the se of 1 92 were received with much satisfaction by the noble lord, who was the Peter the Hermit" of this crusade [a laugh]. Such was the manner in which it was attempted to disseminate the mild doctrines of Chris tianity; not by calm and sober reasoning, but by a sweeping attack on the alleged idolatry of the Roman Catholics. These were the means adopted for conciliating and converting the Roman Catholics,odo that the question of Catholic emancipa tion should be lost, as the favourers of this new reformation stated, sing the greatz and glorious triumph of general Protestantism Was it, he demanded, in human nature # did it comport with the feelings of any body of men, who sincerely believed in the religious doctrines which they prot fessed-patiently to bear such charges tamely to sit down under such language as this? When they were thus vituperated when their religion was thus reviled were they to remain silent. Were they not justified in repelling the attack? When that unhandsome, that unseemly meta phor, was directed against their religion, had they not a right to use it in their turn? The letter of "I. K. L." was in fact, addressed to lord Farnham; and naturally enough, he recurred to that favourite ex pression, which, it appeared, was received with cheers by the whole assembly oto which it was addressed [hear], to oni odr Dr. Doyle, under the signature of I. K. L. Now, the House, he hoped, would do him the justice to believe, that he condemned, as much as any man could condemn, some sentiments and expressions of I. K. L., as derogatory to the Established Church; and he was sorry that an individual, possessing so much learning and talent, as Dr. Doyle was admitted to be master of, should have used such language, and adopted such expressions, as he had done, in speaking of the establishment. The House would recollect the electrical effect which was produced, when the hon. member for Cavan stated, that Dr. Doyle had compared the Protestant religion to the superstition of the idolators who worshipped the idol of Juggernaut. Dr. Doyle, however, had not the merit of supplying either the language or the sentiment, whether it was good or censurable. The fact was I. K. L. found that memorable passage in a speech which appeared in a public newspaper. That speech was delivered by lord Farnham (as we understood) at a reformation meeting a meeting, the object of which was to convert the great body of Roman Catholics by mild and gentle argument, without the least tincture of acrimony or violence. He was quite unable to do justice to this celebrated speech; but he would call the attention of the House to one passage of it, to show from whence I. Ko borrowed the idea that had excited so much surprise. The speaker, after declaring that Popery and Slavery were twin sisters," and introducing some other expressions equally applicable to both, went on to say,- "It is because I wish to behold my fellow-countrymen alike enjoying all the blessings of freedom, that I desired to see them liberated from a system, far more galling than that which would bow them down to worship before the idol of Juggernaut " [hear, hear]. Not only the sentiment, but the metaphor of I. K. L. was here embodied; and in a few words, an attack was made against the whole body of the Roman Catholic priests. It did not appear that any particular marks of approbation were bestowed upon the letter of I. K. L. by the Roman Catholics; but when the passage which he had just read was delivered, "it was received with load cheers by the whole body assembled at the meeting" [hear, hear] Ladies and gentlemen, clerics and laics, all burst forth into loud plaudits, which, of course, 2 1 f 9 The hon. member for Derry had, the other night, made some observations, in which he seemed to hint, that he (Mr. Plunkett) was an enemy to the clergy, to the extension of education, and to the diffusion of mental light. There was no foundation for such an opinion. He was as great a friend to the progress of educa tion and to the diffusion of light, as the hon. gentleman; but he did not think that this had any thing to do with that system of proselytism which had lately been introduced into Ireland. If it had not, then he would ask, how did the how. member's argument affect him? He had said nothing against education nothing against the promulgation of the Bible but he certainly had spoken against a sys tem of proselytism, which he conceived to be most mischievous. Therefore it was, that the hon. member had attacked him. He believed it had been imost unjustly charged on the Roman Catholic priests, that they were unfriendly to the extensión of knowledge.b He, however did not think that they were enemies to education, nor to the use of the Bible. He believed | that, in the course of the year, the whole of the Scripture was read in their places of worship; and he was informed that they had now in progress a book entirely composed of extracts from the New Testament, which they were willing to have used in those schools at which Roman Catholic and Protestant children were educated. He did not know whether the Protestant clergy would agree to this; but he sincerely hoped that they would. If, therefore, scriptural knowledge was not disseminated in those mixed schools, the fault could not be attributed to the Roman Catholic priesthood. He conceived that the hon. member for Derry had not treated him with the courtesy to which he was entitled, when, on the preceding evening, he accused him of having calumniated the Protestant clergy of Ireland. That he had, on many occasions, borne testimony to the excellent character of those gentlemen, the House must well know. He believed there was not a better set of men in existence. They discharged their duty with zeal and attention; and they need not, he was convinced, be ashamed to stand up in competition with the ministers of any church in Europe. The hon. member for Derry had asserted, that he accused the Protestant clergy with acting in the same manner as the Roman Catholic priests were asserted to have done, in the affidavits which the hon. member had read. He should be ashamed if he had made any such observation. On a former night, when the hon. member stated that the Roman Catholic priests took a part in politics, he had merely asked, whether the Protestant clergy did not sometimes do the same thing? And it should be observed, that at the time to which he referred, the affidavits in question had not been read. How, then, could he have asserted that the Protestant clergy did that which he believed the Roman Catholic priests did not do themselves? He was now drawing to a conclusion. He had described to the House the state of the whole body of Roman Catholics, in the highers the middle, and the lower ranks of society; and the feelings by which they were actuated. This, however, was not the whole of the picture. It was only one half of it. What, he demanded, was the general feeling of the higher order of Protestants in Ireland? It was that of violent, he would not say altogether un justifiable, indignation. That they bore a great degree of animosity against the Roman Catholics the House had proof sufficient before them. Indeed, he might justly say, that great fury and violence existed on both sides; and surely it was their duty to soothe that fury and to soften down that violence. Here were the Roman Catholics of Ireland, a great and respectable body, anxious to obtain civil rights, by quiet, orderly, and legal means. He deeply deplored that the conduct of agitators should, for a moment, throw any suspicion on their cause. And how stood the Protestants affected to their claims? A great body of them were desirous that the Roman Catholics should obtain the rights which they claimed. Some wished it from a feeling of justice; and many were anxious that those privi leges should be conceded, as the only method by which security, tranquillity, and prosperity could be established on a permanent footing in Ireland. There was, he knew, a great body of Protestants who were willing to accede and to submit to such a measure, if the wisdom of that House would agree to it. or He would pledge himself to the fact, that if the salutary measures which were within their reach, in 1825, had been carried into effect, there would not, at this day, have been a murmur heard amongst the Protestants, nor would there have existed amongst the Roman Catholics, a particle of discontent or bad feeling. He could, without going far from the place in which he stood, point out men who were now the opponents of emancipation, but who, at that time, would have been ready to give their support to that measure, had the govern ment suffered it to proceed. It was, he contended, neither good taste nor good argument to call this a mere Catholic question. It was a Protestant question. It was a national question. It was emphatically, an imperial question, in which the public safety, and the public prosperity, were essentially concerned. He knew it not as a question, of party. He knew of no party but his country; and he would act under no colours but those of truth, freedom, and justice. He not surprised at gentlemen being disgusted with the conduct of certain agitators in Ireland; but that should be considered as one of the afflictions produced by the system which had been adopted in that country and the true way to cure the evil, was by vantage could he have in maintaining the opinions which he had hitherto maintained, whereas it was quite painful and nausea ting to have to tax one's memory and ine genuity in the devising of novel arguments on a subject which had been already so often discussed and exhausted. Had he, like his noble friend (lord Elliot) who had spoken' that evening, seen reason to retract the vote he had heretofore given on this question, he would not have hesitated to do so; indeed, he respected that noble lord for the candour of his conduct; but, as his own opinion still remained unchanged, he would not shrink from his duty, or refrain from expressing his sentiments, whether they met with the concurrence of the House or not. He had hoped to have been relieved from every thing of a per to state that, he would not shrink from what he had said when this question was discussed in 1825, and which was as follows an alteration of that system. The proper Mr. Secretary Peel rose. If he were, he said, to consult merely his own personal convenience, it would incline him to assent to the proposition of the hon. baronet, for what prospect of personal ade that if he could be satisfied that any of the political privileges which were withheld from the Roman Catholics of Ireland were withheld in violation of the treaty of Limerick, it would very materially influ ence his judgment in deciding on the present question; but, after having sex amined into this matter with the greatest attention, he felt a more perfect conviction that that treaty afforded the Catholics no claims for having the disabilities removed. After the pledge he had given, he did not see how he could avoid stating to the House the reasons which induced him to maintain his opinion. There were various articles in the treaty of Limerick. He was ready to admit that the first of these articles related to the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and he was desirous of premising this much in the beginning, lest he should be suspected of a wish to keep it from the view of the House, in calling, as he now did, its attention to the second article of that treaty. This article was as follows: "All the inhabitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in arms under any commission of king James, or those authorised by him to grant the same, in the several counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them; and all the commissioned officers in their majes ties' quarters that belong to the Irish regis ments now in being, that are treated with, and who are not prisoners of war, or have taken protection, and who shall return and of Charles 2nd. Now, let the House adsubmit to their majesties' obedience, and vert to the construction of the terms of their own and every of their heirs, shall the treaty. What did the words "free hold, possess, and enjoy all and every of dom from disturbance in the exercise of their estates of freehold inheritance; and their religion" by the Roman Catholics all the rights, titles, and interests, privi- mean? The House would find those leges, and immunities which they and terms constantly employed by contempoevery or any of them hold, enjoy, or were rary writers-by Clarendon, and even by rightfully and lawfully intitled to in the the Catholics themselves as amounting to reign of king Charles 2nd, or any time nothing more than a toleration of their re since, by the laws and statutes that were ligion, and a security in the free exercise in force in the said reign of king Charles of it. Let him take, first of all, the in2nd, and shall be put in possession, by terpretation of king William himself. In order of the government, of such of them the letter of his majesty respecting his as are in the king's hands, or the hands of Irish subjects he said, that he merely his tenants, without being put to any suit granted them the undisturbed exercise of or trouble therein, and all such estates shall their religion, but no political privileges. be freed and discharged from all arrears of More than this ought not, he said, to be crown-rent, quit-rent, and other public asked by the Catholics, since they would charges incurred, and become due since Mi- be free from all disturbance. He said chaelmas, sixteen hundred and eighty eight, that he would not admit them to parliato the day of the date hereof. And all ment or to office: all that he would do persons comprehended in this article shall would be to preserve to them the exer have, hold, and enjoy, all their goods and cise of their religion. "With this," his chattels, real and personal, to them or any majesty continued, "the Catholics ought of them belonging and remaining, either to be satisfied; they ought not to ask in their own hands, or the hands of any more, and he never," he said, "could compersons whatever, in trust for, or for the prehend how it was that men calling themuse of them, or any of them. And all and selves Christians could think of disturbing every the said persons, of what profession, the quiet of the state." Such was the laptrade, or calling, soever they be, shall and guage employed by king William-a lanmay use, exercise, and practise their seve- guage, at least, that afforded a clue to ral and respective profession, trade, or what the understanding of one party was callings as freely as they did use, exercise, with respect to the meaning of the treaty. and enjoy the same in the reign of king" You shall have," said king William, Charles the 2nd; provided that nothing in this article contained be construed to extend to or restore any forfeited person now out of the kingdom, except what are hereafter comprised.-Provided also, that no person whatsoever shall have or enjoy the benefit of this article that shall neglect or refuse to take the oaths of allegiance, made by act of parliament in England, in the first year of the reign of their present majesties, when thereunto required." "the exercise of your religion without dis "turbance.' This was the amount of the article in favour of the Catholics. The interpretation of it depended on the way in which it was understood and received at the time it was promulgated. Let the House recollect, that the treaty was signed on the 3rd of October, 1691. The par liament of England sat on the 22nd of the same month; and then it was contended, that Catholics had the right of Now, what he contended for was this, being admitted to political privileges, that throughout the treaty, political privi- But, what did the parliament do? They leges were never in the contemplation of passed an act applying the oath of Suppe either party; that it was intended that macy to all those who should sit in the the Catholics should enjoy the exercise of Irish parliament. He knew it had been their religion" free from disturbance," a question raised, in after times, that Eng and that that" freedom from disturbance" land had no right to make an act binding by no means imported such disturbance or Ireland. But, however that might be detriment as might follow from exclusion the fact of the oath having been appointed from parliament and from offices of power by act of parliament fully proved that such and trust. The treaty solely guaranteed an act was not inconsistent with what was the free exercise of their religion to Catho-generally understood to be the true intent lics, such as they enjoyed it in the time of the treaty of Limerick. The act having n passed was received in Ireland, and acted subject, but having been, in some measure, upon there for one hundred years after-compelled to enter upon it, he was not wards. He would now take the liberty of willing to let it pass without an endeavour défending the Whigs of 1691.Sir John to convince the House, that his opinions Somers was, he believed, the solicitor-ge- and inferences, with respect to the meanneral Treby the Attorney-general, and ing of the treaty, were not formed without lord Godolphin the lord high Treasurer. deliberation. He confessed that the proWas it credible that king William, after position now before the House, and the he had given his general in Ireland per- circumstances under which his assent was -mission to stipulate with the Catholics for required to it, were such as very considerpolitical privileges, that lord Godolphin ably to increase his indisposition to receive and sir John Somers would have ventured it, and to excite his apprehensions if it to propose or sanction a measure which should succeed. When he heard the hon. was in direct violation of the terms of a baronet state, that there was little or no solemn treaty? Was it to be believed difference between placing a man on the that an act so gross could have been per- faggot, and imposing political disabilities petrated by such men? The House would on him; and when his right hon. and recollect, that king William did not ratify learned friend the Attorney-general for the treaty of Limerick until the year fol- Ireland, stated that they durst not subject lowing, 1692. The ratification bore date Englishmen to these disqualifications, for the 24th of February of that year-one that Englishmen would rise up against the month after the passing of the act re- attempt-that they would be justified in quiring the oath of Supremacy to be doing so-and that they would not be taken by every member of parliament. worthy of the name of Englishmen, if they Now, if the act of parliament and the did not; and when he heard, moreover, treaty were inconsistent with each other, the names of Pitt and Burke invoked to was it possible that king William, after give a stamp to such monstrous, such sanctioning the one could have had the abominable doctrines, what could he think baseness, in the face of the country, to of the hon. gentleman who said this, when sanction the other? The notion was in- he recollected, that Englishmen, who were credible. So much, then, for Whig au- Catholics, had borne with these disabilithority. But what did the Whig histo- ties? Had the hon. baronet read the rian say relative to this treaty? What speeches of Mr. Pitt and of Mr. Burko, in was bishop Burnet's testimony as to the the year 1790, upon the proposed repeal meaning of the articles? That historian of the Test and Corporation acts? Mr. was acquainted with the circumstances of Burke said, that twice before, his assent Ireland with the capitulation and the had been asked to this repeal, and that he treaty of Limerick. His statement was to grounded his refusal principally upon a Ythis effect. And thus ended the war reference to the doctrines upheld by Dr. of Ireland; and with that our civil war Priestley, and others of his persuasion. 91 came to a final end. The articles of Mr. Pitt also repudiated their doctrines in capitulation were punctually executed, still stronger terms, and opposed the bill and some doubts that arose out of some by all the means in his power. Whençat ambiguous words were explained in fa- a later period, Mr. Pitt had supported the vour of the Irish." Thus, then, he had Catholic claims, he supported them on referred to the explanations of the arti- very different grounds to those now stated cles as they were understood by king by the hon. baronet, and the right hon. William himself; as they had been under- the Attorney-general for Ireland What stood next by the legislature; and, lastly, was the language used by Mr. Pitt in as they had been understood by the Whig 1805?-After he had come to that conhistorian of the time; and he thought 'clusion in favour of the Roman Catholics He had shown good reason for withholding on which so much stress' was now laida his assent to the proposition of the hon. conclusion, he must think, come to unforbaronet, which was founded on the alle- tunately, but founded on very different gation, that the Catholics were entitled to grounds from those on which it was now political privileges under the meaning of power. In 1805, Mr. Pitt, after declaring, the treaty of Limerick. one proposed to admit the Catholics to political that he would not, under any cirotinstances, or under any possible situation of 2 I |