ties-unfettered by Restrictions. And I made in the great work of completely your petitioners will ever pray." Both Petitions were ordered to lie on the table. Tuesday, May 30. repealing all the laws at present in existence aggrieving Roman Catholic subjects after they had heard that in the last Parliament a Resolution had been adopted by a very large majori Sir H. Parnell presented a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Eng-ty, that it was expedient to take the land, numerously and most respectably signed, it having to it upwards of 6000 names, praying relief from the civil and military disabilities under which they laboured, by a repeal of the laws peculiarly affecting them. As he was about to bring forward a Motion respecting the claims of the great body of the Roman Catholics of this kingdom, he should content himself with moving, without further observation, that this Petition do lie on the table, trusting, however, that such Petition would be an additional reason to the House to agree to the Motion which he should presently submit to the House. He then moved that the Petition be laid on the table, which was ordered. The Honourable Baronet then moved-"That the Clerk should read the Resolutions passed by the House, on the subject of the Claims, in two preceding Sessions." They were accordingly read. The first was in substance-" That the House would, early in the succeeding Session, take into its most serious consideration the nature of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland, for the purpose of devising such means as were best calculated to remove the disqualifications under which they at present labour." laws affecting the Catholics into early and serious consideration-after they had heard that in the present Parlia ment a Resolution had been adopted that it was desirable to remove the civil and military disabilities under which the Catholics laboured-they would consider that he was entitled to say that the principle of the question was carried, and that all that remained was to consider the best mode of carrying that principle into effect. This being the case, it would be utterly unnecessary for him to argue the right and expediency of a concession which had been so frequently and so successfully argued by a Right Honourable Friend of his, the Member for Dublin, to whom was due all the merit of having virtually carried this great question. To him every Catholic would always look up as to his great deliverer from the most persecuting system that ever disgraced a government or aggrieved a people.-Whatever remained to be done was merely the superstructure to be built on the foundations which his Right Honourable Friend had laid; and all that he (Sir H. Parnell) regretted was that this task had not fallen into abler hands. For the same reason to which he had already alluded, it would be unnecessary for him to refer to those arguments founded on that inexhaustiblesource of opposition to the Catholic. claims-the bulls and canons of the see of Rome-the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. The votes to which the House of Commons had formerly come, answered all the reasonings thence derived, and left them to consider the subject in a light entirely new. It was indeed reduced to a very narrow compass-simply, the conditions on which the claims could be granted. He felt the more war Had they not behaved themselves with uniform loyalty? In the rebellions of 1715, 1745, and 1798, had they not only been loyal themselves, but active in preserving the loyalty of the people under their charge? In fact, their distinguishing characteristics were prudence and caution in the discharge of their very important functions. The effect of granting Catholic emancipation would be to give these individuals universal satisfaction, and to excite in them a still stronger affection for the state; thus securing, instead of endangering, the Protestant establishment. From the Bishops, therefore, no danger could be apprehended. If any danger could arise, it could be only from the Catholic Church at large. But what connection had that Church in Ireland with the see of Rome? only in three cases the first, with respect to mar riage dispensations; the second relat ing to certain fees (both of which were almost grown out of disuse ;) the ranted in this assertion from the direct | zens? causes which led to the failure of the last Catholic Bill; for although it was lost in consequence of the majority against the clause enabling Catholics to sit in Parliament, it was evident that to the opposition given by the Catholics to the Veto, the failure was attributable. That being the state of the question it would be unbecoming in him to occupy the time of the House in arguing that which had been alrea. dy admitted-the general principle.In the observations which he should feel it his duty to make, he would studiously abstain from intemperance of language, and from any expressions calculated to excite angry feelings in those who were adverse to his proposition. But before he proceeded, he begged the House to consider that this was the first time that they had fully considered the question of giving to the Crown a controul over the appointment of the Catholic Bishops. For although the subject had certainly been before them at a former pe-third, and that was the case in discusriod, it was embarrassed by the considerations with which it was connected, and had never until now been the topic of principal discussion. It was the duty of those who refused Catholic emancipation, because the Catholics refused to allow the Crown to controul them on this subject, to point out whence the dangers would proceed of permitting the present freedom on this subject to exist. That policy was unquestionably suspicious, which sacrificed the interests of a large class of the community to an ideal apprehension. It was not just or fair towards the Catholics to censure them for declining to surrender this controul, or for abstaining from offering any suggestions by which the hostility of the enemies of emancipation might be removed. With regard to the danger to which the Protestant establishment was liable, from this uncontrouled appointment of the Catholic Bishops, he would merely ask, what had been at all times the conduct of those individuals, both as Bishops and as citi sion, canonical institution. What Clergy in Ireland, and not with the Pope. It was impossible that the Pope could so controul the appointment as to render it obnoxious to the interests of the state. Of late years also, a considerable change had taken place on this subject, by which the appointment of a Bishop rested almost exclusively with the priests of the diocese. On former occasions it was argued, by the enemies of emancipation, that the danger which they contemplated as likely to arise from it were increased from the circumstance that the person of the Pope was then in the power of Bonaparte. To that objection there was an end. In fact, the probable influence of the Pope had been altogether misapprehended. Nothing could be more improbable than that it would be exercised in a way injurious to our existing establishments. The proper, just, and accurate inference from all this was, that it was absolutely impossible for the opponents of Catholic emancipation to prove a case of necessity sufficiently strong to justify their anxious adherence to the argument, that it was indispensible the Crown should possess the controul over the appointment of the Catholic Bishops. He had been led to dwell on this part of the subject, from the feeling that this claim of controul, on the part of the Crown, over the appointment of the Catholic Bishops, was the sole obstacle to Catholic Emancipation. He trusted that those who wished to be exempt from the controul would be moderate in their expectations, and that those to whom that exemption was urged, would consider the question temperately, and thus the whole question end in mutual conciliation. It was in this view of the subject that he had felt it his duty to submit to the House the Resolutions which he had read on a recent occasion. He had so submitted them, with an anxious hope that they would produce a spirit of temperance and conciliation. They had had that effect both in Ireland and here. Many of the Protestants SUPP. ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. III. of Ireland had supposed that the claims of the Catholics went to the support of their Clergy. Finding that there was no such proposition as the settlement of tithes, &c. they had relaxed from their hostility to the proceeding. With regard to the subject matter of those Resolutions, three of them went to restore to the Catholic body those rights of free citizens which all their countrymen enjoyed. The first Resolution was to relieve the Catholics from taking certain oaths prior to their purchase of landed property. Those who regarded the matter superficially, fancied that the Catholics were not much aggrieved by this circumstance. But it was felt as a great hardship, and sometimes as a great injury. For by the Act of 1793, no Catholic could purchase land without taking certain oaths therein prescribed. If from ignorance, negligence, or even infirmity, they omitted to take these oaths, their property was subject to confiscation by a suit on the part of what was called a Protestant Discoverer; that was, any one of their family who chose to conform to the Protestant religion, and to file a bill for the purpose of depriving them of their property. This was not an imaginary case; it was one which had frequently occurred. The Second Resolution went to place the Catholics on an equality with their fellow-subjects in respect of the elective franchise. For, if they had a right to acquire property on equal terms, it was fair to infer that they had a right to an equal share in the elective franchise. The Third Resolution was to open to the Catholics seats in Parliament, and all offices of profit, honour, and trust in the public service;-in other words, to restore to the Catholic by enactment and in practice the whole enjoyment of civil liberty. The rights which he proposed so to grant, were founded on the broad basis of the equal duties and equal benefits which all the subjects of this country ought to pay and receive; and the equal imposition and advantage of which formed the great distin B guishing principle of the British Con- | solutions, to embody them in a law, and thus to grant the prayer of the Catholics, that they might be admitted to a full participation of the benefits of the British Constitution, they would establish the best security for the Protestant establishment, for British connection, and for the British Empire (hear, hear, hear!) If this should be the course adopted by Parliament, it would give the Catholics unqualified satisfaction; it would draw from them the most enthusiastic gratitude, and rivet their affections towards the British nation and the prosperity of the British empire. An advantage, which surely ought not to be risked for a bartering about ecclesiastical appointments. If, by maintaining the controul of the Crown over the appointment of the Catholic Bishops, the House diminished the value of the grant, they would hazard the whole grace of the boon which they had it in their power to bestow, and which a sound policy loudly prescribed to them. The Honourable Baronet concluded by moving," That the House should resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the state of the laws respecting Roman Catholic Subjects." stitution. The major part of those Resolutions tended merely to grant those concessions which the Speaker and the most eminent Members of that House had agreed ought to be granted. He could not conceive how it was possible now to refuse the propriety of giving that which had been already admitted. With respect to the other five Resolutions, they related to the security and freedom of Catholic worship, the protection of the Catholic Clergy from religious service, the facilities of education, &c. They comprehended such regulations as the most warm and zealous opponents of Catholic Emancipation, in general, could hardly refuse to consent to.With regard to the security to the Catholic Soldier in his religious worship, when the subject had formerly been mentioned in that House by him, he had been answered that orders were issued from the War Office for that purpose. He had then complained of this as insufficient, and so it turned out. By that morning's post he had received information that certain Catholic soldiers of the Cork Militia had been dragged by their officers to the Protestant chapel. On a representation being made to the Commander in Chief it was unattended to, but on a statement of the case being made to the Irish Government relief was im mediately obtained. He gave the Government of Ireland great credit for their conduct, but the subject should be set at rest by Legislative interference, and the Catholic soldier thus permanently secured. By acceding to the vote with which he should have the honour to conclude, the House would not pledge themselves to any particular proceeding or grant. The general subject would be quite untouched. It might be objected that the Resolutions which he had proposed, comprised no one of distinct security for the Protestant establish ment. That was true. But he begged leave to observe, that if the House should think proper to adopt his Re-Monsignor Quarantotti, at the time Sir John Cox Hippisley regretted that he had not been in his place at the time when a Petition was presented by the Honourable Baronet (Sir H. Par nell) from the Catholics of Great Britain, praying for unrestricted and unqualified concession; for he was convinced that there were not two names of Catholics of any considera tion in this country to that Petition, however numerously it might be signed. He felt it his duty to resist all demands of unqualified concession: he had always had in view those restric tions, which were warranted by sound policy and the practice of other States— restrictions which were only imposed with a view to limit the power of interference of the Court of Rome. This power of imposing restrictions had been even conceded in the Rescript of vested by the Court of Rome with ample powers for that purpose, addressed to a worthy Prelate of this country. Before issuing that Rescript he had called to his aid four or five Prelates of the greatest talents and learning then at Rome, who all agreed with him in the recognition of the principle which, since 1808, had been opposed by the great body of the Irish Catholics. The Honourable Baronet then alluded to the Resolutions of the Irish Bishops in 1799, on the table of the House, signed by the four Metropolitans and six senior Bishops; in which they agreed to two points, reprobated by the Catholics of the present day. When he had first started the subject of the restoration of the Jesuits in that House, an attempt was made to turn his apprehensions into ridicule; but it now turned out that his fears were well founded. The example of Russia was not applicable to this country; for when Catharine, for her own purposes, gave an asylum to the Jesuits in her dominions, she took care that Greek priests should have the charge of the religious education in all the colleges in which Roman Catholics were professors; and he had been assured, that not a single instance of a convert in any of those colleges having been made to the Church of Rome was ever known in Russia. The Honourable Baronet then referred to a Bill which had appeared in most of the Dublin newspapers, which was in tended to be brought in by his Honourable Friend (Sir H. Parnell) if successful in the previous measures. The preamble of that Bill stated, that it was just and expedient that his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects should be restored to their just rights, and to all the privileges of the British Constitution. He contended that they had no rights to the privileges which they claimed; and that if we admit, ted them to these privileges, this was a concession, and not a restitution of rights. It had been said, that this measure would have the effect of conciliating four millions of Catholics. It might be so-but his Honourable Friend had not told them what de scription of persons would not be conciliated. Were there not fourteen millions of people in this country who would consider any concessions to the Catholics with a very jealous eye? But did not the Honourable Baronet know that those Resolutions were reprobated by the Catholics, and that he was reproached in every newspaper? Was he not called the tool of Ministers, of lukewarm friends, or decided ene mies? With respect to the oath, it was in a great measure abrogated as a security, for it was to be taken only by those who held places and offices of trust. He remarked, that if the Catholics would examine, they would find that even their Catholic ancestors erected great securities against the Pope's authority in England; and even Mary left on our Statute Book all those securities prior to the 20th of Henry VIII.-With respect to a Select Committee, although he despaired of inducing the House to agree to its appointment, still, he could assure them, he felt a strong conviction in his mind, that no other course of proceeding could possibly have so good an effect in settling this important question. Nor could he see any sound objection to the adoption of that mode of investigation which preceded their decision on almost every great measure. When an alteration in the Corn Laws was contemplated, the subject was referred to a Select Committee. Indeed there was scarcely a question that came under the consideration of the House, on which they had not the Report of a Select Committee for their instruction. this multitudinous subject--when they were called on to make a wide departure from the principles established by their ancestors-when they were told by some that the measure would bring six millions of our population within the pale of the Constitution-when certain individuals regarded the claims of the Catholics as matter of right, and others spoke of them as points of But on |