1

their sentiments. If the gentlemen opposite thought they could prevent the feelings of three or four millions by such an argument, he could not see the utility of it. But they thought that they could put the question in their pockets, that it was to be produced when it sited them, discussed when it suited them, and kept back when it suited them. And then, as to the consistency of which the noble lord had boasted, it amounted to this: when they went out of office for not being able to carry this question, they then said that it ought not to be discussed. It drove them out once there was no help for that; but they would take care that it never should do so again. He wished he could adopt the noble lord's notion, that the circumstances were such that this question night very well wait the convenience of those who were so desirous of having no discussion upon it till it suited themselves. But it was a feature not to be overlooked in the present situation of the country. It was admitted, that prospects had been held out to the catholics by the language that had been used at the time of the union. This was all they could have then, for the case allowed of no particular act. That must come after; and now the expecfations of the catholics ought to be fulfilled. When the question was brought forward, they owed to the catholics the expression of that sentiment, and he would never Vote contrary to his feeling and belief. When he voted in conformity to these, he would leave the house to judge, whether "the mean and time-serving feelings" were characteristic of those who voted in this manner, or of those who thought one way and voted another (hear !).

With respect to the particular question, it had been so admirably treated by his honourable friend, that he could add nothing to what he had said. The answer given was, that the point had been decided two or three years ago; and an attempt had been made to shew, that there was no difference in the circumstances. But when the protestants of Ireland, who were on the spot, and must be the best judges of the danger, had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to comply with the catholic claims, and so far altered their former opinions,-if this was not a change, he did not know what could be called one. had been said, that the state of Europe was dangerous before: but was it more dangerous since? and was not the situation of the papal power now such as to do away

all apprehensions that might have been entertained from that quarter? How were the catholics to be judged of? It could only be by their profession and their practice. As to their profession, they rejected every doctrine that could form a ground of complaint against them, nay, it was admitted even by those who opposed them upon this occasion, that their obnoxious tenets had been renounced by what had been granted them already. But if this was disbelieved, it only remained to look at their practice. With all the bad effects that had resulted from the events of the last fifteen years, there was this good one: that much prejudice had been done away. Was it by a papal bull that Germany had fallen? could the pope save her Most Faithful Majesty from banishment? was the papal power efficaciously exerted in any of the great events which this eventful period had produced? Bu it might be said (and he believed that there were some who thought so) that the Irish were much more retentive of prejudice than the catholics on the continent. Supposing this to be true, to what was it owing, but to the bad policy which had been adopted with respect to Ireland, and the resistance to those conciliating measures which had softened down the catholic character in every other part of the world? It was not by persevering in such a system that we were to expect to concilitate the Irish catholics. It became us at last to abandon that harsh mode of proceeding which experience had proved to be so mischievous, and to adopt that more kind and conciliating method which had in other places been found to I be attended with the most beneficial effects.

He could not leave this without adverting to the connection which appeared between the conduct of ministers on the present occasion, and the system which they pursued with respect to Ireland. When he considered that not only were these claims refused, but even education and other benefits were studiously denied them, he confessed that this had great weight in determining his vote. Every allusion made to the subject by a right honourable gentleman (Perceval) whose opinion seemed to predominate in his majesty's councils on this point, referred to an experimen: of conversion; an experiment of which the good effects, supposing it to succeed, at best inust be very remote; while the danger resulting from it,

and from the situation in which the catholics were held, was immediate and pressing.

Sub ipsum funus, immemor sepulchri,
Struis domos.

Much might be done by conciliating measures, and we had gone too far in toleration to stop short. If the ca tholics were admitted to the army, the navy, and the bar, and did not object to the prescribed oaths, what evils could result from admitting them to the highest situa tions? He had said so much out of regard to the peti tion of three or four millions of our subjects, rather than from any hopes of convincing those whom his honourable friend's speech could not convince.

Sir John Cox Hippisley observed, that as a noble viscount near him had been the only speaker who had, as yet, in the course of the debate, expressed any apprehension of the danger of the proposed concessions, he trusted his lordship's mind would be greatly relieved by adverting to the numerous authorities which had been cited in fa your, of the principles of Roman-catholics; and, on a question of this nature, he trusted also that the house would be of opinion that those authorities had a claim to particular attention, which were derived from distinguished prelates of the English church. He then quoted a passage from the bishop of Landaff's preface to his Theological Collections: "The ruling powers, inprotestant and catholic states," says his lordship," begin, at length, every where to perceive, that an uniformity of sentiments, in matters of religion, is a circumstance impossible to be obtained. They perceive too, that a diver sity of religious opinions may subsist among the subjects of the same state, without endangering the commonweal; and they begin to think it reasonable, that no man should be abridged in the exercise of natural rights, on the score of religion." Again, the same venerable prelate has said, in his publication entitled a Speech intended to have been spoken in the House of Lords on the 28th of Novem ber, 1808, "If any one should contend, that this is not the time for government to make concessions to Ireland, I wish him to consider whether there is any time in which it is improper for either individuals or nations to do jus tice; any season improper for extinguishing animosity;

any occasion more suitable than the present, for putting an end to heart-burnings and internal discontent?" The late Dr. Horsley, bishop of St. Asaph, in the debate on the catholic petition, in 1805, observed, "I do not hold that there is any thing in the Roman-catholic religion at variance with the principles of loyalty. I do not believe that any Roman-catholic of the present day thinks himself at liberty not to keep faith with heretics, not bound by his oath to a protestant government, or that the pope can release him from the obligation of his oath of allegiance to the sovereign. I had (said his lordship) a perfect knowledge of the questions proposed, and the answers returned by the foreign universities, in which those abominable principles (the deposing and dispensing power) were most completely and unanimously reprobated by those learned bodies to which the questions were propounded, and I am persuaded the Roman-catholics are sincere in their disavowal and abjuration of those pernicious maxims, I hold that the Roman-catholics of this country are dutiful and loyal subjects of his majesty." He then adverted to a charge delivered to the clergy of his diocese by the bishop of Norwich; in 1806, in which that learned prelate most justly and liber, ally observed, speaking of the catholics, that their conduct, and the unequivocal declarations made by them in a variety of publications, are strongly expressive of their total disapprobation of compulsion in religion; and that it would be very unfair to involve in the guilt of the misguided zealots of former days, a body of men of a far different description, to whom it is our duty, and should be our inclination, to shew every mark of benevolence, both as brethren, and as deserving fellowsubjects. He regretted that the impatience of the house seemed to check his proceeding to give other more enlarged quotations from that inestimable record of christian charity and moderation, so admirably suited to inculcate the most wholesome truths at the present crisis. He then proceeded to state, that he had received, by that day's post, as he found many other members also had received, an anonymous circular paper reflecting on the character and conduct of doctor Milner, who, in a former debate, had also been, and with as little foundation, attacked by a learned member of that house, on account of a work entitled, the Case of Conscience."

Dr. Milner had been fully vindicated on that occasion. by his honourable and learned friend below him; and on the present occasion, he contended, it was not less a debt of justice due to the Roman-catholics titular metropolitan of Ireland, than to Dr. Milner himself, to examine how far the facts alleged against him were entitled to credit, and, consequently, objects of censure. Dr. Milner was himself a prelate of the Roman communion; and was formally accredited to this country by those prelates, as the organ of their sentiments, to treat in their behalf, if any such treaty became necessary, and to propose or assent to such measures as might eventually be connected with the objects of the present important discussion. A proposition stated by his right honourable friend who moved the question, and certainly of the greatest importance, had been introduced to the house on the authority of Dr. Milner: in proportion, therefore, as censure attached to the conduct of Dr. Milner, it might be reflected on his constituents. Whatever might be the merit or demerit of Dr. Milner's recent publications, from which the passage in the circulated paper had been garbled, as on a former occasion, without any regard to the context, a reference to it, in the book itself, would af ford the best defence that could be made for this respectable ecclesiastic, whose reputation was thus anonymously attacked, on the subject of his representation of the mode of administering an oath in Ireland: and with respect to the second charge (of his being accessary to the reprint ing, by subscription, the Errata in the Protestant Bible), Dr. Milner was in no way privy to that publication, which had been undertaken before his arrival in Ireland, although he is charged with taking over the old edition expressly for the purpose of publishing it. Nor was it by the authority of any of the Roman-catholic prelates that the republication had taken place; notwithstanding many of the clergy had subscribed, on the application of the bookseller who published it. At the same time, it was fair to observe, that an exposition of catholic principles was subjoined to that publication, which might justly challenge the approbation of the warmest friends of the establ-hment, as containing the most pointed abjuration of every dangerous or obnoxious tenet which had ever been ascribed to catholics; and which no catholic will conscientiously refuse to make. This supplementary ex