The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1821-03-01 00:00:00

did not feel himself caned upon to say mech. because if the question were merely . a matter of religion, if it were no question bordering in any way on the interests of the State, it naust be very unjust to shut out tiny persons from offices of State on the score of their religion. He felt that great praise we. due to • Right Reverend Prelate, who had recently written on the subject, for admitting ,that so far as the exclusion of Catholics related merely to religious opinion, there ask' be a• pretence for saying that Catholics were not eligible for piblic employments; but on ec. count of political considerations alone did the Right Reverend Prelate &nod his objections to the claims of the Catholics. To this opinion he believed there could be no .diseent. If this question of religion merely referred to the reli gious opinions of . Roman Catholics, they . had • clear right to relief. To say that merely on omit of religion any pledge should be required from those who were to fill offices of state, such pledge having no reference to edrairs of state, he conceived to he that which no our who heard him would undertake. It could not he said that the interests of true religion required any de durations from those who were called to fill public places. Every religion was true to itself; every religiim in itself was orthodox. And if true reli gion required of itself declarations from such of its professors as were to hold high offices in the State, such declarations would he required by the into. rests of religion in all countries, Mahometan or Christian. That any one would maintain then that there was in the truth of religion something which demanded declarations of faith independent of the interests of the State, was more than lie expected. Put if so, why not exact positive declarer front the members of a Suite? Why not require a devils ration of filth it- the existence of a God—iii a state of future rewards and punishments —or in the mortality of the soul ? They might disbelieve or deny all these, and still take the oaths with safety. All the asseverations were of a negative kind ; they were all expressions of abhorrence. He who made them might believe in any thing, and almost every thing, except the doctrines and creed of the Church. But if declarations were necessary on the score of religion merely, why were the Roman Catholics uloire to be excluded ?- Why not take care to ex clude also him who refused belief in the il:vinity of our Lord ? Why not take rare to exclude the Jew, the Illahometion, or the Pagan ? Why exclude the Roman Catholic, merely li-iclitse lie believes a little more than themselves, si,d !cave the door open to worshippers of Jupiter or Osiris, to all who were reedy to bow down either things its heaven or creeping things upon the 'tell,; to a3y thing, in short, not immediately contemplated by a statutable abhorrence of the roes of a very considerable Christian Church ? There was an (mill by which they were boom! to declare that they held the doctrine of traasub,tan- UrUou be superstitious mid idolatrous. There coull be no doubt that this was all opinion very devoutly entertained by many who took the oath. !sot, if every Gentleman who heard him were to Ica called on to mike a declaration as to whether l'e understood the isiraniug of a moos, and each person stasweriug to the truth upon his honour, bring ulso hound to give him (%ir. l'lniikettl his rote iw case of not knowing die impel of a mass, he felt diet he should be quite sure of a great many votes which perhaps would be very honestly op posed to.hint. As to the Supper of our Lord, it skis generally held to he figurative of the sacrifice hy which maws fedrmotinu was accomplished ; the Catholics .held it to heir rite meat effectual to the 'shish 111 l of the communicant. But it was aeserted she, that the Catholics held the be.fief of the real tuck nee of the hotly of our Lord its the elenseute. If they said this, it was so opposite to reason, so monstrously absurd, so contrary tit ell the sleet.. rations of our Lord himself on the subject, that the House nest reject it without ceremony. But here their thffieulties were otily beginning. The.Catholica denied silly such belief as the real . presence. The Cituncil of Lateran had only gone 14y es to insist on the belief of the real presence roily its s particular sense. This was not the query ymi t upon winch the church first divided, it the example of Queen Elinbetli were to fir taken into enuederation. She had sliesvit herself willing to she in defence of her faith, aid yet had prohibited her clergy from discoursing and explaining, on thin subject. He would read a short extract frusta U*101) Barnet's History of the Reformation on the subject :—" The chief design of the Queen's Council was to anitu the natio• in one faith; and the greatest pert of the tuition at that time be lieved in the real preseace. Therefore it was isdviseil that that article of faith should be so expressed that every one might be at liberty to expound it according to the construction of his own mind." Thia was the wisdom of a great mind, which lied suffered peril on account of the very thing in question, and yet retained respect fur the scruples of others. She was a Princess who would not, as had been eloquently expressed by one of her Ministers, make windows to look into the hearts of the public ; and esootwillovanding the mummy and good dangers to which her life and reign were exposed', she prohibited her clergy from expatiating on that topic at the very time when she was in the fullest posaeasion of power to enforce lice own opinions. Sloe had done mom she had isc'eally attend the Liturgy of Edward VI. which hnaahly denied the doctrine of the real pre sence : so iliat there was nothing, left by her in the eervires of the Church which could be well objected its by good Cetholics. Was he then to be told, that it was idolatry iii the Catholics to believe in the - real presence. or that Queen Elizabeth was ready, Hay GOOtotts. to admit idulateire to she annum. ~ion al the Church. and the privileges of the Con -161 ? He did Not believe that among those who putted themselves so highly in their opposition to the doctrines and follOwers of the Boman Church, there was any one who would he bold enough to t e ll Queen Elizabeth, were she then present, that be was a better Protestant titan her Majesty. The doctrines of Christianity required a benevolent cool 'traction of the opinion, of others; and if so, was be to tie referred to the Statute Book lor the inglo rious's in f*eper of o dental of common rights ? Seth st consteactiou ne that of idolatry, implied the defect .4 Utrieteseity, .ust the the blood of the Sotriour had bees shed its reel. The ;ultimo' of !layette were chicly idolatrous, if that coo stenc.nou of the belief of a particular doctrine „ us ail qt. his task by taking his oath that be was idolatrous ! To such inconsistencies were they forced by the existing laws. By sine law, they made the Catho lics go to mass once on every Sunday to per form the ceremonies of • worship which, by so other law, was declared to be idolatrous ! They contrived schools wherein this idolutory should be taught to rising generations. In Canada the idulatory was regularly legalized. In short, they had formed a general junctiou with ido fitters. He strongly recommended these consider ation, to the reflectimi of those who most stre nuously opposed the claims. He next cause to the eonstitutional pacifism. What he meant to sub. mit to the House was this—that eligibility to all face* and franchises of the State was the right of eery liege subject of the King; that this was the principle of the Constitution ; that the prin ciple livid not been touched or altered, either at the Reformation or at the Revolution ; that the regulations adopted at the Revolution were tempo rary modifications of the principle which were dim supposed to be necessary ;„ that the circumstances which were deemed to have made those regulations necessary bad passed away, and that an acknow ledgment of their being no longer necessary had been made on the part of the State itself; that it was now necessary to examine how far alteration would be beneficially rtfected; that Parliament could not lo►ger turn aside its view from the sub ject, nor refuse to go back to the principle firm which he set oat—the right of eligibility to the offices and franchise► of the Slate in every liege sub. jest of the King. By the principle just named s the question became narrowed to this : Is the Roman Catholic, or is he not, a liege subject of the King lb The argument in support of the negative was, that the Catholic acknowledged a spiritual suprem■ To what a monstrous consequence did this lead l They would be reduced to this—that nut until the► reign of Henry VIII. could there have been soy thing like a liege subject of the King. At all periods of the Constitution before that hall even the temporal supremacy of the Pope been insisted on, and had never been allowed. The spirituel supremacy had always been admitted. If the doc trine before mentioned weoe true. all the inhabi tants of this country before Henry VIII. were outlaws. Magna Chants hod been obtained by out laws. All the principles which lind been re established (not first asserted) at the Revolution had been the work of outlaws. The gallant Barons, who had been mentioned once already in terms of proud commendation by his Noble Friend who prevented the English Petition, were outlaws, who were entitled to tight for and gain the Charter, but were disabled nom opening it. If the &conic were true, there was no Catholic in Europe ■ liege subject of his King, for they all owned the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The argument was monstrous, or rather the assertion was mon struus, and bailed argument. What was there in the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, which invali dated loyalty The Catholics, in the Petitions on the table, asserted their right to enjoy civil immuni ties and privileges, whether lie professed the creed of his own or the national church. They claimed the right of reserving the power of interfereace in matters of conscience for the spiritual head of the Church. In the article of marriage. there were degrees of consanguinity allowed in the Protestant Church which were forbidden by the Roman Church. The Protestant Church held such marriages lawful ; the Roman Catholics considered such parties living in a state of deadly sin. But the Catholic never de nied the legality of the marriage, the right and no. thotity of the husband, or the right of the children to any possessions of property succeeding through the relationship of such marriages. And if ally Catholic were to attempt to interfere to pre vent the succession to any such property because of the unauthorised degree of consanguinity be tween the hualutsid and wife, he %mull draw upon himself the severest reprehension of the church to which he beloged. In fact, there was less demand of allegiance to the spiritual supremacy of the Pope than ever. Before the Reformation, the Pope held the nomination of the Hierarchy : all the offices of the church were bestowed under the direction of hint and those under him. At present, the only claim made in respect to his authority was, not any oliject of practical jurisdiction, but the right of ap pealing to him in mere matters of conscience.— He owned, therefore, that he had witnessed with some regret the avowal of the Right Reverend and very Learned Prelate. to whom be load before ad verted, that, as a merely religious opinion. he - did not care about the exclu►ion of the Catholics ; but that lie could never consent to admit them to the privileges of the catietitution, while they persisted in yielding to the Pope that superiority in the State which the Prott slams of England yielded in the King, but which the Sitiitch yielded to no! (((( ly ; fu!' which the Reverend Prelate does, an infer voce of what he called a deficiency of civil worth. —What was this deficiency of civil worth, whirl , operated like the stigma of a reprobate caste, to disqualify the sufferer from eujoying clad rights ? This appeared to him to be whet Mr. Locke cal- Ted ►eeing a little, assuming a great deal, and so jumping to a it:undermost. The inference must be, that this deficient• of civil earth was of the last degree, and such as to entitle Itiot le nu considers. ti to make hes reclusion imperative-. This alone could satisfy a mathematical mind. He sir. Rued ogviiist the ithsurdity of holding a profession of faith upon a particular point, to be equally ol•e -rause with the on, st 01Ai.0., want of I prin ciple and 'clraraeter, lit excluding persons tioin the enioymeod of civil right,. NOW it a mild tie bind ing on those 1,1110 lirsjobolled this opinion, or any optaions from which this as sit itoference timid he haply (basso, to 'emit oat the law and autherities upon which it was Intended, and to cite the pros elyte of State nit wheels such • distiutnrni could lie eistabliehed. As to the orthodox Dissenters of Scot land and the Dissenters of England, they were by the trqglA ape. Prelate to Ire new propertyi. of 11111* mirth in Mime dst t not such as sewkostated to positive chi ihough their coodition was little baiter soft of halm, from the curses of which ' rather difficult to escape. But he would question as to the precise dessas of Med.. . 7 necessary to constitute a just Claim to civil for as the doctrine of civil worth stood at e it might be denied to those who were the ighly gifted, whose lives were as lights fur the guidance of Mankind in science and morals, and it would be perfectly available by men who were the reverse of these. Such would be the effect of spplyiug this new-tangled doc trine of civil worth in its present shape and state, that neither birth, nor rank, nor station, nor truth, nor justice, nor honesty, would, in what. ever degree conspicuous, avail the possessor against its power. Such were the cositingesicies of pedantic constitutions, framed without reference to existing thing.. Political and moral constitutions must always differ from practical osier. The latter pended on circumstances., by which they were MO &fled and rendered available fur the purposes in tended by them. They could not be defined with the same accuracy as the principles of matter :mil motions. All that could bedone was to adapt them to the necessity. But as to there sickly, new-fasliiened definitions ofsupposed properties, they were at :iny rate wholly inapplicable In the British Constitu tion. The principles of State, supposed a power in the Crown to select those for its 'Atter* who were worthy of trust. And also supposed an eligibility in all the subjects of the realm to be selected to fill such offices. These were the notions which Mr. Pitt entertained when he declared the relict. ance of the Coustitutiun to limit its regard to the exclusion of any clam of subject.. For curious quirks and novel abstractions they might be inee- Mous enough, but they were only fit fur the school or the cloister, and must be denied all reference to the real affairs of mankind. The King bud a right to choose his own officers, or it could be no monarchy ; the people bud a right of eligibility, or it could .be no free monar chy. There were rightv, such as that of eligi bility to serve or sitting in Parliament, which were not derived from the Creme or the lees, but from the source whence the Crown end the laws themselves were derived, and which were to the fell as essential parts of the Constitutitire [The Right Hon. Gentletwao read an extract front Load Bacon in commendation of the limits which the law of England put to the distinctions of clusees, and the power of the regal authority in select from among them to fill offices of State.V The monarchy had the power of selectilag, but the people had the right of 'legibility. The principle of seclusion was an upstart republican principle, a principle befitting a lawless association fur purposes of lawless exclusion. It tended to art unnatural and unconstitutional monopoly of right.. He, oil the other baud, had the original and fundanientel principles of the constitution for the bests of this motion. It might be said that these principles un derwent alteration at the time of the Reformation, and if not then, at the period of the Revolution. There was is. period of history more falsified than this. There was no part of the proceedings of the Reformation which tended toexcludeCatholics. The Act of Supremacy was an Act of the reign of Eliza beth, to mark thy difference between those of her Ca tholic subjects who were loyal sod those who were not loyal to her perm!' and throne. The ailmoiti- Coo of Elizabeth declined iii express term., ill a her object vies only to secure the acknowledgment of the saute right to the privileges and prernoiives of the crown as had been esijoyed by her ancestors, and that on this scconnt she would not suffer any of her subjects to hula io ohedieticea Foreign Power. And if she were content to take the eatii in that sense, they would in that sense willingly receive it. The admonition was incorporated in the sili Eliza beth, and mode part of the law of the land.— The Act had this remarkable recital, " Whereas, the Queen is otherwise sufficiently assured 01 the loyalty of all those of, or above the degree of Heron, now sitting in Parliameht, this shall tint he held to extend LO Olefin." Here was proof that she oath of supreniucy contemplated ally thing but exclusion. tier Majesty had been otherwise as stared of the loyalty of the persons exempted from the necessity of taking the oath. lie would rettommend a perusal of the letter of Walsing ham to Moutivieur P. on the subject. The word. of the Premier were, that " her Majesty had never intended to make use of the oath as a window to look into the 01 the public." All that was sought was a proper 1111.0114 of diatinguish. tog between motives of faction and of conscience ; and this appeared so much more reasonable, when it waft recollected !liar her rei •n was v.;sted by the plots of Spain and the mschitiatious of various foreign enemies. Yet she never changed her opinion., but as times and eirviiiiistanees changed. she adopted measures suiteble to their changes; and that was the course which he hoped and trusted her illustrious BUCCVII:4O, would adopt—nut to change Ills °pillions or principles, bat make their applteatina suitable to the exigencies of the perio.l. Fur the lirst eleven years of the reign of Catholics and Protestants went to the salve diuretic , . Many of the others of State were filled by Catholics, as they were under Charles I. xnd Jittirt4 I. It was two much then to say, that the principle of exclusion Wes este blislird at the Rsfurniation. For lir, years after the Reformation, at least, he had proved that the new-faugled doe. trine of defect.ye civil worth hail 110 exwence. Sir S Swale 111441 beau expelled that Eloise in 1677; but this wits not bociiina: of hit being a Rowels Ca tholic but that lie was "a Popish recusant convict." He was disabled from coming near the King's per sons or serving the State, said hence the basis of the Resulution by which the House expelled him. Thais it was made 'dolt that at the time of Charles fI. 'CiAtietieT of civil worth wits tin argu. meta of exclusion unknown to the State. But chow.. to the period of the Revolution, there were nntraces of this principle. The title of the Act of Churls. IL was, s' Au Act to disable R. 011 1 ,611 Cu.. iIIOIICS 110111 sitting in tether House of Par liament." This brought down to the 30th Charles the Second the woof that the principle of exclusion was not ati a 'Milted principle of the Consittution, otherwise there could have been no tired of an Act fur disabling Raman Catholics to sit in either House. At that time the King was 3•1..... ... • stiFpected, the H e ir Apt Were t more th in sillOrldtat t Of being Papists in the in s i ve sefise of the l o w word. The King him se l *big suspect ,E eat in the mind of th e mit -the appreheffialturof the danger of flaying a Pots s Plirlininent chosen, and all the functions of State replaced under the yoke end -gwid iti '4 3 opri direction....: (knee the Text Act, which was merely a sub stitute for a Bill of Exclusion, which Bill of Eselusiies would certainly have been bruised, if it could have been done as easily se the 'hest Ace. and then there would hive been no such thing as the Test Act. But would any one pretend that the Test Act ought to be considered as an inviola ble low, which could never with safety be repealed ? Would it be claimed as one of the bulwarks of the Constitution most essential to its preservation and de fence ? lie would demonstrate to thenouee that each was not the case, and that it never was intended for any part of it. design. lie might be asked, why ii was passed at all, then, seeing that there was a Plll. testent Prince upon the 1.1 I 1 . 1.1ie ? The auswer was plain, from the dread of Ire-imill among a Popish dyn as ty iroitig on. The law was built on the lie enemy of having some check ugaiiiet a King who might nut lie l'i . (4estalit. But what was thine at the Revolution ? Was this law then made a principle of the Constitution ? No; the Ciiiisiitu lion left it altogether, and it was provided that the King should he a l'iutestatit, or otherwise lose the throne ; but not it hint was there as to any need for preserving this law. OD far he hid brought the proofs of the non-existesice of this prioeiple down to the period of tile Revolution ; lie would new state a few Cieho to confirm what he hail advanced. Between the 4th and sth Anne an Act hail passed, enabling certain Lords Commissiosers io exercise the Royal buictions : a eltuiie was added, which disabled these persons from introducing into Parliament say Act tending to the repeal of the Act of Uniformity. Why? Because the Act of Uniformity heel become a constitutional and inalienable law. In the pas sage of the Bill through Parliament, another change was proposed, to disable the Comnsissiou ere from introducing any Act for the repeal of the Teat Act, and the clam* was thrown out by the House. Because the Test Act was con sidered as no essentiall past of the Consitutioo, the 3011 i of Charles 11. was mentioned is the Act of Union, end it was provided that the mob therein immaturd should continue to be taken until Par ' liarnent should provide otheraise--(Heor. hear) —thus keeping the Constitution open on that point to be governed by future circumstances.— , Coming to the Union with Ireland, it .was pro vided then that the oaths should matinee to be taken till the United Parlisoneot should otherwise provide. Added to these parliamentary declare tissue, he had the reciorrkd opinions of Gannisig, Pal, • Fos, Burke, Sheridau, and Wttallistu, awl every name which had buoyancy enough io float down the stream of time, to beck him in arraigning the opinion, that the principle of exclusion we, not contradictory to the essence of the Constitution. Backed as he was by those great nature, i •et 'when he looked round the (louse and saw the chasm which had been made in the ranks of the friends ,to the cause, he could not hut feel the deepest 'egret. When lie remembered the in defatigable jadeite, and talent of Who bread ; the golden dawning of excellence in Horner ; the sic my and matured talents. of Sir Samuel Ro niilly, who took an interest in every thing which reg.trded the interests of human nature; the inte 4 rov of Ponsotiby ; his ever-to-be-lamented friend Elliott; and, above all, that inestimable lose which they lt.wl sustained in that tried patriot. Gl:Mau—lie could not but feel mail walking before the images of those illustrious men, as its a proces sion where evcry oilworthy feeling should be 111601. lice(' on the altar of their country. He believed there were now pieseut is the House many Meta hers who hail not given any opinions upon this sub ject—would they be answered by soy Hon. Mem ber t•iJt ti tig up and talking of the Reformation, or the glotinan principles established et the Revolts. lion? lied they not a eight to he met by facts in re ply to the hi•tirtical facts lie had quoted ? There was a delicate past of the sulijeet to which lie would strongly allude. There were a number of per sons usho felt that although there were no 4 ousti tutional difficulties Its the way, there were dangers growing out of the measure to the Establiblimetit of ilieClisech of Koglatid. Could lie think dist was the case, dear as the claim of his country aus to him, lie would immediately abandon it. lie would assert, in contradietiOn to the Right lion. Member for Oxford, that no such COliattpeaCe would follow. With all his respect for the character of that Right Hon. Gentleman, end with the highest estimation of his principle,. both as a Ststeamaii and a Gen tleman, hr must *Mien there was no meson whose °plutons, fixed as they were Ull whin lie esteemed un founded prejudices, were more calculated to work se rioes injury. Did be think thee there wits liodanger to the Established Church ? Yes, hr did think there was danger, but it was danger which existed at the present moment from the isairownies of the baiii. The light lion. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) haul asked what security there would be fur the Church if the Howe adopted this measure? lie (Sir. Plunkett) would aura er.evory security that you had at prestos, and more. What was the danger, as represented by the Right Hon. Gentleman, ? Nothing but what Octudily exists st the present tuomtut. lie mid there was a large pioportion of the people of Ireland of a different religion from that of the State; that majority contributed to the clrrgt of the Establish. meat ; ,further, that majority cointuunicated with the See of Rome. snug besides that. the clergy were appointed by that lwrign Power ; and, Insley, that majority were ejected and excluded, not by the force of public opinion, as be contended was the ease iii England, but by the strung hand of power. Since that statement of the Right Hon. Gentle man, those persona weir put in pieseenous of Name portion of substininal power, and they were ou admitted by virtue of with., which the Right Hon. Gentleman says, if they were sincere in their religion, cauoot bind them. According to him they were admitted into the heed of the State tainted with peljusy and hypocrisy (crimes which ought to exclude them from society). and lied a parucipation in the power of the State by oaths which do. not bind twos. and they were excluded Irons the remaining power of the State by oaths, and by oaths only. Ile would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, and every Member interested in the ' - security of the, Eststilisliment, if that was the way in which themetter ought to be left ?—if that were the bed of eoses, the heap of Elysisu flowers on which he Would wish to repose ? The Right Ho. *mumble Gentleman argued, that if the Roman Catholics were true to their religion they ought to aim at the sabeersion of theEstabhabasent ; but he (Mr. Plunkett) hoped they were bound by oaths equally strong to resist it.—The Right Honourable Gentleman having thus left the two portions of the empire in interarinible hosti lity, says, " Fur shame! don't come forward and disturb this state of tranquillity."--441 laggh.) —Had they • right to leave the country in that state ? If it were necessary, he should 'retire tato inactivity—not the inactivity tot' reprise, bet of tor ture. He berried the Right lion. Gentleman was not aware of the censequences of his argument--. that the Irish Catholic was bound. by the prin ciples of his nature, and by the dietafie of 111. rs ligion, to endeuvour the subversion 'of one blishment. If it were tree, Orrin's° was doe wisdom :it was folly—it wessuicitle; and all that had been grunted ought to have been refused. If in. deed there were a serpent under that ottani to sting Ui to the heart, then we must pot down th o s e altars ; if there he in their Ptligies a spark which, when blowii into a lame, was to set tire to our Establishment, then we must put dawn their reltgion. It was a great COl%. Subll 101 l to him, that its resisting that argument, he at the Sallie time Klieved the Romani •Catlielie from the imputatiou cast upon him, and the Protestant from the burden of intolerance. The cii , e of the Church of Scotland was not at ail in point ; the circumstances were entirely differeut, and could not by any ingenuity be made to apply to the present ease. The Roman Catholic feels himself hound by his duties as a sum and a citi zen not to attempt the subversion of that Govern ment which gives him security for life and pro perty; and h, would ask the Right lion. Gentle. man, by whit authority lie took upon himself, in oppositioo to the declarations and actions of the Romani Catholics, to east upon them such a stigma? He would rusk the Right Hon. Gentlemen what they bad done since the Revolotiou to warrant it ? But the answer is, no mutter what you sly or do, he forms his conclusions upon his knowledge of the principles of human nature. He (tlr. Plunkett) could not and in the volume of human nature which he hid read, that a Roman Catholic should subvert the Estebleihnsent, merely that his priest might have uo rival. No man would imagine that lus parish priest would perform his duty better- be cause his religion was made that of the State— that 'could hewer be found in human nature ; but this he could 6nd there, that if a man, excluded from pitlitical privileges and laid undet incapacities, should be told that neither lie nor 'kis children, to the esid of time, should ever enjoy those rights and privileges, but should remain as a de. graded and 'stigmatised caste—he did read in the history of human stature that such conduct would engender hate and hostility.—(Hear.)—What then was the difference betweeu the Right HUI. Gentle man and himself ? He should propose that the communication between the Roman Cattolics and the See of Rome should be under the inspection of the State. %%list was the Right Hon. Gentle man's remedy ? to leave it as it was at present, un iiispected. He (Mr. Plunkett) proposed that the Crown should have some means of being assured of the loyalty of the Clergy. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman proposed to leave it as it was—lie seemed so attached to the child of his affectious that he was blinded to its imperfections. His (Mr. Plunkett's) object was so to incorporate she Roman Catholics with the State, that their in terest should be our security—/year, hear, hear) —to rivet the affections of Use Romani Catholic by every motive which could be binding on his con science, aud every argument which could be ad deemed to his uaderstanding, and removing every restraint and exclusion. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman recommend that matters should remain as they are fur ever ? Gracious God ! could it be supposed that the Roman Catholic was to be left in a situation where by the principles of his stature ei,4l the dictates of his religion, lie must aim at the subversion of the Estahlisised Religion ? He (Mr. Plunkett) did nut pupate to strike the shackles from his legs ; lie was already free; but lie proposed to remove the mark from his fore head, and restore him to all those rights which were the proudest boost of Buttons, as being the birth right of a free-born subject ; said he besought the House to listeuto the proposit i on which lie shou Id have the honour to submit to them, and not drive their Roman Catholic brother from their bar, telling him that he was stigmatised, and deserved to be so. The power of the Catholics in the State arose from the increase of their wealth and populatioe. These were the foundations on which the gates of political power were always erected, and knowledge K i M the keys. The cry of the Catholics would, he was eatisfied, 611 d uu echo within those walls, and within the breast of every Englishman in the empire. Experience had always ahewn that in all disputed points that party ultimately succeeded who had truth and justice on their side: change places with the Catholic, then strip hen of his wrougs, and yow strip liiiu of all his terrors. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean to say that no concession should ever be made—that Ireland should remain a jungle fur wild beasts—a moral waste, in which all the social virtues would perish, aud every vice spring up ? No. he could not contend for that, because lie Mad ail milted that restriction was au evil ; but he sat.. there has been concession, and there is a point at which concession ought to stop, and he is so satis fied with the arrangement made in 1793—he is so assured that the Irish Parliament bad attained the exact line beyond which further concession becomes improper, that he fixes himself there. But if that lose bad been so correctly drawn by the Irish Par 11.1ment. why not rowed the wieder" granted to the Irish to the Catholics of Euglaud also ? they were surely entitled to it from their long suffering and palest forbearance..-s-(Heer I—He ihoogit it would be extieneely difficult for a man, w! , O thought the arrangement of 1793 was just what , t ought to be, to object to the House now goitig mt. a Committee to give the honest, wise, and p e tieii; English Catholic his reward. The Irish Ciitholic cannot himself be • member of Parliament : lit may have an estate which enables him to rettirti onr; but lie must not exercise the right its his own per- ros 'Weis . ticrOistible; b faith • construction Was •:...ssoloisitted I nseastrins, twinkle she ,tiAech,is k itiaut -irhich . :of this (le were elected from C a i jk, int oei sr .ie se „, li, ‘ 'tor, but 1re1441 gismo Catholic* were admitted to the aility, th functions of Grand Jurors and Magistmteit ; bet than a st before entering on his office of Juror or Magis- it seemed trate, the Catholic was obliged to swear that he put a (it Was of the religion he p ro f es sed. In other words he 1 worth nee wits made to swear that he was an idolator! He, who i rights ; G mfght be called on to judge of various points ao- I present, i pertaining to religion, was first of all qualified for i most big I I I I • eimm • • I'