Star. — London, England, 1829-03-31 00:00:00

Who woulJ net hash If no& a man there be! Who wield ant weep If Anima were her I admit that this is our position, but I have said in, the outset that it was with pain that I differed from many of the Bight Hon. and Hon. Gentlemen, who com p o se his Majesty's Government, and I now say with equal sincerity, that it grieves me thus to be obliged to condemn their conduct. But how can I re (rein trona apprehens ion when I view their measures and contemplate the consequences that may result from *ern? Am It 9 suppress the expression of my indig woo, and my honest resentment. v hen I find that the i ncess liAry has stolen upon us in the night and put a firebrand into the body of oar Church ?._(Cheers). The confl %ration is, I admit, confined. and hardly visible at present ; 4nt soon it will rear its head. extend, 5 9 4 spread itself from the walls to the roof and rafters ogal thewhole labs is shall become a preyto its devouring avidity, and sink beneath its fury a black and utter ruin. Yens has b-en done, not openl7 and candidly, but cnn. vingly and craftily, and, I lament to add, effectually. may be a.ked, du I Dot think that these consequences snag be avoided ?—that the evil may yet be remedied ? .—ethat the now mouldering flame may be kept down an 4 eventually extinguished? I answer no; it it impos• sibte. The fist blow has already been struck at the church, through the church of Ireland, and in this House —the point of the wedge has already been inserted— tHear, and a laugh). Honourable Gentlemen may think this a subject for laughter—l deem it a subject for lamentation ; for I view the event to which I allude res the deepest of calamities—(Hear, hear) There may be some difference between the churches of England and of Ireland; but with re.pect to the property of the Church there is no difference whatever. He who would assault the one would assault the other, and so completely are their interests identified and in terwoven, that the Church of Erglatid cannot, would not, survive the Church of Ireland. I have to ask pardon of the Rouse. The subject has so entirely interested and absorbed my feelings and my powers that I am ex. blunted while the subj-ct itself remains almost nue ecoacbed; I feel, in consequence, unable further to des fess on the attention of the House than to express my thanks fir its indulgence.—(The lion. Member sat down amid loud and long-continued cheering). The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Sir, the Hon. Mem ber who has just sat doom has given me an opportunity 1 have lung sought tor, of explaining the safety this ICI. provides for the Protestant Church, and I hope be fore I conclude to make that safety 'Appear plain to all intelligent minds; but I must here lament that I have not the assistance of my late Learned Colleague—l must lament that his conscientious scruples should have been the means of his leaving office; he appeared to think that the oath he bad taken had something in it that compelled him to reject this measure. Now, Sir, what are the words of that oath ? they are these- 4, To duly serve the King, and give him good council in all his Courts of Record—and to advise his Majesty in all matters when called upon." Now he would put it to the House if, as Attorney General of England, he, in common with others, saw the necessity of the measure, would he not, by recommending it, be giving good council to his Majesty ? I, Sir, feel this course to be the only one that can give security and peace to Ire land, and therefore conscientiously recommend it— (Hear and cheers). la 1791 an Act passed which, in part, emancipated the Catholics; in 1793 another Act, of a similar nature, passed -she Legislature s and those beat acquainted w . tb Ireland knew the good effects of those mess-ees. And it should be recollected, when the Act of 1791 was passed, Sir John Scott (now Lord Eldon) was Attorney-General; he had taken the same oath ss his are. Friend, but it did not strike him that be was bound t r leave office ; and in 1795 Sir John Milford, now Lord Redesdale, was Attorney• General, and he. too, thsught ha could retain oace consistently. 81r, what is the real st +teal the question ? Could any outer measure have been adopted with sa f e ty ? • say no. Honourable Members have been challenged to propose other remedies; but on this point they are always silent. I will now come at once to the provi sions of the Bill, for the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last has alms to most unwarrantable conclusions re specting their safety. I say. Br, the Bill is so contrived that it must protect the Protestant Church. It has been our anxiety that no man should be able to lay his finger upon any of its clauses mid say here is danger.— It d yes n rt admix of a veto. because that would imply the approval of any person nominated by the See of Rome to the office if a Bishop. S.tcondly.,lt does not giant any stipend to the Catholic Clergy, for that would make Catholic Clergymen recognise Ministers. Thirdly, it does not restrict any corresymideoce with Rome, for any such restriction eon's) only tend to increase Tlretet9re, no one looking at Ibis Bill can say that the' t:4l-halit Cbu;ch has AP estehlitiment in this kingdom. I have not, Sir, herd a single solid obi. etaon t the proposed oath. 1 have not heard a single argu ment that at all induces me to think it does not aff rd sufiicseet protection to the Protestant Church.— Has not the Calsolic Association been put down? Is there not a 13,11 to disfranchise the forty shilling fief holders? Ate not these measures striking at the rot of their stionghold•? But 1 woul4 esk, could thew Acts ever have been catried, of it was not in anticipation of the present? I wit tearlessly say they could not—and for the truth of ibis assertion, appeal to oe last ten years experience of any lion. Menthe,. In the year 1678 the King on the throne was a disguised Papist. and his suc cessor a Taal one. Ile %vivid therefore ask, what com parison was there now with that tins ? Our King and all his family were decidedly Protestant; there was no fear of their becoming Papists. But Hint. Members seemed to think that admitting a few Roman Catholics I n to the 'lou s e stouts' make us all Papists, and their influence such as to elessroy all our churches. But I th i nk, alkaline)) of England rests on a better foun- Chntonn—it is safe in die purity of its doctrines. When the Roman Catholic retision wes the established relig•on of ti e country—when every obstacle was in its *my— th* Prot *taut Choech advanced 010,1 Y a but saraband in spite of all oppotition--and are nut our Clergy as zealous pow as then ? If they are (and I de wet doubt it), there is little danger. No Roman Catholiscould be leather of st public *ho' ; and with the *Moil* 01 knowledge and the spread of the Scriptures there was no fear ut Popery. Groot the Catholics their rights, that was the best foundation for security, and I have no doubt they will unke in any cause for their country's gaol Una forbid that it should be thoogbt I would sanetiots any eisamue that would weaken the foundation tithe Protestant Church. In the Protestant faith I was Ascien...,44l the Protestant faith I have lived, and in the Protestant faith I shall die. I 4 conclusion I can only say, the Bill has my coecurrence t and I shall toolbar* to Si , . it of silpport. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said. that the other nosing s Noble Ln;.d bad called upon bias to speaks because be was the Attorney General; and now his late illosotwable and tArareeil Collgagug had called upon him to do so because be was no Attorney fienen4 He had attempted on the previous occasion to justify blscoz-. diet, su;td be wasid at t now *rusk from a similar effort. The Noble Lord called upon him to prdve that Catbo cisos was ntcessarilyezchaded from the logislatoreand the great offices of the &ate by the constitution. He bad accepted the challenge, and with what degree of success he had acquitted himself it was not for him to say. His late H , nourable and Learned C o ll eague now challenged him to break a lance on the ground that he had taken too nice and sickly a view of his late official oath. He would undertake the new tilt, and endeavour to main tain the propriety. the consistency—nay, the necessity of his conduct with respect to that oath. whai be was . , called upon to frame. the Bill befoie the Ham, be did think it necessary to look to the conditions of his oath. His late Honourable Colleague—indeed be might say his llouourable Colleague, for he (Sir C. Wetherell) was de jar. still the first law authority in dist, House. At pre.ent, however, he was not to speak as the Colleague of his Honourable and Learned Friend. In the construction of an oath, different men might entertain different views. When his Honourable Friend stated the substance of the oath, it certainly did not appear to him that an Attorney General was bound to do more than give his Royal Master counsel in his Courts of Record ; that .was, to do his babt to see the Re- venue and other Lars affecting bis Sovereign's interests efficiently and propel!, enforced; but on a little further investigation, however, that substance was found to be only a branch of the oath. The oath taken by anAttorney General was as comprehensive as the oath taken by a Privy Councillor, although not so pungently worded. That being the case, could he forget the nature of his oath when he was called to frame such a Bill as that before the House? When he looked upon the principles of the Bill, and mil cted upon the oath he had taken, he could not advise his Royal Master to adopt such a measure without putting that Royal Master in jeopardy and breaking bis own oath—(Cheers, followed by cheers from the Opposition). He would remind those Hon. Gentlemen who cheered him from the other side, that he had risen in conseqtxence of a direct cballen;e. He had oo wish to address the House; he was indisposed, and if he had sought his own gratification he should have remained silent; but he had been called upon to defend his conduct, and that was a piece of dot, from which he would never shrink—(Hear). Those who regarded the Bill as a measure calculated to be nefit the Established Church, and to perpetuate and uphold the Constitution, might, salve amscientia, give it their support • but those who held as he did, most sincerely, that the measure was calculated to de stroy the Constitution, and to uproot the Established Church, could not as Attorney-General draw the Bill, or advise their S wereign to entertain it, without a breach of their solemn covenant. Such was his opinion of the oath be had taken, and respecting which hiscon duct appeared to be considered by bis late Hon. and Learned Colleague as sickly and too nice. Upon this subject he would only further say, that no consideration, no emolument, no honours man could bestow upon him, should have induced him to act otherwise than he had done. He would not enter into the dispute between his Hon. Friend (Mr.W. Bankes) and the Solicitor-General, because it might be considered personal,but if the cause of the Roman Catholics was so sure of being Woos phant at the University of Cambridge, it was something like a reflection on Ministers that they had not availed themselves of so favourable an opportunity of adding the suffrages of that learned body to those of their present supporters. He wished to impute motives to no man, and, lie had never intended to do any thing of the sort. His lion. and Learned Colleague had imputed to him too nice, too sickly, t 4 squeamish a conscience, and he lied alluded, in confirmation of his charge, to the conduct of Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale. His Hoe. and Learned Friend had not mentioned those N 'Me Lords by name, or expressly called his (Sir Charles Wetherell's) conscience sickly and squeamish. He was far too polite to do any thing of the sort, but he had ' hinted at it. He respected the high character and rare abilities of Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale, but he was not prepared to adopt the conduct and opinions of any man as the standard by which he was to regulate his own conduct. In his plicate lucubratians he should consult only his own mind, and the view which he himself placed upon the meaning of the oath he bad taken. But what did Lords Eldon and Redes dale really do? Did they give the elective franchise to the Roman Catholics? No; Lord Eldon did no such thing—(Hear) Did Lord Eldon open every office, with one or two futile exceptions, to the Ito. man Catholics? No; he did no such thing—(Hear). Nor did Lord Redesdale concede any political power to the Roman Catholics. He merely repealed the offensive parts of the code made immediately after the Revolution. Well than, it his Hon. and Learned Friend meant to as sent that Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale were acting Inconsistently in the yeas 1829 because they opposed such a Bill as that before the House, he mno confront him with the facts, and deny his po.ition. With that point then he bad done. Then with respect to the Bill itself— his late Hon. and Learned Colleague bad prefaced his speech by saying he intended to explain the Bill, but un for t onto ely he had sat down without doing airy such thi.r.i Indeed nobody bad as yet performed that task. The; Right Hon. Secretary'. in his opening speech, had done' nothing of the sort. His Hon. and Learned Friend had certainly alluded to the clause respecting theassumption of the title of Bishop by Roman Catholics, but to nothing else. He (Sir C. Wetherell) was therefore placed in a very awkward predicament; for, although out of office, he was called upon to explain the Bill, his Honourable and Learned Colleague in (Ace having failed to Jo so. They had been told, before the introduction of the Bill, that it would give perfect satisfactioo to all partici; but what was the tact? To the Protestants it gave uo satisfaction, and certainly no security, however agreeable it might be to the Roman Catholics. The question of 'amides had long and often been most ably argued, both in that House and out of it—both by lay men and divines. But after all the light which bad been thrown upon that branch of the subject, what did the present Bill propose? It actually gave no seen' ity at all. It opened all the offices of the State excepting two, and the Right Hon. Secretary said that all coatroul over the Roman Catholic Church, and all superintend. ence of correspondence with thi See of Rome was missed, as such restrictions would tend to irritate the Boman Catholics, and reader them discontented. Those securities therefore were abandoned—absolutely given up without any other reason than that he had stated. But it was said that the oath contained in the Bill was' to be a panacea against all ills, and to protect the Established Church. He hismelf, however, did not see how it could produce any such effect. Suppose, for jamas., the Honourable Member for Aberdeen should propose a motion for the distribution of the Church yroperty, and such a motion was to be seconded by the Honourable Meinber for Colchester, and on a division some sixty or' seventy Protestant. Members supported the proposition, he wished to put this clues. iron, and he called upon, be challenged some Honour. able Member to answer it—be wished to ask whether, in such a case, a Roman Catholic voting in favour of ..Itch a motion would break his oath. and incapacitate Moss* from holding office? Me bad been challenged in two instances, and therefore he tbonglit be might without presumption, throw out a challenge bimseb. II itcoald be shown to him that a Roman Catholic did not enter that House as wlegislator free and uoshack!edi it could be shown to him that a Roman C th he could not take b part in &Ay such case as that which he, had supposed, then iodeed much of the sting sf the measure would be extracted,-(Hear). He was sorer, 'to be obliged to trouble the House, but u his Hoa. aid Learned Colleague had not explained the provi sions of the Bill he was obliged to do so—(A laugh). His first objection to the oath was that it did not show whether the petsoq taking it was of any religion or wet.' But supposinithat a Roman Catholic was Prime Minister, how did the Bill, with all its foolish garrulity about prohibitions, provide for his detection if he went contrary to the enactment ? Oh said the Right Hon- Secretary, if the Prime Magner should be a Ronne Catholic, still the document must be countersigned by the Home Secretary. But who was to pass between the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister? But would the Right Honburable Secretary say no nun could Ise a champion of a cause one day, and a traitor to that, cause the next? Might no one write on* day on the one side and the next day on tbe other ? There cool* be no danger of a traitor being appointed to preferment, in the Church, because (said' the Right Honourable, Secretary) the document must be simied by a Protestant I Minister. With that reason, however, he (Sir C. W 4 was not satisfied. The Prime Minister might be el Roman Catholic, and when persons were engage* together in the pursuit of certain general principles, it *Was impossible to say to what extent a H o me Secretary might be induced to sympathise with the P. emier. The Bill was only fit for waste paper, and to be put at the disposal of the cheesemonger or the grocer. The Ho., namable Member censured the departure from a Pro testant Committee, and the investment of Chu'cb pa., tronage in the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Arch bishop would not only have the power of confer' ing church patronage in England, but might be sent down' to Scotland to dispose of all the preferments in the Scottish Church. This he considered a power fatal to the Bill—(Hear, hear, hear).—His Honourable Friend might say " Hear, hear !" He should say Heal" too—.(A laugh) —This was a farce too bad for Sad ler's Wells. They had proposed to appoint a Pro. testant Committee to watch over ti.e intere.ts of the Church, and they began by the ossiog all into the hands of the Archbishop. Anxious as he was to maintain the, privileges of the Church, and the spirit of Protestant ascendancy, he could not consider it Convitotional to place all the power of the Church in the hauls of the Archbishop. Was it not unconstitutional to take from the Crown the power which belonged to it, for the pup pose of vesting it in the Archbishop ? The Hon. Gen tleman might have pungent arguments, no doubt ; but if the Hon. Gentleman would allow him to be cut up after he had concluded his s,.eech be should be obliged. It was a monstrous power to be given to theArchbiahop. The Bill was fallacious in another point of view. It said the Piime Minister had a right to nominate, and that such nomination should be in the hands of the Arch bishop. They all knew that the Prime Minister c.;uld only nominate persons to the King for Bishoprics, and be would assert as a lawyer, whether in or out of office, that this Bill would not prevent any Prime Minister, being a Roman Carbolic, from nominating any terms to the King for Church preferment. The substance of the whole Bill was this : Any K man Catholic might be presented to the Crown for a 8,,h0 ; tic.— He had said on a finmer occasion that the Bill, in the fullness of giving and the penury of re taining, had given up all sch”lastic institutions to Roman Catholics. Ile would ask any lawyer what ecclisiastical establishments meant? He would not ask the composer of the Bill that question, hut appeal to the anonymous penman who drew it. The Bi'l ad minted that no school was to be shut against Romeo Catholics but ecclesiastical establishments, and how d d it happen that three fine seminaries, Eton Winchester. and Westminstet , were only excepted ? Why we, e the Charter.house, Harrow, Merchant Tailors, and Rugby Schools, left out? Why could not Roman Catholics enter those Schools, and undermine the Piwestant Ms. gion by teaching? The Protestant leigion would de. pond tor its preservation upon the education of youth. There was one part of the Bill so extraordinary, that it was a wonder how it could ever receive the sanction at the House. They had introduced penalties in case any person accepted office without taking the oath ratined by the Bill. The Attorney General was to me for those penalties. It was well enough to give him the contioul over a Silk Bill or any conimeicial measure, but to give him the keys of the Protestant religion was too much. If the Attorneytien. should be a RomanCatholic,he would never sue for those penalties ; if a Pratt -taut, and the Prime Minister sinned be a Roman Caul lie, he would under stand that be could not su, for penalties under this Bill. Ile would feel a little touch of para lysis in his hand when he attempted to sue a Catholic for these penalties, because he must know that he would be no longer Attorney General. The Catholic Prime Minister w. uld say, How have you the impudence to sue for penalties against Catholic. contrary to the will of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, or some other? You ale no longer Attorney Gen ral; you have offended the Roman Catholics in office. In the mean time, the person elected to office without taking the oath could not be deprived of it, without the c-a vicrion upon information, and recovery of 2001. penalty. The fact then was, that the miserable clauses of this piece of waste paper (the Bill) were founded in rotten ness, duplicity, treachery, and fiction. No Attorney- General could sue for penalties. It had been said that be did not look at the case of Ireland. and that, if he objected to the proposed Bill, lie was bound bulanter to propose some utter remedial measure. Mit dapper conclusion was rather too trite—(A laugh). He ought call upon the Cambridge Attorney. General to prove that any other Attorney-General was bound to sub stitute a measure at twenty-four hours notice. Much had been said upon the petitions arinst this measure. He had heard of Scotch metaphysicians and logic.— An Honourable Member introducing a Petition said he had the signatures of Sir W. Scott, andmen of WO attainments. The argument drawn from the signatures of first class men was, that the question—the religions question—which agitated the public mind, was not is be decided by the Protestant population, but the few— by Sir W. Scott the novelist, and Dr. Chalmers. If such was to be the decision, he should say it was contrary to the Bill of Rights. A body of Protestant tradesmen were as able to decide whether their religion should be maintained as Sir W. Scott, or any other first class men —(Cry of " no I") Those who said " No, not' would perhaps tell him why. He knew that the Senior and Junior Wranglers, with many others, said it depended clothe scale of ;welled, and it it were to be decided ise that test, why not try the scale of Cambridge as well as Oxford ? He should always say the Protestant religion Was the religion of the many, not the few. The people d England acquired a knowledge of their religion fres their Pastors, and they understood It as well as the great Mean writer,and others whO exercised Bights of fancy. Then torso:oh they were to bare Remeacethelic Judge , . The lad Cathol c ! lodge in this coestry was dodge Al l:than. The eecottie of that learned .person in a case of libel proved .134 Catholic justice WAS )11, ookosed to Protestant feeling. It would . be tecollected th a t the Bishops refused to read in the Fdtosches King J.me.'s Declaration of Liberty of Conscienee. A %voicing ;splint that Declaration we, called a. libel, aa I the cpie.tiort way whether it was a libel or not? The Catholic Joie, said in the fiat plate. "That no man can take MI him to write oa the actual pease:es oaf Government, and unless he has leave given him by Governmesit. if is a it.. bel whethertr se or false. Wow comfit° impeschGoverna Mitt by written argument, that is libel. If I take pen and orrice better than another, this is libel." So much let Catholic law; bin he should read another part of the judgineot:—.o I lay down this law: no ' /solvate man can write against the Government, be cause a private man has ambit g to do pi:h Gosernatent.". He might be told that our law el libel at the present day was bad, but ler the House look to the law summed op by theCeoltolic Judge *him hediad quoted, and soli whether the same feeling b:- treeeo Catholic and Pow:swot might not spring u.s again? Tune doctrines of passive nbediesace and non resistance had &Wayi been the rob of the Catholic sebool. It was part of the Ecclesiastical law of the Clough of Rome. The Cali loc Clergy said t 1 their 4 4ks—you shall read nothing. write within,, but that which is IglbjeCt an the right of imp- imghtr If you do, yoe most suffer outlet excommunication. They had been taunted with the opinions of firot class meoo— he silk gowns of the pampa day wear made se; viol to the stuff gowns, but he deeded that the Petition from the Bar rwpre.ented more than a p'rtiou ot the Bar. With tesPoot to modern opinions. if names were mentioned, be e ml,l also produce names. Lord Somers, kW ton, and Locke, were at least equal to two, of the Scutti.b meteplaysiciaos of the present day. fie cool I name Sidney, Haddington, and Sir W. B ackaotoe.atid might contend that t! ow illustrious characters were to be placed against any names they could bring. I. they !awe to 1110 ifAlie the question by the tree unbiassed judgment of Pinto:ant subjects, the Bill would be re j-cted. Having beto called on twice to deliver his opinion, be should say. ii called on the third time. he would answer again. If the NI should go bother he would oppose it, and even challenge those who were its advocates to sup koi t it—(The Honourable and Learned Geatlensan took his seat amidst loud cheering). Mr. Secretary PEEL said, the Hon. Washer for Plymptoo had become a sort of challenger, and be must answer the chalks:et, and say that he was still prepa.ed to defend the Bid. Ba: after all the attacks hat had been made on the Bill. none bad left him so satisfied with it as those ache H .nourable Member ter Ply mptots. When that lion. Member's arguments failed, -be thought these was mason for increased satisfaction with the Bill. For what had the Riga. ments amounted to—oith the quotation bunted out about Justice Anibal P—(Hear). What bad any one to do with the absurd and unconstitutional witticisms of Justice Allibon, any more thin Protestants were to be answerable for a Jefferies T— (Hear. hear)—or the Protestant advisers of ship money ? But he must strip the Hon. and Learned Member of some of his borrowed plumage. He had sat with him (Mr. P.) in confidential communication up to the night of the 2 4 11, when he made his sp ech expiessing his ab horrence of this Ball, but which abhorrence had not been before expressed. Seven days beime the weetirg of Pail...mein he made a communication to roe lion. Member, not as a confidentill and respoossible adviser of the Crown, but as 'the legal adviser. His legal as sistance was 'squired to prepare the Aosociations Su; - pression Bill ; and at the sometime an o Otoe re tf.e ge neral chasaCier if the other Bill was ioripatted to him. He said n. Moog then to lead to the suppo loon that he was against the, Bill, or that he approved of t; but lie certainly expressed no abbot-owlet-of it. He assists d zo prepare the Sup; ressioni 13dt ; and they 100 rto con sult him At out the laws of endowments, Etc.—blot &mu to the 2Si, though . the Parlionent met on the' 5 h ol February. be bad oo reason to dcubt about the Hon. and Learned Gentleintn's opinions. There was much confidential communication with him—but neerr any doubt rscapeJ him as to the general policy of the mea sure. On the 22J the Noble Duke had ocrarion to consult the Honourable Member—but till the debate ot the SSI, nothing was heard about tepugnance to pre. pare the Bill, or of abh 'trance of the measure—Meal). All that he said was—he could not give till indisidual suppw 1 to Catholic Emancipation—that he certainly did say —( Hear). He did not think the Honourable Member was warranted in his charges agdi:ist the Gni. vernmeot. As to his law arguments against she Bill, they were easily answered or r medied.. Tim Bill did not repeal the Acts prohibiting intercourse with Rome ; they were still its moat .% As to the ecclesiastical folooda tion, the exceptions applied to some few by (ism-, coeld ili extend-4: to alt; and as to the pena'tes, that provision could be made compulsion, s . a. not to be dependant on any Prime Minister or Ann/ rey.tireeral. Die amendmen a might be m.sde without r -com mitting the Bill; an re conowi mein he cou of out agree. He c-uld add, to (poet the alarms ot all-- that the meat we had airmail been of the most t.e..e ficial tendency io Ireland—(Hw, hear). A roan who may condemn the abstract measure, may still sup port the measure in it. present stage, from the ceit .inty that it would be impossible to retrace waste ; s, and riot the reject on of the measure w uld be very different is:- deeJ nom not having brought it forward. He hoped the discussion of the question was now drawing too a close, and that instead of spendi..g thirty or forty days every Sesion on this questitr, re should be able to devote that time to the general good of the country.— Fur himself, however painful the duty lie had to perform. he must still contend it was a duty, that he was bound as a Minister of the Crown to Rite the best aJvice of which be was capable, without reference to the speeches he had formerly made, or the opinions he had held ; and though his conduct was to be visited, as was thieoteted, with the, loss of connections which be lighly valued, yet he could not agree to preseove the most valued con nections by a violation of his duty to his S oreieign and the Country. It was not necessary to bosrow the simile of an Honourable Admiral—that the pilot should always steer the same course; it might be necessary foe the safety of the vessel that he should change to. course, and it was equally access. ry that a Minister of the Crown should act according to the exigencies of the country. He bad endeavoured at eve. y sacrifice of pri vate feeling to act in the manner the exigencies of the country demanded, from a person in his responsible situation, and he felt , confident in the support of the House and the counts y...(The Right Honourable Gent. sat down amidst the loudest cheering.) Sit R. INGLIS rose amid loud cries of "Q oration" from some posits of the House, and of " Go on" from others. The Hon. Member absolved that the question of Catholic Emancipa inn had been brought toterard during the present Session under ciicum lances the most extraordinary and inexplicable; had been brought . forward and supported by the Minoaers of a g4viltt.