of the gentleman who went at the head of your lordships what is the effect of this a body of men to the north of Ireland-state of society upon the king's prerogain the simultaneous proceedings of various tive. My lords, his majesty could not bodies of men in the south of Ireland, in create a peer; and the reason he could Templemore, Killenaule, Cahir, Clonmel, not create a peer was this-his majesty's and other places-in the proceedings of servants could not venture to recommend another gentleman in the king's county; to him to incur the risks of an election in and in the recal of the former gentleman another part of the country, and the risks from the north of Ireland by the Roman which might have attended any accident Catholic Association. In all these cir- at that election, which might have occumstances it is quite obvious to me, casioned the shedding of blood.. Such a that there was an organization and direc- disaster must have been productive of an tion of the people, proceeding from some immediate civil war in the country; but superior authority; and this organization not only was that the case, my lords, but has certainly produced a state of society I confess that I had the strongest objecin Ireland which we have not heretofore tion to give another triumph to the Roman witnessed, and an aggravation of all the Catholic Association. Then we are asked evils which had before afflicted that un-"why do you not carry the law into fortunate country. execution?" Why, my lords, in all that I have stated hitherto there was no resistance to the law. The magistrates were terrified, and did nothing; the troops did not happen immediately to be upon the spot, and there was no resistance. There were no troops, except in the case of the procession that went to the north of Ireland. I believe there was no instance of any opposition to the king's troops, and there was no instance in which the law could be carried into execution. When we hear noble lords reproaching the government for not carrying into execution the law in Ireland, as it was carried into execution in England, the observation shows that they do not understand the state of things in Ireland. The truth of the matter is, that in England, when the law was carried into execution, in the year 1819, a large body of persons assembled for an illegal purpose; they resisted the order of the magistrates to disperse, and having resisted that order, the magistrates ordered the troops to disperse them; but in this case there were no circumstances of the same kind: no order was given to disperse; no order could be given to disperse-because no magistrates were present; and, if they had been present, there were no troops to disperse them. The truth is, the state of society was such as rendered these events possible every hour; and it was impossible that the magistrates could be at every spot, and at all times, to put an end to these outrages, which really are a disgrace to the country in which they exist. But, my lords, neither the law nor the means in the possession of government enable government to put an end to these things. It was necessary, therefore, to My lords, late in the year a considerable town was attacked in the middle of the night by a body of people who came from the neighbouring mountains-the town of Augher. They attacked it with arms, and were driven from it with arms by the inhabitants of the town. This is a state of things which I feel your lordships will admit ought not to exist in a civilized country. Later in the year still, a similar event occurred in Charleville; and, in the course of last autumn, the Roman Catholic Association deliberated upon the propriety of adopting, and the means of adopting, the measure of ceasing all dealings between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Is it possible to believe that supposing these dealings had ceased -supposing this measure had been carried into execution-as I firmly believe it was in the power of those who deliberated upon it to carry it into execution-is it possible to believe, that those who could thus cease these dealings would not likewise have ceased to carry into execution the contracts into which they had entered? Will any man say, that people in this situation are not verging towards that state, in which it would be impossible to expect from them that they would be able to perform the duties of jurymen, or to administer justice between man and man, for the protection of the lives and properties of his majesty's subjects? My lords, this is the state of society to which I have wished to draw your attention, and for which it is necessary that parliament should provide a remedy. Before I proceed to consider what those remedies should be, I wish just to show the king's government, backed by the law; they know perfectly well they would have been the first victims of that resistance; but knowing this, and knowing, as I do, that they are sensible, able men, and perfectly aware of the materials upon which they have to work, I have not the smallest doubt that the state of things which I have stated to your lordships would have continued for years, and that you would never have had an opportunity of putting it down in the manner some noble lords imagine. But, my lords, even if I had been certain of possessing such means of putting it down, I should certainly have considered it my duty to avoid resorting come to parliament. Now, let us see what | put down. They know as well as I do chance there was of providing a remedy they are not strong enough to wrestle with for this state of things by coming to parliament. My lords, we all recollect perfectly well, that the opinion of the majority in another place is, that the remedy for this state of things in Ireland is a repeal of the disabilities affecting his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. We might, to be sure, have come and asked parliament to enable us to put down the Roman Catholic Association; but what chance had we of prevailing upon parliament to pass such a bill as that, without being prepared to come forward and state that we were ready to consider the whole condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a remedy to that which parliament had stated to be the cause of the disease. Suppose that parlia-to those means. I am one of those who ment had given us the bill to put down the have probably passed a longer period of Roman Catholic Association, would such my life engaged in war than most men, a law as that which has passed this year and principally, I may say, in civil war; be a remedy for the state of things which I and I must say this-that if I could avoid, have already described to your lordships as by any sacrifice whatever, even one month existing in Ireland? Would it, I ask, do of civil war in the country to which I am any one thing towards putting an end to attached, I would sacrifice my life in order the organization which I have stated to to do it [cheers]. I say that there is your lordships to exist? Would it do any nothing which destroys property and prosthing towards putting down the mischiefs perity, and demoralizes character, to the which are the consequences of that organi-degree that civil war does: by it the hand zation? Would it do any thing towards giving you the means of getting a better state of things in Ireland, without some further measure to be adopted? But, my lords, it is said, "if that will not do, let us proceed to blows." What, I suppose, is meant by" proceeding to blows" is coming to civil war. Now, I believe that every government must be prepared to carry into execution the laws of the country by the force placed at its disposition by the military force, in case that should be necessary; and above all things, to oppose resistance to the law, in case the disaffected or the ill-disposed are inclined to resist the authority or sentence of the law; but as I have already stated to your lordships, there was no resistance of the law;-nay, more, I will go further, and say, I am positively certain, that this state of things existing in Ireland for the last year and a half, bordering upon civil war-being attended by nearly all the evils of civil war-might have continued a considerable time longer, to the great injury and disgrace of the country, and those who managed the state, if they would have taken care to prevent that resistance which might have ended in that state of things being of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against his father; the servant betrays his master, and the whole scene ends in confusion and devastation. Yet, my lords, this is the resource to which we must have looked-these are the means to which we must have applied, in order to have put an end to this state of things, if we had not made the option of bringing forward the measures, for which I hold myself responsible. But let us look a little further, my lords. If civil war is so bad, when it is occasioned by resistance to the government-if it is so bad in the case I have stated, and so much to be avoided-how much more is it to be avoided when we have to arm the people, in order that we may conquer one part of them by exciting the other part against them? My lords, I am sure there is not a man who hears me, whose blood would not shudder at such a proposition, if it were made to him; and yet that is the resource to which we should be pushed at last, by continuing the course we have been adopting for the last few years. However, I entreat your lordships not only to look at it in this view, but likewise to revert a little to what Passed on a former similar occasion. seven earls, a vast number of peers of other ranks, and not less than two thousand Protestant gentlemen of property in the country, who signed the Declaration, stating the absolute necessity of making these concessions. Under these circumstances it is, that this contest would have been carried on-circumstances totally different from those which existed at the period I before alluded to. But, is it possible to believe that parliament would allow such a contest to go on? Is it possible to believe that parliament, having this state of things before them-that this House, seeing what the opinion of the other House of parliament is-seeing what the opinion of the large number of Protestants in Ireland is-seeing what the opinion of nearly every statesman, for the last forty years, has been on this question My lords I am old enough to remember the rebellion in 1798. I was not employed in Ireland at the time, I was employed in another part of the dominions; but, my lords, if I am not mistaken, the parliament of Ireland at that time went up to the lord lieutenant with a unanimous address, (I believe they walked up in a body) beseeching his excellency to take every means to put down that unnatural rebellion, and promising their full support in order to carry that measure into execution. The lord lieutenant did take those measures, and did succeed in putting down that rebellion. Well, my lords, what happened in the very next session? The government proposed to put an end to the Irish parliament, and to form a legislative union between the two kingdoms, for the principal purpose of proposing this very measure [cheers]; and in point of fact, the very first measure that was proposed after this legislative union-after those successful endeavours to put down this rebellion was the very measure with which I am now about to trouble your lordships. Why, then, I ask, is it possible noble lords can believe that, supposing there was such a contest as that which I have anticipated-is it possible noble lords can believe that such a contest could be carried on, much less brought to a conclusion, without the measure which I now propose being insisted on by one at least, if not both Houses of parliament ? I am certain, my lords, when your lordships look at the division of opinion which prevails in both Houses of parliament upon this question,-when you look at the division of opinion which prevails in every family in this country and in Ireland, from the most eminent in station down to the lowest, when you look at the division of opinion which prevails amongst even the Protestants of Ireland-when your lordships look at these circumstances, I am sure you will perceive the vast difference there would be between a contest carried on now, and that which was carried on at a former period. My lords, I beg your lordships to recollect that, upon a recent occasion, there was a Protestant Declaration of the sentiments of Ireland. As I said before, the parliament of Ireland, in the year 1798, with the exception of one or two persons, were unanimous; and, on a recent occasion, there were seven marquises, twenty would continue to oppose itself to measures brought forward for its settlement? It appears to me absolutely impossible that we could have gone on longer, without increasing difficulties being brought on the country. But it is very desirable that your lordships should look a little to what benefit is to be derived, to any one class in the state, by continuing the disabilities, and only taking those coercive measures which will have all the evils which I have stated. We are told, that the benefit will be to preserve the principles of the constitution of 1688-that the measures of 1688 permanently excluded Roman Catholics from parliament - and that they being so permanently excluded from parliament, it is necessary to have recourse to all those evils, in order to keep up that permanent exclusion. Now, I wish very much that noble lords would take upon themselves the trouble I have taken to see how the matter stands as to the permanent exclusion of Roman Catholics from parliament. My lords, in the Bill of Rights, there are some things permanently enacted, which I sincerely hope will be permanent ;-those are, the liberties of the people; the security for the Protestantism of the person on the throne of these kingdoms, and that he shall not be married to a papist. Then there is an Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy to be taken by all those of whom that Oath of Allegiance is required, which is also permanent; but there is no Declaration against Transubstantiation. There is also an Oath of Allegiance, different from that which is required to be taken by a member of parliament. I beg your lordships will observe that, although this Oath of Allegiance was declared to be permanent, it was altered in the reign of William and Mary. This shows what that permanent act was. Then, with respect to the oaths to be taken by members of parliament, I beg your lordships to observe, that these oaths, the Declaration against Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass, are not in the act of William 3rd but in the act of 30th Charles 2nd. During the reign of Charles 2nd, there were certain oaths imposed, first on Dissenters from the Church of England, by the 13th and 14th Charles 2nd, and to exclude Roman Catholics, by the 25th, and 30th Charles 2nd. At the period of the Revolution, when king William came, he thought proper to extend the basis of his government, and he repealed the oaths affecting the Dissenters from the Church of England, imposed by the 13th and 14th Charles 2nd, and likewise that affirmative part of the Oath of Supremacy, which Dissenters from the Church of England could not take. This is the history of the alteration of these oaths by William 3rd, from the time of Charles 2nd. But, my lords, the remainder of the oath could be taken by Dissenters, but could not be taken by Roman Catholics. The danger, with respect to Roman Catholics, had originated in the time of Charles 2nd, and these oaths still existed in the time of William 3rd; but the oath was altered, because one of the great principles of the Revolution was, to limit the exclusion from the benefits of the constitution as far as it was possible. Therefore we have the great principle of the Revolution, as well as the principle I before stated, which consisted of the Bill of Rights and liberties of the subject. Now, the noble lords state, that what they call the principles of 1688-that is to say, these oaths excluding Roman Catholicsare equally permanent with the Bill of Rights, by which the Protestantism of the Crown is secured. If noble lords will do me the favour to look at the words of the act-I have it ready-they will find that the difference between the two things is just the difference between that which is permanent and that which is not. The bill of Rights declares that the Protestantism of the Crown shall last for ever—that the liberties of the people shall be secured for ever; but it is remarkable, that as to these oaths which were enacted on the same occasion, not one word is said about their lasting for ever, or as to how long they should last. Well, then, my lords, what follows? The next act we have is the Act of Union with Scotland; and what does that act say?-Why, that the oaths to be taken by the members of parliament are to be laid down by the 1st of William and Mary until parliament shall otherwise direct. This is what is called a permanent act of parliament a permanent provision, for all future periods, to exclude Catholics from seats in parliament!" My lords, I beg to observe, that if the act which excludes Roman Catholics from seats in parliament is permanent, there is another clause (I believe the 10th of chap. 8, 1st of William and Mary) which requires officers of the army and navy to take these very oaths, previous to their acceptance of their commissions. Now, if the act made in the first year of William and Mary, which excludes Roman Catholics from parliament, is permanent, I should like to ask noble lords why the clause in that act is not equally permanent? I should like to ask the noble and learned lord on the cross-bench to answer that question. If the oaths were permanent in the one case they were equally so in the other; and yet the noble and learned lord consented to the bill of 1817, which repealed oaths required to be taken by officers of the army and navy. I suppose the noble and learned lord will answer my question by saying, that one act was permanent and ought to be permanently maintained, but that the other act was not permanent, and the parliament did right in repealing it in 1817. But the truth of the matter is, that neither act was intended to be manent. The parliament of queen Ann recognized, by the Act of Union, that the first act, relating to seats in parliament, was not permanent; and the noble and learned lord did quite right, when he consented to the act of 1817, which put an end to the 10th clause of the 1st of Will. 3rd, chap. 8. Then, if this principle of exclusion-if this principle of the constitution of 1688, as it is called-be not permanent, if it be recognised to be not permanent, not only by the Act of Union with Scotland (in which it is said, that the exclusive oath shall continue until parliament otherwise provide), but also by the per later act of Union with Ireland, I would ask your lordships, whether you are not at liberty now to consider the expediency of doing away with it altogether, in order to relieve the country from the inconveniences to which I have already adverted? I would ask your lordships, whether you are not called upon to review the state of the representation of Ireland whether you are not called upon to see, whether, even supposing that that principle were a permanent one, it be fit that parliament should remain as it has remained for some time, groaning under a popish influence exercised by the priests over the elections in Ireland. I would ask your lordships, I repeat, whether it be not right to make an arrangement, which has for its object, not only the settlement of this question, but at the same time to relieve the country from the inconveniences which I have mentioned. I have already stated the manner in which the organization I have already alluded to works upon all the great interests of the country; but I wish your lordships particularly to attend to the manner in which it works upon the church itself. That part of the Church of England which exists in Ireland is in a very peculiar situation: it is the church of the minority of the people. At the same time, I believe, that a more exemplary, a more pious, and a more learned body of men, than the members of that church do not exist. The clergy of that church certainly enjoy and deserve the affections of those whom they were sent to instruct, to the same degree as their brethren in England enjoy the affections of the people of this country; and I have no doubt that they would, if necessary, shed the last drop of their blood in defence of the doctrines and discipline of their church. But violence, I apprehend, is likely to affect the interests of that church; and I would put it to the House, whether that church can be better protected from violence by a government united in itself, united with parliament, and united in sentiment with the great body of the people-or by a government disunited in opinion, disunited from parliament, and by the two Houses of parliament disunited. I am certain that no man can look at the situation of Ireland, without seeing that the interest of the church, as well as the interest of every class of persons under government, is involved in such a settlement of this question as will bring with it strength to the government, and strength to every department of the state. Having now, my lords, gone through the general principles which have induced me to consider it desirable to bring forward this measure, I will trouble your lordships for a short time longer, whilst I explain generally the provisions of the bill before the House. My lords; the bill is in itself very simple. It concedes to the Roman Ca→ tholics the power of holding every office in the state, excepting a few connected with the administration of the affairs of the church; and it also concedes to them the power of becoming members of parliament. I believe it goes further, with respect to the concession of offices, than any former measure which has been introduced into the other House of parliament. I confess that the reasons which have induced me to consider it my duty to make such large concessions now, arose out of the effects which I saw following the acts passed in the years. 1782 and 1793. I have seen that any restriction upon concession has only had the effect of increasing the demands of the Roman Catholics, and at the same time of giving them fresh power to enforce those demands. I have therefore considered it my duty, in making this act of concession, to make it as large as any reasonable man could expect it to be; seeing clearly, that any thing which remained behind would only give ground for fresh demands, and being convinced, that the settlement of this question would tend to the security of the state, and to the peace and prosperity of the country. I have already stated to your lordships my opinion respecting the expediency of granting seats in parliament to Roman Catholics; and I do not conceive that the concession of seats in parliament can, in any manner, affect any question relative to the Church of England. In the first place, I beg your lordships to recollect that at the time those acts, to which I have before alluded-the one passed in the 30th of Charles 2nd, and the other at the period of the Revolution--were enacted, it was not the church that was in danger-it was the state. It was the state that was in danger-and from what? It was not because the safety of the church was threatened. No! but it was because the sovereign on the throne was suspected of popery, and because the successor to |