Star. — London, England, 1829-03-06 00:00:00

10 1 ' r of stairs, and from that moment, during the remaiatter. of his life, the Cabinet acted on the principle of hosts'.' lity to the Catholic Claims certainly, but not 'ids a view to perpetuity, or even permanency. During _that period Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning were MM. bets of the Government, and only acted with it on the groand that the hostility to the Catholic Claims was not to beperpranent. In the month -of May, 1812, Mr.; Perqeial lost his l ife, and then another consideration, which had its rise almost co-incidental with his' death, sprang up—l mean the ' termination of the Regency restrictions. A change respecting this ques• 'trio then took place, which was by some attributed to the 4eath of Mr. Perceval, but which, in fact, had its' :origin More in the Other satire. It may be said that, hid Mr. percevateentinued to live, the policy of the Cabinet respecting the Catholic Claims would have re. 'Mained Unchanged. I doubt this assertion. But to re turn. Soon after the expiration of the Regency Restric tionsone month after the death of Mr. Perceval—the Foliar:sent which had been elected in 1807 was dis solved, and on the nest division on the question this ) 4 se resolved By a majority of 189, to take the Ca thilic Claims into consideration. I therefore think that elven hid Mt. Perceval lived be could not have con tinaed to conduct the Government of the country on iitlier term,; it .I.ord Castlereagh and Mr. Can. nag !rapid not have remained members of such a Go- 1 iiiinmeet. Since 1812, and op to the commencement of this' pieseht Session of Parliament, the Catholic gam Lion has been made what was called a neutral question; that is, every member of the Administ‘ation was al lowed to take what part he thought proper in the deci. eines' of le; Daring that period the Cabinet was can-' itiody . divided on the Subjrct. Sometimes there were ievonifitamt Concession to stn for it ; at other times the biladki Ot‘tlie contrary siJe; at others *ill The Cabinet gins eqsallydivided. As as inevitabli con. legumes tberi were, during the same time, Lords Lieutenants of -Ireland and Secretaries taking dif-, hien' irieirs.t, And Attorneys General and 83licitors' General also opposed to each other on the same question ...t(Heat). 'Her pabiie men bring.divicled, it necessarily Fa 'wed that lieland should exhibit division and con fission. Inferences have been drawn from speeches de-, livered inParliament on the shbject utterli unwarranted.l .--The apparent weakness of the party for concession j arose out of want of enerily and. the divided nature of the Government. Mane Incoureniences and evils were felt from this, therefore necessarily unsettled,. state of the question.,, Was that not a powerful reason for at tempting some other ?—(Hear). What has passed in this'Hiniie within a compaiitively short period? holdin my hand accounts of the divisions that have. tikeis place here on the Catholic Question within the last ten years, which, with the leave of the House, I shall rea.i. i have already said that four out of five of the Unusei of CoUirryins that have sat since 1812 had conic to detiiions lel:min of the CatholiC Qom tin's.... One Houle of .Commons did reject the Catholic Claims by a majoriti . 010 t 0241. that !lathe single in in - which a. Holes, of Comatose. within the ..stance . ._.__ ._ ,_ ___ pei iod of 'whiCh [ speak;tecided.idversely to ffilktiatlto ! lic Claiins; every other was favourableto them at one period or Other. In 1819 there was, : as I have just said, a os.jiniiy of twriagainst concession. ' In 1821 there was a in ij iiity if nineteen in favour of it. In 1822 a Bill in fagots , *rf the ' R 6,... caiholic Claims passed this Housed by a 16,4 esity of five.' In 182# the question was not discussed. In 1625 them was a majority of twenty-one in favour of conce s sion. In 1826 the general election took .place. In 1827 the pretent House of Commons detided agaliest the Catholic Claims by a majority of leer; but last jeir theie was in this house a majenity of six in faiOur 61 them. What was hisllajesty is Go ✓ rum nt to do under theseciteumstance2theCatiinet equikily divided=the 11:itise of Commons neatly sn.— B.'„ with relit ct to the pleeent House of Commons, which was elected in 1828, I shall ask, is this House an unfair representation of public opinirn upon the Cabo. lie Qeiestion? Was it not elected at a period when the poblic Mind wai sufficiently alive to the question-- (Hem). It was eletted in 1826. Its predecessor hid twite carried Bills through tads House for the removal (tithe disabilities of the Woman Catholics. This House of C-Mmoni was eleCtediiiimeeliately after a discussion of th e Roman Catholic Question. Public attention had been therefore folly iwakined to it. Within one year pteviously it had hecuine necessary to introduce Bills, the objet of which was, the Suppression of the Catholic Ass , claw's. Onthe ' first a debate took place in this Hems., 'which occupied five nights. If; therefore, the public were determined to prevent the future agitation . of that question, the period of the general election was the time tahive declared and cartied such determination. It is' somewhat bard to be compelled to fight battles pess i Seedy destitute of the necessary materials. It is some what hat tut catry on a'Gtivernmein divided in itself. as well with divided Honsei Of Parliament. It is some what hard to fight a battle "Wick those materials with which only it could be successfully 'fought. lam told. " the conotty is against the batholit Claims." ThiS ii a Sets , recent chseovery. If it were title, it ought to have beendeclisted in the proper and Unequivocal way by roil:the meetings in eirety'patish, and peeseissW, by the esertise of the eleetive ft aiseliise--(Hiar). Publie opidirin not being decterid'aileeree to the Catholic Claims, it is not fair.thereiore, tii'thissiy spost'aoiest?. - , mem tLe'entire responsibility 'of 'resistance to them"-, I. asked - Out '.l mere-cunoittly, fat I' was utterly ignorant, of the fact, ['edged an tin. Friend the day befoloyes terday, taking the tepreiriitation of the 15 coniatio of England possessing the litgest' popitlitiOsi 'end that of the twenty largest mini toketber, what 'Was the result with . tespect to their 'votes on this question, for the put- i pose of ascertaining the sentimenti of the electoti of, thole pluses, ,in hider to duvet my judgment—oh/10T, 1 we. &thief:aides! opein *hoodse blOe ul contieped, teitatance to the' Catholic Claim mirk° rest, t.) ago.' tell Op* what grounds it had beep urged thee the voice of the people caul.* be said to bare been ilm.-t , utistnimifii against this 9nestion? ' my lion. Friend made the mutilation which. Pith be leave in the Hail*, I shall state, first observant/ Chat the counties toe townhselected were theses op account of their suiterfor trent and amount • frialition—(Heal).....' Tlie augment I shall 'found. on this practical eirarl take to be onanswefahle. Olt What princtele, I will ailt, the Heti. Gentlemen litho c'hillS • ,Is the Guyer oMilit of Iceland to be eat, ierf A, if in' city is refused' intO the manner in Which the Ptotestaat (relit% of the cowboy basiteen dem 'roil r :led in' ihdOnltitray to which it could be sorililiOle to ft ? In the House Comiiimis electeill in 10261)4 . feillowing - ctietitiii kierclied the electisai ft andbise in seMilog pet ions lospeak their seolinsents go this qiiestirin ii'rirliante: t in theleillf,:tiing matinee-, The Omar of TOM iioeased 'no opinion, hiCause it sent tiro Members 'Who 'vote for, grid trio Who vo agisiask the CrifiellieViiiitniNt. ratker„ iti opini;to goes: ha Main ; hot, sit Mei& the worse et**, f..iisnailiillAil eimeietbeed' it' is lisiicioribk ' it; 'those fief W I Slisdthe' sense . Of tfid ioutitrY favodratil is ilitn; why should I Ciontifilitinfleiabliin'aiy Opjiti-' ' / Is thus steakin lana guilty of no isnot- .- -- question, . sums taxi' 11111111110___ sistencr, for kuoldr *Met fllerreklit of the 04111111 c . battle. •• I 'Mb, guhlipsl,hs wit spiuion by the opiaion Parliament." Whoa I resisted Owe claims I did so 'candidly, sod on public grounds Ind public authority. linger was a party to the petting op of petitions in sup port of hay own opinions upon it. Never, s n ider any circumstances, did I attempt to influence ptiblic opi nion hi that way, or to bring it over to my own views by expedients. The Members of this Honourable House We the fittest Judges, and will decide the important issue of this question. Many Hon. Members have upon it a strong feeling. I respect that feeling, and shall cot auempt.unfairly to influence it. Therefore, when I said that the opinion of the county of York should go fqr nothing. 1 only meant that in the persons of its repre sentatives its opinion on this subject is balanced. The next county, in point of extent and population, is Mid dlesex, the metropolitan county of England. It sends two Members to Parliament, both of whom vote io fa veer of the Catholic Claims. Lancaster is the next county in point of importance, and Lancaster, like York, has expressed no opinion, for its Members vote differently on this question. Devon follows the exam ple of Lancaster. Kent is in the same predicament. Surrey, in the came manner, sends two Members, one of whoni supports, the other opposes, the Catholic Claims. Sonaersetshire is an exception to those I have mentioned; both my Hon. Friends, the Representatives of that county, and who, no doubt, honourably repre sent its sentiments, vote against the Catholic Claims. Norfolk, on the other hand, pairs off with Somerset, and sends two Members favourable to the question. Stafford, my own native county, sends &o Members who have uniformly supported the Catholic Claims. Essex is in the same situation. In the case of Hamp shire the case is different ; both Members oppose the question. Lincoln is neutralised. Warwick and Suffolk are similarly circumstanced. Am I not, therefore, jus tified in saying that strong opinion against these Claims does not exist, or, if it does exist, that it has not been expressed, when I find the result of this account is, that these 15 counties send 15 Members to this House against . the Catholic Claims and 17 in favour of them—and that, too, after the former House of Commons had twice passed Bills of relief? Yet, after these, the public opi nion of these counties has been thus publicly expressed. The twenty largest cities and towns have in the follow. ing manner demonstrated their opinions: London sent four Membets, two of whom support, and two oppose, this question. Westminster sends two Members, both Of wbom have been uniformly favourable to these Claims. Southwark two, who vote similarly. Liverpool sends two, one of whom is favourable, the other adverse, 'to this question. Bristol sends two, both of whom vote against it. Norwich sends two, one in favour and the other against the Catholic Claims. Nottingham sends two, both of whom ate favourable to them. Newcastle upon-Tyne also sends two Members in favour of this question. The Representatives for Leicester are divided. The same is the case with respect to the Hon. Mam bas f rr Hull. The two Members sent by Exeter are against the Catholic Claims. Coventry is neutralized. B nth the Hon.Reptesentatives for Chester vote in favour of 1.14 Catholic Claims. The two Hon.-Members for Great Yarmouth support them, as do the Representa tives for Derby. The Members for Ipswich are divided. • Worcester sends two Members, one of whom does not vote.oa the question, the other is favourable to it. One 9 1 the Represeutatives for Aylesbury votes for. the other against. these claims. Carlisle the same. Of the two lipn.Membets for Colchester, one does not vote an the question, the other opposes it. The result of these facts is, that, of the Representatives of these twenty large town, eighteen vote against concession, and twenty-eight in favour of it—(Hear).' I must, there hire. say. that the expression of the deliberate voice of England is in favour of the settlement of the Catholic Claims. But, even were that not the case, Parliament having for the last ten years been nearly equally divided on the question, it is not fair to throw on me the re:pon sibklity of permanently opposing the settlement of it. .1 shall now refer to the state of public opinion with reaprct to the mfetence drawn from the debates in this House on the Catholic question. Upon whom, I ask. has the' burthen of opposing these claims been thrown ? I hold in my . hand a list of the speakers in favour of the Catholic question, and those against it. To name those individuals would be invidious; but, when individuals have for ten years suffered this question to be discussed without ever once attempting to oven their mouths to express their seati ntents upon it—when the speakers on the other side were as three to one, it is very hard that those who never beard themselves speak should come forward now in 1829, and say that the weight of Protestant feeling was against the settlement of this great and important ques tion; and I must say that the Hon. Member for Kent would have evinced his zeal fur the Protestant Est.- blishment better by supporting me in the Catholic Que stion than by summoning the people of Kent to meet on Penenden Heath—(Hear). A snort important inference may be drawn from these facts. How long is resistance Lobe kept up? That is the question for Parliament, and those who are responsible for the Government to consider. Have the young Members of this House been enlisted Spins' these Claims? Now, when it is sought to throw the sesponsiblny of opposing th's question on me, I feel bound to state that it is impossible not to see that almost every yotng man who has entered this House within the last ten years has come forward actively, zealously, and eloquently to advocate the Catholic Claims--(Hear, hear. hems). Ttle,e, I say, are important het., which ought not to be Irk on; of consideration—(leo). Tu resome. This baying been for five and twenty years the stay of the Government and the state of Parliament, I come nest to thevonsideration of what has been. the state of Ireiaud doing the same period. It is possilde that the state of LeLsod may have depended upa a the discussions in its goverosuesst; but I will not enter into an argument upon ceases:rad effects. It is. however. impossible to look at the sitnarioo of t h at cam-, uy, under those cirtocostauceb without prophesying what migtt be the effect of the changes I am about to propose—(Hear bear). If every thing were strut+. tory--if the orsdoery course of the laws were sufficiem for the . goveransent of Ireland and for her weitare—there on,ght be good grounds for objecting to alseratioy ; but, dur..g the tints whoa Parliament was divided an.l the Lioveremeni disenitesi on thisqeession. what has been the state of kelsed ? That during the lost 25 years Ministers were sciacely ever able to rely' upon tie ordinary less for thegovet mat of them:mos try. I am ready. es s poblic man. to take my abase of this tesponsihiatj; but I say it is a chasge which falls in proportion upon essey public men who participated i* the odeieistration witbin the OW period. In 11300 mar. vet law was rocLaioge. anci the I:kriteesCoPpecast was 6 4 S P eli4C 1 0 i k s way 69440011et1. I am told 1 4tl ferartiog dates Pith which every mask familiar. somit We lam ltioS wait "No coiled liCesseete. so which Lard irtarardr* was imerdere d . aIAR t D 0. 41 49 Tbesit a* Ware nosseems ',eq s: 1 4W1C7 ceatit.e44 1411106 the, bad expiied; bur the counties in tbe s mils of Ireland (that happened doting the &moon= of thopok e os ,Bs ford) ware in a sew approaching, to rebellion.; *pa a special commissio6 amcordinly seat dews. In 1407 the In‘urrection Act was passed, which 'ens powered the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim the -coreries at his own discretion, and which rendered a man liable to transportation for being fund out of his bonze after the prescribed hour. In 1809 it was continued ; in 1810 it was suffered to expire. I may be asked. why 1 dicrnot put down the Calbsilic Association? But let me remind the House of that which took place at the time when the present Earl of Carlisle (then Lord Mor peth) brought forward in 1811 his motion concerning Mr. Wellesley Pole's circular. TheCatbolic Board, which consisted of Peers. Baronets. Bishops, Peers eldett SONS. and others, was put down. Two prosecutions took place; in one of them the party was acquitted, in the other t w h a e s r es suppressed, a es c s eod b o i et o t n w : a i s revived ntil ag theth a en in. Ca l th n o l li S c 2 ana s an d other attempt at suppressing it was made. In 1828 that Act, which was a temporary one, expired; and now, in 1829, we are again employed in passing an Act for the suppression of dangerous Associations.— In 1814 the Insurrection Act was renewed; in ISIS it was continued ; in 1817 it expired. It was again rencaed in 1822, and it continued through 1841 and 1824. In 1825 the Act against Illegal Associations was pissed, which continued through 1826 and 1827, and, as I have just stated, in 1828 it expired. Such were the consequences to Ireland of a divided Parliament and a disunited Government; and these convince me that matters cannot remain as they are, but that some attem; t must be made to settle the question. I now approach that part of my address which is &tatted to what the .proposed alterations are. The first step would be to secure an undivided Parliament and an united Govern meat, who would be prepared to consider the possibis lity of adjusting this question. Let us consider the possibility of -this first part of the proposition, for it appears to we that we hare arrived at that point when we have to cbocse only between one or other —namely, batmen a uniteJ Government prepared to resist, or a united Gcvernment prepared to con cede. Can a Government be formed prepared to offer permanent resistance o the Catholic cla'.rns? I wish to discuss this question, because. if it cannot be shown to me that such a Government can be formed— that permanent resistance to these claims cannot be made—then am I just , fiei in the proposition which have undertaken to submit to the House. I next ask, can a Government be formed on the principle of resist ing on permanent grounds the claims of the Roman Catholics ? I may be answered, 64 We are prepared to resist, and permanently;" but the question is, not what is to be said, but, what is to be done? Before the enactment of the law of 1825, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been asked on the point, whether the common law was sufficient for the sop version of the Catholic Association? The answer was, that the common law was sufficient. Why, then, should the Government trammel and paralyze the. common law by the enactment of a new statute? At the end of the last. Session, when the Catholic Associa tion Act expired, the question was again put to my Hon. and Learned Friends, the law officers of England and Ireland, and that, too, at a time when the acts and lan guage of the Association had assumeJ an aspect of in. creased violence—the question was again put, whether the common law was sufficient to suppress the Associa tion? and the same answer was given again, that the law was sufficient. It bad been asserted, and by a high authority too, that the Act of 1825 bad been so framed that a coach and four -could be driven through it ; as it may be said of the measure l shall have the honour to introduce this evening, that a horse and cast may drive through it. If, then, the law and the divretionary authority, as stated by a high legal authority, have failed in producing the desired effect, what, I ask, is the other remedy which the adversaries of Con cession can propose? Suppose, then, the existing laws to be insufficient, and the introduction of new laws to be insufficient—an opinion which again, I say, has been given by the highest legal authority does it not prove that there is in Ireland a spirit et re sistance so elastic as to evade any resit ictions which, under present circumstances, could be fabricated? The question then to be considered was.what was to be done with the Catholic Association ? further restrictions ap peared to be inoperative, and as to ulterior measures of coercion, the very suspicion of them would have ex cited into still greater violence those feelings of discos. tent in Ireland which had already existed in an aggra vated form. What then was to be done? In the discus sion that took place on Ibis question last Session in this House, the numbers were 272 in favour of Concession, and 266 against. Can it be :oppose] possible then. foe a moment, that a House of Comm ins so divided would have given any attention,l will not say support, to any measures of coercion proposed by the Govern ment ? I have stroag doubts whether Government could havecarried insuch a House ofeommons any measure of coercion against the Catholic Association. But, sup posing such a coercive Rill to have passed, and t - e Catholic Association suppressed, could you have stopped there? If you had not been prepared to take into con sideration the removal of the disabilities affecting the Roman Catholics, what could you have done with the -lectire franchise as exercised by the Catholics of Ire land? It has been stated by the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford that if the existing disabilitiei were removed, twenty-three counties of Ireland would be prepared to follow the example of the county of Clate: 4 and send into this House Members favourable to the Catholic Claims. Thus, according to this statement, forty-six Representatives would come into this House elected through the influence of the Catholic Priest hood, and under circumstances of aggravated excite ment. What. then, would be the remedy for such a state of things? A dissolution of Parliament. But eettld a Government adverse to concession (supposing such a Government formed, and the Association sup pressed, the supplies voted), could such a Government venture to dissolve Parliament under such circum. stances? These are points which you must decide in forming an opinion on the results of concession or non concession, and points, too, from which you cannot es cape; for I am notmore certain of any cirenntstaece than I am of this—that, be the majority, under such a Go. 111111111111119 what it may, no majority will, under the system adopted bp an exclusive Government, be able to compete with the evils of Ireland. Now, Br , l ask, of these the think that such a Government, after suppressing the Association and getting the supplies, could safely dissolve 'the Parliament, I ask such Gentlemen, how could the goveenment of Ireland be carried on in such circus stoats.? Let its first look to the constituent body o f Irelimd. This is antmportant point, and I beg the auestism of Honourable Members to its consideration. Of the number of Irish Members who voted in this House on the lest occasion-when this question was de 'pied, the total number of representatives was 61. Ot 'these 46 voted for concession, and 16 in favour of re agues. Of the amber of Members for large towns aid botosighs, sizteea voted against the Catholic Claims and seventeen in support of them. Thus, of the ltish Members, 61 *fet e is favour atconcgska t trod-ES against it. Of** Members for the city of DAS!' Ont aas opposed to concession, and the other was friendlr to it. The Members for the Univeraity of Debbie voted in favour of concession; the Membtn for Cork voted for conceslion; so did the Menthe's for Limerick, and th al e w a, and the M y embersl°r Me Member Waterford, sad iOghed the a Drogheda; and the for Member Deny voted against concession. Thus, of theiepr f ur of Ireland. the clear majority, by One half,willha of have been G •foundto have given will their suppor tree to a measure claim, this is a proof of the undue inflaeoce of the RI. man Catholics. Sir, I admit the fact,. and 1 ask, whit remedy haec you against fi? You have already a large majority of the representation of Ireland ag ainstem elusion. Taking it for granted. then, that 23 counties of Inland are prepared to follow the example of Clare, you will have to add Jo the present forces to Park'. sent in favour of concession the additio.ta; Catholie partisans whom the e). iterneut 0: a . general election Will have given to thc Catholic cause ; under tile violent excitement that must follow such a dissolution of Par. liament. Thus, Sir, you oil have to commence your seclusive Government with the whole constituency and the great majority of the representatives of Ireland against you, and then be separated as England is from. Island. I say there will exist in that country a local ill flamice. which must counteract all the power of any amoral or political influence that can ptilcevai from this gauntry. What Alternative, then, rem 'in- ! W i ll you proceed to retract the privileges which you have already granted to the - Ca.holics? Ido not :Wok such a measure expedi 111. I believe that the commencenwnt of a Go verement, acting on the system ea recall of the yarding privileges enjoyed by the Catholic., and on the princi ple of never conceding any further concesssions,woell ptnduce in the minds of the people cf Ireland a e, -Action which might,. ender aggravated rreasuies and excited feelings, proceed to a struggle between religious parti es la Ireland, and which, if pushed to its legitimate issue, would end in there-enactment of the penal law.. N., w , Sir, let me a,k, can the penal laws be revived ? Ciin the penal laws be applied with any policy, or any seen. City, to the present circumstance, of lielend? You have given them the elective franchise. It has give* them power. Can you take it away again? You have removed the seal from the vessel. Can yon conjure back again the great :pith into the nurser limits from which you have released it ..?• Can you reduce the peasantry of Ireland to the condition in viiiich they were wiser'. they received the elective franchise e Having given to the lass of the Catholics a privilege which, ender the advanced influence of education 4nd increasing .pro. petty, has given them formidable power in tht CeCtiorl nfierelentatiVet. Can you, can a Government united I against concession. venture to re-impose on them the penal laws, and this', t.. 0, on a population labouring cuder the 'eacitenient of alarmed feelings? Ant{. I here, whatever may be the number of persons posed to i.e opposed to concession, it is impor ant `to consider the amount of the population of Ire. land interested in the success of the measure. Lst es• look at it, then. with a view to consider its effects on a Government United in a determination to withJraw from the Catholics the privileges enjoyed by them at present. The population of Ireland, according to the last census, is 6,800.000 persons. Of these 1,963,000 are either Protestant Dissenters or members of the Church of England. This calculation I take from the returns made by my Hon. Friend, the Member lot Louth, and made, I believe ' with the greatest accuracy. I err this point, inasmuch as it will be most necessary fir a Government, formed oo the exclusive systems to take into its consideration, in the details of the Govern ment of Ireland, the relative numbers and religious pro. fessiun of the population. and that population sea state of excited and irritated feeling. Thus, Sir, of the seven millicas comprising the population of Ireland, five millions may be taken to be Roman Catholics, and the remaining two millions Protestants. Now, at first sight, it may be supposed that the government of he* land may be safely carried on by the help of the two millions of Protestants; but look at the manner in which they are dispersed and divided through the country. True, ofthose two millions of Protestants twelve hers. bed thousand reside in Ulster. So far the thing is well enough. But consider it a little further. You have in Leiouer, Connaught, and Munster, four millions and two hundred and fifty thousand It•nnan Catholics, and but 750,000 Protestants. Yet this population is still more unequally distributed. In Antrim and Down are parishes in which there are no Roman Cotholicas while in the contiguous parishes of Clare you censor find a resident Protestant. There are three parishes is Munster in which there are no Proteratits,either of the Chinch of England or of the dissenting creeds. In Ulster there are four parishes, all the population of which are Protestant. not one being Catholic; while in Leinster, whose total population amounts to 166,000, 134,000 of whom ate Catholics, and but 24.000 Pro testants, In Munster there are 72 parish. s, in which the number of Protestants are 12,900, of the Catholics 164 4 500, making as of Catholics, in relation to Pro testants, about thirteen to one. Of twenty-three other. parishes, of Munster, comprising a total population of 102,000 persons, the Catholic portion of lababi tatits amounts to 96,001, wl its the Protestant part was but 4.000, making twenty Catholics to one. I ask the House toconsider the condition oh that Population, thus unequally distributed, and worked op. uider the infinense of a Government adverse to concession, hoe feelings of political dissension and religious animosity. Can ray Gevernment, united io hostility to the Roma* Catholic Claims, venture to repeal the existing privileges of 4,015.000 Roman Catholics, sp•ead amo ig only 750,000 Protestants.? I ask. would it be for the interest of the Protestants that such a measure should be ;de ted? Is it possible that you can re p ea l t h e pr i v il eges o f sash a polo:dation so situated, that is, while you leans 1 0 diipm the trial by Jury ?I say you cannot. and still WWII I say, and I am sasisfied it would not be conducive to the security of the interest of the Protestants, that the line of detnateatioo,whith is at present too clear, shook! be drawn still snore distinct between them and thee Catholic fellow countrymen, and that while the Catholics would have, as they most continue . to have, sin* 1 powerful alliance in the majority of this House of Pere liament. But Honourable Gentlemen have said that this battle was to be (might by the Protestants epilog die Catholics. Sir, that is not the real state of thecae. Look at the declarations lately issued by certaia Prete , is of Ireland. Having read the sentiments set kW is that declaraties, you trill see that the battle (SO l l tais ea the term) is not to be fought by the Protestant • against the Catholics 1 but by the Catholics ;sits' against the Protestants divided. Fur this opinion I ap peal, Sir, to facts. I appeal to the declared's . w which I have just alluded. That declaration was signed by Protestants possessing the highest tanks pin' • perty, and interest in the welfare of Ireland. Canal*. Hon. Member doubt the sincerity of the °plain's abet express? -Will any-man imagine, fir a moment, till such a document sras c got up. for a .party Pors i f • No -wan. • To• that dochusinit; then, I appeal. at proof incostroyeitible t . *at : sbcfrottstaat mitNl a . . o ; I 1 :Ireland is divided. 1 concession to the R tability who can d . Dukes, seven Margo Barons, Baresets, and I object in dwelling no It would be for the Pr repeal of the present pr ~ while the Catholics divided, and Ireland u administration hostile • The evil result of such to me apprehensions, . tenors as are calcul but such a cautious a rent and immediate would be justified in r at an administration so Ilion to have obtained 1 the system of attlll4o, arch a system last? are at peace. But the I maintained daring the • will have to consider disastrous period to th can easily believe that toted in bo.tility to t pared to say that they Protestant ascendancy, verses—that they will system, under all circu tan they do what they it aid be necessary for little to history —to the $ gentlemen to a period (1 I• at the bead of the Admi r =eat united, and an a Ireland when these•w Grand Juries unaoinsoe the Irish Hone o f C. m +mit,. rejected. not she Catholic Claims in. Petition of the Catholic all that unanimity of o. declarations, and reso of a Parliamentary ma Concession, on the and , the Session of 1793 ope. - . enendation from the Th consideration the state o and in that very Session *ion was passed in favo .. Coo, with a haste and pr. day reaping the bitter fr and boast of their 6zedn meanies of exclusion u will tell them that. until a more Protestant Pali 4 of Piotestants, such ii may be acted over a • through rational fears k recede from such r • under a new Govern , Claims. Anotbee alter concession--an slimmed but remotely hinted at b a civil war in Ireland. I the bottom of my' heart, • bid that the Protestant i • the responsibility of such any, the remotest, chasm to such a monstrous and I am prepared to melte ~ lamity. I would appeal t . weak of an illustrious . partisan, and the victim • • eirtuonsLetd Falkland— s. Colson in flea dame t am areas - —Sot, supposing the civi .. suppressed. whe re woo l • .' would be the success? vantage world it bring t. i manent effect would it - < We have here, also, hist. ' A civil war, such as has Honourable Geatleuseu, •, der the administration o Ireland at that time the ' from the description of • of a Bill passed on the • lion was raging, two's' •• cutnitenCta of atrocity, country, set the civil po the ordivary coarse of rebellion, then. put do citement abated, 1 sry 1 that that Goverensent woul of the tumult, would be t the Ca/folic gond= ; for result of the success of , the toil, and pain, and ms I mashing. Here again we , . Aker the suppression of th was tesolvet by Mt. Pitt Lord Castlereagh, the so - meat 'n suppressing the r • meat of intermit peaur (1 them to the settlement Of 10 essential did thew M mesicto be to the niter.•. tailing to ca ty that ale. horn ..!face. Sir, Ito sa. 0 tiatign lamed on the phi ai-n would be s 9 shocked sures as rebellion most be, x suppression of that rebelli. • tent. Sir, I have labour, detail, to prove to the pa , potitinos, which Inuit be - pny altardtions to be intr. • a the laws affactieg the i the time has G o a , arrived settle this question ; . . that Spas% bOn is sancarne. Sdly, Mat a alwal ssecesat - an attempt to widen. I ' • :, better-4he wiser--ebe question now diag to p r . Aod now, Sir, I shall pr. the measure which has • • by isie-Majesty's Goma . • . far some of the evils at , a basis for the gre ct il p . antbetitir lad for the • cossemmoattan for ever of . • Proceeding to madder the . great and MOM desirable ~, superttleeaisseaceel wad ; .ortbat seemOom; MAI c. ;,. poetesses lame • f rded• I ani awn the . tkivilb tbreoesuy s . • ' sertipsit. eimati....aoe a ; OM roe 'Wad, talk Ike