intellects cannot find out the subtleties on which it can be defended. I cannot conform to the doctrine that the religion of the individual is of little consequence in the man to whom the powers of the State are confided. I should be sorry to see the most loyal Catholic in his Majesty's dominions sitting as Lord Chancellor on that wooolsack, or as Chief upon that Bench, so ably filled by the Noble and Learned Lord near me (Lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice of the King's Bench); nor can I consent to such a principle as that Roman Catholics should be admitted to fill the other great offices of the State. Noble Lords have given some instances of Catholics being employed in important situations by Protestant Governments with great advantage; but those were despotic Governments, in which the sole chief power was vested in the Prince; and the officer being dismissible at the pleasure or caprice of the Monarch, held no permanent power or influence, as in our free and popular government. But it was afterwards well argued by another Noble Lord, that it was the ancient policy of other nations to have all the high officers of the State, of the religion of that State. But what has been the argument in favour of this measure to-night? Why, That excessive toleration cannot be liable to abuse, but must tend to the security of the Constitution! But what was the consequence of adopting such a principle in France? Neckar, the Protestant Counsellor to the late King, was shortly afterward at the head of the Revolutionary Councils in Catholic France, while the representation of the country was afterwards thrown open to sectaries of all descriptions; men of any faith or of none, speedily led the way to all the anarchy and sanguinary horrors that have, since scourged that country. I am perfectly aware of the distinction taken between subjection to the Pope in his spiritual and in his temporal capacity; but I think it scarcely possible to suppose the spiritual power so completely detached, as not to involve submission

also in temporal things. The Catholics have certainly gone a great way in disclaiming the authority of the Pope; and have sworn, that neither the Pope, nor any foreign Potentate, has any right to any power, temporal or civil, directly or indirectly, within these realms. Some objections have been made to an indirect influence through spiritual means; but this the Catholics have solemnly disclaimed. A Noble Lord seems to think that there is some difference between the laity and the clergy on the subject of the oath respecting the Protestant Succession; and that some of the clergy prohibited the laity to take it. The real stand they made was this, That it contained some theological dogma, totally new to them; and it was to this the apostolical vicars objected, and to which I, as a Protestant Bishop, should have enjoined my priesthood to object, in a similar case. Yet, notwithstanding the opposition of the clergy to that oath, every one of the laity have taken it. But if the Roman Catholics are relieved from the tests of which they now complain; you cannot refuse to other sects of Dissenters the repeal of those tests of which they also complain; and the natural consequence would be, that all the parties thus admitted to seats in Parliament, or places in power, would combine their influence and authority to overturn the Established Church! In my mind, my Lords, the House has fairly discussed this subject with dignity and moderation, and as fully in detail as it could have been done in a Committee; and it does not appear to me to be the sense of your Lordships that what is claimed by this Petition can or ought to be ceded. It has been asked, Will you not go into the Committee for the purpose of enquiring what may be safely granted? for though you will not grant all, Will you grant none? My Lords, in my mind, we have already granted to the Catholics every thing which we can grant, consistently with the security of our Protestant Establishment, and every thing which they could

ask

ask necessary to rational toleration and of civil liberty, in as full a degree as all other his Majesty's subjects, liable to the same tests, which they refuse. I profess myself against granting to the Roman Catholics the Powers of the State which they claim by this Petition, and therefore I am against going into the Committee. A Noble Duke seems to think there is no harm in a Roman Catholic Bishop in Ireland assuming the titular dignities of the Established Church, and exercising all the functions attached to their titular rank. But, my Lords, I can not think that harmless which is done in direct violation of those laws which the wisdom of the Legislature has thought it proper to enact, and still to continue. We know of no such assumption avowed in this country. We hear of no Archbishop of Canterbury, or Bishop of Winchester, or Archbishop of York, in England. The title inded of Apostolical Vicar is assumed by some of their superintending clergy, who are considered on the footing of missionaries, and as acting merely in matters spiritual, for the maintenance of order and discipline amongst their inferior clergy. But, my Lords, what a Noble Lord has told us, of the Catholic Bishops in Ireland holding courts for the exercise of diocesan polity and jurisdiction, in cases of divorce, legitimacy, inheritance, and the like, is a most indecent assumption, for they have no such powers; and in attempting to exercise them they fly in the face of the law, and usurp a jurisdiction over his Majesty's subjects unknown to the Constitution, and which ought not to be suffered. If the Catholic Clergy will assume such powers now directly and openly against law, what are we to expect if you pass a law to confirm those powers? Will they not then wrest from the hands of the Established Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland three-fourths of the jurisdiction in that country, to the production of incalculable mischief?" The Right Reverend Prelate concluded by voting against the motion.

The

1

The Duke of NORFOLK explained, that in speaking of the legitimate authority of the Catholic Bishops in those countries, he meant it merely in a spiritual sense.

4

Lord ELLENBOROUGH spoke at some length against the motion, coinciding in the general grounds of argument already adduced against the Petition, which he considered not a Petition for Toleration, but for Political Power, a struggle for the palladium of the Constitution. Every thing dear to that Constitution was staked upon the issue. So long as the Catholics of Ireland remain blindly devoted to a bigotted priesthood who would give them absolution for shedding blood, so long as their consciences remained subjugated to the See of Rome, he should feel it his duty to resist their being absolved from those tests which the laws, for the security of your Constitution, now wisely demand, not from them only, but from all persons to be entrusted with the offices of Government, and the privileges of Parliamentary Representation. It was not merely on account of the mere transient power which the present Ruler of France had obtained over the degraded life of the poor feeble old man, now Pope of Rome; but so long as the ignorant surrender of all judgment to their priests on the part of the Roman Catholic Irish people shall shew itself in their conduct,-so long as they should continue to acknowledge, the supreme jurisdiction of a foreign power in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs, he should continue to resist their claims to be absolved from the acts required from all other branches of his Majesty's subjects.

The Earl of MOIRA, in a very animated and eloquent speech, supported the Petition, and replied to the arguments of the Noble, Right Reverend, and Learned Lords, who had spoken against it. The whole of their arguments were founded upon suppositious doctrines of the Catholic Church, which were either exploded for centuries, or solemnly denied and abjured by the Catholics, as not forming now or at

any

ask necessary to rational toleration and to civil liberty, in as full a degree as all other his Majesty's subjects, liable to the same tests, which they refuse. I profess myself against granting to the Roman Catholics the Powers of the State which they claim by this Petition, and therefore I am against going into the Committee. A Noble Duke seems to think there is no harm in a Roman Catholic Bishop in Ireland assuming the titular dignities of the Established Church, and exercising all the functions attached to their titular rank. But, my Lords, I cannot think that harmless which is done in direct violation of those laws which the wisdom of the Legislature has thought it proper to enact, and still to continue. We know of no such assumption avowed in this country. We hear of no Archbishop of Canterbury, or Bishop of Winchester, or Archbishop of York, in England. The title inded of Apostolical Vicar is assumed by some of their superintending clergy, who are considered on the footing of missionaries, and as acting merely in matters spiritual, for the maintenance of order and discipline amongst their inferior clergy. But, my Lords, what a Noble Lord has told us, of the Catholic Bishops in Ireland holding courts for the exercise of diocesan polity and jurisdiction, in cases of divorce, legitimacy, inheritance, and the like, is a most indecent assumption, for they have no such powers; and in attempting to exercise them they fly in the face of the law, and usurp a jurisdiction over his Majesty's subjects unknown to the Constitution, and which ought not to be suffered. If the Catholic Clergy will assume such powers now directly and openly against law, what are we to expect if you pass a law to confirm those powers? Will they not then wrest from the hands of the Established Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland three-fourths of the jurisdiction in that country, to the production of incalculable mischief? But, my Lords, unwarrantable as this claim of the Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland appears

T