The National Register. — London, England, 1811-06-02 00:00:00

342 the Pope's supremacy. The Concordat made between Buona parte aid the Pope. and referred to the opinions givets by the Roman Catho is Universities, from which he contended that those (the Catholics) who now cried up toleration, were of all s as the most intolerant; they were not impeded in the exer cise of their religion (hear, hear!); they had even more politi c :1 power than the most favoured nation on the face of the globe (hear. hear!)—their property and their lives were pro aea.,,t-e (boot cries of hear, hear!) and even Buonaparte him self was not so despi tic a tyrant as this Romish Hierarchy. But if they w, re permitti - ,! a share in the i.eislature, what would be the cause quenc4 ? Buonap::rte would not allow such a peo ple in his dowinions, although he himself pretended to be a Ro man Catholic ; they were the inv tera' e enemies,of the English Government, and mu n be so from the nature of their religion. He denied the population of Roman Catholics in Ireland to be so great as bad been represented-49 out of .50 of the landed proprietors in Ir,Lnd were Protestants, and those who po-sessed s:mal property were as 9 tie 10; if, therefore, the Ronan Catholics were to be put upon an equality with the Prottstlets, the consequeoce would he, that they were too poor to pay taxes. He admitted, that ie Roman Catholic soldiers did be have very well, but it was not a spirit of arts stir and glory that induced th- in to Lott r into that sec vice, hut they enlits‘d to get the money they were only allowed by the pay. He was very far from deprech.tiog the ii courage and integrity ; he only meant to say, that more than half of the Irish army was composed of Pi oteAants of ttie Church of England, and good Protestants too. He denied :hat Cie Petition on the Table was signed by an.. of the respectable Roman Catholics: be knew many re . these re .pectuble Roman Catholics, and highly respected them; hut who was this Petition signed by, and by whom framed ? I !tree or tour Roman Catholic Barristers, who were not remarkable for havi: g much ess, and many persons of the middle and :wer classes. Bet who was the framer of this Petition ? One Peter Pinnerty, who was originally a journeyman tailor. but on coming to this country turned ()rater. On his return to Dubliu, wh.re he hail Been mllored for sedition some years ago, he re lee ivied the thaek, oft he meeting, and this was the framer of this petition ; all these petitions were the same, and. came from the same source. Put he knew them well, their objt cts and their principles; if the- House gave them what they asked they woukl not be satisfied ; n hat they wailed WAS not emancipation, but a total separanon front this country, and to establislna democratic republic; and as to their (moy' aging . , mutiny, that was a favutir ite doctrine among them, that was a part of their creed, and they wenl.l nor relinquish it. (Great cries of no, no! hear, hear, hear!) lie w a s then proceeding to cite several passages from the speeches of the Roman Catholics in their several meet ings in proof of his positions, when the House became impatient, and the la arced Doctor concluded by giving his decided nega tive to the motion. General MaTiliEw explained. Mr. PON SON ry warmly supported the motion. Tliv CHANCELLOR of the Eat:neon:ex regretted the nature of the discussion, and shrill(' only state briefly some reasons which would influence his vote. HI: nose heard, after a long interval; the elahr. of right revived. He would allow the fallest claims of Toleration, but the idea of a claim to political power was palpably absurd, and eminently so, as corning from the very men who perperually talked of power 'as only a trust for the people. If there was any fear hat any b ody of men would use their power improperly, it (meta not to he put into their hands. This single proposition made the claim of right to pOwer absurd. He had never put the question on the loyalty or eourage of the Catholic, but simply on the probable abuse or use of the power which he would have over the estahlishmehe. fie gave tbe hiehest praise to the bravery - of Irish soldiers and sailors; but those merits had an inferior connection with the question. The tuguage of the lion. GAitletoan • (Mr. Grattan), who consider ed trims as -an oppresi.ion, and against the. canon of the Almighty, shewed the spirit of the motion, and of . the Catholics. Wonlii not this be pr eliminary to the abolition of tythes and the abollLion of the establi,hment? Those G“ntlemvti who had spoken so' much of the Irish were not iefaii:ble. Dr. Milner had been ttie god of their idolatry. He soon became quite the contrary. The same;hint haNiened in their declarations on the veto. The Irish now woul.t allow it, and now they would not. All this ought to generate some distrust of the it knowledge. He loved Christian toleration, not the toleration of philo:iophy. The French tolerating philosophers were atrocious persecutors, and they overturned 211 establishments. He thought that the' more any great sttcs w. re brought loan equality of h u nou:s eels nearer trey were to a struggle. They ought to'h:ive subordinationf to have Peace. It was not t o b e su p pose d t h at the 'Catholic P etit • lion was more agreeable to the nation, because the public ioiee was less loud at_.:aimt it than formerly. The reason' was, the public tear will lespi active. When . at a late period, dingernna measures were ttrEed.by the I .egislot ure , t h e cry o f t h e nat i on root 46:414 than. - i';u: o‘. that cry' was imputedlo his •. • ...• • •- THE NATIONAL REGISTFR. artifices ; hut the cry exhibited the feeling which would be roused again, the first moment that the :er seemed probable. He must vote against tie ntotior. Mr. WHITBREAEL—From the Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Per ceval) speech he believed him to be intolerant or insincere • he was apt in his quotation of the Gospel, let him look through it for the word toleration, or for a text to prove the fairness of one party of men taxed to make rich another. He had asked were they for philosophic tolerance? yes they were; such as was Leashed by the greatest philosoph: r the world ever acknow'.. ledged. Let the lion. Gentleman look wh..ther Jesus Christ was not a tolerator of the fetlings of the heat t. The Hon. Gen tleman pointed inimitable ridicule against the pamphlets and opinions of Mr. Duigenan. lle counselled the House to grant the claims of the Catholics by degrees, for if they did nor , they might be n• cessitated to give them all at once.-(Loud calls for - .the Question) C:i s NCELLOA of the ExCuxottElte.-•-" The House need not ire alarmed, I ant not goiAg to exp:ain th• misrepresentations!' He, however, exi,lained to considerable length, Mr. STFPO E s rose amidst loud and long ontinned calls of Question, question ! and contended on the necessity of listening to all with poleax !—(Que::'ion, question !)—When .Frenc h ,, pllicy was &feud -d and quoted, he felt aroused.—,/ Question, question 9—Alluding to some comearison that had be, n lauds by IV r. Whitbread respecting the state of the French end l'.ng lish churche , , Mr. Stephen observed, " after what that Right Gentl -man (Mr. Whitbread) !'ad said respt;cting he (Mr. Stephen) now saw what lie had lona seen. that (fiere was art that Bn ,naparte could do that that Right Hon. Gentleman would not he either tha advocate or apologlst fir !" Mr. W HiTHR EAU immediately rose and moved, that the words which had been just spoken be taken down ; becattl those expressions, in his estimation, implied that he (Mr. W.) was the decided enemy of his country. • The Clerk having the words taken down, the Speaker inquir ed of Mr. Ste; hen, whether he admitted that the words had been uttered by him which was taken down. " Mr. STEPHEN admitted that he b lieved he had used words something like those quoted in the latter part of the sentence taken down; but he had utfered . nothing ,imilar to the forma' part. Mr. WHITHREAD.—Ii The last words have been admitted, and those imply the charge ; 'therefore I per-;*t." Mr. STEPHEN.—" The words are somethia , like what I ut tered." The SPEAKER.—" It now remains for the Member (Nit% S.) to admit, eNp'a•ii, or j :stifv the words which he has u (I.`" Mr. ST ENIE N disclaimed the sentiment said to be conve by his words. He never meant to say that the . Hon. Gentleman (Mr. W.) was an 971emy to his coemtry. He emereaMed an op posit,- opinion (Shim. He meant no often( e Mr. WHITBREAD then o'sserved, that the we of such ex. pressions was a greater affront to tiv• i luuse of Commons, thLO occup'ed in grave debate, than it was to t!ie individual to whom they alluded; and he would re t. on the judgment of he House whether the expressions used characterize him as any th'ng else than a decided enemy to his country.—,/Louif cries floor, hear!) --That being the case, he had felt himself called upon eu move, that the \vim's be taken (1c)w:: ; but; at the carne time, hii admitted that the Hon. Gentleman might not have had and intention of so characterizing him. 'l T he words, however, either meant that he was the decided enemy of his cuuntry, r; they meant nothing.—( liver, hear ! Mr. S r Ern EN again disclaimed ail intention of so character. izing Mr. Whitbread ; And Mr. WIIITSREAD tint being anxious to press any fea ther motion, the subject, with t e leave of the House was with drawn from further discussion. Mr. Gm ATT AN rose. "It is necessary for me to trouble the House with a few observations on what has falien from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has said teat I have clia:iged my" intentions since - last year on this subject. Re has totally mis taken a• d foully misrepresented lime, I have made no change. I an' ntore a friend to the Catholics than he to his in oleraiice. App , ring as he does, a little paltry merchant, d .grading and dehasiqrhe concessions which are extorted frcm him. He has said that Dc. Milner is our idol—it is a falsehood, and a false hood used for the sake of its vulgar jocularity. lie has also itn puted tri Me tit:: assertion, that the payment of tythes on the part of the Catheics was against the canon of their religion ; and that also is a falsehood. I nev:r said any thing like it : and I must'vate my ezeCration of the immoral unchristian declaration made by hiin, that the Catholics should be the more disqualified the mote they set eta. I know he thinks so; and 1 can only lament that he eimilcl have this creed of public robbery an arti cle of his faith. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that be had no charge against the Cathvlics! Indeed? Why t h en d oes he in'-"- - r H: A iniiileratice by what 1e - fact by his false and as I 11 1 tug, in, .1:: - ,,ciLate tht•ni r may call hi ;i W4 ne itVihoores, but 1w caunot alter .t 1