its practicability, avowedly on details? | objected to the Veto, as having been alIf this committee is to be mere matter of ready rejected, and not worth contending form, or rather to be considered a neces- for. This called up an hon. baronet, sary step preliminary to entertaining any whose industry, information, and zeal, in bill on the subject of so important a con- favour of those claims, entitle him to the stitutional change, I am no longer sur- warmest thanks of the Roman Catholics, prised that those who argue for full and and to every attention from this House; unqualified concession, without any re- and he stated, that Domestic Nomination serve or restriction whatever, should now could not be listened to; the Veto must vote for the first formal preliminary. be adopted, and even that would be ineffiThey will do right, and act consistently, cient, without other auxiliary restrictions. But I am certain that many, who have de: And lastly, the House was addressed by livered their sentiments, in the course of many honourable members, who not feelthis debate, on both sides, have been ing assured that any of the plans proequally unapprised with myself, of the posed would answer the purpose, and precise nature of this committee; for to having none to propose themselves, still those who argued what were considered as voted for the committee, under confident minor matters of detail, it was constantly hopes that some new lights would be answered, All this is fit subject for the struck out in the committee, though the committee;' and, indeed, many who ex- committee, now proposed, and for which pressed their intention to vote for this they stated their intention to vote, did not committee, distinctly stated their grounds afford any reasonable expectation of reafor such vote to be these, that full oppor- lizing those hopes. tunity would be given, in the committee, for the most ample discussion. This expectation, however, it now seems, will be disappointed, and the discussion is to be reserved for the Bill itself.

Now, to those who agree with me, that great difficulties are involved in the consideration of this question; but who, seeing these difficulties, much in the same light with myself, still see their way out of them, to such persons I wish particularly to address myself. I object to this first step, because I anticipate no result but mischief, confusion, and dangerous irritation. For what has the House come to after three nights' serious debate? Nothing, as I conceive, but an acknowledgment, that the difficulties, upon investigation, are increased instead of diminished.

Now, I am certain the House will go along with me in considering these securities, restrictions, and safeguards, as sub, stantial ingredients in the measure pro posed. It would be a monstrous decep、 tion to consider them as mere matter of detail in the framing and embodying the meas sure; they form a main part of its essence, and therefore to say, that the House, being only called upon to recognize the principle, it is not necessary to explain in detail the securities, is, in my judgment, a perfect fallacy. The principal point of restriction, alluded to in the debate, has been with reference to foreign influence, and the discussion, on that single point, affords sufficient grounds to call for a resistance to the motion. It has been asserted, that the Veto is not worth con tending for; that Domestic Nomination will do as well. I admit the Veto is not

The right hon. gentleman who opened the debate, has not very explicitly described his plan. He stated that the dis-worth contending for: but at the same abilities of the Roman Catholics ought to be done away, but, at the same time, that care must be taken to preserve inviolate our present establishments. How this was to be done, the right hon. gentleman did not explain. Then followed a right hon, and learned gentleman, to whose speech so much reference has been justly made, for its candour, moderation, manliness, and eloquence; and he, conceiving that the mover's views had not been clearly understood, stated, that the safeguards, in his contemplation, were Domestic Nomination, salaries to the clergy, and some arrangements about education. He distinctly

time, think it important to remark, that the Veto has been rejected, not because it was obnoxious to the feelings of the Ro man Catholics, but because they considered that it was inconsistent with the tenets of their religion, in the light in which they viewed the proposition at the time it was made, to admit of such a restric tion on the spiritual supremacy of their church; and how, therefore, can any hope or expectation be entertained that Domestic Nomination, which involves the same question, of the spiritual supremacy, the only other avowed expedient, can possibly be acquiesced in: and here is the im

petition, as was the case last year, it is concluded they are favourable to the claims-and if, to avoid any such mistaken conclusion, they feel themselves actually goaded into petitioning, in order that their real opinions may not be misunderstood and misrepresented, then they are reflected upon as petitioning the parliament against the liberties of their Roman Catholic brethren.

With respect to the other petitions against these claims, I again repeat that I think they have been held up to a nicety of criticism perfectly unusual; very ill suited to a fair, temperate, and impartial discussion of the subject, and not very well calculated to promote that general satisfaction, without which the resolution of last year admits that the attainment of the object, now in view, is impracticable. There have been, however, other observations, with respect to a certain description of petitioners, which I cannot suffer to pass unnoticed,-I mean the reflections which have been cast, most unjustly, and, as it seems to me, with as little liberality as justice, on the clergy who have petitioned.

An hon. baronet, who spoke early in the debate, did not confine himself to reflections on the clergy in general, as far as they appeared in petitions; but conceived himself justified in animadverting, with great severity, on a publication from a right reverend prelate. The hon. baronet charged that right reverend prelate with having accused all the advocates of these claims of " artful misrepresentation, specious liberality, or infidel indifference." I have read this production, which I doubt whether the hon. baronet had, at the time he hazarded such a charge; for I undertake to state, that no such construction belongs to the passage. His friend, the right reve. rend prelate argues, that the Roman Catholic question combines both religious and political considerations, and that any opinion, which maintains, that this question is simply and exclusively within either the one or the other, either religious or political, but not combined of both qualities, could only be founded in artful misrepresentation, specious liberality, or infidel indifference. I then ask the House whether the misrepresentation of the hon. baronet is not most glaring? and whether the comments and observations, with which he has connected it, are not only unwarranted by the passage referred to, but equally incon

which the right hon. baronet professed himself to entertain for the talents, the learning, the elevated rank, and high character of that right reverend prelate? But the hon. baronet did not stop here; for, in quoting another expression of that right reverend prelate, in which he states himself "a friend to the fullest toleration," the hon. baronet took rather an unusual mode of proving the sincerity of his own respect and esteem, by representing this right reverend' prelate as a friend to just so much toleration as has been conferred, and which consequently he could not take away. But I hope the hon. baronet has read the publication since: I believe that curiosity may have led him to read it, if it were only to see whether there should chance to be any passage, to which he could attach such general and unmeasured censure. If, however, the hon. baronet, with any view, has now read it, I am certain he will not maintain what he thus advanced.

A noble lord, on a former evening, to my astonishment, asserted that it was indecent in the clergy to petition parliament on a purely political question. Isistent with the high respect and esteem, deny both the position itself, and its ap plicability to the subject now before the House. It is the first time I have ever heard, and I will not readily believe it, that, even if this question was simply political, the clergy is the only description of British subjects, who are to be considered as divested of, what has, so often and so justly been styled, the birthright of Englishmen. But is this a purely political question? Has it no religious consideration involved in it? What are the restrictions and safeguards for? Why, it has been admitted, by all who have pressed the necessity of them, that they are mainly for the security of the Protestant establishment. I will leave, therefore, the noble lord to settle this point with the promoters and framers of the intended measure, with this one farther observation, that, in my judgment, the clergy are so far from stepping out of their line by expressing their views, in the way of petition, that I should have considered them most remiss, in the discharge of their duty, if they had omitted gravely to consider, and firmly to declare, their sentiments, upon the effects, which these concessions might produce.

Much has been said on both sides, with reference to the opinions of Mr. Pitt; as if, by such reference, the course could be made quite clear for those, who should be

willing to shape their own conduct, on the acquaintance. But I did say, that I present occasion, by his great authority. had a high personal respect for the know nothing of the opinions of that learned bishop, and that I had de great statesman on this subject, but from rived both pleasure and instruction from such sources as are accessible to every his former writings. As to my applica one, I mean his public conduct, and his tion of the passage in the charge of the speeches, as published. From these learned bishop, it will, I think, be most sources I collect that, unquestionably, Mr. satisfactory to the House, I should read Pitt was favourable, in principle, to the this passage, with the context. "No one Catholic claims that he was decided, can be a greater friend than I am, to tolethat these concessions should be accom- ration, properly so called; I consider it as panied with solid and efficient restrictions a mark of the true church, as a principle, and safeguards; and that, viewing these recognised by the most eminent of our reclaims as matter of expediency and not of formers and divines. But I contend, that right, he was distinctly also of opinion, that the Roman Catholics are already in comtimes and circumstances were considera- plete possession of religious toleration. tions of the greatest importance; whether, What they now demand is political power therefore, the present times and circum--a species of political power which, in stances would have been judged, by Mr. Pitt, as favourable, I do not know, nor can I place much reliance on the speculations of others on this point; of this, however, I am certain, that Mr. Pitt would never, at any time, have consented to go into a committee, or take any preliminary step, such as the present, towards the completion of that great measure, without having previously made up his own mind clearly and distinctly, as to what should be conceded-what should be withheld-and what precise restrictions should be imposed. In such a state of preparation, I do not conceive the majority of this House, to be at the present moment; I think, the reference, which has so often been made, to Mr. Pitt's opinions, is a very insufficient guide, even to those who look with all the admiration and respect, that I do, to such authority, and shall therefore give my decided negative to the motion.

Sir Robert Heron, in explanation.-Sir; I am extremely unwilling to detain the House, even for a moment; but, after the violent and unexpected attack, which has been made upon me by the right hon. gentleman, who spoke last, the House will not expect I should remain silent. Ano. ther hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) last night accused me of having uttered a grosss calumny, and after that Charge had been brought, I must so far agree with him as to say, that it must belong either to me or to him; but the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, has entirely misrepresent ed me. I did not call the learned bishop my friend; that term with me is sacred; and I have no right to use it towards the learned bishop, with whom I have not had the opportunities of cultivating much

my judgment, could not be granted, without extreme hazard to our constitution in church and state. Popery is not only a system of religion, it is also a system of politics. This, indeed, is so manifest, from the history of these kingdoms, subsequent, as well as prior to the Reformation, that those who have, of late, undertaken the cause of the Papists, and urged the removal of all the restraints, framed by the wisdom and piety of our ancestors, to prevent a repetition of those horrors and miseries, which were fresh in their memo ries, assure us, that Popery now is different from what Popery was. I am confident that this opinion has led many to support the claims of the Papists, who are truly and zealously attached to the church of England, and would be among its most firm defenders, in any time of trial; but I am convinced, that no opinion was ever more unfounded. To trace this opinion to artful misrepresentation, specious libe rality, or infidel indifference to prove it false from the dogma of infallibility, which allows no change-from the decrees of the councils and the bulls of Popes, which contain the most mischievous political maxims, and authorise the most unwarrantable interference with the rights of civil government and of religious libertyto prove that recent facts, and recent publications, absolutely and authoritative. ly maintain the same doctrines, and com tradict the idea of any alteration, as derogatory to the honour of their church, may perhaps, if life be spared me, and circumstances should demand it, employ some future hour."-I now leave it to the House to judge, whether the passage in question is or is not applied, by the bishop, to those who differ from him in opinion?

Mr. Robinson explained, that what he had said, and to which the hon. baronet had alluded, referred to that remarkable expression in the hon. baronet's speech which he had used when speaking of the petitions received from the clergy. Those petitions he had represented as coming from men who had mitres on their heads, or mitres in their heads. This, I said was a gross calumny, and from that expression I do not depart. Mr. M. Sutton repeated that the pas-no foreign ecclesiastical authority “has, sage in the pamphlet which had been alluded to, did not deserve the construction which had been put on it, and contended he had a right to state such to be his opinion, and this opinion he would still main

with vituperative slanders against the Ca| tholics. It was said that as the Catholic religion remained unchanged, the Catholics were no more to be trusted now than they were a century or a century and a half ago. Did they believe any reliance was to be placed on the oath of a Catholic? If they did not, they must believe the Catholics capable of the most abominable perjuries; if they did believe the Catholic on his oath, when he swore that