the state, and to those who professed the religion of the state. It is not as belonging to Ireland that they can be supposed to be so, for there the Irish protestants would be equally actuated by the same hostility. It is not as catholics that the imputation could attach to them; for then the catholics of England would be equally liable to it. The substance of the charge, then, if it had any in it, applies neither to the Irish catholics, nor to the catholic principles, but to the defect of the law. I therefore beg Gentlemen to consider the very dangerous mischief that flows from laws of this sort, which have in themselves the substantive causes of hatred and hostility in the bosom of the state. I could indeed conceive it possible, that a certain sting may have been left behind by the long and grinding operation of the penal laws, which may continue to operate, notwithstanding the repeal of these laws. But let it not be therefore said, that the catholics are governed well, but that their perverse and recreant spirits are not to be reconciled. This is as much as to say, that man has done all that was possible for them, but that God had made them so much amiss, as to be absolutely incorrigible. The root of the evil lay in an absurd code of laws, and parliament has of course the remedy in its own hands. I will recur to the period of the repeal of the test act, and cite the words of a great law lord, who described the penaltics of the catholic as beginning at his birth, and persecuting him till his death. The penal laws received him at his birth, they stood by his bridal bed, and they did not leave him at rest even in his coffin; these dreadful penalties were partly repealed by the Irish parliament, and it remained for the imperial legislature to remove that part of the burthety that is still in force.

The Irish nation is told that there are many narrow spirits in its parliament, (and certainly there are some who will always endeavour to thwart any large measure in favour of the catholics,) but that an imperial parliament will be regulated by liberal principles, and will legislate on a grand scale. I now call for the performance of that promise.

I will now proceed to the argument, if such it is, of dangers likely to result to the settlement of property in Ireland, in the event of admitting the catholics to political power.

Great alarm has been excited by the map of Ortelius, containing the distribution of the landed property among the ancient proprietors. The fact is, however, that this map was made for the use of the government, by Sir W. Petty, and that a copy of it having been preserved in France, a copy of that copy was obtained by a person in the service of the British government, as a matter of history. And this is the source and circumstance of that publication which gave so much unnecessary alarm. There are few catholics who can claim by ancient descent, if that claim should be allowed; but there are many who hold by ancient purchase. It is not true that the catholics have so small a share as some have stated in the landed property of Ireland. Their proportion is half a million in fee simple. One noble lord of that persuasion (the Earl of Kenmare,) was proprietor of lands to the amount of 70,000l. a year, though I do not mean to say that the noble lord received all that. Is a revolution in landed property to be apprehended from persons so circumstanced? With respect to the tenantry of that persuasion, they are in a state of poverty from which they cannot possibly wade into a situation to be formidable to the landed proprietors. They can take possession of the land only by force of arms, or by force of law enacted for the purpose. The relief which I now propose to give, will not add to the physical strength of the catholics, and will rather be a reason for exercising that strength in defence of the state.

As to the attainment of general possession of landed property by a parliamentary measure, it is necessary, previous to that, to have a majority of catholics in parliament, which could only be effected by first getting possession of that landed property, which this very parliament is to afford the means of entering upon. How great is the absurdity of dreading as a consequence, what should first exist as the cause of the consequence so dreaded. In order to stop divisions, dangerous in the event of an invasion, now so much to be dreaded, the protestant inhabitants of many of the counties, sensible that their protestant establishment and protestant state could not be defended without the aid of the catholics, had presented petitions in favour of the claims of the catholics. There are

nine counties in all that have shewn this noble example of liberality and sound policy. The counties of Clare and Galway have, at meetings convened by the sheriff, expressed their ardent wish for admitting their catholic brethren to the benefits of the constitution. In the counties of Tipperary, Kilkenny, Roscommon, Waterford, and Meath, and in the town of Newry, resolutions to the same effect were entered into, not merely by the protestant gentry and inhabitants, but by the great bulk of the protestant landed proprietors. This recommendation is owing not to the influence of liberality and confidence merely, not to the absence of all suspicion of an intention to invade the landed property at a convenient opportunity, but to the stronger and more immediate feeling of the danger a divided country will have to encounter in case of an invasion from an active and powerful enemy. On this principle these wise protestants deprecated the terrible privilege of an extensive monopoly of constitutional right and political power. On this principle they came to offer up their monopoly, and to beg the admission of others to defend, as a common right, the country, without the sufficient defence of which, neither the preservation of political power, nor of landed property, could be hoped for. They came to offer up their monopoly for the preservation of Great Britain and Ireland. If their recommendation was acceded to, it would be the means of a greater power of defence than could be looked to from the local militia or the levy en masse. What answer is to be given to the recommendation and to the petition? Will it be said, that though already thought worthy of the participation of the elective franchise, and though now offering a controul over the election of their bishops, (the only point in which the power of the Pope is exercised) the present prayer is to be rejected? Will the House of Commons say, "No, we will leave the country to its divisions, and the church to the Pope?" Though the prayer of the petition may not be now immediately granted, it cannot be deferred long. Is it then worth while, for a temporary monopoly, which should soon become open and general, to leave the country to its dissensions, and the church to the Pope? Is it worth while to refuse for this object the

recommendation of so large a portion of the protestants of Ireland? It is contended, that the object of the petition is of no value, and that it is little regarded or desired by the petitioners themselves. But will it be contended by those who expend so much labour and money in seeking seats in parliament, that seats in parliament are of no value, or that it is matter of no moment to subject any class of men to exclusion from them? It is said the catholics are not desirous of seats in parliament, and the declaration of Connaught is cited in proof.

But though rebellion is not denounced as a consequence of the refusal, it does not follow that the boon, if given, will not be justly and highly valued. Human nature cannot be satisfied with exclusion from stations of honour and dignities, and the exclusion of the catholics from the parliament and the state, is an exclusion degrading and dishonourable in the highest degree. If there is an indifference to that exclusion, it is the more dishonourable to the legislature; for it proveš that the catholics are so subdued by tyrant laws, that the spirit of attachment to the constitution is extinguished among them. If it is so, it is desirable immediately to replant a soul in the body that may animate it from the centre to the extremities. Till that is done, the exertions of the state will be crippled, and instead of sending armies to annoy the enemy abroad, it will be necessary to keep them at home to defend Ireland. In every step that is to be taken, the government will be haunted by the penal laws. It is necessary now to place things on such a footing, that soldiers may be called upon not to fight for their pay, but for the constitution. Now there is not the power of using the language that may be addressed to their pride and to their passions.

I have heard it said, that the oath of the king at his coronation is incompatible with the passing of the relief pow sought for the catholics. It is not parliamentary to talk of the feelings of the king. But for those feelings I have the highest possible respect. I merely think it a fit object of parliamentary consideration, to enquire whether or not thre representation made be just, and not to suffer the enemies of the catholics to abuse the religion of God, and the piety of the king, without contradiction of restraint. The kings of England are VOL. I. N

subordinate to the law. They cannot invade the religion or liberties of any man, without committing a breach of their oath. They are not sworn to maintain the penal laws, nor to restrain the legislature from making new provisions with respect to the church. If the provisions respecting the church are to be eternal and unalterable, and the king sworn to maintain them without change, the ecclesiastical power is beyond the executive and the legislative. The penal laws are included in these provisions, and what is the nature of these laws? one of them goes to rob a catholic of the horse on which he rides; another prevents him from educating his sons at home, or from sending them for education abroad; another to deprive a catholic father of his property. If the repeal of laws of this nature is a breach of the coronation oath, every sovereign since the days of Henry VII. has been perjured. King Wiliam was perjured when he signed the capitulation of Limerick; Queen Anne was perjured when she passed the act of union with Scotland; George I. and II. were perjured. Our present gracious sovereign wa. guilty of a breach in the coronation oath in the power to take lands given to the Roman Catholics in 1778; in the right of inheritance given in 1782; in the participation of the elective franchise given in 1793. Thus the best and most beneficial acts of his majesty's reign, are but a succession of perjuries."

Here Mr. Grattan read passages from the coronation oath, which, he contended, could not be interpreted in the manner laid down by the enemies of the catholics, without making the rights of the church the wrongs of the people, by incapacitating one-fifth of his majesty's subjects from the best means of serving the state. The church was made a confederation against the state, and the king was made a party to that conspiracy. He agreed there were cases in which the coronation oath would interfere with the penal statutes, but it was to repeal them.

The king was sworn to protect the church as by law established; but suppose a case in which it should become necessary to employ foreign troops for the defence of the country, would the king be precluded from assenting to such a measure? In such a case it would be necessary to unite all the people