we had continued in the course which was pursued last year. He entreated Noble Lords not only to consider the subject in that point of view, but likewise to revert to what had occurred on a similar occasion. He was old enough to remember the rebellion of 1798. He was not then employed in Ireland, but in another and distant part of his Majesty's dominions; but if he was not mistaken, the Parliament of Ireland at that time went up to the Lord-Lieutenant with an unanimous address (he believed they walked up to him in a body), beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down the unnatura rebellion then raging, and promising him full support in carry ing the measure into execution. The Lord-Lieutenant did take measures for putting down the rebellion, and succeeded in effecting that object. What then? Why, it happened in the very next session that Government proposed to put an end to that Irish Parliament by uniting the two kingdoms, by forming a legislative union between them for the purposeprincipally for the purpose--of passing the very measure which he now proposed to their Lordships. And, in point of fact, the very first measure proposed in Parliament after the legislative union-after the successful measures adopted by the Lord-Lieutenant for suppressing the rebellion-was the very measure now before them. Why then, he asked, was it possible any Noble Lord could believe, supposing such a contest as that which he had anticipated were to take place, that it could be carried on, much less brought to a conclusion, without the measure which he now proposed being insisted on by one at least, if not both Houses of Parliament? He was sure when their Lordships looked at the division of opinion which prevailed in both Houses of Parliament on this question; when they looked at the difference of opinion which prevailed in every family in this country and in Ireland, from the most eminent in station down to the lowest; when they looked at the division of opinion which prevailed amongst the Protestants of Ireland; when their Lordships looked at these circumstances, he was sure they would perceive the vast difference there

would be between a contest carried on now, and that which had been carried on at a former period.

He begged to remind noble lords of the declaration of Protestant feeling in Ireland recently presented to that House. In 1798, the Parliament of Ireland was unanimous, with the exception of, he believed, one or two persons. On a recent occasion two dukes, seventeen marquisses, twenty-six earls, and a vast number of other ranks, comprising not less than two thousand Protestant gentlemen of property in Ireland, had signed a declaration to Parliament, stating that it was absolutely necessary to grant concessions to the Catholics. Such being the case, a contest of the nature to which he had referred would be carried on under circumstances totally different from those which existed on the former occasion. But was it possible to believe that their lordships, having this state of things before them; seeing what the opinion of the other house of Parliament was; seeing what was the opinion of large numbers of the Protestants of Ireland; seeing what was the opinion of nearly every statesman during the last forty years. Was it, he asked possible to believe that their lordships would continue to oppose the measure proposed for settling the question? The thing was absolutely impossible. We could not have gone on longer without increasing the difficulties of the country. But it was very desirable that their lordships should look a little at what benefit was to be derived by any one class of the state by continuing the disabilities and adopting the measures to which he had alluded.

It was said that it was necessary to preserve the principle of the constitution of 1688; that the Act of 1688 permanently excluded Catholics from Parliament, and that, being so permanently excluded, it was necessary to incur all the existing evils in order to maintain that permanent exclusion. He wished very much that noble lords would take the same trouble that he had, and look themselves at how matters stood with respect to this permanent exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament. In the Bill of Rights some things were permanently enacted which he sincerely hoped would continue

permanent. Those objects were the liberties of the people. and the security for the Protestantism of the person occupying the throne. The Bill of Rights provided that the person on the throne should be a Protestant, and should not marry a Papist. Then there were the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and the declaration against transubstantiation, which it was said were permanent also. He begged to observe, that the oath of allegiance, which it was contended was permanent, was altered before the end of the year in which the Act was passed. The alteration, to be sure, was not very material, but it shewed that the permanency which was ascribed to the oath, really did not belong to it. Then, with respect to the oaths taken by members of Parliament, the declaration against transubstantiation, and the invocation of the saints, they were not created by the Act of William III., but by the Act of the 30th of Charles II. During the reign of Charles II. certain oaths were imposed on Dissenters from the church of England by statutes 13 and 14; and next, Roman Catholics were excluded from Parliament (by the operation of oaths) by statutes 25 and 30. At the period of the revolution, when King William came, he thought proper to extend the basis of his Government, and he repealed the oaths affecting Dissenters from the church of England imposed by statutes 13 and 14 of Charles II., and likewise the affirmative part of the oath of supremacy, which Dissenters could not take. That was the history of the alteration by William III of the oaths established in the time of Charles II. The oaths regarding Dissenters from the church of England were altered, because one of the great principles of the revolution was to limit exclusion from the benefit of the constitution as far as possible. Therefore that principle was recorded in the Bill of Rights, as well as the liberties of the subject and the Protestantism of the Crown.

Some noble lords maintained that it was part of the principle of the constitution of 1688, that the oaths which excluded Roman Catholics from Parliament were equally permanent with the Bill of Rights, by which the people's liberties and

the Protestantism of the Crown were secured. If noble lords would do him the favour to look at the words of the act (he had it ready,) they would find that the difference between that which was permanent and that, which was not. The Bill of Rights declared that the Protestantism of the Crown should last for ever-that the liberties of the people should be secured for ever; but it was remarkable that as to these oaths which were enacted on the same occasion, not one word was said about them lasting for ever, or as to how long they should last. Then, what followed? The next act was, the union with Scotland; and what did that act say? Why, that the oaths to be taken by members of Parliament were to be the same as those laid down in the 1st of William and Mary, until Parliament should otherwise direct. There was what was called a permanent act of Parliament to exclude for all future periods Roman Catholics from sitting in the legislature. He would beg to observe, that if the act of William was permanent, which excluded Catholics from Parliament, the 8th clause of the 10th chapter of another act, passed in the same session, required the same oaths to be taken by officers in the army and navy previously to their accepting their commissions. He would ask noble lords why, if the act which excluded Catholics from Parliament were permanent, the other, which excluded them from the army and navy, was not likewise permanent? He would like to ask the noble and learned lord on the woolsack-he meant on the cross-bench-(Eldon)-to answer that question. If the oaths were permanent in the one case, they were equally so in the other; and yet the noble and learned lord consented to the bill of 1817, which repealed oaths required to be taken by officers of the army and navy. He supposed that the noble and learned lord would answer his question by saying, that one act was permanent, and ought to be permanently maintained, but that the other act was not permanent, and the Parliament did right in repealing it in 1817. But the truth of the matter was, that neither act was permanent; and the Parliament of Queen Anne recognised by the act of Union that the first act, relating to seats in Par

liament, was not permanent; and the noble and learned lord did quite right when he consented to the act of 1817, which put an end to the 10th clause of the 1st of William III., chap. 8.

Then, if this principle of exclusion-if this principle of the constitution of 1688, as it was called-was not permanent, if it was recognised to be not permanent, not only by the act of Union with Scotland, (in whicn it was said that the exclusive oath should continue till Parliament otherwise provided,) but also by the later act of Union with Ireland, he would ask their lordships, whether they were not at liberty now to consider the expediency of doing away with it altogether, in order to relieve the country from the inconveniences to which he had already averted? He would ask their lordships, whether they were not called upon to review the state of the representation of Ireland,-whether they were not called upon to see, whether, even supposing that that principle were a permanent one, it was fit that Parliament should remain as it had remained for some time, groaning under a Popish influence exercised by the priests over the elections in Ireland. He would ask their lordships, he repeated, whether it was not right to make an arrangement, which had for its object, not only the settlement of this question, but at the same time to relieve the country from the inconveniences which he had mentioned. He had already stated the manner in which the organization he had alluded to worked upon all the great interests of the country: but he wished their lordships particularly to attend to the manner in which it worked upon the church itself.

That part of the church of England which existed in Ireland was in a very peculiar situation: it was the church of the minority of the people. At the same time, he believed that a more exemplary, a more pious, or a more learned body of men, than the members of that church did not exist. The members of that church certainly enjoyed and deserved the affections of those whom they were sent to instruct, in the same degree as their brethren in England enjoyed the affec