stances to be safe and wise? But the code of laws devised for Ireland, in the reigns of Anne and her successor, without the slightest pretext or justification, whilst Ireland was in profound tranquillity, and the catholics had given unquestionable proofs of their loyalty, were a direct violation of the articles of Limerick, which compact was guaranteed by king William the Third, and in violation of all good faith as well as sound policy and humanity; and under that unparallelled code of oppression did Ireland suffer for near a century. And not only were those laws devised in the worst spirit of persecution and tyranny, and executed with atrocious severity, but it is quite notorious that, whether they were or were not intended to exterminate, they certainly were not intended to convert, the people of Ireland; and this we have from the very highest authority. Archbishop King, writing confidentially to his friend, says, that the taking any effectual measures to convert the nation, was discouraged by the principal persons in authority, and violently resisted in council. Such was the system of those who sought to profit from the calamities of that unfortunate country. Upon the doctrinal points of this question, having already troubled the house at such length, I shall forbear to enter; besides, to that branch of the subject I consider that the calmer discussion of the press is more suitable. It has moreover been, since the last debate on the subject, most satisfactorily and successfully treated in various publications. I would particularly refer to one by an honour. able baronet, a member of this house (sir J. C. Hippisley),, who, in addition to his own valuable, enlightened, and judicious arguments on the subject, has furnished authorities most important and conclusive (which any man who means to vote on this question ought to be ashamed to have left unread), and which cannot leave a doubt remaining as to the perfect safety of admitting the catholics to full civil privileges; nor can I believe that any man now supposes that the acknowledgment of the spiritual supremacy of the pope can at all disqualify a catholic from being a perfectly loyal and faithful subject in this state. If, however, no sense of sound policy or justice can enforce relief to the catholic, at least pressing danger of the state should suggest the consideration, whether the physical force of Ireland is in a state to authorise us to confide in its aid. Our formidable enemy will have com

bined against us almost the whole strength of the continent. Our insular situation precludes our augmenting our force by an extension of territory, and we can look for it alone in bettering the condition of our people, and increasing their attachment to the state. A late measure, putting in requisition the whole active population of this country, bespeaks the sense ministers entertain of the danger. The population of this country is not adequate to the demands of industry; but in Ireland there is an immense surplus of population, the most prone to war, and the most eminently qualified for it, of any in the world. To attach such a population to the state is of incalculable importance. Procure the affections of that people, and the emperor of the French, who understands war and national character, will never invade you. With that people united and zealous, and with such a country, a descent upon Ireland would be the most desperate of all enterprizes secure their fidelity, and that portion of your empire would be not only impregnable but unassailable. But, if the danger of the country or the importance of Ireland, cannot make a due impression, I would still appeal to the feelings of the house and say: What right have you to leave the protestants of Ireland on that invidious and dangerous eminence on which the penal laws place them? I call upon you to relieve them from the pitiful and pernicious superiority derived from worshiping God in one place instead of another. If the catholics are dangerous subjects, in what predicament do we stand who inhabit the more catholic parts of Ireland, where none of the ordinary operations of the law can take effect but by their aid and co-operation? If the catholic mind be hostile, as their enemies would represent, to what are we to look for protection in the hour of danger? When our numbers are as one to a hundred, are we to arm ourselves with the penal laws? But these very penal laws are the danger. The county which I inhabit gives a practical contradiction of their utility. There, where the catholic population so much predominates that, as an enemy, resistance to it would be vain, mutual good-will and confidence between protestants and catholics have suspended the operation of the penal laws. And what was the consequence? that during the invasion and rebellion, that county remained tranquil and loyal, and the army was withdrawn from it. But in other parts the spirit of those

laws is in full operation, perpetual jealousy and broils are the consequence, and an iniquitous proscription is exercised. These laws, whilst they exist and take effect, will extinguish toleration in private life; which that illustrious man, Mr. Burke, in his view of this question, considered! one of the worst of their consequences. His great friend, Dr. Johnson, also somewhere distinguishes political frem social toleration, and considers the latter as more important; and certainly with justice, because it mixes, more with the transactions of life, and thereby has greater influence on human happiness. But history and experience tell us that they cannot exist separately, and that without political, we cannot have any security for social toleration. I would therefore implore you to release the protestant from the deplorable power of tyrannizing over his catholic fellow-subject. But above all, let. us avoid to impeach our religion, by attributing to its spirit the continuance of these laws. Whilst we are ransacking history to condemn an intolerant spirit in the church of Rome, let us not, at this enlightened period, justify such a reproach on that church which sprung from resistance to intolerance. What was the language of a protestant bishop above a hundred years ago when Rome was powerful? Speaking of the toleration act, Burnet says, "It was thought very unreasonable, whilst we were complaining of the cruelty of the church of Rome, we should fall into such practices amongst ourselves, chiefly while we should need the united strength of the whole nation." I shall leave the application to the gentlemen opposite, and only call on the house, now that no danger from the power of the pope can be imagined, not to suffer the remnant of those pernicious laws any longer to disgrace your statute-book.

Lord Castlereagh objected on public grounds to this repeated discussion of one of the most delicate and important subjects that were ever submitted to the consideration of the legislature. After defending his own motives and principles, and the motives and principles on which his late right honourable friend had acted with respect to the catholics, he proceeded to observe that the principle of the honourable gentlemen opposite seemed to be this; to promote and agitate the catholic claims when they were out of power, and to compromise and abandon them when they were in power. When his late right honourable friend had failed in convincing the catholics of

the propriety of postponing their claim, the honourable gentlemen opposite cried out for a full and complete concession; but the moment they got into place, this full and complete concession dwindled into an insignificant bill, which they attempted to persuade the catholics was a great boon; and in a few days after, they were prepared to abandon even that trifling measure, they appeared disgusted with their work, and put the bill into their pockets. After this transaction, he could not but admire the magnanimity, he would call it, of the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Windham), in coming forward in the way in which he had done. For his own part, he was convinced that every unsuccessful discussion diminished the probability of success which the catholics enjoyed. He certainly had been one of those who thought, that a concession to the catholics, made immediately after the union and under proper guards, would have produced considerable harmony in Ireland. He had no difficulty in admitting, that the language used in discussing the measure of the union, might have led to an expectation, that it was intended to make some concession to the Irish catholics; but he denied most positively that either the parliament or the government of Ireland was ever pledged to such a concession. He also denied that if such a concession were now, or at any future period, made, it could be made on constitutional grounds alone, or could be claimed by the catholics as a right. On the contrary, it was a mere question of political expediency and liberality. Never could the claim be urged with propriety against the general protestant feeling; and that that feeling was strongly expressed on the present occasion, he was perfectly satisfied. He thought therefore that the honourable gentleman by whom the motion was made, would have acted more wisely if he had waited until a more auspicious period. The honourable gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Windham) had said that opinions were daily changing. Certainly that honourable gentleman's opinions, or rather, perhaps, his declarations, were very fluctuating, and nothing was more admirable than the personal bravery. with which he encountered his own sentiments. But it would require more ingenuity, even than that honourable gentleman possessed, to reconcile his conduct to public interest or to public principle.

Mr. Windham, in explanation, said, that the change

which he referred to was in the feelings of many of the Irish protestants on this subject; he had not used any argument to reconcile his own conduct with respect to the question, nor had he thought any was wanted.

he and his friends attempted to keep back the subject, they had done it in a way the most conciliating to the Irish catholics; and if the question should be pressed, they had reserved to themselves a right to speak and vote upon it as they had ever done.

Lord Henry Petty was disposed to concur with the wish of the right honourable gentleman on the other side (Mr. Canning), that this question should be discussed with that temper and moderation with which it had been introduced. How that wish had been complied with in the quarter from, which it proceeded, he would leave the house to judge. But he could not justify it to Himself to pass the matter over without any notice whatever. If the gentlemen opposite wished to conciliate the population of Ireland, it was a very extraordinary way to gain their object, to sit silent when they preferred their claims. Whether that silence was contemptuous or not, he did not know; but he was certainly not surprised that those who advocated the claim, and had to answer to their constituents, should be disposed to consider it as contemptuous. There was another reason why he could not altogether sit silent, and that was the mode in which the conduct of the late ministers with respect to this question had been adverted to by the right honourable gentleman and the noble lord. It had been asked, why they had not brought forward this subject when in office? He would tell the noble lord that it had not been brought forward now by any member of the late government; it had been brought forward by the catholics themselves, whose petitions lay on the table. He would allow, if the noble lord could make any thing of that, that it was not the wish of the late administration that the question should. be urged; but their object had been so to deport themselves as to induce the catholics to forego their claims for a time. But if the catholics should have still urged them, they would have expressed themselves and voted on the subject as they really thought. Therefore he said, that the members of the late administration had not brought forward the question; but it being brought forward, they spoke and would vote according to VOL. III.-1809.

2 A