183 position had been drawn up by Gother, an ecclesiastic of the Roman communion, and of whose writings he related this anecdote: the present bishop of Elphin (the brother of a noble and learned lord) had, in one' of his publications, observed, "By far the greatest part of the population of my diocese are Roman-catholics. I know (says his lordship) I cannot make them good pro testants, I therefore wish to make good catholics of them; and with this intention, I put into their hands the works of Gother, an eminent catholic divine." This was a conduct at once consistent with liberality and the soundest policy. The same respectable prelate, in the debate on the catholic bill in 1793, candidly admitted, that, "speculative differences in some points of faith were, of no account. His Roman-catholic' brethren and himself had but one religion, the religion of christians; and that, without justice to the catholics, there could be no security for the protestant establishment." Sir J. Hippesley then made some observations on the contrasted catechisms of the protestant incorporated society, and the general catechism of the Roman-catholic titular metropolitans: the one but too evidently inculcating an abhorrence of their catholic brethren; the other, instilling the principles of christian_charity, and loyalty to the estab lished government. It was to be regretted, Ire observed, that those societies, established no doubt with the most laudable design, should have fallen into a course so ill adapted, on christian principles, to promote their object. He then reverted to the charges brought by Dr. Duigenan against Dr. Milner, on account of the publication of his Case of Conscience; from which tract be had quoted an insulated passage, without reference to the context, giving it the complexion of a most offensive and dangerous doctrine with respect to the obligations of an bath whereas a much celebrated dignitary of the estab lished church, the late chancellor of Winchester, who was known to have been long opposed to Dr. Milner in the field of theological controversy, had expressed an opinion of the same tract very different from that of the learned gentleman opposite. In a letter (sir J. Hippisley observed) that he had the gratification to receive from the late Dr. Sturges, and from which, with the permission of his honourable friend on the treasury bench (who stood in so near and tender a relation to that truly respectable divine), he would beg to read an extract, "Dr. Milner's pamphlet on the king's oath," says Dr. Sturges, "is able and unanswerable; the catholics, I think, are obliged to me for calling forth his Letter to a Prebendary, written against me, which I see frequently referred to as a work of high authority." Sir J. Hippisley proceeded to make some observations on the concordat between the government of France and the see of Rome, in 1801; many of the restrictions of which were, in point of fact, conceded by Leo the Tenth in his concordat with Francis the First and the subsequent regulations of the French government, as far as they respect the admission and registration of rescripts, &c. from the see of Rome, are the same as were instituted under the old regime of the Gallican church, viz. that "no bull, rescript, degree, nor other missive from the see of Rome, shall be received, published, or otherwise put in force, without the authority of the government." Our government, of course, are free to institute similar restrictions, which might materially tend to quiet the apprehensions of the most scrupulous, whenever the see of Rome should be considered as acting under a hostile influence, and became an object of justi fiable suspicion. Such were unquestionably the regulations from the time of Francis the First, established as guards against a foreign influence; but practically, it was seldom, if ever, found necessary to resort to that control. The ecclesiastical constitution of France also provided both a Lutheran and a Calvinistical establishment, with their relative synods, &c. But with respect to the catholic communion, the address, prefacing the act of establishment, declares, "that the catholic religion is that of a vast majority of the French nation; to abandon so powerful an engine, therefore, would be to desire the first ambitious knave, or unsuccessful demagogue, who wished to convulse France anew, to seize it, and direct it against his country." The application to the case of Ireland was but too obvious. Sir J. Hippisley then observed that he could not on this occasion forbear citing the authority of that great statesman Mr. Pitt, who decidedly admitted the general loyalty of the catholics, and denied that the rebellion of 1793 was a catholic rebellion; adding also that whatever checks he had had in contemplation heretofore, they did not apply to the catholics as catholics, but were such tests as should be a security against the principles on which the rebellion originated." As the house seemed to express much impatience for the question, sir J. Hippisley begged to remind them, that although twenty years had elapsed since his first introduction to a seat in that house, he had rarely trespassed on their patience; but on the present occasion he could not reconcile himself to a silent vote: and the extracts he had adduced, he felt, were entitled to the most serious attention of those who questioned the justice and policy of the proposed concessions. He had confined the authorities quoted, to such opinions chiefly as had been given on this subject by distinguished prelates of the established church; and which indeed might have been multiplied, with undiminished force, to an extent little suited to the present disposition of the house. He then expressed his regret that the learned doctor who, on a former occasion, brought down so many antiquated documents in his hand, had not, on the present occasion, delivered his sentiments, as he was fully prepared to have replied to him. He begged also the chancellor of the exchequer, (who had on a preceding night contended that religious toleration should be excluded from any aids derived from the public purse,) to recollect that we had, at this moment, both Lutheran and Calvinistical churches and preachers established within the precincts of St. James's palace, paid from the civil list, and wisely so in his opinion; although the right honourable gentleman must be aware that the communion of the Lutheran, as well as the catholic, maintained the real presence in the sacrament. This speculative tenet, nevertheless, had not been considered as a bar to a state provision which had been made for those professing it, and which had existed from the days of queen Ann, when it was first established. It was incumbent on the house also to recollect that Roman-catholics had sat and voted in parliament during four successive reigns since the period of the Reformation. With this observation he should conclude, giving his hearty concurrence in the question for going into a committee of the whole house, in which this important subject might be more adequately considered. Mr. Elliot allowed that no pledge had been given to the catholics, but certainly expectations had been held out, and when they who had held them could not fulfil them, they were certainly in a painful situation. When he himself had voted for the union, he certainly did ex pect that the catholics were to be relieved from their disabilities. Those who had then gone out of office because they could not fulfil the expectations they had raised, were now associated with one who was against the principle and merits of the claim; one who, when attorney general, had said, that it would be a violation of the act of union to comply with the prayer of the petition. There was a particular provision in the act in favour of the protestant church, and this was the bar alluded to by the right honourable gentleman. If this was so, however, there was either gross traud or gross folly in the passing of that act. But he said the union was not a bar; for there was a clause providing, that the oaths should continue till the legislature changed them, a circumstance that in itself encouraged the expectations of the catholics. He then adverted to the spirit manifested by ministers towards the catholics, to the appointment of Mr. Gifford, the reduction of the Maynooth grant, the rumoured exaltation of a learned doctor to the privy council, and the unprecedented silence on such an occasion that had been attempted to be preserved that night. He hoped the house would go into a committee; for though nothing could be expected from such as entered fully into the spirit above mentioned, yet there might be gentlemen who would allow the claims under certain modifications. In order to store up public spirit in Irish catholics, it was necessary, in the first place, to store up confidence. Mr. Wilberforce said, notwithstanding all that had been advanced in support of the petitions, there was one grand argument against them, which prevented them from receiving the public approbation. The right honourable gentleman had brought the measure forward with all that eloquence which was so peculiarly his own, and in a most temperate manner; but the gentlemen on the other side knew it could not be carried. He considered it time at last to speak his sentiments on the subject. He wished to view it as a practical question, and thought they ought not to go further. It was proposed to send it to a committee, in which the claims of the catholics might be properly investigated; but it was known to all, that such inquiry was impracticable. Was the present a time to agitate so serious a subject in a proper manner? No, it could not be done, for the house could not, at the present time, discuss any subject without expressions of heat. He would state to the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Windham), that the people of England were averse to the measure; and if pe'itions had not been sent from all parts against the catholic claims, it was because they entertained a belief that parliament was disgusted with the measure. He knew it was the topic of general dislike in the northern counties of England. He did not say how far concessions were right or wrong to the catholics, but he would say, that when similar claims had been lately rejected, the house should not proceed with the same dispatch that they used towards other measures of less importance. He participated in the feelings of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Grattan) towards the people of Ireland. No man wished then better than he did, and though the house could not go into a committee on the present claims, they might speak of the Irish catholics with feeling and respect (a laugh), and he would gladly concur in promoting their welfare; and he was much concerned that this measure was brought forward without a prospect of success. Lord Henry Petty explained." Mr. R. Martin never felt more regret than at the inflammatory manner in which this important question had been treated by the other side of the house. More inflammatory and mischievous language had not been uttered for a century in that house, than had just fallen from an honourable gentleman opposite him. Two or three of the right honourable gentlemen near him cheered that language loudly; others of them held down their faces. An honourable gentleman did not hesitate to say, that the catholics of Ireland should be excluded on principle. This was a language which he trusted would not be approved by the house. The catholics would take that honourable gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) at his word. They would think what he said, enough to make them close this discussion for ever. Would that it might be closed for ever! He believed it would never again be brought before parliament; and he begged the house to mark what he said: the prediction, he feared, would |