s r
/• '
''/ ''

/'^'' ;
f^-;?^

"Zgive the/e ,Mo/<s
-fonthefoiiiiilhig of a. (^olUgiitv this Colony'^

1923

THE CHURCH QUESTION IN IRELAND.

SPEECH
.IS PRF.P,lRF.r) PY
THE LATE RIGHT HON. SPENCER PERCEVAL,
FOB
THE DEBATE ON
THE FIRST ROMAN-CATHOLIC PETITION
TO THE UNITED PARLIAMENT,
(13 May, 1805.)
NOW FIRST PUBLISHED FROM THE ORIGINAL MS.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION, ILLUSTRATIVE APPENDIX, NOTES
AND COMMENTS TO THE LATTER.
BY DUDLEY PERCEVAL, ESQ.
Hi

WILLIAM BLACKWO6D AND SONS,
EDINBURGH AND LONDON.

MDCCCXLIV,

LONDO.V ;
BRADBURV ANIJ liVASS, PnrNTKKS, WHITBPRfAKS,

M^ ^^

^piq-i

ACADEMIIS CANTABRIGIENSI OXONIENSIQUE
PRO MEMORIA VETERIS OFFICII
JAM PRIDEM PATRIS QUONDAM SUI
HODIERNjEQUE in SPECIMEN OBSERVANTI^
haud absque MULTIS SOLICITISQUE VOTIS
UT DEI GRATIA
SAGROSANCTjE FIDEI SIMPLICITATEM
AT IN PACIS TAMEN VINCULO
CETERIS VINDICENT SIBI CONSERVENT
NECNON UT IN ECCLESIjE UBICUNQUE ANGLICANjE PRjESIDIO
ACERRIME SI UNQUAM PERVIGILENT
ET NE QUID CONSORTIO IPSIUS LEGITIMA
CUM REGNO REPUBLICAQUE DETRIMENTI CAPIAT
MORE MAJORUM AUDACTEE PROVIDEANT
HANC ORATIONEM QUI CURAVIT EDERE
INSCRIBI VOLUIT

"AiravQ 6 fiaKpos KavapiO^Tjros XP0N02
(fivet T aBrjXa' Kol <pav€ifTa KpvjTTerat'
KOVK €s aeXTTTOU ovdev' aX\ aXttrKcrot
x4 Sewos OPKOS, xai n-epio-KcXfis (fypives. — SoPH. AjAX. 646.
TRANSLATION.
Time, the long {in duration) and countless {of years) brings forth
{to light) all things [that are) obscure ; and these, when they have
become manifest, are obscured {again) : and there is nothing that may
not be looked for ; but even the awful Oath {violated) is brought home to
the conscience {at last); and the stubborn minds {of those who would not
be bound by it) are convinced of their sin.

INTRODUCTION,

The motives which decided the Editor to publish this speech
of Mr. Perceval's separately, and at the present time, arose from
the deep anxiety with which, being in Ireland last year, he
watched from thence the effect which the ' Repeal ' agitation
should produce on Parliament.
Convinced, from the first, that it was upon Parliament that it
was intended by its leaders to operate — and therefore assuredly
not with the most distant hope or notion of really compassing its
nominal purpose; — perfectly satisfied that nothing was farther
from the present purpose of Mr. 0''Connell and the Priests than
to permit the people by any ove7-t act of treason to jeopardise
their precious persons, and knowing that the Roman-catholic
populace are much too well organised and trained, for any serious
outbreak to take place except at their bidding, — he regarded the
mock tumults around him with little interest ; save in so far as
the speeches at the " Monster-meetings " might enable him to
test the degree of success which the Popish Press had obtained
in stimulating the people to hatred of the Church and the
Protestants. The result in that respect was rather satisfactory. The
speeches were bad enough to be sure : but by no means came up
to the mark of the Repeal Press.* It was clear that public
opinion, even among the Roman-catholic multitude, was not yet
* Vide Appendix F. paire 97.

prepared to listen, with approbation, to the brutal tirades their
teachers obliged them to read* Upon the whole, while it was
more manifest than usual that a mandate from O'Connell, if fiated
by the Priests, would suffice to set sixteen counties at least in
a blaze, — to be quenched alas ! only in the blood of the most
interesting but most incurably irrational peasantry on the face of
the earth — it was, at the same time, more certain than usual that
no such mandate would be issued. And as to rebel (in the
optative and potential mood, however,) has been so long the
habit of that paradoxical people's mind, — ever in proportion as
the stern front of British rule relaxes, and gives least apparent
excuse for it, — so the more or less evidence of the sentiment was
scarcely Worth remark, Hoc gentile putes.
But very different was the effect produced on the Editor's
mind by the contemporary proceedings in Parliament. There,
he saw, that the " Repeal" battery had told most effectually for
its real objects. He saw, at once, under cover of its fire, every
enemy of the Church throw himself ten years in advance of any
position he had ever before ventured to take up : whilst some of
her defenders went over to the assailants, and many of the rest
seemed rather to stand to their arms as a matter of discipline, or
a point of honour, than to spring to the defence with that spirit
and zeal which bespeaks the confidence of victory. He saw,
with deep concern, principles advanced, and propositions made —
without rebuke, if without success— at the bare hint of which
eight years ago. Parliament would have been startled with indig
nation, and in all probability would have brought to pass in 1836
the changes of 1841.
Such were the Editor's impressions, when it happened, that
in July last,"!" — just when Mr. Roebuck's speech, and Mr.
• See Appendix, F. p. 97. t See Note at the end of this Introduction.

Ward's motion, and Lord Oranmore's petition, had for the first
time insulted Parliament by a direct proposal (in the memorable
words of the Duke of Wellington) " to repeal the laws which
establish the Reformation in this United Kingdom" — he first
became aware of the existence of the manuscripts containing
the speech prepared by Mr. Perceval for the debate on the first
Roman-catholic petition to the United Parliament.* In this
speech, with sagacity now proved prophetic, and with moral
courage which enabled him patiently to bear the taunt of bigotry
and the imputation of faction, which nothing but the event
could disprove, Mr. Perceval had rested his main argument
against the measure at that time so adroitly nicknamed " Eman
cipation," upon the eventual certainty of that very struggle
for the overthrow of the Church in Ireland, which now, after the
lapse of nine-and-thirty years, men will no longer deny to be the
real Roman-catholic Question. For this, by his opponents then,
and by every literary liberal from that day to this, — from the
laughing author of Peter Plymley's Letters, the still inimitable
Canon of St. Paul's, who has the best excuse of all men for some
times mistaking wit for wisdom, down to the sententious and
caustic Napier, the stern historian of the Peninsular War, who
has the least excuse of all men for calumniating the Minister
whose hope for Europe, and whose glory in his grave, that war
was^ — for this view of the subject Mr. Perceval was denounced
as the most narrow-minded of politicians. But the people of
England, if they laughed with Peter Plymley, chose nevertheless
to believe and to act with Mr. Perceval : and, by their assistance
and co-operation, his counsels kept the Establishment in compa
rative peace, and the Protestant constitution intact, for yet a quar
ter of a century beyond the day he gave them. Little by little,
* See Appendix, B. 1.

VllI

however, the liberal fallacy gained ground : at last it prevailed :
and Mr. Perceval's policy was laid aside by parliament ; as
obsolete and bigoted, if not factious and dishonest. This nation
has now to observe, and to endure, if it will not rather choose to
obviate, the result.
" Tyme tryeth Troth," as the old Saxon proverb goes ; and
time has now done full justice to that policy. No candid
person who, with the sayings and doings of 1843 fresh in his
mind, shall read the following pages, can dispute the truth, the
¦(visdom, and the perfect sincerity of the convictions on which the
Roman-catholic pretensions were, in 1805, resisted. Those poli
ticians, indeed, and those alone, who are prepared to advocate
the downfal of the Church, and the establishment of Papal
ascendancy in Ireland, not merely as a concession to expediency,
or a sacrifice to necessity, but as the dictate of Justice, and the
requirement of Right, may dispute the wisdom of those convictions,
— in what thet/ will call an " enlarged'''' sense of the word. They
have, logically, a right to do so at all times : for they differ with
Mr. Perceval on the antecedent question. But his argument
was not meant to meet reasoners of that class; it was addressed
to a Parliament which admitted as an axiom that principle which
their opinion directly contradicts. Moreover, forty- yeais ago,
people who held such opinions, held their tongues also.
But those who lulled the public mind of England to sleep by
the false promise, so often reiterated, that " Emancipation "
should make "the Church in Ireland as safe as the Church in
Yorkshire " — those who either believed, or affected to believe, that
Roman-catholics would be content with civil equalitv — that as
they protested loudly, so they would swear gladly,* and keep the
oath in simplicity, to respect the rights of the Establishment,
* See Appendix G. Note by the Editor.

IX

and use none of the powers and privileges they sought for, no,
not so much as to " disturb " the Protestant religion — those men
have now heard the Roman-catholics of Ireland speak out. They
cannot now help seeing that inveterate hatred to the " Saxon,"
determined hostility to the Protestant Church, lay deep below
the surface of all those hollow protestations. Yet those protes
tations, by the help of the " liberal and enlightened " men —
Whigs and Tories, who were too wise to believe what "bigots"
told them — produced, at last, such an effect on Parliament and
on the nation, that the ablest, and the firmest statesman, of the
age, despaired of finding there the support necessary to put
down, without a civil war, that threat of rebellion, which now,
thank God! they despise and defy. In which predicament they
felt forced to gi-ve up, not the Roman-catholic question alone,
but, along with it, perhaps more fatally, though not so palpably,
the only principle on which Ireland, or any other country, can
ever be Governed ; the principle that the subject must bow to
the legislature, not the legislature to the subject : that no body
of individuals, however numerous, however wealthy, however
banded together in leagues or associations, can be permitted
to bully THE State ;- or to appear before Parliament in any other
guise but that of " humble petitioners."
This class, at least, if heretofore honest, must now see their
mistake. They can now no longer deny the wisdom and
foresight of Mr. Perceval. And, as no one of them who paid
the least attention to the proceedings in Parliament last year,
can doubt that the effect of the late ebullitions in Ireland will be
to force upon the legislature, in the next session, the question of
Roman-catholic endowment at least, if not that of Roman-
catholic establishment in the room and place of the Protestant
Church ; and as few things are more probable than that to force

those questions on Parliament was the real object of the Priests *
in the Repeal agitation, (as to force Sir Robert Peel out of
ofiice on those questions, or to ruin his Ministry and blow up
the Conservative party, by persuading him to concede them, was
the real object of O'Connell and all the liberals who joined in or
who countenanced that senseless and impudent delusion), — is it
too much to hope that all men, seeing how fully events have
borne out Mr. Perceval's opinions hitherto, will attend now to
his argument, that Roman-catholic endowment must end in
Roman-catholic ascendancy ? Is it too much to hope that the
Churchmen of England, Whigs and Tories alikfe, may at last be
persuaded for once to lay aside their fatal feuds ; and remembering
that they are assembled in Parliament by the Queen's writ, to ad
vise her Majesty " de rebus quibusdam arduis, Ecclesiam et
Regnum AN&Li.a; concernentibus," will resolve to meet that ques
tion in the spirit of the oath they have sworn to their Sovereign,
as interpreted by that oath which she reciprocally has sworn to
* Few persons attach any weight to the professions of Roman -catholic bishops,
that they would perish rather than be paid : but this gasconade has many mean
ings. (1.) That they would much rather see all endowments taken away from the
Church, than be themselves endowed alongside of it. They would still be the in
ferior body. Disendow the Church, at once tftey have the ascendancy. Trust them
afterwards to get what they like ; and be sure it will be more than the poor j£400,000
a year of tithes, which spoliation has left to the Establishment ; and which they
think it would shock Protestants less to see taken away altogether from it, than
given to them. {2.) Asa pis-aller ; to get endowment, as it were, forced upon them ;
that so they may get it without conditions ; — clutch it sullenly as a 'debt, acknow
ledged by the State to be their right, not its bounty. (3.) It is the manner of the
faction (O'Connell boasts of it) to ask for what they cannot get, in order to get what
they ought not. And this is the rationale of their demand for " Repeal." As for
O'Connell, he had nothing else for it. The people would not have responded to
any other cry ; nor would they to that, but for the "land" bait. There he touched
the secret chord ; which no one had dared openly to touch before. Hence his suc
cess. The priests had no other choice but to join him : for tithes aud church-cess
were getting obsolete as grievances ; and in ten years the Church would have been
safe from all " agitation." See Appendix A. and F.

XI

her subjects? — That they will not only reject, but resent, as
derogatory to Parliament, such resolutions as Mr. Ward had the
audacity to move last year ; and unite with one voice to rebuke
and put down the mover, whoever he may be ?
But these are wild words. False theories of the constitution,
false axioms of politics, false maxims of liberality, false notions of
toleration, false principles of religion — have so settled themselves
upon the minds of men, and eaten out the very core and kernel
of old English loyalty, faith, and patriotism, leaving nothing but
the shell and outer semblance, that a man now-a-days seems a
dreamer if he conceives it but possible that the Churchmen of
England, in a matter of politics, should ever unite as such, or
think upon their common churchmanship ; or that the Queen's
subjects in Parliament should ask themselves what their oath of
allegiance really means ; or even remember that they are subjects
there at all. We must be content, at the bidding of every
political coxcomb, to argue questions which the fundamental law
of the monarchy has most solemnly decided centuries ago ; sure
to see one or more of the Queen's own Privy Council patting the
babbler on the back while he spouts treason against the very
principles on which their Royal Mistress holds her Crown ; too
happy, if the rest of them can but persuade the House, after long
and grave debate, to say " Nay " to revolution, by a measuring-
cast majority !
The object, however, of this publication is to arouse, if possible,
the Churchmen of England, of all political parties, to a sense of
their power, their rights, and their responsibilities. Their power,
if they would but unite ; their rights, if they would but recog
nise them ; their common responsibilities, whether they choose to
remember them or not. To engage them, if possible, to perceive
how, and by what fallacies their minds have been misled ; how.

and by what hypocrisy and bare-faced bad faith their confidence
has been abused ; how the principles on which men once agreed
to reason in Politics are now nearly all set aside ; how much the
first maxims of the constitution have been forgotten ; and how far
the outworks of the monarchy have been surrendered one by one,
till at last the sap has reached -the walls, if it be not already
before the gate of the citadel. And thus it has fairly come to pass,
partly through the unhappy habit or determination of Whigs to
see in Irish Church questions nothing but party questions .between
Whig and Tory, and partly through the blindness of liberal
Tories who cannot discern the true bearings of the subject — that
the great constitutional principle of the union between Church
and State is now in danger, not merely of debate, but of denial
by Parliament. For one great division of the members of the
Church of England has apparently lost the will ; and the other,
and the greater, seenSs all but to distrust its power, to save the
establishment of the Protestant religion in Ireland ; or at least,
to prevent the co-establishment there of Popery.
Such were the motives, and such is the object of this present
publication. That it will attain the latter in any signal degree,
the Editor is not so sanguine as to hope. Still it cannot
altogether fail of its purpose. It will at least help the right side
in the argument; and may contribute something to save the
majority of last year from being turned into a minority in this.
In aid of this more humble purpose, it may be well to
anticipate and examine two plausible opinions, which might
otherwise, in some degree, do away with the effect of Mr.
Perceval's argument. They rest on little better than mere
supposition : but they will most likely be advanced ; for nothing-
else can be. It will either be asserted that if " Emancipation "
had been conceded in 1805, the Roman-catholic laity would have

xni

been satisfied, and the Roman-catholic priests would not have
been able to excite any further agitation against Church or State;
or else it will be asserted that, if a very moderate endowment had
been granted to that priesthood at the Union, Ihey would have
been satisfied with it, and have left Ireland in peace and
tranquillity. It is impossible, in the nature of things, to disprove results
alleged to have been certain, from events which never took
place. Such results may always be contended for as matters of
opinion, without fear of direct confutation. But as far as
opinions of this kind can be refuted from experience, or at least
from the analogy of experience, surely the first of these opinions
has been completely confuted. How can we judge of what men
would have done in any supposed event, except from what they
have done in the actual event most nearly resembling it?
And after the experience of the thirteen years which have
elapsed since the passing of the Roman-catholic Relief Bill,
beginning with the Tithe War, and ending with the Repeal
Agitation and Mr. O'Connell's manifesto, coolly propounding
to the Protestants, as the first condition of the state of Ireland
under a Repeal Parliament, that the Establishment must go,
root and branch ; — remembering too that up to the year 1829,
the protestations of the Roman-catholics were just the same
in substance as they were in 1805 — most men will probably
agree in setting that opinion summarily aside ; as one that rests
on an assumption not merely void of all foundation, but, as
far as it possibly can be, demolished by experience.
The other opinion is entitled to more respect : it has not yet
been in any way proved false by experience. Happily, the expe
riment which would test it has not yet been tried. But if any
Protestant (not satisfied by Mr. Perceval's argument, that it ought

XlV
not* ever to be tried, and that if tried it would not be successful
unless carried to the full extent of ascendancy,) still chngs to the
notion that it would have succeeded then, even if not now, in the
then temper and mind of the Roman-catholics ; let him read and
weigh the two first articles in the Appendix (A, 1 and 2). If he
will not be convinced of the error of this opinion, when he finds
in Lord Redesdale's letter, and in the other nearly contemporary
paper, those very objects which last year's sedition in Ireland
openly professed to aim at, ascribed by a pro-catholic pamphleteer
of 1805, to the real leaders of that party in thew first petition, — and
this in language which he will hardly believe his eyes was not
written in 1843, — and sees also the very spirit and motives which
the Repealers of 1843 glory in, and avouch in their newspapers,
songs, and speeches, ascribed by Roman-catholics themselves at the
time to the agitators of 1805, — he will, not be convinced, if those
very men rose from the dead to convince him.
But this last opinion (if in spite of all this evidence it can be
maintained) does not at any rate affect Mr. Perceval's first argu
ment. That " Emancipation" without Establishment would fail to
conciliate Roman-catholic disaffection. This at least has now been
so completely proved true by the event, that we now have men
prating in parliament about the "absurdity"''' of ever supposing that
it could : in his days it was " bigotry" to suppose it would not !
And surely this ought to give great weight to his further argu
ment. That Endowment without Ascendancy will prove an equal
failure.

There are two considerations on this same subject of Roman-
catholic Endowment, which, as they lie entirely out of the scope
* See pages 45, 47.

of Mr. Perceval's argument, the Editor may perhaps be per
mitted in this place to bring before the public himself, in the first
Person.

No man, who has ever so little the heart of a Christian, can
have realised with his own senses, the painful practical evidence
which Irish life affords of the deep breach and schism in that body,
the Church Catholic, which ought to be " one," even as the Father
and the Son are One, without experiencing a sorrowful and
earnest longing that a day may come when it shall please the
Almighty to heal it. No man can have passed, as 1 have often had
to pass, by the crowd of poor Roman-catholic worshippers, filling
the chapel-yard, on their knees, whilst the mass was celebrated
within — and feel that he could not join with them in their
worship, without sanctioning by his presence and example, tenets
and observances which the Church has condemned and which
reason revolts at, — without, tacitly at least, submitting to confes
sions of faith, in default of which Papal Tyranny has declared
him excommunicated and accursed, — without, in all appearance,
assenting to a breach of the most express and menacing of all
God's commandments; the guilt of which, he humbly trusts. He
will not impute to those who ignorantly and in erring devotion do
break it, but dares not hope, himself in full knowledge and belief
of its actual reality, he might on any pretence of human charity
and sympathy be justified in hazarding,— no man, I say, can have
felt himself compelled thus to pass by a scene like this; to leave
the poor people he has loved the week long to communicate with
in this world's kindness, and such charity as God may have placed
in his power to show them, uncommunicated with in their prayers,
outwardly at least, on the day of their common Lord and his, —
all the while feeling more sure of nothing than that more than

one among them are at' the very moment offering • prayers to
heaven, in simple affection and gratitude, for him and his, — to
leave them unnoticed, and drive away to a distant church where
the poor man's face is never seen, and all bespeaks opulence or
comfort at least ; — no man, not used to it, and hardened to it from
his infancy, can do this without grief and humiliation, nay, with
out terror — without a secret prayer that it would please God, (in
the affecting language of the prophet Malachi,) " to turn the
hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the children to the
fathers, — lest I come, and smite the earth with a curse, saith the
Lord." Now, even if we be, which (desperate as the case seems) I trust
we are not, forbidden to entertain a hope that anything short of a
miraculous interposition can heal this cruel schism in our own
country at least, — if the apparent obstacles to such a reconciliation
between ourselves and onr Roman-catholic brethren, as might at
least restore us to Christian communion, though it might leave us
with some diversity of opinion, practice, and discipline, be really
insuperable, — still we have the consolation to believe, as Protes
tants, that the fault and the sin are not on our side. We have
not excommunicated them. We, not as they with subterfuge
and reservation, but frankly, acknowledge them by their baptism
members of the same body with ourselves. We do not deny
their church or their priesthood ; we admit their orders. But we
protest against what we deem, and believe to be, their errors. If
our protest be founded on truth, and made in charity, we are not
responsible to God for the commencement of their schism, — nor,
as yet, for its continuance. Ought we not to beware lest we make
ourselves in any way responsible for its perpetuation .'
Of all human means to perpetuate it in our own country, none
could be devised so certain to attain that object, as a separate

XVll

endowment granted by the State for the clergy of the Roman-
catholic persuasion.
The truth of this proposition must (I think) be so obvious to
any mind accustomed to reflect upon human motives and actions,
that it would be mere impertinence to add anything by way of
proof. I will only beg my readers to dwell upon it.
But, if any think the case is a lost one already, and past pray
ing for (as men say), and therefore that it matters not, practically,
what we do or leave undone in this regard ; I would earnestly
request them to consider, first, whether that opinion can be con
sistent with our Faith, our Hope, or our Charity ? — Next,
whether any dispensations of Providence under which we may
live, can safely be held by us to be dispensations (in another
sense) to us, from the plain duty of not doing that which must
have a direct tendency, at least, to thwart what we mu^t believe to
be His Will; — though He leaves it to the free agency of Man to
accomplish that will or not, in this as in every other subject of
human purpose and action ?
And lastly, are they so sure that the case is a lost one ? Bad
as it is, I for one do not believe it to be permanently hopeless.
There are many reasons for thinking that the Roman-catholic
persuasion already is with many of the educated classes, and many
of the priesthood too, much less a matter of faith than of faction.
I mean that very many of the distinctive tenets and 'doctrines
which bar our communion, those especially which render it
morally impossible for a Protestant Government, without guilt, to
endow the priesthood so long as it teaches and practises them, are
held more in the spirit of controversy, and of professional [neces
sity, than in the spirit of real, or bigoted, belief: — That explana
tions of doctrine (perhaps not unlike those^which a very pious, a
very able, and I trust, a well-meaning, but too subtle author in
b

our own Church, has but lately startled the world by propounding,
and at all events has shown, to be not absolutely and logically
inadmissible,) might be conscientiously allowed and accepted by
Roman-catholics : — That modifications of practice and observance
might, without any real sacrifice of consistency or dignity on their
part, reasonably follow : — That, if the Conclave or the Congrega
tion, or whatever it really is, at Rome, that wields the power
nominally in the breast of the Sovereign Pontiff, refused to sanc
tion such, the Rom an- catholic Bishops and Priests of Ireland
might possibly shake off the yoke of ultramontane despotism,
as their predecessors did before them. And that thus, even if
after all, the Roman-catholics did not become altogether capable
of complete amalgamation with the National Church, their tenets
and their practices might at least be so far qualified, that the
Protestant conscience would no longer be in its present dilemma
and difficulty about endowing their clergy.*
Again. Who is there that considers how utterly inadequate,
both in number and endowment, the present Establishment would
be, if (in the course, or out of the course, of Providence) the
whole people of Ireland should become reconciled to the National
Church ; and that would not desire, even as a mere matter of
economic arrangement, above all things, if the Roman-catholic
people were to come over to us, or come to terms of quahfied
communion, they should come along with their clergy, and not
without them ? Now, is it not clear, that even if the State endow
ment of the Roman-catholic clergy as such, should not tend to
prevent the reconciliation of their flocks, one by one, or hundreds
* It is, of course, impossible for me here to do more than just state these views
with a caution against any one supposing that I have any sanguine hope of living
long enough to see anything like their accomplishment. If any one think them
altogether Utopian, he will do well to read a remarkable letter of Alexander Kno,x
to Wilberforce — Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 241, 252.

by hundreds, to the Church — nay, might even possibly (I am far
from thinking it would) facilitate that process — is it not clear that
it would assuredly prevent their own reconciliation in any equal
ratio ? And that such among them as might be so reconciled,
would have their places instantly filled, for the endowment's sake,
by others who would be educated and waiting for advancement
in the same profession ? Thus these endowments would turn out
to be an economic inconvenience, as well as a hindrance and
misfortune in every way. I must own that, knowing what the
effective establishment of the Church in Ireland is, I can hardly
conceive a greater perplexity and danger than would be
occasioned by a sudden reconciliation of the whole Roman-
catholic population of Ireland to the Church, unless the priest
hood joined them in the movement. And though firmly
persuaded that much of their faith is contrary to the Gospel,
and many of their practices to God's Law, yet I doubt if any
wise man could desire to see them converted away from their
present priesthood, without first securing for them due spiritual
provision in their room — and I am not sure that they ought to be
so converted.
The chance may be a bad one ; but the only chance, humanly
speaking, that unity may ever be restored to the Church in
Ireland — or peace and concord to that country, without the
separation of the two realms, followed up by the expulsion or
forced conformity of the Protestants — lies now, as it ever did lie
— in the firm determination of Parliament to act upon those
conclusions so eloquently set forth at the close and peroration of
Mr. Perceval's speech. To these I commend my readers;
beseeching such among them as shall have, what I have not,
the power to give effect and action to that reasoning — if they

XX
should become persuaded by it in their understandings, and
convinced in their consciences of the truth, and wisdom, and
justice of those conclusions — to suffer no party prejudices,
nor party interests, nor party resentments, nor favour for past
party services ; nor any temporary purposes of expediency, any
hope of relief from present pressure and perplexity, nor any fear,
which is distrust of Providence^to prevent them (in whatever
political section, capacity, place, or function they may be found)
from doing their duty in this matter, manfully and sincerely, to
themselves, to their country, to their Church, their Queen, and
their God.
Do what you will, Ireland will not be as you could wish it,
for years to come. We may be sure of that. It is our punish
ment, and trial ; and we must bear it. The evils of its present
state are flagrant : they are also much exaggerated. In discreet
laws of regulation — not of organic change, reversing the principles
of the constitution, and confounding right with wrong — and in
stern but beneficent, alert but steady Government, the only real
remedies are to be found. But to those who ask, as an excuse
for weak or wicked concessions, what is to be done ? I commend
Mr. Perceval's answer — "above all things be careful not
TO AGGRAVATE THE EVILS WHICH YOU ENDEAVOITR TO CURE."

NOTE.*
It may be as well to mention, that I was in Ireland for the summer, and had
sent for and was employing my leisure in examining and arranging a quantity of
miscellaneous papers in my father's handwriting, which had long remained in sad
confusion. Among the first of any interest that I found, was the argument now
given to the public.
There were two paragraphs at the commencement, speculating on the way in
which the Roman-catholic question might be expected to be brought on, scored
through in the original, evidently at the time when the two or three first sentences
that now begin the speech, were hastily scribbled rather than -written on the fly
leaf. This must have been done when Mr. Fox had given notice of his motion,
and so settled the question how the subject would be first introduced. There can
be no doubt that Mr. Perceval meant to reply to Fox ; but Dr. Duigenan inter
posed in the debate, and Mr. Grattan followed, in his first great speech in the
English parliament ; and Mr. Perceval had to speak in reply to Grattan. An un
lucky transposition ; for each speaker on the anti-emancipation side had to answer
an opponent he was not used to.
I have judged it right to preserve the paragraphs in question, and insert them
below, because they place the sincerity of Mr. Perceval's convictions, and the deep
and calm consideration which he bestowed upon the subject, beyond all cavil. I
see, too, that some days before the debate (1 5th April) he sent his argument (in
all probability the very papers I found) to Mr. Wilberforce, for the benefit of that
excellent person's opinion. By the context of the enclosmg letter, it appears that
his reply, unfortunately, was to be given viva voce. That letter will be found in
the Wilberforce Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 17.

PARAGRAPHS SCORED THROUGH AT THE BEGINNING
OF MR. PERCEVAL'S MS.
" As I have paid a very anxious attention to the questions relative to the Roman-
catholics in Ireland, in order to determine my own mind upon the propriety of
adopting any measures for their relief by the extension of their civil and religious
rights, — and as I Ijave, in the result, formed an opinion against the adoption of any
• Vide supra, page vi. " in July last."

XXII
such measures, upon grounds which, I think, if fairly brought before the public,
would have the necessary effect of producing a similar conviction in the minds of
most Protestants, — I am anxious to collect my thoughts in such a form, that if
accident should prevent my delivering them in Parliament when the subject may
there come under discussion, they may be so arranged as to make it an office of no
great trouble, either to myself or to any friend to whom they might be intrusted,
to give them to the world through the channel of the Press. If, however, the
opportunity of taking a part in any debate in Parhament upon the subject should
occur to me, the same arrangement of my thoughts will, probably, much assist me
in the delivery of my opinions in such debate.
" It is by no means easy absolutely to anticipate the manner in which the question
will be brought forward. But probably it will be introduced either by a motion
proposing some specific relief for the Roman-catholics — or proposing an inquiry
into their condition, with a view to considering the propriety of such relief— or it
will be brought forward upon a motion for a general inquiry into the state of
Ireland, when the condition of the Roman-catholics will probably be enlarged
upon, as the great feature in the state of Ireland, which particularly calls for
consideration and reform. Should the mode adopted be any one of these, or any
"other which can possibly be suggested, though probably the form and time of
introducing it will afford some special and peculiar grounds of objection, yet the
important and main question itself — the expediency of granting any relief at all —
ought not, in my opinion, to be got rid of by any collateral mode of meeting it.
My opposition would be directed to it upon the merits. But whatever difficulty
there may be in ascertaining the manner in which the question may be brought
forward, there is no less difficulty in anticipating, with any accuracy, the nature
and degree of relief which will be proposed to be given. That, however, in reality,
presents no obstacle to my discussing the question, because, from the nature of the
case, the relief must be either by removing all or some of the civil incapacities
which still remain, or by providing some means of paying their clergy — or by both ;
and the moving consideration, the political object^the attainment of which will be
proposed as the recommendation of the whole measure — will be that of tran-
quillising the unsettled state of that unhappy kingdom, by conciliating the great
body of the Roman-catholics to the government and the constitution of their
country. Knowing, therefore, the object, I need not wait to be informed of the
distinct proposition which may be made.
" To proceed without further preface, I will treat the subject as if the pro
posal were no more than to relieve the Roman-catholics from the operation of
the Test Laws, by which means their remaining incapacities from holding civil
office would be done away ; and I prefer arguing it upon the supposition of that
proposal, — first, because I think that much the least objsctionable thing that can
now be granted to them ; and secondly, because as my strongest objection to
granting them that relief arises from my conviction that they would not rest
satisfied with it, but that they would still press the Legislature, or their friends

XXlll
would for them, for relief in the article of tithes, for pecuniary allowances for
their Clergy ; — so in arguing against the repeal of the Test Acts, I shall naturally
consider it objectionable upon the ground of the consequences to which it would
lead— nay, which it must necessarily produce before it could attain the end of
satisfaction and conciliation which it aims at. These are this very demand in
favour of tlieii- Clergy — the weight which it would give to the argument in favour
of that demand — the encouragement it would hold out to theii- hopes ; the increase
to their pretensions ; as well as the strength it would add to their m^ns of
obtaining it. These being the consequences which I apprehend, I shall naturally
be led to the consideration of those reasons which constitute the grounds of
objection in my mind to granting such relief to their Clergy ; and thus, in no
inconvenient arrangement, the whole subject will be introduced : and if it should
turn out that the first proposal for their relief, instead of being the repeal of the
Test Laws, should be some pecuniary payment or allowance of tithe to their
Clergy, my thoughts upon that point will be found detailed, though not at the
opening of this discussion, yet in the course of it, and may, consequently, with
equal ease be referred to."

As a matter of criticism, it may be of some interest to state that, as far as I can
judge, it is my opinion that Mr. Perceval delivered his arguments in an order some
what difierent to that in which I have arranged them, and which I think it was his
original intention to observe ; — that his address began with part of the present
peroration ; that several passages were considerably compressed ; and some
omitted. But the report in Cobbett is so manifestly meagre and badly given, that
it is difficult to form much of an idea on this subject. I lean to this opinion, how
ever, because several of the missing arguments may be traced in the report of a
subsequent speech of Mr. Perceval's on the Roman-catholic Army and Navy
Service Bill (5th March, 1807,) which is much better given. In the newspapers
of the day there was room for hardly any report of the speech at all. Mr. Fox,
Dr. Duigenan, and Mr. Grattan had exhausted the narrow space of their columns,
and probably tired the then weak staff of reporters. There are two short passages
which I have added from Cobbett's report, at pages 44, and 53. I have marked
them with -j-. The rest is given as nearly verbatim from the MS. as was possible,
in the necessity I was under of supplying connecting links to the several heads of
argument. For these were in separate /a«c!c«fi, with somewhat obscure and contra
dictory notes of reference from one to another, as if Mr. Perceval had trusted the
order of the delivery pretty much to the chances of the debate. ¦ A few sentences
that seemed redundant to the argument, I have thrown into foot-notes. There are
flne or two passages altered, as if subsequently — containing apparent reference to
remarks of the speakers who preceded him. I am not, however, sure that this was
done by way of memorandum ; as I find it was a common habit of Mr. Perceval, in
preparing for his speeches (of which there are a good many tolerably perfect), to
pre-suppose not merely the matter but the manner of the opponent he meant to

XXIV

answer ; which his perfect knowledge of the House enabled him readily to do.
This habit may account for that readiness in debate for which he was so remark
able ; and as his forte lay not in set declamation, but in skilful analysis of argument,
and keen exposure of fallacies, he could never lose his pains in so doing.

There is one other minor point of criticism, which I wish to notice once for all.
The reader will observe, that Mr. Perceval used the terms " Popery," " Papist,"
" Roman-catholicism," " Roman-catholic," indiscriminately, j ust as suited the struc
ture of his periods. He had evidently no notion of giving offence to that sect in so
doing. In his time they had not advanced their punctilio so far. Though quite
aware of its existence now-a-days, I see reasons for disregarding it, and continue to
use the terms as my father did before me, equally disclaiming all purpose of sar
casm ; — because " Popery," " Papist," &c. are the proper converse and logical op-
posites to " Protestantism," "Protestant," &c., and I like whatever tends to clearness
of reasoning ; and though quite content to use the word " Roman-cathoUc," and its
derivatives, when they suit the sentence — " quoniam sic voluit usus, quem penes
 norma loquendi" — yet I dislike all such particular universals ; they tend
to fallacy. " Catholic," by itself, ought never to be used as a synonym for Papist.
It obviously begs the whole question between the two churches ; and except in its
secondary sense, " Orthodox,", cannot properly be applied by a Christian to any
particular church whatever. As a point of courtesy, however, I am willing to pro
mise, whenever I shall find Romish writers agreeing to give the title of " Anglo-
catholics" to the Churchmen of England, I will call them nothing but " Roman-
catholics" in return. Till then, I really do not feel bound to compliment away so
much as the euphony of a period, much less a logical truth. D. M. Pebcevai,.
16, Wilton Stteet, 1 Jan. 1844.

SPEECH, &c.

COn tbe 13th of May, 1805, Mr. Fox moved that the Petition of
the Roman-catholics of Ireland (which he had presented on the 25th
March) be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
The Debate lasted two days. On the 14th tbe House divided.
For the motion, 124 ; against it, 336 ; majority, 212. Mr. Perceval
spoke, fourth, on tbe first day.]

THE ARGUMENT.

Reasons for refusing Committee : — principle advanced, and object stated by
mover : impossible to limit relief on such grounds : their legitimate consequence,
Roman-catholic ascendancy : repeal of Test Laws, immediate object in Committee :
that befter discussed beforehand (pp. 3, 4).
Test Laws to be viewed not as to former objects, but present utility : argu
ments for their repeal : ( 1 .) As a matter of strict right : — this examined : refuted :
right of subjects to toleration : not to political power (pp. 5, 10) : — ('2.) As a matter
of right heretofore qualified by necessity ; which has ceased ; and expediency
turned in favour ; no danger from Popery : — that questioned : if meant, in Parlia
ment, fallacious : other senses of phrase ; 1. No political danger : — this denied :
Pope's subserviency to Buonaparte (pp. 12, 16). — 2. No danger of Popery spread
ing : this questioned (pp. 16, 18.) — 8. No danger if it should spread : — that denied :
probable result, increase of infidelity : awful consequences : danger that the People
should think Parliament indifferent to religion : conclusion ; necessity still in
favour of Test Laws (pp. 18, 21).
Third argument ; Law considers Roman-catholics good subjects : hardship to
punish them for religious opinions : — this answered : exclusion from office no
punishment if meant for other ends : an incidental hardship : to be lamented : but
inevitable : Religion necessary to well-being of States : Establishment necessary
to religion : rivalry for Establishment fatal to peace of society : consequent
necessity to limit political power to friends of Establishment (pp. 21, 24).
B

L THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
Objection to this answer ; security may be given to Establishment by Oaths : —
Tliis met : effect of Tests : not to be attained by Oaths (pp. 24, 26).
Objections to Sacramental Tests; 1. Its inutility :— fallacy of this shown:
2. As a profanation : — this insincere : true view of sacramental test stated : con
clusion ; no equal security without an equal grievance (pp. 26, 30).
Another security offered ; Roman-catholic disaffection to be conciliated by repeal
of Test Laws : — (this in fact the argument of expediency in favour of whole
measure)  hostile influence of Buonaparte and Pope thereby neutrahsed : — This
opinion proved absurd (pp. 30, 31).
Argument from expediency further examined : who are disaffected : who not :
measure proposed will affect the latter only : therefore must fail to conciliate the
former (pp. 32, 34) : further measures required for that : what these will be :
nothing short of ascendancy effectual : from the nature of things (pp. 34, 35).
Demands will be gradual : first, probably, for endowment of Roman-catholic
Clergy : this question examined : as to amount : as to the fund from whence : as to
results : final result, agitation for the whole property of the Church (pp. 36, 42).
This view taxed with illiberality : answer to that ; not uncharitable to suppose
that others would act like ourselves : moreover never disavowed by Priests, only
by Laity (pp. 43, 45).
Endowment of Popery denied to be a question of religion ; except with bigots :
— This answered : fallacy to suppose it a question of toleration : no argument
from numbers to toleration : no argument from degrees of ei'ror : all have
right to toleration : State religion only, to endowment : Men must act on the
light of their own consciences : especially when obliging others to act also : the
question of endowment strictly a question of religion (pp. 45, 47).
No concord would follow from Endowment : still less from Establishment and
ascendancy : Dissenters aud Papists now agree to attack the Church : that
removed, would soon fall out. Some Protestants favourable to the repeal of Test
Laws ; not so to the consequences : will not now believe the danger : when too
late will take stand against it : and be cried down in their turn as bigots
(pp. 48, 49).
Peroration — Institutions must be defended : nothing gained by surrendering
present position : no effectual conciliation : Roman-catholics not to be satisfied
vrith civil rights : demands will increase in violence : and Ireland be convulsed to
its centre. Necessary to take a line : and abide by it : either maintain Protestant
Church ; or else establish Popery at once : Practically no alternative, as that
impossible. Parliament ought to hold out no hope of it : to concede for the sake of
tranquillity, a premium for disturbance. Church must be supported : encouraged :
and its Establishment improved. Papists must see Parliament in earnest : and
will give up agitation ; for fear of forfeiting present indulgences (pp. 50, 55).

SPEECH, &c.

I RISE, Sir, to give the most unqualified opposition to the
motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, though the shape it
assumes be only for a Committee to consider what ought to be
done in respect to this petition ; I am as much adverse to it as
to any distinct proposition in favour of a policy which I must
disapprove. A committee would raise expectations, and create
an opinion that Parliament thinks some change or other ought
to be made in the laws relating to the Eoman-cathoKc religion ;
and, whatever the specific change just now in contemplation
may be, when once the Right Hon. Gentleman has explained
that it is upon a claim of justice he proceeds, and with a view
to the tranquillity of Ireland — that his leading consideration,
his great political object, is to conciliate the Roman-catholics to
the government and constitution of their country, by satisfying
those demands which they and their patrons urge as reasonable
— it is immaterial to, me what is the first motion by which, upon
this principle, and with these views, the Right Hon. Gentleman
begins that course of mischief which I foresee and deprecate.
For, whatever may be the contracted shape his measure may at
first assume, it will have within itself a living principle of growth
— a promise of large development hereafter. However the
relief may be at first proposed to be limited, the consequences
to which any relief, given upon this principle, and with that
¦view, must ob-viously and necessarily lead; the reasoning on
which, by many, it will be supported; the principles upon
which it will, by the persons requiring it, be expected, if not
demanded — have no limits, can stop at no rational conclusion,
short of putting down our own Church as the Church of Ireland,
B 2

and establishing the Roman-catholic religion in its room. If
the object be to tranquillise Ireland by satisfying the Roman-
catholics, that object cannot be obtained until the Roman-
catholics are satisfied ; and they cannot be satisfied as long as
anything is withheld from them, which they will think it reason
able for them to require, and just in us to grant.*
If I am right in this view of the case (and I think I shall be
able distinctly to prove that I am) every one must surely agree
that it is a question too important in itself, and in its obvious
and necessary consequences, to our constitution, civil as well
as ecclesiastical — to our domestic peace — to our religion — to
our morals — nay, to the peace and good- will, and all the
common charities of the British and Irish people — not to justify
any man who views it as I do, in feeling the strongest anxiety
to point out, in the most effectual manner in my power, what I
deem to be the impolicy of any measure for altering the present
legal standing of the Roman-catholic jreligion and the Roman-
catholic subjects of His Majesly; and what I anticipate as the
dangerous and ruinous consequences to be apprehended from it.
Sir, if the House should grant the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Committee he has moved for, we can be at no loss to conclude
that the repeal of the Test Laws, at least so far as Roman-
catholics are affected by them, will be, in one shape or another,
the main object to be proposed there. That object has been
attempted before. It has been, and will be again, urged on
different grounds by different persons ; and it is my intention to
notice all the arguments on the strength of which it is likely to
be maintained. If I can prove them to be, as I hope to do,
unfounded and fallacious, this House may well refuse to go
into a Committee, the main object of which must be to report
to this House a resolution in favour of such repeal.
I do not wish to enter into any history of the Test Acts, and
of the objects which they originally had in view ; because, what
ever those objects were, whether they were wise then, or
otherwise, are questions which can make little part of the
important inquiry at present, — at least, in the view in which I
wish to press it upon the notice and con-viction of this House
* Vide Appendix C. 1 and 2, pp. 73, 75.

and of the public, they make none. For, though I should
myself be disposed to pause a good while before I ventured,
upon the lights of my own judgment, to demolish those barriers
of our constitution and our liberties which the wisdom of our
ancestors deemed it prudent ' and expedient, at least, if not
necessary, to establish at two such important periods of our
history, as those of the Reformation and the Revolution ; yet, as
I must admit the great alteration which has taken place in the
opinions of men, and in the character and circumstances of the
country within the last century — and as I feel (without much
inclination to quarrel with it, so far as it applies to such
questions as these) the little disposition which exists of yielding
to authority, except so far as the authority can support itself by
reason — I should be loth to rest any important part of this
question on the authority of our ancestors, whose wisdom first
adopted the system of the Test Laws. I would rest it mainly
upon the practical effects produced by their existence, and to be
apprehended from their abolition. I would rest it upon what
can be made to appear the prudent and right course to be
adopted with respect to them at the present hour. For it must
be admitted, that whatever were the objects and motives of their
first institution, whether wise or mistaken in policy, whether
false or true in morals, whether bigoted or enlightened in
religion, makes nothing to the question now ; except so far as
the same or similar considerations may be found to exist in force
and effect at the present time.
I shall therefore at once proceed. Sir, to examine the argu
ments on which the repeal of these laws, as affecting the Roman-
catholics, has been generally advocated, both within and
without this House. And, the first argument that I shall
consider is that, which, if it be well-founded, is the most
important; so important as to be, according to my feeling upon
it, quite conclusive, — if it can be made out ; — I mean. Sir, that
ai'gument which supposes the repeal of these laws in favour of
every description of dissenter, to be nothing short of a strict
matter of right ; — the exclusion from political office being, in the
opinion of some, nothing short of the exclusion of a natural
right ; which cannot possibly be justified on the ground merely
of any religious opinions. It is said, and so far said most justly.

that religion, and its doctrines, are matters which rest entii'ely
between God and every man's own conscience ; that no man
has a right to control another upon these points : that the
Legislature is tyrannical which attempts it, by attaching either
any direct penalty or forfeiture of civil right, or any incapacity
to enjoy civil office, to those whose opinions on religious matters
do not conform with what the Legislature may have chosen for
its own. It is said, that whenever it attempts anything of this
kind, it exceeds the limits of its jurisdiction ; it unjustly requires
obedience, where it has no right to command it ; in short, it is
guilty of unchristian intolerance and persecution.
This, Sir, it must be observed, makes the repeal of these laws
no question of times and seasons ; no question of the particular
state of public opinion in the present day ; but, on the contrary,
if this argument and this opinion be well founded, there can be
no occasion, no concurrence of circumstances, no pressure of
exigencies, which can warrant the exclusion of any description
of persons from political situation on account of their religious
opinions ; and the reasoning evidently cannot be confined to any
class of political situations — it extends to the Crown, as well as
to every other office.
Sir, if this proposition can be made out, the question is
undoubtedly decided. At least, in my judgment, it is decided ;
for I will neither assert the doctrine, nor assent to it, that that
which is morally wrong, may be done as politically expedient.
It is a narrow, and clearly an unchristian view of the principles
of human conduct, to consider morality so subordinate to policy,
as that the latter can justify what the former condemns.
But, sir, it appears to me as a general question, that there is
no proposition which is more clear and indisputable than this.
That a nation has a full and unquestionable moral competency,
to give and intrust its political power, or any portion of it ; its
authority executive, or legislative ; its offices of trust, of power, or of
influence, (offices which are the mere creatures ofthe nation, and
of the national law, — which have no natural existence, and
depend wholly upon the institutions of society,) — to such persons,
and in such degree ; on such terms, and such conditions ; as it may
judge most expedient to the general security of the Constitution at
large ; to the security of any part of its establishments ; or to the

general tranquillity and happiness of its subjects. Nothing can, to my
mind, be more absurd, than to contend that any man can have a
natural right to fill any of these offices, the mere creatures of
peculiar institution : and, as the State only creates them for its
own benefit and security, it surely cannot be its duty to confer
them to its own detriment or danger.
If, for instance, the nation sees and knows, or only believes, that
persons professing certain religious opinions, must (if they are
consistent with themselves, if they are conscientiously impressed
with the conviction of the value of those opinions,) be desirous
to give them the benefit of that encouragement, maintenance,
and support, which is inconsistent with the security of that
Church, and that establishment, which the deliberate will and
choice of the nation, as declared by its law, has elected for its
o-vm ; and, if it thinks that any political situation of trust and
power might facilitate the accomplishment of their desires in this
particular, — I say^ Sir, if this be the case, and assuming this to
be the state of it,* then, surely, upon the clearest principles of
self-defence alone, it must follow that the State has the right,
nay, that it is its bounden duty, in the same degree in which it
values its own Church, and its own .establishment, to debar
such persons from the possession of such political situations as
may enable them, without any violation of law, but by the mere
influence and legal power which such situations would give
them, either to transfer, or to facilitate the attempt, and
strengthen the exertion to transfer, the legal advantages of
establishment to their o-wn opinions.
Indeed, Sir, to any man who has been habituated to consider
political situations as offices of trust, as created for the benefit
and protection of others, and not for the benefit and enjoyment
of the officers themselves, it seems to me that nothing can well
appear more extravagant than the assertion, that one man has,
by nature, a right to be a trustee for another ; and that it is an
abridgment of a natural right, when that other, deeming that
• Whether it be so or not, is a question of fact and opinion, on which, as on any
other question, which can be proposed for man to determine, his human infirmity
may lead him to mistake : but, in discussing the general pi-inciple of the legitimate
right of the Legislature to interfere, I have a right to assume that the case may
exist.

his principles must lead him to discharge that ti'ust ill, will not
permit him to hold it ; and therefore, that although the office be
created for the benefit and security of society ; yet that Society
is guilty of great natural injustice, if it provides that those, whom
it considers likely to use the influence and power which belong
to the office, not to its benefit, but to its prejudice, shall not
possess it. In point of principle, as I said before. Sir, there can
be no distinction between the lowest and the highest office in
the State. In point of expediency, it is indeed much more
important that the principles of the person who fills the Throne
should be friendly to the establishments of the kingdom, than
those of men who are to hold subordinate and inferior offices.
But, in point of right, they seem to be equally affected by this
argument. A man, as it seems to me, can no more have a natural
right to be a constable — to be a justice of the peace — to be a
member of parliament, or to be eligible to any such situations*
than he can have a natural right to be a king, or to be eligible
to be a king. And, if this be not so, how the Act of Settlement
which brought the illustrious House which now reigns over us
to the Throne can be justified, I must leave to those who hold
the opposite opinion, to determine.
On this question of right. Sir, I shall dwell, therefore, no
longer. The reasons I have urged seem tq me completely satis
factory. They are convincing to me, and ought, I think, to
convince this House, that neither the Roman-catholic, nor any
other dissenter, nor any other description of man, be he what he
may, has any right to any share of political power, of official
situations, beyond what the Legislature thinks proper to give
him : the Legislature, which made the office, being to judge
of the qualifications which fit a man to fill it. But when I say
they have no right to political power, I admit, nay, I contend,
that they have every right to full and perfect toleration, — every
right to profess in peace those religious opinions which they
conceive to be most conformable to the revealed truth of God,
and to practise, -without molestation, those religious offices
which they conceive to be most acceptable to Him.
The Hoii. Gentlemen are loud in the praise of toleration, and
seem to assume to themselves, and to those who agree with them

9
the sole and exclusive merit of understanding the spirit of
toleration, and practising its duties.
The Hon. Gentlemen, and myself, may differ as to what those
duties and practices may be, which the true spirit of Christian
toleration requires. But I venture to assert, there is no man
wiU carry what he deems the just principles of toleration
further than I -will. No man has a firmer conviction of their
justice ; no man has a higher estimation of their -vUlue. I am,
however, extremely anxious that we should not mistake indif
ference for toleration. Toleration arising out of Christian
charity, and Christian principles, perhaps, is one of the choicest
and rarest fruits of true religion ; and can hardly be found to
have flourished anywhere but in a Christian soil, and under
the meridian of the Gospel. But we have had some marked
experiences in our time, to show that toleration arising out. of
philosophical indifference to all religions, leads, in a short time,
to the degradation and persecution of Christianity itself. The
Hon. Gentleman proceeds on a very wrong notion, if he thinks,
that whenever a man expresses a strong preference in favour of
his own church, by so doing he indicates a degree of intoler
ance towards Roman- catholics and dissenters ; as if to be sincere
and earnest in one's own religious opinions, already borders on
persecution. That proposition. Sir, I deny. I take the Chris
tian to be tolerant, upon the principles of his religion, if he
understands it ; and yet, it is impossible for a man who is a true
Christian, not to have a firm opinion upon the importance of the
distinctions between Protestantism and Popery. But, so far from
this lowering his disposition to tolerate others, it increases it.
In proportion as he feels, or fancies that he feels, the truth
and importance of his own religious con-victions ; in proportion
as he feels the value of professing and practising in peace here,
that which he deems to be essential to happiness hereafter ; in
the same proportion he must be desirous. Sir, of preserving to
others the same liberty, the same right. The right of the
Roman-cathoUcs to toleration, in my mind, is therefore absolute.
Beyond it they have no clear and natural right : but the power
they are to have, the share they are to possess in the administra
tion or enacting of laws, is to be granted or withheld from time

10
to time, as the discretion of the State may be advised, and
prudential considerations may lead.
The very argument with which those who take the other
side think they principally press us, namely, that religion has
nothing to do with politics, that it is degraded and disgraced
by its connection with them, shows that they cannot justly urge
tbe exclusion from political power as any abridgment of just
toleration. Because, if religion, that is the mode of worshipping
our God, ought to have no connection with political situation or
the title to hold it ; if the one in its nature is, and in fact ought
to be, wholly independent of the other ; it cannot be said that
toleration (that is the free worship of God, the unrestrained
exercise of private judgment as to the mode of worshipping Him
and the profession of religious opinion) is at all restricted by
only withholding that from the professors of any religion which
ought to have no necessary connection with it. It may be
political hardship — it may be pohtical severity ; nay, as far as
this argument is concerned, it may be, if you please, political
tyranny. But it cannot be religious intolerance, or religious
persecution. The question then is. Sir, have they this toleration? And let
me appeal to every Englishman, to every Irishman, to answer if
they have it not. Where is the sect, where is the religious
opinion, where is the description of dissenter which has not this
toleration to the utmost extent ? Where is the man that is, or
that can be, by the existing law interrupted in the worship of
his God ? If there be any law which interrupts them, let such
law be specifically repealed. If there be none, as every man's
experience tells him ; if the conventicle and the chapel be as free
of access as the church ; if the mass is celebrated in the Roman-
catholic chapels with the same security and under the same
protection with which the sacrament is administered in our own
churches ; then there is no ground of complaint on the score of
toleration, nor any pretence for asking relief on the ground of
right. But those who admit, as a general proposition, that the State
has the right which I have been contending for, present the

11
question in another shape. They contend that as the right
arises only out of the necessity which the State may be under of
exerting it for its own security, so also it is measured by that
necessity, and ceases with it : that the use of it, beyond what
that necessity requires, is arbitrary and unjust; and not only
arbitrary, but impolitic also, when the- necessity has not only
ceased, but when many considerations of prudence suggest the
expediency of relaxing those severities, and removing those
incapacities which were either imposed originally on mistaken
grounds, or on grounds which by this time have failed. And it
is contended that this necessity has ceased to exist in this country
at this time, as certainly as these considerations of prudence
and expediency have come into existence.
This argument asserts and presumes that the necessity, or
supposed necessity, on which these laws originally rested, is no
more. That there is now, at least, no danger from Popery.
That all the old jealousies and alarms on that head are exploded ;
and that to continue exclusion on those ' grounds is now become
a bare injustice. But the argument does not rest here. It
asserts that many grounds of expediency and policy do now
require the relaxation of those laws ; to wit, the satisfaction and
conciliation of the majority of the Irish people to the constitution
itself, and to their Protestant fellow-subjects, by what is called
the full development of the principles of perfect toleration.
With respect to the first proposition. That there is now no
danger from Popery, I must observe. Sir, that this rests upon
three distinct opinions and arguments, which I shall notice in
their order. But first, I would say, generally, when it is urged
that there can be no real danger from Popery because it is im
possible that the Roman-catholics could outnumber us here ; that
it is idle to apprehend that a Protestant Parliament would ever
recommend to a Protestant king any Popish counsels ; I own I
cannot by any means admit that proposition, when I cannot but
consider this very motion as a Popish counsel. But it will hardly
be contended by any one that if a proposition were made to take
from the Protestant Clergy a portion of their endowments and
give them to the Roman-catholic Priests, that would not be a
Popish counsel. Yet is it so clear that if the proposition were

12
made in this House, it would find no advocates amongst
ourselves? And can there be a doubt that if there were any
Papists among us when such a proposition as this should come
to be considered, it would be sure to have their support, and so
far would, have an additional chance of being carried ? I, for
one, should have no hesitation in calling it a proposition to rob
the Protestant Church for the purpose of supporting Popery.
And if this be not a Popish counsel, I should be glad to know
what is. No doubt the majority of this House, as at present
constituted, would agree with me, and reject it as such. But I
cannot count upon all. And I can count upon this, that if there
were Papists in Parliament, their numbers and their strength,
whatever it might be, would be added at once to those who
would support it.
But, Sir, I must examine a little further and more narrowly
what it is that gentlemen mean, when they say, there is now
no danger from Popery. This may be said by those who think
that in this enlightened age there is no danger that it should
increase ; or it may be said by those who.think, if it did increase,
that, as a religion, it is as good as Protestantism ; or by those
who think that no politically dangerous consequences could follow
from it, because the question of the succession is now completely
at rest ; and our constitution is so settled that we need have no
apprehension even of a Popish Prince attempting to reintroduce
arbitrary principles of government.
To deal with this last opinion first. Surely, Sir, it is a most
unfounded one. The conclusion is much too sweeping for the
premises. Granted that the danger of the Pope or the Roman-
catholics supporting a pretender to the throne of this United
Kingdom is no longer, or at least not immediately to be
apprehended. Does it follow that all other political dangers are,
for the same reasons, precluded ? From whence, at any time,
did the Pope derive his power? He was never formidable
from his own strength ; but either as the instrument in the hand
of temporal powers ; or else as the moving principle actuating
great temporal powers, instruments in his. And was he ever
(let me ask) more completely the servile instrument of a great
power, or of a power more completely hostile to the interests and

13
welfare and union of these kingdoms, than he is at this precise
moment ? Can we forget the coronation of Buonaparte, and the
papal allocution to the College of Cardinals which preceded it ?
Many Protestants, I hear, and Papists, I believe almost
universally, hail what has lately passed in France as the era of
the re-establishinent of religion. For my part. Sir, I see nothing
of religion in it, but its profanation. Of policy I see much. I see
in it the restoration of a most formidable instrument and engine
of political power, placed in the hands of our most inveterate
enemy. I see in it a barefaced and audacious repetition ofthe same
blasphemous and hypocritical attempts to advance the objects of
ambitious policy, by the show of religion, which we have already
witnessed in the career of Buonaparte. It is the second act ofthe
same drama that was played by the same performer in Egypt.
There is as much of the Christian religion in it, as there was in
the famous proclamation which he published to the enlightened
Mahometans, telling them there was one God, who had no Son
— no sharer of his power ; and that Mahomet was his Prophet.
What must be the state of delusion in men's minds who
can see, in this blasphemous mockery, the revival of religion !
What proof of the superior discernment of the present age,
when they can hail this false light as the dawn of a new religious
day! Protestants, indeed, though they may be shocked at it,
ought not to be surprised. They ought to see in it what they
have always thought they saw in Popery — an attempt to make
religion the instrument of worldly policj'^, and to play any game
of temporal artifice or delusion which might assist to extend
or preserve the sway of the Roman See. But that the Roman-
catholics should look at this scene with pleasure or with triumph
— that they should not shrink back from it as from the greatest
degradation and disgrace of their religion, is to me most
extraordinary.* To see the object of th^ir highest esteem, at
least if not veneration, the spiritual representative of God
Almighty, the Vicar of Christ on earth, not gloriously witnessing
his fidelity as the High Priest of a true religion, whose
rewards were after this life; not sealing his sincerity by a
splendid and enviable martyrdom; but prostrating all his holiness
* Vide Appendix A. 2, sub finem, p. 70.

14^
in anointing this tyrant — this self-proclaimed blasphemer of
Christ — this Mahometan by profession — this recorded hypocrite,
if not apostate, — and to consider this as a glorious epoch in the
restoration of true religion ! When it is said there is nothing
new in this — Popes have done such things before ; I agree it is
true. But I was willing to think their doing them was only to be
ascribed to the darkness of former ages ; that such acts would
have shunned the light of our present day. The poor old man,
dragged with degradation to Paris to play so painful a part
in this impious farce, may be the object of commiseration, and
justly so, to every man of feeling. So far as he acts reluctantly
under the control of a tyrant, I agree that he is so. But
when I find him in his papal allocution, as it is called, his
address to his Cardinals before his departure from Rome,
describing the Eihperor Napoleon as " his dearest son in Christ,
who has signified his strong desire to be anointed with the holy
unction, and to receive the imperial crown from him, to the end
that the solemn rites which are to place him in the highest
rank, shall be strongly impressed with the character of religion,
and call down more powerfully the benediction of Heaven ;"
and when he describes his heart as being " rightfully disposed
for receiving the good effects of a sacred ceremony, especially
as he is the father of his people — solicitous about their eternal
salvation^^and determined to live and die a true son of the
Catholic'Church " — when, I say, I find him using language to
this effect,''I own my commiseration at his misfortunes is not
unmixed with some other sentiment at his hypocrisy. But, at
any rate, it is impossible to extract from those circumstances
of commiseration any excuse or apology for his submission, but
that the fear of personal danger controlled him, or that the hope
of extending the influence of the Papal Church, through the
power of Buonaparte's arms, seduced him. But if that be so,
these fears and these hopes will still continue to operate. The
result must be what is enough for my present argument. For,
what reason have we to hope that any principle would encourage
him to withhold, or restrain him from lending all his power in aid
of Buonaparte, especially if he was incited to it by any hope of
extending the influence of Popery, or the power of the Roman-

15
catholic Church within these islands ? What has recently passed
has shown to the world that the extension and re-establishment
of the Roman-catholic Church is not only, as might naturally
and justly be expected, the great object and end of the Pope,
but that it is so much so, that he is not likely to be scrupulous
about the means by which this end may be obtained : that
whatever means and whatever instruments may promise the
attainment of it, will not only be favourably accepted, but will
be hallowed and sanctified by the end — " be their sins as red as
scai-let, they shall become white as snow." I wait not, Sir, to
inquire whether this be just cause of praise or blame. It is but
candid to give Papists the credit of believing, that, by extending
the influence of the Roman-catholic religion, they are extending
the greatest benefit to mankind, I therefore barely remark the
fact, which no one can deny to be an important one for the
observation and caution of us, who happen not to think so
favourably of that persuasion — who do not think its blessings
sufficient to compensate for the loss of liberty, and for the
establishment of the most cruel, horrid, and insulting tyranny
that ever ground the face of mankind, and domineered over the
trampled nations of Europe. I remark the fact. Sir, that we
may be warned to beheve that there is nothing which the Pope
would refuse to do, at the instance of this "true son of the
Church," which might open a prospect of re-establishing it,
wherever it may have been pulled down. In short, the
mischievous direction of the Pope's influence, so far as the
interests of this country are concerned, is as much to be expected
and apprehended at this hour as ever it was. But if this be
met with a denial of the real existence of that influence now — if
we are told it can now no longer be exerted ; that his vassals, the
priests, have no longer sway over the minds of men, — I would
answer, I am glad to hear it, and I hope it is so.* But it ill
becomes those to urge that observation, who found much of their
argument for conciliating the Roman-catholics by paying their
* I own I am one of those who, believing in the Protestant application of the
prophecies, believe the Papal Power to have received its death-blow. But I
believe that it may have, and I expect that it will have, a dying plunge and
struggle yet ; and I would have my country out of the launch of any convulsive
stroke which may be given in that struggle.

16
priesthood, upon the advantage to be derived from the priests'
influence over their flocks, when once conciliated by such pay
ment—it ill becomes them, I say, to deny the existence of that
influence in one breath, which they urge the necessity of con
ciliating by purchase in the next.
I wiU now. Sir, address myself to those gentlemen who mean
to say that this age in which we live is so enlightened, that there
is no longer any danger of the extension and propagation of the
Popish persuasion amongst us.
I am very far from being convinced of the soundness of that
opinion. When I consider, on the one hand, the great laxity
and indifference that prevails in the minds of many Protestants
in the higher ranks, on the subject of religion ; and when I
mark the horror and alarm that has been excited by the conse
quences of avowed Infidelity and Atheism (a horror and alarm
too, which I have remarked, with pain, is much more excited
by the indecency and impolicy of the avowal, than by the blas
phemous guilt of the opinion itself), I think I see a state of
things most favourable for the propagation, among the lower
orders of the people, of Popery, or of any other religious
opinion, the professors of which may be act-iiated by any zealous
spirit of proselytism. Many, knowing nothing of religion but
its name, and thinking nothing of it but as an instrument to
keep the vulgar in order, look on Popery with as much compla
cency as Protestantism ; and, disguising their indifference under
the specious names of toleration and liberality, would leave the
field open at least to any sect ; and in their dread lest Infidelity
should make any progress among the lower orders, and in their
ignorance and carelessness about their own religion, would view
with satisfaction the growth and prevalence of any other. Nay,
if any plausible case could be made out, that the encouragement
of Popery would lead to the suppression of Atheism — or that
any point of political expediency might be advanced by it — I
think it is only the blindest inattention to. what is passing daily
before our eyes, which could lead us to doubt that there would
not be such a want of zeal and attachment to the Protestant
Church amongst many persons in this House, as to lead them to
listen with great complacency to measures directly tending to

17
the establishment of Popery — being so wanting in true know
ledge of the subject as not to recognise the fact, that the remedy
so sought for against Infidelity, must tend ultimately to its
encouragement. And, Sii', such a state of the public mind
amongst Protestants, accompanied by no abatement on the part
of the Roman-catholics of their zeal in their own cause, but
rather by an increase of it, occasioned by the opinion which they-
entertain that their cause is reviving on the Continent, under
the combined operation and patronage of the true Father, and
true Son of the Church — the Pope and Buonaparte — opens
no unreasonable prospect of the probability of a great
increase of Popery. For, Sir, opposed to this, what have we
to retard it ? The increased knowledge and enlargement of
thought, and the superior light which belongs to the present
age ? Now that very enlargement of thought, that very light,
is, in my opinion, our danger. For this it is which creates what
is called a liberal, philosophical regard to. religion generally —
with an abhorrence of the illiberality, of the intolerant bigotry
of any decided preference to one's own. This philosophical
general love of religion, is twin-sister to that general philan
thropy of which we in this age have heard and seen so much ;
and as the latter, with all its profession of fine feelings and love
for the species, is found to prevail most where there is leaaf
regard for individual happiness and rights, so this general love
of religion is but too often in fact nothing more than a perfect
indifference to any one system of faith. But in any other sense,
where is the proof of this superior light ? Where is the proof
that the eyes of the world are more open to detect deception —
are less liable to be the dupes of imposture ?* I Would willingly
* Those who think the_Roman.catholic religion no longer the dark superstition
that it was formerly, may read Duppa's History of the Fall of the Papal
Government in 1798. In the Second Section they will find a full account, by an
eye-witness, of the miraculous pictures of the Virgin, and the grand religious
" Procession of the Relics," the only means adopted by the Pope and his Cardinals
to avert the capture of Rome by the French army. When we read this, when we
see the whole city lending themselves to this pageant, when we find no symptom
of its being practised to inflame the populace, but that, to all appearance, it was
in sober sadness relied on as much by the enlightened conclave ; no Protestant
can refrain from thinking it a state, not of superior light, but of an almost
judicial blindness, where a whole people are given up to, and seriously bent upon,
C

18
put the test of the religious light of the age upon the effect
produced in the world by the mockery of the religious ceremony
lately exhibited in France. If such a farce as that could be
¦played in the eyes of Europe, and pass for the restoration of
religion, there is no security to the age we live in from the
enlightened state of men's minds, and the difficulty of practising
upon them at this time any religious delusion. At least, I,
for one, should be glad to see the event of this union between
Buonaparte and the Pope, before I determine that we have
any security against the increase of Popery from the superior
light of the present day.*
But others. Sir, (and this is the last opinion I have to notice,)
admitting the probable increase of Popery, see no harm in that
at all. They think it just as good a religion as ours; just as
useful a bugbear for the vulgar. I own. Sir, I dread it,
especially under the circumstances of its restoration abroad,
upon precisely the same grounds on which such philosophers
and politico-religionists would rather rejoice at it. They hail
its return as the destruction of Infidelity ; I dread it as the
source of it. It is impossible for any man to see the manner
in which the Roman- catholic religion has been re-established
in France, and not to consider it as a mere political expedient
adopted by those who had themselves no sense of religion, to
gain more power over the people. And looking at it in that
light, it can present itself to their minds as nothing but a fabric
of policy. It is human wisdom altogether ; and nothing of the
Divinity belongs to it. What must be the consequence ? know
ing nothing of religion but from an institution which they
ascribe to mere worldly -ndsdom — they are not one jot removed
from their Infidelity. It is, in fact, but another triumph of
philosophy. I know. Sir, it has been stated as a very absurd opinion that
Popery has produced Infidelity, and that Infidelity will
re-produce Popery. My opinion upon this subject, I own, is
so nearly resembling to this, that I have no doubt the Right
propitiating God, by the practice of that Idolatry which we Protestants believe will
at some time call down His peculiar vengeance upon that fated city.
• Vide Supplementary Note 1, at -the end of Appendix, p. 115.

19
Hon. Gentleman will think it entitled to all the character of
absurdity which he has given to that which he noticed. When
I conceive that Popery has produced Infidelity, I don't mean
to say that Voltaire and others would not have been Infidels had
they been born in any Protestant country. But I say this, that
unless the absurdities, the superstitions, the idolatries of the
Romish Church had given him the opportunity and advantages
which they did give him, Voltaire would not have been able
to have attacked Chi'istianity with so much success. But where
all that is known of Chiistianity is embodied in Popish super
stitions ; when the absurdity of these is displayed, and the tenets
on which they rest are manifestly shown to be indefensible ;
when persons educated in the faith of these superstitions and
those tenets are beaten out of their favourite and prominent
opinions, they are beaten out of the whole of their religion. Thus
it is that I say Popery has produced Infidelity : by proposing, as
essential articles of faith, false and untenable propositions, and,
by setting up idolatrous superstitions in the place of spiritual
worship, it has defaced, dishonoured, and deformed the Chris
tian religion itself, and has given the greatest opportunities
to its enemies to attack it with every advantage.
But whether this Infidelity was produced or encouraged by
Popery or not ; this, at least, is evident to any man who will cast
his eyes over the map of Europe — that Infidelity has at present
been the scourge of Popery ; that it has pleased God to make the
hand of the Atheist his instrument in putting down those
abominations, and that superstitious system, which, more than
anything, have tended to retard and obstruct the propagation of
the pure and simple faith and virtues of Christianity.
For what. Sir, are the countries which have suffered most ¦
from the baneful influence of Atheistic opinions, and from the
arms of Infidel France. Are they not, with few and trifling
exceptions, those very countries where the Papacy has reigned
triumphant, and enjoyed the greatest share of State support?
Sir, these are considerations which the awful overthrow of
empires, the tremendous events of the present times, force irre
sistibly upon my mind ; and they lead me earnestly to deprecate
and to withstand those arguments which lead men to a perfect
c 2

20
in^fference to the progress and increase of Popery in this
kingdom, under the connivance at least, if not under the express
patronage and encouragement, of the Legislature ; and I am not
ashamed to confess, that alarming apprehensions drive me back
from the idea of sanctioning, on grounds of political expediency,
any measure which may have the effect of encouraging, and,
perhaps, establishing the Romish Church in our own country ;
lest we should be found opposing ourselves to the brunt and
arm of God's judgments, which are now so visibly in tremen
dous visitation upon earth.
But, Sir, to resume : If, after aU, Hon. Gentlemen will fear
no danger from the power, no danger from the influence, and
none from the increase of Popery, do they, I would ask, fear no
danger from the people of England being led to believe that
Parliament is indifferent to the religion it professes ? They
know that there is not one of us who has not at this table
solemnly professed his belief that certain tenets and practices of
the Roman-catholics are superstitious and idolatrous. It is no
answer to say, that Roman-catholics differ from us as to the
justice of this charge. Of course they do. They say the tenets
are not superstitious — the practices are not idolatrous. They
read the second, commandment in a different sense from ours.
They think their worship is paid to God himself through the
saints and images they adore, and the sacrament of the mass
they bow down to. They deny it to be idolatry. We say it is.
We differ with them peremptorily on this point — a point of
controversy I don't now mean to enter into. But the Roman-
catholics themselves, if they thought of these tenets and prac
tices as we do, would doubtless condemn them just as severely.
And are we not afraid to suffer the subjects of this country,
Protestants or Papists, to consider us indifferent whether or not
we promote by our measures the growth of what we profess to
deem idolatry amongst them ?
Do we, or do we not, so deem of it ? If we do, what must
the people think of us, if we betray such indifference on such a
subject? If we do not, how can we justify ourselves for the
oaths and solemn declarations we have taken ? Shall we be

21
content to brand ourselves with the stigma of hypocrisy, by
letting the people perceive that we have indeed thus declared
our belief, but did not believe our declaration !
I have thus. Sir, examined every sense of the proposition in
which gentlemen may contend that there is now no danger from
Popery; and on which they build their argument, that, admitting
the right of the State to exclude Roman-catholics from political
power, on the ground of such dangers heretofore ; yet now, the
State has no right to continue that exclusion ; the necessity, on
which alone such right can be founded, no longer existing. I
have shown, I think, the unsoundness of this opinion, in every
sense the words will bear that express it ; and I trust. Sir, the
House will come with me to this conclusion, that whatever the
necessity, whatever were the considerations which prevailed
upon our ancestors to enact the Test Laws, considerations, if not
the same, yet strictly analogous, do still prevail, and ought to
prevail with us to keep them.
It has been said. Sir, and I admit it has been ably argued, from
the tenor of those Acts which have already passed the Legislature
in favour of the Roman-catholics, that the law now considers them
capable of being, and as being, good subjects ; and that, therefore,
it is hard to the individuals, it is unjust to the State, to deprive
them of the means of serving it in the situations for which their
talents and property may qualify them. The honourable gentle
man who last spoke, has also enforced this argument by assuming
these incapacities to be a punishment on the Roman-catholics
for professing their religious opinions ; and thus urges still more'
strongly the injustice of punishing them, when not only their own
conduct has proved, but the acts of the State have recognised
that loyalty and allegiance are consistent -with those opinions.
Sir, as to punishment, I contend it is none ; for it is not intended
as a punishment. It is intended, by excluding the Roman-
catholics from offices of civil and political trust and power, not
to punish them, but to protect the religion and peace of the
country. If we feel religion necessary to the well-being of the
State ; if we feel Establishment necessary to the support of reli-

22
gion; then. Sir, whatever endangers the Establishment, endangers
also the well-being of the State. Add to this, that in this country
the peculiarly happy adaptation of our Religious Establish
ment to our Civil Constitution, makes any measure which risks
the security of that Establishment, peculiarly hazardous to the
monarchy. Surely, Sir, we have a right to take precautions
against this hazard ; and those who find in such precautionary
measures an incidental hardship resulting to themselves, have
no right to say they are therefore punished by us for their
opinions. An incidental hardship it is : and unquestionably,
for one, I wish the necessity did not exist for inflicting it. I am
sorry to feel myself under that necessity ; but I do distinctly
feel it. I feel it upon two grounds — a religious and moral
ground, and a constitutional ground; though, perhaps, that
which I call a religious ground, is so much connected with the
peace, the happiness, and the prosperity of the country, as a
country, that they may both as properly be considered as
grounds of political principle.
I think then, first. Sir, that religion is necessary to the peace,
prosperity, and security of a country. I do not only think that
it is essential to the present, as well as to the future happiness of
individuals, but essential to the well-being of States. I think,
also, that as religion is necessary to the well-being of a State, so
Establishment by Law is essential to the well-being of religion.
It cannot be argued with any show of reason, from the progress
which Christianity made> in the early ages of it, without any
aid from governments, that therefore such assistance is unneces
sary to the cause of religion at the present day. The superna
tural assistances with which the first propagation of the Gospel
was accompanied, and which were necessary to make it force
its way upon a heathen world, have long since been withdrawn ; .
and the maintenance and propagation of it now — to all visible
effect at least — appear to be left to the unassisted operations of
man. Hence arises the necessity of legal assistance and encour
agement to Christianity ; which can only be given effectually
by its Establishment. And, Sir, for the peace of society,
for the tranquillity, for the morals, for the religion of the people,
it is indispensably and essentially necessary, that this Establish-

23
ment should have no rival for its advantages. I have no wish
to rake up ancient animosities between Protestants and Roman Ca
tholics, or between Church of Englandmen and Dissenters ; and,
therefore, without charging any one sect with more of cruel and
unchristian practices than others, I will only say, that history
affords us abundant instances, of most melancholy and unanswer
able weight, to prove that whenever the power of the State is so
balanced as to make it, in any degree, uncertain what might be
the success of aconflictfor preeminence between different religious
opinions, that conflict will assuredly arise ; and in the conflict
for that preeminence and ascendancy, which it is natural for
man to wish for those religious opinions which he firmly holds
himself, every evil passion of humanity breaks loose, and all the
peculiar charities of the Christian religion are forgotten.
It seems to me, therefore, to be essentially necessary, not only
for the security of the established religion, but of religion itself,
for the preservation of the spirit of real toleration, and every
other chi'istian and charitable sphit between man and man,
that the special form of religion which the State has chosen,
should be upheld so strongly and so clearly, that there should
be no hope at all to the Dissenter of ever acquiring the ascend
ancy. And for that purpose. Sir, it is necessary that the
powers of legislation, the influence from high civil and political
situations, should not be entrusted out of the hands of the
friends of the Establishment ; at least. Sir, not in hands where
there is any reason to believe they would, at any time, be used
for the encouragement and establishment — first in rivalry, after
wards in hostility — of opinions fundamentally adverse to the
religion of the State.
The instances, if there be any such, of great nations tolerating
all religious opinions without any preference or support to
any one in particular, cannot apply here. No nation prac
tises an equal distribution of ecclesiastical revenue amongst all
persuasions. And though that would be the least mischief that
such a measure as this, if adopted, would threaten to introduce,
yet it would be impossible to arrive even at that in this country,
without a struggle and a sacrifice, which it makes every reflect
ing mind shudder to anticipate. And such an alteration as that
in our ecclesiastical system would, indeed, be a most important

24
alteration in the State itself ; for, to come now to that ground
which is purely coiTstitutional, who, I ask, can dispute the fact,
that the establishment of our Church, as it prevails by law, is
now so connected with all the material parts of the body politic,
that our Ecclesiastical and Civil institutions are so intimately
connected and interwoven one with the other, — " Sic radicibus
impHcantur imis," — that any change which would disturb and
shake the one, would materially weaken and endanger the
other.* I know. Sir, it may be said, that it is an exaggerated and
uncandid statement of the probable consequences of the conces
sion of place and power to the Roman-catholics, to say that it
would lead to any measures subversive of our present Establish
ment ; because we are to be secured against such a result by
two considerations at least : the one drawn from the provisions
which will accompany the concession ; the other from the con
tentment and satisfaction which, without further demand, it will
yield to the Roman-catholic body.
I admit, Sir, that it would be undoubtedly an uncandid
representation of the measure likely to be proposed in this
•Committee, to consider it as a mere abolition of the existing
tests ; and not to give credit to the persons who may bring it
forward, that they mean to introduce some other securities in
their place ; securities which would have the object, and might
have the tendency, to guarantee the country against much of
the danger I apprehend : that some other oaths might be framed
in the place of those which now exclude the Roman-catholics
from Parliament ; which oaths might, likewise, be substituted in
the room of the Sacramental Test applied to the possession of
particular offices of state.
Now, Sir, it seems to me clear that no oaths could be framed
(which the Roman-catholic would be satisfied to take), nor any
substituted in the place of the Sacramental Test, which would
give the country either the same, or similar security, to that
which we derive from the Test now in existence : and further, if
they could be so framed, I am satisfied that they would be equally
» Confer Mr. Grattan and Mr. Plunket, as quoted by Lord Eliot. Appendix
G., note by the Editor, pp. 101, 102.

25
objectionable to the conscientious Dissenter, Papist or Protestant,
as the present are ; and probably, at the same time, most reason
ably objectionable to the established Churchman also.
For, Sir, in my view of the Tests — whatever was the original
intention of them, their practical benefit, for the security, of the
Church of England (which I hold to be the security of the
Constitution), is not merely that they exclude those who meditate
acts of violence, of treason to the Government, or hostility to
any part of our Constitution ; not only that they secure the
country against those persons who might intend innovation
by irregular and illegal means — (for if that was their only effect
and their only object, then I should admit that the plea of good
citizenship, which the Roman-catholics so confidently and I
hope so honestly urge, would entitle them to have those
incapacities removed, which were only in force to exclude ill-
disposed subjects from power which they might illegally abuse) —
But, Sir, the effect of the Tests is to insure that power shall be
possessed by those alone who are friendly to the Establishment ;
and not only indisposed to violent and illegal efforts to destroy
it, but whose own disposition and wishes would lead them, in
the exercise of their constitutional, regular, and legal functions,
to favour the welfare, and to protect the interests of the Church
of England. At least, as the law now stands, no man can get
into Parliament who has a decided and conscientious preference
for Popery. No man can hold the higher offices, who has such
an aversion to the Church as to refuse to communicate with it in
the most solemn rites of our religion. If, therefore, these laws
do not secure the admission of zealous friends to the Establish
ment, they at least exclude, as well as any that can be framed, all
zealous enemies to it ; all those whose opinions are so perfectly
matured to preference of any other, as to induce them to wish
for, or meditate, an alteration in our present system. Now, Sir,
if any oath were so framed, with a view to procure this sort of
negative protection ; if it were so framed, for instance, as to call
upon every person coming into the situation where the oath was
required to be taken, to promise — as God would help him —
never to concur in anyth'ing which should weaken the hold that our
Church has in the Establishment, hvX to the utmost of his power to

26
maintain the United Church in these kingdoms ; to withstand and
oppose any attempt, however in form legal, regular, and constitu
tional, to alter it : such an oath would be either as objectionable to
Papists and Dissenters as the Test Acts are at present, as well as
objectionable also to the Church-of-England man, whose discretion
it might be held to bind on subjects of Ecclesiastical reform; or
else, whatever were its terms, it loould be construed,* in practice,
as not binding against the legal exercise of constitutional and
legislative discretion. (The arguments we have all heard on the
subject of the King's coronation oath, show us that the words
must be strong and pointed indeed, which are certain to be
held to restrain the legal acts of the person who is to perform
them.) In the latter view of it, it would be wholly nugatory.
In the former, it would be felt very nearly as oppressive by the
Dissenter as the existing Tests may be ; and, at the same time,
materially objectionable to the very members of the Church of
England. And yet. Sir, it must be conceded, by any temperate
and candid mind, that the Test Laws do practically produce, at
present, a security to the Establishment as great as the most
binding obligation to this effect would profess to procure.
As to the arguments and objections offered to the Sacramental
Test, they have been so often considered that I shall treat them
but very cursorily indeed : I cannot hope to reflect any new
light on them. But, when charges of hypocrisy towards God, of
profanation of the holiest mysteries of our religion, are imputed
to those who have qualified themselves according to these laws
(and I feel myself, certainly, to stand within that number), as
they are charges of which I do not admit the guUt, I am desirous
of stating shortly the grounds upon which I hold them to be
unfounded ; and upon which, at least to my own conscience, I
stand clear of them.
These objections. Sir, are of two sorts — the one, founded on the
inutility of the Test for its own purpose ; the other, on the
alleged profanation of a sacred and solemn rite.
The first is stated sometimes with greater force than I have
heard it pressed to-night. It is sometimes stated, that this Test
• Vide Appendix D, E, and G, and Editor's comments thereon.

27
only operates to the exclusion of the most conscientious and best
among the Dissenters; and, consequently (it is argued), only
against those whom, if we admitted of any exceptions, we ought
on principle to be the most disposed to except ;-'whilst the less
scrupulous — those who are ready, at any time, to prefer their
ambition to their religion, and sacrifice their principles in order
to advance their interests, will not be excluded by it. That a
Dissenter has nothing to do but to violate his conscience, and
then he may be qualified for any post or any dignity in the
kingdom. In short. Sir, that the honest Dissenter or Papist is
excluded — the hypocritical enemy ofthe Church is qualified.
Surely, Sir, there must be some fallacy in this objection,
whether we can discover it or not. The argument, we must
remember, is urged by those who complain of the operation of
these Test laws to their exclusion ; but the effect of it is to show,
not that the Test is too comprehensive, not that it operates to
the exclusion of persons not intended to be excluded, but that it
is so miserably conceived and so foolishly planned, that it may be
evaded -with ease by many such persons. Sir, if the argument
means that any one may evade the Test who chooses, it proves
too much ; because, then it would not operate as an exclusion —
it would afford no cause of quarrel. If it means that it can be
evaded, indeed, but only by persons of gross hypocrisy and
depravity of character, I answer, — These are persons whom it
would be difficult for any test to -exclude — for any oath to bind.
And we should not hastily part with what we deem a good legal
security in general, because there may be some few cases in
which it will not protect us. The complaint, however, proves
that it excludes some of those whom it was intended to exclude :
it excludes the complainants themselves. And I own. Sir, when
I hear persons, who complain of a law as oppressive in their
exclusion, malie use of an argument for the repeal of that law,
which shows it ought to be repealed only because it is not suffi
ciently extensive in its effects, the inconsistency between the
object of the person who advances the argument, and the con
clusion which that argument itself tends to produce, inclines
me naturally to suspect either the sincerity of the one, or the
solidity of the other.
But in truth. Sir, there is more sound than sense in this

28
argument — more plausibility than justice. In the fallacy itself,
we shall find the true reason for the law. The reason for
applying a test to any one is, to prevent the admission of those
persons into power who would be disposed and enabled to use it
with prejudice to the Establishment, civil or ecclesiastical, which
the law desires to protect. Who, then, let me ask, are the
persons most likely to be disposed so to use their power ? Those,
unquestionably, who are most rooted in their own opinions — who
most rigidly adhere to them, and most zealously abominate the
tenets, practices, and rites of those from whom they differ and
dissent. These, indisputably, must be the persons who, refusing
to conform, are now excluded ; and not those who show, by
their conformity, that their aversion is not so strong against our
opinions, nor their zeal so warm in favour of their own. Besides,
Sir, it is most important to remark, that the mere act of their
conformity not only bespeaks their own comparative indifference,
but must in great measure loosen their hold and authority over
the more zealous of their own sect : — it introduces them here,
therefore, merely as individuals ; not as heads of large bodies of
men, disposed to act and concur with them on the ground of
being animated with the same zeal, and actuated by the same
sentiments and principles. The Test, therefore, I contend, by
shutting out the most scrupulous, shuts out the most zealous — •
shuts out the most dangerous ; and, by admitting those who are
less strict and conscientious in their dissent, admits those who,
comparatively speaking, are safe and powerless. It is not meant
as a Test of morals, to exclude immoral or irreligious men :
neither that Test nor any other can have that effect. A Test of
any kind, sanctioned by any religious appeal, can only operate
upon the conscience. Where there is no conscience it can
have no influence — it can have no hold. If your Test were an
oath, a man might by perjury evade the latter, as easily as by
hypocrisy, insincerity, and deceit, he can now evade the former.
This argument, therefore, if it goes for anything, goes to the
abolition of all tests of any description : and I am very far from
supposing that those who use it think the worse of it for that
reason. But, Sir, I have said it is objected further, that this Test is a
profanation of the purest of all religions, by perverting its

holiest institution and most solemn rite to purposes the most
mercenary of temporal interests and worldly promotion. Upon
this objection, before I answer it, I would ask, whether any
man believes that, if the object of the Test law was only to 'secure
the profession of some sort of Christianity in placemen; and
that, consequently, it would be satisfied by their receiving the
sacrament according to those rites, respectively, with which it
was celebrated by the sect to which each individual belonged ;
in that case, I say, does any man believe that the Dissenter
would then object to it? I cannot see upon what ground of
conscience any Christian man could do so. If so, then, I say.
Sir, the objection is fallacious and insincere. It is to the
principle, to the intention of the law, not to the form of it, they
really object. The Sacramental Test proceeds upon this prin
ciple : the professed intention of the Legislature is to exclude
all persons from power in the State who do not profess the
Christian religion according to the doctrines of the Church of
England ; or, at least, to admit those only who do not reject the
communion of that Church. It does then, certainly, presume
that, as Christians, they receive the sacrament; that, as Church
of England men, they receive it according to the forms prescribed
by our Church, two or three times, at least, in the year, in the
ordinary course of their religious duties. All, then, that it
requires (which is considered by this objection as such a gross and
terrible profanation) is, that they would have that which is a
customary action of their life, certified upon a particular occasion.
It does not require them to receive the sacrament in order to
qualify them to accept an office ; but it requires that the evidence
of their doing so may be preserved, certified, and recorded, in
one instance of their practice.
This, Sir, is the light in which this subject always strikes my
mind : and if it is thought by any that the Test ought to be
abolished, because it may entice persons who abominate the
rites of the Church of England to conform to them; I say
the same objection would hold to any oath by which their
cordial acquiescence in the establishment of that Church by law
could be attested, lest such an oath should possibly entice them
to perjury.

30
The restrictive provisions, therefore, with which this measure
might be intended to be guarded, seem to me of necessity such
as either to afford no satisfaction to the Roman-catholics, or else to
give us no sufficient protection from the dangers which I appre
hend may ensue from it. In short. Sir, the benefit and security
derived to the country and constitution from the present Test
Laws, cannot be provided by any * substitute for them, except
such as shall have a similar operation ; and those which should
have a similar operation, must necessarily create a similar
grievance, and be liable to the same objections and complaints.
And these considerations are enough. Sir, I think, to make this
House pause before it gives its sanction to the proposal of any new
tests, any frame of oath that can be suggested, for the purpose of
easing our alarm at the danger of that future conflict, first for esta
blishment, and then for ascendancy, which (I think) cannot be too
strongly felt or stated as likely to_ arise, in Ireland at least, from
the admission ofthe Roman-catholics to political place and power.
The next view to be taken is how far our alarms on this head
may be appeased from the supposed contentment and satisfac
tion which this measure will occasion : and in examining this
part of the question, I shall also examine those considerations
of prudence and expediency which are held on the other side
to suggest, and, indeed, to dictate, with peculiar force, the
propriety of our agreeing to this measure at this present time.
And here. Sir, I am bound first of all to remark, that many
considerations which I have lately been urging as objections
to the measure, are urged by Hon. Gentlemen opposite as
reasons for it. The influence, for instance, which the enemy
may, through the Pope, and his subjects the Priests, exert upon
the Irish Roman-catholics to the prejudice of the interests of
this country, if it be admitted at all, is to be ascribed, they say,
to the alienated state in which they are kept by those laws
which this measure is to repeal. Conciliate them by that repeal,
and it would exist no longer. Now, Sir, I contend, that unless'
you are prepared to give them everything that the Pope and
Buonaparte would offer them, this source of influence would still
* Vide Appendix D, and comment thereon, p. 90.

31
continue. Suppose an army marching in Ireland with a joint
Bull and Proclamation from Rome and from Paris, promising
to the Roman-catholics the general establishment of their
religion, in the room of the Protestant Church ; to their titular
Bishops and Rectors, legal and beneficial possession of their
sees and li-vings ; to the laity, that the payment of tithes should be
demanded for their own Clergy alone, and the lands of the intru
sive English Protestants should be divided amongst the descend
ants of their native owners, — what then, I ask, would be the
consequence ? The argument must admit, that in the present
alienated state of the Roman-catholic mind, there would be
some danger at least that such proclamations would have some
effect. Now, can any man suppose that this effect would be in
any degree different after the repeal of the Test Laws, from
what it would be before ? Can any one expect it would result
in such an answer as this — " True, our Church is in our eyes
entitled to all you offer ; true, that Church commands the
faithful to pay tithes to it, as of Divine right, and surely not to
an heretical priesthood ; true, the alien Protestant lords it over
the forfeited estates of our Irish and Catholic ancestors. If you
had come with your proposals last year, it might have done ; but
we (that is some half-dozen of Peers and half a hundred of
Gentlemen) can now sit in Parliament — we (that is some sixty
or seventy persons) can now hope to hold all the higher offices
of state : and now, therefore, we are all determined to stand by the
fortunes of the United Kingdom ?" — Sir, it is simply ridiculous
to suppose it; and, therefore, if any one really pursues this
measure as likely to conciliate the Roman-cathoKc mind in
Ireland, it is impossible that he can rationally stop short with
the mere repeal of the Test Laws.
But, Sir, I trust the House will permit me to examine this
measure a little more particularly, upon the merits which are
supposed to belong to it, as being so sure to tranquillise and
conciliate to their government the disaffected part of the people
of that country.
And first. Sir, before the merits of the measure can be in
any degree appreciated as to its probable effect upon the
minds of the disaffected, it is most essential to know who the

32
disaffected are. The people of Ireland, like those of all other
countries, consist, in respect of wealth and station, of the higher
and lower orders, of laymen and of ecclesiastics : and they are
further distinguished, most materially so, by their religion ; in
respect of which they may be classed in three di-visions, as
Church-of-England men, as Roman-catholics, and as Protestant
dissenters. Now, Sir, I should be glad to know whether it is
admitted to the argument, in which of these classes and descrip
tions the disaffection which ^nany hope this measure will
conciliate, does actually exist. It is a measure which promises
no distinct and immediate benefit to the lower orders of the
people of any description : that is too obvious to require argu
ment. No man will seriously contend that the lower orders
of any description, or the ecclesiastics of any description, can
rationally promise themselves any immediate benefit from a
measure which will remove the disqualifications which at present
prevent the Dissenter from sitting in Parliament, or from holding
the higher offices of State. It can hold out no boon to the
Church-of-England man of any rank; because it will in no
degree alter his condition, to his advantage at least. It must be
then, if at all, that its immediate effect must be produced upon
the higher orders of Dissenters, both Protestant and Roman-
catholic — but principally Roman-catholics; because Parlia
ment is already open to the Protestant Dissenter. Is it
then contended, or even admitted, that the disaffection which
is to be conciliated exists in these classes? I am sure it
will not be so pretended; and I believe nothing would be
so unjust as to suspect it; nothing, I am sure, would be so
impossible to prove, by anything that has appeared in the
conduct of the higher orders of the Roman-catholic or other
dissenting persuasions, any facts, at least in any numbers,
which could justify such a suspicion. That the Dissenter
of any description, and particularly that the Roman-catholic
Dissenter had any more to do with the late rebellions in
that kingdom, qua. Dissenter, or qua. Roman-catholic, is always
most strenuously denied by their advocates ; and if there were
more, as there unquestionably were, of Roman-catholic than of
Protestant rebels, it is always, by the friends of the Roman-

33
catholics, accounted for from the cii-cumstance that they con
stitute the greater proportion of the population of the Island. If
this, however. Is true, and religious opinions form no part of the
ground or source of the disaffection, how any relief In respect of
religious opinions can have any effect In narrowing that ground,
or drying up that source, is more than my imagination can
conceive. But, it must be allowed, this is not the universal, nor
nearly the general opinion. Many do think (and I confess
myself to be one of them) that the Roman-catholics did bear a
larger than their mere numerical proportion among the rebel
ranks. , Many think. Sir, that the lower orders of the Roman-
catholics were, without sufficient discouragement (to say the
least) from their priests, easily led astray from their duty to
their Sovereign and to the laws ; by the arts and machinations
of conspirators, who, perhaps, themselves had little thought of
religion at all ; but who found the minds of the lower orders of
Roman-cathoUcs, from one cause or another, more easily sus
ceptible of those impressions which their evil designs disposed
them to communicate, than any other description of persons.
But, Sir, even these acquit the Roman-catholic gentry — the
Roman-catholic peers. The language of the most uncandid
and inveterate accuser of the Roman-catholics, goes no further
than to impute a rebellious spirit to the lower orders and the
ecclesiastics among them.
How then. Sir, as applied to these different opinions of the
sources of discontent, does this measure promise the least
advantage ? Can those, for Instance, who hold that religious
dissent has nothing to do with the disaffection, think that a
measure in relief of the religious Dissenter can have any effect
upon It ?¦ Or can they who think the mischief lies In the position
of the Roman- cathohc priesthood, and the Roman-catholic
poor, in respect of their religion, promise themselves any benefi
cial effect from a measure, which, giving no relief to the priest
hood, and no relief to the poor, only gives it to the Roman-
catholic gentleman and the Roman-catholic peer. This measure,
which is pressed upon you as a charm for conciliating disaffection, is
to apply your benefits to those whom you cannot attach more strongly
to you than they are attached at this very moment ; leaving all who
D

34
are supposed to be alienated and estranged from you, untouched,
unaffected in any sensible degree by its operation !
I contend, therefore, with confidence, that If any rational* man,
be he Protestant, or be he Roman-catholic, really thinks that
Roman-catholic disaffection will. In any degree, be conciliated
by this measure, he must think so because of the opening which
this measure may be supposed to make for stiU further conces
sions and advantages to the Roman-catholics ; that It cannot be
from any serious Impression and opinion that the measure Itself
wUl " be the be-all, and the end-all here " for them — that they will
rest satisfied and contented without looking for, and striving for,
something more. No, Sir, if they appear. If they profess to be
satisfied with it ; nay, if they even entertain a wish to obtain It ;
it Is not, it cannot be, from any Immediate benefit which they
think they shall feel from It ; It Is because they consider It —
in the language of Mr. Burke — " As developing a principle ; as
marking out a disposition ;" which principle. Sir, the possession of
this advantage will enable them, with more prospect of success,
to follow up ; and which disposition they will hope to improve
to still further concessions and benefits to themselves and to
their religion.
For as to this present measure giving content. Sir, what hope
does past experience hold out to us of Its producing any such
effect? Has the system of relaxation and Indulgence, which has
been acted on of late years, been productive of any such conse
quence? Has it tended. In proportion to the extent which it
has been acted upon, to tranquillise the minds of the people of
Ireland ? The contrary is notoriously the case. There has been
far more of disturbance since, than for many years before.
" Yes," it will be said, " that may be true, but that Is not to be
attributed to the new system of relaxation, but to the remains of
the old system of restraint. You have never tried It effectually.
Follow up your principle as far as It will carry you, and then
you will see. It will no longer fail of Its effect." Agreed, Sir !
for this comes round precisely to my own opinion. For what is
" effectually ? " The system has been tried to the extent of
the demand or request of the time ; but no sooner was that
* Confer Captain Rous, Appendix C. 3, p. 77.

35
gained and secured, than new demands have arisen ; and so they
•will arise again, until every distinction between the Popish and
Protestant religions is done away. This measure, once granted,
will only be a stepping-stone to stlU farther advances ; will only
be a stimulus to still farther demands ; will only be an argument
for still farther concessions. High place will re-inspire high
thoughts ; and possession will be so far from abating and allay
ing the craving appetite, that it will but Inflame it. That appetite
can never be satisfied till everything it can covet Is obtained.
And, Sir, in that everything — I say with confidence — Is Included
Roman-catholic establishment; — ay! and not establishment alone,
but ascendancy; the permanent establishment of the Roman-
catholic religion upon the ruins of the United Church in Ireland.
And nothing short of that will, or can, satisfy this Roman-
catholic disaffection we are to conciliate ; if even that will.*
Sir, it is from the nature of man. It Is from the nature of the
human mind and passions, that I draw this conclusion. Content
may be promised ; may be honestly promised ; because. It may
be believed in at the time. But the prospect, and the posses
sion, differ. Man Is not satisfied with enjoyment ; always
craving something beyond, as long as anything beyond appears
possible to be obtained. I do not say, that establishment —
much less establishment upon the ruins of the Protestant
Church — would be the next demand. No ; but the next step
would probably be to ask for one of Its incidents ; to ask for
some national and compulsory payment for their priests.
And I am well aware. Sir, that there are many plausible
arguments to show the expediency of that measure Itself: and I
am well aware that there are many powerful advocates In favour
of It. The principal of these arguments, however. Is, that It
will give the Government a hold upon the Roman-catholic
priest ; that it will make a mutual connection of good- will
between them; and be the means of attaching the priesthood to
the Interest of that Government, of which, at present, they
are wholly Independent, If they be not radically hostile and
averse to It. Now, Sir, if there be any chance of this result ;
* Vide Appendix A. and F.

36
and, if this be either the avowed, or the suspected object, ofthe
indulgence; wIU it not, I ask, instantly defeat itself? Will not
a true and zealous Roman-catholic either reject an offer which
has such a tendency ; which invites him to a dependence on a
Government In his mind heretical ; and gives that Government
a strength and stability which Is quite hostile to all his favourite
-views ? Or, would he not, by accepting It, become an object of
jealousy to his own body ; of distrust to his own flock? Would
it not detach him greatly from It ; and so deprive the Govern
ment of all the hope of utility proposed by the connection ;
and give rise to a new set of popular and Independent priests, —
most probably of the regular orders, — who will enjoy the lost
influence of those whom Government has purchased ; and fall
into possession of many of those sources of revenue from volun
tary contributions among the Roman-catholic people, which
these new hirelings of Government, as they will then be called
by their rivals, will have forfeited, or perhaps have been bound,
by their contract with us, to relinquish ?
But, again. In order that this scheme should produce any
successful result, the allowance to the priests must be equal to
what they enjoy at present ; and It must be as extensively
distributed.. Are gentlemen aware to what extent this goes ?
Is It known that there is not a parish in Ireland without its
titular rector ? Not a bishopric without its titular bishop ?
From the best information I have been able to obtain, there
are four Roman-cathoHc archbishops, and twenty-six bishops.
Their salaries or emoluments arise from parishes which they
hold In commendam, and where they officiate as priests ; from
marriage licenses, and dispensations ; and from certain stated
contributions from the parish priests and curates. I learn, that
the wealthiest see is the bishopric of Cork, — the Income of
which reaches 550Z. per annum. The poorest, those of Kilfenora
and Kilmacduagh, which do not exceed 1001. ; that, upon the
average, the sees are worth 300/. a year ; and being thirty in
number, of course, their united Incomes amount to 9000Z ; that
to these they are appointed by the Pope ; usually on recom
mendation, the archbishops of the prelates of the provinces, the
bishops ofthe clergy ofthe dioceses.

37
There are other dignitaries, I learn, but with no emoluments
as such. Twenty-nine deans, appointed by the Pope on nomi
nation ofthe prelates. The chapters, at present without service,
funds, or salary ; their principal duty being to elect a capitular
vicar, sede vacante. There are rural deans also, for districts, —
but without salary as such ; and no Roman-catholic benefices,
but parishes, with cure of souls.
These are generally unions; and there are 1206 parish
priests; whose incomes arise from oblations, and fees for
priestly offices, and from stated voluntary contributions at
Easter and Christmas. These stated contributions are, in some
dioceses, one shilling from each parishioner ; In others, two,
from the poorest : the more opulent pay from that to a guinea.
In some cases, they receive contributions In corn. In Wexford,
this has been stated at one bushel for twenty acres. The most
valuable benefice Is said to be in Waterford, worth 240/. per
annum. The poorest in Galway, not exceeding 15^. The
average, however, exclusive of the expense of the curates, is
651. per annum, which, multiplied by 1206, gives. In round
numbers, a gross revenue of 78,000/. The curates derive their
incomes from shares In the oblations, or from salaries paid by
the priests, or from both; and their average receipts are said
to be not above 30/. per annum. Not ha-ving had any estimate
of their number, I cannot give any guess at the amount of their
united Incomes ; but, supposing them to form only a third part
of the number of the parish priests, at 30/. per annum, it would
amount to 9000/. Putting the bishops, then, at . . . £9,000
„ the rectors at .... 78,000
„ the curates at ... . 9,000

The total income to be provided, is . . ;t96,000
But, as the bishops' incomes are said to be derived, in part,
out of the rectories they hold in commendam, let us reduce the
sum in arguing upon It, by deducting 16,000/. for the salaries
of the bishops and curates, and assume 80,000/. per annum as
the present amount of the voluntary income of the Roman-
catholic clergy in Ireland.

38
How far. Sir, It would satisfy them to take a bounty from
the State, only equivalent with that which they now receive,
being wholly independent of It, — how far they would think
their Independence of no value, and would be content to relin
quish the one for the other, without any pecuniary profit, I
cannot say. But I think it pretty obvious, that they would
either retain both, or else require a larger payment from
Government ; and without the one or the other, I hardly think
any man could hope that they would be very well contented.
But then. Sir, If they kept both, they would remain dependent
upon the Pope, and their own body, for one half of their
incomes ; and. If not, then the funds, which they would relin
quish, would be left to furnish similar salaries to a new order
of priests and ecclesiastics, as wholly Independent, and probably
as hostile as before.
Again, Sir, how would Hon. Gentlemen propose that they
should be elected and nominated ? If you take the nomination
of their own body, as they are nominated now, you would have
these bishops and rectors not a tittle more dependent upon you,
nor a whit more indebted to you for their situations. Leaving
their dependence exactly where It is, you would only have
given to those, who would still have to appoint them, better
things to give away. You would vastly increase the general
power and influence of the Romish Ecclesiastical body, without
bringing them one jot nearer to yourselves. But, on the other
hand. If you were to assume the nomination of them yourselves
In any shape or degree whatever, you know little of the nature
of the faith and doctrines of the Roman-catholics, if you sup
pose that they would ever be honestly contented with priests or
bishops, polluted In their very creation by the heretical nomina
tion of a Protestant Government.*
But, Sir, suppose for argument's sake all the difficulties of
this nature surmounted, (which I, however, think Insurmount
able,) and that an endowment of £80,000 is, for the time at
least, to content them. The money, then, must be procured.
The next question Is, from what fund ?
There are but four ways In which it would be possible to
» Vide Appendix A. 2, p. 69.

pro-vide it — first, by a tax upon the Roman-catholics them
selves, turning their voluntary payments into a demand capable
of legal enforcement ; secondly, by a separate charge upon the
revenue of Ireland ; thirdly, by a charge upon the joint revenues
ofthe United Kingdom; fourthly, by taking away a portion of
the existing endowments of the Established Church.
With respect to the first. If considered as a measure of con
ciliation to the Roman-catholics, I think I need not argue that
would never do. The Roman-catholic laity are apt to deem, at
least to say, that they are taxed already for the support of the
Protestant Clergy, In the payment of tithes to our Establish
ment. I know. Sir, that, scientifically speaking, this Is not true.
Tithe Is a charge upon the land; It falls, in reality, upon the
landholder, not upon the occupying tenant, whose rent is so
much the less for It. The land of Ireland belongs chiefly to the
Protestants ; and what belongs to Roman-catholics was acquired
by them long after this charge was laid upon it — In most
instances long after the Reformation. Still, Sir, when the
actual payment comes to be made by the Roman-catholic
occupier to the Protestant Rector, he doubtless feels It as a
tax to which the law compels him ; and a double payment, by
like compidslon, would be a double grievance : and so far from
conciliating them, every man will say it must have the direct
contrary effect.
Let us next consider the plan of finding this fund in the
property of the Established Church.
Would that be desirable. Sir ? Would that be right ? Would
it be possible ?
Is the Church in Ireland already, as a whole, too richly
endowed? I know it has been said so; but I doubt If this
House -wiU come to that conclusion on due inquiry.* There are
2,200 parishes in Ireland ; these have been so united as to
constitute in all but 1,100 benefices. And what think you of
the difficulty of apportioning the fund to be raised amongst
them ? Many parishes have large and valuable rectories : but
many again are so poor, that a pound rate upon their value
would produce but a trifling provision for the Roman-catholic
* Vide Appendix G. p. 101.

40
priest. To make the tithes your fund, then, I much doubt
whether, in a practical point of view, you could at all effect
your object otherwise than by taking the whole ecclesiastical
property in Ireland into your hands, making it into one fund,
and then subdividing it between the two priesthoods. But
this. Sir, unless Parliament had parted with all its notions of
right and wrong with regard to property, could never be
resorted to as a present provision. The present possessors
would be actually robbed. If their incomes were to be taken
from them by force of an arbitrary law, without their fault, and
without full compensation. Besides, I cannot believe that Hon.
Gentlemen who have argued that a Protestant Parliament would
not advise a Protestant King to Popish counsels, would much
like to admit the possibility of Its ever assenting to so Popish a
counsel as this, to find the means of supporting the Popish
priesthood in this direct robbery of the Protestant Church. This
would, indeed, be to attack the Establishment with a vengeance.
And this, I say. Is Impossible, as long as the Parliament of the
United Kingdom keeps the faith to which it Is pledged by the
Articles of Union.
Rejecting, therefore, this scheme as morally impracticable, it
remains only to consider the other two resources, namely, a
separate charge on the revenues of Ireland, or a joint one on
those of the United Kingdom. And I must say. Sir, it would
seem to me so unwise to fling this burthen upon Ireland alone,
that I cannot think It would be proposed by any man to do so.
What, lay a separate tax on Ireland, to conciliate Its Inhabitants
to the Government of the United Kingdom ? Certainly It would
be a strange way of conciliating the Protestants at least of that
kingdom, to make them pay for a Romish priesthood ; to add to
their present burthens by a new levy for the sake of those to
whom they surely do not bear any great degree of good-will,
and who, they well know, bear them at least as little.
Then, Sir, It must come to be paid as a general charge by the
nation at large. I will not pause to ask whether this measure,
so conciliating to the Irish Roman-catholics, will be found
thereupon so very conciliating to' our own constituents. I will
suppose them, I wUl suppose ourselves, quite reconciled to it.

41
But immediately there arises another and a most embarrassing
question. Upon what principle are we to indulge the Roman-
catholics thus, and not to be equally indulgent to all other Dis
senters ? On what pretence shall we decHne to pay, out of the
funds and joint stock of the State, the clergy of every sect
existing amongst vis at the present day ? Nay, Sir, of every
sect that shall arise hereafter ? I see no Issue from this dilemma.
What distinction is it possible to draw between them — save
perhaps this, that the Dissenters happen just now to be peace
able and loyal, the Roman-catholics not ? And who would be
so foolish and shortsighted as to advance this by way of the-
principle on which like indulgences are to be withheld from the
former ?
Again, Sir, if once it be conceded that the Roman-catholic
priesthood are entitled to support from the general funds of the
State, does not every man anticipate that the next question will
be, to what extent ? Must they necessarily be contented with
their £80,000 ? Or will they not soon demand to be paid
equally in point of amount with our o-vvn Establishment ? " Oh,
no," we are told, " they will be content with but a very small
pittance." How long ? Just till they have secured that ; and
think they will not endanger the forfeiture of it by asking for
more. Why, upon what reason should they be contented?
Having once established that their labour Is to be paid for by
the State, surely it will follow, since the labourer Is worthy of
his hire, he is worthy in proportion to his labour. Upon what
principle, then, -will you justify, when you have recognised both
religions, the compelling them to submit to payments so unequal?
Much, comparatively, to those who preach to one out of four,
little to those who preach to the other three ! This topic. Sir,
is no mere suggestion of my fancy. It Is not the less real,
because not now mooted. We hear as yet little of the demand
to be paid by the State at all ; and that little rather from the
priests' friends than from themselves. Increase of pay Is quite
an ulterior object. They don't pursue it now; perhaps they
don't see it now. The Impediment just in their way obscures
their further prospect. That once surmounted, the remainder
will open upon their view. For, payment of this sort once

42
conceded, and all beiiig taxed to support a double Establishment,
the Papists will not long be satisfied to pay at all to the Protes
tant, nor the Protestant to pay to the Popish Church. The tax
will be repudiated by all as a common grievance. The cry wiU
arise. Let both clergies share In the existing provision set apart
by law for the purposes of religion — and the selfish Interests of
many Protestants will lead them to join In it. And then. Sir,
must come In the question of proportion. In vain, therefore,
shall we find It to think of conciliating, but by sharing ; and by
sharing. In proportion, not to the wealth or landed properties of
the respective believers, but to the number of the communicants.
And let not the House think that this Is the last step. No,
Sir ; there is yet a further step beyond It, as certain, as inevitable
as the first. When once It shall have been carried that the two
religions shall share the endowments ofthe Church In proportion,
the Roman-catholics will soon feel and assert that their great
numerical superiority, and their comparative poverty, entitle
them to the whole. Their tenets, which deny any real existence
as of right, to our Church, will then come into play against us.
What ! They be content to share the endowments of the Holy
Church Catholic with a paltry body of heretics and schismatics,*
over whom the sword of extermination is but suspended, by
their own principles, for lack of ability and opportunity, through
the perverseness of the civil power ! No, Sir. The end of
conciliation will not yet have been attained ; the argument of
conciliation will be revived In Its fuU force. The disaffection
wUl still exist, and stIU clamour to be appeased. Every principle
upon which that clamour can be met and resisted, wUl long ago
have been cut from under our feet. Parliament wUl have that
extorted from its weakness which its wisdom would desire to
withhold. And then. Sir, will it be seen and deplored, but seen
and deplored too late, that, by once admitting a claim of right
In the Papist to any endowment whatever, the State will in fact
have been erecting a Papal establishment, which can never rest
satisfied in its first position ; but, having exalted Itself, first in
opposition, next in rivalryj will proceed in the same career tiU
it has obtained a complete ascendancy, and will rest only wheil
• Vide Appendix A. 2, p. 69.

43
at last firmly seated on the ruins of the establishment of the
United Church in Ireland.
I understand those murmurs of dissent. I am quite pre
pared for them ; quite prepared to hear all this pronounced very
unfounded; aye, and very illiberal. Unfounded, because my
argument supposes this measure, which I expect In the Com
mittee — if the Committee should be granted, — will not be ac
companied with some means of checking the progress of the
Roman- catholic demand, as soon as ever it becomes unreason
able ; Ullberal, because It assumes that the Roman-catholics -will
be guilty of a course of conduct so opposed to all their present
professions, so ungrateful, so haughty, so rapacious, so uncha
ritable. Sir, I have already, at great length, examined the
means we may be supposed to have, of securing from Roman-
catholics, in power, and In Parliament, a due respect for the
rights of the Establishment. I believe I have proved those
means too likely to resolve themselves Into a mere formal
nuUity ; at all events, to afford us no such security as that which
this measure must take away from us. And I, for one, seeing,
as I do, these dangers in prospect, will never consent to abate
one fraction of that security which we now possess, for the
chance of that which the Right Hon. Gentleman may devise
proving something better In practice than I can bring myself
to, believe it in theory. I shall now, therefore, address myself
only to the charge of Uliberality.
To suppose, then, this restless, and growing, and Insatiable
ambition In the Roman-catholics, is said to be very unreasonable,
very uncandid. My answer to that is short and simple. I protest.
Sir, that I insinuate in this nothing against them, that I would
' not admit against myself. I make my stand here. I object to
give them political power, because the natural use for them to
make of it would be — by the gradual means that I have sug
gested, to work up to the overthrow of our Establishment.* I
declare that I would, and that I ought to do so myself, were I a
Protestant in a country where the Roman-cathoHc religion was
established, and the Protestants had any chance of overturning
* Confer Mr. Wyse. Appendix C. 2, p. 75.

44
it. Sir, I know it would be my duly (and I trust I should
observe it), as a good subject, to conform to the laws, and by no
means to foment, or to encourage, any conspiracy or resistance to
the law. But if I had the power of the law in my own hands ;
if I could legislate for the country; If I could get for those whom
I knew to be the majority, and who thought with me In religion,
the established religion of the country changed; I would, by
legal means, endeavour so to change it. In supposing, therefore,
that they would do the same, I do not appear to myself to be
guilty of any -violation of charity or candour. I would not
suppose one disloyal man amongst them; but I will suppose
them zealous and conscientious in their faith and opinions ; and
in proportion to the excellence of their moral and religious
character, I will predict the line of conduct they -will pursue.
In the same precise proportion, It seems to me, they are to be
dreaded. . t It Is true that the Petitioners* have abjured any intention to
subvert the Protestant religion for the purpose of introducing
their own. But do they profess for the whole Roman-catholic
body ? Do they profess for the clergy as weU as the laity ? or
do they only profess for themselves ? I have looked at the
petition, and I cannot find the hand of a single clergyman of the
Roman-catholic persuasion affixed to It ; and the reason assigned
(as I understand) is, that It is a petition for ci-vU rights. In which
they could not participate. The Roman-catholic clergy have
not abjured the expectation of being restored to all the dignities
which were possessed by them previous to the Reformation.
And If they had, I should not have thought so well of them as
I do. For do they not assume the style and titles of the
bishoprics, the deaneries, and aU the gradations which are to be
found in the Established Church ? And knowing this, who can
say that they have relinquished all hope of enjoying the emolu
ments appertaining to those dignities ? One of their tenets is,
and of which any Member who goes Into a bookseller's shop
may convince himself, that all Christians are bound to pay
tithes, but only to their lawful pastors. Nay, some persons have
carried the same principle much further. A Mr. M'Kenna, a
? Vide Appendix B. p. 71.

45
very able man I will acknowledge, has proposed, in a treatise of
much learning and ingenuity, that 30 or 40 acres of land * should
be purchased In every parish In Ireland, and a house built on it
for the Roman-catholic clergyman. Is not this a plain indication
of the extent of their hopes and prospects ? No man can doubt,
in short, that It Is their inclination to propagate their religion by
every means in their power. . It is a principle Inseparable from
the character of every rellglon.f
On the other hand. Sir, It will, I know, be said by another
class of reasoners — not a numerous class, however. In this House,
I think — that, after all, the endowment of the Roman-catholic
religion Is a mere question of policy ; and. It will be phUosophi-
cally hoped, that the world Is at least so far enlightened, as that
there Is no danger that any man should be so blind, so bigoted,
or so fanatical, as to suppose that any question of religion is
involved in it. This opinion. Sir, obliges me to notice another
consideration of very great weight with me : for although I have
been quite ready to meet this question as a question of policy,
and, upon every view that I can take of It, have argued that
sound policy requires the rejection of such a measure, still, I
should much belie my own feelings and opinions, and I should
feel degraded in my own mind, as if I had been restrained and
intimidated by the threatened imputations of blindness, bigotry,
and fanaticism. If I forbore from stating, that. In my judgment,
the question of establishing and paying for the Roman-catholic
religion. Is much more than a mere question of policy — that It Is
a question of religion. But, Sir, I wish to guard myself from
misconception, by some more distinct explanation. All questions
of tests and qualifications for public office, and political situation,
I admit to be mere questions of policy ; and the expediency or
inexpediency of upholding them, to depend entirely upon cir
cumstances of time and place, and the particular state of men's
minds at this or that period. But the question which I am now
contemplating, that of paying the ecclesiastics of a contrary
religious opinion to our own, is a very different thing. It must
depend, Sir, upon the nature of that opinion. In the judgment
of those who are to enjoin and enforce such payments. The
• Vide Note by Editor to Appendix C. 1 and 2, p. 76.

46
question, for instance, of a Protestant government compelling Its
Protestant subjects to pay Roman-catholic priests and bishops
for preaching, and to enable them to preach, and to perpetuate,
by that abUIty of preaching, Roman-catholic opinions, seems to
me, I own, to be a question which (when I consider what the
nature of those Roman-catholic opinions is. In the judgment of
Protestants) I can hardly conceive how It can be possible, that
it should ever be seriously entertained by a Protestant Parlia
ment. Some persons. Indeed, seem to be misled by words ; and
knowing that toleration Is a Christian duty, think of this as if It
were a question of toleration. It has, however, nothing to do
with It. The principles of toleration declare, that individuals
have, and are entitled to enjoy, the uncontrolled right of private
judgment in matters of religious opinion. But, does it follow
that they have any right to expect that others, who differ from
them, should reward and support them for maintaining their
opinions ? — that the State, which differs from them, should, by
granting them a public endowment, compel those others to do
so ? Do not let gentlemen be run away with by those reasoners
who parade the numbers of the Irish Roman-catholics, — by the
notion that their numbers affect this part of the argument. If
this be a question of toleration, numbers have nothing to say to
it. Toleration is a right which depends not upon numbers, nor
upon majorities ; It is a right inherent in every Individual, as
fuUy as In half a nation.*
If there were as many religious opinions as there are subjects
in a country, each opinion has a perfect right to be tolerated :
but has each opinion a right to be paid ? Nor is it. In this point
of view, a question of the more or less of error — the more or less
of Idolatry. The worshippers of Mahomet, the worshippers of
Jupiter, the worshippers of the Goddess of Reason, have as much
right to be tolerated (upon principles oi toleration') as the Roman-
catholic himself. But, surely, no man can say that, in a
Christian country, they would have a right to expect that the
State should furnish them with a fund to support their priests and
pay for their sacrifices ! Yet, Sir, if that be a consequence from
* Vide Comment by Editor on Captain Rous's speech. Appendix C. 3, p. 82,
et seq.

47
the principles of toleration, they would be as much entitled to it
as any others. The right to toleration every man has ; but the
right to have his principles preached and taught at the expense
of the State, no man, but he whose opinions concur with the
opinions of the State's establishment.
I know not. Sir, if the Goddess of Reason made any proselytes
on this side of the Channel. Perhaps she may have, among
those very liberal and enlightened and rational persons who are so
ready to cry out " bigotry," the moment they hear of any one
presuming to act in the spirit of his own solemn oaths and
declarations. Now, what if application were made to Parliament
on behalf of worshippers of this precious goddess, to devise a
fund for the maintenance of her priesthood ? Would not every
one instantly and indignantly feel and express the impossibility
of a Christian assembly entertaining, for one moment, a proposi
tion in favour of so absurd, so blasphemous, so Idolatrous a
superstition? If that be so, then — If that be the just and right
principle on which you would scout such a proposition. It
foUows that, upon every similar question proposed to you, you
are bound to take into consideration the nature and qualities of
the religious opinion, -whatever It be. In favour of which the
application Is made. And If we, as Protestants, think the Roman-
catholic tenets and practices superstitious and Idolatrous In their
degree, how can we be expected to entertain such a proposition
In their favour ? I leave men to their right of private judgment
and private opinion in such matters. The principles of toleration
require It. I leave them to themselves : I have nothing to do with
it, and do nothing : and so far forth I am free from all responsl-
bUIty. But when I, by my vote, grant a fund out of the pockets
of my constituents for the support of other men's religious
opinions, I cease to be passive ; I become an active partisan,
as it were, of that religious persuasion: and It behoves me
well to examine whether, in my own judgment (for, when I am
myself to act in support of a thing, I must be judged by my own
conscience), those religious opinions are or are not acceptable to
God. If, in my conscience, I believe them to be superstitious,
idolatrous, and so far forth (whatever of good may be mixed up
with them) debasing to man, and an abomination before God,

48
surely my conscience will not acquit me, if I do anything myself,
or compel others by my vote to do anything, for the very object
and purpose of preaching, propagating, or. perpetuating such
opinions. And therefore. Sir, I do contend, that whenever that
question shall be brought substantlaUy before this House, aS
brought it wiU most surely be, sooner or later,* If we listen to the
Right Hon. Gentleman's advice, and once begin the fatal course
of concession, this House, Sir, and every indi-vldual member of
it, wUl be bound to consider It, and to deal with It, not merely
as a question of policy, but, in the strictest sense, as a question
of religion.
But to return. Sir, to my own argument. I have hitherto
merely contented myself with considering how far this measure
would be successful in conciliating the Papists. But it is not
contended for merely as a means to conciliate them. We are
told it Is one which wUl tranquUlIse the whole country, and give
strength to the Government by fixing it more generaUy in the
affections of the people.
I have already said what prospect I think there is of its
ultimately conciliating the Roman-catholics. Let us now see a
little what effect of that kind It will be likely to have on our
Protestant fellow-subjects. Sir, if this measure Is to be followed
up, as I have argued that It must be. It is impossible for any
man to dream that It can long be agreeable to any Protestant.
The Churchman who, in the late bloody and dangerous contest,
thinks that he has supported the Government of his King against
a Roman-catholic rebellion, would not be very much conciliated.
On the contrary. Sir, he would be Irritated and alienated In the
extreme to see the patrimony of his own Church torn from his
own Clergy, and given to the Roman-catholic priesthood — to
purchase their affection In contempt of the loss of his — by that
Government which, but for his exertions, would have been
dismembered, and have fallen to pieces under the attacks of
their Infuriate treason.
Would It, however, concUIate the Dissenters from the Church,
Protestant and Papist, to each other ? Nothing like it. While
» Vide Supplementary Note 3, at the end of Appendix, p. 116.

49
these have a common object of hostility, to a certain degree they
concur. But Dissenters, who think us superstitious and corrupt
for being too Uke the Papists, and Papists, who think us schis
matics and heretics to boot, who both agree in condemning with
inveteracy the errors of those who stand between their two
extremes, are not likely to be well -mth one another when once
the common object of their antipathy is swept away from between
them. No, Sir, they will then be seen far more violent against
each other, than each now is against us.
Qualiter undas
Oppositas seeat, et geminum mare dividit Isthmos,
Nee patitur conferre fretum ; si terra recedat.
Ionium iSgeeo frangat mare ....
I know. Sir, it has been said that there is a growing opinion
amongst Protestants In favour of this measure. It may be so :
Dissenters have almost forgotten their feud with the Papists for
lack of opportunity of coUision ; and regard their claims with
favour, because opposed by Churchmen, against whom they are
engaged in more actual conflict. There are too many, nominally
Churchmen, who, in fact, are persons of perfect indifference about
most questions of religion. Few things, as I before remarked,
are more to be deprecated than that the people of this country
should mark the same Indifference in Parliament. But there are
stUl other Protestants, who support the measure from an honest
wish to extend mistaken principles of toleration. But it Is one
thing to support this present measure on such principles: it
-wUl be quite another to approve of it in those results which I
have argued to be inevitable. When these men come to see and
feel It as the establishment of Popery — establishment, too, on the
ruins of their own Church in Ireland, they -will think of it very
differently. The Churchman who now opposes the repeal of the
present Test Laws, is called a bigot openly by all the former
classes ; is half suspected to be one, by the latter. These wUl
not now believe his fears to be founded In reason. When once
the results he warned them of begin to be realised, they wUl
take their stand against them ; and they -wiU find themselves
borne do-wn by the same clamorous charges of bigotry,* — the
• Vide Capt. Rous's Speech. Appendix, C, 3, p. 77.

50
same fallacious cry for toleration. At length they -will learn its
true meaning — that there is nothing not to be tolerated, but our
own establishment.*
I, for one, Sir, wUl not wait till all have been taught a tardy
wisdom by the event. I -wiU not shrink from the false imputa
tion of bigotry now, which I foresee must ine"vltably be encoun
tered hereafter ; with no hope of deriving any advantage in the
defence I am bound in conscience to make for our existing
institutions, by delaying the contest. I, therefore, oppose this
present motion. I oppose it, not because I suspect the loyalty,
or Impeach the morality, of the petitioners ; not because I am
unwilling to conciliate the Roman-catholics, and to give them
satisfaction. If that were possible ; not because I do not most
earnestly desire to tranquillise Ireland ; but because I am abso
lutely convinced that the measure to be proposed in the Com
mittee would not effectually concIHate them — would not give
them real or final satisfaction ; and because I am, on the contrary,
convinced that the granting of that measure would necessarUy
and immediately lead to and encourage other demands ; which
they would pursue with as much eagerness ; which they would
urge upon similar grounds; and which, if withheld, would
occasion greater dissatisfaction than that which prevails at this
moment. Greater dissatisfaction, because it will be excited by
the refusal of demands which will necessarUy arise out of prin
ciples which will have been acknowledged to be true by the former
concession ; and be sanctioned by the weight and authority which
would be given to them, by the effect aUowed to them, if Parlia
ment should have yielded to this measure. Yet these further
demands, which I foresee as necessarily and unanswerably
foUowipg from the principles of this concession, aiming, as they
must, at the advancement of their religion, cannot stop short of its
establishment — cannot stop short of its ascendancy ; and, there
fore, cannot be granted, consistently with the security of the
Established Church, consistently with the safety of the Protestant
landholders and people In Ireland, or consistently with the faith
pledged by the Union to the Protestants of that kingdom, and
to the United Churches of both. But, if these obstacles could
ever be removed, and those demands be granted, I oppose this
• Confer Mr. O'Connell, quoted Appendix G. p. 111.

51
motion still : because the result would be so far from tranquillis-
ing Ireland, that it would ultimately shake and convulse it to its
centre. So far from conciliating one description of the King's
subjects in that country to the other, it would* alienate and
estrange their affections much more than they are so at present.
It would bring them together as rivals and competitors for the
establishment of their respective religions, upon terms which
would more strongly excite to contest, because the parties would
more nearly approach to an equality. And instead of promoting
the spirit of Christian charity, concUIatlon and good-will,
forbearance and toleration, it would exasperate the spirit of
religious animosity and dispute, and risk the total extinction of
the practice, and the total oblivion of the principles, of true
toleration. Not, therefore, differing from the Right Hon.
Gentleman in the objects which he wishes to advance by this
measure ; not differing from the Hon. Gentleman -with respect to
the existing e-vlls which he deplores ; I differ from them with
respect to the means by which they would advance their objects.
I differ from them, as I consider this measure to be the prolific
seed of similar, nay, of greater, evils than those they wish to
eradicate ; and as the certain bane and destruction of that tran
quillity they -wish to restore; of that affection they wish to
concUiate ; and of those advantages and blessings of Christian
charity and toleration, which I believe It to be the sincere wish of
the Hon. Gentleman to extend. f
It is asked, What then is to be done ? I answer, above all
things be careful not to aggravate the e-vils which you endeavour
to cure. To diminish these e-vils of disafffection and discord ; to
advance those blessings of peace, order, and harmony; Parliament
must adopt a Protestant language, and must act upon a Protestant
spltit; never forgetting that a Protestant spirit Is emphatically a
Christian spirit. We must act upon it, firmly and steadUy —
biit -charitably and kindly. It will not be found. Sir, on a fair,
candid, and cautious Inquiry, that Parliament has done too little
for the Roman-catholics. I -wish It may not be found that Rar-
* Vide Appendix F. t Vide Ibidem.
E 2

52
liament has done too much. I have great apprehension that
Parliament has committed a serious error when it granted the
elective franchise to the Roman-catholic freeholders. I have no
difficulty in saying, that. In my judgment. It did commit a great
error when It established the Roman-catholic College at May-
nooth. But it Is one thing not to have granted an indulgence,
and another to resume It. And though I should probably have
opposed the one, and though I never could have consented to
grant the other. It would stUl be with great pain that I should
feel myself compelled at present to withdraw either. But the
conduct of the Roman-catholics may place us In that situation
in which we may find ourselves compelled so to act.
Policy, expediency, and justice, alike require of you to take a
decided line, and to abide by it. If you want to concUIate the
Roman-catholics at all hazards, and can make up your minds to
establish their religion, if not on the ruins of our o-wn, at least
on terms which shall give to them an ascendancy proportionate
to their numbers ; if there is nothing in the condition of the
Protestants, and In the tenure of their property, both lay and
ecclesiastical. In Ireland, which would render that Immeasurably-
unjust ; if there is nothing in the state of both Protestants and
Papists there, which renders it desperately impolitic ; if there
is nothing in the Act and Treaty of Union, which renders it
morally Impossible ; and your object be to concUiate the Roman-
catholics by satisfying them — you have nothing else for it.
Establish their religion at once ; and open, by such means as
Buonaparte wiU allow to you, a negotiation for a new concordat
with the Pope. But, if you would do this wisely, you must do
it thoroughly, and at once. Don't do It by piecemeal. Do not
encourage fresh demands on the side of the Roman-catholic,
and feed a false hope on the part of the Protestant that you wIU
still defend the Establishment as It now stands. You act unjustly
by both, and unwisely by yourselves, by any such conduct.
But you have. Indeed, practlcaUy, no such alternative, which
can wisely be taken. I have stated the reasons which I
think, and shall ever think. Insurmountable, against the esta
blishment of the Church of Rome In Ireland. .And, therefore,
in my mind, the line which must be taken, must be that of

53
preserving, as we are bound by the Union to preserve, the
United Church In Ireland, without a competitor for the Esta
blishment — without a rival for the ascendancy. To preserve It,
we must. Sir, promote It ; we must encourage it. As long as
we hold out to the Roman-catholics of Ireland the hope, that,
at any future time, more favourable circumstances may enable
us to give them the satisfaction which we now withhold, we
keep alive their wishes ; we keep awake their expectations ; we
keep alert their exertions. We must expect meetings, unions,
committees, petitions, associations, delegates, everything, in short,
which may keep the ferment working, to which any sort of
concession has once been yielded, and the encouraging hope of
ultimate complete success is attached.
Above all. Sir, if, unfortunately, the conduct of Parliament
should be such as might encourage the idea, that the reason
which -wIU ultimately operate upon this House to grant their
requests, will be the object of allaying discontent, and conciliating
disaffection, and so establishing tranquillity in Ireland, — an idea
which the language of Gentlemen in this House, that sooner or
later these claims must be granted, does tend most dangerously
to encourage — if, I say. It should be understood, that these
objects are those which Parliament will strive to purchase by
concession, those who want the concession will not want to be
told that they must take care to show to Parliament that discon
tent, — that disaffection, — that disturbance stUl continue, and
that the objects for which alone we would be content to pay the
price, have not In the interval been attained without it. If the
rebellions, and other disturbances In Ireland (which. In some
popular harangues, are called their own energies,) are to be our
arguments for granting fresh indulgences, I cannot but think
we shall be proclaiming a bounty for disturbance, a reward for
rebeUion. flf the demands of the petitioners are to be conceded
to their agitation, their numbers,and their majority; no possibility
-will remain of refusing to comply with any future demands they
may think proper to make. What their numbers and majority
shaU have once obtained, will only tend to stimulate them to fresh
demands ; until nothing remains for them to require, and they
become, not merely a prevailing party In the State, but exclu-
sivelv the State itself f

54
Instead of this. Sir, the language to be held by Parliament
must be, that, bound by every obligation of good faith, — every
principle of prudence, policy, and duty, — we cannot accede to
measures, which, in our judgments, lead directly to the
encouragement and advance of the Roman-catholic religion, to
the prejudice of the United Church of England and Ireland,
— nay, to its ultimate displacement and ruin.
But, Sir, if we would be wise. If we would be consistent. If we
would be useful to our country, we must go further. We must
support the Established Church ; we must encourage it.* We
should adopt measures for repairing the dilapidated churches in
Ireland. We should adopt measures for reversing the fatal
policy of those unions which, unhappily for that country, have
committed the care of 2,000 parishes to not more than 1,000
Rectors, of whom not more than 500 have any houses belonging
to them, on which they can reside. We should take measures
for procuring a resident Clergyman in every parish. We
should take measures for repairing rectorial houses where they
are decayed, — for rebuilding them where they have been
demolished. We should, in short, give to the people of Ire
land the means of worshipping as Protestants, of which, in
many parts of that country, they are now whoUy deprived.
No circumstance has more fatally tended to thwart the
progress of the Reformation ; to diminish the numbers of the
Protestants, both real and apparent; to aid the success and
to spread the tenets of the Roman-catholic Priesthood.
Moreover, Sir, we should re-view the system of the Protestant
Schools in Ireland, which, though instituted upon the best
possible motives, have their objects defeated and counter
acted by some Impolitic and inconvenient regulations. We
should by such measures, -without any oppression, without the
most distant approach to persecution or intolerance, mark the
firm determination of a Protestant Parliament to endeavour,
under God's blessing, to promote and uphold the true religion
of the Gospel, and to discourage the growth, and prevent the
final establishment, of Popery.
And, Sir, upon the manifestation of these principles, and these
* Confer Appendix H. p. 110.

55
determinations, (pursued with temper, forbearance, and charity),
the Roman-catholics would feel that, although secure of tolera
tion, they were yet without all hope of establishment. And If
they possess anything, as they now do possess much, in the
Elective Franchise, in their capacity to occupy various profes
sions and offices, and in the support by Parliament of their
College at Maynooth, (a support which the mere principles of
toleration could not, on grounds of justice, exact from us). If they
did not feel grateful for these Indulgences, at least they would
be sensible of their value. They would feel that they were
in the possession and enjoyment of that which their good
conduct, and our indulgence, might preserve to them; but
which their misconduct might forfeit ; and which no principle
of right (at least as acknowledged by us) could entitle them to
demand, or obUge us to restore. And that, above all, if these
indulgences should be found to be used elth&r as the plea and
pretence, or as the Instrument of keeping alive ferments and
pretensions, dangerous to the tranquilhty of the State, — that
Parliament would unquestionably, on Its own principles, feel
itself authorised, and upon sound policy might possibly find
itself obliged, to abridge them of those indulgences, which they
would, by such conduct, compel us to perceive to be used by
them, not so much to their own comfort as to our annoyance.
Upon these grounds. Sir, I shall give my most decided
negative to this motion ; and seeing the length to which I have
encroached upon the time of the House, I much regret it. But
the lasting importance of the subject, and the sacred obligation
of my duty to my country, required of me to state my -views in
the fullest detaU. This is my only apology, and I trust it wUl
be received as a sufficient excuse.

END OF SPEECH.

ILLUSTRATIVE APPENDIX,
WITH NOTES AND COMMENTS BY THE EDITOR.

ILLUSTRATIVE APPENDIX.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

A.
PAGE
Proofs that Mr. Perceval was more than justified In dis
trusting the permanence or sincerity of the peaceable
dispositions towards Church and State, professed by the
Roman-catholics of Ireland in their petition of 1805.
No. 1. Extract from a Letter of Lord Redesdale to the Right
Hon. Spencer Perceval, dated Ardrinn, (near Dublin,)
Nov. 23, 1804 . . . 65—68
No. 2. Extracts from ^ Manuscript headed " Answers by Irish
Catholics to their Protestant Advocates in Parliament."
(Found among Mr. Perceval's papers, but not in his
hand-writing) .... 68 — 70

B.
Specimens of Roman-catholics' protestations, whilst peti
tioning a Protestant Parliament to repeal those securi
ties, established by law to guard the Union ofthe Church
and State, which operated upon their consciences to their
exclusion from place and power : — the measure, falsely
and invidiously termed by Liberals " Emancipation."
No. 1 . Extracts from the Irish Roman Catholic Petition of 1805,
presented to both Houses, on 25th March . .71
No. 2. Extract from the Irish Roman-catholic Petition, pre
sented to both Houses in 1808 . .72
No. 3. Extract from the Petition of the Roman-catholics of Ire
land, presented to the House of Commons, April 26, 1826 72

60 PAGE
c.
Illustrations of the fulfilment of Mr. Perceval's anticipa
tions that the concession asked for would lead to a direct
demand (1.) for Roman- catholic Endowment ; (2.)
for the Spoliation of Church Property ; and that, from
Roman-catholics, notwithstanding their professions, as
weU as from liberal Protestants. (3.) That these demands
would be urged on precisely the same grounds advanced
for that concession, i. e., numbers and disaffection ; and (4.)
in precisely the same manner, i. e. imputations of blindness,
bigotry, and party purposes in those who should resist
them.
No. 1. Extract from the Speech of Mr. "W. S. O'Brien, on the ^th
July, 1843. Foot Note on " Perfect equality." . 73,74
No. 2. Extract from the Speech of Mr. Wyse, on the same
day . . . . .73
— Note by the Editor to the two foregoing . . 76
No. 3. Extracts from the Speech of the Hon. Capt. Rous, M.P,
for Westminster, in the adjourned debate on Mr. W. S
O'Brien's motion, 10th July, 1843 . . 77
— Note and Comments by the Editor (1.) in illustration ; (2.)
on Captain Rous's conduct ; (3.) on his Argument.
The rule of three method of Political Science : illus
trated by Chartists — Jacobins — Disciples of St. Just —
of Marat. General formula for reply. The Church
Question in Ireland, threefold ; — of Expediency ; —
of Religion; — of Distributive Justice. Argument
from Numbers, to which applicable : applied to Reli
gion, absurd : contrary, in this case, to justice. Asser
tion that Church Property belongs to the Nation : in
what sen.se true : in what false : grossness of the fal
lacy as applied to Church Property in Ireland : one
method only of reinstating Roman Catholics in its pos
session, without precedent fatal to all law : that inad
missible. Evils of the Schism in Ireland — must be
borne. Greater evils from unlawful and violent reme
dies :¦ Examples. — Foot note on facts of the case between
the two religions . . 79  89

61 PXOE
D.
Proofs that Parliament, In conceding the Roman-catholic
claims to civil equality, had no intention to surrender the
principles of the Protestant Constitution, to destroy the
Union of Church and State, to curtail the rights of the
Clergy in the establishment, or to bring those rights into
question and dispute, but the direct contrary.
No. 1. The Sixth Resolution of the House of Commons, in the
Committee of the whole House, on the 28th Feb. 1825 90
No. 2. Resolution of the House of Commons in Committee on
the Roman-catholic Claims, on the 12th May, 1828 . 90
No. 3. Extract from the oath required by the Roman-cathoHc
Relief Bill, to be taken by Roman-catholic Peers and
Members of Parliament. 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, s. 2 . 90
Further Provisions enacted by the Roman-catholic Relief
Bill for the Peace and Security of the Establishment,
and of the Protestant Religion . . .91
Comment by the Editor.
Purpose of Parliament in enacting Roman-catholic Oath,
and penal clauses in Relief Bill : as stated by Liberals :
Disgraceful, illegal, and unconstitutional theory. Grave
responsibility incurred by the Whig Ministry from 1830
to 1841 : dispensing power assumed to Executive :
against Bill of Rights : Protestant Petitions : to what
objects they ought to be directed. True purpose of
Parliament stated : the oath (1.) a Memorial of Roman-
catholic Pledges ; (2.) that Parliament did not surren
der the Protestant Constitution, nor the principle of
Union between Church and State, by Relief Bill : (3.)
Oath, why imposed on Roman-catholics only : per
haps better, on all. Terms of the Oath, why chosen.
Consistency of these views. . . 91 — 94

E.
Extract from the Speech of Lord Camoys, in the debate on
the Arms (Ireland) Bill, House of Lords, Tuesday, 15th
August, 1843. . . . .94
Comments hy the Editor . . .95

62 PAGE
Sir Robert Peel — his {alleged) statement of purport of the
Oath : truth of Statement questioned. If true, no argument.
Unfairness of appeal to Sir Robert : diflftculty for him to
answer : from implied assumption : from courtesy. Lord
Camoys's argument deferred for Note after Lord Eliot's
Speech (Appendix G.) His Lordship referred to answer there :
if not satisfied therewith, requested to state in what sense
Oath is to bind him . . . .95—97

F.
Extracts from a Repeal Newspaper, Illustrative of the state
of feeHng in Ireland towards (1.) The Church, (2.)
The Government and People of England.
[^Observations. "^ . . 97
No. 1. Extract from "The Limerick Reporter," Friday, July 7th,
1843 . . . . .98
No. 2. Extract from " The Limerick Reporter," Tuesday, Octo
ber 20th, 1843 . . . , . 99

G.
Extract from the speech of Lord Eliot, on Mr. Ward's
Motion for an Address to the Queen denouncing the
Established Church as one of the chief grievances of Ire
land ; and pledging the House of Commons to co-operate
with Her Majesty In effecting such a settlement of
Church Property In Ireland as would give Satisfaction to
the Irish People. Aug. 1st, 1843 . . .101
Note and Comments hy the Editor.
Statistics of Lord Eliot illustrative of the truth of Mr. Perceval's
opinion that the Church in Ireland was not, as a whole, too
richly endowed. Superior wisdom of Grattan, &c., illustrated
by Mr. H. G. Ward's Motion. Unconstitutional character
of that Motion : moreover punishable : would have been
so in better days. Motion contrary to spirit ofthe Oath of
Allegiance : as explained by the Coronation Oath. Church
Temporalities Bill no precedent for such a Motion. Asser-

63 PAGE
tion that Coronation Oath does not bind the Sovereign in
legislative capacity : alleged proof of that, from passing of
Church Temporalities Act : argument therefrom that Roman-
catholics' Oath does not bind them as Members of Parliament
in their Speeches and Votes : reductio ad ahsurdum promised.
Proposition stated : Mr. O'Connell's argument to prove its
truth, quoted : examined : inevitable consequence shown, that
the oath creates no obligation at all ; but the reverse : im
possibility in point of conscience to accept this consequence,
(1.) to Mr. O'Connell, (2.) to the Sovereign. Proposition,
against common sense and moral feeling. Sense in which
it is true that the Coronation Oath is not binding on Sove
reign as Head of Parliament. Sense in which false, absurd,
and treasonable, (Foot-note, p. 106) : possibly true of Roman-
catholic Oath in the first sense only. Refutation of Mr.
O'Connell's further argument declined ; why ? Appeal to
Roman-catholic Members of Parliament : Mr. O'Connell's
present language : quoted : contrasted with former language
of Roman- catholics : question put to them : their answer, if
given, to be believed : end of question here : not so here
after .... 103—111

H.
Fragment of a paper in Mr. Perceval's handwriting,
apparently part of the draft of a Circular for the Cabinet
on the subject of some propositions on Irish affairs, made
by the Right Hon. W. Wellesley Pole, (Chief Secretary
to the Lord Lieutenant, 1810) . . 112
Note hy the Editor . . . 114

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.
No. 1. (to Appendix A. 2.) Buonaparte and Pope . .115
No. 2. (to Appendix D.) Impudent Fallacy of Repealers . .116
No. 3. (to Appendix G.) Mr. H. G. Ward's Resolution . .116

TwvSe 7renpdyp,fvav
fv SiK^re Kai irapa hiKav
aTTOLTJTOV ovd av
Xpovos 6 iravTutv narrjp
dvvaiTO defiev epyoiv reXos. — PiNDAR.

OLD ENGLISH VERSION.

Think, before thou say or do,
Deed, or word, may make thee rue !
Things once done, no time can change them.
Lie to Truth, or wrong to Right ;
God himself hath not that might ;
Though Almighty — to avenge them.

ILLUSTRATIVE APPENDIX, &c.

A.

Proofs that Mr. Perceval was more than justified In dis
trusting the permanence or sincerity of the peaceable dispositions
towards Church and State, professed by the Roman-catholics of
Ireland In their petition of 1805.

No. 1.
E.vtract from a Letter of Lord Redesdale • to the Right Hon. Spencer
Perceval. Dated Ardrinn, {near Dublin,) Nov. 26, 1804.

" Our attention has been somewhat engaged of late by the meetings of
the Roman Catholics in Dublin, for the purpose of petitioning Parlia
ment. The meetings have been promoted by some violent and ambitious
* Sir John Mitford, Speaker of the House of Commons I80I, created Baron
Redesdale 1 802, and Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Married, 1803, Lady Frances
Perceval, daughter of John, second Earl of Egniont, by Catherine Baroness Arden.
This letter is one of a very interesting series, written from Ireland to his brother-
in-law, from which I collect that it was to this acute aud upright judge and firm
statesman, that Mr. Perceval was indebted for that accurate estimate of the state,
power, spirit, and purposes of the Roman-catholic faction there, which decided him
to set his face steadily against all further innovations, of whatever description, in
their favour. I am disposed to think, (from a short fragment I found of notes for a
speech on the Union,) that previously to Lord Redesdale's Chancellorship, Mr. Per
ceval, knowing no more of Ireland than most English gentlemen of that day, had
not made up his mind against some further concessions, but of what nature the
fragment does not specify. The reader of this letter will, I hope, remark how,
with guarded and charitable caution, Mr. Perceval was content to understate his
case, and refrained from urging much against the Roman-catholic party which he
might have advanced as matter of highly probable opinion, but could not substantiate
by positive proof.

66r
men, merchants, who, having acquired large fortunes, outweigh the
influence of the ancient nobility and gentry of their persuasion, and, like
the merchants and bankers of France, are eager for measures which may
possibly involve them in a similar fate. Lord Fingall and the moderate
party are cyphers, and although there has been some delay, I have
little doubt that the petition will be carried ; that delegates will be sent
to England, and the measure brought forward in Parliament. Scully
was one of those who opposed the petition ; and I believe begins to be
frightened at his own efforts to exasperate the Catholic mind against
the Protestants. Mr. Parnell's pamphlet, to which I referred you, I
think, however mischievously designed, so far useful, as, in the language
of certain persons, it lets the cat out of the hag. It states, most truly,
that hatred of the English, as conquerors, is the true source of the
disturbances of Ireland ; that the landed property of the Protestants is
the principal object with the mass of the people ; and that the question
of Catholic Emancipation, considered as a question of religious tolerance,
as necessary from tenderness to the consciences of men, is a mere farce.
That those who are the leaders, aim at the repeal of the legislative
union of Great Britain and Ireland, a separate legislature for Ireland, a
new municipal government founded on the system of the first French
revolution, an independent Irish nation, and a nominal king.* Having
established their separate royal democracy, with the King of Great
Britain nominally at its head, and all power in the Roman Catholics,
what will Ireland be to Great Britain, and what security will the
Protestants have, for one moment, for their property and lives ? It is
evident, too, that those who countenance Mr. Parnell's pamphlet, are
(as he seems to say, and I believe with some truth, the leading Roman-
catholics generally are), Deists, who are disposed to adopt the American
system of abolishing all establishment, and leaving every man to pay
his own pastor. A system which I remember to have heard grave
Americans speak of with very serious countenances, foreboding from it
the extinction of all religion in their country, except amongst bigots or
enthusiasts, and therefore destruction to all rational religious sentiment.
Mr. Parnell's pamphlet avows, what I believe is at the bottom of the
hearts of the mass of the native Irish, that the Irish consider them-
* The whole of this passage, indeed, the whole letter, deserves to be printed in
capitals, to rivet the attention of the reader to this most remarkable prognostic
which the Repealers of 1843 seem to have taken such pains to fulfil to the very
letter. And it is well worthy of notice, that O'Connell has often bragged, that the
moment he had carried " Emancipation" he began the agitation for " Repeal."

67
selves as a conquered people, their lands as taken from them by fraud
or force, the government as throughout an usurpation, and resistance to
it as highly meritorious, its overthrow and the expulsion of the English
a consummation devoutly to be wished. Unless ministers shall act with
firmness and vigour, that overthrow and that expulsion will happen ;
or will be prevented either by accident, or the despised strength of the
Protestants in Ireland. In 1688 the power of the Roman-catholics in
Ireland was much greater than it now is, the power of the Protestants
much less. England was itself divided, and could not exert its full
strength. The Irish Protestants, too, were divided ; and there was a
motive which does not now exist, in the attachment to the house of
Stuart, and dethroned king, and aversion to a Dutch invader. The
forfeitures of 1640 were then recent; titles far from settled; and all
were annihilated by the repeals passed by the Popish Parliament of
James the Second. Yet the Protestants conquered. They would do so
again, if not deserted or betrayed by the King's Ministers. I am
thoroughly confident of their strength, if the English Government will
deal fairly by them. Bat the Irish Protestants, and especially those of
the established church, have no bigoted attachment to their religion.
They hate popery, because they fear it ; but if the Roman-catholics
were masters of the country, and were to publish amnesty to all who
would be reunited to the Church of Rome, with security for their
property, very few would scruple to accept the condition*. . . The
Catholic question must, therefore, not be met by palliatives ; you must
at once decide whether to repeal the fifth article of Union, make the
Roman-catholic the established religion of Ireland, and try by this
concession to restore peace by thus separating the clergy from the laity,
restoring (in fact) the former, and leaving the latter without hope, or
you must struggle stedfastly against the further progress of Roman-
catholic power. You must say yes or no. I have sometimes doubted
whether it would not be most wise, as a question of political wisdom,
to give the Roman-catholics the establishment completely, and deprive
the Protestant possessors, unjust as it may appear to the individuals ;
and I am convinced it would be more safe than any palliative. But
• Lord Redesdale here adds some reasons for this " startling " statement, which
I judge right to omit, as they might give pain to many ; and as, happily, that
low state of religious feeling and knowledge in the upper classes of society, which
did to a great extent exist among the men of the last century, has long since passed
away ; unlike the hatred of the English government, church, and landlords, which
seems hitherto to have gained nothing but strength from every concession made to
appease it.
f2

68
reflection has induced me to think it much too unjust, as well as too
dangerous, a measure to be hazarded; that if the Rom an- catholic
religion should once become the established religion of Ireland, there
would be no toleration ofthe Protestant, whatever might be the wishes
of the Government or the Legislature ; and that the utmost protection
that Government could afford the Protestants would be, to save their
lives, and perhaps their properties, if they would conform ; and to sign
for them new articles of Limerick, — for such as should choose to with
draw rather than conform." — {Confer, Appendix F).

A. No. 2.
Extracts from a Manuscript headed " Answers by Irish Catholics to thev
Protestant Advocates in Parliament."
[Found among Mr. Perceval's papers, but not in his handwriting.]

" The Protestant advocates contend that emancipation from the
laws that exclude them from the right of sitting in both Houses of
Parliament, and that render them inehgible to the higher ofi&ces of the
State, the law, and the army, is the utmost extent of the Catholic
claims. " In answer to this, the author of the letter to Lord Grenville on the
Veto*, maintains that ' Emancipation, if an insulated measure, must be
undesirable both to England and Ireland. Taken by itself, it means
for Lord Fingal a seat in Parliament, for Mr. Bryan a troop in the
Guards. To satisfy the people of Ireland, there must be means adopted
which the poor man will feel in his cabin. There must be a change
not merely of men but of the total system of government : there must
be the abolition of tithes, the annuUing of all corporate bodies,
including the University, and the resumption of the immense misapplied
revenue of the intrusive Church.'
" The Committee appointed by the General Assembly to draw up a
digest of Catholic grievances and claims agree, in substance, with
the author, but they claim, in addition, ' actual facilities, marked
* A Commentary on the Grenville Manifesto. By Cornelius Keogh, London,
I8I0.

, 69
public enco»ragement, and a larger share of the public revenue, for the
ancient and unbroken hierarchy, belonging not to a sect in the nation,
but to the people of Ireland, demanding, as a nation, the independent
establishment of its national worship.'-*
" The Protestant advocates assert that the question is a question of
religion ; and that it is opposed only from religious bigotry : That the
great object of the Catholic is freedom of conscience, and that he may
be allowed to reconcile his religious tenets with his loyalty, and that
the faith to which he cleaves may no longer be a bar to his enjoying
the blessings of the English constitution, in which it would be his
pride to participate. The author of the letter to Lord Grenville speaks
a very different language. He asserts that, if the Irish Catholics
regard the Protestants with an eye of hostility, it is not on account of
their religious tenets. It is, that he beholds them as the offspring of a
race new and intrusive in the island, established by confiscation,
upheld by monopoly of privileges and of Court favours, and in every
sort of feeling inveterately anti- Irish. He adduces the synonimy of the
language as a demonstrative proof of the assertion. Sassenagh, a
Saxon, means indifferently an Englishman, a Protestant, or an enemy,
while Turk, Jew, or Pagan, Frenchman, Spaniard, Asiatic, African, or
American, are never used in Ireland as terms of reproach. Thus, he
says, the Irishman, naturally indulgent to all religions and all nations,
entertains an exclusive dislike to one race. He acknowledges, indeed,
* Should Lord Grenville declare his unalterable attachment to the religious esta
blishment of the Empire, in opposition to these claims, the author of the letter to
his Lordship will answer — " And really, niy Lord Grenville, do you figure to
yourself any fellow-feeling of my Lord Fingal about the increased security of your
religion ? Can England entertain the absurd notion of exerting the sympathy of
Ireland (meaning Catholic Ireland, to the total exclusion of all its Protestant popu
lation) in wishes for the inviolable maintenance of its present religious establishment !
Or what guardian of the Catholic religion can give his consent for the making of
adequate provision for a Protestant Establishment ?"
It is not only a Church Establishment which this Committee deem it essential
to the removal of Catholic grievances to claim for this divine hierarchy. It must,
also, gain a military establishment. The army is to become a scene fo clerical
espionage, and every regiment is to be incessantly agitated by a prying Roman-
catholic Priest, to 'enforce the soldier's attendance, whatever his own dispositions
may be, on the Mass, independent and to the contempt of his Officers, and regard
less of every duty that may interfere with the commandment of the Church. This
control of the Priest the Committee claims to be established by law, that the Officer
of the Pope, as it has been well said, may be enabled to go to law with the Officer
of the King.

70 _^
that as long as the two kingdoms continue united, Ireland will aim at
the subversion of the religious establishment of England, insisting that
Ireland has a right to oppose, and hy every legal effort to subvert, any
internal religious ascendancy injurious to the great mass of her own
population. But this religious ascendancy he ultimately considers in a
political view, and as a political engine ; and if the Catholics are
determined never to allow a systematic debasement of their Clergy, or
consent to a desertion of their venerable Church, the cherished pride of
Ireland ; if they will never cease to uphold that divine hierarchy,
covered with glories won out of a rude * and lingering struggle, it is
because that hierarchy is the last undestroyed monument of their
ancient national grandeur, and the pledge of the resurrection of Ireland
into the~rank of nations 
" The Protestant advocates for the Irish Catholics ridicule the idea
of apprehending any danger from the dependence of the Irish Roman-
catholic Bishops on the Pope in his present subjugated state, and the
thraldom to which Buonaparte has reduced the Popedom. But we
owe to Doctor O'Connor t a discovery that fully meets this plea, and
sets it aside for ever. From him we learn that, in a national Synod
held by the Irish Bishops at TuUow, June 6, 1809, these Bishops,
without any necessity, says the Doctor, without being called upon by
any legitimate authority, voluntarily declared that the ' Holy Father,
Pope Pius the Seventh, has only yielded by the concordat what the
dreadful exigencies of the time demanded from a true shepherd of the
Christian flock, and that in his measure for the restoration of the
Catholic unity in France, he has validly, and agreeably to the spirit of
the sacred Canons, exerted the powers belonging to the Apostolic See.'
The measure they allude to, Doctor O'Connor observes, is the disin
heriting of the Bourbons, the crowning of Buonaparte, &c., &c., &c.
After such a solemn and deliberate declaration, passed, according to
Doctor O'Connor, in one of their secret Synods, let their Protestant
advocates say what we have not to dread from what the exigencies of
the times, and the measures concerted between the Pope and Buona
parte, may demand from the true Shepherd of the Christian flock, and
from the exertion of the powers belonging to the Apostolic See."

See Supplementary Note, 1, at the end of the Appendix.

* Sic in orig.
t In his celebrated " Historical Addi-ess."

71

B.

Specimens of Roman-catholics' protestations, whilst petitioning
a Protestant Parliament to repeal those securities, established by
law to guard the Union ofthe Church and State, which operated
upon their consciences, to their exclusion from place and
power : — the measure, falsely and invidiously termed by Liberals
" Emancipation."

• No. 1.
Extracts from the Irish Roman Catholic Petition of 1806, presented to both
Houses on 25th March. — Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, vol. iv. p. 98.
" Your Petitioners have solemnly and publicly taken the oaths by
law prescribed to His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, &c.
" By these solemn obligations ' they are bound and firmly pledged
to defend to the utmost of their power the settlement and arrangement
of property in their country, as established by the laws now in being ;'
they have ' disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured any inten
tion to subvert the present Church Establishment for the purpose of
substituting a Catholic Establishment in its stead ; ' and they have also
solemnly sworn, ' that they will not exercise any privilege, to which
they are or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant
religion or Protestant government in Ireland.'
" Your Petitioners most humbly beg leave to show, that however
painful it is to their feelings, that it should still be thought necessary to
exact such tests from them, and from them alone of all his Majesty's
subjects, they can with perfect truth affirm, that the political and moral
principles which are thereby asserted, are not only conformable to their
opinions, but expressly inculcated hy the religion which they profess.
" That the total abolition (of their incapacities, &c.,) will be found
not only compatible with, hut highly conducive to, the perfect security
of every establishment, religious or political, now existing in this
realm.

72
" For your Petitioners most explicitly declare, that they do not seek
or Yidsh, in the remotest degree, to injure er encroach upon ' the rights,
privileges, immunities, possessions, or revenues appertaining to the
Bishops and Clergy of the Protestant religion, as by law estabHshed, or
to the churches committed to their charge, or to any of them,' — the
sole object of your petitioners being an equal participation, upon equal
terms with their fellow-subjects, of the full benefits of the British laws
and constitution."

B. No. 2.
Extract from the Irish Roman Catholic Petition, presented to- both Houses
in 1808. — Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, vol. ii. p. 493.

" Your Petitioners most solemnly declare, that they do not seek or
wish in any way to injure or encroach upon the rights, privileges,
possessions, or revenues appertaining to the Bishops and Clergy of the
Protestant religion, as by law established, or to the churches committed
to their charge, or to any of them ; the extent of their humble suppli
cation being, that they be governed by the same laws, and rendered
capable of the same civil and military offices, franchises, rewards, and
honours, as their fellow-subjects of every other religious denomination.''

B. No. 3.
Extract from the Petition ofthe Roman Catholics of Ireland, presented to the
House of Commons, April 26, 1826.

" The petitioners do not by any means solicit, or expect, or wish, that
a single individual of their Protestant fellow-subjects should be deprived
of any right, liberty, privilege, or immunity, of which he is at present
possessed. The Petitioners, in praying for the restoration of their
rights, seek not, nor do they wish, to burthen the State with any pro
vision in person for the ministers of their religion, nor do they seek, nor
have they sought, to deprive any class of His Majesty's subjects of any
right, privilege, or franchise whatsoever.''

73

c.

Illustrations of the ftilfilment of Mr. Pekceval's anticipations
that the concession asked for would lead to a direct demand
(1.) for Roman-catholic Endowment; (2.) for the Spoliation of
Church Property ; and that, from Roman catholics, notwith
standing their professions, as well as from liberal Protestants.
(3.) That these demands would be ui'ged on precisely the same
grounds advanced for that concession, i. e. numbers and disaffec
tion ; and (4.) in precisely the same manner, i. e. Imputations of
blindness, bigotry, and party purposes in those who should resist
them.

No. 1.
Extracts from the Speech of Mr. W. S. O'Brien, on the 4M July, 1843.
{Published by the Repeal Association.)

" I would ask any man of common sense on either side of the House,
whether it is possible that any nation could be contented with an
ecclesiastical system which provides a religious establishment for the
church of so small a minority of the people, whilst the remainder of the
population are excluded from similar advantages.
" It can excite no surprise that the Roman-catholics of Ireland should
make every effort in their power to extricate themselves from a position
which necessarily impresses them with a sense of inferiority. It might
naturally be expected that they should, through their representatives,
apply to Parliament for relief from the encumbrance of an establish
ment from which they derive no benefit, and demand that the national
property now in the possession of the Protestant Church, should be
applied to uses of a national character, from which the whole people
would derive benefit. They refrained from taking this course when the
subject was under consideration. They only asked that the expenditure
upon the Protestant Church should be brought down to the lowest
point, compatible with a due provision for the religious instruction of

74
the Protestant Episcopalians of Ireland, and that the surplus revenue
should be appropriated to purposes in which Catholic and Protestant
have a common interest. This moderate request, urged during several
successive years, was denied by the British Legislature.
" Why should not the State, if it resolves to uphold a Protestant
endowment, make provision also for the purchase of glebe houses for
tbe Catholic clergy ? So also with regard to the erection of Roman-
catholic churches. If you determine to apply, out oi a fund which
belongs to the public at large, (?) grants for the erection of Protestant
churches, ought not a sense of justice to tell you, that similar contribu
tions should be ofi"ered in aid of the construction of places of worship
for the great body of the Irish population. But instead of thus treating
the Catholic clergy with consideration and respect, and instead of
making arrangements for the convenience of the Catholic population in
regard to their religious worship, you have exasperated their feelings by
the contumely with which they have been treated, not only by the
press of this country, but also in discussions in Parliament. Even the
miserable grant for Maynooth College cannot pass through this House,
without furnishing topics for invective and insult against the Roman-
catholic clergy. Is it surprising, then, that they should, almost
without exception, strenuously advocate the Repeal of the Union ? For
my owTi part, if I were an Irish Catholic clergyman, I would leave no
efibrts untried to obtain a dissolution of the Union.
" The principle for which I am myself disposed to contend is, that,
in relation to church afi'airs, there should be perfect equality between the
different sections of the population of Ireland. I will not conceal from
the House, that the mode of producing such equality, which would be
most acceptable to the Roman-catholics of Ireland, would he the
adoption ofthe voluntary principle :'" but if Parliament is not prepared
to resort to so extreme a measure, let it recognise to the fullest extent such
religious equality, by making whatever arrangements for the advantage
of the Catholic population of Ireland in regard to their religious worship
as shall be found acceptable to them, and consistent with their conscien
tious views."
* These reasoners can state nothing without fallacy, or preparation for fallacy.
" Perfect equality," by the " adoption of the voluntary principle." Exquisite
euphemism for sacrilege ! The thing meant is O'Connell's plan ; to take the
Church's property away, and apply it entirely to secular objects. Perfect equality,
forsooth! A. has 1000?.— B. has O;. : take the 1000?. from A. and give it to C,
and so you will leave B. and A. in a state of " perfect equality." Ergo—(ioT this
is the purpose of Mr. O'Brien's Euphemism) — it will be all fair!

75

C. No. 2.

Extract from the Speech of Mr. Wyse, on the same day.
(From the Globe, 5th July, 1843.)

" Another great point was the arrangement of the Protestant Church
in Ireland. It was a most anomalous state of things ; and it could not
be expected that seven eighths of an entire people would much longer
continue to support the Church of the remaining eighth in its full
integrity. The Catholics of Ireland had as good a right to a Church
of their own as the Scotch Presbyterians  He warned the
House they could reasonably expect no peace in Ireland until the
de facto and the de jure right in this case was reconciled. It was a
thing of common occurrence in Ireland to see three or four thousand
people kneeling in the rain round the walls of their little chapel,*
too small to accommodate them, while on the opposite side of the way
stood a spacious church with a congregation of only four persons, for
the support of which the Catholics had to contribute largely from
their wretched earnings, f Human nature could not endure this for
any lengthened period ; and it was no wonder that the feelings of the
majority of the population of Ireland were desirous — not of the
temporalities of the Established Church, but for an equality with it.1;.
These were the reasons why the Irish people desired some settlement of
the questions in dispute. It was first Irishmen, and then Roman-
catholics, in their minds. It was now as impossible to repeal the
Emancipation Act as it would have been to have refused it. That
was the great charter of the Roman-catholic, and it would now be
impossible to disturb it.§ The Catholics had increased in wealth and
influence, and having granted Emancipation, other rights naturally
followed. They had been let into the Constitution ; and it would be
absurd to suppose that they could be excluded from Parhament, or
THAT THE EMANCIPATION AcT WAS FINAL. It WAS THE COMMBNCE-
* Most of the chapels I have seen in Ireland are larger, by-the-bye, than the
country'churches. t Mr. Wyse cannot but know that, since the abolition of Church cess, this,
which was always a gross exaggeration, is now an utter fiction.
X Aye, " perfect equality," again.
§ No difficulty in this case as to the meaning of the verb " to disturb."

76
MENT OP OTHER CONCESSIONS ; and, notwithstanding the assertion of
the Right Hon. Bart. (Sir J. G.), that conciliation had been carried
far enough, it would be impossible to deny to the Catholics the full
advantage of the Constitution !"

NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

These extracts are quite sufficient as records of the fulfilment of Mr.
Perceval's anticipations, that in the event of Parliament conceding the
demand of political power and place to Roman-catholics, the questions
of — 1. Endowment for that religion, 2. Disendowment of the Protestant
Church, would assuredly be mooted in Parliament, and urged on
precisely the same grounds — viz. : the numbers and the disaffection of
the Papists ; and, 3. That any oath that might be devised as a security
for the Church against such propositions, would be interpreted by
Roman-catholics as no restraint upon their (otherwise) legal acts ; — not
that it ought to be so interpreted : for the whole strain of Mr. Perceval's
argument shows, that this is the last thing he would ever have thought
of admitting.
These illustrations might have been multiplied and reinforced to any
extent from the proceedings in Parliament last year. But the facts are
too notorious and too fresh in the public memory to need it. I have
rather chosen the speeches marked by the most moderation : and
especially Mr. O'Brien's — because he first advanced the specific measure
of endowing the Parish Priests (as they are called) with glebes. And
I wish to remark, that this suggestion, much in favour with some of
the Whig leaders also, appears to rao the very worst (for the only
rational purpose which can be proposed to himself by any Protestant in
endowing the Priests at all) that can possibly be adopted. That
purpose is, to make them look to the Protestant Government for
support, instead of to their (supposed) disaffected flocks ; and thus to
gain some sort of influence for good over them. Now, without pausing
to ask whether disafiection (so fearfully manifested by the proceedings
in Ireland last year, that few will now deny its existence) ascends
from the people to the Priests, or descends from the Priests to the
people, — does not every one see that an endowment by glebe would only
make them, as far as it went, equally independent of both people and
government ? Endowment by stipend might be some check. It could
be voted annually, and might be stopped as soon as Parliament saw

77
that no good came of it. Not so with the glebes. Parliament might,
indeed, repeal the Act which annexed them to the Priesthood. But woe
betide the unhappy purchaser or tenant who should attempt, in Ireland,
to occupy the land taken from a Pi-iest ! None but a madman would
dare to think of it.
The plan, nevertheless, is so likely to recommend itself, in this age of
compromise, as a seeming mezzotermine between establishment and
non-establishment of Popery, that it is well worth while to show, that
while it concedes the principle on which such establishment ought to be
resisted, it totally fails to secure even the objects of expediency sought
by the concession.
The remarks which Mr. Wyse's speech, as that of a Roman-catholic
Member (and Lord Camoys's also, which last I have chosen as a direct
illustration of the truth of Mr. Perceval's last-mentioned anticipation,
— because he not only assails the Church like Mr. Wyse, but argues
his right to do so in Parliament) — the remarks which these speeches
suggest, and the answer to the argument of the latter, will be found
below, in Appendix, G. Note by the Editor (pages 103 — 111),
to Lord Eliofs speech on Mr. Ward's motion. To these I very
earnestly solicit the attention of all Roman-catholics.

C. No. 3.
Extracts from the Speech of the Hon. Capt. Rous, M.P. for Westminster,
in the adjourned debate on Mr. W. S. O'Brien's motion, Wth July, 1843.
(From the Times' and Morning Post's Reports.)

Captain Rous said, that " perhaps the sentiments he was about to
express would be found to differ very much from those of the Hon.
Gentlemen near him, and many of his constituents  The
Noble Lord (J. Russell) wished to do all he could for Ireland, but his
hands were tied up by Presbyterian bigotry in Scotland and Protestant
bigotry in England. (Loud cries and much excitement on the
Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition.) The Noble
Lord brought forward the appropriation clause, and that was all he
could do. He pacified the Agitator, and the Agitator pacified
Ireland; and, thank God, we enjoyed many years of tranquillity.
But when the Government was changed, Scotch bigotry and English
bigotry tied up the hands of the present Government more than the
last — for their supporters were on the side of bigotry — and what was

78
the consequence ? Ireland was more than ever agitated. The present
Government equally desired to do justice to Ireland, but they could
not, because their hands were tied up ; and so long as the opinion of
Scotland and England remained unchanged, their tenure of office would
not be worth twenty-four hours' purchase, if they expressed the
opinions which he was stating, or brought forward any great measure
of relief for Ireland. (Hear, hear.) With regard to Roman-catholic
emancipation, many statesmen supported that measure on the ground
that it was the extreme demand which the Irish would ever make —
(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches) — but whoever acted on
such a principle were totally ignorant of human nature, or some
thing akin to a natural fool. It was as if he owed a man lOOOif.,
acknowledged the debt, paid an instalment of 500Z., and expected his
creditor to do without the rest  Had the debt been
altogether refused, Ireland might say, you act like a common bully ;
but if it were not now paid, she might add, you act like a common
rogue. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) There were
certain ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland appropriated to religious
purposes, amounting to about 500,000^. ; but this sum, instead of
contributing to the religious instruction of the 8,000,000 inhabitants
of Ireland, was devoted to the religious instruction of 850,000 persons
belonging to the Church of England. Such a thing was really too
glaring ; it would not bear argument. (Cheers from the Opposition
benches.) What was the cry of Hon. Gentlemen, and particularly
Irish gentlemen, on that {the Ministerial) side ? ' No Popery, and
Protestant ascendancy ;' but, notwithstanding this cry, the proportion
of Roman-catholics in Ireland had vastly increased since the Union.
The cry, therefore, had failed ; but, still, there were plenty of men in
England and Scotland ready to go to battle for the fooUsh cry of ' No
Popery, and Protestant ascendancy,' and even some respectable gentle
men talked about having fair play, and of the Boyne running down
with blood. He could as soon listen to the howling of wild beasts.
(Cheers from the Opposition.) What would be the feelings of Pro
testants if placed in the position of the Roman-catholics ? Would
they not act the same ? * Human nature was the same all over
the world. (Hear, hear.) Let him, then, make an observation which
* This is precisely Mr. Perceval's argument ; vide suprd,, pages 35 and 43. It
is the best excuse for the Roman-catholics ; — and the worst for Capt. Rous ; who
as a " Tory," (save the mark,) and a Protestant, ought to have remembered
that whatever Ihey may think of their right to the Establishment, we know they
have none.

79
embodied the pure spirit of Christianity, — let them do unto others as
they would be done by themselves. (Hear, hear.) What the Irish
would now accept as a boon from the English they might hereafter
wrest from their fears." (A chorus of cheers from the Opposition, and
vociferations from the Ministerial side.)

NOTE AND COMMENTS BY THE EDITOR.

I have chosen to give these extracts for three reasons : — (1.) Because
the argument of this Conservative Member not only goes as far towards
the robbery of the Church as the farthest that any of the Radicals
went, and farther than any of the late official leaders of the Whig
party have as yet thought proper to go ; but, (2.) Because it so aptly
illustrates the truth of Mr. Perceval's anticipation,-* that the cry of
"bigotry" would assuredly be raised against those who should, at a
future time, attempt to defend the Establishment from the most direct
attacks against its integrity, and should resist direct demands in favour
of the establishment of the Romish religion, — just as loudly as it was
then raised against those who sought to defend it against prospective
dangers, and on that gxound resisted the demand of political power and
place for Papists. (3.) Because Captain Rous is my own representative
in Parliament ; and I, in my degree, and the other Conservative electors
of Westminster (nine tenths of us at least, I believe, attached members
of the united Church), are responsible for no small exertions to send
him there. And I would, therefore, have a word or two in all courtesy,
for old acquaintance' sake, but in plain-spoken sincerity, with the
gallant Member.
I beg to ask him whether, in 1841, when he first sought for our votes,
he held it to be " bigotry " to support the united Church in Ireland,
and resist Roman-catholic ascendancy there — (by ascendancy I mean, as
my father plainly meant throughout his speech, the establishment of
one religion as the religion of the State, in a superior way, positive or
relative, to any other) — and if so, whether he took care publicly to
manifest that opinion ? — I believe not. For three reasons : — (1.)
Because it is hardly possible I should not have heard of it if he did.
(2.) Because, at the outset of his speech, he said, "his sentiments
would be found to differ very much from those of many of his con
stituents." Thirdly, and to this, most especially, I desire to call Captain
* Vide supra, page 49.

80
Rous's attention ; — Because it was politically impossible for a man to
stand as a Conservative candidate, or to carry an election by Conserva
tive votes, professing that opinion, at that time.
For what, I ask, was the turning point on which politics have
hinged ever since the breaking-up of Earl Grey's Ministry by the
secession of Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond,
and the Earl of Bipon? what but resistance to Roman-catholic
aggression on the Church in Ireland ? What were the terms of the
Lichfield House Compact, which brought the Whigs back to power in
1835 ? What was the famous " Appropriation Clause," but the
attempt to give force of law to the resolution which, carried by virtue
of that compact against Sir Robert Peel, turned the Conservatives out
of power ? What was the history ofthe Conservative opposition, from
that day down to the very dissolution of Parliament which brought
Captain Rous into the field as a Conservative candidate ? what was the
battle-field of debate between the Melbourne Ministry and the Conserva
tive opposition — was it not directly or indirectly, throughout, " The
Irish Church Question?" — Appropriation Clause, Education Bills,
Irish Corporations Bill, Irish Registration Bill. — What did the conduct
of the Opposition mean on all these great questions and all the collateral
questions arising out of them ? was it not that the Conservatives of
England were resolved not to surrender the Protestantism of Ireland
to a Roman-catholic ascendancy ?
Election after election, borough by borough, county by county, for
six years did the constituency of England uphold and strengthen the
Conservative opposition in this very struggle ; till at last the nominees
of the Lichfield House Confederacy could stand no longer : and then,
and not till then, to mask their defeat, they retired from office on a new
question, the Corn Laws ; which has for the present, in some degree, I
admit, changed the criterion of politics, or rather, added another to it.
And now comes forth the Conservative member, not candidate, for
Westminster, and tells his constituents that this resolve was all based
on " bigotry :" that the estabHshment of the Church in Ireland " won't
bear argument :" that experience, and common sense, and common
justice alike condemn it ; and not this only, but that such is the real
opinion of the Conservative cabinet : — That nothing but the bigotry,
that is the blind and prejudiced zeal, of the Protestants of England and
Scotland, keeps the leaders of that six years' struggle in support of the
Church from surrendering the Establishment at the demand of the Irish
Roman-catholics.

81
I do not know whether the members of that cabinet marked this
imputation, and resent it. I am sure they ought to do both. For
such a train of simulation and dissimulation as it supposes during
their whole political career, in most of them, and tliroughout the most
important part of that career, in all, — never before was imputed by
friend or foe to any public characters in England. And so far from
any one speech or act of Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington,
Lord Stanley, Sir J. Graham, or any other man amongst them that I
know of, affording the slightest ground or foundation for it, — at the
very time it was made every one of these statesmen was giving the
most conclusive evidence he could give to the contrary. But this I do
know, that I for one of Captain Rous's Conservative constituents, and
in the name of all of us, have a right to ask him, Why, if he held
these opinions in 1841, he betrayed us into voting for him by their
suppression * ? Or if he held our opinions then, and has since seen
reason to change them, Why, instead of stating those reasons with some
decent respect for the opinions which (on that supposition) were once
common to him and us — why does he now flout us by declaring, (and that
without any pretension of advancing one fresh argument — for Heaven
knows we had all heard enough about the " Seven Millions" long
before we heard of Captain Rous as a candidate,) — that those our
opinions are " nothing but bigotry ? "
As a Conservative elector, who laboured for Captain Rous's return to
Parliament, it is with pain and sorrow that I find and own myself
* By reference to the Times of Wednesday, 30th June, 1841, my readers will
see that at the Westminster Hustings, the gentleman who undertook the duty of
proposing Capt. Rous, (Mr. J. C. Wood,) expressed himself at the very outset of
his speech in these memorable words : — " It was impossible not to perceive, that
unless a Great Protestant Party was formed, and the people awakened to the real
value of those blessings which they were threatened to be deprived of, in a few short
years, it would be too late to roll back the tide of Romanism and Popery before the
current of which the Protestant Interests of this great country had been gradually
sinldng. (Hear, Hear.) It was because he believed that the gallant Captain would
do what their late members had not done — support that great cause — alienate him
self from all party trammels — and stand forward on all great constitutional questions
in defence of those interests, (great applause, and continued tumult) ; that he (Mr.
Wood) undertook to nominate Capt. Rous as a fit aud proper person to represent
them in Parliament."
Capt. Rous (who declared himself in his first address to the electors in person,
not merely a Conservative, but a Tory} has indeed " alienated himself from all party
trammels :" — but, alas ! not " in defence," but for the ruin (as far as in him lay) of
those very " interests " which his proposer thus especially pledged him to support.

83
deceived in my choice, and outraged in my opinions. I would rather a
thousand times have taken twice the pains to secure Sir de L. Evans's
return against him, (dangerous to my mind as that officer's political
principles are, and ill as I think of his Peninsular condottieri career,)
than have helped by my vote to seat, in Parliament, a man who, from
the Conservative benches, could rise to denounce the supporters of
the Church as " bigots!" Why, such a speech from General Evans
would have done no harm at all, but positive good. It would have
aroused that " bigotry" which Captain Roiis imputes to the Church
men of England : it would have quickened their zeal, by calling forth
their indignation at the rude and intolerant misnomer of their principles.
But coming from among our own ranks, such sentiments confound,
dishearten, and dismay them. Deceived, therefore, in my choice, I
feel, on the first hypothesis — outraged in my opinions on the second.
For, what right has Captain Rous to tell us, his constituents, (whose
votes he must know were only given to him because we believed
that he participated in our opinions on Church and State policy) —
that we and all that great constitutional party, whose rallying cry
for generations these very words have been — whose main political
object, ever since the Reform Bill, has been to save the union of
Church and State from the assaults of the faction to which that Bill
gave a momentary preponderance — whose chief political struggle
has been to defend that union where it is weakest, in Ireland, —
what right has he to tell us that our most cherished, rooted, and
distinctive political opinion, which, by his own election, we sought to
strengthen and maintain in Parliament, is based on nothing but mere
"bigotry," — ^just because Captain Rous opened his eyes one morning
to the brilliant discovery that there are 6 or 7,000,000 of Roman-
catholics in Ireland ?
I embrace this last, however, as the most favourable and just
hypothesis towards my representative. For I have an old regard for
Captain Rous. I believe him to be a frank, manly, gallant officer, who
would have scorned to gain our votes by concealing his opinions. I will
not believe, but upon stem compulsion, that he had any thought of
leaving us in the lurch on the Irish Church Question, when he
stood for Westminster in 1841.
I suppose that this brilliant new light some how or other never
dawned before upon his perceptions ; that the shout of the seven millions
never reached his mental ears till it was wafted across the Channel last
year from one of the monster meetings, when the wind chanced to blow

&3
a gale from Westport to Westminster : — That his old opinions, caught
rather from connection and imbibed by Tory sympathies, than grounded
on reflection and rooted in principle, could not stand the shook ; — that
the light dazzled him; that the shout astounded him; — that, so,
bewildered and disconcerted, he sought for a stay within his own
mind, and finding none there — no sound deductions, on the subject of
Church rights, from political science, or from legislative ethics, to
rest on — he jumped very naturally, though not very logically, to the
conclusion that such were to be found no where. That so, whde his
old Tory prejudice in favour of those rights faded away, his honest and
impetuous nature filled up its place at once with a strong conviction of
the justice of the Roman-catholic claim for ascendancy in Ireland. —
That, conscious of the superior intelligence of men like Peel, and
Stanley, and Wellington, he could not for a moment doubt that they
had long preceded him in the same convictions ; but that (and here
only I cannot excuse Captain Rous) for party purposes they still
dissembled, and in deeds denied them. — That the rest of the Church
and State party were — even as he found himself to have once been —
mere " bigots," resting upon nothing but a blind unreasonable prejudice.
For himself, he abandoned it — and hastened, with the bold frankness
of his character, at any cost to avouch his new convictions.
If this be so, there is yet good hope of him : and I commend Mr.
Perceval's speech to his study; entreating him, if he should chance to
find there, what his own thoughts failed to supply him with, reasons
for his former convictions, to let no false shame prevent him from
renouncing his new ones. Let him remember that he will but return
to the implied opinions of all his life (else how, I again ask, came he
to hoist Conservative, nay, Tory colours at Westminster ?) — and will
but abandon a six months' hallucination. And to assist him in his
search after truth, I will add a few considerations which Mr. Perceval
passed by, as not needed for his argument ; for in his days the
difficulty was to make men believe that such arguments as Captain
Rous's would ever be seriously brought to bear against the rights of the
Church in the EstabUshment, not to answer them.
This all-subduing argument may best be stated thus : — The
Roman-catholics in Ireland are seven millions : the Protestants of the
Church of England barely one : Therefore seven eighths, at least, of the
Church property in Ireland ought to be given to the Roman-catholics.
Now, certainly, if Political and Moral questions are questions of
arithmetic, nothing can be more indisputable than this conclusion.
. G 2

84
But, under favour of Captain Rous, political and moral questions are
not questions of arithmetic.
This rule of three method of demonstration, as applied, to political
science, has, however, been much in vogue since the days of the first
French Revolution. It is applied by many parties to other questions
than the Church question in Ireland. And with shades of modification,
the principle assumed, in so applying it to the science of politics (the
principle that all men are born with equal rights to all things), lies
at the bottom of all the points at issue between the two great parties
which, since those days, have divided the civilised world ; the Con
servative (that is to say), and the democratic, which calls itself Liberal.
Let us see what Captain Rous will think of it, as applied by one or
two sections of the latter party, which I suppose he has not yet gone
over to altogether.
The Chartists will tell him —
The working classes are, say, twenty millions : the classes who live
without labour, not above two. Therefore, political power ought to be
given to the former in the proportion of twenty to two.
The Jacobins will tell him —
The owners of landed property are a few thousands : the rest of the
people are twice as many millions. Therefore the lands ought to be
given to the rest of the people in proportion to their numbers.
The disciples of St. Just will go a little farther. They will tell him
all property is the creation of labour : the labouring classes are the
bulk of mankind : Therefore in all property they ought to share in
proportion to their numbers.
The disciples of Marat will go a little further still. They will tell
Captain Rous —
The people are 30,000,000, and have a right to the greatest possible
h0,ppiness : the rich are 300,000, and their pretended rights interfere
with the happiness of the people : those " 300,000 heads must fall "
before the safety of the people can be secured ; and they ought to fall.
I am very sure that Captain Rous would not at all relish any of
these conclusions. But, since lie could find no answer in his own mind,
from reason, justice, or experience, to the same argument as applied to
the Church Question in Ireland, — nothing there but a passing shade of
" bigotry," — I very much doubt if he would find anything there to
answer it, as applied to the possession of political power, property, or
even life itself, — but a " blind prejudice."
But let the gallant Member be comforted. A blind prejudice is some-

85
times the very best of answers which a plain man can make to an
impudent sophism. Because the opinion, which the prejudice expresses,
has been adopted and cherished blindly (that is, without a full under
standing of the grounds it rests on) it by no means follows that the
best possible grounds do not exist for it. He may still stoutly deny the
conclusions of the Chartist, the Jacobin, and the Maratist, with all
possible self-contentment : hut if he wishes to distinguish himself in
Parliament again, he had better go to the Dilworth and Dyke of
Politics and learn Why ; — or assuredly he will break down if he ever
goes beyond the enunciation of his prejudice against such conclusions.
And (what is worse for the practical purpose for which his constituents
sent him there) he will assuredly be caught by all the minor and less
startling applications of the rule of three scheme of political science,
which the more cautious but less consistent disciples of that exquisite
theory, Whigs and Liberals of every shade and gradation, have in
readiness for his adoption. Captain Rous's prejudice may reject the
Charter : I doubt if it could have opposed Lord J. Russell's Reform
Bill. It may serve his turn against an agrarian law : I doubt if it
would resist a graduated income tax. It may save him from assenting
to an equal division of property : I doubt if it would guarantee him
against advocating an equitable adjustment with the national creditor.
I will warrant him against ever voting for a proscription : I am not
so sure of him if the question were, " Shall we organise a national
guard, and place the armed force in the power of ' the people ?'"
Now, as Captain Rous is still our representative, and I by no means
despair of his being so again, and deserving to be so, I will first of all
beg his acceptance of a short formula wherewith to answer all the rule-
of-three people in every one of the supposed cases, and in every modi
fication of them. If he had made a certain celebrated Clockmaker's
acquaintance whilst voyaging in America, he would not have needed
me to tell it him. Here it is.
Measure me the distance in miles from July to January, and I will
tell you the value of your argument from numbers in a question of
Right and Wrong.
Every great question of political science is a question of right and
wrong, as well as a question of expediency : not that the latter can ever
be really and ultimately different from the former, but it will often
appear so, and may always be contemplated apart ; for it often depends,
for present purposes, on other considerations. It may very possibly be
politically expedient just now to establish the Roman-catholic religion

86
in place of the Protestant Church in Ireland, because the Roman-
catholics are six or seven millions. And if Captain Rous had applied
his rule-of-three argument only to that extent, I should have had much
less to object to «*, though not to him. But the question is palpably
a question of religious principle, and of distributive justice, as well as
of political expediency; and our gentle representative calls us all
" bigots" by implication, for not seeing that his argument from numbers
settles all three !
The first of the three, of course, specially ; since " bigotry" applies
more peculiarly to opinion in matters of religion. Does the gallant
officer, then, think that the number of its professors establishes the
truth of a religion ? If so, for Heaven's sake let him beg the Bishops
to change the purpose of the fund they have collected for the mission
to China. Let them in mercy bring us missionaries from China, to
teach us the faith of Fob, that we may learn, and believe, and be saved,
some of us, if possible, before we die !
Not that ; I suppose. But Numbers in any Christian sect make a
clear case for the endowment of a ministry by the State, on principles of
Christian charity and toleration. Do they so ? Captain Rous will find
this question answered in the speech above, at page 46, and a dilemma
which it involves stated at page 40. If he can find nothing but
" bigotry" in that answer, and no difficulty in that dilemma, I shall
indeed despair of my representative.
On the question of expediency and that of experience, I recommend
him to study the arguments at page 48 and 34, and to peruse Lord
Redesdale's letter. Appendix A, and the paper that follows it.
Next, as to the question of distributive justice, which Mr. Perceval
touched but slightly and incidentally (page 39) ; for in his days it was
" bigotry' to suppose it would ever be raised : the argument says,
because the Roman-catholics are seven to one, therefore give them
seven-eighths of the Church endowments ; — justice requires it.
Suum cuique is the maxim of Distributive Justice. But in cases like
this, she is apt to ask a previous question — Are the endowments yours
to give ? Every Radical, and many Whigs, will answer boldly, " Yes.
Church property is the property of the nation. Therefore, it is for
Parliament to give it where it thinks fit." But did any man ever call
himself a Conservative, and assent to that proposition ? Have we not
all, with one voice, contended that it is a gross fallacy? — that the only
sense in which it is true, namely, that the Church holds the property
in trust for a great national object and benefit, the maintenance of true

•87
religion, gives the State indeed a right to see that it is faithfully applied
to that end, and perhaps also, wisely distributed among the Ministry ;
but that, in all other respects, that property is as sacred and inalienable
as all other property whatsoever, — and more so : because confiscation,
or the forcible transfer of any property from one subject to another by
law, is in all cases State robbery — in the case of Church property, not
robbery alone, but sacrilege ?
The first object of all government is to secure the life and liberty of
every subject ; the next, to secure to each his own property. The
province of the Law is, to ascertain the ownership, and to define the
possession. The State has only to protect it. The instant that the
State steps into the province of the Law, there is an end of law and of
liberty. We live under a despotism, call its forms what you will.
The law of the land gives the Ownership of Church property to the
Ministers of the Church. The law of the land, and the law of the
Church together, ascertain who these are ; and prescribe the conditions
on which they become such. Three hundred years ago those conditions
were fixed ; — to wit, assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles and
to the Anglican Liturgy. The prescribing of these conditions by the
State has been most absurdly, as well as falsely, represented to have
been a transfer of Church property from its original purpose to a new
one ; and, therefore, an act of violence equal to that which is now pro
posed, and a valid precedent for it. Is it possible that a Conservative
could ever be imposed on by so silly a sophism 'i
The property was not transferred from one Church to another. The
Church and the State both acted in the very spirit and purview of their
respective trusteeships. The Church ascertained the true doctrines of
religion. The State saw to it, that the Church's property should be
applied to the maintenance of those true doctrines. In this there was
no transfer of property from Church to Church ; though there may have
been, in a few cases, incidentally, from individual to individual. A new
test was applied by law to the candidates for the Ministry of the Gos
pel, which Ministry is the Title of Ownership. Those who dissented
Irom that test, thenceforth renounced all title to the ownership. If any
such were in possession already,* they had a claim in justice for compen-
* Of nineteen Irish Bishops present in the parliament at Dublin, (anno 1560,)
by which the Acts of Supremacy and of Uniformity were passed, only two (Walsh
of Meath, and^Leverous of Kildare,) refused to sanction those enactments, and were
deprived of their Sees. Both these bishops were only served as they had served
their predecessors, (Staples, of Meath, and Lancaster, of Kildare, respectively,) who

88-
sation ; because the condition was new to them. I know not if they
had it. I fear not. But their claim to compensation was personal,
and expired with themselves. No human being since the reign of
Ehzabeth has had a shadow of a title to any fraction of the Church
property of England or Ireland, save the Ministers of the Reformed
Protestant Episcopal Church.
Will Captain Rous deny that the Church and State together had a
right to define the Articles of Religion, and to exact subscription to
those Articles and assent to the Liturgy from those who thereafter should
become candidates for holy orders ? And can he believe that the
question whether those Articles ought to be repealed, as false, or main
tained, as true, is a question to be decided by the rule of three ? The
only way by which the State could {without robbery and sacrilege, and
a precedent fatal to the very objects for rvhich governments exist) give
the ownership of Churcli property to the Roman-catholics, is by
repealing the Thirty-nine Articles and the Anglican Liturgy.
The Duke of Wellington, with that native sagacity (oi/cem crovea-ei)
-which no man since Themistocles ever possessed in the same
measure, never fails to hit the right nail on the head. His Grace
told the House of Lords, when Lord Oranmore's petition was read —
(embodying the same argument, and for the same policy ; — and no
wonder, for it is the one solitary argument that exists for it), — "he
wished to warn their Lordships of one circumstance. The prayer of
this petition goes to neither more nor less than this important question,
Whether your Lordships are to repeal or maintain the laws by which
the Reformation has been established in this United Kingdom ?"
Does Captain Rous imagine that the Duke of Wellington does not see
the evil and the calamity (which it is) that seven eighths of the Irish
people dissent from the National Church, as clearly as he does ? Is the
were deprived by the government of Queen Mary sixteen years before, for the
grievous ofience of being married men. Being thus irregularly intruded into their
Sees while the rightful occupants were living, it may be doubted if these two men
had any claim for compensation at all. With the exception of these two, all the
Irish Bishops of that time remained in their respective Sees ; and from them the
present Protestant Bishops have derived their orders ; being thereby the true aud
unquestionable successors and representatives of the ancient Irish Church — for,
ubi Episcopus, ibi Ecclesia. The titular bishops of the dissenting Romanists in
Ireland derive their orders from the Pope alone ; and have therefore nothing
wherewithal to support their pretension to represent the National Church, save the
numbers of their sect, and the false doctrine of Papal supremacy. See King's
Primer of the Church History of Ireland, pp. 289, 306, and 342.

89
Duke one of his " blind bigots ? " Or will he pretend to think the
Duke meant really to suggest the repeal of the laws he spoke of ? —
Impossible. What then ? Cannot the gallant member just conceive
that, beyond the ken and reach of hie own vision, his Grace can discern
other evils, — and measure them also, in their just proportion ?
There are many " sore evils under the sun" — but men were never the
better ofi" for trying to cure them by irregular and unlawful means.
Poverty is a sore evil. Try to cure it by tlie slaughter and pillage of
the rich. France tried it in 1792; and the next year, half the popula
tion of Paris was waiting half the winter's night long, holding on to
ropes, a la queue, at the bakers' shop-doors, for a State dole of black
bread.* What is our " metropolitan destitution" to this ? — Blasphemy,
sedition, obscenity, slander, are sore evils. Will you, then, resort to a
censorship of the Press? — Demagogues like O'Connell, associations
like the Repeal one and the Corn-law League, are sore evils. Will
you, therefore, repeal the Habeas Corpus Act ? — But I am weary of
teaching the A, B, C of Conservative Politics to my own representative.
If he had not learnt that, he ought not to have stood for a seat in Parlia
ment on the Conservative side : or at least, when by Conservatives
seated there, he ought not to have begun to con his lessons out of the
horn-book of Liberalism ; and, having got so far as to spell the very
first of the fallacies to be learnt in it, have fancied himself entitled
(on the strength of his new attainment) to take all Scotland and
England (minus the enlightened few who chose the gentlemen on
the opposite side of the House to represent them) to task for their
" bigotry."

D.

Proofs that Parliament, in conceding the Roman-catholic
claims to civil equality, had no Intention to surrender the
principles of the Protestant Constitution, to destroy the Union
of Church and State, to curtail the rights of the Clergy in the
Establishment, or to bring those rights into question and
dispute, but the direct contrary.
* Vide Alison's Hist, of Europe, chap. xv. vol. 2, p. 414.

90

No. 1.
The Sixth Resolution of the House of Commons, in the Committee of the whole
House, on the 28th Feb. 1826 {after a division of 2^7 for, and 234 against
going into Committee), was as follows : —
" That it is the opinion of this committee that such act of repeal (of the
acts requiring the declaration against transubstantiation, &c.) and expla
nation (of the oath of supremacy) should be accompanied with such
exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving
unalterably the Protestant Succession to the Crown . . . and for main
taining inviolate the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and
Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and discipline thereof; and the
Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and disci
pline thereof, as the same are by law respectively established."

D. No. 2.
Resolution ofthe House of Commons after going into Committee on the Roman
Catholic Claims, by a majority of 272 against 266, on the 12th May, 1828.
" That it is the opinion of this committee that it is expedient to consider
the state of the laws afiecting His Majesty's Roman-catholic subjects
in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such final and conciliatory
adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength ofthe United
Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and to the
general satisfaction and concord otaW classes of His Majesty's subjects."

D. No. 3.
Extract from the Oath required by the Roman Catholic Relief Bill to be taken
by Roman Catholic Peers and Members of Parliament. 10 G. IV. c. 7, s. 2.
" I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settle
ment of property within this realm as established by the laws. And I
do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to sub
vert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this

91
realm. And I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privi
lege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the
Protestant religion or Protestant government of the United Kingdom.
And I do solemnly, and in the presence of God, profess, testify, and
declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the
plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion,
equivocation, or mental reservation whatever. So help me God."

Further Provisions enacted by the Roman-catholic Relief Bill for the peace
and security of the EstabUshment and of the Protestant Religion.

Sect. 4. — No Roman-catholic capable of sitting or voting until he
has taken this oath.
Sects. 19, 20. — The same oath for Roman-catholics obtaining office
in Corporations, or places of trust and profit under the Crown.
Sect. 24. — And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England
and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and
likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doc
trines, discipline, and government thereof, are by the respective acts of
union of England and Scotland and of Great Britain and Ireland esta
blished permanently and inviolably ; and whereas the right and title of
archbishops to their respective provinces, of bishops to their sees, and of
deans to their deaneries, as well in England as in Ireland, have been
established by law ; Be it therefore enacted, that if any person, after the
commencement of this act, other than the person thereunto authorised
by law, shall assume or use the name, style, or title of archbishop of any
province, bishop of any bishopric, or dean of any deanery, in England
or Ireland, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of 100/.
Sect. 28 — 36. Providing for the gradual suppression and final pro
hibition of Jesuits and other religious orders of the Church of Rome
within the United Kingdom. (Clauses highly penal.)

COMMENT BY THE EDITOR.

I have heard it stated, by rough repealers, that the oath above
cited is nothing but a " legislatorial humbug," — and, by polished
liberals, that not only the oath, but the penal clauses of the Roman-
catholic Relief Bill, were devised as " no securities, against no danger ;"
were intended by their framers, the one to have no binding efiect on

92
the Roman-catholic conscience, the other to have no practical operation
against Jesuits and Roman-catholic Regulars; were "tubs to the
whale," or at most a mere " gilding of the ' Emancipation' Pill."
If this theory (for it is all one though the expressions differ) were as
true as I believe it to be false (and did I not so believe it, I should
renounce all confidence in public men, and despair of my country) —
but if it were true, it can neither affect the legal nor the constitutional
view of any question arising out of the statutable provisions themselves.
It is a doctrine at once fallacious, dangerous, and unknown to the law,
that the plain, express words of an Act of Parliament may be set aside
by reference had to unexpressed intentions of such members as may
happen to have taken the lead in passing it ; or even by reference had
to intentions plausibly collected from their expressions in debate. Non
constat that Parliament accepted the Bill on the'tr understanding.
Moreover, and what is still more to the purpose (and what Whigs, of
all men, ought by their principles to remember, however much in their
practice they remember to forget it), such doctrine is diametrically
opposed to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Bill of Rights. It
assumes in fact a dispensing power to the executive ; an assumption
which they very well know helped to forfeit King James the Second's
Crown. The Whigs, who within a few months after the passing of the
Roman-catholic Belief Bill became the Ministers of the Crown, and
retained that post, with brief interruption, for the next ten years, are
morally responsible (if not rather deeply responsible in law) for their
studied neglect to enforce the 24th, the 28th, and subsequent clauses of
that Act. It is very well for them to shelter such a breach of the
sworn duty of their Attorneys- General behind this most unconstitu
tional figment; doctrine I will not call it. And there is no denying
that, through their long default, it has become doubtful now whether it
would be a wise step in their successors to make those clauses cease to
be a dead letter. It is plainly, however, their duty in point of law to
do so. But the odium which the enforcement of that law would now
excite, ought perhaps to withhold them from it, until the Protestant
feeling of the Nation be awakened to the subject ;* and public opinion
enlisted in favour of that duty. It is marvellous to me, when I see
men by thousands petitioning Parliament for such unattainable objects
as the cessation of the Maynooth grant, and the repeal of the Roman-
* People would be surprised if they knew the number of new nests of Monks
which one stumbles upon in the corners of Ireland.

93
catholic Relief Act, that we hear of no petitions of remonstrance
against the non-enforcement of the Conservative clauses of that Statute.
To such Parliament hardly could, with any decency, refuse to listen.
The non-execution of those clauses ought long ago to have been pre
sented to the Sovereign as a grievance against the Bill of Rights by the
grand Inquest of the Nation.* And it would well become the Protest
ant Universities to take the lead in calling upon the House of Com
mons to do so.
For exposition of the true bearing and obligation of the oath, I refer
the reader to an argument fully stated in another place (Appendix, G.
pages 103 — 111, Comments u'po'D Extract from Lord Eliot's speech). I
trust it will meet with attention from all, especially from those who have
come under that obligation. If it can be met, without sophistry and
perversion of word and reason, I hope it will he so met. By me it is
submitted to them in candour, calmness, and charity.
As to any intention of the framers of that oath (supposed to be a
fair deduction from their speeches), I refer the reader to the Comment
which follows Lord Camoys's speech (Appendix, page 95.)
As to the intention of Parliament in enacting that oath, the only
respectful and consistent view is, that it was intended to be what it
ought to be, viz. :
(1). A testification, in full accordance with those Resolutions to
which Parliament had pledged itself at every former stage of concession
to the Roman-catholics, — that, in surrendering to their importunity
those securities which theretofore the laws gave to the Protestant
religion, the Church and Clergy, it consented to make this great expe
riment on the Constitution, only because it believed that the Roman-
catholic subjects of the Crown had renounced all hostility to either
Church or State. (Therefore the words chosen for the oath were the
very words of the Roman-catholics themselves in their first Petition).
(2). A lasting memorial that, in that same surrender of securities.
Parliament in no wise purposed to impair in substance the Protestant
Constitution in Church and State, or to endanger the rights of the
Clergy. (3). By imposing the oath on Roman- catholics only, still more
distinctly to mark the foregoing truths, and to keep them, as it were,
on Record. (Otherwise many grounds of expediency suggest them
selves to show that it would have been obviously better policy to
impose the same Oath on all members indiscriminately ; which, by
* Vide Supplementary Note 2, at the end of the Appendix.

94
the by, if any alteration be ever made in the Act, I hope will be the
alteration). (4). That the actual words were chosen rather than those more
stringent words which the Roman-catholics had also proffered in their
first and second petitions {vide suprd), not in order that the consciences
of Roman-catholics should not be hound by the spirit, but that they
might not be embarrassed by the letter of their oaths, in case they
should choose to vote on matters of Church Reform. (No oath,
that ingenuity can devise, can bind men to act in the spirit of it. Their
own consciences must do that. The spirit of this oath is as plain as
words can make it. A more stringent letter might indeed make the
violation of it more disgraceful before man : it could not possibly make
it a more awful affront to God. And therefore the framers of it were
wisely and charitably content with it as it stood ; it being already part
of the law of the land (32 Geo. III.), as well as embodied in Roman-
catholic petitions).
This view is at least consistent with dignity, intelligence, and since
rity in the Parliament which passed the Roman-catholic Relief Bill, and
with integrity, honour, charity, and good sense in the statesmen who
carried it. How the Liberal view above can be consistent with either,
let the Repealers try to show, when they bring in their threatened Bill
to abolish the oath.

E.

In the debate on the Arms {Ireland) Bill, House of Lords, Tuesday, IBth
Aug.l 843, the Lord Camoys, a Roman-catholie Peer, is reported to have said.
(From Morning Chronicle, Aug. 16.)
" He had spoken of unredressed grievances, and he might be asked
what they were ? He would say at once and without hesitation, the
state of the Church in Ireland ... He admitted that the Church was a
delicate matter for him to dwell on ; but he considered it his duty to
do so .... He said that the people of Ireland did not deserve liberty,
unless they continued a course of agitation until their grievances were
redressed, and everything connected with Protestant ascendancy was
removed from that country."
On being taxed afterwards by Lord Brougham with forgetting his
oath. Lord Camoys is reported to have said, —

95
" If he had understood the oath taken by him in the manner In
which the noble lord had explained it — (Lord B. had simply pointed out
the discrepancy between the oath and the advice given to the people of
Ireland to agitate till ' everything connected with Protestant ascendancy
was removed,' i. e. till the Church was subverted) — he certainly would
not have spoken to-night as he had done. . . ." He then argued, that
because Sir R. Peel had rejected Mr. Wilmot Horton's suggestion,
that on questions aft'ecting the Church, Roman-catholic members should
neither vote nor speak, and is alleged to have stated, in answer to Sir
C. Wetherell, he never meant the oath to bind them in their legislative
capacity ; " therefore he had an undoubted right, as well as any of their
lordships, to express his opinions upon any subject before the House,
without reference to that oath."
The Earl of Shrewsbury, another Roman-catholic Peer, is reported
to have said, that —
" Until both houses of parliament combined to give a different inter
pretation (from Lord Camoys's) of the oath, Roman -catholics would be
justified in giving their opinion in the legislature even on subjects that
might trench on the Established religion of the country. On any other
terms he would not condescend ! to sit in Parliament."
Lord Beaumont, however, another Roman-catholic Peer, in the same
debate, said —
" He should, whatever the vituperation with which in consequence
he might be attacked, refuse to give a vote, whatever might be the party
which might court it, which in his mind he believed would do the
slightest injury to the Established Church." — {Confer p. 108, infrcl.)

COMMENTS BY THE EDITOR.

1. Lord Camoys cannot need to be reminded that he took his oath
to God and to the Queen and people of the United Kingdom, not to
Sir Robert Peel. His reference to Sir Robert's expressions in debate
can, therefore, only be considered as made, in subsidium to the general
argument that the oath was not binding upon him as a Roman-catholic,
in the sense implied by Lord Brougham's quotation of it, because he
was acting then in a " legislative capacity." That argument Lord Camoys
will find winnowed and sifted in a subsequent note (Appendix, G.
pp. 103 — 111), to which I respectfully invite his attention and that of
the noble Earl who followed him. If they remain contented with the

Q6
residuum, and satisfied in their consciences for the future to speak and
vote in Parliament against the Church, whenever it may please them,
I only trust their Lordships will take an opportunity of stating in what
sense (in their own view) the oath is binding upon them. In some
sense, surely ; and Protestants would really be glad to know, in what ?
No one that I am aware of has ever thought proper to enlighten us on
that point, of all who are so eager to tell us in what sense the oath is
not binding. And some one really ought to do so in common fairness ;
if only because our ignorance of what must in fact be the real strength
and turning point of their case makes us appear, in our comments, so
much more uncharitable in this matter than we wish to be ; their case
appearing to us so very weak, through default of such statement.
2. I have not had time to look carefully enough through "Hansard"
to justify me in asserting (what I nevertheless believe), that Sir Robert
Peel never used any expression (in debate on the Roman-catholic Relief
Bill) which, if fairly interpreted, could be held to justify Lord Camoys's
statement. I have, however, looked cursorily at his reply to Sir C.
Wetherell, who certainly did advance the notion stated, as an argument
against the Bill. As far as I saw. Sir Robert Peel on that occasion
passed the objection by.
But I cannot refrain from remarking how very unfair upon Sir
Robert Peel statements of this sort from Roman-catliolics are ; even if
better founded than I guess, on due investigation, they will turn out to
be. There can be little wonder he never notices or replies to them.
Supposing it even to be true that he said or implied, in debate, that
he intended the oath not to bind them in their ^^legislative capacity" —
that is to say, according to their undeniable interpretation of this
phrase, that he had devised an oath to be taken by Roman-catholics on
becoming Members of Parliament, &c., which should leave them, as
Members of Parliament, &c., free in their consciences to hold up the
Protestant Church Establishment as a " monster grievance'' in their
speeches, and to assist in despoiling or subverting it by their votes, —
supposing I say that Sir Robert Peel did ever really say or imply any
thing like this preposterous proposition (which is plainly the sense
in which Roman-catholics assert that the oath does not bind them as
legislators) — can they expect him to say so ? And is he not the last
man in England to advance the pretension that such intention of his
must be taken as the legitimate and conclusive rule of interpretation
against the obvious meaning and plain letter of the Act of Parliament ?
( Vide suprd p. 92, 93.)

97
On the other hand, supposing he never expressed any such thing ; or
used the phrase, if he did use it, with implied qualifications, fatal alike
to the sense affixed to it by Roman-catholics and to my Lord Camoys's
argument ; — in that case how unfair it is, how wanting in delicacy,
to take advantage of the feeling which would naturally deter Sir Robert
Peel from pronouncing his opinion on their case (still his own opinion
merely) ; which, though it could not decide the legal question, would
be at once decisive as to his own judgment upon the character and con
duct, in so grave a matter, of those gentlemen who thus appeal to him !

F.

Extracts from a Repeal Newspaper, illustrative of the state
of feeling in Ireland towards (1.) The Church, (2.) The Govern
ment and People of England. [ Observations.'}
(Speech, pages 50, 31.) Since Mr. Perceval penned these prophetic
words, not only have all the civil disabilities of the Roman-catholics
been removed, but the Church cess has been abolished, the Establish
ment curtailed (surely not to save the paltry sum required to replace
that levy, so much as to gratify Roman-catholio spleen in its humilia
tion), the tithes have been commuted, too, at a loss of full 30 per cent.
to the clergy; the Protestant corporations have not only been abolished,
but Roman-catholic cabals established by law in almost every town of
Ireland under that name- — and all this, with what effect upon the spirit
of Irish disaffection towards England, and Popish hatred against the
Protestant Church ? Let the reader of the following extracts judge of
the peace, harmony, and good-will, the boasted fruits of concession and
conciliation. They are mere specimens, taken almost at random, of the
spirit of the Popish press in Ireland. They might be capped, I believe,
a dozen times over, from half a year's files of " The Nation," or any other
Repeal paper, — in their bitterness, falsehood, and malignity at least,
though not perhaps in their revolting coarseness. Such is the daily
food of the Irish mind ; and who can wonder that our poor deluded
ignorant fellow-subjects grow rabid oa such hellish diet ?

98

F. No. 1.
Extract from " The Limerick Reporter," Friday, July 1th, 1843.

The Established Church is an eye-sore which justice and humanity
require to be removed for ever from the haunts of civilisation. Its
existence is a disgrace to the nineteenth century — a foul blot upon
Christianity itself. It is a monster of evil, which preys upon the vitals
and sucks with avidity the heart's blood of a suffering nation. A
gorgeous overgrown Establishment, scarcely containing half a million,
who bow down in worship before it ; and yet eight millions, who look
upon it with detestation, are compelled to support its luxury and uphold
its iniquitous exactions. It has gathered round it all the bad passions
and prejudices of the human heart — it has enlisted the sympathies of
the bigoted, overbearing, and intolerant in the land — it has brought to
the support of its injustice and iniquity the power and strength of a
great nation. Such is the Established Church in Ireland. Born in
the midst of blood, and massacre, and confiscation, its infancy was
bedewed with the innocent blood of martyrs — of widows and orphan
children — and as it grew and strengthened, and spread its desolating
ravages far and wide over the land, its career was tracked by robbery,
rapine, and plunder. There is no exaggeration in all this. If any man
doubt the accuracy of the picture we have drawn — if any man accuse
us of giving it a colouring which the facts do not warrant, let him
consult its history and existence in this country. What evil has crept
into the social state, and poisoned the spring which ought to bedew
and freshen into luxuriance the blessings of charity and good-will
among Irishmen, that cannot be traced to its establishment among us ?
If it were intended to do honour to Christianity, and to spread the
benign and sacred maxims of the Gospel in every village and hamlet by
which we are surrounded, the experiment has been an utter failure.
Its advocates cannot adduce as an argument that its principles have
not had a fair trial, or that we have not had experience of its workings.
Alas ! that the case is otherwise cannot be denied. For three hundred
years its reign has been one of evil and calamity — setting man against
man — and obstructing every attempt made to improve the condition of
a country subjected to its unhappy and unfortunate infliction.
Surely such an incubus, even backed as it is by the power, and
bigotry, and prejudice of England, cannot be much longer allo-wed to
exist among us.

99

F. No. 2.
Extract from " The Limerick Reporter," Tuesday, October 20th, 1843.

Saxon Sentiments towards Ireland. — If we are to judge of the
feelings entertained by the people of England towards this country by
the writings of their sanguinary and ferocious press, they are truly
of a most blood-thirsty description. Since the proclamation was issued
by the Privy Council in Ireland, prohibiting the meeting at Clontarf,
and the State prosecutions subsequently commenced, the cry has been
one for blood and subjugation. The miscreants who pander to the
vile passions of that brutal nation — not content with denouncing in the
most insulting and outrageous manner Catholicity in general, the most
eminent of our prelates, and the College of Maynooth, which they term
a receptacle of immorality — urge with the most persevering blood-
thirstiness the use of fire and sword, to silence the complaints of the
Irish people, and to extinguish their remaining liberties in their blood.
And that is the country from which we are to expect justice, and
that is the people who are to sympathise in our wrongs and redress our
grievances ! " If coercive measures and prosecutions will not subdue
discontent and disaffection," says the vile panderer of the most vicious
and profligate aristocracy on the face of the earth, " sharper and more
effective means must be adopted." Such is the spirit in which the evils
of this country have been commented on since the soil was first cursed
hy the presence of our oppressors. If the " mere Irish " complained
of the calamities which ground them to the earth, they were threatened
with vengeance and extirpation; if they resisted the aggressions of
tyranny, confiscations turned them upon the world without a place to
shelter them, and murder, and other equally horrible, though nameless
crimes, deprived them of friends and kindred.
The same feeling which animated the English nation in all ages, and
under all circumstances, towards this country, continues to the -present
in its darkest and most forbidding aspect. Its hatred has never been
extinguished, nor its insolent superiority over our people lessened in
the slightest degree. To hate Ireland and the Irish is as natural to a
Saxon as to wallow in the most disgusting and barbarous vices — to
revile his Maker, or indulge his brutal passions whenever an opportunity
presented itself. A Saxon would as soon divest himself of the comforts
H 2

100
which he enjoys in consuming Irish hogs, as he would even dream of
foregoing the pleasure of reviling Ireland.
Thus we find that people — for whose views we entertain sentiments
of abhorrence, and whose insolent pretensions we regard with ineffable
contempt, in every grade and class In life, from the highest to the lowest
— employed in calumniating and misrepresenting a nation, the blood of
whose forefathers is upon them, and their children ! If an Englishman
visit this country as a tourist or a traveller, his first duty Is to revile
the people — their habits — their religion ; and, above all, their clergy ;
and tbe cry is taken up at once, and reiterated by every venal and
sordid wretch at the other side of the water, who lives on the wages of
rascality and corruption, and echoed in every corner of the land. The
whole surface of English society is so polluted by this species of foul
vituperation, that it is utterly impossible for the Iri.sh people to have
their wrongs even understood, much less considered. In that country.
An Irish Priest is feared and detested, and would be hunted through
the mountains and the glens as of old, if their wishes were carried into
effect. An Irish agitator is, in their estimation, the most worthless
even of the Irish people, and so wicked and dangerous a being as to
des-jrve at once, and without hesitation, to be hanged like a dog.
This is England in the midst of the nineteenth century ! England,
with a weight of guilt and infamy upon her, utterly inconceivable —
England, the foul and foetid pool into which all the abominations of
the human heart disgorge themselves ; and yet this Is the land which
insists on holding the destinies of this country in her keeping for
centuries to come.
Are we to be dragged along at the footstool of such a tyrant — as the
slaves of such a beastly, brutal population, plunged as they are in a
whirlpool of abomination, and tainted in every state of life, and in
every grade, with the most revolting and shameless immoralities — an
aristocracy celebrated for the most hideous profligac)', and a people,
both in the middle and lower ranks of life, of all sexes and conditions,
who do not even dissemble their abandonment of, and contempt for the
most sacred ties — who do not assume the scanty veil of concealment to
cover the unblushing effrontery of open guilt ? It is surely too bad
that we should be bullied and threatened by a nation like this, or
refused our just rights, because it is their will and pleasure. If their
conduct towards our ancestors will not teach us a lesson, and that we
read the history of their times without emotion — if the horrors and
sanguinary slaughter of ages— the destruction of all that we possessed

101
save one dear, precious inheritance, which they in vain sought to
deprive us of — if all these things do not urge us on to an unceasing and
undaunted energy of purpose and determination to struggle for our
rights as a nation, we are not deserving of the name. Confer
Appendix A. 1 and 2.

G.

Extract from the Speech of Lord Eliot, on Mr. Ward's Motion for an-Address
to the Queen {.') denouncing the Established Church as one of the chief
grievances of Ireland; and pledging the House of Commons to co-operate
with Her Majesty (.') in effecting such a settlement of Church Property
in Ireland as would give Satisfaction to the Irish People. Aug. 1, 1843.
(From the Times Report.)

" The hon. gentleman had read to the house several statements founded
on returns of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ; and though he (Lord
Eliot) wished to avoid entering into any lengthened details, he would
read a return which he had procured from the Ecclesiastical Commis
sioners of the actual revenue of the Irish Church. The total Income of
the Protestant Church of Ireland was 433,023?. 4*. <id. This sum
consisted of these items : — Rents of lands, houses, &c., duties, fees, &c,,
reserved by lease, 62,945?. 9s. 7d. ; value of demesne and glebe
lands, &c., not reserved by lease, 28,128?. 13*. 3d.; fines on renewals,
84,556?. 3s. lid.; rent-charges, &c., 239,047?. 18*. 6d.; ministers'
monies, 11,249?. 16*. 8rf. ; dividendsongovernment stocks, 926/. 15*. 2c?.;
from other sources, 6,168?. 7*. 4d. The following statement would
place the question in clear view : —
" Total income of the Irish Chm-ch was . . . . £432,023

Deduct Revenue of Bishoprics .... .£80,553
And of Suppressed Bishoprics .... 38,076
 118,629
The gross property of Deans and Chapters (subject to
heavy necessary deductions) is .... 57,800
Parochial Clergy, Rent Charge, and Ministers' Money 248,500
 306,300
Interests on Stocks and other Funds .... 7,094

'Total  £432,023

102
" Fund applicable to purposes of vestry cess and first fruits (besides the tax of
7 per cent.) is 7,O94-|-38,076=45,170;. There are 1,396 parochial clergy and 744
curates. Their average income, including deans and chapters who have property
exclusive of parochial benefices, is (306,300?., by 2,140,) say 143/. each, subject
moreover to numerous charges."
For a population of upwards of 900,000 persons, spread over 20,000,000
of acres, It surely could not be said that such an amount was too much
for their spiritual Instruction, or that 2,000 Clergymen with an average
income of say 1 50?. per annum was too great an allowance. Was that
the cumbrous machinery upon which the Hon. Member for Sheffield so
strongly insisted as being an Insupportable burden to Ireland ? (Hear,
hear.) Allowing, for argument's sake, that it would be desirable to
convert these funds for the purpose of inculcating the Roman-catholic
religion, how Inadequate would it prove for the object !
The Hon. Member for Sheffield had referred at considerable length to
the opinions of various celebrated Irish patriots, and quoted from a speech
of Mr. Grattan in 1793. The Hon. Gentleman, as he was quoting,
might have referred to a speech of Mr. Grattan delivered in that House
at a subsequent period, and quoted what were almost his last words,
when on his dying bed he made the following declaration with a view
to procure a repeal of the disabilities under which Roman-catholics
laboured : — " Resolved, that a Committee be appointed with a view to
repeal the civil and political disabilities which affect His Majesty's
Roman-catholic subjects on account of their religion. Resolved, that
such repeal he made with due regard to the inviolability of the
Protestant religion and establishments." Every bill which Mr. Grattan
introduced into Parliament for the relief of the Roman-catholics was
framed with reference to the 5th article of the Union. The preamble
was in substance this — "Whereas the united Protestant Church of
England and Ireland is established permanently and inviolably, and
whereas it would tend to promote the interests of the same, and to
strengthen the free constitution, of which the said United Church formes
an essential part." The Hon. Gentleman might have referred to these
expressions of Mr. Grattan, but he did not do so ; nor did he refer
to the opinions of Lord Plunket, a name scarcely less eminent and
illustrious. Lord Plunket said : — " With respect to the Protestant
establishment of the country, I consider it necessary, for the security of
all sects ; and I think that there should not only be an Established
Church, but that it should be richly endowed, and that its dignitaries
should be able to take their station among the nobles of the land.

103
Speaking of it in a political point of view, I have no hesitation in
saying that the existence of the Protestant establishment is the great
bond of union between the two countries, and if ever that unfortunate
moment shall arrive when the Parliament shall rashly lay their hands
on the property of the Church to rob it of its rights, that moment will
seal its doom, and terminate the connexion between the two countries."
Such were the opinions of IMr. Grattan." {Corifer Mr. Perceval,
supra, pp. 24, 26.)

NOTE AND COMMENTS BY THE EDITOR.

I have preserved this short extract for three reasons. First, for the
sake of the illustration which the statistics afford of the truth of Mr.
Perceval's opinion that Parliament would not find, on due inquiry,
that the Church, as a whole, was too richly endowed in Ireland. —
Secondly, as a record of the superior wisdom of those views for pro
moting the security of the Church by giving power to its enemies,
which the Grattans, Plunkets, and the rest of the Pro- Romanist party
dinned into the ears of Parliament, till, at length, so happily, as we
see,* they prevailed over the short-sighted bigotry of Mr. Perceval's. —
Thirdly, as a memorandum of the monstrous proposition itself, in
debate; — a motion that the House of Commons should humbly address
our gracious Sovereign — herself sworn " to maintain and preserve
inviolably the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland,"
 for the purpose of denouncing the establishment of that Church
as the chief grievance of Ireland, and of proffering the co-operation of
her Commons in Parliament assembled, towards its demolition 1 — A
motion, for which, in better times of the House (aye, at any time
between 156 and 1762), the mover would have been sent to the
Tower; — if not to Tower Hill: — and ought to have been so sent;
if there is any sense In exacting the oath of allegiance from every
Member of Parliament before he takes his seat there ; and if the duties
of the subject implied in that oath are correlative (as surely they must
be) with the duties- of the Sovereign, as ascertained, defined, and
expressed, by the permanent and fundamental law of the land, in the
greatest of all constitutional solemnities.
* The juxta-position of Grattan and Pluuket's fine friendship for the Church
with Mr. Ward's insolent denunciation of it, was a keen stroke of Lord EUot's, and
cut more ways than one. I hope his Lordship meant it so.

104
Let no man think that the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was, as
Mr. Ward hinted, any precedent for such a motion as his. That Bill
trenched indeed deeply and dangerously on the very terms of one
important clause of the Sovereign's oath. Sir J. Graham (as quoted
by Mr. Ward in the debate) declared " that it strained his conscience
to the utmost." But neither in its conception and purpose, nor yet in
its provisions, was it a Bill to disestablish the Church. The object it
presented to Parliament was the removal of a vexatious impost, the
Church Cess ; trifling indeed in amount, but extremely irritating to
the Roman-catholic occupiers who paid it; no ways essential to the
establishment ; but rather dangerous to it from the hostility which the
levy excited. The means by which it proposed to eft'ect this object
were (I must always think) unjust, impolitic, arbitrary, and gratuit
ously humiliating to the Church. The late Prime Minister himself
admitted that "it was a heavy blow and severe discouragement to
Protestantism." But its provisions by no means struck at the root of
the Establishment. Church property was transferred by it from one
purpose of the Church to another. It was an Ecclesiastical Reform
Bill. About' the worst (I believe) that could well have been framed.
But still it proposed to itself, and it attained, a great object of pacifica
tion and security to the Church ; though by deplorable means. A con
scientious Minister might, therefore, possibly feel justified in advising
a conscientious Sovereign In accepting it, — 8ia tijv ivia-raxrav avd-yKrjv, — for
want of better means to accomplish a laudable purpose. Yet was
it, if there be meaning in words, a flagrant breach of the terms of the
Coronation oath ; and, as such, a thing pessimi exempli ; — the evil of
which, however, may yet easily, and I hope one day will, be remedied,
and atoned for, by Parliament providing funds for the fabric and
repairs of churches from the public revenues ; and re-appropriating the
poor £45,000 a year, it seems to have produced, towards the main
tenance of ministers of the Gospel, bishops or curates, as they may be
needed. But, on the contrary, the thing contemplated by Mr. Ward's address
was a blow at the foundations, an irreparable shock to the establish
ment. It was altogether subversive, and in no sense conservative of
the Church. God help the Sovereign to whom such an address shall
ever be presented : and God forgive the subjects who shall ever force
their Sovereign into the cruel perplexity of replying to such proposals
from the Houses of her Parliament !
A few words now as to the Coronation Oath, and the argument from

105
the Church Temporalities Bill (as passed in spite of it) — that matters
of legislation are out of the purview of that oath ; and therefore, of
the Roman-catholic oath also. No one,' I suppose, will deny me this
postulate, that the coronation oath must needs mean something ; that it
must needs be imposed by the legislature to bind the conscience of the
Sovereign in some way. That it must needs be taken by the Sovereign
in the sense of some special obligation in respect of the Church. As far
as the words go, its meaning is plain enough. He that runs may read
it. " To the utmost of his or her power," the Sovereign swears " to
maintain the settlement of the United Church," and to " preserve the
rights and privileges of its bishops and clergy." If, therefore, I can prove
that the argument In question makes the oath mean that (under certain
given circumstances) the Sovereign so sworn, having many things in
his power to do for and towards the ends the oath specifies, is to do
nothing at all for them ; and not only so, but that, having one thing in
his power to do contrary to those ends, he is to do that thing ; — in other
words, that the oath means nothing ; Is intended to bind the conscience
of the Sovereign in no way ; is taken by him in the sense of no special
obligation ; — then surely the reductio ad ahsurdum will be complete
and indisputable.
Now, it is argued by Mr. O'Connell,-* and has often been argued
before, though seldom so ably, by Noble Lords and Hon. Gentlemen,
being Papists, and, as such, specially sworn to "maintain to the utmost
of their power the settlement of property" in this United Kingdom ; who
do endeavour, nevertheless, by vote and speech, to induce Parliament
to take away, by law, the property of the Church ; and, at the same
time, do much wish to persuade their Protestant fellow-subjects that
they are not therefore guilty of perjury ; — it is argued by men who
have " abjured any intention to subvert the present Church Establish
ment, as settled hy law within this realm ;'' and yet do some of them
openly and notoriously labour to subvert it by every means in their
power, both in and out of Parliament ; and all the while declare that
their Protestant fellow-subjects are grievously mistaken, if they think
them therefore guilty of perjury ; — it Is argued by men who have, been
admitted to sit and vote in Parliament only on the express condition of
" solemnly swearing that they never will exercise any privilege to which
ihey are, or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant
* See the report of his extremely clever speech (on the occasion of Lord
Brougham's rebuke to Lord Camoys), delivered in the Repeal Association, on
Wednesday, the 23d of August, 1843. I quote it from the Limerick Reporter.

106
religion in the United Kingdom,'' and who yet, on every opportunity,
do exert every privilege they possess, as Members of Parliament, as
well as every other privilege' the freedom of the Constitution allows
them, to further the abrogation of the laws which establish that
religion in Ireland ; and who, nevertheless, do most angrily rebuke
their Protestant fellow- subjects if they but ask them whether, in so
doing, they may not be rashly incurring the guilt of perjury; — nay
(for it is but a small thing to be judged by men in such a matter), it
is argued by Christians, who have so sworn, and do so act, and yet
who must think to prove before God their Redeemer, on the pain
of forfeiting his help for their salvation, that they have, nevertheless,
kept their oaths, taken " in the plain and literal sense of the words,
without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever" — it
is gravely and seriously argued (I say), before God and man, that,
inasmuch as the Coronation oath is not intended to bind the Sovereign
in his or her " legislative capacity f so their oaths are not intended
to bind them in their capacity as advisers of their Sovereign in the
province of Legislation. And the assent of the Sovereign to the Irish
Church Temporalities Bill is advanced as a proof that this argument is
valid. For (says Mr. O'Connell) " what the Sovereign undertook to
do was ' to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion, and the
settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland with the
doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, as hy law established,' and
(in the same manner) ' to preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy, and to
the Churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges
as hy law do or shall appertain to them.' . . . . ' This was the description
of rights and privileges which the Sovereign solemnly swore that he
would uphold. He swore to maintain the rights of the Church, as
those rights were defined and established by the law; but he did not
mean that he would maintain them for ever in the shape in which he
found them according to the law as it existed at the time when he took
the oath. It was competent for the Legislature to alter the constitution
of the Church. The laws respecting the Church might be changed by
Parliament ; and all that was required of the monarch was, that he
should uphold its rights as hy law established : so that the Sovereign,
when he maintained'* the rights of the Church at this time, when there
* The reader may as well note the paralogism here, en passant. By substituting a
new proposition in the place of that which is the subject of his argument, Mr.
O'Connell contrives to persuade himself (I hope) that he has proved the former ;
having, in reahty, hitherto only asserted it. The question at issue is, whether the

107
were but twelve Bishops in Ireland, kept his oath as religiously as in
maintaining it when there were twenty-two : for it was the law that
regulated the number at both periods. The oath was not binding
to any particular period : it did not imply the absurd condition that
the law was not to be changed : — and Brougham, therefore, was safe in
advising the King to give his assent to the Church Temporalities Bill ;
for nothing more than this was expected from the Sovereign — that he
should faithfully maintain the rights of the Church, as by law
established ; leaving it to Parliament to consider how the law in this
respect was to be modified, altered, and arranged. And so, too, with
the Catholic Oath."
Let us assume for the present (what Mr. O'Connell assumes, but
forgets that he ought to prove) that if this view of the Coronation Oath be
the true one, it follows that it is also the true construction of the Roman-
catholic oath in Parliament. Let us assume this, however. And now
let me be permitted to ask Mr. O'Connell and the other lords and
gentlemen in the same predicament (all who mean to rest their case on
this theory of the Coronation Oath, as established in practice by the
passing of the Temporalities' Act) seriously to consider two questions.
— First, whether one solitary precedent of necessity establishes the truth
of that theory ; whether it be not possible that Lord Brougham and the
rest of King William's Protestant advisers, and the king himself, ei^red
in believing that he could, with a safe conscience, enact that bill ? —
Secondly, whether, supposing that both he and they could, with a safe
conscience, agree to pass that bill — (inflicting indeed a heavy loss and a
severe blow upon the Established Church, yet bond fide intended und
contrived to relieve it from much hostility, and so to promote its future
peace and stability) — supposing, I say, and granting this — Whether It
follows that the Sovereign, with a safe conscience, could assent to, and
his sworn advisers bring before him for his assent, a«y bill of whatsoever
character, howsoever intended and contrived, even to the extent of abro
gating the whole property, rights, and privileges of the bishops and
clergy, nay, the doctrine too, the discipline and government of the
Church— for tlie oath embraces all alike ? — Mr. O'Connell must answer
this question in the affirmative, or else admit that his previous argu
ment is good for nothing ; for, beyond all cavil, it goes to this extent.
Sovereign kept his oath when he consented to enact a law to take away rights from
the Church ? The answer given is, Yes : because he kept it afterwards, when he
maintained such rights as that law still left to it. This may be very true ; but is
obviously at cross purposes to the question asked.

108
There is no bill conceivable, however destructive to the Church, that
the Queen's oath would oblige her Majesty to reject, if that oath does
not bind the Sovereign in her " legislative capacity ?"
I must remind Mr. O'Connell that if he rests his own case on the
analogy of the Sovereign's (and it is a great concession in argument
to allow him to do so), he must be prepared to answer this question
as before God, not man. Will he, then, before God, declare that the
oath binds the Queen to do nothing, having sworn to do everything
" fo the utmost of her power," to maintain and preserve the Church —
provided only her Parliament at any time should agree to give her
the wicked counsel to destroy it? Nay more, that the oath permits
her to do the very thing without which that wicked counsel would
remain a dead letter — to give to it, by her own act and deed, " the force
and complement of law ?" — And why ? Because, forsooth, such counsel
happens to be given by a majority for the time being of the two houses
of Parliament I — Is this a reason She could plead ? For what then did
God make her Queen, — and commit them to her charge as subjects? —
I cannot believe but that Mr. O'Connell would tremble at the thought
of making such a declaration as that, before his Judge. The proposi
tion is monstrous ; it is revolting to all common sense, — let alone all
moral feeling. And If so^ why then the only true sense in which it can
be argued that the oath does not bind the Sovereign in her " legislative
capacity"* is, that it cannot bind her to reject all measures, altering
or affecting the doctrine or privileges, the discipline or rights of the
Church. She is free to pass them ; but only when in her conscience
she believes such measures to be for its benefit, immediate or ultimate,
not for its injury ; for its preservation or advancement, not for its over
throw or for its degradation.
" In any other sense the argument is rotten to the core ; and not only so, but
for all practical purposes it involves a most dishonest fallacy. For it proceeds
upon the absurd assumption that a conscientious Sovereign, sworn to preserve the
Church inviolate, and seeing her servants bent on carrying through Parliament
a measure subversive of its Establishment, must sit with her hands before her
waiting till the Bill had passed both Houses before she could exert her powers
to stop it. Taking advantage of a difficulty which every one must acknowlege 
the dilemma of a royal veto in the present practice of the constitution,— and as if
for the sake of extricating the royal conscience from such a dilemma,  the argu
ment seems traitorously devised to secure the success of such a bill, in spite of the
Sovereign ; by suggesting that She is bound to pass it, notwithstandmg her oath,
when called upon to act in her "legislative capacity :" for this is really meant by
saying she is not bound to the political impossibility, practically speaking, of refus-

109
In the same sense — and in the same sense only — can it possibly
be true, if it be true at all, that the oath imposed by law on Roman
Catholics, as the very condition on which they may sit and vote in
Parliament, is not meant to bind them there in their speeches and in
their votes ; — that is to say. In their " legislative capacity."
Christians trust that God will judge their deeds, not by the techni
cality of terms, but by the motive of every action. And though it
be a dangerous thing to deal rudely with the very terms of any obli
gation which His awful name has been invoked to witness, and to
avenge if broken, — yet there are cases in which the letter ofthe promise
may be, nay perhaps must be, set aside ; that we may the better keep
it in the spirit. But let us see to it, that this be done in good faith
before God and man. Woe to him who thinks to quibble with his
Maker also, and laughs, while he shifts and dodges round the promise
made to his fellow-creatures I
With this thought in my mind, charity forbids me to pursue Mr.
O'Connell's arguments ; — to note the way In which, after this exordium,
he dissects and disposes of the several clauses of the awful obligation
which he lies under : — for I have no wish to judge Mr. O'Connell and
his co-rellgionlsts ; though I do much wish to enlighten their consciences.
It is possible to plead, however earnestly, yet respectfully, against argu
ments which may seem valid to those who use them. It is possible to
expose a latent fallacy (I hope) without offence. But there are state
ments, which as they cannot be made at once seriously and honestly, so
they cannot be refuted without the appearance of sitting in judgment
ing the Royal Assent to a Bill passed by the Lords and Commons. But even
granting this to be so, what does it all amount to ? Has the Sovereign no other
power but this abstract, and dormant, and perhaps practically unavailable prero
gative! What did his Majesty King George the Third do, when — viewing the
Roman-catholic question in the same light as Mr. Perceval — he resolved to make
no further concessions of power to Papists — (not because the specific thing asked
for them was against the terms of his oath, but because he foresaw danger to the
Church if it was granted ; and felt himself bound, therefore, by the spirit of his
oath to exert himself " to the utmost " to avert that danger) ? — Did he wait to
see the bill carried to the foot of the throne — to be quibbled with there about
his " legislative capacity ?" No. He remembered his other " capacities.'' He
remembered that he was a king, sworn to maintain the Church. He called on
his ministers to pledge themselves to remember that too. They refused the pledge.
He turned them out ; — and sent for other men, v^o could feel his obligations as
their own. He dissolved parliament. He threw himself upon his people. And
by these exertions of his indisputably constitutional kingly powers, in whatever
" capacity " you please, he prolonged the integrity of the Protestant Monarchy
of the United Kingdom, and preserved the immunity of the Church, for the space
of twenty and two years !

110
upon the man who makes them. I would rather express a hope, that,
carried away by the love of disputation, he has advanced much for the
sake of point and apparent victory, in which he cannot really trust for
his justification. Nor will I, without further compulsion, believe that
the old, diabolical, and disavowed doctrine, that " faith need not be kept
with heretics," lies at the bottom of all this triumphant security. But
this I may fairly be allowed to ask Mr. O'Connell, and ask it, too, of
Lord Camoys, of the Earl of Shrewsbury, of Mr. Wyse, and the rest,
— Would he or they, before the Roman-catholic Relief Bill passed,
have ventured to give the people of England those explanations they
now give of the sense in which they would take the oaths imposed
by that statute ? Or, if they had done so, could they have hoped to
live to see it carried into law ? And were they not bound in plain
dealing to tell their fellow-countrymen then, not now, — that "There
was never anything more absurd that the notion, than such an oath as
this is to interfere with the discharge of our duties as legislators.
If that were so, the ' Emancipation ' Bill Is all a mockery." . . .
" We will take the oath in its natural {?) acceptation. We will not
subvert the Church as settled by law ; but why should we not
endeavour to alter and amend the law ?"..." The clause about
our privileges sadly perplexes us. We cannot for the life of us com
prehend it. . . . As Members of Parliament we will have no
privileges : we will have rights and duties. But we will not special
plead upon the point — (!) We will come to the real grievance, and
absurdity, too, of the case. The oath tells us (forsooth) that we are not
to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion. Protestant religion, that's
the niord used. But what, we ask, is the meaning of this obligation ?
Is it that we are not to try to convert a Protestant ? 
How are we to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion ? Is it by
taking the tithes from it ? Oh no ! surely not : for tithes are money ;
and surely it will not he contended that there is any relationship between
money and religion. . . . We regard religion as a heavenly insti
tution, and think that no two things can be more distant than it and
the mammon of this world. We tell you, if your religion be money,
we admit that we shall violate this oath,yo»- we shall seek to take away
the tithes from the Protestant Church. But if the Protestant religion
be not money, but a divine ^stitution, in this there will be no violation
of our oath (!) We look for the money, and will leave you the religion."
. . . " What, again, is your meaning in talking of ' Protestant
government ?' It is really too bad to he giving us conundrums in
oaths." Your " insisting upon that oath is a direct violation of the

Ill
Treaty of Limerick.'' ... As soon as we are well warm in our
seats, " we shall claim its abolition. We feel it dishonourable to take
it. We feel a repugnance at taking it. What right has any Christian
to make another man state anything about his religion ? It is absurd
to the last degree ; and the time ought to be gone by when a persecu
tion (!) of that kind — for it is a persecution — should be tolerated in a
Christian country."*
Now, seeing how utterly, in tenor, spirit, and letter, all this is
opposed to the language of every Roman-catholic Petition ever
presented to Parliament from 1805 to 1829, — is it too much for
a Protestant to ask Peers and Gentlemen, if they were not bound
in all conscience, candour and fair dealing, to let the British public
know their thoughts {if such icere then their thoughts), before the
Bill, proposing these strange " Conundrums" for their acceptance,
passed into law ? — But, if (as I hope and trust) these were not then
(nor are in sober seriousness now) their thoughts, — ought they not to
distrust the feelings which could betray any one among their number
into the use of such expressions upon a question so grave, so awful, as
the breach or keeping of a solemn oath ? Ought they not to be startled
at such language — to listen anxiously for the response their own
hearts give to it — in harmony ? or discord ? scorn — or approbation ?
Ought they not to scrutinize their present motives, their present
conduct ? — to judge themselves ; and to ask themselves, at least, as
honourable men, (even admitting that the oath is, which, by the
very tenor of these complaints, it is not, so clearly permissive of their
present course as they assert it to be), whether they can really think
that they are dealing uprightly and justifiably by their Protestant fellow-
subjects, peacefully and gratefully by their Protestant Sovereign, in
pursuing that course ?
If they can lay their hands on their hearts, and frankly say " Aye" to
this question — we are bound, in courtesy and in charity, to believe
them. We must account for the diversity between their perceptions
and ours, on the best and most charitable hypothesis we can devise.
Cadit qucBstio, as between man and man at the bar of human opinion.
— What remains, remains, for another tribunal.
* Vide Mr. O'Connell's reported speech, as before. So literally have Mr. Per
ceval's words come to pass. " We shall find at length there is nothing not to be
tolerated, but our own Establishment." It is persecution now (Heaven save the
mark !) to exact a pledge from Roman-catholics to leave it in peace !

112

H.

Fragment of a paper in Mr. Perceval's handwriting, apparently part
of the draft of a circular for the Cabinet, on the subject of some pro
positions on Irish affairs, made by the Right Hon. W. Wellesley Pole,
(Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, 1810).

Notes on Pole's Paper.
Church and Tythes. — I should be very glad of a schemefor an alteration
in the Tythe system of Ireland, if I could find one that would get rid ofthe
grievance without robbing the Church. I do not admit it to be true, at
least as far as I am concerned (as is said In page 5), that this subject has
never undergone full investigation. I have given it all the attention in my
power ; I have considered it In every way that I could ; have had no
less than two schemes, under my own suggestion, reduced Into bills ;
and paid much consideration to a third proposed by Lord Redesdale ;
and, after the fullest consideration, I am convinced that no alteration
has yet occurred or been presented to me, that will not either do great
injustice to the Church, by depriving it of its property, or bring a much
greater burden upon the people than is borne at present. In truth, the
great clamour against tythes is kept up by the interested landlords,
who know that the abolition of tythes would give them a great addi
tional means of increasing their rents, while the tenants would derive
no relief from it at all.
It Is in my mind to the Church Establishment in Ireland, and to the
support of it (if you are to keep up your connexion with Ireland), that
you must in a great measure look for the means of preserving that
connexion. What is said, therefore, of the non-residence of the clergy,
the union of many livings, the too great extent of parishes, &c. &c.,
I agree to in a great measure, and would gladly see the object of
remedy. I would have the Irish Government set its face steadily
against Unions. I would not admit of a union to be held in plurality
with another Jiving. But when the mischief is enlarged upon, which
arises from the change of livings, and the conduct of the clergy in raising
them upon the exchange — is it quite certain that the Government ia
not very contributory to this grievance, by facilitating exchanges,

113
and by holding forth to the new Rector an expectation of value
in his rectory, that is only to be realised by greater severity with
the tenant of the land ? — Let us persevere In our plan of encouraging
the building of parsonage-houses. Let us raise merit only to the
Bench and to the high dignities ; let us encourage the dissolution of
unions, .and even the division of parishes. (These latter objects may
be effected without difficulty, when the patronage is in the Crown or
in the Church ; but will be useless till we have the means of giving
separate glebe residences, and churches, to the separated parishes and
the distinct parts of those which may be divided.) Let residence of
the clergy be everywhere compelled as much as possible : — and from all
I can hear, I believe these circumstances would not only create, but
would discover a much greater proportion of Protestant population in
Ireland than is now believed to exist. In many places they have no
means of showing themselves at present.
Provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy. — On this, point I ought
to express myself with diffidence, because I know I differ from
some whose opinions and judgments I most value and respect. But
believing the Protestant ascendancy and establishment to be essential
to the connexion of Ireland and England, and indeed to the existence
of the Protestant proprietors in Ireland ; and that no degree of
good, no, nor that of conciliating the priest himself, would be effected
by this measure, unless it were to be carried to the full extent of
putting the Roman-catholic clergy into the full possession of the
whole Church Establishment in Ireland ; and that a partial provision
would only encourage and inflame the desire and the pursuit of the
whole ; I look at this measure as one of the most fatal which could
possibly be recommended. — I look sanguinely to the effect of an im
proved state of the Protestant clergy in point of residence, operating
upon the improved state of growing information in Ireland, for the
gradual diminution of papal error ; I contend that the promotion of the
Protestant religion in Ireland has never been pursued upon any rational
principle, till of very late years ; that it is not even now sufficiently acted
upon ; that the effect of the experiment fairly tried is not known ; and
I look to anything which promotes and increases the influence and
revenues ofthe Roman-catholic priest, as so much weight flung into the
opposite scale, counteracting aU the good which we may hope to derive
on the other side. To this, therefore, I cannot conceive the state of
circumstances in which I should not feel myself bound to give my most
decided opposition.

114

NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

The reader will (I hope) think this fragment worthy of preserva
tion ; not only because it shows that Mr. Perceval did not forget, when
he had become Prime Minister, to act upon the principles which he
had recommended to the Ilouse of Commons when Attorney-General ;
but also because it sets forth the only rational principle upon which
Church affairs can still be improved in Ireland.
The rental of that country has been stated at 10, or at 12,000,000/.
It has been seen that the Tithe-rent charges in possession of the Clergy
do not exceed 240,000?. Take the lower estimate of rental, and the
value of a tenth of the gross produce at no more than the fifth of the
former (which is palpably below the mark), and it Is manifest that
the Church has been defrauded, at one time and another, of at least
1,760,000?. a-year. The late grinding settlement of the tithe question,
which, in default of due protection for the poor remnant of her rights,
she was fain to accept as a boon, has left it a hopeless matter now to
add much to the efficiency of the Establishment. Until Parliament
shall awake to a sense of its duties, retrace its steps, and restore the
sum now abstracted annually from the ministers of religion, to save the
state or the laity from a pitiful outlay on its mere fabrics, no general
good can be done. But that is no reason why any one opportunity of
local advantage should be neglected : and yet it is to be feared that,
even in recent instances, " the fatal policy " of Parish Unions has been,
without necessity, persevered in.
If Mr. Perceval did not effect more substantial amendments in the
Irish establishment, it was for want of opportunity, not of will. It
ought to be remembered that he was the first Member of Parliament,
since the Revolution, who ever attempted in any way to improve the
distribution of Church property. And it ought not to be forgotten
that the Whigs, consistent, as usual, in nothing but perverseness,
resisted his Curates' Bill with a clatter about interference with Vested
Rights {.') and Episcopal tyranny ; though it only went the length of
enabling Bishops to insist on something like an adequate remuneration
to the working Clergy from non-resident Plurallsts, who should become
such after the law should have passed. That bill was not carried till
after his death. This fact, and the weight of his other duties during
the most arduous period of the whole war, — encumbered too as the short

115
period of his administration was by incidental questions of no common
pressure, and embarrassed by an opposition of energetic ability, eager
hopes, and vindictive animosity, — may be sufficient to satisfy all candid
minds that it was not his fault, though it may have been this country's
misfortune, if the Reform of the Church in Ireland fell to the lot of
other hands, in more evil days.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE 1,_(T0 APPENDIX A. 2.)

If the reader will throw back his thoughts so as to reah'se to himself the anxiety
and alarm with which all true Englishmen and true Christians, at the beginning of
tliis century, marked every step of Buonaparte's progress towards what seemed
destined to be universal empire and unlimited despotism, he will not be surprised at
the space given in Mr. Perceval's argument to considerations drawn from the then
recent alliance between the Pope and that strange " Child and Champion of
Jacobinism," whose furious temper and insolent rapacity, however, soon made that
alhance of no avail to himself for any political purpose out of France, but rather
a hindrance and disgrace to him, by the flagrant violation of its terms, and of all
decency or justice towards the Sovereign Pontiff : but not before the latter had
still further debased his spiritual functions by sanctioning the divorce of Josephine.
The students of Prophecy (a study which Mr. Perceval held to be a iJortiou of
Christian duty) will understand what Mr. Perceval meant (at page 18) by " desir
ing to see the event of this union between Buonaparte and the Pope, before he
decided that the superior light of that day was a security against the increase of
Popery," by means of religious delusions practised on mankind. The suspicion
hinted at was by no means unreasonable at the time ; and many intei-preters of
great authority still consider the power of Buonaparte (rising, as it did, out of the
first nation that ever, as a nation, denied and defied both God and Christ, and
strengthening itself by every possible manifestation of perfidy, violence, cruelty,
and lawless injustice) to have been a type and fore-shadowing of that tyranny,
both spiritual and temporal, which, in the opinion of the ablest divines, is yet in
store for the final trial of the Church, under that tremendous impersonation of
Satan, the man of sin, " before whose face" (it seems highly probable) " the false
prophet" is to work his lying miracles. — (Vide Dr. Todd's learned work on
« Antichrist.")

116

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE 2,— (TO APPENDIX D.)

Of all the impudent fallacies of the Repealers, their complaint that the spirit of
the Roman-cathohc Relief Bill has not been fairly carried out in practice, is, to be
sure, the most impudent. They ought always to be chosen, forsooth, for public
office, because that act made it possible to choose them ! It is not the Roman-
cathoUcs, but the Protestants of the United Kingdom, who have indeed a right to
complain that the law, as enacted by the Relief Bill, has not been duly executed.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE 3,— (TO APPENDIX G.)

I have thought it right to preserve and insert here the ipsissima verba of Mr.
Ward's detestable motion, being, as they are, the choicest specimen to be found on
the records of Parliament (I believe) since the days of the great rebellion, of those
cunning assumptions of the' whole question in dispute, and that smooth sophistical
jargon by which revolutionists in all days seek to veil the unconstitutional charac
ter, the injustice, and atrocity of schemes, which they well know the plain sense of
the legislature would revolt at, if stated in plain words.
The motion is as follows : — " That an humble address be presented to Her
Majesty, representing to her Majesty that, in the opinion of this House, it is not
by measures of repression of local violence that the discontents of Ireland can be
allayed, but by removing those grievances which have formed for many years the
subject of recorded complaints aud remonstrance between the two countries {\)',;
that amongst the most promment of them is the law by which the whole ecclesias
tical property of Ireland is assigned to the Clergy of a small section of the popula
tion {\) ; and that this House, deeply impressed with the belief that such a law is
not conformable to reason, or to the practice of any christian country, pledges
itself, after providing for existing proprietary rights, and for the claims of Her
Majesty's Protestant subjects, cordially to co-operate -with Her Majesty (!) in effect
ing such a settlement of Church property in Ireland as will remove all just ground
of complaint (!), and give satisfaction to the Irish people."
August 1, 1843. Mr. H. G. Ward.

LONDON :
BRADBURY AND BVANS, PRINTFRS, WHITEFRlABS.

CATALOGUE OF BOOKS

PRINTED FOB

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD k SONS,

®

'fP

A

¦t?

m

PUBLISHERS :
45, GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH;

K

In Ten Large Volumes, Octavo, price 71. 15*.
THE HISTORY OF EUROPE,
From tbe Coznmencement of tbe Frencb devolution to tbe Battle
of Waterloo.
BY ARCHIBALD ALISON, F.R.S.E.

" Alison's History of Europe, and the States connected with it, is one of the most important
works -whicli literature has produced. Years have elapsed since any historical work has
created such an epoch as that of Alison : his sources of information and authorities are of the
richest and most comprehensive description. Though his opinions are on the conservative side,
he allows every party to speak for itself, and unfolds with a master's hand how few institu
tions make nations great, and mighty, and prosperous. In common with the whole civilized
world, he does homage to the blessed Scriptures and tm enlightened religion. Such a work and
such a man belong to no party or country ; they are the patrimony of all the friends of mankind
in every part of the world, for they contend only for the clearest interests of the human
race."— From the Pre/ace to the Germa7i Translation of J). Ludwig Meyer, published by Otto
Vrgand. Leipsic, 1842.
** The work of Alison is indispensable to all who are forming collecticns on the History of
Europe during the Revolution. It is the completion of thtm •A\\."—From the Preface to the
French Translation o/M. Paquis. CONTENTS.

VOLUME I.
Comparative Proereas of Freedom in Francfl and
England ; Causes in France whiuli predisposed to Revo
lution; Const! ment Asseiubly; riom the Revolr. at
Versailles to the Conclusion of the Constituefit As-
Bembly; The Legislative Assembly; The Fall of the
Monarchy; From the Dethronement to the Death of
Louis; State of Europe prior to the Commencement of
the War ; Campaign of 1792.
VOLUME II.
French Republic; Fall of the Girondists; From the
Fall of the Girondists to the Death of Danton; Cam
paign of 1793. Part I — War in LaVend^et Campaign
of 1793 Part II  Reign of Terror; The Fall oi" Ro
bespierre; Internal State of France during the Reign
of Terror ; Campaign of 17M ; War in Poland ; Cam
paign of 1795; French Republic: Establidhmentof the
Directory. VOLUME III.
Campaign of 17D6 in Italy ; Campaign of I79B in Ger
many ; Internal Transactions and Naval Campaign of
Great Britain in 1797; Campaign of 1797; Fall ol
Venice; Internal Government of France from the Ks-
tablishment of the Directory to the Revolution of the
18th Fructidor; Expedition to Egypt; The Peace of
CampoFormio; Renewal of the War j Civil History of
Frani-e from the Revolution of the 18th Fructidor to
the Seizure of supreme Power by Napoleon..
VOLUME IV.
The Renewal of the VVar to the Battle of Trebbia j
Campaign of 1799- Part H — The Accession of Napoleon
to the Opening of the Campaign of Marengo ; Marengo ;
From ita Opening to the Armistice 01^ Alexandria ;
Campaifn 01 Hohenlinden ; Peace of Luneville to the
Dissolution of the Northern Maritime Confederacy;
Expedii ion to Egypt ; Conclusion of the War; Recon
struction of Society in France by Napoleon; Napoleon's
Assumption of the Imperial Throne.
VOLUME V.
p€ace of Amiena to the Rentwal of the War; Re
newal of Hoatilities ; The Opening ofthe Spanish War;

Opening of the Spanish War to the Battle of Trafalgar ;
Campaign of Aiisterlitz; The British Finances, and
Pitt's System of Financial Policy ; Peace of Presburg ;
Renewal of the Continental War ; Campaign of Jena ;
Fall of Prussia. VOLUME VI.
Campaign of Eyiau; Domestic and Foreign Measures
of Fox's Administration; Campaign of Friedland and
Tilsit; Continental System and Imperial Government
of Napoleon ; The Peace of Tilsit to the Opening of the
Spanish War: Proximate Causes of the Peninsular
War t Campaign of 180S in Spain and Portugal.
• '' VOLUME VII.
British Empire in India prior to Lord Wellesley's
Admin'iBtratinn ; Administration of Lord Wellesley,
and First Appearance of Lord Wellington; Campaign
of Alpe^ ; War in the Tyrol, Northern Germany, and
Poland;- Campaign of Wagr.'m; Walcheren Expedi
tion ; Peace of Vienna, &c. ; Maritime War, and Cam-
paigin of 1809 in Poitup.al and Spain; Campaign of
Torres Vedras, and Year 1810.
VOLUME VIII.
Domestic History of Great Britain from 1809 to 1812;
Proceedings of the Cortes ; War in Spain, 1810 and
1811 ; Campaign ot Wellington in 1811, on the Portu-
giiese Frontier ; First Invasion of Spain by Wellingtoti ;
Sketch of the Turliish Empire; Accession of Berna-
dotte to the Swedish Throne ; and the Causes of the
Russian War nf 1813; Advanceof Napoleon to Moscow;
Retreat from Moscow. VOLUME IX.
Russia and France before the Final Struggle; Re
surrection of Germany; From the Armistice ot Ploswitz
to the Renewal of the War; Deliverance of Germany ;
Liberation of Spain. VOLUME X.
Europe in Arms against France; Last Struggle of
Napoleon in France : Fall of Napoleon; America; The
Neutral Question; and War with that Power; Con
gress of Vienna and Hundred Dayii; Concluding Re
jections.

CRITICAL NOTICES OF *'THE HISTORY OF EUROPE."

" There ia much in Mr. Alison's History of the
French Revolution against which we intend to re
cord our decided protest ; and there are some
parts of it which we shall feel compelled to notice
with strong disapprobation. We, therefore, hasten
to preface our less favourable remarks, by freely
acknowledging that the present work is, upon the
whole, a v^uable addition to European literature,
that it is evidently compiled with the utmost care,

and that its narration, so far as we can judge, is
not perverted by the slightest partiality." — Edin
burgh Review.
" We have at length arrived at the tenth and
closing volume of Mr. Alison's able and important
work ; and, while we congratulate the writer on
the intelligence which conceived, the talent which
sustained, and the vigour which completed such
a performance, we still more congratulate the

/--

[^"

CRITICAL NOTICES OF "THE HISTORY OF EUROPE"— confim^^rf.

country on the possession of one of the noblest
offerings which our age has laid upon the altar of
historic literature." — Blackwood's Magazine.
" To give an ideaof Mr. Ahson's qualifications,
it may be briefly obsei'ved, that he combines the
minutest attention to detail, the utmost careful
ness in autheiiticiiting facts, with the greatest
facility in deducing principles and laying them
before the reader. So happy an union of fact and
theory is seldom to be met ; and what is equally
remarkable, is the care aiid sagacity with which
he rivets both together, and invites the reader to
reflection , while facts are yet fresh in his memory.
It is too commonly the practice for the reflective
historian to introduce his reflections at such long
internals, and to make them in such very general
terras, that the details are forgotten while the in
structor is delivering the theory they are to sub
stantiate, and which has, therefore, the appear
ance of a digi'ession that might be in the particular
work or not, without any detriment caused, either
by their retention or omission. Mr. Alison, on
the contrary, begins with his general theory of the
causes that produced the French Revolution, aud
then, collecting his facts, and authenticating them
by marginal references, with a precision that
might almost seem excessive, keeps again and
again calling the attention to his theory, points
out its application in every particular instance, or
draws some new inference from the especial sub
ject more immediately before him. Never forget
ting for each moral or pohtical opinion to accu
mulate the facts which are to support it, he ever
regaids the facts themselves as a material from
which some important general truth may be de
duced. Nor are his reflections merely upon
catastrophes : he does not find a moral in a crisis
alone, but he can follow a process and furnish a
train of thought as much upon the intermediate as
the extreme stages, and, unlike common-place
thinkers, can dwell with as much calmness on tem
porary advantages as the ultimate misfortune to
which they lead, and can pause to admire even
while he perceives destruction in the train of appa
rent fortune. Hence theliberaUty of his tone, and
his disposition to discover a partial good even in
an ultimate evil. While viewing with abhorrence
the atrocities of the reign of teiTor in ita internal
policy, he admires the vigour which a system so
rigorous gave to the movements of the army ;

while he perceives the Assignats i-unning down to
their frightful depreciation till they reach the vor
tex of a national bankruptcy, he finds in them the
supporters of the energy of first operations.
*' This habit of reflection on every event, inter
mediate as well as final, infuses into the work a
tone of great impai-tiality. So closely does the
author watch every concurrent ciiuse, so carefully
does he weigh each event as it rises, that, study
ing the minute wheels of the terrible machine in,
close connection with each other, he cannot re
gard even the most atrocious of any party with
absolute abhorrence.
" But this impartiality is not merely produced
by constant reflection. In the collection of his
materials the author has displayed the most rigid
intent to do justice, and, as he has stated in his
preface, has in almost every instance talcen his
information from sources of the most opposite
character. *' Another great meiit in Mr Alison is the dra-
maticeffecthe has given to his narrative, by making
the personages talk themselves, by borrowing as
much of their speeches as possible ; thus rendering
the scenes extremely vivid and real. Hei'e we find
Danton, R obespierre,Vergniaud, themselves, with
their bui-sts of eloquence and inflammatory ha
rangues. Here we have the union of sanguinary
purpose mth verbal virtue, in a manner which no
description could convey, hut at once becomes in
telligible by the appearance of the speeches. The
prelude to the most atrocious butcheries by the
most lachrymose sentimentalities could not be un
derstood, were it not for the reproduction of the
very realities. Mr. Alison's orators breathe upon
the paper, tbe flash of their eye is discernible, the
sound of their voice is audible, and once seen they
will not speedily be forgotten." — The Times.
' ' After a full examination we do not hesitate to
say, that this is the most complete and honest
history of the French Revolution which has yet
appeared, either in England or France. Certainly
no work by a British pen deserves to be compared
with it ; and we think every reader will accord it
the preference in point of fulness and impartiality
over the early narratives of the French Royalists,
Bertrand de MoUeviUe, Lacretelle, and others,
and tlie more recent and popular works of Mignet
and Thiers,"- JToriA American Rev., April 1843.

By the same Author, in Two Volumes, Octavo, Price 11. 10s.,
THE PRINCIPLES OF POPULATION,
AND
THEIR CONNEXION AVITH HUMAN HAPPINESS
" Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it."
" Thou shalt do justice and love meriy ." —
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
Chap. I. On the Early Increase of Mankind. — II. On the Fundamental Relation
BETWEEN Population and Subsistence.— III. On the Changes in the Progress of
Society which limit the Principles of Increase.— IV. On the Changes in the Pro
gress OF Society which limit tks Demand for Labour.— V. Modifications arising from
Human Corruption.— VI, Principles of Renovation and Decay in Human Affairs.—
VII. Action of Principle of Increase in the East.— VIII. Action of the Principle of
Increase in Eubopb.— IX. In America. VOLUME II.
Chap. I. On the Acquisition of Landed Property by the Labouring Classes.— II. Moral
Dangers and Evils of Great Cities.-III. The Religious Instruction of the People,
AND the Necessity of an Established Church.— IV. Advantages and Dangers of
Secular Instruction.- V. On a Legal Provision for the Poor.— VI. The Factory
System and Trades' Unions.— VII. The Corn Laws.— VIII. Colonization, and the
Reciprocity System.— IX. The Future Increase and Prospects of Mankind.

Complete in One Volume, handsomely bound in cloth, price 17s.,
ENVIRONS OF LONDON.
BY JOHN riSHBK MUEEAY.
ILLUSTRATED WITH UPWARDS OF ONE HUNDRED ENGRAVINGS ON WOOD,
FROM OEIGINAL DRAWINGS BY W. i^ LEITOH AND OTHEKB.

WESTERN DIVISION.

Comprising Descriptions of

LAMBETH.CHELSEA.BATTERSEA.WANDSWORTH. PUTNEY.ROEHAMPTON.FULHAM. HAMMERSMITH.
CIIISWICK. BARNES.MORTLAKB.KEW.SION HOUSE.
ISLEWORTH. KENSINGTON.
KENSINGTON DENS.
HOLLAND HOUSE,
BROMPTON.

GAR-

RICHMOND.
RICHMOND GT. PARK.
PETERSHAM.HAM HOUSE.
TWICKENHAM. STRAWBERRY HILL.
TEDDINGTON. HAMPTON COURT.
BUSHY PARK.
HAMPTON.
WIMBLEDON. KINGSXON-UPON- THAMES.
CLAREMONT. ESHER.WALTON-UPON- THAMES.
WEYBRIDGE.
BYFLEET.

SHEPPERTON. CHERTSEY.
ANNINGSLEY. ST. ANNe's HILL.
STAINESSTANWELL.PADDINGTON.WESTBOURNE GREEN.
WORMWOOD SCRUBS.
EALING.
ACTON. HANWELL.SOUTHALL.OSTERLEY PARK.
HOUNSLOW.
CRANFORDWEST DRAYTON.
COLNBROOK. ITER.

LANGLEY. HORTON.WYRARDSBURY.
EGHAM.SLOUGH.
STOKE POGES.
BEACONSFIELD. HEDSOR.
CLIEFDEN.
DROPMORE- HITCHAM.TAPLOW.BURN HAM.
COOKHAM.
MAIDENHEAD.BRAY. CLEWER.
WINDSOR AND
ETON.

©pinions oJ tfie IJtess.

"The plan of the publication appears to be
a judicious one. The booli is suitable both for
an antiquary and general reader, and will convey
much intelligence in an agreeable manner. The
iTlustrations and views of houses, churches,
tombs, monuments, fiic, are very good; they
possess the merit of being representations of the
places and things they are intended to convey a
notion of, and are not mere compositions, with
the names of objects written under them at
random. The work is beautifully got up, and
printed in a good type. Altogether, this is a
publication from which everybody will dex-ive some
new knowledge - it is fuU of anecdotes, and
written with taste and accuracy."— TiTjiej.
" This is avery happy idea, and promises, so
far as we can form an opinion from a first number,
to be happily carried out." — U. S. Gazette.

• ' The ' Environs of London * are rich with me
morials of the deepest interest, and of every
kind that can offer pleasing recreation for the
cultivated mind ; and here we find a congenial
guide to direct our steps and inform us about
all the localities which we are induced to visit
in his company. *'^ii(grar-y Gazette.
'* The scenery in the * Envurons of London * is
sketched by Mr. W. L. Leitch, with a vivid per
ception of those qualities that constitute their
picturesqueness,and a tact in producing pictorial
combination of lines and arrangements of light
and dark that suggests the eifects of colour and
atmosphere in natm-e : Chelsea Hospital, Hol
land House, Hampton Court, Claremont, and
various points on the banlis of the Thames, at
once recall the impressions made by these fami
liar scenes."— £ipecto(or.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
THE WORLD OF LONDON,
In Two Volumes, small octavo, p7Hce 12s.
" I have often amused myself with thinking how different a place London is to different people,
TheJ, whose narrowminds are contracted to the consideration of some one particular pursuit, view it
only through that medium. A politician thinks of it merely as the seat of government in its different
departments ; a grazier, as a vast market for cattle ; a mercantile man, as a place where a prodigious
deal of business is done upon 'Change,- a dramatic enthusiast, as the grand scene of theatrical enter
tainments ; a man of pleasure, as an assemblage of taverns. But the intellectual man is struck
with it as comprehending the whole of human life TN all its variety, the CONTEMrLATION
OF WHICH IS inexhaustible."— Bo«i)e//'5 Life of Johnson.

-irt)

iSliinfiurfl]^ antr llontJOtt.

In Seven Volumes, Foolscap Octavo, price 11. 15s., neatly hound in cloth, with Portraits
and Vignettes, or Zl. Zs, in morocco.
THE WORKS OF MRS. HEMANS;
a Eompltte ana fflnltotm iffiBltlon,
WITH A MEMOIR BY HER SISTER.

B^" The following are published separately, neatly bound in cloth lettered, with Vignette Titles,
price 55. each, or elegantly bound in morocco, 9*. : —

L MEMOIR OF MRS. HEMANS.
II. TALES AND HISTORIC SCENES.
IIL THE SIEGE OP VALENCIA.

IV. THE FOREST SANCTUARY.
V. RECORDS OP WOMAN.
VI. SONGS OP THE AFFECTIONS.

VII. SONGS AND LYRICS.

MRS. SOTTTaB7'S (CAROIiIKrE BOVrLBS) WORKS.
Uniformly Printed, in small octavo, neatly bound in doth,
t.
Complete in One Volume, price 7s. Qd.,
CHAPTERS ON CHURCHYARDS.
a ^ElD (KBltlon.
[J.
SOLITARY HOURS.
A New Edition. Price 5s.
m.
Price 7s.,
THE BIRTHDAY AND OTHER POEMS.

In One Volume, Small Octavo, price 7s. 6d.
MEN AND MANNERS IN AMERICA.
BY THE AUTHOR OP "CYRIL THORNTON."
With a Portrait of the Author, and Letters written by him during his Journey through the
United States.

In 2\co Volwaies, Post Octavo, price 24*., illustrated by Original Drawings,
JOURNAL OF A TOUR IN GREECE & THE IONIAN
ISLANDS, IN THE Spring op 1888 ;
With Remarks on the Recent History, Present State, and Classical Antiquities of those Countries.
BY W. MURE, Esq., of Caldwell.

*' Mr. Mure's Journal is not only the work of a I though modest scholar, but mthal a very pleasant
shrewd and intelligent observer, and of a sound | book." — Quartei-ly Review.

NEW STATISTICAL ACCOUNT OF
SCOTLAND.

THE MINISTERS OP THE RESPECTIVE PARISHES.
AND UNDER THE SUPFBINTENDENCE OF A COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OP THE CLERGY.

Illustrated with Thirty-One Maps of the Counties, the Parochial Boundaries correctly colcmred,
and a General Map of Scotland.

The Publication of the New Statistical Account is now very far advanced ;
and as it proceeds at short intervals of two months, may be expected to be soon
completed. The Public are aware that this important Work contains a minute Account of
every Parish in Scotland, drawn up, in general, by the Parochial Minister. It
has, therefore, the peculiarity of presenting contributions from upwards of eight
hundred different individuals ; many of them drawn up with distinguished abilit}'.
Each Account contains amassof useful and agreeably diversified details, illustrative
of the physical properties and resources of the Parish — its history and antiquities 
the moral and social condition of the people, their economical advantages, and the
various parochial institutions ; everything, in short, which a comprehensive Statis
tical Work ought to embrace — the whole, to quote the words of the Quarterly
Review, " forming by far the most valuable repertory of Statistics at the command
of any country in Europe. In general its superiority to the former Account is
very decided ; indicating a great expansion of curiosity and information in the
clerical order ofthe North."
In the meantime, according to the plan in contemplation from the beginning, the
Publishers have commenced the issue of the collected Parochial accounts of the
different Counties, apart from the whole work. The Society, in whose name
the publication is conducted, earnestly recommend these County Reports to the
notice of those who may not receive the whole series — confident that they will be
found to form a very valuable Manual to the Landowner and Tenant, the Manufac
turer, the Naturalist, the Tourist, and all in any way connected with the respective
Counties. The following is a list of the Counties now completed, each neatly bound
in cloth, with Title-page, Index, and Maps : —

Piice

ABERDEENAYR  ]8
BANFF  9
BERWICK  8
BUTE  3
CAITHNESS  4
CLACKMANNAN ... 3
DUMBARTON .... 6
DUMFRIES  12
ELGIN . . ... 6
FORFAR 
HADDINGTON .... 8
INVERNESS  II
KINROSS  2

s. d.
25 0

KINCARDINE .
LANARK ORKNEYPEEBLESPERTH
ROSS AND CROMARTY
RENFREW .
ROXBURGH .
SELKIRK .
SHETLAND .
STIRLING .
SUTHERLAND
WIGTON

». d.
Prce 8 0
21 0
6 6
4 6

10 6
12 6
10 6

•«* The Maps, forming a Complete Atlas of Scotland, done up in one volume 4to., and 8vo. hand.
somely hound in cloth. Price 21s.
Maps of the Counties done up in a case, for the pocket. Price 15. each.

v^

^

iStrtniurflf) ant iLoniron.

Small Octavo, 7s. 6d., neatly bound in cloth,
THE COURSE OF TIME.
% $(iem, in Ken ISooKs.
BY ROBERT POLLOK, M.A.
A New EOition (being the Sixteenth) , with Vignette Title and Portrait, engraved by Robinson.

Beautifully printed in Foolscap Octavo, price 7s. 6d.,
POEMS BY THE LADY FLORA HASTINGS.
WITH A PORTRAIT BY K. M'LE.VY, R.S.A.,
Engraved in Line by Ilorsburgh.
8:3- A few Copies remain of the Large Edition, which, ivith Proof Impressions of the Portrait,
may be had at 15*.

In Two Volumes, Post Octavo, pHce 11. Is.,
PROFESSOR WILSON'S POEMS.
CONTAINING
THE ISLE OF PALMS. THE CITY OP THE PLAGUE, & MISCELLANEOUS POEMS.

In One Volume, Foolscap Octavo, price 5s. bound in cloth,
DOMESTIC VERSES.
BY DELTA.

In One Volume, small Octavo, price 7s. 6d., cloth,
LEGENDS, LYRICS, AND OTHER POEMS.
BY B. SIMMONS.

In Octavo, price is.,
ATHELWOLD.— A TRAGEDY.
BY WII^IAM SMITH, ESQ,

THE SCOTS MUSICAL MUSEUM,
CONSISTING OF UPWARDS OP SIX HUNDRED SONGS WITH PROPER BASSES
FOR THE PIANOFORTE.
(Originally Published hy James Johnson.^
a WetD Etrltdm,
ACCOMPANIED WITH COPIOUS NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE LYItlC POETllY AND MUSIC
OF SCOTLAND BY THE LATE WILLIAM STENHOUSE, AND OTHERS.
In Six Volumes Octavo, price 21. \2s. 6d., bound in cloth, with fac-simile of a curious
Letter from Robert Burns to the original publisher.

^

In Three Volumes, Post Octavo, price 11. Us. 6d.
TEN THOUSAND A-YEAR
BY SAMUEL WARREN, F.R.S.,
AUTHOR OP " PASSAGES FROM THE DIARY OF A LATE PHYSICIAN.'

"A remarkable novel." — *' Superior to any
novel of actual life recently produced in this
country." — Quarterly Review.
'* The characters are excellent ; some of them
equal to tbe highest efforts of the highest masters ;
the insight into motives is searching ; the scenes
display a power of reproducing on paper what ex
perience has taught ; some of the incidents are
novel) startling, and of surprising power. The
author's leading idea is to illustrate a moral order
in the government of the world— a providential
design even under circumstances apparently the
most adverse to the cause of virtue. There is a
solemnity in the plan of the work. It is terrible
to observe how he allows vice and folly to assume
a temporary dominion over all that is honourable

to humanity ; and then how he makes the fabric,
at which the thoughtless crowd have gazed awhile
in wonder, fall away by its own rottenness, its
very ruins swept from the surface of the earth,
and the fair prospect which it had awhile obscured,
left standing as though but a cloud had passed
oxer it."— The Times.
" For a length of time there has not appeared
in England a work, no not even of a style pro
fessedly higher, which contains such valuable and
such strildng lessons on the vain ficldeness of the
opinions and the infatuations of the world ; on
the force of example and fashion ; and on the omni
potence of wealth ; on the irresistible impulse which
gives increase of riches to the rich, and of poverty
to the poor." — Revu^ des deux Mondes, (Paris.)

BY THE SAME AUTHOR,

The Sixth Edition, being the First Complete in Two Volumes, price 12*., bound in cloth,
PASSAGES FROM THE DIARY OF A LATE
PHYSICIAN.
' ' "WTiat is nearest us touches us most. The passions rise higher at domestic than at imperial
tragedies." — Dr Johnson.

In the Press,
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE
LAWS OF ENGLAND,
A NEW AND GREATLY IMPROVED EDITION,
amitij ffiotes,
INCLUDING THOSE OP THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE,
AN ORIGINAL MEMOIR OF BLACKSTONE,
A Preliminary Dissertation, illustrative ofthe Character and Value of the Commentiiries, with
reference to the Past and Present State of the Law, and a New and Copious Index.
BY SAMUEL WARREN, Esq., F.R.S.,
EARRISTER-AT-LAW OF THE INNER TEMPLE.
In this Edition, which will be beautifully and accurately printed, the Text will be preserved
ENTIRE, as "verified aud corrected, with the original References," by Mr. Justice Coleridge ; and
it will be the anxious effort of the present Editor to make his own Notes at once brief and practical,
and of that Popular and Elementary character which constitutes the distinguishing excellence of the
Commentaries, and has rendered them valuable and interesting, not only to the practical, but the
constitutional Lawyer— to Members of Parliament, Justices, Clergymen, and, in short, all thinking
classes of Society.
The more difficult and important principles of the English Law, the Editor will endeavour briefly
to compare with, and illustrate by anak^ous or conflicting provisions in the Law of Scotland,
France, and America.
There will be a fine Portrait and Autograph of Blackstone ; an entirely new and Systematic
Index ; a List of Cases cited by Blaclcstone, by Mr. Justice Coleridge, and by the present Editor ;
and other improvements suggested by a careful examination of all previous editions.

"-SN

iSHintiurgj^ anU SlonUon. is
THE GRASSES OF SCOTLAND,
Containing a Scientific Description of each Species, with Remarks on their uses in Agriculture.
BY RICHARD PARNELL, M.D., F.R.S.E.
Illustrated with a Figure of each Species, and several Varieties, amounting to 130, drawn fuid
engraved by the Author.
In One Vol. r(?yal Svo, liandsomely bound in cloth, price 20s.

SEVEN LITHOGRAPHED DESIGNS
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FARM COTTAGES AND STEADINGS,
WITH DESCRIPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES.
Remarks on the Accommodations required under the Modern System of Husbandry, and the
Defects of existing Farm Buildings.
BY JAMES CUNNINGHAM, StraVETOB.
Price 6s. ed.

THE AGRICULTURIST'S MANUAL ;
Being a familiar Description of the Agricultural Plants cultivated in Europe, including Prac
tical Observations respecting those suited to the climate of Great Britain.
BY PETER LAWSON & SON,
Seedsuen to the Highland Societt ot Scotland,
Svo, price 10s. Gd,

BT THE SAME AUTHOE,
A TREATISE on the CULTIVATED GRASSES and other
HERBAGE and FORAGE PLANTS,
With the Kinds and Quantities of Seeds for sowing down Land to alternate Husbandry,
Permanent Pasture, Lawns, &c.
Pi-ice One Shilling,

BLACKWOOD'S COUNTY ATLAS OF SCOTLAND;
CONSISTINC OF THIRTY-ONE MAPS,
Including the ORKNEY, SHETLAND, and WESTERN ISLANDS, with the Parochial
Boundaries carefully coloured.
In One Volume ito, price 21s. handsomely bound in cloth.

SEPARATE MAPS OF THE COUNTIES,
Coloured as above, and neatly put up in a Case for the Pocket, price Is, each.
ON EIVER ANGLING FOR SALMON AND TROUT,
MOKB PABTICULARLT AS PRACTISED IN THE
TWEED AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.
BY JOHN YOUNGER, Si BoswEtL's.
Price Is. Gd,

^*\

14 Jimorlts mili»f)eti Jg ^im""- 58larfetoooi( Sc Sons,

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE,
AND
Cransartions of tfje fC^ig^Iantr antr ^grtcultural ^ocUtg of ^rotlanl}.
*;(;* 3Vie First Number of the New Series will be Published on the ZQfh of June.

STABLE ECONOMY.
A TREATISE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF HORSES, IN RELATION TO STABLING,
•GROOMING, FEEDING, WATERING, AND WORKING,
BY JOHN STEWART,
Veterinary Sargoda, Aiithorof" Advice to Purchasers of Horses," and Professor of Veterinary
Medicine in the Andersoniao University, Glasgow.
A New Edition in Foolscap Octavo, with numerous Woodcuts, price 7s. 6d., bound in cloth.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
ADVICE TO PURCHASERS OF HORSES;
Being a Short and Familiar Treatise on the External Conformation of the Horse; the Nature
of Soundness and Unsoundness, and the Laws relating to Sale and Warranty ; with copious
Directions for discovering Unsoundness prior to purchasing.
WITH THREE ENGRAVINGS.
Price 2s. 6d., bound in cloth.
" The huyer hath need of a hundred eyes, but the seller of only one."

Quarto, Price 10s. 6d.,
A SYSTEMATIC TREATISE on the THEORY & PRACTICE
OE DRAINING LAND, &c.,
^ccoclring to t{|e most njptiilieli ^ettm^is,
And adapted to the various Situations and Soils of England and Scotland ; also on Sea, River, and
Lake Embankments, Formation of Ponds and Artificial Pieces of Water.
THE WHOLE ILLUSTRATED BY PLANS AND SECTIONS.
BY JOHN JOHNSTON, Land Surveyor.
Kile SliittS ffiSUlon. '

In Quarto, price 15s.,
A COMPREHENSIVE TREATISE ON LAND
SURVEYING,
COMPRISING
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE IN ALL ITS BRANCHES ;
In which the use of the various Instruments employed in Surveying, Levelling, &c. is clearly
elucidated hy Practical Examples.
ILLUSTRATED BY FORTY COPPERPLATES.
BY JOHN AINSLIE, Land Scrtetoe.
With a Treatise on Trigonometrical Swrmying, Levelling, and Railway Engineering.
BY WILLIAM GALBRAITH, M.A.

I£trtnl)urgli ana aontion.

15

THE NATURAL PRINCIPLES
AND ANALOGY OF THE H-IRMONY
OF FORM. BT D. R. HAY,
Decorative Fainter to tlio Queen, Edinburgh.
In one volume royal 4to, Tvitli 18 Engrav
ings and several Woodcuts, iiandsomely
bound in cloth, price ISs.

BY THE SAME AUTHOn,
The Fourth Edition of
THE LAWS OF HARMONIOUS
COLOURINti,
ADAPTED TO INTERIOR DECORATIONS, &C.
With Eight Coloured Diagrams, price 7s.

TRIGONOMETRIC A.L SUR
VEYING, LEVELLING, AND BAIL-
WAT ENGINEERING.
BY WILLIAM GALBRAITH, M.A.
Svo, price 7s. 6d.

A MEMOIR ON THE MID
LOTHIAN AND EAST-LOTHIAN
COAL-FIELDS.
BY DAVID MILNE, Esq., F.R.S.E. aud
F.G.S.
In Ito, with Coloured Map and Sections,
price 153. in cloth.

MODERN PRACTICAL COOK
ERY, PASTRY, CONFECTIONARY,
PICKLING, AM) PRESERVING;
With a great variety of Useful Receipts.
BY MRS NOURSB,
Teaolier of these Arts, Edinburgh.
A Now Edition, corrected and improved.
12mo, 5s. 6d.

ENTOMOLOGIA EDINENSIS;
Or a Description and History of the In
sects found in the Neighbourhood of
Kdinbui'gh.
BY JAMES ¦\VILSON,F.R.S.E.,M.II.S.,&c. and the
REV. JAMES DUNCAN, M.II.S.
• Post Svo, price 12s,

THE PRACTICAL PLANTER;
Containing Directions for the Planting of
Waste Land, and Management of Wood;
with a new Method of Reai'ing the Oak.
BT THOMAS CRUICKSHANK,
Forester at Careston.
Ia one volume Svo, 123.

LECTURES IN DIVINITY.
By the late GEORGE HILL, D.D.,
PrlncipiJ of St Mary's College, St Andi-ews.
2 vols, post Svo, price 169.

A MANUAL OF POLITICAL
ECONOMY;
being a Synopsis of a Course of Lectures
on that Science delivered in the University
of St Andrews,
BY GEORGE COOK, D.D., F.R.S.E., &c.,
Professor of Moral Philosophy and of Political
JEconomy in that University.
Foolscap, price 3s.
BY THE SAIHE AUTHOR,
ABRXEF SYNOPSIS OFA
COURSE OF LECTURES ON INTEL
LECTUAL, MORAL, AND POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY,
Read in the Moral Philosophy Class of
St Andrews.
Foolscap, price Sa. 6d.
AN HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE
LAW OF MARITIME COMMERCE.
BT JAMES REDDIE, Esq., Advocate.
In One Volume Octavo, price 143.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
INQUIRIES IN THE SCIENCE
OF LAW.
One Vol. Svo, price 73.
INQUIRIES IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW.
In Svo, price 7s.
The present work is a continuation of
the " Inquiries in the Science of Law,"
lately published by the same Author.

18 aeurfeg miAi&tftU 6s mm- ISlatltUjooa «p Sions,

One Large Volvmie 8t>o, I6s.j
THE GREEK GRAMMAR OF DR F. THIERSCH.
TRANSLATED FKOM THE GEE.MAN.
¦WITH BKIEF BEMAEKS.
BY SIR DANIEL K. SANDFORD,
Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow.

In 12mo, New Edition, Gs. 6d. bound,
RULES AND EXERCISES IN HOMERIC
AND ATTIC GREEK.
TO WHICH IS ADDED,
A SHORT SYSTEM OF GREEK PROSODY.
For the Use of the Second and Senior Greek Classes in the University of Glasgow.
BY SIR 0. K. SANDFORD.

BY THE SAME AUTHOIl,
EXTRACTS FROM GREEK AUTHORS,
WITH NOTES AND A VOCABULARr.
New Edition, corrected and improved, 12mo, 6s. bound.

INTRODUCTION TO THE WRITING OF GREEK.
For the Use of the Junior Greek Class in the University of Glasgow.
New Edition, 12mo, 3s. 6d. bound.

AN ENQUIRY
INTO THE STRUCTURE AND AFFINITY OF THE GREEK AND
LATIN LANGUAGES.
With Occasional Comparisons ofthe Sanskrit and Gothic, and an Appendix, in which
the Derivation of the Sanskrit from the Greek is endeavoured to be established.
BY GEORGE DUNBAR, F.R.S.E.,
Professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh.
Post Svo, price 8s.

ANALECTA GR.ffiCA MINORA,
AD USUM TIBONUM ACCOMMODATA.
CDM NOTIS PHILOLOGICIS, dUAS PARTIM COLLEGIT, PARTIM SCRIPSIT
ANDREAS DALZIEL, M.A., &c. &c.
A New Edition, carefully revised; with a Grkek and Bkglibh Lexicoji.
One volume 12mo, 45. bound in Cloth.

MYLNE'S EPITOME OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
WITH A VARIETY OP EXERCISES POK THE USE OP SCHOOLS.
Thirteenth Edition, improved, 18mo, Is. 6d. hound.

iBtftttJutflf) antr Eoirton. i7

Tbe Works of Dr. I«CCHe.

TV.

AN ADDRESS TO CHEISTIAN

I.

PARENTS,

In One Volume, Octavo, price 7s. 6d.,

ON THE

THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX,

RBL'OIOUS EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN.

CONTAINING

Tliird Edition. 18mo, Is. 6d.

ILLUSTRATIONS OP THE HISTORY OF THE

REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND.

V.

With Biographical Notices of the principal Re

THE

formers, and Sketches of Literature in Scotland

SIN AND DANGER OF BEING

during the Sixteenth Century.

a mcb) ffititlon.
LOVERS OF PLEASURE, MORE
THAN LOVERS OP GOD.
ir.
Stated and Illustrated in Two Discourses.
Second Edition. Two Volumes, Octavo, price
11. is..
Third Edition. 18mo, 2s.
LIFE OF ANDREW MELVILLE.
VI.
A CATECHISM FOR YOUNG
m.
PERSONS.
Octavo, price 10s. 6d.,
Ninth Edition. 4d.
HISTORY OF THE PROGRESS
AND SUPPRESSION OP THE RE
VII.
FORMATION IN SPAIN
A COLLECTION OF HYMNS FOR
Burinj ttie iolittentj (Initurj.
CHILDREN.
IV.
Octavo, Second Edition, price 10s. 6d.,
New Edition. ISino, 6d.
HISTORY OF THE PROGRESS
AND SUPPRESSION OP THE RE
One Volume, Octavo, price IQs. 6d.,
FORMATION IN ITALY
A VINDICATION of CHRISTIAN
Butlng tje Stttctnti) ffljnturj).
FAITH.
Addressed to those who, helieving in God, do not
V.
believe in Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.
Foolscap Octavo, price 5s.,
Bv THE LATE JOHN INGLIS, D.D.,
LECTURES ON THE BOOK OF
Ona of ths Mioidters ofthe Old Greyfriara' Church.
ESTHER.
— ^
BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
In Foolscap Octavo, price Ss. 6d.,
A VINDICATION OF ECCLESIAS
VTorks by tbe late Rev. Andrew
TICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
Tbomson,
Minister of St. George's, Edinburgh.
—t —
Price 10s. 6d., in One Volume, Post Octavo,
I.
with a Portrait,
LECTURES
THE LIFE OF ROBERT POLLOK,
EXPOSITORY AND PRACTICAL, ON SELECT
Author of " Tho Course of Time-"
PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
BY HIS BROTHER, DAVID POLLOK, A.M.
In 12mo, Ss.
With Selections from his ManuBCripts.
ir.
 . 
SERMONS ON INFIDELITY.
In Two Volumes, Post Octavo, p^'ice 18s., hound
Second Edition. Post Svo, 7s.
in cloth.
iir.
a itteniolt ot
A COLLECTION FOR THE
THE POLITICAL LIFE OF THE
USE OF SCHOOLS.
RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE.
SIXTEENTH EDITION.
By the rev. GEORGE CROLY, LL.D.
In 12mo, hound, price 3s.
Rpctor of St. Stephen's, VCalbroolt, London.
isvs

18 eieorfes ?|tttiU0ti«a tp mm- machtDootj «p sons.

FAUST : A TRAGEDY.
BY J. W. GOETHE.
Translated by JOHN S. BLACKIB,
Professor of Humanity in Marischal College,
Aberdeen.
Foolscap. Price 7s, 6d.

THE JACOBITE KELICS OF
SCOTLAND.
Being tbe Songs, Airs, and Legends of tbe
Adbereiits of the House of Stewart.
Collected and Illustratedby JAMBS HOGG.
Second Series, Svo, 14s.

MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND
WORKS OF THE EIGHT HON. SIR
JOHN SINCLAIR, Bart.
BT HIS SON,
THE REV. JOHN SINCLAIR.
Two Vols, post Svo, price 21s.

MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND
WRITINGS OF GEORGE BUCHANAN.
BT DAVID IRVING, LL.D.
Svo, price I4s.

MEMOIRS OF JOHN NAPIER
OP MERCHISTON, HIS LINEAGE,
LIFE, AND TIMES.
WITH THE HISTORY OF THE INVENTION OP
I.OG.\RITHMS.
BT ILiRK NAPIER, Esa.
There is an Appendix of Original Let
ters aud Documents from Family Papers,
and the Volume is Embellished with Wood
cuts and fourteen Engravings, executed
in the first style of art, consisting of Por
traits from originals of high historic
interest, and fac-siniiles from curious
documents. In One Volume 4to, price £3, 33,

THE LEGEND OF GENEVIEVE,
WITH OTHER TALES AND F0EM3.
BY DELTA.
Post Svo, price 93,

SONGS AND POEMS.
BY THOMAS TOD STODDART, Bstj.
Svo. Price 8s.

THE SONG OF THE BELL,
AND OTHER POEMS.
From the German of Goethe, Schiller,
Burger, Matthesson, and Sails,
Translated
BY JOHN CAMPBELL, ESQ., B.A.
Foolscap, price 7s.

A DISSERTATION ON THE
ATONEMENT.
BY THE REV. GEORGE STEVENSON,
Minister of the QoBpel at Ayr.
12mo, price 43. 6d.

MACFARLANE'S MANUAL OF
DEVOTION FOR FAMILY & SECRET
PRAYER. IN G,\ELIC.
12mo, price 25. 6d.

AN ESSAY ON THE EXTENT
OP HUMAN AND DIVINE AGENCY
IN THE PRODUCTION OP SAVING
FAITH. 12mo, price 43. 6d.

LACUNAR STREVELINENSE.
A Collection of Heads Etched and En
graved after the Carved Work which for
merly decorated the Roof of the King's
Room in Stirling Castle.
Imperial 4to, price £2, 123. Cd.

^X

PRINCIPLES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND, EMBRAC
ING ABOVE SEVEN HUNDRED CASES OCCUBRING IN THE LAST TEN
TEARS. NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME REPORTED. By AECHiSALn Alison,
Esa., Advocate. In one large vol, Svo, price 18s.
By the same Author,
PRACTICE OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND. REGARD
ING INDICTMENT, TRIAL, AND EVIDENCE. EMBRACING ABOVE A
THOUSAND UNREPORTED CASES, BROUGHT DOWN TO THE PRESENT
TIME. In one large vol. Svo, price ISs.

THE PRACTICE IN THE SEVERAL JUDICATORIES IN THE
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. By the Rev. Alexander Hill, D.D., Minister of Dailly.
A New Edition, greatly enlarged and improved, in one vol. foolscap Svo, price is,
III.
DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF SESSION, FROM 1781 to J 822, IN
THE FORM OF A DICTIONARY. Collected by David Hume, Esa., late One ofthe
Barons of Exchequer in Scotland, and formerly Professor of the Law of Scotland, in the
Univeraity of Edinburgh. In one large vol. 4to, price Three Guineas.

COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF SCOTLAND, AND ON THE
PRINCIPLES OF MERCANTILE JURISPRUDENCE. By G. J. Bell, Esa.,
Advocate. The Fifth Edition, in two vols, 4to, price 6^. Os.
ELEMENTS OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. BY THEODORIC
RoaiEYN Beck, M.D., and John B. Beck, I\I.D. Seventh Edition. In one large vol.
Svo, price 215.

DR. AXilSON'S WOBSS.
1.
OUTLINES OF HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.
By W. P. Alison, M.D., F.R.S.E., Professor of the Institutes of Medicine in the Uni
versity of Edinburgh, and one of the Physicians in Ordinary to her Majesty for Scotland.
The Third Edition, Svo, price 12s. 2.
OUTLINES OF PATHOLOGY AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.
Part I. Including Inflammatory and Febrile Diseases. By William Pultenev Ajlison.
M.D., F.R.S.E., Professor of the Practice of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh. 12*.
3.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE POOR IN
SCOTLAND AND ITS EFFECTS UPON THE HEALTH OF GREAT TOWNS,
By W. PuLTBNEY Alison, M.D., F.R.S.E. Post Svo, sewed, price 2s.
4.
REPLY TO THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED "PROPOSED ALTERA
TIONS OP THE SCOTTISH POOR-LAW CONSIDERED AND COMMENTED
ON. By David Moneypbnny, Esa., of Pitmilly." Price Is. 6d.
S.
Also,
REPLY TO DR. CHALMERS'S OBJECTIONS TO AN IMPROVEMENT
OF THE LEGAL PROVISION FOR THE POOR IN SCOTLAND. Is. 4(i., sewed.
The above in a volume, hound in cloth, price 5s. 6d.

'5V^

20 m^oxts muisfit'o 6b fflsa^- ISlaclttoootr ^ Sons.

THE recreations OF
CHRISTOPHER NORTH.
In Three Volumes, Post Octavo, price 11. lis. 6d..

CONTENTS.— VOLUME

L CHRISTOPHER IN HIS SPORTING
JACKET. FvTTE First.— Fytte Second.—
Fytte Third.
IL A TALE OF EXPIATION.
IIL MORNING MONOLOGUE.

IT. THE FIELD OP FLOWERS.
V. COTTAGES.
VL AN HOUR'S TALK ABOUT
POETRY.
VII. INCH CRUIN.
VIIL A DAY AT WINDERMERE.

VOLUME II.

THE MOORS.
Prologue. Flioht FmsT— Glen Etivb,
Flight Second — The Coves of
Cruachan.
Flight Thibd- Still Life.
Flight Fourth— Down River and up
Loch.

n. HIGHLAND SNOW STORM.

IIL THE HOLY CHILD.
IV. OUR PARISH.
V. MAY DAY.
VL SACRED POETRY.
Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.

VOLUME III.

I. CHRISTOPHER IN HIS AVIARY.
First Canticle,
Second Canticle.
Third Canticle.
Fourth Canticle.
DR. KITCHENER.
First Course.
Second Course.
Third Course.
Fourth Course.
IIL SOLILOQUY ON THE SEASONS.

II

IV. A PEW WORDS ON THOMSON.
V. THE SNOWBALL BICKER OP
PBDMONT.
VI. CHRISTMAS DREAMS.
Vn. OUR WINTER QUARTERS.
VHL STROLL TO GRASSMERE.
First Saumter.
Second Saunter.
IX. L'BNVOY.

BT THE SAME AUTHOB

In One Volume, Foolscap Octavo, price 6s., bound in cloth,
LIGHTS AND SHADOWS OF SCOTTISH LIFE.
a Wetij lEDltlan.
In Foolscap Octavo, price 6s.,
THE TRIALS OF MARGARET LYNDSAY.
a Weto EBltlon.
[n Foolscap Octavo, price 6s.,
THE FORESTERS.
a Vitta EBltlon.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 04077 2353

(

'' / /

k

' " ^, , ¦' "f^ ¦>i

f^

\ r

m-''^

¦'1^^

¦,,, t f

Y\%>

/
'/I
r
^ i Ii
¦ -^
.? .
5,
^^ •;"•.'
4
¦ I
¦ii
F (