render the defences of the place precarious. Taking then the Church of England for the most magnificent edifice which the combination of the wisdom and goodness of Providence had formed, he called upon that House to accede to the right honourable gentleman's motion. He begged leave to read to the House a passage from a writer of great authority and great eloquence, Mr Justice Blackstone : "This is a Jesuits during the reign of Elizabeth, the turbulence and uneasiness of the Papists under the new religious establishment, and the boldness of their hopes and wishes for the succession of the Queen of Scots, obliged the Parliament to counteract so dangerous a spirit by laws of great, and then perhaps necessary, severity." The honourable member here remarked that Mr Justice Blackstone had only ventured to say, that the severity had perhaps been necessary:-"If a time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant, when all the fears of a Pretender shall have vanished, and the power and influence of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despicable, not only in England, but in every kingdom of Europe".He surely had this period in view, the honourable member remarked, and uses the very words which I should now use, if I possessed his eloquence-" it probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these rigorous edicts; at least till the civil (this word he carefully printed in italics to show his view of the principles that were dangerous) principles of the Roman Catholics called again upon the Legislature to renew them." Follow (proceeded Mr Croker) the wisdom of our ancestors; walk in the same paths. Were we afraid of the Roman Catholics? In the time of the Gunpowder Plot; in the time of Charles II.; in those times when they had been active, mischievous, and powerful, we had put them down, and exercised great severity over them. Now they afforded no cause of alarm, not one symptom of hostility; why should they be excluded from the equal rights and privileges of subjects? They were not legislating for abstract beings. In a political view he contended for the claims urged by the Roman Catholics as equally safe and wise. By granting their reasonable claims, their loyalty would be confirmed. It was the nature of persecution to make its objects pursue their own way with greater vigour. A system of jealousy and severity to wards the Roman Catholics would naturally produce distrust and disaffection; concession would be accompanied with mutual confidence and united attachment to our happy constitution. The Speaker having read the motion, and put the question upon it, Mr Leslie Foster rose, and said, that he was quite astonished by the speech of his honourable friend. His honourable friend had discovered, a. mong the secrets of acts of Parliament, that the Roman Catholics had been in possession of the privileges so much in dispute for more than a century. A Roman Catholic might be Lord Chancellor, or preside at the head of any office, and sit in Parliament, although of this last his honourable friend was less certain. He took leave, as a lawyer, to say, that he differed from him entirely, and would state one circumstance which appeared to him sufficient. He did not think that the act of indemnity had any reference at all to Roman Catholics. The preamble states, that "whereas absence, ignorance, or unavoidable accident," &c. may have prevented. Now, with Roman Catholics, it could be neither absence, ignorance, nor unavoidable accident, for it was a moral impossibility in their case. The indemnity act generally passed early in the session, about the 1st of March. It contained no prospective provision. Six months are given, but these six months elapsed before the next repetition of the indemnity act, and in the meantime it would be in the power of any common informer to subject the offender to great and severe penalties. In England, the execution might be put off till a new act of indemnity should be passed; but it could not be so in Ireland, where the case could only be traversed to the next quartersession. This circumstance his honourable friend should have adverted to. The privilege of a seat in that House rested upon grounds quite peculiar. Not only must the oaths be taken before the seat can be occupied, but they must have been taken at a previous stage. Not only were not six months allowed, but six minutes were not allowed, to consider whether they should or should not be taken. The House, however, was not now met to deliberate upon the interpretation of existing laws, or to reconcile the contradictory provisions of 150 statutes; he would therefore take the liberty to make a few observations on the merits of the question, and in doing so he could not but refer, in the first place, to the feelings of |