330 L O N 
Mr. Plunkett faid, that, as it would not be in his power 
to be prcfent on the day fixed for the difcuflion of this 
important queftion, he hoped the houfe would indulge 
him with a very few words, that he might give his opi¬ 
nion upon it now. He had read the claufes prepared by 
the right hon. gentleman with the greateft attention, and 
he molt cordially agreed with the-whole of them. They 
appeared to him to embrace the moll perfect fecurity to 
the proteftants ; and, whilft they refpefted the principles 
of the catholics, were calculated to meet and ioften the 
prejudices of every kind. 
Lord Caltlereagh exprefied his fatisfafilion that the ho¬ 
nourable and learned gentleman had made this declaration. 
He alfo exprefied his approbation of the claufes of the 
right hon/gentleman, (Mr. Canning;) and faid the bill 
jhould have his cordial ajfifiance. 
The report was received, and ordered to lie taken into 
farther coniideration on Monday, the 24th.—On that 
day it received that folemn decifion which we alluded to 
in p. 292, 3. and which vve had in fome degree anticipated 
under the article Liberty of Conscience, in the pre¬ 
ceding volume, (p. 591-fioi.) while the biil was before 
the houfe. 
On the 24th of May, therefore, the houfe being in a 
committee on the bill, and having appointed a chairman, 
Mr. Abbott (the fpeaker) immediately rofe, and fpoke to 
the following effefit. He faid, that the honourable gen¬ 
tleman, with whom this bill originated, had declared that 
conciliatory arrangements were the only objefit which he 
had in view; that he wiftied not any meafure of this fort 
10 be carried without the confent of proteftants as well as 
catholics; but what profpeft, he (Mr. Abbott) would afk, 
was there of any fuch concord ? The leaders of the Ro¬ 
man-catholic party exclaimed againft the bill, as inade¬ 
quate and confined in its provifions ; while Dr. Troy, 
the titular archbifhop of Dublin, and Dr. Milner, the vi- 
car-apollolic for the Midland Diftrifit, had declared that, 
in regard to the appointment of their bilhops, it was more 
exceptionable than the Veto itfelf ; and one of them had 
declared that, rather than confent to fuch provifions, it 
■would be the duty of the catholic clergy to lay down their 
lives on a fcaft'old. All our legiflators and ftatefmen had 
agreed that the civil authority fhould be veiled in thofe 
v. ho conformed to the religion of the ftate ; while, at the 
fame time, the meafure of the danger to be avoided was 
to be the meafure of the extent of that exclufion. Such 
was the frame of the government as eftabliflied at the re¬ 
volution : it gave the moft ample religious toleration to pro- 
teftant difienters of every deicription; it even relaxed the 
laws againft them, on account of their tried loyalty and ex¬ 
emplary conduct. The religious doftrines of the catholics, 
on the contrary, contained in them fomething hoftile to the 
civil conftitution of the country. He agreed with Mr. 
Burke, that it was juft to exclude the catholics from of¬ 
fices of ftate, though not from thofe of the army and navy, 
considering the former as belonging to the fovereignty of 
the country. But he would never confent to lay open to 
them the two houfes of parliament, where forae one of 
their body, of fplendid talents, but perverted ambition, 
might become a leader of a party, and, joining with fome 
other faftion,might form a combination of force extremely 
dangerous to the conftitution of the country. Were par¬ 
liament thrown open to the catholics, there would be lit¬ 
tle chance of the prefent reprefentatives for Ireland fit¬ 
ting in that houfe. He fhould likewife objefit to their ap¬ 
pointment to judicial offices. In adminiftering the rights 
of the proteftant church, they could never give that latif- 
fafition which was lo definable and effential. It was not 
the objefit of the framers of the bill to fecure ample tole¬ 
ration to the catholic; or why was not the right of the 
catholic f'oldier to exercife his own religious vvorfiiip fe- 
cured by law, and their places of worlhip protected ? The 
real objefit of the bill was, to give the catholics political 
afcindancy. If the barriers were once broken down, it 
would be too late to think of repairing the breach, when 
D O N. 
the full flood of innovation had burl! in upon us. He did 
not undervalue the oaths contained in the bill; but the 
catholics lived in too great a darknefs and fubjugation to 
their priefts for much reliance to be placed upon them. 
Their clergy was daily increafing in this ifiaiul ; jefuits, 
Eenediftines, and Dominicans. It was well known that 
the two lalt orders were devoted to the pope, whole ver¬ 
bal^ commands were implicitly obeyed; while they, in 
their turn, expected the fame obedience from the people. 
It was this very principle which made Locke as a philofo- 
pher, lord Somers as a ftatefman, and William HI. as a 
lbvereign, declare the catholic ecclefiaftical polity incom¬ 
patible with the fafety of the ftate. We had feen it blaze 
forth lately in Spain ; and furely it would not be a fafe 
concomitant of tire Britan conftitution. The main claufe, 
however, which he fhould oppofe, was that which went 
to admit catholics into parliament: he fliould move that it be 
Itruck out. 
Mr. Whitbread faid, that the right hen. gentleman fo 
rarely delivered his opinion on public queltions, that it 
mutt necefiarily have great influence on the committee : ■ 
he regretted, however, that when, fome fix years ago, a 
bill was brought in to open the army to the catholics, the 
houfe had not been favoured with his fentiments. He 
concluded an argumentative fpeech in favour of the bill. 
Melfrs. Ponfonby, Grattan, and lord Caltlereagh, re¬ 
plied at great length to the arguments of the Speaker ; 
and concluded by declaring, that, as the claufe admitting 
the catholics to parliament was fubftantinlly the eflence 
of the bill, if the former were rejected, the latter would be 
ftripped of all thofe qualities from which the falutary ef- 
fefits of conciliating the catholic body were expefiied to 
flow. 
The queftion was then clamoroufly called for, when 
the Speaker’s amendment was carried by 251 to 247.— 
Mr. Ponfonby then moved, that the report be received 
this day three months; which being put and carried, the 
bill was altogether loft. 
It was not without reafon that Mr. Abbott had declared 
in his fpeech, that, had the above bill been approved and 
palled, it would have failed of conciliating Ireland, or be¬ 
ing received as a boon by the catholics.—At a general 
meeting of the Roman-catholic prelates of Ireland, held 
May 27, 1813, the moft reverend Richard O'Reilly, D.D. 
prefident; it was refolved unanirnoufly, “That, having 
lerioufiy examined the copy of the bill now in progrels 
through parliament, purporting to provide for the re¬ 
moval of the civil and; military difqualifications under 
which his majeliy’s Roman-catholic l'ubjects labour, we 
feel ourfelves bound to declare, that the eccltlialtical 
claufes or fecurities therein contained are utterly incom¬ 
patible with the difeipline of the Roman-catholic church, 
and with the free exercife of our religion; and that, with¬ 
out incurring the heavy guilt of fchifrn, we cannot accede 
to fuch regulations ; nor can we difiemble our difhnay and 
confternation at the confequences which fuch regulations, 
if enforced, mnft necefiarily produce.” And, at a fitting 
of the catholic board at Dublin, on the 23d of Ofitober, 
notice was given of a motion, that a communication be 
had with Mr. Grattan, and a bill put into his hands, 
which will enable him definitely to lay what form of 
emancipation would content the catholics of Ireland. 
But lord Donoughmore and Mr. Grattan have both lince 
declined having any communication with the board upon 
tiie form or fubttance of any emancipation-bill.—We hope 
therefore to hear no more upon the fubjefit. 
The lalt meafure of importance which we (hall notice 
during the proceedings of this feflion, is the renewal of 
the Eait-India Company’s charter, which was to expire 
in March 1814.—O11 the 12th of February, 1813, the earl 
of Hardwicke prefented a petition from the officers em¬ 
ployed in the naval lervice of the company; reprefenting 
the hardfhips of their fituation, fhould the charter not be 
renewed.—On the 19th of the fame month, a petition was 
prefented from the Society in Scotland for propagating; 
Chriftiaii 
