irreverence and loss of dignity, arising from the very im putation of it. No act of state or government can therefore be the king's-he cannot act but by advice; and he who holds office sanctions what is done, from whatever source it may procced. This, my Lords, is not the legal fiction of the constitution, but the practical benefit and blessing of it. I am pleading the cause of the king and of the people together, in enforcing it; and I never will remain silent whilst this principle is disturbed. Apply it, my Lords, to the case before us. We never should have recourse to a simile, when the case itself will serve us for illustration.

My Lords, the illustration may suffer from circumstances at this moment. The hands of our great enemy are full-the brave Russians kept him at bay in the east, and I pray God for the continuance of such critical successes. But should he return to the coast, and fill the shores of Europe with his troops from the Baltic to the Mediterranean; should he threaten Ireland with invasion, would any man be permitted with impunity to tell the catholics that they must not look to any possible change in their condition during his majesty's reign? That no changes could relieve them whilst the king was on the throne? My Lords, I maintain, without the hazard of contradiction, that this declaration would be a seditions. misdemeanor, punishable by indictment. The criminal motive, unless as circumstacces might repel the inference, would be inferred from the sentiment, because the king can have no such purpose either in law or in fact imputed to him. He cannot in law, for the reasons I have already given and I believe he will not, in fact, under every possible circumstance, because the king's oath, and the danger to the establishments of church and state, were opposed from time to time just as they are now, to all the important indulgences which his majesty, during his reign, has nevertheless granted to his catholic subjects; and I conceive that I have even the sanction of the present ministers for supposing, that upon corresponding emergencies the indulgences would still be extended; for they say that they have taken no pledge, and consider the imputation of having taken it as a reproach, which it certainly would not be, if all further indulgences were against a fundamental and unalterable principle; and if further indulgences be not on that account inadmissable, but are to de

pend

517

pend upon emergencies as they may occur, then upon
what principle were the late ministers removed, and how
are they distinguishable from their successors, since the
late ministers abandoned all indulgence for the present,
and only contended that emergencies ought to regulate
their advice? This is the whole. I hope I have not de-
parted in any thing that I have said from the declaration
I made the other day of my duty and attachment to his
majesty, which is nrost sincere and affectionate. What
weighs heavily on my mind, my Lords, is, the dangerous
and alarming distinction between putting by from time to
time the claims and expectations of the catholics, which I
am as much disposed to as any man, and the public decla-
ration of unalterable refusal upon a principle which ad-
mits no alteration. I trust we shall never see the danger
of such a declaration brought home to a practical test in
the discontent of subjects who might otherwise be affec-
tionate and faithful.

My Lords, I have nothing to add to the trouble which
I have already given to your lordships, but to assure you
that no man can be more deeply impressed than I am with
reverence for God and religion, and for all the ministers
and professors of the christian protestant faith. I am sure
that I need not except even the worthy and excellent pre-
lates in whose presence I make this solemn and public de-
claration. My Lords, I glory in the opportunity of making
it. Would to God that my life could be as pure as my
faith. I consider the æra of the reformation, and its irre-
sistible progress in the age which has succeeded it, as the
grand era in which the divine providence began most
visibly to fulfil the sacred and encouraging promises of
the gospel. I look forward, my Lords, believe me I al-
ways have, with an anxiety which I cannot express, but
with a hope which is unextinguishable, to the time when
all the nations of the earth shall be collected under its sha-
dow, and united in the enjoyment of its blessings: It is
that feeling, my Lords, mixed perhaps with what may be
considered as the prejudices of education, but which I
cannot myself consider to be prejudices, that have kept
me back from going the full length of catholic expecta-
tion. I consider the Roman catholic faith as a gross su
perstition, not chargeable upon the present generation,
which contains thousands and ten thousands of sincere and
enlightened persons, but the result of the darkness of for-

412

mer

mer ages, and which is fast giving way under the hourly increasing lights of religious ard philosophical truth. Not that vain and contemptible jargon which has usurped the name of philosophy, but the philosophy of nature, which lifts up the mind to the contemplation of the Almighty, by approaching to him nearer, and discovering his attributes in the majesty and harmony of his works. Toleration is the right of every man, and the policy of all wise states; but seeing that religious superstitions were falling into a wholesome and visible decline, I have never sought to give any encouragement to set them up again, but have rather wished that inconveniences should be felt, though o injustice suffered by their professors; because, when religious distinctions are not so importantly material as dee ly to affect the conscience, they are often by imperceptible degrees diminished and melted away. These ideas, ny Lords, and not any objections affecting either the establishment of the church or the safety of the state, though formerly these were very solid objections, were my reasons for not giving my support to the bill without a more urgent occasion; for there are occasions to which such ideas ought to yield, since we are frequently without choice in the order and government of mankind. These opinions, however, can have no bearing on the present motion, the first branch of which I pass by altogether, having been myself an humble member of the administra tion which it supports; but I not only subscribe to the second, but shall conclude by retur:ing my thanks to the noble marquis for having introduced it to the House.

The Earl of Jersey supported the motion, which, he contended, was called for by the extraordinary circumstances that had recently occurred. That some further concessions should be made to the catholics, had been the opinion of many statesmen of great eminence. Even one of the present ministers, the secretary for the foreign depar ment, a person certainly not of inferior talents, had formerly held this opinion. It could not therefore be a subject of charge against the late ministers that they brought forward this measure wantonly or hastily. He thought here was great reason to regret the change in his majesty's councils, and he considered the pledge demanded a highly unconstitutional.

Lord Harrowby began by observing, that he felt under the same embarrassment as the noble earl who had just

spoken,

spoken, from the want of proper documents. This defi ciency was in itself a sufficient parliamentary ground for refusing to assent to the motion of his noble relation. No motion, he said, pretending to be grounded upon facts, ought to be entertained, unless it rests either upon facts notorious, or admitted on all sides, or proved by documents on our table. The nature of the present case ad mits of no such proof. It rests upon statements of the contents of dispatches which we have not seen; of the contents of co fidential communications between the king and his cabinet, which are not, and cannot be be fore us; and upon the relation, not so much of the terms of confidential conversations between the same parties, as of the impression which such conversations made upon the minds of those who held them. Such are the documents on which we are called upon to assent to a motion, which, grounding itself solely upon the defence brought forward by one party, is in fact (though I trust not in intention), an accusation against the other; a motion which places your lordships in a situation, equally unknown to the theory and the practice of the constitution, equally alien from your legislative and judicial functions, the situ ation of sitting in judgment upon the personal conduet of your sovereign. I am well aware that the mention of his name within these walls is in itself disorderly, but the nature of this question renders it impossible to be avoided. More need not be said to prove at once the indecorous and unparliamentary character of the debate into which we are driven. I shall not however forget the doctrine laid down in another place by what is now the highest authority in this House, that the right which necessity creates, necessity limits. So far at least it will be agreed on all sides, that before we determine to assert an abstract proposition, for the declared purpose of applauding the late ministers, and with the direct effect of censuring our sovereign, we ought to examine (as far as the imperfect lights we have can admit) how far that abstract proposition can be applied to the present case, considered in all i's bearings and with all its circumstances. It would ill become us, in any cause, much more in one so extraordinary in its complexion, so momentous in its consequences, to content ourselves with taking up the transaction nearly at its close. We must consider what were the steps which led to that close, what was the necessity which left no other issue.

It

It is not enough to say, a pledge was demanded; no mi nister ought to give a pledge; the king has dismissed his ministers for refusing it; therefore the ministers were right, and the king was wrong. A mutual confidence between the sovereign and his servants appears so indispensable to the good conduct of public business, than when once there is so little confidence on either side, that the ministers are reduced to demand a pledge from their king, or the king from his ministers, there seems little option left, but for him to dismiss them, or for them to resign. What is the mode best calculated to preserve this necessary confidence? A clear and distinct explanation of proposed measures on one side, and an unreserved communication of opinions on the other. If ever there was a question upon which such clear and distinct explanation was peculiarly necessary, it was that lately in discussion. It was a question upon which the sentiments of a majority of his majesty's servants were known by themselves to be contrary to his; upon which his opinion had not only been repeatedly and decidedly declared, but had been acted upon by him under the most trying circumstances, and was founded not upon any arguments of political expediency, but upon a religious regard to the sacred obligation of his oath. If measures of concession to the catholics had been consented to by the king, upon former occasions, with evident reluctance, arising from a conscientious fear lest they should pass the hallowed line, how deeply was it incumbent upon those, who proposed advancing but a single step within that limit, to define with the utmost precision the extent of that single step? Can we, who have heard little upon this subject, except the voluntary defence of ministers, can even they, who made it, now say, even to themselves, either that this caution was not necessary, or that it was not neglected? Can they say, that in the first proposal to his majesty to extend the privileges of the Roman catholics, the limits of that extension were accurately stated to him? were perhaps even accurately defined in their own minds. The measure was first proposed to be introduced by clauses in the mutiny bill. Could this by possibility go beyond the army, or include the navy? The notice of the intended motion referred, as I am informed, to the Irish act of 1799, and professed to admit catholics to certain commissions. Could this be supposed to include the admission of all dissenters to all commissions

and