The Sun. — London, England, 1829-03-19 00:00:00

over the solitude of the fields; but I shall be bold to say ' that the people of England will never permit the achievement of such complete horrors.—(Cheers )—Eng land will refuse to wear a laurel dyed in any past of her subject,. blood.—(Cheers.)—She will recollect the ori gin of the consequences—she will look to its dreadful c°asequenees--and she will reject such a devilish triumph. (Che ers.)—She is induced to avert such a calamity: she is not inclined to support measures that will lead to such disasters. She will not take up arms to obtain such secu rity. She will not be frightened away front contemplating the dangers that threaten her, to look after imaginary fears. She will not, like a child, be disposed to look after some trifling fence, while the murmurs of the earth warn her of an approaching convulsion ! I must not be told, that this ia the la nguage o f i nt i m id at i on ; I must not be told, that tits is an appeal to fear; for, I am not ashamed to acknow ledge, that I am intimidated : and every man must be as hamed who never takes counsel of fear. Fears and appre hensions are pregnant with wisdom : they may be appealed t e n by the pr ou d es t o f men ; f or M r. B ur k e h as d ec l are d that Fear is the " mother of Safety." " At an early period," said that emi nen t man , cc Fear may be the mother ''' saf ety, then the judgment may be cool and unembarrassed ; but if fear only comes when the thing f e ared comes together with it, then it is possible that, actuated by our dislikes and a pprehensions, we shall take other measures than those which will save our laws. Of this early fear lam not ashamed, an d b y suc h a fear every legislator—every man -ought to be ruled ; and he who will not listen to this fear, who will pay no respect to her counsels should break his lance against windmills, but the Court of Chan cery should, by an injunction, restrain him from meddling with public affairs." The Noble Lord sat down amidst loud and continued cheers. Lord Mturox and the ATTORNEY . ..GENERAL here rose together, and there were loud calls for the latter, but he gave way, and the former proceeded to address the House. lk Lord MILTON had heard the speech delivered by his sable Friend, who had just sat down, which did equal nonour to his heart and understanding, with great delight, and if he then rose, it was not from the presumption of supposing that anything he could say would be listened to with satisfaction, after the House had with such delighted att ention, and i nwar d g l ory i ng, listened to his Noble Friend, but he was anxious yesterday to address the House after l l' , speech o f the Hon. 11Iember for Corfe Castle, and his des ire Was n o t a b a t e d b y w h at h e b ear d d ur i ng t h e even i ng . He had listt ne d w i t h anx i ety t o th e H on . an d L earne d M mber, because he knew if any legal or constitutional :liirneute could be drawn from the events of th e R evo - I ution, he was, from his zeal and knowledge, likely to'give ', her ° force. He had listened to that Honourable Gen t'ennut with anxiety, b u t h e mus t con f ess th a t h e was (, " sa Ppointed, except the passage he had quoted re sting to the Declaration of the Prince of Orange, which had been referred to by his Noble Friend. But it Was e xtraordinary that the passage quoted by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was directly, specifically, and entirely against the dispensing power claimed by King James. He regarded the Revolution of 1685 with as much veneration o an Y man, but h e cou ld not h e l p t hi n ki ng, if t h e descrip n given of it by the Hon. and Learned Member were Correct, that it would go far to destroy the veneration now entertained for that Revolution.—(Signs of impatience here arose in the House.)—The Hon. and Learned Member seemed to think that th e Revolution of 1688 excluded the a s e'atholics from o f f i ce ; but the disabling laws were not passed in 1688 —they were passed in 1675. If the view given by that Hon. Member and the Hon. Member for Newark, that the Constitution of this country was one of ,:xclusions and not of comprehensions, lie could not concur in this view, for lie thou g ht our C o n s tituti o n one not of exclusions but comprehensions, he would not then say "lore, but that he hoped to hear some grounds for these Political exclusions that were of more force than the danger aris ing from continuing them.—(The Noble Lord had been ! aeard for some time with impatience, and immediately he • t tt down there were loud calls for the Attorney-General.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Sir, I rise under cir "instances of greater difficulty than 'any under which I "et addressed this House, and I rise with a view, with the Penni • , the House, ~ anon or House, of stating some of these circum ',h4sees• Since the House will allow me that privilege, I a . all take the liberty of saying that ever since I have been ll 1115. House—and I say it not with presumption but with ;'','"umility, and I should not have presumed to take the libert y of addressing this House if I could not have said it, --•that the independent course I have kept entitles me to a ad „ ee dress it, and makes me hope that I have acquired the ''" °Pinion of the House, makes me anxious to retain it, , and I sh ou ld not rest satisfied with myself if I did not re n st. I differ therefore, from that Right Hon. Gen ei,;:n.ean tvho has advised his Majesty to recommend a mea to Parliament which, with the sincerest respect that en tertain•f or hi m, I coul d not agree to, and which, as Attorney. a. General to a Protestant Kine, and as his faithful etv ant, I cou ld not h ave d one. I could not have ;Ali ' t4ted Rightthaf d ee . "ties of my situation.—(Hear, heer.)—l must throw 1 myself on t h e ki n dl y f ee li ngs w hi ch have ever distin guished the character of an English House of Commons, in explaining the conduct which I have thought proper to Pursue consistently with the duty I owe the King, as well as the equal duty I owe the British Parliament and people, aS the servant of the Sovereign, though now only noini badly and not practically his servant.—(Great cheers. We thought the Hon. Member's voice at this period, and dur flog the next few minutes of the speech, appeared as if lie elt deeply affected. )—I feel my se lf en ti t l e d t o c l a i m th e !Odulgence of the House ; and, in appealing to it as an Ho riurable E ng li s h Gentleman, I put myself before it as the e ither for Plympton, and, abjuring the character of At -5:n(7-General, address myself to the House as an inde- I n dent Me m b er o f P arl i ament, who, thoug h l ie h as b een r sf6 re, is as independent as any Member of that House.— 4 40 , and cbeers.)—Sir, necessity compels me to s the liberty of thus publicly snaking my senti eisents known ; and if the House will indul g e me, as ‘fl r hav e indulged me on former occasions, and of e ti s se cand our and liberality I am well assured, while I te the reasons why I could not with safety to the q ast itution o f t h e M onarc h y, to t h e ex i stence o f t h e l etti ' areth, Agree to that measure which has come before Par- RI "t to adjust what are called the Catholic Claims—l enetinot claim any merit for talents, but I will claim the 1, 4 , t °f consistency, and that I am nut one of those who 1, 4 ;! become converts to this question—( Hear, bear)._ • te e , in g separated myself from these converts : no pain . l felt felt, no sufferings, I ever experienced, equalled what I the Zhen it was explained to me only seven days before th at , e ng's Message to Parliament, that it was intended ti le ;",e, question of Catholic Emancipation should become v e nes uu J e ct of a recommendation from his Majesty's Go pier- J es t. If, in the course of the discussion, any ex et,si l° n3 shall fall from me that savour of asperity or harsh „lto; I trust t h e House of Commons will not attribute expressionslevereo harsh. to any motives of wishing to be either I address the House as a free, hide , oPlvendent, British gentlemen, who has to express only his ' lv n °Pinions --the opinions that I once held in common the a large Y ` in this House, which was led by all '7, talents and eight of my Right Hon. Friend, but Wald, N oe > on the first day of the meeting of Parliament, found e „. ,I utterly abandoned, left without a leader, and cast a r bour a pilot on the winds anti waves. If the bumble . i s T s lidual, Sir, who is now addressing the House linows nrtaself, he has no quality of mind the least allied to 1 1 E e 441 bption. And if he hav e an y qua liti es on w hi c h li t etifi l'i i des hi mse lf, th ey are t h ose o f s i ncer i ty and it ‘,. n eas—(Cheers)—and I can assure th e H ouse , t h at w all ss only seven days before Parliament met that I 1 , 0 , 4 informed of the present measure, and I was not dis • Im y 4 °4 so s h or t a notice—(llear, hear, hear)—to quit de a : t tty, and for s ak e m y o pi n i ons , b ecause th ey h a d b een goa t t -S1 by their leaiier—(Cheer's)—and cyst away tO . ', Iri an With the wi n d s an d waves . Id o assure th a t Gentle i of t that I have no d es i re t o t a k e th e pl ace o f th e l ea d er tl e t '!'s party. l am compe ll e d, b y necess i ty , t o exp l a i n deees,ae I have p us sue d ; and it is only as an indepen- I e e ' , ember of Parliament that I declare my sentiments. the tin"tythe Hou se w ill no t su pp ose th a t I h ave th e au d ac ity, ' 41 11. ',, or the foils!, to assume the situation of the .. 5 , . bp t `. eminent h ea d er which the Protestant party had, th e ° 0 the preient period, mad whit;li it r 49 louger it,a, in toei l ' et s°n of my Right Hon. Friend. An eminent his ' s ay t ru n, Mr. Hume, has said, that no :nan can with safety to s a y a r c h of hims e lf—(H e ar, and a laugh)—and I mean not ...' °tit very f ew wor d s more .—(H ear , h ear .)—l will p eat "'Y that it is correct to proceed, but I will not sup " Llie ee an Y incivility; and I put it to the courtesy of the Ply, e — ' to be p e r m itt e d t o a dd re ss it as the Member for Ate;,.P t cm, while I p rese rv e th e situation still of King's re le i*. n eY-Ge nera l , an d Ki ng ' s A ttorney -G enera l I wi ll Mer,, la-- -(Loud cheers and loud laughter.)—lf Gentle wote4nuld not have the incivility to interrupt me, if they sh e , wait till the sentence is finished, they would not Th e such alacrity in drawing conclusions.—(Cheers.)— way t t'Llile L or d w h o h as j ust sat d own , an d w h o has h .aals r thi s J r ; n a c ons i s t en t su pp or t er o f th e Measure he ever4 B " advocated in the ablest and cleverest speech he only ‘v n vered i n t hi s H ouse , h as s t ate d th a t Cambridge tw are it ed the opportunity, it' was supposed, to return portun,ral Memb ers o f P ar li amen t ; an d as f ar as th a t op tiller ItY depends on me, it has been offered for some e ee •PaSt i , - .---ee,/ ' a Have not been eager to seek Government give s , „ forfeited no opinion to obtain offie—l have 1- n tiirt l ',, no opinion whatever to retain office ;—I 0 , 1 aave teePenOent as ever, and for the last three weeks I ertd no obstruction to -putting to the test the • liberality of Cambridge.--(Cheers.)—l will beg the at tention of the House for a few moments, while I distin guish between the Attorney-General aiel the Member for Plympton. As Attorney- Ceiieral, I declined to draw the Bill now lying on the table of flat house, because, laol:iire to the oath:l have taken as Attorney-Gs neral, I thought, by di aw ing that Bill I should not he deitig the duty I owe to the King, and that should draw the death-warrant of the Protestant Church.—(Cheers.)—To that conclusion I came by having long reflected on this question, and by my reflections having grown out of recollections, and by hay ing been on numerous occasions embodied into one system of persevering inquiry.—(Cheers.)—l say, then, if I had done so, I should have drawn the death-warrant of the Protestant Church Establishment, I should have betrayed my duty to my Sovereign as the Attorney-General Noy betrayed his duty in the affair of ship-money, and as Jef freys betrayed his when be drew the warrant for commit ting the Protestant Bishops to the Tower. He had taken this resolution on reflection, and having formerly declared his opinion concerning the religion of the Catholics, he could not divest himself of that opinion. I stand before Parliament, then, as an independent man—independent of both sides of the House. I have not sought to preserve office. I have repudiated office; and I stand in the middle of the House, and I say that lam exempt from censure from either side. The Noble Lord who last addressed the House celled on me before he sat down—not by name in deed, but in such a manner as to leave no doubt to whom he alluded—he called on me to support the opinion, that the disabilities under which the Catholics now labour were a part of the Constitution as established at the Revolution of 16S8. I know that the Noble Lord belongs to a fa mily which has ever been sincerely attached to that Revo lution ; but if the House permits me, and will allow me to refer to documents, I am ready to state the grounds on which I assert that the exclusion of the Catholics from office was one of the principles of that Revolution. The Noble Lord has challenged me to this, and I accept his chal lenge. I know that with his great knowledge of this part of our history, he will not seek to evade my ob servations by a sort of legal quibble, and he therefore will admit that the Bill of Rights did recognise the Act of Elizabeth, which imposed the Oath of Supremacy, and that the Act of Cyrles, which imposed the Oath of Abjuration, though nut recited—not introduced verbally—were legally embodied into the Bill of Rights. The Noble Lord must be aware that the Bill of Rights did not recall or cancel the Statute of Elizabeth imposing the Oath of Supremacy, and did not recall or cancel the Statute of Charles, imposing the Oath of Abjuration; on the contrary, the Bill of Rights declared that those Acts remained in full force. The restrictions on the Catholics existed before the Revo lution, but they were revived, and confirmed, and re-as serted, in King William's reign. Before King William landed in this country—before be had touched the British soil, an agreement between him and the people of England had been entered into on this subject. Before that extre mity arrived which drove King James from his throne, there were dissentions in this country on the ground of Catholic Emancipation—(hear, hear).—and attempts were made to do what is called settling the Catholic Question before James was expelled from the throne. The Members of ; the House will excuse me if I remind them, that in dis cussing the Catholic Question they seem to forget that a library has been provided for them, which contains many documents illustrating the Catholic Question. The Ro man malaria, which has got amongst us—(laughter)—and which has shown itself in so many ways, seem to have had no more pernicious effect than that of occasioning a loss of memory. If Members will look at the compilations which relate to King William—if they will look at Tindal's his • tory, or other similar books, they will see that before that extremity arrived which ended in the expulsion of James-- the just expulsion—that an attempt and a correspondence was entered into with the Prince and Princess of Orange, to induce them to act as mediators, and settle the question before it became of such pressing exigency as to call for the exclusion of the Monarch from the Throne. I am ready to accept the challenge of the Noble Lord, and am ready to assert, with every deference and respect for him, that the statements he has made are not borne out by his tory, or the facts which took place at that period. I hope to olstain the indulgence of the House for a moment or two while I detail a few facts materially bearing upon this question.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.")—Before the land ing of King William a negotiation was attempted between the then Prince and Princess of Orange, for the purpose of ascertaining their feelings as to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from civil and political privileges ; to which their Royal Highnesses replied, that they were de termined to exclude them from all civil, military, and ecclesiastical appointments, because they were anxious to preserve all the tests which fin med protections for the se curity of the Protestant religion, but that they were ready to qualify the laws so far as they affected Protestant Dis senters. The Hon. Member for Inverness, and the Soli citor-General for Ireland, have told us that relief to the Roman Catholics was contemplated at the Revolution. This, Sir, I maintain, is not the fact. If such statements are to be credited, then must we take history fur an old Almanack.—(An Hon. Member, " But not an Almanack for the present year.")—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded—Sir, Ido not possess the tongue of a Scotchman, and am, therefore, incapable of answering two persons at the same time.--(Flear, hear, hear, and a laugh.)-1 am, Sir, not possessed of that duplicity, that double-faced logic that fugitive or fugacinus mode of expression, which would enable me to express myself in the man ner which some Honourable Members seem to ex pect.—(Hear, hear, hear, and a laugh. )—I am not now an swering the Hon. Gentleman for Knaresborough, but am addressing myself to the observations of the Noble Lord who represents Yorkshire. I say then, Sir, that before the landing of King William—(Hear, hear, and laugh ter)—l say, Sir, that he who strikes a blow at me, must allow me to strike at him in return.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.")—I maintain, Sir, that the principles established before the Revolution were afterwards established by William, with additional securities. This is a fact which I hold to he established beyond doubt. It is well known that James, who, it is said by some, had a liberal kind of conscience—a kind of trading in religion, not unlike that which it is the fashion to indulge in in the present day—a sort of amalgamation of religion and jacohinism—was anxious to give every facility to Roman Catholics; but even he, when driven to extremity, was desirous to restrain Roman Catholics, while he gave facilities to Protestant Dissenters. A similar doctrine was held by the Prince and Princess of Orange. They felt opposed to grant pri vileges to the Roman Catholics, but had no objection to grant them to Protestant Dissenters. The Hon. and Learned Member for Knaresborough, from whom we ex pect such an excellent history of his own times, appears desirous to relax the rule established in 1688, by which Roman Catholics were rendered incapable of sitting in this House. Sir, when lam told that this exclusion ought not to be continued, I can only account for it by some epidemi cal effect of those new doctrines which affect the reminis cences of modern emancipators.—(llear, hear, and a laugh. ) I shall now, Sir, say a few words with respect to the Bill of Rights. The Hon. Member for Inverness has told us that that Bill contains no clause excluding the Roman Catho lics from power. He is right; but the Noble Alember for Yorkshire is placed in a different situation: Sir, 1 trust that I have now fairly met the question, and I appeal to history, I appeal to the facts I have stated, as to whether there was not an utter exclusion of the Roman Catholics front place and power, both before, at, and after the Act of Settlement? (Hear, hear.) I, Sir, as Attorney- General, felt naturally anxious to look around me and see what the nature and ,effects of the proposed measure would be. And I felt the more inclined to do so from the cir cumstance of having the Lord Chancellor of England in favour of the measure. lam not a man to give my opi nions of judgment to the Lord Chancellor, or to any man in England. (Hear, hear.) But I ask, if my Lord Lyndhurst, as Lord Chancellor, thinks proper to give his sanction to a Bill, which Sir S. Copley, as Master of the Rolls, declared to be subversive - of the Constitution, am I, as Attorney-General, obliged to prepare and bring it in? Am Ito be dragooned into opinions and feelings to which I have all my life been hostile ? Am I, as his Majesty's Attorney-General, to be his legal adviser in introducing such a measure? For God's sake let us not run a muck tapon this Catholic Question. I would prefer being as I now am, the humble Member for Plympton, whether right or wrong, than be placed in the situation of the sup porters of this measure. What ! Could it have been ex pected that I would have drawn up a Bill calculated to sub vert that Constitution which his Majesty, by his Corona tion Oath, was sworn to support? Sir, I fear not to assert, that no earthly inducement could make me draw up or subscribe to a Bill so atrocious as that now upon your table. That measure has been supported by many able and eloquent Members; but I cannot forget that it has upon former occasions been opposed by the able and eloquent and logical arguments of my Friend Sir John Copley, when Master of the Rolls. That Right. Hon. Gent. quarrelled with Mr. Canning upon the subject in 1827, on the question as to whether Roman Catholics ought or ought not to sit in the House of Commons. Then, I ask again, am I, as his Alajeety's law adviser, to be twisted from the right or the left? and here I may take leave to say, that I care little fur such twistings. lam ready to meet those opposed to me, but am I, I say, to he found fault with for not having prepared and supported such a measure ? I have got no speech to eat up ; I have got PIO apostacy to explain—(hear, hear)—l have not been black on one day and white on the other. I am not the sup- porter or follower of a Protestant Master of the Rolls on • one day, and of a Catholic Lord Chancellor on the other. —(Cheers and laughter.)—S:r, I would rather remain as I am, the humble Member for Plympton, than be guilty of the apostacy, the conversi n—the miserable, disreputable apostacy which has taken place upon this question— (hear, and laughter. )—I ought not to make such grave and serious statments as these without quoting some autho rity, and that authority I have in tie speech of Sir John 1 S. Copeley, then Mieeer o f the Rolls, made in the House of Commons in 1827. [Here the lion. and Learned Member read an extract from the speech alluded to, in which it was stated, that the opening of Parliament to the Roman Catholics would lead to Roman Catholic ascen dancy and the subversion of the Protestant Constitution.] My Hon. and Learned Friend, now Lord Chancellor, went on to state, that from the evidence of Doctor Doyle, given before the Committee on Irish affairs, it was clear that the admission of GO or 70 Roman Catholics into the House of Commons would lead to the upsetting of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. The Hon. Member for Liver pool has told us that the proposed measure will cause a struggle in . the country. This my Right Dion. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department has not attempted to deny ; but he has contented himself with assuring us that if there be a struggle it will be in cur favour. Let no wan then quarrel with the King's Attorney-General for net having drawn up a Bill which was one day denounced by the Master of the Rolls as subversive of the Constitution, and at another advocated by the same gentleman, when filling the office of Lord Chancellor and the first and most confidential adviser of the Crown.—(lleac.) —lf they are not called on to make a defence for apostatizing, I do not know that I need make any defence for not apostatizing— (cheers) ;—but if lam called on, I am ready to make my defence. I have read over the Bill ; and not only have I read over the Bill, but I have read almost everything con nected with the subject which has appeared upon it.— During the long course of years in which it has been dis cussed, we have been dogmatized and doctrinated about the satisfaction that was to be afforded us on the principle of security. We have been told " You shall have the Bill with securities—securities sufficient to satisfy Protestants; and to protect the interests and privileges of the Church." —We have been told this by the Hon. Member for West minster—we have been promised securities by Mr. Plunkett; and we have all along discussed the matter on the understanding of mutual concessions, in the spirit of confidence on the one hand, and of just and exact faith on the other. Looking now at these concessions, and at these securities, how. I ask, has that confid:!nee been jus tified ? My Right Hon. Friend has said that the water is flowing in upon us—my apprehension is, that the water is flowing out of us.—(Loud and continued laughter, mixed with cheering.)—l repeat, Sir, that the water is flowing out of us.—(Laughter.)—My Right Honourable Friend says lie has a sufficient apology for this measure. —He says that he cannot keep the flood-gates shut as closely as he should;; but surely, if you cannot keep the flood-gates shut as closely as he should, surely that was no reason why the whole of the gates should be thrown open.—(Loud cheering.)—l say, that if it be true, as I have been told here in the speech of my Right Honourable Friend, that the flood-gates are partly open, that is no reason why they should be entirely thrown back. Yet here, Sir, I see that less is demanded on the one hand than these concessions yield on the other. I have been told, and I repeat it, that they are permitted to take more than they ask, and, I will add, more than is needed. 1 shall now, Sir, advert to one or two other topics which my Hon. and Learned Friend has alluded to. 1n differing from him and from my Right Hon. Friend, I do it with considerable pain—but differ I must, notwith standing my present situation. The situation I now hold I do not owe to him—but even if I did, I should still differ from him, but, as I do now, with great respect for him at the same time. We have been asked only to make these necessary and proper concessions, and then we are told we may meet our opponents upon the vantage ground. My Right Hon. Friend says, grant these concessions, and you trill have with you the feelings and the kindness and the sympathy of foreign countries. Gracious God, Sir, when was the time that any question relating to the external or to the internal interests of this country ever received aid from foreign sympathy.—(Cheers.)—When did any ques tion arise not only with which our foreign neighbour was connected, but with which she had no connection What ever, in which she aided us with her sympathy? Witness the contest with America—what sympathy did she show then? When James the Second was expelled from the country, what sympathy did England receive from France? What sympathy did she manifest—what consideration did she show—what aid did she afford, except to the persons who feught the battle of the Boyne?—(Cheers.)—ln 1715 when a Pretender appeared in this country, and in 1745, when a rebellion was again raised, French sympathy aided, and French fear condoled with the defeated rebels—(cheers) and in a still later period when revolutionary principles were afloat, and this country was discussing with herself whether she should liberalize her Constitution, that sym pathy, though manifested by another kind of Govern ment in France, was not less truly fe t nor less sincerely administered and applied.—(Loud cheering. ) I say, therefore, God grant, that among the claims aud con cessions—among the divisions and dissentions of this coun try, private and domestic, French sympathy may never interfere; God grant that her feelings may never be ma fested to shed tears of condolence, or to administer to us her kind, her sypmathetic assistance in our troubles.— (Cheers.) —I own then, Sir, with that freedom, but at the same time with that respect, which I feel for my Right Hon. Friend (and no pain I ever felt is greater than that I feel in being obliged to diffifr from him), that I am not satisfied with his arguments ; and I say, that his argus ments can be adopted on no side of this House, except by those who have always been the advocates of Catholic Emancipation. I say, too, that if these claims are granted they should be granted on our own judgment; but whether they are conceded or refused, that that concession or that refusal ought not to be accelerated or retarded, whether any or all the Powers of the Continent go along with us or not.—(Loud and continued cheering.)—ln prosecuting this subject farther, I will not fatigue the House, but I will proceed to another part, and apply my recollection to discover whether, in all the Bills, from that proposed by Mr. Grattan to that introduced by my Right Hon. Friend, any other proposition has been laid down except that of the union and community of the Protestants and Catho lics. I have looked into all the Bills—labour nor pains have I refused in the investigation—for the unwillingness to labour is no fault of mine—toil mid drudgery of investi gation I have employed—for the want of either was never among the defects imputed to me; and after every pains bestowed in the search, all the Fills I find to begin with asserting, that it is desirable to meet and unite to gether the hearts of all his Majesty's subjects; yet this Bill alone is without such a preamble. Why now, for the first time, undervalue this sort of indis soluble community—this sincere and heartfelt union—this "feast of reason" and this "flow of soul" which is to amalgamate and mix together, into one religious commu nity, the Catholic and the Protestant Associations ? These are, indeed, the delicice of speculation—the nice things of these framers of indissoluble unions. Mr. Grattan, Lord Plunkett, the Hon. Baronet (the Member for West minster), are tolerably skilful composers, and they have begun their preambles of concession in this form : I have looked into this Bill, and there is nothing about this sort of concession and conciliation :in it. And why? because in all his Majesty's subjects there are at least 19 out of 20 against the measure.—(Hear.)—l recollect an eminent person, the late Lord Ellenborough, who once alluded to the preamble of a Bill which he thcught not to be true, and of which he said, " that preamble— " c Like some tall bully, lifts its head and lies.' " Now, I will not say the same thing of this Act of Patna ment ; this Act does not lie ; but it would have been a scandalous lie—it would have been an insult to the British community—if it had followed the terms of its predeces sors, end had pretended to place this measure on the prin ciples of concession, and of community of feeling. Without charging myself with the arithmetical calculation of the difference of numbers, without undertaking to say precisely whether the proportion is five, or ten, or twenty to one against the question, putting the exact arithmetical proportions out of the question, I will say that in some parts of England the numbers against concession are so great that it would be worse than a gross insult—a scandalous outrage on the feelings, prin ciples, and religious sentiments of the people of the country, to call this a measure adopted with their concurrence and with a view to a community of f ee li ng . I t h ere f ore say that, in adopting this form, alludi ng t o th at li ne o f Pope, the framers of this Bill have avoided the scan dalous and untrue statement that this Bill would be pro ductive of c oncord and union among hi s M a j esty ' s su bj ects . • I say, Sir, that this Bill does not state this untruth; but though the Bill does not, the practice of its advocates and supporters does. I should be glad to know whether the speech from the Throne declared any thing like this, that, couie qui vitae, it would be right to satisfy the demands of the Catholics. On the one h . !ind, it may he well said—by the Catholics I mean—that if this Bill passes it will answer our purposes; but, on the other, it may also w e ll be de scribed as a subversion of the rights and privileges, and c haracter of the Establ ished Church.—(Cheers.)—Sir, it is foreign to my purpose to enter into a discussion of the state of Ireland ; for many reasons I beg leave to avoid it. •)—Sir, I will an s w e r that will rummer it. Gentle , c---iier.old(lcaoungthitneure,dacnidieecrhie:s.rs.)_, men say that I avoid this discussion because I cannot meet it. That is their argument. I do not concur with that argument. I concur with the Hon. Member for Liverpool, and I say, that his Majesty's speech (lid not order his Minis ters, at seven days' notice, to bring in this Bill. No such thing. I say, Sir, that the King's speech ordered us to take into consideration the whole state and condition of the people of Ireland. Have we entered upon that consideration ? Have we had any information upon it front the Noble Lord the Member for Cambridge, or from others, upon the in ternal state of Ireland ? Yet the measure professes to pro ceed upon the necessity which the state of the country pre sents to his Majesty's Ministers. The wages of labour— the pours' rates—the commerce—the manufactures— all that relates to the internal state of the country, has been often urged as the ground for this measure. I say, Sir, if that is the principle, as it was stated to be in his Majesty's speech, I must say that this is a sudden, an unadvised, and a hasty measure of Catholic Emancipation; and that, if the King's Mir.isters had followed, as they ought to have done, the orders in his Majesty's speech, they would have gone into a,Cemmittee on the state of Ireland, in order to find out and report on the actual condition of that country, before they brought in any measure to remedy, as they say, the evils existing there. I know, Sir, I am right in what I say, that there is no man who supports the question of Catholic Emancipation that does not do it more on general grounds, applying to Ireland, than on the single insulated portion of the question which relates to this country. Yet, Sir, without notice or inquiry, and after the lapse of seven days front the time I first heard of the measure, was this measure brought in, without taking into consideration, either in the whole or in part, the state of Ireland. Why, Sir, distressing as it is for me to take the liberty of dissent ing from those with whom I have formerly had the honour to act, I must do so on the present occasion. At the same time, however, I will say that I do not differ from- them as an individual only; for if I did, I should instantly make a genuflexion. I should plead guilty to the charge of presumption, but I do not do so because I have with me all the people of England. I do not merely Say tjtat I, as an individual had no reason to suppose that this measure was about to be introduced; but I declare that no Member of the Cabinet, seven days before his Ma jesty's speech was delivered, had notice of the matter ; and that the Members of this House—of the Protestant party —not believing that they were to be deserted and betrayed, did not believe that such a measure would be proposed, and sail, they would never believe it until they heard you, Sir, announce it from the Chair.—(Loud cheering.)— The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent, has said, that we were cast off. I agree with him ; we were turned out of the ranks without cause, and without notice. I find nothing in the Almanack history of this country that re sembles this—nothing aut simile, out sccundum. It stands by itself—it has no parallel. There is nothing be fore, I trust there will be nothing after, that will resemble it. I have lately been amusing myself with reading over some of Skakspeare's plays, and in them there is a cele brated character, a leader of party, one Sir John Falstaff who much resembles my Right Hon. Friend. On this question my Right Honourable Friend has no doubt said to himself, " On a former occasion this question has been discussed in Parliament, and I have been left in a minority—there were only four to form the ma jority certainly—ethe Protestant firm was strong enough ; but there was a majority, which, though only four, was yet a majority : the Protestant regiment was outnum bered, though, to be sure, it was only six short of the Ca tholics." This reflection ought to have consoled him ; but " No," says this Protestant leader of party, like Falstaff of old, " I'll not march through Coventry with such ra gamuffins."—(Loud and continued laughter and cheering.) —" No, I'll not march with these rascals—l will take my own course ;" and the regiment, though it was not disbanded, was left without a leader ; but the 160 in one respect thought proper to imitate their leader's example— they have taken their own course, and they do now follow other leadsrs.—(Hear, hear.)—We have been told that on this subject we ought not to be acrimonious, and I hope I have not been so.—(Loud laughter.)—l can assure you, Sir, that 1 have spoken as much as poseible without any degree of acrimony. I unfortunately differ from my Right Hon. Friend in political maxims, but es to the social prin.. ciple of good-nature I can and will obsequieu,ly fellow up his example. So, Sir, in this House the old Protestant firm —a very valuable firm—the firm of Pod and .t. is die solved.—(Laughter.)—They are broken up, though they had 400 con .taut customers, and though the partners are the same in respectability, in character, and in worth. In all respects they are the equals of the rival bank, they are short only six in number, but they are a disbanded firm. But they have net deserted themselves—they have formed into a new firm, though with new names at their head. How their name will run in future I know not— whether it will run in these words, " Chanting, Knatelibull, Banker, and Co." it is impossible to say—l know not—l care not. It matters little whether it has two or three partners at its head, but with that firm, as a private and Bumble individual, I mean to keep myself attached.— (Cheers.)--I do not state this in what any body can call morose language.—(Laughter.)—lf I had said any thing ill-natured, I should regret it. here we are, dispersed and disbanded as a body, without leaders; but though without leaders, the persons who composed the body have, as indi viduals, resolved to maintain those propositions and those principles which the leader of the firm forme, ly supported. (Cheers.)—l have to thank the House for the indulgence with which they have listened to ine. Perhaps they may think me like the Catholics, and that if I sey I ask little, I shall nevertheless take too much.—(Cheers, and cries of " No, no.")—I have taken the liberty of discussing the grave constitutional point with the Noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, and having done so, and having also discussed the question of consistency with other Gentlemen, I shall now take the liberty of proceeding with this Bill.—(Cheers.)--Many Gentlemen leave argued on this question—men of eloquence and . speculation, but not one among them has taken the trouble to refer to the Bill itself. Sir, I have done that ; and I say that it is a measure by which you concede to the Catholics the power of going into Parliament, or into office, and, as it is said, without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Church, of the King, of the people generally. Gen tlemen, I say, will not look into the Bill itself, and I have been obliged to do so, and though I consider myself as not the Attorney-General, yet I am compelled to perform the office of the Attorney-General, and to do that which has not hitherto been done on the part of the Ministers, to ex plain to the House the nature of the Bill before them. I am here. nclens volens, to perform this duty. I say it is a monstrous Bill, and able as are the Noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, and the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, the eminent Historian—(cries of order, order,) if I might, I would take the liberty of asking the Noble Lord whether he understands the Bill; but if I did ask him that question, I strongly suspect that hie answer would chew he did not understand it. I will therefore attempt to describe it. In the Bill is an oath. When the measure was opened to this House, my Right Hon. Friend said that it was right to have an oath which Catholics might take, and accordingly be proposed one to Parliament to be sub stituted for the oaths of supremacy and abjuration. The Bill, therefore, says, that when a Catholic comes into office, he shall say, " I am a Catholic, and being a Cutho lie I claim to take that oath which this Bill has provided ;" but, unfortunately, my Right Hon. Friend has struck out the oath, and there is no oath for the Catholic to take. If there is in the Bill an oath which any other man might take by swearing he is a Catholic, lie is entitled to the privilege which the Bill gives him, namely, that he is not compellod to submit to those tests which the security of our religion requires. The oaths in this Bill do not, however, require him to say whether he is a Catholic or not, and any man may take these oaths whether he is or is not a Catholic—(Cheers.) —Hon. Members may cheer that, but if they do, I tell them that they are cheering the maxim of King James, who was for admitting all men into the Privy Council, with full liberty of conscience, saying of each, " I will not ask him what he is." I tell them that they are not thee: ing me, but cheering my Ri g ht H e n. F r i en d, an d i n hi m th e y are cheering King James IL—they do not cheer me.—(Laugh ter and cheers.)—B u t I say it i s so —l say t h at any man may gain admission into any office without taking oaths that secure the Church or Government of England. The pr i n ciple of the Rill is, that if any man will come forward and swear he is a Catholic, he may take the oath there provided. Without going into any other thing relating to this part of the subject, I will merely take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the oath to be taken by the Prime Minister. There is in the Bill a clause con ferring a general capacity fur office. To all offices, say the Catholic Emancipatore, all men are fit to be admitted. No, says the Bill, f or a ll ecc l es i ast i ca l pa t rona ge, and all e cclesiastical appointments, are to be separated from offices held by a Catholic. I apply that to a Prime Minister, whose Church patronage is to be vested in C o mmissioners. I have never heard that Catholics are unambitious persons; that they are willing to exercise some of the powers of office without enjoying all their patronage and privilege. I have never heard that in this case they are unlike other • men, and yet unlike they must he if they consent to receive • admission to offices, from which a large portion of power and patronage is to be taken off the moment they become i possessed of them ; and welt must be the case with the Prime Minister, if lie consents to have Commissioners , ear ned to exercise and dispense the ecclesiastical patronage that belongs to his office. if we have a Catho lic Prune t Minister, we are, however, to have a Protestant Lord . Chancellor—Lord Lyndhurst, for instance.—(Hear , hear.) —New, really, do Gentlemen mean to contend, that with his eminent talents he is or would be likely so vi gorously to conduct himself in the defence of the Church against the Catholics, as to acquire a title from the present or intended Pope (for I don't know whether he is yet elected. or whether he is to he Frenchman, Spaniard, or It dian)—to acoeire, I say, from the Pope a title similar to that which wee once cenferred on a Kies of these realms, and to be c tiled the " Defender of the Protestant Faith ?" We are, as I said before, to have a Catholic Prime Minis ter; but we are to have a Protestant Chancellor, who is to name all the livings, emoluments, rank, and dignity of the English Church. The Prime Minister is not to do this, but the Lord Chancellor. Do but look at the Alma neck History of this country, and see how such a scheme is likely to answer. Lord Shaftesbury and Jeffries have both been Protestant Chancellors under such circum stances. Would any man trust a commission which such a Chancellor should put his seal to? What did Jeffries du? He issued his warrant to commit the seven Bishops to the 'rower, and contributed all in his power to pro cure their conviction ; and though he was a Protestant Chancellor, was as subservient to the introduction of Catholicity into this country as almost any Catholic could have been. I say, Sir, therefore, that it is an idle, a ridiculous, a contemptible pretence, to say that the Chancellor shall, under the Great Seal, appoint a Com mission which shall have the power of disposing of the wealth, the dignity, the rank, the jurisdiction of the Ministers of the Church of England. It will he as ridiculous to rely on future Chancellors, as it formerly was, in:the reign of Charles 11., to rely on the Protestant Chancellor Shaftesbury, or, in the reign of James 11., to rely on the Protestant Chancellor Jeffries. But who are to be the Members of this Commission ? Of course the First Lord of the Trtasury, whose powers they will exercise, will not even know their names, or the places in which they live ; he will be as ignorant of them as if they resided in New Holland. Will he? Is not this all trickery, as gross as that practised in the shop of an advertising money lender? When a man urgently in want of money applies to such a person to procure him cash at any rate, he is answered, " I never do any thing but in the regular line; there is, however, a Moses Moses, who lives at No. 2, in some alley, in some court, and he will be able to accommodate you." Just so is this Bill with respect to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the satellites that, in the shape of Commissioners, are to re volve round the Chancellor. The First Lord of the Treasury will not know where they live—the Lord Chan cellor will, but then the Prime Minister may not have the power of making the Lord Chancellor do what is not right, he may not be able to compel him to do as he pleases, but, Sir, we must guard against such a danger ; the times have been, and the times are, when want of pliability has not been among the faults of a Lord Chancellor.—(Cheering.) I repeat, Sir, that this security is ridiculous, insulting, and contemptible.—(Cheers.)—Again, say the Catholic emancipators, we insist on capacity for office, on the ab stract indefeasible right of all men to office. No, says the Bill, that won't do ; all of you may be Officers of the Go vernment, but you must not exercise all the powers of your offices. I say, that all this to me is strong in support of my argument in this caw., because, while capacity is as serted in one clause, incapacity is insisted on in another. The course I am pursuing is, therefore, the necessary duty, and the language I use the language of an adherent to the Protestant faith, and, above all, it ought to be the language of all who are determined not to apostatise. Who, I ask, is to select those Commissioners ? Will they be selected by the honest Protestant; by the Protestant who lhas apostatised; or by the Protestant who will not apostatise ? —(Cheers.)—The Bill, Sir, confuses itself--its proposi tions are contradictions in terms—it asserts at the same time capacity and incapacity. It acknowledges—nay avows the existence of danger and provides no remedy. Well, but this is to be the law. I would not condescend to frame such a Bill. No Minister in this country—no man in this realm, :should compel me so to stultify myself. I refused to draw it—l would not be guilty of such folly—such inconsistency—as that which must accumulate upon the head of the man who drew it. I said—you may turn me out of office, but I will never consent to be the dirty tool to draw such a Bill.—(Cheers and laughter.)—l would not soil my hands with it ; I wculd not defile my pen—l would not waste my p iper in committing such a gross dereliction of duty. I would not, at the same time, forfeit the character of a than of common tense, of common sincerity, and of common truth, 1 therefore said at once, I'll have nothing to do with it. Such an incongruous mass I've never seer. We have been told fair months past, that some desideratum has been discovered to reconcile Protestant security with the grant of the Catholic claims; some course in medio, that formed a good ground of confidence, that whatever was conceded, there should he sufficient security for the inte rests of the church. Among the clauses of the Bill there is one, that any man who advises the King to grant away any ecclesiastical preferments for the benefit of Catholics shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall hold office no longer. This is said to be a security against any Catholie Minister ; but may I be permitted to ask who can prove this offence against a Catholic Minister? Certainly not one of his colleagues, for they are bound by oath to keep the secrets of office, so that the smile clause which creates the offence goes far to create an absolute incapacity to con vict for that offence.—(Cheers.)—l look to the other clauses which profess to protect the church, its doctrines, discipline, and Government. My Right Hon. Friend says, " I will not establish Catholic Bishops eo nonaine, but I will arrange it through a money medium. I will not allow Catholics to become Archbishops of Armagh or Tuam, but if they do assume the title they shall pay 501. penalty for the offence." And that is the proportion of penalty which I observed throughout this Bill, the sum of 2001. being the heaviest penalty inflicted for any offence. So that the whole protection afforded to the Church of England consists in penalties of from 50/. to 2001. I find in the Bill no power of Veto—no power of domestic nomination—no controul—no approbation; only if a man chuses to call himself Archdeacon of Dublin or Archbishop of Troy—(laughter)—he shall be subject to a penalty of 501. We are directed by my Right Hon. Friend to discuss this subject in a pleasant mood, and I hope I am not un pleasant ; but let us in our pleasantry recollect that there is such a thing as Catholic Rent, which will pay all these pe nalties and more than ten times over—that will set at nought all this penal protection—this Custom-house tariff table of 50/., of 1001., and of 2001. imposts. There will be constantly in hand a sum which will render all these penalties almost as ridiculous and ineffectual as the Si., V., or Si. penalty upon a gentleman for killing a hare. As to the Protestant Church, the Protestant Commonwealth, the Protestant community of England, they are to be disre garded, or at least we are to exchange the principles esta blished at the Revolution, the conditions on which our Illustrious Royee. Family hold the throne, for paltry penal ties and miserable mulcts, the whole of which the recovers of the Catholic rent may lay down at once upon the table, and laugh at those who demand them. I am sensible of the indulgence the House has shown me. I thank it for that indulgence, and I will therefore, trespass upon its pa tience but a few moments longer. I have examined, not the facts of the case, but the topics of my Hon. Friend.— There is, however, one topic which he has not introduced. One of the Articles of the Bill of Rights was the title of the people to petition. I beg to say that that right has, on many recent occasions, been uncourteously, if not rudely treated. Expressions of this sort have been used, al though I cannot state exactly where—" That to petition and to remonstrate on this subject was faction." If it be faction, it is faction in which the whole British people partake.—(Hear, hear.)—lt is faction which they have shown ever since King John's Charter declared that they should have their rights, liberties, and property preserved to them, for that is the very language.of the Great Char ter. But now we are told it is the exercise of a factious right to pray for the protection of the Protestant religion. I widely and irreconcilably, although I allow painfully, differ from my Right Hon. Friend when he asserts that this is not a question of religion. Is it a religious ques tion when Protestantism is secured to Scotland by the articles of her Union ? is it a religious question when Protestantism is secured to Ireland by the articles of her Union? Is it a religious question when Protestantism has been secured to England by all the laws since the reign of Henry VIII ? The question is more religious than political. I allow that it is mixed; but the decided predominance tbie,eflaacrit uuasgefoorf i stiie•ee people a lilee, Marquess not political . Lord-Lieutenant then, tliten2 it adopt t of Ireland. I know not why he was recalled, but ha told the people of England in his letter, " Go on; legally and constitutionally pursue your rights." I borrow that ex pression—l, too, say to the people of England, " Go on : legally and constituti ona ll y pursue your r i ghts ! Demand your rights—be true to yourselves and to your prineiphs —do not apostatise, but maintain your rights, your religion, and your libel ties to the last." There are many individual topics upon whi c h I s h ou ld w i s h to touc h , fedi at this late hour it is impossible to do sc. As I before said, I have most reluctantly—against every wish and every feeling— been compelled, driven to this course : without the dere liction of ev er y pr i nc i p l e , an d th e d estruct i on o f a ll sense ofjustice, I could not maintain a different line of conduct to that whi c h I h ave hith er t o pursue d. A s a p r iv a t e an d aninsulated individual, I have stated ney convictione ; what they have been, what they are, and what they sviil Ise : and never, from any temptation of office, or hope of reward, will I abandon or seouliate thew. Therefore, as an Attorney-General, I thought the measure tte death warrant of the Church of England : I had no choice bu t to refuse at once to draw such a Bill ; and in every stage I will give it my hearty, though humble opposition.—(The most vehement cheering continued for several minutes after the Attorney-General had resumed his seat.) Mr. Secretary PEEL rose in the midst of the confusion, and stood waiting for a hearing. About three-fourths, he said, of the debate upon the principle of this Bill—about three-fourths of the defence of the sacred cause of the Pro testant Constitution, had turned upon personal charges and imputations—( Hear, hear)—savouring much more of ran corous hostility than of an ardent attachment to the Pro testant Church.--(Hear, hear, from one side, answered by cries of " No, no," from the other.)—What do these personal charges and imputations infer ? What do they prove? They prove that if this measure had been adopted with a view to personal interests, that adoption would have been the height of folly. They prove that if they were re commended for the purpose of strengthening party con nections, that recommendation could only have proceeded from the merest infatuation by which man was ever af flicted. But if those r'ho brought them forward disre garded all imputations, and dissolved all party connections, for the sake of removing Catholic disabilities and improv ing the condition of the people of Ireland, what does that fact establish but that they acted from a paramount sense of duty.—(Loud cries of hear, hear.)—What does it establish but that the King's Ministers felt that the time had arrived when all considerations of consistency, all connections of personal and party attachments, must be disregarded, rather than that they should constitute a bar rier to the introduction of measures which the responsible advisers of the Crown thought indispensable for the secu rity of the kingdom ? Last in debate, though foremost in those imputations, is the Hon. Gentleman, the Attorney- General of the King.—(Hear, hear.)—l did not expect s th el a f t c a a n ll y ed pe u r p s o o n n to holdingdi disclose s tt e ha confi e situation w n tial communications.— have n l iuni felt catio (Loud cheering.)— rhe time has not arrived when I can state to this House all the difficulties that have obstructed the progress of my Noble Friend ; but I can say of him, with reference to those difficulties, as was said of Agricola, naturali prudentid quarnvis inter togntos facile justeque ageind.—(Hear, hear.)—But the time will arrive when more justice will be done to him and to those who acted with him. The time will come when those difficul ties will be appreciated, and when it will be known what were the considerations which only enabled me to give the Hon. and Learned Gentleman seven days' notice of the speech which was intended to be delivered from the Throne. In answer to the imputations upon myself, I re peat what I said on a former occasion—that up to a late period, I did entertain a hope that my Noble Friend would have enabled me to give him my support, that cordial support which I would have given him, in a private capa city. , Instead of incurring the charge of apostacy, I was ready, I was desirous to relinquish office; but having been ready to pay that penalty, no man has a right to say that in the advice I gave the King, I meant to conform to the views of any party. I will tell the Honour able and Learned Gentleman when it was I said to my Noble Friend, "I will not abandon you—l will commit my fortunes with yours; and be the consequences what they may, I am ready to incur them, and to share them."— This was at a period when even greater difficulties appeared to obstruct our course than now I hope and believe will impede it. It was upon the day when it was intimated to my Noble Friend by the highest authorities in the Church, that they could not countenance and support his measure. I then said, " Happen what may, I will not abandon my post—l will support you."— (Much cheering.)—l was content to incur all the imputa tions which I then could easily foresee. Other circumstances I cannot mention, and nothing but the charge brought for ward by one whom I thought a confidential friend should have extorted even these premature admissions. I did see the lion. and Learned Gentleman seven days before the Meeting of Parliament, and that was the very first moment at which I was at liberty to communica'e the decision of Government as to the general course it meant to pursue. That course was complicated, and it had occupied the at tention of the Cabinet for weeks before any decision could be taken upon it. In that hit, real, it would have been un wise to have communicated to any man, beyond the Mem bers of the Cabinet, what measures were in contemplation ; for the minds of those Members were net at that time made up upon the question. The first man out of the Cabinet with whom I conversed on the subject was the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; and that out of respect to his personal character and public situation.—(Hear, hear.)—l told him that the Catholic Association had assumed a formidable ap pearance; that it was necessary, for the peace of Ireland, that it should be put down; and I felt it right, in common candour and justice, to add, that that was not the only measure intended by the King's Government. I said to him, " We feel that we cannot succeed in carrying the suppression of the Association into effect unless we allow Parliament to take into consideration the whole con dition of Ireland ;" and I told him, moreover, that the full measure of Catholic relief was contemplated—that it was intended to disfranchise the forty-shilling freeholders ; and I must observe, that if he really entertained the horror at this atrocious proceeding which he has to-night expressed, I never saw a man who possessed such controul over his countenance.—(Cheers and laughter.)—lf the Hon. and Learned Gent. thought that what was designed presented such insuperable objections, and that the Coronation Oath absolutely precluded even the consideration of the ques tion, would it not have been fair that he should have warned rue, his friend, that such was his opinion ? Might I not expect that he would say at once, " You are pursu ing a course replete with ruin, in which I, the Attorney- General, cannot assist you, and from the sanction of which his Majesty is precluded by the sacred obligation of an oath?'' He will do me the justice to say, that not one word of so fatal an objection did I hear from him when I made the communication to which I have referred. When, however, the measure for the suppression of the Cathoe lic Association was passed through Parliament, not as a compromise or compact for other Bills, but because it was necessary for the peace of Ireland ; when his Majesty said, " Having executed that work, then I recommend you to proceed to the consideration of other measures, and, in fact, to settle the Catholic Question," was it quite fair for the Attorney -General to be a party to the suppression of the Association, which was adopted in almost a unanimous spirit, upon the implied condition that other measures were to follow, and then, when those other measures were brought forward, to find insuperable and preliminary ob jections to their preparation as well as to their adoption? With reference again to the personal charges, nothing but the absence of my Noble Friend, who cannot therefore de fend himself, should induce me to divert the attentien of the House from subjects of such paramout and overwhelm ing importance. My impression was ) that ray Noble Friend (lid not profess himself adverse to all concession. He was asked in 1827 that question to which I have yet heard no satisfactory answer, " What will yon do with Ireland ?" and his answer was, " I atn asked, if I object to the measures now proposed, what are those which, would submit instead of them ?" I well remember; thee the Hon. and Learned Member for Winehelsea reigadrketk upon this point, that my Noble Friend escape 4 from this question with a degree of agility rather inmaoistent with the dignity of his judicial, office.—(Laughte;.)—My Nol4 Friend in his speech then proCeeded to, reply to the quesein4 t bsid ie e r r e tr l liei s. he had stated : " My answer is, that 1 am not a Menabar of the Government." At that period. he. toes, not, a Membee. of the Government, but in what capacity does he stand b en , ? an office which makes him responsible for the advice 1(s. He is a Member of the Governmen n t, c, a i n t d ta h u e k gives the Sovereign for the safety of his throne and king., :no; t L be ea g r u n e e s d tio G n e si nt io le t ea d has r es dom. " If (he adds) securities are proposed to which • Catholics will accede, and with which Protestants will be satisfied, I, for one, shall be ready to melee concession."_.. (blear, hear.)—He therefore did w e n o t ul a d l lo s t n e o p s tii toward, shor ;a tbn, wo h th as a hishi which mind, 4 t° there l)re any such insuperable bar in the Constitution or in the. ti Coronation enecessinecessity f t h t , h a e s the sdmisocroevietreeadv,4ano(lnts' pacification of Ireland, If, therefore, at any future. prte'nuf s apostacy in his being a party to measures which, under the circumstances, were necessary.e—The Hon.. and Learned Gentleman says, that there is one part of the subject to I whirls he was deteemined not to allude —the state of Ire land.; and yet, let it be rernern.tered, that this is, in fact, I the whole epzestion. It is almost the only topic to which it it r on esim h portant to adve r t, an d y e t h e ent i re l y exclude d speech. He must know as well as any man what is the sta.e of Ireland, and what the law as it affects Roman Catholics,, By whom was the Bill of 1825 for thts . Suppression of the Association prepared ? Who was con sulted on the various clauses it contains ? The Han, and Learned Gentleman.—Why has it failed? Iles be ever pressed upon, Government: i dle necessity for the enforcetu en t evils r e - u ft of that law ? When w e h ave ta lk e d o f the • - ine feam this body, . has he ever se,;(l, " There is my Bill 0f'1825, enforce that, and there is you r when that law expired, s?„y that the counuon law was sofa. ficient for th e p ur p ose ? No ;on ti I e contrary, it was his opinion, and that of all the great l ega l put h or i t i cs cousulied by the G o v e rnm e nt, that the common law wa, not a sof, fieient remedy, anti that it 51 as not sate to risk the failaro of prosecutions, ' 11:e present Session approached, and Oa King's a :viters had to consider what was to be done with Irelusel ; aud here let mite say, that it is very sKcJi, too r vote individuate to say we will not atisWeX time (i•wsti .4 "„." i it t isvery well for the lion. Baronet, .4 . ti e g t o t t fur Arta,