Catholic Secretary for the Colonies were added to the difficulties, already numerous enough, which they had to encounter? The king was not fairly represented in the colonies, unless he was represented by a Protestant. As to the duties of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he had much to say upon that subject, but he did not feel himself justified in detaining their lordships. Much there was to be said with respect to the church patronage at his disposal, and with respect to the many institutions connected with the Church of England, which were under his control. The dangers, to which the Church of Ireland would be exposed, if this bill passed into a law, furnished an ample field for discussion: and he put it to their lordships to consider in what a condition a Protestant Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would find himself with a Roman Catholic Secretary of State for the Home Department, and with a Roman Catholic Secretary for Ireland. The archbishop concluded by moving as an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months.

The debate which followed was continued during three days, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of April. The spiritual lords who spoke, in addition to the mover of the amendment, were the archbishops of York and Armagh, the bishops of London, Salisbury, Durham, and Oxford. They all opposed the bill, with the exception of the last, who contended that concession was called for, not merely by the situation of Ireland, by the consideration of the immense military force found necessary for the maintenance of the public peace, which, after all, was not maintained, and

by the consideration of the division of opinion in both Houses of parliament, but still more by the turn which talent and education had taken in this kingdom, with reference to the question; upon that fact the right rev. bishop said he would stand. The peers, who opposed concession, were men advanced in years; but the individuals who were rising, in the natural progress of things, to fill the high offices of the state, were, with scarcely an exception, in favour of this measure. This fact, he would contend, must of itself render the continuation of exclusion impossible, when the talents, intelligence, and education of the country, were marshalled in favour of concession, and taking a course decidedly hostile to the system which had so long been followed: it was time to alter that system. It was impossible to deny the fact, that intelligence and education had been diverted into another channel, and now ran in a stream over which human power could have no control. The House could not, therefore, do other than surrender to that which they could not help or avoid; and in taking this step he would throw himself on the protection of that gracious Providence, which could bring good out of evil; which could produce light out of darkness. Independently of this, however, there were abundant reasons why he should vote for the bill. He would vote for it because it came recommended by his majesty's speech from the throne, seconded by the declaration of the heir presumptive to the Crown, supported by all the members of the royal family, except the duke of Cumberland, carried through the other House by an overwhelming majority, supported

by very many members of the House of Lords, with the venerable Chancellor of the University of Oxford at their head, supported, too, for many years, by that great and eloquent statesman whom Providence had recently snatched away from the service of his country, and specially brought forward by those ministers, who had been hitherto truly considered as the champions of the Protestant interest. These were extraordinary circumstances, which had never been combined before; and he thought that a bill, introduced in these circumstances, would, in a few years, produce a very different state of things in Ireland. The bishop of Oxford further maintained, that not only had the constitution of 1688 been already stripped of many of the securities which were then thought necessary to its safety, but that the very fact of its having been so dismantled absolved all men from any obligation to defend what of its fortifications remained. It was not a constitution, fenced in upon a principle of exclusion, that the House was now called to support; for that principle had long ago been given up. It was not a city well fortified, which they were now called upon to defend, but a city without its fortifications; they were called upon to uphold, not a constitution which prevented the ingress of Popish priests and Jesuits into this kingdom, but a constitution which, while it certainly would not admit them to seats in either House of parliament, did not prohibit them from coming to the Horse-Guards or to Westminsterhall. They were not now called upon to stand up in defence of a constitution which prohibited Ca

tholics from holding lands, or from exercising their religion in this country. That was the constitution of 1688; that constitution was fortified by acts of parliament, which gave strength and security. But when those securities were removed, they were no longer bound to that constitution. He would not feel himself bound to stand by a city which had once been well fortified, when he saw its works dismantled, and its fortifications thrown down. Popish priests were no longer forbidden, as formerly, to enter into, or to abide in, these kingdoms,-they were allowed the free and unrestricted exercise of their religion here. Popish school-masters were no longer forbidden to keep schools

the only restriction placed on them by the present law was, that they should not take Protestant pupils a law which was every day evaded. day evaded. When, therefore, we were deprived of these securities-when these bulwarks, as they were considered, of the Protestant constitution of the country, were thus thrown down-he believed that that constitution had been long since broken down, and that the constitution, which existed at the present day, was very different from that which had been established at the Revolution. If the constitution had been originally founded upon the principle of Catholic exclusion, that principle had been long since done away with ; the Catholics had been admitted to a participation in the rights and privileges of the state, and to the possession of substantial power; and it was one thing to hold out against an enemy in a well-fortified town, and another thing to make a defence in a town completely stripped of its fortifications. It

was one thing to uphold the constitution as established in 1688, and another thing to adhere to that constitution, when all its bulwarks and all its fortifications had been removed. To the church he anticipated no danger. The Church of England was safe; for the people of England possessed the most hostile feelings towards all the doctrines of popery. The Irish Church was no doubt placed in an anomalous situation, and he had no wish to depreciate the dangers to which she was exposed; but these dangers, instead of being increased, would be diminished by the measure now before the House.

The Archbishop of Armagh, on the other hand, confining himself principally to the effect of the bill on the Church of Ireland, contended, that it was a great and a dangerous delusion, though it might be a sincere one, to suppose that the capacity of holding office, and sitting in parliament, as mere civil rights, was the ultimate object of the Catholics, or that its acquisition would render them grateful and tranquil. The bill before the House would increase the power, without lessening the wish to do mischief. If the House could subdue the intolerant spirit of the church of Rome, disarm the priests of their influence over the people, and withdraw the people from their allegiance to the see of Rome, making them citizens of their own country, and letting them take their stand among other dissenters, in such a position as the wisdom of parliament might think proper to place them, it would be well. But would any man say that they could make the church of Rome tolerant, or persuade the priesthood of that church to hold an inferior rank to

a clergy, the validity of whose orders they denied, and whose church they reviled as adulterous? Could any one suppose that the Roman Catholic priests would quit their hold upon the consciences, the wills, and the passions of men, when their spiritual despotism was the most powerful engine for their own aggrandizement? The Roman Catholic priesthood must ever stand alone. It had set the indelible mark of separation on its own forehead, by its unnatural, though politic restrictions,-by its claim to exclusive pre-eminence,-and by its dangerous and unconstitutional connection with a foreign state. With respect to other sects, their ascendancy was hopeless; their opposition was confined to matters of minor importance; and even that opposition ceased, when they found that the common cause of Protestantism was in danger. But ascendancy would be placed within the reach of the Roman Catholics by this bill; and could any one believe, that they would not attempt to seize upon that ascendancy, when it was perfectly well known that the promotion of the interests of their church was with them a point of principle and of honour, which they considered as far superior to the claims of country or of kindred? The confederacy of the priesthood, actuated by a hatred of whatever was Protestant, would leave no means untried to exalt their church at the expense of the Protestant establishment, especially when they found that those, who ought to support that establishment, were divided into parties. Such must be their objects and their wishes, and this bill furnished them with the means of compassing both. It was easy to see, how great would be the in

fluence exercised with respect to any measure, however adverse to the interests of the Protestant religion, by so large a body of Roman Catholics as would, under this measure, be introduced into parliament, a body compactly formed to carry its own peculiar objects, -a body ready to throw its weight into the scale of any party that would offer the largest and most extensive boon for its assistance. Such a body might, by care and cunning, thwart the measures of every administration which should honestly and boldly set its face against those further concessions, which indubitably would hereafter be demanded. Let it also be recollected, that this was a body, which would, in a great measure, be sent into Parliament by their own priesthood, that priesthood being under the immediate influence of a supreme foreign head, and armed with a most powerful authority. To adopt such a course, under the notion of strengthening the church, and controlling her enemies, was most mistaken policy. It had already begun to produce its bitter fruits by disuniting the best friends of that very church. He did not mean to say, that, after the passing of the present bill, the subversion of the established church would immediately occur; neither did he think that it would be very remote. The Roman Catholics would be at first wary and cautious -they would studiously conceal their views and feelings; but when they were emboldened by success, and elated by favour, they would then manifest their real intentions. Were their lordships, then, prepared to sacrifice the Protestant church of England-were they prepared to sacrifice the Protestant constitution of England, by placing in the

hands of the Roman Catholics a power which would ultimately enable them to attain the ascendancy? for it was admitted on all hands, that to one or other of the opposed parties ascendancy must be granted.

The bishops of London and Durham expressed the same sentiments regarding the inevitable danger to the Protestant establishments, which must necessarily spring from what was neither less nor more than a deliberate arming of the Catholics with the power required to effect objects, which the Catholics themselves had the candour not very carefully to conceal or disguise; and they denounced the monstrous folly of legislating upon the principle, that men would lay down their mischievous designs, whenever they obtained the means of putting them in execution. The enemies of Protestantism knew better; and it was remarkable, the bishop of Durham observed, how strange a combination of persons hailed the dawn of the new policy. He could understand the support given to the bill by men, who held it as a principle that in political arrangements all religions were alike; and he could understand the support given to it by men who held it as a principle, that religion in any shape was a troublesome thing; but he could not understand how either the one or the other could support it, if they believed what ministers said. The bill was not introduced on the ground, that there ought to be no political distinctions on account of religion. On the contrary it was confessedly brought in on the principle that there ought to be a favoured and dominant church; that that ascendancy should be secured to the Protestant establishment; and that what was now pro

posed would render its predominance permanent. A measure, which was to do all this good to Protestantism, had united in its favour the acclamations both of Catholics and of all classes of liberals, down to the lowest grade of Socinians. When men whose opinions led them to keep down the ascendancy of any church, and others whose conscience bound them to labour against the ascendancy of the Protestant church, so acted, he could not help thinking that they joined with him in holding the natural and necessary consequences of the measure to be any thing but friendly to that ascend

ancy.

Of the temporal peers, the defence of the bill was principally undertaken by the Lord Chancellor, the marquis of Lansdown, viscount Goderich, the earl of Westmoreland, earl Grey, and lord Plunkett. The marquis of Lansdown repeated the general grounds, on which the party, to which he belonged, had always supported concession, and was willing to take his ground on the proposition, that it would prove the means of restoring tranquillity, and enforcing good In addition to these topics, viscount Goderich insisted upon the right which Ireland had acquired by the Union, the only thing that gave Britain the power of refusing what had been so long and so earnestly sought.

The Lord Chancellor had a more difficult task to perform. The Lord Chancellor was among those who,up to this time, had been distinguished by his learned, earnest, and eloquent refutations of all the pleas for concession which were now put forward; and all these refutations he was now called on to confute. He began his speech by explaining

to the House that he had spoken on this subject only twice before, once in the House of Commons, and once since his elevation to the peerage, and had explicitly stated on both occasions, that, if concession could be granted consistently with the security of the Protestant established church, and the great interests of the empire, it was the duty of parliament to give it. So clearly had he stated this, that some of his constituents at Cambridge, who thought that emancipation ought not to be granted under any circumstances, had blamed him for going so far as even to hint that it could ever be possible. This was the language which he had held in the House of Commons; this was the language which, as their lordships would recollect, he had used last year in the assembly which he was now addressing; and such was the language which he still held, when he said that the present bill might be passed without danger to the constitution, or to the Protestant establishment. This was lord Lyndhurst's defence of his consistency-and when he made such a defence, he adopted the common expedient of mis-stating the charge. The charge against lord Lyndhurst was not that he had once opposed concession, whatever securities might accompany it. To such an accusation his statement might have been an answer. charge was this, that lord Lyndhurst, even so late as last year, had declared in parliament his firm conviction that emancipation, even though attended by weighty securities, was pregnant with danger to the constitution and establishment; and the same lord Lyndhurst now declared in Parliament his equally conscientious conviction

The