council, when her
majesty in council was graciously pleased to declare her intention of
becoming the espoused of this prince. I observed, that the precedent of
the reign of George III. was followed in all respects except one, and
that was the declaration, that this prince was a protestant. [Loud
cries of "Hear, hear!" from the opposition benches.] My lords, I, for
one, entertain no doubt that the prince is a protestant. I believe he is
a protestant. I know he is of a protestant family. I have the honour of
being known to some members of that family, and I am sure that it is a
protestant family. But, my lords, this is a protestant state, and it is
absolutely necessary, by law, that the person who shall become the
spouse of the queen be a protestant; and, if the precedent of George
III. has been taken in part, it ought to have been followed throughout;
and then the public would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the
fact of the prince being a protestant, had been officially declared by
her majesty's government. My lords, I know the noble lords opposite too
well to suppose that they are not aware of the anxiety in the public
mind on this subject; and I know, also, that they had it in their power
to relieve that anxiety, and to gratify the public by making this
declaration; nay, more, my lords, I am convinced that there exists the
same anxiety in the royal mind, about the protestant character of the
state as is felt by me or any of your lordships. And if so, my lords, I
ask, why was the precedent of George III. departed from? Is there any
doubt as to the religious sentiments of this prince? None at all; there
can be no doubt that he is a protestant; he cannot be otherwise. Then,
why is it not so stated? We have heard something of this marriage from
another part of the country; we have seen some proceedings on this
subject since the declaration in council, which show pretty clearly why
the word "protestant" was omitted. My lords, I confess that I am one of
those who read with great attention all that passes in Ireland;--all
those speeches which come from that quarter;--and I do it for this
reason: I have been accustomed to that kind of revolutionary
discussions. It has been said by an eminent French writer, _en plein
jour, on ne conspire pas_; but that is not so now. The object proposed
is terror. These things are declared openly. This I can see from what
appears in the public prints, as I read these public letters and